HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-19; City Council; 5886; Conversion of Apartments to CondominumsCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO: 3*PIT&> ' Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 19, 1979 • Cty' Atty
Cty. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: Planning
Initial MS \£//
SUBJECT:
CONVERSION OF APARTMENTS TO .CONDOMINIUMS
CASE NO: CT 79-3/CP 79-3 APPLICANT: VON ELTEN
Statement of the Matter
The application is for a tentative map/condominium permit for the
conversion of an 80 unit apartment complex to condominiums. The
property is located on the east side of El Camino Real between
Alga and Palomar Airport Road-. The project is presently under
construction and none of these units are occupied.
Both the staff and Planning Commission found that the project did
not meet the minimum requirements for a condominium. The units
are not designed to appropriately integrate open space, recreation
and parking with the dwelling units. More particularly, proper
setbacks of buildings from the "private street" and "private
drives" have not been maintained, nor have sufficient numbers
of spaces been provided. : • .
After the Planning Commission hearing, .staff noted the absence of
building setbacks as explained above. Therefore staff did. another
review of the application to make sure nothing else was missed.
This second review with additional findings is summarized in the
attached supplemental report.
Exhibits
• Supplemental Staff Report Dated June 7, 197.9
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1523
Staff Report Dated May 23, 1979 ' •
*
Recommendation
Both the Planning Commission and planning staff have recommended
DENIAL of this application. . If the City Council concurs you should
direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING these two
applications per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1523, and the
findings of the supplemental staff report.dated June 7, 1979.
Council Action . - .
'•<,
6-19-79: Council directed that the City Attorney prepare the
necessary documents to deny the applications pursuant to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1523, including
public testimony on the matter.
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 7, 1979
TO: City Manager
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 79-3/CP 79-3, Von Elten
DISCUSSION;
After Planning Commission action was completed on the subject
items, it was brought to Staff's attention that the conversion
plan is deficient from the requirements of the Condominium
Ordinance for an additional reason. Specifically, the required
setbacks of the apartment structures from the private street and
driveways are not met. Section 21.47.130 of the Condominium
Ordinance requires that:
"All structures shall be set back from the right-of-way
of a private street at least ten feet, except parking
structures with an entrance at approximate right angles
to the private street shall maintain a minimum setback
of twenty-five feet from a pedestrian walkway or curb-
line if a walkway does not exist."
Furthermore,
"Building setbacks from private driveways shall be less
than ten feet except garages entered directly from the
private driveway may either be set back five to seven
feet or greater than twenty feet."
All the buildings presently under construction do not meet these
required setback standards.
Staff conducted another review of the project application to en-
sure that no other standards had been overlooked. The expressed
concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the project, in-
cluding insufficient or inaccessible parking and lack of quality
design, were further investigated.
FINDINGS;
The second review acted to further support the initial findings
made in the Planning Commission Resolution. These findings could
be more precisely stated as follows:
TO: City Manager
June 7, 1979
CT 79-3/CP-3 does not meet the design criteria as
required by Section 21.47.110 of the Condominium
Ordinance.
a) The plan is not comprehensively designed; the
required amenities including parking, land-
scaping, recreation areas, storage, and refuse
locations were added with great difficulty to
meet only the minimum requirements. The attempt
to upgrade to condominium standards, a project
initially designed as apartments, has resulted
in amenities being crammed into any available
area instead of planned with consideration of
their proper interrelationship.
b) The buildings are not well integrated to parking
and recreation areas because parking and paved
areas intrude between buildings and must be
crossed by pedestrian residents to reach the
recreation site.
c) This development, as proposed ownership units,
is not compatible with existing and potential
traffic circulation because:
i) The buildings are close to heavily traveled
El Camino Real and will have high noise
levels due to traffic.
ii) Traffic on El Camino Real will increase as
the La Costa residential and nearby indus-
trial and commercial areas are developed.
