Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 13-01; Tram Property; Redevelopment Permits (RP) The City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. Application complete date: April 26, 2013 P.C. AGENDA OF: July 17, 2013 Project Planner: Austin Silva Project Engineer: Tecla Levy SUBJECT: RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY – Request for a recommendation of approval for a Minor Review Permit to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building consisting of a 733 square foot one-family dwelling unit above a 359 square foot office space and approval of a Minor Review Permit (Variance) for two parking standards to allow a one-car garage and one compact sized uncovered parking space rather than the required two-car garage on a .08 acre lot located at 3147 Roosevelt Street in District 5 of the Village Review zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6997 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of RP 13-01 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6998 APPROVING RP 13-02 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Section 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, new construction of a building within the Village Review zone that has a building permit valuation greater than $60,000 and less than $150,000 requires approval of a Minor Review Permit. The Planning Commission will be recommending approval of Minor Review Permit 13-01 to the City Council because the proposed project exceeds the maximum density, which requires Council approval. In addition, per section 21.35.130(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Commission will be acting on the variance request (processed as a separate RP application (RP 13-02) rather than a Variance (V) application in the Village Review zone) for a one-car garage and one compact sized uncovered parking space rather than the required two-car garage. There are no unresolved issues and staff’s recommendation of approval with conditions is supported by the following analysis. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project consists of a request for approval of two Minor Review Permits to allow for the construction of a 733 square foot one-family dwelling unit above a 359 square foot office space and a variance to two parking standards to allow a one-car garage and one compact sized uncovered parking space rather than the required two-car garage on a .08 acre lot located at 3147 Roosevelt Street. 3 RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 2 Project Site/Setting: The .08 acre, rectangular-shaped, 25 foot wide through lot has frontage on both Roosevelt and Tyler Streets. The lot is accessed off a driveway from Tyler Street. It is located on the west side of Roosevelt Street, south of Oak Avenue and north of Pine Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. An existing 789 square foot office building is located at the front of the property. Two parking spaces are located at the rear of the lot and are accessed off of Tyler Street. The existing office use is credited with one commercial parking space through a previous approval to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee program (Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 483) The subject site is bordered by a one-story commercial building to the north, multi-family residential across Roosevelt Street to the east, single-family residential to the south, and an automotive repair businesses across Tyler Street to the west. Proposed Residential Construction: The applicant is proposing to construct a new mixed-use building consisting of a 733 square foot one-bedroom, one-family dwelling over a 359 gross square foot office space, a one-car garage and an uncovered compact parking space. Stucco is proposed as the primary building material with foam pop outs surrounding the windows. A decorative foam band is proposed to visually separate the first and second floors, and the use of decorative corbels assist in providing additional detail on the west elevation. The building color will match the existing beige colored office building with brown being used on the bands and trim around the windows. As shown on the site plan, the project includes an exterior staircase located in the side yard that provides separate access to the second story one-family dwelling so that the future tenant would not have to access the dwelling unit from the first story office. Furthermore, to address disabled parking and accessibility requirements, the project includes a proposed 17 foot wide disabled parking space and loading area at the rear of the lot off of Tyler Street and a 4 foot wide disabled access path along the southern property line which is required to provide disabled access to the existing and proposed offices. Notwithstanding the fact that the subject property is already constrained because of its narrow width, the additional requirement for disabled parking and access further constrains the ability of this property to be developed with an office and residential mixed use project without a variance. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following ordinances, standards, and policies: A. Village (V) General Plan Land Use designation; B. Village Review (VR) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.35), District 5 (Village Master Plan and Design Manual); C. Village Review (VR) Zone Variance (CMC Section 21.35.130); D. Inclusionary Housing; and E. Growth Management. RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 3 The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations and policies is discussed in the sections below. A. Village (V) General Plan Land Use designation The Carlsbad General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 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; 2) 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 shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The proposed project is consistent with the goals for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides a mixed-use building in an appropriate location (Land Use District 5 – Hispanic Mixed-Use Support Area) within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a mixed-use neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. It also increases the number of housing units within the Village. By providing more residential opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment by encouraging and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary commercial and community uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing the residents and employees an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. The projects proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development near transportation corridors. Overall, the new mixed-use building will enhance the Village as a place for living. B. Village Review Zone (CMC Chapter 21.35), District 5 (Village Master Plan and Design