Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-19; City Council; 6167; 172 Unit Apartment to Condominium ConversionCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: FEBRUARY 19. 1980 I G> 7 DEPARTMENT:PLANNING INITIAL /y, Dept. Hd. (ft Cty. Cty. Mgr. SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF 172 UNIT APARTMENT TO CONDOMINIUM. _ CASE NO: CT 79-9/CP-15. HUNT _ _ STATEMENT OF THE MATTER The property is a 10.4 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of Hosp Way and El Camino Real. The 172 units are in six, three story buildings overlooking El Camino Real and the Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center. The project does not meet all of the development standards, but the applicant has indicated that all deficiencies will be met if approved. However, the Planning Commission -has recommended that this condominium project be denied because they felt the project does not meet the design criteria of the condo- minium regulations. EXHIBITS PC Resolution No. 1590 / Memo from -/!r- Hagaman dated 12/15/80 Staff Report dated January 9, 1980 Exhibit "A" dated 8/14/79, "B", "C", & "D" dated 11/8/79 PC Minutes, January 9, 1980 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING CT 79-9/CP-15 as per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1590. Council Action: 2-19-80 Council continued the matter to the next regular meeting. 3-4-80 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying without prejudice due to the condominium conversion moratorium. fcT o 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION. RESOLUTION NO. 1590 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL of CT 79-9/CP-15 FOR THE CONVERSION OF A 172 APARTMENT INTO A CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN IIOSP WAY AND MARRON ROAD. APPLICANT: CASE NO: HUNT ENTERPRISES CT 79-9/CP-15 WHEREAS, a verified application 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, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission on the 9th day of January, 1980, considered! said application on property described as: j A portion of Lots 23, 24 and 25 in Kosp Eucalyptus Forest Company's Tract No. 1 according to Map No. 1136 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, being Assessor's Parcel No. 156-08-13. WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, acting as Lead Agency, has processed said property through environmental guidelines pursuant to Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State EIR Guidelines. This project has been found to be exempt from environmental review according to Section 19.04.090(a)(8), which exempts the division of existing multiple family rental units into condominiums. WHEREAS, at said Planning Commission hearing a staff report, was submitted and reviewed. At the conclusion of said hearing, after consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission, by the following vote, recommended denial of BE COPY > 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 O O CT 79-9/CP-15, for the following reasons: 1. The project does not fulfill the by Section 21.47.110. design criteria as required a) The project does not conform to the General Plan and was not comprehensively designed since the required stora.ce,, recreation and parking were forced into the project , b) The internal street system disruptive feature since it and the recreation area . c) The common recreation areas is a dominant and. isolates 2 buildings and parking spaces are not readily accessible to all the units . d) There are no provisions for pedestrian circulation between the parking, recreation areas, the units and the public streets . e) The buildings have not been to create private areas and placed in a manner reduce noise . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitations are true and correct. AYES: Larson, Marcus, Schick, NOES : None . ABSTAIN: Rombotis ABSENT: Friestedt, Jose. i EDWIN Leeds. S. SCHICK, JR., Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST : JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC P.ESO #1590 -2~ DECTDB9 I . K »tM^^ IF 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO } ss. CITY OF CARLSBAD ) 3 4 I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning Commission 5 of the City of Carlsbad, California, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved and adopted 7 by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular 8 meeting of said Commission held on the 23rd day of January, 1980, 9 by the following roll call vote: 10 11 AYES: 12 NOES: 13 ABSTAIN: 14 ABSENT: 15 16 17 18 19 20 JAMES C. HAGAMAN,"Secretary 21 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO # 1590 -3- MEMORANDUM DATE: February 15, 1980 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager (KFROM: \j\f James Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: CT 79-9/CP-15, HUNT The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this request to convert 172 apartment units to condominiums because they felt that the units did not meet the design criteria of the condominium regulations. In their resolution the Planning Commission succinctly summarized their finding. However, in the staff report and discussion at the hearing these findings were more fully