Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-11; City Council; Resolution 2017-060RESOLUTION NO. 2017-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CARLSBAD TRACT CT 14-11, NONRESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 16-02, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 14-10 FOR A TWENTY (20) UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING ON APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT 4509 ADAMS STREET, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE AGUA HEDIONDA SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: CASE NO.: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB & RESORT CT 14-11/PUD 16-02/CUP 14-10 EXHIBIT 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that, pursuant to the provisions ofthe Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on February 15, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Tentative Tract Map CT 14-11, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 14-10 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7200, recommending denial of CT 14-11/PUD 16-02/CUP 14-10; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Tentative Tract Map, Nonresidential Planned Unit Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map, Nonresidential Planned Unit Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the denial of Tentative Tract Map CT 14-11, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 14-10, is approved, and that the findings and conditions ofthe Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7200, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7200 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 14-11, NONRESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 16-02, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 14-10 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A RESTAURANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY (20) UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING ON APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED AT 4509 ADAMS STREET, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE AGUA HEDIONDA SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB & RESORT CASE NO.: CT 14-11/PUD 16-02/CUP 14-10 EXHIBIT 3 WHEREAS, James Courtney, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by VIP Partners, "Owner," described as THE WESTERLY 133.71 FEET OF LOT 7 IN BLOCK "D" OF BELLAVISTA, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2152, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 7, 1929, SAID 133.71 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map, Non- Residential Planned Development Permit, and Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"Q" dated September 21, 2016, on file in the Planning Division CT 14-11/PUD 16-02/CUP 14-10 -CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB & RESORT, as provided by Chapters 20.12, 21.47, and 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on September 21, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and at the request of the applicant, tabled consideration of the request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on February 1 and February 15, 2017, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, and Conditional Use Permit. Item #4 April 11, 2017 Page 8 of 213 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 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 CT 14-11/PUD 16-02/CUP 14-10 -CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB & RESORT, based on the following findings: Findings: Tentative Tract Map 1. 2. That the proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General Plan, in that: a. b. C. The massing and intensity of use associated with the timeshare project is not compatible with the existing and future single family land uses and character of the surrounding properties. Commercial infill projects adjacent to existing residential uses need to meet a higher standard of compatibility than is provided by the proposed project. The project would need to be significantly reduced in massing and size, and be a less intensive use than 20 timeshare units, in order to meet that higher standard. The nature of the transient visitor use and the potential for noise, traffic and other operational impacts of the timeshare use are not compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. The use of Adams Street already presents inherent conflicts between vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and adding traffic from the timeshare project will exacerbate the conflicts. The number of timeshare unit bedrooms allows for higher occupancy of the units with more cars, which may exceed the number of parking spaces proposed by the project. The traffic associated with the addition of 20 timeshare units, nine of which are two-or three-bedroom units, will exacerbate the existing potential for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle conflicts on the adjacent Adams Street given its curvilinear design including blind curves. The project does not propose a swimming pool and swimming is not permitted in the lagoon, so timeshare guests would primarily want to use boats on the lagoon. The project is not designed with enough parking or space to accommodate the number of public boats and trailers that should realistically be expected onsite. That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed project because it does not include sufficient parking spaces and maneuvering room for the 20 timeshare units combined with public boat and trailer access to the boat ramp. Even if the project limits public boats to a maximum of six boat launches at any given time as stated by the applicant, the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the plans show sufficient parking spaces for six vehicles and boat trailers. Nonresidential Planned Development Permit 3. The proposed use at the particular location is not necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility, and will not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and the community, in that other uses could be proposed for development on the site consistent with the Residential PC RESO NO. 7200 -2-Item #4 April 11, 2017 Page 9 of 213 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 Tourist zone that would be less intensive and more compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and the timeshare use without any more publicly available amenity does not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood. Conditional Use Permit 4. 5. That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is not in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan, in that other uses could be proposed for development on the site consistent with the Residential Tourist zone that would be less intensive and more compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and the design of the proposed timeshare project is not compatible with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood at the scale and intensity proposed. That the site for the proposed conditional use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood, in that: a. b. C. The proposed project does not include sufficient parking spaces and maneuvering room for the 20 timeshare units combined with public boat and trailer access to the boat ramp. Even if the project limits public boats to a maximum of six boat launches a day as stated by the applicant, the plans do not show sufficient parking spaces for six vehicles with boat trailers. The design of the proposed timeshare project is not compatible with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood at the scale and intensity proposed. The nature of the transient visitor use and the potential noise, traffic and other operational impacts of the timeshare use are not compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. PC RESO NO. 7200 -3-Item #4 April 11, 2017 Page 10 of 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on February 15, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Anderson, Goyarts, L'Heureux and Montgomery Commissioners Black and Siekmann 12 JEFF SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATIEST: ~Yl DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7200 -4-Item #4 April 11, 2017 Page 11 of 213