HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-07; Planning Commission; ; CDP 06-27|V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCETMCToe City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Single Family Coastal Development Permit
Item No. V 1
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 7, 2008
Application complete date: October 10, 2006
Project Planner: Pam Drew,
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE - Request for denial of a Coastal
Development Permit for the illegal construction of an existing 5 03-square-foot
enclosure over an existing patio area, a fireplace/chimney, a built-in barbeque, and
a block wall on the eastern, portion of an existing single-family residence; and
denial of a Variance to allow the block wall and a portion of the patio cover and
fireplace/chimney to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way of
Ocean Street within the City's Coastal Zone located at 3015 Ocean Street within
the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and'Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6388 and 6389
DENYING CDP 06-27 and V 06-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission received a staff presentation and heard public testimony for the
Phipps project at the April 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and continued the item so
staff had more time to review the issues and options for this project. Below are some issues and
possible options for the existing structures (wall, fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque, and roof)
located at 3015 Ocean Street.
III. PROJECT QUESTIONS
1. Question: Which structures were built with valid building permits and are considered legal
nonconfofming to today's zoning code (i.e. wall, fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque)?
Discussion: A nonconforming structure is a structure that was built in conformance with
applicable codes at the time it was constructed, but, due to the adoption or change of zoning
ordinances, would no longer be allowed in the area which they are located or at the height it
is built. To be afforded the protections of Municipal Code Chapter 21.48, "Nonconforming
Buildings and Uses," a property owner would need to provide evidence that a nonconforming
structure or use did conform to applicable ordinances prior to the change in codes that made
the structure or use non-conforming. The structures in question in this application (wall,
fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque, and patio roof cover) are located within the required
front yard setback.o
[pps:CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
May 7, 2008
PAGE 2
Conclusion: The City's zoning code ordinance, since its adoption in 1956, generally prohibits
structures in the front yard setback of residentially zoned property from exceeding 42" in
height. The applicant stated during public testimony at the April 16, 2008 Planning
Commission meeting that he believes the walls and fireplace/chimney were built around
1965. The roof structure was built more recently. Since the structures never conformed to the
City's zoning code when they were constructed, the structures could not be considered legal
nonconforming today. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided evidence that any of the
improvements in question were legally built. Instead, the applicant is requesting this Variance
to make all the structures legal, conforming structures.
2. Question: Which structures were built without valid building permits and are considered
illegal (i.e. wall, fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque, roof structure)?
Discussion: All of the existing structures require a building permit. Illegal structures are
structures that are constructed without the required permit(s) (i.e. building, electrical,
discretionary). Even if the structures complied with the City's zoning ordinance at the time of_
the construction, they would still be considered illegal if they were constructed without the
required City permits.
Conclusion: As stated in question #1 above, the subject improvement do not comply with the
zoning code today, nor would they have complied at the time of their construction.
Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence that any of the structures in
question were built with the required building permits. Therefore, the City considers the
structures in question to be illegal.
3. Question: If the structures (walls, fireplace/chimney, and built-in barbeque) are considered
legal nonconforming and the patio cover was allowed to stay in its present form and location
would this be considered an expansion or intensification of a nonconforming structure?
Discussion: If the walls, fireplace/chimney, and built-in barbeque are considered legal
nonconforming, instead of illegal, the roof structure would expand and/or intensify the
existing non-conforming structures, and is not allowed per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
21.48.080 - Alteration, repair, or expansion of nonconforming uses. Specifically Section
21.48.080 states that, "...a nonconforming use or building shall not be altered, improved,
reconstructed, restored, repaired, intensified, expanded or extended."
Conclusion: Absent satisfactory evidence that any of the structures in question were built
legally, Section 21.48.080 would not apply to this situation. However, if the Planning
Commission determines that the structures are nonconforming (versus illegal) then Section
21.48.080 would be relevant. Therefore, even if the Planning Commission determined the
previously existing improvements are legal nonconforming, enclosing the area with a roof
would not be allowed.
DreFCDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPFS RESIDENCE
May 7, 2008
PAGE 3
4. Question: Can the required variance findings be made?
Discussion: There are five required findings that must be made in order for a variance to be
approved. In general they are: 1-) that special circumstances exists on the lot; 2) the variance
shall not constitute a grant of special privileges; 3) the variance does not authorize a use or
activity not allowed in the zone; 4) the variance is consistent with the General Plan; and 5) in
the Coastal Zone, the variance must be consistent with the requirements of the certified local
coastal program.
Conclusion: Staff is unable to make all the required findings to approve a variance for the
structures to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way as stated in the staff
report dated April 16, 2008. Because the City has not previously approved a variance to allow
encroachments into the future public right-of-way, allowing this encroachment would
constitute a grant of special privileges not enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.
However, if the structures were removed from the 2.5 foot future public right-of-way and all
of the other structures are permitted, staff could make all the required findings for a variance
to allow a zero front yard setback similar to what other property owners in the vicinity have _
been granted in the past.
5. Question: If the project is approved as is or modified what conditions of approval should be
included with the variance to address any concerns the City or Planning Commissioner's may
have about the structures?
Discussion: If the Variance and Coastal Development Permit are approved, part of the wall,
fireplace/chimney and roof structure would be located within a 2.5 foot public right-of-way.
Staff would recommend conditions of approval to include the following: 1) that the owner
sign an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the 2.5 feet to eventually widen Ocean Street to
50 feet; 2) enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City for any structures in the
future right-of-way. This would require the owner, at her expense, to remove all structures
within the right-of-way at any time required by the City and would hold the City harmless
from liability arising from the encroachments; 3) apply for and obtain all necessary building
permits for all the unpermirted structures.
Conclusion: If the project is approved as is, the following conditions should be added: 1)
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for 2.5 feet; 2), Encroachment Agreement, and 3) building
permits.
IV. PROJECT OPTIONS • *
1. Approve the Variance and CDP. If the required findings can be made, staff recommends the
Planning Commission approve the Variance and CDP for all the structures (wall,
fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque, and roof structure) making these structures legal and
conforming. Staff recommends that conditions of approval be added to require an Irrevocable
Offer of Dedication, Encroachment Agreement, and require the owner to get all required
building permits for all approved structures.
PPS1CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
May 7, 2008
PAGE 4
2. Deny the Variance and CDP and abate all illegal structures (wall, fireplace/chimney, built-in
barbeque & roof structure). Establish a timeframe by which all illegal structures would need
to be removed. The wall and built-in barbeque could be considered conforming if they were
reduced to a maximum height of 42" and received the proper permits. A building permit
would not be required for the wall; however, a building permit would be required for the gas
line to the barbeque. If the project is denied the City would not be able to get an IOD from the
owner; therefore, the wall would be located on the owner's property and not in the public
right-of-way. The other structures (roof and fireplace/chimney) would need to be removed
since they would not be able to conform to the 42" maximum height allowed in the front yard
setback.
3. Relocate all structures 2.5' to the west and out of the future public right-of-way. Approve the
Variance for a zero front yard setback and approve the CDP for all structures (wall,
fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque, and roof structure). Condition the project to require the
applicant to get all required building permits and for the owner to record an IOD for the 2.5'
future public right-of-way. Since all structures would be located out of the public right-of-
way, no Encroachment Agreement would be required.
4. Approve the Variance and CDP for the wall, fireplace/chimney, built-in barbeque. however
have the applicant modify the roof structure to not be within the 2.5' future public right-of-
way. Condition the project to require the applicant to get all required building permits. Have
the owner of the property record an IOD for the 2.5' future public right-of-way and sign an
Encroachment Agreement for all encroachments into the 2.5' future public right-of-way. The
Encroachment Agreement would allow the City to have the encroachments removed when
the road is widened.
V. CONCLUSION:
After reviewing the options, staff still cannot make all the required findings to support a variance
for the structures in the future public right-of-way. Staff can make the findings and support a
variance for Option #3. If the structures were removed from the future public right-of-way
(relocated 2.5 feet to the west) staff could support a variance for a zero front yard setback. Staff
would have to come back to the Planning Commission with a new resolution making the required
findings for a variance and adding conditions to the project. However, if the Planning
Commission chooses an option that allows the structures to remain in the future public right-of-
way, staff would request that the Planning Commission provide general direction to staff
regarding the justification proposed to make the required findings for the variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter to applicant dated April 28, 2008
2. Staff Report dated April 16, 2008.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 28, 2008
Dave Olds
Santa Fe Design & Construction
324 E. Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92025
SUBJECT: CDP 06-27/ V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
It has not been determined if the existing 7'2" high block wall, fireplace/chimney, and
built-in barbeque in the front yard setback were constructed with the benefit of permits.
