Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 12-01A; Village Master Plan Changes; Master Plan (MP) The City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. Application complete date: N/A P.C. AGENDA OF: May 15, 2013 Project Planner: Scott Donnell Project Engineer: N/A SUBJECT: MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES – A request to recommend approval of staff-proposed changes to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Changes are proposed to stimulate Village development and activity and improve use of the document through minor clarifications and edits. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6977 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 12-01(A) based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad is proposing miscellaneous revisions to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual (“Master Plan”). This document regulates land use and development in the city’s downtown, or “Village.” Staff has proposed these changes in conjunction with Urban Place, a consultant that specializes in organizing and revitalizing business districts, and The Planning Center, a Southern California-based planning firm. Proposed revisions can be categorized into four groups: commercial uses, parking, design, and housekeeping. Revisions are not proposed to comprehensively amend the Master Plan; instead, they are intended to quickly stimulate activity in the Village in limited but impacting ways. Accordingly, and except for the housekeeping edits, changes would affect only Master Plan properties outside the Coastal Zone. In this way, if the City Council approves them, revisions can be effective immediately. Master Plan properties within the Coastal Zone would continue to be subject to current requirements. Housekeeping changes, though they would affect all master plan properties, are minor and therefore would not require Coastal Commission review. Because revisions are proposed throughout the Master Plan, the entire document is an attachment to the Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of the Master Plan amendment. Changes are indicated in either underline or strikeout format. Except for the numerous housekeeping changes, the page numbers on which the proposed revisions occur are listed in Table A below. Also attached is a map of the area regulated by the Master Plan. The map shows all land use districts, the Coastal Zone boundary, and public parking lot information. 4 MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Revitalization of the Village is a City Council priority. Renewal of Carlsbad’s downtown began originally in the late 1970s through redevelopment programs. Now, the City Council seeks to continue the progress made through a private sector-driven revitalization effort. Specifically, the Council’s objective is to partner with local property owners, businesses and/or other stakeholders in the Village to develop a program, policies, financing mechanisms or other initiatives to spur local investment and foot traffic on a self-sustaining basis. The need for continued improvement in the Village is perhaps bolstered by responses in the City of Carlsbad Business Survey Report. This February 2013 report surveyed over 200 Carlsbad businesses. In reply to the question of what the number one thing was that the city could do to improve the business climate, the third highest response by businesses was “improve/redevelop the Village.” This report is available at the city’s Economic Development Department website under “Resources” at www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/economicdevelopment. To help implement its objective, the Council hired Urban Place in 2012. Based in part on input and direction from Urban Place, the city is considering different ways to stimulate the Village and enliven its streetscape. These include the recent adoption of a City Council policy encouraging curb cafés (temporary outdoor dining decks in lieu of parking spaces), a proposal to move and expand the Farmer’s Market, and these recommended Master Plan changes. All of these efforts and particularly the Master Plan changes proposed recognize the opportunities presented by the Village’s coastal downtown location, walkable grid street pattern, and availability of both transit (the Coaster) and public parking both on-street and in lots. Based on these characteristics and the potential for future compact growth, the Village is identified by SANDAG as an “existing/planned smart growth area.” SANDAG defines smart growth as: Smart growth is a compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. It focuses future growth and infill development close to jobs, services, and public facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space and natural resources. Smart growth is characterized by more compact, higher density development in key areas throughout the region that is walkable, near public transit, and promotes good community design. Smart growth results in more housing and transportation choices for those who live and work in smart growth areas. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual changes proposed are briefly described in the table below. A more complete description of the changes follows the table. As a reminder, except for minor “housekeeping” changes, all revisions would affect only properties outside the Coastal Zone. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 3 TABLE A - BRIEF SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED ITEM PROPOSAL PAGE(S) IN RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT Uses Microbrewery Add microbreweries as a permitted use in Land Use Districts 1-3 only Pages 38, 42 Winery Add wineries as a permitted use in Land Use Districts 1-3 only Pages 38, 42 Non-residential parking requirements Fractional parking space Allow rounding of any resulting fractional space Page 176 Conversion of existing building/tenant space Allow space reuse by businesses with greater parking demands even if additional parking spaces cannot be provided Page 177 Commercial parking standards Reduce standards for restaurants and professional offices Pages 177-179 Commercial parking standards Add standards for microbreweries and wineries Pages 178 In lieu parking participation Allow 100% in lieu fee parking participation for non-residential uses Pages 105, 108, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, 184 Residential parking requirements Unit and guest requirements Reduce standards for multi-family uses Page 179 Tandem parking Allow tandem parking for projects of no more than eight residential units Page 180 Design Quality commercial space Require design and construction of all ground floor commercial space to fully support legitimate and quality commercial uses Page 38 Minimum first floor building width Establish minimum width for Land Use District 1 only Page 104 Maximum first floor building setback Establish maximum setback for Land Use District 1 only Page 104 Roof pitch requirement Delete standard in Land Use Districts 1-4 only Pages 105, 108, 111, 114 Flat or low-pitch roofs Allow in Land Use Districts 1-4 only Page 138 Housekeeping Housing and Neighborhood Services Director and staff Change to City Planner and Planning Division Throughout Miscellaneous edits Provide consistent and correct references to various permits and terms Throughout Miscellaneous edits Fix misspellings, grammar, errors and incorrect internal references Throughout MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 4 Detailed Description of Changes Proposed Policy language in both the General Plan and the Master Plan support and encourage current efforts to revitalize the Village, whether in the form of spurring foot traffic or enlivening the streetscape. Goals, objectives and policies call for the City to maintain and enhance the Village as a place to live, work, and recreate, to