Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-19; City Council; 5139; Minor Subdivision no.303• ,7;^ T CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. O /J? %_ Initial: DATE: July 19, 1977 c> Atty> DEPARTMENT: Engineering c- M9r- p ^ Subject: MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 303 APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICANT: SAM GENDUSA ' Statement of the Matter / The applicant has applied for and processed MS 303 through the Engineering Department and Planning Commission and has received conditional approval of the project. However, Mr. Gendusa is dissatisfied with one condition of approval and has appealed this requirement to the City Council. Details of the condition are presented in the attached Staff Report (see Exhibit 1). Mr. Gendusa's position is explained in his letter of appeal (see Exhibit 2). EXHIBITS: 1. Staff'.Report dated .July. 1, 1977 2. Applicant's appeal letter dated June 3, 1977 3. Location Map RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that Council deny this applicant's request for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report. v Council action 7-19-77 The appeal was denied and it was recommended that Mr. 'Gendusa contact the City Manager for further assistance in resolving the problem and it was further recommended that the Planning Commission consider the request for a. variance favorably. STAFF REPORT - July 1, 1977 TO: City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 303 APPEAL Applicant: Sam and Elizabeth Gendusa The applicant has processed MS 303 through the Engineering Depart- ment and Planning Commission and has received conditional approval of the project (see City Engineer's letter of approval dated May 31, 1977). One condition of approval involves the removal or relocation of an existing guest house located to the rear of the existing main residence on Parcel 1. As proposed, the guest house would remain on the same parcel as the main residence after the division of land occurs. Mr. Gendusa is. agreeable to these con- ditions except for the required removal or relocation of the guest house. In addition to the expense and hardship involved in removing or relocating the structure, Mr. Gendusa believes the guest house should be allowed to remain since it falls within the required set- backs of the new parcel and is an existing rather than proposed building or land use (see Mr. Gendusa's letter of appeal dated June 3, 1977). The removal or relocation of the guest house has been included as a condition of the Minor Subdivision for the following reasons: 1) Since the second unit has kitchen facilities, it is not a guest house or accessory living quarter as defined by Section 21.04.165 of the zoning ordinance. The parcel involved is zoned R-l, which does not permit two dwelling units per parcel. An exception is provided for lots adjacent to less restrictive zones; however, all lots adjacent to the subject parcel are zoned R-l and therefore the exception does not apply. 2) An amended section of the zoning ordinance in the past allowed two units in an R-l zone if the subject parcel had sufficient size for both units. For example, in an R-l-7500 zone, 2 units would be allowed for 15,000 s.f., or larger parcels. Subse- quently, this section of the zoning ordinance was removed and • the subject property has become a legal nonconforming use. Staff Report -2- July 1, 1917 To: City Manager However, Section 21.48.010 of the zoning ordinance provides that no further use can be established on the same parcel as an existing nonconforming use unless the nonconforming use is brought into conformance. In this case, conformance can only be accomplished by discontinuing the two-family residential land use in favor of a single family residence. 3) Conformance with present zoning laws can be accomplished by removing the existing guest house or relocating the structure to fall within the setbacks of the newly created parcel as required by the appealed condition of approval. In addition to these alternatives, the applicant could also (after obtaining the proper permits) remove the kitchen facilities in the struc- ture, making it a true guest house as defined by the zoning ordinance. All other facilities within the structure could remain, including bathrooms. 4) Adjusting the new lot line to split the parcel between the two existing residences is not a viable alternative since this would bring the area of the front lot below the required 7500 s.f. minimum. Staff recommends the applicant's request be denied for the reasons outlined above. Tim Flanagan City Engineer TCF:FNL:ms c: Planning Sam and Elizabeth A. Gendusa 1149 Magnolia A.VQ . Carlsbad, CA 92008 714-729-3038 June 3, 1977 City Council via City Clerk City Hall Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject Proposed: Minor Subdivision No. 303 - 1149 Magnolia Ave. Gentlemen: Regards to letter dated May 24, 1977 and letter dated May 31, 1977 signed by City Engineer and City Manager, of a final decision made by them. I am in disagreement in part with these final decisions shown on the letter dated May 31, 1977. Therefore, I want to file an appeal on the following: No. 3 - At the time of the Variance Hearing held on May 27, 1969 it was discussed about my small guest house approximately 16 feet by 20 feet and was told that it would have to be removed only if it was on the lot line. This guest house is not on any lot line as it is at least ten feet from said lot line from Parcel B and should Parcel B build 20 feet from the lot line, that would be at least thirty feet apart. This guest house is very useful and means a great deal to us, and I do request that you help in any way to let us keep it that way. No. 3 states that the subdivider shall remove the existing guest house at near Parcel 1 or locate the guest house to fall within the required setback of Parcel 2. I believe that this guest house falls within required setback of Parcel A and I don't know why it should be removed to Parcel B setback. It should be allowed to remain in the same place, so that it is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed. I also believe that Parcel A should be considered under Grandfather rights since I am not changing what is now on Parcel A. I believe it is not justified to remove guest house from Parcel A to Parcel B setback as shown on Variance granted on May 27, 1969 - see page 2, line #1. It also said that the rear dwelling must fall within required setback of Parcel B. There never was(or is now a GENDUSA, 1149 Magnolia Avenue PAGE 2 OF 2 dwelling on Parcel B. Note that an old map attached to Granted Variance shows that there is a dwelling on Parcel A and Parcel B. Since I explained that there never was a dwelling on Parcel B, I believe that there may have been a mix-up in requiring us to remove dwelling from Parcel B to required setback of Parcel B, since the guest house is in setback on Parcel A. I believe that it was meant to be or shown that it would be in setback on Parcel A instead of Parcel B. It would cost too much and cause too much hardship to move this small guest house from Parcel A to Parcel B rear setback and would not be gaining anything, since it is only useful and close to Parcel A dwelling which only has two bedrooms. Also, since my wife and I are partially handicapped, we would like you to help us keep this house for now and future use to us. Thank you again. No. 11 - Conditions. It appears to me that Parcel two can be served by Gravity flow sewer lateral. However, if and when a Building Permit is requested, a detailed plan will be submitted to meet the standard requirements. In any event, that you firmly and honestly disagree with all my requests, and helping me in this situation, I will disconnect or shut off the plumbing in this guest house and use it as a tool shed, etc. as I was told would be permissable. I do hope and pray that it may not come to this after enjoying this guest house so much. Thank you all. Very truly yours, Sam Gendusa P.S. Due to unforseen circumstances I am not available during the month of June, 1977. Therefore I request this hearing be held any time after July 4, 1977. Please notify me of the date, time and place of the hearing. Thank you again. cc bjs / ' • "%•*" «-L i ' -tiSis' *- • • V .'. '. • ->r V ^W «WW * » • * M»r DIEGO COUNTY PLANING DEPARTMENT SCALE / IN */(>0 FT. HEALTH DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION FOR DEPARTMENTAL U5E ONLY OWNER SA AI ^r/v £>t/ z PHONE NO. ADDRESS CITY THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WUTH MY KNOWLEDGE ANO CONSENT APPLICANT ADDRESS PHONE NO. MAP PREPARED BY ADDRESS . ft g • 4? 7 g- <? ^A 4 cO 3.PHONE NO. ?- ? 2- 4 f-3 20 A PLAN-REV. SIGNATURE » YVETTE WAY S GRECOURT WAY" -^5 '.•?jjj , , JL_ %)*.