Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-16; City Council; 5168; Specific Plans in the P-C Zone'"* CITY OF r*RLSBAD *-<• I . f/g'w • ^j - .' \ *-,/<? Initial: /// AGENDA BILL NO. J/bl! Dept. Hd.(J[_7^Y DATE: August 16, 1977 City Atty DEPARTMENT: PLANNING City Mgr. SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLANS IN THE P-C ZONE STATEMENT OF THE MATTER REQUEST: The P-C Zone has no development standards other than requiring a per- centage of open space in the Master Plan. Prior to the amendment to the P-C Zone last year the means to acquire development standards was by Specific Plan. Unfortunately, many Specific Plans were adopted without or with little development standards or guidelines. At first this was not a problem because development was occurring as anticipated by the City Council and staff. However as market demands change the developers attempt to meet these new demands. Since there are no development standards on some Specific Plans, changes in type of development can easily be accommodated, even though the City may not have anticipated the new programs. We have had some recent requests of this nature that we feel may be a concern to the Council, especially since the Council has indicated interest in creative design and provide lower cost housing (possibly through higher density). Briefly the requests are to radically reduce densities and change concept from the apartments to single family detached units in areas planned for and public facilities provided for higher density. The attached is staff's report and recommendation. EXHIBITS: Memo to City Council dated 7-27-77 Memo to City Manager dated 7-8-77 Memo to Shapell Industries dated 7-13-77 Letter from.Shapell Industries dated 6-27-77 Memo's from John Stanley (La Costa Attorney) dated 7-28 and 6-21 It is recommended that the City Council initiate action deleting Specific Plans and rezone property as appropriate for each Specific Plan that does not contain proper development standards. Council action 8-16-77 Following discussion the Council accented the Planning Department staff's recommendations as set forth in Memorandum dated July 8, 1977 addressed to the City Mananer from the Planning Director, with a further report as to the implementation. FORM PLANNING 73 DATE: JULY 27, 1977 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT - AREAS APPROVED/SPECIFIC PLAN Recently, the Planning Department brought two projects to my attention in La Costa which they thought were proceeding with development plans contrary to the original intent of the City Council. They also expressed their concern that there were additional areas within the City that this could occur. The first 50 units in Vale III have been approved. This approval was given because they met all the legal require- ments and further, the staff worked with the developer for some time before bringing the matter to my attention. During this period of working with the developer, he went to the extent of preparing all plans necessary up to the point where he was ready to submit for his building permit. On the larger project referred to in the Planning Depart- ment memo, Vale II, the developer has brought in preliminary plans but staff has placed him on notice that we have con- cerns and have not encouraged him in any way to expend additional monies to move ahead. The problem is that he has met or is in the process of meeting all legal require- ments. As the attached memo points out, those requirements are not great. Except for the one or two problems that are pointed out in the attached memo, the staff has not taken the position that the developments are bad. In fact, some small lot developments can be excellent. They are only pointing out that without adequate standards, bad develop- ment could occur and we should certainly move ahead to correct the problem for the future. The staff will schedule a report and make formal recom- mendations concerning this matter as the present work schedule permits. If however, any member of the Council is concerned with the present Vale II project which we are temporarily holding up, they should bring the matter to my attention immediately and we will place it on the Council agenda. If I do not hear from anyone within the next week (thru August 5), I will then notify the applicant that we will process his development, routinely. PAUL 5/. BUSSEY City Manager PDB:ldg Att. MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 8, 1977 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director RE: Condominium Development in Areas Approved by Specific Plan INTRODUCTION: Recently the City has received plans for detached single family units on lots approved by Specific Plans"'for condominiums. They appear to be classic examples of the type of development that the City Council has indicated they found problems with. Unfortunately the City is committed to approve the plans we have accepted for building permits, but staff wishes to review this matter with the City Council for direction on future appli- cations. HISTORY: Prior to the latest amendment to the Planned Community (P-C) zone the method to approve development in the P-C zone was by Specific Plan. Evidently the intent was to approve a site plan for each lot or develop a set of regulations under the process of Specific Plan. Unfortunately this was sometimes