HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-02; Pacific Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (11)CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
re: CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 - Pacific Pointe
January 18, 1995
Madam Chair, Commission Members, Staff:
My name is Kip McBane, 2691 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
I own the property at 327 Date Ave., next door to the proposed development.
This project should not be before you tonight in its present form. On August
17, 1994, Commissioner Welshons stated that she would "...like the
application to consider five units or less on the property... the project is too
tight." I concur.
At a meeting on October 7, 1994 between the developers and me, the
developers agreed to build not more than four single family houses on four
lots if they didn't have to provide common recreation areas. This-was
confirmed in a letter from the developer to the City's planning staff on
November 18, 1994. The neighbors believe that this change would allow easy
resolution of the many problems manifest in the project as it is now designed.
Only the staff appears to be opposed to the concept of four homes on four lots.
The problem is straight forward: the existing lot is 31,363 s.f. before the
required street dedications for the cul-de-sac turnarounds at the end of Date
and Olive Avenues. That equates to four lots of 7,841 s.f. each, exceeding the
standard 7,500 s.f. minimum lot size. Because this project is in the unique
situation of having to make extra dedications on both Date and Olive Avenues,
if subdivided into four equal lots after giving this land to the City, each lot
would be about 7,000 s.f., or 7% less than the City-wide standard. These lots
would not be substandard for the neighborhood, however, where over 31% of
all single family lots are under 7,500 s.f. (see Staff Report, page 3).
Instead of allowing these four compatible lots, Staff proposes to create six
"micro-lots" of 4,646 s.f. each, or 38% less than the City-wide minimum for
standard single family developments. This is illogical and precisely why we
have a variance procedure. You, the Planning Commission, have the authority
to grant a variance allowing four homes on four lots. According to Chapter
21.50 of the Zoning Code:
"When ...results inconsistent with the general purpose of this title result
through the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the
provisions hereof, the planning commission shall have authority, as an
administrative act ...to grant upon such conditions as it may determine, such
variance from the provisions of this title as may be in harmony with its
general purpose and intent..."
To do so you must show as follows:
(1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property... that do not apply generally to the other
property... in the same vicinity and zone; [This is the only "through" lot in the
vicinity and zone, and is thus uniquely required to make substantial dedications of land on both
ends to provide for cul-de-sac turnarounds, an exceptional condition. This lot has a unique
easement along the eastern lot line which the sewer authority is requiring to be enlarged, and
which compromises the planning flexibility for a Planned Development on the site, an
extraordinary circumstance.]
(2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a«v
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied to the property in question; [Any other 31,363 s.f.
lot in this vicinity and zone would be allowed to subdivide into four single family lots.
Without this variance the owner will be forced to forgo the most desirable and appropriate
development of the property, and is thus denied rights possessed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone.]
(3) 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. [There are no detrimental
effects of this variance known at this time, as evidenced by the wide support for it by the
neighbors in the vicinity.]
(4) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive general plan. [The granting of this variance will positively affect the
implementation of the comprehensive general plan as evidenced by its consistency with the
goals and objectives stated in that plan, and has no known adverse affect.]
Therefore I encourage you to direct staff to prepare a variance based upon the
above findings to allow subdivision of this parcel into four sixty foot wide
lots of approximately 7,000 s.f. each, and after working closely with the
developer and the neighbors to return it to you with a revised design for four
single family residences on four lots with no common areas.
If the Planning Commission should, for some reason, chose not to exercise its
administrative rights under this section of the Code, then the Land Use
Planning manager could be directed to use his authority under section
21.51.020 to make an administrative variance with respect to "modification
of distance or area regulations..." and the four lot subdivision could be
implemented in that way.
Please also incorporate into your record the written comments I have
provided you separately today. Thank you for your consideration.
CT 94-02/PUD 04-01 - PACIFIC POINTE: ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Total Number of Units:
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Width:
Min. Front Yard/Lot:
% Front Yard Paved:
% Front Yard Landscaped:
Minimum Side Yard Req'd:
Typical Side Yard:
% Lot Coverage (All Units):
R-2 ZONE
DEVELOPMENT
6
7,500 square feet
60 feet
1200 square feet
40%
60%
6 feet
10 feet
34%
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
6
4,100 square feet
40 feet
800 square feet
60%
40%
5 feet
5 feet
34%
4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WITfl VARIANCE
4
7,096 square feet
60 feet
1200 square feet
27%
73%
6 feet
10 feet
27%
)
Page 1
DATE: January 18, 1995
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: KIP MCBANE, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER (327 Date Ave.)
