The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-05-22; City Council; 10637; Blumenshine Subdivision AppealCITI-dF CARLSBAD - AGENDI-YLL . . AB# ‘+‘T7 TITLE: MTG. 5122190 APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEERS DECISION TO DENY MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 818 DEPT. ENG (BLUMENSHINE) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the City Engineer’s Decision to Deny Minor Subdivision No. 818. I ITEM EXPLANATION: This is an appeal of the City Engineeis decision to deny Minor Subdivision No. 818. The appellants are Robert D., Dorothy E. and Karen M. Bhunenshine. On July 13, 1989 the appellants applied for a tentative parcel map to subdivide their existing property into three lots. The property is located at the north end of Highland Drive. The property site is irregularly shaped and contains 2.96 acres. One existing residence is currently located at the east side of the property upon a relatively flat portion of the site. The remainder of the site slopes steeply down towards the Buena Vista Lagoon area to the north and contains small isolated areas of flat terrain. A slope analysis of the site done in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, indicates the site contains enough flat area to potentially develop three units. However, the flat areas are dispersed throughout the property. A relatively small flat area exists in the general area where the two additional proposed building sites would be located. Extensive grading would be needed to create the required pad sites. This grading would include regrading of unconsolidated fills previously placed on the site. The proposed development would require grading into areas defined as undevelopable by the City (forty percent slope areas.) Pursuant to Section 21.95.030(4) of the Municipal Code “NO development or grading shall occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provision of Section 21.53.230.” The referenced section prohibits residential development on slopes with an inclination of forty percent or greater. In addition to the violation of the Hillside development standards, the Planning Director was concerned with the size of buildable pad area for proposed Parcel 2. The small size and irregular shape of the building pad would create a need for future set back variances at a later date. For these reasons staff recommends Council uphold the City Engineer’s decision and deny Minor Subdivision No. 818. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE PAGE TWO OF AB# 1” 6 3 7 EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map. 2. City Engineer’s letter, dated April 2, 1990. 3. Memo from Planning Department dated March 9, 1990. 4. Applicant’s appeal request letter, dated April 6, 1990. 5. Code Sections 21.53.230 and 21.95.030. -. LOCATION MAP L m J I ‘f?OJECT NAME (Iv&SECT ND- ‘CWM3lT - April 2, 1990 City of Carlsbad Karen Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 PROPOSED MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 818 Whereas a review of the conditions of the letter of preliminary approval was requested by the appropriate date; a hearing was held and whereas the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1973 relating to the subject proposed parcel map have been examined by ihe Planning Direc- tor and declared to have a non-significant impact upon the environment; and whereas negative findings delineated by Section 20.24.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code have not been made; and whereas this minor subdivision is not in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad; therefore, a final decision has been made to deny the subject tentative parcel map subject to the conditions set forth in the preliminary approval letter. ROBERT J. WOJCIK Principal Civil Engineer RJW:JM:rp 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carl’sf!5d, Cpifprnia 92009-4859 - 4G2h!w 2 (619) 438-l 161 /a - A?-&& .&?J .J- / 2 .+L) MARCI I 9 . 1990 TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM: Planning Department HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Ii9-24/VARIANCE 89=4/MS-818 The Planning Department has reviewed the latest submittal for Minor Subdivision 818 received March 2, 1990, and has determined that the project’s exhibits which include a slope analysis, slope profiles and a Tentative Parcel Map/Site Plan are complete and clet:~ilecl enough to recommend a decision on the Hillside Development Permit 89-24 and Variance 89-4. The latest site plan revisions have eliminated the need for a lot width variance, therefore, Variance 89-4 will be officially withdrawn. Sixty feet of lot width measured at the twenty foot front yard setback has been provided for all three lots as required by the underlying R-l Zone. Based on the amount of staff time dedicated to reviewing this project, the applicant will not receive any refunds on the Variance application. All hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which shows existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. Given the information presented with this Minor Subdivision, the Planning Director is recommending denial of Hillside Development Permit 89-24 based on the following finding: A. Development and grading will occur in an undevelopable portion of the site. Section 21.95.03(5) of the Municipal Code states that, “no development or grading shall occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230.” This section prohibits development on slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent or more. The code does not differentiate between “natural” or “man-made” slopes, therefore, it has been a policy of the Planing Department to apply Section 21.53.23 restrictions to both types of slopes, “natural” and “man- made”. In this case, the existing “natural” slope, prior to the deposition of the unconsolidated fill, also exceeded forty percent and was