HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05; City Council; 2287; APPEAL STANLEY PAVER. - THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA...... • •' . , " ;
Agenda Bill Mo. 0j&£f • • " Oa t e.: • - ~"~^. . . / -.'•• ••
. Referred To: CITY COUNCIL , - * --.'. __ : _ ' - _ :
Subject: APPEAL - .STANLEY PRAVER -'Request for con- Submitted By:
sideration of a Vari-.anc-e to increase :the- maximum per- • PLANNING COMMISSION
mi.tted encroachment into a requ'ired side yard, from 2 • . ^.^
ft.. 'to 6.5 ft.-, on property, located northerly of and. • "
adjacent to Navarr4 Drive at the westerly-most extension' of
- r
„. * • ' •
' Sj:_al;cmGnl- of the Matter The subject request is an APPEAL, of th-e decision of
•the Planning Commission, from the- regular meeting of January' 8, 1 974 .
This request is to allow the intrusion .of balconies 6.5 ft. into the required
rear yard. The Planning Commission DENIED the Variance on'-th'e basis that it
would not const-itute a hardshi-p and was not a property right .which was enjoyed
by similarly zoned properties. The subject property backs -up:. to' the La -Costa
Country CTub'Golf Course and, geographically, would not .s-ubstantially be detri-
"_mental 'to any other -deve-1 opment "in .the vicinity. '' " .
"The Variance is being requested to allow the structure to be se-t further back "
from the pub! ic- right-of-way than required and thereby allowing substantial
amounts of landscaping. • Additionally., subcontractors erred ' in -il pcating the :
foot ings '."for- th.e .proj.ect; and pi aced the. ext-erior.'.w.al 1 facing, th'e golf course, ."
6.5 ft. .closer t.o "the property ''1 i.ne "than shown-. on the bui ldi.ng plans. ". -
Since the Variance request resulted from. a constructio-n. error, which; in essence
is a design "problem rather tha-n a uniqye or spe'cial feature of the land 'itself,
a/id" in that the requested -Variance would'impaet the adjacent properties view
potential, the Planning Commission 'felt, that .it was not appropriate -to grant •
.the _Varianr-e. '."..' ' .'...'_ ' .- ' ••- •' ." .. ''
' The "result -of ' the'Denia-1 " of this Variance, is that the.units'on the second- story
woul d "virtual ly h.ave no usable open 'area'. Therefore, Staff believes, in order
to cre-ate a more .1 ivabl e environment for the occupants of these second-story"
pUni.ts., .-the Varlarrc'e' was .appropriate - especially since -the yard in which the
.yilliJiiJL Variance was -occurrin.g- w.as adjacent to.. Open Space (i.e., the La Casta
Golf -Course) . • .. ' • _ _ • _ _ / _
1. Proof'tif Ownership ' - " • • ' '. .
"2. Staff Repprfc dated Ja-nuary .8,. 1974 • - "... - ;., .
3. letter from La Costa Land Co. recommending approval.'" •" • .- . -. : ^ . ^
-4. .Applicant's Exhibits (Maps)' '• ' rMTft-.'. • ' "„
5,' Planning Commission Resolution No. 1031 recommending DENIAL
" ' *"
S t: o f 'f R c : c onrri end q t ions to City Manager . ' •
• •'•'.'•Staff recommends the GRANTING '.of this Variance request. 'V'
AB ffo- ^ . Date: p.^r-n^ry 5, 1974
City Manager' s Recommendation
It should be pointed out that the Planning Commission has
denied the request for this variance. The Planning Commission
in making their decision to deny the request, had the staff
report which suggested that the variance be granted. If the
Council agrees with the Planning Commission denying the variance,
the Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare the
resolution denying the appeal-and including the reasons. If
the Council grants the appeal, the action should be to return
the matter to the Planning Commission for report.
Council Action
-2-
•APLrCATIC;i
The property described herein is addressed as 2500 Navarra Drive
and is located on the _ __ _ North_ _ ' ' ..".!.. sicla °f 'Mavarra
(North. South, Hastiest) ~^ ~~
• Drive __ between casU_Ll£L_W£Ui_ _ and (Jlgst End)
of Street) . (Name of Street] ([farce of Street}"
II. i the undersigned state that I am _ ' __ the
(I, t'/e) ~ . (I am, We are)
owner _ of the property described, herein and hereby give~
^ my authorization to the filing of the application.
"(My, Our) . . . •
'Name 2500;' Nava-rra Investments, a California Limited'Partnership
(Typed\ajrxPr.inted'^s shown on Recorded Deed)
Signature
Name
/ Stanley Ard
_^
(Typed or Printed as shov/n on Recorded Deed)
Signature
Name
(Typed or~Printed as shown on RecoFded Deed)
Signature
Name
(TypecTbr Printed as shown oh Recorded Deed)
Signature
Name
Typed or Printed as shown on Recorded -Deed)
Signature
Name
(Typed or Printed as shown on Recorded Deed)
Signature ___j _.., _• _ .,-
Name and Address of Applicant and/or Owner and/or Owner's Authorized Agent:
2500 Mavarra Investments ]
2500 Mavarra Drive
Rancho La Costa, CA 92008 , ;,
Attention: Stan Praver
-2-
(
,*»»v
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
JANUARY 8, 1974 . - •
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE
CASE NO: V-234
APPLICANT: S. PRAVER
2500 Navarra Investments x
2500 Navarra Drive
Carlsbad, California
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission on December
11, 1973 and continued by the Planning Commission to January 8, 1974
to permit staff to review 'the statment of the property owner to the
east that the proposed intrusion would block the view from his pro-
posed development to the La Costa Country Club complex. Based upon
an on-site inspection, staff believes that whether the variance
were granted or not no view of the La Costa Country Club would be
possible from the adjacent proposed project. This is due.'to con-
struction that is occuring at the end of Navarra Drive.