encourage restaurants, offices, and other uses that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, and stimulate and attract private investment. In addition to supporting this policy wording, the proposed changes also help implement numerous Master Plan objectives, including the following: Objective 1.1 – Remove barriers to desired development from the Village Objective 3.5 – Provide greater certainty as to acceptable land uses and development intensities Objective 3.6 – Simplify the project application and review process Objective 3.7 – Stimulate and attract private investment Among other things, proposed revisions remove ambiguity and clarify requirements; they also provide greater flexibility to enable requirements and objectives to be met. Furthermore, while many changes proposed by this Master Plan amendment can now be achieved through the current development standard modification process, designing to a stated standard may provide greater developer assurance of a successful project. Along these lines, proposed revisions attempt to clear up ambiguous language now present in some standards and provide clear direction for standards that are now proposed. Many proposed changes discussed below revise Master Plan parking requirements. As a preface to this discussion, it is important to realize that the changes are recommended due largely to the small scale, downtown nature of the Village with its flat topography, grid-street pattern, pedestrian-scale buildings, and availability of public parking both along streets and in parking lots. These attributes contribute to a very walkable environment, benefit Village merchants and make possible parking standards that are, or are proposed to be, reduced in comparison to parking requirements typically suited for suburban areas. These strengths also offer the possibility of satisfying on-site parking through participation in the Village’s Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Alternatives to automobile transportation, such as walking, are encouraged by the General Plan Circulation Element. According to a 2008 report by the city, there are over 1,000 marked and unmarked on-street parking spaces in the Village. Additionally, there are approximately 850 parking spaces in public lots. The city conducts surveys of the utilization or occupancy of the spaces in these public lots. Several past surveys have revealed average occupancy of all the public lots varied between 53% and 82% as the following survey results show: August 2006: 82% February 2007: 80% August 2007: 82% February 2008: 78% MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 5 February 2011: 53% More recently, in summer 2012, Urban Place conducted surveys of both public lot and on-street parking spaces. These surveys, which focused on particular lots as well as street segments, revealed a range of occupancies often due to the location and visibility of parking spaces. An April 2013 summary of those surveys, and insights on parking in the Village and efforts to enhance it, is provided as Attachment 3. Finally, Attachment 4 is a detailed list of several projects approved in the Village since 2006. This list demonstrates the types of projects approved in the Village, how they were parked under current requirements, and how proposed changes to the current requirements would affect parking numbers and the ability to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Projects include a mix of residential, retail, restaurant and office uses. Commercial uses A. Add microbreweries as a permitted use Microbreweries have become increasingly popular across the country and in San Diego County; in North County, they are concentrated in San Marcos and Vista. As a way to add vibrancy to the Village, a proposed change would list them as a permitted use in specific Land Use Districts and provide a reasonable parking standard. The recommended parking standard is provided under the Non-residential parking requirements discussion below. A microbrewery can be a stand-alone use or combined with a restaurant, such as the Pizza Port on Carlsbad Village Drive. A microbrewery typically consists of a tasting room where patrons can sample locally-produced beers. Microbreweries may also include on-site production and storage as well as retail sales of apparel, home brewing equipment, and beer for off-site consumption. As a stand-alone use, food service is typically non-existent or clearly incidental to the brewery and tasting. At some existing microbreweries, for example, customers bring their own food or caterers may serve food on certain days. Although the Master Plan provides a parking standard for microbreweries, it does not identify any land use district where such a use would be permitted. Staff has interpreted “manufacturing plants (small scale), a permitted use in Land Use District 6 only, as being the closest fit to a microbrewery. About this district, the Master Plan states the following: District 6 has traditionally functioned as a light industrial area with an emphasis upon automotive towing, repair and detailing uses. Other building services and light industrial activities have also occupied large parcels in the area. Land uses of this type will be allowed to continue in the area with some limitations to better integrate them into the surrounding Village environment. However, as economics begin to play its role in the area, this area may begin to transition into a more commercial retail and business area much different from the industrial land uses. The land use plan within this document allows for the gradual transition of the area into uses which will be more compatible with the residential character of the Barrio neighborhood. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 6 No microbreweries have been permitted in Land Use District 6. Staff’s recommendation would permit microbreweries, outside the Coastal Zone, in Land Use Districts 1, 2 and 3. These districts are appropriate locations for a microbrewery because they are the Village’s primary commercial areas and encompass businesses along two of its busiest streets – Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. They also allow or provisionally allow the greatest extent of commercial, entertainment and recreation, food services, and office uses in the Master Plan. Permitting microbreweries in Land Use District 6 is not proposed because of the district’s distance from the Village’s primary commercial corridors and its adjacency to Land Use District 5. This district, across Tyler Street from District 6, contains some existing residences and has a land use plan emphasizing residential and neighborhood serving commercial uses. Further, no food service and no entertainment and recreation use that serves alcohol (e.g., a bar or night club) are currently permitted in District 6. For stand-alone microbreweries, a restriction is proposed to clarify that any food service, if provided at all, be a clearly incidental use. This restriction appears as a proposed footnote preceding the permitted land use tables on Master Plan page 38. The restriction ensures a stand- alone microbrewery permitted in the Village primarily produces and provide tasting of beers. It also supports the lesser parking requirement proposed for a stand-alone microbrewery than a microbrewery associated with a restaurant, as discussed below. B. Add wineries as a permitted use Another anticipated way to enhance the Village is the addition of wineries to the permitted use matrix. Presently, the Master Plan contains no specific listing or standard for such. Urban wineries are a somewhat recent phenomenon whereby a wine producer grows grapes in a rural location or buys grapes from a vineyard and then transports them to an urban facility for crushing, fermentation, aging and bottling and tasting by patrons. A winery may include only a tasting room served by an off-site