Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-11; City Council; 7518; 60 Unit Tenatative Map AmendmentCIT0)F CARLSBAD - AGENOO'LL o£~v AR# 7^"/ K MTG. 10/11/83 DEPT. PLN TITLEl rTPNFTATT\7P MAP AMPWnMPTvTT FDR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 60 UNIT MAP. CT 77-8(B)/- DSLIrp u *~f d )/ ^— r *y-3 v.'T j DEPT. HP Khffi CITY ATTY\O3_ CITY MGRfi^^k oUJ OceQ.Q. O g O oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING CT 77-8(B)yrC«° HS~C*^ ITEM EXPLANATION The request is an amendment to a 60 unit condominium project originally approved in 1980. The applicant is proposing to divide the project into two phases. No changes are being proposed in density or site design. Both the Planning Commission and the staff felt that the public facilities, parking and amenities in the first phase would allow that phase to function adequately if the second phase were never built. No other problems were anticipated from the proposed amendments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct fiscal impact from the approval of this project. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. PC Resolution No. 2171 3. PC Staff Report dated September 14, 1983 w/attachments PALOMAR AIRPORT PALOMAR AjRPORTJROAD. DOVE LANE ALGA ROAD LA COSTA AVENUE CT V"7.1 JLL 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2171 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW PHASING OF A 60-UNIT CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF DOVE LANE. APPLICANT: D. S. L. SERVICES CASE NO; CT 77-8(B)/CP-45(A) WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: A Portion of the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, 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 14 day of September, 1983, 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 to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (B) That based on the evidence presented at. the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES CT-77-8(B)/CP-45^ based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings; 1) 2) 3) That the phasing of this project is consistent with the General Plan since the entire project, as well as Phase I is within the density range specified for the site. That all required parking, recreation area, and other development standards required for Phase I by the planned ^development ordinance will be constructed in this phase. That the Land Use Planning Manager has determined this project to be categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Environmental Ordinance. Conditions: 1) 2) Approval is granted for CT 77-8 (B)/CP-45/1-as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" dated August 19, 1983, incorporated by reference and on file in the Land Use Planning Office Phasing shall occur as shown on these exhibits. All conditions of approval for CT 77-8(A)/CP-45flare incorporated herein by reference and shall be complied within their entirety unless otherwise noted herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14 day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RESO NO. 2171 -2- Application Submitted Date: July 28, 1983 STAFF REPORT DATE: September 14, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: CT 77-8<B),- DSL SERVICE CO. Recmest for an amendment I. to a previously approved 60 unit Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit on a 5.2 acre site located on the"northeast corner of El Camino Real and Dove Lane. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2171, APPROVING CT 77-8(B), based on the Findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved 60 unit condominium as described above. This project was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1980. The applicant is now proposing to divide the project into two phases for financial purposes. There will be no changes in the number of units or the approved site design. The project is described in detail in the attached July 9, 1980 Staff Report. Ill ANALYSIS Planning Issue 1) Is the requested phasing essentially in conformance with the previously approved tentative tract map and condominium permit? Discussion When a developer is requesting to phase a project, Staff's main concern is that the phasing sequence be such that the early phases can stand on their own in terms of parking, amenities, etc. Each phase must be examined as a project, as though later phases may never get built. As is shown on Exhibit. "A", the entire common recreation area will be constructed in Phase I. Also the entire entrance, access drive, and sufficient parking (including visitor) will be included in this phase. If, for some reason, Phase II were to never be built, Phase I could meet the development standards and design criteria of the planned development ordinance. As a result, Staff sees no problem with allowing this project to be constructed in the phasing sequence they have requested. All of the previous conditions of approval are applicable to this project and have been incorporated into the Planning Commission resolution for this project. Staff is recommending the addition of a Condition (No. 1) to allow for the requested phasing. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Environmental Ordinance. Attachments 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2171 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Staff Reports, dated July 9 and September 24, 1980 6) Exhibits "A", and "B", dated August 19, 1983 PJKrad 8/30/83 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 77-8(B)/c<°-'/ APPLICANT: DSL SERVICES REQUEST AND LOCATION: Amendment to 60-Unit condominium tentative map to allow phasing. LEGAL DESCRIPTION; portion of west half of northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in San Diego County APN;215 -052-12 Acres 5.12 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 60 (2 Phases) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RMH Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac Density Proposed 11.5 du/ac Existing Zone RD-M-Q Proposed Zone no change Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site RD-M-Q Condo (under construction) North RD-M-Q Condo South C-1-Q Commercial East P-C . Vacant West C-Z-Q El Camino Real PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Leucadia EDU's 60 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated already paid ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, Exempt per 19.04.070 .! . .w ,.,-* ,-,v. ,t •-,•••*-.-: .,. ,. ,.. .... ._,. .. n^f,., , ,,^..^-...,,,,,, ,lv_^,A,^HMWvWwr«!J(M^^ l^«i^*^^™"^'it*«!l»W^)F'WW»k^^^^ -„• •. ,.. .If after the information you nave submitted nas been reviewed, xt xs cecermihea • that further infomatior 's required, you will be so ac* "sed.* " APPLICANT: AGENT: MSMBESS: DSL SERVICE COMPANY, a California corporation Name -(individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 3200 Bristol -Street, P.O. Box 6050, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Business Address (714) 549-8811 Telephone Number Phillip Dodd Name DSL Service Company, 3200 Bristol St. (P.O. Box 6050), Costa'Mesa, CA 92626 Business Address • • . (714) 549-8B11 - Ext. 2.43 . ,.'•';.' .' ,.-;•., : V-". '' . • Telephone Nusber . - .'"-'"' Name -(individual,.partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address Business Address Telephone Nusvbar Telephone Number . Borne Address. 