HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 04-11; Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (9)<i€0i)> CITY OF
^CARLSBAD
Housing & NeighborhoocJ Services www.carlsbadca.gov
Oclober 17,201 i
IVIfch#el K. Pasko, P.E
Cofiway & Assodates, {iic.
2S25 Pio Pico Drive, Su^e 102
Cartsbid, Ca. 92008
Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project; CF 0S-03/RP 04-ll/COP 04-30; APN 216-300.12&13
Request for Consistency Determinatton; Village Review Area
Dear Mr. Pasko:
Thank you for your application dated September 30, 2011 regarding a consistency
determination for the above noted project to allow for a design modification to eliminate the
need to underground the overhead utilities in the public right-of-way. The following review of
your request was completed by staff In order to determine whether or not the Director of
Housing and Neighborhood Services could provide you with the rec|uested determination of
consistency with the originally approved permits. Based on the analysis below> a
determination has been made that the project remains consistent with the original approval
with the requested design modification to eliminate the requirement to underground the
existing utilities within the public right-of-way. The project may proceed with final approvals
to construct the noted project with this approved design modification.
Criteria Response Criteria Met
Modified project design is
comparable In character, scale,
architectural detail and/or other
design features to the original
project, or represents an upgrade In
overall design features and/or
materials as originally approved. The
modifications must not be readity
discernible to the decision makers as
being substantially different from the
project as originally approved. The
origmal architectural detail orthe
design features may enhanced as
long as the character, scale or theme
of the design remains consistent with
the original approval.
An underground conversion ofthe existing
Oak Avenue overhead utilities would not
lessen the number of power poles in the Oak
Avenue right of way; it would sfmpty relocate
the single utility pole. The length of overhead
utility Hnes crossing Oak Avenue will increase.
The conversion would not significantly
improve the design or curb appeal; therefore
it is not necessary from an overall design
perspective. The architectural design ofthe
building remains in character, scale, and detail
to the original design. The undergrounding
does not affect the design from this
standpoint
Yes
Housing & Neighborhood Services
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2S10 I 760-720-2037 fax
M. Pasko
October 17,2011
Page 2
No project condition, feature, facility
or amenity is changed or deleted that
had been considered essential to the
prpiect's des^n, quality, safety or
function by the Housing and
Neighborhood Services Director,
Planning Commission and/or City
Council.
Although the undergrounding Is noted as a
condition of approval for the tract map, It was
included at the direction ofthe applicant. It
was not a requirement of the code or a
standard. Section 20.16,040^d) ofthe Carlsbad
Municipal Code states that "...All existing
utility distribution fadlities are to be ^aced
underground within the boundaries of any
new subdivision or within any half-street
abutting the new subdh/lslon, except where
the existing facilities within any single half-
street section abutting the new subdivision
span a distance of less than BOO hundred
feet...." The length of the existing factiities
directly abutting the project site in the Oak
Avenue right of way Is approximately 148 feet
Therefore, the municipai code does not
require the undergrounding. In addition,
neither the Director nor the Planning
Commission or City Councif considered the
undergrounding essential to the project's
design, quality, safety or function. It was a
design feature offered by the applicant during
a time of more favorable financing; the market
has since changed and financing is no longer
available for this design enhancement. The
land use engineering division of the
Community and Economic Development
Department has confirmed that the
undergrounding is not a city standard, and is
not required per the municipal code for this
particular project due to the exception. The
condition was included based on the
applicant's willingness to underground at the
time as a design feature.
Yes
The modified project contplies with
all applicable devetopment standards,
or does not exceed the variances In
standards as originally approved by
the final decision maker.
The undergrounding is not a required
development standard. No variance was
granted to allow the undergrounding, nor Is
one required to eliminate undergrounding of
the utilities in the right-of-way.
Yes
The modified project does not
Increase the density or Intensity of
development. A decrease in the
density or intensity of development
Eliminating the undergrounding of the noted
utilities within the rlght'Of-way does not
change the density or Intensity of the project
in any way.
Yes
M, Pasko
October 17,2011
Page 3
can be considered an acceptable
change for consistency determination
purposes, at the discretion ofthe
Housing and Neighborhood Servfces
Director,
The proposed modification does not
involve the addition ofa new land use
which was not shown on the original
permit.
Elimination ofthe undergrounding of utilities
as a design modification represents no change
in land use.
Yes
The proposed change will not result
in any significant environment
Impact, and/or require any additional
mitigation.
There Is no change In the impact on the
environment as a result ofthe design
modification to eliminate the undergrounding
of utilities in the right-of-way.
Yes
The proposed change will not result
In sny health, safety or welfare
impacts.
The undergrounding of utilities was Initially
considered bythe appHeant ss a desired
design feature, tt was not intended to address
any situation that would impact the health,
safety or welfare of adjacent or surrounding
residents or the general pubiic. It was not a
requirement of the City to address any of
these impacts as well.
Yes
There were not any major issues or
controversies associated with the
original project which would be
exacerbated with the proposed
project modification.
The original issues and controversies with this
project related to the scale and scope of the
project. The undergrounding of utilities had no
impact however, on any of these Issues as set
forth bythe adjacent property owners to the
east and south. These issues were all
adequately addressed during the staff revtew
of the project and during the public hearings
on the project. The undergrounding of utiltties
is Irrelevant in these matters, and was not a
requirement requested by the property
owners who had concerns about the project.
This was not an issue of concern or discussion
during the public hearings.
Yes
As noted above, the Housing and Neighborhood Services Director hereby approves the design
modification requested to eliminate the requirement to underground the existing utilities within the
public right-of-way, and provides this authorization to proceed per your consistency determination
application and amended exhibits dated September 30,2011. Please note that the Carisbad Munidpal
Code does require the property owner to execute and record a covenant running with the land not to
M. Pasko
October 17,2011
Page 4
oppose a local improvement district for underground placement of utilities in the future In order to be
excepted from the requirement to underground at this time. Please contact your project engineer to
obtain a copy of this covenant for execution and recordation, tfyou have any questions regarding this
consistency determination, please contact my office at (760) 434-2935.
DEBSIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Neighborhood Services Director
C; Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager, Land Use Engineerlng/CED
David Rick, Project Engineer, Land Use Engineering/CED
Austin Silva, Project Planner, Housing and Neighborhood Services
Project File
Conway 4& Associates, Inc.
Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412
2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760) 434-5831
September 30, 2011 Job No. 10-002 L&O
City ofCarlsbad
Attn: Debbie Fountain, Director
Housing & Neighborhood Services
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B email: dfount@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 434-2935
Project: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project ~ CT 05-03/RP 04-11/CDP 04-30 - APN 216-300-12 & 13
Subject: Request for Consistency Detennination
Dear Ms. Fountain:
The purpose of this letter is to request a consistency determination for a design modification of the Lincoln & Oak
Mixed-Use project on behalf of our client and the project developer, Mr. Russell Bennett. The proposed design
modification is a waiver of the overhead utility conversion requirement (item 21 of the Design Review Board
Resolution No. 304) for the existing overhead utilities located in the public right of way. All new service utilities to
the project site will be installed underground and are not a part of the design modification. Attached for reference is
our December 21, 2010 memo detailing the technical aspects of the overhead utility conversion waiver request.
