Check out the huge new lots on Lake.
UPDATE: Silly us. Of course they go to the maximum possible density. Still, density bonus is a lot more tolerable when you're talking about 1-acre zoning to start with. One acre is 10 McMansions behind La Especial Norte!
The developer is packing them like sardines in that Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zone that should have only 0.75 house per acre. Buyers are being taken if the house lot isn't at least 56,700 square feet.
ReplyDeleteThanks. So is this density bonus or how did they get denser than zoning?
DeleteIt was density bonus. There is a smaller lot, the density bonus lot, close to the entrance that was/is owned by the family that owned the greenhouse property (per one of the sale persons).
ReplyDeleteBuyers beware. Developers are making money off your ignorance of the city zoning requirements. Developers should build to the mid-range density but don't do it now. What you read on the e-zoning on lot size and setbacks isn't necessary true on the lot and house you may be buying.
ReplyDeleteGuess the new homeowners in the Lake subdivision know that the property is substandard according to code. Two million dollars for a substandard house is a great deal.
ReplyDeleteBuyers don't give a rats what the zoning is, as long as the lot size is stated correctly.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever think that with a larger lot size, many of those buyers wouldn't be able to afford those houses? They're thankful the developer pursued every avenue to make the house a little more affordable.
Let's say someone brings suit after the fact to claim that the city was wrong in approving the subdivision. And let's further assume that the suit wins. Do you honestly think a judge is going to screw the home owners by blocking resale of these homes, or order them bulldozed? Laughable. Has never happened; will never happen.
Finally, just for sake of argument, let's say a judge did order the subdivision torn down and re-configured with larger lots. No sweat for the owners financially for two reasons: First, they'd have a slam dunk case against the builder, the city, or both. Second, they all have title insurance, which covers exactly this kind of thing.
Honestly, sometimes the thoughts posted here are really really poorly thought out.
Your scenarios for the sake of argument are really poorly thought out. They border on the ridiculousness. Your aim seems to be to stifle discussion on this blog.
DeleteGetting a little too hot in the kitchen for you? Start your own blog and moderate to your heart's content.
7:14 - No one is trying to stifle discussion - it's more that your legal theory has no merit. If it did, no one would have been able to transact in Park Place since the early '70's.
Delete- The Sculpin
The DB project on Daphne behind Mozy Cafe is 10 houses on 0.75 acres. The cul-de-sac is 0.25 acres. The lot was a hair under one acre.
ReplyDeleteThe project is a travesty, as is the one on Hermes. They're the new version of urban blight.
Lake and Santa Fe from the low $2 millions.
ReplyDeleteWhat an affordable bargain!
That adds up to a possible 33 homes on a 10 acre RR1 lot. One home per lot PLUS a studio or carriage house or whatever the owner chooses to make it PLUS an outdoor living room space with a full bath on one side and a full kitchen on the other. That equals the possibility of 33 iunits in my book
ReplyDeleteThen there is the question of the sliver lot of less than .2 acres which the
developer wanted to buy from the city for $16,000. What ever happened to that deal?
Add the sliver lot to the lot the developer already owns on the westernmost part of his property there could be yet another homesite.
Would we then have 36 units on a 10 acre RR1 lot?
The developers and the city make a mockery of our rules, once again.
It could have been much worse. The Brown family originally asked for a zoning change to R-45. Neighbors organized against it, and the zoning change was dropped to R-15. This was before Prop. A, so a super majority was need on the council to approve the amendment to the General Plan.. There were only three votes. The family then agreed to build according to the original zoning of RR-1.
ReplyDeleteThe sliver lot seems still to be in the hands of the city, unless the city sneaked it through as a sale to City Ventures. It looks like it's been cleared and prepared to sell. At some point it should come back to the council.
Thanks. What year was this? Were Barth and Houlihan the votes against upzoning?
DeleteI was part of that fight......peripherally.....from the UT:
DeleteSeptember 19, 2008
ENCINITAS – Faced with dozens of angry neighbors, the Encinitas City Council has again refused a request from the Brown family to relax citywide zoning rules to increase the value of its greenhouse land at 1264 Lake Drive.
Before unanimously voting to deny the proposal, the five council members said they oppose “spot zoning.” Councilman Dan Dalager noted that the council will soon consider land use from a broad perspective when it updates the general plan, the blueprint for land use in the city.
- The Sculpin
That Danny, what a joker!
DeleteThe sale of the sliver property was an agenda item within the past year, possibly two years, but not longer than that. The matter needed a more accurate appraisal than the one presented while Gus was CM so it was sent back for the appraisal. Ask Tony about it.
DeleteYes, it was Barth and Houlihan who wouldn't vote for the zoning change. The Browns also tried a Development Agreement, what the Eckes did for the Encinitas Ranch development, but that was squashed too.
ReplyDeleteSome planners love to help developers get around our code. Developer agreements are just one way to get their desired goal. Developers are asked to give concessions in exchange for more lienient requirements of the code from the City. Some offers have been to install a signal at Balour, or a sidewalk from Lake to El Camino. These are just 2 examples of how the city takes advantage of the developer who, of course, has so much to gain from these deals.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't the city pay for these enhancements from our tax dollars and keep the developers plans within the actual building code and not the creative interpretation by our planners?
Browns originally wanted 159 units on the 10 acres . That meant an upzoning to R-15,on a RR-1 lot. The next plan was 42-44 units. Then it was a convalescent home with 3-4 buildings on Lake which the city helped the developer write. Problem is Lake Drive is not zoned for that use. The lot is RR-1! Did the city care? NO! Fortunately, the planner withdrew his application. He had more sense than the City.
Sidewalks are not always considered "enhancements" or "improvements," you know.
ReplyDeleteAny upzoning of the Brown property would have required a General Plan Amendment, which at the time took a super majority of four to approve. Barth and Houlihan were clear that they would never vote yes to any kind upzoning, whether a simple request or couched in a Development Agreement. This never stopped the Brown family from coming back with another request, hoping that Jerome Stocks would move mountains for them. Stocks couldn't budge Barth and Houlihan because there was too much bad blood between the two sides.
ReplyDeleteThere was no Prop. A to require a vote, so what should have been a waltz towards an upzone, turned into a roadblock for the developer.
I agree with you,
ReplyDeletebut
Teresa loved the free sidewalk aspect of that particular developers agreement.
Teresa's ability to comprehend the full picture of a developers intent by offering a pittance in exchange for relaxing current zoning parameters was unreliable. And now she gets a memorial in her name? Oh, the horror. You know the reference.
ReplyDelete