3'asiness Address telephone Nuaber Telephone liunber *DSL Service Company, a California- corporation, is a'wholly owned subsidiary of Downey Savings and Loan Association, a California corporation, 3200 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 549-8811. DSL was incorporated on 12/30/66. • . (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 be1 relied upon as being true and correct until amended. DSL SERVICE COMPANY STAFF REPORT ©+•4" DATE: July 9, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael Howes , Planning Department SUBJECT: CT 77-8 (A) /CP-45/SDP 80-8 - MOLA - Request for 60 unit Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Project ®n property located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Dove Lane. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a 60 unit condominium develop- ment on the east side of El Camino Real, north of "Westbluff Plaza". The units are generally proposed in four-unit clusters, with each building taking access off of a private driveway. Each driveway, in turn, connects with an existing public street, Sandpiper Place. This street ends in a cul-de-sac at the northern boundary of the site as shown on Exhibit "A". The proposed condominium project is located in an area that is designated as RMH by the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. This designation allows a density of 10-20 dwelling units per acre; the proposed project will have a density of 11.5 units per acre. The subject property was previously subdivided into a total of 16 lots, and building pads have been graded, in conjunction with the approval of CT 77-8. As a result, the lots are relatively level and devoid of any significant flora or fauna. The pads step up towards the northern end of the property, with an elevation differential of approximately 20 feet between the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Approx- imately 1600 cubic yards of additional grading is proposed to prepare the site for development. II. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Does the proposed condominium project conform with the development standards of the condominium ordinance? 2. Does the proposed condominium project conform with the design criteria of the condominium ordinance? Development Standards The applicant proposes to provide one covered parking space and one open parking space per unit. Guest parking will be available along Sandpiper Place where there is sufficient space to accommodate 28 cars, meeting the visitor parking requirements. In regards to building setbacks, all of the.buildings will be setback at least 30" from El Camino Real. This 30' area will be heavily landscaped to shield the condominiums from El Camino Real. The two southernmost buildings will be setback at least 20 feet from Dove Lane. This area will also be heavily landscaped to shield these buildings from the traffic on Dove Lane. All except one of the proposed condominium buildings will be setback 30" - 40' from Sandpiper Place, a private street serving this development. The one exception is the eight unit building located at the southwestern corner of the project. This building is setback 10 feet from Sandpiper Place. Due to the location of this building with streets on all three sides the applicant and the staff felt a 10 foot setback from Sandpiper Place was acceptable. This complies with the minimum 10f setback from a private street required by the condominium ordinance. All of the buildings will be setback at least 10 feet from the parking areas. A tennis court will be constructed at the northern edge of the site and barbecue facilities will be located adjacent to each of the buildings, meeting all open/ recreational space requirements. In terms of storage, a small amount of storage will be available- in the front section of the garages. A condition has been added to the approval of this project requiring that additional storage be provided so that each unit has at least 480 cubic feet of storage area accessible to the outside. Design Criteria This project meets all of the design criteria of the condominium ordinance. The street pattern should provide adequate circulation, yet will not be the dominant feature of this development. The open space and recreational areas are readily accessible to each of the buildings. This project will be located between an existing shopping center and an existing apartment complex, both of which have been constructed by the applicant. The architecture of this project will be similar to that of the existing apartments and should fit in well v/ith the surrounding development. -2- G The applicant has indicated to the staff that eventually he would like to integrate this project with his existing apartments if they are converted to condominiums. The applicant has indicated via dashed lines on Exhibit A the location of future parking areas along the northern edge of this project. These parking spaces would be required if the existing apartments were converted to condominiums. Approval of this tentative map and condominium permit in no way indicates approval of the proposed future driveway and parking improvements along the northerly portion of the property nor does it justify a future conversion of the existing apartments. These parking spaces and driveway improvements will have to be approved as part of the application for the future conversion of the existing apartments. III. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1663^ recommending APPROVAL to the City Council of CT 77-8(A)/CP-45, and Resolution No. 1664, APPROVING SDP 80-8, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Attachment s Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement • '_.„.. Location Hap- - • • . .•«.••«> PC Resolution No. 1663. PC Resolution No. 1664. Exhibit."A", dated 6/26/80 Exhibits "B", "C", "-D", "E", and "F", dated 5/5/80 MH: ar 7/2/80 -3- STAFF REPORT DATE: September 24, 1980 TO: Planning Commission •FROM: Planning Department 1SUBJECT: CT 7«-8(A)/CP 45 - MOLA - Minor Revisions At the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1980, the Commission approved CT"7»-8(A)/CP 45 consisting of 60 condo- minium units located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Dove Lane. Since that time, the property has changed ownership and the new owner is requesting minor revisions to the approved plan. Exhibit "X" depicts the proposed revisions which include: 1. An increase of 150 square feet of floor area for the smallest unit; 2. Replacement of the proposed tennis court with a swimming pool and spa; 3. Re-alignment of the most northeasterly building complex and parking area to take advantage of the view; and 4. Relocation of 1 unit from the most southwesterly com- plex to the most northeasterly complex. Staff has reviewed the proposed request and feels the re- visions are minor in nature and will improve the project. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff will prepare a memo for the file and make the necessary changes. If the Plann- ing Commission feels, however, that the changes constitute a major revision and would like the opportunity of additional review, then this item must -be brought back as an amendment to the tentative tract map and condominium permit at an advertised public hearing. RECOMMENDATION • It is recommended that the Planning Commission find the proposed revisions minor in nature and direct staff to make the necessary corrections to the file. ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit X, dated September 18, 1980 2. Exhibit Y, dated September 18, 1980 BH: j t