Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-07; Washington Street; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)j^arlsbad Unifllh School District # f 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 ...a world class district April 12, 2000 State of Califomia Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Developer: Anastasi Development Company, LLC Location: Washington Street, Carlsbad APN: 203-172-7,8 Project Size: 6-unit condominium Carlsbad Unified School District has review^ed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Jefferson Elementary School (K-6) 3743 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-6130 Valley Middle School (7-8) 1645 Magnolia Avenue , Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^760) 602-6020' Carlsbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-1726 The Goveming Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Goveming Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City of Carlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. Sincerely, J^^wjpn Freeman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services cc: Developer OCTOBER 5, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund (Washington Street Condos) Anastasi Development Corporation submitted the attached letter requesting an official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property located at 382 Christiansen Way (APN 203-172-07 & 08). The applicant is requesting a refund in the amount of $15,360.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RPOO-07), Coastal Development Permit (CDPOO-23), Tentative Tract Map (CTOO-08), and Condominium Permit (CPOO-04). In a prior memo to you dated May 26, 2000 (copy attached) I requested the applicant be refunded $5,000.00 for fees associated with the processing of the Condominium Permit (CPOO-04) since a separate Condominium Permit is not required in the Redevelopment Area. If these fees were already returned to the applicant, please deduct them from the full amount requested by the applicant. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fees outlined above. I am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if I need to enter this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund process. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. As always, I appreciate your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst 0 : Barbara Kennedy, Planning Frank Jimeno, Engineering Pat Kelley, Building Mike Smith, Fire ^jsr ASTAsf DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 12, 2000 Lori H. Rosenstein Management Analyst CityofCarlsbad 2965 Rooseveh St., Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 RE: Carisbad Application/fees Dear Lori: The purpose of this letter is to request the cancellation of our Land Use Review Application for the six unit condominium complex and a refund of the following filing fees: Description: Amount: CDP00023 $2,520.00 CP000004 $5,000.00 CT000008 $5,010.00 RP000007 $2.830.00 TOTAL: $15,360.00 We will be reapplying for the larger project shortly, as we have discussed. If you have any questions or need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, L. Vice President LJS: cmd 1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 TeL (310) 376-8077 Fax (310) 379-2694 MAY 26, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.) Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant. The applicant's mailing address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst 4 MAY 26, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.) Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant The applicant's mailing address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst ANT ASTAS J DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION JON 2000 PLANNING DEPARmNT June 13,2000 city of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad Planning Department Valerie J. Dinsmore Administrative Secretary RE: Request for Refund CP 00-04 Dear Valerie: Per your request of letter dated June 1, 2000,1 am enclosing the original and the several copies ofthe Request for Refund. Speaking with Lori of Redevelopment Department, this fee is a duplication ofthe Redevelopment Applications which are on file with your City. Simons, "Special Projects 1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tei. (310) 376-8077 Fax (310) 379-2694 MAY 26, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund CP00-04 (Washington Street Condos.) Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant The applicant's mailing address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department May 24, 2000 JOHN SIMONS ANASTASI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1 200 AVIATION BLVD STE 100 REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278 SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STREET CONDOMINIUMS (RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08) Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments has reviewed the following applications as to their completeness for processing: Major Redevelopment Permit (application no. RP 00-07), corresponding Coastal Development Permit (application no. CDP 00-23), and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (application no. CT 00-08). The applications are incomplete as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information that must be submitted to complete your applications. This list of items must be submitted directly to the Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your applications can occur until the applications are determined to be complete. The second list represents issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted to the Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a determination of completeness. If the applications are determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the applications will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, April 24, 2000, to either resubmit the applications or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the applications or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the applications. If the applications are withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, new applications must be submitted. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the applications. SincerelAL LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department Glen Van Peski, Engineering Department Barbara Kennedy, Planning Department Bill Plummer, Carlsbad Municipal Water District Mike Smith, Fire Department Pat Kelley, Building Department Larry Black, Landscape Consultant 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 The following Departments have completed their review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following missing or incomplete items: Planning: 1. The primary issue of concern is that the proposed residential use is incompatible with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan for District 1 and is not supported by staff. A mixed-use project would be more appropriate in this location to achieve long-term redevelopment goals. Planning staff recommends that the project be withdrawn and redesigned. If the applicant wants to continue with the proposal as submitted, the following items should be addressed: 2. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study will be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 65 to 70 dB(A) CNEL noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the project to ensure that noise from buses and trains do not cause significant impacts to the proposed residential uses. 3. The project density of 21.78 du/ac is over the Growth Management Control Point for residentiai development in the Village Redevelopment area. Residential development can exceed the growth control point if the findings under Section 21.90.045 can be made. These findings relate to: 1) the provision of sufficient public facilities for the extra density; 2) that the facilities will be provided prior to or concurrent with need; and, 3) that there are enough units in the excess dwelling unit bank so that the quadrant cap is not exceeded. The necessary findings to exceed the Growth Management Control Point are typically applied to sites where the application of the growth control point would yield a fractional unit. The findings would therefore allow you to round up to a whole unit. It is important to note that projects within the redevelopment area are not subject to City Council Policy 43; therefore, finding 3 is not applicable. 4. The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Projects proposing six or fewer units may pay an in-lieu fee rather than constructing a unit. 5. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the development standards of the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance. The plans must show adherence to the following development standards: a. The PD Ordinance requires a 20-foot front setback and a 10-foot street side setback. b. A 30-foot wide driveway is required to provide access to the units. Garages facing the driveway must have an additional offset of 5 feet from the driveway and the garages must be equipped with automatic garage door openers. Items Needed to Complete Application No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Page 2 c. Two covered spaces are required per unit with a minimum clear interior dimension of 20'x20' within the garage. Water heaters and other projections may not encroach into the required parking area. d. Three guest parking spaces are required for the project. Standard parking spaces must have a minimum area of 170 square feet and a minimum width of 8/2 feet. In addition, when parking spaces are located adjacent to a solid wall, the minimum width of the space should be increased by two feet. e. Recreational open space shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 200 square feet per unit. A minimum of 600 square feet of common active recreation area must be provided. At least 100 square feet of private passive open space (balconies or private rear yards) shall be provided per unit. Please refer to Section 21.45.090(g) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code for minimum depths of open space areas (attached). f. Storage space is required for each unit. The storage space may be provided within the garage, provided it does not extend into the required parking area. g. The trash area should either be relocated so that it is not such a prominent visual feature, or it should be enhanced with a decorative trellis with vines over the top of the structure to aid in screening the enclosure. 6. The combined height of the retaining wall and freestanding fence located within the rear setback area exceeds the maximum height limit of 6 feet. 7. The proposed wood fence around project seems inconsistent with the neighborhood and with the vision and land uses proposed for District 1. 8. More detail is required to show how the sidewalk will transition around the existing "heritage" eucalyptus trees. Housing & Redevelopment: 1. In accordance with the Village Master Plan, all residential units proposed for separate ownership shall comply with the development standards and design criteria set forth by Planned Development Ordinance Chapter 21.45 of the Carisbad Municipal Code. In addition, it has been determined that the development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance shall take precedence over the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan. Therefore, compliance with the development standards outlined under the Planning comments above must be demonstrated. 2. Provide a total square footage for each of the units. 3. Provide building elevations for the north and east facing sides of the building. 4. Provide a section cutting through the property showing the maximum building height above both existing and finished grade. See attached definition for building height to see how building height is measured. Items Needed to Complete Application No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Page 3 5. Show slope of roof. A 5:12 roof pitch is the minimum allowed. 6. If roof equipment is proposed, show how it will be screened. 7. On building elevations, indicate type of materials to be used on the building facade and front entry wall. 8. Provide a sign detail for any proposed signage. Engineering: 1. Show a date of preparation.of the tentative map. 2. Correct the names and addresses of the water and sewer service providers. 3. Add the application numbers in the upper right corner, and note as "Vesting Tentative Map". 4. Show location of existing topography, drainage patterns, buildings, trees, utilities, etc. within 100 feet of the project boundary. 5. Show width of adjacent streets and street improvements. 6. Show a typical street section for adjacent streets. 7. Show full circulation for each parking stall with standard turning template. 8. Show existing streetlights across Christiansen Way, if any. Show utilities in Christiansen Way on the tentative map. 9. Show all fire hydrants located within 300 feet of the project, or add note that there are none other than those shown. 10. Show additional spot elevations for proposed and existing grades. 