Items of special note regarding this request:
• The decision to include undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities located in the public right of way as a
design enhancement to the project was solely the developer's. This was not a requirement of the City of
Carlsbad City Council, Planning Department, Engineering Department, nor is it required by city code.
• The decision to include the utility undergrounding design enhancement was made in a more affluent economic
climate than exists today. Today's market conditions cannot support the original utility undergrounding
design enhancement.
• Section 20.16.040 of the city code requires that all existing utility distribution facilities are placed
underground within the new subdivision boundary or within any half-street abutting the new subdivision
except where the existing facilities within any single half-street section abutting the new subdivision span a
distance of less than six hundredfeet. The Engineering Department supports this request.
• The length of the existing overhead utilities directly abutting the project site in the Oak Avenue right of way is
approximately 148 feet, less than 25% of the 600-foot minimum required by city code.
• There is local and recent precedence for this waiver request. The Ocean Mist condominium project located
next door at 335 Oak Avenue (CT 04-18), did not convert the existing Oak Avenue right of way overhead
utilities located along their street frontage.
• An underground conversion of the existing Oak Avenue overhead utilities would not lessen the number of
power poles in the Oak Avenue right of way, it would only relocate the single utility pole. Additionally, the
length of overhead utility lines crossing the Oak Avenue public right of way (which would remain in either
case) would actually increase.
Please review this request and contact me at (760) 753-1453 or via e-mail at mikepasko@sbcglobal.net with any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Conway & Associates, Inc.
Michael K. Pasko, P.E.
Senior Engineer
cc: 12/21/10 Utility Conversion Memo, 2 pages; City Code Excerpt, Sec. 20.16.040, 2 pages; DRB Res. No. 304 excerpt, 1 page
p:\10-004 l&o fm\wordproc\cbad110930m.doc
Conway & Associates, Inc.
Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412
2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760) 434-5831
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 21,2010
TO: CityofCarlsbad
Attn: David Rick
Engineering Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 602-2781
FROM: Michael Pasko, P.E.
PROJECT: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project ~ CT 05-03/RP 04-11/CDP 04-30 - APN 216-300-12 & 13
SUBJECT: Request for Modification to Conditions of Approval ~ Design Review Board Resolution No. 304
The purpose of this memorandum is to request a modification to the City of Carlsbad conditions of approval for
the Lincoln & Oak mixed-use building project (CT 05-03/RP 04-11/CDP 04-30). On behalf of my client, Mr.
Russell Bennett, we request that the city waive item 21 of Design Review Board Resolution No. 304: "Prior to
issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the subdivision
boundary." Section 20.16.040 of the city code requires that all existing utility distribution facilities are placed
underground within the new subdivision boundary or within any half-street abutting the new subdivision except
where the existing facilities within any single half-street section abutting the new subdivision span a distance of
less than six hundredfeet.
Attached for your reference is a reduced plan showing the existing overhead utilities within the general project
area and a concept work plan required for an overhead utility conversion. Please note the following:
• The length of the existing overhead utilities directly abutting the project site in the Oak Avenue right
of way is approximately 148 feet, less than 25% of the minimum 600-foot length requiring an
overhead conversion.
• There is a local and recent precedence for this request. The Ocean Mist condominium project
located at 335 Oak Avenue (CT 04-18), which is located directly to the east of the subject site, did
not convert their Oak Avenue frontage overhead utilities.
• An underground conversion of the Oak Avenue overhead utilities would not result in a net loss of
the number of power poles in the Oak Avenue right of way. The existing pole near the center of the
Oak Avenue frontage would be relocated to the easterly property line of the site if a conversion was
affected.
Please review this request and contact me at (760) 753-1453 with any questions.
attachment: Existing Overhead Utilities Plan - 1 page \\ls-wvla26\share\(p) projectsM 0-004 l&o fm\wordproc\cbad101221m.doc
UJ UJ
z
o z
X
THIS EXHIBIT PRESENTS A CONCEPT WORK PLAN FOR
THE CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTIUTIES THAT ABUT THE UNCOLN & OAK PROJECT
SITE TO UNDERGROUND FAQUTIES
Existing Overhead
Utilities
CT 05-03 / RP 04-11 / CDP 04-30
Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use
Decanber21,2010
l£§
OIL
i>=
C5S
c=Jl
m
o
Dec 21, 2010 - 07:13:04 10-004 L&0\xrefs\10004-UG_utils PLOT: 11x17 FIT
Chapter 20.16 - MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS—REQ^j^MENTS http://library.municod^^HTM1716245/level2/TIT20SU_CH20.16M.
I 20.16.040 - Required improvements.
(a) Before approving a final map, the city council shall require and before a final map is approved by operation of law,
it shall be required that:
(1) The subdivider grade and improve or agree to grade and improve all land dedicated or to be dedicated for
streets or easements, bicycle routes and all private streets and private easements laid out on a final map or
parcel map in such manner and with such improvements as are necessary for the use ofthe lot owners in
the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs, and in accordance with city standards;
(2) The subdivider install or agree to install all drainage and flood-control structures and facilities required by
the city engineer, which drainage and flood-control structures and facilities shall conform to city standards,
or the standards of other appropriate agencies as the city engineer adopts;
(3) The subdivider install or agree to install fire hydrants and connections of a type and location approved by
the fire chief For local residential streets, fire hydrant connections, including valves, shall be installed
between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter in the parkway;
(4) The subdivider provide all necessary easements and rights-of-way to accommodate all streets, drainage
and flood-control structures and facilities and sewer systems extending beyond the boundaries ofthe
subdivision;
(5) The subdivider provide that the subdivision be connected to a domestic water system approved by the city
and all water mains shall be of a material subject to the requirements of the water company or agency
serving the subdivision. That the subdivider shall install or agree to install all required water systems
necessary to serve the subdivision and that all water lines, appurtenances and service connections have
been constructed or laid prior to paving or provisions have been made to insure said construction; and
(6) Where a sewer line is constructed or laid within a street or road, the subdivider has installed or agreed to
install sewer lines of a type and size approved by the city engineer to the property line of each lot within the
subdivision and all sanitary sewer lines, appurtenances and service connections have been constructed or
laid prior to paving or provisions have been made to insure the construction.
