The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-03-28; Planning Commission; ; V 356|CT 83-39|CP 268 - HEMLOCK CONDOMINIUMS-APPLI1... _'ION SUBMI'ITAL DATE: DECE?-1BER 22, 1983 STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1984 TO: • -Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-356/CT 83-39/CP 268 -HEMLOCK CONDOMINIUMS -Request for an 11 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit; a variance; to reduce the front yard setback from a 15 foot average to 10 feet, to encroach into the 10 foot setback a distance of 6 feet at one location; and to reduce the visitor parking requirement from 6 spaces to 5 spaces on a .54 acre lot located on the south side of Hemlock Avenue adjacent to the A.T. & S.F. railroad and addressed as 369 Hemlock Avenue. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the negative declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and· ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2260 and 2261, APPROVING CT 83-39/CP-268/V- 356, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION In reviewing a project across the street from the subject property, the City Council in September of 1982 eliminated a cul- de-sac and recommended that an offset cul-de-sac be utilized for turn around purposes. That offset cul-de-sac was to be placed in part on the applicant's property located at the south end of Hemlock Avenue adjacent to the A.T. & S.F. railroad. This decision has created some problems for the applicant in that it takes a large portion of the applicant's usable area to provide for this cul-de-sac. Approximately 10% of the applicants usable area was lost. As a result, the applicant is proposing to construct 11 units on the remainder of the parcel and is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from a 15 foot average to 10 feet and to encroach into this 10 foot setback a distance of 6 feet at one location. The applicant is also requesting to reduce the amount of visitor parking needed from 6 spaces to 5 spaces. The project site consists of a lot that slopes from west to east and presently has a single family home existing on it. The proposed project, before the dedication of the cul-de-sac area, resulted in a density of 20.3 du/ac. With the cul-de-sac the density is now 24.3 du/ac, which is at the mid-range of the General Plan Designation (RH) of 20-30 du/ac for this site. - The property to the north is occupied by an apartment building and the properties to the west and south are occupied by single family homes. The property to the east is occupied by the A.T. & s.F. railroad. The project consists of a combination of townhouse and flats which will be located within 3 buildings. None of the buildings exceeds 35 feet in height. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issue -V-356 1) Can the project meet the required findings for a variance? Planning Issues -CT 83-39/CP-268 1) Does the project conform with the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance? 2) Does the project conform with the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance? Discussion -V-356 As mentioned, the City Council approved the design of an offset cul-de-sac along the northern portion of this project. It was necessary to utilize this property because the project to the north was not required to construct their share of a standardcul- de-sac at the time the project was finalized. The applicant states that since a greater amount of this cul-de-sac design intrudes into his property than normally required, he cannot fully develop his property. He is being denied a property right belonging to other property owners in the area. Also, due to the offset cul-de-sac, the project site has unusual circumstances not shared by any other property in the vicinity. Because of these two reasons, the applicant needs a reduction in the front yard setback with a 6 foot intrusion and a reduction of one visitor parking space to substantially receive the same benefits as other property owners. Staff feels that since the applicant received an over- proportional share of the cul-de-sac on his property that the findings for· a variance can be met. Discussion -CT 83-39/CP-268 As previously mentioned, this proposal is for an 11 unit tentative map and condo permit. Staff has worked closely with the applicant in trying to come up with a plan which still provides the applicant his property rights, but keeps the necessary variance provisions to a minimum. This was difficult at times because of the amount of property lost from the cul-de-sac. Staff does feel that with the variance the proposed -2- -- project meets the intent of