HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-10; City Council; 17756; Appeal of Casa di Mare Administrative VarianceCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
MTG. 8/10/04 APPEAL of CASA di MARE -ADMINISTRATIVE
VARIANCE - AV 04-03
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council direct the City Attorney to return with documents DENYING the appeal of AV
04-03, and UPHOLD the Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of the Planning Director’s
approval with conditions for the administrative variance request on July 7, 2004 by Planning
Commission Resolution 5664.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The applicant is proposing a major remodel and addition to an existing single family residence
located at 501 9 Tierra del Oro in the R-1 zone, within the Mello II Segment of the City’s Local Coastal
Program, and in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3. The development proposal includes a
request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and an Administrative Variance to reduce the
front yard setback from 20 to 6 feet and reduce the south side yard setback from 6.3 feet to 6 feet.
The administrative variance was approved by the Planning Director on June 8, 2004, with the
condition to redesign the residence with a 10-foot front setback since the findings could not be made
to support the request for a 6-foot front setback. The applicant appealed the Planning Director’s
conditional approval to the Planning Commission.
On July 7, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for CDP 04-11/AV 04-03 -
Casa di Mare. During the public hearing, one person spoke in favor of the proposed front setback
reduction to 6 feet. In addition, a petition of support for the 6-foot front setback request with
signatures of a majority of the residents on Tierra del Oro was submitted by the applicant. One e-
mail from a neighbor who supported a IO-foot front setback, but not a 6-foot front setback request
was also distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant noted that the only features that
would extend beyond the 10-foot front setback line was about two feet of the garage (on the north
end) so that it could be oversized, and an encroachment of architectural columns needed as
structural supports, and that this design did not limit the ability to park a vehicle in the 20-foot long
driveway. Commissioners Montgomery and Heineman expressed support to further reduce the front
setback requirement so long as the interior of the garage wall did not extend beyond the 10-foot front
setback line.
Planning Staff supported a 1 0-foot front setback reduction because of the topographic constraints of
the bluff-top lot, because the existing home and many others in the neighborhood were originally
constructed with IO-foot front setbacks, and because other variances have been granted for front
setback reductions up to 10 feet within the Tierra del Oro subdivision. The applicant noted, and staff
agreed, that there are many illegal encroachments beyond the 1 0-foot front setback. However, staff
could find no evidence of any approved setback reductions of less than 10 feet and could not support
a front setback of 6 feet as requested by the applicant. Staff noted that the residence could be
redesigned to meet a 1 0-foot front setback.
After discussing the project, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Coastal
Development Permit (5-0, Segall absent) and denied the appeal of the Administrative Variance (3-2),
upholding the Planning Director’s conditional approval to redesign the residence with a 1 0-foot front
setback. More detailed information regarding the proposal is included in the attached staff report to
the Planning Commission and Planning Commission minutes.
The Planning Commission’s action to deny the appeal of AV 04-03 was appealed on July 8, 2004,
and the applicant’s reasons for appeal are included as attachment to this report.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,756
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The construction of a single-family residence in an urbanized area is a Class 3 Categorical
Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines Section 15303(a)). In light of
the above, a Notice of Exemption will be filed by the Planning Director upon project approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required street and infrastructure improvements needed to serve this project have been previously
installed with the development of the Tierra del Or0 Subdivision.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5663 and 5664.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 7, 2004.
4. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 7, 2004.
5. Neighborhood petition and e-mail submitted at the July 7, 2004 Planning Commission hearing.
6. Letter of appeal, dated July 8, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Barbara Kennedy, (760) 602-4626, bkenn Qci.carlsbad.ca.us
SITE’
EXHIBIT 1
CASA DI MARE
AV 04-03
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5663
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 04-11 ALLOWING AN
ADDITION TO AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING STNGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 5019 TIERRA DEL OR0 STREET IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3, WITHIN THE
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL AREA OF THE MELLO I1
SEGMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE.
CASE NAME: CASA DI MARE
CASE NO.: CDP 04- 11
WHEREAS, Ted Viola, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by David W. Valentine, Successor Trustee of the Edward
L. Valentine and Muriel H. Valentine Inter Vivos trust dated May 4, 1990, “Owner,”
described as
Lot 14 of Tierra del Oro, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No
3052, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, February 4,1954
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “G” dated July 7,2004, on file in the Planning
Department, CASA DI MARE - CDP 04-11, as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of July 2004, 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 CDP.
4
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CASA DI MARE - CDP 04-11 based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the site is designated for single-family
residential development and the development consists of an addition to and remodel
of an existing single-family residence on a 0.32 acre lot; the development is
consistent with the Mello I1 land use designation of RLM; the development does not
obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public rights-of-way or
otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone; no agricultural activities,
geological instability or coastal access opportunities exist on the previously graded
and developed site; and sensitive biological resources do not exist on site.
2. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the
City’s Master Drainage Plan, Storm Water Ordinance and Grading Ordinance to
avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. The site is not located in an area prone to
landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. The existing
slopes do not support any endangered plant/animal species and/or. coastal sage
scrub and chaparral plant communities and no development, other than repair and
replacement of existing at-grade features, is proposed on the slope areas.
3. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that adequate vertical public access exists within 2,000 feet to the
north and south of the property and the subject property was not identified as a
potential lot for future additional public access to the shoreline in the Local Coastal
Program.
4. The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X oi
the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, therefore, is not subject to the
provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning
Ordinance).
5. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Developmenl
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that vertical access exists
within 2,000 feet to the north and south of the project. The site is not now, and has
not historically, been used for vertical access. No vertical access is warranted for this
development based upon the ordinance criteria. A geotechnical analysis of the
project site was prepared. The bluff face is covered with riprap and is located
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -2- 3-
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
6.
7.
8.
approximately 20 to 30 feet below the proposed structure. The analysis concluded
that the proposed development will have no adverse effects on the stability of thf
coastal slope. The proposed addition and remodel of the existing residential
structure has been designed with attractive architectural features which will bc
compatible with the surrounding development and natural environment. Grading
will be limited to finish grading to ensure that the site drains towards the street to thc
greatest extent possible. The project adheres to all coastal “stringline” setback
requirements for the placement of new structures and balconies. The existing firs1
floor balcony projects slightly beyond the current stringline and no encroachments
are proposed beyond those that currently exist, which were approved with the
original coastal development permit.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303 (single-family
residence in an urbanized area) 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.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
building permit.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -3- L
1
7 -
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-1 1) documents, as
necessary to make them internally consistent and in confomiity with the final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building perniit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit,
(b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until
all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not
validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of
the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of Administrative Variance AV 04-03
and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664
for that other approval incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -4- 7
1
7
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project n.ithin t\vo
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 2 1.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Coastal Development Permit by Resolution No. 5663 on
the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of
the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall record a deed
restriction/waiver of public liability in compliance with the requirements of
Municipal Code Section 21.204.120 (Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone).
Engineering:
General
15. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
16. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when. such a program is
formally established by the City.
FeedAgreemen ts
17. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
18. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -5- 8
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
Grading
19.
20.
21.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
All grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1st.
Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1st to October 1st of each
year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th and beyond upon written
approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control
measures are in place by October 1st.
Developer shall depict all proposed erosion control protection measures on the
building site plan to ensure no offsite siltation occurs as a result of this project.
Developer is responsible to install and maintain erosion control devices to the
satisfaction of the City.
Code Reminders:
22. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1 pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
23. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances, except as otherwise
specifically provided herein.
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 feedexactions. 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
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -6- 9
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
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 fees/exactions 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 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
’ FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLTMILBR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5663 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5664
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTORS
APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AV 04-03 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5019 TIERRA DEL
OR0 STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
3.
