HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-06; City Council; 5181; Condominiums Conversions Curb-Cut Driveway StandardsCITY OF r'RLSBAD
i Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Q /gy Dept. Hd.
NATE: .qgp+0n.Hc.r 6, 1077 City Atty _
DEPARTMENT: _ PLANNING __ City Mgr.
SUBJECT! -
CONDOMINIUMS, CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS AND CURB-CUT DRIVEWAY
STANDARDS .
STATEMENT OF THETATTER
At your last regular meeting the City Council discussed problems involving condominium
development especially in areas with Specific Plans that do not have development
standards and in large lot Multiple -Family Zones. Staff was instructed to draft a
condominium and condominium conversion ordinance and to develop standards for curb
cuts and driveways. In addition Staff was to research the need for an urgency
ordinance that could be applied if the Council desired to halt building permits in
areas, zones or Specific Plans where the City lacks proper development standards.
Staff has researched this matter as reported in the attached memo to the City Manager.
In addition, staff has prepared preliminary studies for the development of condo-
minium, condominium conversions and curb cut driveway standards. Staff has also
worked with the applicant on the condominium project that was discussed at your
meeting and we feel the major concerns expressed by council are being resolved.
Based on or staffs findings of the slight possibility of projects being developed
in the near future without development standards and the cooperation of the (Specific
Plan 38) Vale II developers in working with the City staff to solve the expressed
city's concerns with their project, we are not recommending a moratorium be excepted
by the City Council at this time.
EXHIBITS ;
Memorandum to City Manager from Planning Director, dated 9/1/77
Exhibit "A" dated 9/1/77 - Condominium and Condominium Conversion
Exhibit "B" dated 9/1/77 - Curb Cut and Driveway Standards
Memo to City Manager from Planning Director dated 7/8/77
RECOMMENDATIONS :
1. That an Urgency Ordinance not be adopted at this time based on staffs' findings
contained in attached report. If the City Council disagrees with this recommen
dation and wishes to stop development, your action is to direct City Attorney to
return with an Urgency Ordinance at your adjourned meeting of September 13, 1977.
The Urgency Ordinance should prohibit the issuance of building permits for more
than one unit per lot in SP-38 and all R-3, R-P, and RDM zoned properties that
are larger than one acre.
2. That the City Council direct staff to complete Ordinance Amendment studies on
Condominium, Condominium Conversions, curb cuts, driveways & similar matters
as indicated in preliminary studies contained in Exhibit "A" &-,"B".
3. That City Council direct City Attorney to prepare final study into Ordinance
and Planning Director to set matter to public hearing before Planning Commission
as soon as possible. «
4. Direct Staff td update MRF development standards and draft ordinance for dis-
discussion that requires enclosed parking for single family residences.
AGENDA BILL NO. 5181 ~2' September 6, 1977
Council action
9-6-77 The Council accepted staff recommendations as contained in
Agenda Bill #5181 dated September 6, 1977.
MEMORANDUM
September 1, 1977
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
RE: Condominiums, Condominium Conversions and Driveway
Standards
Recently Staff brought to the attention of the City Council some prob-
lems with City approved Specific Plan allowing condominiums with
little if any development standards. We explained that these
problems are complex and that they reflect problems with our P-C
Zone, Multiple Family Zone, curb cut/driveway standards and the
lack of a review process for condominiums. In particular we explained
that the City has approved and is in the process of reviewing building
permits for condominiums in subdivisions in the P-C Zones where the
Specific Plans have no development standards. There are some
problems in these- particular subdivisions in that the condominiums
have poor traffic circulation, inadequate visitor parking and offer
a few amenities. Also, it was explained that this could occur in
any Multiple-Family Zone where the lot is large enough to allow
development on a private drive.
At the conclusion of the report, Staff recommended that an urgency
ordinance be adopted to place a moratorium on the issuance of
building permits for condominium developments that lack sufficient
development standards. In addition, Staff recommended that the
condominium regulation ordinance now being drafted be made high
priority, that apartment conversions to condominiums be regulated
as condominiums, and that City study curb cut and driveway standards.
The following is a discussion on each of the matters of concern.