Traffic is expected to ultimately be in
excess of 40,000 auto trips per day.
d) The internal street system is a dominant feature in
the development since it surrounds the development
and projects into the interior.
e) Common recreation areas are not centrally located
and are not readily accessible to several of the
units. Some residents will be required to travel
several hundred feet across driveways and parking
areas and in front of other units to reach the
common recreation area.
To: City Manager
June 7, 1979
f) Building placement does not create private areas
nor reduce noise from El Camino Real. The buildings
in the development are oriented to one another and
to the parking and driveway areas. Several of the
buildings are close to El Camino Real so noise will
be a problem.
2. This project does not meet the parking requirements of
Section 21.47.130(2).
a) 183 spaces are required; only 168 have been provided.
b) The spaces are not readily accessible to the units
they are supposed to serve.
c) The northern parcel parking area is not acceptable
for required parking since it is too distant from the
units to properly serve that function and is separated
from the rest of the development by a full-width City
street. The area would be acceptable for RV and
trailer storage only, since these vehicles need not
be readily accessible.
3. The project does not meet the development standards for
residential condominiums in Section 21.47.130(1) of the
Condominium Ordinance because the required building set-
backs of the units are not maintained.
a) Ten foot setbacks from the right-of-way of private
streets are required for all structures. Several
buildings along the eastern and southern portions of
the site are set back less than the required distance.
b) Twenty-five foot setbacks are required for parking
structures with an entrance at right angles to a
private street. Two buildings along the southern
side of the property have garage openings at right
angles to the private street and are only set back
8 feet. A building fronting on the eastern private
street also has garage openings to that street and
is set back only 15 feet.
c) Buildings with garages entered directly from private
drives shall be set back five to seven feet or greater
than twenty feet. The buildings with garage openings
fronting on private drives are being constructed with
only a 3 foot setback.
DA:mcs
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 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1523
'RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN
80 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO CONDOMINIUMS.
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
CT 79-3/CP-3
Peter Von Elten
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
That portion of the West Half of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to
official plat thereof recorded in the office of
the County Recorder on December 30, 1977,
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 23rd day of May,
1979, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined CT 79-3/CP-3
to be exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section
19.04.090 (a) (8) of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection
Ordinance which exempts the division of existing multiple family
rental units into condominiums; 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
/-NW
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
the tentative subdivision map (CT 79-3) arid Condominium Permit
(CP-3) and found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1. CT 79-3/CP-3 do not meet the design criteria as required by
Section 21.47.110 of the condominium ordinance.
a) The plan is not comprehensive; the required amenities
were added with great difficulty to meet only the minimum
requirements .
b) The buildings are not well integrated to parking and
recreation areas.
c) This development would not be compatible with existing
and^ future circulation. The traffic on El Camino Real
will -increase, which will make this complex less desirable
as ownership units.
d) The internal street system is a dominant feature in the
development since it surrounds the development and projects
into the interior.
e) Common recreation areas are not centrally located and
are not readily accessible to. several of the units.
f) Building placement does not create private areas nor
reduce noise from El Camino Real.
2. This project does not meet the parking requirements "of
Section 21.47.130(2) .
a) 183 spaces are required; only 168. have been provided.
b) The spaces are not readily accessible to the units they
are supposed to serve.
c) The northern parcel parking area is acceptable for RV
and trailer storage but not for required parking , since
it is not accessible to the units.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote,
denied CT 79-3/CP-3 for the reasons as stated above.
AYES: L'Heureux, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, Larson
NOES: Schick
ABSENT: Rombotis
ABSTAIN: None .
-2-
c
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the foregoing
recitations are true and correct.
STEPHEN M. L'HEUREUX, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
JAMES C.-HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
CT 79-3/CP-3
c
1
2
5
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CARLSBAD )SS
I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meeting
*.
of said Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1979
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
• ABSENT:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-4-
CT 79-3/CP-3
w •
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May .23, 1979
TO: ' Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
CASE NO.: CT. 79-3 and CP 79-3
APPLICANT: Peter von Elten, Mola Development Corporation
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND A CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN 80-UNIT APARTMENT
COMPLEX TO CONDOMINIUMS.
