HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19; City Council; 16984; Appeal - Tamarack Manor VarianceIO
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 16,984 DEPT. HD. m:
MTG. 11-19-02 APPEAL -TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE CITY ATTY.
DEPT. PLN & V 01-03 I CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2002-341 , UPHOLDING the decision of the
Planning Commission and DENYING the Tamarack Manor Variance Appeal.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On October 16, 2002, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 7-0 to
deny the Tamarack Manor Variance. The request involved a variance to zoning development
standards for a detached habitable accessory structure, namely a reduction in side yard, rear yard
and building separation. No building permits are on file for the accessory structure, which was
recently improved by the property owners and currently serves as a second dwelling unit for a family
member.
The requested variance would reduce the side yard setback from 7.8 feet to 3.0 feet, reduce the rear
yard setback from 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet, and reduce the building separation from 10.0 feet to 3.0 feet.
Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make three of the findings required for the
granting of a variance, namely that: 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions on the property; 2) the granting of the variance was necessary to preserve a substantial
property right; and 3) the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to surrounding
properties.
The site is of typical size and shape for single-family residential lots and no easements, slopes or
other encumbrances restrict the property beyond the standard single-family development standards,
same amount of livable area with a second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the main dwelling
and no exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist. The property is large enough to recapture the
unit, therefore the variance is not needed for the applicant to possess this feature on their property.
In addition, the structure currently does not meet the minimum setbacks required by the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), creating the potential for material detriment to the surrounding properties. The
applicant's architect.has stated, however, that the building could be modified to increase the fire
resistance and conform to the UBC requirements, possibly allowing this finding to be made.
The applicant has stated that the structure has been on the properly for decades and has submitted
letters from neighbors and previous property owners corroborating this statement. The applicant has
also provided letters and a petition from neighbors supporting the proposed variance. All of these
correspondences, along with the applicant's justifications for granting the variance, are attached to
the Planning Commission Staff Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The construction and/or conversions of small structures in residential areas is exempt from the
requirement to prepare environmental documentation 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 of the State CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. A
Notice of Exemption will be filed upon final project determination.
FISCAL IMPACT
The denial or granting of the variance would have negligible fiscal impacts to the City.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,984
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2002-341
2. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 16, 2002
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259
5. Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 16, 2002
6. Letter of Appeal, dated October 24, 2002.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2m2-341
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A SIDE AND REAR YARD
SETBACK AND BUILDING SEPARATION VARIANCE FOR
CORNER OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND MARGARET WAY, IN
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT.
CASE NAME: TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
CASE NO.: V 01-03
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing and voted to deny Variance V 01-03, to allow a reduction in the required
side yard setback, the required rear yard setback, and the required building separation; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2002, the appellant filed a timely appeal with the City
Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.50.100 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. on the 19th day of
NOVEMBER , 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said appeal of the
Tamarack Manor Variance, and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to V 01-03; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council adopts Resolution No. 2002-341 and
that the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5259, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings of
the City Council.
3. That the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the
setback, and building separation for property located at the northeast corner of Tamarack
requested variance to the development standards pertaining to side yard setback, rear yard
Avenue and Margaret Way, is denied.
....
....
3
1
e r!
~
4
4 -
c
5
E
5
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 01
Carlsbad on the 19th day of NOVEMBER 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard. Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
’ ATTEST 11
EXHIBIT 2
SITE
TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
V 01-03
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5259
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REAR
AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REDUCTION IN
BUILDING SEPARATION VARIANCE ON PROPERTY
GENERALLYLOCATEDATTHENORTHEASTCORNEROF
TAMARACK AVENUE AND MARGARET WAY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
CASE NO: V 01-03
WHEREAS, Jeffrey and Anastasia Schmoll, "Developer/Owner," has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
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
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to reduce the required rear
yard setback from 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet, reduce the required side yard setback from 7.8 feet to
3.0 feet, and reduce the required building separation from 10.0 feet to 3.0 feet; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as
shown on Exhibits "A" - "B" dated August 7, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE - V 01-03 provided by Chapter 21.50 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of August, 2002, on
the 18th day of September, 2002, on the 2nd day of October, 2002, and on the 16th day of
October 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Variance.
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission DENIES TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE - V 01-03 based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That special circumstances do not apply to the subject property in that the 7,693 square
foot lot size and configuration are similar to the surrounding single family lots and
exceeds the minimum 7,500 square foot lot size of the underlying zone; the site is flat
and contains no slopes that might constrain the buildable proportion of the
property; no easements or other encumbrances exist on the property; and the single
family residential property is surrounded by other single family properties with the
same One Family Residential (R-1) zoning designation.
That the variance is not 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 in that there is adequate buildable area behind the
existing single family home to accommodate the 630 square foot habitable space
without the need to encroach into any required setbacks provided that the addition
is attached to the main residence; and the surrounding properties do not contain
non-permitted buildings with reduced setbacks.
That the granting of such variance will 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 that the proposed reduced rear yard of one (1) foot, seven (7) inches
does not meet the minimum three (3) foot structural setback for Type V non-rated
construction as required by the Uniform Building Code for fire safety; and the
proposed three (3) foot building separation does not meet the minimum six (6) foot
building separation for Type V non-rated construction as required by the Uniform
Building Code for fire safety.
That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan
in that there are no goals, policies, or objectives that directly relate to the proposed
variance and no adverse impact on the general plan would result.
That the variance is not subject to conditions which will assure that the adjustment(s)
thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated, in that there are no other structures within three (3) or less feet of the
respective property line on any of the neighboring properties, no other non-
permitted buildings are separated by only three (3) feet in the area; and setbacks of
three (3) feet or less are not allowed in any residential zones.
PC RES0 NO. 5259 -2- 7
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Trigas, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
U
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
I &+OOOJ
M~HAEL J. HO MIUER
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 5259 -3- 8
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0
Application complete date: October 5,2001
PC. AGENDA OF: October 16,2002 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 comer 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
This item was continued from the October 2,2002 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259 (V)
Staff Report dated August 7,2002, with attachments.