Staff has been unable to find any evidence that the City permitted these structures. This
letter is to reiterate that the burden of proof lies with the property owner to show that the
structures were permitted. Please submit any proof that you may have to me as soon as"
possible.
Thank you,
Pam Drew
Associate Planner
PD:lt
c:Virginia Phipps, 3015 Ocean St., Carlsbad, CA 92008
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
™e City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Single Family Coastal Development Permit
Item No.1
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 16, 2008
Application complete date: October 10,2006
Project Planner: Pam Drew
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE - Request for denial of a Coastal
Development Permit for the illegal construction of an existing 503-square-foot
enclosure over an existing patio area, a fireplace/chimney, a built-in barbeque, and
a block wall on the eastern portion of an existing single-family residence; and
denial of a Variance to allow the block wall and a portion of the patio cover and
fireplace/chimney to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way of
Ocean Street within the City's Coastal Zone located at 3015 Ocean Street within
the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6388 and 6389
DENYING CDP 06-27 and V 06-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission received a staff report and resolutions on the Phipps Residence on
February 20, 2008. The applicant requested the project be continued until the April 16, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. The staff report for the February 20, 2008 meeting is attached.
Thee City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.1
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 20, 2008
Application complete date: October 10, 2006
Project Planner: Pam Drew
Project Engineer: 'Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE - Request for denial of a Coastal
Development Permit for the illegal construction of an existing 503-square-foot
enclosure over an existing patio area, a fireplace/chimney, a built-in barbeque,
and a block wall on the eastern portion of an existing single-family residence; and
denial of a Variance to allow the block wall and a portion of the patio cover and
fireplace/chimney to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way of
Ocean Street within the City's Coastal Zone located at 3015 Ocean Street within
the Mello II Segment of the -Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6388 and 6389
DENYING CDP 06-27 and V 06-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
II.INTRODUCTION
The applicant has constructed a 503 square-foot enclosure over an existing patio area, which
includes a fireplace, built in barbeque, and block wall in the front yard setback at an existing
single-family residence on a .20 acre site located on the west side of Ocean Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue without a permit in violation of Carlsbad Municipal
Code 18.04.015. A code enforcement case has been, opened up on this violation. Accordingly,
the applicant is requesting a Coastal Development Permit for these improvements in addition to a
Variance to allow the illegal structures to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-
way of Ocean Street.
Staff has previously recommended support of front yard setback variances up to the front
property lines for other residential properties along Ocean Street. However, this existing
encroachment extends beyond the property line and into the future right-of-way of Ocean Street,
which no other property in the vicinity has been allowed to build into the existing or future
public right-of-way. In addition, upon future road widening the structures in the right-of-way
could preclude safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians. For these reasons staff
cannot recommend support in this case. The project is located in the coastal zone within the
appeal area of the California Coastal Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission
would first be appealed to the City Council and then to the California Coastal Commission. The
project is subject to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential (Chapter 21.16) and the Beach Area
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.82) standards of the zoning ordinance.
ppsiCDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
February 20, 2008
Page 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Site/Setting: The subject lot is located on the west side of Ocean Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue as shown on the attached location map. The site is
8,850 square feet in size, and is considered a standard lot in the R-3 zone. Topographically, the
lot slopes downward from east to west (towards the beach). The lot is currently developed with a
single-family residence. The western slope contains mainly ice plant and other non-native plant
species. There is no sensitive vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub or chaparral habitat on the
site. The site has a Residential High Density (RH) General Plan Land Use designation, is zoned
Multiple-Family Residential (R-3), and is located within the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ).
Surrounding properties to the north and south are also zoned R-3 and have a General Plan
designation of RH. The Pacific Ocean is located to the west and a timeshare, designated and
zoned Village (V) and VR (Village Redevelopment) respectively, is located to the east.
Proposed Residential Construction (already constructed without permits): The applicant is
requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Variance to retroactively approve an
illegally constructed 503 square-foot enclosure over an existing patio; a 7' 2" high block privacy
wall along Ocean Street; a fireplace and 11-foot high chimney; and a built-in barbeque at a-
single-family residence.
The existing wall, fireplace, and the eastern portion of the patio cover encroach into the future
Ocean Street public right-of-way by 2.5 feet. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a variance
for a -2.5 - foot front yard setback. This is discussed in Section IV C of this report. For reference,
Ocean Street is planned to have an ultimate street right-of-way of 50-feet. In order to increase
the width of Ocean Street, at the southern end of the street where the subject property is located,
the City would need a 2.5-foot Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) from owners on the west
and east sides of Ocean Street. The City can request an IOD when the property owner applies for
a discretionary permit.
Staff researched approved plans for other properties on Ocean Street and could not find any
record that the City has allowed other, above grade, structures to encroach into the existing or
future right-of-way. Staff only found three at grade or below grade projects that encroach into
this area (pavers for a driveway apron, a concrete drainage swell, and an underground storm
drain system). The owners were required to apply for encroachment permits for the
improvements in the right-of-way. Staff cannot recommend support of this variance request
because the location of above grade structures in the right-of-way would constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the other properties in the vicinity and zone, and upon future
road widening the structures in the right-of-way could preclude safe and efficient movement of
traffic and pedestrians and, therefore, would not be consistent with the Development Standards
of the Zoning Code and the General Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. General Plan Residential High Density (RH) Land Use designation;
B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3; Chapter 21.16 of the Zoning Ordinance);
C. Variance regulations (Chapter 21.50 of the Zoning Ordinance);
CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIP
February 20, 2008
Page 3
RESIDENCE
D. Coastal Development Permit Regulations for the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Segment, Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, Coastal Shoreline Development
Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201, 21.203, and 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
Beach Area Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.82 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
E. Growth Management Regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance).
The recommendation for denial of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies and determining inconsistencies
would result from this project. The project's compliance, or non-compliance, with each of the
above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A.General Plan
Table A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE
ELEMENT
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Land Use Evaluate each application for
development of property
with regard to the following
specific criteria: Site design
quality which may be
indicated by the arrangement
of the site for efficiency of
circulation, or on-site and
off-site traffic safety,
privacy, etc. (Overall Land
Use Pattern - Policy C.7.3).
The encroachment of the
structures into the future
public right-of-way is not in
conformance with the
development standards in the
R-3 zone, which generally
apply to structures and
improvements contained
within property lines, not in
existing or future public
rights-of-way. In addition,
upon future road widening
the structures in the right-of-
way could preclude safe and
efficient movement of traffic
and pedestrians within a
residential neighborhood.
No
Public Safety Design all structures in
accordance with the seismic
design standards of the
Uniform Building Code and
State building requirements
(Geology and Seismic Safety
-Policy C.I 7).
The project was constructed
without building permits and
may not be compliant with
current UBC & State
building requirements.
Unknown. The
project should be
inspected by a
building official
to make the
determination of
compliance with
current UBC &
State building
requirements.
CDP 06-27/V 06-02
February 20, 2008
Page 4
PHIPPS RESIDENCE
Table A: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE CONTINUED
ELEMENT
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Open Space
&
Conservation
To minimize environmental
impacts to sensitive
resources within the City
(Special Resource Protection
- Objective B.6).
Project is on the eastern
portion of the lot and does
not impact sensitive
resources.
Yes
Noise A City where land uses are
not significantly impacted by
noise (Land Use - Goal A.I).
Project is located within a
residential neighborhood and
is not impacted by potential
noise generating sources.
Yes
Circulation A City with streets designed
to balance vehicular
requirements with the needs
of all pedestrians including
children, the elderly and the
disabled (Streets and Traffic
Control - Goal A.8).
The project would have
structures encroaching into
the future public right-of-
way, which would narrow
the road in front of the
property and create a smaller
area for cars to park and thus
force pedestrians and bike
riders further into the public
right-of-way and areas
traveled by cars.
No
B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3; Chapter 21.16 of the Zoning Ordinance)
R-3 COMPLIANCE TABLE
LCP Land Use Plan
General Plan
Zoning
Grading Permit Required
Hillside Development Permit Required
Native Vegetation Impacts
STANDARD
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Max Building Height
Lot Coverage
RH (Residential High Density)
RH (Residential High Density)
R-3
No
No
No
REQUIRED/ALLOWED
20'
5.6'
11'
30'
60%
PROPOSED/EXISTING
-2.5' (proposed & existing)
5'* (existing-north)
3'* (existing-south)
85' (existing)
26.5' (existing)
34% (proposed & existing)
* Existing non-conformity
C. Variance Regulations
The site is 8,850 square feet in size with a standard lot width of 56 feet by approximately 150
feet. The site is constrained by stringline and slopes on the west side of the lot, as well as a
CDP06-27/V 06-02-PHIP
February 20, 2008
Page 5
RESIDENCE
requirement to dedicate an additional 2.5 feet of property on the east side for the future widening
of Ocean Street. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback from 20 feet to
-2.5 feet, and to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way. Zero foot front yard
setback variance requests have been previously approved on lots located on the west side of
Ocean Street. However, no other above grade structures have been approved within the future
public right-of-way. Given the below analysis, staff cannot make all the required findings for the
granting of a variance.
Table D: VARIANCE FINDINGS TABLE
FINDING RESPONSE
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 under identical zoning
classification.
That special circumstances do not apply to the
subject property in that all the adjacent
properties along the westerly side of Ocean
Street have not been granted a variance to
build above grade structures within the
existing or future public right-of-way. The
project could be modified and redesigned to
remove all structures from the future right--'
of-way with a zero foot front yard setback
consistent with approvals for other
residences on the westerly side of Ocean
Street. The strict application of the zoning
ordinance would not deprive said property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under the identical zoning
classification, because no other property owner
has been allowed to build in the existing or
future public right-of-way.
That the variance shall not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and zone in which the subject property is
located and is subject to any conditions
necessary to ensure compliance with this
finding.
That the granting of this variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located and no conditions
can be imposed to assure compliance with this
finding, in that no other properties in the
vicinity have been allowed to encroach into
the existing or future public right-of-way.
The project could be redesigned without the
structures in the right-of-way to be
consistent with other properties in the
vicinity and zone.
That the variance does not authorize a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing
the subject property.
That the variance does not authorize a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the
subject property in that an enclosed patio at
an existing single-family residence is a
permitted ancillary use.
CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
February 20, 2008
Page 6
Table D: VARIANCE FINDINGS TABLE CONTINUED
FINDING RESPONSE
That the variance is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of the general plan and any
applicable specific or master plans.
That the variance is not consistent with the
general purpose and intent of the general plan
and any applicable specific or master plans in
that the proposed structures would be in the
future public right-of-way, which is not in
conformance with the development
standards in the R-3 zone. In addition, upon
future road widening the structures in the
right-of-way could preclude safe and
efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians
within a heavily traveled residential
neighborhood.
In addition, in the coastal zone, that the
variance is consistent with and implements the
requirements of the certified local coastal
program and that the variance does not reduce
or in any manner adversely affect the
protection of coastal resources as specified in
the zones included in this title, and that the
variance implements the purposes of zones
adopted to implement the local coastal program
land use plan.
That the variance is not consistent with and
does not implement the requirements of the
certified local coastal program (LCP) in that
the granting of a variance to encroach into
the public right-of-way is not consistent with
the City's Zoning Ordinance, which
implements the LCP, and the development
standards for the R-3 zone, which would not
be consistent with Chapter 21.202.010 of the
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone, in that the intent and purpose of the
overlay zone is to provide for control over
development and land use along the coastline
to "promote public safety and access." Upon
road widening the project has the potential
to reduce the available parking in the area
due to the narrowing of the road in front of
the property and may preclude safe and
efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians
within a heavily traveled residential
neighborhood. Therefore, the project would
not be consistent with Chapter 21.82.010 (2)
and (3) of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, in
that the intent and purpose of the overlay
zone is to "provide for adequate parking as
needed by residential projects" and to
"ensure that adequate public facilities will
exist to serve the beach area."
D. Review of Required Coastal Findings
The project is subject to the following Coastal Zone Regulations: Coastal Development Permit
Regulations for the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) Segment, Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone, Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201,
CDP 06-27/V 06-02 - PHIPPS RESIDENCE
February 20, 2008
Page 7
21.203, and 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance); and Beach Area" Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.82 of
the Zoning Ordinance).
The granting of a CDP and a Variance for structures to encroach into the public right-of-way
would not be consistent with Chapter 21.202.010 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone, in that the intent and purpose of the overlay zone is to provide for control over
development and land use along the coastline to "promote public safety and access." In addition,
the project would not be consistent with Chapter 21.82.010 (2) and (3) of the Beach Area
Overlay Zone, in that the intent and purpose of the overlay zone is to "provide for adequate
parking as needed by residential projects" and to "ensure that adequate public facilities will exist
to serve the beach area."
E. Growth Management Regulations
The proposed project is located within the Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The encroachment of structures up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-
of-way may have an adverse impact on public facilities because upon future road widening the
structures in the right-of-way have the potential to reduce the available parking in the area due tcr
the narrowing of the road in front of the property and may preclude safe and efficient movement
of traffic and pedestrians within a heavily traveled residential neighborhood.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Should the proposal be denied, the project would be statutorily exempt from environmental
review pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states, "CEQA does
not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6388 (CDP)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6389 (V)
3. Location Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Background Data Sheet
6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment
7. Photo of Inside Area of Patio Enclosure
8. Applicant's Justifications for Variance Letter
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Exhibits "A" - "C", dated February 20, 2008
NOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
Phipps Residence
CDP 06-27 / V 06-02
Q|ty of Car IB badPlanning 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 al! 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.)
* A fPerson K\V&£*igHx- ^VW-^ Corp/Part _
Title Title
Address gr.ress.
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
FAX {760)
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST K
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?
I j Yes Xj 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.
Signature^ owner/date " ' ... Signature bf applicant/cTat®/ \ ae^j\
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:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO:CDP 06-27 & V 06-02
CASE NAME: PHIPPS RESIDENCE
APPLICANT: DAVE OLDS. SANTA FE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for denial of a Coastal Development Permit for the
illegal construction of an existing 503-square-foot enclosure over an existing patio area, a
fireplace/chimney, a built-in barbeque. and a block wall on the eastern portion of an existing
single-family residence; and denial of a Variance to allow the block wall and a portion of the
patio cover and fireplace/chimney to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the future public right-of-way
of Ocean Street within the City's Coastal Zone located at 5013 Ocean Street within the Mello II
Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Southeasterly 58'feet of the following described property: that
portion of Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego. State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 365, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on February 2, 1887 and also referred to as Assessor Parcel No. 203-251-03
APN: 203-251-03 Acres: 0.20 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 1 lot / 1 unit ~-
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: RH - High Density
Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: 15-23 du/acre Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: R-3 Multi-Family Residential Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan
Site R-3 RH
North R-3 RH
South ' R-3 RH
East VR V
West Pacific Ocean Pacific Ocean
Current Land Use
Single-Family
Single-Family
Single-Family
Timeshare
Pacific Ocean
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Coastal Zone: [X] Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: [X] Yes I I No Coastal Development Permit: IXI Yes I I No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes |XI No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RH
Existing LCP Zone: R-3
Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A
Proposed LCP Zone: N/A
Revised 01/06
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption, Section 15301(e)
I I . Negative Declaration, issued
I I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_
D Other,
Revised 01/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: PHIPPS RESIDENCE - CDP 06-27 & V 06-02
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: R-3
DEVELOPER'S NAME: DAVE OLDS. SANTA FE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
ADDRESS: 324 E. VALLEY PARKWAY
PHONE NO.: 760-746-1000 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 203-251-03
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.20 AC
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN
CONSTRUCTED.
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A*
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A*
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A"
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A*
E. Drainage: - Demand in CFS = N/A*
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A*
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = N/A*
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = N/A*
H. Open Space: . Acreage Provided = N/A*_
I. Schools: N/A*
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU N/A*
Identify Sub Basin = N/A*
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = N/A*
*N/A - There is no impact on local facilities as the proposed project is an addition to an existing
residence.
