The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-10-01; City Council; Resolution 91-323v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 l3 14 I.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W - RESOLUTION NO. 91-323 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PARTIALLY GRANTING AND DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING MINOR SUBDIVISION 81 8 (BLUMENSHINE) GENERALLY LOCATED ATTHE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF HIGHLAND DRIVE NORTH OF RATCLIFF ROAD. WHEREAS, a verified application for a three (3) lot Minor Subdlvlsion No. 81 8 located on Highland Drive north of Ratcliff Road and described as: A portion of Lot 38 of Lebarr Estates, Unit No. 2, Per Map 4944, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar Hill Addition, per Map 532. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad in conformance with Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer on March 13, 1991 denied said application on the grounds that the project proposed grading of areas determined to be undevelopable, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 -53.230 of the Municipal Code because grading was proposed in areas with slopes exceeding 40%; and WHEREAS, applicant did on April 6, 1990 appeal the decision of the City Engineer to the City Council of Carlsbad representing that: "Proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation.'' .- and further stating in writing that if the appealwas granted that "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. A turnaround for cars at the end of Highland Drive with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodible soil with a potential for surficial failures." 2. 3. 4. Ill Ill ~~ ~~~~ ~ 6 / 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 e e WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990 the City Council heard and granted applicant's app based in part on appellant's representation set forth above and returned the project to the ( Engineer for further review to determine whether or not conditions could be placed on 1 subdivision that would enable it to make the required findings to approve it; WHEREAS, on July 15, 1991 the City Engineer pursuant to Municipal Code appro1 Minor Subdivision No. 818 with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1991 applicant again filed an appeal of the City Enginel decision pertaining to Conditions #8, #9 and #23 which represented the conditions appel had in part previously represented were necessary and reasonable for approval; and WHEREAS, on September 17,1991 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a ( noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal and at said hearing i consideration of all the evidence, testimony and arguments of those persons present desiring to be heard, the City Council approved Minor Subdivision 81 8 and directed the Attorney to prepare documents which would partially grant the appeal and uphold the Engineer's decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlst California as follows: 1. 2. That the above recitations are true and correct. That in conformance with Section 66474 of the Government Code Municipal Code Section 20.24.130, Minor Subdivision 81 8 is approved subject to conditions of approval contained within the City Engineer's approval letter of July 15, 1 except for the amendment of Condition 23A to read as follows: "Condition 23A - The removal and replacement of the existing 24l CMP to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." 3. I Except as modified above, applicant's appeal is denied. Applican not present adequate evidence to prove that the subdivision would be physically suitablc development absent the reasonable conditions mitigating grading and other environm( impacts and provision of acceptable drainage improvements to replace existing facilitie! 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 The City Council finds that based on the Tentative Parcel Map/Site PI submittal and the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Ron Gutier and Erik J. Nelson dal February 17,1989 the Subdivision as proposed incudes substantial remedial grading to ins1 the public health and safety associated with subsequent land development. The Council finds that removal and replacement of exist "uncompacted fill soils with uniformly compacted structural fill" will require the reconstructi of existing drainage facilities and that the provision of these improvements are reasonal related to the parcels being created. 4. The City Council further finds that the application of the provisions Municipal Code Chapter 20.09 pertaining to the imposition of drainage fees was appropriat adopted in conformance with applicable State Law and have been uniformly applied for excess of ten (1 0) years. The Subdivision proposed is properly subject to provisions of tho codes and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the code was bei inappropriately applied to this Subdivision. 5. The City Council further finds that the site is not physically suitable the proposed three lot subdivision without the substantial remedial grading work. TI substantial remedial grading will require the removal and replacement of an existing 24" sto drain. This grading is necessary and reasonably required in order to create a safe ai reliable building pad to support a future structure. Without this remedial grading the s would likely not safely support a structure and would represent a risk to the public safety ai safety of future residents. In addition it would likely result in future property damage. The City Council further finds that it is necessary for the protection a1 preservation of public safety and the environment that 79% of the proposed site be retain as open space. These areas are environmentally constrained in that they consist of slopl over 40% which cannot be developed for residential use. 1 6. 7. The City Council further finds that the drainage fees imposed on ti proposed subdivision are reasonably related to the impacts created by it in that the fees E c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 3.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 imposed on a gross acre basis and appellant will burden the storm drain system accordance with the formula and calculations upon which it was based. 8. The City Council further finds that the appellant has two existing le lots at this site and that appellant is not deprived of all reasonable economic use of * parcel. Appellant has neither applied for nor been denied building permits for the two existing legal lots. Appellant can withdraw or modify the proposal to avoid the challen! conditions and still enjoy reasonable development rights. "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later that the ninetieth (90) day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) 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 costs of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later that the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the patty, 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 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City COI held on the 1st day of October , 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Larson, Stanton and Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin CikbDE A. LEMhS, MaGor L ATTEST: (5?4k&dpc ALmHA L. muTENKmwJ (SEAL)