CASE NAME: CASA DI MARE
CASE NO: AV 04-03
WHEREAS, Ted Viola, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by David W. Valentine, Successor Trustee of the
Edward L. Valentine and Muriel H. Valentine Inter Vivos trust dated May 4, 1990,
“Owner,” described as
Lot 14 of Tierra del Oro, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No
3052, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, February 4,1954
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to modify conditions of
approval for AV 04-03 requiring redesign of the project to observe a 10 foot, rather than 6
foot, front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes an appeal of an Administrative
Variance as shown on Exhibits “A” - “G” dated July 7, 2004, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, AV 04-03 - CASA DI MARE provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July, 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testinion>.
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission DENIES the appeal and upholds the Planning Director’s
APPROVAL of AV 04-03 - CASA DI MARE based on the following findings
and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
That special circumstances apply to the subject property in that the site is constrained
between the street and coastal bluff. This reduces the 221-foot deep lot to a
buildable area measuring only 55 feet deep (factoring in a 20 foot front yard setback
and rear yard stringline setbacks). This results in a much smaller buildable lot area
than that of neighboring lots. However, the requested 6-foot front setback exceeds
other front setback variance requests that have been granted in the same zone and
vicinity and if approved, would constitute a special privilege that is not enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
The 6-foot front setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same
vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because other
homes in the neighborhood were originally built with 10-foot front yard setbacks or
have been granted variances that do not exceed 10 feet. The residence could be
designed with a 10-foot setback and still meet the minimum interior dimension
requirements for a garage, similar to the development of other properties in the
same zone and vicinity.
That the Planning Director’s approval of Administrative Variance AV 04-03 is
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.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303 (single-family
residence in an urbanized area) 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5664 -2- /a
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
Conditions:
1. The residence shall be redesigned to observe a 10-foot front yard setback for the
garage. The redesign shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP
04-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No.
5663 and contained in the Planning Director’s approval of AV 04-03 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
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 feedexactions. 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 fees/exactions
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.
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5664 -3-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: Commissioners Montgomery and Heineman
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez
RANK H. WHITTON, Chairpers-
G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL~ILI%R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5664 -4-
EXHIBIT 3
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 7,2004
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
Application complete date: Ma!. 26. 2001
Project Planner: Barbara Kenncd)
Project Engineer: Taniyi Barrows
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Single Family Coastal Development Permit
Item No. @
SUBJECT: CDP 04-11/AV 04-03 - CASA DI MARE - Request for approval of a Coastal
Development Permit and appeal of the Planning Director’s approval Lvith
conditions of an Administrative Variance for an additiodremodel to an existing
single family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located at 5019 Tierra del
Oro Street, within Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5663
APPROVING CDP 04-11 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664 DENYING the
appeal of AV 04-03 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing a major remodel and second-story addition to an existing single
family residence’on a 0.32 acre site located on the west side of Tierra del Oro Street. The site is
located within the appeal area of the Mello I1 Segment of the Coastal Zone and any final decision
of the City of Carlsbad is appealable to or by the California Coastal Commission. The applicant
has requested a variance for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The Planning Director
administratively approved the variance request with the condition that the front setback could not
be reduced to less than 10 feet. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director’s determination
and requests a 6-foot front yard setback. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application.
was reviewed for consistency with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed residence is
consistent with the Mello I1 segment of the City’s LCP. The Coastal Development Permit can be
approved with the accompanying Administrative Variance and condition to redesign the
residence with a 10-foot front yard setback. In this instance, the Planning Commission would
adopt the resolution dening the appeal of AV 04-03. However, if the Planning Commission
grants the additional front setback reduction to 6 feet, staff would need to return with a resolut.ion
of approval for the appeal of AV 04-03.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Administrative
Variance (AV) to allow an addition and remodel to an existing single family residence on a 0.32
acre site located on the west side of Tierra del Oro Street. The site is located between the street
and the Pacific Ocean. The eastern third of the site is relatively level while the western two-
thirds of the site slopes steeply down to the beach. The existing 2,713 square foot single-story
residence includes a basement, a 526 square foot garage, and an existing cantilevered balcony
which projects out towards the ocean. A number of existing wood stairways and at-grade decks
are located at the rear of the residence and lead to the beach. These structures are in disrepair
CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 2
and will be replaced in their existing locations with new materials. Existing riprap is located at
the base of the slope and covers the bluff face. No work is proposed within this area. The
western slope contains mainly ice plant and other non-native plant species. There is no
significant vegetation on the site
The site is zoned R-1 and has a General Plan designation of RLM/OS (Residential Low-Medium
Density/Open Space). Surrounding properties to the north, south, and east also have the same
zoning and General Plan designations and are developed with single-family residences.
The proposed residential remodel will contain approximately 6,480 square feet of living area and
an 808 square foot garage. The remodel would result in an increase of 236 square feet in the
basement level, 459 square feet in the ground floor living area, 280 square foot increase in the
garage area, and a new 3,072 square foot second story. The proposed architectural style of the
building is a Mediterranean style with stucco walls, exposed rafters, tile roof and a high-level of
architectural detailing. The basement and ground floor of the existing residence will be
remodeled and a new second story is proposed. The basement level is not visible from the street
but is exposed on the west side of the structure, with access to an existing on-grade deck. The
existing two-car garage is currently accessed from a driveway on the southern half of the site and
will be remodeled to a three-car garage with access from the northern half of the site.
The first floor level currently has a rear balcony which extends beyond the stringline, as
measured under current conditions. The building permit file included correspondence which
indicates that when the structure was built in 1974, the original stringline was measured from the
existing residences on Lot 9 (five lots to the south) and Lot 15 (directly north). Since that time,
a residence has been constructed on the vacant lot to the south and a new stringline has been
established for the new construction. The applicant is proposing that all new construction,
including the new second story balcony, will conform to the new stringline. The existing first
floor balcony will extend beyond the new stringline to the extent that it currently encroaches, as
originally permitted.
The project also includes a request for an administrative variance for: 1) a reduced side yard
setback on the south property line from 6.3 feet to 6 feet to allow continuation of the existing
sideyard setback, and 2) a reduced front yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet. The Planning
Director approved the side setback request, and approved the front setback request with the
condition to redesign the residence with a 10 foot front setback since the requested 6 foot front
setback exceeds the variance requests granted for other properties in the same zone and vicinity.
When these properties were originally developed, the County of San Diego required a 10 foot
front setback. This results in a 20 foot long driveway, as measured from the edge of the rolled
curb, which is adequate in length to park a vehicle. The applicant is appealing the Planning
Director’s condition to redesign the residence with a 1 0-foot setback. Staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director’s approval of AV 04-03, as
conditioned in the attached approval letter (Attachment 3).
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. General Plan RLM/OS (Residential Low-Medium Density/Open Space)
designation regulations; 16
CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 3
LCP Land Use Plan
General Plan
B.
C.
D.
E.
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone regulations (Chapters 2 1.10 of the CMC);
Variance Regulations (Chapter 2 1 SO and 2 1.5 1 of the CMC);
City Council Policy No. 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines;
Coastal Development Regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapters 2 1.20 1, 2 1.
203, and 21.204 of the CMC); and
Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the CMC). F.
RLM/OS (Residential Low-Medium/Open Space)
RLM/OS (Residential Low-Medium/Open Space)
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable city regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
Hillside Development Permit Required
Native Vegetation Impacts
A. General Plan
No
None
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
property has a General Plan designation of RLM/OS. The RLM designation allows the
development of single-family residences at a density of 3.2 units per acre. The OS General Plan
designation applies to the buff portion of the site and no development is proposed within this
area. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the land use type and density
regulations for the property.
STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED
Front Yard Setback 20 7
B. R-1 Zone Regulations
PROPOSED
6’ (See Variance Discussion)
As shown on the Coastal Development Compliance Table below, the proposed development is in
compliance with all R-1 zoning and all applicable Local Coastal Plan regulations, with the
exception of the request for a reduced front yard setback and reduced side yard setback. With
approval of the variance request, the project complies with the development standards.