unacceptable to developers and land holders because they did not know at the time of subdivision what the site plan would be. To accommodate this apparent problem the City accepted application for Specific Plans that were nothing more than Tract Maps. None or few development standards were established on the plans or made part of the adopting documents, except statements such as certain lots will be used for multiple family condominiums at a certain density. Some Specific Plans indicate that development shall meet standards of a certain zone such as R-3, but site review was never made a part. APPROVED SPECIFIC PLANS: From a brief review of the files it appears there are at least three Specific Plans that lack complete development regulations. These Specific Plans contain approximately 730 dwelling units some of which have already been built. One completed project is a particular problem (Woodbine) because it was built as detached single family residential with no development or use regulation. This means that apartments could be built, garages converted to apartments etc. without City control. There may be other examples of this poor processing in the P-C zone. However, the main issue at this time is on condominium lots approved by S.P. 38 (Vale). VALE III: The City recently approved building permits for a "condo" project in La Costa located along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, north of La Costa Boulevard, known as Vale III. The approved Specific Plan shows only vacant lots with a note stating that the area will be built with multiple family residential at either 11 or 14 DU/AC depending on the lot. There are no development standards on the plan or the adopting documents. At the time of approval it was assumed that the development would be attached units with common parking and open areas, similar to the existing condo developments in La Costa. The approved building permits however, are for 150 detached single family homes. Each of the proposed units are fronted on a private street. The density is approx- imately 5.4 units per acre, less than half the density listed in the General Plan and Master Plan. Staff approved the first phase of 50 units request because there are no development standards on the property. However, we feel that the project is substandard and may lead to problems in the future and will set a low standard for single family development in Carlsbad. For instance, most garages are only 10' from the curb of the private street, this means that if the cars were parked on the drive they would be over the side- walk and extend into the street, some street side yards are only 10' from the street, (R-l standards require approximately 20' from street), the distance between buildings is as low as 10' in some cases, (the R-l has a minimum of 12' along side yard lines); the private streets are 30' curb to curb, (36' is standard City width). In summary the project when completed will appear as a crowded single family development with little private yard, narrow streets, autos parked across sidewalks and insufficient guest parking on the private streets. The private streets will appear like public streets and will be basi- cally the only reason there is a need for a home owners association. There is a good possibility there will be a request to abandon the association and request the City acceptance of the streets. The City could decline, but the Council may find it difficult to deny such a request from concerned citizens that have a problem in that their street needs maintenance. For all intentions the streets are public. The General Plan indicates 10-20 dwelling units per acre and the original subdivider put in utility systems for this higher density. The density approved in the building permit is 5.4 per acre, this means added costs in maintaining these higher than necessary systems at City expense. Not meeting the permitted density also may be a problem when there is a need for multiple family units. It may be necessary to amend GP and zoning to provide higher densities in areas that are less than desirable for such higher density of planning a city. -2- VALE II: We now have received preliminary plans for Vale II. The same condo notes apply as in Vale III, the only difference is the density is to be 11 dwelling units per acre. There are to be 281 units over 25.7 acres for a density of 10.9. There are some attached units, some common open areas (although little is usable), and private streets. It is difficult to acertain from the preliminary plans what all the problems may be. However, since there are no development standards there isn't much staff could do to solve problems at the building permit stage. Therefore, staff is reviewing this with you to deter- mine if the CC finds a problem and if so what can be done. Multiple Family Zone Problem: Although there are specific problems with Specific Plans as noted, there is a common problem occurring in all multiple family zones. The multiple family zones do not require multiple family development or density, they only allow it. Therefore detached units can be built and if condo notes approved could be sold as single family condo units. Since development standards only pertain to the lot there would be little control on development of these SP units. For example the Alicante Hills area of La Costa is zoned RD-M and