HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-10; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 294; 2650 Roosevelt St Home AppealA
HOUSING Ah13 REDEVELOPMENT COMMts’jlON -AGENDA BILLa
AB# a94 TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MTG. +!!f APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECISION TO DENY RP 97-09 CITY All-Y. jI@-
DEPT. H/RED CITY MGR. %$
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. , &a DENYING the appeal.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Backnround:
In September of this year, Ideal Construction submitted plans to the Building Department for a 202 square
foot room addition to a single family home located at 2650 Roosevelt Street. In reviewing the plans, the
Housing and Redevelopment Department determined that the plans did not conform to the requirements
of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan. Specifically, the Master Plan requires that additions to existing
buildings within the Village Redevelopment Area provide parking per the standards of the Master Plan.
The requirement for single family homes is a two car garage.
Staff informed the applicant of the requirement and the plans were amended accordingly. However,
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit, staff determined that the plans incorrectly indicated that
the work was to be done on a single parcel of land. In fact, the garage was to be constructed on a
separate legal parcel, which is not permitted by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Thus, the building permit
was revoked.
In reviewing the project with the applicant, staff discussed two alternatives. First, because the property
owner owns the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel to the north, it is staffs opinion that there is
adequate room to construct the required two-car garage. The property owner would be required to
process a parcel merger prior to constructing the garage and room addition. The second option, which
the applicant chose to pursue, is to request a variance from the parking standards.
On December 22, 1997, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider a request for variance
to waive the parking requirement for an addition to an existing building in the Redevelopment Area. At the
December 22”d meeting, four Board Members were present (Savary, absent). After hearing and
considering all of the public testimony, the Board discussed the request. While each of the Board
Members expressed sympathy for the applicant’s predicament, the Board voted unanimously to deny the
request for variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the denial of the project because 1) it does not meet the parking standards of Carlsbad
Village Master; 2) it cannot be shown that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and
zone; 3) it cannot be shown that such a 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.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. a+
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed room addition, if permitted, would nominally increase the property tax revenue for
the Redevelopment Agency as a result of the increased assessed value of said addition.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. -?9a2J
2. Copy of Applicant appeal of DRB decision, dated December 29, 1997.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated December 22,1997.
4. Draft Minutes of December 22, 1997 DRB meeting.
2
.
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
r 28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NQ. 292
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVEL NT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIF&IA, TO
DENY A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WAIVE TI$ PARKING
REQUIREMENT REQUIRED FOR
BUILDINGS IN THE VILLAGE RED
202 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION T
HOME A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2650
IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMEN ONE/LAND USE
DISTRICT 8.
WHEREAS, Robert and Sara R “Owners” have filed a verified application with the
Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the f Carlsbad regarding property described as that portion
of Lot 41 of Seaside Lands, in the City of ad, County of San Diego, State of California, as per Map
1722, filed in the Office of the County rder of San Diego County, July 28, 192 1 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said ication, dated November 24, 1997, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, c tutes a request for a Variance, Rojas Parking Variance Project VAR
97- 09, as provided by Chapt 1.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
he Design Review Board did, on the 22nd day of December, 1997, hold a
duly noticed public he as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
AS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
f persons desiring to be heard, and considering all factors relating to Variance 97-09,
unanimously to deny the request for Variance; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the - day of
998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony, if any, of
persons designing to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the application for
~ Variance:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission and the meeting of the Design Review Board, the Commission
hereby DENIES the request for Variance, Rojas Parking Variance, VAR 97-09, based on the
following findings:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Project qualifies as a Variance under Chapter 2 1.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
because the project involves a request to waive the requirement to provide the required
parking for an addition to an existing building.
2. The Project does not meet the findings required to grant a variance due to:
a) There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone. Due to the configuration of the site and
property ownership, the project is able to provide the required two-car garage that is
required for all additions to existing buildings.
b) The variance is not 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. The imposition of the requirement to provide a
two-car garage applicant will not preclude the applicant from enjoying the same
preservation and enjoyment of the property as currently exists.
c) The granting of such a variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located. A goal of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Guidelines
is to establish the Village area as a quality living environment through the
improvement in the condition and appearance of the existing housing stock. Failure
to comply with the requirements of the Master Plan will hinder the community in
meeting this goal and in turn will be detrimental to the public welfare.
d) The granting of such variance will adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan.
The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines was adopted to implement
the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Failure to comply with the requirements
of the Master Plan is a failure to comply with the General Plan and therefore, will
adversely affect said General Plan.
. . .
H&RED. COM. RESO NO. 292
PAGE 2
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of 2
1998, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, CHAIRPERSON
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, SECRETARY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
II H&RED.COM. RJZSO NO. 292
PAGE 3
- EXHIBIT
of Carlsbad
DATE: December 29, 1997
TO: Debbie Fountain,' Housing & Redevelopment
FROM: Sherrie Worrell, Deputy City Clerk
2
RE: Appeal by Robert & Sara Rojas
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item:will not be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all I
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of .
