HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 87-01; H. Von Packard; Variance (V)dl APPLICATluN SUBMITTAL DATE : AUGUST 25, 1987
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
That the
STAFF REFORT
DECEMBER 16, 1987
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
V 87-1/HDP 87-1 - VON PACKARD - A variance from access requirements of the R-1 zone, a request for a Hillside Development permit for a proposed grading plan and house is requested for a lot east of Park Drive, south of Calavo Court and west of proposed Sunnyhill Drive within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.'s 2706 and
2707 APPROVING Variance 87-1 and DENYING Hillside Development Permit 87-1.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed variance is for lot access via a 16 foot wide
private driveway easement. (See Exhibit "A". ) The easement
would connect the lot with Sunnyhill Drive, a public street
within the "Capri" subdivision east of the site. The easement would run along the north portion of Lot No. 95 of the ''Capri" subdivision.
As shown on Exhibit I'B", the lot is on a steep west facing
slope. The lot has views of and is visible from Park Drive,
1-5, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the bluffs on the south side
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
On July 22, 1981, the Planning Commission approved the lot as part of a three lot parcel map (No. 533). Due to severe slopes on the site, two of the three lots were panhandle lots. Although not a specific condition of approval, a
Coastal Development Permit was necessary prior to
finalization of the parcel map, since the lot was in the
Coastal Zone. When this map was approved, both City and
Coastal Commission staff were working on a plan for the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon area.
In May of 1982, the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan of Carlsbad's
-
DECEMBER 16, 1987
V 87-1 VON PACKARD
PAGE 2
Local Coastal Plan was adopted. The plan restricted development on slopes of 25% or more. The plan also required minimal grading and site disturbance on existing steeply sloped lots. On July 16, 1982, the then owner of the three lots processed and finalized the parcel map without a Coastal
Development Permit.
On August 25, 1987, the then owner with the applicant had received a Coastal Development Permit for the lot. Approval of the Coastal Development Permit required vacation of access from the panhandles and open space easements on some of the
steep slopes. Vacation of the panhandle access to Park Drive necessitated this access variance.
As a part of the variance request, the applicant has submitted grading plans and building- and requested
a Hillside Development Permit. ;PLPNf=> c HA5
111. ANALYSIS
Issues
Can the four findings required for approval of a variance from access requirements of the R-1 zone be made?
Specifically:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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:
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;
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.
That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive general plan.
Does the project fulfill the requirements and intent of
Carlsbad's Hillside Development Regulations?
-
DECEMBER 16, 1987 V 87-1 VON PACKARD PAGE 3
6. Is the project consistent with Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program?
7. Is the project consistent with the adopted Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone l?
8. Is the proposed grading and development of the hillside lot consistent with the Hillside Ordinance?
Discussion
As shown on Exhibit "Bn, the lot is severely sloped. A
driveway access from the lot's frontage on Park Drive would
be very steep (approximately 22%) and require insensitive grading in an area of significant visual concern. The
proposed easement would have less grade and would be closer to the most buildable easterly portion of the lot. Without the proposed easterly access, few potential access alternatives exist for the lot. Steep slopes to the south of the lot preclude access. To the west are steep slopes and houses blocking access to Park Drive, and to the north is an existing single family house. The easement access would allow the lot to be utilized in a manner consistent with the R-1 zone. The easement access alone does not appear
detrimental. Traffic speeds and volumes for a driveway
serving a single family detached house are typically fairly
low. However, there appears a small potential obstruction of
westwardly sight line distance for Lot No. 95 as shown on
Exhibit 'ICn. A condition of approval requires adequate
sight distance for Lot No. 95 prior to issuance of building
permits. Additionally, by creating a through way on what
typically is a dead end driveway for Lot No. 95, the proposed
access easement may expose the eventual occupants of Lot No.
95 to unusual auto/pedestrian conflicts. A condition has
been added to assure such potential conflicts are
acknowledged and disclosed.
The access variance in and of itself helps mitigate a potentially detrimental visual impact of mass grading a driveway from Park Drive. However, the "site plang1 and
grading plans submitted with the variance (Exhibits lrC" and "D") requests appear less than sensitive and contradictory to
the City's adopted Hillside Development Standards.
This insensitive treatment of such a highly visible slope
runs counter to the adopted Hillside Ordinance. Section
21.95.60 of that ordinance establishes development and design standards for hillside areas. The grading plan by proposing
_I
DECEMBER 16, 1987 V 87-1 VON PACKARD -
approximately 5,800 cubic yards per acre graded is within the acceptable range of grading volumes. This is due in part to the lack of roadway improvements needed for the site. However, the way this grading volume is handled is unacceptable. Crib walls are extensively used creating rigid
unnatural slope faces. Some of the crib walls are as high as
22 feet. In many areas 2:l slopes are placed on top of these
crib walls. Further, the proposed 2:l slopes provide only
partial undulation along the southwest top of slope. The
graded area on the site was maximized as opposed to being
minimized. Flat pads were created for 1) a 11,121 square
foot house pad, 2) a 3,400 square foot yard, 3) a 2,060
square foot yard, and 4) a 5,730 square foot yard. In total,
11,190 square feet of flat yard area and an 11,121 square foot house pad was created on slopes that are steeper than those found on San Francisco's steepest streets.
Except for the most easterly slope faces, fully exposed slopes up to 36 feet in height will be highly visible with
little to no opportunity for screening or landscaping. The
orientation of the structure is not particularly sensitive
and could better take advantage of the sitels constraints by
hugging the easterly cut slope directly west of the "Caprisw subdivision. On a positive note, except for the high crib
wall along the northern edge of the driveway area, the driveway easement and the roadway design appear appropriate. The applicant provided little information concerning Hillside Architecture. However, as shown on Exhibit lwF'w the structure shows no multi-level foundations and iittle orientation parallel to slope contours. The structure is
bulky and sprawling and fails to sensitively utilize the
assets and limitations of this steep hillside site.
Basically, the applicant is proposing to massively alter the existing hillside terrain to fit a flat pad type of house on a steep hillside. This is totally contrary to the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations which stressed fitting the project to the existing landform rather than massively altering the existing terrain to fit a particular product type. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the proposed Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading
and house.
The application has received a Coastal Development Permit (June 1987) from the California Coastal Commission and hence is viewed as being consistent with the Agua Hedionda Segment
of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
1
DECEMBER 16, 1987 V 87-1 VON PACKARD PAGE 5
The variance application is consistent with the adopted Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, since that plan identified one potential single family dwelling for the lot.
In summary, staff supports the proposed variance to provide an easement access to the lot. However, staff strongly
believes the grading and site plan proposed to utilize that access is inappropriate for the site. Staff recommends that the requested Hillside Development Permit be denied and the applicant be directed to design a project that complies with the Development and Design Standards of the Hillside
Development Ordinance.
IV . ENVIROmNTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined this project will not cause a significant environmental impact if conditions of approval are fulfilled and has, therefore, issued a mitigated Negative Declaration on November 25, 1987.
1. Planning Commission Resolution No.'s 2706 and 2707
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Environmental Document
6. Exhibits: A) Site Plan B) Slope Map C) Grading Plan D) Site Plan E) Building Elevations
city of carlsbad
VICINITY MAP
N. T. S. . '
VON PACKARD V 87-1
CASE NO: V 87-1
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
APPLICANT: H. VON PACKARD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Variance from street frontage requirements of the R-1
zone to take access of a private accessway for a lot east of Park Drive, south
of Calavo Court and west of the proposed Sunnyhill Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel B of Parcel Map 12243 filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County July 16, 1982. APN: 207-100-55
Acres 2.02 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 SFD DU
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM Local Coastal Program: Agua Hedionda Seament
Density Allowed 0-4 DU/AC Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone R-1-15,000 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Site R-I - 15.000
North R-1 - 10,000
South R-I - 15.000
East R-1 - 9.500
West R-I - 15,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Land Use
VACANT
SFD DU
VACANT
SFD Under Construction
VACANT
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's EI/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
N/A
X Negative Declaration, issued 11 125187
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
DISCLOSURE FORM
4
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
H. Von Packard Individual
P.O. Box 4517 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Number
434-1013
Same
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
Name (individual, partner, joint Home Address
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board
members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
/ BY
Agent, Owner, Partner
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
C ARLSBAD, CALI FORN I A 92009-4859
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ditp of darl~bab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(619) 438-1 161
PR03ECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Parcel 207-100-55 located east of Park
Drive, south of Calajo Court and west of the proposed Sunnyhill
Drive.
PR03ECT DESCRIPTION: A variance from street frontage requirements of
the R-I zone to take access from a private accessway.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the
subject project.
Planning Department.
3ustification for this action is on file in the
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA.,
92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments
in writing to the Planning Department within ten (IO) days of date of
issuance.
DATED: November 25, 1987
CASE NO: V 87-1 Planning Director
APPLICANT: H. Von Packard
NU4
11 /85