Urgency Ordinance Moratorium on Condominiums! At our discussion
with the City Council,Staff indicated that we were working with a
developer that is designing approximately 280 unit condominium
within an area approved by a Specific Plan that does not have develop-
ment standards. Staff felt at that time these preliminary plans
had design problems especially pertinent to visitor parking, access,
and private streets that appeared to be public streets. Staff also
explained that at this time we did not know how many more Specific
Plans of this nature were approved. The City Council directed Staff
to further research this matter and return with report and with an
Urgency Ordinance to halt processing further condominiums until
condominium ordinance could be adopted if such ordinance was considered
necessary.
Staff's analysis of the Specific Plans processed by the City indicated
that the only Specific Plan for Multiple-Family Residential, not yet
built out that does not contain development standards is Vale II
(SP-38). Further research into Vale II finds that a portion is in the
process of being developed by Warmington Corporation; Staff feels
that this development has shortcomings but building permits have
already been issued. Another portion of Vale II is being developed
with single-family residential homes and Staff has arbitrarily
required R-l development standards be adhered to. The remaining
portion of Vale II is the Shapell Proposal which was discussed at
your last meeting.
Since your last meeting we have reviewed your concerns with the
Shapell project. We believe we have made progress in solving these
concerns. The developer has indicated they will provide visitor
parking within each of the private street areas, proper turnarounds,
and design driveways so they appear to be private drives instead of
public streets. As of this writing we have suggested some changes
in design as locating parking in private streets, garage setbacks,
automatic garage-door openers; common refuse pickup areas. Of course
the developer could request building permits ignoring Staff's
suggestions.(However'we have attached a letter from the developer
indicating general agreement with Staff suggestions and that they
will submit the CC&R for our review.)
A related problem is the development of condominiums in any zone
where the lots are large enough for private streets. This is a
particular problem in the Multiple Family Zone because the density
will permit crowding of the units. There are fourteen Multiple-
Family zoned areas in the City that could be developed in this manner
and one already has a condominium map. Nine are in Carlsbad Sewer
District and therefore Staff feels that the problem is not an
immediate concern because condominium regulations can be adopted
prior to sewer availability. Five of these areas are within the
Leucadia District, therefore out of City control. It is always
possible that the Leucadia District would approve sewer hookups.
However, Leucadia apparently has the same sewer situation as Carlsbad.
Staff feels that the development problems associated with condominiums
on properties that have Specific Plans without proper development
standards or Multiple-Family Residential zones is not immediate at
this time, therefore we do not recommend adoption of an urgency
ordinance. However, Staff will keep the City Council informed on
the progress of the Shapell Industries project designs.
CONDOMINIUMS
The City's lack of condominium regulations was brought to the attention
of the City Council last April while hearing a Tract Map for a
condominium (CT 77-5 Pelican Properties). That particular condo-
-2-
minium request was for a one lot subdivision. Although City
process requires a public hearing the State Map Act and Condominium
Regulations do not require proposed structures be made part
of the map. Therefore the City had no site development control
other than public facilities on the development. The City Council
expressed a desire to have condominium regulations for the processing
of Site Plans. Staff pointed out development standards should
recognize condominiums as requiring different development standards
than normal apartment standards. For instance in apartments the
maintenance is the responsibility by a single owner or manager,
while under multiple-ownership, maintenance is the responsibility of
an association. This is a particular problem if repairs for one unit
effect other units i.e. water line leak, sewer line stopage, etc.
The City Council subsequently heard a request for a conversion of an
apartment to condominium (CT 77-11). Staff recommended denial and
pointed out that the same needs exist in condominium conversion as
new condominiums. Since the August 16, 1977 City Council meeting,
Staff has reviewed this matter further. We found that many cities
believe it's the City's responsibility to insure that condominiums
are developed on the principle of multiple ownership=providing ease
of maintenance, sufficient storage and parking and onsite amenities
to meet desires of families in a homeownership situation.
Many cities now require Public Hearing processing by either Conditional
Use Permit or as Planned Unit Development. Other cities consider
condominiums and Planned Unit Developments as the same type of
development. Staff reviewed Carlsbad's Planned Unit Development
requirements and feel that with some adjustments, they can be appropriate
for condominiums.
Conversions to Condominiums; Conversion of apartments to condominiums
is an expeditious way of achieving homes for individual ownership.
