The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-07-07; Planning Commission; ; CDP 04-11|AV 04-03 - CASA DI MARE_he City of CARLSBAD Planning Department • A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Single Family Coastal Development Permit Item No. ® Application complete date: tl.lay 26, 200.+ P.e. AGENDA OF: July 7,2004 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Taniya Barrows SUBJECT: CDP 04-11/AV 04-03 -CASA DI 1\IARE -Request for approval of a Coastal Development Pern1it and appeal of the Planning Director's approval with conditions of an Administrative Variance for an addition/remodel to an existing single fan1ily residence within the City's Coastal Zone located at 5019 Tierra del Oro Street, within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. I. REC01\:Il\IENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Conm1ission Resolution No. 5663 APPROVING CDP 0-+-11 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 566-+ DEl'f\'ING the appeal of A V 0-+-03 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing a major remodel and second-story addition to an existing single fannly residence on a 0.32 acre site located on the west side of Tierra del Oro Street. The site is located within the appeal area ofthe Mello II Segment of the Coastal Zone and any [mal decision of the City of Carlsbad is appealable to or by the California Coastal Commission. The applicant has requested a variance for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The Planning Director administratively approved the variance request with the condition that the front setback could not be reduced to less than 10 feet. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's detennination and requests a 6-toot front yard setback. The Coastal Development Pemnt (CDP) application ,vas reviewed for consistency with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed residence is consistent with the .Mello II segment of the City's LCP. The Coastal Development Permit can be approved with the accompanying Administrative Variance and condition to redesign the residence with a 10-foot front yard setback. In this instance, the Planning Commission would adopt the resolution dening the appeal of A V 04-03. However, if the Planning Commission grants the additional front setback reduction to 6 feet, staff would need to return with a resolution of approval for the appeal of A V 04-03. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Al\1]) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Coastal Development Pern1it (CDP) and Adnlinistrative Variance (A V) to allow an addition and remodel to an existing single family residence on a 0.32 acre site located on the west side of Tierra del Oro Street. The site is located between the street and the Pacific Ocean. The eastern third of the site is relatively level while the western two- thirds of the site slopes steeply down to the beach. The existing 2.713 square foot single-story residence includes a basement. a 526 square foot garage. and an existing cantile,'ered balcony which projects out to\\ ards the ocean. A number of existing wood stairways and at-grade decks are located at the rear of the residence and lead to the beach. These structures are in disrepair o CDP 04-11/ A V 04-03-C AslH MARE July 7, 2004 Page 2 • and will be replaced in their existing locations with new materials. Existing riprap is located at the base of the slope and covers the bluff face. No work is proposed within tIns area. The western slope contains mainly ice plant and other non-native plant species. There is no significant vegetation on the site The site is zoned R-l and has a General Plan designation ofRLl'.'1I0S (Residential Low-l'vledium Density/Open Space). Surrounding properties to the north. south, and east also have the same zoning and General Plan designations and are developed with single-family residences. The proposed residential remodel will contain approximately 6,480 square feet of living area and an 808 square foot garage. The remodel would result in an increase of 236 square feet in the basement level. 459 square feet in the ground floor living area, 280 square foot increase in the garage area, and a new 3,072 square foot second story_ The proposed architectural style of the bullding is a Mediterranean style with stucco walls. exposed rafters, tile roof and a high-level of architectural detailing. The basement and ground floor of the existing residence will be remodeled and a new second story is proposed. The basement level is not visible from the street but is exposed on the west side of the structure, with access to an existing on-grade deck. The existing nyo-car garage is currently accessed from a driveway on the southern half of the site and will be remodeled to a three-car garage with access from the northern half of the site. The first floor level currently has a rear balcony which extends beyond the stringline. as measured under current conditions. The building permit file included correspondence which indicates that when the structure was built in 1974, the original stringline was measured from the existing residences on Lot 9 (five lots to the south) and Lot 15 (directly north). Since that time, a residence has been constructed on the vacant lot to the south and a new stringline has been established for the new construction. The applicant is proposing that all new construction. including the new second story balcony, will confornl to the new stringline. The existing first floor balcony will extend beyond the new stringline to the extent that it currently encroaches, as originally permitted. The project also includes a request for an administrative variance for: 1) a reduced side yard setback on the south property line from 6.3 feet to 6 feet to allow continuation of the existing sideyard setback, and 2) a reduced front yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet. The Planning Director approved the side setback request, and approved the front setback request with the condition to redesign the residence with a 10 foot front setback since the requested 6 foot front setback exceeds the variance requests granted for other properties in the same zone and vicinity. \Vhen these properties were originally developed, the County of San Diego required a 10 foot front setback. TIns results in a 20 foot long driveway, as measured from the edge of the rolled curb, which is adequate in length to park a vehicle. