HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-20; City Council; 6074; 13 Unit CondominiumCITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial
AGENDA BILL NO: (jy O -7 */ 'Dept. Hd. ^J
DATE: November 20. 1979 Cty< Atty V Ffo
Cty. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: Planning ' .
•
SUBJECT:
CT 79-13/CP-17 THIRTEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM
APPLICANT: JOSEPH
Statement of the Matter
The proposed 13 unit condominium is located on the sothwest corner
of Navarrow Drive and Viejo Castille Way in South La Costa. The
project is on one half. acre. The General Plan indicates 20 units
to the acre with up to 30 units with appropriate amenities. Based
on this, 9 units can be placed on. this property'to meet the low range
of the General Plan, and up to 14 units with appropriate amenities
.to'meet the high end of the General Plan range. The applicant is
requesting 13 units-which is 4 more than the low range of the General •
Plan.
Staff does not believe the amenities proposed are sufficient for
the. high density, and cited some design'problems with the development.
However, staff believes that all except one of. the design problems
could be resolved by appropriate conditions of approval. The one
that staff.feels can't be resolved is the setback of the units to the
driveway. As proposed, the garages .are setback the required 5 feet,
but the second floor of the units are cantilevered 3 feet over.the
setback. See staff report dated November 8, 1979 for further discus-
sion on this matter. . .
The Planning Commission recommended denial without prejudice. In
addition the Planning Commission requested that the setback require-
ments be reviewed for possible code amendment.
EXHIBITS
Report to City Manager dated November 14 1979
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1557
Staff Report on October 24, 1979
Exhibits A dated September 12, 1979, B,C,D and E dated September 27, 1979
Location Map
RECOMMENDATION . .
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare documents DENYING the applications as.per Planning Commission •
Resolution 1557.
AGENDA BILL NO. 6074 Page 2
Council Action:
11-20-79 Council returned the matter to the Planning Commission for
preparation of the necessary findings approving.
-•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 .condominiurns 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 PI anni ng.-. Commis-
sion thought that reducing the setback a minimum of 5 feet for all
buildings would beapracticle solution. This would allow upper
.floors over garages and yet provide safe distances between buildings
for walkways and safety vehicles.
"; r
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
c
(owl.
-T/ajr/e fr**y
1 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1557
g RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
3 A 13 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF NAVARRA DRIVE AND VIEJO CASTILLA WAY,
4 LA COSTA.
5 CASE NO.: CT 79-13/CP-17
APPLICANT: JOHN JOSEPH
6 ;
7
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
8
wit:
9
Lot 37 of La Costa South, Unit No. 1, in the
10 County of San Diego, according to Map thereof
No. 6117, filed in the Office of the County
11 Recorder for San Diego County, June 3, 1968
12 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
13 Planning Commission; and
14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
15 a provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
16 WHEREAS, this project has been processed through environ-
17 mental review, and a Declaration of Negative Environmental Impact
18 has been issued for the project, based on the following justi-
19 fications:
20 1) The subject property has been previously disturbed and
no significant plant or animal species, nor any unique
21 environmental features or historical resources will be
affected.
22
2) The project is consistent with all applicable plans
23 covering the area, and with the trends of development.
24 3) The City's grading ordinance will serve to mitigate any
potential impacts from the proposed grading operations.
25
26 //
27 //
28 // -
C• . .;
3_ WHEREAS, the Planning Commisson did, on October 24, 1979,
2 hold a duly noticed, public hearing as prescribed by law, to
2 consider said request; and
^ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
5 all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to
5 be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
7 the Carlsbad Tract (CT 79-13) and Condominium Permit (CP-17) and
3 found the following facts and reasons to exist:
9 Findings
10 1) The proposed project is not consistent with the City's
General Plan since it exceeds the guaranteed maximum density,
11 and does not qualify for an increase in density above the
guaranteed figure due to a lack of onsite amenities,
12 including: sufficient open recreation area conveniently
accessible to all units, adequate landscaping, and onsite
13 visitor parking. • .
