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