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808
I (We) appeal the decision of the Design yd Review ‘Oard
to the Housing and Redevelopment CornmisSion
Date of De&ion youare appealing: 22 December 1997
- BE E-W=: if tfm actbn is a City Engineer’s tkddon, phase my so. ‘H a project her
mUiti@e demerits, (such as 8 General Plan Amendment, Negative Debath, spedfic Plan, &.) ple88e
to build a room addition at 2650 Roosevelt St.
Redevelopment Permit NO. RP97-09
-for l tleua Not. l hIlure to rpoewy l f888w1 nmy msult In denial d
th8 Vlrmd yor, WM b8 hdt8d Q tit8 ~munds N&d h.m ww pwng - 8piHd.
m HOW did tht?~ d&&on maker er(l What about the de&jm b \msistmt m state 0~ local laws, plans, or policy?
meI that the denial for the building variance puts an unfair hardship on us because or lot size does
pot have enough room to put In a two car garage as Is called for in the Redevelopment Plan. We do not feel
fhat we should be penalired for having a small lot that does not allow for home improvement, as permitted
by rfght within Land Use District 8, which is afforded to those that have larger lots or lots that may already
have garages. We also feel that the Design Review Board put too much emphasis on the second lot Owned
by us adjacent to the property in question. If this lot were to be owned by someone else we could not put
in a two car garage on that property. Furthermore the proposed building addition does not go beyond the footprint
of the existing home and will be consistent with the existing and surrounding structures and wouldn’t look like
an addition. We have lived here for almost 40 years and have saved to put in this addition for our SenkW
I ‘*’ / I _ / . c ‘-75. <j&L , /.:’ , 760 729-1724
SIGNATURE .L PHONE NO.
Robert RojaslSara Rojas 2650 Roosevelt St
NAME (please4 print) ADDRESS: Stmet Name 6 Number
29 December 1997 Carlsbad California 92008
DATE City, Stats, Up Code
200 Carlsbad Village Orive l Carlsbad. California 92008-1989 l (619) 434-2808 c
Appeal Form
(page 2 attachment)
Rojas RP97-09
Years. We ask that you grant the variance so that we may proceed with the addition.The
design Review Board were reluctant in denying the variance and also stated that they
were not against an appeal and that they would rathe’r defer to a higher body.
Thank You
l - e EXHIBIT 3
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date:
November IO, 1997
Environmental Review:
N/A
Staff: Craig Ruiz
Management Analyst
DATE: December 22, 1997
SUBJECT: VAR97-09 - ROJAS PARKING VARIANCE: Request for Variance to waive the
parking requirement for additions to existing buildings in the Village
Redevelopment Area for a 202 square foot room addition to a single family home
on property located at 2650 Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment
Zone/Land Use District 8.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 261 to DENY
VAR97-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In September of this year, a representative of the Rojas family submitted plans to the Building
Department for a 202 square foot room addition to a single family home located at 2650
Roosevelt Street. Because the project is located within the Redevelopment Area, the plans
were forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Department for review.
Room additions to single family homes can be approved administratively by staff. In reviewing
the original plans, staff determined that the project did not conform to the requirements of the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan. Specifically, the Master Plan requires that additions to existing
buildings within the Village Redevelopment Area provide parking per the standards of the
Master Plan. The requirement for single family homes is a two car garage.
Staff informed the applicant of the requirement and the plans were amended accordingly.
However, subsequently to the issuance of a building permit, staff determined that the plans
incorrectly indicated that the work was to be done on a single parcel of land. In fact, the project
was to be constructed on separate parcels which is not permitted by the Carlsbad Municipal
Code. Thus, the building permit was revoked not issued.
In reviewing the project with the applicant, staff discussed two alternatives. First, because the
property owner owns the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel to the north, it is staff’s opinion
that there is adequate room to construct the required two-car garage. The property owner
would be required to process a parcel merger prior to constructing the garage and room
addition. The second option, which the applicant has chosen to pursue, is to request a variance
from the parking standards.
III. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
In reviewing the project for consistency purposes with the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual and Redevelopment Plan, applicable development standards were considered for the
room addition only. However, the project in its entirety was considered for the purposes of
determining whether or not the project was desirable and consistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of both land use and design.
The Village Master Plan requires a two car garage for single family residences. Due to the lack
of parking, the residence is deemed to be legally non-conforming land use. In order for the
application to be approved, the Design Review Board would need to grant a variance from the
parking standard which is to be applied for all additions to existing buildings. If this variance is
granted, the proposed room addition will be consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual which became effective January 12, 1996, as well as the Redevelopment Plan for the
Village Redevelopment Area which was adopted in 1981.
The site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village Local
Coastal Program is not applicable to this project.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 8 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Single family homes are permitted by right within Land Use District 8.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that every
project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. The first type is known as
“Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area must comply with
these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual
Standards”. These standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is
located.
