HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-19; City Council; 6169; Tentative Map and Condominium PermitCITY OF CARLSBAD
' ,4 * INITIAL
AGENDA' BILL NO. /j / (j> 9 Dept. Hd.
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1980 __Cty. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING _Cty. Mgr.
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 5 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
CASE NO: CT 79-17/CP-20 APPLICANT: 358 JEREZ COMPANY •
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The subject project is on a .37 acre parcel on the west side of Jerez Court,
north of Gibraltar in the La Costa area. The General Plan designates this
property as residential high density. The recommended density is 20 du/acre.
The proposed project has a density of 13.6 du/acre, therefore, the project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element.
The project does not meet the setback requirements from a private driveway.
By code, habitable buildings are to be setback 10 feet from the driveway.
Two of the five units are proposed at 4% feet from the driveway. Therefore,
the applicant has requested a variance along with this condominium permit.
The Planning Commission was not satisfied with the first plans submitted :;-
by the applicant and requested several changes. The applicant did make changes
and submitted a new plan that resolved the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Nevertheless the plans still did not meet the 10 foot setback requirements.
Except for the setback problem, the Planning Commission was satisfied with
the project. Therefore the Planning Commission would recommend approval of
this project if the City Council granting the appeal of the variance.
EXHIBITS
PC Resolution No. 1588
Staff Report dated November 28, 1979
Staff Report dated January 9, 1980, w/location map
Exhibit "A" dated December 26, 1979 and Exhibit "B""
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct City Attorney to prepare
documents either DENYING CT 79-17/CP-20 for failure to meet zone requirements
or APPROVE CT 79-17/CP-20 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1588.
Council Action:
2-19-80 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving
CT 79-17/CP-20 per planning commission resolution 1588, subject
to redesign for a 5 ft. setback.
X
,2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
!5
26
27
28
PLANNING CC-n;4ISSIOc; RESOLUTION NO. 1588
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE AIRSPACE SUBDIVISION
AND CONDOMINIUM FOR 5 UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY
.367 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ
COURT, NORTH OF GIBRALTAR STREET.
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
JEREZ COMPANY
CT 79-17/CP-20
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property,
to wit:
Lot 358 of La Costa South, Unit No. 5, in the City
of Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 660G, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder, March 10, 197S
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this project has been processed through environ-
mental review as required in Title 19, the Environmental
Protection Ordinance. An Environmental Impact Assessment
(Log No. 454) has been prepared and a Negative Declaration issued
based on the following justification:
1. The subject property is already graded and is devoid of
any significant vegetation or wildlife.
2. The project is adjacent to existing urban development.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 9th day of
January, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS,, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
/"**-.w
to*-be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the tentative tract map and. condominium permit; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has heard and denied application
for a Variance for this project, (V-297); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated his intent to appeal
denial to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Lssion as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That if the City Council grants Variance 297 on appeal,
the Planning Commission would recommend approval of
CT 79-17/CP-20, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
ngs
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
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
1 to* -be he*
ij
the terrtci
WHE3
for a Vaj
WHE1
said den.
NOW
Coirimissi<
A. Thai
B . ThaJ
the
CT
to 1
Findings
1) The.
bec<
a)
b)
2 ) The
TT a r»r dC-
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The proposed project is within the density range
allowed by the Land Use Element.
The proposed project as conditioned is consistent
with all other elements of the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with all City Public
Facility policies and ordinance because:
Five sewer permits have been obtained from the Leucadia
County Water District.
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.
Water service will be provided through separate meters
by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
Gas and Electric service will be provided by SDG&E
through separate meters,
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of
approval.
All necessary on-site and adjacent public improvements
have been provided or will be required as conditions
of approval.
-2-
i
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
g) Sewer service is not available for this project at
this time. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion
of an appropriate condition, insured that the final
map for each phase shall not be approved unless the
City Council finds that sewer service is available
to serve the project. In addition, a condition has
been added requiring that a note be placed on the final
map stating that, building permits may not be issued
unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service
is available.