Building Height
Lot Coverage
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE
30’ 30’
40% 31.8%
Zoning I R-1
Grading Permit Reauired I No
Side Setback m
Rear Yard Setback
10’ allowed per AV 04-03
6.3’
6’ allowed on south side per
AV 04-03
12.6’
Must comply with stringline
setback
6’ (south side)
149’
All new construction complies
with stringline setback
CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 4
All new construction for this project complies with the string-line structural ocean setback
standard and will be located directly above the existing basement. The stringline standard
specifies that no structure is permitted further seaward than similar structures on adjacent
properties. One small portion of the existing first floor balcony extends beyond the stringline on
the southwestem comer of the building. This balcony was approved with the original coastal
development permit which used a stringline that extended between the two developed lots at the
time (Lots 9 and 15). The applicant proposes to maintain the existing 5-foot width of the
balcony in this area. Portions of the balcony along the north end will be expanded to 7 foot in
width, but will not extend beyond the new stringline. The new second-floor balcony will comply
with the current stringline setbacks.
C. Variance Regulations
The applicant has requested an administrative variance for: 1) a reduced side yard setback on the
south property line from 6.3 feet to 6 feet, and 2) a reduced front yard setback from 20 feet to 6
feet. The Planning Director approved the side setback variance request along the south property
line since it would follow the setback line of the existing structure and basement. The front
setback variance was also approved, but was conditioned to redesign the residence to observe a
minimum 10 foot front setback since the requested 6 foot front setback exceeds the variance
requests granted for other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The applicant is appealing
the Planning Director’s approval of AV 04-03 and requesting reconsideration of the proposed 6-
foot front setback for the garage portion of the residence.
The R-1 development standards require a 20-foot front yard setback. Staff researched the area
and found that when the Terra Mar subdivision was approved in 1954, a 10-foot front setback
was required. The subdivision is unique in that the development does not have sidewalks and a
rolled curb is used instead of a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. Since there is no sidewalk,
there would be adequate room to park a car in the driveway, which would have a depth of 20 feet
(10’ setback plus 10’ right-of-way). The applicant’s residence was constructed in 1974 and
currently observes a 10-foot setback as do many other homes in the subdivision. In addition, a
number of homes in this area have received front yard setback variances of 10 feet since the
developable area of the bluff-top lots are constrained due to topography. -
The applicant is requesting a 6-foot front yard setback in order to accommodate an oversize
garage area and architectural features on the front elevation. Although the proposed
encroachments do not significantly obstruct the width or depth necessary to park a car in the
driveway, staff found no other properties with approved front setbacks that are less than 10 feet.
However, there were a number of properties that have walls or raised planters that encroach into
the front setback and/or the public right-of-way. It should also be noted that it is difficult to
determine exactly where the front property line is for these residences because the properties are
developed with a rolled curb, rather than a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk which would
provide an edge for measuring a setback or right-of-way dimension.
Staff recommended that the applicant redesign the garage portion of the building so that it would
observe a 10-foot setback. This could be achieved by reducing the depth of the garage from 23
feet to the 20-foot minimum interior dimension required for a garage. The architectural features
(columns and roof projections) would also need to be modified slightly so that these features do
not extend more than two feet into the setback. Although this would result in some changes to /b‘
CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 5
the front elevation, the architectural design would still meet the Neighborhood Architectural
Design Guidelines required by Council Policy No. 44.
Staff believes that two of the four necessary findings cannot be made for the approval of the 6-
foot front yard variance request, as discussed in the following table:
FINDING
That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not
apply generally to the other property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone.
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.
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.
That the granting of such variance will not
adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan.
RESPONSE
The site is constrained between the street and coastal bluff.
This reduces the 221-foot deep lot to a buildable area
measuring only 55 feet deep (factoring in a 20‘ front yard
setback and rear yard stringline setbacks). This results in a
much smaller buildable lot area than that of neighboring
lots. Other residences have been developed with 10-foot
front setbacks or have received approval of variances for
10-foot front setbacks. The requested 6 foot front setback
exceeds other front setback variance requests that have
been granted in the same zone and vicinity and if
approved, would constitute a special privilege that is not
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the
identical zoning classification.
The 6’ front setback variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone
but which is denied to the property in question because
other homes in the neighborhood were originally built with
10’ front yard setbacks. The residence could be designed
with a lo’ setback and still meet the minimum interior
dimension requirements for a garage, similar to the
development of other properties in the same zone and
vicinity.
The front setback reduction to 6’ as proposed would not be
materially detrimental in that the proposed encroachments
would not impede parking a vehicle within a 20’ long
driveway. The encroachments would project closer to the
street than other residences in the neighborhood, but would
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the proposed use is a
single-family home, consistent with the RLM - Residential
Low-Medium Density designation and no circulation
impacts will result.
D. Council Policy No. 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines
New single-family home remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living area (floor area)
more than 40% are required to comply with the City’s Neighborhood Architectural Design
Guidelines numbers 3, 7, 13 and 14. These guidelines require separate building planes on front
and rear elevations, recessed or projected doors and windows, and specific architectural design
elements. The proposed single-family residence satisfies all of the required Neighborhood
CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Pane 6
Architectural Design Guidelines as shown in the table below. Only the items noted in the table
are required for single-family construction.
Proposed
The home is exempt from this requirement in
that it only applies to 65% of the homes in a
development; however, the home has a 20' x
22' courtyard element located along the south
side of the residence.
Neighbo
Guideline
3. 65% of the homes shall have a
single-story building edge or
courtyard that is a minimum of
15 feet wide located along the
side of the house and setback a
minimum of 15 feet from the
property line.
Homes shall have recessed or
projected windows
incorporated into front of home
7.
13. Four design elements
14. Homes must include design
elements on those elevations
adjacent to Circulation Element
roadwavs.
Complies
Yes
All windows are surrounded by elements which
The design features arched elements, exposed
roof rafter tails, window and door lintels,
varied window shapes and sizes, and wood
E. Coastal Development Regulations
The project site is located within the appeal area of the Coastal Zone and within the Mello I1
segment of the Local Coastal Program. The site is also located within the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 2 1.203) and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
(Chapter 2 1.204) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The project proposes an addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence in an area
designated for residential development. The LCP Land Use Plan designates the subject site for
RLM density development, which allows a density of 3.2 du/acre. Therefore, the lot can
accommodate one dwelling unit.
1. Conformance with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act
Per the Local Coastal Program, the subject site is not required to provide beach
access, as there is an existing beach access stairway located approximately 2,000
feet south of the site and beach access also exists approximately 2,000 feet north of
the site at the jetty just south of the Encinas Power Plant warm water outlet.
Additionally, private beach access for Terra Mar residents is available on Shore
Drive. Since the access is available and the beach is present, the requirement does
not apply to the project.
2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The subject site is located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone,
which requires that for steep slope areas not containing endangered plant/animal
species and/or coastal sage scrub or chaparral plant communities, development of
slopes 25% or greater may be permitted subject to specific findings. No
CDP 04-1 l/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 7
development is proposed in areas of steep slopes. The only work to be perfomied
in the sloped areas is replacement of existing damaged stairways and decks with
new materials. These features will be replaced in their current locations, sizes and
configurations, but with concrete rather than wood materials.
a. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation and Habitat
Positive drainage measures will be constructed to intercept and divert all
surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned
for the site. As designed and conditioned, the proposed project will adhere
to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased run off and soil erosion.
b. Landslides and Slope Instability
The soils and geologic analysis report performed for the proposed project
indicates that there is no evidence of landslide activity on this site.
C. Seismic Hazards
The soils and geological analysis report performed for the proposed
project indicates that the risk of liquefaction is remote due to the density
of the natural-ground material. The risk of ground rupture was found to be
remote, and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur, compliance
with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for construction
should help reduce structural damage to a degree considered acceptable by
the UBC.
d. Floodplain Development
No development on the property is proposed within the one hundred year
floodplain. The site is located at an elevation between 10 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) and 40 feet above MSL immediately east of the active
beach. Risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal. Due to the current
elevation of the building pad at approximately 40 feet above MSL, the risk
to the site from flooding is minimal.
3. Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
The proposed development complies with all applicable requirements of the
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone as described in the table below:
CDP 04-1 l/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Page 8
STANDARD
Lateral Access
25’ drv sandv beach
Bluff Top Access
4pplies to lots where no beach is present
3r where beach is not accessible.
Geotechnical Report
Analyze cliff erosion and geologic
:onditions.
Appearance
Building developed on site with a general
attractive appearance related to
surrounding development and natural
environment.
Ocean Views
Building designed to preserve to the
extent feasible ocean views.
Natural Features
To the extent feasible, retain natural
features and topography.
Grading
Grading executed so as to blend with
existing terrain.
“Stringline”
Maintain a “stringline” setback for
structures, patios, decks, pools and spas.
PROVIDED
60+’ dry sandy beach seaward of development.
Public beach access is via an existing stairway located
approximately 2,000 feet south of the subject site and
approximately 2,000 feet north of the site at the jetty just
south of the Encina Power Plant warm water outlet.
Additionally, private beach access for Terra Mar residents is
available on Shore Drive. Since the access is available and
the beach is present, the requirement does not apply to the
project.
A geotechnical analysis was prepared for the project. The
report states that the bluff edge is located between elevation
10 and 20 feet MSL. The bluff face is currently covered
with riprap so it is not visible. Since the bluff face is
approximately 20 to 30 feet below the proposed structure, it
is the opinion of the geotechnical engineer that the project
will have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff and
will not endanger life or property. In addition, it was
concluded that the project will not contribute to significant
geologic instability throughout the life span of the project.
No development, other than repairheplacement of existing
stairways and at-grade patios, are proposed on the slope.
The residential structure has been designed with attractive
architectural features, which are compatible with the
surrounding development and natural environment.
The project design is consistent with the other adjacent
buildings and the structure complies with applicable side
yard requirements, which will, to the extent feasible,
preserve existing ocean views from the street. The project
will observe a 6.5 foot sideyard setback on the north side
(6.3 feet required) and an Administrative Variance has been
granted to continue the 6 foot sideyard setback which
currently exists along the south property line.
The remodel will occur over the existing building footprint
and basement, and no modifications will be made to the
existing topography, consistent with this requirement.
The proposed grading will be finish grading only to insure
that the site drains to the street to the greatest extent
possible.
The project adheres to all coastal “stringline” setback
requirements for the placement of new structures and new
balconies. The existing first level balcony projects beyond
the current stringline and no encroachments are proposed
bevond those that currentlv exist.
CDP 04-1 l/AV 04-03- CASA DI MARE
July 7,2004
Paqe - 9
F. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. An additiodremodel to the existing single-family residence will have no
adverse impacts on public facilities.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from CEQA per the exemptions listed below:
(1) Section 15303(a) of CEQA exemptions (Class 3) exempts the construction of single-
family residences in urbanized areas from environmental review.
A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the Planning Director upon project approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5663 (CDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664 (AV)
Planning Director approval letter for AV 04-04
Letter of Appeal dated June 8,2004
Location Map
Disclosure Form
Background Data Sheet
Support Letters
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A” - “G” dated July 7,2004
- City of Carlsbad
June 8,2004
Ted Viola
501 9 Tierra del Oro Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: AV 04-03 - Casa di Mare
The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative
Variance, AV 04-03 - Casa di Mare at 5019 Tierra del Or0 Street. The variance consists of 1) a
request for a side setback reduction from 6.3 feet to 6 feet along the south property line, and 2)
a request to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet. After careful consideration of
the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the side
setback variance request can be supported. However, the front setback variance request can
only be supported if the project is redesigned with a IO-foot front setback. With this redesign,
the four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance CAN be made and therefore,
the Planning Director APPROVES this request based on the following findings and conditions.
Findinqs:
I. There ARE exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone because the developable portion of the site is
constrained between the street and coastal bluff. This reduces the 221-foot deep lot to a
buildable area measuring only 55 feet deep (factoring in a 20 foot front yard setback and
rear yard stringline setbacks). This results in a much smaller buildable lot area than that
of neighboring lots. Additionally, other residences have been developed with 10-foot
front setbacks or have received approval of variances for IO-foot front setbacks.
However, the requested 6 foot front setback exceeds other front setback variance
requests that have been granted in the same zone and vicinity and if approved, would
constitute a special privilege that is not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under the identical zoning classification.
2. The requested 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 because other homes in the neighborhood
were originally built with 5 foot side setbacks and 10 foot front yard setbacks and
variances for side and front setback reductions have been granted to other properties in
the same zone and vicinity. However, the 6-foot front setback variance is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone because other homes in the neighborhood were
originally built with IO-foot front yard setbacks. The residence could be designed with a
10 foot front setback and still meet the minimum interior dimension requirements for a
garage, similar to the development of other properties in the same zone and vicinity.
44
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
AV 04-03 - Casa di Mare
June 8,2004
PAGE 2
3. The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because all encroachments have been present for some time. Any
existing impacts to the neighborhood due to the reduction in adequate vehicle sight
distance or street circulation would have been noted by the neighboring residents.
4. The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan because the proposed use is a single family home, consistent with the RLM -
Residential Low-Medium Density designation and no circulation impacts will result.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Director supports the side setback variance request from 6.3 feet to 6 feet
along the south property line and a front setback variance from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit, the residence must be redesigned to
meet a 1 0-foot front setback, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP
04-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No.
5663 for that other approval incorporated herein by reference.
This decision may be appealed by you or any member of the public to the Planning Commission
within ten days of receipt of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning
Commission at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $440.00. The filing
of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning
Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Barbara Kennedy at (760) 602-4626.
Sincerely,
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
DN: bk:vd
C: Michael J. Holzmiller
' Gary Barberio, Team Leader
Taniya Barrows, Project Engineer
Data Entry
File Copy
6-8-04
City Of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92009
Re: Request for a hearing to appeal 'konditions" an A V 04-03- Casa di Mare
Dear Planning Director,
Having sought staffs recommendations as to how to submit a plan that would be
acceptable to both the City and Coastal Commission, I have since submitted four separate
sets of "revisions", and spent well into the $100,000.00 mark, just in expenses since
beginning this process in late January. If there were any room left to change this structure
so I could get underway, without totally butchering the design, believe me, I would.
I sincerely appreciate what specifically my staff planner, Barbara Kennedy has done to
assist me in this journey. We have had at least a dozen meetings going over details and
necessary changes in the last five months; to include two site visits, as well as three
meetings I attended at the Coastal Commission in San Diego, myself.
Unfortunately, staff could not approve the variance I need to go to "working" drawings
and the architect and I concur that proceeding without it would be detrimental to the
design we are left with Pt this point.
In a last attempt to gain your permission, I am offering the following reasons and
evidence to appeal to you as the Director, to grant this variance.
Having concurred that the buildable area of this property has been unfavorably impacted
by bluff erosion, coupled with the required setbacks, and given the fact that other
variances have been granted to accommodate this anomaly, I thank you for your variance
approval to build to the 10 ft. setback. However, I am respectfully requesting an appeal
to your decision to limit the specific encroachment to 10 feet, based on the following
conditions;
My proposed structure requests a "partial" encroachment of 4-ft. in order to
accommodate the offset of two support columns which enter the 10 foot setback at two
specific points only, and does not entail the entire building falling 44. within the 10 foot
setback. As the pictures illustrate, and staff reports, neighbors to both the north and south
of this property, as well as all throughout the surrounding neighborhood, have enjoyed
some form of encroachment for many years. In this case, the side views are blocked by
walls, various mature trees and shrubs planted within the setback and into the city right of
way. This makes the columns visible only from the front.