Manual) In District 5 of the Village Review zone, mixed-use is provisional use. Provisional uses are those which are permitted subject to discretionary approval of the appropriate decision making authority. They are approved based upon the findings that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals which were discussed in the previous section. In addition, the ground floor of all approved mixed-use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses, which is the case for the proposed project. The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 5 and the project’s compliance with these standards are shown in Table “A” below: RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 4 TABLE A – VILLAGE REVIEW – DISTRICT 5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Front Yard Setback 5-10 Feet 15 Feet 9 inches Side Yard Setback 5 Feet 6 Feet – south side 3 Feet – north side (Previously Approved through Administrative Variance AV 13-05) Rear Yard Setback 5-10 Feet 23 Feet Max Building Height 30 Feet w/50% of the roof having a 4:12 roof pitch 23’ 1/2” w/50% of the roof having a 4:12 roof pitch Lot Coverage 60-80% 43% Parking Residential: Two-car garage *Office: 2 spaces Residential: One-car garage and one uncovered compact parking space (Variance request) Office: One parking space on-site & one parking space credit previously allowed through the Parking In-Lieu Fee program. Open Space 20% 26.8% Density 18 – 23 dwelling units/acre 25 dwelling units/acre** *In the Village, required parking for non-residential uses is based upon net building area. In this case, the existing 789 SF office has a net building area of 512 SF. The proposed 359 SF office has a net building area of 224 SF. Therefore the total net office building area is 736 SF (512 SF + 224 SF = 736 SF). The required parking ratio for an office in the Village at this location is 1 space/350 SF of net office building area. Therefore the required parking for the offices is 2.10 spaces (736 SF/ 350 = 2.10 spaces). However, the Village master plan was recently amended (MP 12-01 (A) to allow fractional required parking spaces of .5 or less to be rounded down. Therefore the total required parking for the offices is 2 spaces. **For mixed-use projects in the Village, density shall be calculated based on fifty percent of the developable area. The maximum density for District 5 of the Village Review Zone is 23 dwelling units/acre. In order to approve a development that includes residential density above the maximum, the following findings must be made by the City Council: 1. That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the maximum permitted to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. There are existing public facilities within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 with sufficient capacity to accommodate the dwelling unit and the applicant will be required to pay a Public Facility fee as required by Council Policy No. 17. 2. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below their Growth Management Control Points so the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 5 Properties in the Village do not use the Growth Management Control Point. Instead they include a minimum (18 du/ac) and maximum (23 du/ac) density range. Therefore, since there is one residential unit proposed for the project, which at 25 du/ac exceeds the maximum density (23 du/ac), one unit would be deducted from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. There are available units in the Bank for the northwest quadrant to remove one unit. Additionally, per the latest Housing Element update, 828 housing units are allotted for the Village alone. 3. That all necessary public facilities will be constructed, or are guaranteed to be constructed, concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted city standards. There are existing public facilities within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 with sufficient capacity to accommodate the dwelling unit and the applicant will be required to pay a Public Facility fee as required by Council Policy No. 17. C. Village Review Zone Variance (CMC Section 21.35.130) The applicant is requesting a variance to two parking standards for a one-family residence that requires a two-car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20’ x 20’. Instead of building a two-car garage, the applicant is proposing to construct a one-car garage (with an interior dimension of 15’ x 20’) and provide a compact size (8’ x 20’) uncovered parking space (rather than the required standard size (8.5’ x 20’) uncovered parking space at the rear of the lot. In order to grant a variance for these two parking standards, the following findings must be made: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of other privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; Due to the narrow width of the lot (25 feet) and the requirement to have a minimum 4 foot wide disabled path of travel along the south property line leading to the office spaces, building a required two-car garage (with a minimum interior dimension of 20’ x 20’) would result in the garage being built with a zero-foot north side-yard setback. A one-car garage as proposed, allows for enough room to include the required minimum 4’ wide disabled access from the disabled parking space to the offices while still providing a minimum 3’ wide sideyard setback along the northern property line. In addition, it allows for an exterior staircase that accesses the one-family dwelling on the second floor so that the future tenant would not have to access the dwelling unit from the first story of the proposed office. Furthermore, there are other single family residences within the northwest quadrant of the City which are located on similar 25’ wide lots which also do not have two-car garages (including some which have been granted variances (V 11-03) and others which are non-conforming). RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 6 With regard to the proposed 8’ x 20’ compact size uncovered parking space (rather than the required standard size 8.5’ x 20’ uncovered parking space), the requirement for the 17 foot wide disabled parking space and loading area at the rear of the lot does not leave enough room to accommodate a 8.5’ wide regular parking space on this 25’ wide lot. 2. That the variance shall not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding; The granting of the variance to all allow for a one-car garage and an uncovered compact parking space to be built rather than the required two-car garage shall not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located in that there exist other single family residences within the northwest quadrant of the City which are located on similar 25’ wide lots which also do not have two-car garages (including some which have been granted variances (V 11-03) and others which are non-conforming). 