HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-22; City Council; 11408; KHADEM ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE APPEALING AV 90-134
-
0) 4
Y-l
(d u
a) a
.k 40 cnw cn
4: *.u mz
&I ?I a,fi P Ea *: 8- za) w* 0;
-4 G -2 $k
E3 a)o
-4 03
ud ::
u
ma 2 .2 A a)a
2 *;
a,=l
4
:?
44
M1
a)
55
1a .z %
&2 uu
u ud
5s
c2
N'
04
z 0 k 0 a
J b z 3 0 0
I/ '
t CITYeF CARLSBAD - AGENDmlLL
AB # I{, VDg TITLE: DEP'
CITY DEPT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
MTG. 10-22-91 KMADEM ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE APPEAL - C,TY
AV 90-13 PLN
Both the Planning Commission and Planning Director are recommending that the
Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents UPHOLDING the DENll
Administrative Variance 90-1 3.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a variance fc
for an existing fence to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42 inches in a front ' setback on property located at 7327 El Fuerte St. The violation was discovered in
November of 1990 during an inspection for certificate of occupancy. The fence vi
between 4 to 7 feet in height and is located on flat and sloping ground in the front b
It violates Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.46.1 30 which states that "no fence, wall, or h6
over 42 inches in height shall be permitted in any required front yard setback".
Because the fence exceeds the maximum allowed height in the required 20 foot f
yard setback, Mr. Khadem (the property owner and applicant) was informed to el
remove or redesign the fence so that it does not exceed 42 inches in height. Ra
than pursue altering the fence, Mr. Khadem applied for an administrative variance
90-13) which was later denied by the Planning Director on April 24, 1991 beca
required legal findings could not be made. The Planning Director's decision was t
appealed to the Planning Commission.
On June 5, 1991, staff presented AV 90-13 to the Planning Commission wit
recommendation to deny the variance. After considerable discussion by
Commission, staff requested that the item be continued in order to explore alterna
designs with the applicant. The Commission agreed and continued AV 90-1 3 to a c
uncertain.
Subsequently, the Planning Department reviewed alternative designs with the applic
in order to meet the findings necessary to grant the variance. Although some chans
were agreed upon, the applicant was not prepared to lower one portion of the fence
level grade to 42" in order that the findings of approval could be made. On Septeml
18, 1991, the Planning Department again therefore, presented AV 90-1 3 to the Plann
Commission with a recommendation to deny the variance because all of the findir
needed to grant the variance could not be made. The Planning Commission concurr
and denied the variance.
overheight fence in a front yard setback. At issue is whether a variance can be ora
t .L e 0
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 11, yo 8
The Planning Department had indicated that findings of approval could be madc
those portions of the fence on sloping ground, however, the Planning Commis
denied the entire administrative variance including the fence on the sloped portion o
property as well as the portion on level grade. The applicant was given the opporti
to have the variance denied without prejudice so that he could later bring the fenc
standards, but he chose to accept a complete denial. As a result, two of the four lek
required variance findings cannot be made because there are no extraordii
circumstances applicable to the property nor is the property owner being denic
property right possessed by others in the same vicinity and zone. TWO findii however, can be made because the fence will not be detrimental to the public we
or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone, nor will
General Plan be adversely affected.
All of the findings required by law must be made before the project can be appro
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
C.E.Q.A. does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves.
environmental review was performed.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXH I BITS
1. Location Map
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256
Staff Report dated September 18, 1991 wlattachments
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated June 5, 1991
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated September 18, 1991
mw
W L
KHADEM RESIDENCE AV 900'
c I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING ComrssroN RESOLUTION NO. 3256
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7327 EL FUERTE
STREET.
CASE NAME: KHADEM RESIDENCE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
CASE NO: AV 90-13
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Lot 73 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4 La Costa Estates North in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 8302, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on May 5, 1976
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Pla-ng Commis.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as prc
Title 21.51.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of June, 1
the 18th day of September, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribi
to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Cox
considered all factors relating to AV 90-13.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cor
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Comrnissic
upholds the Planning Director's Denial of AV 90-13, based on the followh
findings:
11
L I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
Findings :
1. There ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary Circumstances or COI
applicable to a portion of the property that do not apply generally t
properties in the same vicinity and zone. The portion of the fence
approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade at the northern se
the lot cannot be justified for exceeding the 3 foot 6 inch height limit. TI
is not needed as a result of any physical constraints imposed by the I
because the fence does not retain soil nor change the property's
topography.
Exceptional circumstances do exist, however, for the sloped portion
property. The portion of the fence currently located upon this slope is d
with the top part of the fence stepping with the contours of the slope. I
and aesthetically pleasing appearance, the extension of each step exceec
height limit of 3 feet 6 inches can be justified.
For that portion of the property containing the 7 foot high fence on leve
the requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoym
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicir
zone but which is denied to the property in question . Other properties do
walls and fences exceeding the maximum allowed height, but without I
Therefore, these property owners do not possess property rights for such w
fences.
However, the portion of the fence which steps with the slope is necessary
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Other propertie
same vicinity and zone have topographies similar to the subject property wl
permitted the same right to construct a "stepping" type fence provided th
fence adheres to the same findings and circumstances granted under this va
Permitting the fence WILL NOT be detrimental to the public welfare or ir
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the pro
located because the fence does not obstruct safe sight distance for motorists
the subject property's driveway nor for motorists exiting the driveway
south of the subject property.
The General Plan WILL NOT be adversely affected because the property c
of one single family home which does not substantially impact any element:
General Plan, nor the General Plan as a comprehensive document.
to allow a fence to be designed with a "stepping" type architecture in a r
2.
j 3.
4.
.....
.....
PC RES0 NO. 3256 -2-
II
% c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of October,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, S
Savary, Erwin & Noble.
NOES: Commissioner Hall.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ;(---h&J~ 11< (
., $J&&
ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperso
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM
"W
ATTEST:
' * i' *L =$aL!L I li?!, i2,d -<\&- I I, .
MICHAEL J. HOLJZMMER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
I
PC RES0 NO. 3256 -3-
L
APPLI o! I'ION COMPLETE DAT
0 * /i i;
0
MARCH 8, 1991
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AV 90-13 KHADEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of the Planni
Director's decision to deny an administrative variance for a fence to exce
the maximum allowed height of 42 inches in the front yard setback.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 32
UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY AV 90-13, based upon the findir
contained therein.
u. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On June 5, 1991, Staff presented Administrative Variance 90-13 to the Pld
Commission as requested by the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's decision
deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Pld
Director's decision to deny AV 90-13 because 3 of the 4 findings necessary to grant 1
variance could not be made.
