Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-06-20; City Council; 5484; Airspace Subdivision 3 Unit CondominiumCITY OF CARLSBAD ""^_> a AG-ENDA BILL NO. T ^p"1" • Head DATE: _ June 20, 1978 ____ __ _____ _ _ City Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning ___ _ City Mgr. Q SUBJECT: Airspace Subdivision for a 3 Unit Condominium. Case No: CT 78-2 Applicant: 350 Jerez Company This request was inappropriately processed as a major subdivision when it should have been processed as a parcel map. Therefore, the City Council cannot act on this request as a subdivision. Orignially the application was for a 5 lot condominium and submitted as a major subdivision. However, the applicant was only able to get sewer permits for 3 units. Unfortunately, staff continued processing the subdivision and forwarded it to the Planning Commission who denied it c/n May 24, 1978, based on the lack of guarantees of school facilities, Even though the City Council cannot act on the subdivision, the 'applicant still wishes to address the Council on the school facilities question and continue processing the application as a parcel map. To do this the applicant will be requesting that the City Council find that there are overriding considerations with this application that meet the intent of the Public Facilities Element and State Law (AB 201) , and direct the City Engineer to process a parcel map for this 3 unit condominium. If the City Council does not make the overriding considerations, the applicant will then have to reapply for a parcel map after the City adopts the School Fee Ordinance. In either case the applicant plans to apply for the parcel map. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council direct a refund in fees to make up the difference between the fees paid for the tract map and the fees paid required for the parcel map. Exhibits Planning Commission Resolution No. 1447 Staff Report dated May 24, 1978 Location Map, Exhibit "A" dated January 30, 1978. Recommendation After consideration of the school, f-acility question, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to refund applicant the difference in fees between the fees paid for the Subdivision map and the fees required for the parcel map. JO I AGENDA BILL NO. 5484 -2-June 20, 1978 Council action 6-20-78 Following the public hearing, the City Attorney was directed to draft a resolution denying the request, and staff was directed to refund applicant the difference in fees between the fees paid for the subdivision map and the fees required for the parcel map. 6 7 gl wit: 10 13 15 17 22 23 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1447 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THREE AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON ONE LOT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ COURT, NORTH OF GIBRALTAR. CASE NO: CT 78-2 APPLICANT; 358 JEREZ COMPANY WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to Lot 358 of La Costa South, Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof, No. 6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad 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 24th day of May, 1978, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by _e law to consider said request; andJLo 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-78-2), and found the following facts and reasons to exist: 1) The project is not consistent with the General Plan because the applicant has not presented evidence that school facilities are available to serve the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: & t A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -**"" '\» ^ B) That in view of the applicable is to DENY the s the findings heretofore made and considering law, the decision of the Planning Commission Carlsbad Tract Map (CT 78-2) . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on May 24, 1978, by the following vote, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ATTEST : x--, /"i^' — /stjeftti^i (, // to wit: Commissioner Rombotis, Woodward, Larson, . Yerkes . None. Commissioner Jose, L'Heureux. None. Jerry Rombotis, Chairman f-£L^g43^nZs£*fJarae's C . Hagaman/ SeeafetaryY x/Y _• . .2 *> jfv .-^ w. STAFF REPORT DATE: May 24, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT : CT 78-2 , Tentative subdivision map for three airspace condominium units on one lot. Site is 7535 Jerez Court; 350 Jerez Company - applicant, BACKGROUND Location and Description of Property The subject parcel is about one- third acre located on the west side of Jerez Court, north of Gibraltar, at 7535 Jerez Court (Assessors Parcel 216-290-02) . The lot is graded flat, with a small bank sloping to the street. Existing Land Use Subject Property: Vacant North : Vacant South: Multiple Family Dwelling .East: Multiple Family Dwelling West: Golf Course Existing Zoning^ Subject Property: RD-M North: RD-M South: RD-M . East: RD-M West: P-C History and Related Cases CT 73-12. Jerez Court (Donald R. Gray) , Planning Commission Resolution No. 900 (May 8, 1973); City Council Resolution No. 3520 (October lr 1974). The Planning Commission and City Council approved a tentative map for a 24 unit condominium project on 1.6 acres located immediately east of the subject property at the intersection of Gibraltar Street and Jerez Court. CT 77-18. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a project for 16 airspace condominiums in this same general area. This case is related to the one before you tonight in that the V ,^ ' • s^., <*• • • ' application was for 19 units. However, only 16 sewer connections were available. This case established that'a subdivision could . not be approved for more units than committed sewer connections. Additional units would require another tentative map when additional sewer becomes available. CT 78-1. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this project because the applicant could not provide school availa- bility agreements pursuant to the public facilities element of the Carlsbad General Plan. This applicant also has not pro- vided such agreements. Environmental Impact Information An Environmental Impact Assessment has been received and a •Negative Declaration issued for the subject project based on the following findings: 1. The project site is adjacent to existing urban development. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. The subject site is devoid of any significant vegetation or wildlife. General Plan Information- The Land Use Plan designates the project site for Residential High Density (RH) land use (20-30 du/acres). The density of the proposed project {13.19 du/acre) is in conformance with the density permitted by the General Plan. Public Facilities Schools The applicant has not provided school availability agreements as of this writing. Sewer • The applicant has received sewer permits from the Leucadia County Water District for three of the total five units proposed. The water district also indicated in a letter to the applicant that he would be among the first group" considered for additional sewer permits when they initiate a proposed allocation system now under consideration. Other necessary public facilities including water and streets are available to serve the project as proposed. Major Planning Considerations 1. Should the City require design improvements without the adopted standards of a condominium ordinance? v 2. Does the lack of school availability agreements warrant denial of the project? 3. Will the necessity of the applicant to phase his project due to the present lack of sewer capacity create difficulties for first phase residents? Discussion This case is quite similar to CT 78-1 which you reviewed at your last meeting of May 10, 1978. Unfortunately, our proposed condominium ordinance is not in effect. If it were, the City could process these three "site development plans" review. There are design considerations which could be more properly addressed if such a review was required. Some of tnose con- siderations are: 1. Visitor parking should be provided on site. 2. A pedestrian circulation system should be provided which separates from the vehicular circulation system. 3. Trash areas should not be highly visible from public right- of-ways or require use of public right-of-ways for pick-up. They should be conveniently located to all the units they are intended to serve and observe all setbacks, including front yard setbacks. 4. Large-expanses of asphalt and hard surfacing should be kept to a minimum. • 5. Buildings should be designed and arranged for: a. low land coverage, b. privacy and quiet for the individual family, c. high level of landscaping, an.d d. a feel of openness. The above listed comments are a result of several reviews by the DCC and a comparison to the draft condominium ordinance. Staff has discussed project design with the applicant. The applicant indicates that he would prefer to not change the project design. Please keep in mind when reviewing this map that the condominium ordinance is not adopted and the ordinance in its final form could differ significantly from its present draft form. Three sewer connections have been committed to the project. It is unknown when the remaining two will be available. Because of this, development is proposed to be in two phases. Phase 1 would include the three westerly units and the entire access drive. The applicant anticipates that this would cause a minimum of inconvenience to the occupants of the finished Phase 1. .3 110 CT-78-2 358 JEREZ CO. 3-22-78 Case No. CT 78-l_Date Rec'd: l/-so/-78 DCC Date; 3/l4|78 PC Date Description of Request: 3- u^;i- ^.y ' Address or Location of Request: y^ r>4- £ri" brVktt-ar- rx-r "7 <T "^ S" IA m- Applicant: Engr. or Arch., Brief Legal: *+ La Mo. S" LOT- ATsessor Book: -^\^ Page: General Plan Land Use Description:J Existing Zone:_ Acres: Parcel:02- (2.0-^0 .__ SChOOl District^ ___ __ Water Sanitation District: Proposed Zone: __ -- t _ __DU ' s a «rDU/Acroi3.^ ..r>.