The Universal Standards address specifically the issue of parking. This sections states that
“new development and additions to existing buildings within the Village Redevelopment Area
will be required to provide parking per the standards contained within Chapter 6 of this Village
master Plan and Design Manual.” As stated previously, the parking standard for a single family
home is a two car garage. Because the applicant does not wish to provide the garage, the
proposal is not in compliance with this portion of the Master Plan.
VI. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The project requires a variance because it involves a request to waive the parking standards
contained in the Village Master Plan. The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit is not required for the project.
The Design Review Board is the final decision-making body for this project. The Board is asked
to hold a public hearing on the permits requested, consider the public testimony and staffs
recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to approve or deny the
project. If the project is denied by the Design Review Board, the applicant may appeal the
decision to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Housing and Redevelopment Department is recommending denial of this project. When a
project is recommended for denial, environmental review is not required pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of
the City of Carlsbad. If the Commission does decide to approve the variance, environmental
review would be required to be performed prior to Commission action.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the denial of the project because 1) it does not meet the parking standards
of Carlsbad Village Master; 2) it cannot be shown that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other
property in the same vicinity and zone; 3) it cannot be shown that such a 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.
EXHIBITS:
I. Design Review Board Resolution No. 261
2. Location Map
3. Site Plan
4. Project Description with Disclosure Statement
5. Master Plan Parking Requirements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 261
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY A REQUEST
FOR VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT
REQUIRED FOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS IN
THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR A 202 SQUARE
FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2650 ROOSEVELT STREET IN THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE/LAND USE DISTRICT 8
CASE NAME: ROJAS PARKING VARIANCE
APN: 203-102-25
CASE NO: VAR 97-09
WHEREAS, Ideal Construction, “Applicant” has filed a verified application
with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
owned by Roberto Rojas, “Owners”, described as that portion of Lot 41 of Seaside Lands, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, as per Map 1722, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Variance as shown on
Exhibit A, dated November 24, 1997 on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department,
Rojas Parking Variance Project VAR 97- 09 as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 22”“ day of December,
1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to Variance 97-09.
DRB RESO NO. 261
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
! Board as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby DENIES the request for Variance, Rojas Parking
Variance, VAR 97-09, based on the following findings:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Project qualifies as a Variance under Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code because the project involves a request to waive the
requirement to provide the required parking for an addition to an existing
building.
2. The Project does not meet the findings required to grant a variance due to:
a) There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to
the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. Due to the
configuration of the site and property ownership, the project is able to
provide the required two-car garage that is required for all additions to
existing buildings.
b) The variance is not 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. The imposition
of the requirement to provide a two-car garage applicant will not preclude
the applicant from enjoying the same preservation and enjoyment of the
property as currently exists.
cl The granting of such a variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located. A goal of the Carlsbad Village
Master Plan & Design Guidelines is to establish the Village area as a
quality living environment through the improvement in the condition and
appearance of the existing housing stock. Failure to comply with the
requirements of the Master Plan will hinder the community in meeting this
goal and in turn will be detrimental to the public welfare.
. . .
DRB RESO. NO. 261
PAGE 2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d) The granting of such variance will adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines
was adopted to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the Master Plan is a failure to
comply with the General Plan and therefore, will adversely affect said
General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22’ld day of December, 1997 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBORAH K. FOUNTAIN
Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO. NO. 26 1
PAGE 3
I I r-y
GRAND AV GRAND AV If----in I g G5
E/t P Y HIW
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR ml B .a4 r 3! z I 8 2 mE El I OAKAV
.
EXHIBIT 3
J-
-- .----- ~- -- . ---~ - -- i 3 F -I 1 I c i I I ’ a- - I I I
j-
--a_ I r __- -_ I “, : “’ 7 f P _____. -..i.
E
/i J - z
I* I’@- :-’
1 1, ‘C . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 3 t. t L 1L .‘, * r
1 g;j. /, ,
-.gg$; ; F : -. i r*‘. 5
* py i i
i-----d---- -A : f I 1
L t , -- _ 4 1
F :
!
t I T
I 1
1
I ’ I 1 d / 3 I I
8 _ ,,.G ‘-. k-
;- - -y- - --;
‘.
,._1r; .
j
g 1 Ai 2 i ; -- g !fi 1 ‘- ;- ;- ; 1 ; *., .‘..
1
17 ; .: , ‘_---.. i 3 ) d - -.----- --,L--~ - T--@----i
-
7 (j ., Ii :’ II
i E
I
: !I !
F / 1 / 9 .-._ --... \ ;
$? / 17 ~ y :. El
II ” ,! J !
-3
f 3 ’ ‘. . ! 1 I’ ’ I ! 3 /j(‘b : .’ ? t ; 3
;- 1:,y- I .a” ‘L i .L t +=-I./t F i , ‘., r.j : 1 a,
,i, ii ;
t& f
s$ J
r,F
:. ji’j 1
L i
’ >c;’ -74 II / -\ic,
.’ j I,)
El
111: III
.-
,,a ’
i
i’ + I ._ .A;. .: ‘p !I /,!
