Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 7508) ) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7508 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN UN PERMITTED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS STANDARDS ON A MANUFACTURED UPHILL PERIMETER SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT GREATER THAN 40% AND AN ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL OF GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET LOCATED AT 939 BEGONIA CT. WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4. CASE NAME: CASE NO.: BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 WHEREAS, RENE LICHTMAN, "Developer/Applicant," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by VALERIE LICHTMAN REVOCABLE TRUST, "Owner," described as Lot 138 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-79, Spinnaker Hill Unit #3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8453, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on Dec. 29, 1976 ("the Property"); a.nd WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit and Variance as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" dated March 20, 2024, on file in the Planning Division, CDP 2023-0016/V 2022-0002 (DEV2020-0026) -BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL, as provided by Chapter 21 .201 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Coastal Development Permit and Variance applications and performed the necessary investigations to determine if the project qualified for an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq .), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the city planner and on its behalf, the city planner determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State ) ) CEQA Guidelines Section 15061{b){4) and 15270, in that CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves; and WHEREAS, on Dec. 7, 2023, the city distributed a notice of intended decision to adopt the CEQA exemption. The notice was circulated for a 10-day period, which began on Dec. 7, 2023, and ended on Dec. 18, 2023. The city did not receive any comment letters on the CEQA findings and determination. The effective date and order of the city planner CEQA determination was Dec. 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2024, 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Coastal Development Permit and Variance; and 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 Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 -BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: Variance (V 2023-0002) 1. The justification and evidence provided by the applicant falls short of establishing the finding that, because of special circumstances applicable tothe subject property, such as topography, location, or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of the privileges enjoyed by the other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. While the exhibits and stats provided by the applicant and their representative do establish that the subject property does have a large amount of lot area that contains manufactured slope. Staff does not find that this is a special circumstance. The neighborhood is comprised of a variety of lot sizes and shapes, with the subject lot being one of the two largest sized lots in the area, at 17,148 square feet (sf). The shape of the lot is also one that is pie shaped, wider in the rear than the front, ) ) and this naturally increases the amount of area that the rear-yard manufactured slope takes up. This is meaningful because most other lots are not pie shaped. The most comparable lot to the subject lot in terms of size and shape is 943 Begonia Court, just two doors to the north of the subject property. The applicant states in their submittal materials that the 943 Begonia property is 16,514 sf with 7,314 sftaken up by the slope, or 44.29% of the lot, while the applicant's property is stated to have 46 .. 58% of the lot taken up by slope. There is not a significant difference in these percentages between these comparable lots. This 2.29% difference in comparable lots indicates this is not a special circumstance, and the amount of lot area taken up by the slope is not sound justification to allow the creation of over 2,000 sf of additional usable back yard space through terracing of the slope. The applicant has also failed to establish that the slope deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The applicants survey of the surrounding properties found the average lot size in this neighborhood to be 9,528 sf. Even with the 7,988 square feet of slope area identified on the property by the applicant as unusable, if that area were not a part of the property at all, the remaining lot would be 9,160 square feet. Staff's analysis of the property differs slightly than what is stated by the applicant, with the slope area only taking up approximately 7,500 sf. This would mean that approximately 9,650 square feet of usable lot area exists on the property. This square footage of lot size is in line with the average lot size of the neighborhood. In reviewing the design of the lot pattern in this neighborhood, it appears that lots with rear-yard slopes were specifically made larger to provide a usable lot area that is comparable in size to lots without rear-yard slopes. Therefore, The existence of the slope is not a loss of privilege in terms of usable lot area. 2. The approval of this variance would be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The size of the usable lot area, with the square footage of the slope removed from the property altogether, is comparable in size to the average lot size in the neighborhood. Allowing the property to create additional usable area through terracing of the slope inconsistent with the hillside development standards would be a granting of special privilege. Additionally, although the applicant has stated that strict adherence to the six-foot retaining wall limit would disallow the owner from building standard rear-yard improvements such as a patio cover, swimming pool, etc., this statement is inaccurate. The subject property has an existing pool which was installed in 1999, prior to the start of any unpermitted work. The amount of rear-yard area and types of improvements that exist on the property are similar to other lots in the neighborhood as seen from aerial imagery of the neighborhood. 3. That the variance request is inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning ordinance, in that the approval of a variance to allow for retaining walls above a height of six feet, when measured from the toe of slope, is not consistent and does not implement . Policy 2-P .10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This policy states, development on slopes, when permitted, shall be designed to minimize grading and comply with the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The project would allow for development of the property beyond what is allowed by the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.