discussed. For better knowledge of the reasons for the Planning Commission action. The following is submitted for City Council information. The City Council may wish to incorporate some of these additional or more fully discussed findings in their action if they agree with the Planning Commission. Slopes; The major slopes on the site, especially along El camino Real have had a history of failure. Failures must be repaired soon and effectively to protect private and public investments and safety. Repairing slopes can be costly and a difficult expense for a homeowners group to meet. General Plan Density; The general plan indicates that the property density is to be 10 units to the acre with up to 20 with proper amenities. The density of the project is 17.4 units to the acre, which is considerable over the allowed 10 unit per acre. Amenities that are normally considered for development over the density limit are not existing in this project i.e., underground parking, provisions insuring low cost housing, well planned and usable open areas, etc. Recreation Areas; The recreation areas are surrounded by drivewaysand parking lots. These areas are not well integrated with the units and are difficult to get to. The recreation area just meets the minimum standards and there are no other amenities of note on the site. Parking Area: The parking areas are not well located to the units, requiring relatively long walking distance. The covered parking is relatively inexpensive and unattractive car ports, which could become a maintenance problem. The parking area and driveways are the central feature of this project. Apartments; The units were built as apartments and appear as apartments. They don't have the look or design associated with condominium ownership. Relationship of Units: The development is not well integrated resulting In" isolation of building and recreation area. The driveways, parking areas and streets completely surround three of the apartment buildings. Pedestrian Walkways; All walkways are blocked by parking spaces, There are no provisions for pedestrian circulation from the units to the recreation areas. There are no pedestrian walkways from the public street to the units. Noise: The site is on top of a hill receiving noise from the freeway, El Camino Real and the Plaza Shopping Center. This noise is substantial and would be a great irritant to homeowners. Some of the present tenants indicate other problems during the Planning Commission process. LindaLong; The storage areas, private patios and common recreation areas are too small for proper homeownership. Carlos Jimenez; There is no place for children to play and the "recreation areas are too far away from the units. Jack Smith; There is insufficient storage on the site and the slope failures have been a problem in the past. Gary Bronzel: The area has a history of crime and vandalism. There"is poor lighting and the parking areas are a distance from the units. This does not provide for good security. L.Maestes: There are no adequate rental units for families inCarlsbad, and converting these units would force many families out of the area. There was a consistent concern about loss of rental stock if the units are converted. The Planning Commission could not use this finding as a reason of denial since State Law requires that the City have goals within the general plan to base such findings on. Presently the City Planning Commission is holding hearings on the Housing Element that will address the issue. If adopted the City could then set up implementing regulations on such matters as vacancy rates, available housing, etc. -2- Recommendation If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission in denying this project, the City Council should consider these more fully explained findings in their decision. BP:ar -3- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: REQUEST: January 9, 1980 Planning Commission Planning Department CT 79-9/CP-15 Hunt . • • APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 172 UNIT CONVERSION BACKGROUND Location and description of Property The subject property is a 10.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Hosp Way and El Camino Real. The property has been developed as an apartment complex, known as "Hosp Grove." The 172 units are above El Camino Real and overlook both El Camino Real and the Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center. Existing Zoning Subject Property: North: South: East: West: Existing Land Use Subject Property: North: South: East: West: PC C-2 PC PC, C-2 PC Apartments Shopping Center Vacant Shopping Center, Vacant Vacant Environmental Impact Information The conversion of existing rental units into condominiums is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.090(a)(8) c General Plan Information A. Land Use Element . The General Plan designates this property as RMH, Residential Medium High, allowing a density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The density may be increased to 20 du/acre if certain criteria are fulfilled. These criteria include provision of on-site amenities, compatibility with surrounding uses and slope stability. This project is 172 units on 10.4 acres with a density of 17 du/acre. B. Public