After considerable discussion and debate of the facts and findings by the Plad
Commission, staff recommended that the item be continued in order to explore alternat
designs with the applicant. The Commission motioned to continue AV 90-13 to a d,
uncertain to be agreed to by staff and the applicant.
Staff explored options to resolve the problem of the fence obstructing safe sight distar
for motorists exiting the driveway to the south of the subject property and determined tl
safe sight distance can be obtained with the repositioning of the southern most portion
the fence. The applicant has agreed to reposition this portion of the fence as shown
Exhibit "A".
' AV 90-13 KHADEM REBENCE e
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
PAGE 2
Staff also determined that there maybe unusual circumstances associated with the fro
slope. In order for fences to be placed on steep slopes it may be necessary to exceed 1
inches in a stepped design and therefore grounds for the variance may exist for tl
portion.
The applicant was, however, not willing to reduce the fence height to 42 inches for thc
portions of the fence that are not on sloping ground. Therefore two of the four findir
cannot be made for this portion of the overheight fence or flat ground.
sloping portion of the property. This portion of the fence is designed to step with t
111. ANALYSIS
Based on the following four questions, can the findings required for granting a variance
made?
1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to t
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity a
zone?
Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substant
property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone 1
which is denied to the property in question?
Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare
injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone?
Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general pla
2.
3.
4.
DISCUSSION
Extraordinary or Exceptional - Circumstances
There are exceptional circumstances associated with the sloped portion of the proper
The portion of fence currently located upon this slope is designed with the top part of 1
fence stepping with the contours of the slope. In order to allow a fence with a "steppir
type design to function with a practical and aesthetically pleasing appearance, 1
extension of each step exceeding the height limit of 3 feet 6 inches can be justified.
The portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade
the northern part of the lot, however, cannot be justified for exceeding the 3 foot 6 ir
height limit. The fence is not needed as a result of any physical constraints imposed by 1
property, as the fence does not retain soil nor change the property's existing topograp
' AV 90-13 KHADEM REBENCE e
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
PAGE 3
PRESERVATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT
The portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade
the northern part of the lot is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and ZOI
Other properties do contain walls and fences exceeding the maximum allowed height lirr
but without permits. Therefore, these property owners do not possess property rights 1
such walls and fences.
However, the portion of the fence which steps with the slope is necessary for t:
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Other properties in the sar
vicinity and zone have topography similar to the subject property which are permitted t
same right to construct a "stepping' type fence provided that such fence adheres to t
same findings and circumstances granted under this variance.
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE
Permitting the fence will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to t
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located becau
the fence does not obstruct safe sight distance for motorists exiting the subject propeq
driveway nor for motorists exiting the driveway directly south of the subject property. 1
relocating the last pilaster 5 feet west of the front property line and locating the ne
pilaster directly between the relocated pilaster and existing pilaster, safe sight distance CE
be obtained in the following manner:
The motorist exiting the driveway can first determine if the sidewalk is clear of pedestria
without encroaching into the sidewalk. Once the driver determines that the sidewalk
clear of pedestrians, then he may obtain safe sight distance by partially encroaching in
the sidewalk while still remaining clear of the street.
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan will not be adversely affected because the property consists of one sing
family home which does not substantially impact any elements of the General Plan, nor tl
General Plan as a comprehensive document.
N. ENvm0"TALlREVIEw
Section 15270Ca) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that no environment
review is required for projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
' AV 90-13 KHADEM REaNCE 0
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
PAGE 4
SUMMARY
In summary, findings could be made for those portions of the fence which exist on dOpk
terrain, however, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordini
circumstances to allow the portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high ar
located on level grade, nor is the applicant being denied a property right for this portic
of the fence which other property owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because tw
of the four findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, sta
recommends adopting Planning Commission Resolution No, 3256 denyir
Administrative Variance 90-13.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4. Location Map
5.
6. Exhibit "A"
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3256
Memorandum dated June 5, 1991
Staff Report dated June 5, 1991
Attachment "A" - Letter from applicant
August 15, 1991
DR.km:lh
, e e
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JUNE 5, 1991
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AV 90-13 - KHADEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of the Piannini
Dkectois decision to deny an administrative variance for a decorative fencf
to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42 in a front yard setback.
The third finding of Resolution No. 3256 has been changed to read as follows:
3. The granting of this variance WILL be detrimental to the public welfare in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the fence obstructs tht
site distance for motorists exiting the driveway located directly south of the subjec:
property.
APPLI !9 AfrION COMPLETE DATE e
March 8. 1991
G STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 5, 1991
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AV 90-13 - KHADEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of the PlanniI
Director's decision to deny an administrative variance for a decorative fen
to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42" in a front yard setback.
I. RECOMMENDATtON
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commksion Resolution No. 32:
contained therein.
UPHOLDING the Planning Directois deckion to DENY AV 90-13, based upon the findin
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In mid November of 1990, a violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.46.130 was sighti
by a City inspector on property located at 7327 El Fuerte Street while inspecting t:
property for compliance with a Hillside Development Permit. The property owner w
informed of this violation and directed to remove the fence or reconstruct it in conforman
with City code. Rather than pursue altering the fence, the property owner applied fo1
variance.
Section 21.46.130 states that "no fence, wall, or hedge over 42 inches in height shall
permitted in any required front yard setback'. The property contains one single fam
setback. Because the Municipal Code does not allow walls or fences to exceed a height
3'6" in a front yard setback, and because this fence exceeds the maximum allowed heig
by 3'6' in some instances, it needs to be removed or redesigned so as to not exceed
height of 3'6' unless this requested variance is granted.
The fence is constructed of wrought iron with a series of stucco pillars placed in betwef
It extends the entire width of the front property and steps down from north to south
a gradual slope.
home with an existing fence that varies from 4' to 7, located within the 20 foot front ya
AV 90-13 - WEM RQbENCE a JUNE 5, 1991 PAGE 2
111. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
Based on the following four questions, can the findings required for granting a variance b
made.
1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to th
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity an
zone?
Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanti;
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but whic
is denied to the property in question?
Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare c
injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone?
Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general plan
2.