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's condition to redesign the residence with a 10-foot setback. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's approval of AV 04-03, as conditioned in the attached approyalletter (Attachment 3). IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: A. General Plan RLM,OS (Residential Low-Medium Density/Open Space) designation regulations; CDP O'+-lllAV 04-03-CAS'DI MARE July 7, 200.+ Page 3 • B. R-l (Single-Family Residential) Zone regulations (Chapters 21.10 of the CMC); C. Variance Regulations (Chapter 21.50 and 21.51 of the CMC); D. City Council Policy No. 44 -Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines; E. Coastal Development Regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201, 21. 203, and 21.204 of the CMC); and F. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 ofthe CMC). The reconm1endation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable city regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent \"ith the policies and progran1s of the General Plan. The property has a General Plan designation of RLl\1/0S. The RLM designation allows the development of singJe-family residences at a del\sity of 3.2 units per acre. The OS General Plan designation applies to the buff portion of the si~ and no development is proposed within this area. The proposed single-fanlily residence is consistent with the land use type and density regulations for the property. B. R-l Zone Regulations As shown on the Coastal Development Compliance Table below, the proposed development is in compliance with all R-l zoning and all applicable Local Coastal Plan regulations, with the exception of the request for a reduced front yard setback and reduced side yard setback. With approval of the variance request, the project complies with the development standards. COASTAL DEVELOPl\IENT COl\IPLIANCE TABLE LCP Land Use Plan RLlv1l0S (Residential Low-Medium/Open Space) General Plan RLiv1l0S (Residential Low-:Medium/Open Space) Zoning R-1 Grading Pemlit Required No Hillside Development Permit Required No Native Vegetation Impacts None STANDARD REQUIRED/ ALLO\VED PROPOSED Front Yard Setback 20' 6' (See Variance Discussion) 10' allowed per A V 0.+-03 10' approved Side Setback 6.3' 6.5' (north side) 6' allowed on south side per 6' (south side) AV 04-03 Rear Yard Setback 12.6' 149' Must comply with stringline All new construction complies setback with stringline setback Building Height 30' 30' Lot Coverage 40% 31.8~/o CDP 04-111AV 04-03-CAS'DI:MARE July 7. 2004 Page 4 All new construction for this project complies with the string-line structural ocean setback standard and will be located directly above the existing basement. The stringline standard specifies that no structure is permitted further seaward than similar structures on adjacent properties. One small portion of the existing first floor balcony extends beyond the stringline on the southwestern comer of the building. This balcony was approved with the original coastal development permit which used a stringline that extended between the two developed lots at the time (Lots 9 and 15). The applicant proposes to maintain the existing 5-foot width of the balcony in this area. Portions of the balcony along the north end will be expanded to 7 foot in width. but will not extend beyond the new stringline. The new second-floor balcony will comply with the current stringline setbacks. C. Variance Regulations The applicant has requested an administrative variance for: 1) a reduced side yard setback on the south property line from 6.3 feet to 6 feet. and 2) a reduced front yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet. The Planning Director approved the side setback variance request along the south property line since it \vould follow the setback line of the existing structure and basement. The front setback variance was also approved. but was conditioned to redesign the residence to observe a minimum 10 foot front setback since the requested 6 foot front setback exceeds the variance requests granted for other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's approval of A V 04-03 and requesting reconsideration of the proposed 6- foot front setback for the garage portion of the residence. The R -1 development standards require a 20-foot front yard setback. Staff researched the area and found that when the Terra Mar subdivision was approved in 1954, a lO-foot front setback was required. The subdivision is unique in that the development does not have sidewalks and a rolled curb is used instead of a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. Since there is no sidewalk, there would be adequate room to park a car in the driveway, which would have a depth of 20 feet (10' setback plus 10' right-of-way). The applicant's residence was constructed in 1974 and currently observes a 10-foot setback as do many other homes in the subdivision. In addition, a number of homes in this area have received front yard setback variances of 10 feet since the developable area of the bluff-top lots are constrained due to topography. The applicant is requesting a 6-foot front yard setback in order to accommodate an oversize garage area and architectural features on the front elevation. Although the proposed encroachments do not significantly obstruct the width or depth necessary to park a car in the driveway, staff found no other properties with approved front setbacks that are less than 10 feet. However, there were a nunlber of properties that have walls or raised planters that encroach into the front setback and/or the public right-of-way. It should also be noted that it is difficult to deteffiline exactly where the front