3. That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property; The proposed mixed-use development is a provisional use in District 5 of the Village Review zone. Mixed-use developments can be allowed in District 5 if the ground floor is devoted to commercial uses. The existing building in the front is used as an office, and the ground floor of the proposed new building will be devoted to office as well. The proposed second story residential unit enables the achievement of a mixed use commercial/residential project, thereby satisfying one of the primary objectives of the Village Review zone for District 5. The development of the proposed second story residential unit is not achievable without the proposed parking variance. 4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and any applicable specific or master plans; The proposed variance is consistent with the general plan in that it provides complementary uses such as a combination of residential and commercial uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The variance is also consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual because it helps establish the Village as a quality working and living environment by providing office space and a residential unit on the same lot which provides a live/work opportunity. D. Inclusionary Housing For all residential development less than seven units, the inclusionary housing requirement may be satisfied through the payment of an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. The proposal to construct one single-family residence has been conditioned to pay the applicable housing in-lieu fee for one unit prior to issuance of a building permit. RP 13-01/RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY July 17, 2013 Page 7 E. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table A below. TABLE A – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 3.4767 sq. ft. Yes Library 1.854 sq. ft. N/A Waste Water Treatment 1 EDU Yes Parks .006953 acres N/A Drainage .24 CFS Yes Circulation 10 ADT Yes Fire Station 1 Yes Open Space N/A N/A Schools .325 students Yes Sewer Collection System 1 EDU Yes Water 550 GPD Yes Properties in the Village do not use Growth Management Control Point. Therefore, since there is one residential unit proposed for the project, one unit would be deducted from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with the Zoning Ordinance (with the approval of the proposed variance), the project site is within the City limits, is less than 5 acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses; there is no evidence that the site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is exempt from further environmental documentation pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA guidelines. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6997 (RP 13-01) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6998 (RP 13-02) 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 6. Disclosure Statement 7. Reduced Exhibits 8. Full Size Exhibits “A” – “B” dated July 17, 2013 T Y L E R S TOAK AVR O O S E V E L T S T PINE AVR O O S E V E L T S T A L L E Y T Y L E R S T A L L E Y RP 13-01 / RP 13-02TRAM PROPERTY SITE MAP J SITE EL CAMINO R E A LLA COSTA AV ALGA RD C A R L S B A D B L Revised 01/06 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP 13-01/RP 13-02 CASE NAME: Tram Property APPLICANT: Price Builders Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a recommendation of approval of a Minor Review Permit to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building consisting of a 733 square foot one-family dwelling unit above a 359 square foot office space and approval of a Minor Review Permit (Variance) for two parking standards to allow a one-car garage and one compact sized uncovered parking space rather than the required two-car garage on a .08 acre lot located at 3147 Roosevelt Street in District 5 of the Village Review zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24, Block 32 of Town Carlsbad AMD, in the City of Carlsbad, State of California, as filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder as Map No. 775 APN: 204-085-03 Acres: .08 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 1 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Village (V) Proposed Land Use Designation: Village (V) Density Allowed: 18-23 du/ac Density Proposed: 25 du/ac Existing Zone: Village Review (VR), District 5 Proposed Zone: Village Review (VR), District 5 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site VR, District 5 Village Office North VR, District 5 Village Commercial South VR, District 5 Village Residential East VR, District 5 Village Residential West VR, District 6 Village Commercial LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: Yes No Local Coastal Program Segment: N/A Within Appeal Jurisdiction: Yes No Coastal Development Permit: Yes No Local Coastal Program Amendment: Yes No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Existing LCP Zone: N/A Proposed LCP Zone: N/A Revised 01/06 PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption, Section 15332 – Infill Development Project Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Tram Property – RP 13-01/RP 13-02 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: Village (V) ZONING: Village Review (V-R), District 5 DEVELOPER’S NAME: Lien Tram ADDRESS: 3147 Roosevelt Street PHONE NO.: 760-434-9755 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 204-085-03 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1 DU/359 sq. ft. of office ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Winter 2013 A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 3.4767 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 1.854 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 1 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = .006953 E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = .24 Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 10 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A I. Schools: .325 (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 1 EDU Identify Sub Basin = 1G (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 550 GPD Properties in the Village do not use Growth Management Control Point. Therefore, since there is one residential unit proposed for the project, one unit would be deducted from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. 123EAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 3/16"=1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 3/16"=1'-0"3147 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD 920081PLOT PLAN NUMBERGENERAL NOTES21SCALE 1"=10'-0"AREA TABULATIONSINDEX3147 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD 92008TYLER STVICINITY MAP EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 3147 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD 920082PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1"=4'-0"