3.
4.
DISCUSSION
Extraordinary or Exceptional Circumstances
There are no exceptional circumstances associated with the property, The property
similar in shape and topography to other properties in the same vicinity and zone whic
contain no illegal walls or fences. The fence is not needed as a result of any physic:
constraints the property may contain because the fence does not retain any soil nor chang
the property's existing topography.
Preservation of a Substantial ProDertv Riaht
Although there are several walls or fences exceeding the maximum allowed heigl
permitted in a front yard setback on properties within the same vicinity and zone, the5
properties in the same vicinity and zone do not possess property rights (building permi
or variances) for their walls or fences to exceed the maximum pennitted height. Therefor1
the property in question is not being denied a property right that is possessed by otht
properties in the same vicinity.
P 0 AV 90-13 - KHADEM SIDENCE
JUNE 5, 1991
PAGE 3
Detrimental to the Public Welfare
Permitting the fence will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located beca.
the fence does not obstruct site distances for motorists exiting the property or motor
traveling along El Fuerte Street. In addition, the fence is primarily open and does
substantially obstruct the circulation of air nor the penetration of light.
Adverselv Affect the Comprehensive General Plan
The General Plan will not be adversely affected because the property consists of one sir
family home which does not substantially impact any elements of the General Plan, nor
General Plan as a comprehensive document.
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REvlEw
Section 15270(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that no environmei
review is required for projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
In summary, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordir
circumstances which would allow the proposed fence, nor is the applicant being denic
property right that other property owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because
of the four findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, staff recomme
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 denying Administrative Variance
90-13.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2. Location Map
3.
4. Exhibit "A"
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256
Attachment "A" - Letter from applicant
May 14,1991
DR:rvo:lh
-W RCHMENT IIA"
. ..
.. r.1 3;,/ 1 0 : p, , 1 3 7 1 -. . .
-. .-
,Jir;l...lES 1 . t(HADEl'.l
7327 EL FllEFtTE
I::AF:t_SEHD, CA 5'2CI1:l"
P LArw I N G c CIMM I s s I or..]
CITY OF CARLSEUIj
RE: ADEIIF.lISTEATIUE VARIANCE NO. YCI-13
With writing this letter I would 1 ike to appeal the decision
of the P1 ann i ng Di rector regardi ng the abave ment i oned
admi n i strat i ue uar j ance and would 1 i ke to have the oppclrtuni tr
ta present my ca5.e to he the Planning Commission. m
James. Khadem.
\
June 5, 1991 PLANNING COb61I6STON Dngo 2
There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on
this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public testimony
closed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to cancel
the scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1991
and to continue GPA 90-8 to a rescheduled meeting to be
held on June 26, 1991 at the Safety Center.
1) AV 90-13 - KHADEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of
the Planning Director's decision to deny an
administrative variance for a decorative fence to exceed
the maximum allowed height of 42" in a front yard
setback.
David Rick, Planning Technician I, reviewed the background of
the request and stated chat rhe fence is located ut 7327 I21
Fuerte Street on a .60 acre lot containing one single family
home. The fence varies from 4 ft. to 7 ft. in height within
the 20 ft. front yard setback and violates Section 21.46.130
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The violation was spotted by
a City inspector while inspecting the newly developed
property for compliance with the Hillside Development Permit.
Section 21.46.130 states that "...no fence, wall, or hedge
over 42 inches in height shall be permitted in any required
front yard setback."
to exceed a height of 42 inches, and because this fence
exceeds the maximum allowed height by 3'6" in some instances,
it needs to be removed or redesigned so as to not exceed a
height of 42 inches unless this requested variance is
granted.
In order for the variance to be granted, four findings need
to be made. However, staff cannot make three of the four
required findings.
- In the opinion of staff, there are no exceptional
Because no walls or fences are allowed
circumstances associated with the property, inel the
fence does not retain any soil nor change the existing
topography.
* The fence does not preserve a substantial property right
that is possessed by other properties in the same
vicinity.
exceeding the maximum allowed height on other properties
in the same vicinity, they do not possess property
rights (building permits or variances).
Permitting the fence will be detrimental to the public
welfare in the area because the fence obstructs the
sight distance for motorists exiting the driveway
located directly south of the subject property.
Although there are several walls or fences
*
* Staff could find that the General Plan will not be
adversely affected because the property consists of only
one single family home.
Mr. Rick showed slides of the Khadem residence and the fence
which is in violation. Staff recommends denial of the appeal
because all four findings cannot be made.
COMMISSIONERS
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Noble
Savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the sight distance
finding could be made with one section of the fence next to
the driveway removed. Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer,
replied that at least two sections of the fence would have,to
be removed in order to eliminate the sight distance
obstruct ion.
Commissioner Noble noted the comment that other homes in the
area have fences without permits and inquired if they would
also be cited at a future date. David Rick, Planning
Technician I, replied that enforcement is on a complaint
basis only.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the Khadem fence was
reported by a complaint. Mr. Rick replied that it was not.
The violation was reported by a City inspector.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that this does not seem
very fair.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that now that
staff has knowledge of the numerous violations, the Code
Enforcement Officer can take legal action; all residents
will be treated equally.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if that means that all of
the violators will be cited. Mr. Ball replied to the
affirmative. The City is required to take action regardless
of how it becomes aware of a violation.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on the
memorandum from James Khadem dated June 5, 1991 regarding the
landscape aspect. He inquired if staff had attempted to
locate the inspector that advised the contractor that the
fence was part of the landscaping. Robert Green, Principal
Planner, replied that it is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that construction meets the code
r%quirements, regardless of what an inspector may say.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the owner had submitted a
landscape plan. David Rick, Planning Technician I, replied
that the exhibits for the Hillside Development Permit did not
show a fence.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the inspection was triggered by
a member of the Planning Department rather than a Building
Inspector. Mr. Rick replied to the affirmative.
Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Farus Khadem, 7327 El Fuerte, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and read into the record a memorandum from her
husband, James Khadem, dated June 5, 1991, which is on file
in the Planning Department. The memorandum generally stated
that their contractor had asked the building inspector about
requirements for the proposed fence but was advised that
permits were not necessary because the fence would be part of
the landscape plan. The fence was then constructed, based on
that representation, at a cost in excess of $20,000.