property line is for these residences because the properties are developed with a rolled curb. rather than a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk which \vould provide an edge for measuring a setback or right-of-way dimension. Staff recommended that the applicant redesign the garage portion of the building so that it would observe a 10-foot setback. This could be achieved by reducing the depth of the garage from 23 feet to the 20-foot minimum interior dimension required for a garage. The architectural features (columns and roof projections) would also need to be modified slightly so that these features do not extend more than two feet into the setback. Although this would result in some changes to CDP 04-111 A V 04-03-C ASPDl MARE July 7, 2004 PageS the front elevation, the architectural design would still meet the Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines required by Council Policy No. 44. Staff believes that two of the four necessary findings cannot be made for the approval of the 6- foot front yard variance request, as discussed in the following table: FINDING That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. That such vanance IS necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. That the granting of such variance will not be materially de1:J.imental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. RESPONSE The site is constrained between the street and coastal bluff. This reduces the 221-foot deep lot to a buildable area measuring only 55 feet deep (factoring in a 20' front yard setback and rear yard stringline setbacks). This results in a much smaller buildable lot area than that of neighboring lots. Other residences haw been den-loped \\ith 1O-foot front setbacks or haw receiyed approyal of yariances for 10-foot front setbacks. The requested 6 foot front setback exceeds other front setback yariance requests that have been granted ill the same zone and 'lCinity and if appron~d. \\ auld constitute a special priulege that is not enjoyed by other properties in the Yicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The 6' front setback yariance is not necessary for the presen'ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because other homes in the neighborhood were originally built \"\ith 10' front yard setbacks. The residence could be designed with a 10' setback and still meet the minimum interior dimension requirements for a garage, similar to the development of other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The front setback reduction to 6' as proposed \vould not be materially detrimental in that the proposed encroachments would not impede parking a vehicle \\ithin a 20' long driYeway. The encroachments would project closer to the street than other residences in the neighborhood, but would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of this variance wil1 not adYersely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the proposed use is a single-fanuly home, consistent with the RUvl-Residential Low-~Iedium Density designation and no circulation impacts wil1 result. D. Council Policy No. 44 -Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines Ne\v single-fan1ily home remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living area (floor area) more than 40% are required to comply with the City's Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines numbers 3, 7, 13 and 14. These guidelines require separate building planes on front and rear elevations, recessed or projected doors and windows, and specific architectural design elements. The proposed single-family residence satisfies all of the required Neighborhood CDP 04-111 A V 04-03-C AS'DI MARE July 7. 2004 • Page 6 Architectural Design Guidelines as shown in the table below. Only the items noted in the table are required for single-family construction. elgJ or 00 c lee ra eSl2n Ul emes N°hb h dArhOt tu ID ° GOdr Guideline Proposed Complies 3. 65% of the homes shall have a The home is exempt from this requirement in Yes single-story building edge or that it only applies to 65~(, of the homes in a courtyard that is a minimum of development; however. the home has a 20' x 15 feet \\ide located along the 22' courtyard element located along the south side of the house and setback a side of the residence. minimum of 15 feet from the property line. 7. Homes shan haw recessed or All windows are surrounded by element£. which Yes projected \\indows project a minimum of two inches. 13. Four desi~'1l elements The design features arched elements, eAl'osed Yes incorporated into front of home roof rafter tails. window and door lintels, \ aried \\indo\\' shapes and sizes, and wood elements. lOot Homes must include design 1\'ot applicable. ~/A elements on those elevations adjacent to Circulation Element roadways. Eo Coastal Development Regulations The project site is located within the appeal area of the Coastal Zone and within the ~lel1o II segment of the Local Coastal Progranl. The site is also located within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203) and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project proposes an addItion and remodel to an existing single-family residence in an area designated for residential development. The LCP Land Use Plan designates the subject site for RLM density development, which allows a density of 3.2 dulacre. Therefore, the lot can accommodate one dwelling unit. 1. Conformance with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act Per the Local Coastal Program. the subject site is not required to provide beach access, as there is an existing beach access stainvay located approximately 2,000 feet south of the site and beach access also exists approximately 2,000 feet north of the site at the jetty just south of the Encinas Power Plant warm water outlet. Additionally, private beach access for Terra ivlar residents is available on Shore Drive. Since the access is available and the beach is present, the requirement does not apply to the project. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The subject site is located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, which requires that for steep slope areas not containing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub or chaparral plant communities, development of slopes 25% or greater may be permitted subject to specific findings. No CDP 04-111AV 04-03-CAS'DI MARE July 7. 2004 Page 7 development is proposed in areas of steep slopes. The only work to be performed in the sloped areas is replacement of existing damaged stairways and decks with new materials. These features will be replaced in their current locations, sizes and configurations, but with concrete rather than wood materials. a. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation and Habitat Positive drainage measures will be constructed to intercept and divert all surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned for the site. As designed and conditioned. the proposed project will adhere to the City's 11aster Drainage and Stonn \Vater Quality :Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased run off and soil erosion. b. Landslides and Slope Instability The soils and geologic analysis report performed for the proposed project indicates that there is no evidence of landslide activity on tills site. c. Seismic Hazards The soils and geological analysis report performed for the proposed project indicates that the risk of liquefaction is remote due to the density of the natural-ground material. The risk of ground rupture was found to be remote, and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur, compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for construction should help reduce structural damage to a degree considered acceptable by theUBC. d. Floodplain Development No development on the property is proposed withln the one hundred year floodplain. The site is located at an elevation between 10 feet above mean sea level (lVISL) and 40 feet above 11.SL immediately east of the active beach. Risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal. Due to the current elevation of the building pad at approximately 40 feet above :tvlSL, the risk to the site from flooding is minimal. 3. Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone The proposed development complies with all applicable requirements of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone as described in the table below: CDP 04-11/AV 04-03-CASPDI MARE July 7,2004 Page 8 STANDARD PROVIDED Lateral Access 60+' dry sandy beach seaward of development. 25' dry sandy beach Bluff Top Access Public beach access is via an existing stairway located Applies to lots where no beach is present approximately 2,000 feet south of the subject site and or where beach is not accessible. approximately 2,000 feet north of the site at the jetty just south of the Encina Power Plant warm water outlet. Additionally. private beach access for Terra Mar residents is available on Shore Drive. Since the access is available and the beach is present. the requirement does not apply to the project. Geotechnical Report A geotechnical analysis was prepared for the project. The Analyze cliff erosion and geologic report states that the bluff edge is located between elevation conditions. 10 and 20 feet ~ISL The bluff face is currently covered \yith riprap so it is not visible. Since the blutIface is appro:\.imately 20 to 30 feet below the proposed structure, it is the opinion of the geotechnIcal engmeer that the project WIll have no adyerse effect on the stability of the blulI and \vill not endanger life or property. In addition, it \vas concluded that the project \vill not contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. No development. other than repair/replacement of existing stairways and at-grade patios. are proposed on the slope. Appearance The residential structure has been designed with attractive Building developed on site with a general architectural features. which are compatible \\ith the attractive appearance related to surrounding development and natural environment. surrounding development and natural environment. Ocean Views The project design is consistent with the other adjacent Building designed to preserve to the buildings and the structure complies with applicable side extent feasible ocean views. yard requirements, which will, to the e:-,."tent feasible. preserve existing ocean views from the street. The project \vill observe a 6.5 foot sideyard setback on the north side (6.3 feet required) and an Administrative Variance has been granted to continue the 6 foot sideyard setback which currently exists along the south property line. Natural Featnres The remodel \"'\,ill occur over the existing building footprint To the extent feasible, retain natural and basement. and no modifications will be made to the features and topography. existing topography, consistent with this requirement. Grading The proposed grading will be finish grading only to insure Grading executed so as to blend vdth that the site drains to the street to the greatest extent existing terrain. possible. "Stringline"" The project a.Theres to all coastal"stringline" setback !\Iaint:lin a "stringlme" setback for requirements fbr the placement of new structures and new structures. patIOS. decks, pools and spas. balconies. The eXIsting tITst lewl balcony projects beyond the current stringline and no encroachments are proposed beyond those that currently exist. CDP 04-lllAV 04-03-CAsAl MARE July 7, 2004 Page 9 F. Growth :Management • The proposed project is located within Local Facilities :Management Zone 3 in the north\vest quadrant of the City. An addition/remodel to the existing single-family residence will have no adverse impacts on public facilities. V. ENVIRO~IENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from CEQA per the exemptions listed below: (1) Section 15303(a) of CEQA exemptions (Class 3) exempts the construction of single- fan1ily residences in urbanized areas from environmental review. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the Planning Director upon project approval. ATTACHl\IENTS: 1. Plruming Commission Resolution No. 5663 (CDP) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5664 (A V) 3. Planning Director approval letter for AV 04-04 4. Letter of Appeal dated June 8, 2004 5. Location Map 6. Disclosure Form 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Support Letters 9. Reduced Exhibits 10. Exhibits ""A" -HG" dated July 7, 2004 June 8, 2004 Ted Viola e City 5019 Tierra del Oro Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: AV 04-03 -Casa di Mare .rr7~ (;, -9-cq. of Carlsbad IRF'''h·,i.i-J4·t'ii"i4,il The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative Variance, AV 04-03 -Casa di Mare at 5019 Tierra del Oro Street. The variance consists of 1) a request for a side setback reduction from 6.3 feet to 6 feet along the south property line, and 2) a request to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet. After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the side setback variance request can be supported. However, the front setback variance request can only be supported if the project is redesigned with a 10-foot front setback. With this redesign, the four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance CAN be made and therefore, the Planning Director APPROVES this request based on the following findings and conditions. Findings: 1. There ARE exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because the developable portion of the site is constrained between the street and coastal bluff. This reduces the 221-foot deep lot to a buildable area measuring only 55 feet deep (factoring in a 20 foot front yard setback and rear yard string line setbacks). This results in a much smaller buildable lot area than that of neighboring lots. Additionally, other residences have been developed with 10-foot front setbacks or have received approval of variances for 10-foot front setbacks. However, the requested 6 foot front setback exceeds other front setback variance requests that have been granted in the same zone and vicinity and if approved, would constitute a special privilege that is not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. 2. The requested variance IS necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because other homes in the neighborhood were originally built with 5 foot side setbacks and 10 foot front yard setbacks and variances for side and front setback reductions have been granted to other properties in the same zone and vicinity. However, the 6-foot front setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone because other homes in the neighborhood were originally built with 10-foot front yard setbacks. The residence could be designed with a 10 foot front setback and still meet the minimum interior dimension requirements for a garage, similar to the development of other properties in the same zone and vicinity. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314. (760) 602-4600· FAX (760) 602-8559· www.cLcarisbad.ca.us * e AV 04-03 -Casa di Mare • June 8, 2004 PAGE 2 3. The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because all encroachments have been present for some time. Any existing impacts to the neighborhood due to the reduction in adequate vehicle sight distance or street circulation would have been noted by the neighboring residents. 4. The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the proposed use is a single family home, consistent with the RLM - Residential Low-Medium Density designation and no circulation impacts will result. Conditions: 1. The Planning Director supports the side setback variance request from 6.3 feet to 6 feet along the south property line and a front setback variance from 20 feet to 10 feet. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit, the residence must be redesigned to meet a 10-foot front setback, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit COP 04-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5663 for that other approval incorporated herein by reference. This decision may be appealed by you or any member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of receipt of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $440.00. The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Barbara Kennedy at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, ~~ DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:bk:vd c: Michael J. Holzmiller Gary Barberio, Team Leader Taniya Barrows, Project Engineer Data Entry File Copy 6-8-04 City Of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 • Re: Request tor a hearing to appeal "conditions" an A V 04-03-Casa di Mare Dear Planning Director. Having sought staffs recommendations as to how to submit a plan that would be acceptable to both the City and Coastal Commission,. I have since submitted four separat\! sets of "revisions". and spent well into the $100,000.00 mark. just in expenses since beginning this process in late January. If there were any room left to change this struct'..rre so J could get underway. v.ithout totally butchering the design, believe me. I would. I sincerely appreciate \vhat specifically my staff planner. Barbara Kennedy has done to assist me in this journey. \Ve have had at least a dozen meetings going oyer details and necessary changes in the last five months; to include two site visits. as well as three meetings I attended at the Coastal Commission in San Diego, myself. Unfortunately, staff could not approve the variance I need to go to "'working" dra\\1ngs and the architect and I concur that proceeding without it would be detrimental to the design we are left with fit this point. In a last attempt to gain your permission, I am offering the following reasons and evidence to appeal to you as the Director, to grant this variance. Having concurred that the buildable area of this property has been unfavorably impacted by bluff erosion, coupled ·with the required setbacks, and given the fact that other variances have been granted to accommodate this anomaly, I thank you for your variance approval to build to the 10ft. setback. However, I