The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-01-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 65191 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6519 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.54.140 OF THE CARLSBAD 4 MUNICIPAL CODE, AND UPHOLDING A PLANNING 5 DIRECTOR DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE 6 SUBDIVISION OF A .42 ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT ZONED R-1-7.500-Q, INTO TWO 7 MINIMUM 8,343 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, INCLUDING ONE PANHANDLE LOT, 8 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TRITON STREET, 9 WEST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S 10 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. 1! CASE NAME: RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION 12 CASE NO.: CDP 08-06 13 WHEREAS, Glen Rhoades, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application 14 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 15 Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 19411, in the City of Carlsbad, 15 County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego 17 County, January 23, 2004 18 ("the Property"); and 19 WHEREAS, a Notice of a pending decision dated the 14th day of August 2008, 20 was sent out in accordance with the Coastal Development Permit Procedures (Title 21 Section 21 22 21.201.080(6); and 23 WHEREAS, two (2) requests for an administrative public hearing were 24 submitted to the City and an administrative public hearing was held by the Planning Director on 25 the 9th day of September, 2008; and 26 WHEREAS, on the 15 day of October, 2008 the Planning Director approved 27 Minor Coastal Development Permit - Rhoades Minor Subdivision - CDP 08-06; and 28 WHEREAS, three residents appealed the decision of the Planning Director 2 within the 10-day appeal period prescribed in Section 21.54.140(b); and 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the appeal of the Planning Director's approval of Minor 9 Coastal Development Permit - Rhoades Minor Subdivision - CDP 08-06. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning , 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO APPROVE RHOADES MINOR 16 SUBDIVISION - CDP 08-06, based on the following findings and conditions: 17 Findings; 18 1. The adopted findings of the Planning Director as set forth in the Planning Director's approval letter dated October 15, 2008 shall also constitute the findings of the Planning Commission and are incorporated herein by this reference. 20 2. A timely appeal of the decision approving CDP 08-06 was filed pursuant to Title 21 21 Section 21.54.140(b) by Mr. and Mrs. Conner, Mr. and Mrs. Lin, and Mr. and Mrs. ~ Lynn, three neighbors owning property adjacent to project site. The reasons for the appeal, as stated within the appeal letter submitted by the three families, dated 23 October 25, 2008 and titled CDP 08-06 - Rhoades Minor Subdivision, are listed below under Findings # 3-8, together with the Planning Department's Response. 24 3. Reason for Appeal # 1: 2/5 The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. 27 Planning Department Response: 2° The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a .42 acre site into two single-family lots a minimum of 8,343 square feet in size. The PCRESONO. 6519 -2- surrounding area is developed with predominantly single-family residences on single 2 family lots with the same Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) Land Use Designation and One-Family (R-1-7,500-Q) zoning designations. The surrounding 3 neighborhood consists of a variety of single family lots sizes ranging from 7,596 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project is designed to preserve the single-family detached neighborhood atmosphere and community identity of the existing neighborhood <_ while providing a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents. 6 4. Reason for Appeal # 2: 7 The proposed subdivision is not in line with the General Plan of Carlsbad. The General Plan uses descriptions such as orderly, functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, compatible, or in harmony with neighborhood and states that site design should be "indicated by the harmony of proposed buildings in terms of site, height and location, 10 with respect to the existing neighborhood development." Planning Department Response: 12 The proposed Minor Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the applicable 13 General Plan Land Use designation and is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. 14 The Minor Coastal Development Permit will allow for a subdivision that will create a subtle, yet compatible, variety of lot sizes due to the slightly higher density range (4.76 Dwelling Units/Acre), allowable by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and will thereby help meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents and still 17 ensure a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility and retaining the present predominance of single family residences which consists of single-family residential lot sizes ranging from 7,569 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project meets the applicable development standards of the One-Family Residential Zone (R-l- 7,500-Q), which is consistent of the neighborhood's development standards and will 20 allow for the design of future single family homes to be in harmony with the neighborhood in terms of site, height and location. 21 5. Reason for Appeal # 3: Z-iZ^ 23 The proposed panhandle lot is not consistent with designs of other panhandle lots in the area. 24 Planning Department Response: ~s While the proposed panhandle lot is smaller by 3,078 square feet than an existing panhandle lot directly north of Triton Street, the proposed panhandle lot (Parcel 2) does 27 meet all the panhandle lot development standards under Title 21 Section 21.10.100(D) as demonstrated in the Staff Report under Table B. 28 PCRESONO. 6519 -3- 6. Reason for Appeal # 4: 2 The project density is too high. 3 Planning Department Response: 4 c The project density is entirely consistent with all applicable density provisions of the Carlsbad General Plan and the RLM Land Use designation. The General Plan Land Use 6 designation for the proposed subdivision is Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM). The Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Land Use designation allows residential 7 development at a density range of 0 - 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The RLM Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) is 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is used for the purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65863. The project site has a net developable acreage of .42 acres and at the RLM GMCP would allow 1.34 units. The proposed project's density is 4.76 dwelling units per acre which is 10 above the GMCP of 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is also above the top of the RLM density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre. However, there is a provision within the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan which specifies, "There are exceptional , ~ cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use designation but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-medium density 13 residential classifications. In those exceptional cases, the City may find that the project is consistent with this element if: a) the project is compatible with the objectives, policies, 14 general land uses and programs expressed herein, b) all of the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the project, and c) the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25%." 16 The proposed project satisfies the above stated findings as follows: 17 a) As demonstrated in the corresponding Staff Report under Table A, the proposed project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the General Plan. Land Use Element Section III: Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies & Action Programs. 20 The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit for a two lot subdivision for 21 single-family residential use with adequate public facilities to serve the two future single-family residences. The surrounding area is developed with predominantly single-family residences on single family lots with the same General Plan and Zoning 23 designations. The project is designed to preserve the single-family detached neighborhood atmosphere and community identity of the existing neighborhood while 24 providing a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents. b) The project either incorporates the necessary infrastructure or is conditioned to provide it. 27 c) The maximum density of the RLM designation is 4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed 28 project density is 4.76 dwelling units/acre, which does not exceed the PCRESONO. 6519 -4- maximum density allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25% (5 2 dwelling units/acre). 3 7. Reason for Appeal # 5: 4 The following issues have been brought to the Engineering Department's attention, but ~ are still not listed [addressed] on the approval letter. Does this plan really meet the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for MS 01-04? There are several storm water 6 management issues, including but not limited to: 7 a. An increase to the amount of impervious area b. Increase of water runoff due to proposed grading c. Cross-lot drainage 9 d. Does not exhibit low impact design 10 Planning Department Response: 1' All Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) issues, including impervious area, runoff, 12 cross-lot drainage, and Low Impact Design (LID), have been addressed by the Engineering Department through the projects design or conditions of approval for Minor 13 Subdivision application no. MS 08-02. 14 g. Reason for Appeal #6: Inaccurate calculation of buildable square footage. 16 Planning Department Response: 17 The buildable square footage of both proposed lots is calculated accurately. In 1° accordance with Title 21 Section 21.10.100(C), in approving a panhandle lot, the in buildable portion shall be the entire lot exclusive of any portion of the lot less than thirty- five feet in width that is used for access to the lot. 20 In addition, the project meets all residential density requirements under Section 21 21.53.230, in that the project site does not include undevelopable lands, which are excluded from density calculations, such as beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, natural slopes with an inclination greater than 40%, significant wetlands, 23 significant riparian or woodland habits, lands subject to major power transmission easements, land upon which other significant environmental features as determined by the 24 environmental review process for a project are located, or railroad tracks. In summary, the project site, excluding the portion of the lot with a width less than 35 feet used for access, is determined as the buildable square footage for Parcel 2, which is 8,081 square 2^ feet. Parcel 1 is not a panhandle lot nor does it have any of the above listed undevelopable lands. Therefore, the net buildable square footage for Parcel 1 is the same 27 as the gross buildable square footage (8,323 square feet). 28 PCRESONO. 6519 -5- Conditions: 2 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the 3 approval of the Final Parcel Map. 1. The adopted conditions of the Planning Director as set forth in the Planning c Director's approval letter dated October 15, 2008 shall also constitute the conditions of the Planning Commission and are incorporated herein by this reference. 6 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Parcel Map, or the issuance of building permits, 7 whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to nuisance impacts from the horses located at the surrounding agricultural properties in a form meeting the approval of the Planning 9 Director and City Attorney. 10 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 12 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 15 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 16 annul their imposition. 17 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions i o 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 19 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 20 expired. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6519 -6- 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of January 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, and Douglas NOES: Commissioner Montgomery and Chairperson Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Baker ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cardosa FRANK WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: >L DON NEU Planning Director PCRESONO. 6519 -7-