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
Application complete date: October 5,2001
PC. AGENDA OF: August 7,2002 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 comer 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 fkom 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 comer 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 comer 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
/O
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.
1%’. ANALYSIS
According to Section 21.50.030 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
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 PC). 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 excbptions 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259 (V)
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Applicant’s Justifications for Variance form
5. Letters in favor of the variance from interested parties (provided by applicant)
6. Letter from Bart M. Smith, architect, dated July 25,2002
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Exhibits “A” - “B”, dated August 7,2002.
MG:cs:mh
/3
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
.4pplicant‘s statement or disclosure of cenam ownership interests on all applications wvhlch will requlrsl
discrerlonan. actlon on the pan ofthe City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. I
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your prolect cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Rote:
Person is defined as “Any individual, fum, co-partnership, joint w’entwe, association. social club. fraternal organization, corporation. estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. in this and any other count).. cit). and count).. CIF
municipalit)._ district or other political subdivision or any other group or combinadon acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and propem ouner must be
provided below.
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons haling a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uarinershig, include the
names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 1O0/o of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE WIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-onned comoration, include the
names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessav.)
Person Jeffrey Schmoll CorpPan Anastasia Schmoll
Title Owner Title Owner
~dd~~~389O Margaret Way Address 3890 Margaret Way
NDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NOK-
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
-. 7 OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any owership
interest in the propeny involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal owmership (i.e.
parmershlp, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the owmershlp includes a
comoration or uarinershiu. include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10?0 of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OW’ MORE THAX 1090 OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE NJIICATE NON-APPLICABLE W!A) X THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
onned comoration. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be anached if necessary.)
Person Same as above CorpPart- as &VP
Title Title
Address Address
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. SON-PROFIT ORG: ,\TZ.ATIOS OR TRUT
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2, above is a nonurofit oreanlzation or a trust. 11s: [he
names and addresses of person sening as an officer or director of the non-pros:
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Son ProfirTrust N/A tion Profir?rust N/A
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ciy staff.
Boards. Commissions, Committees andior Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? 0 Ses No If yes, please indicate person(s):
~
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certifi that all the above information is me and correct to the best of my knowledge
Jeffrey Schmoll & Anastasia Schmoll Jeffrev Schmoll
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Anastasia Schmoll and
Signature of oaneriapplicant's agent if applicableidate
Print or type name of ounerlapplicant's agent
H:ADMIN:COUNTER',OISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5!98 Page 2 of 2
/5
JCSTIFICATION FOR VaRI.-LKCE
By law a Variance may be approved only if cenam facts are found to exist. Please re32 :;lss~.
requirements carefully and explain ho\v the proposed project meets each of these facts. Cse -dt:;;or.c:
sheets ifnecessar).
I. Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditlons applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other propem or class of use In the
same vicinity and zone: Please see attached pages ...I through
2. Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantla1 propem
right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the propem 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:
FRM0004 5/96 Page 5 of 5
Justification for Variance
1. Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generall.1, to the
other pruperw or class of use in the same vicinip 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, bums and residue left behind. This property when
purchased had a fully enclosed and existing granny 5at with a full 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 5at. The granny 5at was our key deciding factor in our
purchase of the property as otherwise it was in total disrepair and affiliated 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
exceptio& extraordinary circumstance that justifies a variance. See Exhibit C.
The improvements in the granny 5at were made to provide a living space for our 60-year
old fatherh-law, Mr. Victor Nesterenko, who is 100% disabled. He is on SSI Disability
and needs full-time family attention. The granny 5at provides a living space that is
tailored to meet his disabled condition since he sometimes utilizes a walker. My father
also suffers &om 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 5at 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 extraordinary circumstance
that supports the granting of a variance.
/7
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 beiig
able to add on only 60% of our existing quare footage in the future. We were not advised
nor warned that ifa comulaint were to be fled while we were making the reuairs 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 necessaryfor 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 imuortant as maintaining - a viable living mace for a disabled familv
member. At the time of rehab we also had Valia, a family friend 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 friends 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 requirii 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 detrimenral lo the
public weljare 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 4A 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 fi 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 from 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 lie to be afforded that
same leniency due to the extensive rehablitation of this property and the proximity to
that location.
As previously mentioned, the public welfare benefits from providing a loving, caring,
living space, for a disabled fdy member within the warm embrace of the extended
family.
/9
Justification for Variance Page 4
SUlllIMW:
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” l?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, ifgiven a chance, will continue to be so. The current situation is a far cry
fiom 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 ofthe 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 SheriRDeputy, Jeff Schmoll-
Ca.Dept.of Parks and Recreation Dispatche
Nicholas Schmoll (age 6)
Grandpa Victor Nesterenko
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 OFICE BOX 249
3821 Amms STREET AREA CODE 760
TEL729-2866
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 fulfill 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 fiom his property
line, and the new structure is of no concern to us. (In fact, fiom 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 yo,urs,
Rev. Stepher!P. McCall
Pastor
Fxhibit F
MAYNES CLINIC E06 VISTA L%214\
TELEPHONE c'9-7:. .L\-v
OCEANSIDE C.i 3?35.;
June 21, 2001
The Schmoll's
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
3890 Margaret Way
Dear Neighbors:
I don't know if any of your other neighbors have complemen
you of the fine job you did remodeling your "Granny Shack" I thought, since I am the longest living resident in this I would.
ted , so, area,
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
months. I remember this very well since myself and a friend relatives to stay on their visits to California during the summer
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 Shalk"
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,
- -._ :.._ - - ., I - ~r;
Dr. W.T. Maynes
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 1250 Tamarack Ave.
Exhibit F
$3
07-10-01
To whom it may concern:
Re: The Schmoll residence, located at 3890 Margaret Wav 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 corner 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 cohed by his son Greg Berry who still lives in the City of Carlsbad 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: SteveXSsall
Exhibit F
Mr. & Mrs. Schmoll
3890 Margaret way
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Neighbors:
My husband and I would like to take this opportunity Wcomplement 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.
