HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 01-03; Tamarack Manor Variance; Variance (V)I - 1
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 7,2002
Application complete date: October 5,2001
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: V 01-03 - TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE - Request for a Variance to
allow a reduction in the required side and rear yard setbacks and the required
building separation to accommodate a habitable accessory structure on an existing
single-family lot, located at the northeast corner of Tamarack Avenue and
Margaret Way, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259,
DENYING Variance V 01-03, based upon the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal is a request to allow a reduction in the required interior side yard setback from 7.8
feet to 3 feet, a reduction in the required rear yard setback from 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet, and a
reduction in the required building separation from 10.0 feet to 3.0 feet, to accommodate a
habitable accessory structure on an existing single-family lot, located at the northeast corner of
Tamarack Avenue and Margaret Way. As elaborated below, Staff cannot make the findings
required for the granting of a variance and, therefore, is recommending denial of the request.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Jeffrey and Anastasia Schmoll are requesting approval of a variance to allow reductions in the
required side yard, rear yard and building separation to accommodate a habitable accessory
structure on an existing single-family lot. The property is located at the northeast corner of
Tamarack Avenue and Margaret Way. The 0.18 acre site is designated Residential Low Medium
Density (RLM) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned One Family Residential (R-1), with a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
The flat and unencumbered project site contains no slopes or easements. Currently situated on
the property are a one-story single-family home, mature landscaping, a street side yard deck, and
a partially constructed habitable accessory structure in the rear yard. This accessory structure is
the subject of the variance request. According to the applicant, the structure was an expansion of
a pre-existing habitable accessory structure that was located less than two (2) feet from the rear
property line and three (3) feet fiom the interior side property line. The applicant has provided
letters from the previous property owner and neighbors attesting to the existence of the granny
flat for the past 30 years. The expansion of the structure was conducted without benefit of a
building permit and the City received a complaint about the construction on June 1, 2001. The
case was referred to the Code Enforcement division for processing and, in response to
n ,-
V 01-03 - TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
August 7,2002
Page 2
correspondence from Code Enforcement, the property owner submitted a request for a variance
on July 19, 2001. The applicant has been attempting to address staffs issues since that
application date.
The proposed variance would condone the existing reduced setbacks and building separation for
the expanded accessory structure. According to Section 21.10.040 of the Zoning Ordinance,
single-family residential properties must have an interior side yard of no less than 10 percent of
the lot width. Section 21.10.050(1)(B) states that the required rear yard setback is equal to twice
the required interior side yard setback. Given the property’s lot width of 78 feet, the required
interior side yard setback is 7.8 feet and the required rear yard setback is 15.6 feet. Section
21.10.050(1)(C) requires that buildings used for human habitation be separated by at least 10
feet. As stated above, the proposed interior side yard setback is 3 feet, the proposed rear yard
setback is 1.6 feet, and the proposed building separation is 3 feet.
Iv. ANALYSIS
According to Section 21 S0.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, four findings must be made in order to
grant a variance. These findings deal with the existence of extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances on the subject property, the necessity of the variance to preserve a substantial
property right enjoyed by others, the lack of material detriment to surrounding properties, and the
affect of the action on the General Plan. If any one of these findings cannot be made, the
variance cannot be approved. Listed below are the required findings as contained in Section
21 S0.030 along with staffs analysis of their applicability to the proposed variance:
“That 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 or zone.”
The subject property is not unusual or extraordinary. The lot area of 7,693 square feet meets the
underlying zoning requirement for a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The rectangular
shape of the lot and lot dimensions are typical for other single-family lots. There are no slopes or
geotechnical concerns that would limit the buildable area of the property beyond the normal
limits invoked by the standard residential setbacks. No easements or other encumbrances exist
on the subject property. Given the above, there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property that does not commonly apply to
other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Therefore this required finding cannot be made.
“That 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.”
