HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-02; City Council; Resolution 2004-067A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
THE KlRGlS TENTATIVE MAP AND RELATED
D I S C R ET I 0 NARY P E R M ITS
CASE NAME: KlRGlS TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NO:
PUD 02-02/CDP 02-05/HDP 02-01
GPA 03-01/ZC 03-01/LCPA 03-011CT 02-06/
WHEREAS, the appeal of the Kirgis Tentative Map and related
discretionary approvals filed by Brian C. Regan on November 17, 2003 came on
regularly for hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, February 3, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the appellant had filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding the property owned by Kirgis 1996 Trust, “owner” described as:
All that portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, as shown on Partition Map thereof No. 823,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on
November 16, 1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tract Map, Planned
Unit Development, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, on
file in the Planning Department, Kirgis Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of September
2003, on the 17th day of September 2003, and on the gfh day of November 2003 hold
duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
...
...
1
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing as required by law and upon
hearing and considering all of the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be
heard the Commission denied the application finding that:
Findings:
1. That the development proposal is not consistent with the intent,
purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the
proposed hillside alteration will result in substantial alteration of a natural topography
with 61,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, with cuts up to 33 feet and fills up to 26 feet.
2. That the project design does not substantially conform to the intent
of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the
easterly project pads are entirely created by fill, thereby elevating the pad above the
existing topographic elevation versus creating pads by averaging both cut and fill to
establish a pad elevation that is at the topographic midpoint, and in that the westerly
pads are larger than the minimum needed for a reasonable use of the property and
thereby creates significantly unnatural development contours.
3. That the project design and lot configuration does not minimize
disturbance of hillside lands, in that although no more than 25% of the gross site area is
within the limits of hillside alteration, development within the disturbed Brea is greater
than necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the property given the natural topography
of the site.
4. Until the issues resulting in denial of the Hillside Development
Permit are resolved the Commission does not approve or recommend approval of the
accompanying discretionary actions; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed
on November 5,2003; and
WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing as required by law to
consider the appeal; and
WHEREAS, staff reported that Finding No. 1 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5531 should be amended to reflect the actual hillside alteration of
36,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, 8,700 cubic yards of export, and with cuts up to 33
feet and fills up to 18.5 feet; and
2
Resolution No. 2004-067 page 2 4
WHEREAS, the property owner is currently required by the provisions of
the draft Habitat Management Plan and the Local Coastal Program to dedicate 75% of
its property to open space and to further require approximately 25% of the remaining
developable property to mitigate on-site habitat impacts and to pay a substantial
affordable housing fee, among other things, and the property has a maximum potential
development of 12 residential units which would be consistent with the adjacent
residential development; and
WHEREAS, the owner is proposing five units; and
WHEREAS, the owner volunteered to restrict the height of the proposed
units to single story homes on lots 1, 2 and 3 and two story homes up to a maximum of
30 feet building height on lots 4 and 5,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
grants the appeal upon the following conditions:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The homes to be located on lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be single story, single
family dwellings and the homes on lots 4 and 5 may be two stories but with a maximum
building height of 30 feet.
3. Developer shall conform to and abide by the terms and conditions of
all related resolutions to effectuate the conditional grant of this appeal which are part of
this action and simultaneously adopted herewith.
4. That appellant‘s appeal fees shall be returned
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for
convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions.
If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government
3 Resolution No. 2004-067 page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the
City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified
feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity
charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service
fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of
which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the
statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
4. That the Clerk is directed to give notice to the applicant of this
action pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.16.01 0 specifying time limits for
judicial review which states:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for
the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth
day following the date on which the record is either personally
...
...
...
...
...
4 6
Resolution No. 2004-067 page 4
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 2nd day of March 1
2004 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
z/c/
WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
5
Resolution No. 2004-067 page 5