11. The Municipal Code requires fully engineered grading and improvement plans before a vesting tentative map can be approved. If the project is denied or revised, the resultant changes can result in substantial additional expenditures. The plans must be prepared and processed through the full plan check process, including payment of plan check fees, before the project can be deemed complete. Building: 1. The project must comply with State regulations for disabled access. Guest parking must be modified to show compliance with California Building Code Section 1118A.1. ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 The following Departments have made a preliminary review of the project for associated issues of concern. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project: Housing & Redevelopment: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Department maintains the same issues of concern expressed in the Preliminary Review letter dated November 29, 1999. Multi-family dwelling units are a provisional land use in District 1 and specific findings must be made to approve the use. It is staff's position that the required findings cannot be made to permit a strictly residential use on the subject property. More specifically, it is staff's position that a multi-family residential use is inappropriate to the site and adjacent development. One of the reasons for staff's decision is that the Village Master Plan encourages multi-family housing near the rail station as part of a mixed-use development project. The second reason is that for all Village properties which are also located within the Coastal Zone, the primary permitted land uses for all ground floor space shall be those which are visitor-serving commercial uses. The third reason is that the subject property is in a critical location and development of the site will guide future development on the block. To support a strictly residential use on the property suggests similar residential uses will be supported on the rest of the block as well. This goes against the vision for the area, which is to transition the existing low-density residential uses into more commercial retail uses with residential uses incorporated as part of mixed-use projects. Staff continues to support mixed-use development on this site. 2. in accordance with the Village Master Plan, the applicable General Plan residential density designation shall be determined for each project based upon compatibility findings with the surrounding area. Once the appropriate residential density designation has been determined, the maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or density bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The highest General Plan density designation is High Density Residential (RH), which allows for a density range of 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. The project results in a density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, which is within the RH density range (15-23 dwelling units per acre), but above the growth management control point of 19. It is staff's position that the required findings to grant a density bonus or density increase to exceed the Growth Management Control Point cannot be made. 3. Consider alternative fence material such as wrought iron. 4. Consider using a darker color on the fascia and trim detail to create more contrast with the stucco siding. Issues of Concern No. RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Page 2 Engineering: 1. Parking stalls must be 10' wide with walls on one side, 12' wide with walls on both sides, and must be 170 sq. ft. minimum. 2. Circulation of parking areas is an issue. Demonstrate that cars can maneuver in and out of spaces by use of a standard turning template. 3. We recommend a minimum grade of 2% for asphalt paved surfaces, and recommend concrete for grades between 1 % and 2%. 4. Drainage sumps will require a dual pump system with a battery backup. 5. Provide rain gutters to intercept roof flow and take it to street to avoid overioading the sump pumps. 6. Provide a hydrology/hydraulics study to show drainage areas, post-development peak runoff, and flows entering the site from adjacent properties. 7. The Uniform Building Code requires drainage of 2% minimum for 5 feet away from footings. Building: 1. The open guardrails on the balconies will not mitigate any of the noise levei issues on the balcony porches. In addition, there is not enough plan details to note how noise will be mitigated inside the units. Fire: 1. Per Uniform Building and Fire Codes, all units, including garages must be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Water District: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District has no comments at this time. Landscape Plan Check: The City's Landscape Plan Check Consultant has completed the initial review of the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Corrections and suggestions have been included on the landscape plan. A redlined check print set containing staff's comments is enclosed for your use. Please make the required changes to the Landscape Plan and resubmit the revised plans to the Housing and Redevelopment Department for further review. The enclosed red-lined check print set must be returned with the modified plans to assist staff in its continued review of the project. 21.04.061 wing-walls, planter walls or grade-separation retain- ing walls. (Ord. NS-180 § 2, 1991) 2L04.065 Building height (a) The height of a building shall t>e measured as follows: ^ (1) "Building height" means the vertical distance of a structure measured from the more restrictive Gowest) of finished or existing grade. The vertical distance is measured from all points at grade along and within the building coverage to the high- est point of the structure directly atx)ve that point of measurement (2) "Existing grade," for the purposes of measuring building height, means the ground level elevation which existed on or before August 1, 1991 and prior to any grading or other site preparation related to, or to t>e incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing develop- ments unless a discretionary pennit for such devel- opments or alterations is approved. In that case, existing grade shall mean the grade after the proper- ty is developed or improved in accordance with the grading plans which implement the approved discre- tionary permit For nondiscretionary permits where retaining walls, fill or other grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in elevation than exist- mg grade as defined in tiiis subsection and as deter- mined by the planmng director, then