(b) If the city council rejects the offer of dedication of streets delineated on the map pursuant to Section 66477.1 of
the Subdivision Map Act, no surfacing shall be required on any street so rejected by the council; provided,
however, this provision shall not be construed as relieving the subdivider ofthe obligation of:
(1) Grading such rejected streets to grades and widths required by city standards;
(2) Installing all drainage structures and facilities required by the city engineer, which shall conform to city
standards; or
(3) Installing water supply pipelines, fire hydrants and connections as may be required by the city engineer and
fire chief
(c) No surfacing is required on any private street laid out on any parcel map where each parcel shown on such map
contains a gross area of twenty acres or more; provided, however, this provision shall not be construed as
relieving a subdivider ofthe obligation of
(1) Grading such private streets to grades and widths required by city standards;
(2) Installing all drainage structures and facilities required by the city engineer, which shall conform to city
standards; and
(3) Installing water supply pipelines, fire hydrants and connections as may be required.
(d) The design of any subdivision for which a tentative map or parcel map is required pursuant to Government Code
Section 66426 shall provide for appropriate cable television systems and for communicationjystems, iiicluding,
but not limited to, telephone and internet servjces, to each parcel in the subdivision.
jIAII existing utility
distribution facilities shall be placed underground within the boundaries of any new subdivision or within any
half-street abutting any new subdivision except where the e)dsting facilities within any single half-street section
abutting the new subdivision span a distance of less than six hundred feet, or where it is detennined by the city
engineer that it is not practicable to place the existing facilities underground within any single half-street section
due to the existence of overhead utility services to properties on the opposite side of that half-street section, in
which cases the subdivider shall execute and record a covenant running with the land not to oppose a local
improvement district for underground placement of utilities.
In developments where overhead utility distribution facilities are allowed to remain, all new services to existing lots
and lots created according to the provisions ofthis title shall be installed underground from the nearest utility pole.
The subdivider is responsible for complying with the requirements ofthis subsection, and he shall make the
necessary arrangements with each of the serving utilities, including franchised cable television operators, and
communication system providers, including, but not limited to, telephone and internet services, forthe installation ofsuch
facilities. Transformers, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, concealed ducts and other facilities necessarily
appurtenant to such underground utilities and street lighting systems may be placed aboveground, subject to approval of
the city engineer as to type and location. The provisions ofthis subsection shall not apply to the installation and
maintenance of overhead electric transmission lines in excess of thirty-four thousand five hundred volts and
of2 10/19/2010 3:01 PM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
LAND USE REVIEW
April 11,2008
TO: Austin Silva - Project Planner
FROM: David Rick - Project Engineer
COMPLETENESS REVIEW
PROJECT ID: CT 05-03X1 Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project
Please make the following changes to the approving resolution:
Replace Condition No. 23 of DRB Resolution No. 304 with the following condition:
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the current City of
Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007-
0001 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address
measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum
extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the
SWMP shall:
a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern;
b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that
could be impacted by this project;
c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this
project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum
extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way;
d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the
proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants;
e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
f identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent
practicable.
g. incorporate Low Impact Development (L.I.D.) measures into the project
design.
Add the following conditions:
1. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an executed copy
to the City Engineer for recordation a City standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV
Management Practice Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all
treatment control, applicable site design and source control, post-construction
permanent Best Management Practices prior to the issuance of a grading permit or
building permit, or the recordation of a final map, whichever occurs first for this Project.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall complete a Project Tfireat Assessment Form as required
per Volume 4, Section 3 of the Carlsbad Engineering Standards and submit the
appropiate Tier level Storm Water Compliance Form and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as determined by the completed Project Tfireat
Assessment Form.
If you or the applicant has any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at
extension 2781.
David Rick
Assistant Engineer - Development Services Division
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
April 5, 2006
CHERILYN SARB
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO DISTRICT
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
Re: Notice of Final Action for Lincoln & Oak IVIixed Use
(RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03)
Dear San Diego Representative:
Attached, please find a Notice of Final Action for the above referenced project. I
have also included a set of plans, a copy of the report that went to the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission, and the resolution of approval.
If you have any questions pertaining to the enclosed documents or require
additional information, please contact me at 760-434-2813.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
Enclosures
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
^itv of CaTlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
April 5, 2006
ROBERT RICHARDSON
KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
2802 STATE ST, STE C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUBJECT: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use (RP 04-11/ CDP 04-30/ CT 05-03)
APN: 203-260-14, 15
Dear Robert:
On April 28, 2006 the Housing and Redevelopment Commission conditionally
approved Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP 04-11, Coastal Development Permit
No. CDP 04-30, and Tentative Tract Map No. CT05-03 for property located at 3112
Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue. Enclosed please find a signed copy of the final
resolution of approval for the proposed condominium project. This resolution contains
the conditions of approval for the project. I have also enclosed a stamped set of the
approved plans referenced in the resolution as Exhibits A-V.
Your next step is to proceed with the processing of the Final Map and improvement
plans and obtain the appropriate grading and building permits to construct the proposed
project. Please note many of the conditions of approval must be satisfied prior to the
issuance ofthe final map or building permits.
It has been a very rewarding experience working with you, your team, and the
developer Russell Bennett on this project. I congratulate you and Mr. Bennett on the
approval of the project and I wish you much success in your future endeavors. If you
have any questions and/or comments regarding this correspondence, please contact
my office at (760) 434-2813.
Sincerely,
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
David Rick, Engineering
Pat Kelley, Building
Greg Ryan, Fire
Larry Black, Landscape Plancheck
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^
Date
Ms. Deborah Fountain
Director
CITYOFCARLSBAD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2965 Roosevelt St.
Suite B
Carisbad, CA 92008
RE: RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30
LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE PROJECT
Dear Ms. Fountain:
Attached to this letter please find a petition of signatures of property owners and residents in the
vicinity of the above-referenced proposed project. We are taking this opportunity to make you
aware that we find ourselves in OPPOSITION to the project. The reasons for our opposition are
as follows:
1. Height - The project has been designed to the maximum height limit, and further
includes roof decks for recreation puiposes on the top of the structures. These features
result in buildings that are severely out of scale and perspective with the much lower
structures in the neighborhood, will result in a significant loss of privacy to neighboring
lots, and is contrary to the Village Redevelopment Design Manual requirement for
common landscaped recreation areas and landscaped pedestrian amenities.
2. Oak St. Setback - The setback proposed along Oak St. is significantly less
(approximately 50% of) than the setback for all existing and planned residential units
along Oak St. We believe that this reduced setback will result in a tight, enclosed and
unattractive streetscape along our street. It certainly will not enhance the existing
residential area.
3. Intensity of Proiect - The Village Design Manual guidelines recommend that projects
include landscaping amenities and contain a strong pedestrian orientation. It is our
conclusion that the project possesses minimal landscaping and does not contain the
required strong pedestrian orientation. The project is clearly not in compliance with the
Carlsbad Landscape Manual requirement for a minimum 20% landscaped open space.
