Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-13; City Council; 18850; Appeal: RomeriaCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 18.850AB# MTG. 12/19/06 DEPT.PLN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - ROMERIA CP 06-01 DEPT. HEAD CITY ATTY. CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-369 ., DENYING an appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to DENY Condominium Permit 06-01. ITEM EXPLANATION: On November 1, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 (6-0 - Commission Whitton absent) denying the applicant's appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to deny a Condominium Permit (CP 06-01) to convert a four unit apartment complex into condominiums. The project is located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue. The applicant, Gino DiFante, applied for a Condominium Permit on January 5, 2006. On August 2, 2006, the Planning Director denied the proposal to convert the 4-unit apartment complex into condominiums since the project did not meet four development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. The applicant appealed the Planning Director's decision on August 3, 2006. The appeal was heard by the Planning Commission on November 1, 2006 and the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Planning Director to deny the Condominium Permit. Pursuant to CMC (Carlsbad Municipal Code) 21.54.150, whenever the Planning Commission is the authorized decision maker, the decision may be appealed to the City Council. The filed appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal. The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the decision or determination exist. The hearing before the City Council is de novo, but the City Council shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence. The City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Department, the decision of the Planning Commission and all other relevant documentary and oral evidence as presented at the hearing. The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. Any action by the City Council shall be final and conclusive; provided, however, that any action reversing the decision of the Planning Commission shall be by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the City Council. FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y. COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED D DENIED D CONTINUED D WITHDRAWN D AMENDED D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN RETURNED TO STAFF OTHER - SEE MINUTES Denied without Prejudice 2/13 '07 Page 2 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of Romeria - CP 06-01 Except for a presentation from the applicant, there was no other public testimony given at the Planning Commission hearing. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the proposed project are included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impact is foreseen as a result of this project. All improvement costs associated with an approval would be borne by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Projects that are denied are not subject to environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the project is exempt from further environmental documentation pursuant to Section! 5270 (projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption will be filed upon final project determination. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS Local Facilities Management Plan Special Facility Fee 6 None EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2006-369 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2006 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 1, 2006 6. Appeal Form, dated November 13, 2006. 7. Information Submitted to Council from Gino DiFante dated 12-14-06 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Chris Sexton, (760) 602-4624, csexton@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 4 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-369 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 21.54.150 OF THE 4 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, AND UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A 5 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX INTO CONDOMINIUMS 6 ON A 0.32 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 7565 ROMERIA STREET ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA STREET AND 7 LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.8 CASE NAME: ROMERIA CASE NO: CP 06-01 10 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2006, the Carlsbad Planning Commission denied jl an appeal pursuant to Chapter 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and upheld a 12 Planning Director's decision to deny a Condominium Permit (CP 06-01) to allow the conversion 13 of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a 0.32 acre site located at 7565 14 Romeria Street on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue; and 15 WHEREAS, the appellant, Gino DiFante, on November 13, 2006 timely filed an 16 appeal with the City Clerk; and 17 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, 18 considered said appeal; and 19 WHEREAS, upon considering the appeal, the City Council considered all factors 20 relating to the appeal. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 22 of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 23 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 24 2. That said appeal is denied without prejudice. £J 3. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 6197 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the 27 City Council in this matter. 28 "" 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 City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 13th day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Sigafoose LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk ' 7 x,*,x EXHIBIT 2 SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE The Romeria CP 06-01 EXHIBITS 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6197 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.54.140 OF THE CARLSBAD 4 MUNICIPAL CODE, AND UPHOLDING A PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A FOUR-UNIT 6 APARTMENT COMPLEX INTO CONDOMINIUMS ON A .32 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2565 ROMERIA STREET ON THE 7 NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA STREET AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 8 ZONE 6. 9 CASE NAME: ROMERIA CASE NO.: CP 06-01 10 WHEREAS, Gino DiFante, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of 14 San Diego County, March 10,1970 15 ("the Property"); and 16 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Condominium 17 Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "G" dated November 1, 2006,on file in the Planning 18 19 Department, ROMERIA - CP 06-01 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal 20 Code; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of November, 2006, 22 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 24 testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Condominium Permit. 27 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 2 DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY ROMERIA - CP 06-01, based on the 3 following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards 6 included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following Planned Development standards: 7 a) Per the Planned Development Ordinance (PD), Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required 30 foot setback area 9 that is located closest to La Costa Avenue (secondary arterial) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic. Project perimeter walls 10 cannot be located in this required 50% average landscape buffer area. The landscaped buffer area shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscape buffer provided and a 6 foot tall project perimeter wall is located within the required landscape buffer setback area; 13 b) The project does not meet the PD private recreational space standards for one of the four units. Pursuant to the PD standards, each unit in projects of 1-10 dwelling .. units in size must have a 15 foot x 15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the private recreational space standards. In addition, proposed balconies are 15 not allowed to project into a required setback area. Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 155 square foot balcony projects more than three 17 feet into the required 8' residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway; c) The existing structure does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and 20 garages to be set back 5 feet with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 4 garage); 22 and 23 d) The project does not comply with the PD architectural design elements standards. The project is required to provide at least three separate building planes on all 24 building elevations with a minimum 18 inches of offset in planes. Currently, the project only provides three separate plans on the south (street) side facing elevation with a minimum 18 inches of offset in the planes. However, the north, east and west elevations do not meet this standard as they provide only 2 planes, instead of the required 3 planes. 27" 28 PCRESONO. 6197 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 y 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are not compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures, however the proposed condominium conversion project cannot meet the minimum development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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 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. PCRESONO. 6197 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 f12 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 1st day of November 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONTCOMER\|£hairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6197 -4-9 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION114 Item No. ( 3 P.C. AGENDA OF: November 1, 2006 Application complete date: April 6, 2006 Project Planner: Chris Sexton Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 DENYING the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to DENY a Condominium Permit CP 06-01, based on the findings contained therein. II.INTRODUCTION The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Director to deny a proposal to convert a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. The issue related to this Condominium Permit is that the project does not meet all the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.45) and therefore, the Planning Director denied the administrative Condominium Permit application and the applicant is now appealing that decision. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.54.140, whenever the Planning Director is the authorized decision maker, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The filed appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. The appeal hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo, but the Planning Commission shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Director and are supported by substantial evidence. The Planning Commission shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Department, the decision of the Planning Director and all other relevant documentary and oral evidence as presented at the hearing. The Planning Commission may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Director, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Director with directions for further proceedings. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final unless appealed to the City Council CP06-01-Romeria November 1,2006 Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On July 18, 2000, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Review application for an apartment complex consisting of four townhome style apartments. A response to that preliminary review was mailed to the applicant on August 14, 2000, and in that response City staff advised the applicant that the proposed apartment project did not conform to the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and that the applicant would be unable to convert the four unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums at a later date. On February 12, 2002 the applicant formally applied for a building permit to construct a four unit apartment complex. As a four-unit apartment building, the structure only required a building permit and did not require any discretionary permits such as a Condominium Permit (CP) or Site Development Plan (SDP). The building permit for the four-unit apartment project was issued on February 7, 2003 and finaled on March 8, 2005. The applicant is currently requesting to convert the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums. Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.45, Section 21.45.110 states that "Any application for a condominium conversion, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance in effect at the time that the original project was approved or constructed." Since the building permit was approved on February 7, 2003 the current project must comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 2001, and became effective on January 18, 2002. The current four-unit apartment complex meets the development standards of the RD-M zone in which it is located; however, the proposed conversion of the four-unit apartment complex into condominiums does not meet all of the development standards of the applicable Planned Development Ordinance (PD). Detailed below are the development standards the project fails to comply with. The PD standards require a thirty foot arterial setback, with an average of 50% of the required setback to be landscaped to act as a buffer from traffic and to enhance the street scene. Project perimeter walls are expressly not allowed within the 50% average landscape buffer area. While the project provides a 31.57 foot setback, it does not meet the 50% average landscape buffer area standard. In addition, a six foot project perimeter wall is currently located in the 50% average landscape buffer area, which is in direct contradiction of the PD standards. The project also fails to meet the private recreational space standards for one of the four units. The PD standards require each unit to provide either a 15'xl5' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. In addition, proposed balconies are not allowed to project into a required setback area. Units 1, 2 and 3 meet these standards with a combination of existing patios and proposed balconies. However, Unit 4 does not comply with these standards as the proposed 155 square foot balcony projects more than three feet into the required 8 foot residence setback, which is measured from the edge of the project driveway. The existing structure also does not meet the required PD project driveway setback standards, which require residences to be set back 8 feet, fully landscaped, and garages to be set back 5 feet, with both setbacks to be measured from the project driveway. The existing structure provides CP 06-01 - Romeria . . November 1,2006 Page 3 residence setbacks as little as 1.5 feet, with no landscaping, and garages with setbacks as little as 1.5 feet (Unit 4 garage). The last PD standard the project fails to meet is the architectural design elements standard. The project must provide at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations and the minimum offset in planes must be at least 18 inches. The south building elevation meets this standard, but the other three building elevations (north, east, and west) have less than the required three planes. On January 1, 2006, the applicant applied for a CP with the intention of converting the existing four-unit apartment complex into airspace condominiums. City staff met with the applicant on three separate occasions to discuss the project's non-compliance with the PD standards. The CP application was denied by the Planning Director on August 2, 2006, as the proposed project did not comply with the PD standards. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards: A. Residential High (RH) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. Residential Density Multiple - RD-M Zone (CMC 21.24) and Planned Development Regulations (CMC 21.45); and C. Growth Management. The recommendation for denial of this CP was developed by analyzing the project's inconsistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The reasons for recommending denial of the project are discussed in more detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Residential High Density (RH). The RH designation allows residential development at a density range of fifteen to twenty-three dwelling units per acre with a growth management control point (GMCP) of 19.0 units per acre. At the GMCP the dwelling unit yield for the property is 6.08 dwelling units per acre. The project's proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre (4 dwelling units). Although the project is less than the minimum density range of the RH General Plan Land Use designation, the General Plan Land Use Element provides that, when a legal lot is developed with one or more residential units that existed as of October 28, 2004, a project maybe approved at a density below the minimum of the density range; provided, the existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density without requiring the removal of existing units. The project's four existing units are to remain and it is not feasible to construct the number of additional units needed to meet the minimum density of the RH General Plan Land Use designation (five dwelling units) without requiring the complete removal of the newly constructed units (finaled on March 8, 2005). Therefore, the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan. CP 06-01 - Romeria November 1,2006 Page 4 B. RD-M & Planned Development Regulations The project does not meet all the development standards of the RD-M zone and does not meet all the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance as outlined in Table A below: Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance RD-M Standards Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Table C General Development Standards Applicable to all ' Planned Developments Arterial Setbacks Visitor Parking Driveway Storage Space Required 35' Front - 20' Side -5' Street Side -10' Rear -10' 60% Required 30' (La Costa Avenue) An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. 2 spaces 24 feet 392 cubic feet/unit Provided 21'8" Front -20' Side -5.1' Street Side -3 1.57' Rear -24.33' 34% Provided 31.57' The project does not comply with the 50% average landscape standard which is intended to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. In addition a 6' project perimeter wall is located in the required landscaped buffer area. 2 spaces 24 Feet 392 cubic feet/unit Comply? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Comply? No Yes Yes Yes CP 06-01 -Romeria November 1,2006 PaReS Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Livable Neighborhood Policy 1) Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 2) Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. 3) An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. 4) Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. 5) Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. 6) Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. 1) The project includes arched windows with architectural adornment and two-toned colored elevations. 2) The project incorporates front-loaded garages. All garages are separated by landscaping and a decorative front entry feature. Also, all dwelling units have street facing front doors. 3) The proposed project will not create any new streets. Yes 4) The project will not require any street trees since no new streets will be created. 5) No walkways are required to be provided since no new streets will be created. 6) The project site is not required to provide community recreation areas. Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A CP 06-01 - Romeria November 1,~2006 PaRe 6 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height Minimum Building Setbacks Public Street t Driveway (Project) Required 60% 35' 1) To front porch: 1 1 feet 2) To residential structure: 1 5 foot average 3) To street sideyard: 10 feet 4) To side entry, garage: 10 feet 5) To direct entry garage: 20 feet 1) Residence: 8 feet, fully landscaped 2) Garage: 5 feet 3) Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Provided 34% 21'8" 1)N/A 2) 1 5 foot minimum 3) 3 1.57 feet 4) 3 1.57 feet 5)N/A 1) 1.5 foot minimum 2) 1.5 foot minimum 3) Automatic garage door openers on all 4 units Comply? Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes CP 06-01 - Romeria November 1,2006 Page 7 Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Required Provided Comply? Architectural Design Elements 1) There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls, windows and roofs. 2) Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements; a) Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation space requirements) b) A variety of roof planes c) Windows and doors recessed a minimum of two inches d) Paned windows and doors e) Exposed roof rafter tails f) Window and door lintels g) Dormer h) Accent and varied shape window i) Exterior wood elements j) Raised stucco trim around windows and trims k) Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding 1) Knee Braces 1) There are at least 3 separate planes on the south building elevation. The minimum offset in planes is at least 18 inches. The north, east and west elevations of the building provide only 2 separate planes instead of the required 3 planes. 2) The project incorporates a minimum of four design elements that includes the following: paned windows and doors, accent and varied window shapes, raised stucco trim around windows and doors, and covered front porches. No Yes CP 06-01 -Romeria November 1,2006 PageS Table A: RD-M Zone & Planned Development Compliance Continued Table E Multiple Dwelling Development Standards Resident Parking Visitor Parking Private Recreational Space Required One car garage (12x20 minimum)and 1 covered and uncovered 2 spaces 15'x 15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Provided Two car garage (20x20 minimum)/unit 2 spaces Units 1,2, and 3 meet this requirement. Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the proposed 155 square foot balcony projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback. Comply? Yes Yes No The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director on June 5, 2006 attempting to resolve the outstanding PD standards compliance issues. The first issue of concern was the wall located in the arterial setback from La Costa Avenue and the required 50% average landscape buffer area required. When the applicant applied for a building permit to construct the four-unit apartment building, one of the requirements was to construct a noise wall which is a requirement in the City's General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project is located along La Costa Avenue where the traffic noise is great enough to require the interior and exterior noise to be mitigated per the Noise Guidelines Manual. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis to substantiate his claim that the interior and exterior noise needed to be mitigated with a sound wall when the four unit apartment building was built. However, the applicant needs to meet both the noise standards of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance PD requirements, including the more restrictive standard. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the more restrictive standard since the wall cannot be located within the required 50% average landscape buffer area along La Costa Avenue. The applicant could have designed the project and located the noise attenuation wall in a manner that met all applicable General Plan noise standards and the Zoning Ordinance PD standards. The applicant had another issue of not providing enough storage space. Since the date of the letter, staff has worked with the applicant to provide adequate storage space within the existing garage to meet the PD standards. The last issue the letter addressed was the private recreational space standards. Staff has determined that Unit 4 does not meet the private recreational space standards. Staff has allowed the applicant to provide both patio and proposed balcony space to meet the recreational space requirement for Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 has a patio and a proposed balcony combination, however, the proposed balcony projects three feet into the required 8 foot project driveway setback, which is measured from the project driveway. in CP 06-01 - Romeria • . November 1,2006 Page 9 C. Growth Management The proposed project is located within the Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The project will not create new impacts on local facilities as the four-unit apartment complex is existing. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270 - Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves-of the state CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 2. Location Map 3. ' Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Denial Letter dated August 2, 2006 6. Appeal Letter dated August 3, 2006 7. Letter from the applicant to the Planning Director dated June 5, 2006 8. Preliminary Review Letter dated August 14, 2000 9. City of Carlsbad Building Permit issued for 4-plex apartments 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Exhibits "A" - "G" dated November 1, 2006 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO:CP 06-01 CASE NAME: Romeria APPLICANT: Gino DiFante REQUEST AND LOCATION: Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. March 10. 1970 APN: 216-300-15 Acres: .32 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 4 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: RH Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A Density Allowed: 15-23 dwelling units/acre Density Proposed: 12.2 dwelling units/acre Existing Zone: RD-M Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: General Plan Current Land Use Site North South East West RD-M RD-M P-C RD-M RD-M RH Four Apartments RH RLM RH RH Air-space condominiums Vacant Air-space condominiums Apartments LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: | | Yes 1X1 No Local Coastal Program Segment: N/A Within Appeal Jurisdiction: | | Yes [X] No Coastal Development Permit: I I Yes IXI No Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes 1X1 No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Existing LCP Zone: N/A Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Proposed LCP Zone: N/A Revised 01/06 PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Encinitas - San Dieguito Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Leucadia Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 4 EDUs ^ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration, issued_ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ /\ Other, Section 15270 (Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves) Revised 01/06 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1 . 2. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person CjlUQ Title Corp/Part Title Address Po Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part Title Address g*3A Address, 1&35 s. CA <760| 602-1800 602-&559 • 'AWW.Q c.-vlsdaa.ca.us 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. SkfrTature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIIM\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 2, 2006 Gino DiFante P O Box 2422 Capistrano Beach CA 92624 SUBJECT: CP 06-01/MS 04-11 - ROMERIA The City has completed a review of the application for a four-unit condominium development located on the north side of La Costa Avenue between Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. It is the Planning Director's determination that based on the attached findings, the project is not consistent with the City's condominium regulations (Chapter 21.45) and other applicable City Ordinances and Policies. ; This memo, including the listed findings, constitutes DENIAL of CP 06-01. Findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, and with all other elements of the City's General Plan. 2. Adequate public facilities necessary to serve this project will be provided as required by the City Engineer in conjunction with the approval of the parcel map required for this project. 3. That the proposed project does not comply with all applicable development standards included within Chapter 21.45, in that the project does not meet the following standards: 1) the project includes a project perimeter wall that is not allowed in the landscaped setback area from La Costa Avenue plus the project does not provide an average 50% of the required landscape buffer along the secondary arterial. Per the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45) in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), an average of 50% of the required setback area that is located closest to an arterial (La Costa Avenue) shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls cannot be located in this landscape buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24" box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage. The project currently does not meet this standard as there is no landscaping buffer provided and a perimeter wall is located within the landscaping buffer (setback); and, 2) the project does not meet the required 15 ft x 15 ft. patio or 120 square feet of balcony area on two out of the four units. Each project of 1-10 dwelling units must have a 15x15 foot patio or 120 square feet of balcony area to satisfy the recreational space requirements. It has been established that Unit 1 and Unit 3 meet this requirement. Units 2 and 4 do not 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us meet the required recreational space private rear yard. Unit 2's recreational space measures less than the required 15 x 15 foot. .Unit 4 does not comply with this requirement since the recreational space projects more than two feet into the front yard setback. 4. That the proposed project's density, site design and architecture are compatible with surrounding development, in that the neighborhood is developed with similar multiple-family structures. This decision may be appealed by you or any other member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of the date of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550.00. 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 Chris Sexton at 760-602-4624. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:CS:bd c: David Rick File Copy Data Entry GINO DIFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 August 3, 2006 Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: CP 06-01 Project: TheRomeria 7565 Romeria Street, La Costa, CA 92009 Dear Madam: This is to notify you that I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Director dated August 2, 2006 denying the application identified above to convert an existing four-unit apartment building to a four-unit condominium development. } believe that the decision is arbitrary, based on inaccurate facts and fails to take into account legislation that affects planned developments in the project zone. 1 hereby request a hearing before the City Planning Commission. Concurrently with this letter I am tendering a payment of $550.00. Please advise me of the hearing date as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Gino DiFante GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beachr CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 June 5, 2006 Marcela Escobar-Eck City of Carlsbad Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: CP 06-01-The Romeria Site Location: 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 Corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street t Dear Ms. Escobar-Eck: Thank you for your time to review the information and documents provided regarding the Planning Department issues with my project - a condominium conversion of four existing dwelling units located at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street in La Costa, Carlsbad. I would like to explain why I have sent you this letter and documents provided. On January 5, 2006, I submitted to the Planning Department an application, all required documents, plans and paid the fees for a condominium permit. A copy of the application, list of all items submitted and a copy of the receipt of fees paid is provided. I received a letter from the Planning Department on February 4, 2006, stating that my application was complete, but the Planning Department had issues with my project. A copy of the letters and issues is provided. The history of my project is as follows: I submitted plans and the City of Carlsbad began processing my project in July of 2000. The project was approved in September 2002. A list of Department approval dates is provided. I believe the old planned development ordinance was in effect at the time of my project approval, which is the planned development ordinance that was in effect, I believe, from 1991 through August 2003. I applied for construction financing in November of 2002. I obtained a copy of the costs of City fees for my project on December 10, 2002 to present to the lender. Copies of all fees paid are provided, At the end of January 2003, my construction financing was approved and on February 7, 2003, I paid all the City fees and obtained my construction permit - number CB020453 to build my four unit project. Chris Sexton, a City Planning Technician, stated that my existing four unit condominium conversion project needed to comply to the new current planned development ordinance in effect as of 2003 because the permit fees for my project were paid for on February 7, 2003. Director, I believe my project complies to the current and old planned development ordinances. The current and old planned-development ordinances state that a condominium conversion needs to comply to the planned development ordinance in effect at the time the project was approved by the City. Please review to determine which ordinance I fall under, in order to assist you with the resolution of the issues Chris Sexton has with my project. Marcela Escobar-Eck June 5, 2006 Page 2 The current and old planned development ordinances state that the Planning Director is the processor and decision making official for the City Planning Department of an application for a planned development permit or condominium permit of a minor subdivision of four dwelling units or less in the City of Carlsbad. My condominium conversion project consist of four existing dwelling units and I believe my project complies to the applicable development standards in the current and old planned development ordinances, and the density, site design and architectural compatibility with the surrounding developments. Please note the noise element of the City General Plan and site design criteria apply to my site and project. The current planned development ordinance also states that the regulations of the City General Plan shall prevail over the regulations of the current planned development ordinance. I don't understand why Chris Sexton, a City Planning Technician, is processing and making decisions on issues with my project. I'm sure it's not her fault, but some items in my file submitted to Planning on January 5, 2006, have been lost: a colored site plan and colored elevations of the project. I met with Chris Sexton on February 23, 2006, to submit three sets of plans she requested and to resolve the issues of concern on my project. We resolved some of the issues, but three issues remained. I said to Chris that an acoustical analysis was required for my site by the Planning Department in 2002. Chris stated that an acoustical analysis is not required for my site or project. I also said to her that day that I believed my project was subject to comply to the old planned development ordinance based on my 2002 project approval. She said no, that I needed to comply to the new current planned development ordinance. On March 27, 2006, I met with Chris to resolve the three remaining issues of concern: Issue 1: The City General Plan Required Noise Element Wall. Christ Sexton stated that this is a project perimeter wall. I said to her that this noise element wall is required based on the acoustical analysis done for the project. Chris insisted that the acoustical analysis is not required for my project. She got up and went to Van Lynch and asked if an acoustical analysis was required for my project and Van said no. I tried to give her a copy of the plan check form Greg Fisher of the Planning Department faxed to me on July 17, 2002, requesting that an acoustical analysis be done for my project based on my site's location next to roadways and the City General Plan noise element. I also tried to give Chris a copy of the acoustical analysis done for the project, but she would not acknowledge or accept either document from me. I showed Chris pictures of other noise element walls along La Costa Avenue that are located in the same area on their sites as mine. These other condominium projects were approved under the current planned development ordinance that Chris Sexton states my project does not comply to. She would not accept any necessary documents or photos that would resolve this issue. She continuously insisted that the acoustical analysis is not required and she said to me that she would not allow the wall on my project. This is why I am sending you this letter and information, Director. I hope to get better and more respectful cooperation from you. Marcela Escobar-Eck June 5, 2006 Page 3 This noise element wall is required and needs to be located exactly where it is on the site based on the acoustical analysis and site plan that the City approved in 2002, in order to reduce the current and future roadway noise levels. This is why I believe the other projects on La Costa Avenue have the same size wall in the same site location as mine. I am providing you with the following documents and ask that you please review the acoustical analysis and addendum to it, as well as the photos and addresses of other noise element walls on La Costa Avenue, and the request for an acoustical analysis from Greg Fisher that was faxed to me on July 17, 2002. The current planned development ordinance states that the regulations of the City General Plan (noise element) shall prevail over the regulations of the planned development ordinance. Issue 2: Required Storage Area. On March 27, 2006, I presented a storage plan to Chris Sexton, who showed it to Van Lynch. Van Lynch stated that a combination of existing separate interior storage and the garage loft storage shown on the storage plan would resolve the storage issues with the project. A copy of the storage plan is provided. Issue 3: Patio Area Size. My lot is an irregular shape. Please see memorandum note dated June 11, 2002, from John Maashoff of the City Engineering Department. On March 27, 2006, I presented to Chris Sexton a site plan that showed the existing patio areas comply to the current planned development ordinance. The old planned development ordinance, which I believe I am subject to, required a 10 foot by 10 foot or 100 square feet of patio area. The current planned development ordinance requires a 15 foot by 15 foot or 225 square feet of patio area. Neither one of these ordinances state the patio area needs to be a perfect square. Chris Sexton stated that the patio area must be a 15 foot by 15 foot square area. The existing patio areas are shaped rectangular. The existing patio cement slab sizes are listed below: Unit #1: Approximately 470 square feet. Unit #2: Approximately 350 square feet. Unit #3: Approximately 270 square feet. Unit #4: Approximately 290 square feet. The site plan shows the 15 foot by 15 foot square patio areas are available for Units 1, 2, and 4, but not Unit 3 because of the irregular shaped lot. I am able to capture a 10 foot by 10 foot square patio area on one side of the rectangular shaped patio area. The existing patio area of unit 3 is 270 square feet, which is larger than the required 225 square feet. Marcela Escobar-Eck June 5, 2006 Page 4 Van Lynch reviewed the plan and stated that I build a 120 square foot balcony over the existing 270 square foot patio area to resolve the patio size issue with Unit 3. Please review the patio area site plan provided. Director, if you find that it is absolutely necessary, I can build a balcony for Unit 3. The noise element wall and the patio area size of Unit 3 are the only two issues left to be resolved on my project. I would greatly appreciate your approval that the noise element wall on my project is required and that the existing patio area size of Unit 3 is sufficient enough to resolve the issue. On April 8, 2006, I received a letter from Chris Sexton stating that the three issues with my project remained unresolved and that my project does not comply to the planned development ordinance and what my options were with the City. Director, as you can read in this letter, I thought that Chris, Van and I had resolved the storage and patio issues on March 27, 2006, and all that remained to be resolved was the noise element wall and the existing patio area size for Unit 3. I don't understand why I was sent this letter from Chris Sexton. The processing of the minor subdivision with the engineering department known as MS 04-11 Romeria minor subdivision, is complete and the engineering department has no issues with the project. A storm water filtration system will be installed per the engineering department request. The City police, fire and building departments have no issues with the project. I have also sent you a copy of this information and documents provided on my project via Fedex certified mail in order to verify that you received this information package on my project, due to the loss of some documents submitted to the planning department on January 5, 2006. Thank you for your time and cooperation on the issues with my project. I look forward to meeting and working with you on the approval of my condominium conversion. Please feel free to call me with any questions or to set up a meeting to discuss my project. Sincerely, Gino DiFante (949) 887-7557 THE ROMERIA CP - 06-01 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 To: City of Carlsbad Re: Department approval dates of the Romeria project - Permit Number CB020453. Date: June 2006 j- Engineering Department Approved project: April 2, 2002 Planning Department Approved project; September 23, 2002 Fire Department Approved project: September 4, 2002 Jeremy Riddle of the City Engineering Department approved the project site plan in September or October of 2000, which allowed me to go ahead and have a full set of construction plans drawn up and engineering calculations done for the project in order to submit to the City Building and Engineering Departments on February 12, 2002. I paid the City fees and obtained the permit on February 7, 2003. 3o THE ROMERIA CP - 06-01 7565 Romeria Street La Costa, CA 92009 June 2006 Photos and list of addresses of new and existing noise element walls along La Costa Avenue that are within a quarter mile of the Romeria site. 1) 7729 or 7731 Calle Andar, located on the corner of Levante and La Costa Avenue. City approved project on December 1, 2004 - new condominium development of 25-30 ' attached units. 2) 3184 Corte Tradicion, located on the corner of Levante and La Costa Avenue. City approved project in 2005 - new planned development of 12-15 detached homes. 3) 7578 Gibralter, located on the corner of Gibralter and La Costa Avenue. Older condominium development of 8-12 attached units. 4) 7602 Calle Madero, located on the corner of Calle Madero and La Costa Avenue. Single family home. 5) 7602 Romeria Street, located on the corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue. Single family home. City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 14, 2000 Gino Difante P.O. Box 2442 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 SUBJECT: PRE 00-52 - THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS APN: 216-300-15 A preliminary review of your project was conducted on August 10, 2000. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The proposed 4-unit apartment project requires issuance of a building permit only. Compliance with all applicable zoning ordinances is required. The RD-M zone requires a 10' landscaped street side yard setback. The proposed project is designed with a 24' wide driveway aisle and guest parking spaces that encroach into the required landscape setback. 2. The project has frontage on La Costa Avenue, a circulation arterial roadway. A noise analysis is required to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to the City's standard (exterior - 60 dBA CNEL/interior - 45 dBA CNEL). A combination of landscaped berm (within the required 10' setback) and wall should be used to mitigate the noise level to the City's standard. 3. The proposed architecture lacks roof line variation and provides little building articulation. Additionally, all four garage doors front on La Costa Avenue. Please redesign the project so that garage doors face the interior side property line (see engineering comments below). This "reversed" design would require that units be designed in a stepped fashion to create greater building articulation. Since the rear elevations would be visible from La Costa Avenue, please add architectural detailing to create multiple building planes and shadowing and incorporate some variation in the window design. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46OO - FAX (76O) 6O2-8559 PRE 00-52 - THE ROMERIA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS August 14, 2000 Page 2 4. A pitched roof design would be preferable to the flat roof. If a flat roof is proposed, please provide variation in the roof line to add interest to the project. 5. Please be advised that the proposed project does not conform to the Planned Development Ordinance development regulations and design criteria which would be required to convert this apartment project to a condominium at some future date. Engineering: Prior to formal application submittal the following items must be adequately resolved/addressed: 1. Please be advised that in order to make a more in-depth review of the proposed development, a more complete design of the project is required. 2. Revise the driveway to ease vehicular accessibility to the site. The driveway, as proposed, contains severe curves (see redlined check print). t 3. Callout existing and proposed improvements on the site plan. 4. Please indicate all existing utilities along La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street (i.e., storm drain, water, sewer, etc.) Callout the existing or proposed facilities that will serve the development. The submitted plan does not depict any facilities. 5. If a condominium conversion is being contemplated at a later date, consider installing separate water services to each unit now to facilitate the conversion. 6. Coordinate with Leucadia County Water District for sewer service availability. 7. Indicate all existing and proposed surface improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, inlets, street lights, adjacent driveways, vaults, transformers, etc.) along property fronting La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street, and verify that no conflicts exist. 8. Identify the distance from the proposed driveway to the street intersection. 9. Depict the location of existing driveways both adjacent to and across from the project. 10. Depict the location of existing adjacent buildings and surface improvements. 11. Revise the plan to indicate the ADT (traffic), EDU (sewer), GPM (potable water), and GPM (reclaimed water) generated or required by the proposed development. 33 PRE 00-52 - THE ROM August 14, 2000 Page 3 iRlA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS 12. Meet with the Fire Department to identify the necessary fire protection measures required for this project (access, fire hydrants, sprinklering, etc.). All proposed fire hydrants must be served by public water mains. 13. Show all existing and proposed topography and drainage patterns for the site. Revise the plans to indicate how on-site surface runoff is controlled. Identify the location, alignment, and discharge of any proposed drainage system. 