HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-01; City Council; 5241; North side of Juniper Between Garfield and AT&SF-N CITY OF "RLSBAD
' ' ' ™, Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. £~3*// Dept. Hd.
DATE: November 1. 1977 City Atty __2s_t
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING City Mgr.
SUBJECT:
PROPERTY SITUATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JUNIPER BETWEEN GARFIELD AND ATSSF
CASE NO: CT 77-13 APPLICANT: HARRY FRIES
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
REQUEST
The subject property has an area of .7 acres and is situated on the north side of
Juniper between Garfield and ATSSF. It is a request to covert a 15 unit apartment
that is now under construction into a condominium.
The project was granted sewer permits for apartments prior to the effective date of
the.sewer moratorium. Therefore this request for condominiums will not add to the
existing sewer demand.
Staff had recommended approval, but the Planning Commission recommended that it be
denied as explained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1^08 and attached memo.
If the City Council disagrees with this recommendation and approves the request,
staff suggests that a condition be added that requires that the final map contain
the number of units approved. Although the application indicates 15 unitsj the
tentative tract map does not. It is necessary to fix the amount on the tract map
for calculation for school and park fees.
EXHIBITS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1408
Memo to City Manager dated, 10/27/77
Staff Report dated, 9/28/77
Exhibit "A" dated, 7/22/77
Location Map
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that CT 77-13 be DENIED. If the City Council
concurs, it is recommended that the City Attorney be directed" to prepare documents
as per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1^08
If the City Council does not concur, it is recommended that the City-attorney be
directed to prepare documents as...per staff report dated, 9/28/77 with an additional
condition as follows: "The maximum number of condominiums as approved is 15, and
shall be so indicated on the final map."
(See Page 2 for Council action)
FORM PLANNING 73
AGENDA BILL NO. 5241 -2-November 1, 1977
11-1-77 Following the public hearing the City Attorney was directed
to prepare the documents necessary approving CT 77-13 as
per staff report dated September 28, 1977, with an additional
condition as follows: "The maximum number of condominiums
as approved is 15, and shall be so indicated on the final map"
8
Q
10
•11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1408
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A TRACT
MAP TO PROVIDE FOR 15 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF JUNIPER BETWEEN GARFIELD AND THE AT&SF
RAILROAD.
CASE NO.: CT 77-13
APPLICANT: HARRY FRIES
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Parcel 2 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, as shown on Page 1443 of Parcel
Maps filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, April 6, 1973, Lot No. 3, Block Q,
Palisades No. 2, Map No. 1803, Juniper Avenue
has been filed with the City of Carlabad and referred to the
«
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of
October, 1977, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who
desired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Carlsbad Tract Map (CT 77-13) and found the
following facts and reasons to e^ist:
1) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the General Plan beca.use:
24 a) The design and improvements of the project does not
25 provide development criteria necessary to warrant the
granting of the maximum allowable density of the General
26 Plan. Although the General Plan doesn't list specific
requirements, the lack of the following items generally
27 provided 'by current standards, justifies this finding;
28 //////
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Sufficient visitor parking
2. R-V Storage space
3. Recreational open space facilities on the site
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That the action of the Planning Commission -is to DENY
Carlsbad Tract Map (CT 77-13), on property located on
the north side of Juniper Avenue, between Garfield and
the AT&SF railroad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on October 5, 1S77, by
the following vote, to wit:
'AYES: Commissioners Larson, Rombotis, Jose, Woodward.
NOES: Commissioners Fikes, L'Heureux.
ABSENT: Commissioner Watson.
ERIC LARSON, Chairman
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
-2-
: 10-27-77
MEMORANDUM
October 27, 1977
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: CT 77-13, Harry Fries
The Planning Commission in recommending denial of this condominium conversion
request used as a basis for that denial the Planned Unit Development standards
within the City Codes. As a matter of information it should be pointed out that
earlier this year we indicated to City Council during the Vale II (Shape!1)
condominium discussions that the City did not have condominium or condominium
conversion standards but were using as a matter of policy standards contained
within the PUD ordinance. It was pointed out that a moratorium of condominium
or condominium conversion was not deemed necessary due to the low probability
of a substantial number of applications being submitted to the City. I personally
am still of that opinion. However, the staff is still working on condominium
and condominium conversion standards which are not ready to come before the
Commission and Council at this time, and therefore the only required action
before the Council is a proposed subdivision map providing for a condominium
conversion.
