HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-09; City Council; 15090; Ryan Residence Decorative Wall Appeal- --4 I r 0 Q 9
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEMA BILL
AB# j<fiqO TITLE:
MTG. 3/g/99 RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL APPEAL
AV 98-07
DEPT. PLN I#
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGRW
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council APPROVE Resolution No. 99 * 8 v , UPHOLDING the denial of
Administrative Variance AV 98-07.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 16, 1998, the Planning Commission upheld (7-O) a Planning Director decision denying
an administrative variance request to allow an overheight wall (ranging from 65 to 76 inches tall)
within the front yard setback of an R-l zoned property located at 7245 Carpa Court. The maximum
permitted front yard wall height in the R-l zone is 42 inches.
The applicant asserts that there are other similar overheight walls in the neighborhood and that
therefore she is being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone. Overheight walls within the immediate neighborhood have been built without the
benefit of the required permits and approvals, however are considered to be non-conforming and
illegal. Other walls within the neighborhood have been constructed pursuant to the administrative
variance permit process. The necessary findings made to approve these overheight walls dealt
mostly with topographical constraints. The applicant states that the purpose of the wall is primarily
to provide security and privacy as she lives alone.
Both the Planning Director and the Planning Commission found that all four of the required findings
for the administrative variance cannot be met. The applicant has other options to further secure her
property and be in compliance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
In summary, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordinary circumstances
upon which to justify support of the overheight front yard wall, nor is the applicant being denied a
property right that other owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because two of the four
findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, staff recommends upholding the
Planning Commission denial of Administrative Variance (AV 98-07).
The denial of the Administrative Variance request requires that the applicant modify the wall to a
height of 42 inches, removing any portion of the wall that exceeds the maximum allowed height.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is exempt from environmental review per section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 99 H 8 9
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412
4. Planning Staff Report dated December 16, 1998
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 16, 1998
6. Letter of Appeal, dated December 28, 1998.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 99-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPELLANTS
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A
WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES IN A
FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 7245 CARPA COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
APPEAL
CASE NO.: AV 98-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of December, 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application for an
Administrative Variance, and after hearinng and. considering all evidence and testimony of all
people desiring to be heard, adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412, denying an.
Administrative Variance (AV 98-07) to allow a wall to exceed the maximum height of 42 inches
in a front yard setback in the R-l zone; and
WHEREAS, appeal of this denial was timely filed on December 28, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on the 20 th day of , 1999, the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said appeal of the Planning Commission decision; and
WHEREAS, upon considering the request, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, upon considering all the evidence, testimony, and arguments of
those persons present and desiring to be heard, the City Council resolves as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4412, on
file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference, constitute the findings of the City
Council in this matter.
3. That the Planning Commission’s denial of AV 98-07 is hereby confirmed
and the appeal of that decision is denied based upon the facts set out in the Planning
Department Staff Report, dated December 16, 1998, the evidence before the Planning
Commission, the evidence as set forth in City Council Agenda Bill No. 15, ago , and
the testimony before the City Council, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
I
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
-
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review”
shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by
the Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in
the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1 .I 6. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the
ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover
the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date
on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record
of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” ,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the znthday of e 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finn‘ila & Hall ._
NOES: None
SENT: Council er Kulchin
CLAUDl?..:M#,Wr
ATTEST:
d6ElLAQU r 1
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 3
EXHIBIT 2
RYAN RESIDENCE
DECORATIVE WALL
AV 98-07
4
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4412
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRA-
TIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES IN A FRONT YARD
SETBACK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7245
CARPA COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
CASE NO: AV 98-07
WHEREAS, Mary Ryan, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Mary Ryan, “Owner”, described as
Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 76-3 (La Costa Vale) Unit No.4, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 8583, filed in the Offke of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, May 251977.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as
shown on Exhibit “A”. dated December 16, 1998, on file in the Planning Department, RYAN
RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL, AV 98-07 provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of December , 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Variance.
5
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission UPHOLDS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DENIAL of RYAN
RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL, AV 98-07 based on the following
findings:
Finding:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . .
. . .
. . .
That there ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone, in that other properties are similar
in shape, size and topography. The front yard is sufficient in size to enable the wall to be
built outside the front yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or
security purposes does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecessary
hardships associated with the property in question.
That the requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question, in that no other property in the vicinity has an
approved wall or fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Although,
there are other walls exceeding the maximum allowed height in a front yard setback
within the same neighborhood, none of these property owners possess variances for such
walls. Therefore, none of these property owners possess a property right for their non-
conforming walls.
The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located, in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with
adequate sight distance nor does is significantly affect the light and air circulation of the
neighboring properties.
The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan, in that the subject property is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General
Plan Land Use designation and walls are a typical component of residentially designated
areas.
PC RESO NO. 4412 -2- b
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of December, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NO@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILYER
Planning Director
7 PC RESO NO. 4412 -3-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 16,1998
Project Engineer: Michele Masterson
SUBJECT: 1 - Request for an
appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to deny an Administrative Variance for
a decorative wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches (42”)
in the front yard setback of a single family lot located at 7245 Carpa Court in
Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. COMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412,
UPHOLDING the Planning Director’s decision to DENY AV 98-07, an Administrative
Variance for an overheight decorative wall, based upon the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Ms. Ryan, is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Planning
Director’s denial of an Administrative Variance request to allow an existing overheight sixty
inch (60”) tall decorative block wall within the front yard setback on property at 7245 Carpa
Court. Ms. Ryan asserts that there are probably hundreds of similar overheight walls in the City
of Carlsbad, and she believes this variance denial is an unjust decision based on the fact that
others have built overheight walls in her neighborhood. A Building Permit is not required for
free standing wall under six feet in height. However, an Administrative Variance is required to
allow a wall over 42” in the front yard setback. The overheight wall was constructed without the
benefit of an Administrative Variance. Staff recommends that the Planning Director’s decision
to deny AV 98-07 be upheld by the Planning Commission due to the fact that the necessary
findings to support the request cannot be made.
