Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 88-01; Reiser-Okun; Variance (V)APPLICAT--"J SUBMITTAL DATE NOVEMBER ,O. 1987 STAFF REFORT DATE : MAY 18, i988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SDP 87-9/V 88-1 - REIsER-OKUN - Request for a Site Development Plan to construct a two unit condominium at 3376 Garfield Street in the Beach Overlay Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone No. 1. Also, a request for a variance to permit guest parking in the driveway. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.'s 2734 and 2737 DENYING SDP 87-9/V 88-1, based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting two approvals: 1) A Site Development Plan to construct two airspace condominiums at the above location; and 2) A variance to permit guest parking in the driveway. The subject site is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone which requires all new residences in the beach area, other than single family, to process a Site Development Plan. The project site is located in the R-3 Zone and has a General Plan designation of RH (15-23 du/ac). The proposed project has a density of 14.4 units per acre. The .14 acre site is currently occupied by a one-story, single family dwelling and is located in a neighborhood with a variety of housing types and building heights. As can be seen from Exhibit llX1l, most of the structures in the vicinity are one-story, single family dwellings. Interspersed throughout the area are a few two-story single family and multifamily dwellings. The proposed units will have a combined floor area of 5,233 square feet (units plus garages). Minimum setbacks have been provided and two visitor parking spaces are proposed in the common driveway. A building height of 25' has been - STAFF REPORT SDP 87-9 - REISEk - OWN Paae 2 maintained. 111. ANALYSIS PLANNING ISSUES 1) Does the proposed project comply with the development standards of the R-3 Zone, the Beach Area Overlay Zone and the Planned Development Ordinance? 2) Can all the findings required for approval of a Variance be made? Specifically: a) 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 and zone: b) 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: c) 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: d) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Discussion SDP 87-9 Although the proposed project complies with the minimum standards of the R-3 Zone, many of the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance and the Beach Area Overlay Zone have not been met. On numerous occasions staff has met or corresponded with the applicant to discuss issues related to the project. The applicant was made aware that a site redesign would be required before staff could support the project: however, the applicant has not responded with any significant design changes. Staff is required to comply with State-mandated time lines which would require this project to be approved or denied by STAFF REPORT SDP 87-9 - REISER OKUN Paue 3 May 30, 1988. Although informed of this requirement, the applicant has not responded. The major issues which have not yet been addressed are discussed below: 1. The architectural style of the proposed project is incompatible with the beach area. The building mass is large, boxy, and utilizes almost all of the available building footprint. The westerly facade is stark, and doesn't relate to pedestrian traffic. Thirty-two feet of the westerly elevation consists of garage doors structure such as this does not integrate harmoniously with the neighborhood. The North Beach Study states on page 94: comprising 48% of the 66.6' street frontage. A '*New development should be designed to reflect the small scale image rather than large monolithic buildings. Apartment and condominium buildings should preferably be contained in smaller massed buildings rather than large buildings; where larger buildings are used they should be designed with vertical, horizontal and roof articulation of building faces. Where two story buildings are proposed, the second story should often be stepped back." The proposed structure does not implement these guidelines. 2. Recreational areas have been provided in the rearyards which do not meet the standards of the Planned Development ordinance. This section of the code requires that private yards must not have any dimension less than 15I, therefore, the proposed 13' x 33' dimension does not comply. The balcony does serve as a passive recreational area: however, active recreational requirements have not been met. Discussion V 88-1 The applicant has submitted a request for a variance to allow guest parking in the driveway. Although two guest parking spaces are indicated on the plan, only one space is required for two units. The Planned Development Ordinance does not allow credit for tandem parking in front of garages except STAFF REPORT - SDP 87-9 - REISER OKUN Paue 4 for existing duplex lots. The Beach Area Overlay zone allows only 20% credit for tandem guest parking. The proposed project cannot make the findings required for a variance. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply solely to this property, All properties in the Beach Area Overlay zone must comply with the same parking requirements. In addition, this property owner is not being denied a right enjoyed by other property owners. This and other lots similar in size may be developed with two units if guest parking is located outside the frontyard setback. Also, the project does not meet the guidelines of the General Plan because parking in the frontyard setback would not preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of the existing residential area, It is Planning Department policy not to grant variances for new development based on the premise that new development should comply with all ordinance requirements, especially if there is room to do so on site. 111. SUMMARY The proposed project is not compatible with the Beach Area Overlay Zone and does not comply with standards of this zone as well as the Planned Development Ordinance. In addition, the mandatory four findings for a variance cannot be made. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SDP 87-9. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from Environmental Review, per Section 15303(b) of California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2734 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2737 Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Form Exhibit rcXr', dated May 18, 1988 Environmental Document Exhibits rlArr - rrErr, dated April 4, 1988 AML: dm 4/2 5/8 8 SIT I 'E \ I A# PINE AVI I WALNUT AVE b , J - 1 I CHESTNUT AVE I GENERAL PLAN RRSIDCNTUL RRSIDRNTIAL R1 LOW DEHSI'IY (0.1.)) P.C PUEiFiED COMMUNlTY ZONE R.A RESIDENTIAL MiU;RICULXRAL ZONE BE RURU WlDEFirW ESTATE ZONE MM LOW.MEDICM DENSlTY(0.4) RW MEDIUM DENSITY((-8) RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY(B.15) R.1 ON€-FAMILY RESIDEANTIAL ZONE RH HIGH DENSITY(15.23) R.2 lW0-FAMILY RESIDENTW ZONE RRI INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (e& PI- Camlno Real) R.JL LIMITED MULTl.FAHILY RESIDENTW. ZOM RRE EXTENSIYE REGIONAL RETAIL (ea. Car Country Carlrbad) RD.M RESIDEKIW DENSITVMLW'IPU ZONE Rs REGIONAL SERWCE RD.H REShDENTIAL DENSIlYHIGH ZONE C COMMUNlrY COMMERCIAL RHHP RESIDENTIAL MOBIU HOME PARK ZOM N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL R.P RESIDENTXU PROFESSIONAL ZONE T5 TRAVEL SERVICES COM.HERClAL RT WIDENTW TOURIST ZONE 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED RW RESIDENTUL WATERWAY ZOHE COMMIRCIAL n.3 .wt:LnPu FMILY RESIDENTIALZONE CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT , COMMERCIAL PI PLUNED INDUSTRIAL o OrncEzom C.1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZOM C.T COMMERCIAL.TOCRJST ZONE G GOVERNMENT FAClLlTlES U PCBLIC CTlLITlES C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZOhX RC RECREATION COMMERCW SCHOOLS C.M HEAWCOMMERCIAL.LIMITED WDUSTRlM ZONE E ELEMENTARY M WDUSTRlhLZONI? J JUNIOR HIGH P.M PLANMDLNDUSTRWLONE P PRIVATE P.P FLOODPIAN OMRlAY ZONE H HIGHSCHOOL OTnRR OS OPENSPACE L.C UMITEDCONTROL NRR NON RESIDENTlAL RESERVE OS OPENSPACE P.U PLBUC LTrn Lorn REISER-OKUN ? 9 P n n m II 4. t city of Carlsbad SDP 87-9 CASE NO: SDP 87-9 REQUlST AND IfXATION: condcgninium at 3376 Garfield Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Southwesterly half of No. 217 of THUM Iands, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, accordhq to Map thereof No. 1681 A site develq3merrt P lan to constnct a two unit AFN: 204-131-08 Acres .139 praposed No. of Lots/Un&s 2 Units GENERALPLANANDZONING IandUseDesignation RH Density All- 15-23 (Control pt 19.0) Density praposed 14.4 Existing Zone R-3, Beach Area Overlay praposed Zone N/A zoning and Lard use: zonina Land Use Site R-3 sinale Family Dwelling North R-3 3 units south R-3 single Family Wlinq East R-3 sinsle Family Mlinq west R-3 sinale Familv Dwelling School District Carlsbad Water CarlsbaWcOSta F&il Sewer Carlsbad EUJ's 2 public Facilities Fee m, Date 2, 1987 IMPACl' ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, cateqorical Exempt per Section 15303(b), dated April 25, 1988 . .a DISCLOSURE FORM APPLl CANT : &In (3 Lkd Cl4 tl 4 I /It7 iL*y< -. & t~d Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) AGENT: iqwr bv?- WWlt? m/3fi J(GtlFL C#friLW Wn 6 Lkbl'L MEMBERS: q4 f?. f?F\l=Y-L&Su Home Address Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) TI+ 7 -lo ?lb8 Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development. IlWe acknowledge that 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 to inspect and enter the property that is the subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose. l/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and fiemelied upon as being true and correct until amended. b$M BY O\O ~ &.+i Agent, Owner, Partner EXHIBIT "X" 5/18/88 SYCAMORE AVE SINGLESTORY S F SiNGLE FAMILY .- WALNUT AVE VACANT -. . VACANT VACANT ' I I I CHESTNUT AVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT I + I. .' 1 I .. I ,.i . .,'. , ,*' . .I ,. .'.. 3 ., :. ..,. ., , ... . .. 2 IS PALMAS DRIVE CARLS CALlFORNlA9~ (619) 4381161 i April 25, 1988 County Clerk County of San Diego 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 proiect Tim SDP 87-9/V 88-1 Reiser-Okun t Location -- Swecifk 3376 Garfield Street Proiect Loca!&a -- citx Carlsbad Pro3 ect LO~- -- San Diego Descriution of Natuye. Pumose. and Beneficiaries of Proiect Two unit condominium project. Name of Public Aaencv ADDrOVina Proiect City of Carlsbad Pame of Person or Aaencv Carn ina Out Proiect; Planning Department mmwt Statu (Check One) - Ministerial (Sec. 15073) - Declared Emergency {Sec. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c)) Categorical Exemption. number: 15303 (b) State type and section Reason Whv Proiect Is Exemwt: Condominium project less than 4 units mtact PersQn Adrienne Landers (619) 438-1161 If filed by applicant: , 1) 2) Attach certified document of exemption finding. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes - No - MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director AML: af . ... !