Loading...
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