am respectfully requesting an appeal to your decision to limit the specific encroachment to 10 feet, based on the following conditions; My proposed structure requests a .... partiar' encroachment of 4-ft. in order to accommodate the offset of two support columns which enter the 10 foot setback at two specific points only, and does not entail the entire building falling 4-ft. within the 10 foot setback. As the pictures illustrate. and staff reports, neighbors to both the north and south of this property, as v.ell as all throughout the surrounding neighborhood. have enjoyed some form of encroachment for many years. In this case, the side views are blocked by walls. various mature trees and shrubs planted within the setback and into the city right of \\'ay. This makes the columns visible only from the front. • I agree that the building could be redesigned without the columns, which would require using the "minimum"' standards for a garage, which is 20'x 20'. However, the negative impact would two-fold: First, these two columns support the upper portion of the addition allowing for the 4-ft. offset of that upper portion, which was described as a "most desirable" feature of the design. Staff has repeatedly noted that at least 5 architectural planes are required, and strongly advises that "all new construction"" in Carlsbad incorporate as many as possible in the design. These new requirements are designed to avoid structures with a "box-like" appearance. Or worse, just one wall rising multiple floors without architectural relief. But \\ith the columns removed, the support for the upper portion shifts to the wall, and the "offset" of the upper portion is eliminated. Now we have a 25-ft. wall straight up with the only offset being the roofline. The building would still conform to the codes, (due to an abundance of offsets incorporated into the building's rear). but it would appear ominous. This not only circumvents the code, but now the home loses its' curb appeal. I contend that a design change of this nature would be more offensive to the neighbors as well as the viewing public. Second, the minimum garage standards were designed before mini-vans and SUV' s ruled the road, and are not practical when you consider a "standard" SUV, like a Ford Explorer, which I have, measures just shy of 17ft. If you have a 2-ft. standard cabinet, you end up with 9 inches for you to carefully park your car behind the garage door. This means you must exit the garage day or night, and walk around the car to re-enter the house. It is not safe, and difficult to park. With the substantial investment projected at over $5 million to completion, one would have minimum expectations greater than these, to be fair. Lastly, one would hope that all beachfront property in Carlsbad be measured by the same stick. One might argue for the same rights and privileges, regardless of whether their house sits on the beachfront on Tierra del Oro, Shore Drive, or on Ocean street, from Fidel's to the Academy. Because the starting price for a home at all of these locations is around $3 million. But the fact is that Tierra del Oro still requires a 20-ft. setback, while the others have been revised to 10 ft. and offer as little the 4-ft. curb respectively. Any attempt to restrict one over the other seems unfair, especially when the City openly acknowledges that there are dozens of encroachments into and beyond the setbacks, but only !!!!£ in my vicinity was on record as "legally" permitted so far. The "Eaton Residence" at 5025 Tierra Del Oro Street. just two doors down. Through staffs research I was able to attach it, and although it is not specific as to "how far" the Eaton's could encroach. it does state that. because "the buildable area (factoring in front yard and bluff setbacks) measured only 50 foot deep .... , they "',vere required to encroach (the garage), into the front yard setback to allow for adequate ground floor living space between the garage and the rear yard." With survey points throughout the street, we verified encroachments of the surrounding neighbors buildings' on the oceanfront side of the stree~ lying from I-ft. to 2 1I2-ft. beyond the IO'setback, depending on which side of the property you measured. The difference is unavoidable, • • due to the orientation of the parcels on the turning street on one side. faced with a winding bluff on the other. It is another quite "unique" feature of these properties. And Webster's Dictionary defmes "'unique" as, ""being the only one of it's kind.'" And ifwe can agree it varies to that degree, why should it not be treated that way. Grant it the variance it deserves. In a private cul-de-sac, with only 12 beachfront homes, several which clearly display encroachments without permits, it seems as though "requesting" a permit to encroach would be easier. if not rewarded. to encourage the practice. Instead one suffers the cost of delays. while neighbors up to two football fields away. (in some cases themselves the guilty parties), get to protest and delay you longer. without suffering any consequences. There is. in fact, "a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area that they do enjoy. that I will not, regardless of whether they attained it "legally" or not. Which you clearly state is the grounds for denial of this variance. Finally, please consider that I do not intend to perform any grading or underground excavation. This serves to assist the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission in preserving the remaining bluff. foregoing it as a means to gain much desired living space. Excavation, though it only requires another permitfte, could offer me thousands of square feet of additional buildable area, but would pose the most serious threat to any surrounding neighbor perched on the bluff. Instead now I find myself focused on defending two columns, (about 8 square.feet), in the front yard setback, as a serious issue, to be addressed by a hearing. I submit, that this delay has already cost me several times more than any grating permit fee. I respectfully request this variance as a better alternative. It means a great deal to the design and usability of the floor plan, and it will be dramatic improvement to the property, and neighborhood, if granted. I atI1 submitting letters of support for this varian~e from my neighbors both directly to the south and directly to the north of my home. They are the only neighbors I even asked for support, as collectively, we do not see how it could possibly impact anyone else. If you still can not fmd grounds to permit my request, please schedule me for the next available planning commission hearing, so I may appeal this decision. Thank you for your consideration. ~~"tfullY yours, ~iJ.