14. Indicate the legal description of all adjacent properties. 15. Submit the site plan at a 1" = 10' scale. 16. Indicate the volume of grading (cut, fill, import, export, remedial) proposed for the project in cubic yards. There is insufficient information provided to make a clear determination of whether a grading permit is required. 17. A public improvement will be required for the improvements (i.e.: installation of laterals) in public right-of-way. This may be handled by processing a ' construction change to the as-built plan for La Costa Avenue to document the additional improvements. 18. Show typical street sections of La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street that indicate existing and proposed improvements. 19. A recent preliminary title report (PR) (issued within 6 months of formal application submittal) will be required for the proposed project. 20. All easements and encumbrances as identified in Schedule "B" of the PR must be indicated on the site plan. The future disposition of any easements and encumbrances must also be identified. 21. The complete property boundary must be shown on the site plan, which must include all bearings and distances. 22. Please indicate how a standard P-1 vehicle will circulate throughout the site. 23. Include a 5-foot pavement kick-out or other measure to facilitate a vehicular turnaround at the end of the driveway. 24. Indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria will be met. This could include, but not be limited to, doing one or a combination of the following: directing surface run-off through vegetated swales prior to discharge to a storm drain or the public right of way, constructing a gravel/sand/fossil filter system, constructing de-pollutant basins, etc. Also, any loading areas that are located in a sump must have pump facilities to direct drainage to a pollutant mitigation area. PRE 00-52 - THE ROIVlBiA TOWNHOME APARTMENTS August 14, 2000 Page 4 25. Indicate the line-of-sight at the driveway entrance looking north and south onto Romeria Street using CalTrans guidelines. Verify no conflicts exist. 26. A redlined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print should be returned with the formal application submittal to facilitate continued staff review. Fire: Preliminary comments: (Note: This commentary identifies missing information that must be included with the official project submittal. It may also identify fire protection issues associated with the project.) 1. Because the total square footage of the building exceeds 10,000 square feet, the entire structure must be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622 or Project Engineer, Jeremy Riddle at (760) 602-2737 if you have any questions. Sincen Assistant Planning Director GEW:AH:vd:cs Attachments c: Michael J. Holzmiller Chris Decerbo Jeremy Riddle Mike Smith Bill Plummer ^-File-Copy*' Data Entry •07-2003 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: 02/07/2003 # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: Applicant: City of Carlsbad .1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB020453 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 7565 ROMERIA ST CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: APT 2163001500 Lot#: 15 $655,916.00 Construction Type: VN Reference #: PRE00052 4 Structure Type: MF2-4 12 Bathrooms: 10 DIFANTE 4 PLEX APTS-7948 SF + 1830SFGAR Owner: GINO DIFANTE P O BOX 2442 92624 949 225-7488 Status: Applied: Entered By: ISSUED 02/12/2002 RMA Plan Approved: Issued: 02/07/2003 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check*: <•.-, ,.,_, ^7/'03 0002 01 CGF"38427-33 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $2,185.72 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,420.72 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $65.59 PFF $7,908.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $1,240.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $1,272.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $9,600.00 Housing InLieu Fee D5/8 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $560.00 $8,016.00 $0.00 $11,937.67 $11,019.39 $0.00 $0.00 $1,082.88 $1,221.12 $0.00 $360.00 $110.00 $129.00 $11,700.00 $0.00 $20.46 $0.00 $0.00 $69,848.55 Total Fees: $69,848.55 Total Payments To Date: $1,420.72 Balance Due:$68,427.83 ATTACHED Fi « is a s-* i4 ,-jft EVTS?:. :-.?«:•> r*^& i?ss^_ gs w £i V»i " * n>>DATE SIGNATURE s CO CO II119 Ph in.! I !i I i ii! I t i i i I Ml«i * i iii i • • ! I IIMiiifihi :--m siia I I I I I M I I I I I I! I I M I 1 M I I I I I Ie e e e e s e 9 e § @ @ @ @ 37 KK6VDK>V3eONVlUSIH<! 60016 TO 't*tr xoa t. ijjais vnawoa S9« UNVJKJONID 10-90-OWI3WOH3HJ.SNOI1VA313 I DDQO ]DQ[]QQ[ ODOD ID ODDL DDDE ODDD cos _i * 3 X LL M ; xoa od mis ¥ru3woa SB NVId «3MCn •wrfvn«toifi«*c*rjosfmrou 1UH < r .. .1... r^-iifiy ^^^.HI^ ^ >» A? ^ _^/_-»^ ««^i« ,FZ" — _j-_t. X08 C 3SJ.S VHI3WOB S NVId H3MCH 03dSl I V rllt-s 5 ^S I? TTf- i xoo c nai$ viuJ'/icm s os NVId HOOld U3ddn -SSs-QNIlJVH '03dS ij?l Ai* ;.*)» 11*1 ?' 61' ] [ ' ' f*;M ; :U •&t-:V *• H^lJ1 *Wth*11*1* i>i*" '03dIMIIII %A! \**> I II s "I i*J is \\ ti hi hi JM!i II n i( si •:ij !j ? i M; H ii P_i ** a^. •j5 S 3**PJ 3 "*1 Si !l 11U ,«,J i^| Ij13 SsSilli S80Z6WV1SIA ' iiEExoaxod -VNmNaanH i SN9IS30 VNm '•/& NMVbO |10-90 <D VIH3WO!) 3HO.31NVdiaONID Planning Commission Minutes November 1,2006 Page 3 EXHIBITS 3. CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a 0.32-acre site located at 7565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated that Planning Technician Chris Sexton would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing on Item 3. Ms. Sexton gave a presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked if the action was a matter for the Planning Director's decision or if this item would have come before the Commission if the Planning Director deemed it appropriate. Ms. Sexton stated because the project is only four units, it is an administrative decision and the Planning Director would make the decision to approve or deny the application. Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Sexton to elaborate on a letter from the applicant, Mr. DiFante, to the Planning Director that addressed fees, which Planned Development Ordinance (the old or the new) was in effect at the time of application, and what difference it would have made, if any, which ordinance was in effect. Ms. Sexton stated the Planned Development Ordinance in effect at the time the project is approved or constructed is the governing ordinance. Since this project was approved or constructed through a Building Permit in 2002, the application fell into the current Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Sexton added she did review the older Planned Development Ordinance and the applicant would have had difficulty meeting those requirements with respect to the driveway setback and the 50 percent landscaping requirement. Commissioner Baker asked if there were still two conditions that the applicant was unable to meet in the older Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Sexton confirmed. Commissioner Baker asked if the project was designed differently could it have been converted to condominiums or were there geographical constraints that made this design the only option. Ms. Sexton stated the project could have been designed differently. Commissioner Dominguez asked Ms. Sexton to provide some examples of things the applicant could have done in designing the project to meet the criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance and allow the conversion today. Ms. Sexton stated the applicant could have included 15 feet of landscaping from the property line and moved the building to the west of the lot to provide an 8-foot setback from the edge of the driveway. Commissioner Dominguez asked if underground parking could have been included. Ms. Sexton stated the project could have included subterranean garages. Commissioner Dominguez asked if providing the subterranean garages would have allowed for additional open space area and conformity to the Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Sexton confirmed this would have been the case. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the Preliminary Review application of July 18, 2000, submitted by Mr. DiFante, requesting review of the apartment complex design. In reply to this review, the Planning Department mailed the applicant a response on August 14, 2000, advising Mr. DiFante that the proposed apartment project did not conform to the standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance at that time, and that the applicant would not be able to convert the apartments to condominiums at a later date. Commissioner Dominguez asked if Staff had documentation of the correspondence. Ms. Sexton stated the Preliminary Review files are retained until a project moves forward; at that point, it would be incorporated into the project file. Planning Commission Minutes November 1,2006 Page 4 Commissioner Dominguez asked what response to that decision the applicant offered. Ms. Sexton stated she could not comment since she was not the Planner on the project at that time. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the assigned Planner at that time was Ms. Hysong. Ms. Sexton confirmed. Commissioner Dominguez asked if, at that time, the applicant proceeded to draw permits and continue with the divisional application. Ms. Sexton confirmed that he did. Commissioner Heineman asked where the noise attenuation wall originated. He stated that he found no requirement for one and it seems to be a major part of the problem. Ms. Sexton stated Staff requested the applicant to provide a noise study when the project application to construct the apartments was received. At that time, it was a requirement of the General Plan. The applicant provided the study and constructed the wall; however, the Planned Development Ordinance states a wall cannot be located in the arterial setbacks, and it is necessary to meet the standards of both the General Plan and the Planned Development Ordinance. Commissioner Heineman asked if the applicant followed the General Plan or the Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Sexton stated when the applicant applied for a Building Permit to construct apartments, he was instructed to provide the noise attenuation wall. Commissioner Heineman asked how the applicant could have constructed the wall and met the standard requiring the landscaping condition in the setback area. Ms. Sexton stated the application was submitted for construction of apartments and the RD-M Zone does not require the landscaping. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the initial application had been submitted for a condominium project, would the sound attenuation wall have been a part of the requirement. Ms. Sexton stated that it would not be required. Mr. Neu added there would have been a sound attenuation wall condition, but the Planned Development Ordinance would have required it to be located in a different position on the property. The noise impact to the site would still need to be mitigated, but the standard for its location is different in the Planned Development Ordinance. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the site constraints, such as the sound attenuation wall, driveway access, and rear yard setback requirements force the location of the units on the site. Mr. Neu stated it is possible that an entirely different design would have been required to comply with all those standards. For example, underground parking with units located above to provide more area for setback from the right-of-way. Chairperson Montgomery asked if a sound attenuation wall can be avoided by constructing a building with sound mitigation elements in the design. Mr. Neu stated it would depend on which part of the standard is being addressed. He added the interior level would need to be met and, from that perspective, it could be possible. There is also an exterior recreational area to consider, so depending where that is positioned on the lot it is possible to meet that standard without a wall. Commissioner Heineman asked if it would be possible to remove the noise attenuation wall, incorporate the landscaping, and still have a viable project. Mr. Neu stated there would need to be documentation on whether you could meet the interior noise mitigation requirement without the wall, which he understands is currently serving as part of noise mitigation. The other issue would be the driveway dimension requirement. With the current configuration, only so much of the driveway can be removed for landscaping purposes; maybe none of it. Commissioner Heineman stated this may not be a fixable situation. Chairperson Montgomery asked if, in the absence of the noise attenuation wall and with knowledge of the landscape requirement, the project would be suitable for direct driveways onto La Costa Avenue. David Rick, Assistant Engineer, stated La Costa Avenue is a secondary arterial and, per City standards, a driveway would be discouraged. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Segall stated the issue of driveway placement and the 8-foot setback standard could possibly be met, but solving that problem does not resolve the other three issues. • Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant would like to give a presentation. Gino DiFante, 7565 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, made a brief presentation and stated that he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. DiFante if he was aware that the apartments would not be eligible for conversion into condominiums when they were built. Mr. DiFante stated that he built them as apartments and submitted the project for Preliminary Review even though it was not required. Commissioner Baker stated that she understood that. She asked Mr. DiFante if, when he submitted the Building Permits and broke ground on the lot, he knew that he would not be able to convert them into condominiums at a later date because the project did not meet all of the requirements to do so. Mr. DiFante stated he had a meeting where those issues were discussed and resolved, but no correspondence to that effect is available. He added he was told to obtain a Preliminary Review from the Planning Department and the result of that review was a denial of the condominium conversion. Commissioner Baker stated the project was constructed exactly as the Preliminary Review site plan indicated. Mr. DiFante stated this is not necessarily true. He stated the building was moved over an additional 10 feet which changed the rear elevation. Commissioner Baker stated the adjustment of the structure to accommodate the elevation issue does not address the noise attenuation wall, setback, architectural, and recreational problems. Mr. DiFante agreed and added what was originally submitted to the City was different. Mr. DiFante stated the Planning Department wants compliance with the current Planned Development Ordinance, but the letter was based on the old Planned Development Ordinance and he stated he feels it no longer applies to the project. Commissioner Baker stated the Commission has heard testimony from Ms. Sexton that the project could not be converted to condominiums under either the old or the new Planned Development Ordinance. Mr. DiFante stated he has a copy of the older Planned Development Ordinance and has reviewed it. He added he does not understand what area of this Ordinance the project does not comply with. Mr. Neu stated the Planned Development Ordinance that is being referred to as the old Planned Development Ordinance is actually the current one and it was in effect at the time the project was processed. Ms. Sexton stated when the findings in the Preliminary Review letter were conveyed, the old Planned Development Ordinance was in effect. She added when she reviewed the older Planned Development Ordinance there were two development standards the proposed conversion could not meet at that time. Commissioner Baker stated under the current Planned Development Ordinance, there are four development standards the conversion does not