HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-06; City Council; 5869-3; Report back from Planning Commission, V 290 - Applicant: Zipser( (
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. INITIAL . Jd... __ 5_8_6_9_,_s_u_p_p_l _e_m_e _n _t _N_o_. _3 ______ 0 e pt . H d . J <-1t
November 6, 1979 \ ,rr_'J) DATE: -----------------------Cty. Atty. 1, 1-1 ,
DEPARTMENT: Planning. ----------------------'--Ct y. Mgr.
SUBJECT: REPORT BACK FROM PLANNING COMMISSION~ VARIANCE NO. 290
APPLICANT: ZIPSER
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
This variance is for the reduction of parking required by the condominium
regulations for a project on Ocean Street, north of Pacific Avenue.
The Planning Commission denied the request. At an appeal hearing the
City Council reviewed various parking arrangements and continued the
matter for more information. After considering the additional infor-
mation, the City Council on September 18, 1979, directed that the
matter be returned to the Planning Commission to re~iew this additional
information and a condition that the applicant participate in a future
parking district.
The Planning Commission on October 10, 1979, reviewed the attached
report dated October 10, 1979, and forwarded this along with their
recommendation as noted on a memorandum to the City Council dat~d
November 1, 1979. The attached Exhibi·t 11 B" shows how the parking
and driveway will be co~structed if the variance is approved.
EXHIBITS
Memorandum dated November 1, 1979
Memorandum dated October 10, 1979
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1519
Location Map
Excerpts of City Council Minutes dated September 18, 1979
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated October 10, 1979
Memorandum from City Engineer dated August 29, 1979
Plot Plan Exhibit "B 11
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council wishes to uphold the appeal and APPROVE Variance
No. 290, the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommend that
the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare dpcuments
approving V-290 based on the findings and conditions contained in
the memorandum dated November 1, 1979.
Council Action:
11-6-79 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving
V-290 based on the findings and conditions contained in the
memorandum dated November l, 1979.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 1979
TO: Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: "PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
APPLICANT: ZIPSER, V-290
At the September 18, 1979, City Council meeting, new infor-
mation was submitted regarding V-290 by the applicant and
the City Engineer, (memorandum dated August 29, 1979).
The City Council requested that the Planning Commission
review this new information and report back. Staff submitted
a report based on this direction (October 10, 1979), to the
Planning Commission. In this report, staff explained the
findings made by the City Council. Based on this the
Planning Commission recommends that V-290 be approved with
the following findings and conditions: ·
1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone
because:
a) The units are designed and always intended to be
constructed as condominiums.
b) The applicant was forced to construct the units
as apartments because no discretionary action
(condo permit) was permitted in the first phase
sewer allocation, which this development received
sewer from.
c) The requirement for 5 1 of right-of-way along
Ocean Street has caused a hardship, but because
of the nature of the str~et widening may not
occur for some time.
d) The design of the units are not conducive for
rentals. The units would more than likely be
rented to groups of people to accommodate the
large size and high rental fee. This would cause
even more parking congestion than condominium
ownership of one family.
2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question because:
a) Most all developments in this a~ea provide the
same or less parking as the subject property.
3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located because:
a) The parking provided will be equal or greater than
parking provided in other developments in the area.
4) That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive general plan because:
a) The general plan provides for the density ,requested
and indicates streets such as Ocean as local streets,
not a collector.
Conditions
1)
BP:ar
Development shall be substantially as shown on Exhibit
11 811 , ;,Proposed Parking and Driveway".
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
City, ensuring that participation in a parking district,
if in the future such district is formed in this area.11
-2-
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
October 10, 1979
Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 290, ZIPSER
1/
The City Council is requesting a further report by the
Planning Commission on t~e subject variance. The variance
is for the reduction of parking required in the condominium
regulations. The site is on Ocean Street north of Pacific
Avenue.
The Planning Commission denied this request. It was subsequently
appealed to the City Council by the applicant. At the
appeal hearing the City Council reviewed various parking
arrangements and heard reports from the City Engineer and
Planning Depqrtment on the parking problems on Ocean Street.
After considering this evidence, the City Counci~ felt that
there were unusual circumstances in that the units were
designed and fully intended to be constructed as condominiums.