Since the final map cannot be approved unless sewer
service is available, the building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains
available, the requirements of the public facilities
element of the General Plan have been met insofar
as they apply to sewer service for this and tentative
map approval.
h) The applicant has proposed, and is required by the
inclusion of an appropriate condition, to pay a
public facilities fee. Payment of this fee will
ensure that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
3) The site is physically suitable for the type and density
of development because:
a) The lot is level and graded and little is devoted
to unusable slopes.
b) The proposed project provides for large living
units and adequate recreation area.
4) The proposed project has been processed through environmental
review and a negative declaration, Log No. 454, has been
issued for the following reasons:
a) The subject property is already graded and devoid
of any significant vegetation or wildlife.
b) The project is adjacent to existing urban development.
c) The proposed project is consistent with the adopted
General Plan.
Conditions
1) Approval is granted for CT 79-17/CP-20 as shown on
Planning Commission Exhibit "A" dated December 26, 1979,
and Exhibit "B" dated October 16, 1979, all on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by reference.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on these
exhibits unless otherwise,noted in these conditions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
t
25
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
///
///
The applicant shall submit a reproducible copy of the
condominium plan prior to approval of the final map. This
plan shall incorporate fill requirements of approval and
shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director.
The applicant shall comply with all rules and regulations
of the respective sewer and water districts regarding
sewer to the property.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees prior to recordation
of the final map.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council
finds at the time of such approval that sewer service
is available to serve the subdivision.
This condominium permit is approved upon the express
condition that building permits will not be for development
of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines
that 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 issued.
The applicant shall provide a minimum of 15 square feet
of landscaping in the courtyard in containerized planters.
All walkways in the driveway shall be made of embossed
and colored concrete.
Automatic garage door openers and trash compactors shall
be provided for each unit.
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and
irrigation plan at time of building permit application.
This plan shall provide adequate landscaping along the
street and driveway to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director.
This approval is expressly conditioned upon payment of
the applicant of a public facilities fee required by
City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated by reference,
according to the agreement executed by the applicant for
payment of said fee. If said fee is not paid as promised,
this application will not be consistent with the General
Plan.
-4-
1
2
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a-regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
on the 23rd day of January, 1980, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
EDWIN S. SCHICK, JR., Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
RESO #1588 -5-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 28, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
RE: CT 79-17/CP-20
APPLICANT: 358 Jerez Company
REQUEST: TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDO PERMIT FOR A FIVE UNIT
PROJECT ON JEREZ COURT.
BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The subject property consists of .37 acres on the west side
of Jerez Court, north of Gibraltar. The property is flat
and is devoid of any significant landscape features. The
west end of the property abuts the La Costa Golf Course.
Existing Zoning
Subject Property: RDM
North: RDM
South: RDM
East: RDM
West: PC, RDM
Exi sti ng Land Use
Subject Property: Vacant
North: Vacant, condos
South: Condos, apartments
East: Condos, vacant
West: Golf course, condos
En vi r on me n t a1 Im pa c t In forma t i o n
A negative declaration, Log No. 454, was issued on this project
on March 15, 1978, for the following reasons:
1) The subject property is already graded and is devoid of
any significant vegetation or wildlife.
2) The project is adjacent to existing urban development.
3) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
General Plan InfVKmation
A. Land Use Element
The general plan designates this property as RH, Residential
High Density. The recommended density is 20 du/acre. The
proposed project, five units on .37 acre, has a density of
13.6 du/acre. Therefore, this project is consistent with the
general plan.
B. Public Facilities
Sewer: This project has been allocated five sewer units
from the Leucadia County Water District.
Schools: School fees will be assessed on this project when
the building permit is issued. The project is within
the San Dieguito and Encinitas School Districts.
Water: Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District. Separate meters will be
provided for each unit.
Gas and Electric: Gas and electric service will be provided
by SDG&E. Each unit will have separate meters.
On-Site and Adjacent Public Improvements: Public improvements
will be required per the City Public Improvement Ordinance
and/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 Mo. 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. History and Related Cases
CT 78-2, Jerez Company, City Council Resolution No. 5471,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1447.
On July 5, 1978. the City Council denied a tentative map for
a 3 unit condominium, CT 78-2 is on the same property as
the proposed project and the plans are identical. The
denial was based on the fact that only 3 sewer units were
available although this was a 5 unit project. In addition,
school facilities were not available. Staff took great
exception to the design, the large expanses of asphalt,
pedestrian circulation and visitor parking.
-2-
V«s
CT 79-15/CP-18, Courtyard Townhomes, Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1559.
The Commission recommended denial of this project on October
24, 1979. The itjem will be heard at the November 20, 1979,
City Council meeting. The denial was based on the fact that
adequate setbacks and separate water meters had not been
provided. The Commission asked staff to look into these two
requirements. The Courtyard project is approximately % block
north of the Jerez Company project.
Major Planning Considerations
1) This project as submitted does not meet the requirements
of 21.47.130(1)(B). Will new plans be required or can
conditions be applied to alleviate this problem?
2) Does this project meet the design criteria? Is the
driveway a dominant feature? Does the design create
private areas and minimize noise? Have amenities,
circulation, and recreation areas been adequately pro-
vided for?
Discussion
This is a request for five units on a .37 acre parcel on
Jerez Court. The rear of the lot faces the golf course.
Three of the units have views over the golf course. This
project has several problems in regard to the requirements
of the condominium ordinance. The project does, however;
conform to the general plan since the density, 13.6 du/acre,
is well below the recommended density of 20 du/acre.
Deve To pmen t Standards
Section 21.47.130(1)(B) requires that all buildings, except
garages, be setback at least 10 feet from the private drive-
way only 3.5 feet from the driveway. The other units, since
the area near them is considered a parking area and the
garages meet the requirements. The applicant has applied
for a variance from this requirement. See V-297 for further
discussion.
In addition, the refuse container does not meet the require-
ments specified in Section 21.47.130(5). The refuse area
must not be visible from the public street and should be
accessible to al" units. The location of the refuse container
in the ^ront yard, is highly visible from a public street
and is quite distant from some of the units. The applicant
has indicated that he would prefer separate pick-up. Coast
Waste Management has agreed to this proposal.
-3-
The required open recreation area of 200 square feet per
unit can be provided through the private patios and yards.
However, the two front units, 1 and 5, have yards only 8
feet deep. Since the allowed minimum depth is 10 feet, the
yards would have to be extended 2 feet further. In addition,
the RDM zone requires a 20 foot front yard, unless it is
landscaped and no garages open onto the street. Since
recreation area cannot be provided in the front yard, the 10
foot yard requirement is used here. This means that complete
landscape and irrigation plans shall be required. The
landscaping as shown on Exhibit A is not adequate for this
purpose.
Two covered parking spaces have been provided for each unit.
Three guest spaces are required, one of which has been provided
on-site. This space is in an enclosed garage and it is
unlikely that this space will ever be available to or used
by any visitors to the project. The other spaces have been
provided on-street.
Design Standards
Section 21.47.120 regulates the design of proposed condominiums,
The design standards specify that the street system shall not
be a dominant feature. In this project, the driveway and
paved access area occupy all the interior of the lot. Approx-
imately 22% of the lot is devoted to driveway. In addition,
the design gives a boxlike appearance to the project and closes
in the entire center of the lot. This does not provide
privacy nor are the buildings well integrated to the site.
The driveway area dominates the site and will be a disruptive
influence on the living units.
The pedestrian circulation provided on the site consists of
short walkways leading from the driveway/parking area to the
front doors of the units. No pedestrian walkways have been
provided for visitors, who must park on the street.
The overall design of the project leaves very little open
space and creates an undesirable "boxlike" atmosphere. Three
of the units have views over the golf course. The other two
units are surrounded on three sides by street, driveway and
parking area.
Staff feels that, although the development standards could
be met through conditions, the design standards could be met
only through a revision of the plans.
R ec omme n da t io n
Staff recommends DENIAL of CP 79-17/CP-20 based on the
following reasons:
-4-
v*""". . 5*%
1) The project does not meet the development standards of
the Condominium Ordinance, Section 21.47.130.
a) The designated on-site guest parking space will
not be available for use by guests (21.47.130(8)).
b) The buildings have not been setback 10 feet from
the private driveway (21.47.130(1)(B)).
2) The propoed project does not meet the design standards
of the Condominium Ordinance, Section (21.47.120).
a) The internal street system is a dominant and
disruptive feature of the design (21.47.120(4)).
b) No pedestrian circulation has been provided between
the street and the units. The circulation is not
safe, well integrated or lighted (21.47.120(6)).
c) The building placement does not provide private
areas nor is the relationship between buildings,
parking and driveways desirable (21.47.120(7)).
Attachments
Location Map
Exhibit "A" dated September 4, 1979
Exhibit "B"
KJLrar
11/1/79
- 5-
Rec'd DCC
Description of Request;
PS uMrr^ -r-sl
_PC Date|Q/g4/7q
r/DisiP/")
Address or Locat
Applicant:
Engr. or Arch.
Brief Legal; LOT
Assessor Book:
General Plan Land
Existing Zone:
Acres:
.Tse Description:
Page:Parcel:
No. of Lots:
Proposed Zone: RP-M
~ _L _DU's 55 DU/Acre
School District:
Water District:
Coast Permit Area
I
Sanitation District: L.glUCA.'Dl\
x-v
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 9, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 79-17/CP-20
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1979, the Planning Commission considered this application for
tentative map and condominium permit and continued it to the January 9, 1980
meeting. The Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to try to
solve the problems as stated in the staff report, date November 28, 1979.
DISCUSSION
Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the problems with this condominium.
The applicant has submitted revised plans. The plans are not substantially
different but. do clarify the proposed development and some minor changes have
been made.
The applicant has eliminated the garage on the visitor parking space. The space
is now open and uncovered. An embossed concrete walkway will be provided from
the sidewalk to each of the units and to the golf course. The trash area in the
front yard has been removed since there will be individual trash pickup. Coast
Waste Management has approved this method of pickup. In addition, the private
yards off of the two units along Jerez Court have been expanded two feet to meet
the requirement.
The proposed project would have planters and lighting in the driveway and parking
area to soften the effect of this area. The applicant has agreed to move one
building closer to the sideyard to provide for more space between the driveway
and the units. However, there is not enough space to provide for the 20' wide
driveway and the 10' setback from the driveway to the building.
The project was designed to create a courtyard atmosphere. Planters, lighting
and embossed concrete walkways have been added to make the courtyard area more
appealing. The courtyard design will also help keep vehicles and garages out
of view from the public street. Each unit in this project has been provided
with a private entry, balcony and patio. Separate-laundry facilities and utility
meters will be provided.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends DENIAL of CT 79-17/CP-20 based on the following findings:
1. The project does not meet the development standards of the Condominium Ordin-
ance, Section 21.47.130 because the buildings have not been setback 10 feet
from the private driveway. (Section 21.47.130(1)(B).
2. The proposed project does not meet the design criteria of the Condominium
Ordinance, Section 21.47.110 because:
a) The internal street system is a dominant feature in the overall design
(21.47.110(4).
b) The pedestrian circulation passes through the driveway and is not safe
and well integrated to the overall design (21.47.110(b).
c) The building placement does not provide private areas nor is the rela-
tionship between buildings, parking and driveway desirable.
Attachments
Location Map
Staff Report, Nov. 28, 1979
Exhibit "A", Dec. 26, 1979
KL:ma
1/4/80
L
CASE Rec'd Date
Description of Request:. AJP>ftPA£g.
rPf^ OH
Address or Location of Request;'fo\1D&. QT- ^OP1
Applicant : ^.l
Engr. or Arch.
Brief Legal;fV)UTV\. PS 1K\TV\E-
Page;Assessor Book:
General Plan Land Use Description:
Existing Zone: RP-M J-..-T....!
Acres: . rV/TT No. of Lots:
Parcel : <O2
. \-\V-\\\ ^^\
_Proposed Zone
1 DTP'S DU/Acre
School District:
Water District:
Coast Permit Area:
-Q)E/nUnT3
Sanitation District;
If aftor the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
that further information is required, you will be so advised.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
/?o.
Business Address
Telephone Number
Name
Business Address
MEMBERS
Telephone Number
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
5.
'A-L.A&><>
'^ s:" A
Name
/hex
Home Address
Home Address
Business
'
Telephone Number
O O
3 » , V -ST.
- 7
Telephone Number
I (Attach more sheets if necessary)
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.
Applicant