\ _/ 3 y 1’
iJ \,,
$ ji\,
!; i, \
I \\
i . .
EXHIBIT 4
PROJECT DESCRIP~~ON/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: i%.WX3 40o/r/i,y
APPLICANT NAME: ..&vx btsi%%cpod 0
explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. YOU may also include any
Please describe fully the proposed Project. Include any details necessary to adequately
background information and swponing statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
The owner of the property proposes to add a room approximately 202
square feet to rear of the existing house filling in the existing L
shape area. This addition to be an enlargement of an existing bed-
room and adding a master bathroom. Exterior to match existing color
(stucco exterior), roof match (HIP roof with composition shingles). . .
The purpose of this variance application is to obtain a waiver from the village master plan' requiring all proposed additions to have a two car garage.
This requirement is not feasible for this project because the lot is a narrow 40' wide piece of property with 5' side yard setback and a
front yard setback of 20'.
The only area available for the garage is the rear yard but there
is not any accessibility to the rear yard from the street.
We feel there is a cause for hardship. Mr. Rojas cannot add on to
his house because of the two car garage requirement. Other houses on
this street in the master plan area have garages; therefore, they
are afforded the luxury of adding on to their houses. In addition
the Rojas property, on this street, is the only 40' wide property developed. All others are wider than 40' and probably can accommodate
access to the rear,through the side yard.
The addition of this project will enhance the property value and afford the Rojas's with a quality of living enjoyed'by others.
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:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
tiibtc s’w
Lx% zkbw c;,H4icL*& LG
2353 *djgy $7 409
G&?&65- qzo@f
2.
3.
OWNER
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list th,e names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organiration or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
2075 Las PalmaS Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894
. 5. Have you ha+ Ire than $250 worth of business .sacted with any member of
. City staff, Bo,.Js, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve
(12) months?
cl Yes B-f-J 0 If yes, please indicate person(s):
Per&n is defined & ~AAny”inbivitiu‘a;l,‘“~irm;,~c;;i-bartnersh;p, “‘j&t venture, .association, social club
fraternal organizatiori, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, tit;
and county, city municipality, district .or :,other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” .- .-,’ ,,, _ .I_...
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
4
SignaVture of ownerYdakf3
/i-c -v/f
Signature of appli&int/date
Eosm /eG?s
Print,or type name of owner
/evai--- c- Sk?.. D& C4fft5 dhs*. &
Print or type name of applicant
Disclosure Statement 10196 Page 2 of .2
.
-
e
, I .,
.: ;
!
7 *i , I
;
C
=
ti 0
8
b a
t-i
u
,a
r*! m -
=
G 8 3 a .- .g
3 3 -!2
3 8 v)
. . 2 > 2 5:
: 2
9 =
@is .- 4-m 8 ‘g $
‘p-0 m . CL,-3 g) aa’;‘ i%ss
oi
SC DO
55
sa
-g .e .-
z&j
Q)L,g) ‘0 al --
c$i ‘6 Q Q
SC? I--cbQ
b
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 22, 1997 Page 1
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: December 22, 1997
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:Ol p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members Compas, Scheer, and Marquez.
Absent: Savary
Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of November
24, 1997.
4-o
Welshons, Savary, Sheer, and Marquez
None
None
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. VAR 97-09 - ROJAS PARKING VARIANCE - A request for a Variance to waive the parking requirement for
additions to existing buildings in the Village Redevelopment Area for a 202 square foot room addition to a
single family home on property located at 2650 Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Land Use
District No. 8.
Management Analyst, Craig Ruiz, summarized the project as follows: This project is located at 2650 Roosevelt
Street, on the east side of the street and about 250 feet north of Beech Avenue. Generally, an addition to a single
family home only requires a building permit. However, in this case, the applicant submitted the application for a
building permit and because the home is located in the Redevelopment area, staff reviewed the application. When
23
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 22, 1997 Page 2
the project was first reviewed, staff sent the application back to the applicant stating that before any additions can be
made to an existing building in the Redevelopment area, the building must first meet the parking standards. In this
case the parking standard requires a minimum of a two-car garage. When the plans were presented to staff, it
appeared that the property was one very large lot with the proposed two-car garage, and a permit was issued.
However, a short time later one of the Building Inspectors discovered that the proposed garage was to be located on
a separate, adjoining parcel (also owned by Mr. Rojas), which is not permitted per the zoning ordinance. The parking
has to be provided on the same property as the structure receiving the addition. Consequently, the building permit
was revoked. Staff then met with the Rojas’ to discuss their options. It has been determined that a garage cannot be
located at the back of the property on which the house is located, because there would be no access to the rear of
the property. There are only five foot setbacks on either side of the house and a minimum of twelve feet is required
for a driveway. Since the Rojas’ also own the adjoining parcel, staff suggested that they do a “Certificate of Parcel”
merger and make the two lots into one legal parcel, thereby giving them the space they need for a two-car garage.
The Redevelopment Master Plan has provisions for an “in lieu” parking fee, if the project is within 600 feet of a public
parking lot. This project is not within 600 feet of a public parking lot and therefore does not qualify for any relief from
it. The only alternative left to the Rojas’ was to apply for a variance. Because the project is inconsistent with the
Redevelopment Master Plan, staff recommends that the project be denied for: 1) failure to meet the standards in the
Master ‘Plan; 2) it cannot be shown that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this property that do not generally apply to other properties in this vicinity; and, 3) it cannot be shown
that such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by
other properties in this vicinity or the property in question.
Member Compas asked Mr. Ruiz if he has any knowledge as to why the applicant chooses not to merge the two
properties.
Mr. Ruiz replied that there seems to be some misunderstanding between the owner and the contractor(s) regarding
the lots and the Mr. Rojas could better answer Mr. Compas’ question.
Member Marquez asked if Mr. Rojas also has the option of doing a “lot line adjustment” in order to add the extra
seven feet required for a driveway.
Mr. Ruiz replied that option is not available because both lots are small in size (40’ in width) and considered to be
sub-standard by today’s requirements. Therefore they cannot do a “lot line adjustment” that would further increase
that non-conformity.
Member Marquez then asked if the granting of the variance would allow the garage to be built on the neighboring
parcel.
Mr Ruiz responded that the variance would relieve the applicant of having to provide any additional parking at all.
Chairperson Welshons asked three hypothetical questions as follows: 1) if the owner built a separate house on the
adjoining parcel, would it be possible to have a shared driveway between the houses to access two 2-car garages; 2)
if the owner were to rent out one of the rooms in his home, would the City know about it and would extra parking be
required; and, 3) is there enough room in the existing front yard for a garage with a five foot setback.
Mr. Ruiz replied as follows: 1) if the owner sells the adjoining property and the new owner builds a house, they could
enter into an agreement for shared access. However, even if the current owner builds a house on the adjoining
parcel, he cannot grant himself an easement for the shared driveway; 2) the City would probably not know about it
unless the owner/landlord applied for a business license. If he applied for a business license, the application would
be reviewed and the two-car garage parking requirement would still apply; and, 3) a standard 20x20 garage would
not fit in the front yard because it is only 23 feet deep and would not allow for a minimum 5 foot setback.
Member Sheer pointed out that to rent to no more than one person, the dwelling would still be considered a personal,
private residence. However, to rent to two or more persons, the dwelling would then become a commercial property
and require a business license.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 22, 1997 Page 3
Chairperson Welshons opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Mike Shea, IDEAL Construction, 2958 Madison Avenue, #107, Carlsbad, stated that his company contracted with the
Rojas’ to build the addition to their home and further stated that they had been under the understanding that the two
adjoining properties were one parcel instead of two. Mr. Shea continued by saying that between the time the original
building. permit was issued and subsequently revoked, his company has performed a substantial amount of work on
the addition. He went on to state that, in his opinion, this addition to the Rojas home is within the original footprint of
the house and is in no way detrimental to the community and the variance should be granted.
Member Compas asked why the Rojas’ cannot merge the two properties.
Mr. Shea replied that the second lot has re-sale value and the owner cannot afford to lose it as an asset.
Chairperson Welshons asked when IDEAL Construction became involved in this project and Mr. Shea replied that it
had been approximately three months.
Chairperson Welshons then asked if Mr. Shea had been aware of the Redevelopment Master Plan and it’s
requirements before they began this project.
Mr. Shea deferred Ms. Welshons question to the designer, Ray Holcomb.
Ray Holcomb, 2958 Madison Avenue, #lOl, Carlsbad, stated that the he was not aware, at first, that this property is
in the Redevelopment Area and it wasn’t until the plans were being processed that they were informed that the
project is in the Redevelopment Area.
Chairperson Welshons then asked Mr. Holcomb if (after he became aware that this property is in the Redevelopment
Area) he looked into the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and does he have a copy of it.
Mr. Holcomb replied that he did not look into the Master Plan and Design Manual and he does not have a copy of it.
Chairperson Welshons pointed out that the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual is very clear in its
statement that I’. .non-conforming uses, however, will not be allowed to expand or intensify”, and asked if he
eventually talked to Mr. Ruiz.
Mr. Holcomb answered by stating that he first became aware of the situation when he received a correction letter
from Mr. Ruiz’ department, stating that no additions will be allowed without adding a two-car garage.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Holcomb if he looked at an Assessor’s Map to look at the parcels in order to
determine whether the garage could be built on that adjoining lot.
Mr. Holcomb replied that he had not looked at the Assessor’s Map because he believed that this was only one lot and
not two.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Holcomb if he had asked the applicant if this was one lot or two or if the applicant
volunteered the information. Mr. Holcomb replied negatively to both questions.
Member Marquez asked if this project is in a residential or commercial zone and Mr. Holcomb stated that he believes
that it is a combination of both.
Miguel Rojas, 1155 Mora Road, Fallbrook, stated that he is the son of the owners of the property in question. Mr.