6
ad
I agree that the building could be redesigned without the columns, which would require
using the “minimum” standards for a garage, which is 20’x 20‘. However. the negative
impact would two-fold:
First, these two columns support the upper portion of the addition allowing for the 4-ft.
offset of that upper portion, which was described as a “most desirable” feature of the
design. Staff has repeatedly noted that at least 5 architectural planes are required. and
strongly advises that “all new construction” in Carlsbad incorporate as many as possible
in the design. These new requirements are designed to avoid structures with a “box-like’’
appearance. Or worse, just one wall risinp multiple floors without architectural relief.
But with the columns removed, the support for the upper portion shifts to the wall. and
the “offset” of the upper portion is eliminated. Now we have a 25-ft. wall straight up with
the only offset being the roofline. The building would still conform to the codes, (due to
an abundance of offsets incorporated into the building‘s rear), but it would appear
ominous. This not only circumvents the code, but now the home loses its’ curb appeal. I
contend that a design change of this nature would be more offensive to the neighbors as
well as the viewing public.
Second, the minimum garage standards were designed before mini-vans and SUV’s ruled
the road, and are not practical when you consider a “standard” SUV, like a Ford Explorer,
which I have, measures just shy of 17ft. If you have a 2-ft. standard cabinet, you end up
with 9 inches for you to carefully park your car behind the garage door. This means you
must &the garage day or night, and walk around the car to re-enter the house. It is not
safe, and difficult to park. With the substantial investment projected at over $5 million to
completion, one would have minimum expectations greater than these, to be fair.
Lastly, one would hope that allbeachfront property in Carlsbad be measured by the same
stick. One might argue for the same rights and privileges, regardless of whether their
house sits on the beachfront on Tierra del Oro, Shore Drive, or on Ocean street, from
Fidel’s to the Academy. Because the starting price for a home at of these locations is
around $3 million. But the fact is that Tierra del Or0 still requires a 203. setback, while
the others have been revised to 10 ft. and offer as little the 4-ft. curb respectively. Any
attempt to restrict one over the other seems unfair, especially when the City openly
acknowledges that there are dozens of encroachments into and beyond the setbacks, but
only one in my vicinity was on record as “leeallv” permitted so far. The “Eaton
Residence” at 5025 Tierra Del Or0 Street, just two doors down.
Through staffs research I was able to attach it, and although it is not specific as to “how
far” the Eaton’s could encroach, it does state that, because “the buildable area (factoring
in front yard and bluff setbacks) measured only 50 foot deep“, they “were required to
encroach (the garage), into the front yard setback to allow for adequate ground floor
living space between the garage and the rear yard.” With survey points throughout the
street, we verified encroachments of the surrounding neighbors buildings’ on the
oceanfront side of the street, lying from 1-fi. to 2 1/2-ft. beyond the IO’setback,
depending on which side of the property you measured. The difference is unavoidable,
due to the orientation of the parcels on the turning street on one side, faced with a
winding bluff on the other. It is another quite “unique” feature of these properties. And
Webster‘s Dictionary defines “unique” as, “being the only one of it’s kind.“ And if we
can agree it varies to that degree, why should it not be treated that way. Grant it the
variance it deserves.
In a private cul-de-sac, with only 12 beachfront homes. several which clearly display
encroachments without permits, it seems as though “requesting“ a permit to encroach
would be easier, if not rewarded, to encourage the practice. Instead one suffers the cost of
delays, while neighbors up to two football fields away, (in some cases themselves the
guilty parties), get to protest and delay you longer, without suffering any consequences.
There is, in fact, “a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area, that rhey do
enjoy, that I will not, regardless of whether they attained it “legally” or not. Which you
clearly state is the grounds for denial of this variance.
Finally, please consider that I do not intend to perform any grading or underground
excavation. This serves to assist the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal
Commission in preserving the remaining bluff, foregoing it as a means to gain much
desired living space. Excavation, though it only requires another permit fee, could offer
me thousands of square feet of additional buildable area, but would pose the most serious
threat to any surrounding neighbor perched on the bluff. Instead now I find myself
focused on defending two columns, (about 8 square.feet), in the front yard setback, as a
serious issue, to be addressed by a hearing. I submit, that this delay has already cost me
several times more than any grating permit fee.
I respectfully request this variance as a better alternative. It means a great deal to the
design and usability of the floor plan, and it will be dramatic improvement to the
property, and neighborhood, if granted. I q submitting letters of support for this variance
from my neighbors both directly to the south and directly to the north of my home. They
are the only neighbors I even asked for support, as collectively, we do not see how it
could possibly impact anyone else.
If you still can not find grounds to permit my request, please schedule me for the next
available planning commission hearing, so I may appeal this decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respe$fully yours,
Ted Viola
50 19 Tierra Del Or0 Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1 -Z : 39Ud
3PR-27-2812 01:4aP FROM: - 0
Applicant's 4otmimt rn disclosum of cemm ownership hteiwls un dl applications which will re@*
City- - of Carlsbad
The following information MUST be disclosed st thc time ofappliulim submitial. Your prujj~ct cannot
be reviewed until this jnhmalion is oumplccd Phsc print.
a9
- T-S:39Wd 27-2012 01 : 43P
”
e FROM:
Signature af ownedapplieant’s agcM if apphbleldnte
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03
CASE NAME: Casa di Mare
APPLICANT: Ted Viola
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and
Administrative Variance to allow an addition to and remodel of an existing single-family
residence on a 0.32 acre lot located at 5019 Tierra del Oro Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14 of Tierra del Oro, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No 3052, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, February 4, 1954.
APN: 210-020-14 Acres: 0.32 acres. Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 1 lot/ 1 unit
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM/OS - Residential Low-MediudOPen Space
Density Allowed: 3.2 du/acre
Existing Zone: R-1
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: N/A
Zoning
Site R- 1
North R-1
South R-1
East R- 1
West Pacific Ocean
General Plan Current Land Use
RMOS SFR
RLM SFR
RLM SFR
RLM SFR
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued
u Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Categoricallv Exempt, Section 15303(a)
Steven and Janet Moss
5015 Tierra Del Oro Street
Carlsbad. CA 92008
6- 1 0-04
CITY OF CARLSBAC
PLANNING DEFT
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We support the proposed encroachment of Case di Mare, (aka) Ted Viola's
home into the 10-ft. setback. We are all challenged here with making
improvements. Between the bluff eroding and the "stringline" restrictions on one
side, and the small buildable areas on the other, some exceptions are required
to accommodate this predicament.
We have reviewed the plans, and feel it will be a great addition to the
neighborhood. Homes like this one will increase the value of all our properties
and we wish him luck to a quick completion.
Bill and Karen Clements
5021 Tierra Del Or0 Street
Carlsbad. CA 92008
480-949-8998
RECEIVED
JUN 14 2004
Dear Planning Commission Members, CITY OF CARLSBAG
PLANNING DEPT
We have seen the original proposed plans for Ted Viola's home remodel at 50 19 Tierra
Del Or0 Street, which lies just to the north of our home. We look forward to its
completion and see it as a vast improvement to the neighborhood.
6-9-04
We understand, and appreciate, that Ted will not be digging up the bluff. His proposed
building lies in the exact spot as the current walls, since he is keeping the basement and
building above it, on the same footprint.
Regarding the issue of his variance request, we SUPPO~~ his proposed partial encroachment
into the 10-ft. setback. These properties are at a disadvantage on the bluff, with limited
"buildable" space, and should be granted some exceptions to the rules. in that regard.
Sincerely,
v William and Karen Clements
I I
I I '{
I I
0 u-
0 W a v)
W a
=l
v) z g
w 2 w 2
W c e *
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I I
B E
i I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i I
I
I
I
z 4 a
t w
v)
0 w 8 8 U Q
____-_
__---- -- I UI Zl
_/-- _--
37
I/ II
__--- -7-
39
-0 I
Planning Commission Minutes EXPIBIT 4 age 6 DRAFT July 7, 2004
3. CDP 04-IIIAV 04-03 - CASA DI MARE - Request for approval of a Coastal
Development Permit and appeal of the Planning Director’s approval with conditions of an
Administrative Variance for. an addition/remod<l to an existing single family residence
within the City’s Coastal Zone located at 5019 Tierra del Oro Street, within Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy would make the staff
presentation.
Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 3.
Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Coastal
Development Permit for a remodel and addition to an existing single family residence located at 5019
Tierra Del Oro. The applicant is also appealing the Planning Director’s conditional approval of an
Administrative Variance request for a front setback reduction.
The site is located within the Mello II segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program on an R-1 zoned lot.
The bluff top lot is surrounded by single-family residences on the north, south and east. The project
currently has a ten-foot front setback so that the driveway is 20 feet long measured from the edge of the
road curb. The existing 2,713 square foot home is a one-story structure with a basement level and a two-
car garage. The remodeled home will include a new second story, a remodel of the first level and a small enlargement of the basement for a total of 6,480 square feet of living area and an 808 square foot
garage. Staff has no issues with the approval of a Coastal Development Permit for this project and the
project‘s compliance with the coastal regulations is outlined in detail in the staff report.
The primary issue is the appeal of the Administrative Variance. The R-1 zone requires a 20-foot front setback. When many of these homes were originally constructed, the County only required a 10-foot
front setback, which is what the existing residence currently has. The applicant is proposing a 6-foot setback from the property line. On the north end, about 2 feet of the garage would extend into the
setback along with the 2’ x 2’ architectural columns.
The development potential of the site is severely constrained by topography and also by the stringline
setback requirements.
The Planning Director determined that the findings could be made to allow a front setback reduction to 10
feet because of the surrounding development pattern, because of the topographic constraints of the lot,
and because 1 O-foot front setback variances have been granted for other properties in the vicinity.
However, the findings for a reduction of the front setback to 6 feet could not be made and the Planning
Director added a condition to the Administrative Variance to redesign the residence with a 10-foot front
setback.
The residence could be re-designed with a 10-foot setback by reducing the interior dimension of the
garage to the minimum 20-foot depth, rather than 23 feet as proposed. This would really only affect the
design of the two spaces on the north end of the garage, and the one space on the south end would still
be close to 23 feet deep. Although a redesign would reduce the off-set between the first and second
floor, the design would still meet the city’s Neighborhood Architectural Guidelines.
Since the proposal meets the findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit, but does not meet
the finding to further reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 6 feet, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions approving CDP 04-1 1 and denying AV 04-03. Mrs. Kennedy
concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Baker asked if the west elevation was changing or if the remodel is going to be where the
current home is. Mrs. Kennedy responded that the new residence will be where the existing building line currently is.
Chairperson Whitton asked the applicant if he wished to proceed with only 5 Commissioners present.
The applicant stated he would like to proceed.
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 7
Ted Viola, 5019 Tierra Del Oro, stated there are two letters from neighbors to the north and south of his
residence in support of the project. He has also been approached by a neighbor who misunderstood the
six-foot setback and thought it meant building the house six feet from the curb. He stated that the only
other variance granted on that street was for the one homeowner who is not supporting his project. Mr. Viola also stated he is requesting a partial encroachment into the four-foot setback. He further stated he
is maintaining a driveway length of over twenty feet. Mr. Viola stated that the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission, the neighbors all admit in writing that there are encroachments evident all over the
street on Tierra Del Oro and the adjoining street Shore Drive, and the fact that the City has not cited, fixed
or required removal of any of these encroachments, it is an approval of their existence in his opinion. He
is asking for the same rights as those homeowners.
Commissioner Baker asked the applicant with this large of a house, couldn’t he pick up two feet somewhere else. Mr. Viola stated he has nowhere to go with the bluff falling off on one side of his home.
Commissioner Baker stated he could have a smaller room such as the dining room, kitchen or laundry room, or balcony. Mr. Viola responded that he didn’t think the Commission understood what moving the
front of his home two feet back would do. Commissioner Baker responded that the house could be
reduced in size and that it didn’t have to be so large. Mr. Viola stated he is only asking for the columns to
be in the setback. He stated he could reduce the kitchen some and have all the offsets that the City
requires but he doesn’t see the benefit in it for him. Commissioner Baker responded that then the project
would fit into the setback. Mr. Viola stated he could have done that but he didn’t want to. He further
stated than when you spend $5 million, you want everything and the neighbors want it, and everyone in
the neighborhood wants it.
Commissioner Baker also asked how far the overhang over the garage goes into the setback. Mr. Viola
responded that it is two feet beyond the two feet for the columns.
Chairperson Whitton asked if the columns could be angular columns as opposed to the vertical columns proposed. Mr. Viola stated the foot of the columns would still be in the setback.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that the garage is only about one-foot into the setback. He stated he would feel better about the project if the full footprint of the house on the north side, aside from
the architectural features like the columns, was within the setback. Mr. Viola stated he didn’t have a problem with doing that.
Commissioner Heineman stated that Commissioner Montgomery made a good point and he would be
able to support that since it is only a move of one foot.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the applicant had his architect design the home with the columns within the setbacks. Mr. Viola responded he had not.
Chairperson Whitton opened Public Testimony on Item 3.
Bill Clements, 5021 Tierra Del Oro, gave his support of the project. He commented that it’s arbitrary and
capricious to deny this variance but do nothing about the variances which exist in his neighborhood. He urged the Commission to exercise that discretion to see a just cause for the variance and see a regulation
which is inflexible.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Whitton closed public testimony on Item 3. He asked if
staff wanted to comment on the issues raised during the public testimony.
Mrs. Kennedy pointed out that in the pictures of the homes to the south of the proposed project, it is hard
to tell whether or not they are within the 10-foot setback. She commented that as far as city records
reflect, they do not show anything that was legally constructed with anything less than a 10-foot setback. She also commented that the applicant was correct in that there are a number of other encroachments
such as walls not only into the front setback but also into the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Baker asked Mrs. Kennedy to explain how some of those variances exist in the first place. She stated there is some confusion with the project originally being in the county but now it’s not, and
those variances were once legal but now are not. Mrs. Kennedy responded that in the research she
Ya
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 8
could find, when these properties were first built there was just a 10-foot required setback. When the City
incorporated, there was a 20-foot front setback. There is a section of the code that allows vacant lots to
use a setback averaging using the setbacks on the lots on either side of the project without obtaining a
variance. It does not apply to developed lots such as this project but that's how some of the newer
homes have less than the required 20-foot setback. Commissioner Baker said that in effect the property is already being granted a variance because the setback really should be 20-feet and the Commission is
granting up to a 10-foot setback. Mrs. Kennedy stated that the project currently does observe a 10-foot
setback.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the proposed garage will be in the same location as the existing
garage. Mrs. Kennedy responded that the garage will be shifted to the north with a 10-foot setback.
Commissioner Montgomery asked is there is the same encroachment to the east of the existing garage
that is proposed for the new garage. Mrs. Kennedy stated the existing garage should have a 10-foot
setback. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the existing garage did encroach into the setback, what is
the Planning Department's procedure in allowing remodels with elements for a house that are
encroaching in its existing spot. Mrs. Kennedy stated that there are different regulations. If an applicant is not proposing to increase more than 40%, the existing setbacks can be used, but once you go beyond
the 40%, a variance is required.
Commissioner Dominguez stated there seemed to be some confusion about whether any legal variances
exist in the neighborhood. He asked if the variance that the applicant referred to was a variance issue
with the City of Carlsbad. Mrs. Kennedy responded that in conducting the research she found two on
Tierra del Oro, and three front setback variances on Shore Drive. There is a total of five in those two
neighborhoods with similar situations. There are a number of other variances for side yard setbacks.
Commissioner Dominguez asked what were the averages of the front yard setback variances. Mrs.
Kennedy responded that there weren't any that were less than 10-foot. Commissioner Dominguez asked
if the encroachments which the applicant referred to were more of the nature of walls and landscaping.
