HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-20; City Council; 6073; Conversion of 7 Apartments into CondominiumsCITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial
AGENDA BILL NO: JQ Q 7J3 • Dept. Hd.
DATE: November 20, 1979 . Cty. Atty
Planning 'Cty. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: _ •
* - *
SUBJECT: '. '• ~~ ~
CT 79-15/CP-18 CONVERSION OF 7 APARTMENTS INTO CONDOMINIUMS
APPLICANT: Nick La Forte" - .
Statement of the Matter
The proposed project is on the west side of Jerez Court nprth .of Gibralter
Street in the La Costa area. The request is for the conversion of •
seven apartments presently under construction to condominiums on,a
.40 acre parcel. The General Plan indicates 20 units to the acre
with up.to 30 units-with appropriate amenities. . The application is .
.requested for 17.5 dwelling units to the acre; therefore the
application is consistant with: the General Plan.
However, the application is not'consistant with the condominium
regulations in that the buildings are not set back the required 10
feet from the driveway. The applicant requested a variance
along with this conversion application. The'Planning.Commission
recommended denial of the variance, as well as the subject applications. '
-However, the Planning Commission did wish that the City Council review
the setback ^requirements of the condominium regulations. Staff has '
. prepared a memo dated November 8 on this matter.
Another problem noted by staff was the relative dominance of the
driveway. However, the applicant has reduced this dominance by
__ proposing different textured materials and landscaping within the •
"driveway. This, to some degree, will delineate walkways and provide '
aesthetic relief. • '
The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision on the
. " "variance.- To approve the'condominiums and tract map, the City
Council would have to approve the variance.
Exhibits " ' . •
Memo to City Manager, dated November 14,1979
Planning Commission Resolution 1559 •
Staff Report, dated October 24, 1979 with Location Map
Exhibit A, dated October 8, 1979
Exhibits K and C, dated September 12, 1979
Recommendation • • . .
It is recommended that the City Council •direc't the City Attorney to
prepare documents .Denying CT-15/CP-18 as pet the Planning Commission
Resolution. .
AGENDA BILL NO. 6073 Page 2
Council Action:
11-20-79 Council returned the matter to the Planning Commission for
the necessary findings of approval.
•MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 14, 1979
TO: Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: SETBACKS CONDOMINIUM REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks are required in the condominium regulations for buildings
from driveways and private streets. On October 24, 1979 the
Planning Commission denied two requests for condominiums, that for
different reasons, did not meet the setback requirements. Staff
had recommended denial of both of these applications based pri-
marily on this problem. The Planning Commission, however, felt
that the City should consider amending these requirements to either
delete these setback requirements or provide a mechanism to allow
deviation.
The section of code in question is 21.47.130 (1) (B). It indicates
that building setbacks from driveways shall not be less than 10
feet except garages entering directly from private drives may be
setback 5 to 7 feet or greater than 20 feet. This section has
always given designers of condominiums some difficulty. This
problem has been reviewed by Council in the past, and at that
time, they decided not to change the code. It was felt that the
5 foot minimum for the garage was desirable to provide sufficient
turning radius and space for service and safety vehicles. The
10 foot minimum setback for living portions of the building was
desired to provide buffer from driveways, landscape relief, noise
reduction, walkways, etc.
Both of these condos with setback problems are on the November 20,
1979 City Council Agenda. I have placed a copy of this report
with both Agenda Bills.
With CT 79-15/CP-18, Courtyard, there was no question that the
ordinance does not allow the proposed setback. Therefore a
variance was requested (V-294). The project has a driveway
through the center of the lot. The lot is only 90 feet wide;
therefore, to provide a 20 foot driveway and setbacks of 10 feet
required a setback of 40 feet between units. On a 90 foot lot
this would only allow 25 feet on each side of the driveway for
the units and the side yard setback. Since this could not be
accommodated, the applicant asked for a variance. Also, the appli-
cant had started construction as apartments and could not redesign
the project. On this request the buildings are setback only one
foot from the driveway instead of 10 feet, although the garages do
meet the 5 foot setback requirement.
