Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 03-02; Fischer Variance; Administrative Variance (AV) (4)h ANTHONY AND MARIA FISCHER 2663 Cazadero Dr. Carlsbad. Ca. 92009 January 14,2003 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008-73 14 Re: Administrative Variance / 2663 Cazadero Dr., Carlsbad, Ca. / Wall Height/ Fischer Dear Planning Director : This letter and enclosures shall constitute the supporting information for an Administrative Variance for a retaining wall over six feet in height between the subject parcel and the neighboring parcel to the north. This wall has already been constructed according to the plans approved by the City on May 25,200 1. Enclosed herewith is the Administrative Variance Application and Exhibits (neighbor letter of support, plans, maps and photographs) in support of the Application. First and foremost, all the criteria for the granting of a variance are clearly present in this case: 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 subject parcel has a significant elevation difference with the neighboring lot directly to the north (2657-59 Cazadero Dr.) or 15 to 25 feet with an extremely steep slope between two parcels (See Exhibit “A,” photograph of slope prior to construction of wall). This steep slope rendered the side yard of the subject parcel virtually unusable and subjected the slope to erosion and soil instability. The side yard area is now usable and it has been landscaped (See exhibit “B,” three photographs of present state of the side yard). Other parcels in the vicinity are not subject to such a drastic differences in elevation with neighboring properties and are therefore not in need of retaining walls in excess of six feet. 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 extreme slope of the subject property’s side yard rendered it virtually unusable. Other parcels in the vicinity do not suffer from excessive side yard slopes and therefore the owners of those parcels are in a significantly better position to make good use of their property. In addition, the wall enhances the privacy of the parcels on both sides because it shields the lower parcel’s yard from the view of the applicant’s parcel and vice versa, a problem which was present prior to the construction of the wall due to the extreme side yard slope. 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 wall will not cause any sight-distance problems for any residence nor is it placed in such a way as to cause and adverse visual impact to the public. Landscaping will be placed in front of the wall which will reduce the aesthetic impact of the wall. The softening of the considerable slope between the subject property and the neighboring property is an improvement which benefits the entire neighborhood and presents no impact to vehicular or pedestrian visibility. Furthermore, an important safety issue is addressed by the wall in that the height of the wall prevents persons from falling over into the neighborhood parcel, something which could easily occur should the wall height be reduced to six feet. 4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the property is designated for development for single-family homes and is developed as such. Please note that the neighboring property owners, the Kerns, are in full support of the variance for a variety of reasons as outlined in their letter dated January 10,2003, enclosed herewith as Exhibit “C.” The suggestion by City Staff that the level of the ground on the north side of the wall be raised to create a six foot height on that side is not recommended by the Kerns due to the existence of a drainage swale on that side of the wall, The substantial grade differential between the subject property and the neighboring property as described is easily seen on the enclosed topographical map marked Exhibit “D.” This difference should not force the applicants to lose the use of a large portion of their property where others in the same neighborhood have the use and enjoyment of that same area without the need for a retaining wall in excess of six feet in height. Please see the enclosed Application and Justification for Variance forms as required along with the necessary fee. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed documentation please contact us. Thank you for your anticipated consideration and cooperation in this matter. Encl.