The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV 355; Ashforth; Variance (V)STAFF REPORT DATE : March 14, 1984 P-LICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: L,,IEMBER 20, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-355/CT 83-38/CP-267 - ASHFORTH - Request for approval of a variance to reduce the rewired sidevard setback and a tentative subdivision ma; and condominium permit to develop five units on the west side of Romeria Street, north of La Costa Avenue 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. 2257 and 2258, APPROVING V-355 and CT 83- 381cp-267 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to reduce the required side-yard from 5 feet to 0 feet and a tentative subdivision map and condominium permit to develop five units on .34 acres, located as described above. The subject property is a previously graded hillside lot. Steep terraced slopes separate adjoining properties. The site is badly eroded at the rear of the lot. The applicant is proposing to construct four 2-bedroom and one three-bedroom, two story townhouse units. The units would range in size from 1314 to 1633 sq. ft. The overall project density would be 14.7 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. 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) 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; adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. d) That the granting of such variance will not 2) Does the proposed project comply with all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance? 3) Does the proposed project satisfy all design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance? Discussion V-355 Staff believes that all of the necessary findings can be made for approval of the requested variance. First, the site is exceptional in its size and shape as an RD-M lot. The lot is unusually small and narrow to accomodate permitted high density development. The lot is further constrained by a 12 foot wide drainage easement, steep slopes and existing physical conditions due to erosion. Secondly, staff believes that the variance is necessary to permit the applicant development of a viable condominium project, a substantial property right. The units are sited to take advantage of golf course views. The area remaining for driveway and garages is very narrow, thus creating a situation where observing all required setbacks and driveway widths is impossible. Many projects in this vicinity, approved under the old condominium ordinance, have only 20 foot wide driveways. Staff considered it preferable, in this instance, to hold the 24 foot width of the driveway and push the garages to the southerly property line. Currently, a slope varying in height from 8 feet to 10 feet exists in this location. The rear wall of the garages would serve to retain this slope. Due to the grade differential between the subject and adjoining properties, staff does not believe that approval of the requested variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties. The height of the single-story garages would be predominately masked by retaining the existing slope. 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. -2- Discussion CT 83-38/CP-267 Staff believes that the proposed project satisfies all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. Resident parking would be provided in private two-car garages. Three open guest parking spaces wuld be screened from the street by a 42" high stucco wall. Storage requirements would be exceeded in garages and separate storage areas. Recreation requirements would be satisfied by a private balcony and patio off each unit. Additionally, a common lawn area would be provided at the rear of the units. The eroded site condition would be corrected and the lawn area provided by means of a crib wall. The exposed portion of the crib wall would be 15 feet in height. The existing slope is 25 feet in height. The wall would be landscaped with drought- tolerant plant materials. Staff also believes that the proposed project satisfies the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. In light of site constraints, buildings, open areas and parking facilities are well integrated on site. Buildings, balconies and patios have been oriented to maximize golf course views. Overall, staff believes that the findings can be made for approval of the requested variance and that the proposed project satisfies all development standards and design criteria 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 has issued a Negative Declaration on February 24, 1984. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2257 and 2258 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Environmental Documents 6) Reduced Exhibits 7) Exhibits "A" - "J", dated February 25, 1984 CDN:bw 2/29/84 -3- L 0 C A It IO N MAP r v 335 CP 267 I I I ASHFORTH CT 83-36 I I I SITE BACKGROUND INTA SHEET CASE ND: V-355/CT 83-38/CP-267 APPLICANT: Ashforth REQUEST AND IDCATION: mest for approval of a tentative subdivision map and condominium permit for 5 units on the west side of -ria Street, north of La Costa Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 391 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, according to map thereof No. 6600, filed in the Office of the County Recorder, March 10, 1970. APN: 216-300-14 Acres . 34 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RH Density Allowed 20-30 Density Proposed 14.7 Existing Zone RD-M Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Site RD-M North RD-M south RD-M Proposed Zone - East F0-M West RD-M PUBLIC FACILITIES Land Use Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Multi School District San Dieguito Water Carlsbad Sewer Leucadia Ew's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 19, 1983 EFIVIF33"Tm IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative Declaration, issued February 24, 1984 E.I.R. Certified, dated - Other, 4.61- 5488 Telephono Nllmkrr - e ** 6~ 252-1161 . Telephone Number . . ..* . NZMBEits : !2.9,7, Ekme S(indLvidua1, partner, Home Address GZZFeJ coqoration, syndication) I/We declc2 ur.c?er Penalty Of perjury that tho infomation contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be' relic2 u~on as being trua and correct until zwndedll ,q .Y BY DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 9200&1989 LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE Cltp of CarIs’fiab PWECT ADDRESS/LDCATION: Costa Avenue. West side of Romeria Street, north of La PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Permiit to develop five units an3 a variance to reduce the required sideyard setback fran 5 feet to 0 feet. Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium (619) 438-5591 The City of Carlsbad has mnducted an enviromntal review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Wality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project Will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Land Use Planning Office. As a result of said Justification for this action is on file in the A copy of the liegative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Carrnnents frm the public are invited. Please sWt mnts in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance. \ DATED: February 24, 1984 CASE No: V-355/CT 83-38/CP-267 Land Use Planning Manager APPLICANT: Ashforth WBLISH WTE: February 29, 1984 -4 5/8 1 . I I D 4 8 " 1 b '1 Y r I I-