HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-21; City Council; 13665; APPEAL - TARYAN FENCE - AV 95-02-
r
.
5
5
.? u s
v1
G
g 0“
k cd
k
u 0
R a, E
u 0 2
R
-4 U
$
; z
.rl
5
ri cd
cd
a,
b bo
u
a,
a
a,
a a,
4-J
a a,
*ti a
d
LI
0 u
z G & a d z 5 0 0
,’ - L‘ L;i)Y U). CAHLSUAU - Ati A BILL
AB # 13 dh < -- T’ITLE: DEPT.
MTG, 5/21/96 APPEAL TARYAN FENCE AV 95.02
DEPT. 3”‘’ PI N
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY A
CITY M
That the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents UPHOLDING
denial of Administrative Variance 95-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 3, 1996, the Planning Commission upheld (6-0, Erwin absent) a Plan
Director decision denying an administrative variance to allow an increase in fence hc
from the allowed maximum of six feet to eleven feet on property located at 11 10 Car
Del Sol Circle, in the Residential Single Family (R-1-7500) zone.
The City is acting on a complaht that the applicant has erected a five foot fence or
of a six foot masonry wall along the rearyard portion of the property. The fence PO
replaces a dilapidated fence that existed when the applicant purchased the proper
7976. The intent of the fence is to prohibit access to the applicant’s property (whict-
an 11’ deep swimming pool) from the adjacent property. The property owner ha
objection to the fence and has submitted a letter to that effect.
Both the Planning Director and the Planning Commission have found that the reqi
findings for the variance cannot be met. With the illegal fence section removed
remaining fencing meets the pool fencing requirements. The applicant has (
options available to further protect his property and be in compliance with the Carl:
Municipal Code.
The denial of the Administrative Variance request requires that the applicant maintaii
fence at a height of six feet, removing the extra five feet of fencing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review per section 15303(e) of the Sta
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXHIBIT
1.
2.
3.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3910
Planning Staff Report dated April 3, 1996
Letter of Appeal, dated April 11, 1996.
1
‘b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHl 0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3910
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO DENY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ELEVEN-
FOOT TALL FENCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1110 CAMINO DEL SOL CIRCLE.
CASE NAME: TARYAN FENCE AND WALL
APPEAL
CASE NO: AV 95-02
WHER.EAS, John S. Taryan has filed a verified application fc
property, to wit:
Parcel 9 of Camino Del Sol , in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to parcel map thereof
No. 5406 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, June 16,1964.
with the City of Carlsbad, which has been referred to the Planning Commission:
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
Administrative Variance as provided by Chapter 21.51 of the Carlsbad Municipal (
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of April,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEBEAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission cons
factors relating to AV 95-02.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission DENIES Administrative Variance, AV 95-02,
based on the following findings:
....
I
L
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
20
0 0
Findings:
1. That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or cc
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply genera
other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone, in that other p
are similar in shape, size and topography. All the lots in the vicinity are ret
requirement of the R-1-7500 zone. The property adjacent to the north is at
elevation of the subject property. The six-foot tall masonry fence along the
property line meets five-foot minimum pool fencing requirement for thi
property. The bottom of the fence on the easterly side (interior side yard)
the top of the masonry wall. This meets the fencing requirements for the p
wooden fence attached to the top of the masonry wall is above the six4
height allowance and is above and beyond the fencing requirements for pc
That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyn
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
but which is denied to the property in question, in that no other proper
vicinity has an approved wall or fence over six feet in height.
That the granting of this variance could be materially detrimental to the
property since it would expose the adjacent property to a solid barrier elev
height which could reduce light and air circulation.
That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Pla
the property is developed with a single-family home which is consistent
Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use designation.
in shape, are wider than the minimum width, and meet the 7500 square foc
2.
3.
4.