since it has been converted to acreage it is now one large lot. A condo map could be submitted as a one lot subdivision showing no site planning. Without regulations or guidance the City would approve it. The developer would then have free reins on type of development. This could be detached homes on private streets with no development standards—the same problem as described in the S.P.'s. The difference is that condo map has to be approved and if the City adapted condo regulations the type of development could be determined. ZONE & CONDO PROBLEM: The developments as discussed in this report point out an obvious weakness in the processing of the original P-C zone. In addition, they also point out weakness in our development zones and our lack of having condominium regulations. This same development could be proposed on any multiple family zoned large enough to contain a private street. The only development requirements would be as the units relate to public streets and lot lines. A solution to this problem would be to establish standards for public streets or driveways so they do not appear to be City streets, or re- quire dedication if the street meets certain standards. Adoption of a condominium ordinance will help in regaining City approval for such developments. -3- Another possibility would be to delete detached homes or possibly duplexes from R-3 & RDM zones. This would then force construction of attached units to preclude the development of lower density single family detached units in areas the City is promoting lower cost multiple rental units. However, this takes away flexibility in development, and may not totally achieve the desired end. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: There are many approaches the City can take to place some control on developments as noted. Alternatives staff feels are acceptable are as follows: 1) City initiates amendments to Specific Plans to require plans to be submitted by applicant as an amendment to the Specific Plan prior to development. This is a relatively simple process and may be acceptable to property owners. However, development standards are still missing and the City may have difficulty in properly judging developments. 2) City initiates deletion of Specific Plan and rezone to a develop- ment zone (i.e. R-3, R-2, etc.) with Q overlay (require Site Dev, Plan). The development zone will establish basic development standards and the Q will permit PC review of projects. The SDP is a relatively easy process — PC approval as a non-public hearing item. However, the development zones do not adequately cover the proposal as noted in this report. 3) City initiates deletion of the SP thereby requiring a PUD. This would be the simplest act the City could initiate and give the best control since there are standards and guidelines in the PUD ordinance to direct development. Property owners may find this objectionable since the PUD requires both PC & CC action at public hearings and the development standards and guidelines will require changes to plans presently being proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the matter be forwarded to the CC for the following action: 1) Adopt urgency ordinance prohibiting the approval of building permits for developments in areas approved by SP that do not contain development standards. 2) Initiate deletion of these SP's as stated in alternative 2 & 3 of this report as appropriate for individual SP. 3) Initiate adoption of curb cut standards. 4) Place high priority on adopting condominium standards and condo- minium conversions regulation. BP:JCH:jp 1200 ELM AVENUE H ^32^. ff TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W&WjyJI (714)729-1181 Office of the City Manager €itp of Cartebafo July 13, 1977 Gus Theberge Development Coordinator Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street San Diego, California 92110 Subject: Vale II Subdivision Thank you for your letter dated June 27, 1977. Your concern over the Vale II subdivision lots is certainly understood. The staff, however, is trying to respond to City Council concerns which have been repeatedly expressed over certain development problems. There is little question that the original subdivision approval contemplated condominiums, but of a different nature and configuration than now proposed. The development proposed may or may not be considered as an improvement over the original plans, but there are no development standards which the project can be judged against. I will bring this matter to the Council's attention as early as possible to determine if they wish to take any action on this matter. You will be kept informed of any action concerning this matter. I *~\ City Manager PDBrldg Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc. A Subsidiary of Shapell Industries, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street San Diego, California 92110 (714) 222-0345 June 27, 1977 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Att: Paul Bussey City Manager Re: Vale II Subdivision Dear Mr. Bussey: I met this morning with two members of the Planning Department staff to discuss our Monarch Terrace project designed to be built on Vale II subdivision lots. This condominium project, according to a letter (enclosed herewith) from Mr. Stanley at La Costa, is in conformance with the condo notes on said