The proposed variance would allow for the construction of a 630 square foot detached habitable
structure. While the lot dimensions and current development on the property preclude the
development of a detached habitable structure in the buildable area of the lot, there is enough
room within the required setbacks to add more than 630 square feet of habitable space attached
to the existing single-family home. Should the property owner desire to apply for a Second
Dwelling Unit permit to allow for a second unit on the property, there is ample room to fit this
feature within the property without requiring a variance. Section 21.10.015(B) of the Zoning
h
V 01-03 - TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
August 7,2002
Page 3
Ordinance allows for Second Dwelling Units to be either detached or attached to the main
dwelling unit. No other structures in the vicinity are located less than three (3) feet from the
property line. Given the above, there is adequate opportunity for the property owner to develop
an equal or greater amount of habitable space as well as a Second Dwelling Unit on the property
without the need for a variance. Therefore, the granting of the requested variance is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possesses by others
but denied to the property in question. This required finding cannot be made.
“That 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.”
In addition to conforming to the required setbacks of the underlying zoning, all construction
must conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UE3C). The accessory
structure is built as a typical residential structure, classified as Type V non-rated construction in
the UBC. The proposed variance would condone a rear yard setback of 1.6 feet and a building
separation of 3 feet. The UBC requires that Type V non-rated construction be setback a
minimum of 3 feet from all property lines. Where two buildings are located on the same lot, the
minimum separation for Type V non-rated construction is 6 feet. These restrictions in the UBC
are designed not only for living comfort but also for fire safety. If structures are proposed to be
closer to the property line (or to each other) than the UBC requirements listed above, then the
type of construction needs to be augmented to increase fire resistance and preclude openings in
the exterior walls. The applicant’s architect submitted a letter stating how the structure could be
modified to meet the UBC requirements (copy attached). Since the existing structure does not
meet these UBC requirements, it could pose a safety hazard, thus creating material detriment to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and, perhaps, to the public welfare. Therefore, this
required finding cannot be made.
“That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan.”
The City’s General Plan designates the subject property and the surroundings for residential
development. The proposed variance would condone the placement of a residential structure in
the rear portion of the property. Due to the non-specific nature of the General Plan, there are no
goals, policies, or objectives that directly relate to the proposed variance. Therefore the granting
of this variance request will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
Given the above analysis, staff cannot make the findings required for the granting of a variance
and, therefore, recommends denial of V 01-03 - Tamarack Manor Variance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The construction and/or conversions of small structures in residential areas belong to a class of
projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment and, therefore, is exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental
documents pursuant to Section 15303(a) and 15303(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In making
this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2
V 01-03 - TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
August 7,2002
Page 4
of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. A Notice of Exemption will be filed
upon final project determination.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259 (V)
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Justifications for Variance form
Letters in favor of the variance from interested parties (provided by applicant)
Letter from Bart M. Smith, architect, dated July 25,2002
Background Data Sheet
Exhibits “A” - “B”, dated August 7,2002.
MG:cs:mh
_-
SITE
TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
V 01-03
- -
City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications R hich N ill
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.
Kote:
Person is defined as “Any individual, fm, 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 onner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICAKT (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 comoration or uartnershiu, include the
names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 1090 of the shares IF NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the
names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAX 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Person Jeffrey Schmoll CorpPart Anastasia Schmoll
Title Owner Title Owner
~dd~~~289O Margaret Way Address 3890 Margaret Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
-. 3 OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of && persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le.
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
coruoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10Y0 of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (WA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Same as above CorpiPart-e dabnv~
Title Title
Address Address
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. SOX-PROFIT ORGi -\TZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonnrofit organization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of k?JT person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
orsanization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit’Trust N /A Non Profit’Trust N/A
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Gin. staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees andior Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Anastasia Schmoll and Jeffrey Schmoll & Anastasia Schmoll Jeffrey Schmoll
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
~ Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owneriapplicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
JLBTIFICATION FOR 17ARI.4!!CE
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: Please see attached pages ...I through 4
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:
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:
4. Explain why the grading of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan:
FR310004 5/96 Page 5 of 5
Justification for Variance
h
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 purchased this property in 1994. Upon move in it was clear that the prior occupants
(renters) had engaged in narcotics use and manufacturing based on the neighbor's
statements, drug paraphernalia, burns and residue left behind. This property when
purchased had a hlly enclosed and existing granny flat with a hll kitchen and bath as
noted in Exhibits A and F. The prior owner, Mr. OJ Creel, was a realtor and purchased
the property for rental use. The property was listed for sale in 1994 and, as in Exhibit A.
