HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 03-02; FISCHER VARIANCE; Administrative Variance (AV) (9)• CITY OF CARLSBAD 0
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES)
(FOR DEPARTMENT (FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY) USE ONLY)
liii Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
JIJ Administrative Variance
Coastal Development Permit
Conditional Use Permit
El Condominium Permit
Environmental Impact
Assessment
General Plan Amendment
Hillside Development Permit
E Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Master Plan
Elli Non-Residential Planned
Development
Planned Development Permit
Li Planned Industrial Permit
LI Planning Commission
Precise Development Plan
Redevelopment Permit
Site Development Plan
Special Use Permit
111 Specific Plan
LI! Tentative Parcel Map
Obtain from Engineering Department
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Zone Change
List other applications not
specified
2)
3)
4)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: C
PROJECT NAME:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
ANTHONY FISCHER MARIA FISCHER
MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS
2663 CAZADERO DRIVE 2663 CAZADERO DRIVE
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (760) 805-5322 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (760) 805-5322
I CERTIF TH T I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INFORV I IS TRUE AN CO CT TO THE BEST OF MY OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
KNO, D E
\J)JLASALhL1 £7
SIGNATURE DATE
CfjR CT TO THE ST F MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIG TURE DATE
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M.
Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2
0
8) LOCATION OF PROJECT:
STREET ADDRESS
ON THE F WEST I SIDE OF ICA ZAnvgo DRTVF I
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET)
BETWEEN j ABEJORRO STREET I AND CORINTIA STREET I
(NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE I
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE!
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 5) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ADT
18) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 20) EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
21) PROPOSED GENERL
PLAN DESIGNATION
22) EXISTING ZONING 23) PROPOSED ZONING
24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY
STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED
FEB 112003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
lcka4~ sit
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2
. a
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA
Applicant: FISCHER MARIA
Description Amount
?9:1 :32.i!:o3
AVO3 0002 495.00
Receipt Number: R0032604
Transaction Date: 02/11/2003
Pay Type Method Description Amount
Payment Check 1406 495.00
Transaction Amount: 495.00
City.of Carls bad
Plan mng De pa rt me n t
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defmed as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county ; city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
I
Title Title________________________________________
Address o26-6'-34:56~~Olel-0 ' Address____________________
e,J7eLs,B/1 CA- 9
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of LJ peisons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Persov*44,94 E-1 o9'e Corp/Part
Title tW4er Title
Addres63 CaZt',t7 4e. Address
c4-13, CM-S %D
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 CEO
3. NON-PROFIT AANIZATION OR TRUST 10
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving, as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfitlTrust__________________ Non Profit/Trust______________________
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Yes If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
4 I c i at all th bAve formation is true and correct to the best o my knowledge.
ktthc >t4t
Signa re of owner/date Signature f applicant/date
Print or ty'e name of owner Print or type nme of applicant
Signature,t owner/applicant s agent if apphca te
A/ Vog ;:5 fc~ , 0.~~
%Z= Print or typ'fiame of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
9 . JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read these requirements
carefully and explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if
necessary.
1. Explain why 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:
SEE #1 ON ATTACHMENT
2. Explain why such 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:
SEF #2 ON ATTACHMENT
3. Explain why the granting of such variance will not be matierally detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located:
SEE #3 ON ATTACHMENT
4. Explain why the grading of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan:
SEE 11 4 ON ATTACHMENT
FRM0004 04/02 Page of 5
. .
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
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 St.) of 15 to 25 feet with an extremely steep slope between the
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 unuseable
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 unuseable. 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 visa versa, a problem which was present prior to the construction of the wall
due to the extreme side yard slope.
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 an 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 neighboring 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.
. .
ANTHONY AND MARIA FISCHER
2663 Cazadero Dr.
Carlsbad. Ca. 92009
January 14, 2003
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008-7314
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, 2001. 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.
MARIA FISCHER
I S
Thomas E. and Mary Helen Kern
2657-59 Cazadero St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 918-9115
January 10, 2003
Carlsbad Planning Department
Re: Variance for Fisher lot wall greater than 6' high along North property line
@ 2663 Cazadero Dr Carlsbad CA.
We own the property adjoining to the north of the subject property where the wall is located.
This letter is written to express our support of a variance for a wall greater than 6' high
along our common property line with the subject property. The side lot slopes from
Fisher's lot to our lot (South to North) results in the pad elevation on our lot that is
approximately 15' lower than Fisher's pad. The primary reasons for Fisher's building the
wall was to make some of their side-yard property usable, control erosion, provide an added
safety factor and create privacy for both lots. I understand the wall was engineered,
permitted and inspected by the City and the only issue is the height of wall on our side being
more than City policy of six feet.
This is a special circumstance and is a hardship that a variance would resolve. Most lots do
not have a 15' elevation difference between pad grades. In our case the side yard slope
serves as part of our back yard with our home sideways on the pad. We enjoy the privacy the
wall is providing and appreciate the fact that the neighbor has taken the wall high enough to
provide the protection to keep people from falling over the wall onto our property. The
wall provides more privacy for us than a rail fence would provide. We don't understand why
a fence is different than a wall in considering the height. If a side property line fence / wall is
limited to 6' high I would conclude a variance should have been required for the Fisher wall
when the plans were first submitted to the City. With a wall retaining soil on Fisher's side, it
seems obvious that the fence I wall from our side would be over 6' high, but the plans were
approved without requiring a variance.
The City letter of October 1st to Mr. Fisher suggests that the drainage swale on our property
adjoining the wall could be filled in and the grade raised to reduce the wall height on our side
to 6'. We gave our approval of the drainage swale on Fisher's property being removed and
the swale on our property handling all the runoff from both lots. There is some runoff from
Fisher's lot coming into the swale on our lot and if the swale were filled in that drainage
would have to be taken care of. We don't care if the swale is filled in, but we do want to
retain a path adjacent to the wall on our property and if a slope is built next to the wall we
will not have our path. To retain the path and meet the City proposal to fill against the wall
it would require an additional retaining wall on our side and create the need for added railings
to make the path safe. A variance is a better solution and we support Mr. Fisher's
application for a variance if it is required. We believe the wall should be approved as is.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Kern