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
PC RES0 NO. 3910 -2-
I
-
1
2
3
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meetir
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of A1
I
4
5
6
7
8
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Monroy, Nc
Welshons
NOES: Commissioners Nielsen and Savary
ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LL-L +)
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LLER
Planning Director
I
PC RES0 NO. 3910 -3-
11
- 0 EXHI lh City of Carlsbad Plhg Departlgeoi 0
I- A REPORT TO TEE PLANNING COMMISSIONi
Item NO. @
Application complete date: October 30, 1995
Project Planner: Van Lynch I Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: AV 95-02 TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL - Request for z
Administrative Variance to approve an eleven-foot tall fence on the norther
(rear) property line located at 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle, zoned as R-
7500, and in the Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
P.C. AGENDA OF: APRIL 3, 1996
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 393
UPHOLDING the Planning Director’s decision to DENY Administrative Variance 95-0
based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is appealing the Planning Director’s decision to deny a request for i
administrative variance. The requested variance is for an existing five-foot wooden fen(
which is on top of a six-foot tall masonry block wall. The fence is located on a portion 1
the rear property line, and the total combined height is eleven feet. The Planning Directc
denied the request on November 29, 1995 because the findings of exceptional 1 extraordinary circumstances and preservation of a substantial property right could not 1
found. The improvements were also found to be materially detrimental to the adjace
property.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The single family zoned lot is located on the corner of Adams Street and Camino Del S
Circle. The fence is located on a portion of the rear property line of the subject lot, whic
is also a portion of the adjacent lot’s side yard. The properties on both sides of the wall a
graded to the same elevation. The subject property has a cut slope along the interior sic
yard that extends the length of the property. This same slope continues along the side ya
of the adjacent lot and to it’s rear yard. At one time, there may have been the ability
climb up the slope to the top of the wall. The wooden portion of the fence was intendc
to keep people and animals from crossing into the subject property’s yard and pool are:
The fence is a violation of CMC section 21.46.130 which does not allow fences or walls
exceed six feet in height. The City has never allowed fences over six feet unless finding f
a variance could be made.
F e AV 95-02 TARYAN bl\(CE AND WALL APPEAL
APRIL 3, 1996
PAGE 2
The applicant states that the fence was existing when the property was purchased in 197t
and that the fence was reconstructed in 1992 because the old one was dilapidated. The Cii
received a complaint on October 24, 1994.
During the notice period, a letter from the adjacent property owner, who shares the wall an
fence, stated he had no objection to the granting of the administrative variance.
Can the four findings required for the granting of a variance be made? Namely:
'-
A. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabl
to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Sam
vicinity?
Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoymer
of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the sam
vicinity and zone but is denied the property in question?
Will the granting of the variance not be materially detrimental to the pub1
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zor
in which the property is located?
Will the granting of the variance not adversely affect the comprehensii
General Plan?
B.
C.
D.
Iv. ANALYSIS
A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to tl
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other properties or cla
of use in the same vicinity and zone because other properties are similar in shape, size ar
topography. All the lots in the vicinity are rectangular in shape, are wider than tl
minimum width, and meet the 7500 square foot lot size requirement of the R-1-7500 zon
The property adjacent to the north is at the same elevation of the subject property. The si
foot tall masonry fence along the northern property line meets five-foot minimum PO
fencing requirement for the subject property. The bottom of the fence on the easterly sic
(interior side yard) tee's into the top of the masonry wall. This meets the fencir
requirements for the pool. The wooden fence attached to the top of the masonry wall
for pools.
B.
The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanti
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denic
to the property in question because no other property in the vicinity has an approved wi
above the six-foot fence height allowance and is above and beyond the fencing requiremen
Preservation of a Substantial Property Right
AV 95-02 TARY AF!!!!hCE AND WALL APPEAL e
APRIL 3, 1996
PAGE 3
or fence over six feet in height.
C.
The granting of this variance could be materially detrimental to the adjacent property sinc
it would expose the adjacent property to a solid barrier eleven feet in height which coul
reduce light and air circulation.
D.
The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive General Pla
because the property is developed with a single-family home which is consistent with th
Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use designation.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since the project involves the construction of a wall which is accessory to the main structui
on the property, the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt fro
Act Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5.
6.
7.