Attached to the memorandum is a letter from their general
contractor, Kevin Terry, who had inquired of the building
inspector about the fence, as well as copies of six letters
from neighboring residents who approve of the fence, feel it
is attractive, and that it does not obstruct views or sight
distances of motorists in the area.
,
I
'
COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1991 PLANNING COPiMISS ION Page 4
Mrs. Khadem thinks it is very strange that after working with
staff for over eight months on the fence violation, she and
her husband were not informed of the sight distance problem
until this morning, June 5, 1991.
Hrs. Khadem stated that removal of the fence will create a
financial hardship to her and her husband as they have no
funds available for the demolition. She presented an exhibit
of photographs of the fence which included examples of other
illegal fences in the same vicinity and zone,
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the
photographs must remain as part of the public record and
could not be returned to the applicants.
Commissioner Hall inquired when Mrs. Khadem and her husband
first started working with staff on the fence violation. She
deferred to her husband because she could not remember the
exact date.
James Khadem, 7327 El Fuerte, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commissioil and stated that his home was finished in November
1990. The inspector who came to issue the final occupancy
permit, noticed the fence problem in November. A variance
request was made, with drawings, in early December.
Commissioner Hall inquired who had constructed the fence.
Mr. Khadem replied that it was the landscaping contractor.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the landscaping contractor had
discussed any permits with him. Mr. Khadem replied that the
landscaping contractor told him he should ask the City if a
permit would be needed. Since his general contractor was in
close touch with the building inspectors and he (Mr. Khadem)
was not sure where to inquire, he requested the general
contractor, Kevin Terry, to find out what would be required.
Commissioner Hall advised Mr. Khadem that most landscape
subcontractors are well aware of the permit process. Mr.
Khadem replied that his subcontractor was not sure what
permits would be needed and he requested Mr. Khadem to get
the necessary information, which is why Mr. Khadem asked his
general contractor for help.
contractor, Kevin Terry, has been given to staff.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the subcontractor was hired
directly and not through the general contractor. Mr. Khadem
replied to the affirmative.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the
Business and Professions Code requires a licensed contractor
to obtain all necessary permits before construction.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public
testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
A letter from the general
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the building inspector,
Tim Phillips, is still an employee of the City. Gary Wayne,
Assistant Planning Director. replied that Mr. Phillips still
is a building inspector.
Commissioner Schlehuber could probably make the finding that
there are extraordinary circumstances; however, there are
other problems. He would prefer to continue this for a month
I
ww ww 0
Y
COMMISSIONERS June 5, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5
I l
and he would like the opportunity to speak with Mr. Phillips.
He feels that Tim Phillips should either confirm or deny the
statement and if a mistake was made, acknowledge it.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the
applicant had also requested a continuance because of the
late information about .the sight distance so that would
probably be a good idea. However, he added that it would not
make any difference, from a legal standpoint, what Tim
Phillips said or did not say as to the necessity of a permit.
Commissioner Schlehuber is aware of the legalities; however,
from a practical standpoint and a sense of justice, he feels
it would only be fair to hear from him. He believes the
findings are very thin.
Commissioner Schramm stated that she has walked the site and
is concerned about the site obstruction. She inquired if the
fence could be cut down to improve the sight distance.
Robert Green, Principal Planner, replied that the fence would
have to be cut down to 42 inches in height because that is
the maximum height to allow a person to see 150 ft. while
sitting in a vehicle. Bob h'ojcik, Principal Engineer, added
that a motorist could pull forward of the fence to see, but
then the car would be sitting on the sidewalk. Someone
approaching on the sidewalk could be in danger.
Commissioner Erwin would also be interested in hearing from
Tim Phillips. He inquired if the subcontractor who built the
wall is required to check with the City. Ron Ball, Assistant
City Attorney, replied to the affirmative. The law states
that the subcontractor must obtain the permits. Not to do so
would subject him to discipline by the State contracting
agency.
Commissioner Erwin would like to hear from'the subcontractor.
He could support a continuance.
Commissioner Hall doesn't see why the general contractor has
anything to do with this.
from the City building inspector. He could support the
variance but feels that something needs to be done about the
sight distance.
Commissioner Schlehuber agrees with Commissioner Hall.
thinks something needs to be done at the corner. The
Engineering Department could advise the applicant how to
correct the sight distance problem.
1
Further, he sees no reason to hear
He
Robert Green, Principal Planner, commented that, if the Commission desires, staff would attempt to work out the
problem within certain prescribed limits.
Commissioner Noble has mixed feelings about the issue. The
home and the fence are beautiful but rules need to be
followed or the rules are no good.
safety problem remedied.
Commissioner Savary is concerned about the 7 ft. height of
the fence in front of the home.
Commissioner Schlehuber believes that if we have allowed
other nonconforming fences without permits, then this would
constitute an extraordinary condition.
applicant to remove his fence, then we have to enforce it
throughout the area.
He would like to see the
If we require this
June 5, 1991 PMNING COMMISSION Page 6
Commissioner Erwin feels that this could open the barn door.
He agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber.
Commissioner Schramm thinks we have a split Commission. If
we deny this applicant, staff should be required to apply the
same set of rules to every fence violator in the City.
Robert Green, Principal Planner, commented that this item
could be returned to staff for reevaluation to see if there
is some way to approve the fence. Ron Ball, Assistant City
Attorney, stated that there is no time limit requirement for
the continuance as long as the hearing is renoticed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue
and renotice AV 90-13 so that staff may have an opportunity
for reevaluation; said rehearing to be held at a time when
a full Commission will be present.
RZCESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened
at 7:OO p.m.
2) PCD/GPC 90-5 - PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD - The widening of
Palomar Airport Road from the intersection of El Camino
Real to the westerly boundary of San Marcos and
extending into the City of San Marcos to Avenida de las
Rosas.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed the background
of the request and stated that this City project is being
brought forward for a General Plan consistency determination.
The project site begins approximately 1,200 feet east of the
intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real and
continues east nearly three miles to connect with San Marcos
Boulevard, which has already been improved at the westerly
consistency determination is for the section of road lying
within the City of Carlsbad. The length of the project area
boundary of the City of San Marcos. The General Plan
is currently a roadway with a single lane in either
direction. There are vacant lands to the south which are
being used as agricultural lands and there are existing
industrial developments to the north. The proposed project
is the interim widening of an existing section of Palomar
Airport Road from 60 ft. to 102 ft. in width. Within that
expanded roadway width will be two 12 ft. lanes in either
direction, a 6 ft. bike lane, curbed median, and a
hydroseeded parkway. As development fills in along the
corridor, additional improvements will occur. Once
completed, Palomar Airport Road will ultimately be a full
prime arterial from the City of San Marcos west to Interstate
5 in the City of Carlsbad.