III. PR OJECT
In July of 1998, a violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.46.130 was cited by a City Code
Enforcement Officer on the property located at 7245 Car-pa Court. The officer was responding to
a telephone complaint from a neighboring property.
The following is a chronological history of the code enforcement case:
On May 5, 1998 a “STOP WORK” notice was issued to Mary Ryan. A wall was in process of
being constructed in the front yard setback that exceeded 42” in height. The “STOP WORK”
AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
December 16,1998
Paee 2
notice advised Mary Ryan to lower the wall to a maximum height of 42” or stop work until a
variance for the overheight wall is obtained from the Planning Department.
On May 28, 1998, a letter was sent to Mary Ryan informing her that the wall had to be lowered
to 42” in height no later than June 4, 1998.
On June 9, 1998, the Planning Department received a variance application from Mary Ryan
requesting permission to construct a block wall over 42” in height in the required front yard.
On June 15, 1998, the Senior Building Inspector sent a Certified Return Receipt Notice of
Violation because the wall that was under construction when a stop work was placed on May 5,
1998 had continued being constructed and was now complete. This notice gave Mary Ryan until
June 29, 1998, to obtain all permits and inspections or to lower the wall to 42” in height.
On July 8, 1998, the code enforcement office inspected the wall and observed that it was
complete and over 42” in height in the required front yard setback.
On July 21, 1998, code enforcement issued Citation No. Cl 016 to Mary Ryan for violation of
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 2 1.46.130.
The enforcement of City Code violations is not done on a selective basis. In Carlsbad, it has
historically been done on a complaint basis only. Mary Ryan’s neighbor had complained to the
Code Enforcement Department. When a complaint is made concerning an illegal wall or any
other Municipal Code Violation, then such complaint will be investigated and a violation will be
issued if warranted. It should be noted, that the City does not have the man power nor is it policy
to issue code violations on a selective or random basis, but rather on a complaint basis.
To summarize, Section 21.46.130 of the Municipal Code states that “no fence, wall, or hedge
over forty-two inches (42”) in height shall be permitted in any required front yard setback.” The
property contains one single family home with an existing five foot tall (60”) wall located within
the 20 foot front yard setback. The wall is constructed of concrete masonry and extends
approximately 50% across the width of the lot.
Because the Municipal Code does not allow walls to exceed a height of forty-two (42”) inches in
a front yard setback, and because this wall exceeds the maximum allowed height by eighteen
inches( 18”), the property owner was informed of this violation and directed to remove the wall or
bring the wall into conformance with City code.
Rather than removing or altering the existing wall, the property owner applied for an
Administrative Variance (AV 98-07). This Administrative Variance was denied by the Planning
Director on July 21, 1998 because all necessary findings to support the variance could not be
made, as discussed below.
AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
December 16, 1998
Page 3
Findiws:
1. There ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone because other properties are similar in shape, size and
topography. The front yard is sufficient in size to enable the wall to be built outside the front
yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or security purposes does not
constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the
property in question.
2. The requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
to the property in question, in that no other property in the vicinity has an approved wall or
fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Although, there are other walls
exceeding the maximum allowed height in a front yard setback within the same
neighborhood, none of these property owners possess building permits or variances for such
walls. Therefore, none of these property owners possess a property right for their
nonconforming walls.
3. The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located, in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with adequate sight
distance nor does it signiticantly affect the light and air circulation of the neighboring
properties.
4. The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan,
in that the subject property is designed Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land
Use designation and walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Plannip Issues
Based on the following four questions, can the findings required for granting a variance be
made?
1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone?
2. Is the requested variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question?
AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
December 16,1998
Parre 4
3. Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property
is located?
4. Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan?
B. Discussion
1. Extraordinarv or Excentional Circumstances
There are no exceptional circumstances associated with the property. The property is
similar in shape, size and topography to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The front yard is sufficient in size (depth) to enable the wall to be built outside of the
front yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or security purposes
does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated
with the property in question.
2. Preservations of a Substantial Pronertv Right
Although, there are other walls exceeding the maximum allowed height permitted in a
front yard setback on properties within the same vicinity and zone, none of these property
owners possess variances for such walls. Nor have complaints been filed with Code
Enforcement regarding such overheight walls. Therefore, the property in question is not
being denied a property right that is possessed by other properties in the same vicinity.
3. Detrimental to the Public Welfare
Permitting the wall would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located,
in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with adequate sight distance
nor does it significantly affect the light and air circulation upon the neighboring
properties.
4. Adversely Affect the Comprehensive General Plan
The General Plan will not be adversely affected in that the subject property is designated
Residential Low-Medium (RLM) by the Carlsbad General Plan and walls are a typical
component of residentially designated areas.
In summary, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordinary circumstances
upon which to justify support of the overheight front yard wall, nor is the applicant being denied
a property right that other property owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because two of
the four findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, staff recommends adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412 to uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny
Administrative Variance (AV 98-07).
AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
December 16, 1998
Page 5
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Administrative Variance (AV 98-07) for the Ryan Residence Decorative Wall was denied
and is, therefore, exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15270 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
In the event that the Planning Commission approves the applicant’s appeal of AV 98-07, then the
Administrative Variance must be sent back to staff for environmental processing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412
2. Location Map
3. Appeal letter from applicant, dated July 27, 1997
4. Reduced Exhibit
5. Exhibit “A”, dated December 16, 1998.
GF:eh:mh
-
COLDWELL BANKER
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE MARY RYAN
265 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE 101
ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 92024.5364
(619) 962-5155 DIRECT
I7601 753.5616 OFFICE
Executive Sales Director :e ‘> %
8’
I,
i76Oj 753-5925 FAX
July 27,1998
To: Planning Commission - City of Carlsbad
RECEIVED
3UL 2 Q 1998
CITY OF umts&&J
PLANNING DEFy
From: Mary Ryan - 7245 Carpa Ct. Carlsbad Ca. 92009
Re: Administrative Variance Denial - Ryan Residence Decorative Wall
To the Planning Commission,
I wish to appeal the decision by the Administrative Director and will submit my
payment of $400.00 dollars at this time.
There are probably hundreds of similar walls in the city of Carlsbad, and I firmly
believe this is an unjust decision based on the fact that others have built and enjoyed
their yard landscape and have had no complaints from anyone. Only one person in the
whole city has objected and it happens to be my neighbor across the street! It’s a sad
world! Also I would like to bring to your attention that a side set back violation was
approved by the city at 33 17 Cadencia street for a garage structure. This neighbor is
being allowed to enjoy his yard while I am being denied. My violation of 11’ is very
minor in comparison.
Sincerely,
/3
=/r,ronA-rl VIC -dti-\/ARiAW
AvJhrER~ MARy cl- R’/Ahl 7a42i r&.R3lQ CA-’ @Atusbd @h q20Dq
-.
AkrEi3 !
U/LLLL: CL I/a hi,i\- z%~cr bdwl S’A” L!.fip
TMAL, tn/kL h&&d 5’
CoLlJYYLk!s:
r4” hi&f, iLoph,,ac
X” 73coc~ r6’x 1L
‘*. ,,I .;i 1 I .
#.& ,h
$1 ?r. ;-.
k 9
* Ty i. .' ? :. *; .* . .,' . . . . . . _.: -..y...- _. _. -_ .d_ . 1
. .
. --.
‘, :’
. .
.;
-
1
A. I
a
*Lx.’ i . : . ,a
. . ‘J- ‘, : . . .Y_O _.. . . . --..--: ‘.--.- . - -.J - -
hqsotin SpecKdi3t 6. n-C-lte CIAL. L; LJL
Fib-K 2a L&A 6\q- aq~-Lob~
Qolhad. 5mwE ~-m5+*5qJ~3,
EXHIBIT 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL - Request for an appeal of the Planning
MINUTES , 5-
PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 Page 2
Director’s decision to deny an Administrative Variance for a decorative wall to exceed the
maximum allowed height of forty-two inches (42”) in the front yard setback of a single family lot
located at 7245 Carpa Court in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that Planning Technician, Greg
Fisher would present the staff report.
Project Planner, Greg Fisher presented the staff report and employed the use of a series of slides to
describe this item as follows: This is a request to appeal the Planning Director’s decision to deny an
administrative variance for a decorative wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of forty-two inches
(42”) in the front yard setback. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the
Planning Director’s denial of the variance request to allow an over-height wall within the front yard
setback. The over-height wall was constructed without the benefit of a administrative variance which is
required for all walls over 42 inches in height within a front yard setback. Staff recommends that the
Planning Director’s decision to deny AV 98-07 be upheld by the Planning Commission due to the fact that
the necessary findings to support this request cannot be made. The front of the applicants garage is at
the 20 foot set-back point and the wall is clearly within the 20 foot set-back. A Code Enforcement Officer
responded to a complaint from a neighboring property and issued a “stop work notice” to the applicant.
The Code Enforcement Officer advised the applicant to either lower the wall or to apply for an
administrative variance. The applicant applied for an administrative variance which was subsequently
denied by the Planning Director because the necessary findings to support such a variance could not be
made. In addition, while she applied for the variance, the applicant continued to construct and complete
the wall. The Code Enforcement Officer verified that the wall had been completed and in measuring the
wall, the officer found that the wall is in excess of 70 inches high. The applicant was issued a citation for a
violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code No. 21.46.130. The property in questions does not have any unique
or extraordinary circumstances upon which to justify support for the over-height of the decorative wall, nor
was the property owner denied a property right that other property owners possess in the same
neighborhood. Since two of the four findings, necessary for granting the variance cannot be made, staff
recommends the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412, to uphold the Planning Director’s
decision to deny the administrative variance.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Fisher to elaborate on the photographs given to the Commissioners.
Mr. Fisher replied that the photographs (on file in the Planning Department) are of various walls in the
applicants neighborhood and each of the walls appear to be over 42 inches high. However, there are no
variances, on record, that have been approved for any of them and therefore appear to be in violation.
Commissioner Compas asked if the owners of the over-height walls in the photographs have been given
notice that they are in violation.
Mr. Fisher replied that they have not been notified.
Commissioner Compas asked why the City hasn’t done anything with regard to the walls that are in
violation of the Municipal Code.
Mr. Fisher explained that the City enforces code violations on a complaint basis and perhaps Mr. Pat Kelly
from Code Enforcement could elaborate.
Mr. Kelly agreed that code enforcement is done on a complaint basis unless there is a health and safety
violation or a chronic hazard to the public. He added that when the violating individual cross-complains on
multiple violations, the City does take action.
Commissioner Compas stated that he had heard that the wall in question is actually closer to 7 feet in
height than the 5 foot height stated in the staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 Page 3
Mr. Fisher responded by stating that the code enforcement officer went out to the property and verified
that the wall is in excess of 70 inches in height.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Fisher to explain why walls, taller than 42 inches, cannot be built
within the front yard setback.
