Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-02; Pacific Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (6)DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KIP MCBANE, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TELEPHONE NUMBER 729 5152 SUBJECT: CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 - PACIFIC PQINTE I have reviewed the application, staff report and related background material and relevant ordinances and standards regarding this project, and would like to submit the following analysis, comments and recommendations: I . Analysis: A. Without PUD approval, the maximum capacity of this property is still only 6 units, derived as follows: Lot area net of required street dedications: 28,462 s.f. Minimum lot size required in R-2 zone: 7,500 s.f. Maximum number of lots available: 3 total, 2 © 7,500 s.f., 1 @ 13,462 s.f. (other allocations of area is possible, but there is not enough area for 4 7,500 s.f. lots). Maximum number of units allowed per lot: 2. Maximum number of total units: 2x3=6. B. Parking: Guest parking is provided on-site, as required, but fails to meet the following established standards: "Open parking shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights of way by wall or landscaping". Compliance ia not indicated on BECn'VED the proposed Development Plan. "Building set-backs from open [parking] AU6 0 2 1994 spaces shall be 5' minimum". None of CITY OF CARLSBAD the 8pace8 vr°P°8ed meet thla PLANNING DEFT. standard. Spaces shall be 175 s.f. in one or two - "1 ~ family residences, width not less than 8.5'. (One of the required three visitor spaces may be 8x15 compact) The spaces proposed do not appear to simultaneously meet this standard and provide full access to (small) 16' garage doors and pedestrian access to the front doors of the houses. For instance, if a full 8.5x20 foot space is provided at Lot 1, then only 15.5 feet of access is provided to a 20 foot wide garage (with a normal 16 foot wide door) and there is no access to the front door. Lots 2,4,5 and 6 all provide spaces which are too small. [parking may be provided on a] "...paved driveway or parking area which does not exceed thirty percent of the required front yard area or an area that is comprised of twenty-four feet of width extended from the property line to the rear of the required front yard whichever is greater."..."At least forty percent of the front yard setback of detached single-family residences shall consist of landscaping." The paved area proposed for Lot 3 exceeds the allowable width. While the balance of the proposed plan is minimally in compliance with this PUD standard before paved access to the front doors and required building set-backs are provided, the 72.5 feet of paving out of 128 feet of frontage on each street would not be allowed under R-2 zoning, does not provide adequate landscaping, and is grossly incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. C. Planned Development: The intent and purpose of allowing Planned Development include to: "Encourage creatively designed projects..." "Encourage development which is sensitive to the natural topography of the site..." "Provide for projects which are compatible with the surrounding developments". Planned Developments should not be allowed unless they meet the intent and purpose of the regulations. The standards are more rigorous than for a straight subdivision. Ordinance allows the Planning Commission considerable discretion in imposing conditions and requiring modifications in order to meet the higher standards set for Planned Developments: "...the planning commission... may impose conditions as it deems necessary ...standards, ...including yards, parking, fences and walls, may be modified by the planning commission..." This project will have to be modified in order for the Commission to make the required findings, including: "...will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons... in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;" (see Comment C below) "...meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.090;" (see Comment B below) "...sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site;" (gee Comment C below) "... is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood;" (see Comments below) II . Comments: A. The change from R-2 to a Planned Development does not change the number of units which can be built on this site, but it does impose a higher level of scrutiny on the project than would be required under a standard R-2 subdivision. B. The proposed solution to the guest parking problem is not satisfactory for a number of reasons. It results in a design which will create over-paved front yards dominated by garage doors and cars and incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The spaces proposed pave too much of the front yards, are not large enough, do not allow adequate pedestrian access to front doors without more front yard paving, and are not adequately screened. C. The existing site is generally flat, sloping gently to the east at a drop rate of about 4 feet over 127'. The proposed grading plan will raise Lot 1 approximately 3 to 4 feet in elevation, stepping abruptly down about 4 feet to Lot 2. Although this may save the developer the cost of a yard drain in Lot 1 (one is provided in Lot 4), it creates the following negative impacts: 1. From the NE corner of the Lot to the pad on which the house will be built, approximately the length of a car, the elevation rises about 4 feet. This is a steep rise. Prom the street to the garage door the rise is 3 feet, a safety hazard. 2. The bedrooms in my house (immediately west of Lot 1) are on the east side of the existing structure and approximately 5 feet above the existing lot next door proposed for development. The kitchen- dining area of the proposed new house is on the west side of that structure. If this house were - 4 - built at existing grade, approximately 5 feet below the floor line of my house, my sleeping areas would be somewhat protected from these noisy "public areas" in my new neighbor's home. By raising the grade of the new lot, as proposed, and developing small 40' lots which allow reduced side yards, this PUD proposes to both raise this noise source higher and move it closer to my house than would be allowed under R-2 zoning. III. Recommendations: A. The proposed project should be revised to meet the required guest parking and front yard landscaping standards and returned for review. B. The elevation of Lot 1 should be lowered by approximately 4 feet, and the retaining wall proposed between Lots 1 & 2 moved to the west side of Lot 1. C. In order to mitigate the effects of the reduced side yards and required recreation area at the western edge of this small lot PUD on the adjoining single family residences, a six foot high slump-stone block wall should be required between the project and the properties to the west.