This is done by simply having a one lot subdivision adopted by the
City and having a corporation approved by the State Department of
Real Estate. Many cities in California have expressed concerns
about conversions since apartment conversions reduce the supply of
rental units and increases the cost of units.
Since most of the apartments were designed for rentals they do not
contain amenities that are generally considered important for home
ownership. If there is a basis for requiring new condominiums to
have higher standards than apartments, then it stands to reason
that the converted apartments should also contain reasonable
condominium amenities. (A side problem of having condominium
regulations but none for conversion is that a loop hole is made which
will allow development of apartments only to be converted into
condominiums at a later date thereby passing condominium regulations).
Non-Condominium Development; It has been noted that if condominium
standards are adopted there will be a difference in the development
standards for condominiums and apartments.
-3-
Planning staff acknowledges these differences and feels that the
present Multiple-Family Residential standards are outdated and
should be comprehensively amended.
An example of an inconsistency is covered parking. Planned Unit
Developments require covered parking whereas all other developments
do not including single family dwellings. In order to stop the
conversion of garages to living quarters, the City Council should
consider an ordinance change.
Driveway - Curb Cuts; Curb cut and driveway standards are necessary
to insure proper on-site traffic movement and street safety as well
as providing guidelines for developers.
Presently Carlsbad does not have curb cut/driveway regulations. It
is now possible for a developer to design a curb cut and either
develop the driveway without paving or constructed to appear as a
City street. For example in some R-2 zones developers are placing
two driveways on a lot thus reducing street parking. This means a
60-70 foot lot will have at least 40 feet of curb cut with little or
no on-street parking.
There are other problems created by not having driveway standards
such as inadequate turning radius and clear distances for refuse
and safety vehicles, and substandard construction of the drives.
For your information Staff has attached Exhibit B, a preliminary
study of these regulations. This study has not been fully staffed,
but it contains the type of standards we believe should be considered,
Attachment
Map of areas that possibly could be built as no development
standard condominiums.
-4-
OCR AN SIDE
HWY 78
J.
^
"1
1
,
6000
SCALE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DATE 4,7.1977 ,
SQUIRES DAM I , /
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
PACIFIC OCEAN
'KEY
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
\
- Vacant or semi-vacant R-3, RDM, or RP Land
(Multiple-Family)
1 acre R-3
1.3 acre R-P
1 acre R-3 w/condo note
3 acres, 3 lots R-3 w/condo note
1 acre RDM w/1 old building
1 acre RP w/1 old building
6.87 acres RDM
120 acres RDM
2.75 acres RDM
.66 acres
1-2 acres RDM
5.14 acres RDM w/condo notes
13. 24 acres RDM
14. 8 acres RDM
Boundaries SP-38 and it's sub-
"""""* divisions.
1-Shapell 2 PUD-7 3 SP-176
4-Warmington
SP-38 area without adequate dev-
elopment standards.
SP-38 area with adequate standards
Exhibit A
9-1-77
DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUMS
FJOR DISCUSSION ONLY
. CHAPTER 21.47
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUMS
Section
21.47.010 Intent and Purpose. The purpose of the section is to
.provide for the general control of.the design and development of
condominiums and other forms of multi-ownership projects and to provide
for the conversion of existing developments to condominiums. General
control is desirable to promote adequate design and amenities that pro-
mote satisfactory home ownership in multi-ownership projects.
2.1.47.020 Definitions:
Condominium
"Condominium" shall mean any multi-ownership projects where the
owners hold an undivided interest in common of a portion of a parcel
of real property together with- a separate interest in space in a complex
located on such real property, or a"'"Community Apartment" as defined in
Section 11004 of the California Business and Professions Code in which
the owners undivided interest in the land is coupled with the right of
exclusive occupancy of a designated unit located thereon or therein.
21.47.030 Processing. For th.e purpose of processing the creation
of condominiums, all processing procedures and development standards as
-required in 'Chapter 21.45 (Planned Unit Development) shall be met.
21.47.040 Conversion of Structures and Buildings to Condominiums.
Existing structures and buildings may be converted to condominiums pro-
vided the requirements of this Chapter are met, which includes meeting
all processing procedures and development standards as required in
Chapter 21.45 (Planned Unit Development).
.21.47.050 Exceptions for Condominium. Conversions. If it's
determined that there exist unique physical constraints on the
property, exceptions to the requirements of Chapter 21.45 can be made
provided the structures and/or buildings requested for conversion
were granted building permits prior to the adoption of this section.