Mr. Fisher replied that there are a variety of reasons but the simplest is the Municipal Code. Other
reasons are: community values, quality of life (light, air and open space issues), health, safety, and
welfare to the general public. As an example, an over-height wall might obstruct one’s vision while
backing out of a driveway and the possibility of hitting a pedestrian would greatly increase. As for a police
issue, Mr. Fisher stated that if there were a burglary at any given home, it would be necessary for the
police officer(s) to have an unobstructed view of the home and it’s surrounding land.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the police can see any better if a 6 foot wall is at the 20 foot setback
point as opposed to a 6 foot wall set between the 0 to 20 feet point of the setback, perhaps 8 feet from the
curb.
Mr. Wayne responded negatively and added that it still remains a violation of the Municipal Code.
Applicant, Mary Ryan, 7245 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, stated that the wall is 60 inches in height and her
intent was to not only improve the look of her property, but to add something beneficial to the
neighborhood. Ms. Ryan stated that the wall was completed, except for the stucco finish, when code
enforcement issued the citation to her. She also pointed out that there are a number of variances that
have been approved for other wall projects in the area. Ms. Ryan pointed out that there is a variance
issued for a 6 foot wall, on Segovia Street, which is closer to the street than her wall and is not as
attractive. However, it has been allowed to remain in place. She added that there are additional
variances for 6 foot walls on Bolero St., El Fuerte St., and Blackbird Circle. Ms. Ryan stated that the
Municipal Code is confusing and should be re-evaluated by the City because other walls have been
allowed to remain. Ms. Ryan also pointed out that she lives alone and the wall would afford more privacy
and security than she now enjoys.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Ryan how she was able to secure information regarding variances for
other properties.
Ms. Ryan stated that she went to the City and researched them. She also gave variance numbers and
specific addresses of the corresponding projects.
Regarding privacy and security, Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Ryan how long she has lived at her
present address.
Ms. Ryan replied that she has lived at her present address for ten years.
Commissioner Welshons then asked that if she were to sell her home to a family of six, would she agree
that a larger family might not have a need for such privacy.
Ms. Ryan responded that in her opinion a family of six might like the wall and the privacy it affords,
although they may not have as much need for security.
Commissioner Welshons asked if she could have achieved the same privacy and security if the wall had
been built 20 feet from the curb.
Ms. Ryan replied that she could have achieved the same results with a wall further back toward the house
but that she was also thinking about aesthetics.
MINUTES / 7
PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 Page 4
Commissioner Welshons asked why she proceeded to complete the wall in spite of the fact that she had
been issued a “stop” order and been denied a variance.
Ms. Ryan replied that the wall, except for the stucco, was already complete when she received the
citation.
For the record, Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Ryan if she was the one who submitted the
photographs (mentioned earlier) to the Commission.
Ms. Ryan replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Ryan if she is lodging a complaint with the City regarding the other
walls that are in violation with the code.
Ms. Ryan replied that she has no complaint regarding the other walls supposedly in violation and has only
used them to compare with her own property. She added that the code is unfair and should perhaps be
re-evaluated.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Ms. Ryan if he is correct in his assumption that it is only recently that she
became the only resident in her home.
Ms. Ryan replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Savary, referring to the subject of security, stated that the photographs of the Ryan
property do not show a gate and asked Ms. Ryan why.
Ms. Ryan replied that the gate is yet to be installed and that when it is installed, the gate will be identical to
the one shown in photograph #2.
Mr. Fisher reiterated that in the cases of the variances that have been issued, all four findings could be
made which is not the case with the Ryan property.
Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Diane DeFreitas, 7248 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, speaking for a group of residents in the neighborhood
around the subject property, read a lengthy, prepared statement incorporating a variety of points of law.
This statement was made in strong opposition to Ryan property decorative wall. The representative group
alleged that Ms. Ryan provided the City with false and misleading representations in her variance
application papers. Ms. DeFreitas urged the Commission to uphold the Planning Director’s denial of the
subject variance.
Ron DeFreitas, 7248 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, stated that the granting of this variance would set a
precedent that would allow the issuance of similar variances in the future. If that is the case, he would like
to know about them because there are a number of things he would like to do to his property that require a
variance.
John Borg, 1058 Guyer Glen, San Marcos, representing his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Borg, who live
next door to Ms. Ryan, suggested that in the past Ms. Ryan has constructed an illegal patio cover after
being denied a variance. Mr. Borg requested that the Commission deny the Ryan request.
Harold Long, 7246 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, stated that the Ryan property now looks better than it has
looked in the past 16 years. Mr. Long criticized the City’s code enforcement by complaint system, calling
it unfair and not making sense. Mr. Long emphasized how nice the property looks with the wall and said
PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 Page 5
he would like to see it stay. He urged the Commission to grant Ms. Ryan’s appeal.
Lisa Ryan, daughter of Mary Ryan, 7245 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, stated that her mother’s intentions were
genuine and that she did have the wall constructed for privacy and security. She agreed with Ms.
DeFreitas that the neighborhood is a “cookie-cutter” housing development and beyond that, it is in need of
upgrades. She urged the Commission to grant the appeal to the Planning Director’s denial of a variance.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
In response to some of the comments, Ms. Ryan suggested that the wall be measured again, because
there were several different measurements referred to. There is no obstruction to view, it in no way
hinders the health and safety of anyone, and does not affect anyone else on the street.
Commissioner Welshons asked Ms. Ryan if she had applied for a variance, in the past, and had it denied.
Ms. Ryan stated that she had applied for a variance for a wood plant terrace and because her neighbor
called the building inspector complaining that she had an illegal patio cover (in actuality a plant trellis), her
application was denied. She subsequently took the plant trellis out.
Commissioner Heineman asked Assistant City Attorney to comment on the fact that there are other
violations of the City codes that go unchecked.
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, replied that because some violators get away with the violations does
not mean that others can violate the codes without punishment.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Kelly what will happen now that some code violations have been made.
public.
Mr. Kelly replied that the City has prosecutorial discretion as to what will or will not be enforced and if the
violations are brought to the attention of the proper authority, the City has the duty to act upon the
violations. What action is taken would be up to the City Attorney’s Office and the Code Enforcement
Officers. He also pointed out that the courts prefer that the City act reactively to complaints, rather than
pro-actively without complaints.
Commissioner Compas asked staff if the code is a fair code.
Principal Planner, Chris DeCerbo replied that it is the code that exists.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated that it is fair because it is a rule that everyone has to live
by.
Commissioner Nielsen pointed out that there is an ordinance for the subject of this item and enforcement
is always the subject of some question. He suggested that perhaps one or more Commissioners may be
interested in making a Minute Motion to the City Council to review the 42 inch wall restriction.
Commissioner Compas stated he would vote to uphold the decision to deny this appeal
Commissioner Welshons also stated that she would vote to uphold the Planning Director’s decision to
deny the variance.
Commissioner Monroy stated he would support the decision of the Planning Director on the basis that he
feels there is a safety issue involved and that the 42” wall height is something that should be preserved.
Commissioner Savary stated that there are rules that all citizens should abide by and that she would
uphold the Planning Director’s decision.
MINUTES / 9
PLANNING COMMISSION December 16,1998 Page 6
Commissioner Heineman stated that he, too, would vote to uphold the decision of the Planning Director.
He further stated that the code must be enforced.
Chairperson Noble stated that rules are in place for a reason and until such time as they are rescinded,
this Commission must uphold the laws. He stated that he, therefore, would vote to uphold the prior
decision of the Planning Director.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4412, upholding the Planning Director’s decision to
deny AV 98-07, an Administrative Variance for an over height decorative wall,
based upon the findings contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
None
None
Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission’s action on this item will be final unless it is appealed
to the City Council within ten calendar days.
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: 12/28/98
EXHIBIT 6
TELEPHONE (819) 434-2808
-.--_ 3
TO: Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
PROM : Karen Kundtz
RE: AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
- I' -;. _-'
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPRALED 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 .
Signature Date
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
’ I
Date of Decision you are appealing: /
Subiect of Ameal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer% Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reason(s) for Armeal: l Please Note w Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
PHONE NO.
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
Qt- 7222$
State, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
*L., ,,, *33C LJ..SA ,UU,SL.l~~i
I
December 28, I ,998
‘+kK 1 li I 843
_-. --
Ff
rnut WI
I / Li/ -*c7/ -) --.
To: Mce of the City Clerk Attn. Lee Rautenkranz
City of Carlsbad
From: Mary Ryan
7245 Carpa Ct.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Re~&&ing Commission denial of variance
AV- 98-07- Ryan Residence Decorative Wall
Reasons for Appeal:
1. Due to my nervousness at the hearing, I failed to.bring up several very important
reasons for the placement of the wall. The reasons I will be demonstrating are security,
privacy, window exposure, visibility for the police, and slope of the lot. The placement
of the wail is necessary for these specific reasons.
2. I am being denied a right that others have in my vicinity & zone. Proof of variances
were provided but not discussed by the commission.
.
3. The above findings I will demonstrate. The other 2 findings necessary for a variance
have already been verified by the Planning Director.
Thank you for your time and consideration with this very important matter.
‘Sincerely,
*..I ,..-7+9
Mary fi. RyT-
23
1
t
l(
1;
1:
1:
14
l< u .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2%
NOW, THEREFORE, IBE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
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 Planning
Commission UPHOLDS -PLANNING DIRECTOR Y S DENIAL of RYAN
RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL, AV 98-07 based on the following
findings:
That there ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other .-.-, . - - property or class of use in &e same vicinity and zone, in that other properties are similar
in shape, size and topography. The tint yard is sufficient in size to enable the wall to be
built outside the front yard setback Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or
security purposes does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnew
That the requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question, in that no other property in the vicinity has an
approved wall or fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Although,
there are other wails exceeding the maximum allowed height in a front yard setback
within the same neighborhood, none of these property owners possess variances for such
walls. Therefore, none of these property owners possess a property right for their non-
conforming walls.
The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located, in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with
adequate sight distance nor does is significantly affect the light and air circulation of the
neighboring properties.
The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan, in that the subject property is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General
Plan Land Use designation and walls are a typical component of residentially designated
areas.
PC RESO NO. 4412 -2-
.-.. :,-. :
i ‘-,.
; :;
.A I .:-. . 7‘
‘.;i .
.
c.
-._
c
4
sm. ,s-.
-
f 4 Al s %
\ %
;:
1 E
7607535925 COLDWELL BANKER ENC
03-05-99
549 P02 MAR 08 ‘99 09:43
AGENDA ITEM #
cl Mayos
City Council
City Manager .
my Attorney
r-m -Die&w-
RE: Regarding Mary Ryan Wall
To: City Council
I am requesting to postpone the City Council Meeting on Tuesday March 9,1999, at 6:00 p.m. regarding the Mary Ryan Wall as I am on vacation at this time. This meeting is
rescheduled to take place on Tuesday April 6, 1999 at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM # 9
C4 et Mil)fO? 4
City CouncU @J
City Manager
city Attorney
city CM4
. _ I
-.
i
-- t
”
p. _
. I . .” .‘.+:p _- - &* 2 ” $&:&$jj . . . -.*,ir . -3: ‘. - _--
-I w 1 .L . . .; .c tt : &q-l3~vlc.i+ =a- l-1 l3c2A A(lsnwo*@.4) wei c 7
‘,
.- ‘.,l; \.
‘d tws 6”“; *,G’
h
cf.
“.
~ . * z_
-77 . e .r - 35@ ;7i)/;Rq&4 St’.
_ ----
,
c .~- ~=.~. ,.=;.- ; -7-r
pm”.. *;tas~;“: ..,, .- :
--y- -- .- R?T&A~.-. .-,z MC.?8
327_0 -?lbr?yuIz
. .
b. ;‘.. .
33s 1 \/e~bvvC’
o)L’ ‘&y?
d’ 1 J/
---X_,_l “. : ..,qz,
Y.. -3 ii-1 e
. ._, * ,-
AL i/‘/r2 .,/ri L Y--. ;.. P, :-xrZi’i
January 13,1997
Hunsaker and Associates
Marybeth Murray
101079 Huennekens, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: AV 96-05 - REQUEST TO ALLOW 5.5’ HIGH PRIVACY WALL IN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK
Dear Ms. Murray:
The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative
Variance, to allow an over height fence in the front yard setback at 1790 Blackbird Circle.
After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning
Director has determined that the four
Variance CAN be made and therefore,
findings and conditions.
Findinas:
findings required for granting an Administrative
APPROVES this request based on the following
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone because this one-story unit is located at
the entryway to this project from Aviara Parkway and will be subject to considerable
drive-by and pedestrian traffic. The proposed 5.5’ tall privacy wall will be constructed
in front of the unit’s master bathroom window, thereby providing necessary screening
from this passing traffic. Additionally, this unit is located on a lot which is at a pinch
point between the alignments of Aviara Parkway and Blackbird Circle therefore
making it problematic to comply with the required 50’ unit setback from Aviara
Parkway and the required 20’ front-yard setback.
2. The requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone
bu(t which is denied to the property in question because owners of the same model of
other homes in the neighborhood have constructed identical privacy walls. Privacy
walls were shown on building plan elevations with no indication that some lots could
not accommodate the walls due to encroachment into front yard setbacks.
3. The granting of this variance will not be materially 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 overheight wall, which encroaches into the front yard
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
.
January 13,1997
Hunsaker and Associates
Marybeth Murray
101079 Huennekens, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: AV 96-05 - REQUEST TO ALLOW 5.5’ HIGH PRIVACY WALL IN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK
Dear Ms. Murray:
The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative
Variance, to allow an over height fence in the front yard setback at 1790 Blackbird Circle.
After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning
Director has determined that the four findings required for granting an Administrative
Variance CAN be made and therefore, APPROVES this request based on the following
findings and conditions.
Findinqs:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone because this one-story unit is located at
the entryway to this project from Aviara Parkway and will be subject to considerable
drive-by and pedestrian traffic. The proposed 5.5’ tall privacy wall will be constructed
in front of the unit’s master bathroom window, thereby providing necessary screening
from this passing traffic. Additionally, this unit is located on a lot which is at a pinch
point between the alignments of Aviara Parkway and Blackbird Circle therefore
making it problematic to’ comply with the required 50’ unit setback from Aviara
Parkway and the required 20’ front-yard setback.
2. The requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone
bu(t which is denied to the property in question because owners of the same model of
other homes in the neighborhood have constructed identical privacy walls. Privacy
walls were shown on building plan elevations with no indication that some lots could
not accommodate the walls due to encroachment into front yard setbacks.
3. The granting of this variance will not be materially 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 overheight wall, which encroaches into the front yard
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
/’
i I
I \--Jo-, ,Ti%xhLb,-c& c\\r.
Codc/\e l-o& LA- dY2.+qA
.
,i I. r ‘. ,>’ , ,, >‘. j h I <, ,. :
‘s _1 I I I “I Y’ .
October 21, 1994
Ken Funer
3006 Segovia Way
Carlsbad CA 92009
SUBJECT: AV 94-M - FURRER STUCCO WALLS - Request for a five foot five inch
masonry block wall within the front yard setback and a six foot masonry
block wall along the sideyard property line within the frontyard setback area
on property located at 3006 Segovia Way in the Planned Community Zone
and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Dear Mr Furrer:
The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative
Variance, AV 94-05 at 3006 Segovia Way in Carisbad. After careful consideration of the
circumstances surrounding this reques?. the Planning Director has determined that the
four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance can be made and,
therefore, approves this request based on the following findings and conditions.
Findims.:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because the property is
located adjacent to a public access way to the Levante Elementary school. The
pedestrian traffic of the students going to and coming from school causes noise
and reduced privacy for the adjacent promr. Other properties in the vicinity do
not have schscess points adjacent to their properties.
