Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-02; City Council; 7163-1; Plaza Serena De La Costa- AppealCITT*OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA-BILL ^J^ ARa 7163-1 UTO. 11/2/82 DEPT.CA TITLE: CT 82-11/PUD-44, PLAZA SERENA DE LA COSTA - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSI01 DECISION APPROVING PROJECT. nFPT HD. 'CITY ATTY^rxS HITY MGR.<7%t_ RECOMMENDED ACTION: QuiSccQ.a. If the City Council wishes to grant the appeal and deny CT 82-11/PUD-44, Plaza Serena de la Costa, your action is to adopt Resolution No. 1'O H' (& ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council, at your meeting of October City Attorney to prepare documents granting CT 82-11/PUD-44, Plaza Serena de la Costa, suggested set of findings which incorporate at the September 21, 1982 public hearing and testimony and discussion at your meeting of City Council should satisfy itself that the reflect your intentions in the matter, that by you to be true, and that they adequately for the denial. EXHIBIT Resolution No. 5, 1982, directed the the appeal and denying We have prepared a the testimony presented the additional October 5, 1982. The findings accurately they state facts found explain your reasons O OO 0 D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RESOLUTION NO.7046 § § 13 of 5 ^ d " - 5 14 9° i|H v ui Ji °H $£ TKm 77 —, J-«->O «- _Ju: . 5 <- in O g I 8 o 16 ill i? O 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING THE APPEAL FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENYING AN EIGHT UNIT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE END OF LUCIERNAGA COURT BETWEEN LUCIERNAGA STREET AND ARGONAUTA STREET. APPLICANT: PLAZA SERENA DE LA COSTA CASE NO; CT 82-11/PUD-44 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 11, 1982 held a duly noticed public hearing as required by law to consider the approval of an eight unit tentative subdivision map and planned unit development on property generally located at the end of Luciernaga Court between Luciernaga Street and Argonauta Street more particularly described as follows: Lots 194 and 195 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 1 per map 6800 filed in the County of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration, dated July 23, 1982, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1982, in satisfaction of the requirements of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1996 approving the project (CT 82-11/PUD-44); and WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by residents in the area of the proposed project; and c 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 WHEREAS, the City Council at their meeting of September 21, 1982, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider that appeal which was continued to the City Council meeting of October 5, 1982; and WHEREAS, at said hearing after considerations of all of the evidence, testimony and argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard the City Council determined to grant the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correct. B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby grants the appeal and denies Tentative Subdivision Map CT 82-11 and Planned Unit Development Permit PUD-44. This action is based on the following findings: 1. Section 21.45.072 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides that the City .Council may only approve a planned development permit if it is able to make all of nine specified findings. a. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(1) that the project be consistent with the applicable plans for this property cannot be met. This area of La Costa was planned and subdivided for individual lot duplex projects and has been substantially developed in accord with that plan. This project proposes eight units, twice the density otherwise allowed, which is not consistent with those plans. b. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(2) that the project will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood and the community cannot be met. The developer has presented no facts showing any benefit from the project. While the project would add eight units to the city housing stock, the proposed selling 2. 3 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 price between $265,000 and $349,000 is in the luxury range and will not contribute to any of the goals of the Housing Element of the City General Plan. c. The finding required by Section 21,45.072(a)(3) that the project not be detrimental to the people in the area cannot be met. Based on the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council finds that because of the small radius of the cul-de-sac which would not allow even one car to park on the street, and because of the extra density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the zone, that the approval of the project would cause traffic and safety problems and would be detrimental to the people in the area. d. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a) (5) that the project meet all of the design requirements of Section 21.45.080 cannot be met. The project is not imaginatively designed and the buildings are not well integrated into the topographic and natural landscape features of the site. The buildable flat area of the lot is very small in comparison to the lot as a whole which consists of an extensive slope. Project design seems primarily aimed at utilizing all the property including building on the slopes rather than a less dense project which would orient to the flat area and preserve the slopes. The main failure to comply with the design criteria is that the requirement that the development be compatible with the existing neighborhood and not constitute a disruptive element in the neighborhood cannot be met. The surrounding area is developed with individual R-2 lots with individual duplexes which have the appearance of a very well- kept single-family area. This project is essentially a multiple project of the condominium type with densities double that otherwise allowed by the, zoning in the area. The project does not share any of the single-family nature of the surrounding area but rather reflects a multiple dwelling lifestyle. The lack of on-street parking and the focusing of the traffic from eight units through one driveway onto a very small cul-de-sac is not consistent with the circulation patterns of the surrounding area and will disrupt the neighborhood as evidenced by the extensive public hearing and the testimony of the residents in opposition to the project that the project would cause them a number of problems. e. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(6) that the project be designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site 3. c 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 cannot be met for the reasons previously discussed. In particular, the lack of adequate flat building area to accommodate the units and the need to utilize substantially all of the slopes on the property. f. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(8) that the proposed project be compatible with the surrounding development and not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood cannot be met. In making this finding, the City Council incorporates the discussion in paragraph (d) above in regard to the failure to meet design criteria. The main reason for the City Council's denial of this project is the expressed finding that it is simply not compatible with the neighborhood. In addition to the reasons already stated, the visual impact of the project will be out of keeping with the nicely landscaped, essentially single-family duplexes which surround it. It will have a large visual impact because of large formal gates and extensive walls. The single driveway will emphasize the multiple condominium nature of the project as opposed to the predominantly individual units which surround it. The other houses in the area will have some on- street or driveway parking. There will be no on-street parking for this project. Traffic is in excess of that which would Otherwise result from the development of the two lots which comprise the property into four units. The City Council finds the extensive public testimony, particularly that given at the September 21, 1982 hearing, contains credible evidence of the disruption to the neighborhood. C. In order to subdivide and construct the project as proposed, it is necessary for the applicant to first have obtained a Planned Unit Development Permit for the project. Since that permit has been denied, this project does not have the approvals required by the Zone Code. Since the project does not have zoning approval, the tentative subdivision map for the project CT 82-11 cannot be approved and must be denied. The property is zoned R-2 and consists of two lots which allows for a total of four units. The subdivision map proposes an eight unit 4. o .#*<*», 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 project which is not a permitted use and a tentative map for that type of project on this property cannot be approved. D. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 10.94.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chaper 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 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 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008." 5. 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 City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of _ ^Nbventoer ^ , 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis and Kulchin NOES: Council Members Chick and Anear ABSENT: None MARY H.^CASLER, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle3k (Seal) 6. 7