However, the following requirements must be met:
1. Separate hot water heaters for each unit
2. Separate utility metering for each unit
3. Usable open space at the ratio required in Section 21.45.120.
However, private decks, private patios, individual interior
courtyards, etc., may be included in the usable open space
calculation.
-2-
Exhibit B- •
9-1-77
DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Section 21.44.220 CURB CUT STANDARDS
1. DEFINITIONS: Curb cuts are "defined as the driveways that
extend from the street face of the curb to the edge of the property
Hne, hence referred to as curb openings, curb cuts, or driveway
openings.
2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: All curb openings or driveway openings
in .the-pub!ic right-of-way shall conform to the standards and notes
provided in sections G-14, G-15 and 6-16 of the "San Diego Area
Regional Standard Drawings, Dec. 1975". If the City Engineer deter-
mines there are unusual circumstances that require modification of
these standards, such modification shall be permitted only upon
approval of the City Engineer.
3. ABANDONMENT: When a curb cut is either partially or totally
abandoned, the owner of the property for which the driveway was pro-
vided shall remove the depressed portion of the'curb and install full
freight curb across the opening and shall fill the depression behind the
curb". •
4. In the R-l and R-A zones, there shall be no more than one curb
cut on each street frontage except one additional curb cut is permitted-
for each 120 linear feet of frontage on each street.
5. Cur,B cuts from a private street that has curbs shall meet" all
requirements of this section. •
Section 21.44.230 DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
1. DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of these standards the following
definitions will be used:
A. A driveway will be considered as the accessway located
between the parking area and that point where the apron of
the curb-opening meets the property line.
B. A residential driveway is any driveway serving any legal
lot containing five parking spaces or less, all other drive-
, ways will be termed commercial driveways.
C. 'Private streets are considered driveways.
2. GENERAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS:
A. LINE OF SIGHT: Each driveway entrance and exit shall be
maintained so that any vehicle entering or leaving the parking
area shall be visible to a person approaching such entrance or
exit on any pedestrian walk, footpath or public right-of-way a
minimum distance of ten feet.
B. OVERHEAD CLEARANCE: All exterior driveways and parking
areas shall have a minimum overhead clearance of eighteen feet
to assure adequate operating clearance for safety and refuse
pickup vehicle.
C. All driveway turns and curbs shall have a minimum radius
of twenty feet, except where unusual circumstances exist as
determined by the Planning Director; appropriate modifications
may* be approved.
D. All driveways, open parking areas, and turnarounds shall« *•• •
be p'aved with four inches of untreated base material and
topped with hard, durable plant mix asphalt at least two
Inches thick. Concrete or other materials may be substituted
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
- • ' '-2-
3. COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS:
A. Commercial driveways shall not exceed a width of thirty
feet or be less than twelve feet in width. However, driveways
exceeding the maximum width requirement may be approved provided
*
the design and construction of the driveway meets all require-
ments of a public street as required by the City Engineer.
B. Driveway backup area shall be a minimum of twenty-four
feet for 90° parking. Backup areas for parking less than 90°
shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
C. Parking areas serving five or more parking spaces shall
provide a turn-around with a minimum 25° radius, or appropriate
hammer head turn area.
4. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS:
A. Residential driveways shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-
four feet or be less than twelve feet in width.
5. EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions to these requirements are permitted if
such exception is specifically permitted in this Code.
-3-
Non-contiguous Sidewalk
curb line fr \j\ I
3'-0"
*•.».--V ' •
•Optional Contact Joint-
• Depressed Curb •
• Gutter •
. Property Lioa
3'-0"
V S • Contiguous Sidewalk
I. .Weakened Plane Joint
PLAN
r
1
Driveway width shown on plans
~=i-<^
~
^^- — Depressed Curb— — _^_
*':'::
Rnttnm nf Curh __-— —
$>^~
>>'j.-.\ Ui-
— \
2
•**" M
ELEVATION
(typ.)
Edge of Sidewalk
Normal Rise 1/4" per foot
4" Residential.
6" Commercial SECTION r H-l-1" above Gutter
NOTES
1. No concrete shall be placed until forms and subgrade are inspected by the
Agency.
