Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-20; City Council; 5726-1; Review of Condominium Ordinance.. CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO: 5726, Supplement No. l DATE: March 20, 1979 DEPARTMENT: Planning · SUBJECT: Review of Condominium Ordinance Statement of the Matter Initial l:'YJ ii Dept. Hd. l1C ..J.f.tr Cty. Atty V F/'3 Cty. Mgr. -)-+--- On January 16, 1979, Mr. Dale Naegle, an architect designing condominium developments in the La Costa area discu9 sed with the City Council the workability of the recently adopted condominium regulations. Mr. Naegle indicated the new regulations make it difficult to develop condominiums for vacation units or low cost units for the elderly and low income people. The City Council directed staff to review.Mr. Naeglets concerns and report back. In reporting back, staff to?k the oppo~tunity to include discussions on other problem~ that we have noted since adoption of the regulations. ·, ~he Teport is attached dated February 21, 1979. Exhibits Memo from James Hagaman dated Feb~uary 21, 1979 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment as suggested in the attached report and forward to Planning Commission for hearing. Council Action: 3-20-79 Council directed staff to prepare an ordinanca amendment as suggested in the report and to for.ward to the Planning Commission for necessary public hearing. BP:jd .d MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 21, 1979 Paul C. Bussey, City Manager James C. Hagaman, Planning Director Review Condominium Regulations It's very difficult to prepare a set of regulations that foresee all possible circumstances; especially r~gulations as complex as condominium standards. The condominium code has been in effect for a couple of months now and we have had the opportunity to review several projects against the regulations and some possible difficulties have been noted. This report is in response to these possible problems. History: On January 16, 1979, Mr. Dale Naegle addressed the City Council on the workability of the condominium ordinance. He felt that the code precludes the efficient development of certain types of condominiums, primarily units designed as vacation condominiums or condominiums designed for the elderly and low income citizens. The primary problems he noted were: 1) The parking requirements are too great. 2) Storage space is not required. 3) Individual utility meters for the large attached multiple family buildings are not necessary and expensive. Mr. Naegle suggested th~t the design of the units and the amenities would dictate who would buy the units. He felt filmilies would not buy a condominium design for the elderly or as a vacation unit. The City Council had some reservations on establishing double standards to allow reduction of development standards for some condominiums and not others, and the lack of control of who buys the units. The City Council did, however, indicate a desire to retain a method to provide some flexibility to allow various types of condominiums. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to prepare a report addressing the impacts of reduced parking, feasibility of master utility meters and reducing the storage I I ~ I area requirements for some condominiums. This report addresses these three concerns and additional matters brought to our attention by Mr. Morey of La Costa and matters noted by City staff. Parking: It was noted that already existing in La Costa are vacation-oriented units. They are the Balboa and Cortez condos address at 2003 and 2005 Costa Del Mar. Staff investigated the parking provided and the parking demand at various times during the week. A synopsis of our findings is: Existing Development Number of units 96 Parking spaces covered 96 Parking on site open 26 Total on site 122 Parking on street 14 Total Available 136 Parking ratio 1.4/DU Date and Time Requirements of Condo standards as related to condo investigated covered parking required 96 Difference 0 Open parking on site required 96 Difference -70 Visitor required 28 Diff. on street -14 Parking ratio 2.3/DU SURVEY Requirements of the R-3 Zone as related to condos investigate~ Parking on site reqiored 144 Diff. on site -22 Parking ratio 1. 5/DU , (on site only) Covered Used Open Used Street Used : I Feb. 1 11 A.M. (Th) 14 of 96 20 of 26 14 of 14 Feb. € 10 P.M. (Tue) 27 of 96 15 of 26 7 of 14 Feb. 9 7 P.M. {Fri) 20 of 96 9 of 26 0 of 14 Feb. 10 10 A.M. (Sat) 23 of 96 11 of 26 4 of 14 From this investigation it appears that there is no on-site parking problems for these particular units. However, visitor parking is at a premium during the day and weekend when demand increases because of the spa, tennis courts, restaurant, etc. It appears that for vacation oriented condominiums the per unit parking could be reduced, but visitor parking is ne~essary. However, its possible that the survey was done on a unique condo develop- ment and there is no way of knowing what kind of "vacation" units would be constructed if the Code was modifiee. If the City is interested in providing flexibility however criteria could be developed based on size of units, number of rooms, location, zone, etc. In addition to the investigation of the parking demand require- ments for vacation-oriented units, staff reviewed the entire section on parking. One problem noted is that on street visitor parking may not be available, especially in vacatfon-oriente,1 areas or other intensely developed areas. Therefore, the Code should provide provisions to give credit only when its use by visitors can be generally assured. A technical problem was also noted. The Code requires that the length of on-street spaces a minimum length of 24' for parallel spaces, which is necessary for inside spaces to provide room for maneuvering. However, this length could be reduced to 20' for end parking spaces where maneuvering is not a problem. Meters: Mr. Naegle noted that grouping the electric and gas meters can be unsightly and the cost of installing separate s=rvice is high. Staff indicated that at the time of drafting the condominium code, San Diego Gas and Electric required each condominium unit to have separate meters for gas and ele~tric. However, a letter dated November 14, 1978, by San Diego Gas and Electric indicated that they no longer required individual meters (the condo regulations were adopted November 21, 1978). In this letter San Diego Gas and Electric indicated that the California Public Utility Commission still urged that either submetering or individual meters be installed. They urged this to promote energy conservation. Staff did not sugrest the last minute change to permit the submetering because we felt that individual metering not only was saving energy it also permitted effective collection and turnoff of delinquent users. Nevertheless, flexibility ma}' be desirable especially for 4evelopments with energy saving devices like ~irculating hot water or solar water heating systems. Therefore, the City Council may wish to provide flexibility for metering. Storage: Mr. Naegle indicated that vacation-oriented condominiums or units for the elderly did not need large storage areas. usually there -3- would not be yards to maintain or a need to store items such as bicycles, camping gear, etc. Storage spaces increase the cost of units ~nd proposes a design problem. Another problem is that vacation condominiums may have group parking, possibly underground. It is difficult to provide storage areas in park- ing structures or other buildings for multi-story developments. The regulations require 480 cubic feet of storage per unit. This figure was derived at by calculating the cubic area of a 3' extension of a two car garage (3x8x20). The draft ordin- ance was modified, however, to requir~ only a one car covered space as a minimum. Therefore, the required 480 cubic feet may now cause ~1ome design problems. There are also desire problems for multiple storied buildings (flats) that share common parking areas. Guidelines for Vacation Oriented Units The City Council also discussed with Mr. Naegle possibilities for developing guidelines to insure orientation for vacation units or condominiums for the elderly or low income households. Staff had cons:i.dered this in one of the original drafts of the condo ordinances by reducing some standards in high density or vacation oriented areas such as near the La Costa Spa or the beach. The Planning Commission rejected this idea because they felt it was a double standard and too difficult to determine what would be vacation oriented. If the City Council is interested in guide- lines, staff would suggest that some development standards be reduced for multi-storied condominiums (flat). These multi-story buildings (flats) usually don't have individual outdoor areas to maintain and are the type that would be oriented to the vacation or retirement condominium. Also, parking could be reduced if the parking lots were developed as group spaces: turnover rate in a group parking lot will provide some visitor parking. Landscaping Plans: Prior to the meeting with Mr. Naegle, Fred Morey of La Costa submitted a letter to staff indicating some of the problems he had noted with the condominium regulations. He noted that the present landscape provisions require that landscape plans show plant type and irrigation design with the application. Mr. Morey feels that the cost of developing full landscape plans prior to approval of the site plan is unnecessary and costly Staff intended the Code to mean preliminary landscape plans, not a final plan. A preliminary plan is desireable so the Planning Commissioners -4- and Council can determine if the plan is generally ~cceptable. The City would be interested in knowing the areas to be land- scaped and the types of landscaping to be used. The City is interested in reducing maintenance costs and water use. The Code could be amended to indicate that the plan need only be "preliminary". Also, the section could be modified to state landscape plans are required only for condominiums with five or more units; the smaller condominiums dc.n't have the maintenance problems of larger developments and there is more individual maintenance. Refuse Areas: Presently the Code requires refuse areas for condos with five or more uni ts to be in areas enclosed by a masonry wall. How- ever, as Mr. Morey has indicated, refuse areas could be in parking str.uctures, where enclosure walls, as required in the code, would not be necessa~y. Staff believes that refuse areas in parking structures should be enclosed to some degree to insure that the space not be·used for another use (parking, storage) and to control litter. However, the Code could be modified to provide some flexibility in construction when in parking structures. General Plan Finding: Presently the State Law indicates condo conversion decisions are exempt from GP consistency, unless the general plan specifically provides guidelines for condominium conversions. A state bill ha3 recently been submitted to delete this exemp- t.Lon. This deletion will require cities to make a General Plan c~nsistency finding with a condo subdivision. A condo- minium conversion would be deni~d if density is greater than the present general plan or if the conversion is not consistent with the goals of the City, i.e., diversity in housing types, providing housing for allowance levels, etc. Some cities are placing a requirement into their condominium ordinance that requires a finding of general plan consistency. Carlsbad may wish to do the same. Planned Unit Development vs. Condominium: In drafting the condo regulations, staff considered condominiums different from planned unit developments. Condos are airspace divisions with some common areas, usually with attached build- ings. Planned Unit Developments are land division with some common areas, usually with detached buildings. However, there is no clear definition between planned unit developments and a condominium in State or City regulations. This has lead to so~e questions as to whether a PUD also requires a condo permit. The Code could be amended to indicate that condo permits are n~t required for PUD's. -s- ' I l I t r I I I r r ' Re~omrnendation Staff recommends that the following changes be made to the ~ondominium regulations. These changes are basically technical or for clarity purposes: 1) Reduce parallel parking spaces to 20 feet in length for those spaces at the end of a par~ing row provided there is sufficient pull out space. 2) 3) 4) Permit common gas and electric meteriny for multi-storied developments (flats) as presently permitt~q for water metering. A~end landscaping plan requirement to indicate it is a "preliminary" landscape plan and only required tor condos with fj.ve or more unitP.. Amend refuse area requirement to permit flexibility in the conditions of refus~ areas when the area is within an enclosed parking structure. 5) Insert a requ,ired finding for General Plan consistency for the approval of condo conversions. (This change can be done only if State Law is modified as presently proposed). 6) Add a statement that clarifies that condo permits are not required for PUDs. Staff does nqt recommend reducing the basic condominium require.- ments as suggested by Mr. Nagel. Sta.ff belie\_'es that·:the present standards are warranted. It would be very difficult to write an ordinance that would distinguish between vacation units and any other type. In reality, a reduction of standards for a specific development permits reduction in standards for all similar projects thoughout the City. If, however, the City Council wishee to permit flexibility into the ordinance for higher Sen1ity projects, staff submits the following possible changes: 7) Provide a distinction for multi-storied condominiums (flats) with common parkinu areas and limited floor area. oJ Reduce parking requirements for multi-storied (flats), but not les~ than required for apartments. 9) Reduce the stot,:age requirements to reflect the one covered parking space r~quirement and give flexibility to multi- storied building (flats). -6-