'-
Material Detriment to Public Welfare
Affect on the General Plan
environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State of California Environmental Quali
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3910
Copy of applicant's Justification for Variance and plans
Letter dated December 8, 1995
Letter dated November 16, 1995
VL bk
0 e
k-
@ NORTH
TARYAN FENCE &WALL
AV 95-02
0 BACKGROUND DATA SHE+
CASE NO: AV 95-02 --
CASE NAME:
APPLICANT: John S. Tarvan
REQUEST AND LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 9 of Camino del Sol, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, S
of California, According to Parcel Map thereof No. 5406.
APN: 206-261-10 Acres 0.19 Proposed No. of Lots/Units
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL
Weauest for a fenceball to exceed six feet in height
GENERAL PIA’ AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed 3.2
Existing Zone R-1-7500 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requiremc
Density Proposed N/A
Zoning Land Use
Site R- 1-7500 Residential
North R-1-7500 Residential
South R-1-7500 Residential
East R-1-7500 Residential
West c- 1 Commercial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) N/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
__ Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, to be filed upon determination by decision making; body.
-
D I SCLO S L'RE STATEMENT
A?PLICANT'S STA-EUEW ZF SlSCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPUCATlONS WWCH WIU RE
3lSCRETIONARY ACTlCN CN 'kE PART OF mE CffY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED 80ARO. COMMISSION OR COMMCrrEE
,Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1 Applicant
\ Lst the names and addresses of ail persons having a financial interest in the application. hII <.TcwVkfi
Mi(\O & so1 cr.
Cik 4w@?
2. Owner
hst the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property invol
s/
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning an
interest in the partnership.
4. If any person idenWd pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list th
ot the trust. addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the nonprofit organization or as trustee 1
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive 0 Carisbad. California 920094859 0 (619) 438-11
Perron ia dotinod u: 'Any tndwtdud. ttrm. copurnonhip. joint vonturo. .uoCi.OO~, 8ociai club. fr.Umd OrQMU8bOn. corporation. ortat4
~.COIVW. lyndlCIt0, thl8 and any othor county. cny urd county. cny muniCtpJRy. dmtnd or 0m.r polled rubdwtuon. of MY otkof gr
cometnation acting u I una'
-
,
0 e - I
w
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read thes requirements carefilly and explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts. U:
additional sfi'eets if necessary.
1. Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabl
to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property (
class of use in the same vicinity and zone:
f3uR nAc !< )PbRD eAV -'/CtVhOn9 FRONT 'fmc) AQC
WE tl VE llcn a39 rilr .. 9TR SEI' FRQM A 3W PPkhG -R tNf'.Cbfl,
d 9&EK urt>/n, c pu QES
SNG CX&tD,$!! " ALAVE RliN fkWfD WE 9fldWRY nF sM
sTZJe9 &dlJND%?fdETZ', WH&?E MAN c t/ /LLPOA& P&?P'Lk TR, -
YP iL+Z fF6 OD 8T&jW -
2. Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanti
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denie to the property in question:
&JORiTY OF OUR RA CkYARD ~4 BUT8 TAipf? 3lDb PA'
tWiD /$A vi!? Ck]],DRkN e 4 THF)( pay l/v fAt - PArro AR&
-
D.im ~NF PAW. THit.R - TWMS(~H - . )ZZNAD 2 R tflafl 9')
MAN9 TMVlES Jb& 0 N&DR&/v w WU? THROW MARIO iY:
: -
9 &&,& TOfAPRPLR7A/LS. FMEN A -SMALL ROOK- - -
1 3. Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the pub1
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which th
property is located:
&pL&p)/&r t@d ON &@ 2
4. Explain why the granhg of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive ph
moo04 10/9
c @ CofiriNuEO e
I-TEM #b 1- NECGH&~R~ PROPmrfES, ~UERE M'AV.G GEE& /HGTAA/~
FOOD SXHE RAN 10 TAE N,GiGf4&R% FRoN~ YARO #k
SCail'NC Dd WALL 4 JahPiA/c iNm ndfl HAci< Lic3flo.
