HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-13; Planning Commission; ; SP 155|CT 73-59|V 239 - PACESETTER HOMESTO:
REPORT ON:
CASE NOS.:
APPLICANT:
I.
II.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
February 13, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE
CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP
--::; .,c; V.-239 -~-J _;, /
SP-155
CT-73-59
Terry Crowther for
Pacesetter Homes, Inc.
4540 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval
of:
A. A Specific Plan and Tentative Map for a
326-unit Planned Community Development
on a 59.42 acre site located to the
east of Lowder Lane betw~en Palomar
Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane; and,
B. A Variance of Section 4.043 of the
Municipal Code relating to the Development
Standards for projects within the Agricul-
tural Resource Management District.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. ON THE VARIANCE: Staff recommends that the
Variance of Section 4.043 of the Municipal
Code from the requirements of the Agricul-
tural Resource Ma.nagement District be DENIED
and that Tentative Map CT-73-59 and Specific
Plan 155 be held in abeyance until such time
that the requirements of the City Emergency
Open Space Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 9375)
are met. Justification of this recommendation
is based upon:
The Open Space Zoning Ordinance is quite
explicit in stating that Variances shall
be granted only on the grounds of:
11 Special circumstances applicable
to the property, including size,
-1-
shape, topography, location of
surroundings 11 which would deprive
the 11 property of privileges enjoyed
6y other property in this vicinity
and in the same Resource Management
District."
Staff believes that these criterion have
not been met. Substantial development
can still occur on the subject property
within the Standards of the Open Space
Zoning Ordinance. There are no unique
or special circumstances of size, shape,
topography or location applicable to the
property. Likewise, the applicant would
not be denied property rights enjoyed by
other property owners in the same
vicinity and within the same resource
management district.
B. ON TENTATIVE MAP: Should the Planning
Commission recommend approval of Tentative
Map, Staff recommends that it be subject to
the following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
l. The developer must obtain off-site public
sewer easements prior to any grading
of the project.
2. 11 A11 Street shal 1 be constructed to 42
foot half width.
3. The developer shall participate in
traffic signal installations as determined
by any future policy of the City Council.
4. The developer shall dedicate access rights
to 11 A11 Street.
5. lots 8, 9 and 10 shall be dedicated as
open space lots on the final map.
6. The developer shall obtain off-site right
of way and develop one half width (34 1 )
of Camino De Las Ondas to the Lowder Lane
intersection.
7. 11 B11 Street shall be aligned with the Street
in CT-73-23 at their intersection with
Camino De Las Ondas.
8. Lots numbers 18, 19 and 20 shall be revised
to show a direct alignment of the park
corridor between CT-73-23 and the subject
property. Said realignment shall be to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
-2-
I I I .
C. ON SPECIFIC PLAN: That if the Commission
should move to approve Specific Plan 155,
such approval be subject to the following
condition:
l. The park dedication of lots 19 and 21
shall occur at the time of final map
approval.
BACKGROUND:
A. Description: A portion of the west half
of Section~21, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, S.B.B.M., in the City of Carlsbad.
B. Location: East of Lowder Lane, between
Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road,
further described as Assessor 1 s parcels:
214-14-12 and 13.
C. Size: 60 acres
D. Lots: 21 lots
E. Units: 326 total
Single family attached -166 units
(both 1 and 2 story units)
Four plex
(Two story)
-160 units (40 four plex)
f. Density: 5.5 d.u./gross acre
6.5 d.u./net acre
G. Coverage: By Planned Community
definition± 32%. By definition of
Agricultural Resource Management District
(less than 75% penetrability) ~ 43%:
H. Projected population: ! 1000
I. E.I.R. Finding: The applicant has submitted an
Environmental Impact Report per City require-
ments and the findings of that report were
accepted by the Planning Commission on
November 27, 1973 and the City Council on
December 18, 1973.
J. Existing Zoning: P-C (pre-annexational)
K. Adjacent Zoning: West -P-C, East: E-I-A
(County) North: p~C and E~I-A (County) and South,
P-C and RD-M
-3-
L. General Plan: The General Plan shows a
low density residential (3-7 d.u./acreJ
designation. The density on the approved
Master Plan for the project is 7 d.u./net acre.
The applicant shows a density of approxi-
mately 6.5 d.u./net acre.
M. Resource Management District: The subject
property is in three Resource Management
Districts:
RM-1 -Prime Open Space and Conservation
Areas;
RM-4 -Agricultural Resources; and
RM-5 -Unique and Special Resources.