1 complement you on your beautiful remodel.
Jennifer Schweibold
1150 Tamarack Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Exhibit F
ARCHITECTURE
DZN PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURE
July 25.2002
Mr. Michael Grim Senior Planner Ci of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue
SUBJECT V 0103 -Tamarack Manor Variance
3890 Margaret Way
Carlsbad. Ca 92008
Dear Mr. Grim:
The Schmoll's detached living unit has an occupancy classification of R-3 per Section 310 of the Uniform Building Code. The unit is dassified as a type V-N construdion type per Section 606 of the Uniform Building Code. The main residence is also of the same occupancy classification 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 locatin. It states that the walls of R-3, V-N structures can be buik 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
table shows that the UBC does not require a separation between buildings that are both R-3 occupancy. Se.ction 705
line. Table 3-B of the Uniform Building Code gives the requirements for separation of buildings by occupancy. This
of the Uniform Building Code describes what pmjections 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 5W type x gypsum board interior finish. This is a one hour rated wall per table 7-8 ofthe Uniform Building Code using item numbers 17-1.3 and 181.3. 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 propelty 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 3-8 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 edsting 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 tqthe property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the propetty is located.
Architect A.I.A. CA C22557
C: Jeffery and Anastasia Schmoll
BART MCRITCHIE SMITH, ARCHITECT A.I.A. 682 SECOND STREET ENCINITAS. CALIFDRNIA 92024
TELEPHONE 17601 753-2464. FACSIMILE I7601 753-0600. E-MAIL DZNsART@MINDSPRlNQ.COM
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: V 01-03
CASE NAME: Tamarack Manor Variance
APPLICANT: Jeffrey and Anastasia Schmoll
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reauest for a Variance to allow a reduction in the reauired side
yard from 7.8 feet to 3 feet. a reduction in the reauired rear vard from 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet. and a
reduction in the reauired building smaration from 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. accordine to Map No. 4832, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder on August 3, 1961. in the Citv of Carlsbad. County of San Diego,
State of California.
APN: 205-430-37 Acres: 0.18 Proposed No. of LotslLTnits: n/a
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium Densitv (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:
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
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEOA Guidelines
Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2002 DRAFT 'WbT
1. 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.
Mr. Wayne introduced the first item on the agenda and stated that Michael Grim would make the
presentation.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
neighborhood and stated there is a detached 630 square foot second dwelling unit in the rear yard. Staff
Michael Grim, Senior Planner, described the existing conditions of the single-family lot in an R-I zoned
searched all the electronic and paper records and found no record of a building permit on file for a
habitable accessory structure in that location. They found a record that the Assessor's office conducted a
field inspection in the early 1970's which indicated that there was an enclosed patio cover. He stated that
attached to the Staff Report are testimonials from neighbors and previous property owners that the
building had been there for some time.
Mr. Grim stated that the variance is technically for a side yard setback reduction from 7.8 feet to 3 feet; a rear yard setback reduction from 15.6 feet to 1.6 feet; and a building separation reduction from 10 feet to 3
feet. He pointed out the layout of the variance request on the site plan.
Mr. Grim outlined the four findings required to approve a variance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or
intended use exist that generally do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or zone.
Mr. Grim stated that Staff examined the lot and it's of typical size and shape for single-family
and it has normal setbacks. Therefore, Staff could not make the finding of extraordinary exceptional
properties. No slopes, easements, or geo-technical concerns or other encumbrances preclude the lot
circumstances on the property.
Granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by others in the same vicinity or zone but denied the subject
property. Mr. Grim said that although it requires some demolition and reconstruction there is
adequate space to reconstruct an attached second dwelling unit within the yard and recapture the 630
square feet. No other structures in the area are within three feet of the property lines. Mr. Grim
mentioned there is a permitted granny flat across the street that was built in the 1960's which does not
have a 3-fOOt separation between the adjacent building but appears to be more than 3 feet away from
the property line.
Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the
there are particular building codes pertaining to fire safety for structures less than three feet from the
property or improvements in such vicinity or zone. Mr. Grim said the Staff Report mentions that
property line. He said the applicant added roof gutters so that the roof does not drain onto the
adjacent property, but there may be some adjustments needed to the roof drainage to stop any
material detriment. He said Staff could not make this finding as the building is now, however, they
believe that the applicant could make adjustments to the structure so they could make these findings.
Per the applicant's architect, if the window is sealed off along the 1 % foot setback area and another
sheet of drywall is added, it would improve the fire rating so that that reduced setback would meet the
drainage could also be resolved.
Uniform Building Code and fire codes. Staff also believes that any potential impacts to the roof
Granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Mr. Grim
feels that the general plan designates it as a residential land use area and that finding could be made
said the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Staff
because it does not adversely affect the general plan.
summary. Mr. Grim stated that Staff cannot make the first two findings of exceptional extraordinary
circumstances and preservation of a substantial property. The third finding cannot be made as is,
Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2002 Page 4
however, the applicant could probably remodel the building to meet that finding. He said Staff is
an Errata Sheet dated October 16. 2002 and explained the revisions to Findings # 2 and #5.
recommending denial of the variance because the first two findings cannot be made. He stated they had
the decision to the City Council. If it is not appealed or the appeal is not supported by the City Council,
Mr. Grim explained that if the Commission denies the variance, the applicant has the opportunity to appeal
then the existing code enforcement case would continue. If Commission would desire to approve the
variance, it would be appropriate to direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with findings for
approval. The applicant would then have to receive a building permit for the structure and would also
have to apply for and receive a second dwelling unit permit, or remove the existing kitchen within the unit.
Chairperson Trigas noted receipt of the Errata Sheet and a petition to save the house.
Commissioner Segall asked him to explain the Errata Sheet. Mr. Grim said when they examined the
property across the street, they found they would not be able to make the statement that surrounding
properties did not contain buildings with reduced setbacks because one of the buildings had a reduced
setback, but it was permitted in the 60’s.