dEAgiNG M@I9K5 1 WOt'iD PLlTON GAcr< YARD LIGUTS(
e) Tu,& PER9oN(S) W0i)rl.O CLIMB BACj< ov~~p ru~ W/J
MAbfi' TMG3 MY WIFE SAlD WF WOLILD i4db-f BAR
WlW ALOMC ?HE TOP W i1J6 WALL ro PREVENT WE
PnssjatLiriPQ FR~A TWQ rm~~ ilvidc ~6a d LIYG~
OUR vIsuAL 90SSjBiir/&S ARE REsTRfrIXD- TiiB?G hG.1 MSG9 'WlAWV CARLSBAD PQLiCG LiAVE CaME n3 riJM0LI
Y"RONT OBOR TO R3K ThrAT f,4IEY BE PMMITTED n3 9EAR4
a,!JR flACkyARf? ns TH/-y W&RE i/r%%?MED TmTPERS
ERE PURSUGD PmPih- Ar-JER STEBLLNG fTFM FRO, 1
abPPEN/flG.S'- TfiLER GARAGE ExTEflDS BEYOND rjjg
HAW€ SCALEO auA BACWARD WALL. OMEA ~t3~~afiR9 X
INFORMGD L19 TAAt$%AW A CcwPiK PEaPLG SCAL~NG m
ONF VER)~ t/vrER&9yl#G GjTUArmN e vaNS sranE w'
pok~zo aHE EdEHING, udKN&w/NGLY f LpLrr ii4E i40 "'
FOR 14 -NALI<. Tj4E POL~CK 9~ vv ME LGA-WYG IHE PROPEd'
TbL23 rid& PULfCG THAT A CduPi~ SCAiEO uuR BLSCkYAK
I
rlduba14r I -WAS rg~ SUsjPEcr DUE ra rHlEn mrii Ti-l~ 1
IE~!Z rw JUST IVIISSEO MY WlFG B GPANO DAUCL~R WMO
TiME WSRE iM TIJG POOLc ON ONE OCCALi/OA/ riJG TEA
TljRlzW A DEAD RATnVER Til€ WALL i~t~ TidE'P0oi-L
COURT CA9E i=oOLLOWED A9 ORDERED BY CAmSOAD PW
AS i<Eys rid&- fluST e MAQRS An& LFFT ON WE 130
QoaL, RilSiZBAALLS, AAr3 ~ GA9KEfBALL9 drEN,vIS BAiLS,
CtaARn@tG BUTTS. /f ALMOSi APPEAR9 TLJAT OUR 13,
RAT COMING OR AELEIG fA'ROWM+ POLICG WERE CALLEi
WAS DUG TO THE SECOND RAT? 13glNG rMRowr/,, DI"i-lER IT
19 A DUMPtNG AREA- iN 19TG WE PURCI4AgED TiJIS
A7 MAT TIME ruem rm now> ai-" CI~VDGR ALOC~~~
df ;TOP OF TiJf 9LUMP BLOCK WALL 63LOtvG WiTU A v
~%A/CE AT rijE 13Acic 6'ivD OF ri.,~ wbiL,TiJE mpf
PLACED $NOT PLX?N)IJNTL')/ QmwauL=O,i"lJiS i9 fran
ENfEQIflG FOR EMERGEMW CASZ~ AS iiI<E THE FIRE
~WGR RL=S%ING TEAM,TI.~~=' mmrms OWNGR piacgn
ra fl€TfQ TiJE NGiGiJROXS FROM PilRcwIrqG jrr LMS OVl
OWfdL=JZ 1MFQRMEn US ~UA~+Q~ND~R QmCj<2 WGR~
7 dlf07- BE DETR
4s PRoP&RrYj/\r
VICINiTY, AS /Ti3 A rVEAre'&ROERL1?/ FASi-liON, Uc
n~Fu9iNG ra GRAM7 Wf9 VARjANCE CAN PflOVS
p1/"L=n/ ~tFg TGREATiNG, /NSPECTlOI"lQF ft4E Af?Eb
