Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-01-07; City Council; 3267; Land division of lots in the RD0M or R-2 zonesC I T Y CARLSBAD, Agenda Bill No. 3^jk7 Referred To: C A L I F O R tf I A Pate.- January 7r 1975 subject: i_anci Division of Lots in the RD-M or R-2 Zones Submitted By: Planning Corran./—y~, /{ ate^ejit of the Matter: Letter received from Mr. Robert M. Allan, President, Standard Pacific, San Diego, requesting the City to consider the problem of undivided interest in a duplex development. Staff has responded by report to the City Manager dated December 11, 1974. Exhibit: Standard Pacific Letter of November 27, 1974 Staff Report to City Manager of December 11, 1974 Map (On display) Staff Recommendations to City Manager: The Council respond to Mr. Allan, Standard Pacific, San Diego, indicating the Council's reluctance to permit the subdivision of minimum lots in the RD-M and R-2 Zone of less than 7500 sq. ft. c No. Date: January 7. 1975 City Manager's Recommendation The attached request from Mr. Robert M. Allan is in specific reference to their Tentative Map CT 74-16. A copy of that map will be on exhibit. The staff report prepared by Mr. Agatep has suggested that one way that Mr. Allan can proceed is with a rezoning to the PC Zone and reprocessing the subdivision. Mr. Allan has pointed out that he does not wish to do this because of the need for Homeowners Associations but this has been the way other developers have processed substandard lots. The second alternative that Mr. Agatep presents is the development of a new ordinance which allows substandard condominium lots under specific conditions. I am not recommending that this be done at this time on the basis of a single request. The Planning staff has numerous projects which are already behind schedule. Council Action 1-7-75 It was agreed that the staff recommendation be accepted and that no action be taken on the matter. -2- C > •"'v,. STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO EI3 November 27, 1974 City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Carlsbad, CA 92008 Gentlemen: This letter is in regard to a problem that we have on our project CT 74-16. The problem is one that will effect other approved and proposed residential projects in Carlsbad. As you may remember CT 74-16 is a 230 lot, 460 unit, project on Poinsettia Road. Our plan for the project was to construct a duplex on each lot and then sell each living unit, together with a 1/2 undivided in- terest in the lot, separately. We had planned to sell with con- ventional financing as F.H.A. and V.A. do not finance undivided half interests. With the recent changes in government financing i.e.. the "Ginnie Mae" program and other like programs coming up, it would be advantageous to both the developer and the buyer to be able to use these programs. The simplest way to use the government programs would be to divide the lots in half so that clear title to the 1/2 lot could be conveyed. We believe the Zoning Ordinance should be changed to allow the creation of smaller lots, i.e., in the R.D.M. Zone, a min- imum lot size is 6,000 square feet, but 2 or more units are allowed to be constructed on the lot. If in the case of a duplex, the lot could be divided with the duplex becoming a 0-lot line - common wall structure on a 3,000 sq. ft. or larger lot, many governmental financing programs would be available. In the particular case of CT 74-16, the average lot size is 9,300 square feet with the minimum lot size being 8,000 square feet. If these lots could be divided, we then would have a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. No grading, plotting, fencing or other physical change would occur. It would be possible to reprocess the CT 74-16 with a P.C. Zone 7670 clairemont mesa blvd. / san diego, California 92111 / (714) 279-2042 City of Carlsbad November 27, 1974 Page Two request and provide postage stamp lots to achieve a living unit on each lot. This procedure would create large common areas to be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The assessments for common area maintenance then become high enough to keep the project from qualifying for certain governmental financing programs. We also could use a condominium approach with the units as air space units and the lots as shown on CT 74-16 as exclusive use areas. While this approach would allow clear titles to pass, the F.H.A. and V.A. are not approving condominium projects for financing at the present time in the North County area. The condominium market is overbuilt. The economic value, of allowing the lots as shown on CT 74-16 to be divided, to the buyer of a unit, is a decrease in monthly pay- ment of approximately $75.00. This lower monthly payment would allow more families to qualify, and be able to enjoy the advantages of single family living in a fine development. We ask that the City Council consider this problem, and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for the appropriate action. Very truly yours, STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO Robert M. Allan President RMA:cin xc: City Manager, Paul Bussey Planning Director, Don Agatep Harry Truax, Brian Smith Engineers c o MEMORANDUM December 11, 1974 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: STANDARD PACIFIC LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1974 REGARDING SUB-STANDARD LOTS IN THE RD-M ZONE The Planning Department has reviewed the request submitted by Mr. Allan of Standard Pacific and is of the opinion that his analysis of permitting sub-standard lots in the City is correct in most cities in the County. Planning Department has contacted the City of Oceanside, El Cajon, San Diego with respect to sub-standard lots in RD-M, R-2 or other zone and the general opinion seems to indicate that there are a number of problems which are produced when a standard 7500 square foot lot is reduced to two 3700 foot lots. Some of the problems that occur are that the lots are minimum and'.would not allow for additional expansion of house or patio without intruding into required front yard, side yard or rear yard, thus necessitating variance or other deviation from ordinance requirements. Additionally, by reducing a standard 7500 square foot lot to a smaller size only leads to problems with planning and lot consolidation potentials when developments are amortized in twenty to thirty years. City of El Cajon has adopted a requirement that a planned unit development (PUD) be applied by special use permit and public hearing, imposing conditions on sub-standard lots. The condition attempts to minimize future planning impacts. Review of Mr. Allan's letter indicates the only reasonable alternative to create sub-standard lots with adequate controls is to utilize the planned community zone (P-C). Use of the Planned Community requires adopting a specific plan per planned community zone requirements. Also, tne true intent of cluster housing and commonly maintained open space and recreation areas would have to be incorporated into the plan. The second method of accomplishing sub-standard lots is to process the tentative map with a condominium note which permits air space subdivision at the time the map is recorded. A second part of Mr. Allan's question on sub-standard lots, or undivided half interest of a standard lot is; the position that VA-FHA takes with respect to ownership, the position that title companies hold and tax bill considerations for undivided half interest ownership. FHA-VA and the title companies are reluctant to guarantee loans or to issue title insurance policies on projects where ownership involves more than one. person in half interest. A number of legal problems, maintenance problems, have arisen where Page 2 - now these agencies no longer guarantee loan committments or issue title. Additionally, the taxing program on undivided half interest is not reflected as two separate tax bills, but each owner has a share of the tax responsibility. For example, one half of a duplex has a swimming pool, the total value of the improve- ments on one lot is increased and the person who does not benefit from the swimming pool is assessed a higher value than the improvements that he actually has control over. It is my recommendation that the City Council take one of the two following actions: 1) Report to Mr. Allan, Standard Pacific, that the appropriate way to accomplish his desired sales program, undivided interest in one half of a duplex, would be to process a rezoning to planned community and adopt a specific plan as outlined in the Planned Community Ordinance. 2) The alternative would be for the City to develop a Planned Unit Development/ x Condominium process which would permit the division of land under specific conditions outlined as part of the planning process. This approach could preclude the development of sub-standard lots in the long term to that the issues of minimum yards setback intrusions, lot consolidations, would . not be a problem. Problems therefore would be minimized in future planning efforts. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact my office at your convenience. Donald A. Agatep PLANNING DIRECTOR DAA/vb \