Commissioner Segall asked if, in terms of conformity with the neighborhood, we established a precedent
due to the fact that it‘s close to the property line. Mr. Wayne stated that that needs more research
because there were a number of building permits for the property across the street, but they don’t have
permits for this property.
Commissioner Segall asked if the statement in the petition that says the applicant was notified by the City
that they could not permit the structure, but he could fix it up which would make it a non-conforming
property, would be something that would be said by the front desk. Mr. Grim replied he did not know if
they spoke to the Planning Department and situations where people say they heard something from the
counter are difficult to follow up. Sometimes there is miscommunication and sometimes the question is
answered directly, but the elaborating questions that could have surfaced more information don’t occur.
Commissioner Segall asked what transpired for this to occur after being there for 30 years. Mr. Grim said
without a permit and may have some setback issues. The complaint was valid and the applicant applied
a complaint was received by Code Enforcement on June 1, 2001 about a structure that was being built
for a variance about a month and a half later.
Commissioner Baker asked if it‘s possible for the applicant to get a building permit. Mr. Grim said it would
only be possible if the variance were approved. While they may be able to make the adjustments
necessary to pass the Uniform Building Code review, they are still within the zoning setbacks of the
approval of the building permit because it doesn’t meet the underlying zoning.
property. Unless the variance is issued, the Planning Department would not be able to recommend
findings can be made. If the Planning Commission feels that there’s information that Staff isn’t
Commissioner Baker asked if there’s any way to make it work. Mr. Grim said Staff doesn’t feel the
considering or are interpreting information inappropriately, it‘s within their bounds to approve the variance.
the line for other structures if the variance is granted. Mr. Grim replied that ideally a variance would be
Commissioner Baker wanted to know what kind of precedent or ramifications they could be facing down
made as specific to the property as possible. The reason for granting the variance is that there are some
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on the property, therefore, it should not appear that a citywide
precedent is being established. However, there would be the realization that anyone else in a similar
situation should be able to be granted a variance.
Ms. Mobaldi to comment on the wording and how she views unnecessary hardships. Ms. Mobaldi stated
In reference to Section 21.50.010 under Chapter 21.50 regarding variances, Commissioner White asked
that variances are standards variances and typically deal with physical characteristics of the property
which make it unique and constrained in some way that would make it unfair to apply the same standards
applied to other properties in the surrounding neighborhood. She mentioned a recent case in the Santa
Cruz area where the appellate court upheld variances because of unique characteristics of the property
and because of state and federal standards. She said when looking at Section 21.50.010 you have to
view unnecessary hardship and difficulty as primarily dealing with physical characteristics of the property
Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2002 Page 5
or regulations that would limit what can physically be done with the property. That section also relates to
Section 21.30.030 which gives the findings Mr. Grim discussed. You would have to ask if there's something in this particular case that, if the variance isn't granted, would be unfair to these people in view
of what everyone else can do on their land. Or if it was granted, would this applicant be given a privilege
that the other people in the neighborhood don't have. That determination would have to be made each
time you look at a variance application.
Commissioner Whitton asked if there's a way to restrict the deed so that if the property is sold, the
structure would have to be torn down. Ms. Mobaldi said a variance is different than a conditional use
with the owner or deed and she didn't think it would be appropriate to limit it with a deed restriction. They
permit. A variance basically states there is something unique about the property and that doesn't change
would have to make findings specific to the property and its intended use.
Commissioner Segail asked if the existing code enforcement continues, would the end result be that the
applicant would have to tear down the property. Ms. Mobaldi said he would have to rectify it and from her
understanding he would have to modify it by destroying the part that's in the setback and rebuild it so that
it fits within the zoning code standards. Mr. Grim added that a large portion of the structure exists in the
would also need to be addressed and when pulled away, there is not enough space for a habitable
rear yard, which has the second largest setback on the property. The side yard and building separation
structure.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the variance were granted by the Planning Commission is it a final
action unless appealed. Mr. Grim confirmed whatever action they take is final unless appealed to the
Council. Commissioner Dominguez added that even if they're sympathetic to the applicant, a decision of
this type is more rightfully fit for the City Council.
Commissioner Baker asked if a conditional use permit could be granted for the dwelling while they need it.
Mr. Grim replied that there is the ability to issue a conditional use permit for the expansion of non-
conforming structures. The underlying presumption in non-conforming uses and building codes is that the
existing non-conforming building was permitted. If this were a legal non-conforming building the
discussion would be different.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the house could be relocated on the lot. Mr. Grim said it could not be
moved in its existing configuration. The only buildable area that remains on the rear part of the lot is an
extension along both sidewalls of the main house outward to approximately 15 X feet from the rear
property line.
doing this work without the building permit, it was also done without a Coastal Development Permit. There
Mr. Wayne added that if the variance is granted, he believes it is in the coastal zone as well. In addition to
may be a necessity to also receive a Coastal Development Permit.
Commissioner Segall asked if it was not conceivable that 30 years ago a building permit may have been
produced but the city didn't capture it. Mr. Wayne replied they have building permits for those across the
street from the 60's.
Chairperson Trigas asked if it never showed up on Assessor's roll when the properties were transferred
back and forth. Mr. Grim replied that the applicant submitted a copy of the Multiple Listing Service listing
that said there was a granny flat in back. The issue is whether it was permitted by building permit and
condoned by the City of Carlsbad.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there is anything in the City of Carlsbad that's close to a 1.6-foot setback. Mr.
Grim said there are a lot of structures that have been there for a long time and if they did a search, they
the 90's to deal with accessory structures, but not habitable structures. It is conceivable they could have
might come across one, but he hasn't in his experience. Mr. Wayne added that the code was amended in
an accessory structure to the property, but not a habitable structure to the property line because of the same building code issues in addition to the zone code. When the code was amended in the 90's these
accessory structures were required to have a setback because of problems with people building over
height accessory structures next to their neighbors and causing their neighbors a problem.
30
Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2002 Page 6
Chairperson Trigas asked if the structure across the street is habitable. Mr. Grim said it is; there are two
building permits for the lot across the street; for the original house and the other structure.