BACKGROUND
Location and Descriptic-n of Property
The subject site is a triangular lot of approximately 4.9 acres.
The property lies east of El Camino Real, between the SDG&E trans-
mission line easement and Alga Road. There is an 80-unit apartment
complex under construction on this site.
Existing Zoning
Subject Property: RDM-Q
North: P-C:
South: C-l-Q and RDM
East: P-C
West: E-l-A, County
Existing Land Use
Subject Property: Apartments under construction
North: SDG&E easement, vacant
South: Vacant and condominiums
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Environmental Impact Information
This project is exempt from environmental review according to
Section 19 i 04.090 (a, 8) which exempts the division of existing
multiple family rental units into condominiums. A negative
declaration was issued for SDP-77-1, on the basis of a previous
EIR on the property and a supplemental report.
c
General Plan Information
The General Plan designates the subject property as Residential,
Medium High Density, RM-H, 10-20 dwelling units per acre. The
80 apartment units are on a 4.9 acre lot which results in a
density of 16.3 dwelling units per acre.
•Public Facilities
The subject project is under construction as an apartment complex
and currently has all necessary public facilities. Sewer service
will be provided by the Leucadia County Water District and water
will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The
applicant has reached an agreement with the Carlsbad Unified
School District and has paid fees to provide for school facilities.
Past History and Related Cases
This project came before the Commission on April 25, 1979.
Approval of CT 79-3, CP-3 was dependent upon approval of a variance
to reduce required parking, V-291. The variance was denied
because the Commission was unable to make the required findings.
CT 79-3, CP-3 were continued to allow the applicant to supply the
required parking.
Condominium Ordinance, City Council Resolution No. 9516.
The City Council adopted a condominium conversion ordinance
on September 19, 1978, which added Section 21.47 to the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. This section regulates development standards for
new condominiums and condominium conversions. The standards include
design criteria, setbacks, parking 'requirements, guest parking
areas, storage space, open recreation areas, laundry areas and
refuse collection facilities. This section requires that all
condominium projects or conversions apply for a condominium permit.
CT 77-8, Roily Pulaski and Associates, City Council Resolution
No. 5161, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1375.
The City Council approved a tentative map for a 16 lot subdivision
on August 2, 1977. This map was for the 5.5 acres just south
of the subject property. This property will be four-plexes, as
approved in SDP 77-1.
SDP 77-1, Pulaski and Associates, Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1374. .
On June 22, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a Site
Development Plan for 15 acres on the northeast corner of Alga
Road and El Camino Real. The conditions of approval required
half street improvements including a median, a five foot view
obscuring fence along the northeast property line and a redesign
of the parking area for the apartments. Two revisions have since
been made to this SDP, both dealt with the commercial center.
A declaration of nonsignificant environmental impact was issued
for this SDP on the basis of a previous EIR and a supplemental
EIR. The supplemental EIR dealt with traffic circulation and
archaeology.
.2
Zone Change, City Council Resolution No. 9437, September 16, 1975.
This was a City initiated zone change which placed the "Q"
Overlay on this property to ensure comprehensive development of
the project.
EIR-283, Certified on May 6, 1975.
This EIR "was prepared for the annexation of this property.
It cited two areas needing further research when specific develop-
ment plans were initiated, traffic circulation and the archaeology
of the site.
•
Preannexational Zone Change, City Council Resolution No. 9410.
December 10, 1974.
The City Council approved a preannexational zone change from
E-l-A (County) to RD-M and C-l. These zones became effective
when the property was annexed to the City.
Major Planning Considerations
1. Does this tentative map meet all the requirements of Title 20
and the Subdivision Map Act?
2. Does this condominium meet all the requirements of. Section
21.48, which regulates condominium conversions?
DISCUSSION • .