Rojas further stated that his parents knew nothing of the plans for a garage on the adjoining property until they
received the “stop work” order. In fact, he said, they did not know that they were being required to build a garage and
had not seen the plans before they were submitted to the City. Mr. Rojas also pointed out that his parents are not in
a financial position to afford to build a garage. He went on to say that the original plans were only for the addition and
he has a copy of those plans. Also, when asked what the contractor told his parents regarding access to the garage
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 22, 1997 Page 4
on the adjoining property, he replied that his parents were told that they could grant an easement to themselves for a
driveway. Mr. Rojas went on to state that the reason his parents are attempting to build this small addition is so they
will have a quiet place for their grandson to sleep when he comes to visit.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there are plans for the second lot to which Mr. Rojas replied that there are no plans
for it.
Chairperson Welshons then asked why they are not interested in merging the two lots.
Mr. Rojas replied that it is the prohibitive cost and that, according to Mr. Shea, a lot line adjustment will cost
approximately $2500 for the application plus additional fees and added to that, a garage that they didn’t want in the
first place would be an additional $5,000 or more, and that is money that his parents don’t have.
Robert Rojas, 2650 Roosevelt Avenue, Carlsbad, owner of the property, stated that he has lived at this address for
over 40 years without any trouble with or from anyone. He pointed out that he has no plans for the vacant lot and
absolutely never agreed to have a garage placed on that lot.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Welshons closed Public Testimony.
Member Compas asked Mr. Ruiz if he has seen the second set of plans that shows the garage and asked where the
garage is placed on those plans.
Mr. Ruiz replied that he had seen those plans and that, to his recollection, the garage was placed directly behind the
room addition in the back yard.
Member Sheer stated that he would not like to see the family hurt by the fact that the contractor started the
construction and see them punished because of a totally unprofessional approach by the contractor and the
designer. He further stated that, although he is not an attorney, it is his opinion that they have good legal course of
action against the contractor and the designer for proceeding with this project. Member Sheer further stated that he
does not wish to see the Master Plan disturbed by granting the variance.
Member Compas stated that this is an unfortunate situation and that considering the fact that it is a very small
addition and doesn’t exceed the footprint, he does not feel that it would hurt the neighborhood to have it built.
However, he stated that he does not think that the decision should be with the Design Review Board. Member
Compas further stated that the Design Review Board should uphold the Redevelopment Program that calls for the
garage but that he would not be at all displeased if Mr. & Mrs. Rojas were to appeal this decision to the City Council
in hopes that they would approve the variance.
Member Marquez, stated that although she has empathy for the applicants, she feels that if the Design Review Board
should set a precedent with this issue, it would only create more problems in the future. Member Marquez stated her
agreement with Member Compas regarding an appeal to the City Council.
Chairperson Welshons stated that as with tax assessments and many other things in life, we must adhere to the
rules. Secondly, the purpose of the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual must be maintained. Ms.
Welshons pointed out that when the Master Plan was passed it was “. . . to allow legally non-conforming uses until
such time as substantial change occurs”, and this is that time. She also pointed out that for years and years it wasn’t
deemed unnecessary to have garages but that times have changed and garages have now become necessary. Ms.
Welshons agreed with Member Marquez in that she certainly empathizes with Mr. & Mrs. Rojas and that if a
precedent is set, a domino effect can result and such a result can only be detrimental to the Master Plan and Design
Manual. Chairperson Welshons also agreed that the Rojas’ have perhaps been misled by the contractor and
designer.
ACTION:
VOTE:
Motion made by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 261, to deny VAR 97-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
4-o
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 22, 1997 Page 5
AYES: Welshons, Compas, Scheer, and Marquez
NOES: None
Chairperson Welshons reminded the applicant(s) that this process is terminated unless an appeal is filed within ten
(10) calendar days and instructed them to please speak with Ms. Fountain or Mr. Ruiz for assistance on pursuing an
appeal if they wish to do so.
Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, informed the Board that her department will be taking
an Agenda Bill forward to the City Council, in January, to appoint the new Board under the new criteria developed by
the Master Plan. However, it will probably not become effective until after the next meeting of the Design Review
Board, during which the Join Hands Project will be reviewed. She also pointed out that the new Board will consist of
two Planning Commissioner representatives, one business owner, one property owner, and one citizen at large that
has some experience in development and architecture, etc.
Ms. Fountain also noted that the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be on January 26, 1998, at 6:00 pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of December 22, 1997 was adjourned at 6:43 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
2-7
PROOF OF PUBLIC ION
(2010 86 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Jan. 30, 1998
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos
Dated at California, this 30tlxj day
of Jan. 1998 -------&g;;&-------
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is ; the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
___------__--______-------
R8questfar a Vaflan~~ (RF’ 9749) to WY8 tk paddng mqtimment required for additions ta existing Mldhgs in the Village Redevelopment Area fu a 202 squan, fool mom ad&Ion to a single family bane.
LQtaIlw The sut+xd pmperty is located at 2650 Rweveti %-eat in ttw Village Redevelopment ZoneiLand Use Disbtct 6
Pard 1 -That portion of Lot 41 of seaside Larkds h the Ctt of Cadsbad, County of San Diega. Cabfomla, as per Map thereof No. 1722. filed in the o&a d the Ccunty Recorder, July 26.1921. State of
Prwcal2-Thswtkastedy4OfeetoftherwLhw&d Semda Land in the Cii cd Cadsbad. Gwdy of San Diy$ ft%kd&l~ia. as per Map thereof NO. 1722. hted -y12Ofee(ofTrad41ot
in the d&ad the County Rmxdw, July 26,1921.
Robert and Sara IbyS. 2650 Ragevsn Skeet, Cadsbad, ti 9201X
Robed and Sara Rojas, 2650 Rcasewtl SM, Cadsbad. CA 92006.
A public hearing to arnside the appeal of the Design Review Board dental of the above referenced pmjed iul be held by ttle Housing and Redevekpnwnt Commission in tiw Camel Chambers. 1203 C&bad village Ddve, C&bad. Cakmia. on Tuesday, Fetwary 10.1998, atB:oO p.m.
Persons are cwdi;llly hvited to attend ltw public hearing and pwtde 6~ daciskm makers with any oral OT bwitlm mnlmanls they may haveregardlngthepmjectTheprojedwMbe desaibed and a stM recommendaUon given. folkmd by puMi tssttmcny, questtom and a decision. Copies d the staff report wilt be avakble on or after F&way 6, 1996,
If you have any quest&x mg&ng this matter, please contad Craig Rub, in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434.2617, MMday thrcmgh FMay 8:W a.m. add map here to 5:oO pm, 2965 Roaievelt Street Suite 6, Cart&d, California 92006.
APPLICAM: Robert and Sara Rojas
cm OF CARLSGAD HOUStNG h RE CGfMSISON ‘T
Legal 51969 January 30,1998
DATE: December 29, 1997
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment
Sherrie Worrell, Deputy City Clerk
Appeal by Robert & Sara Rojas
' THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item will not be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of .
Signature Date
---
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2008 CB
- - *r .r-- -*.-- --. .-- -.-._.--_.- _ _ ..__- --ll.l* .___. .-.--- .._ ._-- .,.____ --.--__ ,,. _ . -.._--...-- __,- ~-_-- ____--
.> ,:~
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92908
434-2867
REC’,, FROM ,.;‘; 0, ,, * DATE \ 2 -3y.y-y
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
!/’ I : I i : ,- : ‘! : I I “- _ _e’ :’ I : .’ 1 I
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
/
TOTAL @ RinIcdoaneyeluipylas. CASH REQISTER
L.&.&-d A.&i& %-&ae. LL *him&&&&&&& ‘*< . . . . :. 1.,. ‘. I . . ,.& u&F,,,‘, i .;c _ ; : / ~-~*~~~~-~~,.~~~~~lii-~~L~~~~-
I (We) appeal the decision of the D-@” yd ytiew -nl
tothe Housing and Redevelopment <;ommisSion
Date of De&ion yohre appealing: 22 December 1997
subkct 8E Eiabmpb: lfmactionkrcity~8D6d8&in*plee8e8ey8o. Iepfojacthe8 multlplo~,(#ldrna~PlanAmi#rdmcnrt,N~~, spedtk Plan, ate.) pIeMs li8tthemdl. lfyoudyw4mttouppedapaftdthewhok3act&n,ptea8a8tabth8th8re,
Review Board to deny the varlanca wa mu-tad
to build a mom addition at 2650 Rooseq St.
Radevalopmant Permlt No. RP97-09
D the denial for tha buihiing variance puts an unfair hardship on us because or lot size does
d have enouah room to put In a two car garage as is caUed for in the Redevelopment Plan. We da not faal
Jhat we should be penal&ad for having a small lot that does not allow for home lmpm -“-“ts~pemrW
bv riaht within Land Use District 9, whkh Is afforded to those that have lsrgar Lots or lots that may already
have asragerr. We also fed that the Design Review Board put too much emphasis on the second lot owned
by us adjacent to the properly in questlon. If this lot wem k ba owned by somaone else we could not put
l
In a two car garage on that property. Furtharmore the proposed bulldlng addition does not QO beyond the footprint
of the existing home and will ba consistent with tha existing and surroundkr(l structures and wouldn’t look like
an addition. We have llvwd here for almost 40 years and have saved to put In this addition tOr our se+nlor
760 7294724
PHONE NO.
Robert Rojas/Sam RoJas 2650 Roosevelt St
NAMEwa88Piw ADDRESS: 8tt88tN8iTmsNumb8r
29 8&e”& 19i7 Car&bad California 92008
Phase see attac~~9afY2
1200 Carlsbed Village Drive l Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 l (619) 434-2808 e
.
* .
. l
.