production facility. Examples of nearby wineries include Witch Creek Winery on Carlsbad Boulevard in the Village and Solterra Winery in Leucadia. For the same reasons discussed above for a microbrewery, staff is recommending amendment of the Master Plan to permit wineries in Land Use Districts 1, 2 and 3. Additionally, staff also recommends stand-alone wineries have the same food service restriction proposed for stand- alone microbreweries. Non-residential parking requirements A. Permit rounding of any resulting fractional parking space When parking requirements are calculated, a fractional parking space sometimes results. For example, parking required for a 1,000 square foot retail space in the Village is 3.33 parking spaces (One parking space for every 300 square feet of net floor retail space = 3.33 spaces). Presently, the Master Plan is silent regarding how to factor the fractional space. As proposed, the Master Plan would clarify that (1) any fractional yield of no more than 0.5 parking spaces MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 7 would be rounded down and (2) any fractional yield of more than 0.5 parking spaces would be rounded up. Thus, a parking requirement of 3.6 parking spaces would actually necessitate 4 parking spaces, and a requirement of 3.3 spaces would result in only 3 required parking spaces. Outside the Village, Zoning Ordinance parking standards require the rounding up of any fractional parking space, even if no more than 0.5. However, a more liberal standard is proposed and appropriate for the Village due to its urban, walkable setting and availability of public parking. The proposed standard would also likely serve as an incentive to development, particularly for small projects where a one parking space reduction, for example, could be significant. Rounding of fractional parking spaces would not affect the way proposed multi-family residential parking standards would be calculated. These proposed residential standards, discussed below, would yield only whole numbers of parking spaces and not any fractional amounts. B. Allow conversion of tenant spaces or buildings without parking upgrades Of all revisions proposed, perhaps the one with the most immediate and significant impact is that which affects parking requirements applicable to conversion of existing tenant spaces and buildings. Current Master Plan requirements in this regard are as follows: Space may be converted from one approved use to another approved use without additional parking provided both uses have the same parking requirements according to the parking requirements set forth within this chapter of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. If the new use has a higher parking requirement than the existing use, additional parking must be provided. A credit for parking for any existing commercial use will be considered by a case-by-case basis. The recommended change would maintain the requirement that uses with higher parking requirements provide additional parking but with the new provision that more parking need only be provided if feasible. Below is the proposed standard: When non-residential space is converted from one approved use to another approved use with a higher parking requirement, then additional parking shall be provided as follows: 1) the additional on-site parking (or some portion thereof) shall be provided to the extent feasible given the existing building and site configuration; or 2) if no additional parking can feasibly be accommodated on- site, as determined by the appropriate decision-making authority, then the existing available parking shall satisfy the total parking requirement for the new use. The “appropriate decision-making authority” would be the City Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council, depending on the permits required. If occupancy of a tenant space only required a building permit, for example, the City Planner would make the decision regarding feasibility of adding some or all of the required parking for uses with more intensive parking requirements. The recommended change complies with General Plan and Master Plan goals to increase the variety of Village uses and stimulate and attract private investment. It is recognized that this MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 8 proposed change may allow parking-intensive businesses, such as restaurants, to locate in buildings or tenant spaces previously occupied by shops, offices, or other uses with less- intensive parking requirements. Accordingly, this proposed change would not be recommended if it were not for the availability and accessibility of public parking in the Village. C. Reduce standards for restaurants and professional offices A City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty retail shops. - Village Goal A.2, General Plan Land Use Element Consistent with the above goal, changes are proposed to encourage restaurants and offices by reducing their required parking ratios. The table below compares existing and proposed standards for not only Carlsbad but the downtown areas of other cities as well as recommended office parking requirements from the San Diego Association of Governments publication, Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (2010). TABLE B – RESTAURANT AND OFFICE PARKING COMPARISON Use Number of Parking Spaces Required per Use Master Plan Zoning Ordinance (Outside Village) Downtown Specific Plans* Existing Proposed Encinitas Vista Solana Beach SANDAG** Restaurant One space per 100 square feet (sf) of net floor space for facilities less than 4000 sf. For facilities larger than 4000 square feet, forty spaces plus one space per 50 sf of net floor space in excess of 4000 sf. One space per 125 sf of net floor space Same as existing Master Plan standards except standards are calculated on “gross” versus “net” floor area. One space per 100 sf GFA, including on-site outdoor dining One space per 250 sf of floor area One space per 143 sf GFA Not analyzed Professional Office (busines s and medical ) One space per 300 sf of net floor space One space per 350 sf of net floor space Business: One space per 250 sf of gross floor area; Medical: One space per 200 sf of gross floor area (GFA)*** One space per 300 sf of GFA One space per 250 sf of floor area One space per 175-300 sf of GFA dependin g on size and specific use 1 space per 345 sf of floor area *Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan; Vista Downtown Specific Plan; Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan (Solana Beach), South Cedros and Plaza Districts **Parking ratios from Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (SANDAG, June 2010) ***If within 300 feet of the boundaries of the Village, parking requirements are the same as the Master Plan The proposed Master Plan standard for professional office compares most similarly to the SANDAG recommended potential parking rate for office uses in smart growth developments. This recommended ratio, from SANDAG’s Parking Strategies for Smart Growth, is provided to MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 9 give context to and a basis for the recommended professional office parking requirement. As noted, SANDAG has designated the Village an existing/planned smart growth area. The recommended office ratio of one space 345 square feet of floor area (or 2.90 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet) is based on research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Caltrans of office uses in suburban and urban locations, including two transit oriented developments (TODs). The recommended ratio reflects an average of the parking rates determined from this research. The SANDAG publication notes that the recommended parking rate for smart growth office uses “…represents a reduction from existing typical standards yet still conforms to the upper bounds of observed values for