Facilities Sewer: This property is currently serviced by the City of Carlsbad. The conversion to condominiums will not increase sewer demand. Schools: A letter has been received from the Carlsbad Unified School District stating that school facilities are available. Water: Water service is provided by the City of Carlsbad. Gas and Electric: . Gas and electric service are provided by SDG^E On-site and Adjacent Public Improvements: Public improvements were required with the original building permit. Hosp Way and El Camino Real have been improved. Any additional improvements will be required per the City's Public Improvement Ordinance or as conditions of approval. Other Public Facilities: All other public facilities necessary to serve this project will not 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 #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. Past History and Related Cases CT 79-5/CP-5, Mola, City Council Resolution No. .5832, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1523. -2- On July 3, 1979, the City Council denied a tentative map and condominium permit to this project on the northeast corner of Alga Road and El Camino Real. This was a proposed conversion although the units were not yet occupied. The denial was based on findings that insufficient parking had been provided and that the design did not meet the standards. CT 79-2/CP-2, West, City Council Resolution No. 5772, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1509.- This proposed conversion was denied on May 19, 1979. This nine unit project on Chestnut Avenue had tenants in all units. The project was denied due to the design of the project, the design criteria in Section 21.47 were not satisfied. MP-1, Kamar,'City Council Resolution No. 1694 Planning Commission Resolution No. 652 This master plan was adopted on March 30, 1970, for the entire Hosp Grove area. The Master Plan designates this property as high density. The apartments were built in 1970. Major Planning Considerations 1) Is this existing apartment complex suitable for ownership housing? Was it comprehensively planned? Is the driveway dominant? Has adequate pedestrian circulation been provided for? 2) Does this project meet the requirements of the General Plan since the density is above 10 du/acre? Have adequate on-site amenities been provided? DISCUSSION This application is a request to convert a 172 unit apartment complex into condominiums. The complex is known as the "Hosp Grove Apartments" and overlooks the Plaza Camino Real on the west side of El Camino Real. The units are arranged in six three story buildings, which form a circle around the parking lot/driveway area and the common recreation area. Access to this complex is from Hosp Way. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Hosp Way and El Camino Real. A. General Plan The Land Use Plan designates this property as RMH, Residential Medium High Density which allows 10 dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Element stipulates that this density may be increased to 20 du/acre provided that certain criteria are fulfilled. These criteria include, .but are not limited to, slope stability, on-site amenities, compatibility with surrounding uses and adequacy of public facilities. -3- Th'ere are several very steep slopes on the subject property, some of which are in excess of 1.5 to 1. There have been several recent slope failures in the slopes along El Camino Real. At this time, there is one area which has not been repaired. There is a question concerning the responsibility for slope maintenance if the property is managed by a home- owners association rather than owner. Provisions have been made for some on-site amenities. A pool, recreation room and tennis courts have been provided near the center of the complex. Although this area provides 20830-square feet, of recreation area, or 121 square .feet for •each of the 172 units. The recreation area is surrounded by parking area and driveways. No other amenities, enclosed garages, noise free atmosphere, etc., have been provided. The project is compatible with existing and proposed land uses. There is a shopping area to the north and east and medium density residential is planned for the south and west. The City Council has determined that all public facilities necessary to serve this project will not be available con- current with need. As a result, the Council has authorized a public facility fee which will be collected at the time of building permit. A secured agreement and a security for this fee must be provided before the Commission or Council can hold a public hearing on the project. Without the agreement and the security the Commission and Council cannot make the required finding that all public facilities are available to service this project. Since the applicant has not provided the agreement or the security, all public facilities necessary to serve this project will not be available. Since public facilities are not available and the slopes on the project are unstable, this project is not consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the recreation areas just meet the minimum required in the Condominium Ordinance. No other amenities have been provided. B. Development Standards Setbacks: With the exception of Building. A, all of the setback from drives and parking areas have been met. For Building A, there are 4 parking spaces shown (#119-122) adjacent to the building. Section 21.47.130(1)(C) requires that buildings be set back 5 feet from open parking areas. Parking: A total of 390 spaces are required for this project, T72 of which must be covered. Exhibit B shows 361 on-site spaces and 29 on-street spaces. Several modifications will be required to provide these spaces. Four spaces will be located -4- adjacent to trash enclosures in areas now marked "No Parking". The applicant has indicated that the openings on th.e enclosure will be relocated to allow for this parking. In addition, there are 4 spaces directly adjacent.to Building A which do not meet the setback requirements. Twenty-three spaces will be added along the west edge of the project. Several of the spaces will be provided in front of the walkways leading to the buildings. At this time, these areas are designated "No Parking" to provide access to the walkways. These walk- ways lead to interior halls which provide access to all the units. Section 21.47.130(4) requir.es that all open parking areas be screened from abutting residentially zoned property and from public streets. This screening must consist of 10' of landscaping or a solid wall or berm. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that 31 of all paved areas be landscaped, therefore additional landscaping is needed. Refuse Area Section 21.47.130(5) requires a 3 cubic yard refuse -container for every 10 dwelling units. Therefore at least 17 standard size refuse containers must be provided. Exhibit B shows provisions for only 15 refuse containers. Storage Space t This apartment complex originally had no provisions for storage area. Significant modifications are needed to provide the 480 cubic fee for each unit. The majority of the storage area has been provided on or adjacent to the balconies or patios. In some cases this has significantly reduced the patio area and has covered the only window to a bedroom. To provide for the required (U.B.C) light and air, a window will be placed in what is now the closet and the closet will be eliminated. Those units which need additional storage area will have storage cabinets in the carports or in separate storage room near Building F. Laundry Five laundry rooms have been provided for this complex. There is one room near each of Buildings A, B, C $ D. Buildings E and F which contain a total of 84 units have only one accessible laundry room. Open Recreation Areas Section 21.47.130(8) requires 200 square feet of open rec- •reation area per unit. The majority of this area has been provided in common areas near the center of the complex. -5- These areas include a pool, Jacuzzi, recreation building and two tennis courts. Two other recreation areas, which will be grassy areas with barbeque and picnic tables, have been provided. One is between Buildings E and F and one is adjacent to Building C. These areas provide 29,855 square feet of common recreation area or 174 square feet per unit. Although all the second and third floor units have balconies, the balconies are not wide enough to meet the required dimension of 6 feet. 46 of the first floor units have 8 foot wide patios; the minimum dimension for patios is 10 feet. The remainder of the first floor units have 6 foot wide patios. It may be possible to widen.these patios and balconies to meet the minimum requirements. However, the existing plans are lacking 4500 square feet of recreation area. Utilities Separate gas and electric: meters are provided for each unit. A separate water meter is required for each building. There is currently one meter servicing the entire complex. Building Height The height restriction in this zone is 35'. The buildings are 35 feet high as determined by the Zoning Ordinance. Although there are several areas where this project does not meet the development standards, these are relatively minor problems and can be solved. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to increase the balcony areas, add more refuse containers and redesign the parking to meet all setback require- ments. These changes would require additional modifications to the buildings and site, but could be required as conditions of approval. C. Design Criteria • The overall plan for this project is not comprehensive and does not conform to the General Plan (21.47.110(1)). The project was designed and built as an apartment complex and significant changes and modifications will be necessary to meet the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. The conformance with the General Plan was discussed earlier. In addition, the buildings and facilities -are not well integrated resulting in isolation of buildings and recreation areas surrounded by parking and driveways (2). The use is compatible with adjacent existing and proposed uses. (3) Section 21.47.110(4) states that "the internal street system -6- sh'all not be a dominant feature . . . but should be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles without creating a disruptive influence on the activity and function of any common areas." The center of the project is a parking driveway area. The