Applicant Jeff Schmoll. 3890 Margaret Way, Carlsbad, gave a brief history of the ownership of the
rented the main residence as well as the residence in the back. He said that Dr. Maynes, who lives across
property. He said they purchased the home in 1994 through bankruptcy court. The previous owner had
the street, helped build the structure back in the early 60's. When they purchased the property it was listed
in the MLS as having a granny flat. Mr. Schmoll described the disrepair the property was in when they
work and storage area. In 1998 his father-in-law became disabled and came to live with them. When
purchased it and said they spent time and energy making it livable and fixed up the granny flat to use as a
they decided to prepare the granny flat for his father-in-law to live in they went to the Carlsbad City
Building Department and expressed their desire to obtain permits to renovate the building. He said a City
employee advised them that due to setbacks they couldn't permit the building, but if they were to fix the
building it would make it a non-conforming property which would limit what they could add to the main
structure. He said he believed the City was aware the granny flat existed at that time and was not
permitted, yet they weren't told that they would be asked to tear it down if they received a complaint on it.
When they returned to Carlsbad in 2001 one of their first priorities was to fix it for his father-in-law to live Mr. Schmoll said about that time they moved up to the Rainbow area and rented out their Carisbad home.
in. He said the renovation was extensive and costly, including all new electrical, plumbing, drywall,
insulation, cabinets, a new roof and stucco. They didn't believe they were doing anything inappropriate
and since it was for the welfare of his father-in-law, they were not afraid of the financial commitment. It
came as a shock to them when the City notified them that they may have to tear the structure down. Since
the notification, Mr. Schmoll has been trying to resolve the issues. He said they also contacted their
surrounding neighbors and they have submitted a petition stating their approval of the property. He said
he also submitted a letter of support from Father Stephen McCall of St. Patrick's Church. Mr. Schmoll
said in renovating the granny flat they were trying to improve the safety and comfort and aesthetic appeal
of the structure. If they would have had the slightest doubt that what they were doing was not okay with
the City, they would not have spent the thousands of dollars. He said although this is a small item, it's an
important issue to them.
Commissioner Baker asked if any red flags were raised when he bought the property and noticed the
second dwelling unit right on the property line. Mr. Schmoll said it was a concern, but it was their first
house and not being that knowledgeable on real estate, he thought everything was legal on the property.
Commissioner White asked if professionals did the plumbing and wiring and did they ever ask about
building permits. Mr. Schmoll said he hired professional help and the issue of building permits was not
raised by them.
Commissioner White asked if the name of the neighbor to the north is on the petition. Mr. Schmoll replied
that it is.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how the auxiliary building was referenced on the title report when he
purchased the property. Mr. Schmoll replied that he didn't know. Commissioner Segall said it should
have been noted on the appraisal that it may not be a conforming use.
Chairperson Trigas commented that the value of the property with a second dwelling unit that is permitted
would be appraised and the bank would lend for it; if it's not permitted then it wouldn't show as part of the
structure.
Chairperson Trigas opened and closed public testimony.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded that the Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5259, denying Variance V 01-03,
based upon the findings contained therein and including the Errata Sheet.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2002 Page 7
Commissioner Dominguez was sympathetic to the applicant but didn't see how the Planning Commission
could legitimately make findings that would legally allow this. He suggested that they consider issuing the
denial without prejudice and request that the Council consider waiving the appeal fees. He felt the Council
could grant it with much more authority than the Planning Commission could. He thought if the Planning
Commission granted the variance it would be subject to challenge.
they have been consistently told not to do, which is setting policy if they override the motion to reject. He
Commissioner Heineman seconded Commissioner Dominguez's idea. He felt they would be doing what
felt the only people that could do it without violating their oath would be the City Council, and he was in
favor of waiving the appeal fee, if possible.
Commissioner Segall understood the concerns of Commissioners Dominguez and Heineman. He said he
also had a problem asking someone to tear something down that's been there for 30 years. He didn't
think that was appropriate and was hoping there was another way to get around this so they could approve
it because it's there and in use, but at some point the non-conforming use has to be mitigated.
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioners Dominguez and Heineman that this may be an issue
that should be taken up by the Council.
Commissioner Whitton concurred that it should go to the Council. He said there needs to be more
research into the title and assessor's report to find more evidence or absence of evidence. He said the
only ones in his opinion who can legally grant a variance in this type of case is the Council. If the Planning
Commission did it, they would be establishing a precedent for everybody with a similar problem that
comes before them.
Commissioner Baker commented that these are issues they don't like to deal with because none of them
would like to see an elderly gentleman removed from his home and they are sympathetic to the family
caring for this person and who spent time, energy, and money rehabilitating the unit. She said they have
the consideration that in the past somebody didn't do what is right, not referring to the Schmolls, and
doesn't think they can condone that sort of thing. Almost everyone follows the rules set forth and they
need to encourage that. If sending it to the Council is a way to overrule this situation she said she would
go forward with that.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there is a mechanism they could utilize to not incur a further burden on
the Schmolls by having the appeal go directly to Council. Ms. Mobaldi explained that they would have to
follow the municipal code, which says that the Planning Commission's decision is final. They are to make
a decision tonight based on the facts and evidence presented and make findings either in concurrence
with Staffs recommendation or otherwise. Then Mr. Schmoll would have the prerogative to take it to the
Council with an appeal if they don't rule for a variance. It cannot just be passed on to Council; they need
to make a decision.
Mr. Grim stated that he wasn't aware of any appeal fees being waived, but that's out of their purview. He
noted that when anyone appeals something to a higher body, if the previous decision is overturned and
the appellate receives a favorable decision, their appeal money is refunded.
Chairperson Trigas stated that the legal issue is the most important as far as setting precedent. With all
sympathy she felt they have to deny this and if the applicant wants to appeal, he has that prerogative. She
said the special circumstance is the special circumstance of the land. If they start looking at the special
circumstance of the person they would be setting a very dangerous precedent and open the Commission to many situations that they would be sympathetic to personally but wouldn't be able to approve. She felt
very strongly in denying it and also felt that Council would get the minutes and would understand what was
discussed if it gets appealed.
