HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 82-06; Rick Kennedy Construction; Administrative Variance (AV) (2)PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ SC MENDELSOHN
WALTER MENDELSOHI? AIPRED 1. ROSE
ALFRED APPEL WILBUR H. FRIEDMAN CHARLES LOOKER HOWARD LICHTENSTElN " -~~ ~ JAMES J.PULD GEORGE M. SHAPIRO
WILLIAM P. HIQGINS, JR. OERALD SILBERT
RIIWARD SILVER
ROBERT DILLOF GEORGE 0. QALLANTZ ROBERT J. LEVINSOHN ANDREW D. HEINEMAN BERNARD GOLD
DAVID I. OOLDBLATT YALE H. QELLMAN ARNOLD J. LEVINB HOWARD N. LEFEOWITZ BERNARD TANNENWM HARVEY E. BENJAMIN ALAN S. JAPFE STEVEN J. STEIN MICHAEL A. CARDOZO L. ROBERT EATTERMLY HOWARD L.QANZ PAUL H. EPSTEIN LAWRENCE J. ROTHENBERQ -~
BRUCE S. WOLrF RONALDS.RAUCHBERQ
QAIL SANGER SARA S. PORTNOY ALBERT w. DORTZ HERBERT T.WEINSTEIN MARC E. LELAND (NOT ADX. N. YJ RICHARD H. ROWB RUTH 0. SCHAPIRO KLAUS EPPLER HOWARD A.SHAPIR0 BERNARD D.OOLD MARTIN J. OPPENHEIMER PETER E.YAEGER ALAN S.ROSENBBRD M.DAVID ZURNDORPER
LARRY M.LAV1NSKY FRANKLIN S.BONEM STEPHEN R. EAYE
STAiiLEY KOMAROPP DONALD W. SAVELSON MARVIN DICKER SAUL G. KRAMER ROBERT M. KAUFMAN STUART M.COHEN RONALD S. SCHACHT MORTON M. MANEKER CHARLES D.BREITEL JEROLD ZIESELMAN COUNSEL
~~
LARAINE S.ROTHEYBER0
PAUL BERGER SIDNEY INQBER
-
300 PARE AVENUE
NEW YORE, N.Y. 10022
CABLE: ROPDT
TELEX: ITT 421178
WU l25352
TELEPHONE: (212) 593-9000
TEL.ECOPIER: (212) 593-9587
WRITER'S DIRBCT DIAL NUMBER
ll50 CONNECTICUT AVENW,N. W.
TELEPHONE: (202) 466-7300
WASHINOTON,D.C.20036
2049 CENTURY PARK EAST
LOS ANOELES,CALIF. 90067
TELEPHONE: (213) 557-2900
-
-
I50 EAST PALMETTO PARK. ROAD
BOCA RATON,PLORIDA 33432
TELEPHONE: (305) 391-9700
-
33 THROOMORTON STREET
LONDON EC2N 2BR
TELEPHONE: 01-606-1987 -
500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
QARDEN CITY.NEW YORE 11530
TELEPHONE:(S16) 746-7900
1982
BECEIVED
Land Use Planning Office DEC 14m
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PhnnI?w DepPement
RE: Case File No. AV 82-6 Applicant: Rick Kennedy Construction Co.
Notice of Request for Administrative
Variance relating to Lot H684 of La Costa
Meadows - Unit #4 under Map a7367 filed
in the Office of the County Recorder
July 19, 1972
Gentlemen :
This letter 1s written on behalf of Elaine Berger who
is the owner of Lot 680 of La Costa Meadows, Unit No. 4, County of San Diego, State of California, which is near the lot which is the subject of the subject application.
Please accept this communication on behalf of Elaine
Berger as the expression of her most strenuous opposition and
objection to the granting of a variance to allow for the con-
struction of a ten foot high chain link fence on top of an
eight foot high retaining wall within the rear setback lines
of Lot 684.
The undersigned is Elaine Berger's husband. As such,
I am most familiar with the circumstances attending the acquisition
Land Use Planning Office
City of Carlsbad
-2- December 13, 1982
of our lot and the basis upon which the lots in La Costa
Meadows, Unit No. 4 were conceived and sold. We have owned
our lot for over nine years. It was and is our intention
to build a home on that lot for our personal use at the
opportune time. The desirability of the lot and its location
is significantly related to the extraordinary views in all
directions which are to be enjoyed from the vantage of our
lot location. The proposed variance would block part of those
views and would do so in a manner which creates an eyesore
and thus would down grade the visual attributes of our lot
and the overall attractiveness of the area of the cornunity
which surrounds Lot 684.
We have inquired and ascertained that it is the intention of the construction company building on Lot 684
(the premises being known as 7117 Obelisco Circle) to place a ten foot high fence above a retaining wall to be built
in the rear yard setback of Lot 684. A ten foot high fence on top of a retaining wall will bring the overall height
of the fencing to one which would be intolerable and would interfere with the use and enjoyment by the neighbors of the
views and aesthetics relating to their property. We do not
know the ultimate intention of the parties making the request
for variance. In the past, requests of this kind have been
precursors of intentions to place tennis courts and these
proposed fences are often draped with material or made up
of colors which either block views or create eyesores.
The reason for the existing regulations and resolutions
limiting the height of fences to under six feet is manifest.
Its purpose was to maintain a profile and ambiance that was
consistent with maintaining the beauty of the community and
to avoid impairment of the aesthetics of the community. To
disregard the legitimate interests, both economic and aesthetic,
of the people within a development and the conxtunity in general
to accommodate a fairly circumscribed personal preference of
an owner would be to ignore the purpose of imposing these requirements and limitations.
The proposed fence would give an almost quasi-commercial
appearance to what should be a lovely residential neighborhood.
This is not an area which is heavily wooded or screened in which the presence of the fence would go unnoticed. It is at a high point overlooking all of the La Costa establishment and the fence at the suggested height would literally stick out or rather "stick up" like a sore thumb.
. 2 U
h
Land Use Planning Office
City of Carlsbad
-3- December 13, 1982
We are writing to voice our objection to the adminis-
trators to whom this request or application has been made and
would respectfully request that the application be denied
summarily. If the denial cannot be handled administratively
in summary fashion and a more elaborate procedure is necessary,
we would like to be advised as to the steps to be taken for
theprocedure to be envoked to prevent the variance.
Your cooperation in the latter regard would be most appreciated. As youmight imagine, when one feels
strongly that one is being injured and damaged and is not in geographic proximity to the scene, there is a special type of frustration. We would, however, at the risk of being redundant, wish the Commission to be cognizant of the fact that we believe that the approval of the application to be unjust and would exhibit a callous disregard for the rights of adjoining owners.
We would appreciate
indulgence.
PB: jp
cc: Ms. Sally Kristof
VIA PUROLATOR COURIER