meet. She added the issue of changing development standards is a common occurrence and asked what the rule is with regard to project submissions and which Ordinance will prevail as the applicable standard. Mr. Neu stated the current standards are typically applied, but the City has had Ordinances where a provision is written for projects that are in process at the time of a change to the Ordinance. Those provisions state the project would be subject to the Ordinance in place at the start of the application process. The most recent version of the Planned Development Ordinance allows for reversion to the Planned Development Ordinance in effect at the time the Building Permit was pulled. Mr. Neu added the goal was to allow for some flexibility to apply the rules that were in place at the time the project was built. Commissioner Baker stated the issue at hand is which Planned Development Ordinance applies to this proposed conversion project. Ms. Sexton stated the current Planned Development Ordinance applies because the Building Permit was issued in 2002. The current Ordinance states the Ordinance in effect at the time of issue, approval, or construction is the prevailing governing Ordinance. The Building Permit for construction of the apartments was issued in February of 2003; therefore, the current Planned Planning Commission Minutes November 1,2006 Page 6 Development Ordinance is the governing Ordinance on this proposed conversion because it was in effect as of January 18, 2002. Commissioner Baker asked if this is based on when the Building Permit is issued. Ms. Sexton stated it is based on the issue of or approval of the Building Permit or a Discretionary Permit. Commissioner Baker stated her concern about the timeline from when plans are drawn to when a Building Permit is pulled and when the Municipal Code changes. Commissioner Segall stated the issue seems to be when the Building Permit was pulled, it was for an apartment complex, which is not subject to the standards in the Planned Development Ordinance. The applicant has changed the entire use which results in the project falling into the standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance. The Planned Development Ordinance in effect at the time of construction has no bearing on the issue at hand because the site was developed as apartments and such construction is not governed by the Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Mobaldi stated the current Planned Development Ordinance, Section 21.45.110, Conversion of Existing Buildings to Planned Developments reads, "Any application for a condominium conversion shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter, but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time the original project was approved or constructed." Ms. Mobaldi added Staff must revisit the time when the original project was approved or constructed for direction to the appropriate Planned Development Ordinance. She stated it is her understanding there was no Discretionary Permit issued at that time; it was only a Building Permit application in February of 2002, and the current Planned Development Ordinance was in effect at that time. The Municipal Code specifies that the current Planned Development Ordinance is applicable to this conversion question and dictates there are four standards at issue. Chairperson Montgomery stated the applicable standards of the Building Permit application as an apartment building have been met. Ms. Mobaldi stated she assumes they were. Chairperson Montgomery stated the approval or denial of a change of use could trigger all sorts of different things, including a change to the site map. He added the Municipal Code was discretioned when it was built or when the application to build was submitted. Ms. Mobaldi stated the conversion is triggering a review of the new standards because there is a different set of standards for condominiums than for apartments. Ordinarily Staff looks at the Ordinance that is in effect at the time the project is processed, but in some cases, the Ordinances specify different standards and, in this case, it is very specific with respect to timelines. Commissioner Segall stated Mr. Wayne's letter of August 14, 2000, states the conversion from apartments to condominiums would not conform to the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. Under the old Planned Development Ordinance, the project would not meet standards. With the current Ordinance, there are two additional issues which take the project even further out of compliance. Ms. Mobaldi stated this is her understanding as well. Chairperson Montgomery stated Mr. DiFante is claiming there are certain issues that have caused a change since the initial findings of that letter. Chairperson Montgomery stated there are two options for applying the Planned Development Ordinance to this conversion. One method would be the use of the Municipal Code in place today or by an exception of the Municipal Code using the date of initial application to build the project, which would still place the conversion within the current Planned Development Ordinance. He added even utilizing the exception, the conversion is still governed by the current Planned Development Ordinance. A more effective discussion might include thoughts about what could be done to satisfy the four issues before the Commission this evening. Mr. DiFante stated he agrees with this statement. He acknowledged the letter from August 2000 no longer applies to his project, and he would like the current standards applied. Mr. Neu stated the relevance of the references to the letter is to illustrate Staff's disclosure, at the earliest possible time, that a problem with conversion existed. We are not debating whether the current standards apply. Planning Commission Minutes November 1,2006 Page? Commissioner Dominguez stated the Preliminary Review letter of August 14, 2000, threw up a huge red flag that the possibility of conversion down the line would be impossible and it was apparently never responded to by the applicant. At that time the applicant should have withdrawn the submittal and redesigned the project to comply with the standards if he was considering a conversion at a later date. Chairperson Montgomery stated there are core issues of compliance. He asked Mr. DiFante if he feels he has any way to mitigate the four issues in order to comply. Mr. DiFante stated he believes he does. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. DiFante to address each issue on the list separately and describe to the Commission what could be done to bring each issue into compliance. Mr. DiFante stated he would address the noise attenuation wall. Chairperson Montgomery stated the noise attenuation wall is not the issue. The issue before the Commission is the landscape requirement, which calls into question the location of the wall. Mr. DiFante stated the landscaping is required to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic. The street scene has been enhanced with 24-inch boxed trees every 15 feet of the exterior wall along La Costa Avenue. Mr. DiFante stated the Ordinance is confusing and it has been determined to be inconsistent and ambiguous. If the landscaping is required to enhance the street scene and buffer the homes from traffic and the noise attenuation wall is required to lower the noise levels, then the noise attenuation wall becomes the buffer for the residents. The exterior of the wall has been enhanced with landscaping. The interior landscaping requirement is in place to buffer the homes from traffic, but the wall is already serving that function. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. DiFante if he could apply the landscape buffer and redesign the sound attenuation wall to meet what is being required tonight. Mr. DiFante stated he did not think he could redesign the noise attenuation wall to conform and still function in reducing the noise levels. He stated he has met the requirements of design based on the noise element site design techniques and has provided as much setback area as possible. He added he has provided driveways in the front and the recreation patios in back in order to meet the noise element of the General Plan and meet the guidelines provided by the Planning Department. The project has been designed in every way to reduce the noise levels and the wall is part of that design. Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Sexton if the noise attenuation wall could be eliminated and the landscape buffer required by Municipal Code be placed and the wall be erected beyond it and still retain enough room for a driveway. Ms. Sexton stated that this could not be accomplished. There would need to be enough room to accommodate the required 24-foot driveway and from the property line to the building there is an estimated 31 feet. Fifteen feet of that would be required to be landscaped, and that would not leave enough room for the required driveway width. Chairperson Montgomery urged Mr. DiFante to move to the second issue. Mr. DiFante stated there is synthetic grass and blocks that grass grows through; there are ways of doing it. The Ordinance states that landscaping is required to buffer the homes from traffic. Chairperson Montgomery stated in order to apply the project and allow the conversion to occur, there would need to be a 15-foot landscape buffer, and then a noise attenuation wall could be placed. The problem is, if the 15 feet of landscaping is provided along La Costa Avenue and the noise attenuation wall was moved back to a location 15 feet from the property line, there is no room left for the required 24-foot driveway. Mr. DiFante stated the landscape requirement is designed to buffer the homes from traffic. Ms. Sexton stated the landscaping requirement is in place to enhance the street scene as well and in the available space there is not enough room to accommodate the 15-foot landscaped setback and the 20-foot driveway requirement. Mr. DiFante stated he is seeking assistance with a situation where the standard in the Ordinance does not necessarily acknowledge the noise element, but the wall is required. The landscaping is required to buffer the homes from traffic and yet a wall is there that is required to lower the noise levels and buffer the homes from traffic. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is any possibility of replacing the wall with landscaping. Commissioner Heineman stated it is his understanding that landscaping cannot substitute for a solid wall when it comes to noise attenuation. Mr. DiFante addressed the issue of recreational space in the rear area of the project, stating Unit 3 complies with the Planned Development Standard because of the rectangular-shaped patio. The ordinance dictates a 15 feet by 15 feet requirement, but does not say it has to be square. One is to assume that this would be 225 square feet of patio area. Unit 1 has 1,565 square feet of existing patio area and Unit 2 has 469 square feet of existing patio area. Unit 3 has 246 square feet of existing patio area and the existing patio and yard area for Unit 4 is 583 square feet combined. Ms. Sexton stated Staff made an exception for this project and allowed the individual recreational areas to be composed of a combination of patio and proposed balcony areas. When applying this exception, Units 1, 2, and 3 meet the standard, but Unit 4 does not. The proposed balcony for Unit 4 extends into the required setback area. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the project met the total square footage requirement, regardless of the overhang into the setback area. Ms. Sexton explained the Municipal Code states 15 feet by 15 feet, which is a square dimension. The balcony on Unit 4 does meet this space requirement; however, it does extend into the driveway setback area. Commissioner Segall stated the requirement is not cumulative of total square footage, but 15 feet by 15 feet square. Ms. Sexton confirmed 15 by 15 square feet are required. Mr. DiFante asked what is meant by a combination of patio and balcony area. Ms. Sexton answered the Municipal Code states either a 15- by 15-foot square patio or 120 square feet of balcony. Mr. DiFante stated the proposed balconies provide 160 square feet of deck area, as well as the existing 269 square feet of patio area. Chairperson Montgomery stated the balcony encroaches into the driveway setback area. Mr. DiFante stated Unit 4 provides 155 square feet of recreational space and the front yard setback is 15 feet; the balcony does not encroach. Chairperson Montgomery asked if another balcony could be placed on the east building plane of Unit 4. Ms. Sexton stated the proposed balcony location is on the east plane. The front yard setback requirement is 15 feet from the building and the driveway setback is 8 feet from the building. The proposed balcony is positioned 1Vfe feet from the building and is nonconforming with the driveway setback requirement. Chairperson Montgomery asked if a balcony could be placed on the rear of the project. Ms. Sexton stated this balcony placement would extend into the setback. Mr. DiFante stated the issue of the driveway was introduced in the Staff report of October 19 and it was not an issue in the past. He added he has previously addressed this issue to the best of his ability. Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Sexton to describe the driveway setback requirement. Ms. Sexton stated a driveway is required to be 24 feet in width and are not typically named. The Fire Department does have a driveway-naming requirement, but it is not a part of the Planned Development Ordinance. The Ordinance states a driveway setback must equal 8 feet. This driveway is positioned too close and in some places comes within 2 feet of the building. Chairperson Montgomery asked about the setback in the southerly portion of the driveway. Ms. Sexton stated the garage for Unit 1 encroaches V/2 feet into the setback. Mr. DiFante stated it has been established that the garage for Unit 1 is the only one that is encroaching and this is caused by the SDG&E easement. Chairperson Montgomery agreed and added Unit 4 has an issue that cannot be shifted in order to meet the requirement. Ms. Sexton stated the driveway is at the 24-foot width requirement and could not be reduced or moved. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. DiFante to address issue No. 4. Mr. DiFante stated he believes he has addressed the design element issue. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2006 Page 9 Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Sexton to explain Staff's position on the issue of building planes. Ms. Sexton stated the Planned Development Ordinance explains architectural elements as relating to building walls, windows, and roofs. The window on the east elevation could be considered a plane if it is offset by 18 inches. Including the window plane there are only two existing planes. The Planned Development Ordinance does not provide for inclusion of balconies or trellises. Mr. DiFante asked if the 2-foot-by-5-foot overhang above the front door would qualify as a plane. He added the balcony sits 20 inches off the wall. Ms. Sexton stated in order for a balcony to qualify as a plane, it would need to be at least 30 square feet in size; in addition, the rear and east elevations do not comply. Commissioner Baker asked if the chimneys count as building planes. Ms. Sexton stated the Ordinance does not count chimneys as building planes. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the awning and trellis projections count as building planes. Ms. Sexton stated those are not included in the Planned Development Ordinance. Commissioner Segall stated the window looks like it potentially extends 18 inches. Mr. DiFante added it extends 20 inches off the wall and is 8 feet wide. Ms. Sexton stated per the Planned Development Ordinance, the planes are limited to building walls, windows, and roofs. Commissioner Segall stated if this were the only issue, the Commission might have some latitude. Mr. DiFante asked if his technical engineer could make a statement. Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission welcomes his testimony. Rick Colia, 212 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, gave a brief presentation stating he performed the original sound study and designed the noise attenuation wall for the project. He added he was available to answer questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the wall being placed as close as possible to the street is the best method to mitigate noise and if this factor outweighs the aesthetic quality of the wall. Mr. Colia stated his agreement, adding the reason is that the noise reduction applies to the health and safety of the residents. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there was any noise attenuation application for the building itself or was it just the wall. Mr. Colia stated there were two conditions, one being the outdoor living space and the other being the interior standards. The interior standards were met through window upgrades and mechanical ventilation. Mr. Colia asked if the noise attenuation wall was covered with landscape material would it then meet the standards. Mr. DiFante stated there are other projects in the area that provide no street scene landscaping in front of their walls. This project provides a 24-inch boxed tree every 15 feet for street scene enhancement. The Planned Development Ordinance states the landscape requirement provides for street scene enhancement and a sound buffer. He added he feels he has met the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. With the noise attenuation wall present, the landscaping is not necessary to buffer sound. Ms. Mobaldi stated the appellant has the burden of proof to show that by substantial evidence the grounds for the requested action exist. The requested action is to allow the conversion and that should not be confused with a request for a variance from standards and added it sounds like the appellant is proposing a variance tonight. Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission the object of this evening's hearing is to focus on the appeal and whether or not grounds exist to deny the conversion. If Mr. DiFante has issues with regard to the unique characteristics of his property and its existing constraints or the equality of treatment between his development and the neighboring properties, those are issues to be considered at a variance hearing and are not matters before the Commission this evening. A variance hearing would be a separate occurrence. Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission may be melding the separate issues of considering a variance from standard and the existence of grounds to deny the conversion into one issue. Ms. Mobaldi Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2006 Page 10 confirmed and added particularly because the issue of whether or not Mr. DiFante can make some changes and the development will become compliant has been explored. It does not sound like this would be a feasible course of action, so he really needs a standards variance if he wants to move away from the existing standards and that is not the issue before the Commission. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant should have approached the Commission with a combination of a standards variance and conversion on this appeal. Ms. Mobaldi stated this might have been a way to approach the matter; however, many of the issues are being flushed out at tonight's hearing. Mr. Neu added the standards variance is reserved for special circumstances unique to a property and addresses issues of topography, location, and items of this nature. In this case, the Commission is dealing with design constraints in relationship to the parcel. The only existing constraints are development regulations and how the design of the development was set out in relation to those. Mr. Neu stated the variance avenue would be tough to accomplish in an affirmative way because, from the facts presented this evening, the constraints appear to be self-imposed through the design of the development. The project probably could have been designed to comply with the Ordinance. There are different ways to design for this site and whether a variance could be granted or not, it is Staff's opinion that a variance probably could not be supported. That is not to say it could not be appealed and come before the Planning Commission for consideration. Chairperson Montgomery asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. Chairperson Montgomery stated that there were only six Planning Commissioners present, and he offered the applicant the option of waiting until a full Commission was present. Mr. DiFante asked how many votes would be required for approval. Chairperson Montgomery stated four votes are required. Mr. DiFante stated his desire to proceed with a decision at the hearing that night. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated the existing issues related to this project have been reviewed in briefings as well as at that night's hearing and it appears there are too many obstacles to approve the conversion. As an apartment complex, it appears all applicable standards were met, but changing the use through a condominium conversion brings forth new standards and it appears those cannot be met. If there were one item to rule on, an approval would be possible, but not with the issues at hand. Commissioner Segall added it appears in the year 2000, the applicant was made aware there would be issues in converting the site into condominiums. Commissioner Heineman stated he concurs with Commissioner Segall and added he conducted some research on the possibility of a variance and does not believe it would be a possible solution. Commissioner Dominguez stated out of the four issues presented, it is possible that a waiver of the building plane requirement could have been offered. However, the applicant must have known when the building permits were pulled on February 12, 2002, there was a major red flag to any future conversion. At that point the applicant should have stepped back and reviewed the existing plans if there were any notion of a future conversion. Commissioner Cardosa stated there are several issues within in the previous Ordinance as well as the current Ordinance that would not allow the project to go forward as a condominium project. Commissioner Baker concurs with her fellow Commissioners and added there would be no way to grant a variance based on evidence presented. It was very clear at the time the building permits were pulled there would be problems with any further conversion. Commissioner Baker stated she supports Staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Chairperson Montgomery stated some of the issues presented this evening could have been addressed, and it is possible the Commission could have made findings in the applicant's favor. He added there are other issues that make it impossible to approve the project as presented. The project does not comply Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2006 Page 11 with the Planned Development Ordinance and therefore the Commission will have to uphold the denial for application for conversion into condominiums. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6197 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to deny a Condominium Permit CP 06-01, based on the findings contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton COMMISSION COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi reminded the applicant of his right to appeal tonight's determination to the City Council within 10 days. EXHIBIT 6 City of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk November 14, 2006 To: Don Neu, Planning Director RE: Gino Defante Appeal. 2565 Romeria Street. CP 06-01 Planning Commission Meeting held November 1, 2006 THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, most appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If the notice requires a public hearing, the item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by the City Manager and the City Attorney). Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk, 760-434-2917 Copies To: City Manager City Attorney Chris Sexton, Planner Enclosed: Copy of appeal Copy of agenda The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of Signature Date H:\Aopeals\AoDeal Notice to Department.doc 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 City of Carlsbad •jy" BB^l*<>'Pf<MUMM*iiiE|MB^B^"<M*BIMPHi|HIIMMMOffice of tHe Cify Clerk APPEAL peal the decision of the f+sbao City Council Date of Decision you are appealing:. Subject of Appeal: SE SPgOFIC Examples: it tne action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment. Nagath/e Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list than all, If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. for Appeal: • Picas* Not* • Failur* to specify a reason may result In denial of th« appeal, and you will ba limited to th» ground* stated h«r« Mh*n presenting your appaal. Bg. SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? 2==^- SIGfWTL'RE PHONE NO. NAME (please print;ADDRESS: Street Name & Number CATE Zip Code 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad California 92008-1989 • (619) 434-2306 v> 53' PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 1.2C06 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CUP OS-18/CDP OS-35 - NS022-01 FOUR SEASONS WCF - Request 'or a Conditional Use Farmit and Coastal Development Permrt to allow the installation ct a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) .it the Aviara Four Seasons Resort located at 7100 Four Seasons Point in the Me;lo I! Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 19. Resolutions No. 6184,6186 Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL PLANNER: Jason Goff ENGINEER Cavid hauaer PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approved 6-0 2. CDP 06-21 - WOOLSON RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastai Development Permit to allow for partial demolition of an existing single-family residence and the remodel and addition of 4,191.5 square feet within the City's Coastai Zone located st 5345 Los Robles Drive within the Mello !l Segment of the Locai Coastal Program (uCP) ana Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Resolution No. 8183 Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL PLANNER: Erin Endres ENGINEER: David Rick PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approved 6-0 3. CP 06-01 - ROMERIA - Appeal of a Planning Director decision, pursuant to Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to deny a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romena Street, on the northwest corner of Romer.'a Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Resolution No. 6197 Staff Recommendation: DENYING PLANNER: Chris Sexton ENGINEER. David Rick PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Denied 6-0 Planning Commission Member Comments Planning Director Comments City Council Update City Attorney Comments TIME: 7.43 p.m. GlNO DlFANTE P.O. Box 2442 • Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 887-7557 • Fax: (760) 944-2885 November 10, 2006 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: The Romeria - CP 06-01 Gino DiFaute, Owner 7565 Romeria Street La Costa; CA 92009 Re: Reasons for my appeal to the Carlsbad City Council. Carlsbad City Council: I believe the Carlsbad Planning Commission's decision to deny my appeal and uphold the Planning Directors' denial of a condominium permit for my project CP 06^)1 (The Romeria) was based upon inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues of denial, and a letter dated August 14, 2000 from the Planning Department, which have been applied to my project by the Planning Department. These issues and letter have been presented to the Planning Commission by the Planning Department hi order to direct the Planning Commission to deny my appeal. I have submitted resolutions to the issues the Planning Department has with my project, but they refuse to acknowledge and apply these resolutions to the issues. I feel that my project has been singled out by the Planning Department because the Planning Department will not apply the resolutions to the issues on my project hi order to approve my project's condominium permit. However, the Planning Department has applied my resolutions of the issues to other recently approved condominium projects hi the same area as mine, but will not apply the issue resolutions to my project. I submitted all the information requested by the Planning Department for the Planning Commission hearing on September 25, 2006. The documents I submitted included resolutions to the two issues of denial stated hi the Planning Department's denial letter dated August 2, 2006. On October 19, 2006,1 learned from the DCC Report that the Planning Department applied two new additional issues to my project at the last minute - just before the hearing - which I believe do not apply to my project. The DCC Report also addressed and applied a response to a preliminary review by the Planning Department on August 14, 2000. The Planning Department preliminary review was not required for my project. The Planning Department has currently used this letter of August 14, 2000 to present to the Planning Commission to deny my condominium permit today. Carlsbad City Council November 10 Page Two This letter does not apply to my project today because it was written and based upon the old Planned Development Ordinance and not the current Planned Development Ordinance the Planning Department states my project needs to comply to. The letter is inaccurate and misleading and should not be addressed or applied to my project today. This is why I feel my project has been singled out by the Planning Department. The City Engineering, Building, Fire and Police Departments have no issues with my project. I believe the current Planned Development Ordinance contradicts and is not consistent with the City General Plan, the Noise Element and City policy. The Carlsbad Planning Department has determined that the current Planned Development Ordinance and the development standards in the Ordinance are ambiguous and inconsistent and has recently written a new Planned Development Ordinance to be approved by the Carlsbad City Council. The Planning Department's issues of denial on my project's condominium permit are based on these ambiguous and inconsistent development standards in the current Planned Development Ordinance. Therefore, I believe the issues of denial on my project by the Planning Department are inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading. My project complies with the Ordinance and my condominium permit should be approved and not denied due to inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading issues by the Planning Department. I have submitted with this appeal form documents and information that support my reasons for appeal. Please review all information provided on the resolutions to the issues of denial and the inaccurate and misleading letter of August 14, 2000. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gino DiFante REC'D FROM CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Cashier: (760) 602-2401 Water Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420 DATE ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Printed on recycled w*. NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY CASH REGISTER TOTAL M Receive-Agenda Item #_ For the Information of m« CTTYCpUNCILAsst January 16, 2007 Raymond R. Paichett City Manager City of Carlsbad Subject: The Romeria, CP 06-01 7565 Romeria Street. Dear Mr. Patchett: The Romeria, CP 06-01, Is scheduled to be heard at tonight's City Council meeting. Due to a family emergency which just occurred, I cannot attend tonight's meeting. I request that the subject or item be continued to February 6, 2007, or to the next City Council meeting date available. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. I wilt call my planner, Chris Sexton, as to the request to continue the item. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Gino DiFante (949) 887-7557 (760) 944-2885 (Fax) 1 162087 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE - C-C_ 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 known 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: December 09th, 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 11th, Day of December, 2006 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of nit apartmenta .32 acre sits locate;northwest comer offenue in Local Facilmore particularly CASfe N^ME: APPEAL^OF HOMER1A PUBLISH: December 9,20Q6 NOT 2000838 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising 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 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19,2006, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest comer of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, March 10,1970. 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 or after December 15, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Chris Sexton in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4624. If you challenge the appeal of the Condominium Permit 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: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: APPEAL of CP 06-01 APPEAL OF ROMERIA December 9, 2006 SITEMAP The Romeria CP 06-01 MOT TO SCALf CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 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 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19,2006, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, March 10,1970. 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 or after December 15, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Chris Sexton in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4624. If you challenge the appeal of the Condominium Permit 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: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: APPEAL of CP 06-01 APPEAL OF ROMERIA December 9, 2006 SITEMAP The Romeria CP 06-01 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 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 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a Condominium Permit to allow the conversion of a four-unit apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 2565 Romeria Street, on the northwest corner of Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 390 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6660, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, March 10, 1970. 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 or after December 15, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Chris Sexton in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4624. If you challenge the appeal of the Condominium Permit 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 CP 06-01 CASE NAME: APPEAL OF ROMERIA PUBLISH: December 9, 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITEMAP The Romeria CP 06-01 NOT TO SCALS „ Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160* CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST STE 250 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY® 5160* ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER DAVID RICK/DAVID HAUSER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER CHRIS SEXTON GINO DiFANTE PO BOX 2442 CAPISTRANO BEACH CA 92624 11/28/3006 ®091S aoidej aBeuiac P la afipjinomiup Jam and Smudge Free Printing ' Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ -THOMAS G CITRANO 239 AVENIDA GRANADA C SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 RICKIE & DOROTHY CURRENS 7554 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JUNE G LONG 7556 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MARK GOLDSWORTHY 18585 CAMINITO PASADERO 429 SAN DIEGO, CA 92128 CORRINE LEWIS 11766 CARMEL CREEK RD 109 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 JOSEPH F & TAMARA DESANTI 7559 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 SOLE JENNIFER 7560 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 NOELLE J ZHANG 7562 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N FRIED 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ORAZIO G DIFANTE PO BOX 2442 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 RICHARD R & HEIDI SHRIGLEY 7604 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ROBERT F & LISA MEEKS 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DANIEL J & JEANETTE HALABUK 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LOUISE KRIPALANI 7609 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DOUG & GAIL EMERY 7611 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CANDICE NAIDITCH 7507 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MICHAEL M & KIMBERLY SINCLAIR 7509 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ARTHUR M MARINO 7511 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 AH3AV-OD-008-1 eBeipes f »e eBeunoqpue uojssaidui) Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ -KAREN MOSSMAN 3003 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 EVELYN ENDRIZZI 3004 LA COSTA AVE A CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BRADLEY S & HOWARD COOPERMAN 3004 LA COSTA AVE B CARLSBAD, CA 92009 WILLIAM K & YVONNE RYAN 3005 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JAMES B & M CARTER 2516 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CHARLES F & KAREN HODIL 3007 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MICHAEL C ALBRIGHT PO BOX 230724 ENCINITAS, CA 92023 PERRY GARCIA 2400 ALTISMA WAY D CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BNR INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT L L 23800 VIA DEL RIO YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 BNR INVESTMENT &_ 23800 __ jINDA, CA 92887 ENT L IT RUSTOM P DASTUR 902 ARMADA TER SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 RUSTOM P DJ 902 S£jr*DIEGO, CA 92106 RUSTOM P DAS; 902 SAN-aiTEGO, CA 92106 ^r N E FRIED 7564 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ROBERT MACDONALD 7544 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MICHAEL & BHARVI STALHAMER 7546 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BING ZHU 7548 ROMERIA ST 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MICHAEL D KEBELY 7550 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ELIZABETH SCHLEUTKER 7551 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 R & JUDITH SUNDSTROM 7552 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 >»L96S ©AU3AV AM3AV-OD-008-1 ».196S »Meqe6 9\ e6e.unoqjiiie uoissaidui) Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ JASON & DAWN REYES 7546 GIBRALTAR ST C CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ROGER & BARBARA PIGEON 1261 SAN JULIAN PL SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 CHUL HONG 7546 GIBRALTAR ST E CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DAVID J CHRISTENSEN 7546 GIBRALTAR ST F CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ERIK M GIST 7546 GIBRALTAR ST G CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HAROLD COYKENDALL 10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082 HAROLD COYKENDALL 183 CALLE MAGDALENA 100 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 JACQUELINE F CARROLL 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 K LEEPER 2142 CAMBRIDGE AVE CARDIFF, CA 92007 TAKAYOSHI & MOMOYO SAISHO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CREMER INVESTMENTS PO BOX 429 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 WILLIAM W HALEY 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 5 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JOYCE SCHUMACHER 1211 E HANCOCK ST BEEVILLE, TX 78102 KAYE D STINGER 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 7 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JANE LAYON 118 W AVENUE C BISMARCK, ND 58501 KIPRIAN M & BARBARA SKAVINSKI 12363 LASSELLE ST MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 DARYL & PATSI JENSEN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 10 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ANN J ALLEN 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 11 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 KIMBERLY MILLWARD 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 12 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 13 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 AH3AV-OD-008-1 s\ a6eipes e »a a6e.unoqpue Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ CHARLES L & BRENDA STREET 7519 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 GIBRALTAR STREET L L C 725 EMERALD ST B SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 KAREN M DAVIES 7521 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER 7525 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 STUARD *B* 7527 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 N T A ASSOCIATES 1331 BRICKELL BAY DR MIAMI, FL 33131 JOSE J PADILLA 445 N BEDFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 VERNON GREENER 7533 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CORY 7535 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CLAYTON BLEHM 770 SYCAMORE AVE J-213 VISTA, CA 92083 RETA M PARKER *M* 7538 GIBRALTAR ST A CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JOHN & LUCILLE LINDSEY PO BOX 2767 DEL MAR, CA 92014 JOHN & LUCILLE P 0 BOX276J. DEL MAR-r~CA 92014 JOSE MARTINEZ 7538 GIBRALTAR ST D CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MICHELE L WILKINSON 7538 GIBRALTAR ST E CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CARMEN L ALTAMIRANO 7538 GIBRALTAR ST F CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JOHN & LUC I LI PO BOX_ CA 92014 SEY STAGEY D SHEA PO BOX 1063 REMSENBURG, NY 11960 JOHN & LUCILLE PO BOX 92014 RICHARD E MARTINEZ 833 CAMINITO VERDE CARLSBAD, CA 92011 :,L96S AH3AV-OD-008-1 ? )a a6e.unoqpue uojssaidwi Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ -ROBERT G ROSS 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 14 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 NAOMI A FISHMAN 2929 W PARKRIDGE DR PEORIA, IL 61604 CARRIE J DIEDRICH 7559 GIBRALTAR ST 16 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 WAYNNE & CONNIE NAKAJI 1019 SUMMER HOLLY LN ENCINITAS, CA 92024 CAROL J STADUM 7563 GIBRALTAR ST 22 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PETER PINTER 7563 GIBRALTAR ST 23 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MANOJ C & JAGRUTI MANIAR 7563 GIBRALTAR ST 24 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CHRISTOPHER A & GAYLE JEFFERY 7668 EL CAMINO REAL 104 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 NEAL TAUNT 7565 GIBRALTAR ST 18 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 EVERGREEN 24 CENTER CT LAGUNA NIGUEL,CA 92677 JAMES R HOUTMAN 7565 GIBRALTAR ST 20 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BRENDA K CATT 7526 JEREZ CT 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DEBRA HATLE 250 LEWERS ST 261 HONOLULU, HI 96815 CHANY JEANGUENIN *M* 7526 JEREZ CT 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 GAMUS 7526 JEREZ CT 4 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 SUSAN CARLINS 55 W DELAWARE PL 1101 CHICAGO, IL 60610 JAMES C & 01 LEE 7528 JEREZ CT 6 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DAPHNE DOTTERRER 14770 TIGERTAIL RD APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307 SIDANA CO 7528 JEREZ CT 8 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 C A BROWN 1092 VIA TRANQUILA SANTA BARBARA, CA 93110 AM3AV-O9-008-1 a6eipa s »,196S eSe-unoqjjue uoissajdiui Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ JOHANSEN 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 THOMAS J & JILL MCKEE 3001 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LINDSEY S & PATRICIA NICHOLL 3002 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 RAYMOND A & SANDRA HARTMAN 3003 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 RUSSELL DEFRANCESCO 3004 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MEHRY SADIGHINEJAD 834 W GRAPE ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 MCCLELLAN 3006 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 KEVIN & ANN HAND 3005 CANTERO WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ABEDI 22892 OCEANBREEZE WAY LACUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 ABEDI 22892 OC EZE WAY CA 92677 CASPIAN DEV INC 26520 AGOURA RD CALABASAS, CA 91302 CASPIAN DEV 26520 AGOJ^KS RD CALABASAS, CA 91302 HAROLD COYKENDJ 183 CALLE^MSGDALENA 100 CA 92024 T NT GIBRALTER LTD 419 BOLIVIA SAN CLEMENTS, CA 92672 RICHARD J & VERNA LEWELLEN 7507 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DEBORAH A GREENE 7509 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JAMES P FITZPATRICK 7511 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 HOWARD & SUE NOVAK 7513 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 SAMMY REEDER 7515 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 TERRY L KANIA 8132 E STETSON RD PARKER, CO 80134 AM3AV-O9-008-1 aBeipas f ja e6ejjnoq!»ue uojssaiduii Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961"* SUSAN C MCBRIDE 7530 JEREZ CT 14 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 RONALD L MILLER 7530 JEREZ CT 15 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LINDA S PEREZ 9440 HANNA AVE CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 STANLEY W GEORGE 1612 BAY HILL DR SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 THERESA D EICHMAN 7532 JEREZ CT 10 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 K A MORAS 7581 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92011 ANDREAS S & ERIN HAU 7532 JEREZ CT 12 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LEGACY DEVELOPMENT LLC 6712 ABEDUL PL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LEGACY DEVELO 6712 CARIfSfiAD, CA 92009 LLC LEGACY DEVELOPMENT! 6712 ABEDUL, 92009 JAMES E SCHORLE 2914 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 KATI R MORRIS 2916 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 ARTHUR A WALOCH 3341 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 STEVEN A THOMPSON 7713 ELIZABETH LAKE RD LEONA VALLEY, CA 93551 PRENDERGAST *M* 2922 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LEGACY DEVELOPME1 6712 CARLSBAD7 CA 92009 GERARD F BRUNACHE 1150 CHINQUAPIN AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH SPEVAK 3001 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 THOMAS R & SANDRA RHATIGAN 1194 SAN PABLO DR SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 AUGUSTINO ALBANESE PO BOX 230122 ENCINITAS, CA 92023 AM3AV-OD-008-1 »ueqe6 s\ resign e6eipes e ja a6ejjnoqi)ue uojssejduii Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5961™ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5961™ PATRICIA R FLETCHER 7513 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PRICE 7515 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CLARK & ERIN NEWTON *B* 7517 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CHRISTINE C & RICHARD SALAZAR 7519 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 GEORGIE A DENNIS 7520 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BRIAN P GOLDOJARB 5178 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHARLIE & JUDITH MALINGS 7522 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 STEPHEN J & PATRICIA BARRY 7523 SOLANO ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 IRAJ & FARNAZ NOOHI 2008 SUBIDA TER CARLSBAD, CA 92009 K S L LA COSTA RESORT CORP 50905 AVENIDA BERMUDAS LA QUINTA, CA 92253 *** 150 Printed *** AM3AV-OD-008-1 D»196S ««qc6 9| zasi|!Wl a6eipes ? JB eBejjnoqjiue uojssajdui| THE ROMERIA PROJECT MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 04-11CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP 06-01A MINOR SUBDIVISION OFAN EXISTING 4 UNIT DWELLING7565 ROMERIA STREETLA COSTA, CARLSBAD ISSUE AREQUIRED NOISE ATTENUATION WALL NEW PD ORDINANCE TO BE APOPTED CURRENT PD ORDINANCEISSUE AEXHIBIT A1NOISE ATTENUATION WALL(Not a project perimeter wall) CITY NOISE ELEMENT REQUIREDISSUE RESOLUTION:I have submitted documentation that supports the noise attenuation wall requirement and location to the Planning Department that resolves the issue. The planning staffwill not apply the resolution submitted.The standard in the current PD Ordinance contradicts, is not consistent with and does not acknowledge the Noise Element of the City General Plan.The standard has been amended in the new PD Ordinance yet to be adopted. Which acknowledges, validates