2. The requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because the residence is
located adjacent to the public access way to Levante Elementary school. This
access way is a secondary access to the school and is used by students and their
parents for a drop-off and pick-up location which causes noise and privacy
problems for the property in question. The erection of a wall would give the
property a buffer from the noise and a degree of privacy similar to the other
residence in the neighbomood. The property owner to the west and adjacent to
the access way has a four to five foot fence along the rearward and street
sideyard which buffers their property from the access way
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Cartsbad. Caltfornla 92009- 1576 - (6 19) 438- 1 16 1
--
JamaKh8dem
7327ElFIlatestmt
cubbod,~92009 I
toanowrfbKetocxcedthe
ThePbnningDirraorhascoxnpkteda review of your application for an Admin&ative Variance,
to~afmtetocxcecdthmrrimum~o~hdghtof42.inafrontyardsctba~at7327El
Fume Street. After t3vtfu1 con&k&on of the cimmmanw surrounding this request, the
Plan&g Direcm has detamined that the four findhgs required for granting an Administrative VariarmcanbeNAC~thatforc,app~~thitnqPertbasedonthefollowingfindingsand
1. There ARE tmxptkd and extraordipuy drtMIstancts or cotiditions applicable to the
pmpatyortotbeintcndtdwethat~notapp~guKlanytotheotherproputyorclass
oftseintksamevichityandzone, Tbcpormnoffkncecumntlykcateduponthe
~postion~thcpropertyirdedgnedwiththtoppartofthefencesteppingwiththe
conmttsof&jopc Thirrlapedportionoftbcproputgcondrttoftheshortectparrof ,
thfawtsintatcdonth~uth~ofdrcpmpatythdtbcportionoffarceIocattdnonh
oftkpmper@dtivmmy. fnordertoaUowrfencewitha%teppingtypedecignto
~~aw~w~ mFkv h --ion of each step
For the mtaiukg portkm of the fence located south and adjacent to the driveway, the
gmde begins to kveldff. At apptoxhnateiy 14 fea south of the ms driveway, the
f~is&signedtOcbrngcdirrctionfrolnr twdauth diredon to an east-west direction
‘ThirpartionofthfcnccttcpcupwirbdK~stopographywiththttallcstp~ter
reachkg6~inl6gk &ain,ixtot&fartbefencetofun&nwithaptactkaland . aesbxAypka&gqpmancec0tt&entwiththerrmtining~thcatenrionabovc
the3f~6inth~Wanbejurtificd ‘2hirpitrta,intura,~thetoneofheight fordw~portioaoafcntcwhiehcnadraorthwudtmtilrczchingthcsouthedge
oftheQirnor+g.
2075 La8 Palmas Orfva * Cubbad, Cqrlfor nlr e2009-1578 - (619) 438-I 161
‘I, ---
73a-j CL Rxe zofv:c &.
UW\l4-vl~c: q\-\5- 7=23@- oJr\r 4 y 72”
-. Bob Koslowski
54 Ofeander
xa. CA 92083
amx &yQwr8A-IIVEvARIANcENo.91-1O-srEPHENsREsIDEN~- Rqwst ,.. .
~Lback*7339BokroslrceL
aSxveviuiamxfirafenccover42”in~witithfront
sr Mr. Koslowski:
! Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Adminisuative
iance, to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum 42” height in the front yard setback
‘339 Bolero Street. Afkr car&d consideration of the circumstances surrowiing this
xst, the Planning Director has determined that the four findings required for granting . . \drmnunative Variance can be made and, therefore, APPROVES this request based on
folIowing findings-
There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or to the intended use that do nor apply generally ro the other property
or class of use in the same vicinity and zone since the subject property slopes down
from east to west and south to north aecessitating special consideration be given to
both strucnd and aesthetic concerns in regard to the construction of a decorative
wall on the property. The solid decorative stucco wall is consnucted using pilasters
within the front yard setback. Since the pmperty slopes down from side to side as
well as front to bgdc pilarter~ on the lower portion of the property must be
elevated to the same height as those on the higher portion of the property. The
heigisofthepodonsofthewal! connected to these pilasters must also increase
10 mdntain &I ikSthd* pleasing appamnce.
Therequaaivananceb xwssaxyforr.hepreserva don and enjoyment of a
Nbotanddpropertyright~edoot)perpropcrtyinthesamevicinityandtone
~which~~~tOtbepropatyinqucstionsir#eotherpropatieJinthesame
vidrrityandEoncwirhrimilartopograFhyartentitlcdtothc~srructuraland
,>1 , ., %/ ,.a ., /. CS,’ .\ : * e’. ‘>
--. se- -w- .I
?tGTem7:.--.:.-
PROOF OF PUBLI. .+TION
(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
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
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
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
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
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
FEb. 26, 1999
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marco5
Dated at California, this 26thday
FEb. 1999 of
--&4f!?%$;;g ---------
P
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space I., lor the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
-___-___--_-_-__-_-_------
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARlNlj
AV 98-97 - RYAN BEB$& DECORATIVE WALL
NDTtCE IS HERESY GIVEN that the Ci heanng at the My Counctl Chambers, t Council of the City of Car&ad will hold a public 200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad California at 601) p.m. on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 to consider an appeal of the’ Planning’Commisston’s decsron to uphold the Planning Director’s denial of an Administrative Variance for a decoratrve wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches
L ard setback of a smgle famrl I
(42’ lot on property generally located at 7245 Carpa 6 in the front
OCat FaCllltles Management one 6 and ourt in
more particularly described as:
Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 76-3 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 4 in the City of Carlsbad, Coun Map thereof No. 8583, y I$ of San 0’ o State of California iled rn the accordin ice of the County Recorder of to
Diego County, May 251977. %a n
rhose persons wishing to speak on this proposal are teann f! tnd a Comes of the staff report wil be avaiblle on er MArch 5,1999. If you have an
‘t (760) 438-l!Sl, extension 4328. rlease call Gre Rsher a the Planning d questions, epartment
f you challenge the Administrative Variance in qu may be limited to raisi onl those issues court,
aiseq by you qr someone e se a YY the public hearing escnbed tn this nobce or in written correspondence ehvered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerks Office t, or prror to, the public hearing.
PPELLANT Mary Ryan
ARLSEAD CITY COUNCIL
sgal SO@4 February 26,1999
6
@
RYAN RESIDENCE
+EC~R~TIVE WALL
tr AV !%.“-I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE 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, March 9, 1999, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to
uphold the Planning Director’s denial of an Administrative Variance for a decorative wall to
exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches (42”) in the front yard setback of a
single family lot on property generally located at 7245 Carpa Court in Local Facilities
Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as:
Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 76-3 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 4, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 8583, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, May 25, 1977.
