The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-07-15; City Council; 6298; CT80-16/CP-74-- Cty. --- July 15, 1980 - DATE : DE PART M E N T : Planning -- Cty. Mgr. *y -- SUBJECT:CT 80-16/CP-74 - SANDY 9 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT M?P AND C0JY"IUM PERMIT --- --. SlATCklENT _. _.., OF THE MATTER The applicant requests approval of a 9 unit Tentative Tract Map and CondCaninium Permit located on the east side of Hope Avenue between Horn Avenue and Grand Avenue in the R-3 Zone. The Planning Comnission and staff recammded denial of this project because it did not meet the design criteria of the CondCaninium Ordinance and did not provide addi- tional amenities to justify the project's proposed density. of storage and open/recreational atop the carprts and the dominance of the driveway could not meet the design criteria of the Condominium Ordinance. Specifically, the location With respect to density the land use designation is ,Nedium High Density allowing ten dwelling units/acre, up to 20 units if additional ammities over and above the devel- . opnent standards are provided. The project's proposed density is 19 du's/ac., 9 units above that allawed outright by the Wium High Density designation of the Gmeral Plan. Although the minimum developrent standards have been mt, no additional mi'ties have been provided to justify the increased density, therefore, the Planning CarrSnission could not supprt the project. . At the Planning COmnission meting, the applicant indicated the units would sell for approximately $70,000 and are intended to serve as afford&le housing for the city. At this tim, the city has not developd standards for or a definition of "affordable" housing, and will not do so until such time as the revised Housing Element is adopted. . NO other public testinmny was given related to this project. ,- P.C. Resolution No. 1647, dated 7/11/80 Staff Report, dated 6/11/80 Exhibits A, B, 3 C dated March 3, 1980 Exhibit D dated July 9, 1980 RECO!F"DATION Staff and the Planning Commission reconmend that the City Council DN - CI' per Resolution No. 1647 and direct the City Attorney to prepare docmtmts Council Action: 80-16/8-74 DENYING same. 7-15-80 Council returned the matter to seaff for preparation of appropriate 'findings of approval for the project. - 1. .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 31 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c PIANNIMG COrlMlCSION RESOLUTION NO. 1647 -- I-------_-- - A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PTAPINING COPIMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSUAD, CALII’ORNIA, RECOPDENDING DENIAL OP A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAT? AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 9 UIaITS ON PROPERTY GENETiALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HOPE STREET, BETWEEN HOME AVENUE AND GIVJJD AVENUE. APPLICANT: SANDY CASE NO: CT 80-16/CP-74 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to, wit: A portion of Lot 29 of Schell and Sites additim to Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 2145, filed in the Office of tlie County Recorder, February 20, 1929 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, the Planning Commission did, on the 1-1-th day uf June, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed hy 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 to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to tlie Tentative Tract Map an6 Condominium Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. E) That based on the evidence presented at the public hcarincj, the Conmission recoinmends JIENIAI, o E CT 80-1G/CP-74, based on the following findings: -- Findings I - : 1) That the project is not consistent with thc General Plan bccnuse the proposed density of 13 du/ac cannot be -justi€icd by provisjon of on-site aincnj.ties, as epccificd in the dcnsity 1 ‘2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 /‘ 35 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 raricjc criteria set forth in the Land Use Element of the General I’l.an. 2) That the project is not consistent with the. design criteria requirements of the condominium ordinance (Chapter 21.47.110 Carlsbad Nunicipal Code)’ for the reasons stated in the staff report. ‘ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 11th day of June, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Schick, Larson, Friestedt, Marcus, Leeds and Jose ABSENT: RodOtis ABSTAIN : None CARL SBAD P LF~NN I id! dim s s I ON L) 4TTEST : ~ARLSBAD PLANNIN-G COMMISSION J -2- STAFF REPORT - DATE : TO : FROM : SUBJECT : June 11, 1980 Planning Commission Catherine Nicholas, Plann.ing Department CT 80-16/CP-74 - SANDY Request for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Condo- minium Permit for 9 Units on the east side of Hope Avenue between Home Avenue and Grand Avenue. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a tentative subdivision map and condominium permit to develop 9 units on two parcels totalling .47 acres, located, as described above. A single family residence exists on each of the two parcels. Plans, as submitted, call for the removal of one unit and remodeling of the second. Eight additional units would be constructed adjoining the existing residence, four units on the first floor and four on the second. The new units would be approxi- mately 875 square feet each. Open, detached parking structures and open areas adjacent to the units provide resident parking. The applicant has expressed his intent to provide these units as low cost housing, indicatinq the proximately to the downtown area as the most appropriate location for this type project, The applicant has estimated the sale price of the units between $65,000 and $75,000. I. ANALYSIS - Plannina Issues 1) Does the project meet all aspects of the design criteria of the condominium ordinance? 2) Does the project provide sufficient amenities to justify the proposed density of 19 dwelling units/ acre? Discussion The project satisfies the basic development standards of the condominium ordinance specifi cally ; parking, laundry facilities, open recreation area, storage space and setbacks. Howevcr , in comprehensive review, a number of concerns arose with respect to the design criteria of the condominium ordinance, The most significant of these related to the dominance of the driveway and the location of the parking structures, storage and open recreation areas. The project is served by a common drive entering off Hope Avenue. This driveway, when considered with the open parking area, comprise the dominant feature of the development, occupying half of the site, The parking structures and open parking areas themselves, are situated immediately in front of the entrances to the units. Vehicles and parking structures at these locations are unattractive visual obstructions and create an indefensible space at the units' entrances. For these reasons, staff feels that the project is in basic conflict with the design criteria of the condominium ordinance. Staff was additionally concerned with respect to the location of the storage space and open recreation areas for the upper four units. The open recreation and storage would be provided atop the parking structures service two units, the area being divided by stairs to the street level. 8 opposite the units. Each parking structure would With respect to storage space, staff feels that the top of the parking structures is a uniquely poor location, Storage space is neither easily accessible nor convenient on a second story as items stored are frequently heavy or cumbersome. Therefore, storage space at this location does not satisfy the design criteria of convenient storage. Staff was similarly concerned with the provision of open recreation on top of the parking structures. This area, shared by two units and partially divided by stairs, would not afford the privacy considered desirable. The area would, additionally, be noisy as affected by the traffic of the development. Due to the limitations on the ability to enjoy this space., inherent in the design, staff feels this location is undesirable as open recreation. As a final major issue, staff considered the high density of the development. The applicant proposes a density of 19 du/ac. The General Plan designation of the medium-high density permits 10 du/ac and up to 20 du/ac if certain criteria are met. These criteria include, most importantly, provision of on-site amenities. This project barely meets the minimum requirements of the condominium ordinance. No additional recrcation area has been included and that which has been provided -2- is undesirable in staff's opinion. The design of the project appears crowded and dominated by asphalt. In terms of design and on-site amenities, staff is unable to mitigate or justify the proposed density of this development. 111. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 1647, DENYING CT 80-16/CP-74, based on the findings contained therein. - -I_cI Attachments Background Data Sheet Location Map Disclosure Form PC Resolution No. 1647 Exhibits A & B dated March 3, 1980 CN : ar 6/5/80 -3- .., . . . . . . .. . . East WSt PUBLIC FACII;ITIES Water District (Other: 1 - - I- . 4' I AI'PLICANT : -.__ Telcphone Number I * AGENT: .. EWERS : 729.B Telephone Number -- --~ Namc (individual, partner, Ioint Home Address venture, corporation, syndicition) Business Address Telephone NumGer Telephone Numher _. I ! i i Business Address Telephone Nurnber Telephone Nuirbcr .I ! (Attach more sheets iC ncccssaryl S/Wc dccloro under pcnalty of perjury th;:t the information contained in thio dis- closure is true and corrcct. and that it will rcninin true and corrcct and may be reliecl upon as bcing truc and correct until amcndcd. , I S-