Commissioner Heineman called for the question.
Commissioner Segail said he was concerned with other Commissioners thinking that they should send it
straight to Council. He said the Commission should make a decision based on what they feel and not that
the Council should be looking at it at some other point because then it should have gone straight to the
Council in the first place.
3a
Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2002 Page 0
Commissioner Baker clarified that it wasn't that she wanted to avoid making a decision, because it's clear
what the decision has to be, but personally she would like to find a way to make this work, and thought
that may be the way to make it work.
Commissioner Heineman explained that he was definitely in favor of supporting Staffs recommendation
for a denial.
the variance. She felt the legal precedent was such a concern that it would open them up to almost any
Chairperson Trigas stated she doesn't want the Council to think they are requesting some sort of waiver of
request to change with variances.
Commissioner White stated that although she feels sympathy for the family, she feels that the community
as a whole is better served when variances such as this are not approved for the simple reason that it's
about a variance that involves a property line and neighbors. One of her main concerns was also about
setting a legal precedent.
VOTE: 7-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
Mr. Wayne explained the appeal process to the applicant as stated on the back of the agenda.
33
Ref.: V 01-03-Tamarack Manor Variance CIN CLERi(lS OFFICE
I am submitting this letter along with the $660.00 fee, to request an appeal of the decision
made by the City of Carkbad Planning Commission, regarding the Tamarack Manor
Variance on 10-16-02.
In December of 1994, we purchased our home at 3890 h4argaret Way. When we bought
thehome,itwaslistedintheMLShasha~agrannyflatinthereary~. Wealsohave
letters fiom the previous owner and neighbors, stating that the granny flat was in
existence and used as a habitable dwelling since the early 1960’s.
In 1998, der my fkther-in-law moved in with us due to health reasons, we went to the
City Building Department and expressed our desire to renovate the granny flat and
inquired about otdaining the necessary permits.
We were advised by the. Ci employee we spoke with, that due to set backs, we could
not obtain a permit to renovate the gratmy flat. However, she then told us we could lix
the granny flat, but it would make us a non-conformiug property, witch would limit the
amount we could add on to our main structure.
At this time the City Building Department was aware of the granny flat’s existence and
that it was not permitted and did not meet setbacks, yet we were not advised that we
would be asked to tear down the if someone complained about it.
In early 2001, we began to renovate the granny flat. Since the &ucture is over 30 years
old, much was needed to improve the granny flat to make it safe and comfortable. The
renovation of the granny flat came at a great cost to us financially, but since we believed
we were not doing anything inappropriate because the Building Department was aware of
the structure’s existence, and it was for the welfare of my disabled father-in-law, we were
not haid of the financial commitment. So it came as a great shock to us when we were
notified by the City that we might have to mve the granny flat.
Since the notification, we have attempted to resolve this by cooperating My with the
City, by submitting all necessary variance requests and addressing any issues raised by
the City st&
We also have had great support hm oufneighbors who have signed a petition and
written letters of support for the granny flat. As I have stated, the granny flat has been in
place and used as a habitable structure for over 30 years. In renovating the granny flat we
were simply trying to improve the safety, comfort and aesthetic appeal of the structure. If
we had had the slightest doubt that what we were doing was not OK with the City, we
would not have spent the thousands of dollars to renovate the granny flat.
34
Thank you for your consideration m this matter.
NOVEMBER 14, 2002
MR. MIKE GRIM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1 63 5 FARADAY AV.
DEAR MR. GRIM:
AS PER OUR CONVERSATION OF NOVEMBER .13, 2002, I WILL RESTATE MY POSITION REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON:
lot .I of Tamarack Manor, according to Map No. 4832, filed in the Office of the Co. Recorder on August 3, 1961, etc.
I BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE LAW. MY HOUSE WAS BUILT WITH A PERMIT AND I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD.
OTHERWISE, WHY HAVE THE LAWS, REGULATIONS FOR PERMITS, AND CODES,
IT MAKES LIFE SIMPLER AND IT MAKES IT FAIR FOR EVERYBODY.
ETC, IN THE FIRST PLACE?
SINCE I AM GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN ON THE DATE OF THIS UPCOMING
HEARING ON THIS MATTER, I WANTED MY THOUGHTS KNOWN.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF AIRING MY VIEWS.
SINCERELY, *,
EVELYN M. JIRGAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-341tl
3840 ADAIR WAY
EM J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, November 19,2002, to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision
denying a 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 comer of Tamarack Avenue and Margaret
Way, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
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.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 15,2002. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA
92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: V 01-03
CASE NAME: TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL.
TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
V 01-03
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a
request for a Variance to allow a reduction in the required side and rear yard setbacks and the
single-family lot, located at the northeast corner of Tamarack Avenue and Margaret Way, in
required building separation to accommodate a habitable accessory structure on an existing
Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
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.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: V 01 -03
CASE NAME: TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
'CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJ&"
AVERYo Address Labels
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
JEFFREY SCHMOLL
3890 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
PARKER RICHARD F
JR&KATHRYN C
3828 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KERN LAWRENCE
A&MADELEIN K C
3850 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MUNN-THACKER PAULINE H .