This request involves the conversion of an 80 unit apartment
complex to condominiums. All condominium conversions must
obtain a condominium permit as required by Sections 21.47 in
addition to the tentative tract map. The requirements of the
condominium ordinance, 21.47, are discussed below. •
Design Criteria
The plan should be comprehensive, embracing land, buildings,
landscaping and their interrelationships. The units appear to •
have been planned as apartments; they meet only the minimum
apartment requirements. Amenities that are required by the
condominium ordinance such as additional parking, recreation area
and storage space were added later. These amenities were crammed
into any available area only to meet the minimum requirements.
No amenities have been provided beyond what is required. The
pool area was provided for the apartments, but the surrounding
open areas will have to be changed from.shrubs an'd ground_ cover
to lawn area. No private recreation areas have been provided.
The storage space will be added to the garage and to a room
at one end of each building. The applicant has tried several
different ways to supply the required parking. (21.47.110(1)).
The buildings should be oriented to the natural landscape and
should be placed to provide private areas and reduce noise. They
should have a proper relationship with other functions o'f the
.3
development and be well integrated. The buildings in the
subject development are oriented to one another and to the
parking and driveway areas. There are large asphalt areas
adjacent to and within the complex. Some of the buildings have
asphalt on two or three sides. The buildings are close to the
street and the units will have high noise levels due to traffic •
on El Camino Real. The buildings have not been oriented to
provide privacy; there are no private outdoor areas. Several of
the buildings are about 25 feet apart which reduces the atmosphere
of privacy even inside the units. The units are conveniently
located as apartments since they are adjacent to a main thoroughfare,
(21.47.110(2) and (7)).
The development should be compatible with existing and planned'
land use and circulation. The complex is only 50 feet away from
El Camino Real which is a heavily traveled arterial. Traffic on
this road is expected to increase as more of the La Costa area
is developed. Apartments are often used as a buffer between
noise sources such as El Camino Real and ownership units. These
units, as condominiums, would be incompatible with the heavy
traffic and noise generated by El Camino Real, (21.41.110(3).
The condominium ordinance indicates that the internal -street
system shall not be a dominant feature in the design. The street
system should not create a disruptive influence on the activity
and functions of any common areas. The street system is dominant
in this development; it surrounds the pr.oject and extends into
the development. The system effectively cuts the development off
from the surrounding areas as well as interfering with the living
space. Many of the residents will have to cross driveways and
parking areas to reach the common recreation area, (21.47.110(4).
The ordinance requires that common areas and recreational facilities
shall be readily accessible to all units. The common areas are
located at one end of the complex. Several occupants would have
to walk across parking and driveway areas and next to other units,
(21.47.110(5).
The pedestrian circulation system is designed for travel from
parking lot to garage. The walkway leading to the front of the
unit passes directly in front of other units, (21.47.110(6).
Development Standards
Parking
The ordinance requires ci total of 183 parking spaces for this
80 unit project. Two spaces, one of which shall be covered,
must be provided for each unit. In addition, 23 guest parking
spaces are required. The applicant has provided 168 spaces
which are close enough to the units to serve as required parking.
The north parking lot is too distant from the units and will be
allowed as an RV and trailer storage area.
Refuse Area
The applicant intends to install a refuse area at one end of each
of the buildings. The area is large enough in size, since each
will serve only eight units.
.4
o.
Storage Space
Each unit is required to have 480 cubic feet of storage space.
There are 270 cubic feet provided in each of the garages. The
storage room at the end of each building will provide the remain-
ing 210 cubic feet per unit through the use of locked cabinets.
Laundry Facilities
Common laundry facilities will be provided at one end of each of
the eight buildings.
Open Recreation Area
There is a swimming pool and spa area located at the south end
of the complex. This area, which exists on previous plans,
contains approximately 8,000 square feet. Since the ordinance
requires 200 square feet per unit, or a total of 16,000 square
feet for this complex, the applicant will alter the existing
plans to show the areas around the pool as lawn areas. These
areas must be viable for recreation, which means that some of the
shrubbery and landscaping will have to be removed. By eliminating
the landscaping, some of the buffer between the buildings will
be removed. The applicant can provide 23,000 square feet of
recreation area including the pool and the passive lawn areas.
Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The plan will be'
altered to provide the above grassy recreation areas. The
landscaping plan is otherwise acceptable.
Utilities
Separate gas and electric services are provided for each unit
as required. The ordinance allows common water service for
multi-storied buildings. The applicant will provide one meter
for each of the 10 buildings and one for the landscape and rec-
reation areas.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of CT- 79-3/CP-3, based on the following
findings:
1) CT 79-3/CP-3 do not meet the design criteria as required by
Section 21.47.110 of the condominium ordinance.
a) The plan is not comprehensive; the required amenities
were added with great difficulty to meet only the
minimum requirements.
b) The buildings are not well integrated to parking and
recreation areas.
.5
c) This development would not be compatible with existing
and future circulation. The traffic on El Camino
Real will increase, which will make this complex less
desirable as ownership units.
d) The internal street system is a dominant feature in
the development since it surrounds the development and
projects into the interior.
e) Common recreation areas are not centrally located
and are not readily accessible'to several of the
units.
f) Building placement does not create private areas
nor reduce noise from El Camino Real.
2) This project does not meet the parking requirements of
Section 21.47.130(2)
a) 183 spaces'are required; only 168 have been
provided.
b) The spaces are not readily accessible to the units
they are supposed to serve.
c) The northern parcel parking area is acceptable for
RV and trailer storage but not for required parking.
Since it is not accessible to the units.
If the Commission should decide to approve CT 79-3/CP-3, Commission
should make appropriate findings and apply the following conditions:
Conditions;
1) Approval is granted for CT 79-3 and CP-3 as shown on Exhibit
B, dated May 15, 1979, on file in the Planning Department.
2) The landscape plan shall be altered to show the three recreation
areas as grass lawns.
3) A separate water meter shall be provided for each of the 10
buildings.
4) . The laundry and refuse areas shall be completed prior to
approval of final map. The refuse area shall be constructed
according to Section 21.47.130(5).
5) The storage area in the garage shall be enlarged and the
storage room shall be divided into storage cabinets to
provide for 480 cubic feet of storage per unit prior to
approval of the final map.
6) The applicant shall provide landscaping of sufficient height
and density to screen the northern parking lot, and the lot
along the southern boundary from adjacent streets and properties.
7) The above conditions shall be met before approval of the
final map.
KJL/ar '
CT73-3 / £P
VON ELTEN
CASE 'NO .<2 Rec'd
•Description of .Request-. TEt4TOnS/F=
DCC Date:
A
PC Date
usirrfa r>H PS
Address or Location of Request:
Applicant :
Engr. or Arch._
Brief Legal ;/^
\A/I>
\\/\\5=-
Assessor Book: __ _ ^_
General Plan Land Use Description!
Existing Zone;
Acres; APClPi
Page:Parcel;
- tt\&\4
NO- of Lots:
L^_Pr°Eoseci Zone : PvO- H - <f3'U s
School District:
Water District:
Coast Permit Area:
DU/Acre
, )Nlip:|po
Sanitation District;
If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
that further information i;; required, you will bo so advised.
APPLICANT: Mola Development Corporation, a California corporation •
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
. 417_Main Street, Eunt_ington Beach, CA 92648
Business Address
(714) 536-2^47
Telephone Number
AGENT:
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
MEMBERS : Frank J. Mola-President/ Treasurer
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
422 Lara, Kuntington Beach, CA 92648
Home Address
17 Main ..Street, Kuntington Beach, CA 92643
Business Address
E. von Elten. Exec. V.P. -
Telephone Number
417
405 18th St. Kuntington Beach, CA 92648
General Counsel Telephone Number
KiiriH nc-t-nn Rpach, CA 92748. ____
Name Home Address
(714)536-2547
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
John Mola 422 Lara, Kuntington Beach, CA 92648
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will retna'in true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
MDLA DEVEDOPMEt?T CORPORATION
licant
Agent, Owner, PartnerPeter E. von Elten-Executive Vice President