subdivision so that it is our intention to obtain building permits without further ado. Upon meeting with the staff however, Mr. Plender informed me that although we were technically in conformance with the Specific Plan and P.C. zone, the staff would refer this development to the City Council for review and recommend reversal of the Specific Plan guidelines permitting this type of subdivision. The basis for this action is apparently that current concepts regarding planning and control of such condominium projects can- not be properly managed under the Specific Plan and P.C. zone. It would appear to me that at such time as the Vale II subdivision was approved, a contract was established between the City of Carlsbad and La Costa to which each party is bound. Shapell Industries would like to proceed with its development as quickly as possible and is willing to perform according to the requirements set forth in the ordinance. Paul Bussey City of Carlsbad June 27, 1977 Page 2 Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Regards, SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC, Gus Theberge Development Coordinator cc: Tim Flanagan Bud Plender Irv Roston John Stanley 1 "SH'X "II" 'July 28, 1977 Tn Fred Wforey „ . „ .lo wJ Reply wanted Cyi3L^ From_fr- = - John Stanley . -, ,v . , . JNO icply neccssajy. CITY MEMO FROM HAGMAN TO BUSSEY - CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS APPROVED BY SPECIFIC PLAN In reviewing the memo, I felt several comments would be appropriate. I recognize that what may be "substandard" depends on your beginning premise, It is akin to the difference between a glass of water which, may be either "half full" or "half empty". As one involved when "history v/as made", several omissions and " • incorrect assumptions appear in the memo. The most prominent mis statement is that the specific plans were nothing more than Tract maps. An integral part of the specific plans were the CC&R's for each plan. These CC&R's were required to be and were in fact submitted to the City for approval The CC&R's established development standards greatly in excess of those which would hs.ve been required with conventional zoning. .'- : " At the time Vale III (Warmington) was approved, it was not ^isurned that development would be similar to existing condo developments at La Costa* "We had been very disappointed with prior developments and specifically .felt that the density allowed wag too high and that the use of common parking shoulu uC dlSGuuraged. Consequently., the CC&R's provided for a specific number of units per lot and required two off street parking places, one being covered or enclosed. We in fact contemplated a mix of imits along the line of Green View and La Costa Village, both of which have individualized units and private streets at a density of less than 10 units to the acre though 40 would have been allowed under the Zoning Code. The project is not substandard but in effect greatly exceeds the required standards. •. . •..._.. The standards to "be applied are those of a. meckum, density u-evelo pin tint,. e.g. R-3 as opposed to that of medium low density, e.g. R-l. The only difference is that single units are envisioned instead, of buildings containing two or more units. For instance in Marbella there is no space between the garages and the internal private street. Guest parking is almost completely limited to parking in front of the garages with resulting traffic congestion. In. La Costa Village and Green View some street yard set backs are virtually nonexistent. MEMO- Frp~**Morey ' \July 28, 1977 V. - . - Page Two - An additional reason why street set backs are as small as indicated is that the City requested additional street width though there appears to be no legal justification. However, the effect is to greatly increase the availability of guest parking on the private streets. In addition, the plan submitted provides for covered parking greatly in excess of that otherwise required. • The homeowners association will also be employed to assure maintenance of individual units as well as maintenance of the streets .. I see no more reason why the City should be subject to any more pressure for the maintenance of these private streets than would be the case in Green View. • Oversizing of the utility systems means no additional costs to the City. ' • The City furnishes none of the utilities. It is self evident that less use means less wear and tear. In any event, a conventional apartment could have been built at the same density which likewise lessens the burden of the City's sewer and water capacities. ' - In the same manner, the nature of the proposed development no more requires the City to allow higher densities in other areas than 1,vGuId conventional apartments at the same density. ' In no way'is the General Plan being violated. According to the Carlsbad General ?i5.H Cl^nsity r?,?.