The only reason there is a conversion request is that the
applicant was forced to construct the units as apartments
because no discretionary actions were permitted in the first
phase sewer allocation. The Council felt that the design
and size of the units were of such a nature that they would
not be condusive to apartment living. They felt that the
units would have to be rented to groups of people to accommodate
the large size and high rental fee. This would. cause even
more parking congestion in the area than if sold as condominiums.
The City Council also requested that the Planning Commission
consider if additional conditions should be placed on this
approval to insure future parking if necessary. One condition
the City Council considered would require the applicant to
enter into agreement with the City assuring participation in
a public parking district if such district is created.
Another idea discussed would be to require the applicant to
bond for the construction of one additional parking space on
site. if Ocean Street is widened in the future. This additional
parking space could be provided by turntable parking or an
elevator parking.
, -
Staff believes that a· condition requiring participation in a
Ocean Street parking district is appropriate and should be
applied to the approval of variance. Staff does not believe
however, that bonding for additional parking on site is in
the best interest of the City since at best the parking
provided would be difficult to use and it would probably be
unattractive.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend
that the City Council incorporate the following condition
into their approving resolution:
"The applicant shall enter into agreement with the City
insuring participation in a parking district if in the
future such district is formed in this area".
Attachment
Exerpts of City Council minutes of.9/18/79
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1519
BP:ar
-2-
. ...
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1519
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 21.47.130 (2) TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE
REQUIRED VISITOR PARKING FROM TWO SPACES TO ONE
SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF OCEAN STREET, BETWEEN PACIFIC AVENUE AND
OCEAN STREET.
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
V-290(1)
ZIPSER, STANLEY
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Lot 2, Granville Park, in the County of San Diego,
10 State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1782, filed in the Office of the Recorder of San
11 Diego County, February 21, 1924, excepting there-
from that portion thereof, if any, lying below the
12 mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean,.
13 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
14 Planning Commission; and
15 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
16 as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 9th day of May,
18 1979, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
19 to consider said request; and
20 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined V-290(1) to be
21 exempt from environmental review according to Section 19.04.090
22 (c) (4) of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance which
23 exempts minor alterations in land use limitations.
24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
25 the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to
26 be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
27 Variance (V-290(1)) and found the following facts and reasons
28 to exist:
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
• •
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally
to the other property in the same vicinity and zone.
The condominium ordinance was designed to require the amenities
usually available in ownership housing. The ordinance applies
to all condominium conversions regardless of underlying zone and
date and circumstances of construction.
2. The variance is not necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
A.
B.
The property has been developed as is allowed by the
zone.
The condominium ordinance contains special regulations
to assure quality ownership housing within the City.
A condominium permit is not a right guaranteed by the
zone but a privilege granted at the discretion of the
Planning Commission and the City council.
3. The granting of this variance will adversely affect the
General Plan by circumventing the requirement of the Circulation
Element concerning adequate off-street parking.
4. This variance will be detrimental to surrounding properties
by increasing parking needs without supplying additional off-
street parking.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote,
• denied V-290(1) for the reasons as set forth above.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
L'Heureux, Rombotis, Marcus, Schick, Larson
None
wrench, Jose
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the above recita-
tions are true and correct.
ATTEST:
-2-
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
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 23rd day of May,
1979, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
V-290
L'Heureux, Marcus, Schick, Larson
None
Wrench, Jose
Rornbotis
-3-
CITY OF CARLSBAD~
-5-
September 18, 1979
5~~.dl:~~~"'.3CC -••m=::z,:1~~~
(114) ,,
(108)
••
DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
Planning
15. AB 1/5726 -Supplement 1/3 -AMENDMENTS TO
CONDOMINI"QM ORDINANCE, ZCA-109.
Council introduced the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 9353, AMENDING TITLE
21, CHAPTERS 21.38, 21.45 AND 21.47
OF THE ·.CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY
THE.AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS SECTIONS TO
REVISE THE REGULATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUMS.
· 16. · AB 1fo5869 -Supplement 1"2 -APPEAL OF
VARIANCE 290 ,-ZIPSER.
The City Engineer gave a staff report
referencing the Exhibit Maps and outlining
the options for Council consideration, as
contained.in his August·29, 1979 Memorandum
to Council.