stated that it had a granny flat. The granny flat was our key deciding factor in our
purchase of the property as otherwise it was in total disrepair and alliliated with narcotics
use and trafficking. (Derelict-looking individuals pounded on our door at all hours of day
and night for several months after move-in.) The drastic improvement in the physical
property and the beneficial effect of replacing narcotics abusers with a law enforcement
family is an exceptional circumstance that does not apply to the general neighborhood.
Our comer lot is more restricted in regards to the setbacks than other interior lots and our
lot is the smallest comer lot in comparison to the surrounding properties. The space
available to build is 7 x 50 and a habitable structure is required to be at least 20ft wide.
This would make it very dficult to comply with setback regulations especially since the
foundation, plumbing, electric and building layout are already established. This is another
exceptional/ extraordinary circumstance that justifies a variance. See Exhibit C.
The improvements in the granny flat were made to provide a living space for our 60-year
old fathedin-law, Mr. Victor Nesterenko, who is 100% disabled. He is on SSI Disability
and needs hll-time fdy attention. The granny flat provides a living space that is
tailored to meet his disabled condition since he sometimes utilizes a walker. My father
also suffers fiom memory loss and needs to be cared for on-site. There is no availability
for low income disabled housing in this area immediate area and there is a very long
waiting list at the Carlsbad Housing and Urban Development Department (approximately
2 yrs). This constitutes an extraordinary circumstance regarding the intended use of the
property that justifies a variance. The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires
businesses and local governments to make reasonable accommodations in their normal
practices to assist people with disabilities. By granting this variance, the City of Carlsbad
would be supporting and complying with Federal Law as mandated in ADA.
Additionally, the granny flat was originally built in 1964, as shown by Exhibit F. It has
been an inhabited structure since then. If there was any type of enforcement or valid
complaint it has taken over 36 years to come to the attention of the authorities. This
lengthy period of use, without problem or complaint, is an extraordinaxy circumstance
that supports the granting of a variance.
Justification for Variance Page 2
Four years ago, we visited the Carlsbad City building department and advised them of
our situation. We sought help, guidance, and assistance to obtain permits in order to make
the necessary repairs and were advised that our granny flat was not within setbacks and
therefore we couldn’t obtain a permit, but we could make the necessary repairs to the
existing dwelling and become a non conforming property, which would limit us to being
able to add on only 60% of our existing square footage in the future. We were not advised
nor warned that ifa complaint were to be filed while we were making. the reDairs we
would be asked to tear the structure down. Exhibit E pages 1- 5. Our good faith efforts
at clarifying the situation and the information provided to us at the time constitute an
extraordinary circumstance that should be weighed in favor of granting the variance.
2. Explain why such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to property in question:
There are numerous second dwellings throughout Carlsbad, many of which do not have
aesthetic appeal or permits, yet they exist. Likewise, variances are granted for a variety
of reasons, few as important as maintaining a viable living space for a disabled family
member. At the time of rehab we also had Valia, a family fiiend who has since died from
cancer, living with us. Two exits down there are numerous new homes, which offer the
opportunity to live as an extended family. Time was of the essence for us due to the
failing health of Victor and the rapid deterioration of Valia. Family and fiiends pulled
together to finish the project as quickly as possible. The children are also at an age were
they should not be sharing a room and third move within 2 years would not be in their
best interest. We would like to have the right to care for Victor and live as an extended
family and not be denied the same rights that have been afforded to so many around us.