existing grade shall fc>e used in tiie detennination of buildmg height (3) Building height measurements include basements and other subtenanean areas that are at)0ve existing grade. In the case of basements, cellars and imderground parking, buOding height is measured from existing grade, excluding the area belov/ existing grade. (4) Building height is measured to tiie peak of the stnicture. Per Section 21.46.020 of tiiis title, roof structures specifically for the housing of eleva- tors, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building; fire or parapet walls, skylights, architectur- al towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wire- less masts and similar stmctures may be erected above the height liraits prescrit>ed in this titie, but no roof structure or any otiier space above tiie height limit prescrit>ed for the zone in which the building is located shall t>e allowed for tiie purpose of providing additional floor space, or be taller tiian tiie mmimum height requirement to accommodate or enclose tiie intended use. (Ord. NS-204 § 2, 1992: Ord. NS-180 § 3, 1991: Ord. 9667, 1983: Ord. 9498 § 1. 1978: Onl. 9141 § 1: Ord. 9060 § 212) 2L04.070 Building, main. "Main building" means tiie principal building on a lot or building site designed or used to accommo- date the primary use to which the premises are devoted; where a permissible use involves more tiian one stiucture designed or used for tiie primary pur- pose, as in tiie case of group houses, each such pennissibie buildmg on one lot as defined by tiiis titie is construed as comprising a main building. (Ord. 9060 § 213) 21.04.075 Building site. "Building site" means: (1) The ground area of one lot; or (2) The ground area of two or more lots when used in combination for a building or group of buildings, together witii all open spaces as required by tilis titie. (Ord. 9060 § 214) 21.04.080 Business or commerce. "Business" or "commerce" means tiie purchase, sale or other transaction involving the handhng or disposition of any article, service, substance or commodity for livelihood or profit; or tiie manage- ment of office building, offices, recreational or amusement enterprises; or tiie maintenance and use of offices, strucmres and premises by professions and ti-ades rendering services. (Ord. 9060 § 215) 21.04.085 Cellar. "Cellar" means tiiat ponion of a building tetween floor and ceihng which is whoUy or partiy t>elow grade and so located tiiat tiie vertical distance t>e- tween tiie ceiling and tiie average adjoining ground (Carlshmd 1-93) 546 21.45.080 land uses and witii circulation patterns and open space on adjoining properties. It shall not constitute a disruptive element to the neighlx)rhood or commu- nity; (4) The intemal sti-eet system shall not be a dom- inant feature in the overall design, rather it should t>e designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehi- cles without creating a dismptive influence on the activity and function of any common areas and facilities as mdicated in the design guidelines manu- al; (5) Common areas and recreational facilities shall be located so as to t>e readily accessible to the occu- pants of the dwelling units and shall be well-related to any common open spaces provided, as indicated in the design guidelines manual; (6) Architectural harmony within the develop- ment and witiiin the neight)orhood and community shall t>e obtained so far as practicable. (Ord. 9823 § 4, 1987; Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982) 21.45.090 Development standards. In addition to the general provisions of this titie, the requirements of tiie underiying zones and tiiis chapter, a planned development shall comply witii the following standards: (a) Density. The numt>er of dwelling units in a planned development shall not exceed the density pennitted by the underiying zone. The density regu- lations of the underiying zone may be appUed to the total developable area of the planned development rather than separately to individual lots. In no case shall the density be inconsistent with the general plan. The density on tiie developed portion of tiie site shall t>e compatible with surrounding develop- ment In cases where two or more general plan land use designations fall witiiin the t>oundaries of a planned development the density may not be trans- ferred from one general plan designation to anotiier. (b) Setbacks. (1) Arterials. All units adjacent to any road shown on the circulation element of tiie general plan shall maintain as a minimum the following setbacks from tiie right-of-way: Prime Arterial: fifty feet Major Arterial: forty feet Secondary Arterial: tiiirty feet This setback shall be mounded and landscaped to buffer residential units from traffic on tiie adjacent arterials. (2) Front Yard. (A) The front yard setiiack for single-family dwellings shall be twenty feet; however, sethacks may t>e varied to a fifteen-foot average Vrith a ten-foot minimum. Garages with entries thai face directiy onto a public or private street shall maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet The front yard setback finom a private driveway, as defined in sut>- section (h) of this section, may be reduced to five feet provided that guest parking is dispersed along the entire driveway or that the widtii of the drive- way is adequate to accommodate parking on one side. Garages facing directiy onto a private driveway tiiai have less than a twenty-foot setback shall t>e equipped with an automatic garage door opener. (B) All multifamily units frcinting on a public or private street shall maintain a minimum of a twenty-foot front yard setback. Garages thai face onto a privale driveway serving an attached multi- family project may have a five foot setback provid- ed that guest parking is dispersed along the entire driveway or that the width of the driveway is ade- quate to accommodate parking on one side. In this case all garages shall t>e equipped with automatic garage door openers. (Q The front yard setback shall be measured from tiie right-of-way line in the case of a public su^t and from the edge of tiie driveway, curb or sidewalk, whichever is closer to the stmcture subject to tiie setback, in the case of a private street or private driveway. (D) It is the mtent of tiiis section to provide sut>- stantial setback variation from a private or public street as shown in the design manual and shall not be construed to allow a uniform fifteen-foot setbacL The modifications in setback shall not be allowed where there is the potential for adverse traffic or visual impacts. At least forty percent of the front yard setback of detached single-family residences shall consist of landscaping. 