9 YO ~-HF/A IR A on wuRiaU9 Ti Ir&Nwd GKAiV\T;riN -I .9 VhRtANCE W
I_
PROVE TUT PO^, MY MAM CONCERN 19 re REWF
ACCESS TD OLrR P0oL.wr-lrcl-l 19 i3 Fl!?Er 1N TZ/s WA
EhrD d TAPPEglNG TO i PePPlf OF // FEEE fug OR/'(
b~~gfl OFOUR P~~oP@RTY f-hb *RL=&iX Ad G
FM~E K~TE~D~NG AAOO~ 12' FROM fits gAck 01
PflODkflTy. LEADi/VG in/ A WE9rEflLY DIREct/am/,
LEAIG~I.C OE rm FG;MIC\L~ EM03 AT n-is mn or OUR
~ENA~~TS DF 3920 ADbMs CL/IILD~EN(~ND FAMILY Rg,v
PUILI=a PARrC aiz fi4K L~L~QD bown/#?A~so D~RI;
A DARBPGUL=,FWER FIRE WAC roo BIG &riJs F~A,
1GlvIrED PARE oF Ti%@ WOOD, THERE WLSRE LARGE
PdMP /.JOoSkG TBCE SAfD FENCG bL=rER/ctFd AS :
Of3ENIIVGS dA REAL G!45'9dE, 17" WA9 GEY8NO RH
DUE f0 l%G GROLINO LAY OUT OF T14jEiZ PROPL=/2TYs
LGADNG UP TO T%E ARGA OF WE i=z&cL=/TlWR CA
WOULD WALR bP Ti-& UfLC g5~1 WS WALL/ ThLrN,J
DOWN jivra aurz PROPGRTL TH~R DOG VVOUXIW nui rtdE nos coucr, NOT BE A%E ro JUMP BAck ~
p~~hl WOULD /,lbV~ rO ET FC~E OWNGR To RiXRiv
DOGb TLJi9 tz/o~~~ HhPp~!?fi OFrlZA/ d EVEN AT 291
i
mv CONEPR~~ WA~ NOT r-0~ WE ~a~,nilr FOR ru
GOING iwo ri-& Pooi W~~LJDLIT B~='IA/G AWARE OF ri M&t~c~.r WAS C~MPELED ro REMOW Trx RKMA~
Tl-JL? FLz'NCG PCoN4jtR~ci" A NE& I-'ENCL= 6::'nOG K
SI-IIP to OTHERS. AT WE COS 0F4150,A NEW j=L=nll PKPvmr TlJE DANG GR9 ASSoCiArsn vUIr@PcmLb\
QEFLISAL OF 7flf VARIAr(CE TfJE PRfvAccG OF PRm
mr/5L"~I=,,11S TIE CODE - REQuinG's PonL mc
W~.(OM InIouLn ~IJG R~~PLWY~~BT~ES LI~ WOULD 1~ w
/ WooD, Ti419 Wouin PPorECi ML- -6ic ANY itnslLrjgS
CDULO NOT Biz FiJf.~~/~&~~.O~V Mr PART' WHERE e' t&b%
cj r3, rNg NL=/OABOR/?Rtr'SPA9SL=J? OR MYSt"Liz- XdL=
PfiQgiGLF ENT~~Y ra OUR PnowxrV, WOLILB D
OVER ri4K WLJLL.&TWL=EN ri& rwa PnaPsAr
WE HAVG LOEi'cFD CAPE9 ai^ &Act4 Si&& CIFO~~:
fLlI/C& WAS EfhECrED id I992 -fgk- aNLY u/vLA'Wl
._
t
i
I
, ,
P to ZG? r no C i
xz 3
I b z3
i I - i
Fa j . m
r)
5
z
2i3 rr;i
I r0 F __I
P P r
, - \. -j
._
LI 'C -
4
r. '..A
7- -
e EJ + T. :
L
,!-
3 920
\ -?-p *- c.2- _- 2" A3..-:[,,;$ \s: ,\ - - s
\ ;' I &= t ;' / Ii, (.
