Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-21; City Council; 5340; 25 Apartment to Condominiums ConversionCITY OF "RLSBAD f »AGENDA BILL NO. DATE; February 21, 1978 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING Inl tia!_: Dept. "Hd. City Atty SUBJECT: Conversion of 25 existing apartment units to condominiums Case No.: CT 77-17 Applicant: Hal Pollard STATEMENT Or »'\!F MATTER , :. The property "is located on the north side of Chinquapin between the railroad right-of-way and Garfield Street. This action is exempt from the condominium conversion moratorium ordinance since it was in process prior to its adoption, and exempt from the planning moratorium since no new sewer demand is being generated. At the meeting of the conversion moratorium, staff indicated that the subject application had merit and should be processed. However, staff subsequently recommended denial (See attached memo to City Manager dated February 15, 1978) and the Planning Commission agreed. Staff's recommendation for denial was drafted pr,ior to the adoption of a new State law that requires specific General Plan objectives before a City could .deny a conversion. Therefore, the finding listed in the Planning Commission resolution appear invalid at this time. This was explained to the Planning Commission and the applicant, and they were told that this matter would be further investigated. (Reference attached memo to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978). EXHIBITS Planning Commission Resolution 1432 Memorandum to City Manager from Planning Director dated February 15, 1978 Staff Report dated January 11, 1978 Staff Report dated January 25, 1978 Exhibit "B" dated January 17, 1978 Location Map RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents approving CT 77-17 with the finding and conditions contained in the memorandum to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978. Council action 2-21-78 At th.e request of the applicant the matter was continued to the next regular meeting. 3-8-78 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving CT 77-17 with the finding and conditions contained in the memorandum to the City Manager dated February 15, 1978, with modification of Conditions 2 and 6 as proposed by the applicant. FORM PLANNING 73 w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISS.IOlSt RESOLUTION NO. 1432 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING'COMMISSION OF THE CITY- OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE CON- VERSION OF 25 EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS INTO CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE, BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD AND GARFIELD-STREET. CASE NO: . CT 77-17 APPLICANT ; HAL POLLARD • WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to wit: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1313, recorded February 16, 1973 as Recorder's File No. 73-042929 of Official Records, being a portion of Lot 4, Block "S" of PALISADES NO. 2 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1803, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, this application constitutes a request i'-s provided by Title.21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25th day of January, 1978, 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 CT 77-17, and found the following facts and reasons to exist: 1) The proposed map is not consistent with the Carlsbad policies and goals.to provide'decent housing for all economic ranges in Carlsbad, and to insure viable condominium projects because a) Conversion of apartment units will reduce the availability of rental un.its in the City of Carlsbad, and that these rental units ceinnot be replaced because of the present sewer- moratorium. XXX . . ..'. ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 (.0 < • 1 .b) The amenities of visitor parking, recreation areas and storage provided in this development are insufficient for proper livability by tne eventual homeowner-s of this project. f c) The conversion of apartments to condominiums increases the cost of housing, but does not increase the livability or amenities.* d) Homeowners demand greater amenities, services, and generally better living conditions than the transient renter'who can easily move out if dissatisfied. 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 77-17), on property located on the north side of Chinquapin Avenue, between the AT&SF Railroad and Garfield Street. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on January -25, 1978, by the 'following vote, to wit: AYES: ABSENT: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rombotis, Larson, Jose Woodward, None. Commissioner L'Heureux, Fikes. •None. JERJJY ROMBOTIS', "Chairman ATTEST: ^..JA'MES C. HAGANAN", Secretary c MEMORANDUM T DATE: February 15, 1978 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: CT 77-17, Condominium Conversion Moratorium and Subdivision Map Act Revisions Condominium Conversion Moratorium: At the meeting of the adoption of the moratorium on accepting applications for apartment conversions to condominiums (January 3, 1978), staff indicated that the subject application and one other was in process and they should be allowed to continue. Staff felt that both of these processing conversions had merit and should at least be permitted to process. However, upon further review during writing of the staff recommendation for the subject application, staff recommended denial. The structures do have merit for conversion, which was pointed out in the January 11, 1978 staff report and the applicant was willing to make some changes to improve the development. Nevertheless, staff felt that with the recent concerns of loss of rental units the application should be denied. The Planning Commission on January 11, 1978 apparently did not agree with staff and continued the item and asked staff to prepare conditions of approval (See report dated January 25, 1978) . However, on January 25, 1978 the Planning Commission recommended that the map be denied for the reasons given in Resolution No. 1432. There was additional dissatisfaction because the two story four-plex building (south west corner of the site) was not conducive to proper condominium units and that the units are built as single floor apartment and individual water meters are not provided at any unit. Hal Pollard, the applicant for CT 77-17, has indicated that he felt that the Planning Commission action denying his request for conversion of apartments to condominium was not legal due to the recent revisions to the State Map Act. I assume that Mr. Pollard will discus's this with the City Council in an attempt to have the Planning Commission's recommendation overturned. For your information I am submitting the new legislation that I believe Mr. Pollard is referring to: 66427.2 Unless applicable general or specific plans contain definite objectives and policies, specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects, the provisions of Sections 66473.5 and 66474 shall not apply to condominium projects which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing structure, unless new units are to be constructed or added. This section shall not diminish, limit or expand other than as provided herein, the authority of any City, County, or City and County to approve or disapprove condominium projects. (Added, Chapter 923, Statutes of 1977) The two sections that are referenced in this particular section deal with findings that must be made prior to City approval. This new legislation means that the denial of a condominium conversion cannot be based upon consistency with the General Plan or those findings normally required for subdivisions. These two sections are as follows: 66473.5. No local agency shall approve a map unless the legislative body shall find that the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of this title, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of this title. A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. 66474. A legislative body of a City or County shall deny approval of a final or tentative map if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legis- lative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (Amended, Chapter 24, Statutes of 1975) - 2 - Normally tract maps must meet all requirements of the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinanbes. • In the past condominium conversion decisions were primarily based on the General Plan, i.e., housing stock, rents, quality of units, etc. The new State subdivision regulation will not permit the City from basing decision on the General Plan unless the General Plan is amended to include definite objectives and policies, specifically directed to the conversion into condominiums. As always a map can only be denied per the zoning and subdivision ordinance if it is conflict with those regulations. The subject tract map meets all requirements of zoning and subdivisions and therefore could not be denied based on these regulations. However, conditions could be applied to an approval to improve the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that CT 77-17 be approved with the finding that the application meets all requirements of zoning, subdivision, environmental and public facilities and with the following conditions: 1) Approval is granted for the land described in the application and with the attachments thereto and as shown on the tentative tract map submitted, labeled Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978. 2) A two hour fire rated wall shall be provided separating each dwelling unit. This wall shall continue through the attic to the roof. 3) Each unit shall be provoided with fire detecting and warning devices to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 4) Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director. 5) Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Director 6) Each unit be provided with an individual water meter. BP:s 2-15-78 >TAFF REPORT January 11, 1978 •> TO: PLANNING COMMISSION PROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO: CT 77-17 APPLICANT: HAL POLLARD REQUEST: CONVERSION OF 25 EXISTING APARTMENT UNITS TOCONDOMINIUMS". SECTION I. BACKGROUND Location and Description of Property The property is located on the north side of Chinquapin between the AT&SF Railroad, and Garfield Street. The property is generally. flat and is approximately 1.19 acres. There are 25 units on the property with a density of 21 du. per acre. The buildings wer.e constructed in 1974. Description of^Si/te 1. Building Design; 21 of the units are constructed as townhouses, (2 story), with small front and rear yards. The remaining 4 units are 1 bedroom flats; the 2 downstairs units have yards, the 2 upstairs units have balconies. The plan submitted (Exhibit A") shows a 30' rear yard. However, there is only 12^ existing at . the deepest point. The code requires 16'. Building plans are stored in'microfilm and were not traced, but staff assumed the plans were approved at 30' rear yard, but field inspections did not find the discrepancy. Construction: Utilities: 2. Parking; The building is constructed with 1 hour separation walls between units. Building Department believes 2 hour walls are necessary for sound insulation as well as fire protection. Sewer and water utilities are common, electricity and gas are metered individually. Required; 42 (48 provided, 4 of which are covered). If this project was a PUD, .67 spaces would be required, 25 of which for visitor parking, 38 of the 67 spaces would have to be covered. .... .Screening;If this pS^iect was a PUD, all parka^; areas would . have to be screened from abutting residential properties, 3. Storage;Each unit has an outdoor' storage shed of approximately 150 cubic feet situated in rear yard of each unit. RV Storage;If this project was a PUD, 1,000 square feet would be required under PUD Guidelines for RV Storage. 4. Open Areas; There is roughly 6,340 square feet of open space along the entrance drive which currently has no recreation facilities. An existing storage room is proposed to be converted into a recreation room of approximately 500 sq. ft, Small patios are also existing for each unit. If this project was a PUD, it would have to provide 2,500 square feet of usable open space which contains more some form of recreational facilities. The applicant has indicated that recreational facilities are being considered. Existing Zoning; Subject Property: North: • • . South: East: West: Existing Land Use;- Subject Property: North: South: East: West: RDM RDM, R-l RDM. R-l R-l R-l, RDM Apartments SFR SFR AT&SF Railroad SFR & Apartments History and Related Cases; CT 77-11 (Resolution No. 1379), Laguna Palms; A proposed condominium conversion from apartments was denied because the city felt that certain amenities should be provided in shared ownership that are not necessary in apartment dwellings. PUD requirements were used as guidelines for determining proper amenities. Lack of recreation areas, visitor parking, separate utility systems and fire resistant construction were sited as reasons for denial. CT 77-13- (Resolution No.! 1408) , Harry Fries: The Planning Commission denied a request for 15 unit condominium conversion. Building permits had been issued for apartments but no construction had taken place. The Planning Commisssion felt.that the project was not consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan in that there was insufficient parking, no RV Storage, and a lack of recreational facilities on the site to make this project viable for home ownership. .2 The-City Council overturned^ie denial (Resolution No^>207) of the Planning'Commission and approved CT 77-13 for 15 unit, since the . ' building had not yet'been completed, and many condominium amenities were being built onto .the plan. Also, Mr. Fries had attempted to rectify the findings of the Planning Commission prior to presenting the items to the City Council. Condominium Conversion Ordinance; On January 3, 1978, the City Council established a public hearing for January 17', 1978, to consider placing a moratorium on accepting applications for condominium conversions, pending adoption of condominium conversion standards. The City Council is con- cerned about the impacts of allowing poor quality and designed apartments belr'q converted to home ownership, and the loss of rental units during the sewer permit moratorium. Environmental Impact Information; The subject apartments are existing and were exempted from the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance by Section 19.04.090, C.4 (1) . General Plan Information: The General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as Residential High Density (RH-20-30 du. per acre). Project density is 21 du. per acre. The Housing Element contains the following goals: 1. That all residents of Carlsbad .have access to adequate housing Vi.thin a price range they can afford. 2. . That current housing problems be met with programs for remedial action without wholesale displacement of residents. 