Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-02; City Council; 6074-1; 13 Unit CondominiumAGENDA BILL NO. DATE: January 2, 1980 CITY OF CARLSBAD 6074, SUPPLEMENT NO. L DEPARTMENT: Planning INITIAL /v ,_Dept. Hd.|^__J _Cty. Atty Cty. SUBJECT:CONDOMINIUM CASE NO: CT 79-13/CP-17 APPLICANT:JOSEPH STATEMENT OF THE MATTER The Planning Commission and Planning Staff had recommended denial of the subject condominium, however on November 20, 1979, the City Council voted to approve it and directed the Planning Commission to provide findings and conditions for this approval. On December 12, 1979, the Planning Commission approved the findings and conditions for the approval -of the subject condominium. EXHIBITS Report from Planning Commission dated December 12, 1979 (Revised 12/26/79 Staff Report dated October 24, 1979 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING CT 79-13/CP-17, as per attached Planning Commission findings and conditions as requested by the City Council. Council Action: 1-2-80 Council directed the City Attorney to .prepare documents 'approving CT 79-13/CP-17 as per the attached Planning Commission findings andcondition s. MEMORANDUM DATE : TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 12, 1979 (Revised 12/26/79) Planning Commission 'Planning Department REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR CT 79-13/CP-17 (JOSEPH) On November 20, 1979, the City Council acted on the subject project. Council directed staff to return the project to the Planning Commission with findings and conditions of approval. Attached are the revised findings and conditions of approval prepared by staff. BJM:jd REVISED FINDINGS (CT 79-13/CP-17) 1) The project is consistent with the City's current General Plan since: A) The project falls within the density range established by the City's Land Use Plan, and the project qualifies for a densit.y increase beyond the suggested maximum (20 du/ac) since the project is compatible with surroundings land uses, the topography of the site can -safely accommodate the project at the proposed density, sufficient public facilities either are existing or will be required as conditions of approval, and adequate on-site amenities will be provided. B) All other public facilities necessary to serve the project will not be available concurrent with need. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition, required that the project contribute to the costs of such facilities. Since the development will pay its proportionate share of the public facilities which it will require, the City Council is satisifed that the requirements of the public facilities element of the General Plan have been satisfied. C) All other elements of the Genral Plan either do not apply to the project or' have been satisfactorily met. 2) The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: A) The applicant is on the Leucadia County Water District sewer allocation list, and sifficient sewer hookups have been reserved for the project. B) The Planning Commissi.on finds that sewer .service is not available for this development as of the date of this approval. However, sewer service may be avail- able in the future. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this condo- minium permit and tentative subdivision map, insured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commis- sion has added a condition that a note be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the condominium project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available. Since the final map cannot be approved unless sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the require- ments of the public facilities element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this condominium permit and tentative map approval. C) School fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding are required at the time of building permits pursuant to Chapter 21.55 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. D) Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and the applicant is required to com- ply with their rules and regulations. E) Gas and electric service will be provided by San Diego Gas and. Electric. P) Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. i G) All necessary public improvements have been either provided or will be required as conditions of approval. 3) The site is physically suitable for the type and density • of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the proposed density and still meet all the requirements of the City's condominium ordinance. 4) The design of the project and all required improvements will not cause any significant environmental impacts since a Declaration of Negative Environmental Impact has been issued for the project based on the justification that: A) The subject property has been previously disturbed and no significant plant or animal species, not any unique environmental features or historical resources will be affected. B) The project is consistent will all applicable plans covering the area, and with the trend of development. C) The City's grading ordinance will serve to mitigate any potential impacts from the proposed grading operations. -3- 5) The proposed condominium project meets the criteria of Chapter 21.47 (Condominiums) since: A) The condominiums meet the design criteria of Chapter 21.47.110 since the overall plan is com- prehensive, embracing land, building, landscapi-ng and their relationships, the driveways are not dominant features, and sufficient circulation and on-site amenities are provided. B) Storage space, laundry facilities, open recreation areas, parking facilities, refuse areas, separate utilities and requirements of Section 21.47.130 have been met or will be made conditions of approval. Condit ions 1) This approval is granted for that portion of land des- cribed in the application CT 79-13/CP-17 and development shall occur substantially as shown .on Exhibits A (dated 9/12/79) and B, C, D, and E (dated 9/27/79), on file in the Planning Department, except for modifications required herein. 2) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible copy of the final condominium site plan incorporating all requirements of the condominium permit approval, and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, prior to final map approval. 3) The applicant shall comply with all rules and regulations of the sewer and water districts regarding water and sewer service to the subject property. 4) The applicant will provide school fees to mitigate condi- tions of overcrowding as part of building permit applica- tions. These fees shall be vased on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. 5) This subdivision and condominium plan is approved upon the express condition that building or grading permits will not ' be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that such sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. If the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are not available, building permits will not be issue. -4- 6) Street trees of a variety approved by the Parks and Recreation Department shall be installed to City specifications at 40 foot intervals along all public street frontages. 7) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a public facility fee as established in City Council Policy No. 17 as agreed by the applicant. 8) The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees prior to the recordation of the final map. 9) The applicant shall make a note on the final condominium site plan stipulating that the landscape plan is revised, substituting a drought tolerant plant species for the proposed Agapanthus (Peter Pan) plants. 10) The applicant shall develop covenants, conditions and restrictions, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, which prohibits the erection of a fence higher than 42 inches in the required front yard and side yard (along Navarra Drive). These CC&Rs shall also specify that no portion of any patio may encroach more than 5 feet into the front yard, or three feet into the side yard along Navarra Drive. 11) The applicant shall agree to delineate pedestrian pathways along both sides of the driveway thru the use of stamped concrete embossing or other similar method. The final condominium plan shall reflect this condition. 12) In order to provide for fire protection during the construction period, the applicant shall maintain passable vehicular access to all buildings. In addition, adequate fire hydrants and/or stand pipes with required fire flos shall be installed on and/or off-site, as recommended by the Fire Chief or his de signee. 13) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire Access Lane . " Exhibits "A" (9/12/79) B, C, D and E (9/27/79) -5- 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 Service: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District is responsible for water service to the site. On-site arid 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 Plan The project is consistent with all other elemeiits of the City's current General Plan. Environmental Impact Assessment A declaration of negative environmental impact has been made .2 6 <£ 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 arid 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 would 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 6 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 appear 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 oTF 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 xvere 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 following 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