8 fl -'x J %'
i? 6 +j J.04";
"\ DEt 1995 5 (/B ahtm 1
\ CN Of 1, af?L9R r puNli,NG DEPRflh'EN1 -
O&C 9
L I
\
u( Carlsiiad
- --_ --
D€AR MR, GARY El WAY"
Ti419 iE=TgR is ;N REGARD$ FO AV 95-02
ME W;SODEN FENCE ol\r TAE NDIPfldLY(R~f?) p&'opEX:
THE [TC)uR Q/=A9ONT GIVEN FoRTHF bl?bdiAL '
vAR~~E ARE Mor LN MMPLFTF AGRFEMGfl Noh
UNDER~TAND RE'sofWVG BEHIND YOOR FlNDjNG:
OUR PROPERTY WO~DLD SURELY SUED A DIFFFRFN
CW9F8 PURPOSE sf THE FENCE- WS MA9 Nor i
€RRECTED IN TH€ 3AMFAREA PRIOR ZO MY PUR(
FELL APART g BECAME Ah/ ,WLz soR,&. WiTf4 THE A or AMY KIND OF BARR1,!2~&)0GS C?'CMALDIU?H W
vFAfTURG /MT-~ oLtR BACkYARB USlNGOUR 5?me l-lOCrSiF RmP AS A STEPWNQ WWE AFTER I/~C~L>EA
2-3 Ymf;!% f ER67ETEQ A NEAT FENCF @ AmfiD A PC
ACCfDEP(T Nl?N A TRAQIc PaL DROWNlNG.
A ~I~UAL [NsPECT/ON 0F''PKAKE AREA I;
?"ADE. 17 MU3T BE NaTFD TMATA FENCI!? HAD BEl5
OF WP~ PROPL~RJK AFTER qlDlplc~s YFAS~, rr-lp I=&
Y'WR FihmiNh3S t13rt'D iN ITEM #i ARE^
RELATXW ro WE ADJAGwr PROPERT)' lN T&& 1~1
ARGkils sffT1RFL.Y WiPF&'E/YT. TU& NEIGUBO~~ GR~
LEvgL (A7 TI-& FENCE AREA7 I3 VG@S/NEAR ~}4&* Tog r.F MASUflRY WALL, THEREFORE TNk? MI/\/jMCIM POC
FENCING REQu,REM ENT* IS NQ 7 MET,
IN YOCrR #2 FINDING 13 ALQO IN ~ohp~
Dt9A6REgW3V7- A9 tT 19 NOT FOR OUR t-NjoyME
BuT r& 9AfFTy OF MCShdP3.2 CAN poipf;r OUT 0 7) PRof%nrEg Tl%T L%XC€ED TH'~ MINIMUM J' HE/GT
lml OfYA 1hMEDjATE AREA4
so 9mna- ms TOPOGRAPUY ob;' OUR PRo/Pt-Rw
M 3 FINISL,JGS ARE- REAL@ JE~OMW NI
WE: 8OARD3 OF MORE -WAN 1'; iF TElD I.3 A fAc$ 1'
- cOMP/$EN%O/V IN REGARD9 70 REDUCING ijab&!
C1RCULA'Tiah"TNF FENCE BOARDS MAE 9PACPNG 0l
~N~XRSL~ND WHO, HOW 17 WamD SFFECT, TCIF
NEIGNBOR U&S NOT HAW OBJEC73ON9 e MV'E,
RESTRiCtl ONS OF tiWT Of? ArR.
NO4 OF YOUR KrNDING3, CAW NOT B& ~4
Sirood AS in/ RELATION TO THE WaDEh/ FENC
IF TW3 VARlANCE I S 13~Mi~d !?%ERE I
AN ACCIDENT oF AMY DEGREE, 70 WHOM MAY Z
TO AvorD ANY LLBEL SUUS. WlTg OUT P!#€ FE~
THAJ COANFR I9 A SUR€ D€ATH TRAP FOP7 HUM1 # ANiMAi2 AL\IGeTNt3 kEPGCI80R &OW &!SQ'!L&W'
LOOK 14s WE do1
$250 P VVAS MDER 7XG BEL/& rM67rh PART 0
As ~-1-i~ OMSET 0 F Y;4/S VARlAMc E 1 PA f 2
MofdlL'g h/lAY fiE kEF/-/f?.Mf?0:,/f0 flk?Lv Ow T
SUBJECT- NOW YOU LUK F~R -6/20,006 ra wedL
acwGb-/ r WLLL THAT a pCz 3.
p."ovJ 7qyw4
i96C IC ry53 J
TcJrs UTWR cw~~/;ro~~~ AM
JpPFhL FOR TH& Wlfl(A~~p ~5
4 -Qq ydw4v
' * GY@7a
e m
Carmine Rocci
3920 Adams St.
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
November 16, 1995
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Or,
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-1576
Dear Sirs:
1 have no objection to the requested administrative variance for the
fence at 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle, Carlsbad, Ca.