4. Retaining Walls - The project proposes up to 8-foot retaining walls along the south
property line. Presumably an additional wall or fence (as required by the Design Manual)
will be placed on the top of this retaining wall. We conclude that the visual impact of
this high wall face from the adjacent property and from Lincoln St. will be sorely
unattractive. This retaining wall is a result of the chosen product and the requirement for
rear pedestrian entry to the units. An altemative building design (including perhaps a
reduction in the size of the units) could eliminate these impacting walls. Again, these
walls are a good indicator of the project proponent's over-building of the property.
rebuiicu XXI iixx^M-^
W« are reasonable people and believe that the landowner has rights to develop his property. And
we enc» ton to do so, but it must be within the context of the ViUage Design Manual
.u^Z lt U our collective conclusion that the project is simply too dense too massive, with
f.^ toee of uiik on ,00 small a property, and is not in compliance with the Design Manua^ m
s^irXsp^s, particularly those referenced above. We can provide a detailed analysis ofthis
non-compliance if requested.
We wanted to make you aware of our concerns at this relatively early stage of development
™^eslg n order L our concems may be addressed if City Staff desires. We ai^ prepared to
pwvS o^anized presentation in opposition at the public heanngs for the project.
Sincerely,
Mike Bovenzi
343 Oak Ave
Carlsbad. Ca 92008
(760) 729-8986
I Ob
January 13, 2006
To Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency,
I have received no notice but understand that a meeting is being scheduled to consider the
property development north of my property on 3134 Lincoln Street in Carlsbad. Last
year I met v^ith your staff to discuss my concems for the adjoining property plans and
subsequently sent an email memorializing my concems. I have not heard anything from
either of these contacts so am sending this letter to make sure you understand my
concems.
As I indicated previously, the planned development is not neighbor friendly and will only
cause reduced value and increased conflict because the new units' southwest oriented
family rooms are looking into my existing units' family rooms. By orienting the family
rooms to a northwest facing orientation will benefit both properties. I cannot imagine
any owner of new condominiums wanting a view into my units' family rooms and it will
be difficult to rent my units with this orientation.
Secondly the height of the new building is nearly a floor higher than my building and is
definitely not consistent or sensitive to the neighboring building. The redevelopment
criteria that is being applied clearly does not take the new development neighbors into
consideration.
In my early discussions with your staff, I was lead to believe that you would not approve
any plans without addressing the neighboring building owners major concems. This does
not appear to be the case for I have had no feedback from my meeting or email. Therefor,
this leads me to have only one approach to the new development... and that is to
recommend the project not be approved.
My home phone number is 760-433-7523 if you want to discuss this matter. Thank you
for considering my concems.
Sincerely,
Dennis Bauem
PLANNING
SYSTEMS •
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
January 13,2005
Mike Bovenzi
BOVENZI PROPERTIES
343 Oak Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: WORK AUTHORIZATION
bear Mr. Alcom:
Pursuant to your request PLANNING SYSTEMS hereby submits a work authorization for
professional services associated wdth advice, consultation and investigation regarding the
proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project located adjacent to the BOVENZJ property, in
Carlsbad. Based on our conversation of January 12,2005, we will review and investigate
the information provided, contact and discuss with the City Redevelopment Department,
and advise BOVENZI PROPERTIES on how to iiifluence the project process so that the
proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project is consistent with BDVENZI desires for the
neighborhood. .
PLANNING SYSTEMS will address the concems vsdth tihe City on a time and materials
basis, not to exceed $1,000.00.
PLANNING SYSTEMS invoices monthly. Costs such as printing or reproduction work will
be provided as necessary at cost plus 15%. Invoice payment is due 30 days net.
Either party may terminate this agreement with five days written notice. If any action,
proceeding or arbitration arising but of or relating to this contract is commenced by either
party to this contract the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party, in
addition to any other relief that may be granted, the reasonable attomey's fees, costs, and
expenses incurred in the action, proceeding or arbitration by the prevailing party.
If this arrangement is acceptable please sign one of the two originals included and retum to
PLANNING SYSTEMS.
you for the opportimity to provide assistance.
PaulJ.Wukas, G SYSTEMS Date
Mike Bovenzi, ZI PARTNERS Date
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@pIanningsysteins.net
n Q
Project Review - Mixed Use Redevelopment Project
SE Corner of Oak and Lincoln
Based on: Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual
The following report was prepared by a planning consultant hired by Mr. Michael
Bovenzi, adjacent property owner. Redevelopment staff's response to each of the
consultant's compliance review comments is provided in italics following each
Issue.
Project Location: Context and Compatibility
Zoning is VR (Village Redevelopment); General Plan Is V (Village)
Beach Area Overlay Zone is adjacent to this Redevelopment parcel
Site is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment area.
Tourism Support is land use theme for District 9.
Site Is surrounded by non-Redevelopment residential properties zoned R-3.
Land use compatibility inside and outside the Redevelopment area, as
defined by the site's perimeter, is a major focus of the Redevelopment
Manual along with pedestrian-oriented projects.
Proposed Use:
• Mixed Use Project: Retail (1,900 sq. ft) and related parking
• Six (6) condominium units and related parking
• Project review based on exhibits provided by client dated 12.11.03.
• Review included City letter re: RP 04-11 provided by client, dated 3.28.05.
Development Standards: Compliance Review
1. Permitted Uses in District 9: Page 41 of the Manual charts permitted uses
by district. District 9 allows Mixed Use projects (residential & commercial
uses) with the specific requirement that 'the ground floor of all approved
mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". The project does
not appear to be consistent with this provision. The 1,900 square foot retail
shell building and related parking would share the ground level of the site
with the residential structure and parking. The ground floor is not devoted
to commercial uses. This Is significant since Multi-Family residential projects
alone are not permitted by the Manual as land uses within District 9,
reinforcing the tourism support vs. residential focus of the district.
Staff Response: The Village Master Plan does require that the ground floor of
all approved Mixed Use projects be devoted to commercial uses and it is also true
that Multi-Family projects alone are not permitted. However, Staff cannot require
all new Mixed Use development projects to have parking below grade resulting in
100% of the ground floor developable area devoted to a commercial use.
Nowhere within the municipal code nor in any city policy is it stated that a
business with a commercial component must contain all parking below grade. It is
common for commercial and parking to both be located at the ground floor within
District 9. Furthermore, from an economical perspective, the project location
would not warrant a 100% tourist serving commercial use (retail) on the ground
floor since the property is setback far from the Carlsbad Boulevard commercial
corridor and surrounded by residential uses. Lastly, a thorough examination of the
location ofthe property reveals that many surrounding uses are residential and/or
zoned RS. Given the surrounding residential uses around the property, along
both Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street, a mixed-use project with a small commercial
component will be more sensitive to the surrounding residential uses than a
mixed-use project with a large commercial component (equal to the full ground
floor use).
