Loading...
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