Improvement of this road to prime arterial standards will
achieve overall City goals by providing a comprehensive
circulation system to serve the present and future mobility
needs of Carlsbad and the greater San Diego area. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified;
however, staff is recommending the addition of Condition ii8
(memo dated June 5,
subsequent three phased program if there is a presence of
fossil bearing material.
consistency determination.
1991) which requires a soils analysis and
Staff recommends approval of the
COMMISSIONERS 3
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Noble
Savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
j
~
I
~
I
September 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2
General &,an consistency for the 1991-92 Capital Improvement
Program (CXF). California law requires that the CIP, which
is a list of\the proposed public works projects recommended
for planning,\,initiation, or construction during the fiscal
year, be revieLed as to conformity to the adopted General
Plan. The determination of conformity is a fairly simple
process. EssentiLlly, staff reviews the various elements,
focusing on their goals and policies, to determine whether
or not that consistency exists. Staff has completed the
review of the projects listed in the 1991-92 CIP and found
them to be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore,
staff is recommending approval.
Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on
this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public testimony
closed and opened the item for discussion among the
Commission members.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3298, approving
PCD/GCP 91-2, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
2) AV 90-13 KHADEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of
the Planning Director's decision to deny an
administrative variance for a fence to exceed the
maximum allowed height of 42 inches in the front yard
setback.
David Rick, Planning Technician, reviewed the background of
the request and stated that on June 5, 1991, staff
recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning
Director's decision to deny AV 90-13 because three of the
four findings necessary to grant the variance could not be
made. After considerable discussion of the facts and
findings by the Commission, staff recommended that the item
be continued in order to explore alternative designs with
the applicant. The Commission voted to continue AV 90-13 to
a date uncertain.
At issue is whether a variance can be granted to allow an
existing wrought iron stucco fence to exceed 3'6" in height
within a front yard setback on property located at 1321 El
Fuerte Street. The fence currently varies in height from
four to seven feet.
the fence, evaluated the original findings with the
applicant to try to modify portions of the fence so that all
four findings necessary for granting the variance could be
made; however, staff and the applicant could not completely
agree on a design that would meet the requirements necessary
to make all four findings. Therefore, staff still
recommends denial of AV 90-13 based on the following;
- There are no exceptional circumstances associated with the
Staff explored alternative designs for
portion of fence located upon level grade at the northern
part of the lot; and
COMMISSIONERS
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Noble
savary
Schlehuber
Schramm
I
MINUT 8 0 /
' The fence is not needed as a result of any physical
constraints imposed on the property. The area where the
fence is overheight is generally level and the fence is
not part of a wall needed to retain soil.
Staff informed the applicant that the findings could not be
made for this overheight portion of the fence. Neverthe-
less, the applicant was not willing to reduce the fence to
42".
This overheight portion of the fence is also not necessary
for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property
right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone. If other properties do contain walls and fences
exceeding 3'6" in the front yard setbacks, they have been
built without permits. Therefore, these other property
owners do not have property rights for the walls and fences.
There are exceptional circumstances associated with the
slope portion of the property, however. The portion of the
fence currently located on the slope is designed with the
top part of the fence stepping to the slope. In order to
allow a fence with a stepping design to function with a
practical and aesthetically pleasing appearance, the
extension of each step exceeding the 3'6" height limit can
be justified. This portion of the fence which steps with
the slope is also necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. Other properties
in the same vicinity and zone, with topography similar to
the Khadem's property, are permitted the same right to
construct a stepped fence, provided that such fence adheres
to the same conditions and findings granted under this
variance.
Because the applicant was willing to relocate the last two
pillars at the south end of the fence, the third finding can
be made. Permitting the fence will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property
is located because the fence does not obstruct safe site
distance for motorists exiting the subject property's
driveway nor for motorists exiting the driveway directly
south of the subject property.
The fourth finding can also be made. The General Plan will
not be adversely affected because the property consists of
one single family home which does not substantially impact
any elements of the General Plan nor the General Plan as a
comprehensive document.
In summary, because all of the findings cannot be made for
that portion of the fence located at level grade, staff
recommends adoption of Resolution No. 3256 denying
Administrative Variance 90-13. Mr. Rick showed a slide view
of the Khadem residence and fence from E1 Puerte Street for
the benefit of the Commissioners.
Chairman Holmes inquired if the lower part of the fence is
the portion on which staff can make all of the findings.
Mr. Rick replied to the affirmative.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to point out that portion
of the fence. Robert Green, Principal Planner, used a
pointer to indicate the portion of the fence wherein the
findings could not be made.
Commissioner Schramm inquired how much lower that portion of
the fence would have to be. Mr. Green replied that it would
need to be 42" high.
currently at 7'6".
Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Farus Khadem, 7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, applicant,
addressed the Commission and read a letter written by her
husband, James Khadem. The letter stated that during the
past 10 months he has been attempting to resolve this
problem, he has made 135 telephone calls to the City of
Carlsbad, replied to 31 telephone calls from the City, made
22 trips to the Planning Department (including meetings with
the City Manager). He changed his drawings five times and
provided between 6 and 12 copies of the drawings each time.
He prepared a list of his neighbors on labels twice. He
spent two days taking pictures of similar fences in his
neighborhood.
occupancy permit for one and a half months and he had to
move into a temporary apartment and pay rent. He was
finally able to move into his home, thanks to the City
Manager, who helped him obtain his permit. The Planning
Department placed a hold on his grading bond and deposit
until two months ago. It was only through his own
perseverance and numerous telephone calls that the bond was finally released. He spent a total of 235 hours on this
matter. Total expenses, including permit, temporary rent,
relocation of two columns according to the new drawings, and
other expenses totalled $3,731.63. Although he has also had
medical expenses as a result of the problems he has
experienced, he does not feel a price can be made for the
aggravation, tension, and frustration a problem of this
nature can cause. Mr. Khadem feels he has paid enough for
his ignorance and would appreciate a favorable decision in
his matter.
Commissioner Noble inquired if a contractor had been hired
to construct the fence. Mrs. Khadem deferred reply to her
husband.