£es are intended only to set a guaranteed density at the lower end with anything in excess subject to proof of worthiness.. Specifically, the setting of density instead of specifying types of residential . development at a specific number of units per acre was intended to encourage- flexibility in using zoning and specific plans. (See General Plan, Classification, Residential) . Vale II: Shapell • . In this project all of the City's arguments because of the failure to meet densitv fall. The City's complaint is that It does not feel that it . • •- has sufficient development standards to control the project. However, even as the subject report finally conceeds there is no difference in the standard from any other parcels of property subject to higher density than R-l. . The report ignores the fact that conventional development standards have been met: major circulation, parks, schools, water, sewer, and other public facilities. . ' • The report assumes a desirability for the City to assume the function of determining site and architectural quality instead of leaving that function in the private sector where it would be determined by "the market place. MEMO- iCj Morey July 28, 1977 v ' . Page Three None of the alternative solutions v/ould be acceptable to me and I would have considerable doubt if any of them would be legal unless they were applied to all property regardless of how zoned. I see nothing which would require any change whatsoever. Contrary the benefits to the City appear to far outweigh any detriment. To enumerate only a few; (1) traffic burden is lessened, utility consumption is lessened, park and school burden lessened; (2) preferred housing is made available at less land cost; (3) response to a market demand of those who desire detached dwelling units without large yards which require large expenditures of energy and labor. In short what the report proposes to do is defeat one of the City's major goals in its General Plan: to encourage innovative planning to provide for a mix of housing to meet a variety of net JOtfNV. STANLEY iT... DON'T XL' IT Date.June 21, 1977 IRV ROSTONlo__ . . —_ Reply wanted. tR COStR From JOHN STANLEY No rep]y necessary___ Re: VALE II CONDOMINIUM NOTE You have requested nay opinion as to processing for a condominium, project consisting of one or more subdivided lots within this subdivision with the City of Carlsbad. The Subject Property is zoned P. C. The subdivision map bears a note which recites that the applicable lots "are lots and is (sic) a condominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and is filed pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act". Under this procedure, each lot is thus a subdivision (condominium.) and no further subdivision map need be filed. Government Code Section 66427 provides that the governing body cannot refuse to approve a subdivision because of the placement of buildings, etc., so long as they are not violative of local ordinances. Civil Code Section 1370 provides that unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed, local zoning ordinances shall be construed to treat like structures, lots, or parcels in like manner regardless of whether the ownership thereof is divided by sale of condominiums rather than by lease of apartments. The City of Carlsbad has not expressed a contrary intent by ordinance. Under the P. C. ordinance, prior to last year's amendment, setbacks were established by each specific plan. In the early subdivisions, the specific plan resolution made no references to setbacks but merely left them to establishment in the CC&R's. For Vale II, we provided only for a front yard setback. No side yard setbacks were established as we con- templated that a project might consist of more than one lot. Subsequent P. C, zoned subdivisions have incorporated conventional set- backs by specific references to those required in conventional subdivisions, e.g, R-l in Green Valley Knolls. It is my understanding that because there is no reference in Vale II to side yards, the City Engineer has interpreted this to require those which would be required in a RDM zone. The RDM zone (Carlsbad Code Section 21. 24. 050(3)) allows a zero side line setback upon application if the owners of both lots are in agree- ment. However, where adjacent lots are owned by the same person, I see no legal reason why an application would be necessary. The Carlsbad Code Section 21.04.075(2) defines building site as including two or more lots when used in combination for a building or group of buildings. Section 21.46.050 provides for an automatic modification of side yard requirements where a building or group of buildings covers the common boundary line between two lots. In such cases, the combined V,--" MEMO Irv Roston June 21, 1977 Page Two lots constitute a single building site. In conclusion I see no legal reason why building permits cannot be drawn for structures which might either cover lot lines or encroach in. what would otherwise be required side yards. In addition, I see no practical reason why the City should first require a boundary adjustment eliminating interior lot lines as a condition of granting building permits as the City's building code allows the City to require the construction of necessary improvements as a condition of approval of building permits. In the instant case, all subdivision improvements which would be required have already been installed. The only caveat I would add is that it may take City Council action to clarify the matter and compliance with the simple procedure of a boundary adjustment might be faster. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that a conference with the City Engineer and Planning Director be set up to determine their respective positions before proceeding further* JOHNV. STANLEY cc: David Zenoff Fred Morey