713 (ari»t«d 10^) 21.45.090 (3) Comer Lots. Comer lots shall have a ten foot side yard setback from the street unless the garage faces onto the street side yard; in this instance a twenty-foot setback shall t>e maintained to the ga- rage. (4) All setbsLcks shall be measured from the property line, or in the case where individual prop- erty lines are not present at the edge of the street curb or sidewalk, whichever is closest to the struc- mre subject to die setback. (5) The distance between single-story stmctures shall not be less than ten feet When more than ten structures in a row front or t>ack on a street the distance twtween two and tiiree-story stmcturcs shall not fc>e less than twenty-feet and the distance be- tween two-story and one-story structures shall not t>e less than fifteen feet Fireplace stnictures, comic- es, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, and other similar architectural features projecting from a build- ing may intmde up to two feet into the required distance between buildings. Second and third-story open balconies or eave projections over driveways are allowed if such intrusions do not inhibit traffic circulation,, provision of safety, sanitary or other services, or are not compatible witii the design of the project (c) Resident Parking. All units must have at least two full-sized covered residential parking spaces, except for studio units which shall be provided with a ratio of T.5 spaces per unit for which one space per unit shall t>e covered, planned unit developments and in the R-W zone, for which one space per unit shall be covered and one space may be uncovered, and second dwelling units which shall t>e provided with one space (covered or uncovered) per second unit Any uncovered required parking space for units in the R-W zone may t>e located within a required front yard setback and may t>e tandem. The parking space for the second dwelling unit may be provided tiirough tandem parking (provided that tiie covered parking spaces for tiie primary dwelling are located within a two-car garage and the garage is set back a minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback. In cases where a frac- tional parking space is required, the required nimit>er of spaces shall be rounded to tiie nearest highest whole number. (d) Visitor Paiking. (1) Visitor paridng shall t>e provided as follows: Amount of Visitor No. of Units Parking 10 dwelling units or less 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or frac- tion tiiereof Greater tiian 10 dwelling units 5 spaces for tiie 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 dwelling units at>ove 10 or fraction thereof (2) Up to forty-five percent of tiie visitor parking may t>e provided as compact spaces (eight feet by fifteen feet). No guest parking credit shall fc»e given for tandem paridng in front of garages except for existing duplex lots. These existing lots may provide their required guest parking space as a tandem park- ing space in front of the garage if the garage is set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front prop- erty line. (3) Credit for visitor paridng may t>e given for frontage on adjacent local streets for detached single-family or duplex projects subject to the ap- proval of the planning commission; not less tiian twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of drive- way entrances and driveway aprons shall t>e provid- ed for each parking space, except where parallel paridng spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway ^rons, then twenty lineal feet may t)e provided. Streets used for on-street visitor parking must meet or exceed the city's minimum width requirements. (e) Building setbacks from open paridng areas shall not be less than five feet (f) Screening of Parking Areas. All open parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by eitiier a view-obscuring wall or landscaping subject to tiie approval of tiie plan- ning director. (C*ri*b«i 10-94) 714 21.45.090 (g) Recreational Space. (1) Open space areas designated for recreational use shall be provided for all residential develop- ments at a ratio of two hundred square feet per unit All projects except for tiiose in 714-1 (Ciriibtd 10-94) 21.45.090 which all dweUing units are on lots with a mini- mum size of seven thousand five hundred square feet, shaU provide txDth common and private recreational faciUties. (2) Multi-family projects requesting approval above the minimum density aUowed by their general plan designation shaU provide common active, as weU as private passive recreational facilities. (3) Active common recreational facilities include, but are not Umited to, the foUowing: (A) Spa; (B) Sauna; (C) Cabana (including restroom faciHties); (D) Swimming pool; (E) Tennis Court; (F) Shuflleb)oard court; (G) Racquetball court; (H) VoUeybaU court; (I) Recreation rooms or buildings with any two of the foUowing items: (i) Cardroom, (ii) TV room, (iii) Weight-Ufting/exercise room, (iv) Restrooms, (v) Lounging area, (vi) Ping-pong table, (vii) Pool table, (viii) Kitchen faciUties, (ix) Wet bar. (4) Passive common recreational facilities include but are not limited to the foUov/ing: (A) Benches; (B) Bart>eques; (C) Restrooms; (D) Sun decks (excluding lawn areas); (E) Children's play areas; (F) Horseshoe pits; (G) Flat grassy play areas with a slope of less than fifteen percent. (5) The minimum Uneal dimension of an open/recreational space shaU be at least ten feet. (6) AU multifamUy projects developed under this section shall provide either a balcony with a minimum dimension of six feet or a patio with a minimum dimension of ten feet for each dweU- ing unit; (7) To count towards satisfying recreation requirements, private yards shaU have a mini- mum dimension of fifteen feet with a slope not greater than fifteen percent (8) Credit for common indoor recreation faciUties shaU not exceed fifty percent of the required recreation area, (9) Required recreation areas shaU not be sit- uated in any required front yard, unless the plan- ning commission or city coundl finds it to be an integrated feature of the project and that it wiU not create a disruptive element to the neigh- borhood. (10) Speciflcally excluded from meeting the usable open/recreational space requirement are driveways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways, storage areas, fenced areas which are in accessible to residents, areas with slopes of fifteen percent or greater, and any other areas deemed not to be primarily used for open/recreational purposes by the planning commission or city coundl. (h) Streets. (1) Private