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