Wayne Dernetz
November 14, 1979
Page 2
The other condo, CT 79-13/CP-17, Joseph, the property meets all the
setback requirements for the downstairs units, having a 20 foot
driveway and a 5 foot setback for garages. This provides a 30
foot separation between buildings. However, in the Joseph application
the second floor units cantilevers 3 feet beyond the garage toward the
dri veway.
At first, staff found only a problem with the cantilever because we
felt that it was crowding the development, reducing light and air,
creating a tunnel effect and causing containment of auto noise. A
variance was not suggested by staff since at that time we felt the
second floor was not covered by the code, and the problem was a
matter of design.
As staff further reviewed this situation, we found that we have been
administering the setback regulation wrong. The code does not
permit the main portions of buildings to be closer than 10 feet from
a driveway regardless of whether it's the second or third story. The
City has approved some condo projects with upper floors directly over
the garages with only a 5 foot setback from the driveways.
Although there are reasons for the 10 foot setback, the Planning
Commission noted that on small lots it's very difficult to design a
condo and provide these setbacks. Many times rear yards or open
areas are reduced to provide driveway setbacks. The Planning Commis-
sion thought that reducing the setback a minimum of 5 feet for all
buildings would be a practicle solution. This would allow upper
floors over garages and yet provide safe distances between buildings
for walkways and safety vehicles.
The Planning Commission also requested review to provide flexibility
in setbacks. It's possible to provide a percentage of the buildings
to have less setback than the minimum. For example, the code could
indicate that 10% of the building frontage along one side of the
driveway may extend into the required setback. However, staff notes
that these intrusions could reduce or remove pedestrian walkways and
be a problem for safety and refuse vehicles, as well as crowd the
units together.
JCH/BP/nlo
Att. Exhibit A dated November 12, 1979
A
O
Cond
U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1559
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR
A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ COURT,
NORTH OF GIBRALTER.
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
CT 79-15/CP-18
Courtyard Townhomes
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit
Lot 362 of La Costa South, Unit No. 5, in the
County of San Diego, 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, this project has been processed through environ-
mental review and a negative declaration. Log No. 581, has" been
issued on this project based on the following reasons:
1) The project is consistent with the general plan land use
designation, and with surrounding development.
2} The site has been previously graded and is devoid of
any significant flora or fauna, or any unique or historical
environmental resources.
3) Only minimal site preparation is necessary in order to
develop the property as proposed.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on October 24, 1979,
hold a duly noticed, public hearing as prescribed by law, to
consider said request; and
G
(1) (B) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
9
b) The individual water meters have not been provided as
10
11
12 a) The street system is a dominant and disruptive feature
in the project (Section 21.47.120(4).
13
b) The conmon recreation area is not equally accessible
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Commission considered all factors realting to
the Carlsbad Tract (CT 79-15) and Condominium Permit (CP-18)
and found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1. Since the variance (V-294) request was denied, the
.has not been provided as required in Section 21.47.130
required in Section 21.47.120(11) (B).
2. The design criteria has not been fulfilled.
to all the units (Section 21.47.120(5)).
c) The pedestrian circulation has been provided along the
driveway and along garage openings and cannot be
. considered safe. (Section 21.47.120(6)).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commisson, by the following vote,
recommended denial without prejudice, of CT 79-15/CP-18 for those
reasons as set forth above. ,-
AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus,. Jose, Larson
NOES: None . : - .
ABSENT: None
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the foregoing
recitations are true and correct.
EDWIN S. SCHICK, JR., Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
27
ATTEST:
28
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
.' " STAFF REPORT
DATE: . -October 24, 1979 . ' -."•"-'
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department . "''•'.
RE: . . CT 79-15/CP-18
APPLICANT: Courtyard Townhomes . . •
REQUEST: Tentative Map and Condominium Permit for a
'Seven Unit Condominium Conversion.
