Loading...
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