driveways, parking and streets completely surround three of the buildings. The majority of the parking is concentrated on the west end of the project while the units are concentrated on the east end. there are not enough spaces near the eastern buildings to provide for even the 2 required tenant spaces. Therefore, the tenants will be walking some distance from their cars to their units. •Since all of the tenants will be required to walk through parking areas and cross driveways to reach the central recreation area, the parking/driveway area is a disruptive feature of the project. In addition, the intervening parking area makes the recreation area less accessible to the units (5) . with the exception of the two designated open recreation areas, the open spaces in the project are devoted to steep, unusable slopes. Pedestrian circulation consists of walkways from the edge of the lot to the buildings and from the parking lot to the recreation area. As mentioned before, all of these walkways will be blocked by a parking space. There are no provisions for pedestrian circulation within the parking lot area or for circulation from the units to the recreation areas. There are no pedestrian walk\vays from the public street to the units. Access is along a driveway and through the parking lot The design criteria section requires that the buildings be placed in a manner to reduce noise and increase private areas. Half of the units are oriented toward the parking lot and have views of carports, driveways and other units. The other half face toward the property line. Since the project is on a hill above the shopping center, Highway 78, Marron Road and El Camino Real. The noise from the traffic, particularly on the north and east sides, is substantial. Recommendation Staff recommends DENIAL of CT-79-9/CP-15 , based on the following findings: 1) The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan because the project does not fulfill the criteria necessary to increase the density: a) The slopes are not stable and in some cases are -7 - excessively steep. Current City Policy requires 2:1 slopes adjacent to public streets. The pro- problems wi.th slope failures would be complicated by changing from single to multiple ownership. b) The on-site amenities in the form of recreation area, do not meet the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance and no additional amenities have been provided. 2) The project is not consistent with the Public Facilities Element nor with City Public Facility Policies and Ordinances because: a) All other public facilities necessary to service this project will not be available. The applicant has not provided the secured agreement and the security which is designed to pay for these public facilities as required in City Council Policy No. 17 3) This project does not fulfill the design criteria as •required by Section 21.47.110. a) The project does not conform to the General Plan and was not comprehensively designed since the required storage, recreation and parking were forced into the project (1). b) The internal street system is a dominant and disruptive feature since it isolates 2 buildings and the recreation area (4). c) The common recreation areas and parking spaces are not readily accessible to all the units (5). d) There are no provisions for pedestrian circulation between the parking, recreation areas, the units and the public streets (6) . e) The buildings have not been placed in a manner to create private areas and reduce noise (7). Attachments Location Map Disclosure Form Exhibit A (8/14/79); Exhibits B, C and D (11/8/79) KL:jd 1/3/80 -8- CASE. NO.CT73 -q /CP-1 ^>Pate Rec'd Description of Request: -rEKTTATlV& >"?g-f j ••! I" IT | - ' * f.' 1 ••—_. f ' ••-^.lirirjj- --"-M— f --^r A. r* • -_f •,,»- Address-or Location of Request: "THE _ DCC V1A\=>» Date \n/\O/'Jc\st> &M Applicant; MUMT Engr. or Arch. Brief Legal: Assessor Book:__ General Plan Land Use Description; Existing Zone ; tti Acres : i/ Page;Parcel: -VA\A»M No. of Lots: JProposed Zone: 1 • W^s School District: Water District:^ Coast Permit Area: DU/Acre Sanitation District; If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined that further information is required, you will be so advised. APPLICANT: AGENT: MEMBERS: jT 0 r , partn _ _ _ _ N'ame ("individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) . "TorrAKU? (JA- Bus ine ss Addr e ss Telephone Number •Name Business Address Telephone Number Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address & Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number ''Telephone Number 'rC^l (Attach more sheets if necessary) (y\jA I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may. be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. Commissioner Marcus felt the plan could be more creative. Commissioner Larson felt the density was alrigb€ but stated the plan seems to be a single-family development on substandard lots with no trade-offs in ^enities; he cannot see it as a condominium project. Commissioner Leeds questioned whether/or not there would be a fence between the dwellings. ^Xssistant City Attorney Hentschke stated that was up to tKe Homeowners Association. Commissioner Rombotis feels tjre project is salvageable