HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 98-03; Hartsock Condo Conversion; Administrative Variance (AV) (6)September 14, 1998 TAX ATTORNEY
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: AV 98-03 Hartsock Condominium Conversion Requesting a Variance from the 20-
Foot Front Yard Setback Requirement
Dear Planning Department:
On February 13, 1998, I submitted a Justification for Variance requesting that a variance
be granted from the required 20-foot front yard setback to allow the existing duplex to be
condominiumized. This request for variance was part of Condominium Permit CP 98-04
which requests to condominiumize the existing duplex located at 4683 Park Drive, A &
B, Carlsbad, California 92008 ("Subject Property"). The Subject Property is currently
set back ten feet from the front yard property line as was required for a duplex. This
variance requests that you allow a ten-foot setback in order to be consistent with 83% of
the other properties on Cove Drive that have less than a 20-foot setback. Granting this
variance will allow this property to be consistent with a substantial portion of those
properties on Park Drive with less than a 20-foot front yard setback, all of which are also
in the RW zone.
A Planning Commission Determination requests that the guest parking be located in an
off sight area pursuant to Section 21.45.090 (d)(3) which states that "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.. . As such, the
parking is not an issue in this request for an administrative variance from the 20-foot
front setback requirements pursuant to Section 21.45.090 (b)(2)(A).
Carlsbad Code Section 21.45.090(b)(2)@) states as follows:
"All multifamily units fronting on a public or private street shall maintain a
minimum of a twenty-foot front yard setback.
The four requirements necessary to obtain a variance from the 20-foot setback
requirement are discussed below.
1. There are 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.
a. The size of the Subject Property is different than other properties in the RW
(619) 535-4844 9 Fax 535-4890
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500 San Diego, California 92122
.-
September 14, 1998
Planning Department
Re: AV 98-03 Hartsock Condominium Conversion Requesting a Variance from the 20-
Page 2
Foot Front Yard Setback Requirement
zone. Since this request asks for a variance of the 20’ front yard setback,
the length of the lot is of ultimate importance.
The average lot on Park Drive is 125.66 feet in length, on Cove Drive is
122.83 feet in length and on Marina Drive is 137.48 feet in length.
However, the Subject Property is only 107.73 feet in length. The Subject
Property is 18 to 30 feet shorter than the average length of lots in the RW
zone. The significantly shorter lot size of the Subject Property seriously
restricts my ability to comply with the full 20 feet front yard setback. As a
result, this property has exkaordinary conditions that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity.
b. The location of the Subject Property allows for different characteristics of
this property than other properties in the RW zone. The Subject Property
is located in an isolated area from most of the population. The majority of
people live either on Marina Drive, or the north end of Park Drive, or
along all of Cove Drive. There is less pedestrian traffic in front of the
Subject Property as a result of its isolation from the majority of the
population in the RW zone. The Subject Property is located far away from
where most of the cars are parked on the north end of Park, Marina Drive
and Cove Drive. The location in this matter is significant since the
pedestrian traffic should not increase since the other side of Park Drive is
virtually unbuildable due to the large bluff preventing its development.
Pedestrian traffic should not increase in the general area since the other side
is unbuildable. There is 100-200 yards of street frontage that is unbuildable
as a result of this steep bluff.
c. The shape of the Subject Property is irregular. The Subject Property is a
trapezoid with the back of the properfy 37 feet and 4.5 inches wide, and the
front of the property 45 feet and 9 inches wide. This irregular shaped lot
requires that the building be placed closer to the front of the Subject
Property in order to comply with all other setbacks, and to more center the
building on this irregular shaped lot.
d. The topography of the Subject Property is significantly different that other
properties in the RW zone. The topography of the Subject Property is lower
than the topography of the sidewalk, and adjacent street. This is a steep 2
feet, 6 inch drop from the sidewalk to the front portion of the building. It
was necessary to build up the house three-feet above ground level in order
for the building to be level with the sidewalk. As such, there is a steep drop
P
September 14, 1998
Planning Department
Re: AV 98-03 Hartsock Condominium Conversion Requesting a Variance from the 20-
Foot Front Yard Setback Requirement
immediately when driving down into the side parking. This is significantly
different than other properties in the vicinity.
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.
a. A Neighborhood Front Yard Setback Comparative was prepared on August
14, 1995 showing all properties on Cove Drive. After analyzing each
property on Cove Drive the conclusion was that “Only five (i.e. 17%)
properties of 30 (100%) have a front yard setback at plus 20 feet. Eighty-
three percent of existing homes are less than 20-feet front yard setback. ’’
(See Exhibit A, Neighborhood Front Yard Setback Comparative dated
August 14, 1995.)
b. An Analysis was prepared by the Planning Department which shows certain
variances that were approved by the City of Carlsbad. As you can see in
the third column of the exhibit the setback for each approved variance is as
follows: 10 feet, 10 feet, 21 feet, 10.5 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 10 feet, 20
feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, 8 feet 7 inches, 10
feet 8 inches, 24 feet. As you can see from the variances approved by the
City of Carlsbad, only five provided for a full 20 feet setback, the balance
were granted their variance. (See sheet one, page 1, Analysis by Carlsbad
Planning Department).
c. This will not disrupt pedestrian and vehicular circulation since 10 feet from
the sidewalk is sufficient space to allow pedestrians to walk on the sidewalk
without interference. Since there is 44 feet 8 inches on the side parking
areas, this is ample parking so that individuals will not be parking from the
garage to the sidewalk. As such, cars will not block the sidewalk or
pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
d. There are a substantial number of units and lots that are condominiumized
in the same RW zone. Without this variance I am deprived of the right to
condominiumize and be similar to many of my neighbors.
3. Granting 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.
P
September 14, 1998
Planning Department
Re: AV 98-03 Hartsock Condominium Conversion Requesting a Variance from the 20-
Foot Front Yard Setback Requirement
a. A garage located 10 feet back from the sidewalk does not disrupt pedestrian
right of way. Pedestrians just don’t walk that far off of the sidewalk.
Owners are much less likely to block the sidewalk by wrongfully parking
behind the garage in the 10-foot setback, than transient tenants are.
Property owners are more conscientious about neighbors than transient
tenants. A 10 feet setback is ample space for pedestrians, especially in
light of the 44 feet 8 inches of concrete parking depth on the south side of
the building.
b. There is ample parking in the covered garage and the one parking space on
the side of each of the units. The concrete parking area on the south side
of the Subject Property is 44 feet 8 inches long, well in excess of the
required 20 feet long parking space, and therefore there is virtually no
chance of parking in the sidewalk, and virtually no chance of blocking
pedestrian right of way.
4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan because the two unit development is consistent with the
Residential High (RH) density General Plan land use designation and the
Residential Waterway (RW) zoning.
a. The Assistant Planning Director agreed that granting this variance will not
adversely affect the general plan and this development is consistent with the
RH density, and the RW zoning. As such, we have complied with the
fourth requirement by agreement.
In summary, all four requirements of an administrative variance are complied with.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience, I would like an opportunity to meet and
discuss this variance with Chris DeCerbo and Greg Fisher prior to the Planning
Department’s determination. This would allow all parties to become more familiar with
the issues prior to any appeal. I look forward to hearing from you prior to your
determination.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ha&ock
Attorney at Law
plandept.var