:
Case 6le: AV 95-02
Case Name: Taryan Residence
Sin r y,
Carmine L Rocci
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the p( AN&\& c,
CUMV!Lt31 ON 9 i @Ai . to the City Cou
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Jl/ 9.5- 02
TAR) ‘AN Fiffi/cF A PPEAL
Date of Decision: 1 PRI c 3. 19%
Reason for Appeal: FENCE ra flF/VI/3/N T , 0 P/{8\/IDF
PRoTECT cn O$$lfm IN7-Q p/?, .OPE;nfY L-MVI/lr GA
r!‘ POOL-
550 Um-7 cJ
.-t w-/rv st rfd RYfl N
1 fG //t /J R ( I, - /I, g+ Date
Name (Please Print)
///i, ctqbf/ r/c DEL SOL C!17
c,R RLSRP(S, cn I YRQd?
Address
7 -03jk7 Telephone ‘Number
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-28(
PROOF OF PUBL@iTIO#
(2010 & 2011 C,C,P,)
.- STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
Advocate) case number 171 349 (Bladecitizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21: 1974 (Times-
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
May 11, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated st California, this 13th
of May, 1996
This spac&r the County Clerk's Filin!
Proof of Publication of
Not ice of Public HEarin5 __--------------------
_________----------
NOTICE OF PUBLIC ---
NOTICE 1s HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the city of Caflsbz hearing at the city hmCil Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Ca 600 P.M., on Tuesday, May 21: 1996, to consider an appeal of the Plar denla1 of a request for an Administrative Variance for an eleven foot tall fel (rear) property line. on property generally located at 11 io &mino Del ax& R-1-7500, in ~Ocal Facilities Management Zone 6, and more partic,
TARYAN FEk
AV 95
LANT: John Taryan
#t 0 0
1200 ELM AVENUE TELE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) I
, ._
Office of the City Clerk @tQ df &l~h3bnb
DATE : April 11, 1996
TO : Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
FROM : Karen Kundtz, City Clerk's Office
RE: AV 95-02 - TARYAN FENCE AND WALL
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.)
Please 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
S igna t ure Date
I.
APPEAL FOW
I (We) appeal the following decision of the LAMI\r)'i b G
C.Olk'lrJ! t 2 ioN 19 EC! 15 I * 4Al 1 to the City Coun
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): At' gs-- GZ I
rAr;s YAM F/-"{lif-E ?I. AppE'AL
Date of Decision: pnr I, 3. I996
Reason for Appeal : k4k/qc" F T^ 0 /?F/VIA/N T 0 P[{Q\//OF
I 3C(o PE/7W * CI'AVj/W fq fJn~rCC1' ci?.Os $ [NG iNTo
fir f30@I-
,/q [L cm iJ Date JJlp&qp lf jP6 FAtfi( S' 'iature
J G kiq/ s t rpl R)yA It; Name (Please Print)
/(/;p L.p fy ,+yl{/Y(? 0E-L SC3h c I/?
Address
qA r,f% 9 (-J{L/ j7pfip [I. c'R I I Ld
pzy' -&/b Telep one Number
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-280;
1 ZUU GARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAP, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
REC’D FROM 7ow 5- Tk7PV4d DATE L/.-/)- 96
CASH REGISTER
0 0
.- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
AV 95-2 - TARYAN FENCE AND WALL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6: 00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of a request for an Administrative Variance for an eleven foot tall fence on the northerly (rear) property
line, on property generally located at 1110 Camino Del Sol
Circle, which is zoned R-1-7500, in Local Facilities Management Zone 6, and more particularly described as:
Parcel 9 of Camino Del Sol, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Parcel Map thereof No. 5406, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on June 16, 1964.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Van Lynch, in the Planning Department, at 438-1161 extension
4325.