even steeper than the current “man-made” fill slope. - In addition to slope constraints, staff is concerned that the approximate, 3,200 sq. ft. pad size of parcel 2 is inadequate to allow the construction of a custom view home with useable yards. Even though the lot size of parcel 2 is in excess of 7,500 sq. ft., most of tlic parcel is totally unusaI~Ic, thus creating a situation more typical of a small lot Planned Development. The small size and irregular shape of the building pad, steep topography and the argument for reasonable use of the lot creates the potential need for setback variances at a later date, therefore, staff recommends that the subdivision not be approved. MICHAEL j:HOtiMILLER Planning Director MJH:JG/af -2- / Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Office of the City Clerk City of Carlsbad Carlabad, California 92008 April 6, 1990 ' To Whom it may concern: '. ,' An appeal to Carlsbad City Council is hereby requested on Minor Subdivision 818 on property located at the north end of Highland Drive at 2202 Highland Drive. Please find the enclosed appeal fee of $450.00. This project has been denied on the basis that it proposes a small amount of grading on slopes greater than 40%. We wish to appeal this decision to the City Council to consider it for an exclusion. We feel that we qualify for this under CMC.21.95.090 (Exclusions). The proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation. The other pertinent items that we think Council should be . aware of are: (1) The existing fill on site is not compacted and has settled causing failure of the City's storm drain pipe for Highland Dr., which crosses our property, (2) The large sink hole created by that failure has ruptured the water system to our grove,allowing deterioration due to lack of water supply. (3) Mr. Chuck Mitchell of the City Street Department has con- firmed that said storm drain needs replacing. This would req- uire considerable grading through the center of the area proposed for grading,whether the project is approved or not. (4) The area to be altered by grading is very small compared to the entire parcel, (.135 ac. graded'/ 3.15 ac. total or 4.3%r - 2 - (5) The Purpose and Intent of the Hillside Ordinance have been integrated into this proposal and the Hillside Ordinance has been complied with. (a) No coastal sage scrub or chaparral will be affected by the grading proposed. (b) Less than 10% of the area with greater than 25% slopes will be affected. : (c) Residential density talcs have been met per developable acre. (d) The volume of earth proposed to be moved is within acceptable limits set by the Hillside Ordinance. (e) The project conforms to guidelines for contour grading, screening, and hydrology. (6) We have had an extensive Soils Investigation performed by consultants to substantia-te the safety and feasibility of this proposal. (7) We feel that the newly submitted plan sat,isfies all objections ; raised by the letter submitted by our neighbor, Jean A. Gibbs. Furthermore, this proposal will provide the following: (1) Increased frontage to lots (currently we have 33 feet for .the two.) Our plan will increase frontage to within standard limits. (2) A turn-around for cars at the end of Highland Dr. with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. (3) A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. (4) Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodable soil with a potential for surficial failures. We have worked on this proposal for several years now and have modified it many times to conform with the ever-evolving ordinances and municipal codes. - We feel that denial of this project would deprive us of our right of enjoyment of this property. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our appeal. Sincerely, ; Karen M Blumenshine, for Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine cc. Conrad Hammon - Brian-Smith Engineers Robert D. and Dorothy E. Blumenshine 21.53.150 (8) Land upon which other significant envi- ronmental features as determined by the envi- ronmental review process for a project are located; residential development restrictions on open space and environmentally sensitive lands. (a) 21.53.230 Residential density calculations, For the purposes of Titles 20 and 2 1 of this code, residential density shall be determined based on the number of dwelling units per devel- sable acre of property. (b) The following lands are considered to c undevelopable and shall be excluded from den- sity calculations: (1) Beaches; (2) Permanent bodies of water, (3) Floodways; (4) Slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent or more; (5) Significant wetlands; (6) Significant riparian or woodland habitats; (7) Land subject to major power transmis- sioneasements; -- (c) No residential development shall occur on any property listed in subsection (b). Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.31 and 21.33, the L city council may permit limited development of such property if, when considering the property (9) Railroad track beds. as a whole, the prohibition against development -l would constitute an unconstitutional depriva- tion of property. The planning commission or city council, whichever the final discretionary body for a residential development may permit accessory facilities, including, but not limited to, recreational facilities, view areas, and vehicular parking areas, to be located in floodplains (subect to Chapter 21.3 1) and on land subject to major power transmission easements, (d) Residential development on slopes with an inclination of twenty-five to forty percent, inclusive, shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate 752- 1 (Carlshad 2-90) 2153.230 the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program shall apply. (e) Projects which have received all discre- tionary approvals under the provisions of Titles 20 and 21 prior to the