James Khadem, 7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that a contractor had been hired to
construct the fence.
Commissioner Noble inquired who had pulled the permit to
construct the fence. Mr. Khadem replied that a permit was
not necessary.
Commissioner Noble inquired if the contractor had a license.
Mr. Khadem replied that he did.
Commissioner Savary inquired what the PVC pipes located on
top of the columns are for. Mr. Khadem replied that the
pipes would hold light fixtures approximately 5" high.
Bruce Jordan, 7216 Daffodil Place, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he owns a lot around the corner
from the Khadems. Although he does not know the Xhadems, he
does know the fence because he sees it often. He was
surprised to read in the newspaper of the Planning
Director's decision which is why he felt the need to attend
tonight's meeting. Dr. Jordan stated that he had read the
staff report and realizes that the fence is in violation
because the law only allows a 42" fence. However, he
He believes that the pilasters are
The Planning Department placed a hold on his
September 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION page 5 COMN
wanted to know if there was something special about 42" which makes anything higher unsafe.
Chairman Holmes replied that the 42" height issue does not
concern safety. Robert Green, Principal Planner, added that
the main reason for restricting the wall to 42" along the
front setback is aesthetics. Walls higher than 42" within a
setback tend to create a "walled" effect. There is no
finite reason for the 42" height requirement other than it
is a community standard.
Commissioner Noble commented that he recalled hearing at the
last meeting that 42" was the height that a person sitting
in a vehicle could see over. Mr. Green replied that this
measurement was used in relation to the safety issue and the
sight distance which has since been corrected.
Mr. Jordan concluded his comments by stating that he feels
the wall is very open and has a pleasing effect; as a
neighbor, he has no problem with the wall remaining the way
it is.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that
another reason 42" was established as the height limit is
that the Police Department has stated that they need to be
able to see into a front yard for security reasons.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion
among the Commission members.
Commissioner schlehuber commented that since there is a
fence standard, he feels that it should be upheld. He feels
that staff has tried to work with the applicant and that
they have tried to be fair. He supports the staff
recommendation because he cannot make the findings.
Commissioner Hall commented that he would like to go on
record that he hates fence issues because nobody ever comes
out a winner. When the Khadem appeal first came before the
Commission there was a sight distance problem and it has
been corrected. Even though there are some columns which
are above height, the overall fence is open and decorative.
Because the Khadems have corrected the sight distance
problem, he feels he could make the findings to approve the
fence.
Commissioner Erwin is sorry that the contractor who built
the fence is not in attendance. He had requested at the
last meeting that the contractor be present to answer some
pivotal questions. Commissioner Erwin feels that the
contractor is at fault. He cannot make the findings and,
therefore, supports the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Noble stated that he has discussed a
hypothetical situation with several contractors that he
knows personally. Each Contractor stated that a licensed
contractor is required to pull permits. He asked the City
Attorney to confirm that this is true. Ron Ball, Assistant
City Attorney, replied that this is correct. The Khadems
have a right to seek civil damages against the contractor
and may also take administrative action against the
contractor's license.
I
September 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMn
Commissioner Schramm feels the fence is very nice because it
has an open effect. Nevertheless, it does not comply with
the standard and she cannot make the findings. Therefore,
she can support the staff recommendation.
commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant would
prefer a denial without prejudice or a continuance in an
effort to allow him to bring the fence to standard and avoid
having to pay permit costs again. Otherwise, the denial
covers everything. Mr. Khadem replied that he would accept
a denial.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 upholding the
upon the findings contained therein.
Planning Director's decision to DENY AV 90-13, based
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, asked if the denial was
on the entire fence or on just those portions of the fence
which did not comply with the standard. Commissioner
Schlehuber replied that he had given the applicant an
opportunity to accept a compromise but he apparently does
not want that; the motion was a denial of everything.
PUBLIC HEAhIING ITEMS:
'\
3) CT ~o-~&cP 90-12 - GIBRALTAR GREENS - Request for
approval For the development of a 12 unit condominium
project on\.,.882 acres of land adjacent to the La Costa
Golf Course'i in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. ', Brian Hunter, Seni0.r Planner, reviewed the background of the
request and stated t,hat the project is a 12 unit condominium
consisting of four three-story townhomes, each containing
two car garages.
the roof with a 7,000 's,f. recreational area containing a
swimming pool and restiopms. There are six guest parking
spaces, adequate RV parkhg space, and a 30' driveway, as
well as other essential requirements of the pun Ordinance- The zoning is Residential Density-Multiple. The General
Plan designation is Resideniial High (RH).
management control point is l9 du/ac and this project is
16.9 du/ac, so it also meets tpat requirement. Staff
The\structures are 33 ft. to the peak of
The growth
recommends approval. L.,
Commissioner Erwin inquired what'-ptructures, if any, would
be located in the water district dasement.
replied that the easement would onI& contain a sidewalk.
Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Chuck Lockman, an engineer with Lochan &i Associates,
representing the applicant, addressed the'%Commission and
stated that his firm has worked very dilige,ntly with staff
on the Gibraltar Greens project. Mr. Lochan stated that
the applicant's architect is also in attendance to answer
any questions which the Commissioners might have. In
addition, a representative from GeSle Jac, Inc., is also in
attendance. Mr. Lockman stated that he has reviewed the
staff report and can accept the conditions therein,
Mr. Hunter
\.,
'1,
EX.
Ha
No,
Sal
HO
sct
SCh
\
1 e W
KEVIN TERRY CONSTRUCTION #45@239
31333 PAHUTA ST
TEMECULA, C (714) 699-1393
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF JAMES KHADEM, A RESIDENT OF LA
COSTA, CA. I GUILT A HOUSE FOR HIM BEGINNING IN JUNE OF 1989, AND
COMPLETED IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THiS YEAR, 5991 I CONTRACTED TO
BUILD THE HOUSE ONLY, AND MY CLIENT SUBCONTRACTED OCJT MANY OF THE
EXTERIOR FINISH ITEMS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING AND FENCING. DUFiiNG TiiE
LATTER STAGES OF THE HOUSE, AS MR. KHADEM WAS GEARING UP TO DO
HIS LANDSCAPiNG, HE ASKED ME TO QUESTION THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF HIS GARDEN WALLS AND FENCES WE WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT MEETING ALL REQUIRE@ CODES FOR THE CITY SINCE I
WAS MEETING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR
OTHER ITEMS, 1 AGREED TO DO THIS.