If you challenge the appeal of the request for Administrative Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at 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 : John Taryan
PUBL I SH : May 11, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
e 0
.-
@ VORTH
TARYAN FENCE &WALL
AV 95-02
w 0 0 -.
-eGUIGUREN FAMILY TRUST CARMlN E/KATHERI N E ROCCI JOHN/BARBARA VERE
3920 ADAMS STREET 1120 CAMINO DEL SC
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 9200
- 391 0 ADAMS STREET
VIRGINIA S PRUDHOME BENNl E/BARBARA ALLEN DAYTON CORP
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 PO BOX 30579
1130 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR 11 13 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR ‘/o VONS PROP TAX D
LOSANGELES CA 9
RIG N EY FARRELL GEORGE MERCER ROBERT/LIZ SHAW TI
CARLSBAD CA 92008 TORRENCE CA 90503 CARLSBAD CA 9200
I
I145 TAMARACK AVE 20809 MADRONA AVE 11 65 TAMARACK AVE
DONNA AGUIRRE KATHLEEN HAW LEV-MONKS THEODORE J HANSI!
1 175 TAMARACK AVE 11 85 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 920C
1140 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR
JOHN B GASTON TRUST DAVID/ROSEMARY ESHELMAN JERRY/SAUNDRA ED’
11 85 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR 3980 ADAMS STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 920C
1133 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR
JOSEPH/KATHERINE JESEK MR. & MRS. TARYAN 3970 ADAMS STREET 1110 CAMINO DEL SOL CR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
/+ ENGINEER
CARLSBAD CA 92008
// g?vf PLANNING VAN LYNCH DEFT
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
.1 -.
-1
r..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that t
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Coun
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. t
Wednesday, April 3, 1996, to consider a request for an Administrative Variance
approve an eleven-foot tall fence on the northerly (rear) property line on propel
generally located at 11 10 Camino Del Sol Circle zoned as R-1-7500 and in the Lo(
Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Parcel 9 of Camino Del Sol , in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to parcel map thereof No. 5406 filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 16, 1964.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the pub
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 28, 1996. If yt
have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 1 E
ext. 4325.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Administrative Variance,
approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If yl
challenge the Administrative Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only tho
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearir
CASE FILE: AV 95-02
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH: MARCH 20, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-08
< * . -4
*- (Form A)
-
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
APPEAL - TARYAN FENCE - AV 95-02 p" "- -
Q. Ab-
#* for a publfc hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of .
Thank you.
April 25, 1996 - Assistant City Man-- Date
-
- - . ._ - - -
Vendor No.
m REQUEST FOR REFUND m v- t
001 810 0000 8813 Account No.
Amount of Refund
Date Fee Paid: 4/11/96 Fee Paid By: John TarYan
Facts supporting R~~~~~~:
$240 F~~ paid F~~: Appeals of Administrative Variance (AV 95
12/11/95 and
Mr. Taryan appealed the denial of his administrative variance
the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City Council granted the appeal
reversed the Planning Commission decision and directed the appeal fees be refunded
Name of Applicant: John Taryan
Address: 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle Carlsbad CA 92008 729-0316
Street City State Zip Telephor
Signature of Applicant: l,, h* 3Q4.4- Date *
Dept. Justification: Rec: cQ&.u-Qd
@ Approve 0 Disapprove
Finance Investigation:
Rec: 0 Approve 0 Disapprove Dept. Head Signature
City Manager's Action:
City Manager Signature 0 Approve 0 Disapprove
1
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
'- 5 -- (JL2, ('-/P I i. 1: (,7
, -, /\ I ) A,( GC i /i/
-/i 'j10$ fz/LI/<'j.
1
RECEIPT NO. ' 25511 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL
@ mntbd on rccyctcd paper
AM01
?
r/
0001. 01 -
/:
I CITY OF CARLSBAD ‘c ‘6
# 434-2867
q L /-
1200 CARLSBA VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, ’ALIFORNIA 92008
DATE q-11- ; REC’D FROM -j-iYrlA.J 3- ~/],e/Qd
I /. NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER TOTAL RECEIPT NO. 29435
@ hntcd on recyclexi paper - - - . - I_ I_ .__ -- -. - --- - __ I - __ - - I_