The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV 356; Hemlock Condominiums; Variance (V)STAFF REPORT ADPLIL -'ION SUBMITTAT1, DATE: DEX334BER 22, 1983 DATE : March 28, 1984 TO : '-Planning Commission FROM : Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-356/CT 83-39/CP 268 - HEMLOCK CONDOMINIUMS - Request for an 11 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit; a variance; to reduce the front yard setback from a 15 foot average to 10 feet, to encroach into the 10 foot setback a distance of 6 feet at one location; and to reduce the visitor parking requirement from 6 spaces to 5 spaces on a -54 acre lot located on the south side of Hemlock Avenue adjacent to the A.T. 61 S.F. railroad and addressed as 369 Hemlock Avenue. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the negative declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and- ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2260 and 2261, APPROVING CT 83-39/CP-268/V- =based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION In reviewing a project across the street from the subject property, the City Council in September of 1982 eliminated a cul- de-sac and recommended that an offset cul-de-sac be utilized for turn around purposes. That offset cul-de-sac was to be placed in part on the applicant's property located at the south end of Hemlock Avenue adjacent to the A.T. C S.F. railroad. This decision has created some problems for the applicant in that it takes a large portion of the applicant's usable area to provide for this cul-de-sac. Approximately 10% of the applicants usable area was lost. As a result, the applicant is proposing to construct 11 units on the remainder of the parcel and is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from a 15 foot average to 10 feet and to encroach into this 10 foot setback a distance of 6 feet at one location. The applicant is also requesting to reduce the amount of visitor parking needed from 6 spaces to 5 spaces. The project site consists of a lot that slopes from west to east and presently has a single family home existing on it. The proposed project, before the dedication of the cul-de-sac area, resulted in a density of 20.3 du/ac. With the cul-de-sac the density is now 24.3 du/ac, which is at the mid-range of the General Plan Designation (RH) of 20-30 du/ac for this site. The property to the north is occupied by an apartment building and the properties to the west and south are occupied by single family homes. The property to the east is occupied by the A.T. & S.F. railroad. The project consists of a combination of townhouse and flats which will be located within 3 buildings. None of the buildings exceeds 35 feet in height. 111. ANALY S IS Plannina Issue - V-356 1) Can the project meet the required findings for a variance? Planninq Issues - CT 83-39/CP-268 1) Does the project conform with the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance? 2) Does the project conform with the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance? Discussion - V-356 As mentioned, the City Council approved the design of an offset cul-de-sac along the northern portion of this project. It was necessary to utilize this property because the project to the north was not required to construct their share of a standardcul- de-sac at the time the project was finalized. The applicant states that since a greater amount of this cul-de-sac design intrudes into his property than normally required, he cannot fully develop his property. He is being denied a property right belonging to other property owners in the area. Also, due to the offset cul-de-sac, the project site has unusual circumstances not shared by any other property in the vicinity. Because of these two reasons, the applicant needs a reduction in the front yard setback with a 6 foot intrusion and a reduction of one visitor parking space to substantially receive the same benefits as other property owners. Staff feels that since the applicant received an over- proportional share of the cul-de-sac on his property that the findings for- a variance can be met. Discussion - CT 83-39/CP-268 As previously mentioned, this proposal is for an 11 unit tentative map and condo permit. Staff has worked closely with the applicant in trying to come up with a plan which still provides the applicant his property rights, but keeps the necessary variance provisions to a minimum. This was difficult at times because of the amount of property lost from the cul-de-sac. Staff does feel that with the variance the proposed -2- . project meets the intent of the design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. From a design standpoint the applicant has tried to reduce the dominance of the driveway by using stamped concrete. The required covered parking is located within two buildings and none of the required parking spaces are over 150 -feet from any unit. Most of the visitor parking will be located to the rear of the project. The common recreation areas are located to the rear of the project in two distinct areas. One area consists of a spa, barbeque and picnic tables and the other a children's play area. Each of the units will have a balcony as additional recreation area. The required storage will be provided next to the garages . Staff has found that this project, in conjunction with V-356, meets the basic intent and standards 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 issued a Negative Declaration on March 1, 1984. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2260 and 2261 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Statement 5) Environmental Document 6) Exhibits "A" - "E", dated February 14, 1984 EVR: bw 3/ 14/84 -3- * LOCATION MAP ' I' t I V-356 I CP-268 I I1 HEMLOCK CONDOS 11 CT 83-39 . CASE No: V-356/CT 83-39/CP-268 APPLICANT: Hemlock Condaniniums REQUEsT AND IOCATION: Tkntative tract map and mndminium permit to construct 11 units and a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and to encroach 6 feet into this setback. also to reduce the visitor ~ parking requirements fran six spaces to five spaces. LWU, DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 16 in Block "M" of Palisades according to Map No. 1747 filed February 5, 1923. APN: 204-270-44 Acres . 54 praposed No. of Lotsfinits 12 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation R-H Density Allowed 20-30 Density Proposed 24.3 Existing Zone R-3 Surrounding zoning and Land Use: Zonina Site R-3 North R-3 Proposed Zone N/A Land Use SED Amrtments South R-3 SFD East Railroad Railroad West R-3 ~LIC FACILITIES SFD School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad Ew's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 20, 1983 - X Negative Declaration, issued March 1, 1984 - E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, APPLICANT : AGENT: . .. G.T.W., A California general partnership Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corpration, syndication) 690 El- #204. Carlsbad. California 92008 ' Business Address - (619) 434-7173 Telephone Number .. Name .. - .. Business Address ._ -. __ . . .. ., ._ ... ,. .. . J' . Telephone Number . Xenry W, Tubbs I11 2224 Running Spring Place Name *(individual, partner , joint Xome 2fdress ventuxe, coqoration, syndication) Xanaging General Partner Encinitas,California 92024 c 640 Avp - A904 .car1 .q 9 9008 Easiness Addzess (619) 434-7173 Tele2hone Nuzzr Telephone Xumber 247 Juniper Ave. Carlsbad, California 92008 3roo'ks A. Worthi% . Xanaging General Partner :i=sls Eome kddress Telep3ane Xunber (619) 729-3965 Teiephor.2 N-er - 12C5 Sante Fe Dr. Zncinitas,Ca. 92024 C 619) 436-9080 (Attach more sheets if necessary) , 1/We dockze uzder penalty of perjury that the infomation contaiced in this dis- closure is tris and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be' relied upon as being true and correct until amended. . .. G .'I' . w . Applicant DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNlNG OFNCE Citp of CarIabab pwx3EcT ADDRESS/LDCATION: 369 Hemlock Avenue. PWECT EESCFU~TION: Eleven unit oondominium project. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 920081989 (619) 438-5591 The City of Carlsbad has mucted an envirornnental review of the above described project plrsuant 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 cn 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 mpy of the Negative Declaration with Supportive documents file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comnents fran the public are invited. Please suhit oorrPTlents in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten ( 10) days of date of issuance. on DATED: March 1, 1984 a- CASE NI): CT 83-39/CP-268/V-356 Iand Use Planning Elanager MICHAEL J. €DMMILLER APPLICANT: Hemlock Condaniniums PUBLISH DATE: March 7, 1984 ND-4 5/8 1