14 2) The proposed project does not meet all of the requirements
of Chapter 21.47 of the City's zone code since:
15
a) The plan does not emphasize an interrelationship
16 between the buildings, landscaping and recreation
areas since the driveway is a dominent feature, which
17 bisects the project into two separate areas.
18 b) The buildings encroach eight feet into the required
ten foot setbacks of the private driveway.
19
c) Adequate open recreation area is not provided or
20 sufficiently improved.
21 d) Onsite visitor parking is not provided.
22 e) The storage space interferes with vehicular parking
within the garages.
23
3) The project does not meet the requirements of the RD-M
24 zone (21.24.040 and 050) since the side yard abutting the
street and front yard are not entirely devoted to land-
25 scaping and, in certain cases, could easily become private
patios.
26
4) Since the proposed project has been found to be inconsistent
27 with the doncominium regulations, the proposed tract map
cannot be approved.
28
// .2
C
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote,
recommended denial of CT 79-13/CP-17 without prejudice for those
reasons as set forth above.
AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the aforementioned
8 recitations are true and correct.
9
10
EDWIN S. SCHICK, JR., Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12
13 ATTEST:
14
15
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/r
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 24, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 79-13/CP-17; 13 Unit Condominium Development
on the Southwest Corner of Navarra Drive and
Viejo Castilla Way, La Costa
APPLICANT: Joseph
I. BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of
Navarra Drive and Viejo Castilla Way, in south, La Costa.
The parcel is generally level, having been previously graded,
and covered with low-lying native vegetation. Total area of
the site is approximately 20,384 square feet. Approximately
1,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed in order to attain
the desired pad level.
Existing Zoning
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Land Use
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
Vacant
Residential
Golf Course
Residential
Residential
General Plan Information
a) Land Use Plan
The City's current land use plan designates the subject
property for high density residential development (20-30
du/ac). With 13 dwellings, the project would fall within
this allowable density range (27.8 du/ac). However, the
general plan stipulates that the lower limit of this range
is a recommended maximum, with an increase to the upper
limit (in this case, 30 du/ac) allowable only if certain
criteria are met. These include: slope stability, compat-
ibility with surrounding development, on-site amenities, and
adequacy of public facilities.
b) Public Facilities
Sewer Service: The subject property is served by the Leucadia
County Water District. The property has been allocated 14
sewer hookups for the property.
.Schools: .The project site is located within the San Dieguito
Unified High School District and the Encinitas Unified
School District. Since both of these districts are currently
experiencing conditions of overcrowding, school fees would
be assessed at the time of building permit application.
Water Seryice: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District is
responsible for water service to the site.
On—site and Adjacent Public Facilities: All necessary on-
site and adjacent public facilities would be required as per
.the City's Public Improvement Ordinance or as conditions of
approval.
Gas and Electric Service: Gas and electric service would be
provided by San Diego Gas and Electric. Separate gas and
electric meters are required for all units by the Condominium
Ordinance.
Other' Public Facilities
The Planning Commission has determined that they are not
prepared to find that all other public facilities necessary
to serve this project will 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. In addition, park-in-lieu. fees would be assessed
at the time of building permit issuance.
c) Other Elements of the General PJLan
The project is consistent with all other elements of the City's
current General Plan..
Environmental Impact Assessment
A declaration q.f negative environmental impact has been made
.2
for the project based on the justification that:
1) The subject property has been previously disturbed and
no significant plant or animal species, nor any unique
environmental features or historical resources will be
affected.
2) The project is consistent with all applicable plans
. covering the area, and with the trends of development.
3) The City's grading ordinance will serve to mitigate any
potential impacts from the proposed grading operations.
History and Related Cases
CT 79-3/CP-3, (Von Elten), City Council Resolution No. 5832,
denied 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 pro-
vision of improvements required by the condominium regulations;
and lack of adequate setbacks and parking.
CP-6, (McMahon-O'Grady), City Council Agenda Bill No. 5905,
approved on July 3, 1979.