REQUEST: That the Planning Commission approve a variance of Section
2TT4T7T20 of the"Municipal Code to increase the maximum permitted
encroachment into a'.required yard from 2 ft.'to 6.5 ft. on property, •"
located in the RDM (Residential Density-Multiple) Zone District.
BACKGROUND: The subject property, Lot 2, Tract 72-33, located northerly
and adjacent to Navarro Drive at..the westerly most extension of
Navarra Drive. Said property contains approximately 1.425 acres.
Under the auspices of Tract No. 72-33, a condominium
development with 94 dwelling units is under construction on the •
subject property. The plans as approved during plan check, did
in-dicate a 15 ft. rear yard setback on the lot in question. The
ordinance would require a 10 ft. rear yard. The reason for the
increase in the setback was to provide for a greater extension of
proposed second story deck area on two buildings adjacent to the
property line to afford a usable open area overlooking the La Costa
Golf Course, which is located adjacent to the rear property line.
Therefore, the proposed decks did encroach greater than the permitted
two feet. In reviewing the situation, this applicant felt that, in that
the •encroachments do occur on a yard area that is adjacent to the
permanent open space which is the La Costa Golf Course, a variance
request was in order.
.MM EN_DATI^N_S:• That it be moved that the Planning Commission
JPJL'iOVi a variance of Section 21.46.120 of the Municipal Code to
Increase the maximum permitted encroachment- into a required yard
from 2 ft. to 6V5 ft.-subject to the conditions outlined, below:
Justification is based upon:
1. The proximity of a permanent open space to the proposed
encroachment is considered a sufficiently unique -circumstance to
justify the granting of this variance. In addition," the encroachment
does not reduce the required yard area but in fact does' increase the
outdoor livable area for the second story units.
2. The granting of this variance is necessary for the
preservation of substantial property'right since<-the proposed en-
croachment does provide for the increase of the deck area for the
second story units
front of the un its
and does increase the common open area in the
by some five feet.
3. In that the yard is not being reduced, it is staff's
opinion that the requested variance would not be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or im-
provements in the vicinity or zone. " •
Plan.
The variance would not adversely affect .the General
Conditions of Approval:
1. Pursuant to P.C. Policy
dated November 27, 1973, in addition to
below, this approval is granted subject
numbers 1 (Exhibit A), 2B, 3, 4, and 8.
No. 2, Resolution No. 999
the conditions specified
to the standard condition
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD RANCflO L.I COSTA, CALIt'ORSIA 9200S TELEPHONE 7141753-11S1 or 729-9111
December 10, 1973
PRAVER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
7682 El Camino Real, Suite 101
Rancho La Costa
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Lots #46-52, La Costa South, Unit #1
Attention: Mr, Stan Praver
Dear Mr. Praver,
Please be advised that in regard to your pending
request for variance where your balconies are projecting
into the rear yard setback. La Costa Land Company and the
La Costa Architectural Committee approve and recommend
that the variance be granted,
Very truly yours, .
Irving Roston
LA COSTA ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE
and
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
IR/tc
cc: B, Kramer
I, Molasky
Planning, Construction
CO"M!C-S.W RESOLUTION f!0.
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A RESOLUTION OF IMF PL^INIM'? COMMISSION PF TMC
CITY OF CARLSQ.AD, CALIFORNIA, HEWING _A VAPIANCF
REf)UEST, TO'iyCSFAf.E THE MAXIMW'PERMITTED EN-
CROACHMENT IMTO A nEnl'IP.ED YARD FRC'1 ?. FT. Tn
6.5 FT., OH PRO"Er!TY ^."NEDALLY LOCATED NORTHH'LY
OF AND ADJACENT T<? '!«\"\nP>A DRIVE AT THE WESTERLY
MOST EXTENSION OF :!AVAnv'A DRIVE.
APPLICANT: STANLEY pfift.VR - V-234
WHEREAS, pursuant to the orovisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did on December 11, 1°73 and
January 3, 1974, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a renuest.
for a Variance to increase the maximum permitted encroachment into a
required yard from 2 ft. to 6.5 ft., on orooert.y nenerally located northerly
of and adjacent to Mavarra Drive at the westerly most extension of
Mavarra Drive, and more particularly described as:
Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract 72-33, in the City nf
Carlsbad, County of San Dieno, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 759/!-, filed in the
Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieqo County
on April 4, 1973.
'IHF^.Ar, said aoolication has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972" and has
been declared to have a Non-Siqnificant impact on the environment.
!.iL|cor/\5) at sa-jfj public hearinq, upon hearing and considen'no all
testimony and arguments, the Commission did find the followinn facts
and reasons to exist which make the DENIAL of said Variance necessary, to
carry out the provision and general purpose of Title 21 o* the Carlsbad
Municipal Code:
1. Said request does not meet the Variance criteria, and
would be detrimental to the neiqhborino properties.
2. The requested Variance would encroach on the view of
the ad.joininq ornnerties.
3. The hardship involved in this request is personal, and
does not relate to the pronert".
nAr.SEn, a.PPRO"n AMD ADOPTED at a reqular meetina of the flanninn
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 8th day of January,
1P7A, by the foil owing vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
AYES: Commissioners French, Casler, Toman, Jose
NOES- Commissioners Little and Doniinouez
ABSENT: Comtnissioner Pa 1 mateer
E. '•!. nO
Chairman
ATTEST:
DONALD A. AHATEP,
Secretary