As a matter of policy, the Planning Commission has been and did use the PUD
regulations to evaluate the proposed condominium conversion coming before the
Council. In that context the Planning Commission found that the off street
parking and storage areas are not adequate, and the open space provided has
questionable usability. This is consistent with the Planning Commission's
former action on a proposed condominium conversion located on Laguna Drive
which was denied by the City Council. The Planning Commissioner's specific
concern with off street parking relates to the PUD regulations requiring one
and one-half covered parking spaces per unit plus one visitor space for each unit
requiring a total of 38 spaces.
While the current R-3 zone standards for multiple family buildings would require
only 24 spaces,it is felt by the Planning Commission that based on location of the
condominium near the beach, that parking is of paramount concern and should be
upgraded. It has come to my attention that the proponent is investigating the
combination of some of the smaller studio units within the building into larger
units, therefore reducing the number of units and required parking which would
tend to minimize this impact.
JCH:s
fl>
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 28» 1977
TO: DCC /
FROM: ' : • Planning Department
CASE NO.: CT 77-13 ..
APPLICANT: Harry Fries
•
REQUEST: • Tract Map to Provide for 15 Condominium Units
• •
SECTION I; RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that CT 77-13 be APPROVED based.on the following
findings:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because:
» * •
a. The Land Use Plan Map designates the subject site for
residential high, density (20-30 dwelling units per acre).
The subject project will provide approximately 21.4 dwelling
units pe/- acre,
b. Condominium development will provide for home ownership in
this high density area near beaches and recreation areas.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan because:
«
a. The project will provide orderly residential development.
b. The project will not cause excessive expansion of public
facilities and/or expense to the taxpayer; and
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
because: .^
a. The proposed development will not affect any unusual
topographic or geologic features on the site;
b. No significant natural vegetation exists on the site.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
•development because:
a. There are no significant physical features on the site that
would hinder development as planned.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of 'improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems because:
a. Conditions of approval will insure the above.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
not conflict v/ith the easements required by the public at large
for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision because:
a. Conditions of approval will insure the above.
* , -
7. The subdivision will not prohibit reasonable access to public
waterways, rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, coastlines or
shorelines because:
a. The subdivision does not front on any of the above.
8. The subject application has complied with the requirements of
the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 because:
a. The.project is categorically exempt because it is considered
a conversion of existing multiple family units (construction
of apartments are underway) to a condominium.
9. The proposed tentati-ve tract map is consistent with applicable
City Public Facility Policies and Ordinances because:
a. Sewer service was issued for the development prior to the
present sewer service moratorium.
b. School facilities have been guaranteed as per letter from
Carlsbad Unified School District, dated September 8, 1977.
c. A condition of approval is that park "fees are required.
d. All other public facilities are existing or can be met.
CONDITIONS .
1. The approval is granted for the land described in the application
and any attachments thereto and as shown on the plot plan submitted,
labeled Exhibit A, dated July 22, 1977.
2. Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City prior to approval of
the final map.
-2-
3. A recreation and landscape plan is to be appro'ved by the Parks and
Recreation Director that includes recreationa.l uses such as picnic
tables, usable open areas and some form of act'ive recreation
facilities. This recreation area and landscaping shall be fully
installed prior to approval of the occupancy of the units.
4. The uncovered parking-area shall be separated from the abutting
property to the west by a 6' view obscuring wall, fence, or compact
evergreen' hedge, 6 ft. in height. This shall be completed prior to
approval of the final map or occupancy of the units, whichever
comes first. • .
SECTION I.I: BACKGROUND ^ .' ..
Location and Description of Property:
The project is located on the north side of Juniper between Garfield
and the AT&SF RaiIroad.
The .7 acre parcel is rectangular in shape except for a section at the
SE corner approved as a separate lot.