2. Concrete shall be 517-C-2500.
3. Weakened plane joints required on driveway C for driveways 12 ft. to 24 ft.
wide, driveways wider than 24 ft. to 30 ft. wide shall have two weakened
plane joints evenly spaced.
4. See standard drawings G-15 and G-16 for width and location requirements.
LEGEND ON PLANS
of Residenti.il
(Commercial)
Driveway
•ECOMHENOEO «y THE SAD DIEGO
MGIOMAl STANDARDS COMMITTEE
te»tf**>oi MC.E. I9W) Out
DRAWING
NUMBER G-14
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING
CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS
Revision By Approved Date
REQUIREMENT 1
No portion of any curb opening shall be permitted
within 6' of the intersection of the prolonged property
lines and the curb as shown by arc A.
REQUIREMENTS
No portion of any curb opening shall be permitted in the
curb return where the radius of curb is 25' or less, as
shown by arc B.
REQUIREMENT 3
On all curb returns where the radius is 25' or more, curb
openings may encroach upon each end of the return a distance
equal to 12 1/2% or 1/8 of the total length of the arc on the
curb return, thus leaving at least 75% of the length of arc on
•the return face free from driveway encroachment, provided
Requirement 1 is met.
REQUIREMENT 4
No portion of any curb opening shall be permitted
in the curb return where a seperate turning movement
is provided, as shown by arc C
Revision By Approved
C.
Date SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING
DRIVEWAY LOCATION - ADJACENT TO
CURB RETURNS AND STREET LINES
RECOUMtNDtO BY THE SAN OltCD
REGIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE
MCE IMOI
DRAWING
NUMBER G-15
. ALLEY Obstructi0"-^
*
«c
3
Ia.o£
'
' ' ••
y min. from jTv
any driveway J X
^^•^;.»;'••• Voft V'-^
• •• '•"• '.' • c
— . '£• a>
Driveway o •/
•-. .v*:rl .y;;••.•.-. ••.:•. :?•• '-.- -.-', :v~
"^^
^<Z
•o-.'vv;-- s->>;;^ •••.'-• ;• • •• . .. -. .-:-;'••-..• ••-:> o,•_•'."»-.' ' ~
V-' Driveway g^
o
c • -5
1 5
j: ™ •»
"^•'^
— Obstruction
y
Driveway Width6' min. from Alley or Drainage Outlet .
»
Residential Driveway Width --12' min.. 30' max.
•
~, — .Residential: 20' min. between curb openings serving same parcel.
Commercial: 4' min. to 10' max. between curb openings serving-
same parcel. If over 10', minimum of 26' required.
•Ss
ra"
CJ^>*wla
' •»— -Curb radius
i Curb-*JL_
•? II I
1 >/ /
• = /7c^" // £^7 V
^^ *i ^~*^^ .^V . - •=•
KECOMHENDEO (V TH
REGIONAL STANDARDS
. {?&^0.-t: S. ^J
' _^^
STREET
Commercial Driveway Width - - 12' min., 30' max.
• t
NOTES \
1. Curb openings, except for joint-use driveways and drive ways on
lots having 21 - foot frontage or less, shall be located at least -
3 feet from the side property line extended.
2. Not more than 40% of the property frontage on residential lots,
nor 60% of the property frontage on commercial lots may be
allocated for driveway curb openings, except that lots having
frontage of 25 feet or less are entitled to one 12 foot driveway' • '
(18 foot curb opening).
3, All driveways and curb openings shall be a minimum of 3 feet
from any obstruction, .i.e., poles, hydrants, etc.
4. No portion of any driveway shall be allowed across a line
extending normal to the roadway from the front corner of the
property, except that joint-use driveways may be permitted in
special instances where written approval of uoi'i property
owners is filed with the Agency.
Eco*Ml,DTTECE° SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING
•<?/<:. /f/J
CM>*WV HCt. 11M> Out riR IVEWAY LOCATION
SuMBS0 G-1S AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
Revision By Approved Date
1
i
1(
*
»
•
»
t
- t
1
\
ii
/
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 rceans
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.
VALE
We now have received preliminary plans for Vale II. The same condo
notes apply as in Vale III, the only difference is the density
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, so
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 requi re 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-
.'r?
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 objecti.onabl e
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 J, 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.
\-J
BP:JCH:jp