effective date of the ordi- nance codified in this section may obtain a final map without complying with this section for a period of two years from the date of the tentative map approval. Any time during which approval of the final map is prohibited by Ordinance No. 9791 or any other growth management ordi- nance, shah be added to the two-year period. Upon expiration of the tentative map, the stan- dards of this ordinance shah apply to the prop- erty. (f) Projects with ah discretionary approvals under the provisions of Titles 20 and 2 1 and with a final map approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section or approved pursuant to subsection (e), or for which a subdivision map is not required, may obtain building permits without complying with this section for a period of two years from the effe. tive date of the ordinance codified in this sectior Once building permits are obtained, construc- tion must be diligently pursued to completion or the provisions of this section shah apply. Upon expiration of the two-year period or the building permits, the standards of this section shah apply to the property. (Ord. 9795 $ 1, 1986) 21 S3.240 Nonresidential development restrictions on open space and environmentally sensitive lands. Nonresidential development shah be designed to avoid development on lands identified in Sec- tion 21.53.230. (Ord. 9795 0 2, 1986) On-shore oil and gas fa * 753 (Carlsbad 12-89) 21.95.020 rawn with a solid heavy line. Exi aphy, structures and infrastructure n with a thin or dashed line; nclude the slope profile for at 1 parallel to each other to existing contour profile shall be rou angle to the other es shall be roughly roughly perpendicular he remaining slope a forty-five percent s and existing con- 21.95030 General restrictions. No property with a slope of fifteen percent or more and an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet shall be developed unless a hillside development permit has been issued. An application for a hillside development permit shall be processed and approved concurrently with any other development permits required by Titles 11, 18, 20 or 21 of this code. The same decisionmaking body or official which has the authority to approve the other development per- mits required for the project shall have the authority to approve a hillside development per- mit. If no permits other than a building or grad- ing permit are required for the project, the planning director shall have the authority to approve or deny hillside development permits subject to appeal to the planning commission. Such appeal shall be made within ten days after the planning director’s decision. A hillside devel- opment permit shall be approved only if all ofthe following findings can be made: (1) That hillside conditions have been prop- erly identified; (2) That undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identified; (3) That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose, intent and requirements of this chapter; occur in those portions of the property which are [ (4) That no development or grading will undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Sec- tion 21.53.230; 1 (5) That the project design and lot configura- tion minimizes disturbance of hillside lands; (6) That the project design substantially con- forms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual. (Ord. NS-37 9 1 (part), 1988; Ord. 9826 5 2 (part), 1987) .040 Residential density calculation. eas of a site in slopes greater than excluded from resi ns consistent wi of a site containin slopes may be utilize residential densit lculating allowable t with Section inimum development ovisions of this chapter shall be 807 (Carlsbad l-89) ROBERT D. BLUMENSHINE DOROTHY E. BLUMENSHINE KAREN M. BLUMENSHINE 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 22, 1990 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mayor Bud Lewis SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 818 Dear Mr. Mayor: We believe in the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance. We believed that we qualified under "Exclusions" (21.95.090) and never intended to request for a variance from the actual Hillside Ordinance. Apparently the interpretation is not clear-cut as to whether we would qualify. Therefore, we would like to request a continuance in order to make revisions in the plan so it would be in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance and satisfy the concerns of the staff. Respectfully yoursI L 7x*--- Karen M. Blumenshine cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager Conrad C. Hammann, Engineer - Robert D. Blumenshine Dorothy e. Blumenshine Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California June 22, 1990 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ray Patchett, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 818 Dear Mr. Patchett: We are requesting a continuance of our appeal at the urging of staff. Staff needs more details of our revised plan and additional time to review it. It is currently scheduled for June 26 and it has been suggested that July 17, 1990 may be the next best time to reschedule. Sincerely, d &.t.&CcC- Karen M. Biumenshine (for Karen, Robert, and Dorothy Blumenshine) C. Lee Rautenkranz - City Clerk Jim Murray - Staff engineer Conrad Hammonn - project engineer Robert D. & Dorothy E. Blumenshine June 28, 1990 Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Request for Continuance - Minor Subdivision No. 818 In response to your request for continuance of your appeal of Minor Subdivision No. 818, please be advised that the City Council has continued your appeal to the meeting of July 24, 1990. The matter was not continued to July 17, 1990 as you had requested, because there will not be a City Council Meeting on that date. c: Jim Murray, Eng. Dept. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008 - (6 19) 434-2808