This proposal was for the construction of 23 detached condo-
minium units, located between Almaden Lane, Zamora'Way and
Alicante Road, La Costa. The project was conditionally
approved finding that the project met all of the requirements
of the condominium regulations and woul.d not result in any
significant impacts to the environment or surrounding area.
Conditions of approval included: grading and drainage
-modifications; provision of automatic garage door openers;
fencing restrictions; public improvement requirements;
refuse collection; landscaping requirements; and a public
facilities fee.
CT 79-7/CP-lO, Fries, approved by the City Council September
18, 1979.
The City Council conditionally approved this 39 unit condo-
minium development, finding that it met all of the requirements
of the City's condominium regulations. Conditions of approval
included: landscaping requirements, public improvements,
fencing restrictions, grading and hydro-seeding requirements
and payment of a public facilities fee.
.3
c -
II. Major Planning Considerations
1) Is adequate open recreation space provided in a centralized
location? Is this recreation area sufficiently improved
to provide a desirable amenity?
2) Is the, provision of all visitor parking on-street,
desirable and is the parking conveniently located?
3) Does the overhang of the second floor into the required
setback or the .private driveway meet City Code? Is
this overhang visually desirable or should an additional
setback be required?
4) The applicant is proposing several enclosed patios
which extend into the required yards. Is this allowable
or desirable?
5) Is the overall design of the project characteristic of
a good condominium development? Specific concerns
relate to the dominance of the driveway and location
and extent of the recreation area and landscaping.
TIT. DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing a 13 unit condominium development
in La Costa. Each unit will be two level, with two bedrooms
and an attached twocar garage. The square footage of each
unit will range from 1289 to 1400 square feet.
As proposed, the project will have a density of 27.8 du/ac.
Although the project falls within the. allowable density
range as designated by the land use plan (20-30 du/ac.),
the General Plan states that the lower number of this range
represents a recommended maximum, while the higher figure
represents a potential maximum if certain criteria are met.
These criteria include: compatibility with surrounding
development, slope and stability of the site, adequacy of
public facilities, and onsite amenities. Staff- believes
that the project does not meet all of the requirements of
the condominium regulations, and thus, sufficient on-site
amenities are not provided. Therefore the project should
not qualify for a density increase beyond the recommended
Maximum, and staff is recommending denial. This project
is clearly an example of overbuilding the site.
A major concern raised by the project relates to the over-
hang of the second floor into the required setbacks of
the private driveway. Specifically, Section 21.47.130(1)
states that 'building setbacks from private driveways
shall not be less than ten feet, except garages entered
directly from the private drive may be setback five to
seven feet. In this case the applicant has set the garages
back five feet from the driveway. However, the second
.4
floor of each unit encroaches three feet into this five
foot setback. Staff believes that encroachment is not
consistent with the setbacks as required by the condominium
regulations, in addition to increasing the potential for
noise impacts on each unit, and providing a traffic hazard
for taller vehicles. Only a redesign of the units and
possibly, a reduction in the number of units, would alleviate
this problem.
With regard to the design criteria of Section 21.47.110,
the project falls short for a number of reasons. First,
the overall plan does not emphasize the interrelationship
between the building, landscaping and recreation area.
Although the applicant has met the required 200 square feet
of open recreation area per unit (21.47.130-8), staff feels
that this area is not adequately designed to meet the intent
of this requirement. In order to meet the recreation
requirements, the applicant is proposing a common area
(located in two areas at the western end of the lot) and a
combination of balconies and patios. However, on only two
of the units do the patios meet the required minimum
dimensions of 10 feet.
By themselves, the private balconies and patios are not
sufficient to meet the required 200 square feet of recreation
area per unit. Thus, the common area is necessary to meet
this requirement. However, staff feels that this common
area is not centrally located nor adequately improved.
Specifically, residences of the units located along the
northern portion of the site must either walk along the
driveway or, off-site and along the sidewalk to reach this
area. In addition, a portion of this common area is improved
with only a pedestrian walkway. Thus, this area appears
more a part of the landscaping than as a part of the common
recreation area. Finally, the integrity of this area is
broken up by the placement of a trash container between
the walkway and Jacuzzi.