3. That current trends in housing development be understood and problems met with preventive action. 4. That causes of housing problems be understood by the community and considered as the primary deterrent to the availability of adequate", housing. 5. That environmental quality be established and enhanced to provide the necessary amenities and services for the residents of Carlsbad. 6. That priorities be based on the critical nature of housing needs as certain people are affected. Public Facilities: There will be no significant change in the demand. All public fac- ilities are existing, except school agreements have not been reached at this time. . .3 Major Planning Considerations — -^ - ; -- - - — -- ">•/• ' . ' 1) Is this condominium conversion desirable given the applicable criteria in the general. plan? i ' , 2) Will the project meet. appropriate development criteria for proper condominium development? . 3) How would this project compare to common housing built under PUD standards? Of the' two recent condominium conversion requests (see related cases), this application is similar to the Laguna Palms, which was denied. Like Laguna Palms this development is an apartment house for renters. _ It was built as an apartment house with common water and sewer utilities and 1 hour fire walls. However, electricity and 9as is metered individually and 21 of the units have small front and rear yards of approximately 150 square feet. The front yard has a small porche and some landscaping near the front window. The rear yard has a cement slab, and outdoor storage shed. There is a possibility of using the large landscaped areas along the entrance driveway for some kind of active recreation. Unfortunately the area is poorly shaped for active use, and the location is inconvenient. Also, this open area sides upon existing residences. The lack of individual water meters will be a cause of occupant concern. •With a one common meter all occupants will pay the same fee regardless of water use. This condominium conversion appears to be of a stop gap measure to provide homes for purchase- during the sewer permit moratorium. The problem of course is that the rental units which are necessary to provide homes for people who wish or must rent are taken off the rental supply. With the present moratorium, the rental inventory cannot be replaced. Conversion will mean to many people of the subject apartment that they will have to move out of the community while new people who can afford the cost of purchase will move in. By State Law the present tenants must be notified of the conversion prior to final map and be given a chance to purchase. The City has not notified the tenants of this conversion action. The Council will consider on January 17, 1978, a moratorium on accepting future requests for conversions of existing apartments to condominiums. If adopted, this moratorium will be in effect unit! the City adopts a condominium conversion ordinance policy. Presumably this ordinance of provisions for maintaining a rental unit inventory. This tract. map application meets the technical aspects of the State Map Act. However, the Housing Element contains goals that state that all residences of Carlsbad have access to adequate housing within a price range they can afford, and that environmental quality is such to provide the necessary amenities and services for the residences. Studies have shown that conversion to condominiums substantially raise the cost of housing while not providing any higher quality (except the intangible of home ownership) . In fact poorly constructed condominiums can increase the cost of housing to point of failure of the condominiums. This is particularly true of concersion such as the subject application. As an .4 •'•.'.'• • c 'apartment all repairs and complaints are the responsibility of a single/ owner/manager. If not satisfactorily handled, the tenant has the option of moving our - a disadvantage to the owner. In condominiums, however, repairs and complaints are.the responsibility of an association and moving our is a financial consideration and time consxiining - a disadvantage to the occupant. Therefore, condominiums of this nature generally will deteriorate quicker than an apartment or high maintenance costs are carried by the association adding to the already high cost of condominium Recommendation; . Tt is recommended that CT 77-17 be DENIED for the following reasons: 1) The proposed map is not consistent with the Carlsbad policies and goals to provide decent housing for all economic ranges in Carlsbad, and to insure viable condominium projects because: a) Conversion of apartment units will reduce the availability of rental units in the City of Carlsbad, and that these rental units cannot be replaced because of the present sewer moratorium. b) The amenities of visitor parking, recreation areas and storage provided in this development are insufficient for proper liv- ability by the eventual homeowners' of this project. c) The conversion of apartments to condominiums increases the cost of housing but does not increase the livability or amenities:. d) Homeowners' demand greater amenities, services, and generally better living conditions than the transient renter who can easily move out if dissatisfied. . • 2} The request, has not complied with the Carlsbad Public Facility Policy because: a) Agreements have not been reached with the school district guaran- teeing that school will be available with need. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this request, staff recommends that conditions covering the following items be made part of the rec- ommendation: 1) Each unit have individual water meters. 2) A two hour fire rated wall between each unit. 3) Park and Recreation fees to be required. 4) Active recreation area be constructed along the easterly side of the drive, near the recreation room. « Attachments; • V • Location Map ' ?' Exhibit "A", dated November 15, 1977 Article - San Diego. Union, dated December 28, 19,77. . ^ . « BP;CDG:ar .' . .5 I.. STAFF REPORV > DATE: • 'January 25,. 1978 • ' ' ' .1 . i • TO: Planning Commission • . • FROM: • Planning Department ' ' CASE NO: CT 77-17 .* . APPLICANT: Hal Pollard, representing Escondido Pine Associates. The Planning Commission heard this item on January 11, 1978, and continued thfe hearing to January 25, 1978, to allow the applicant to revise plans to chow the recreation area that he proposed and to add parking stalls if possible. Staff was instructed to prepare conditions of approval for Planning Commission information if the Planning Commission wished to approve. Attached is the new plan submitted by the applicant (Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978). It contains the recreation area as suggested by the applicant along the entrance drive. The area connects with the recreation and laundry rooms and other open landscaped areas. The new plans show 53 parking spaces for an increase in 3 spaces. This was __ , accomplished by eliminating some walk ways that separated stalls. The proposed stalls scale at 9' width. This distance should provide ample distance for pedestrian access. ' . . The applicant discussed the proposal to place a sign at the street to give identity to the units. Staff believes that this is generally appropriate for developments of this nature to have special identity, but the sign regulation only permits attached signs, not freestanding signs in residential zones. Therefore, the proposed sign cannot be approved as part of this application. The conditions of approval that the Planning Commission requested are as follows: 1) Approval is granted for the land described in the application and with the attachments thereto and as -shown on the tentative tract map submitted, labeled Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978. 2) A two hour fire rated wall shall be provided separating each dwelling unit. This wall shall continue through the attic to the roof. 3)' .Each unit shall be provided with fire detecting and warning devices to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 4) Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation' Director. 5) Street rees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director. The Planning Commission's motion also included suggested conditions that are not appropriate conditions. One was not to require individual water meters; simply by excluding a condition on water meters suffices. Another was to , require school fees. City policy is to insure public facility policies will be met prior to approval, not to condition them. The school district has indicated by letter that the applicant has complied with school agreements and the board will accept it at their meeting of January 18, 1978, (this report was prepared January 17, 1978). ' Also, the Commission requested that we give .consideration to requiring RV Storage areas in a private off site storage yards. Staff believes this would be too difficult to police for an individual development such as this. Although, it may be appropriate for large master planned areas such as La Costa. Attachments . Staff Report dated, January 11, 1978, Revised Date, January 25, 1978. Exhibit "B", dated January 17, 1978. '? BP/ar 1/18/78 Q .J UJ . G: TAMARACK ?»; • .' Ut CHINQUAPIN CT-77-17 POLLARD 12-28-77 o AVE & CO •• •. / n AVE X* r Case No.CT-~n-|~7 Date Rec'd: unui t Description of Request: Corner s'tov> « i ' « * Address or Location of Request: tvUr-iv ''-' o*M 6ar-tre.Iel , ST • -Applicant: (4a\ p^lUrd Engr. or Arch. Sckor'^. F^n* •«• Ass Brief Legal: NA«^ 1^01 - pni;^aA*% i • • Assessor Book: aofe Page: General Plan Land Use Description: (\ Existing Zone: RO-M Acres: i.\*\ . No. of Lots: 3 School District: C,truwi Water Sanitation District: cQrU«ic.J l-litbin Coast Plan Area: Yes• i DCC Date: lafiof-n PC Date la/a^m •> -V av^ <x/1nA-t nv^i/d" ^QTv^pV^v -Vo ra t.'cte «/ -cUttouAorM b/LT^f~ AT -fr.r R™ttL«>H• - ' • -> - « • v)o. i - BH< s 00.0 Parcel: ae^oi^o H ' Proposed Zone: NI\ .. DU's.. a iT DLi/Acre .-' / X > , Coast Permit Area: YC.S. « • . . .