In the bordering City of Encinitas the rents are comparable to those in Carlsbad. Their
city and building department has established provisions that allow for the granting of
variances due to lack of adequate low-income housing. The City of Carlsbad doesn’t yet
have that allowance but I am requesting similar consideration. With Victor being an SSI
recipient, his income would render him homeless in this community since there is
literally no low-income housing available. We could register him with Carlsbad City
housing department and he could be placed on the emergency housing list. The
government would then subsidize approx $800 towards his monthly rent. He would also
need assistance through the social services system requiring food stamps, further medical
assistance, and personal care, therefore creating a burden and liability upon the City of
Carlsbad and the Social Services system. We are simply asking to provide him with a
place to reside under the care of his family.
Justification for Variance Page 3
3. Explain why the granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public weyare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located:
The granting of this variance would be detrimental because the structure has been in
existence since 1964. There is a 4ft drop in elevation between the rear bordering property
and the granny flat. Furthermore, the neighboring property that is mostly affected by the
structure has an established driveway that borders and extends the entire length of our
rear property line. There is zero probability of another structure being built anywhere
within 12 ft of the second dwelling due to the driveway and the layout of their property
and per Rev. McCall’s statement, they are pleased with the building and wish for it to
remain (see Exhibit F, letter fiom St. Patrick’s Church.) There have been no changes in
ocean views, drainage, lighting, noise level or other negative environmental factors.
The aesthetic improvements have added to the value of the neighboring houses and
community as a whole (see Exhibit F.) The removal and replacement of termite-infested
woodwork, dilapidated roof and shabby exterior can only be seen as beneficial for the
entire community. There would be no additional vehicular or pedestrian traffic since the
granny flat will be utilized for our extended family only, as sleeping and living quarters.
In keeping with the same architecture and interior of the main dwelling we have
remodeled and upgraded the existing second dwelling to reflect the custom tile, exclusive
sculpture relief art, matching stucco, windows, doors, eaves and a new roof which the
main dwelling is slated to match. Therefore the value of the surrounding properties has
been increased as a second dwelling prior to these improvements was deteriorated, lacked
aesthetic appeal and was in dire need of all these visual and structural improvements. We
understand that unlike Del Mar, Carlsbad’s city codes do not have a provision for
aesthetic appeal but I believe that it’s the difference between a “redevelopmental” vs. a
“non-redevelopmental” neighborhood. We are to this neighborhood what the Officer
Next Door program is to HUD. The people of questionable character stopped coming
around and there appeared to be a heightened sense of safety. Less then a mile away
there is a redevelopmental neighborhood and the standards for making improvements
there are much more lenient because of that status. We would like to be afforded that
same leniency due to the extensive rehabilitation of this property and the proximity to
that location.
As previously mentioned, the public welfare benefits fiom providing a loving, caring,
living space, for a disabled family member within the warm embrace of the extended
fdy.
Justification for Variance Page 4
Since we have exhausted our finances with the granny flat improvement and in caring for
my disabled father, we would not be able to accommodate a satisfactory demolition, re-
permitting and re-building of the granny flat. This would mean that the surrounding
properties would be subject, once again to having an eyesore in their community and
suffer the decrease of their property values. This would mostly affect Rev. McCall since
the Granny Flat is 17” fi-om his property line. He has no problem with it and is willing to
assist in any way possible since St. Patrick’s Church owns the rear bordering property.
The community would be further burdened with providing housing and care for Victor
and the Social Services System would be financially taxed.
We have strived to achieve visual consistency and aesthetic appeal, so that our property
would become an asset to the community. We have worked hard to be good neighbors
and to take care of our own. We feel strongly that we have been a positive factor in the
community and, if given a chance, will continue to be so. The current situation is a far cry
fi-om the dilapidated drug house, rat and termite-infested granny flat that existed a few
years ago. This was an extraordinary circumstance considering the neighborhood.
Taking the history of the property into consideration, as well the compelling human need
of Victor, our disabled fathedin law, we pray you give full consideration for our much-
needed variance so that we can preserve the beauty of what has been created and enjoy
living as an extended family just as many other local residents are able to do.
Sincerely,
The Schmoll Family:
San Diego Sheriff Deputy, Jeff Schmoll-
Ca.Dept.of Parks and Recreation Dispatcher, Anastasia Schmoll
7- Nastacia Schmoll (age 9) ’ ., . CP /.?
Nicholas Schmoll (age 6)
Grandpa, Victor Nesterenko
I ‘>
_.
Attachments
Exhibits A-G
PS: We were informed that we did not have to address Question # 4. (Explain why the
granting of such a variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan)
POST OFFICE BOX 249
3821 ADAMS STREET
TEL: 729-2866
AREA CODE 760
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92018
July 14,2001
To whom it may concern:
The back yard of Mr. Jeff Schmoll’s property at 3890 Margaret Way,
Carlsbad, CA 92008 abuts the driveway of the residence for the priests of St.
Patrick Catholic Church at 1302 Tamarack Avenue; Mr. Schmoll recently
rebuilt a structure that had been in ruins in his back yard for what I assume
was many years. The new structure will, I understand, be a small residence
for his father-in-law.
I understand that the structure may not llfill the requirement for “setback”,
but I wish to go on record that it does not present any problem to those of us
who live in this residence. Our wide driveway separates us fkom his property
line, and the new structure is of no concern to us. (In fact, from the second
story of our house, it is an improvement over the previous view.)
Mr. Schmoll has been an excellent neighbor. Any assistance you can extend
to him in resolving this apparent problem with city building codes will be
greatly appreciated. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter,
please do not hesitate to call me. With every good wish, I am
Sincerely yours, A
Rev. Stepheap. McCall
Pastor
Fxhibit F
1
608 VISTA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 MAYNES CLINIC TELEPHONE 619-722 0020
June 21, 2001
The Schmoll's
3890 Margaret Way
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Neighbors:
I don't know if any of your other neighbors have complemented
you of the fine job you did remodeling your "Granny Shack", so,
I thought, since I am the longest living resident in this area,
I would.
Back in the early sixties I can remeliber the first owners of your
present home. It was the Newman's. Mr. Newman asked my father
and my uncle, Wallace Rossall, to help him make a place for his
relatives to stay on their visits to California during the summer
months. I remember this very well since myself and a friend
had the task of digging the sewer line which was no easy job
by hand. After Mr. Newman died many different people lived in
the.house. Some took care of it most did not. The "Granny Sha,:k"
was not of prime concern to anyone until you people bought the
house. It was an eyesore, stood out and was falling apart. It was one of the first things people would mention when they entered this area, "What is that thing?"
You did an excellent job matching the main dwelling. You have
helped the appearance of the neighborhood and we all thank you.
Sincerely,
e-. - --_ - -. ,* - __ ._.-_ -- -
Dr. W.T. Maynes
1250 Tamarack kve.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Exhibit F
07-10-01
To whom it may concern:
Re: The Schmoll residence, located at 3890 Margaret Way in the City of Carlsbad.
I lived at both 1204 and 1230 Tamarack in the City of Carlsbad, from 07-26-53 through
09-0-76. During that time, the house located on the comer of Margaret Way and Tamarack
(3890 Margaret Way) was purchased by a Mr.+ Mrs Glenn Newman. They lived at that location
from the time the house was built and lived there for approximately 18 years. During that time
Glenn (Mr. Newman) built a small granny flat in the hack yard. The flat contained a bathroom,
shower, kitchen area and a small room. There was also a small garage attached to the east side of
the flat. This can also be confirmed by his son Greg Berry who still lives in the City of Cadshad at
1290 Las Flores Dr . If there is any questions that you need for me to answer please contact me
at 760-439-35 12.
Thank you for your time: Stevmsall Thank you for your time: Stevmsall -
Exhibit F
July 10.2001
Mr. & Mrs. Schmoll
3890 Margaret Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Neighbors:
My husband and I would like to take this opportunity to complement you on how nice
you have fixed up your house. We walk by your house a lot and have been very
impressed with the remodeling you have done. Redoing that Granny flat to match your
house really made a big difference in the appearance of your property.