Existing Zoning:
Subject Property - R-3
North - R-3
South - R-3
East - R-3 *•
West - R-3
Existing Land Use:
Subject Property
. • North
South
East
West
Apartment Started
SFR and Vacant
SFR
SFR and Apartments
SFR and Apartments
History and Related Cases:
Building permits were issued for apartments on April 14
April 14, 1977, building permits were issued for the pn
unit apartment. To meet condominium development ''
has revised the plans to give more individual opi
hour interior fire walls with two hour rating on
and all utilities systems will be individual to i
1977. On
.. . -„ . - ... project as a T6
unit apartment. To meet condominium development criteria, the applicant
has revised the plans to give more individual open areas, provide one
walls between units,
each unit with separate
meters.
CT 77-11 - Laguna Palms - A proposed condominium conversion from
apartments was denied because some condominium criteria could not be
met and density was greater than allowed by the General Plan.
-3-
IEnvironmental Impact Information;
There will be no adverse environmental impact caused by this project
sinc-e the project is in a highly urbanized area that contains all
urban services. There is no natural feature of value except for
development as proposed.
•
General Plan information:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site
Residential High Density (20-30 dwelling units per acre).
*
The project has a density of 21.4 du per acre.
Pub!i c Facilities:
The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with applicable City
Public Facilities Policies and Ordinances because:
a. Sewer service was "issued for the development prior to the present
sewer service moratorium.
b. School facilities have been guaranteed as per letter from Carlsbad
Unified School District, dated September 8, 1977.
c. A condition of approval is that park fees are required.
d. All other public facilities are existing or can be met.
Major PIanni ng Cons iderations:
Vlill the project meet appropriate development criteria for proper
condominium development?
How would this project compare to one built under PUD standards?
DISCUSSION
The project is now under construction as an apartment house. However,
the applicant has submitted corrections to the plans to comply with
criteria Staff feels is necessary for proper condominium development.
(See discussion under History for further explanation of changes).
^
Since this project is now under construction, there'will be no renters
displaced by the approval of this condominium. Therefore the concerns
expressed in previous conversations regarding displacement of renters
and loss of rental units will not be a factor in this application.
The City Council has reviewed a draft condominium and condominium
conversion ordinance and has directed Staff to do further study and put
into final form. This draft ordinance indicates that the standards
for condominiums would be based on the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance.
.4.
The applicant has attempted to change the project' to meet this
criteria, by providing two hour rated fire walls between units and
separate utilities. Open space and recreation is a requirement of
the approval. /
••
However, the project falls short in parking requirements. The Planned
Unit Development Ordinance requires \% parking spaces for each dwelling
unit for high density development. The project has 15 dwelling units
with 15 covered parking spaces and 9 uncovered for a total of 24.
This meets the "\h ratio requirement. However, the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance requires one visitor parking space for each
dwell ing 'unit with credit for street parking. There are approximately
two spaces that can be used for visitors directly in front of this
project. Therefore the project will fall short of meeting this
Planned Unit Development criteria. Additional on-site spaces could be
provided. Staff has not recommended doing this because valuable open
space and recreation areas would be removed and the gain in five spaces
would not be appreciable. . •
The RV storage requirements would be 640 square feet which also could
be placed on the site at the expense of losing open space. It is
possible to- place a condition on the approval that RV spaces be secured
off-site in a commercial storage yard and be the responsibility of the
Homeowners' Association to maintain.
Staff has not required the meeting of additional parking or RV storage
for this particular condominium development because:
1. The development has. already been approved for apartments with the
present parking ratio as required in the R-3 Zone.
2. The open space and recreation on-site is desirable in this
relatively high density area and therefore should not be converted
to parking and storage.
\
3. The people who buy and live in these high density areas near major
recreation (beach) generally accept insufficient parking and
storage space.
Attachments •
Exhibit A, July 22, 1977
Location Map
C6:BP:jp
-5-
SOURCE.'500SCALE ZONING HAP
Case Pate Rec'cl;DCC
Description of Request:<Lof CQODQA/f//0>OM
pc D
I6T
J
Address or Location of Request:
Appl Tearft:
Engr. .or
Brief Legal: V.
g /\VP-——«
Assessor Book:
General Plan Land Use Description:
Page: ^.40 ~ Parcel : -
Existing Zone:'___
Acres:jQt^7____No. of Lots:
School District: ^L^__J,
Water Sanitation District:
Within Coast Plan Area:
_ _
Proposed Zone: _DU'S IS~ U"U/7\cre 2j74~. -- tr"^ - : - - — •»—*-* - • —
Coast F c r in i t "'A r c a:
FORM PLANNING 52