THE INSPEETOR I TALKED TO WAS TIM PHILLIPS. I ASKED HIM IF
THERE WERE ANY REST41CTIONS REGARDING SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS OF
WALLS ON THE PKCIPERTY RELATED TO LANDSCAPING HIS REPLY WAS THAT
AS LONG AS WE STAYED ON THE PROPERTY WITH OClR 'WALLS AND THEY WERE
NOT RETAINING ANY DIFIT, &E WOULD PROBASLY BE OKAY
I DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME, TPAT THE CITY WAS, GOING TO
BEGIN DOlNG INSPECTIONS FROM THE PLANNING DEDT ALL OF MY JOB5 IN
THE CITY PREVIOUS TO THIS- &AD NOT HAD PLANNiNG iNS9ECTiON'Z I
ALSO DID NOT REAL I ZE THAT ThE PLAkK I NG DEPACtTMENT 'AA5 THE S@L!4CE
I SHOULD HAVE ONE T(7 WlTH TClS V4TTE3
WEEN I INFORMED MY CL IEI~T (IF MY ~ISCLISS ION '+,ITH TIM
PH I LL I PSI HE BEGAN C0NSTRUCT:ON OF PIS FENCE, '~"!C.Y !'; VEF'C
BEAUTiFiJL, AND I NEVER GAVE IT A SECOND THdUGkIT \iiHEil T-iE
PLANNING DEPT TURNED IT DOWN, i TRIED TO kELP ME KHA3EM 60LL'S
IT THROUGH DIEECT NEGOTIATIONS 'UITH PLANNING TECH DAVID FilCK MF;
R ICK SA ID i T WAS NOT H IS DEC IS I ON, AND HE WAS GI V i NG THE VAR I ZNCE
APPLICATION TO A HIGHER SOURCE
1 REAL I ZE THAT FROM T%E WORD Gc?, T8AT VIE HAVE BEEN (301 i'!G IN
REVERSE, HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TC, POINT CJGT THAT MR KHADEMS
INTENTIONS WERE NEVER TO TRY TO SLIP SOMEThiNG BY T%E CiTY. t+E
BUILT HIS FENCE WITH EVERY INTENTION TO COMPLY HOWEVER IGNGRENT
WE WERE IN THIS MATTER, THE FENCE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY ON EL FUERTE ST THE FENCE POSES.
ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE POINTS TO ANYONE, BUT RATHEF; BEAUTIFIES
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN MY OPINION.
I HAVE BUILT SEVEN HOlJSES IN LA COSTA SINCE 19'3s I HAVE
WORKED WITH THE CITY IN ALL FACETS OF ENGINEERING, FLANNING, AND
BUILDING I FEEL I HAVE A GOOD REPUTATION WITH MY INEFECTORS, BUT
I REALIZE THIS SITUATlON IS A MATTER OF POLICY AND EKFORCEMENT,
COST HIM UNNESSARY EXPENSE TO REMOVE IT.
PLEASE ALLOW MR. KHADEM TO KEEP HIS FENCE AS IS. IT WOULD
S I NCERLY , -
KEVIN TERRY
e 0
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re! Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you i support of his request for an administrative variance for his fenc
OC which exceeds the height limitation currently zllowed.
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractiv
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. I
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doe not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. Fi
believe the current: fence is aesthetically pleasing and improve
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require tk
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require thz Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the prop€
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. F
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, tt additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood thz
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to appl the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fenc
prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is nc
the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of hi
request .
Yours very truly,
.D Name: KL.,i-\ &>i x-42
Address: '(?pa FA - p:p\-s+
L I .pLi-'Sixc' ( + q7,< +
Date: fi-d-qi
~----_
0 w
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadern Residence
_7327 El 'Fuerte $ treet, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you i support of his request for an administrative variance for his fer,::
OL which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed.
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractih wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. I
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doe
not obstruct views or sightlines for rnotorrsts in the area. F
believe the current: fence is aesthetically pleasing and improve
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require th
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require thz
Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the prop€
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. F
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, tb additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood thz
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to appi
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fenc prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is nc the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of hi
request .
Yours very truly,
Name : &&,Lk4
Address: 73,q 2- e &
Date: L J+;/
.....................................................
I e w
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Xhadem and are writing to you j support of his request for an administrative variance for hi2 fenc Ol which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed,
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attract17
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. 1
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doc
not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. F
believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improve the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require tt fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require thz
Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the prop€
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. F
much prefer the current atkractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, tk additional height is not even noticeable.
we are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood thz
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to appl
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fen(
prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is nc the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of h: request;.
Yours very truly,
Name : B g PC/,' //Ap vkey
Address:733L &d puEETE
L& COSTA PA 4Zo07
JUNE/ /q?/ Date; h. / I /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --__-__
e e
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadern Residence
7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
we are neighbors of James Khadern and are writing to you : support of his request for an administrative variance for his fez(
01 which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed,
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractiy
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. :
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doc not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. 1
believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and irnprovc
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require tt
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require thi
Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the propt height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. P
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, tk additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in'the neighborhood th;
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to app:
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fen( prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is nc the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of h:
request.
Yours very truly,
Name : @?dW
Address : 73&3 f-LA
Date: 4/+//
L& e&&
a W
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you i support of his request for an administrative variance for his fenc
ou which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed.
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractiv
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. I
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doe not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. W
believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improve
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require th fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require tha
Blr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the prope
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. W
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, th additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood tha
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to appl
the rule strictly in this case, If the fence was a solid fenc
prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is nc
the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of hl request.
Yours
Name +b?Z :
Address : -%=71-x? F 2i k *kt%, Q4JL ‘c
Date: co /slq(
..............................................................
,
.I e w
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadern Residence
7327 El Fuerte $ treet, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadern and are writing to you i
support of his request for an adninistrative variance for his fefic
which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed. Qu neighbor has gone to great expense to construct: a very attractiv
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. I
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it doe not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area, h
believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improve
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require th
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require tha
blr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the prope
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. W
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which i
much less attractive. Sifice the fence is largely open, tk additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood thz
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to appl
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid, fenc prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is fic the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of hi
request .