the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. From a design standpoint the applicant has tried to reduce the dominance of the driveway by using stamped concrete. The required covered parking is located within two buildings and none of the required parking spaces are over 150-~eet from any unit. Most of the visitor parking will be located to the rear of the project. The common recreation areas are located to the rear of the project in two distinct areas. One area consists of a spa, barbeque and picnic tables and the other a children's play area. Each of the units will have a balcony as additional recreation area. The required storage will be provided next to the garages. Staff has found that this project, in conjunction with v-356, meets the basic intent and standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore issued a Negative Declaration on March 1, 1984. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2260 and 2261 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Statement 5) Environmental Document 6) Exhibits "A" -"E", dated February 14, 1984 EVR:bw 3/14/84 -3- LOCATION lwlAP SITE V-356 CP-268 _ HEMLOCK CONDOS CT 83-39 .. BACKGIQJND MTA SHEET CASE 10: V-356/C'l' 83-39/CP-268 . - APPLICANT: Hemlock Condaniniums REQUEST AND LOCATICN: Tentative tract map and condaninimn permit to oonstruct 11 units and a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and to encroach 6 feet into this setback, also to reduce the visitor parking requirements from six spaces to five spaces. LmAL DESCRIPTION: '!hat portion of Iot 16 in Block "M" of Palisades acoording to Map No. 1747 filed February s, 1923. APN: 204-270-44 Acres . 54 Proposed No. of tots/Uni ts 12 -------------- GENERAL PI.AN AND ZetmG Land ose Designation -------R-H Density Allowed 20-30 24.3 ---------Density Proposed -------- Existing zone R-3 --------- Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Site R-3 North R-3 South R-3 East Railroad West R-3 Proposed Zone N/A ---------- Lam Use SFD .Apartments SFD Railroad SFD PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 20, 1983 ----------------- ENVIRCN-1ENTAL IMPACr ASSESSMENT _!_ Negative Declaration, issued __ Mar __ ch_1 __ ,_1_9_84 ____ _ E.I.R. Certified, dated -------------- Other, ----------------------------- I after the information ·ou have submitted has been rev:'-'·_ • ..,ed, it is determined -~hat further information required, you wi.ll be so adv-~. APPLICANT: G.T.W., A California general partnership Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) AGENT: !-!EMBERS: 690 Elm Aue /1204, Carlsbad, California 92008 Business Address (619) 434-7173 Telephone Number Name Business Address Telephone Number . . Henry W. Tubbs HI -2224 Running Spring Place _l"'_1at1a _ _.,g""'ing ___ ,__Ge_ne_r_·a_l_P_a_r_t_ne_r_· _____ -Encinitas ,California 92024 Name ·(individual, partner, joint. Home Address venture, corporation, syndication) 6QQ EJm Ave ,0204 ,CarJsbad, CaJjfqrnja 92008 Business Address (619) 434-7173 Telephone NlJI:U)er Brooks Ar Worthing t--".anaging General Partner Telephone Number 247 Juniper Ave. Carlsbad, California 92008 Bome Address 690 Elm Ave. #204.carJabad, CalifomisJ 92008 3~siness Address (619) 729-3965 Telephone Nt:.ilber Telephone ~~umber Willi aro U, Gi sb 1205 Sante Fe Dr, Encinitas2Ca. 92024 (619) 436-9080 (Attach more sheets if necessary) .. _ ..... ..... ·1/We decla:e under penalty of perjury that the info.z:mation contained in this dis- closure is tr-~e and correct and that it will remain true and correct and rnay be· relied upon as being true and correct until a~ended. G.T,W. DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE <itp of <arl1l11b NB:a\TIVE DEX:IAAATial PlO.'JECT .ADDRESS/IOCATIOO: 369 Hemlock Avenue. PlO.'JECT IESCRIP!'IOO: Eleven unit c:ondaninilD1l project. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 (619) 438-5591 The City of Carlsbad has cxn:lucted an emriromaental review of the above described project pirsuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental C)Jality Act am the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will mt have a significant inpact CX'1 the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is oo file in the Land Use Plannih3 Office. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive d:x.-l.Dnents is CX'1 file in the Land Use Plamih3 Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Omnents fran the public are invited. Please subnit cx:mnents in writing t.o the I..ard Use PlanniRJ Office within ten ( 10) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 1, 1984 ~EN.): CT 83-39/CP-268/V-356 APPLICANT: Hemlock Condaninimns PUBLISH DM'E: March 7, 1984 ND-4 5/81 R Manager