Appeal Form
(page 2 attachment) Rojas RP97-09
Years. We ask that you grant the variance so that we may proceed with the addition.The
design Review Board were reluctant in denying the variance and also stated that they
were not against an appeal and that they would rather defer to a higher body.
Thank You
DATE: December 29, 1997
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment
Sherrie Worrell, Deputy City Clerk
Appeal by Robert & Sara Rojas
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item will not be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of January 27, 1998 C$? AY~&P.
January 8, 1998
Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Cartsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 @a
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL - ROJAS ROOM ADDITION
RP 97-09
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Variance (RP 97-09) to waive the parking requirement required for
additions to existing buildings in the Village Redevelopment Area for a 202 square foot
room addition to a single family home.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 2650 Roosevelt Street in the Village Redevelopment
Zone/Land Use District 8.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Parcel 1 - That portion of Lot 41 of Seaside Lands in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, as per Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the County
Recorder, July 28, 192 1.
Parcel 2 - The southeasterly 40 feet of the northwesterly 80 feet of the southwesterly 120
feet of Tract 41 of Seaside Land in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, as per Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the County Recorder, July
28, 1921.
APPLICANT:
Robert and Sara Rojas, 2650 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad CA 92008.
APPELLANT:
Robert and Sara Rojas, 2650 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad CA 92008.
A public hearing to consider the appeal of the Design Review Board denial of the above
referenced project will be held by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission in the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at
6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described
and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision.
Copies of the staff report will be available on or after February 6, 1998.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Ruiz, in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2817, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad California 92008.
APPLICANT: Robert and Sara Rojas
PUBLISH: January 30,1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
.
L
C
if aNVM9
a . r .1- 1
AV dNVtl9
r
, .( . ‘I .iv. >
.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ROJAS ROOM ADDITION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 22, 1997 to consider denial of a
Variance (RP97-09) to waive the parking requirement required for additions to existing
buildings in the Village Redevelopment Area for a 202 square foot room addition to a
single family home at property located at 2650 Roosevelt Street in the Village
Redevelopment Zone/Land Use District 8, more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 - That portion of Lot 41 of Seaside Lands in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, as per Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the county
Recorder, July 28, 1921.
Parcel 2. - The Southeasterly 40 feet of the Northwesterly 80 feet of the Southwesterly
120 feet of Tract 41 in of Seaside Lands in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, as per Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the county Recorder,
July 28, 1921.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 15,
1997. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project,
please contact Craig Ruiz in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-
281 7.
If you challenge the Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
Case File: _ RP97-09
Case Name: Rojas Room Addition
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(For Site Map, See Reverse Side of this Notice)
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B l Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 l (619) 434-2810/2811 l FAX (619) 720-2037 @
c
I .
l *
EDMUND & EDITH SMITH
3271 WESTWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
HYUNG & YOUNG YANG 2915 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
R/S OFFICE PARTNERSHIP ' ESTATE OF BRUCE ALLEN C/O JAMES WEBER 2737 MADISON ST APT A 580 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HUSTON FAMILY TRUST KAREN BARLOW--TRUST
P 0 BOX 690 2726 FRANKFORT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92018 SAN DIEGO CA 92117
JACK & BETTY BLACKBURN OTIS HERALD 202 RAINBOW LN P 0 BOX 1707
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 FALLBROOK CA 92088
JACK & BETTY BLACKBURN 'RICHARD L JONES TRUST
VIRGINIA JACKSON GARY JACKSON RANDALL JACKSON 2718 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
VIRGINIA-JACKSON
iigiggi;;; -
DONALD & CHERYL SWANSON JAMES DAVIS . ALEXANDER ~& IRENE-NEMETH- 24 BLUFF VIEW P 0 BOX 189 1132 SAXONY RD IRVINE CA 92715 WHITTIER CA 90608 ENCINITAS CA 92024
PAUL WEBER 580 BEECH STREET CARLSBAD CA 92008
; ISOKAZU TABITA - ; 4929 PARK DR
' CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERTO % SARA-ROJ~AS . 2650 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
URN-'! _ JOHNSGN FAMILY TRUST NEMETH FAMT?iY-RUST 1440 GILBUCK ST 1132 SAXONY RD OCEANSIDE ANAHEIM CA 92802 LEUCADIA CA 92024
HENRY TREJO P 0 BOX 281 CARLSBAD CA 92018
TRANQUIL MORROW - .-JOE & FRANCES APODACA 2715 MADISON ST FAMILY TRUST CARLSBAD CA 92008 2622 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
. EDMUND & EDITH SMITH TREJO FAMILY TRUST ACA
3271 WESTWOOD DR 2687 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRANK & ANA AGUINA ROBERT DUFF VINCENT & ANNE RYAN
2646 STATE STREET 2690 ROOSEVELT ST 3008 FEDERAL HILLS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 FALL CHURCH VA 22044
.
L
_* .
SOLEDADO SOT0 2615 MADISON CARLSBAD CA 92008
VERA SOT0 TRUST 985 OAK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
. .
.~ _.