commercial office.” Typically, as the table above notes, office parking standards are higher in suburban areas, as specified by the city’s Zoning Ordinance standards for the portions of Carlsbad outside the Village, and lower in downtown areas. Similarly, restaurant parking standards for downtown areas typically are reduced as the above table shows. The recommended ratio for the Master Plan of one parking space per 125 square feet of net floor area is somewhat similar to ratios in other nearby downtowns. The notable exception to this is the restaurant standard for Vista’s downtown area, which requires 50% fewer spaces than the proposed Village standard. Finally, it should be noted that Master Plan standards, whether existing or proposed, base parking on the net versus gross floor area, with the latter being typical in most cities. Net floor area means that area which remains after square footage of spaces that do not generate parking demand are removed from the calculation of total square footage of floor space of a building. Spaces that do not generate parking demand include, but are not limited to, restrooms, stairwells, elevators, walkways, and similar space. In figuring parking based on gross floor area, these non-parking demand areas are included. Basing parking demand on net floor area reduces parking. Not all buildings feature areas that are excluded from net floor area parking calculations. One recent project, Seaside Village Corner (now under construction at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street), benefitted from perhaps a three to four space parking reduction as approximately 1,000 square feet of gross floor area was not counted in its parking requirements. Seaside Village Corner is a project profiled in Attachment 4 to this staff report. D. Add standards for microbreweries and wineries The present Master Plan parking standard for microbreweries inside and outside the Coastal Zone is as follows: If incidental to a restaurant use, one space per 300 square feet of net floor space. If sole use, one space per 50 square feet of net floor space. Staff is unaware of any “sole use” microbreweries in the Village. In 1995, the city approved Pizza Port on Carlsbad Village Drive under the above parking requirement for microbreweries incidental to restaurants. Outside the Coastal Zone, the proposed Master Plan parking standard for microbreweries and for wineries is as follows: MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 10 If incidental to a restaurant use, one space per 300 square feet of net floor space. If sole use, one space per 125 square feet of net floor space for the tasting room and one space per 300 square feet of net floor space for all other uses (e.g., production, storage, and retail sales). The proposed requirement differs from the existing standard only in how it applies to stand-alone microbreweries or wineries. The proposal greatly reduces the existing requirement. It also proposes to park tasting rooms at the same rate as proposed for restaurants outside the Coastal Zone. Appropriately, this rate is higher than other areas of a microbrewery or winery, such as areas devoted to merchandise sales or beer and wine production, which would generate less parking demand. The table below compares the parking standards for a stand-alone microbrewery in the Carlsbad Village (existing and proposed standards) and in the downtown areas of La Mesa, Solana Beach, and Vista. Comparisons are based on a theoretical microbrewery of 2,300 square feet, which includes a 700 square foot tasting room with 36 seats (some tasting rooms may not have seats). Note that the resulting parking space requirements listed below are approximations only and do not reflect parking that may be required based on the gross leasable or floor area of a building or other areas of a building as some cities require. TABLE C – STAND-ALONE MICROBREWERY PARKING COMPARISON Assumption: Tasting room: 700 sf or 36 seats; Production/storage: 1,600 square feet (sf) Master Plan Zoning Ordinance (Outside Village) Other Downtowns* Existing Proposed La Mesa Vista Solana Beach Standard One space per 50 sf net floor area One space per 125 square feet of net floor space for the tasting room and one space per 300 square feet of net floor space for all other uses (e.g., production, storage, and retail sales) No standard One space per 3 seats for the tasting room One space per 800 sf gross leasable area, all other areas One space per 250 square feet of floor area One space per 300 sf gross floor area Resulting Parking Space Requirement 46 11 14 9 8 *Downtown Village Specific Plan (La Mesa); Vista Downtown Specific Plan; Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan (Solana Beach), Plaza District and South Cedros District The table above indicates the proposed Village standard would result in parking similar to the downtown areas of the other jurisdictions listed and would be about 25% of the existing Master Plan requirement. The current Master Plan parking requirement may act as a barrier to stand- alone microbreweries and discourage them from locating in the Village. The proposed parking standard does not accommodate stand-alone microbreweries or wineries that have food service as a primary function. Unlike for a restaurant, the proposed standard does not account for a kitchen. As noted above, a footnote to the permitted land use tables is proposed to clarify that food service, if provided at all, must be a clearly incidental use to any stand-alone microbrewery or winery. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 11 E. Allow 100% parking in lieu fee participation Presently, projects in the Master Plan may satisfy parking requirements in several ways. Some of these include providing all required parking on-site, receiving approval of a development standard modification, participating in the parking in lieu fee program, or proposing a combination of some or all of these. Development on properties within the Village may satisfy all or a portion of their non-residential parking requirements through payment of an in-lieu fee. The Village Parking In-lieu Fee Program pools fees for all Village districts to support the development and maintenance of public parking. Fees are based upon a determination of the estimated cost of providing an above ground structured parking space, including land construction, soft costs and maintenance. The current in- lieu fee is $11,555/parking space. The in lieu fee program is not available to satisfy residential parking requirements and is not available to Coastal Zone properties west of the railroad tracks. For purposes of determining participation in the Village Parking In-lieu Fee Program, the Village is divided into two parking zones, as shown on the map below. Depending on a property’s parking zone and distance from an existing or proposed (within three years) public parking facility, developers may satisfy from 25% to 100% of their on-site parking requirement. For example, development on nearly all properties with Land Use District 1, the boundaries of which are contiguous with Parking Zone 1, may satisfy up to 100% of their on-site parking requirements as these properties are located within 600 feet on an existing public parking facility. On the other hand, developments on outlying properties in Land Use District 3 (closest to Interstate 5 and in Parking Zone 2) may only satisfy up to 25% of their on-site parking requirements as they are not or may not be within 600 feet of an existing or planned public parking lot. A map of the parking zones is provided below. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 12 Staff report attachment 4 lists projects that have satisfied either all or a portion of their on-site parking requirements. Attachment 2 identifies parking zones, public parking lots, and distance buffers of 600-feet and 1,320- feet (quarter mile) around each parking lot. Regardless of parking zone or distance from a public parking lot, a recommended change would allow developers of all Village properties outside the Coastal Zone to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to 100% of the on-site parking requirement. This would apply to new development, conversion and/or intensification of use. This change is recommended as Attachment 2 shows nearly all Master Plan properties are within a comfortable walking distance (a quarter mile) of a public parking lot. Moreover, many properties also are near public on-street parking. The determination of whether to grant approval of none, some, or all of a project’s on-site parking through in-lieu fee payment would be that of the appropriate decision-making authority. Residential parking requirements A. Reduce parking standards for multi-family uses (condominiums and apartments) The table below compares proposed and existing parking requirements for apartments and condominiums. The table also compares existing and proposed standards with recommended multi-family residential parking requirements from SANDAG’s Parking Strategies for Smart Growth. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 13 TABLE D – APARTMENT AND CONDOMINIUM PARKING COMPARISON Unit Type Number of Parking Spaces Required per Unit Master Plan Zoning Ordinance (Outside Village) SANDAG* Existing Proposed Apt Condo Apt Condo Apt Condo Multi-family Residential – Smart Growth Multi-family Residential – Average Studio 1.5 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.25 1.75- 2.00 One bedroom 1.5 2 1 1 1.5 2 1.25 1.75-2.00 Two bedrooms or more 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.25 2.00-2.50 Guest .5 (≤ 10 units) .5 (≤ 10 units) 0 0 .3 (≤ 10 units) .3 (≤ 10 units) (included in above) (included in above) .25 (> 10 units) .3 (> 10 units) 0 0 .25 (> 10 units) .25 (> 10 units) (included in above) (included in above) *Parking ratios from Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (SANDAG, June 2010) Proposed Master Plan parking standards are the same as existing Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards for two bedroom units and lower than existing requirements for studio and one bedroom units. Additionally, the existing parking requirements for guest parking spaces in the current Master Plan are actually higher than required by the Zoning Ordinance for properties outside the Village. Unlike existing requirements, however, proposed Master Plan standards have no guest parking requirements. Reduced parking for apartments and condominiums are proposed to stimulate residential development in the Village and to take advantage of its urban setting. A reduction in parking standards may decrease construction costs and may make the development of more and smaller units more likely. In turn, this could increase the number, variety, and affordability of housing units, which is a Master Plan objective. Information from the SANDAG parking study is provided to give context to and a basis for the recommended parking requirements. As noted, SANDAG has designated the Village an existing/planned smart growth area. The recommended multi-family smart growth parking ratio in the study, 1.25 spaces per unit regardless of bedroom number and inclusive of guest parking, is based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and a University of California, Berkeley professor. The data result from analysis of apartments in urban locations and residential units in transit oriented developments. The SANDAG publication notes that the 1.25 parking spaces per unit for smart growth multi- family developments “…represents a reduction from existing typical standards yet still conforms to the upper bounds of observed values for multi-family units.” “Typical standards” refer to the results of a 2009 parking survey by SANDAG of all San Diego County jurisdictions. This survey determined the average number of parking spaces required per multi-family unit. This average, ranging from 1.75 to 2.50 spaces per unit, is reflected in the table above. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 14 B. Permit tandem parking for projects with no more than eight residential units Many lots in the Village are narrow, with widths commonly in the range of 25 to 60 feet. The narrow width is particularly true of lots in Land Use Districts 1 and 5 and the adjacent portions of most surrounding districts. Where lot width dimensions pose a challenge for multi-family projects and mixed use projects with residential uses, a provision to allow tandem parking is recommended. This provision would apply only to projects with no more than eight units and would not apply to parking required of non-residential uses. For properties outside the Village, tandem parking is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in limited instances, such as for second dwelling units and substandard lots (with frontage widths of less than 50 feet). Additionally, up to 25% of dwellings in the High Density Residential (RH) land use designation may be permitted to have tandem two car garages, according to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.45, Planned Developments. Staff believes the allowance for tandem parking as proposed is appropriate because it would apply only when a particular constraint (narrow lot width) is present and only for smaller residential projects. Design Changes related to design seek to improve the quality of commercial space built in the Village, further enforce Village objectives that emphasize the pedestrian, and better enable high density housing. A. Require quality commercial space Master Plan Chapter 2 identifies allowable land uses. Preceding the table that lists these uses are notes to clarify and supplement the listed uses. A recommended amendment to the notes would clarify, outside the Coastal Zone, that all ground floor commercial space, whether part of mixed use (with residential) or full commercial project, must be designed and constructed to fully support legitimate and quality commercial uses. The purpose of this suggested addition is to emphasize the importance of designing first floor spaces that can accommodate the wide variety of commercial uses allowed in the Village. The addition would also bolster compliance with the following Master Plan objectives and design guideline: Objective 1.9 – Provide a variety of commercial, tourism, and recreation activity, especially close to beach, in conjunction with special entertainment facilities, restaurants and other uses which will foster a village concept and not detrimentally impact residential usage. Objective 1.10 – Establish the Village Centre area as the San Diego North County’s focus for specialty goods and services. Parking and Access Design Guideline (Master Plan Chapter 4) - Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their ground floor space to parking uses. The placement of buildings over ground level parking limits the accommodation of supportive ground floor uses and detracts from the appearance of the building. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 15 Proposed text would affect all land use districts. B. Establish a maximum front setback and minimum building width for first at-grade floors These recommended changes would affect only Land Use District 1. Known as “Carlsbad Village Center,” this area functions as the Village’s central business district. Both the proposed changes regarding building setback and width would affect only the first at-grade floor of a building. The first change would establish a maximum front setback where none currently exists. The proposed maximum setback is ten feet. In addition to specifying a maximum setback, the change would require setback areas not occupied by a driveway to be landscaped or contain semi-public amenities such as courtyards and outdoor seating. The second change would require the first at-grade floor to occupy at least 70% of the width of the parcel fronting the street. This minimum width would be required except where it would preclude necessary driveway access. The purpose of both changes is to improve the pedestrian experience. The maximum ten-foot setback recommended allows some flexibility in the design of the frontage of a building and outdoor space but ensures buildings will not be too far removed from the sidewalk (there is no minimum setback required). Secondly, the minimum building width requirement emphasizes the need to avoid interruptions caused by unnecessary driveways that might detract from walking. Many Village properties, as the Master Plan’s design guidelines recognize, benefit from alley access. The proposed minimum building width addition may also contribute to improving the quality of ground floor commercial space. Among other provisions, this design change implements Master Plan Objective 1.5, “Reinforce pedestrian retail continuity within the Village commercial areas” and Objective 2.1, “Minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major pedestrian walkways.” C. Revise standards to delete the roof pitch requirement and allow flat or low pitch roofs The last recommended design change applies only to Land Use Districts 1-4. This change would delete the requirement in these land use districts that 50% of the total roof structure have a 5:12 roof pitch. It would also modify the Master Plan Chapter 4 roof form design guidelines by clarifying that flat or low-pitched roofs in these districts may be acceptable if integral to a building’s architectural design. All Master Plan land use districts have a minimum roof pitch requirement. A minimum roof pitch can serve as a standard to ensure architectural interest and to reduce the overall height and mass of a building, particularly when compared to a flat-roofed structure. However, the requirement is recommended for deletion in Land Use Districts 1-4 for the following reasons: MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 16 Land Use Districts 1-4 permit the highest residential densities in the Village of 35 units to the acre. Removal of the roof pitch requirement may make achieving these densities easier. (Land Use Districts 5-9 permit maximum densities of 23 units to the acre.) Elimination of the minimum roof pitch does not preclude its use but instead welcomes other architectural designs. Buildings throughout the Village utilize both flat and pitch roofs. The change would not affect the more residentially oriented areas of the Village found in Land Use Districts 5 and 8. Deletion of the minimum roof pitch requirement supports the following Master Plan objectives: Objective 1.8 – Increase the number, quality, diversity and affordability of housing units within the Village. Objective 3.3 – Increase the intensity of development within the Village. Objective 4.4 – Create a sense of design unity and character while encouraging design diversity. Housekeeping The final set of recommended revisions affects text throughout the Master Plan. These changes are minor and so would apply both inside and outside the Coastal Zone. These changes include the following items: Fixing minor and miscellaneous misspellings, missing words, incorrect dates, text and internal references, and grammatical errors. Providing consistent and correct references for various terms. Changing “Housing and Neighborhood Services” director and staff to “City Planner” and “Planning Division” to recognize the correct parties responsible for land use review and permitting. Overall, proposed changes reflect sound principles of good planning in that they maintain internal consistency with the Master Plan’s goals and objectives and other provisions not proposed for amendment, clearly identifies the provisions applicable inside or outside the Coastal Zone, and cleans up miscellaneous misspellings, incorrect text and other minor errors and edits to make the document easier to use. IV. ANALYSIS A. General Plan The General Plan contains a framework of land use and housing goals, objectives, policies and programs. Table E below summarizes how the proposed amendment complies with relevant parts of this policy framework. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 17 TABLE E – SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT STANDARD PROJECT COMPLY? Land Use (Village Goal A.1) A City which preserves, enhances, and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that it provides standards to stimulate and encourage development and activity in the Village outside the Coastal Zone; as examples, proposed revisions reduce parking requirements for restaurants and professional offices, permit the conversion of building space from less to more intensive parking uses without the need to provide some or all of the additional parking when determined appropriate by the city, and establish requirements for legitimate, quality ground floor commercial uses as well as minimum ground floor building width. As a result, the amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and in particular these two goals. Yes Land Use (Village Goal A.2) A City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian- oriented downtown areas, including offices, restaurants, and specialty retail shops. Yes Housing (Goal 2) New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated City and regional growth. By reducing parking requirements for multi-family residential uses and eliminating the roof pitch requirement in land use districts with the highest residential densities, the proposed amendment may encourage the construction of more and/or smaller housing units. Yes Housing (Policy 2.6) Encourage increased integration of housing with nonresidential development where appropriate. Yes MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 18 TABLE E – SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN CONTINUED ELEMENT STANDARD PROJECT COMPLY? Circulation (Alternative Modes of Transportation Goal) A City which promotes, encourages, and accommodates a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. The proposed reduction of parking standards for multi- family residential units, restaurants, and offices and the increase in properties (outside the Coastal Zone) eligible to satisfy 100% of a development’s non-residential parking requirements through parking in- lieu fee payment, are supported by the Village’s availability of public parking and transit, flat topography and street-grid pattern, and design standards, all of which are conducive to walking and reduced on-site parking standards. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element goal and policy for alternative modes of transportation. Yes Circulation (Policy C.2) Encourage pedestrian circulation in commercial areas through the provision of convenient parking facilities, increased sidewalk widths, pedestrian-oriented building designs, landscaping, street lighting and street furniture. Yes B. Village Master Plan and Design Manual Table F below summarizes how the proposed amendment complies with relevant goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 19 TABLE F – SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL GOAL/OBJECTIVE STANDARD PROJECT COMPLY? Goal 1 Establish Carlsbad Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment. The proposed revisions to the Master Plan satisfy the listed goals and objectives in a number of ways. Proposed amendments implement Master Plan policies by relaxing parking standards for multi- family residential and desirable commercial uses and by modifying design standards to require pedestrian-oriented and quality commercial design and uses. These changes stimulate new development and reinforce the desired pedestrian nature of the Village. Furthermore, the proposal to remove the roof pitch requirement in the Master Plan land use districts allowing the highest density housing may help these densities to be reached and thereby increase the number and affordability of housing in the Village and contribute to the intensity of development. Overall, proposed changes seek to implement the goal of the Village as a “quality shopping, working, and living environment.” Yes Goal 3 Stimulate property improvements and new development in the Village Yes Objective 1.1 Remove barriers to desired development from the Village Yes Objective 1.5 Reinforce pedestrian retail continuity within the Village commercial areas. Yes Objective 1.8 Increase the number, quality, diversity and affordability of housing units within the Village. Yes Objective 2.1 Minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major pedestrian walkways Yes Objective 3.3 Increase the intensity of development within the Village Yes C. Zoning Ordinance Changes are not proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 21.35, which contains regulations for the Village Review (V-R) Zone, the zone that applies to the area of the Master Plan. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.35.150 deems amendments to the Master Plan as amendments to Chapter 21.35; however, an accompanying Zoning Ordinance amendment is not required. D. Local Coastal Program With the exception of the minor housekeeping items, proposed changes affect only properties outside the Coastal Zone and particularly those outside the Village segment of the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). Therefore, an analysis of compliance with or an amendment to the LCP is not necessary. MP 12-01(A) – VILLAGE MASTER PLAN CHANGES May 15, 2013 PAGE 20 E. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Village Review Area is outside the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, a consistency analysis is unnecessary. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A. states “minor zone or municipal code amendments that do not involve physical modifications, lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt, or which refine or clarify existing land use standards” are specific actions considered not to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed revisions to the Master Plan are similar to minor Zoning Ordinance amendments and therefore are exempt from environmental analysis. Besides clarifying and refining existing standards, proposed changes would lead to development typically found exempt from environmental review. Village projects are usually exempt from environmental analysis due to their small size, consistency with General Plan and zoning requirements, lack of significant environmental impacts, and the urban nature of the Village. Such projects, when under five acres (which would easily encompass a Village block), are considered “in-fill development” and are exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. All seven projects listed on Attachment 4 qualified for this exemption. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6977 2. Map of Village Area Land Use Districts and public parking information 3. “April 2013 Village Beat” (Discussion of Village parking by Urban Place) 4. Parking Comparison of Village projects ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 April 2013 Village Beat by Ashley Westman Project Manager, Urban Place Consulting Group The secret parking lots you don't know about Is there enough parking in Carlsbad Village? Studies say... yes! The problem, however, is that no one can find it. During last year's peak summer season, Urban Place conducted parking counts and license plate turnover studies in the Village. This is something we do for other commercial districts and downtowns. Every hour from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., we counted the number of cars parked in the free public lots and the number of cars parked on the core streets of the Village. We also noted the license plate numbers of each car parked on key streets every hour. The result is a comprehensive look at how parking is used, or not used, in the Village during a very busy season. The hot spots Not surprisingly, State St. between Carlsbad Village Dr. and Grand Ave. is, on average, about 95% occupied - but not all with customers. Almost 30% of the cars there are parked for over 3 hours and, in most cases, belong to business owners or employees who are parking in prime spaces all day long. At 88% occupied, on average, is the public parking lot at Roosevelt St. and Carlsbad Village Dr. This is one of the most visible public lots in the Village, as is the lot behind the fountain at State St. and Grand Ave., which is at 86% average occupancy. Two other hot spots for on-street parking are the blocks of Roosevelt St. south (84%) and north (78%) of Carlsbad Village Dr. The hidden gems Of the 39 spaces at the public parking lot at Washington and Oak, only 36% are occupied on an average weekday, and 73% on weekends. On-street parking is usually easy to find one or two blocks away from the "hub" of the Village, such as Grand Ave. east of Roosevelt, State St. north of Grand, and on Madison, where occupancies range from 40% - 70%. The true hidden gem of the Village, however, is the 128-space parking lot on State St. just south of Carlsbad Village Dr., behind Fish House Vera Cruz and a half-block from the hub of State Street. Only 47% of those spaces are full on average, likely due to the fact that no signage exists at the State St. entrance. Clearly, some parking areas are in high-demand, while others are grossly underutilized. How can we disperse parking more effectively? We need to encourage those who want to park once and stroll through the Village by foot to park their car a bit further away. That would leave the spaces on State St., for instance, available to someone who wanted to run in to get a haircut, pick up a gift, or grab lunch and go. Here are some other ideas for improving access in the Village: ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 2 Point them in the right direction We're working with the City's Transportation Department to install new parking way-finding signs throughout the Village, with new large signs at the lots themselves. Reach out and educate We're publishing marketing material that reminds business owners, customers, and other visitors where they can park downtown and that encourages business owners and employees to leave the spaces in front of their business open for potential customers. Change the mindset People walk hundreds of yards from their cars to their destination in shopping malls. Why can't they do the same in the Village? Even better, there are shop windows to look into and people to watch here, as opposed to endless seas of parking to navigate. Encourage alternatives Before the summer season, the Transportation Department will install 80 additional bike racks and 6 new bike corrals, bringing the total to 142 bike racks in the Village. That's 284 parking spaces within mere feet of your destination! Westman can be reached at ashley@urbanplaceconsulting.com. ATTACHMENT 4 MP 12-01(A) Page 1 PARKING COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROJECTS Existing Parking Standards Non-residential: Retail: 1 space per 300 sf (square feet) of net floor space Office: 1 space per 300 sf of net floor space Restaurant: 1 space per 100 sf of net floor space if less than 4000 sf; if larger than 4000 sf, 40 spaces plus one space per 50 sf of net floor space in excess of 4000 sf Residential: Condominiums: Two standard spaces per unit with one being covered (exception 1.5 spaces per unit for studios with one being covered). Guest parking: .5 spaces per unit up to 10 and .3 spaces per unit in excess of 10. Apartments: 1.5 spaces per unit for studio and one bedroom; two spaces per unit for two bedrooms or more. Guest parking: .5 spaces for each unit up to 10 and .25 spaces