The City Manager·indicated.t:here had been a
misunderstanding with·regar.d to the status
of the matter as a public hearing and
inquired.if Council would allow the
applicant· to . be hea.rd. '
There .being no·objection, Council recognized
Nick Ba~che,.3460 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad,
CA.,.representing Mr. Zipser; Mr. Banche
distributed material and·circulated pictures
of the project site. Mr; Banche reiterated
his client's good faith positi'6n in attempt-
ing to satisfy the requirements of the
Condominium. Ordinance. ·He .further offered
clarification of objections raised to.the
matter in that the subject Variance was the
only exemption· sought by Mr. Zips er. . Mr.
Banche emphasized that denial: of -the Variance
would not solve parking problems and· ·
suggested that his client.contribute to a,
parking district as a condition of the
Variance.
Vice-Mayor Skotnicki _then inquired if anyone
else wished to·address Council on the
matter with no response.
Council discussed the matter of future
widening_of Ocean Street, as suggested in
the staff report. It was-the consensus of
Council that further. study was required to
make any definitive determination. With
regard to applicant·' s offer; it was noted
ther.e'.-was no project· in the near term for-a
parking district. Staff acknowledged that a
report would be prepared ·addressing same. .
Council discussed the design of the project,
as apartments, may invite communal occ_upancy
arid increased parking needs ..
Motion
Ayes. X
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 1979
Page Seven (7)
Roy Ward, 1207 Elm Avenue, indicated agreement with the
proposed amendment which, he believes, will be a tool
to implement future planning.
THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC
TESTIMONY.
A motion was made recommending approval of ZCA-117 as per
Exhibit A, dated 9/7/79, attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
MOTION APPROVED
MOTION: Jose
SECOND: Marcus
AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. V-290, Zipser, variance for the reduction of parking
requred in the condominium regulations on property
generally located on·ocean Street, north of Pacific
Avenue.
Bud Plender presented the staff report, recommending
approval.
Commissioner Jose stated for the record that he had been
absent from the public hearing at which the subject application
had been discussed, although he felt familiar with the
area and proposed project. He indicated he would be abstain-
ing from the vote unless his vote was absolutely necessary.
A motion was made forwarding the following condition of
approval to the City Council for inclusion into their
approving resolution:
"The applicant shall enter into agreement with
the City insuring participation in a parking district
if in the future such district is formed in this
area".
MOTION APPROVED
MOTION: Rombotis
SECOND: Larson
AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Larson
ABSTAIN: Jose
B. General Plan Conformity Finding, Village Area
Redevelopment Plan ..
MEMORANDUM -August 29, 1979
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Council
City Engineer
ZIPS'ER CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
Over the last three months, the Engineering Department has
become very familiar with.the conditions on Ocean Street in
the vicinity of the subject project. The development directly
across the street from the Zipser property was recently required
to widen the street by six feet and install a 5 1/2 foot side-
walk. The Engineering Department has required dedication by
Mr. Zipser that would eventually allow the 6 foot street widen-
ing and installation of sidewalk on the west side of the street,
also.
In order to meet the parking requirements of the condominium
ordinance, the Council could decide that Ocean Street should
never be widened and allow Mr. Zipser to utilize the newly
dedicated sidewalk easement as part of his driveway.
If the Council wishes to retain the option of future street
widening, the condo conversion could still be approved by a
variance to waive the required parking spa9es. Council could
make findings that Ocean Street is an unusual situation in that
the front yard setback is only 18 feet rather than the normal
20 feet, and that the taking of the additional 5 feet of
right-of-way has created a hardship.
If the Council wishes to approve the condo conversion, the
Engineering Department would prefer a decision to never widen
Ocean Street or to grant a variance of parking requirements.
Staff does not recommend allowing the developer to incorporate
a future sidewalk easement into a driveway, except as it serves
as an access point to the street.
City Engineer
LE:mmt
•. ·.•.
,: .
. • ..
I~ . ,~: ... · • . ; . : . I!}] ... · .. · .. ·· r .... ..J( •. , .·•
i·----.:; · .. ::-. : ·. ·•:·:· ..
: . \". \
...
:•
. .._.'
... ·
•• •I
·: ~-"':_4 • . . . -\·' .
~ : ., -_. __ ,: .::
.,,
. . , .
······
: :_,·.·
PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT 11 B11
PROPOSED PARKING & DRIVEWAY
.. •• .. --=
., . . •.
. I