and supports the issue resolution documents I submitted.CHRIS SEXTON, LETTER TO PLANNING DIRECTOR ISSUE AEXHIBIT A2REQUEST FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOR A NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE ROMERIA PROJECT ON, JULY 17, 2002 FROM GREG FISHER. AND THE ANALYSIS NOISE WALL LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUE AEXHIBIT A3CHRIS SEXTON, LETTER TO PLANNING DIRECTORCITY DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ISSUE RESOLUTIONCURRENT PD ORDINANCE CONTRADICTS AND IS NOT CONSISTANT WITH THE NOISE ELEMENTNEW PD ORDINANCE TO BE APOPTED CURRENT PD ORDINANCE ISSUE AEXHIBIT A4CITY GENERAL PLAN, NOISE ELEMENT NOISE MITIGATION ZONING VARIANCESTHE NOISE ELEMENT STATES THAT THE CITY WILL ASSIST PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ZONING VARIANCES TO MITIGATE NOISE ISSUE AEXHIBIT A5THE CURRENT PD ORDINANCE STATES TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE STREET SCENE AND BUFFER THE HOMES FROM TRAFFIC. STREET SCENE LANDSCAPING IS PROVIDED. THE KEY WORD IS BUFFER THE NOISE ATTENUATION WALL BUFFERS THE HOMES FROM TRAFFIC AS WELL AS LOWERS THE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS DEFINITIONS :Buffer:Shield or protectShield:Something that protects.Protect:Shield from injuryWall:Structure for defenseBarrier:Something that separates or obstructs.Landscape:Beautify a piece of landBASED ON THE WORD DEFINITIONS LANDSCAPING BEAUTIFIES LAND IT DOES NOT BUFFER; SHEILD OR PROTECT, HOMES FROM TRAFFIC INTERIOR OF THE NOISE ATTENUATION WALL LANDSCAPING ISSUE AEXHIBIT A6 INTERIOR OF THE NOISE ATTENUATION WALL LANDSCAPING ISSUE AEXHIBIT A7 ISSUE AEXHIBIT A8CASA LA COSTA, NOISE ATTENUATION WALLCORNER OF LA COSTA AVE AND LEVANTE ST. COMPARABLE TO THE ROMERIA NOISE ATTENUATION WALLNoise walls are permittedin setbacks, warranted bya Noise Study per the Planning Department #5PER THE PD ORDINANCEA 24” BOX SIZETREE EVERY 30’ LINEAL FEETOF STREET FRONTAGE ISNOT PROVIDEDON THIS PROJECTTHIS NOISEWALL WASAPPROVEDUNDER THECURRENTPD ORDINANCE ISSUE AEXHIBIT A9CASA LA COSTA, NOISE ATTENUATION WALLCORNER OF LA COSTA AVE AND LEVANTE ST.COMPARABLE TO THE ROMERIA NOISE ATTENUATION WALL Don Neu, approved this noise wallunder the current PD OrdinanceCASA LA COSTA NOISE WALLSTREET, GUESTPARKING ANDNOISE WALL ARE LOCATEDIN THE 30’ARTERIAL SETBACKNOISE WALL ISSUE AEXHIBIT A10NORTH PARK AT LA COSTA, NOISE ATTENUATION WALLCORNER OF LA COSTA AVE AND LEVANTE ST. COMPARABLE TO THE ROMERIA NOISE ATTENUATION WALL PER THE PD ORDINANCE A 24” BOX SIZE TREE EVERY 30’ LINEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS NOT PROVIDED ON THIS PROJECTThis Noise Wall was approved under the current PD OrdinanceThe Planning Departmentrequested that the noise wallbe located along the entire easterlyProperty line (La Costa Ave.)per #4 in the arterial setbackNOISEWALLNOISE WALLStreet, guest parkingand noise wall are locatedin the 30’ arterial setback ISSUE AEXHIBIT A11NORTH PARK ATLA COSTAPASSIVE PARK LANDSCAPINGCASA LA COSTASLOPE LANDSCAPING ISSUE AEXHIBIT A12 ISSUE BRECREATIONAL SPACE ISSUE BEXHIBIT B1RECREATIONAL SPACEISSUE RESOLUTION:existing recreational space provided is larger than what the standard states in the current PD Ordinance. Standard states:15’x15’ patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. The standard does not state the patio needs to be a perfect square. 15’x15’ equals 225 square feet, so the standard is to provide a minimumof 225 square feet of adequate and useable patio areaThe standard is ambiguous and has been amended in the new PD Ordinance yet to be adopted that states a minimum square footage patio area which acknowledges, validates and supports my issue resolution. Standard:The definition of standard: is something accepted as a basis for comparison. ISSUE BEXHIBIT B2EXISTING PATIO AREA ILLUSTRATIONILLUSTRATION SHOWS THAT THE EXISTING PATIO AREA’S WILL CONFORTABLY ACCOMADATE A: JACUZZIPATIO TABLEBARBAQUE Current PD Ordinance New PD Ordinance to be adoptedCITY DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ISSUE RESOLUTIONISSUE BEXHIBIT B3 ISSUE BEXHIBIT B4RECREATIONAL SPACE: PLANNING DEPARTMENTINCONSISTANT AND INACCURATE ISSUE REVISIONS RECREATIONAL SPACEPROPOSED BALCONY FOR UNIT # 3ISSUE RESOLUTION SUBMITALJUNE 30 , 2006ISSUE BEXHIBIT B5REPRESENTS A 15’ X 15’ SQUAREAREA ON EXISTING PATIOREPRESENTS A PROPOSED135 SQ. FT. BALCONY DECKAREASUBMITED SEPT. 25, 2006 ISSUE BEXHIBIT B6COMPARIBLE APPROVED CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONGIBRALTER VIEW CONDOMINIUM ISSUE BEXHIBIT B7COMPARIBLE APPROVED CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONGIBRALTER VIEW CONDOMINIUM, PLANNING DEPT. ALLOWED 200 SQ. FT. PER UNITOF RECREATIONAL SPACE ON THIS CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONAPPROVED UNDER CURRENT PD ORDINANCEAPPROVED UNDER CURRENT PD ORDINANCEAPPROVED UNDER CURRENT PD ORDINANCE ISSUE BEXHIBIT B8 ISSUE CDRIVEWAY (PROJECT) ISSUE CEXHIBIT C1 ISSUE CEXHIBIT C2THE ROMERIA NO PROPOSED NEW STREETS ISSUE CEXHIBIT C3DRIVE PROJECTS APPLY TO PROPOSED STREETS IN MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS ISSUE CEXHIBIT C4NORTH PARK AT LA COSTA DRIVEWAY (PROJECT) ISSUE CEXHIBIT C5CASA LA COSTA DRIVEWAY (PROJECT) ISSUE CEXHIBIT C6 THE ROMERIA 7565 ROMERIA ST #1, #2,#3, #4ISSUE CEXHIBIT C8 ISSUE CEXHIBIT C7 ISSUE DARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ISSUE DEXHIBIT D1THE ROMERIA PROJECT DOES PROVIDE MORE THAN 3 SEPARATEPLANES ON EACH ELEVATION AND THE PROJECT DENSITY SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS ISSUE DEXHIBIT D2THE ROMERIA PROJECT DOES PROVIDE MORE THAN 3 SEPARATEPLANES ON EACH ELEVATION AND THE PROJECT DENSITY SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS1234123455621734 ISSUE DEXHIBIT D3THE ROMERIA EAST SIDE PLANES1234512312345123453 ISSUE DEXHIBIT D4THE ROMERIA WEST SIDE PLANES123123232’ ISSUE DEXHIBIT D5THE ROMERIA NORTH SIDE PLANES65412376547654 ISSUE DEXHIBIT D6CASA LA COSTA FIREPLACE PLANES AND BALCONY FACADES 123123123123123LESS THAN 18” EXTRA INFORMATION SUBTERIANIAN PARKING IS NOT FEASABLE FOR THE SITEDUE TO THE EXSITING 15’ TO 20’ HIGH NEIGHBORSRETAINING WALL THAT RUNS ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXSITING WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE STROM DRAIN PIPE SUBTERIANIAN PARKING IS NOT FEASABLE FOR THE SITEDUE TO THE EXSITING 15’ TO 20’ HIGH NEIGHBORSRETAINING WALL THAT RUNS ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXSITING WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE STROM DRAIN PIPE SDG&E MOVED THE EXISTING 3’X3’ ELECTRICAL BOXESTO A DIFFERENT AREA ON THE SITE AND PUT IN MUCH LARGER ELECTRICAL BOXES AFTER I OBTAINED MY BUILDING PERMIT ON FEB. 7, 2003 LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS THAT SUPPORT THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Ambiguous:Having more than one interpretation.Attenuate:1. Make or become thin 2. Weaken Average:Being about midway Barrier:Something that separates or obstructs.Buffer:Shield or protectorShield:Something that protects.Protect:Shield from injuryLandscape:Beautify a piece of land Wall:Structure for defenseVariance:Legal permission to build contrary to a zoning law. Variance, City definition: Section 21.50.020 Purpose of Variance A. The sole purpose of any Variance shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance shall be granted which would have the effect of granting special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity or zone. Section 21.50.030 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and underidentical zoning classification. SDG&E MOVED THE EXISTING 3’X3’ ELECTRICAL BOXESTO A DIFFERENT AREA ON THE SITE AND PUT IN MUCH LARGER ELECTRICAL BOXES AFTER I OBTAINED MY BUILDING PERMIT ON FEB. 7, 2003 CP 06CP 06--0101RomeriaRomeria Project DescriptionProject Description„„Appeal of the denial of a Condominium Appeal of the denial of a Condominium Permit by the Planning Commission to Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the conversion of a 4allow the conversion of a 4--unit unit apartment complex into condominiums apartment complex into condominiums on a .32 acre site located at 7565 on a .32 acre site located at 7565 Romeria Street Romeria Street LA COSTA AVR O M E RI A S T GIBRALTAR STAZAHAR STSOLANO ST0200100FeetCP 06-01The Romeria Project NonProject Non--ComplianceCompliance1. Arterial Setbacks1. Arterial Setbacks2. Setbacks from Driveway (Project)2. Setbacks from Driveway (Project)3. Architectural Design Elements3. Architectural Design Elements4. Recreational Space4. Recreational SpaceAs per Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad As per Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Development Municipal Code (Planned Development Ordinance)Ordinance) TimelineTimeline„„Preliminary Review submitted on July 18, Preliminary Review submitted on July 18, 2000 for a 42000 for a 4--unit apartment buildingunit apartment building Preliminary Review Site PlanPreliminary Review Site Plan Existing Site Plan Existing Site Plan ––CP 06CP 06--0101 Timeline ContinuedTimeline ContinuedƒƒPreliminary Review: July 18, 2000Preliminary Review: July 18, 2000ƒƒCurrent PD Ordinance: January 18, Current PD Ordinance: January 18, 2002 2002 ƒƒBuilding Permit Applied: February 12, Building Permit Applied: February 12, 20022002ƒƒBuilding Permit Issued: February 2, Building Permit Issued: February 2, 20032003ƒƒBuilding Permit Finaled: March 8, 2005Building Permit Finaled: March 8, 2005 Project NonProject Non--ComplianceComplianceƒƒPer the Planned Development Per the Planned Development Ordinance Ordinance ““An average of 50% of the An average of 50% of the required setback area that is closest to required setback area that is closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. homes from traffic on adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped area.located in the landscaped area.”1. Arterial Setbacks1. Arterial Setbacks General Plan & Planned General Plan & Planned Development ComplianceDevelopment Compliance„„Noise Element requires compliance Noise Element requires compliance with the Noise Guidelines Manualwith the Noise Guidelines Manual„„Planned Development Ordinance does Planned Development Ordinance does not allow project walls in the arterial not allow project walls in the arterial landscape setbacklandscape setback A perimeter wall is locatedA perimeter wall is locatedin the Arterial Setback in the Arterial Setback A perimeter wall is locatedA perimeter wall is locatedin the Arterial Setback in the Arterial Setback Public Right of WayProperty line 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK 15 feet of landscaping in the15 feet of landscaping in theArterial Setback is not providedArterial Setback is not provided Project NonProject Non--ComplianceComplianceƒƒPer the Planned Development Per the Planned Development Ordinance the project needs to provide Ordinance the project needs to provide an 8 foot, fully landscaped, setback an 8 foot, fully landscaped, setback from the edge of the driveway to the from the edge of the driveway to the building.building.2. Driveway (Project) Setbacks2. Driveway (Project) Setbacks The project only provides a The project only provides a minimum of 1.5 feetminimum of 1.5 feet Project NonProject Non--ComplianceCompliance3. Architectural Design Elements3. Architectural Design ElementsƒƒEach elevation is required to provide Each elevation is required to provide three separate building planes with a three separate building planes with a minimum offset of 18 inches.minimum offset of 18 inches. South ElevationSouth ElevationƒƒFive building planesFive building planes East ElevationEast ElevationƒƒTwo building planesTwo building planes North ElevationNorth ElevationƒƒTwo building planesTwo building planes West ElevationWest ElevationƒƒTwo building planesTwo building planes Project NonProject Non--ComplianceCompliance4. Private Recreational Space4. Private Recreational SpaceƒƒProjects of 1 Projects of 1 ––10 dwelling units 10 dwelling units required a 15required a 15’’x 15x 15’’patio or 120 patio or 120 square feet of balcony area. Unit 4 square feet of balcony area. Unit 4 does not comply since the balcony does not comply since the balcony projects more than 3 feet into the projects more than 3 feet into the required front yard setback required front yard setback measured from the edge of the measured from the edge of the driveway. driveway. Planning DirectorPlanning Director’’s Denials DenialƒƒArterial Landscape SetbacksArterial Landscape SetbacksƒƒPrivate Recreational SpacePrivate Recreational Space Planning CommissionPlanning Commission’’s s DenialDenialPlanning DirectorPlanning Director’’s denial of two issues s denial of two issues andand……ƒƒSetback from the edge of the project Setback from the edge of the project drivewaydriveway„„Architectural Design ElementsArchitectural Design Elements Development Development StandardsStandardsPast PD Past PD Ordinance Ordinance (2000)(2000)Present PD Present PD OrdinanceOrdinanceProposed Proposed PD PD OrdinanceOrdinanceArterial Arterial SetbacksSetbacks30 feet. 30 feet. The setback The setback shall be shall be mounded mounded and and landscaped. landscaped. 30 feet. An 30 feet. An average of average of 50% shall 50% shall be be landscaped. landscaped. No walls in No walls in the the landscaped landscaped buffer. buffer. 30 feet. 30 feet. The The required required setback setback area shall area shall be fully be fully landscaped. landscaped. Development Development StandardsStandardsPast PD Past PD Ordinance Ordinance (2000)(2000)Present PD Present PD OrdinanceOrdinanceProposed Proposed PD PD OrdinanceOrdinanceDriveway Driveway setbacksetback5 feet 5 feet 8 feet, fully 8 feet, fully landscapedlandscaped5 feet, fully 5 feet, fully landscapedlandscaped Development Development StandardsStandardsPast PD Past PD Ordinance Ordinance (2000)(2000)Present PD Present PD OrdinanceOrdinanceProposed Proposed PD PD OrdinanceOrdinanceArchitectural Architectural Design Design ElementsElementsBuilding Building forms with forms with offsets, offsets, insets, roof insets, roof overhang, overhang, and and recesses. recesses. 3 separate 3 separate planes on planes on each each elevation elevation ––minimum minimum offset of 18 offset of 18 inches.inches.3 separate 3 separate planes on planes on each each elevation elevation ––minimum minimum offset of 18 offset of 18 inches.inches. Development Development StandardsStandardsPast PD Past PD Ordinance Ordinance (2000)(2000)Present PD Present PD OrdinanceOrdinanceProposed Proposed PD PD OrdinanceOrdinancePrivate Private Recreational Recreational SpaceSpaceBalcony Balcony min. min. dimension dimension of six ft. of six ft. Patio with a Patio with a min. min. dimension dimension of ten ft. of ten ft. 15 ft. x 15 15 ft. x 15 ft. patio or ft. patio or 120 sq ft of 120 sq ft of balcony.balcony.Patio/PorchPatio/Porch--100 sq ft 100 sq ft (min. (min. dimension dimension of 8 feet) of 8 feet) Balcony Balcony ––60 sq ft 60 sq ft (min. 6 ft.)(min. 6 ft.) SummarySummary„„In conclusion, the proposed project In conclusion, the proposed project does not meet all the required does not meet all the required standards of the Planned Development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance regarding the conversion of Ordinance regarding the conversion of apartments to condominiums.apartments to condominiums. Recommendation:Recommendation:ƒƒAdopt the City Council Resolution Adopt the City Council Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Condominium Permit.deny the Condominium Permit. Driveway (Project) SetbacksDriveway (Project) Setbacks„„The definition of a driveway (project) The definition of a driveway (project) per Section 21.45.030 in the Planned per Section 21.45.030 in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance isUnit Development Ordinance is…”…”an an improved surface on private property improved surface on private property intended for shared vehicular access intended for shared vehicular access from a public/private street to from a public/private street to open/enclosed parking for two or open/enclosed parking for two or more residential units.more residential units.”” Casa La CostaCasa La Costa The TraditionsThe Traditions RomeriaRomeria