2. 20% Open Space/Landscaped Pedestrian Amenity: Compliance with this
requirement needs to be clearly depicted on the project site plan and
landscape plans. The area calculation and provision of this required
amenity should also be summarized in the Site Data table on the exhibit
cover sheet. This requirement is outlined on page 117 ofthe Manual, which
does not appear to allow privatized roof decks to meet this standard. The
intent Is to provide enhanced and landscaped pedestrian circulation from
public rights of way to, and through, a project site.
Staff Response: The Village Master Plan states ''A minimum of 20% of property
must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to
landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's
Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscape planters, open
space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor
eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space." The
Village Master Plan clearly states that roof gardens/patios and balconies count
towards the open space requirement. In a residential project in the Village the
intent of the open space requirement is to provide landscaped amenities for not
only pedestrians but also residents to enjoy. The proposed roof gardens/patios
are amenities that will increase the attractiveness and overall value ofthe project,
and provide valuable recreational/open space for the future residents.
3. Setbacks: A range of setbacks are allowed, although any setback less than
the maximum noted must be supported by the findings listed in the Manual:
(1) no adverse impacts on surrounding properties; (2) the reduced setback
will assist in meeting Redevelopment goals and Is consistent with the
objectives for the land use district involved, and; (3) the reduced setback
results in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of
the area. The site's location on the edge of the Redevelopment boundary,
and the Isolated nature of the Redevelopment zoning on this particular
block, make compatibility critical, and requires necessary findings to justify
reduced setbacks.
Staff Response: Compatibility is an important feature of the proposed project
design. This can be seen in the applicants decision to locate the commercial
component ofthe project at the corner ofthe site farther away from the adjacent
residential uses and to visually screen the proposed parking. According to the
Village Master Plan, the desired setback within the range is at the top ofthe range.
However, a project may be set below the top ofthe range if three specific findings
are made by the authorizing body/official. The findings required in order to allow
a reduction in the setbacks at a level below the maximum are detailed below.
First, the reduced setbacks will allow for a project that assists in meeting
Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use district 9.
GOAL 1, The proposed project helps to Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality
Shopping, Working, and Living Environment through the following objectives: The
project will remove a physical blighting structure that currently exists on the
property; the project will improve the condition and appearance of the current
Village housing stock; and the project will limit the amount of commercial
development in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods through the limited
amount of commercial space proposed for the project. GOAL 2, The proposed
project will Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area
through the following objectives: The project minimizes pedestrian/vehicular
conflicts along the street by providing sidewalks; and the project helps to achieve
the objective of establishing additional sidewalks within the Village. GOAL 3, the
proposed project will help to Stimulate Property Improvements and New
Development in the Village through the following objectives: The proposed project
will help to increase the intensity of development within the Village; and the
project will help to encourage Mixed Use development projects within the Village.
GOAL 4, the proposed project will Improve the Physical Appearance ofthe Village
Area through the following objectives: The proposed project will reinforce the
Village character with appropriate site planning, architectural design and signage
guidelines and standards; the project will help establish a commercial building
whose scale and character are compatible with the adjacent Village residential
neighborhood; and the project will help to encourage design diversity and a design
that is sensitive to development within the area. Goal 5, the proposed project will
provide signage which is supportive of commercial vitality and a unique Village
image.
Second, the reduced setbacks will result in a visually appealing project that
reinforces the Village character of the area. The reduced standards will assist in
creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the streets and will assist in
^5
the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing, which is a
primary goal ofthe Village Design Guidelines in reinforcing the Village character.
Third, the reduced setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties. The justification for this finding is detailed below.
Justification for the (north) side yard setback:
The required setback range for the (north) side yard setback along Oak Avenue is
5-10 feet The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set
within the middle of the range (7-7 ). By reducing the setback 2-5'' from the
desired 10' setback at 7'-7", the developer is able to achieve a basic design
principle of the Village Master Plan, that is that the reduced setback will allow for
the parking to be visually subordinated contained entirely within the structure.
Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass ofthe building
since other portions of the building are setback further and stepped back at upper
levels. Lastly, the setback range is similar to the standards for other properties
along the north side of Oak Avenue that are in V-R District 1 with a front yard
setback of 0-10 feet
Justification for the (south) side yard setback:
The required setback range for the (south) side yard setback is 5-10 feet The
proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set at 7 feet By
proposing a reduced setback of 7 feet the developer is able to achieve a basic
design principle of the Village Master Plan, that is that the reduced setback will
allow for the parking to be visually subordinated contained entirely within the
structure. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of
the building, allowing for the upper levels of the building to be stepped back from
the ground floor level to a maximum of 17' 6" from the south side yard property
line.
Justification for the (west) front yard setback:
The required setback range for the (west) front yard setback along Lincoln Street
is 5-20 feet The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range,
set at a minimum of 8' 3" from property line and to a maximum of 13' 7". As
mentioned previously, the reduced setback will allow for the developer to achieve
a Basic Design Principle of the Village Master Plan, allowing the parking to be
visually subordinated contained entirely within the structure. Additionally, the
reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing for the
upper levels ofthe building to be stepped back.
Justification for the (east) rear yard setback:
The required setback range for the (east) rear yard setback is 5-15 feet The
proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set at a minimum
of 7' from the property line. As mentioned previously, the reduced setback will
allow the developer to include the parking within the building itself achieving a
Basic Design Principle ofthe Village Master Plan which is parking shall be visually
subordinated. Additionally, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of
the building allowing for greater building articulation along the east elevation and
the building to be stepped back at upper levels.
In conclusion, the reduced setbacks will help to create a project that is not only
visually appealing but achieves a basic design principle of creating a project that
has parking that is visually subordinate and that is setback similarly to the
stanidard of other properties that fall within the V-R zoning along Oak Avenue.
Additionally, the proposed project is in a location that has varying setbacks along
the streets (Site Planning Design Guidleine: Varying setbacks help to create visual
interest along streets within the Village providing a desired informality and
diversity of appearance) and therefore, the reduced setback will not have an
adverse impact on surrounding properties. Lastly, the proposed project is
consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the
reduced setbacks include great articulation on all sides of the building, therefore,
making the project design interesting and visually appealing.
4. Building Coverage: Similar to Setbacks, Building Coverage is allowed a
range (60-80%) and any proposal for more coverage than the 60%
minimum must make similar findings as noted above for reduced setbacks
(no adverse offsite impacts, helps to meet Redevelopment goal, and assists
In creating visually appealing project for the Village area). Justifying
Increased building coverage more than the 60% minimum requires
necessary findings.
Staff Response: The findings required in order to allow an increase in the building
coverage to a level closer to the maximum are detailed below.
