Loading...
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