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 March 5, 1999. If you have any
questions, please call Greg Fisher in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, .extension
4328.
If you challenge the 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: Mary Ryan PUBLISH: February 26,1999
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
FRANCIS & CAROL BERGIN
9613 EAGLE RIDGE DR
BETHESDA MD 20817-3919
SCOTT & JEANNE DICKSON
3313 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7807
JOHN DIEHL
3319 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7807
STANLEY 81 KATHERINE JOHN
7237 CARPA CT
GARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
EMERY BALOG
7242 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
MARY RYAN
7245 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-78 12
PETER & RONNI ROSENBERG
7249 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-78 12
RONALD & DIANE DEFREITAS CARROLL STEWART
PO BOX 182 7301 BORLA PL
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-0182 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
LARRY 81 SUSAN SEBASTIAN
3315 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7807
MACK & ESTHER GOULD
3320 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7808
ELIZABETH RIZZOTTO
7239 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
ROBERT & PENELOPE PAGE
7243 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-78 12
LONG 81 CAROLL HAROLD
7246 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
LEE & MARY ANDERSON
7251 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
STEPHEN & CAROL HILL
3317 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7807
WILLIAM 81 SUSAN PIERCE
3324 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7808
KENNETH & ANGELINA LAKE 7240 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
KEITH 81 MELINDA SCHER
7244 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
JOSEPH & CARMEN BORG
7247 CARPA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7812
BLAIN ANDERSON
330 CARLSON CT
VISTA CA 92083-5138
. c
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST SANDAG
701 ENCINITAS BLVD STE 800
ENCINITAS CA 92024 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 50 STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE , VALLECITOS WATER DIST 2730 LOKER AVE WEST , 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 : SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER
GREG FISHER
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
RYAN RESIDENCE
DECORATIVE WALL
AV 98-07
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE:
TO:
12128198
Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE 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 .
Signature Date
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD JILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, LALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
’ REC’D FROM P 1 vl (-,A& q i&UC! 1-j - 1 . ‘. ;-;yj#~~G -:& 2;: ,;a, yii -Tfz Y I . . .~ . - ,I i.: ‘! -. “;y, ‘. I II - .:,l”. i’ . !ij
ACCOUNT NO.
RECEIPT NO. f$~“:~~
@ Printed on ncyclcd paper.
DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT
I , - _'. ,. A ?(.A+-f, t A i : *I c_r(JpJ ;----
i I
: I
A v p “1$-(37 : :
: I I
:
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL CASH REGISTER
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing. --
Subject of Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reason(s) for ADDeal: l Please Note l Failure to specify a reason may result in denlal of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy? ,
@~/LzW,:C~/‘/k
2Ys’ TM @* &JW
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
Ge- 7243.7
CW, State, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 l (619) 434-2808
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
NOW, THEREFORE, JBE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
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 Planning
Commission UPH LD H S T E PLANNING DIRECTOR 0 ‘S DENIAL of RYAN
RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL, AV 98-07 based on the following
findings:
IF Finding: 0 1.
0
2.
3.
4.
. . .
. . .
. . .
That there ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other .-.. property or class of use in me same vicinity and zone, in that other properties are similar
in shape, size and topography. The front yard is sufficient in size to enable the wall to be
built outside the front yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or
security purposes does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecv
hardships associated with the property in question,
That the requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question, in that no other property in the vicinity has an
approved wall or fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Although,
there are other walls exceeding the maximum allowed height in a front yard setback
within the same neighborhood, none of these property owners possess variances for such
walls. Therefore, none of these property owners possess a property right for their non-
conforming walls.
The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located, in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with
adequate sight distance nor does is significantly affect the light and air circulation of the
neighboring properties.
The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan, in that the subject property is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General
Plan Land Use designation and walls are a typical component of residentially designated
areas.
PC RESO NO. 4412 -2-
12/29/1998 11:31 7687531432
December 28,1998
MARY RYAN PAGE 01
/ &,/ - ipi( -) -111
To: Office of the City Clerk Attn. Lee Rautenkrant
City of Carlsbad
From: Mary Ryan
7245 Carpa Ct.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Re; Planning Commission denial of variance
AV- 98-07- Ryan Residence Decorative Wall
Reasons for Appeal :
1. Due to my nervousness at the hearing, I failed to bring up several very important
reasons for the placement of the wall. The reasons I will be demonstrating are security,
privacy, window exposure, visibility for the police, and slope of the lot. The placement
of the wall is necessary for these specific reasons.
2. I am being denied a right that others have in my vicinity & zone. Proof of variances
were provided but not discussed by the commission.
3. The above findings I will demonstrate. The other 2 findings necessary for a variance
have already been verified by the Planning Director.
Thank you for your time and consideration with this very important matter.
Sincerely,
.,,- ...--+&y
Mq Ei. RyP---
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, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 16, 1998, to consider a request for
an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to deny an Administrative Variance for a
decorative wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches (42”) in the
front yard setback of a single family lot on property generally located at 7245 Carpa
Court in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as:
Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 76-3 (La Costa Vale) Unit No.4, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 8583, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, May 25, 1977.
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 December 10,
1998. If you have any questions, please call Greg Fisher in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4328.
If you challenge the 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 98-07
CASE NAME: RYAN RESIDENCE
PUBLISH: DECEMBER 3,1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notfde
AV 98-07 - APPEAL RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL
for a public hearing before the City Council.
c the item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
Thank you.
January 28, 1999
Date