INTER VIVOS TRUST 12-20-9
381 0 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FREDERICK KATHRYN E
1 1 18 FRESNO ST #5
SAN DIEGO CA 921 10
MELLANDER CARLA J
3825 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LUCAS MARY C
3750 GRECOURT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MURRAY JAJ TRUST 03-21-96
C/O KATHRYN CONNELLY
3800 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHIRLEY KATHLEEN ARDEL
LIVING TRUST
1 199 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
@AVERYO Address Labels
ROBISON ROBERT E&HELEN
L TRS <DVA>
3760 YVETTE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VACHA GUNNEL
620 THE VILLAGE #310
REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
WALTON RICHARD
P&BARBARA K
3761 YVETTE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BYRNES JAMES
3870 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HELM KENNETH S
3830 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DARLING RICHARD S&MARCIA
3749 GRECOURT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
L TRUST 12-13-99
~. SANDHAGE WILBUR R&MARIA
C
3820 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MURRAY CRAIG S&LESLIE M
3840 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WHITLEY FRANK REVOCABLE
3830 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TRUST 01 -1 1-94
Use template for 51600
WYSZOMIRSKI FAMILY LIVING
546 S LAURELTREE DR
ANAHEIM CA 92808
KELLEY THOMAS
B&JENNIFER
3751 YVETTE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TRUST 02-03-96
CHEADLE STANLEY T&LINDA
K TRS
3740 GRECOURT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HERNANDEZ FAMILY 1998
TRUST
3820 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MUNOZ GILBERTXITA
381 0 POLLY LN CARLSBAD CA 92008
CASLER JOHN A&MARY H
FAMILY TRUST OF 1991
3843 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PETTORlNl GEORGEaKATHY
3770 GRECOURT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FOLEY DEBORAH D
3759 GRECOURT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AD CA 92008
EASTON CHRIS GKARLA D
1510 TAMARACK AVE ’
CARLSBAD CA 92008
laser 5160°
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
MONTES MARITAL TRUST 1 1 -
28-94
3850 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BROOKHART FAMILY TRUST
3820 ADAIR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
01-14-99
VELASCO ARLEEN
19430 WYNELAND RD
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
BATCHELDER GEORGE
JR&BEVERLY H
3870 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHREIBER MILTON&RUTH
FAMILY TRUST 09/20/94
3860 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORRISON FAMILY TRUST 06-
28-88
3891 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALSETH HAROLD O&JOAN M
TRS
3870 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLER ROSALIE C
1034 1 ST AVE
LAUREL MT 59044
ONEILL JOHN H&WENTLAND
REBECCA J
3920 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LUNDHAGEN LOUIS F&LILLIE
F
391 1 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STROTHER TRUST 1996
381 1 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHEPARD JAMES A&MARILYN
J
3881 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MOORE JOHN P
JR&CHARLENE E H TRUST 11-
02-01
38 1 0 ADA1 R WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOMPE LEE&JOYCE C '
1156 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WITHALL RONALD J&DANA L
3841 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KARR SUE E TRUST 08-30-94
3880 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAST DEAN
1166 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JIRGAL ROBERT M&EVELYN M
TRS
3840 ADAIR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
SAN DIEGO
P 0 BOX 85728
SAN DIEGO CA 92186
TOSDAL FAMILY TRUST 02-07-
01
33782 EL ENCANTO AVE
DANA POINT CA 92629
~AVERYB Address Labels
Use template for 5160@
TEAM GARY K&DAWN I
3890 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLEMING SCOT M&KAREN T
3860 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARDS DENISE M
3831 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLER INGA
3830 ADAIR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MEYER LOUIS B TRUST
C/O CITY NATL BWC WAnS
P 0 BOX 60520
LOS ANGELES CA 90060
CALCAGNO JANET L
3910 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAYMOND MARGARET E
3861 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DONATH TERRY K&SHARON E
3890 POLLY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHELS DAVID C&DEBORAH
J TRS
3860 ADAIR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MOL0 GEORGE P&MARIA M
3871 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
' HORTON MARIE C
1 176 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SElTZ RICHARD&RUBY
FAMILY TRUST
8421 LINCOLN BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90045
BYRNE RICHARD TRUST 08- .
23-0 I
1 186 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAYNE IAM T JR
HOOK FAMILY TRUST 02-27-02
1125 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OSTLING JACQUELINE
1321 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERTS EDWARD I&BETTY J
1305 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BAUER JOHN E&PATRICIA A
1303 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BANTA PATRICK G&MARISA L
P 0 BOX 174
LOS OLlVOS CA 93441
~AVERY@ Address Labels
BOOM NINETEEN NINETY
FAMILY TRUST
4021 ISLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHMOLL
JEFFREY&ANASTASIA
3890 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
/ MY
MAYNES WI
JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST 04-
07-90
3305 TWIN OAKS DR
NAPA CA 94558
CHRISTLE MARVIN
B&LORRAINE F LIVING TRUST
P 0 BOX 845
CARLSBAD CA 92018
05-07-
EDMONDSON /
COATS DONALD G TRUST 1 I -
19-99
1 196 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OSTLING JACQUELINE
1321 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ORDINO ALFRED A TRUST B
6138 KAUFFMAN AVE
TEMPLE CITY CA 91780
02-1 7-96
Use template for 5160@
RASMUSSEN JANET B TRUST
3870 ADAIR WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
08-13-93
SULLIVAN ROBERT D TRUST
1135 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
08-08-95
MAYNES
ZAJCGLENN
1843 WILT RD
FALLBROOK CA 92028
ROSSALL BARBARA J 1995
TRUST
1230 TAMARACK AYE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
/ EDMONDSON
EDMONDSO /
PETERSEN REVOCABLE
197 MEADOW LN
RIALTO CA 92377
LIVING TRUST 03-13-95
FRANC0 JOSEPH MTERESA
S
1155 LARKSPUR LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
02-1 7-96
61 38 FMAN AM
Laser 5160@
,Smooth Feed SheetsTM
JOHNSTON FAMILY 1981
TRUST
C/O GORDON JOHNSTON
3949 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAMSAY WILLIAM
E&GEORGIA A TRS
1 170 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHMIDT CARL A
21 19 DOMING0 GLN
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
NAUGLER TRUST 09-09-99
3941 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GLYNN CHARLES T
3934 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOAK EILEEN
3890 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EPSTEIN ROBERT&JACKIE
HELMAN FAMILY SURVIVORS
TR
3965 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALISBURY ROBERT
E&CAROLE J
3955 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCCULLOCH GLEN T
TR&MCCULLOCH IRENE D TR
3975 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLER DAVID A&JOHANNA D