streets may be pennitted within a planned unit development, provided their width and geometric design are related to the function, topography and needs of the development, and their structural design, pavement and construction comply with the requirement of the dty's street improvement standards. The plan- ning commission and dty councU shaU deter- mine the width of private streets which shaU in no event be less than the minimum standards of this section. Pavement widths between curbs of private streets shaU be not less than the foUowing: SINGLE-FAMILY OR DLTLEX Type of Street 2 lanes, parking on both sides 2 lanes, parking on one side Mimmum Width 36 feet 32 feet 715 (Carisbad 2-90) 21.45.090 2 lanes, parking on one side 2 lanes, no parking, serving twelve units or less with off-street guest parking bays 32 feet 30 feet MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED Type of Street Private driveways Minimum Width 30 feet No parking shall be permitted on private driveways. (i) Lighting. Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to minimize security problems shall t>e provided. 0') UtUities. There shall be separate utility sys- tems for each unit. (k) Recreational Vehicle Storage. (1) AU projects containing ten units or more shaU provide space to store campers, trailers, boats, etc. The storage space shall be located in specificaUy designated areas and be made avaU- able for the exclusive use of the residents of the development These designated areas may serve more than one planned development, provided there is sufficient space to meet minimum requirements for each planned development Developments located in areas covered by a mas- ter plan may have this requirement satisfied by the common recreational vehicle storage area provided by the master plan. (2) The area provided for this storage space, exclusive of the driveways and approaches, shall be at least equal to twenty square feet for each dweUing unit in the planned development. How- ever, not less than two hundred square feet shaU be provided. The storage space shall be screened from view by a view-obscuring fence, waU or landscaping. (3) The storage space may be off-site of the planned development, provided the property to be used as storage is part of the application for the planned development permit and that no other development may occur on this property with- out an amendment to such permit. The planning commission or dty coundl must find evidence that such off-site storage is suitable and not detri- mental to the surrounding properties of such storage are. (4) Storage shaU not be required if the plan- ning commission or dty coundl finds that the planned development provides that each lot wiU have satisfactory storage on the lot and such storage is compatible with the area. Such storage shaU h>e a minimum of two hundred square feet in area for each lot and shall have access for vehicles. (5) The storage of recreational vehicles shaU be prohibited in the front yard setback, on any public or private streets, or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. (1) Storage Space. Separate storage space of at least four hundred eighty cubic feet in area shaU be provided for each unit. If all of the storage for each unit is provided in one area, this require- ment may be reduced to three hundred ninety- two cubic feet. This space shall be separately enclosed for each unit, meet building code requirements, and be convenientiy accessible to the outdoors. The storage space may be designed as an enlargement of the required covered park- ing structure, provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This require- ment is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that are normally part of a residen- tiai dwelUng unit. (m) Refuse Areas. Centralized refuse-pickup areas may be required for residential develop- ment with five or more dwelUng units and for nonresidential development if deemed to be nec- essary by the planning commission or dty coun- dl. (n) Antennas. No individual antennas shaU be permitted. Each project shall have a master (Carisbad 2-90) 716 21.45.090 antenna and/or a cable television hookup. Individual satelUte television antennas are permitted subject to tiie provisions of Chapter 21.53 of this code. (0) Planned Unit Development Lots. For planned unit developments, as defined herein, lots that do not meet tiie requirements of Titie 20 of the under- lying zone may be approved. However, lots with single-family detached homes shall comply with the following criteria: (1) Minimum lot size: tiiree thousand five hun- dred square feet; (2) Minimum street frontage on Unear or semi-Unear streets: forty feet; (3) Minimum frontage on sharply curved streets or cul-de-sacs: tiiirty-five feet witii an average of forty feet; (4) Frontage on cul-de-sac bulbs may be reduced to a minimum of twenty-five feet if guest parking (that does not directiy back out onto street) is pro- vided near the end of tiie cul-de-sac. Also, lots with frontages less tiian tiiirty feet must reach a widtii of thirty-five feet at some point near tiie middle of tiie lot; (5) The building height Umit for single-fanuly and duplex residences shall not exceed thirty feet and rwo stories if a minimum roof pitch of three to twelve (3:12) is provided or twenty-four feet and two stories if less than a three-to-twelve roof pitch is provided for lots witii a lot area less than twenty thousand square feet in size, although a lower maxi- mum height may be estabUshed for the project For lots with a lot area of twenty thousand square feet or greater and within a R-l zone and specifying a - 20 or greater area zoning symbol, the building height shall not exceed thirty-five feet and three stories with a ininimum roof pitch of three to twelve provided. (p) Second dweUing units may be permitted on lots which are developed with detached single-fami- ly residences according to the provisions of Section 21.10.015(c), and subject to the following additional requirements: (1) All second dwelUng units within a single- fanuly residential planned unit development shall be required to eitiier be approved as part of the planned unit development appUcation or ttu^ough an amend- ment to the planned unit development appUcation. (2) All second dwelUng units shall comply with the development standards of tiiis chapter with the following exception: (A) Second dweUing units shall t>e set back the same distance from the front and side property Unes as the primary dweUing unit on the lot (B) Second dweUing units shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from tiie rear property Une. (Q Second dwelUng units shaU not be pennitted to be located witiiin any portion of the lot which is counted towards satisfying recreation requirements for the primary residence. (D) For detached second dwelling units, the dis- tance between the primary dwelling unit and the second dwelUng unit shall be not less tiian ten feet (Ord. NS-288 § 3, 1994; Ord. NS-283 §§ 9, 16, 1994; Ord NS-204 § 11, 1992; Ord. NS-180 § 25, 1991; Ord. NS-lOO § 1, 1990; Ord 9823 § 5, 1987: Ord. 9804 § 8, 1986; Ord. 9727 § 1. 1984; Ord. 1261 § 49, 1983; Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982) 21.45.100 Conversion of existing buildings to planned developments. (a) Conversion of existing buildings to a planned development which is a condominium, community apartment or stock cooperative shall be processed in the same manner and meet all the standards pre- scribed in this chapter for planned development In addition, the stmcture to be converted must meet present city building regulations. (b) An appUcation for conversion of an existing stmcture to a planned (jevelopment shall include building plans indicating how the buUding relates to present buUding and zoning regulations and where modifications wUl be required. Also, the appUcation shall include a letter from San Diego Gas and Elec- tric explaining that the plans to connect the gas and electric system to separate systems is acceptable. (c) An appUcation to convert an existing building to a stock cooperative shall be approved, condition- aUy approved or disapproved within one hundred twenty days foUowing receipt of a completed 'appU- cation. (Ord. 9631 § 2 (part), 1982) 717 (CArUbad 10-94) REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: May 10, 2000 Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water District - B. PLUMMER Engineering Department - R. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant - L. BLACK Police Department School District V Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your comments to my office by May 19, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No.: Applicant: Washington Street Triplexes RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Anastasi Development Company, LLC Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site improvements. Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your department, please indicate in writing.) REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: May 10, 2000 V V Planning Department - G. WAYNE Engineering Departme Police Department artmept - JR. WOJCIK Building Department - P. KELLEY City Attorney Water District - B. PLUMMER Landscape Plancheck Consultant - L. BLACK School District North County Transit District Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your comments to my office by May 19, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No.: Applicant: Washington Street Triplexes RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Anastasi Development Company, LLC Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site improvements. Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your department, please indicate in writing.) CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2000 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEWRTMENT TO: Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst May 23,2000 FROM: Associate Planner - Barbara Kennedy RE: RP 00-07 - Washington Street The Planning Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is recommending: 1. The proposed residential use is incompatible with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan for District 1 and is not supported. A mixed-use project would be more appropriate in this location to achieve long-term redevelopment goals. Planning staff recommends that the project be withdrawn and redesigned. Development of strictly residential uses on this site would also set a precedent for future redevelopment ofthe surrounding properties. 2. The project should be evaluated with respect to future development of tourist serving uses on surrounding properties. It may be appropriate at this time to put some planning effort into a block study to analyze circulation and explore opportunities for adjacent properties to utilize shared access in order to reduce the number of driveway entrance points. For example, some consideration could be given to creating an entrance to the project on Christiansen with a connection through to the existing driveway north of the site. Perhaps a shared access agreement can be worked out. If the applicant wants to continue with the proposal as submitted, the following Items should be addressed: 3. The project will require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise study will be required since the project proposes a residential use within the 65 to 70 dB(A) CNEL noise contour. Noise mitigation measures will need to be incorporated into the project to ensure that noise from buses and trains do not cause significant impacts to the proposed residential uses. 4. The project density of 21.78 du/ac is over the Growth Management Control Point for residential development in the Village Redevelopment area. Residential development can exceed the growth control point if the findings under Section 21.90.045 can be made. These findings relate to: 1) the provision of sufficient public facilities for the extra density; 2) that the facilities will be provided prior to or concurrent with need; and, 3) that there are enough units in the excess dwelling unit bank so that the quadrant cap is not exceeded. This is typically applied to sites where the application of the growth control point would yield a fractional unit. This section would allow you to round up to a whole unit and is not subiect to City Council Policy 43. 5. The project is subject^the City's Inclusionary Housing O^^ance. Projects proposing six or fewer units may pay an in-lieu fee rather than constructing a unit. 6. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the development standards of the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance. The following issues have been identified: a. The PD Ordinance requires a 20 foot front setback and a 10 foot streetside setback. b. A 30 foot wide driveway is required to provide access to the units. Garages facing the driveway must have an additional off-set of 5 feet from the driveway and the garages must be equipped with automatic garage door openers. c. Two covered spaces are required per unit with a minimum clear interior dimension of 20'x20' within the garage. Water heaters and other projections may not encroach into the required parking area. d. Three guest parking spaces are required for the project. Standard parking spaces must have a minimum area of 170 square feet and a minimum width of 8 Vz feet. In addition, when parking spaces are located adjacent to a solid wall, the minimum width of the space should be increased by two feet. e. Recreational open space shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 200 square feet per unit. A minimum of 600 square feet of common active recreation area must be provided. At least 100 square feet of private passive open space (balconies or private rear yards) shall be provided per unit. Please refer to Section 21.45.090(g) of the Carisbad Municipal Code for minimum depths of open space areas. f Storage space is required for each unit. The storage space may be provided within the garage, provided it does not extend into the required parking area. g. The trash area should either be relocated so that it is not such a prominent visual feature, or it should be enhanced with a decorative trellis with vines over the top of the structure to aid in screening the enclosure. 1. The combined height of the retaining wall and free-standing fence located within the rear setback area exceeds the maximum height limit of 6 feet. 2. The proposed wood fence around project seems inconsistent with the neighborhood and with the vision and land uses proposed for District 1. 3. More detail is required to show how the sidewalk will transition around the existing "heritage" eucalyptus trees. c: Principal Planner, Adrienne Landers REDEVELOPMENT PEmilT Date: May 10, 2000 REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST KtCiirvED M^V j 1 2000 tNGINEERING DEPARTMENT Planning Department - G. WAYNE V Water District - B. PLUMMER Engineering Department - R. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant - L. BLACK Police Department School District Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 The attached plans have been submitted for the above referenced project. Please review the attached documents for application completeness and issues of concems and forward your comments to my office by May 19, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No.: Applicant: Washmgton Street Triplexes RP00-07/CDP00-23/CT00-08 Anastasi Development Company, LLC Brief Description of Proposal: Six unit condominium project and appurtenant on-site improvements. Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein Comments: (Please send comments via e-mail. If there are no comments from your department, please indicate in writing.) . „_.,^^^ ^at Kelley- Ml^ 00:07 7 From: Pat Kelley To: ton Rosenstein; Pat Kelley Date: 5/12/00 8:31AM Subject: RP 00-07 / CDP 00-23 / CTOO-08 - Anastasi Condo's RECEIVED MAY 12 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSINGS REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ton - It doesn't look like the comments from Preliminary review re: Comerical on the first floor or mixed use were put into the plan. And there sure aren't too many amenities for residents ofthis PD. The project doesn't have too many hurdles from a building code perspective. The buildings will have to be sprinklered. Their plan shows this. The dwelling units do not have to be accessible, since they are multi-story units (more than one floor level per unit). The guest parking does have to be accessible however per California Building Code Section 1118A.1. It does not appear any of the guest spaces are large enough to make this work. Please add a general statement in the conditions that the project needs to comply with State regulations for disabled access. Th^ elevations show open guardrails on the balconies. This will not mitigate any of the noise level issues on the balcony porches. There are not enough plan details to note how they are mitigating noise inside the units. That's all from BIdg - plans are in transit interoffice mail. OCTOBER 5, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund (Washington Street Condos) Anastasi Development Corporation submitted the attached letter requesting an official withdrawal of all land use permit applications submitted for property located at 382 Christiansen Way (APN 203-172-07 & 08). The applicant is requesting a refund in the amount of $15,360.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RPOO-07), Coastal Development Permit (CDPOO-23), Tentative Tract Map (CTOO-08), and Condominium Permit (CPOO-04). In a prior memo to you dated May 26, 2000 (copy attached) 1 requested the applicant be refunded $5,000.00 for fees associated with the processing of the Condominium Permit (CPOO-04) since a separate Condominium Permit is not required in the Redevelopment Area. If these fees were already returned to the applicant, please deduct them from the full amount requested by the applicant. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fees outlined above. 1 am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. In addition, please let me know if 1 need to enter this information into Permits Plus or if it will be taken care of during the refund process. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. As always, 1 appreciate your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst AN ASTASj DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 12, 2000 Lori H. Rosenstein Management Analyst City ofCarlsbad 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 RE: Carlsbad Application/fees Dear Lori: The purpose of this letter is to request the cancellation of our Land Use Review Application for the six unit condominium complex and a refund of the following filing fees: Description: Amount: CDP00023 $2,520.00 CP000004 $5,000.00 CT000008 $5,010.00 RP000007 $2.830.00 TOTAL: $15,360.00 We will be reapplying for the larger project shortly, as we have discussed. If you have any questions or need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to call. Very tmly yours. Vice President LJS: cmd 0 c 1 1200 Aviation Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tel. (310) 376-8077 Fox (310) 379-2694 MAY 26, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund CPOO-04 (Washington Street Condos.) Anastasi Development Company, LLC incorrectly submitted an application and corresponding filing fee for a Condominium Permit in conjunction with their project at 382 Christiansen Way. In accordance with the Carisbad Municipal Code, the Major Redevelopment Permit takes the place of the required Condominium Permit. Therefore, CPOO-04 should be voided and a refund in the amount of $5,000 should be returned to the applicant. The applicant's mailing address is: Anastasi Development Company, LLC, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst