Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 7108 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 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) DETACHED, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY, AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS (RANGING FROM 5,234 TO 5,522 SQUARE FEET) AND AN ACCESSORY RECREATION BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 608 CHINQUAPIN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: OCEAN BREEZE CASE NO.: PUD 14-05/CDP 14-18/MS 14-08 WHEREAS, Cushman Development Corporation, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad described as: That part of Tract 232 of the Thum Lands, as per Map thereof No. 1681, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision as shown on Exhibits “A – EE” dated June 17, 2015, on file in the Planning Division, OCEAN BREEZE – PUD 14-05/CDP 14-18/MS-14-08, as provided by Chapter 21.45, Chapter 21.201, and Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on June 17, 2015, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 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 Planned Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission DENIES OCEAN BREEZE – PUD 14-05/CDP 14-18/MS-14-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7108 PC RESO NO. 7108 -2- 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 Findings: Planned Development Permit, PUD 14-05 1. That the proposed project, which entails a request to construct three (3) detached, two-story single-family air space condominium units ranging in size from 5,234 to 5,522 square feet (SF), will be detrimental to the existing detached single-family residential homes in the neighborhood and will adversely impact the surroundings. Specifically, the proposed homes are out of scale and character (i.e., too large in size/mass) with the size of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood, which predominantly range in size from 1,160 to 3,216 SF on Linmar Lane (i.e., directly adjacent to project site) and 1,169 to 2,336 SF on Chinquapin Avenue. In addition, the proposed project will diminish the visual continuity in the neighborhood. 2. The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, in that the project has been designed to comply with all applicable development standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. 3. The project’s design, including architecture, streets, and site layout does not: a) contribute to the community’s overall aesthetic quality in that the proposed homes are out of scale and character (i.e., too large in size/mass) with the size of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed project will diminish the visual continuity in the neighborhood, even though the project b) includes the use of harmonious materials and colors, and the appropriate use of landscaping, and c) achieves continuity among all elements of the project. Coastal Development Permit, CDP 14-18 4. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the project site is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and has a LCP Land Use designation of Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and is zoned One-Family Residential (R-1) consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the site. The RLM Land Use designation allows development of single- family residences at a density of 0-4 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. At the RLM GMCP, 2.97 dwelling units would be permitted on this 0.93 acre (net developable) property. A total of 3 dwelling units with an overall density of 3.22 du/ac is proposed. While the proposed project falls within the allowable RLM density range of 0-4 du/ac, the proposed project is 0.03 units above the GMCP. Therefore, a total of 0.03 units are required to be withdrawn from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). As the proposed project’s location and density are compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the project is consistent with the General Plan, the request to withdraw 0.03 units from the EDUB can be supported. Additionally, the project site is not identified as a “Map X - Designated Coastal Agricultural Lands” and therefore, is not required to be preserved nor is it subject to an agricultural conversion mitigation fee. The project is further consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act in that, a) the site is geologically stable; b) the project has been designed to reduce the amount of runoff off-site through the use of Low Impact Development (LID) design features and has been conditioned to implement the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; c) the project does not preclude any recreational opportunities or shoreline access as the property is not located adjacent to any waterways or bodies of water; and d) the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public rights- of-way. PC RESO NO. 7108 -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 5. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project does not preclude any recreational opportunities or shoreline access as the property is not located adjacent to any waterways or bodies of water. 6. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No development is proposed in areas of natural steep slopes (≥25% gradient) and no native vegetation is located on the subject property. In addition, the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. 7. The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance Minor Subdivision, MS 14-08 8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that as discussed in the project staff report, the project implements the goals and policies of the General Plan and is consistent with all minimum requirements of Title 20 (including the Subdivision Map Act), and Title 21, including the Planned Development Ordinance, CMC Chapter 21.45. 9. That the proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding future land uses. Although the surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan and are developed with single-family residential homes of similar densities, the size of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood, which predominantly range in size from 1,160 to 3,216 SF on Linmar Lane (i.e., directly adjacent to project site) and 1,169 to 2,336 SF on Chinquapin Avenue, are much smaller in size and mass than the proposed development. 10. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that all required minimum development standards and design criteria required by the applicable zoning ordinance, including setbacks, height, parking and landscaping, are incorporated into the project. 11. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the project has been designed and conditioned such that there are no conflicts with established easements. 12. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). . . . PC RESO NO. 7108 -4- 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 13. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the proposed residential units have a north, south, east and west orientation thereby allowing for passive or natural solar heating and cooling opportunities. 14. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. 15. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed development is located on an infill lot which is relatively flat and surrounded by existing detached single-family homes; the site is not located within nor adjacent to a HMP Standards Area or Hardline Preserve; and no sensitive native habitat or species exist on the site. 16. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 17. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the existing streets can accommodate the estimated increase of 30 ADTs and all required public right-of-way will be dedicated and improved to serve the development. In addition, the proposed project would not result in any significant capacity- related impacts to any road segments or intersections. California Environmental Quality Act 18. That pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. General 19. That the denial of the subject Planned Development Permit PD 14-05, as specified by the Planning Commission, results in the denial of Coastal Development Permit CDP 14-18 and Minor Subdivision 14-08. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. . . . . . .