HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 92-02; Beach Area Land Use Study; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECr:
I.
- EXHIBIT 5'
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
AUGUST 3. 1992
PROJECI'PLANNER. ERIC MUNOZ
FEBRUARY 3,1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GPA 9249ADA 926WZC 9261 - Bw AREA LAND USE SNDY -
Proposed changes to General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning
designations as recommended by a City Council directed land use study for
an area generally located in the southem portion of the Beach kea Overlay
Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program.
That the Planning Commission Dm Planning Commission Resolution No. 3440
recommending APPROVa of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
ADOR Planning Commission Resolution No.'s 3441, 3442, and 3443, recommending
APPROI& of GPA 92-09, LCPA 92-02, and ZC 92-01, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
U. PR~=Dm~~BMzmamR
In 1987, a study titled the North Beach Pladng and Traffic Study (NBPTS) was completed. The NBPTS addressed various traffic and land use issucS within what is now
the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). In Novcmbcr 1987 the City Council adopted several
recommendations of the NBPTS. The subject of this proposed action (general plan
amendment, local coastal program and zone change) addresses's of the
recommendations of the NBPTS adopted by the City Coundl in November 1987.
In looking at tnffic d d land uses for the beach area, the NBPTS idenMed some
residential that ather were developing or had the potential to develop land use
incornpati- between smaller scale single family residences and larger scale multi-
familyprom T& issue dprcscnring the existing single family character and scale of
the naghbodmod w88 mkd by the NBPTS and was cxphsscd in the form of a
recommendation.
.
GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3,1993
PAGE 2
Specifically, five residential areas within the beach area were identified relative to the
neighborhood character issue described above. For each of these five areas the NBPTS recommended that the City "should conduct public hearings to obtain citizen input on the
desirability of placing the study area in R-1 zoning and also the RM General Plan category.
Should these areas remain R-1 it would also be desirable to encourage the formation of one
or more neighborhood associations."
In November of 1987, the City Council adopted this recommendation for two of the five
study areas. This report and recommendation focuses on one of the study areas located in the southern portion of the BAOZ around the Southern terminus of Garfield Street. The
study area has 35 lots involved as shown on the attached location map. This area primarily has smaller scale single family and duplex developments with several lots that are
either vacant or could be redeveloped. The development of these lots could significantly
change neighborhood character. Existing zoning and General Plan designations are shown
on Exhibit "A". As shown, the existing zoning for this area is a noncompatible mix of
single family and multi-family zoning. Also, there are currently inconsistencies between
zoning and the General Plan in the form of Some single family R-1 lots that have a high
density RH (Residential-High) or RMH (Residential-Medium High) General Plan designation. In addition to the land use compatibility and neighborhood character issues,
this area is served by an extended culde-sac street system With one access point (Garfield
st). Becmse of this, the issue of emergency vehicle access and response for this area was
to be addressed by this land use study.
This neighborhood was studied first because of the issues described above and because a zone change application for a single family R-1 lot on the south side of Chinquapin within
the study area in 1991 has acted as a catalyst for the land use study to commence. On
September 4, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the zone change request (ZC 91-2)
without prejudice to allow time for this land use study and any resulting recommendations
to be completed.
The other study area that was approved by the City couadt to be assess& for the
desirability of mammnmg
same issues imdd as tbr subject area of this code amrJldrm?nt. Tbis other study area is in the norbyRlla#tpOttian of the BAOZ with a consistent R-3 zoning (no mixed zoning
designations 0- lots) end no inconsistencies between Zoning and the General Plan.
In addition tbi, odwr area is built out with very fcw infill vacant lots. Stat€ intends to
assess land use designations and any options/solutions for the second study area by the end
of 1993.
R-1 Zoning, that b not part Of tbis report, da not havt thc . *.
For the area involved in this code amadment, Mcondd 8 land use study that
included a sui- of CQtifiCd lnpitincrs to all the pmperty.ownenwithin the study area.
RM allowed density for about a three month period. Input was received hm all but about
5 property owners (out of 23 total) by phone and individual meetings throughout this time
Staff Sdkitcd and d all input rcgardkrg thc desirability Of htah@ R-1 ZO~ With
GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 3
period. Based on the research and input reviewed during the land use study, a
recommendation has been developed that staff feels provides a solution for addressing the
issues involved. The recommendation being made with this code amendment is different
than the study-wide R-l/RM option that was the focus of the adopted recommendation.
The proposed solution is primarily to implement the R-2 zone for the study area. Proposed
zoning and General Plan designations are shown on Exhibits "B" and "C'.
This recommendation, more fully described in the analysis section below, is responsive to
(1) the existing conflicts in land use designations; (2) the property owner input received;
and (3) the development scale and neighborhood compatibility issues involved. Approval
of this project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to adjust General Plan
designations, a Zone Change (ZC) to modify the area's zoning and a Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA) to the City's Mello It LCP.
111. ANALYSIS
1. What is the impact of circulation on determining land uses and residential densities
for the study area?
2. What combination of zoning and General Plan designations best addresses the land
use compatibility and neighborhood character issues involved with this study area?
3. ts the re,commendation consistent with City and planning policies; specifically the
Mello I1 Local Coastal Program and the City's Growth Management Program?
D [SCUSSION
As mentioned the study area is currently sewed by an extended cul-de sac street
system that violates the Engineering Department's cul-de-sac policy. The policy sets
limits foc culde-sacs regarding allowed length and number of dwelling units served.
Spm, this street system exceeds (1) the 600 foot length maximum; (2) the
50 dvdhg units cap; and (3) the 500 ADT traffic limit. The current situation and
potentid FIrimum density under existing land use designations violates the policy.
The original option of all R-1 zoning for the study area would a create a situation
where there would be compliance with the culde-sac policy. Therefore from an
Engineering standpoint, with the current existing non-conforming situation; any
decrease in potential units for the area would be incrementally better and supported
by Engineerhg. Comparing potential units under existing designations (94-132
units) to potential units under the staff proposed designations (70-103 units) shows
that the proposed recommendation would lower the maximum potential units under a buildout scenario. Furthermore, the City Fire Department has stated that the
I
L GPA 92-O9/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 4
exisring scenario as well as a proposed scenario of reduced units would not affect
rheir curtent ability to provide adequate emergency response services to the study
area.
2. RECOMMENDED ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Property owner input was essentially split with regards to favoring R-1 or multi-
farily zoning (RDM). This represents the mix of the two designations within the
study area. Several owners of existing R-1 lots or lots under 7,000 square feet
favored the R-1 single family zoning while property owners of larger sized lots with the current allowance to build multi-family type projects did not. A common theme,
however, from all. property owners was the need to prevent large scale multi-family
projects from deteriorating existing neighborhood character elements. There was
general agreement on the need for compatibility, arid project design control.
.zS the primary factor continued to be a scale and neighborhood character issue, most property owners agreed that a R-2 (duplex zoning) scenario would be more
favorable than eliminating the R-1 zone or letting the RDM zone (with multi-family
development standards) remain.
As such, this proposal recommends the designations shown on exhibits "B' and "C"
The R-2 zone is proposed to balance out the extremes of the incompatible zoning
designations while allowing developments of a reasonable scale and density to
occur. A lot's allowable density within the study area would be based on the lot
size and General Plan designation's density range. Two units would be allowed on lots with a minimum lot size of 7500 square feet. In addition, the R-2 zone has
more single family-like development standards (20 foot front yard setbacks and less
allowed lot coverage) as compared to the multi-family RDM zone, Therefore, a
duplex or twin home neighborhood may ultimately develop as opposed to a mixture
of high density multi-family projects adjacent to single family residences.
The proposal to introduce the R-2 zone, therefore, is more of a product type control
instead of a downzoning of the study area. Multiplying each lot in the study area
by its crdrdng and proposed designations shows that the proposed scenario could yield a dwantical maximum of 70-103 units while the existing scenario could yield
approximately 94-132 units maximum. In reality, several properties have and will continue to have singk family residences. Also, these numbers are approximate and
do not consider compliance with development and design standards. Howma, the
proposal does not represent an intensification of the residential land uses of the
study area thus rendering the existing street system adequate for futurc development.
Staff is proposing two exceptions to the R-2 zoning. First, the south side of
Chinquapin would have the single family islands eliminated and replaced with RDM
GPA 92-O9/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01 BEACH AREA LAND USE SNDY
FEBRUARY 3,1993
PAGE 5
zoning and Residential Medium High (RMH) General Plan land use designations.
