Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-01; Carlsbad Beach Estates; Tentative Map (CT) (10)- City of Carlsbad January 5,2001 Merit Group, Inc. Attention: H. David Buckmaster 2171 El Camino Real, Suite 202 Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: REQUESTED WAIVER OF COMMON RECREATION AREA REQUIREMENT FOR CT 99-01/SDP 99-021PUD 99-011CP 00-011CDP 99-02 Dear Mr. Buckmaster: I received your letter dated December 29, 2000 containing the above request. I am somewhat surprised at receiving your request (coming after the project is being built). Also, your letter leaves me confused as to the exact nature of your waiver request. You indicate in some statements that you wish to eliminate the "common recreation area". In other statements you say you wish to eliminate the "common active recreation area". The difference is significant. I am not entirely clear about whether you want to eliminate the "common recreation" area in its entirety or simply want to have a passive common recreation area rather than an active one. However, I will attempt to respond to your request in either case and to your proposed justifications. Code Recluirements As you know from Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and from our many discussions during the review and processing of your discretionary applications, the PUD regulations require both private and common recreation areas for this (and other) projects. In addition the Code specifies that some types of projects must make this common recreation area "active" while for others it can be "passive" in nature. Chapter 21.45 states the basis of the requirement for provision of common recreation area. The Code (Section 21.45.090(9)(1) requires that "all projects except those in which all dwelling units are on lots with a minimum size of seven thousand five hundred square feet, shall provide both common and private recreational facilities." You proposed a project which included 6 air space condo units (i.e., units which did not have lots of at least 7,500 square feet each). Therefore, you were required to provide common recreation facilities. The Code further states (Section 21.45.090(9)(2) that "Multi-family projects requesting approval above the minimum density allowed by their general plan designation shall provide common active, as well as private passive recreational facilities". The single-family attached units in your project were not considered "multi-family". Therefore, you were not required to make your common recreation area "active". 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ ,- i REQUESTED WAIVEk JF COMMON RECREATION AREA Rt,UIREMENT FOR CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP OO-OI/CDP 99-02 January 5,2001 Paqe 2 Your Proposed Justifications For Waiver 1. All of the units do indeed have private yards that meet or exceed the 200-square-foot minimum requirement. However, the PUD regulations require BOTH private and common recreation areas for this (and other) projects. Many developers do design their developments to exceed the minimum requirements in some respect(s), as you did this one. Staff always welcomes such attention to design on the part of the developer. However, providing more than the minimum requirement for one Code requirement (e.g., private yards) does not reduce or eliminate the need to satisfy any/all other Code requirements. The Code establishes the minimum requirements for a number of design items and does not offer a range of "trades" which can be made to eliminate some/any of those requirements. Therefore, the fact that you have private yards which exceed the minimum size requirement does not justify non- compliance with other applicable requirements. Thus, you would not be allowed to eliminate the common recreation area. Similarly, the provision of private yards (of any size) does not affect the Code requirement for "active" versus "passive" uses in the common recreation area. 2. a. Chapter 21.45 clearly states the basis of the requirement for provision of common recreation area. We had many discussions of this and other requirements during the processingheview of the project, which lasted for over a year. Further, the staff report prepared for the public hearing, which you read and discussed with me before the Planning Commission hearing, clearly stated the basis for the requirement. You did not indicate at that time any need for further explanation of the Code requirements. As above, since the requirement is not based upon density, the density of the project would not justify non- compliance with other applicable Code requirements. Similarly, the density would not affect the Code requirement for "active" versus "passive" uses in the common recreation area. b. As stated above, you were not required to make the common recreation area "active". You could have made it "passive". 3. a. The project involved six new condo's, three new single-family detached residences, one second dwelling unit (attached), and one existing single-family detached residence which you indicated would be demolished and replaced at a later time. This would indicate a total of 11 units (IO new and 1 existing). b. Again, the requirement for the common recreation area is not based upon the number of units. Therefore, the number of units (like the density) does not justify non-compliance with all applicable Code requirements. c. The entire project approval package wadis "discretionary". The discretion to approve or deny the project rested with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission acted upon their discretion by approving the project as designed and conditioned (i.e., with a common recreation area identified as a volleyball 1 " REQUESTED WAIVEk JF COMMON RECREATION AREA Rt,CIIREMENT FOR CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP OO-OI/CDP 99-02 January 5,2001 Paqe 3 area). In this case, staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. That recommendation depended heavily upon the fact that the project was consistent with the General Plan and met or exceeded all minimum applicable development standards. I would have been unwilling personally to recommend approval of the project had it not at least satisfied those minimum standards. 4. During more than one year of review and processing, you never voiced any concern regarding noise impacts to your neighbors as a result of your proposed recreation area location. This is a location which you proposed to staff. The location is not atypical for a site like this. Staff also reviewed the project design proposed (including the location and use of the recreation area) and felt that it was acceptable and would not result in inappropriate noise levels to neighbors. I see nothing that changes my opinion at this time. Summarv As we have discussed previously, you have requested an unusual number of changes to this project since it was approved by the Planning Commission. While there is no limit on the number of changes you can request, these requests become particularly problematic once the project is already under construction, as yours has been for some time. In addition, continuing to make small incremental changes can sometimes degrade the overall quality of the project. Some of the changes you have requested have been small enough to be evaluated and approved as a part of your Grading Permit. Others have been larger and required that you process a "Planning Substantial Conformance" request. Staff has done that and was able to accommodate some of your change requests. In addition, some "inadvertent" changes (i.e., a less than 15x15' dimension private recreation area) were made during grading/construction which could not be readily corrected. Staff exercised some discretion in allowing that situation to remain as it was rather than correcting it. However, the change you now propose is beyond the scope of staff or Planning Director approval. Because your PUD (and other discretionary permits) were approved by the Planning Commission, the change you now propose would be considered a PUD Amendment and would have to be considered by the Planning Commission. If your request is to eliminate the "common recreation area" entirely, I must caution you that I personally could not recommend approval of that request to the Planning Commission. This project was required to comply with all applicable Code requirements, as are all other similar projects. You obviously were able to design the project to meet all such requirements and achieve a project which staff and the Planning Commission could fully support. I believe elimination of the common recreation area would significantly degrade the design of the project. Therefore, I see nothing which would lead me to support your request to waive the requirement. However, if you wish to pursue such a change, you will need to submit an application (with the necessary review fee and supporting application materials) for a Major PUD Amendment. This would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The processing time for the average such application is now about 3-6 months after the application is deemed complete. REQUESTED WAIVEk ,F COMMON RECREATION AREA RtdIREMENT January 5, 2001 FOR CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-011CP 00-01/CDP 99-02 If your request is to change the common recreation area usage from "active" to "passive" (with uses as defined in the Code), then you would need to submit an application for a Minor PUD Amendment (with the necessary review fee and supporting application materials). The request would still have to go before the Planning Commission for a decision. However, they would have the option to determine that the request was "minor" rather than "major". In that case, their decision would not require a full public hearing (i.e., the neighbors would not have to be noticed of the scheduled item). The processing time for this would not be substantially different than for a major amendment. I hope this addresses any questions you might have regarding this process. If you have other question, please call me at (760) 602-4621. Sincerely, n Elatne Blackburn, AlCP v .I SENIOR PLANNER c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner File