Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 91-12; Hill Residence; Administrative Variance (AV) (3).. " .e November 16, 1993 Honorable Mayor Lewis and City Council Carlsbad City hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 REF: AB#12,476 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE - AV 91-12(A) - HILL Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedules to meet with us in an attempt to better understand our situation. As you are aware, we have painstakenly tried to meet all of the City's Codes and Staff requests throughout the process of rectifying our flooding problem. We are hopeful that you will allow us this opportunity to acquaint you with the details of this process and its impact on OUT lives. We are asking that you evaluate our circumstances openly and fairly and know that we have made every effort to alleviate our flooding problem in compliance with City Code. Your understanding of our situation is paramount to our continued happiness and health in our home. We urgently request that you consider supporting our approval of the variance request to be heard before you in City Council Chambers today. Again, thank you for your interest in better understanding the issue presented as Item 10, and serving in support of our community. Sincerely, Stephen Hill 3317 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, California 92009 (619) 942-3875 Carol Hill 0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #10 AB #12,476 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE - AV 91-12(A) - HILL ADDENDUM Our home was purchased in 1978 Eleven (1 1) Floods - Our lives have been terribly disrupted each time it rained. We have continually fought this situation in every way by ourselves. Replacing carpet and drapes, pumping out water and mud, replacing drywall, etc. It has been a tremendous burden - physically, emotionally and financially. In 1987 we had a family death due to cancer. Two children, ages 8 and 10 were depending on us, as well as our own son, Jason, who was 7 years old at the time. In 1989 we applied for and were granted a permit to construct a second retaining wall. We worked cooperatively with the Community Development Department throughout the process of building the new retaining wall. These steps included City inspections and approvals all along the way. We removed the original retaining wall and slab. Four (4) more floods occurred. Carol Hill was diagnosed with cancer. Under duress, in an emergency situation with Winter storms on the way, we built the current structure, believing it to be within City Code. The structure was built for the sole pumose of diverting flooding waters and mud from coming into our living room yet again. This action does not set a precedent due to these extremely unusual circumstances. Other properties in our area have exterior, not interior water conditions. Our wall has diverted and solved many of their problems caused by these subsurface conditions. We have made very attempt to provide the City with documentation of the subsurface water conditions from uphill properties. Documentation from the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (attached). Pictures are available of the water conditions on the surrounding properties. Engineers letters were made available from Mr. John Vernon which were attached to the -2- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Council Staff Report. (Mr. Vernon is a registered Geotechnical Engineer for the State of California and was recommended to us by the City.) Testimony from our surrounding neighbors and a copy of a GeotechnicaVStructural evaluation for the residence above us, which confirms moisture infiltration from the slope to the east of us. (This report was prepared by Accutech Engineering Systems, Inc.) We contend that having our living room flooded 15 times constitutes EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. This variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right to which we are deprived of by having to contend with continual flooding each winter. The mold and mildew problem creates an unsanitary living condition and is a threat to our health. The roof has stopped the flooding problem. Our home is dry and healthy at this time -- even with last year's tremendous rain -- WE DID NOT FLOOD. The roof structure is not detrimental to the surrounding properties as evidenced by the lack of surrounding neighbors' opposition. Four (4) legal notices of public hearings regarding this issue were sent to Our surrounding neighbors. We have made every effort, in good faith, to comply with the Planning Commission and City staff. It is essential for the welfare of our home and property that this structure remain in tact. We are asking that you be clear in your thoughts when interpreting our situation. This structure was designed openly and honestly with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. We are not looking for a handout, but a hand of assistance in solving our problem. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive us of privileges enjoyed by other properties in our vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The Municipal Code and Title 7 of the Government Code provide the basis for your approval of this variance request. We urgently request that you support our approval. We encourage you to have the grace, dignity and courage to allow us the opportunity to go forward with our lives in a dry home. -3- 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 attached page 1 2. Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinfty and zone but which is denied to the property in question: ~ see attached page 2 3. Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located: ~~~ see attached page 3 4. ~xplain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan: see attached Dacfe 4 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: We have the only property with such a large, sloping bank to the east of OUT property and continued elevation difference, to Borla Place, with a sunken living room as the lowest level, which collects the subsurface water. There is significant height differences between our property and that of our neighbors. Having had our living room flooded 15 times would constitute extraordinary circumstances. Most homes down the hill from our property originally had retaining walls built. Our property has not recorded soils reports. We have the only sunken living room with a steep bank next to it. The subsoil water conditions have been documented by the water district and other home owners in this area. We have the only home that has water coming through it. Unusual circumstances are in the documented testimony of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, the City's Engineer, David Hauser, said "It is obvious that there is an underground water problem." and many neighbors will also testify that there is extraordinary subsurface ground water problems on this property which cause flooding to the living room, and is evident on other areas in the vicinity, by water that flows in curbs and water aquifers year round. The other locations within the area with any ground water problems have exterior problems ... not interior. -1- ” 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: This variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which we are deprived of by having to contend with continual flooding. No other home suffers the same inconveniences and property damage in-the vicinity an under identical zoning classification. Because of the flooding prior to the roofing of the area, there was a continual smell of mold and mildew in the home. As a young child our son, Jason, had severe problems with colds and ear infections. Mold and mildews are living spores and are not acceptable in a healthy home. The roof structure has provided us over the last few years with a dry living room and the mold and mildew has disappeared and no longer has an odor. This has, therefore, provided us with the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity. We have gone to extreme measures and personal expenses to preserve the quality of life in our home on our own. No other home owners in this area have had to attempt such drastic measures and expenses to live healthily and happily. The preservation and enjoyment of our property rights are jeopardized because of the flooding problem. No other properties within this area have similar problems, so they do not have the same needs. .. .a h 1 3. Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located: A precedence would not be set if other properties would request the same privilege because the structure was built for the sole purpose of diverting flooding of the living room. Other properties in this area do not have such extreme subsurface water conditions that come into their dwelling. Obstruction of light is not a consideration because we are not on the same level with surrounding properties. Our property and the one above are at great distances to each other. Therefore, there is not light obstruction. As far as emergency access and structure preparation is concerned, access is available on the other side of the house. There are also 8-foot double doors with access to the rear yard from the structure. There are many homes built in this City which are closer together than the home next to this structure where there is thirteen (13) feet of structure separation. The roof structure is not detrimental to the surrounding properties as evidenced by the lack of neighbor opposition to the structure after four (4) Public Notices were sent to each of the surrounding property owners. These notices were dated: October 1,1992, November 19,1992, April 8,1993 and November 4, 1993. (This was stated in the Findings Under Planning Commission Resolution No. 3465.) Findings #2 Second day of December 1992 Signed by: Tome Erwin, Carlsbad Planning Commission -3- /c - I *. .- , ' 4. Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan: The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan because the site is developed with a single-family home in a residentially designated area. -4-