Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-17; City Council; 17770; Grant of Appeal Casa di MareAB# 17,770 MTG. 8’17’04 DEPT. CA DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. TITLE: GRANT OF APPEAL OF CASA di MARE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AV-04-03 RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2004-280 , granting the appeal of AV 04-03. ITEM EXPLANATION: At its meeting of Tuesday, August IO, 2004, the Council considered the request for an appeal of the denial of Administrative Variance 04-03, as requested, from Ted Viola by letter dated July 8, 2004. At the public hearing in consideration of the appeal, the Council carefully considered the facts and evidence in support of the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, and after having heard the public testimony and after due deliberation, directed the City Attorney to return with documents granting the appeal. Those documents are attached. The Council should satisfy itself that they accurately reflect its true intentions in this matter. 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: I. Resolution No. 2004-280 2. Location Map 3. Letter of Appeal DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Ronald R. Ball, (760) 434-2891 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-280 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5019 TIERRA DEL OR0 STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3 CASE NAME: CASA DI MARE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AV 04-03, AS REQUESTED, CASE NO: AV 04-03 WHEREAS, the appeal of the Casa di Mare Administrative Variance AV 04-03 timely filed July 8, 2004 came on regularly for hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, August IO, 2004; and 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 of AV 04-03 requiring redesign of the project to observe a ten foot, rather than six foot, front yard setback for the garage and architectural columns; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes an appeal of an Administrative Variance as shown on Exhibits “A” - “G” dated July 7, 2004, on 1 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 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 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Variance, WHEREAS, after due and careful deliberation the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, resolves as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, grants the appeal upon the following conditions: 1. 2. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the City Council grants the appeal and approves Administrative Variance 04-03 - Casa di Mare, as requested, based on the following findings: a. That there are special circumstances that apply to the subject property in that it is located on a beach bluff requiring sensitivity in design and due regard for environmental protection and the appellant has completed those designs in an environmentally sensitive manner so as to reduce or minimize the impacts on the sensitive bluffs. b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and 2 3 zone since there are similar properties in the neighborhood which have, in fact, received similar treatment and granting of this appeal would result in a structure which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. c. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such neighborhood and zone in which the property is located and the Council finds that the appellant has presented engineering and architectural designs within the variance area which will result in an architecturally compatible and superior project. d. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the proposed use is a single-family zone which is consistent with the RLM - Residential Low-Medium Density designation and no circulation impacts will result. e. That the appellant’s appeals fees are refunded. 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 approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 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. 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 17th day of Auaust , 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finilla, Hall and Packard. NOES: None ABSENT: Council LOwAIbdE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) 4 SITE CASA DI MARE AV 04-03 6 7-8-04 CASE FILE: CDP 04-1 1 !AI’ 04-03 APN: 210-020-14 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 2fur the variance, instead of the other i.vaJ.. 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 1 presented a very accurate and specific case for granting me the Variance of 4’ into the IO‘ 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 confiGon,Xiom seemed more EGd 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. Rodriguez, 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'waII down the sideLvalk. just 4' off the curb to the north. and a building 2 1/2' further towards the curb than mine. which 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 hetp 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 beyond 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. ,J rLz- Ted Viola 501 9 Tierra Del Oro Carlsbad. CA 92008 My proposed structure requests a ”partial“ encroachment of 4-fi. in order to accommodate the offset of two support coIumns which enter the 10 foot setback at two specific points only. and does not entail the entire building falling 4-ft. n-ithin the 10 foot setback. It should also be noted that I am maintaining a driveway length oi’er 20’ in both bavs, 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‘s 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-fi. 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 and the wall in front. In summary, I have given you two reasons not to sav no to this encroachment of the columns and part of the offset of tbe garage wall. I would like to give YOU a few reasons you mav not have heard, to sav ‘‘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 all 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 tonigbt. 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 be 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. - All the neighbors agree, that this bome 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. Request for Refund City of Carlsbad Account #: 0013210-4813 Vendor #: N/A Appeal to Council of Planning Amount of Refund: 660.00 Fee Paid For: Decision Date Fee Paid: 7/12/2004 Fee Paid BY: TheodoreViola Fee Supporting Request: On August 17, 2004 the Carlsbad City Council approved City Council Resolution 2004-280 related to the successful appeal of the applicant, Theodore Viola. Page 3 of said Resolution, line 15, indicates that the “appellant’s appeals fees are refunded.” A copy of the Resolution will be maintained in the City’s Document Management System permanently. NAME OF APPLICANT: STREET ADDRESS: CITY, STATE & ZIP: Theodore D. Viola 681 7 Adolphia Dr Carlsbad CA 92009 PREPARED BY: Debra Doerfler DATE: 811 812004 APPROVING