TELEPHONE NCMBER 729 5152
SUBJECT: CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 - PACIFIC POINTS
I have met with the developer and City staff, reviewed the
application, amended staff report and related background material and
relevant ordinances and standards regarding this project, and would
like to submit the following analysis, comments and recommendations:
I . Analysis:
A. In August, 1994 this project was sent back to staff, with
specific instructions to address among others, the issues of
"inadequate parking", "location of the recreation" area",
"circulation and turn around in the cul-de-sac", "inadequate
front yards", and general lack of privacy in the rear
yards". Staff has returned to you essentially the same
project you reviewed at your August 3, 1994 meeting,
although many different ideas were discussed with the
developer and neighbors. Staff has not included its
analysis of alternative development scenarios (i.e. single
family home development, four units, by variance) although
requested to do so by the neighbors (at the request of the
developers) which would be the preferred option. Please see
attached commentary, to be presented at hearing.
B. Parking:
Only two types of parking are described in the Planned
Development Ordinance: covered and open. Staff
states that "Parking in the driveway of a
detached single family unit has not been
interpreted as "open parking" under the Planned
Development Ordinance, and therefore, the
setbacks and screening standards for open parking
have not been applied to the private guest
parking spaces of this project." The only other
standard to be applied is covered parking, but
these standards also have not been used, leaving
the parking in this project designed to no
standards at all, even though specific standards
are clearly stated in the Ordinance! It is the
bank of garages and cars along the streets,
created by this ignoring of standards that is one
of the fundamental design flaws of this project,
as the Commission so rightfully identified in
August. The following established standards must
be applied:
"Open parking shall be screened from
adjacent residences and public rights
of way by wall or landscaping". The
proposed Development Plan does
not comply with this standard.
"Building set-backs from open [parking]
spaces shall be 5' minimum". Only
two of the six spaces proposed
meet this standard.
Spaces shall be 175 s.f. in one or two
family residences, width not less than
8.5'. (One of the required three
visitor spaces may be 8x15 compact)
The spaces proposed do not appear
to simultaneously meet this
standard and provide full access
to (small) 16' garage doors and
pedestrian access to the front
doors of the houses. For
instance, if a full 8.5x20 foot
space is provided at Lot 7, then
only 15.5 feet of access is
provided to a 20 foot wide garage
(with a normal 16 foot wide door)
and there is no access to the
front door.
[parking may be provided on a] "...paved
driveway or parking area which does not
2
exceed thirty percent of the required
iront yard area or an area that is
comprised of twenty-four feet of width
extended from the property line to the
rear cf the required front yard
whichever is greater."..."At least
forty percent of the front yard setback
of detached single-family residences
shall consist of landscaping." Tie
proposed plan is minimally in
compliance with this PUD standard
before paved access to the front
doors and required building set-
backs are provided, tie 72 feet
of pa\ring out of 128 feet of
frontage on each street^ would not
be: allowed under R-2 zoning, does
not provide adequate landscaping,
and is grossly incompatible with
the rest of the neighborhood.
C. Planned Development:
Tie intent and purpose of allowing Planned
Development Include to:
"Encourage creativeJy designed projects..."
"Encourage development which is sensitive to the
natural topography of the site..."
"Provide for projects which are compatible with the
surrounding developments".
Planned Developments should not be allowed
unless they meet the intent and purpose of
the regulations. The standards are more
rigorous than for a straight subdivision.
Ordinance allows the Planning Commission
considerable discretion in imposing
conditions a,id requiring modifications in
order to meet the higher standards set for
Planned DevtJ opments:
"...the planning commission... may impose conditions as
X**-
it deems necessary ...standards, ...including
yards, parking, fences and walls, may be modified
by the planning commission..."
This project will have to be modified in order
for the Commission to make the required
findings.
D. Subdivision Ordinance:
"The proposed project does not comply with the
engineering standard" which limits cul-de-sacs
regarding allowed length and number of dwelling
units and automobile trips served. It exceeds by
30% the maximum length limit, and also the
dwelling unit cap, and traffic count limits.
Near the end of 1994 there was a large fire on
Olive Ave. which burned several cars and
structures. Emergency access was impaired by the
length of the cul-de-sac and traffic congestion
in the area. A real disaster was narrowly
averted. The rail line just to the east carries
hazardous materials which could result in a
dangerous accident in the area. The Engineering
Department stated in a February 3, 1993 report
regarding the violation of its design standards
in this area "—any decrease in potential units
for the area would be incrementally better and
supported by Engineering." This is supportive of
the 4 unit single family house scheme over any 6
unit scheme.
II . Comments:
A. The change from R-2 to a Planned Development does not change
the number of units which can be built on this site, but it
does impose a higher level of scrutiny on the project than
would be required under a standard R-2 subdivision.
B. The proposed solution to the guest parking problem is not
satisfactory for a number of reasons. It results in a
- 4 -
design which will create over-paved front yards dominated by
garage doors and cars and incompatible with the rest of the
neighborhood. The spaces proposed pave too much of the
front yards, are not large enough, do not allow adequate
pedestrian access to front doors without more front yard
paving, and are not adequately screened.
The existing site is generally flat, sloping gently to the
east at a drop rate of about 4 feet over 127'. The proposed
grading plan will bring approximately 150 truck loads of
dirt to the site to raise Lots l and 4 in elevation, which
will then step abruptly down to Lots 2 and 5. 60 foot wide
lots in either a four home or duplex development would
substantially lessen this impact and require little or no
imported fill. The design proposed includes the following
problem areas:
1. From the NE corner of Lot 1 to the pad on which
the house will be built, approximately the length
of a car, the elevation rises about 6 feet. This
is a steep rise. From the street to the garage
door the rise is over 3 feet, a safety hazard.
2. The bedrooms in my house (immediately west of Lot
1) are on the east side of the house and
approximately 5 feet above the existing lot next
door, which is proposed for development. If the
new house on Lot 1 were built at existing grade,
approximately 5 feet below the floor line of my
house, and I were to build a six foot wall on my
property line, my sleeping areas would be
protected from my new neighbor's home. By
raising the grade of the new lot, as proposed,
and developing small 40' lots which allow reduced
side yards, this PUD proposes to both raise this
noise source higher and move it closer to my
house than would be allowed under either R-2
zoning or a four home subdivision.
- 5 -
III. Recommendations:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3700 Approving a
Planned Development Permit should be denied without
prejudice based on the following:
1. The granting of this permit will adversely affect
and will not be consistent with Chapter 21.45,
the General Plan, and all applicable adopted
plans for the following reasons:
A. It does not meet the design standards,
specifically with respect to open parking,
cul-de-sacs, and front yards.
B. It is not sensitive to the natural
topography of the site.
C. It is not compatible with surrounding
developments.
D. The design is dominated by automobile
parking.
2. The Planned Development as proposed will not
contribute to the long-term general well being of
the neighborhood because it does not meet the
design standards for this type of project in this
area.
3. The incremental increase in density created by
this Planned Development in a location already in
violation of the City Engineering cul-de-sac
policies is incrementally detrimental to the
health safety and general welfare of persons
residing in the vicinity.
4. The proposed Planned Development will not meet
all of the minimum development standards and
design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.090
and 21.45.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, as
demonstrated by inadequate parking design.
5. The proposed project is not designed to be
sensitive to and blend in with the surrounding
developed area because of the size and width of
the proposed lots, the inadequacy of the parking
and landscape designs, and the insensitivity of
- 6 -
the scheme to the overall streetscape it
addresses.
6. The proposed project's design and density are not
compatible with surrounding development and would
create a disharmonious element to the
neighborhood.
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999 Approving a
Tentative Tract Map should be denied without
prejudice due to the fact that the Planned
Development Permit upon which it is based has also
been denied.
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3698 Approving a
Negative Declaration should be denied without
prejudice due to the fact that the Tentative Tract
Map and Planned Development Permit upon which it is
based have also been denied.
D. The developer should be encouraged to pursue the
four-lot single family home subdivision on the site
which was proposed to the City.
E. City Staff should be directed to work with the
developer and the neighbors to create a suitable
subdivision consisting of four single family homes
on lots of approximately 7000 square feet each.
Staff should be directed to prepare the necessary
and appropriate variance documents for the
Commissions consideration.
- 7 -