HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 60991 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6099
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE A 5.12-ACRE SITE
4 INTO 29 SMALL LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES,
5 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND 1 DRIVEWAY LOT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
6 CORNER OF LOWDER LANE AND POINSETTIA LANE, IN
THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
7 PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 4.
8 CASE NAME: POISETTIA PROPERTY
9 CASE NO: V 05-01
10 WHEREAS, Cottage Development Company, "Developer," has filed a verified
11 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Eugene Boyland and
12 Shelley Thayer, "Owner," described as
13
Lot 171, of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-24, in the City of Carlsbad,
14 County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map
thereof No. 7996, filed hi the Office of the County Recorder of
15 San Diego County, August 2,1974
("the Property"); and
17
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as
18
shown on Exhibits "A" - "BB" dated May 17, 2006, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
20 Department, POINSETTIA PROPERTY - V 05-01 provided by Chapter 21.50 of the
21 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of May, 2006, hold a
23 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
24
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
25
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors26
27 relating to the Variance.
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
3 Commission APPROVES POINSETTIA PROPERTY - V 05-01 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
4
5 Findings;
6 1 • 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
7 of use in the same vicinity or zone, in that the lot is exceptional or extraordinary in
that it is adjacent to Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane which is the cause of excessive
noise in the area. The applicant is able to meet all the RD-M-Q requirements. The
PD ordinance requires small lot home projects to provide a "private rear yard"
which must be 18' x 18'. The project is able to provide this space in the rear yard
10 for approximately half the lots but is unable to provide this space in the rear yard
on lots 1-15, due to noise impacts. The project is proposing to provide this required
private yard space for lots 1-15 in a side yard courtyard, which will act as a noise
buffer. The project is not proposing any reductions in yards, setbacks, or lot
coverage.
13
Given the above, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
14 conditions applicable to the subject property that do not commonly apply to other
properties in the same vicinity or zone. The location of both Interstate 5 and
Poinsettia Lane impact this property, and many of the other residential
developments were not subject to a required "private rear yard" standard.
Therefore, this required finding can be made.
17
2. 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
19 denied to the property in question, in that the requested variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that the other
20 properties in the community were not required to provide an 18' x 18' private rear
yard, since it was not a requirement at the time of approval. The project will
maintain all required yard setbacks, and a Variance is only necessary to place the
22 "required rear yard" within a side yard courtyard in order to reduce the noise
impacts from Interstate 5, thus providing a private yard which will be enjoyed.
23 Therefore, the granting of the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by others but denied to the
24 properties backing onto Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. The required finding can
,_ be made.
26 3. 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
27 property is located, in that the granting of the variance is not injurious to the
surrounding property as the construction of 29 small lot, single-family residential
homes will not adversely impact the surrounding single-family and multi-family
neighborhoods. The development is in conformance with all RD-M-Q and PD
zoning requirements.
PCRESONO. 6099 -2-
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
2 plan, in that the General Plan Land Use designation for the subject property is
Residential Medium Density (RM), 4-8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
3 variance would allow the placement of 29 small lot, single-family homes at a density
of 5.66 dwelling units per acre, which is within the RM range of 4-8 dwelling units
per acre. Therefore, the granting of this variance request will not adversely affect
the comprehensive general plan.
6 5. That a Variance is consistent with and implements the requirements of the certified Local
Coastal Program and that the variance does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect
' the protection of coastal resources as specified in the zones included in this title and that
the variance implements the purposes of zones adopted to implement the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan, in that the granting of a Variance is consistent with and
9 implements the requirements of the Local Coastal Program, and will not have
adverse effect on coastal resources. The variance involves the relocation of "private
10 rear yard" to the side yard. The Project will still maintain all required setbacks,
building height, and lot coverage requirements. Therefore, granting such a variance
will not adversely affect the Local Coastal Program.
12 6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
13 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions;
16
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Planned
Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6095, 6096, 6097, and 6098 for
I o those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6099 -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
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 final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government 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 fees/exactions
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 fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of May, 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa,
Dominguez, Segall, and Whitton
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN
MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, «Hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6099 -4-