Mrs. Kennedy stated there are several encroachments of that nature.
Commissioner Heineman asked whether it was true that along the shorefront almost every house has a
variance. Mrs. Kennedy replied that the properties along the shorefront are constrained by the
topography and that it is quite common to grant variances for those types of properties.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none,
he closed Public Testimony on the item.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5663 approving CDP
04-11 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664 denying the appeal of AV
04-03 based upon on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Montgomery stated his support for the project and is against the variance unless the
garage can be shifted. If the garage could be shifted he would support the variance. Commissioner
Montgomery asked if any other Commissioner would consider that particular aspect of the variance.
Chairperson Whitton asked Commissioner Montgomery to explain the how the garage could be shifted.
Commissioner Montgomery referred to sheet A2 and explained how the one-car garage and that portion
of the house in completely within the setback and that the two-car garage is encroaching into the setback
by about 1 to 1-1/2 feet. He suggested the entire garage be placed westward so the entire structure is
within the setback and all that would be in the setback is the architectural feature of the columns.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that one of the points the applicant made in an uncompromising fashion
is the fact that he wanted those pillars and those pillars are still outside the setback. The Commission
43
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 9
either has to compromise to accommodate or deny the request and let the City Council make the
decision.
Commissioner Heineman stated that the columns don’t bother him and that if the applicant cooperates
and shifts the garage he is in favor of the project.
Commissioner Baker stated the City is already granting a variance of 10 feet and doesn’t feel moving the
garage closer to the street is really want they want to do for the look of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that after looking at the property he could sympathize with the
neighborhood and feels that was their motivation to support Mr. Viola’s project. In this particular area
through benign neglect certain things happened that really shouldn’t have been allowed. Commissioner
Dominguez stated that approving more variances will just add insult to injury.
Chairperson Whitton stated his concerns regarding the items in the neighborhood which have not
received proper city approval, however, doesn’t believe allowing a variance is the proper thing to do. He
stated he cannot support the variance.
MOTION
ACTION:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Baker withdrew the original motion, as die the second.
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5663 approving CDP
04-11 based upon on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
Whitton, Baker, Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
None
5-0
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664 denying the
appeal of AV 04-03 and uphold the Planning Director’s approval of the
Administrative Variance based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
Whitton, Baker, and Dominguez
Heineman and Montgomery
3-2
43
EXHIBIT 5
6-24-04
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We have seen the proposed plans for Ted Viola’s home
remodel at 501 9 Tierra Del Oro Street, and see it as a vast
encroachment into the 10-ft. setback.
Most of the beachfront properties have bluff restrictions
resulting in limited “buildable” space, and some have
previously been granted exceptions to the setback rules.
improvement. Therefore, we support
Sincerely,
Jul 01 04 02:lSp Emily Bagnall
JU--5-2812 05:28P FRM?: __ __ --. -- - 858-759-1060 P- 1
TO: 18587591Ba P! 1.3
6-24-04
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We have seen the proposed plans for Ted Viola’s home
remodel at 501 S’Tierra Del Or0 Street, and see it as a vast
improvement. Therefore, we swrjort his oromxed partial - encroachment into the 1 0-ft. setback-
Most of the beachfront properties have bluff restrictions
resulting in limited “buildable” space, and some have
previously been granted exceptions to the setback rule5.
Since rely,
JUL-5-2812 THlJ 85: 32PM ID: PFiGE: 1-1 46
From: Nina Eaton <ninaknows@adeIphia.net>
To: Barbara Kennedy cbkenn @ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 7/7/04 2:46PM
Subject: Hearing: Casa di Mare
Barbara, Thank you for your courteous attention on the 2 occasions on which we've spoken.
I have decided not to attend this evening. My neighbor is
unavailable ... and no others plan to appear. Ted has done some fine PR.
1 want to again confirm that I do not oppose the variance allowing the
1 Oft setback. I have always felt it to be a fair and practical set
back. I do not favor the reduction to 6ft., and hope that staff recommendation will prevail. Whatever the decision, bottom line is:
the variance already approved will set precedence which is valuable to
all of us on the W side of the street. Thank you again for your time. Nina Eaton
47
7-8-04
CASE FILE: CDP 04-1 1/AV 04-03
APN: 2 10-020- 14
REQUEST FOR APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL on AV 04-03
Dear Planning Director,
I respectfully request an appeal to the Planning Commission’s ruling last evening on
the Case Di Mare project, specifically the denial of the Administrative Variance.
The granting of the coastal development permit is greatly appreciated. And I feel the
board could have just as easily voted 3 to 2for the variance, instead of the other way, had
I been given the chance to speak to the closing comments of two of the members before
the vote, which were inaccurate, and based on faulty assumptions.
I feel I presented a very accurate and specific case for granting me the Variance of 4’ into
the 10’ setback, and I am requesting that I be given a chance to present my case to the
Council in a similar manner. My maintaining of over a 20’ driveway was deemed most
important, but it appeared to get lost in the discussion.
The questions and remarks of the Planning Staff, while most were cordial, seemed
misstated during “closing remarks” made by Julie Baker and Mr. Dominguez.
I believe their comments were inaccurate and assumed facts not proven to be so. I was
unable to address these comments, as the public comment period was closed, and I feel
they unfairly influenced some members, whom I thought were a bit confused, as did
others in the room. The final vote took three tries, with comments like, “remember”, a
“yes” vote is a “no” vote, and an eventual separation of the two votes by the end. I
honestly feel members were confused. I also believe the absence of two senior members
of the board, added to the confusion, whom seemed more focused on “proper procedure”
that content, by some of the members. I would like to restate my case to the Council.
Specific remarks made by Mr. Dominguez, when I was told to answer “yes or no”, did not
allow me any room to explain why I chose to request a variance, rather than try a fifth
redesign of the building. I feel that made me look inflexible, which is what he I believe
he wanted, since he asked nothing else. He summed up at the end saying words to the
effect that, there have been illegal encroachments going on down there for a long time,
and it is time we nip it in the bud. Thirty years of encroachments, is far from the bud, the
bloom was well off the rose, many times over, with no enforcement.
Julie Baker made a summation, which stated that she was “not sure, but she walked by
the house and felt that it would be too close to the curb, and “giving” me an
encroachment would mean that they had to give it to everyone down there, and that it was
time to hold the line at 10‘. Is not that the purpose of the board, for them to decide on
that. And people, like myself, have to pay for and to be heard, which most people are
not willing to do. Which may also explain why there are so many encroachments to begin
with. The illegal encroachments down there were all around her. Had she looked 50’ in
either direction, she would have surly noticed a 7’wall down the sidewalk, just 4’ off the
curb to the north, and a building 2 l/2’ further towards the curb than mine, which was
clearly marked on the notes and plans she was provided.
I further feel, with exception of the most willing to offer some assistance, Mr.
Montgomery, that the Planning staff was unable to address any effort to help me find a
way to get a “legal” variance, and upheld the theory that it is better to beg forgiveness that
ask permission, which is not the message I felt I would be given by City Officials.
Neighbors support, 99.5%, all but 1 of 20, were in favor of the project, and that “one”,
not only received a variance, but also built bevond it, and this was discounted.
My objection, as well as the neighbor whom spoke on my behalf, a former trial lawyer,
(which I heard for the first time at the meeting), made the point that allowing all the
numerous(unpermitted) encroachments in the neighborhood were similar to rewarding
people who came in the back door, and punishing a person coming in the front door.
Not once was there an effort to address this issue.
For these reasons and others, I feel there should be a better way to offer a person a “legal”
way to obtain a Variance, where illegal encroachments abound, especially when the only
real opposition is from members of the Commission.
I am submitting the bullet points of my remarks, to assist the Council.
Sincerely yours,
W-d.JL-3Oz
Ted Viola
501 9 Tierra Del Or0
Carlsbad, CA 92008
My proposed structure requests a “partial” encroachment of 4-ft. in order to
accommodate the offset of two support columns which enter the 10 foot setback at two
specific points only, and does not entail the entire building falling 4-A. within the 10 foot
setback. It should also be noted that I am maintaining a driveway length over 20’ in
both bays, so there will be ample room for a car in the driveway without sticking out
into the street. This was the only concern I heard from anyone about an
encroachment, and it has been addressed.
I would like to point out that this was my fourth “revision” to my original plan, and
only asked for this variance out of desperation to save the authentic design of the
structure. And while I agree that the building could be redesigned without the columns,
which would require using the “minimum” standards for a garage, which is 20’x 20’.
Although Staff describes my proposed garage as “oversized’ at a 22’ depth, the negative
impact of the redesign to minimum standards would be two-fold:
First, these two columns support the upper portion of the addition allowing for the
4-ft. offset of that upper portion, which was described as a “most desirable” feature of
the design. Staff has repeatedly noted that at least 5 architectural planes are required, and
strongly advises that “all new construction” in Carlsbad incorporate as many as possible
in the design. These new requirements are designed to avoid structures with a “box-like”
appearance. But with the columns removed, the support for the upper portion shifts
to the wall, and the “offset” of the upper portion is eliminated. Now we have a 25-A.
wall straight up with the onZy offset being the roofline. The building would still conform
to the codes, (due to an abundance of offsets incorporated into the building‘s rear), but it
would appear ominous. This not only circumvents the code, but now the home loses its’
curb appeal. I contend that a design change of this nature would be more offensive
to the neighbors as well as the viewing public.
Second, the minimum garage standards were designed before mini-vans and SUV’s
ruled the road, and are not practical when you consider a “standard” SUV, like a
Ford Explorer, which I have, measures just shy of 17ft. If you have a 2-ft. standard
cabinet, you end up with 9 inches for you to carefully park your car behind the
garage door and the wall in front.
In summary, I have given you two reasons not to say no to this encroachment of the
columns and part of the offset of the garage wall. I would like to give YOU a few
reasons you may not have heard, to say ‘(yes“, and approve the request.
1. Facts are that the officials of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission and
the neighbors all willingly admit, “in writing“, that encroachments are evident all
over this street, as well as the adjoining street called Shore Drive. The fact that
the city has not cited, fined or required removal of these encroachments, is in
effect an approval of their existence. The pictures tell the story on their own.
2. I am presenting here the signatures of nineteen neighbors who a11 live on Tierra
Del Oro. I spent weeks meeting them all, and spent hours with several, showing
my plans, as well as a color rendition of the finished home. And I answered all
manner of personal questions. All in an effort to get their approval that I might
more easily get yours here tonight. It took a tremendous effort to complete. But
this is a great collection of people, and I am glad I did it.
The appearance of the Clement Family, my bordering neighbor to the south, and
Steve Moss, bordering north, (who regrets he could not appear here tonight since
he stuck in LA), both offered personal letters of support.
This represents all but one person in the hospital, one abstention, and one
whom you may hear from tonight.
I ask you to see my efforts, my due diligence and my willingness to wait months
for this moment, and at great expense, to get your "legal" approval to do what
has been done illegally all around this area for years, without reprisal. I am
asking for permission, as I asked all my neighbors, several of whom knowingly
took and already enjoy this privilege of an encroachment into the setback and
feel I should too.
&the neighbors agree, that this home will look great here, and all will
benefit from it in the long run.
Please do not punish me for asking permission to do what others have done
Illegally down here for the past 30 years, unabated.
Thank you all.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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, August IO,
2004, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of
the Planning Director’s approval of an Administrative Variance with conditions to reduce
the front yard setback from 20 to 10 feet and reduce the south side yard setback from
6.3 feet to 6 feet on property generally located at 5019 Tierra del Oro in the R-I zone,
within the Mello II Segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 3 and more particularly described as:
Lot 14 of Tierra del Oro, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No
3052, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, February 4, 1954.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after August 6, 2004.
If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4626.
If you challenge the decision on the appeal of the Administrative 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: APPEAL OF AV 04-03
CASE NAME: CASA di MARE
PUBLISH: July 30, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CASA DI MARE
AV 04-03
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
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
North County Times
Formerly knoum as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
This 3b Day of July, 2004
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
If you ch llenge the deci- sion gn tRe ap ea1 of twe Administrative earisnce In court you ma be limited to raisihg only Yhose issues you or someone @e ra~sed at the public heann described in is noli e or in written corres ondence delvered to the ts' of Earisbad, Ann: Ci derk, 1200 Carlsbad Village bve, Carlsbad, CA 92808, at or pnor to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: APPEAL OF AV 04-03
CASE NAME:CASA di MARE
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NCT I672405 July 30,2004
Signature
Legal Advertising
li NORTH COUNTY TIMES
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100
SANDIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
EDWARD & MURIEL VALENTINE INTER VIVOS TR C./O D VALENTINE 7305 MONTE VISTA AVE
LAJOLLA CA 92037
TED VIOLA
501 9 T~ERRA DEL ORO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA DEPT OF PARKS & REC
PO BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO CA 94296
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
BARBARA KENNEDY
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SANDIEGO 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
ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CABRILLO POWER
4600 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG
TANIYA BARROWS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUN l Cl PAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
Laser 5 160@
STEVEN MOSS
CALABASAS CA 91 302
HOMER AND NINA EATON
108 A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE 23679 CAMBASAS RD
EMILY BAGNALL
PO BOX 629
RANCHO SANTE FE CA 92067
LANCE AND TRACEY ROLL
5026 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEN COSTANTINO BREZA TRUST
5009 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Ill TWIN PEAKS DRIVE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595
CAM MAR GROWERS INC
5003 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VARRO SMITH
5005 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHNSON TRUST MAERKLE TRUST
5031 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
5032 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HUARTE TRUST WILLIAM BARLOW
5036 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
660 GARNET AVE
BILLINGS MT 59105
WILLIAM CLEMENTS
6900 E CAMELBACK RD
1040
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
ROBERT FRASSANITO
1412 STAGECOACH ROAD SE
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87123
HERBERT BYRNE
5001 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLETCHER TRUST
5030 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEO MCGUIRE
PO BOX 1570
TEMECULA CA 92593
RADOGNA TRUST
5040 TIERRA DEL OR0 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARGRET KYES 6621 VIREO CT CARLSBAD, CA 92009
KENT A & DANA WHITSON 18 PEARL ST SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TERRAMAR ASSN
PO BOX 860 CARLSBAD, CA 92018
ISABEL COELHO *M* 2930 S WALKER AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761
A DOW *M* 5080 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID AYOUB 5065 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAUL D & KAREN SCHULTZ
5031 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JAMES GILSTRAP 5067 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DUDLEY KEBOW 5061 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARIA T CANNON 158 N MELROSE DR VISTA, CA 92083
HUGO & PA 919 3RD SK NORCO, CA 92860
TR GILBERT&HOULIHAN *M* 3942 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008
*** 33 Printed ***
HUGO & PATSY REYNOLDS 919 3RD ST NOFCO, CA 92860
CHARLES R & LOU WELDON *M* 8405 IVES 'ST PARAMOUNT, CA 90723
Casa Di MareCasa Di MareAppeal of AV 04-03
Location MapLocation MapP A C I F I C O C E A N
C A R L S B A D B L V D
T I E R R A D E L O R O S T
L O S R O B L E S D REL AR BO L D R
CANNON RDS H O R E D R
SITE
BackgroundBackground•Project proposes a 6’ front setback•AV 04-03 conditionally approved by P. D.–Re-design with 10’ front setback•Conditional approval of AV 04-03 appealed to Planning Commission•PC hearing on 7/7/04–Denied appeal of AV 04-03–Approved CDP 04-11–Conditioned to re-design with 10’ front setback•Applicant appealed PC denial of 6’ front setback
RecommendationRecommendation•Deny appeal of AV 04-03