Although the building elevations a-ppear attractively
designed, due to the project's high density the units have
been designed to take advantage of the reduced setbacks
allowed by the RD-M Zone. Specifically, the RD-M Zone
stipulates that the required setbacks of side yards which
abut a street and front yards may be reduced to five feet
and ten feet respectively if the remaining yard is land-
scaped with a combination oT flowers, shrubs and trees
(Section 21.24.040 and 050).
Originally the applicant was proposing patios within the
setback areas. The project was redesigned and the patios
were removed from these areas. However, the plans still
show a 42 inch fence delineating private areas within the
setbacks. Since the patios have in some.cases, been
reduced to almost unusable widths, there is an incentive
for residents to expand their patios into the setback area.
.5
It is clear that the intent behind the reduced setbacks was
to allow buildings to develop closer to the property line in
trade for totally landscaped yards. Staff feels that the
project does-not qualify for the reduced setbacks as presently
designed, since the applicant appears to be using the required
setbacks for fenced-in private areas rather than for open
landscaping.
Another design criteria is that the internal street system
not be a dominant feature in the project's overall design.
In this case, the driveway serving the units is a very dominant
feature, which bisects the project. This leaves little area
for walkways, landscaping and other necessary amenities.
Storage space and laundry facilities would'be provided in
each unit's garage. In reviewing the plans, it appears that
both the storage space and stairways -along the side of the
garages may interfere with vehicular parking.
As previously noted, each unit will have an attached two-car
garage. In addition, the condominium regulations require a
total of six visitor spaces which, in this case, would all
be provided onstreet. Although the regulations state that
credit may be allowed for on-street parking, high density
areas such as this one usually create considerable competition
for on-street parking. Thus, some on-site visitor parking
is desirable.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of DENIAL of CT 79-13/CP-17 to the City
Council based on the fcTTlowing justification:
Findings
1) The proposed project is not consistent with the City's
General Plan since it exceeds the guaranteed maximum
density, and does not qualify for an increase in density
above the guaranteed figure due to a lack of onsite
amenities, including: sufficient open recreation area
conveniently accessible to all units, adequate landscaping,
and onsite visitor parking.
2) The site is not physically suitable for the density of
development since the design of project results in a
majority of the site being covered by building and
paving, with driveway as a dominant feature, and only
minimal provisions for landscaping.
.6
3) The proposed project does not meet all of the requirements
of Chapter 21.47 of the City's zone code since:
a) • The plan does emphasize an interrelationship
between the buildings, landscaping and recreation
areas;
b) The buildings encroach into the required setbacks
of the private driveway;
c) Adequate open recreation area is not provided or
sufficiently improved;
d) Onsite visitor parking is not provided;
e) The storage space interferes with vehicular parking.
4) The project does not meet the requirements of the RD-M
zone (21.24.040 and 050) since the side yard abutting
the street and front yard are not entirely devoted to
landscaping and, in certain cases, could easily become
private patios.
5) Since the proposed project has been found to be incon-
sistent with the condominium regulations, the proposed
tract map cannot be approved.
EXHIBITS: A (dated 9/12/79) and B, C, D and E (dated 9/27/79)
Location Map
BM: ar
10/18/79 -
.7
JOSEPH
CASE Rec'd Date;
Description of Request:
<sirr^7 /OM A.t?T^pg^)MX^n=u>
<rbUP>PlV/lf:>lvn>4 <£
Date
F*DFS
Address or Location of Request;
WA.V ViF£.VD
Applicant:
Engr. or Arch.
Brief Legal:OF frn» ffH
Assessor Book:^
General Plan Land Use Description;
Existing Zone;
Acres
Page:
\-\V^\\
Parcel; \f ^
Proposed Zone;"No. of Lots:
School District:^
Water District; _ __£MVv/f?...
Coast Permit Area:
Sanitation District;