HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 98-03; Hartsock Condo Conversion; Administrative Variance (AV) (4)TAX ATTORNEY
-:
September 28,1998
Greg Fisher, Staff Planner
City of Carlsbad-Planning Department
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576
Re: AV 98-03 Hartsock Condominium Conversion
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I have received the Planning Departments’s September 22, 1998 letter stating that my Condominium
Permit Application 98-04 and Administrative Variance AV 98-03 application is complete for
processing. This letter is intended to respond to the issues of concern from the Planning Department
and request a meeting to discuss all matters relating to this project.
The September 22, 1998 letter addresses the following issues of concern from the Planning
Department:
“ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Pursuant to subsection 21.45.090 (d)(l) and (2) of the Planned Development Ordinance,
(1) one onsite guest parking space must be provided for this proposed condominium
duplex.”
Visitor Parking.
(1) Visitor parking shall be provided as follows:
Amount of Visitor
No. of units Parking
10 dwelling units or less 1 space for each 2
dwelling units or
fraction thereof
Greater than 10 dwelling
units 5 spaces for the 10
units, plus 1 space
(619) 535-4844 Fax 535-4890
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500 San Diego, California 92122
.
c
September 28, 1998
Greg Fisher
Page 2
for each 4 dwelling
units above 10 or
fraction thereof.”
As you can see from the ordinance, the one guest parking space that is required, is not necessarily
required to be located onsite. In fact another section of the ordinance specifically allows visitor
parking to be located on the street. Planned Development Ordinance Section 21.45.090 (d)(3)
provides as follows:
“(3 j Credit for visitor parking may be given for frontage on adjacent local streets for
detached single-family or duplex projects subject to the approval of the planning
commission; not less than twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of driveway
entrances and driveway aprons shall be provided for each parking space, except where
parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then twenty
lineal feet may be provided. Streets used for on-street visitor parking must meet or
exceed the city’s minimum width requirements.”
As you can see, the Planned Development Ordinance allows visitor parking to be located on the
adjacent local streets subject to approval of the Planning Commission. On September 14, 1998,
I submitted a request for a Planning Commission Determination PCD 98-2 requesting that they
allow a single guest parking space to be located on the adjacent street. I am expecting that this
Planning Commission Determination will be allowed since the parking space is located in an
isolated area next to a steep bluff that will never have a parking problem.
The analysis in the September 22,1998 letter from the Planning Department states that the
Administrative Variance cannot be supported because tandem parking behind garages are only
allowed in the event a 20-foot setback exists. Your letter states as follows:
“ Existing daplex lots may provide the guest oarkin3 space as tandem parking space in
front of the garage provided that the garage is setback a minimum of twenty feet from the
front property line. Because the existing garage is not set back the required minimum
20’ from the property line, the required guest parking space can not be permitted as a
tandem parking space. In that this project does not meet the guest parking standards of
the Planned Development Ordinance, the requested Administrative Variance cannot be
supported.”
The September 22, 1998 letter states that the Planning Department can not support the
Administrative Variance because a tandem guest parking space is not permitted within the
20-foot setback in front of the garage. However, I am not requesting tandem parking, nor I
am requesting the guest parking space to be placed in the 20-foot setback, nor am I requesting
the parking space be placed in front of the garage. I am only requesting a variance of the 20-foot
setback. The parking issue is wholly unrelated to the Administrative Variance request since the
guest parking is the subject of Planning Commission Determination 98-2.
September 28, 1998
Greg Fisher
Page 3
Administrative Variance 98-03 should be supported since I am only asking for a variance of the
20-foot setback, and I am not requesting tandem parking, nor parking in front of the garage, nor
parking within the 20-foot setback. The issue of guest parking is to be resolved with the
Planning Commission Determination, and is not at issue in the request for an Administrative
Variance of the 20-foot setback.
I believe the denial and opposition to this project results from Van Lynch reviewing my
neighbors’s project located at 4681 Park Drive which requests tandem guest parking on the side
of the house. My application is significantly different in that I do not request tandem parking
nor parking in front of tne garage nor parking in the 20’ setback. A closer review of my
application will reveal that I am requesting a Planning Commission Determination to place the
one required guest parking space on the street, and an Administrative Variance that merely
requests a variance of the 20-foot setback requirement. It would be greatly appreciated if you
would treat my application separate and distinct from Tom Worth’s application located at 4681
Park Drive as they are totally different applications that require completely different analysis of
the Planned Development Ordinance.
I hereby formally request a meeting with Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director, Gary Wayne,
Assistant Planning Director, Chris DeCerbo, Variance Supervisor, and Greg Fisher, Staff
Planner to discuss this Administrative Variance AV 98-03, and any other issues related to this
project. After reviewing the entire project, the Administrative Variance, the Planning
Commission Determination and the Planned Development Ordinance, I am confident that the
Administrative Variance from the 20’ setback will be tentatively approved by the Planning
Department, subject to the Planning Commission’s approval of one on-street guest parking
space. It would be appreciated if this meeting would be held prior to your determination on the
Administrative Variance.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Very truly yours, Wa/!-d William D. Ha sock
Attorney at Law
c: Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Chris DeCerbo, Variance Supervisor