~ Ted Viola 5019 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad. CA 92008 SITE • CASA DI MARE cOP 04-11/AV 04-03 ___ .. 1.-2:39tJd -lPR-27-2Ia12 01: 42P FROM: • __ C_i---.....,t Yrtl----0 f Car I s bad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's l'ltatement Or disclosure nf certaln .owtler~hip .itite~1s QIl all applic.u.uons whlch w111 ~q'I..rire discretianary action ou the put of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following inftlIIlmtiOD MUST bi! dIsclosed at the time of ~pplication submittal Yuur project cannot be rev.iewe-d until this infOllmltiun is oomplctcd.. Pkasc print. Notr. p~ ls defined. a£ ""Auy il1divi~ r.nn"~ £a·~~jlt, JOWL vt'~lUrt:~ E.SsociatiOl:!-, socW dub. fm~ mpnizatimL LUlp:matim, e.~re. tnltlt,. Tectdwr, syuditate, in this: and ~y othe.r cQU.D1y, city nnd C'OWlI:li; city nnmicipali1y. dismct or oIbtrpoJitical mbdiVi!JiGn or any 01bec group or CQ1llblluifion aetibg as ». uni1. .. ~ may $igo. this dotUJnl!at; however, ~ leg;ll n:m;.e alld entity of Ihe applic.:1UlI. and prnpcrt)' owner -must be ~hektw. " 1. 2. A 'p.PLJCANT .(Not the: applicant's agent) Pro-viele the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addre.-::ses of Al."l. pernoos .having n fwnnc.ial il1~L in the application. If the applicant includes a corpnmtitm liT pm-Ingsbip. include the' nantes. title. addresses of nIl indivldullis owning more tilan 10% (If the l:iharcs. -IF NO lNDTVlDUAI.S OWN MO.R.H THAN 10% OF TI.-IE SIIARES, PLEASE lNDlCATE NON .. Al'PI.TCABT.E (N/A) IN THB :SPACE BELOW If 3 public1y-owne~ COUJOt21:iOl3, include the names, titles, &ncl !Wdrc~:iC::! or lbc corpor..tlc ufficers. (A sepm'nte page may be attached if nece5sa~ / Person ~G Vi C~ CotplParL ...... ___ ~ ____ _ Title C';J lJl(/V / &Wttf~ TiUe, ____ -___ -__ Address 50 J 9 1fffl/JJJ. ~ IJ{0 C~l CA19~8 AddreJts, ____ -_______ _ OWNt:K (Nnllhc uwner's 3gcnt) Provi(jL; LhcCOMl'LETE. LEGAL names and addf'esse.c: of Al,L persons h:1ving any o~'ll&Ship iDLcreat in the property invo1ved.. Also. provide the natun;: uf the lcboai u~p (i.e, pannership~ tenant~ itl C\lmmon. non-profit, corpOI'aWm. etc.). If the ownership includes a OOl"BRratiQn 21' parlmrTIihW. mcluclc the nlmlC~, tille. addresses of all indiYidunb ownlng more tban 10% of the shar=s.lr NO JNUIVJDlJALS OWN MOJm THAN 10% OF TBE SHARES.. PT.EAS"E lNDlCATE NON-APPliCABLE (N/A) IN 11m SPACE BFJ..O'W. If a pub1ic~ oWnl."f.i cpmrn:ation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the COIJIlIDlte offi~. (A separate page may be attached ifnecessuy.) ~ TlAiIo VA.L~n,.k.l1"iWf'lo::" CorpIParL Title-~ iJiJ£It.--IT f.?v13 re Title ___ '-_ -_ -_-:_ -_ -_ -_ -_-_ -:_ ~_ -_ -_ -_ ~_ -_-_ -_-_ Addres~l"'t){ C:i.OA2l£ yJt't7A-Ad~Bs~ ______ ----_______ _ L~ ~LLA. .. LA ct2-D-;7 """ lZ9~ SOO/ZOO d l8;-1 8l6Z9S;eS8+ V110r V1 3M:) Adro--J:t .at l= £0 tDOZ-IZ-YJ] :01 WdSS:20 1~ 2102-L2-~ • .8584562978 P:S"S 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR muST If any person identified pun;umt' 10 (I) or (l) above is 3. nOllDJ'OJ'jL ormmi,...ation W il 1ruBt. Jist the- na.mes antI addre.o;ses of MY person serving as an offica: or director of the non-profit organization or as 1n1stee or btmefici~ of the. NnnProfil1Trust Nw ProfrtlTrust _________ _ Ti~e~ ____________________ --'Jitle. ___ ~ _________ _ A~~ ________________ __ A~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ________ ___ 4. Hav(: you had more than $250 worth of bU$in~ss transacted Vlrilh any membtt of City $ta:£r, Boarck;, CommissiOllS, Cum:mittees and/or Council "Within lhe past twelve (I2l montfLc{l o Yes ~ No fryes, please fnd1Cllte person(s):, ____________ _ • A ch adilitional sheets If ne~sary. Print lI'r I)'pe name: of owner Print or type I1HO'le uf applicant Signa!.W.1: of owner/appliQIlt's agen! jf o:rpplicabIeldate Prinl or type name of oWller/appllc:.allrs agent IZ~ soO/snn-d lS,-l 8l.SZSStBS8+ V110r V1 3AOJ AdO)-lOJ~ .aSI:£O ,ODZ-lZ-JO ~ACKGROUNDDATASHEET ~ CASE NO: CDP 04-1I1AV 04-03 CASENA~: =C=a=sa~ili="~~==~=e __________________________________________ ___ APPLICANT: =T=ed~V~io=la=-__________________________________________ __ REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Administrative Vmance to allow an addition to and remodel of an existing single-family residence on a 0.32 acre lot located at 5019 Tierra del Oro Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14 of Tierra del Oro, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California, accoriling to Map thereof No 3052, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Febru~y 4. 1954. APN: 210-020-14 Acres: 0.32 acres. Proposed No. of LotslUnits: =-1...:..;10=tI=-=-1-=u=TIl="t ________ __ GE~~RALPLANANDZONING Land Use Designation: RLMlOS -Residential Low-~ediumlOpen Space Density Allowed: 3.2 duJacre Density Proposed: -"N..:.:./..:...A=--__________________ _ Existmg Zone: R-1 Proposed Zone: :..;N:!.:/A~ __________ _ Surrouniling Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site R-l RLMlOS SFR North R-1 ~ SFR South R-l RLM SFR East R-l ~ SFR West Pacific Ocean PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: C~lsbad Unified Water District: C~lsbad Sewer District: -=C=~=ls=b=a=d _____ _ Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): =-l..=E=D::...;U=-______________ _ ENVIRO~NTALIMPACT ASSESS~NT D Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued. _________________ _ D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. ______________ ___ ~ Other, Categorically Exempt, Section 15303(a) I I I I :I .,, is, Ef I I ,--$15B"54'1.0"W 221.99':i-)'J-;;;t ·-· J ,-, --? c--..