HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 90-13; Khadem Residence; Administrative Variance (AV) (10)MEMORANDUM
TO : The City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
FROM : James Khadem
7327 El Fuerte Street Carlsbad, California
DATE : June 5, 1991
RE: Request for Administrative Variance for Decorative Fence
Matter No. AV90-13
In support of my request for an administrative variance for the decorative fence on my property which exceeds the maximum allowable height of 42 inches, I offer the following facts:
1. I retained a licensed contractor to construct my home. The licensed contractor contacted the building inspector
prior to construction of the fence, and asked the building inspector if any permits or other requirements were imposed by the City of Carlsbad for such a fence. The building inspector advised
my contractor that no permit was required for the fence since it:
was considered to be part of the landscaping. Based on this representation, T proceeded with my licensed fence subcontractor with the construction of the custom fence at an expense to me in
excess of $20,000.
2 It is true, and the Planning Department confirms, that: there are several walls and fences in our neighborhood which exceed the 42 inch limitation. However, the Planning Department's position is that because these fences were built without the benefit of either building permits or variances, that their
existence is not relevant. The Planning Department admits that my fence is "not detrimental to the general welfare," nor does the
fence "adversely affect the comprehensive general plan." As a result, I do not understand why the 42 inch limitation should be
strictly applied to me while the height limitation clearly ha3 not been enforced with respect to neighboring properties.
3. X have obtained the approval of my immediate neighbors, each of whom believes that my fence is aesthetically
pleasing, adds to the appearance of my home, and thus increases the
value of neighboring properties.
4. ~n the event it is obvious that, given the
r am required to demolish the fence,
cost of the original. construction and
"""""""
' the cost of such demolition, that the second fence which I would
build on the property would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the existing fence. Therefore, by denying a variance in this matter, the Planning Commission's action would result in the decrease of
property values on the street for no reason.
5. In addition, there remains no further construction loan proceeds to accomplish such demolition and construction, and it would result in a personal financial hardship for me as I have
depleted all my available personal funds in building my "dream home. "
6. There are numerous other €ewes in the neighborhood which exceed the limitation by as much as 2 -3 feet as shown in the photographs I have brought.
In summary, I constructed the fence in good faith by
hiring a licensed contractor who discussed the fence with the
building inspector prior to the commencement of construction. NO one could expect.more from a responsible property owner. The fence
was constructed at great expense to me.
The fence is well constructed and is aesthetically
pleasing to the property and enhances the value of the neighborhood
as a whole. The adjacent property owners have no objection to the fence and, in fact, agree that it: enhances the property values on
our street. The fence is largely open and does not block views or sightlines.
There are numerous fences in the area which exceed the
height limitation by much more than my fence. Strict application of the height restriction to me would be unfair in that I constructed the fence in good faith and the height limitation has not been uniformly enforced with respect to other fences in the
area.
If a variance is denied and a new fence is required to
be constructed, economic conditions will not allow me to build a second fence which is as aesthetically pleasing as the existing
one. In fact, I can present ample evidence documenting my
financial inability at this time to fund any such demolition and reconstruction.
I regret that this situation has occurred. I acted
reasonably and responsibly without knowing of any potential problem. Further, I apologize that this has occurred. However,
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission grant my request for a variance with respect to this matter since a denial of my request will result in extreme financial hardship to me and
will also result in a less aesthetically pleasing fence, with no
tangible benefit to the City or my neighboring property owners.
."""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .......................
KEVIN TERRY CONSTRUCTION #450230
31333 PAHUTA ST
TEMECULA, CA. -92390' .. (714) 698-1393 ._ .. - . .. ..
.. .
TO WHOM IT. MAY CONCERN ,'.
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF JAMES.KHADEM, A RESIDENT OF LA
COSTA, CA. I BUILT A HOUSE FOR HIM BEGINNING IN JUNE OF 1989, AND
COMPLETED IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, 1991. I CONTRACTED TO
BUILD THE HOUSE ONLY, AND MY CLIENT SUBCONTRACTED OUT MANY OF THE
EXTERIOR FINISH ITEMS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING AND FENCING. DURING THE
LATTER STAGES OF THE HOUSE, AS MR. KHAOEM WAS GEARING UP TO DO
HIS LANDSCAPING, HE ASKED ME TO QUESTION THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF HIS GARDEN WALLS AND FENCES. WE WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT MEETING ALL REQUIRED CODES FOR THE CITY. SINCE I
WAS MEETING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR
OTHER ITEMS, 1 AGREED TO DO THIS.
THE INSPECTOR I TALKED TO WAS TIM PHILLIPS. I ASKED HIM IF
THERE WERE ANY RESTRICTIONS REGARDING SETBACKS AND HEiGHTS OF
WALLS ON THE PROPERTY RELATED TO LANDSCAPING. HIS REPLY WAS THAT
AS LONG AS WE STAYED ON THE PROPERTY WITH OtJH WALLS AND THEY WERE
NOT RETAINING ANY DIRT, WE WOULD PROBABLY EE OKAY.