Design & Construction
324 E. Valley Parkway • Escondido, Ca 92025
Lie. # B/C20/C47/C61/D03 575117
760.746.1000 • 760.743.2753
Project: Phipps Residence
Owner: Virginia Phipps
Address: 3015 Ocean St.
Carlsbad, Ca
Justification For Variance - Variance Application
1.) Special Circumstances that would adequately justify this application:
The topography and general site location of the subject parcel is in itself a unique
situation and location. The front of the parcel joins Ocean St., downtown Carlsbad. The
rear of the parcel/ property line is located on the existing High Tide line of the Pacific
Ocean.
Directly adjacent to the subject parcel is a large multi-story time-share, across the
street on the corner of Ocean St. and Carlsbad Village Dr. The guests that stay in the
rooms located along Ocean St. have a direct line of Site into the current courtyard,
offering very-little privacy or security to the owners of the subject parcel.
Vehicles, bikes and pedestrians travel this road frequently as it is a frontage road
to the Pacific Ocean and a source of congregation.
We believe the proposed patio cover will provide the privacy and security enjoyed
by other property owners in the vicinity and identical zoning.
2.) Variance is consistent with properties in the vicinity:
The subject parcel is located along a block of Ocean St. where variance
applications of similar descriptions have been applied for and approved.
3.) New use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized bv the zone regulations:
There are no changes to the existing use and there are no new proposed activities.
No current uses or activities are inconsistent with current zoning regulations for the
subject site.
4.) The granting of this variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
current General Plan and any applicable Master Plans.
The current zone is R-3 (Residential Use), Beach Area Overlay. The proposed
patio cover does not inhibit the approved uses or activities of surrounding properties in
the vicinity. Properties in the vicinity have submitted a variance application and have
been approved for projects with very similar descriptions. The history and activity of
properties in the vicinity is consistent with this application.
GENERAL NOTES:
GL DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. USE DIMENSIONS ONLY. IF A DISCREPANY IS
FOUND TO EXIST NOTFY DESIGNER.
G2. THESE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
2001 CALIFORNIA BJ!LDIt4G CODE FOUND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TITLE-24 CCR AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
1991 UBC, 2005 CEC, »00 UMC, UPC - IAMPO, 11002 NEC.
63. DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOSII METHOD AND MANNER OF ACCOMPLISHING
WORK. MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUIT THE JOB DIMENSIONS
OR CONDITIONS AND 15 TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE UORK.
64. DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FACE OF THE ACTUAL STUD. VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE SITE PRIOR TO STARTING ANY WORK.
VERIFY FINDINGS, DIFFERENCES AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS WITH DESIGNER
PRIOR TO BEG1NING PROJECT. STAKE OUT WORK FOR OWNERS APPROVAL
PRIOR TO STARTING ANY IDORK.
65. ALL WEATHER EXPOSED SURFACES SHALL HAVE A WEATHER-RESISTIVE
BARRIER TO PROTECT THE INTERIOR MALL COVERING AND THAT EXTERIOR
OPENINGS ARE TO BE FLASHS? W SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAKE THEM HEATHER
PROOF.
06, THE INSPECTOR MAY RE-CHECK FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS AND OR GRADING
REQUIREMENTS AT THE FIRST FOUNDATION INSPECTION, NO SOILS REPORT EXISTS
AND THE EXISTING SOIL BEARING VALUE IS APPX. IOOO PSI.
61. GFCI OUTLETS ARE REQUIRED OUTDOORS, BATHROOMS, WITHIN b' OF KITCHEN
SINKS, WET BARS, IN ATTACHED GARAGES. NEC 2)0.8,
Gfl. PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BACKING AND FRAMING FOR ALL MOUNTED ITEMS, LIGHTS, FAh
AND OTHER ITEMS THAT REfiURE SAME
til -NOT U3ED-
SIO. -NOT USED-
GO. ALL NAILING SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TABLE 23-IM3-I, COMMON NAILS ONLY.
