No preview available
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 -