I 0 ID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME, THAT THE C I TY WASo (32 I NG TO
BEG I N DO I NG I NSPECT I ONS FROM THE PLANN I NG DEPT. ALL OF LI.Y JOP:~ I PJ
THE C I TY PREV ICUS TO TH IS HAD NOT HAD 2LAPJN I NG i KI:S?ECT i Oht'Z , I
ALSO DID fiOT REAL I ZE THAT THE PLPNR ING C:EPA~;TP/IIET.IT 'afi.5. THE !~:CI!.-:~CE
I SHOULD ZAVE GONE TC WITH TP IS MATTER.
WHEN I INFORMED rw CL I ENT OF r4.Y D I :SCL!~.S ION $k I -rh T A vi
PH I LL I PSI HE BEGAN CBNSTRUCTiON OF H ! 5, FENCE, &f% c.d, i :?, \J E F=(
BEAiJTi Fi-li , AND I NEVER GAVE IT A SECOND THCJUG~T. bHEN TkE
PLANN ING DEPT. TURNED IT DCWN, 1 TR I EG TO %EL= MR. KHAc)EM :5<3L\,'E
IT THROUGH D IHECT NEGOTIATIONS w I TH PLANN! NG TECH DAV I D FC ICK. MR.
RICK SA ID IT WAS NOT HIS DECIS ION, AND HE WAS Gi VING :%E VAR I Ei\liZE
APPLICATION TO A HIGHER SOURCE.
I REAL I ZE TiiAT FROM THE WORD GO, THAT 'NE HAVE SEEN i30 I XG I N
REVERSE, HOWEVER I WOULD L I KE TC, POINT OC!T THAT MA. KHADEMS
I NTENTIONS WERE NEVER TO TRY TO SL I P SOMETH 1 NG BY i%E C i TY. jiE
BUILT HIS FENCE WITH EVERY INTENTION TO COMPLY. HOWEVE8 IGNGRENT
WE WERE IN THIS MATTER, THE FENCE IS AN 1NTEGRAL PART OF THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY ON EL FLJERTE ST. THE FENCE POSES
ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE POINTS TO ANYONE, BL!T RATHEF: BEALJTIFIES
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN MY OPINION. .. I HAVE 8Ul LT SEVEN HOUSES IN LA COSTA S 1 NCE 19.56. I HAVE
WORKED WITH THE CITY IN ALL FACETS OF ENGINEER ING, FLANN ING, AND
BUILDING. I FEEL I HAVE A GOOD REPUTATION WITH MY [NSFECTORS, BUT
I REALIZE THIS SITUATION IS A MATTER OF POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT.
PLEASE ALLOW MR. KHADEM TO KEEP HIS FENCE AS IS. IT WOULD
COST HIM UNNESSARY EXPENSE TO REMOVE IT.
S I NCERLY,
KEVIN TERRY
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
73.27 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are wriking to you in support of his request for an administrative variance for his fence
which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed, Our neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We
believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will requite that
Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is much less attractive, Since the fence is largely open, the
additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood that violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fence prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is not
the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of his request.
Yours very truly,
"""""".""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
c
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 ~.1 Fugrte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
we are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you in
support of his request for an administrative variance for his fer,ce which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed. Our neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We
believe the current: fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require that Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, the additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in -the neighborhood that violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fence
prohibiting views-, we might feel differently. However, that is not
the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of his request .
Yours very truly,
Address: 73,3 2" /&$k
....................................................
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
73-27 ~l Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you in
Support of his request for an administrative variance for his fence which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed. Our
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We
believe the current: fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the
fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require that r4r- Xhadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is
much less attractive, Since the fence is largely open, the additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of dther fences in 'the neighborhood that
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply
the rule strictly in this case, If the fence was a solid fence
prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is not
the case here, We thank you for your kind consideration of his
request .
Yours very truly,
Name :
"""""_"_____""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",
~
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
J327 E.l Fugrte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
we are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you in
support of his request for an administrative variance for his fence which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed, Our
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require that
Mr. Xhadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is
much less attractive, Since the fence is largely open, the additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood that
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fence prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is not
the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of his request .
Yours very truly,
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 ~l Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you in support of his request for an administrative variance for his fence
which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed, Our neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We believe the current fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require that Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much prefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is
much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, the additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also of other fences in the neighborhood that
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fence
prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is not the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of his
request .
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
June 4, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California
Re: Fence at the Khadem Residence
7327 ~l Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We are neighbors of James Khadem and are writing to you in support of his request for an administrative variance for his fence which exceeds the height limitation currently allowed, Our
neighbor has gone to great expense to construct a very attractive
wrought iron fence connected by a series of stucco columns. In
addition to being attractive, the fence is primarily open, it does not obstruct views or sightlines for motorists in the area. We
believe the current: fence is aesthetically pleasing and improves
the property values in our neighborhood.
We are concerned that should the City of Carlsbad require the fence to be demolished, such additional expense will require that
Mr. Khadem replace the fence with one that may be the proper
height, but is much less attractive than the current fence. We
much Frefer the current attractive fence to a lower fence which is much less attractive. Since the fence is largely open, the additional height is not even noticeable.
We are aware also af other fences in the neighborhood that
violate the height restriction, and we feel it is unfair to apply
the rule strictly in this case. If the fence was a solid fence prohibiting views, we might feel differently. However, that is not the case here. We thank you for your kind consideration of his
request.
Yours very truly,