You should be very proud of the improvements you have made, I know that the entire
neighborhood has made a lot of changes to the appearances of our homes and is enjoying
the increases of the real-estate value of our homes.
I complement you on your beautifid remodel.
Jennifer Schweibold
1150 Tamarack Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Exhibit F
DZN PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURE
July 25,2002
Mr. Michael Grim
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: V 01-03 -Tamarack Manor Variance
3890 Margaret Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Mr. Grim:
The Schmoll's detached living unit has an occupancy dassification of R-3 per Section 310 of the Uniform Building Code. The unit is classified as a type V-N construction type per Section 606 of the Uniform Building Code. The main
residence is also of the same occupancy dassification and construction type as the detached dwelling unit.
Table 5A of the Uniform Building Code provides the regulations governing exterior wall and opening protection based on property location. It states that the walls of R-3, V-N structures can be built right to the property line as long
as they are one-hour rated. Also, it states that no openings are permitted in walls doser than 3 feet to the property
line. Table 3-B of the Uniform Building Code gives the requirements for separation of buildings by occupancy. This
table shows that the UBC does not require a separation between buildings that are both R-3 occupancy. Se.ction 705
of the Uniform Building Code desctibes what projections are allowed in the area where openings are permitted.
The Schmoll's detached living unit walls have a 7/8" cement plaster exterior finish and a 518" type x gypsum board
interior finish. This is a one hour rated wall per table 7-8 of the Uniform Building Code using item numbers 17-1.3
and 18-1.3. The only openings in this wall are two very small windows on the east wall. These windows can easily
be removed so that the unit complies with the Uniform Building Code regulations for exterior wall and opening
protection based on property location.
A distance of 3 feet separates the Schmoll's main residence and detached living unit. There is not a requirement for
two buildings of R-3 occupancy to be separated in the Uniform Building Code in Table 3-B or Table 58. Even if we
assume an imaginary property line between the two structures the detached living unit maintains a one hour rated
wall at that location. This satisfies the Uniform Building Code regulations for exterior wall and opening protection
based on property location.
The existing eave projections, if they do not already meet the requirements of UBC Section 705, could easily be
adapted to meet the necessary regulations.
Rather than basing an entire finding on this issue it would seem that a simple condition of approval of the variance ~
could be that the detached living unit meet applicable UBC regulations. With some very minor modifications the
Schmoll's detached living unit could easily meet the UBC requirements without being materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
Bart M. Smith
Architect A.I.A.
CA C22557
C: Jeffery and Anastasia Schmoll
EART MCRlTCHlE SMITH, ARCHITECT A.I.A. 682 SECOND STREET ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 92024
TELEPHONE (760) 753-2464 FACSIMILE (760) 753-0600 0 E-MAIL DZNBART@MINDSPRING.COM
P +
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: V 01-03
CASE NAME: Tamarack Manor Variance
APPLICANT: Jeffiey and Anastasia Schmoll
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Variance to allow a reduction in the required side
yard from 7.8 feet to 3 feet, a reduction in the required rear yard fiom 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet, and a
reduction in the required building separation fiom 10.0 feet to 3.0 feet to accommodate a
habitable accessory structure on an existing single-family lot, located at the northeast comer of
Tamarack Avenue and Margaret Way.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of Tamarack Manor, according to Map No. 4832, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder on August 3, 1961, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego,
State of California.
A€": 205-430-37 Acres: 0.18 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: n/a
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium Density (RLM)
Density Allowed: 0.0 - 4.0 ddac Density Proposed: n/a
Existing Zone: R- 1 Proposed Zone: n/a
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site R- 1 RLM Single-family residence
North R-1 RLM Single-family residence
South R-1 RLM Single-family residence
East R- 1 RLM Single-family residence
West R-1 RLM Single-family residence
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): one
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEOA Guidelines