Yours very truly,
Name: & . , ,,[,&;, ,- 3 ;- L ;$ ,+.? 1
Address:72-02 .fi dygk /fi T/4 , L2,4
4 1
-
/I
Date: c.
v-
f ' .,< I - "f --/ 1 - i
~ - - - - - - -
0 0 * -, v-
P *
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPt
CARL2 BA b, CALIFORNIA moo8 (619) 431
Office of the City Clerk
aitg of aarlsbah
DATE : September 20, 1991
TO : Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
FROM : Karen Kundtz, Clerk's Office
RE : AV 90-13 - Khadem Residence
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
__ all parties.)
Flease process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
_-___________--_____----_---------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
0 4-
*
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPI-
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434
Office of the City Clerk Uil~ of Marlsba
APPEAL FORM
I
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Pghd? &HP,M,,,~.,
to the City Count
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): . - Qd-q-E.5 KiqR ht
p, f!) I/ cj c - /=? /-/ 6 J iz cq /‘?<s,~ /-b,,+ - G -
Date of Decision:
Reason for Appeal:
Q -/p - 71
--
Date
&fiTES &Ifi&sfl
7327 {ZC /A.CltQy{e
&q-@L9Wd 920u 7
(‘&/si q3E-3rc77
Name (Please Print)
7
Address
Tel ;phone Number
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
438-5621
,--
REC’D FROM
ACCOUNT NO. DESC RI PTl ON
._ - - .. - __ - --
(b 0 c '1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE - AV 90-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will holc a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drivc (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, Octobei 22, 1991, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of ai administrative variance for a decorative fence to exceed the maximum allowec height of 42" in a front yard setback on property generally located at 7327 E' Fuerte Street, and more particularly described as:
Lot 73 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4, La Costa Estates North, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Mal thereof No. 8302, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diegc County of May 5, 1976.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call David Rick in thc
Planning Department at 438-1161, ext. 4328.
If you challenge the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of thc administrative variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issue: raised by you or someone else in the public hearing described in this notice or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office,
at or prior to the public hearing.
APPELLANT: James Khadem PUBLISH: October 10, 1991
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
I I
4
city d Clrhlrl
KHADEM RESiDENCE AV 90-13 I
w w
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
KHADEM ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE APPEAL - AV 90-13
for a public hearing before the City Council.
t
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK SEPT. 27, 1991
Assistant City Manager Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm
Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 1991, to
consider approval of an appeal of the Planning DirectoJs decision to deny an administrative
variance for a decorative fence to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42" in a front
yard setback on property generally located at 7327 El Fuerte Street and more particularly
described as:
Lot 73 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4 La Costa Estates North in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 8302, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on
May 5, 1976.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 11, 1991. If
you have any questions, please call David Rick in the Planning Department at 438-1161,
ext. 4328.
If you challenge the appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny an administrative
variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
-
CASE FILE: AV 90-13
APPLICANT: JAMES KHADEM
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR:vd
- John D Lopez- E DWCaravan Tours Inc Pensio
6992 €1 Camino Real #104 2502 Navarra Drive W225
-hi# Carlsbad CA 92009 Carlsbad CA 92009
215-491-04 215-491-05
Bruce M%tCarol Jordan J Thomaslklrena Kreid
7216 Daffodil P1 2648 Ftarrnol Ct
a
-? Carlsbad CA 92009 Carlsbad CA 92009
215-491-43 215-491-46
Intrax Holding N V Bce Development Properties Inc
60 State St 33 South Sixth St
Boston Ma 02109 Minneapolis Mn 55402
215-492-01 215-492-02
Sheldon Brooks C W Associates
7340 Altiva P1 14908 Vista Del Oceano
Carlsbad CA 92009 Del Mar CA 920 14
215-492-04 215-492-05
Gene8tflajel Roddenberry TerrygtM Hollingworth
12121 Wilshire Blvd e1223 1055 Bluesage Dr
Los Angeles CA 90025 San Marcos CA 92069
21 5-492-07 215-492-08
Mrchael&Debbie Hollabaugh Peter J SA Dixie Perkinson
7351 El Fuerte St 157 Stewart Ave
Carlsbad CA 92009 Garden City Ny 11530 -
315 - 992 - 07 dl5 4Qa-/2
J-yA Y,w 5-
5du-+A Pagioierla, CCC
*Ud (- y-w- 87) m, + z 'YQ h/
/3/5 6mQ~ s 8vcL. #23/ 7371 A7 FUCJfC 5t.
Yl03 0 Ca4 44, CCL Voo;
2
2 15-492-1 4 215-492-15
lntrax Holding N V (corp) Richard S Spanjain
60 State St 7315 El Fuerte St
Boston Ma 02109 Carlsbad CA 92009
215-493-01 21 5-493-02
Family Revocable Trust 05- CJeb fntrax Holding N V Corp
800 Ora Avo Dr 60 State St
Vista CA 92084 Boston Ma 02109
215-493-04 215-493-05
KenSAGay Spencer Bruce&Marie Harvey
570 Country Club Road 73345 El Fuerte St San Bernardino CA 92404 Carlsbad CA 92009
215-493-07 21 5-493-08 Jon MaKaren Coombs First American Currency fnc 7348 El Fuerte St 201 N Figueroa St La costa CA 92009 Los Angeles CA 90012
~~~ -
a 11. ' 215-4Yl-W
Don w Ternyi la 0
10% Garnish DF
~ncinitas CA 92024
2 1 5-49 1 -06
La Costa CA 92009
*. A
IrwinQEdith Ross
7311 El Fuerte St
2 1 5- 49 1 -49
Intrax Holding N v
60 State St
Boston Ma 82109
21 5-492-03
MiltonaHiku Kapfan
Carlsbad CA 92009
7344 Altiva Place
21 5-492-06
Benny Wang
7355 El FueTte St
Carlsbad CA 92009
22 5-492-09
Wan-teh&Lien Tsai
1315 Fair Oaks Ave #201
South Pasadena CA 9 1030 _-
21 5-492- 13
Living Trust 01-06-89 Khadgm
San Diego CA 92 127
11084 Pin~on Way
215-492-16
Bce Development P~ope~ties Inc
33 South Sixth St
Minneapolis Mn 55402
2 1 5-493-U3
Randall L&.Lahna Strong
7332 El Fuerte St
Carlsbad CA 92009
21 5-493-06 &&$-
7327 &U@. David T Zt Sharon Cheatham
Pa Box 3395
Rancho Santa Fe CA 92069 -4- ' 58+