6D. ALL RECEPTACLE OUTLET LOCATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH B96 NEC 210.5: a.
613. SET ALL WINDOWS I DOORS TO b'-&" TO TOP OF WINDOW/ DOOR, U.O.N.
GI4. CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY STUDY AND COMPARE
ALL DRAWINGS, DATA, DIMENSIONS, SPEC. I EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH ANY tUORK, AND REPORT TO THE DESIGNER AT ONCE ANY
ERROR, INCONSI5TANCY, I/OR OMMISION HE/SHE MAY DISCOVER.
615. PERMANANT VACUUM BREAKERS TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL HOSE BBS.
.OCEAN ST.
BMP'6:(STORM-WATER QUALITY BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES^
- TEMPORARY SIT '. -
ABBR.
UJM-t
lilfl-B
IUM-&
Offi-a
LUM-*
66-*/B
6C-I
6TM.
H^"
A
8
A
/*
^
DESCRIPTION
PIATERIAL DELIVERY
t STORAGE
CONCRETE WASTE
&OLID UA&TE P1GMT.
4 MATERIAL STAGING.
SANITARY UJASTE MGrlT.
HAZARDOUS ILIASTE MGMT.
MULCH
(•INTERIOR Of SILT PENCE)
SILT FENCE
SITE PLAN
PROJECT TEAM:
OWNER;
VIRGINIA PHIPPS
3OI5 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA
TOSS
PREPARE) SY:
MICHAEL SMEE
SANTA FE DESIGN
I CONSTRUCTION
IfcO . 146 . IOOO
LIC* B-515II1
CONTRACTOR/ AGENT:
SANTA FE DESIGN
< CONSTRUCTION
CONTACT:
MICHAEL SMEE OR
DAVE OLDS
324 E. VALLET PK1UY.
ESCONDIDO, CA 32O25
PH: 16O.146.IOOO
FAX, 1feO.143.2153
EMAIL. MTSMEE«GMAIL.COM
SHEET INDEX:
TS 1.1 COVER SHEET « SITE PLAN.
A 2.1 FLOOR PLAN.
A 1.1 ELEVATIONS 4 SECTIONS.
PROJECT SCOPE:
JSTRUCT &03I PATIO COVER TO
• THE EXISTING COURTYARD. -VARIANCE REQUIRED-
- MISC. ELECTRICAL
- NO PLUMBING.
BUILDING DATA:
OWNER: VIRGINIA PHIPPS
OWNER // PROJECT ADDRESS:
3015 OCEAN ST.
CARLSBAD, CA
APN • : 2O3 . 251 .O3.OO
ZONE/ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ,
R-3 (RESIDENTIAL;
BEACH AREA OVERLAY
*ET- WONT <FY)- !0'-0'
BACKS: S|pg fgy;. 5'.0' fliN TO |0'.0' M^X f€\ Of LOT UIDTH)
LOT •• ib( f.lOJ. 5.6 SY SETBACK
REARIRYJ- RE4R YARD 16 LINE
LOT OF HISH TIDE.
COVERAGE:
LOT = B£&0» FOOTPRINT ° 3^3001
3,000 / 8*50 • (33.8) 34» LOT COVFJSA6E
teO% MAX t COhPLlAKCFJ
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
2-UNITS EXISTING TOTAL 2,I21»
VICINITY MAP:
wpi^-pQ
1
II
"LI
NOTE-MAINTAIN THE EDGE OF ALL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INCLUDING!POST* AND BEAM* TO BE A MINIMUM OF 2"-lHi' CLEAR FROM THE
EDGE OP THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE HORIZONTAL HATCHING DENOTES THE AREA TO KEEP CLEAR
THE FUTURE ROAD UflDENING OCCURS THE EXISTING CMU
BLOCK WALL AND PATIO COVER ROOF &HALL BE REMOVED
FOR THE I'-*' I.O.D.
2013* TOTAL <E) HABITABLE
NO WORK IN SHADED AREASI OI.N.OJ
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
a
(K
<o
0.0
>-r
I1!!!
ll
H" = I'-O"
NORTH (RIGHT.) ELEVATION SOUTH fLEFTJ ELEVATION
EAST CFRONT; ELEVATION
"2.2