-·---~ ..., I t=s:1111 ............ ,. l ! t ; Ji rel WOOD STA.JR E) RF RAP """"'IIEACH I------~ ----~ S88"S4'10" W * NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE SPECIFIC ELEVATIONS AS RELATED TO SEA-LEVEL SETlW)I( """'"' ClECKP4TIO UPPfA PORCH EXISTING 2 STORY RESIDENCE 5021 J---------------------------------~ RESUME: (E) .......,_._. &ild111 a..emem a...: Tota~l'IINldln::e: ..,_...._, --1651 •J. 1062st :m3sJ 52811.r. 252d. GEN.~ INFORMATION: A.P.M.: ~(Kt:20-14 Ldt". 14 T~3(JS:2 Si.ii Alnlllpi: .33 Aae:5-14:,:a'.l sq,t. ~li:w'a.inCILMlcU..~: R-1 Propalied I.Mid l..lae: Reiillden!lal T'Odll0uik:llrQ~ 2'1-r9~ 1S'Yal=AA ~fflftlO~~ 57% ~Of~~~:? tE:):PAn:;J-...._ II ~+~ EXISTING RESIDENCE ""' I I I I I I I I I L __ I --------------------------------_:~ EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"; 10'-0" ~~~ '£ I- LU LU 0:::1 1- (f) 0 er: 01 ....I LU 0 I <( o:: I 0:: It. LU I- g --'° .ii ~ 0 ] ~~ < 0 ~~ .....,o Q~ < .!:: en &--< ~ u S=: 0 Al ' ----~ ------~ A!PftAP :I .,, )' =/ SANDYB&-'Ck I-siais-s,•10-w DECK Sl]INl3L1!E I I * NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE SPECIFIC ELEVATIONS AS RELATED TO SEA-LEVEL. """"""' I I I I I I I- L RESUME: ~-li4a,n......,_: Aadlinclt-Upperuwe!.: ~-LI:!lfll«LM«: TOTAL RESIOENCE: """'"'" ._,,, (E) Emil'IQ:Mllinl.JMII: __ ....... , TDlal~Fleliderce-: _ .... ,.,ic ....... _, Naw Aa:ldonall:: 'I.JU--) .. .,_ 12981.l 6480 s.J. S0811J. 61-4ri,I. 11151J:_f. 1062Lt. V13t.i 528:U. 25::ilLf. GENERAL INFOftMATION: A.P.N.: 210G20-14 lolr. 14 Trai:ICJ052 Sil8~.J3~ 14,300,;qJI_ E).ilsdr,g?Ofle • .rcllarmllaeOellgnallc,n: ,R-1 ~t.ar,dUu,:~ T~8'.lldl~Cclvsage:: 3BBD:aq.ft. 27%FAA ~ot:ai:ttlol:lll~:45%- ~ofPill'klngilpQIOtt-~:3 (N) AllliNrlcl ■ (E) ~•MBOLI. •27lls..f_ 1.J-... 3-767:.,t (N) ~ (NlGanio@L(EJGs:,oit=90811J.L~sJ.sl•.2BOa.r,(N)a.., T[U!Ner.'Rllfdenol.al'l30.,.•-4047::U. BI.U.OINGSlf'ilN3Ullill: SETMCI< IE) PROPOSED SITE PLAN (EJRESIDENCE I.OWlaA DECKPATlD UPPEA.POACl-t EXISTING 2 STORY RESIDENCE A - EXISTING RESIDENCE B """ SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 7 I ----t-1 l I I ~r+=-1 I I I I I I I _lJ_._! I~ _I ----i ~ I-I w w c::: I-en 0 c::: 0 \W ...J z w I~ Cl c::: <( w c::: I-a:: z w lw I j:: I(.) ~ I ;; -" -"" i ] i ~u <g :EI) _o c::::i ~ < -~ (l'.l f-, <~ u~ 0 A2 I I I I \ LINE OF CANT:llEvS> -1-------'II ---'l WALLABOl'e I I 1t I I I GUEST BEDROOM#3 WET SAA F.F.=96.0 CEIL. HT.=8' -0' ..... 1l 1-- (E) CMU AA.SEMENT WAU.S ~ ] I m~~= wi:=~'~: _______ • _ ___;l_---l GAME ROOM u -_J ____,I,. r-J I I I I I I I I -L._ _ _f ____ ...J ,7 L _j RESUME: Residence -Main Level: Residence -Upper Level: Residence -Lower Level: TOTAL RESIDENCE: Garage: Total Balcony: (E) Existing Main Level: Existing Basement Level: FLOOR PLAN -BASEMENT LEVEL SCALE: 1/4' = 1'--0'' Existing Garage: New Additional:: (N) -(E) = 7288 -3477 = 3811 s.f. '2.JJOS.f. aon.s.f. 1298 s.f. 6480 s.f. 808 s.f. 413 s.f. 1651 s.f. 1298 s.f. 528 s.f. A3 I I I \ I 1 I I I I I I I I I \ I I ., ... r,,• ., ... 1 BALC:ONV ~ i!:43:i:_f_ \ I I I I I I' I I I I I I I ~ ' I I I I I I DECK STRINGLINE ... , . .,. , . .i •· »·..- - W").I MEr.ol. INSERT n. t>ININGROOM F.F.=105.0 caL. HT.=10' ..o- ~ r--" atf'.2l "----~ rn 1 ; -I L/ O.,,_ \ ~ ~. . ~~[:~]~] ! ! e 2 CAA 6AAAG€ I i[})•~r QLJ] : \ ~ .; F.F.=101.0 lf_·J.::e=t=========~ L/ ~ CEIL. HT.•10'-0" \NlllY I ST,Ull -+--+------+ , . .,, , .... I I I I I I I I I I I I PA _:= ~G -,--~ =:::: WINE -1-----~ ENTRY FO'\IEII F.F.=105.0 ... -c· .- caL. HT.=10'-0' " .. "",. I I WETBAR I T r'.- ~ ...... ---,,1El"\u""1.,-------l,of-~---r-"L_-1, COURTYARD cc...=....c..c...c..__~.cc.c.cc....c.= __ ~"'-\ SETBACK .,_____,,~1--------------n=·"'.__ ____________ _____, I I I I l I FLOOR PLAN -MAIN LEVEL SCAL.E: 1/4" : 1'-0' Residence -Main Level: :Z.lfO s.f. . .,. ... "0 "' .n "' i r 5 "i) _i::i 0~ <·-00 E-< <~ u~ A4 I I I I I I I I .i.. I I I I I I I \ I I I l I I I I I ..... , .... 'CJ WIC BEOROOM#l F.F.•112.0 CEIL. HT.=10' -0" I I 6'-V • I i I r ■ iii MASTER SUrTE ¥ i>-E"' MAS1SI: l~ ' : l T! t ,.,t'~~'<l" 0 0 ----.. . ·:Ni::::::;;:;T=··1, :;c: .. ,·•21·· ·rF· .;;:c: .. :ll:t-± ! i I 17 F.F.=112.0 BA™#l 0· i .t !-·..- ' 1-ER<l.OSET l--1--f--¼-' \ "'" II I I I--µ:,_, A-' CLOSfT'-._ I I • ~. \ 111 ~ li _.··· .... •·.····-·•········ __ . J :~ " -·. ··.ILJ a : ... ·1 ...l · \ --is;--71 F.F.=u:.o ~ --... -·· • --"I i I ''*' BEDROOM #2 ti "'" • I UBRA~ ~-~ ea=e i \ J',. --, c-BAnl#Z \ -----+--+-------t-: :+~:-----k-'~'-ftt---"FJDfi ~,..~----111~=5ET Q X 0'7-T I J II : I ■ • DECK STRINGLINE I I ~ I SETBACK I l I I I I FLOOR PLAN -UPPER LEVEL Residence-Upper Level: 3~s.f. SCALE: 1/4": 1' -0" • • I : PROPER1Y tiINE ■ • A5 t :NOISIAffil ton 19 :m.va :1:11·:•, H•••·--••r,•·,<' <I,·,,, I •l'"'J• p-eqspe::, 'OJ() 1aa BJJaJ.L 610!; ffiIVW ra VSV;J z <I( ...J Q.. u.. 0 0 a. ua.t11•1.uie1its:Gn.ia.,- a6,.M• ~~ ~~ --: t i! ·t-•llilal,,_~.ni«- E .... lm&it-Gftlh.~ 1lllW:ai.i.-tn..t.'1NI- REAR-WEST ELEVATION p-f[ -=--r.Iail-Y~ Ul"'a:u.wDal:II : : I ♦111.1J'.e.m-1"1"alllPIIJoJ- 111Jlll'Gu-1ft~.,.;... lOJ.IIVhiliml~-l, if+ .. t ~ • I SIDE-SOUTH ELEVATION 11'-M'OPP,W~.n-- 11e:~J'-o' SIDE -NORTH ELEVATION lie,'~ l~,i r-u,.w...._._,_, _ I . ~~ u ~ _ ._._j 1u.·1D.1..mo:--I l95.W')(ala"""""n.,,r, m ~~"lifbliiim"bwrcei.dl-,,iiltroalwi!i,--..IQl!d. :s.i,:,e,o_..,..llili,wi.i,_~9cbln·~--_..._fkmb. l'w-Glt--'llill:lllllllial-.. ....... ..i.~• ..... lik~Cllpll. ~-'IINllml!mi.doa,ci.:i,,P'l"~llllbilJ--~-......... ~i--~~ I lohmlilwmdtd'il'U6d<it-....t~i;,-.:p-lde,,-t•&iryO.-). 5):palcd,:llli.:ll,Ddllrdaa~(lii/,1:~ ~W~n&d«Dd:lll!"CMpl-.-aad~i:1.Bm,,yc...i._ Sblllm..t~n.-=--,.., Wbicll~p,tl;~ealn;J,. ltl.M'blnlat:Gnlk:a.,.-i ~ (1-11.dir~ FRONT-EAST ELEVATION 1l!'.:.1'-.. ' J32.M'MAL~ ..... 1~$ U:.Ol'P%naa-la:MJa~ ~.u:a~-.u. ~q_:,~~!-f'lr ~-nm.,~N'r' a:1-lc;;ii11aN -ILli~.u::&ID'IICDIC ~u,;a:na.na-c.:an:,;. TYPE-"VN CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ 1i ii ..... ~ A.., <?: 00 °' < ,-; u~ A7