3940 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
aAVERY@ Address Labels
KENNEDY PHYLLIS N
3860 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GAVIN PATRICK H
3937 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELSNER TRUST 07-03-92
1241 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PINNOW CHRISTOPHER A
1 199 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DARLAND RONALD W&JILL B
3955 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TORRES JOSE
1 195 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHOW LOU&SHEA KIMBERLY
L
3936 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHAW ROBERT E&ELIZABETH
TRS
11 65 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCCARTHY REVOCABLE
3957 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LIVING TRUST 01-1 1-00
TANAEL
RICHARD&MEKELATOS ERIKA
3960 STELLA MARIS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Use template for 5160@
WALKER MERLE L&LORNA L
1271 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHNSTON GORDON A
3949 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHWEIBOLD DONALD
JENNIFER
1 150 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KUENY JAY V&BARBARA D
1 130 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
R&BRADY-SCHWEIBOLD
WINEGARDEN TRUST 12-10-97
3945 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TONER PAMELA
3949 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AGUIRRE DONNA
1 175 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KILKENNY TRUST 01-13-98
3938 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RIGNEY FARRELL&JENNIFER
1 145 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
/ DOUGLASS
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed Sheets” Use template for 5160@
DOUGLASS D /
MASH ALON&SARAH G EGUIGUREN FAMILY LIVING
3950 STELLA MARIS LN 3910 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
FAMILY TRUST 07-15-99 TRUST
GILBERT IRA N&VALERIE C . BARBER10 GARY T
TRS 1140 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR
3948 SYME DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KAYE JULIA MANGOLD KARL&ANNA
3920 ADAMS ST 3970 STELLA MARIS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LODEN GAYLE S TRUST 09-21- CHANlS SANDRA
01 3970 SYME DR
132 GOODWILL PLANTATION CARLSBAD CA 92008
CT
VACHERIE LA 70090
BIRRENKOTT RICK&JAN M HOEY JANlS G
3965 SYME DR 3969 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERG FAMILY TRUST 10-25-94 GASTON JOHN B TR P 0 BOX 1715 1143 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR
SAN MARCOS CA 92079 CARLSBAD CA 92008
ESHELMAN TRUST 05-07-99 JONES CHARLES
1133 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR RKONSTANCE D LIVING
CARLSBAD CA 92008 TRUST 07-27-0
1170 CHINQUAPIN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Address labels
DOUGLASS D /
HEBERT T DANIEL&JANET C
1 185 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEPHENS JAMES T&VESTA
M
3959 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLUNCK /
VERKLEEREN.JOHN
L&BARBARA A
1120 CAMINO DEL SOL CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOLLY WILLIAM T&CHERIE S
3975 STELLA MARIS LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLER FAMILY TRUST 05-18-
98
3975 SYME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LESAR BOSKO
497 HONEYGLEN DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
Laser 5160@
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
TOTAL
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of Proof of Publication of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general ci-,
the Superior Cou>-of the County of
State of California, for the County of
that the notice of which the annexed
copy (set in type not smaller than no
been published in each regular and er
on the following dates, to-wit: I said newspaper and not in any supplel Lot 1 of Tamarack Manor, accordin 'to Ma NO 4832 filed in the Offie of the Come Recordel on August 3,1961, in the Eiiy of &rL{bad, &xmty of San Diego, State of ' Califomla. I Those ersons wishing to 5 ak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the qubllcRearing. Coples of t& staff report WU be ava$able on and after November 15, W2. If ou have any queshons, please call Mlke Grun ~n the Planning Department at (760) 202-4623.
NOVERBER 9,2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS,.
of
- I CASE FILE V 01-03
this 11TH I TAMARACK CASE NAME
MANOR VARIANCE
of NOVERBER, 2002. I PUBLISH SATURDAY, 10/9/02 I CIT~OFCARLSBAD TAMARACK MANOR VARIANCE CITY COUNCIL. V 01-03
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
To: The Carlsbad City Clerk
Ref.: V 01-03-Tamarack Manor Variance CITY CLER~ om~e
I am submitting this letter along with the $660.00 fee, to request an appeal of the decision
made by the City of Carlsbad Plarming Commission, regarding the Tamarack Manor Variance on 10- 16-02.
In December of 1994, we purchased our home at 3890 Margaret Way. When we bought
the home, it was listed in the MLS has having a granny flat in the rear yard. We also have
letters from the previous owner and neighbors, stating that the granny flat was in
existence and used as a habitable dwelling since the early 1960’s.
In 1998, after my fhther-in-law moved in with us due to health reasons, we went to the
City Building Department and expressed our desire to renovate the granny flat and
inquired about obtainhg the necessary permits.
We were advised by the City employee we spoke with, that due to set backs, we could
not obtain a permit to renovate the granny flat. However, she then told us we could fix
the granny flat, but it would make us a non-conforming property, witch would limit the
amount we could add on to our main structure.
At this time the City Building Department was aware of the granny flat’s existence and
that it was not permitted and did not meet setbacks, yet we were not advised that we
would be asked to tear down the structure if someone complained about it.
In early 2001, we began to renovate the granny flat, Since the structure is over 30 years
old, much was needed to improve the granny flat to make it safe and comfortable. The
renovation of the granny flat came at a great cost to us financially, but since we believed
we were not doing anything inappropriate because the Building Department was aware of
the structure’s existence, and it was for the welfare of my disabled father-in-law, we were
not &aid of the financial commitment. So it came as a great shock to us when we were
notified by the City that we might have to remove the granny flat.
Since the notification, we have attempted to resolve this by cooperating fidy with the
the City st& City, by submitting all necessary variance requests and addressing any issues raised by
We also have had great support &om our neighbors who have signed a petition and
written letters of support for the granny flat. As I have stated, the granny flat has been in
place and used as a habitable structure for over 30 years. In renovating the granny flat we
were simply trying to improve the safety, comfort and aesthetic appeal of the structure. If
we had had the slightest doubt that what we were doing was not OK with the City, we
would not have spent the thousands of dollars to renovate the granny flat.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
I AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
M83409
757