I. ' BACKGROUND - .
Location "and''Description of Property " '
.The subject property consists of .40 acre on the west side
of Jerez Court, north of Gibraltar.' The .lot is relatively
• level and abuts the La Costa Golf Course. Construction has
begun on the units. ." .'
'Existing 'Zoning. . .
Subject-Property: RD-M
North: RD-M • ' '
South: RD-M . - " J
East: RD-M
West: PC, RD-M
Existing Land Use . -
Subject Property: Under Construction
North: Vacant, condos . •
South: Condos . •
. East: Condos
West: Golf Course,
Eriyir'onmontal-Impact Information
This project has been processed through environmental
review and a negative declaration, Log No. 581, has been
issued on this project based on the following reasons:
1) The project is consistent with the general plan land
use designation, and with surrounding development.
2) The site has been previously graded and is devoid of
any significant flora or'fauna, or any unique or
historical environmental resources. • .
3) - Only minimal site preparation is necessary in order
to develop the property as proposed.
General Plan Information
A. Land Use Element:
The Land Use Element designates this property as RH,
Residential High Density, 20-30 du/ac. The recommended density
is 20 du/acre. The subject property, which contains .41 acres
and has 7 units has a density of 17.5 du/acre. In staffs
opinion, this density is close enough to the recommended
density to be consistent. .
B. . Public Facilities:
The Public Facilities Element requires that adequate
public facilities be available to service the project at the
time of approval.
Sewer: -This property will be serviced by the Leucadia
County Water District. Seven sewer units have
been allocated to this project.
Schools: If approved, school fees would be paid to
both the Encinitas and San Dieguito School
Districts before the final -map is recorded.
SDG&E: SDG&E will provide service and separate meters
for each unit. • '"'
Water: Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District. Separate co'ld water
meters will be provided.
On-Site and Adjacent Public Improvements: All necessary
public- improvements were required with the building
permit.
Other Public Facilities: The City Council has determined
that they are not prepared to find that all other public
facilities necessary to serve this project x^ill be
available concurrent with need. The Planning Commission
may, by inclusion of an appropriate condition, require
that the project contribute to the costs of such
facilities according to City Council Policy No. 17.
Since the development would pay its appropriate share
of the public facility it would require, the Planning
Commission could be assured that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan
would be satisfied.
C. Other Elements:
This project is consistent with all other elements of
the General Plan. '
.2
: : . .. o
History and Related Cases
CT 79-3/CP-3. (Von Elten) , City Council Resolution No'. 5832,
denied on July 3, 1979. . '
This proposal involved the -conversion of an 80 unit apartment
'complex, located on the east side of El Camino Real and
north of El Camino Real, to condominiums. The proposed
conversion was denied based on findings which included:
lack of a comprehensive overall design; insufficient provision
of improvements required by the condominium ordinance; and
lack of adequate setbacks and parking.
CT 79-7/CP-lO, Fries, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1544,
City Council Resolution -No.,.-5951.
This 39 unit condominium on the southwest corner of Santa
Isabel and El Fuerte was approved on September 18, 1979.
Questions on. this project concerned density, circulation and
on street parking. Although the Planning Commission approved
this project, there x^as some concern about the overall design
and the provided amenities.
CT 77-18(A)/CP-1, Linguiti, Planning. Commission Resolution
No. 1500; City Council Resolution No. 5750.
On April 17, 1979, the City Council approved a condominium
permit for 3 additional units on an already approved 16 unit
project. This property is just south of the courtyard
development". The project is a .high-density project, '
du/acre. Since the first 16 units were approved prior to
addoption of the condominium ordinance, not all of the
required amenities and standards have been provided.
II. ' Major' Prahnlhg Considerations
1) Does this project meet all the design standards concern-
ing access to the recreation area and the dominance of
the driveway? '"..
2) Will these units be suitable for ownership housing?
3) Have development standards been met? The required
10 foot setback and the required separate meters have
not been provided.
III. Piscussion
This project is a request for approval of a 7 unit condominium
project on the west side of Jerez Court. The west side of
the lot abuts the golf course. This action should follow
the action on V-294, which concerns the water meters and
setbacks for this project.
