HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-03; City Council; Resolution 58321
2
3
4
5
6
E
s
1c
11
1<
2(
2:
2:
2;
21
2!
2t
2’
2l
RESOLUTION NO. 5832
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 79-3) AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT (CP-3) FOR THE
CONVERSION OF AN 80-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX
TO CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 4.9 ACRES OF
LAND, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWXEN
THE S.D.G.& E. TRANSMISSION EASEMENT
AND ALGA ROAD. APPLICANT: VON ELTEN.
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1979, the Carlsbad Planning Commission
Idopted Resolution No. 1523 recommending to the City Council
:he Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 79-3) and Condominium Permit
(CP-3) be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
June 19, 1979, held a public hearing to consider the recommendation
>f the Planning Commission and to receive all recommendations
md hear all persons interested in or opposed to said Tentative
Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, acting as Lead Agency, has
processed said property through environmental guidelines pursuant
to Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State EIR
guidelines.
environmental review according to Section 19.04.090(a)(8) which
This project has been found to be exempt from
exempts the division of existing multiple family rental units
into condominiums.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That the City Council concurs with the findings and
decisions of the Planning Commission as expressed in
1
2
9
10
11
1% 0
1:
2c
21
2:
2;
24
2f
2e
2:
2f
Resolution No. 1523, on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by reference herein and, in addition, the City
Council makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. Ct 79-3/CP-3 does not meet the design criteria as
required by Section 21.47.110 of the Condominium
Ordinance.
The plan is not comprehensively designed; the required amenities including parking, land- scaping, recreation areas, storage, and refuse locations were added with great difficulty to meet only the minimum requirements. The attempt to upgrade to condominium standards, a project initially designed as apartments, has resulted in amenities being crammed into any available
area instead of planned with consideration of
their proper interrelationship.
The buildings are not well integrated to parking
and recreation areas because parking and paved areas intrude between buildings and must be
crossed by pedestrian residents to reach the recreation site.
This development, as proposed ownership units, is not compatible with existing and potential traffic circulation because:
( i) The buildings are close to heavily traveled El Camino Real and will have high noise levels due to traffic.
( ii) Traffic on El Camino Real will increase as the La Costa residential and nearby industrial and commercial areas are developed. Traffic is expected to ultimately be in excess of 40,000 auto trips per day.
The internal street system is a dominant feature
in the development since it surrounds the development and projects into the interior.
Common recreation areas are not centrally located
and are not readily accessible to several of
the units. Some residents will be required to travel several hundred feet across driveways and parking areas and in front of other units to reach the common recreation area.
Building placement does not create private areas nor reduce noise from El Camino Real. The
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
2e
buildings in the development are oriented to one
another and to the parking and driveway areas.
Several of the buildings are close to El Camino
Real so noise will be a problem.
2. This project does not meet the parking requirements
of Section 21.47.130(2).
(a) One hundred eighty-three spaces are required;, only 168 have been provided.
(b) The spaces are not readily accessible to the units they are supposed to serve.
(c) The northern parcel parking area is not acceptable for required parking since it is too distant from the units to properly serve that function and is separated from the rest of the development
by a full-width City street. The area would
be acceptable for RV and trailer storage only, since vehicles need not be readily accessible.
3. The project does not meet the development standards for residential condominiums in Section 21.47.130(1) of the Condominium Ordinance because the required building setbacks of the units are not maintained.
Ten foot setbacks from the right-of-way of private streets are required for all structures. Several buildings along the eastern and southern portions of the site are set back less than the required distance.
Twenty-five foot setbacks are required for parking
structures with an entrance at right angles to
a private street. Two buildings along the southern
side of the property have garage openings at right
angles to the private street and are only set
back eight feet. A building fronting on the eastern private street also has garage openings to that street and is set back only fifteen feet.
Buildings with garages entered directly from
private drives shall be set back five to seven feet or greater than twenty feet. The buildings with garage openings fronting on private drives are being constructed with only a three foot setback.
C. Thatbased on the reasons contained in the findings
set out above, the Council is satisfied that the project in
question does not meet the requirements of Chapter 21.47 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and therefore must be denied.
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t u 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. That since the application for the Condominium
Conversion Permit has been denied, and such permit is a
prerequisite to the approval of a Subdivision Map for a
condominium conversion, the Tentative Subdivision Map must be
denied as well for failure to comply with the applicable
zoning ordinance.
E. That this decision is final upon adoption of this
resolution. The time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought is governed by the 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 not later than the ninetieth day
following the date on which this decision becomes final; however,
if within ten 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 cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the
thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either
personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one.
of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
92008.
A written request for the preparation
///
///
///
-4-
E
l!
21
2:
2,
2
2
2
2
2
2
'ASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Zouncil of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
3rd day of July , 1979 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Councilmen Packard, Skotnicki, Lewis, Anear and
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Councilwoman Cas ler
ATTEST:
( SEAL)
-5-