per unit in excess of 10. Tandem parking: Not permitted unless through standard modification Other: Rounding of fractional parking spaces: No stated provision In lieu fee participation (not applicable west of the railroad tracks): For properties in Parking Zone 1: 50%- 100% of non-residential parking may be satisfied through in lieu fee payment. For properties in Parking Zone 2: 25%-50% of non- residential parking may be satisfied through in lieu fee payment. Proposed Parking Standards (outside Coastal Zone) Non-residential: Retail: No change Office: 1 space per 350 sf of net floor space Restaurant: 1 space per 125 sf of net floor space Residential: Condominiums: One space per unit for studio and one bedroom; two spaces per unit for two bedrooms or more. At least one space must be covered. Apartments: Same as condominiums, except no covered space requirement Tandem parking: Permitted for 8 or fewer multi-family units Other: Rounding of any fractional parking spaces: Parking requirements resulting in a fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number if the fraction is higher than .5 or rounded down if the fraction is .5 or below. Thus, a parking requirement of 3.6 spaces would actually necessitate 4 parking spaces. In lieu fee participation (not applicable west of the railroad tracks): All Village properties outside the Coastal Zone, regardless of their Parking Zone location, may satisfy 100% of their non-residential parking requirement through in lieu fee payment. ATTACHMENT 4 MP 12-01(A) Page 2 PARKING COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROJECTS CONTINUED Project* Description Location Coastal Required Approved Project with proposed parking Zone Parking Parking standards *Projects with shading are in Coastal Zone. Although changes would not be applicable in the Coastal Zone, these projects are listed to provide a better representation of how the proposed changes would affect typical Village development. Railroad 4 condos (2: 2 District 4 -No 8 res spaces 8 spaces; standards 8 res spaces Lofts bdrm) north State 2 guest s12aces mod to eliminate 0 guest s12aces (2013-AB St reet. 10 spaces guest parking; 8 s paces (20% reduction) 21,156) reasons: LEED • No guest parking requirement cert ified and close to • In-lieu fee option NOT available NCTD transit and because residential parking Seaside 3,342 net sf District 2 Yes 11 retail 34 spaces: 16 spaces No change as project in CZ. If outside CZ: Village retail, 5,350 net 18 office on-site, 9 spaces via 11 retail spaces Corner sf office, and 5 fast food in lieu fee (only 25% 15 office spaces (2011-AB 1,085 sf for fast 34 spaces of spaces may be in 5 fast food spaces 20,677) food restaurant lieu because project 31 spaces (9% reduction) not within 600' of • Lower office parking standard public parking and no • Up to 100%, vs. 25%, of parking such anticipated to be could be satisfied through in lieu fee. built soon), and 9 spaces via shared parking agreement with church across Carlsbad Village Drive . Roosevelt 6 condos (2: 2 District 1 No 12 res spaces 23 spaces; all retail 12 res spaces and Oak bdrm), 2,411 sf 3 guest spaces spaces satisfied 0 guest spaces MU retail 8 retail s12aces through in lieu fee 8 retail s12aces (2008-AB 23 spaces payment 20 spaces (13% reduction) 409) • Guest parking eliminated ATTACHMENT 4 MP 12-01(A) Page 3 PARKING COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROJECTS CONTINUED Project* Description Location Coastal Required Approved Project with proposed parking Zone Parking Parking standards *Projects with shading are in Coastal Zone. Although changes would not be applicable in the Coastal Zone, these projects are listed to provide a better representation of how the proposed changes would affect typical Village development. Lincoln & 6 condos (2: 2 District 9 Yes 12 res spaces 22 spaces; No change as project in CZ. If outside CZ: Oak Mixed bdrm), 1,913 sf 3 guest spaces • No option for in 12 res spaces Use retail 6 retail s12aces lieu fee because 0 guest spaces (2006-AB 21 spaces west of RR tracks 6 retail s12aces 381) • One more space 18 spaces (14% reduction) than required • No guest parking requirement provided Roosevelt 4 apartments District 5 No 7.5 res spaces 15 spaces; 12 spaces 7 res spaces Plaza (2006 (One, 1-bdrm 2 guest spaces provided on site (two 0 guest spaces -AB 393) and three, 2-7.2 retail s12aces of the on-site retail 7 retail s12aces bdrms; 2,170 sf 17 spaces spaces double as 14 spaces (18% reduction) retail) guest s paces through • Guest parking eliminated shared parking • One bedroom parking rate reduced arrangement); 3 from 1.5 to 1 space spaces through in lieu • 100% of retail spaces (vs. 50% fee payment. currently) could be satisfied through in lieu fee Roosevelt 2 apartments (2 District 1 Yes 4 res spaces 68 spaces; all non-No change as project in CZ. If outside CZ: Center bdrm), 2,410 sf 1 guest space residential spaces 4 res spaces (Paon) retail, 6,502 sf 8 retail spaces satisfied through in-0 guest space (2007 -AB office, 3,332 sf 33 rest spaces lieu fee payment. 12 retail spaces 403) restaurant 22 office seaces 26 restaurant spaces 68 spaces 18 office s12aces 60 spaces (11% reduction) • Guest parking eliminated • Lower office parking standard • Lower restaurant parking standard ATTACHMENT 4 MP 12-01(A) Page 4 PARKING COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROJECTS CONTINUED Project* Description Location Coastal Zone Required Parking Approved Parking Project with proposed parking standards *Projects with shading are in Coastal Zone. Although changes would not be applicable in the Coastal Zone, these projects are listed to provide a better representation of how the proposed changes would affect typical Village development. Casa Cobra (2006 – AB 387) 4 apartments (2- bdrm), 1,500 sf retail District 5 No 8 res spaces 2 guest spaces 5 retail spaces 15 spaces 15 spaces; 14 spaces provided on site and on 1 space through in lieu fee payment 8 res spaces 0 guest spaces 5 retail spaces 13 spaces (13% reduction) Guest parking eliminated 100% of retail spaces (vs. 25% currently) could be satisfied through in lieu fee ( ( (~CITY OF ¥CARLSBAD REVISED ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #4 Memorandum May 13,2013 To: Planning Commission From: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Don Neu, City Planner Via Re: Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #4-MP 12-01(A) -Village Master Plan Changes Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following rev1s1ons to the text proposed for the "Minimum Parking Requirements" section on page 176 of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual (Attachment A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6977): Outside the Coastal Zone, parking requirement calculations resulting in a fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number ifthe fraction is~ higher than7 .5 or rounded down ifthe fraction is .5 or below. Staff is also recommending that the Planning Commission include the following revision to the definition of "cultural facilities" on page 58 of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual (Attachment A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6977). Cultural Facilities Definition: A private (outside the Coastal Zone only). public or quasi-public facility devoted to museum displays, interactive displays and education devoted to history or cultural heritage, or live theatrical, music and/or dance performances. Finally, on page 13 of the Master Plan, staff recommends the following correction to the Village Goals and Objectives: Objective 1.10-Establish the Village Gem<e Center area as the San Diego North County's focus for specialty goods and services. Proposed revisions delete text (shown by 'tril<ea~t) and add text (shown by underline). Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760·602·2710 I 760-602-8560 fax