.3
If the variance is denied, this project cannot be approved
since the requirements of Section 21.47 have riot been met.
Development Standards
The requested variance concerns two of the development
standards. The ten foot setback and the individual water
meters have not been provided. (For further discussion of
these two sections, see V-294). Other development standards
have been met.
Design 'Standards
Section 21.47.120 gives criteria which are to be used in
evaluating the design of a condominium project. The fourth
criteria (21.47.120(4)) states that the internal street
system shall not be dominant nor disruptive feature in the
project. The driveway in the proposed project runs the
length of the lot and occupies the center portion. The front
of the units, and second floor decks look out over the
driveway. Although the driveway is dominant, attempts •
'have, been made to minimize the impact of .the drive on the
.units. Containerized landscaping, embossed concrete and
lighting have been used to reduce the .visual dominance of
the driveway. • :
Another-problem is presented by the location of the common
recreation area and the access to this area (21.47.130(5)
and (6)). The common area is located on the northwes't .'
corner of the project, which is a considerable distance
from Units 4 and 3. The pedestrian circulation, .which
provides access to this area., is an embossed and colored
concrete walkway through the driveway. This x^alkway passes
in front of the garage and crosses the guest parking adjacent
to the common area. The common area itself lias parking
spaces on two sides, which, although they may shield the
area from living units, could have a disruptive.effect on
the recreation area. This project was originally intended
to be a condominium development. Since the City had no
condominium ordinance when the project was started, the
applicant tried to meet the anticipated requirements.
Even if the Planning Commission approves the variance,
staff finds that the design criteria have not been met.
Recommend a t ion .
Staff recommends DENIAL of CT 79-15/CP-18 based on the
following findings:
1) If the variance is denied, the development standards
have not been met.
.4
a) Tlie 10 foot setback between buildings
and driveways have not been provided
as required in Section 21.47.130(1)(B).
b) ' The individual.water meters have not been
provided as required in Section 21.47.130
(11)(B).
2) ' • The design criteria have not been fulfilled.
a) The .street system is a dominant and
disruptive feature in the project (Section
21.47.120(4)).
b) The common Recreation area is not equally
accessible to all the units (Section
. .21.47.120(5)).
c) - The pedestrian circulation has been provided
along the driveway and along garage openings
and cannot be considered safe. (Section
21.47.120(6)).
Attachment •
Location Map .
Exhibit A dated 10/8/79
Exhibit A & C "dated September 12, 1979
KL: ar
.5
KK^.jiiM«..iJJi,^m^;.^^..,,«,.-«,.>,ii. ..... ou, ui.M«i-iriTinrar.i J.
CASE NO CT7q- 1 5/CP- !<^PatG Rec'd
Description of Request :
T UKlrpf? 4:
Address or Location 01: Keques t :
^IJ_.J.J.V.m.~. , ,s<^> ,t , , , ,_
Engr. or Arch.Brief Lcgal:-\ QV ^^?. O^ LA fOPST^ f=O. tV\-\ LlNltT HO.r>. IKl Tl-lr-^m U4TV r)F-'^A.Nl. , , ^^ v ^^^-ru^^^/^p: M/-). /r.^Y), T^U.-gV^ /oM MAP.r>l \H, \c\~m." *"^ M
L '\n£jy/?t ^Frj.A^-y=5rAvfoO).fn-\ LIMII, N^.T^HVI i.m-.../ f.....-.,. ..... , ..
^/^)p>p^^-T'rn_>xi.\pTf^-r^FOF M^9. frfo^-BUSO /oh) MAP.r>l \n, 1"{"/^
"• - Pacrc: ^PO Parcel: Qfo*-g.". «"•• • iAssessor Book: c—u.^
General Plan Land. Ucc Description :jQj_^_-
Existing Zone ;_jRp-S/\ /
Acres: "^
Proposed Zone:
-_.JL__ ^— ' •*_ . -^-—r. i i ^~ ^. I^\^AI T—M•<r-»TT:^\K A •
.. :
1 Coast Permit Area: