The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-07-24; Planning Commission; ; CT 84-31|CP 297|V 363 - VISTAS DE LA COSTAAPPLICATICN SUBMI'I'I'AL DATE: AUGUST 9, ~""I\ c-t STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 24, 1985 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE SUBJECT: CT 84-31/CP-297/V-363 -VISTAS DE LA COSTA -Request for approval of a 20 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit. Also a request for approval of a variance to eliminate the five foot building setback from the driveway area on the north side ot' La Costa Avenue between Romeria Street and Gibralter Street in the RD-M zone. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2464 and 2465, APPROVING V-363 and CT 84- 31/CP-297 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map and condominium permit to develop 20 units on 1.14 acres, located as described above. The applicant is also requesting approval of a variance to eliminate the five foot building setback from the driveway area which is required by the Planned Development Ordinance. The subject property consists of three previously- graded lots. Steep, terraced slopes separate this site from adjoining properties to the north. The applicant is proposing to construct 20, two-bedroom, two- story townhouse units. The units would be 1050 square feet each. The overall project density would be 17.5 du's/ac. The Land Use Element of the General Plan specifies this lot for Residential High density development, 20-30 du's/ac. The proposed project is, therefore, below the established density range. Staff believes that site constraints preclude the applicant's ability to develop within the specified range. III. ANALYSIS -Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project comply with all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance? 2) Does the proposed project satisfy all design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance? 3) Can all of the findings, required for approval of a variance, be made? Specifically: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; b} That such 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; c) That the granting of such variance will not 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; d) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Discussion -CT 84-31/CP-297 Staff believes the proposed project satisfies all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. Resident parking would be provided in private garages which will be large enough to accommodate two cars and provide the storage area required by the Planned Development Ordinance. Eight open guest parking spaces will be provided on-site. Recreation requirements would be satisfied by a private balcony off each unit. In addition, a large common sundeck and spa are proposed. The balconies and sundeck are oriented to maximize views of the golf course. As previously stated, the existing 1 1/2:1 slope at the rear of the property was approved by the County during the 1970's. During review of the project, City engineering staff had serious concerns regarding present slope stability and requested a peer review of the original soils report. This subsequent review supported the recommendations and conclusions of the original report. Both reports recommended regarding the slope to 2:1. The original report by San Dieguito Soils stated, " ... the probability of the slopes becoming unstable is low, and it is our professional judgment that slopes can be constructed as described above." Although engineering staff still has concerns regarding the slope, it is felt these can be mitigated through design and use of concrete piers, grade beams and a final soils report. -2- Staff believes the proposed project minimally satisfies the design criterja of the Planned Development Ordinance. The project is designed to afford each unit a private area. Stamped concrete and planters will be utilized to break up and soften the driveways. Buildings, balconies, and the sundeck have been oriented to maximize golf course views. Discussion -V-363 Staff believes all of the necessary findings can be made for approval of the requested variance. First, the lot is exceptional due to the steep 1 1/2:1 slope. Originally approved by the county, the slope has been required to be regraded to a 2:1 specification. By regrading the lot, the building pad becomes smaller and the buildable area is severely constrained. This prevents the applicant from moving the project any further to the north to accommodate the 5' setback required between buildings and open parking areas without a complete redesign of the project. Secondly, staff believes the variance is necessary to permit the applicant development of a viable condominium project, a substantial property right shared by other properties in the vicinity. Condominiums to the east and west have densities of 20.5 and 27.0 respectively. Both of these projects cantilever over existing 1 1/2:1 slopes. The proposed project is already at 2.5 units under the minimum density and staff believes the applicant should be permitted the same property rights as adjacent property owners. Due to the grade differentials between the subject and adjoining properties to the rear, staff does not believe that approval of the requested variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties. The slope between the upper and lower projects would be heavily landscaped and the proposed project is similar to development on either side. No potential views would be blocked. Finally, staff believes that granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The variance would allow greater use of the property, better enabling the applicant to implement the land use specified by the General Plan. Overall, staff believes the proposed project satisfies the minimum development standards and design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance and the findings can be made for approval of the requested variance. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on July 2, 1985. -3- ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning commission Resolution Nos. 2464 and 24~5 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Environmental Document 6) Reduced Exhibits 7) Exhibits "A" -"D", dated July 17, 1985 AML:bn 7/8/85 -4- LJCATION MAP CP-297 VISTA DE LA COSTA CT 84-31 B.?\CKGRXJND DATA SHEET CASE 00: V-363/CT 84-31/CP-297 APPLICANT: VISTAS DE IA COOTA REQJEST AND IOCATICN: ~est for approval of tentative sul:xUvision map and condaninium pennit to evelop 20 units on the north side of La Costa Avenue be- tween Raneria Street and Gibralter Street, also rec,iest for approval of a variance to eliminate the 5' building setback requirement fran the driveway area. LffiAL DESCRIPl'ICN: IDts 406, 407, 408 of La Costa Unit No. 5 according to Map 6600 filed in the Office of the County Recorder, County of San Diego. APN: 216-300-18, 19 and 20 Acres 1.14 Prcposed No. of Lots/Units 20 units -------------- GENERAL PLAN AND ~ RH Land Use Designation -------- Density Allowed 20-30 du's/ac Existing Zone --------- Surrounding Zoning and Laoo use: Zoning Site ROM North ROM South CS East RtM west ROM Density Proposed ___ 1...;..7.;...s;;___ __ _ Prq.-osed Zone __ N~/.:..;.1'. ____ _ I.and Use Vacant Condominiums q>en Space Vacant COndaninilDl1S PUBLIC FACILITIES School District San Dieguito Water Carlsbad Sewer Leucadia EDU's __ 2_0 __ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ___ ....;..;A.;.;.ug,us~t;....;.1.;.;.2.:..,_1;.;;9..;;8..;;4 ______ _ ENVIK»IENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT _!_ Negative Declaration, issued __ J_ul_y_2_.,,__1_9_85 ____ _ E.I.R. Certified, dated --------------Other, _____________________________ _ .a..J. ............. w•-..... ~.._, ..... ~ ...... , ... zww a ........... ~ ........... '---•&A-............... , .. J,.\iii,,,.J.li.Wcta, ~i:. .I.S dece.rm..L.a.•ici. .t.hat further information i• requirec!, you wil.l be so ad~sed. AGENT: ZEUSS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 2942 HABQING STREET, CABI $BAD. CA 92008 619/729-7571 . Telephone N\abez' EUGENE ROACH. ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS Nama 1660 NORTH HOTEL CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE 304; SAN DIEGO, CA 921-08 61.9/i98-'i124 Mame •U,ndividual, partner, joint JfCae Addre•• venture, corporation,. syndicat.ion) 2942 HARD I NG STREET, CARLSBAD, CA 92.008 Business Aicld%ess 619/729-7571 Telephone Number WAYNE & NORMA PETERSON !iame 15826 E. WHITTIER BLVD. 3~siness Jddress WHITTIER, CA 2]3/943-7266 Telephone Nc:11.bar 90603 Telephone Humber Hom• .ldckes• 213/947-4663 Telephone ~wm•r .. ALFREDO ELIAS ANATOLE FRANCE 139 ( 905) 545-0996 • MEXICO S. OF. (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declce ur.der penalty of perjury that th• information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be• relied upon as being true and correct until a:aended. ZEUSS DEVELOPMENT IGUEL ELIAS BY DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE Citp of Carlsbab NEX;ATIVE DmARATIC. PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATICN: Lots 406, 407, 408 of La Costa Unit No. s, north side of La Costa Avenue between Raneria Street and Gibralter Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTICN: Request for cpprOITal of a tentative subdivision map ard cx:>ndaninium pennit to construct 20 dwelling mits. '!he existing 1 1/2:1 slope will be regraded to a 2:1 slope. '!he pad areas have been pregraded as level lots for sane years. (619) 438-5591 The City of Carlsbad has ronducted an enviroomental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Envirornnental ~ality Act~ the P.nvirom11ental Protection Ordinance of the City of carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environnent) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is m file in the Land Use Planning Office. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is oo file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Carments fran the public are invited. Please subnit o::mnents in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 2, 1985 CASE 00: er 84-31/CP-297/V-363 APPLICANT: VISTAS DE IA CI'8l'A PUBLISH ~TE: July 6, 1985 ND-4 5/81 I --~ ~ /~-~u.J:~o~';>~ , MICHAEL J. fl) LIE Land Use Planning 11t1anager 397 396 405 -----------=---=-=-,::-0 --=-=---=- co -~ s LA COSTA A-Y-■-N-U-■s---~[ ___ _ --------w----------w---------w------- SI-EET20F2,; . ..l. • PRELIMINARY GRADING Pt.AN \ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO: VISTAS DE LA COSTA A TWENTY UNIT CONDOMNUM -------------------------.--------------------------~---------""------ ry,iwp1t, ffC719N IIMDING quANTITJEI: R:lMll'IIW·ffPOCt' (MlllNltMENr ·NO C.Y r,~9!:i ~rNOC."- _.....,_, .. :J6AIB . ,.,, • ., • .,.. e••I_,..~, : ,,., ... ,. ... ~ . ...,. .. ~ • -· ,.·,. eerl•t>W. ea. •~•••· .. HT ti , ••• , ..... 7..... ' ·, ~ A B C --ij---- site plan , • ..,.Q' Tl!NTATIVI! TRACT MAP NO: floor rm resu111e . .. :,,cN.-., -·-, __ , ___ ....,. ,_.. .. --·-........... --.-___ ....... ..... ,oo,. ~ . ------·-··------------··· ------ . .,. ... _ .. ~, ....... -·· :.-..: ~ .~.:---.·-.......... , . ' I)·....,~ ... --. i-~. I.. --;-- l: • .!: ~• ""-~- ... ---- ···~ -~•-~flt.~!. ,. ,·, •··• ••. _,.. .----------- IIIMNCTM from La Coela Ave. ....,._ -•·-· ......... ~-~~~-- x=-~---:: .... 1 · ,_, -~ . -· --- ' La Calta,~~ ---------------------------------7 ~- NORTH ELEVATION IILDG. I 6 I IOUTH ELEVATION ILDQ. 16 I SOUTH ELEVATION 1LDCL I EAST/WEST ELEVATION ffll'ICAL ---··-----. !-,a ~ Ulbnl 1 · ~: --;-~;~ l..-- l. l . aecuon-A --1L.'\~~~.t t. ~~ -.~ -. h ::: _. \-·· 11'.,e__ I section -a t~t .,---. ·-- __ , 4tll'1Nllt section• C I f i: I : l '1 . 7, ~~ ' I r it IA#of.'""vf"'><I-(•••~ ..., ... -.,. ;:;'.!~' ~-~-•-.,'11/(a