The requirements of the RM-1 and RM-5 Districts
are that the park area shown on the Tentative
Map be :expanded;·•to •c0nfonm .tocthe':P.ri'me Areas
Map. This would entail aligning the subject park
corridor to the corridor on the Hester develop-
ment(CT-73-23) to the North. The developers have
partially fulfilled this requirement by align-
ing lot 21 (Park dedication) with the Hester
park; however, they have failed to provide the
necessary physical continuity with the green-
belt on the western edge of the site.
The RM-4 District requires that a maximum of
25% of the subject property be covered (the
criterion for coverage being anything that
allows less than 75% penetrability). Of the
required uncovered land, 40% must be in one
contiguous parcel. The Tentative Map shows
approximately 43% coverage. The greenbelt in
the central part of the project does qualify
as the contiguous parcel.
The applicant has requested a variance to the
requirements of the RM-4 District (see attached
letter from Terry Crowther, Pacesetter Homes,
dated January 24, 1974). The applicant feels
that the variance is justified for the following
reasons:
1. The zoning and master plan for the
property have already been approved.
2. The density has been reduced from 351 units
to 326 units .. •
3. Both one and two story units have been
utilized to maximize open space while
maintaining aesthetic variations.
-4-
I V .
4. The development will preserve and
create an open space value which will
maintain community identi~y.
N. Parks Ordinance Compliance: The applicant is
proposing the dedication of an approximately
2.5 acre park to meet the requirements of the
Parks Ordfnance.
0. Parking: The applicant is providing a 2-car
garage for each of the single family units
and one covered and one uncovered parking space
for each 4-plex unit.
P. Planning Commission Policies: Complies.
DISCUSSION:
A. Resource Management District Requirements:
In view of the explicit language of the
Interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance, Staff
feels that the variance which the applicant has
requested is not justifiable.
In the instance of the requirements of the
RM-1 and RM-5 Districts, Staff feels that no
undue hardship will be placed on the applicant
in meeting the full requirements. The
applicant had been informed bf the need to
provide a connective park corridor in order
to maximize recreational area for bbth the
Hester and Pacesetter developments prior
to the passage of the Interim Open Space Zoning
Ordinance. Staff believes that alignment of the
Park Corridor is a necessary condition of ap~
proval.
The matter of compliance with the RM-4 District
is more complex. ·The applicant has two basic
alternatives:
1. To meet the requirements of the Open Space
Zoning Ordinance, either by variance
or compliance; or
2. To suspend consideration of the Specific
Plan and Tentative Map in anticipation of
a revised Agricultural Overlay Zone.
The former alternative does not appear appro-
priate, in light of the fact that the variance
request is not substantiated and the applicant
-5-
BEDROOM COUNT
-----·
has declined to comply with the RM-4 require-
ments.
Therefore, Staff feels that the Planning
Commission 1 s only recourse is to hold the
Tentative Map and Specific Plan in abeyance
u n t il t h e m a t t er o f RM -4 com p 1 i a n c e ·i s
resolved.',
B. The Specific Plan: The Specific Plan proposes
a roughly equal number of four-plex and
single family attached units. The four-plex
units would be located on the eastern
quarter of the stte. The units will all have
individual yards in addition to common open
space; however, a disproportionate amount of
the common open space is Oriented toward the
single family attached units.
An onsite recreation building, with pool and
tennis courts is to be provided near the
central greenbelt area. Some thirteen tot lots
are to be interspersed throughout the site.
Single Fam i 1 y Fourplex Totals
Two bedroom 0 120 120
Three bedroom 116 40 156
Four bedroom 50 0 50
Totals 166 l 60 326
BREAKDOWN OF FLOOR AREAS FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
( l , 4 l 9 S. F. Floor Area (4 BR) = 50 Units
l Story (
( l , 3 09 S. F. Floor Area (3 BR) 44 Units
( l , 7 61 S. F. Floor Area (3 BR & Den) = 72 Units
2 Story (
( 166 Units
--6-,
BREAKDOWN OF FLOOR AREAS FOR FOURPLEX UNITS
Ea.ch 2 story fourplex structure will contain one each
of the following units:
l ) 1 , 1 94 S. F. fl oar area -2 BR
2) l , 248 S. F. floor area -2 BR
3) l , 030 S. F. fl oar area -2 BR
4) 1 , 2 60 S.F. fl oar area -3 BR
-7-