Loading...
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