General Plan designations were reduced hm RH to RMH to allow more appropriate
densities given average lot sues and adjacent uses. The two eastern lots on the
south side of Chinquapin are proposed for R-2/RM designations. The reduced densities for these lots is reflective of property owner input and the goals of
reducing development impacts to this area. The second exception is the existing 10
~t condo project at the south-eastern end of Olive Avenue. By maintaining its
existing designations, this lot will not become any more non-conforming to went
codes.
With this proposal, General Plan and zoning is in conformance for each lot within
the study area. The st& proposed designations are an equitable solution to the neighborhood compatibility concerns that exist within the study area. They promote
conformity and consistency between General Plan land use designations and zoning.
Also they best reflect the property owner input received concerning reasonable
scales and densities of development while regulating against noncompatible multi- family development projects.
3. A. MEUO It LOCAL COASTAL PROGM
Iaplementing the proposed land use designations would require a Lncal Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA). The Mello 11 LCP designates this area as Medium
High Density with a corresponding RDM zoning classification. The LCPA will
modify these current designations to reflect the proposed General Plan designation
modifications and zoning changes including the introduction of the R-2 zone. This
proposal will not adversely impact any of the issues the LCP ngulates including: land uses, grading, coastal access, ~tllfal resource protection, etc.
Since implcmcnting the pposed land use designations does not involve increasing
densities ot allowable units, this project complies with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Manqmmt Ph In- this proposal Siightlyredum the marimurn potential
d-btbirucr so there maybe less of a danand forsaviccS thanwith existhg desigardoar FutureprajcctSwillundergoCnVir0nmCatPl reviewandastandad v of;mM.+. to fadlitics and &ces so that all gmvth management pcrfofistaec-willbemaintaincd
GPA 92-O9/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 6
In summary, staff feels the recommendation is a functional solution to the issues addressed.
All property owners were given the opponunity to have input on the final proposed
recommendation at a noticed workshop on August 20, 1992. Three propeny owners attended and no significant opposition was expressed against the proposed recommendation
either at the meeting or in wrirten comments ftom those not in attendance.
Implementation of the R-2 zone ultimately could result in a duplex type neighborhood.
Development standards would be more similar to single family than multi-family zoning. There would not be a dramatic decrease in currently allowed densities within the study
area but two units would be allowed on a lot of 7,500 sq. ft. or greater. The R-2 zoning, and proposed designations in general, will (1) be appropriate for the study area's lot sizes;
(2) provide a solution where product type and neighborhood compatibility issues will be
minimized; (3) neutralize the extremes of the existing incompatible R-l/RDM zoning while
adjusting General Plan designations to be consistent with zoning; and (4) be most
responsive to the public input received and not represent a wholesale downzoning of the
area.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The implementation of the proposed land use designations will not create an adverse impact to the environment. As required, future projects will go through environmental
review. The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a sigmficant
impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 27,
1992.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. LocatiahIUlp.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3440
Planning Codsion Resolution No. 3441 (with Exhibits "A" - "C")
Planning Canmhsion Resolution No. 3442 (with Exhibits "A" - "C")
PlanniqconunisSion Resolution No. 3443 (with Exhibits "A" - T")
ENM:lh:km
Septabao, 1992
LAND USE STUDY AREA
AGUA HEDIONDA I
LAGOON
City of Catisbad Am- "A"
1 ....
1
I
i I
c
;8 206-09 1 -05 RDM R-2 RMH h!
;9 206-091-06 R- 1 R-2 RMH hV i
20 206-091 -07 R-1 R-2 R!! LU 1
i
t
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ll 21 1206-091-08 I RDM I R.2 I RMH I R! 11
~
2o6amu RDM R-2 RMH RMH
2-44 RDM R-2 RMI RMH
206091*1s RDM Re2 RMn RW
206093-16 RDM R-2 w RMH
206Op2=17 RDM R-2 RMH RMn
206092.02 R-1 R.2 RMH RMH
206093-43 R-1 R-2 RMW RMH
206093a R-1 R*2 M RMH
II 22
34 2-49
7s 2mas?m
11 23 I 206091-10 I R- 1 I R-2 IRMHIRMHII
Re1 RQ w RMH
RDM mu w RMH