and would like it brought back jSith some type of amenities. Commissioner Schick ask^fl if staff and the applicant would like a continuance uirj/il February 13, 1980; this was agree- able with both stafjfand the applicant. Planning Commission Action: A motion was made continuing CP-36, ShapelLf to February 13, 1980, for revision of the plan to incorporate the Commission's suggestions. MOTION :yRombot is SECOND/^ Marcus" AYES,,r Rombotis, Marcus, Schick, Leeds, Larson NOpS: None B. CT 79-9/CP-15, Hunt, Tentative Subdivision Map and Condo- minium Permit for the conversion of a 172 apartment into a condominium. Staff Report: Presented by Bud Plender recommending DENIAL of CT 79-9/CP-15, because the project does not meet design criteria of the Code. Staff recommends denial based on the reasons outlined in the staff report. Ap p 1 i c an t P r e s ent a t i o n: Carlsbad, California. Don Agatep, 2921 Roosevelt, Feels that the public facilities requirement has been met; additionally a bond has been posted; does not see that any other public facilities are necessary. Revised building plans have been submitted. The plans include parking and open recreation areas with open grass areas containing barbecues, picnic areas etc. Slopes are not counted as open space requirements. Units are large enough to provide twelve feet between each bank and unit; storage is provided both on balconies and carports. The parking lot can be redesigned and improved. The Planning Commission was requested to reverse the staff report, incorporating condi- tions of approval, as a condition of approval of the development. P.C. Page Minutes 7 1/9/80 o Applicant: ponald Hunt, 17411 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, California. Explained to the Commission that the problem with the bank slope was because a sprinkler had stayed on one night and washed the bank down; that he has had no problem with the banks except this particular occasion. If he had been advised about the sprinkler, he could have had it turned off. He further stated that the property lends itself to a condo conversion. Public Input: Linda Lang, 2350 Hosp Way No. 209, Carlsbad California. Storage problem because of limited size. Patios and recreation areas cannot be expanded. If reduced density for condo development, then space for parking would be reduced. Carlos Jiminez, 2360 Hosp Way, Apartment 209, Carlsbad: Slopes have washed down several times. Problem with parking spaces. There is no place for children to play; the recreation areas are too far from the units. He feels that people living in the units do care about the units. L. Maestes, 2344 Hosp Way, Carlsbad: Stated a main concern was for adequate rentals for families in Carlsbad. Jack Smith, 2382 Hosp Way, No. 108, Carlsbad: a resident of this project for two years. There are problems with both storage space and slides; if these could be straight ened out he would-consider buying a unit. Gary Branzel, 2350 Hosp Way, No. 210A, Carlsbad: Has had his apartment broken into; says even so the locks do not get changed. Poor lighting in parking areas; that nothing gets done. His car has been broken into. The pool heater has been out for over three months. Rebuttal: Don Agatep states these are development items and would be provided as a part of the conversion. Planning Commission Discussion: Commissioner Larson: Applicant must correct the slope problem; the storage space can be taken car of; adequate parking must be provided; on-street parking is not convenient to most of the units; there are no pedestrian walkways; the amenities are not there for conversion. P.C. Minutes 1/9/80 Page 8 COPY o o D, Commissioner Marcus: Inadequate parking is problem; needs considerable landscaping. Commissioner Schick: Needs play yards; have parking problems and laundry facility problems; not a good candidate for conversion; does not meet the criteria for condominiums. Planning Cpmmission Action: A motion was made recommend- ing DENIAL of CT 79-9/CP-15 based on staff's finding number 3 (not to include findings 1 and 2). MOTION: Larson SECOND: Marcos AYES: Larson, Marcus, Schick, Leeds NOES: None ABSTAIN: Rombotis \ CUP-169, Goetze.Conditional Use Permit for a veterinary oo±-patient clinic, on property located on the northeast corXer .of Alga Road and El Camino Real. Staff Iteport: Presented by Brian Milich recommending APPROVALNpf CUP-169 based on the conditions in the staff report. Applicant Presentation: Jonathan Goetze, P. 0. Box 6029 San Diego, California. Concurred with the\conditions in the staff report. " Planning Commission Ao±ion: A motion was made approving CUP-169 based on the conditions contained in the staff report. MOTION: Larson SECOND: Rombotis AYES: Larson, Rombotis, Sch^k, Marcus, Leeds NOES: None CUP-173, Circus Vargas, Conditional &se Permit for circus event on two adjacent vacant parcels ikCar Country, Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road. Staff Report: Presented by Brian Milich, APPROVAL of CUP-173. ommending one withCommissioner Schick wished to know what would water which was brought in and not used. Applicant Presentation: Mary Temple, 259 Brentwood, Newport Beach, California. Concurred with the conditions of the staff report. P.C. Minutes 1/9/80 Page 9 COPY