First, the increased building coverage will allow for a project that assists in
meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use
district 9. GOAL 1, The proposed project helps to Establish Carlsbad Village as a
Quality Shopping, Working, and Living Environment through the following
objectives: The project will remove a physical blighting structure that currently
exists on the property; the project will improve the condition and appearance of
the current Village housing stock; and the project will limit the amount of
commercial development in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods through the
limited amount of commercial space proposed for the project. GOAL 2, The
proposed project will Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the
Village Area through the following objectives: The project minimizes
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along the street by providing sidewalks; and the
project helps to achieve the objective of establishing additional sidewalks within
the Village. GOAL 3, the proposed project will help to Stimulate Property
Improvements and New Development in the Village through the following
objectives: The proposed project will help to increase the intensity of
development within the Village; and the project will help to encourage Mixed Use
development projects within the Village. GOAL 4, the proposed project will
Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area through the following
objectives: The proposed project will reinforce the Village character with
appropriate site planning, architectural design and signage guidelines and
standards; the project will help establish a commercial building whose scale and
character are compatible with the adjacent Village residential neighborhood; and
the project will help to encourage design diversity and a design that is sensitive to
development within the area. Goal 5, the proposed project will provide signage
which is supportive of commercial vitality and a unique Village image.
Second, the increased building coverage will result in a visually appealing project
that reinforces the Village character of the area. The increased cover will assist in
creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the streets, adjacent
properties, and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and
more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design Guidelines in
reinforcing the Village character.
Third, the increased building coverage will not have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties. The required building coverage within District 9 is 60-
80%. The proposed building coverage is 72.6%. The proposed building coverage
clearly falls within the required building coverage range, set close to the middle of
the range. The reduced building coverage will allow the developer to locate the
parking within the building itself achieving a Basic Design Principle ofthe Village
Master Plan, which is parking shall be visually subordinated. The increased
coverage will allow for greater building articulation along all elevations, will allow
for the upper portions of the building to stepped back, and helps encourage an
architectural design that emphasizes variety and diversity.
The proposed building coverage will provide a building which hides the required
parking areas, is attractive and has a strong street presence, and has a project
design that is visually appealing, interesting, and is consistent with the objectives
for Land Use District 9. Therefore, staff finds that the building coverage is
consistent with the desired standard.
5. Height Limit: On cross sections and grading plans, clearly depict existing
grade to verify building height measurement consistent with 21.04.065 and
the Manual. Building height is typically measured from existing or finished
grade, whichever Is more restrictive (lower). The VR zoning height limit is
super ceded by the more restrictive height limits of the Beach Area Overlay
Zone. The Manual specifically notes the ability to approve Redevelopment
"6^
projects at lower building heights for compatibility and to reduce impacts to
adjacent properties (page 98).
Staff Response: Developments within the Village Redevelopment Area with the
VR zoning are not subject to the restrictions of the Beach Overlay Zone. Since the
proposed project is located over a parking structure, the V-R zoning (District 9)
allows for the maximum building height to be set at 45 feet and requires a 5:12
roof pitch. The proposed buildings roof decks are set at approximately 30 feet
With the required 5:12 roof pitch and the necessary entrances to the roof deck,
the roof lines extend to a maximum height of 36 feet at portions and to a
maximum height of 41 feet at other portions. However, a large majority of the
mass of the building is set at a maximum of 36 feet which is set well below the
maximum permitted height of 45 feet
6. Roof Deck Heights: the proposed building heights combined with the
proposed roof deck heights to create building mass and bulk that is out of
character and scale with the adjacent and approved beach area residences.
The project proposes the flat area of the roof deck at 30' above grade
(builciing height allowed to 45') whereas the adjacent properties are limited
to 24' for the floor heights of roof decks with building height limited to 30'.
Staff Response: The proposed roof decks/patios are in compliance with the
requirements of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Other projects
in the near vicinity have been approved with roof decks/patios as part of the
design of their projects. Other properties along the north side of Oak A venue that
are in V-R District 1 are also permitted to have roof decks/patios above a height of
24', therefore the proposed roof deck/patio height is not out of character with
existing or future development potential within the Village. Additionally, the
proposed location of the roof decks/patios on the building site were carefully
chosen in order to reduce and/or eliminate impacts on surrounding development
while still providing valuable recreational and open space for future residents of
the building. The roof decks/patios have been designed so that residents cannot
look into neighboring properties to the east and south. Ever effort was made to
maintain privacy.
There is an inherent conflict between properties inside and outside the Village
Redevelopment Area. Properties inside the Village Redevelopment Area have less
restrictive design standards than those adjacent with R-3 or other zoning
designations. Staff does not believe that the bulk and mass of the proposed
development are out of character for the Village. However, opinions can differ on
compatibility with developments outside the Village area.
7. Parking: What parking standard is applied ? Retail is 1:300 but 1:200 is
proposed (medical offices?). Also, 3 residential guest spaces are required
HI
but only 2 are proposed. Guest parking spaces are not distinct from retail
parking spaces. No separation or distinction may lead to intrusive element
of retail parking for residential units. Have compact car spaces been
considered as an alternative for some of the required spaces? Parking
appears to dominate use of ground level at expense of commercial uses.
Staff Response: The parking standards are set forth within the Village Master
Plan. The requirement for a Condominium use is 2 standard spaces per unit with
1 being covered with guest parking calculated at .5 spaces per unit up to 10. The
applicant proposes 6 condominiums, which equates to a requirement of 15 parking
spaces (12 spaces for the 6 units and 3 guest parking spaces). The applicant is
proposing the parking for each of the 6 residential units to be contained within 6
individual 2-car garages in order to visually screen the parking. Three guest
parking spaces are provided for visitors ofthe residential tenants and these spaces
will be marked as such. The requirement for the 1,913 square foot retail
component ofthe Mixed Use project is 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor
area which equates to 6 parking spaces with one required to be ADA accessible.
The applicant is providing 7 retail parking spaces (1 space greater than what is
required). These parking spaces are provided to the south of the retail space and
visually screened from the street by the building walls. With regards to the
question whether compact car spaces have been considered; compact car spaces
are difficult to maneuver cars into and therefore were not encouraged for this
development They, however, can be used per the Village Master Plan. As
mentioned previously, a Mixed Use project with a small commercial component at
the subject property is more sensitive to the surrounding residential uses than a
Mixed Use project with a large commercial component Therefore, staff does not
feel it would be appropriate to require the commercial component to be increased
to cover the entire ground floor, and require the paring to be placed underground.
8. Storage Area: clearly calculate compliance and depict on Site Data table.
Areas calculated for storage also need to be correspondingly depicted on site
and/or floor plans. For example. Is item #7 (noted with a 7 within a diamond
shape) on Sheet 2 noted for storage also proposed as part of the required
storage calculation?
Staff Response: The applicant is aware of the storage area requirement
pursuant to the Planned Development Ordinance. The applicant has provided the
dimensions of the storage area in order to clear up any ambiguity. The
development complies with the storage requirements.
Design Guidelines: Compliance Review
Multi-Family Dwellings
1. For multi-family projects, the ground level should not be used for parking or
units so that retail and other uses create active street frontages. Noted on
#1 on page 67.
Staff Response: The page number referenced relates to considerations for a
provisional Multi-Family use, not a permitted Mixed Use development
Furthermore, the page referenced is not an actual ''Design Guideline" and
should not be part of this ""Design Guidelines: Compliance Review" section.
100% Multi-Family uses are not permitted within Land Use District 9 and
therefore the location and development criteria referenced does not apply to
the project. However, Mixed Use developments are a permitted use in Land
Use District 9. Permitted Uses are those that are '"permitted by right because
they are considered consistent with the vision and goals established for each
district within the Village boundaries" and therefore are not subject to
provisional use location and development criteria. Nevertheless, ifthe location
and development criteria referenced on page 67 were examined in relation to
the Multi-Family component of the proposed project "Residential units and
parking should not be placed on ground floor levels where they would displace
desired retail uses or otherwise lessen active street frontage" the project meets
the aforementioned criteria. First, the second and third floor residential units
and the associated parking on the ground floor level do not displace desired
retail uses. The proposed location of the retail use has been placed at the far
northwest corner ofthe site in order to reduce conflict with adjacent residential
uses (existing or proposed). An active [commercial] street frontage and the
associated retail uses are not encouraged near the edges of the property lines
where adjacent permitted residential units are located and does not make for
good site planning from a land use compatibility standpoint Therefore, the
applicant chose to locate the parking on the ground floor level at locations
which do not displace a desired retail use location and would minimize the
impact of an active [commercial] street frontage upon adjacent residential
uses.
2. Page 67, #2 further notes that multi-family sites should be large enough to
accommodate parking on-site or below grade. Given the coverage
proposed for the site, and the use of the ground level for uses Inconsistent
with #1 above, subterranean parking that is truly submerged below grade
would lessen visual Impacts and be more supportable.
staff Response: As mentioned previously, the page number referenced relates
to considerations for a provisional Multi-Family use, not a permitted Mixed Use
development Additionally, the page referenced is not an actual "Design
Guideline" and should not be part of this "Design Guidelines: Compliance
Review" section. Nevertheless, if the location and development criteria
referenced on page 67 were examined in relation to the Multi-Family
component of the proposed project "Sites should be large enough to
accommodate parking requirements on-site or below grade", the project meets
the aforementioned criteria. First, the proposed project is on a .402 acre
parcel and proposes only 6 dwelling units. This equates to 14.9 dwelling units
per acre, which is less than the general plan range for surrounding properties
of 15-23 dwelling units per acre. With a low project density and only 6
dwelling units the related parking requirements for the residential component
of the project is easily provided for on the site. Furthermore, the parking is
visually screened, contained within individual garages and within the structure
walls. It is not a practice of the City or Redevelopment Agency to require
below grade parking. In this particular case, staff does not believe that the
entire ground floor should be used for commercial purpose. It also cannot be
used for residential purpose. Therefore, the at grade parking and proposed
commercial are appropriate for the ground floor ofthis development
Basic Design Principles
1. Page 119 notes the following which are not fully developed within the
project as proposed: (3) Development shall be small in scale; (5) All
development shall have a strong relationship to the street; (6) Strong
emphasis shall be placed on the design of ground floor facades; (8)
Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
Staff Response: The proposed project is in scale with existing and recently
approved projects within the Village. The proposed project carefully balances a
proper scale and proportion with the surrounding development while also
encouraging Basic Design Principles of encouraging development intensity and
encouraging an architectural design that emphasizes variety and diversity. The
proposed project will have a strong relationship to the street with the commercial
component of the project fronting approximately two-thirds of the street frontage
along Oak Avenue and a little over a third of the street frontage along Lincoln
Street in order to create an active street frontage. The remaining portion of the
properties street frontages along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street will allow for
entering and exiting of the project site and provide an ample setback for adjacent
properties as well as a buffer between the commercial component of the project
and the adjacent residential uses. Landscaping is an integral feature of the
proposed project. Landscaping is strategically located and will help buffer and
enhance the attractive design of the building. Landscaping is personalized to the
project site and provided all along the edges of the property in order add richness
and visual interest while providing an additional buffer between adjacent uses.
Landscaping is further maximized along pedestrian frontages in order to enhance
the overall character of the neighborhood and add color and richness to the
building and the street(s).
Site Planning
1. Page 120, #2: Benches and low walls are noted for public domain Interface
and pedestrian circulation amenity. A corner lot such as the subject site
has opportunity to combine this design element with the 20% open
space/landscaped pedestrian amenity requirement.
Staff Response: Low walls are part of the site planning of the proposed
project. Low walls are provided at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue
directly in front of the commercial component of the project where shoppers and
pedestrians will be able to best access this amenity. A proposed fountain
compliments the low wall amenities altogether providing a wonderful place for
brief relaxation.
2. Page 121, #5: Privacy loss from primary orientation of condo units onto
adjacent properties is not encouraged versus the orientation to the project
interior and street frontage.
Staff Response: The proposed residential units are designed so that the spaces
that would receive the most use (family room, kitchen, and roof decks/patios) are
oriented towards the street in order to maintain privacy. The living rooms and
master bedrooms of 4 of the 6 units are located at locations that are close to
adjacent residential units. However, every effort was made in designing the
project to maintain privacy. Windows along the south and east elevations are
necessary for exiting in case of an emergency, for allowing natural light to enter
the rooms, and to help enhance the visual appearance of those elevations.
3. Page 121, #6: off-street courtyard opportunities are encouraged and
perhaps can be considered for the project.
Staff Response: Off-street courtyards, while although encouraged within the
Village, are not required or encouraged for every project. The purpose of off-
street courtyards within the Village is to provide opportunities for businesses such
as art galleries, restaurants, and retail stores to be located off these courtyards. A
commercial courtyard in a predominately residential neighborhood does not make
for good site planning. However, it should be noted that the attractive entry
courtyard for this project will provide a useful pedestrian amenity and could be
used for commercial displays.
O
4. Page 121, #7: an abundance of landscaping should be emphasized, and
combined with the 20% standard.
Staff Response: Landscaping is an integral component of the project design
and is provided on both the ground level and on the first floor roof decks.
Landscaping is personalized to the project site and provided all along the edges of
the property in order to add richness and visual interest while providing an
additional buffer between adjacent uses. Landscaping is further maximized along
pedestrian frontages, including visible roof decks, which will enhance the overall
character of the neighborhood and add color and richness to the building and the
street(s).
Parking and Access
1. Page 124, #9: Avoid buildings over ground level parking. The project Is
fundamentally inconsistent with this design criteria element.
Staff Response: The page referenced refers to a "Design Guideline" and not an
actual "Basic Design Principle". The Basic Design Principle related to parking
within the Village states "parking shall be visually subordinated" but does not state
parking must be provided below grade. However, the proposed project design is
still consistent with the intent of Parking and Access Design Guideline #9 because
a significant portion of the ground floor of the building is provided for a
commercial component and much of the ground floor parking is visually screened.
Since the parking is visually screened, the parking on the ground floor does not
detract form the appearance ofthe building.
2. Page 124, #10: Park underground whenever possible. The extent of this
project's underground parking needs review against existing grade and
proposed grading.
Staff Response: As mentioned previously, the page referenced refers to a
"Design Guideline" and not an actual "Basic Design Principle". The Basic Design
Principle related to parking within the Village states "parking shall be visually
subordinated"but does not state parking must be provided below grade.
3. Page 124, #11: Enhance entry driveways with concrete treatments.
Staff Response: Driveway entries are enhanced with concrete treatments.
Misc. Design Comments
• Trash Bin location: trash bins need to be accessible for servicing and
screened as much as possible from public/streetside viewpoints. Ideally, a
review can be made by Coast Waste Management with a follow-up letter
indicating their ability to service the site/access the trash bins as shown on
a referenced site plan. Page 140 of the Manual also requires that the visual
impact of trash collection areas from projects be minimized.
Staff Response: Larry Stevens of Coaste Waste Management has reviewed the
proposed plans and indicated that he does not foresee any problems with servicing
the trash area at the proposed location if the project is approved (refer to email
correspondence dated 2/25/2005). Furthermore, the proposed trash location was
chosen in order to minimize the visual impacts upon neighboring properties by
locating the trash area within the building itself, minimizing the visual impact of
the trash area. Due to concerns received from the neighbor to the east about the
vent location of the trash area, the venting outlet was moved to the top of the
structure to reduce any potential impacts to adjacent uses.
• Streetscene/Compatibility: need to review Building Elevations in
combination with adjacent existing or approved Elevations next to project
site. This is also requested by the City comment dated March 28, 2005
(item #6).
Staff Response: These elevations were requested and provided by the
applicant prior to city receipt ofthis analysis.
• Privacy/Unit Orientation: the fundamental design of the project is such that
primary unit orientation for the private, condominium units Is outward to
adjacent properties to the east and south vs. internal and streetside (Oak
and Lincoln) orientation. This is counter to Design criteria noted on page
121 re: privacy and unit orientation when compatibility is a project factor.
Staff Response: The proposed residential units are designed so that the spaces
that would receive the most use (family room, kitchen, and roof decks) are
oriented towards the street The primary entrance for residents to the building is
through the staircases located next to the ground floor garages. These entrances
are more convenient, and therefore will be more likely to be utilized by the future
residents ofthe building than the entrances to the building located along the south
and east
• Site Plan: should depict existing and proposed curb lines and property lines
to reflect the frontage dedications on Oak and Lincoln Streets.
Staff Response: This information is provided on the plans.
\ 1^
• Site Plan: Site Data table on cover sheet should outline standards and
summarize compliance: coverage, parking, height, setbacks, storage, etc
and also note all zoning. General Plan and Redevelopment District Area
designations.
Staff Response: This information is provided on the plans.
• Cross-Sections: Provide a North/South section on East side of project; and
also East/West section that goes into adjacent, approved project to the east
to assess compatibility, mass, bulk and the absence or presence of
significant impacts to adjacent properties. Also - depict existing grade to
assess subterranean extent of the parking area.
Staff Response: Cross sections of proposed developments in relation to
existing development or approved development were not required for this
development The applicant has gone to great lengths to address project
compatibility by plotting adjacent existing and proposed development on proposed
plan elevations and meeting with property owners to address concerns of the
project. Staff does not feel these cross sections are necessary. Existing grade is
clearly depicted.
• Landscape Manual: compliance with tree sizes and types as applicable?
Staff Response: The City of Carlsbad's Landscape Consultant reviewed the
proposed landscape plans and the applicant has made changes as appropriate.
• Architectural Style: good for Village but has related bulk, setback, coverage
Issues.
Sta ff Response: This statement is a matter of opinion and is not directly
related to development standards or design guidelines. However, staff agrees that
the architectural style is "good for [the] Village."
• Retail Deck: why is the retail deck not depicted on the Roof/Deck Exhibit on
Sheet A-3?
Staff Response: Sheet A-3 depicts features above the third floor level, which
includes rooflines and roof decks. The first floor roof decks are depicted on sheet
Al.O. Note that no "retail decks" are proposed. Access through the commercial
space ofthe building to the roof is required in order to service HVAC units and not
intended for commercial tenant use.
• Site Plan: Similar to the comment re: Elevations and Streetscene review,
show adjacent existing or approved parking areas, major trees, and building
footprints within 100' of the site's property lines. This 100' distance around
the project is typically a required application checklist item for discretionary
permits Issued by the City Including Redevelopment Permits.
Staff Response: These items are included on the site plan.
• Elevation Exhibit A-6: what is the gap shown on South Elevation? Is it for
signage? If so, should a project-wide Sign Program or exhibit be part of the
formal application?
Staff Response: Signage information is depicted on sheet ASl.l. Actual
signage will be approved as part ofa separate permit
• Retaining Wall/Fence Heights: the combination of any retaining wall and
fences should not exceed 6 feet in height per city policy as also noted in the
March 28 City letter (item #3).
Staff Response: Fence heights may be permitted to exceed six feet within the
required side and rear yard setbacks if approved by the Planning Director pursuant
to Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 5. Within the Village
Redevelopment zone the Housing & Redevelopment Director acts as the Planning
Director. Therefore, fence heights may exceed six feet, if appropriate.
• Landscape Plan: the application's landscape plan should clearly depict (1)
the 20% open space requirement/landscaped pedestrian amenity, (2) Public
right of way vs. private property lines to show setbacks, and (3) Sign
Program info/sign locations.
Staff Response: (1) Information regarding open space is provided on cover
sheet (2) Property lines are clearly depicted. (3) Related signage information is
provided for on sheet ASI. 1.
• Stormwater Compliance: any features needed for compliance should be
noted on plans as appropriate
Staff Response: These items are included on the site plan.
• Mixed Use Project: a ''non-residential" project per page 117 of the Manual
includes mixed use projects; and a requirement to provide a solid masonry
wall between the mixed project and adjacent residential uses.
Staff Response: A solid masonry wall is provided.
• Title 24 Compliance: the project may benefit from a review for compliance.
1^5
staff Response: The Building Department has reviewed the plans for
compliance with Title 24. A more detailed review will be completed at the time of
building permit application and submission of full construction drawings.
7.19.05
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared by:
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Consultant
Retired Carlsbad Planning Director
INTRODUCTION
As requested by the Community Development Director, I have analyzed the mixed use
project proposed on the property located at the southeast comer of Lincoln Street and
Oak Avenue. This analysis is based on my personal and professional opinions, judgment
and observations. In order to complete this analysis, I visited the site and surrounding
neighborhood, I reviewed a set of the proposed plans and I reviewed the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual to determine compliance of the
proposed project with the Plan.
CTENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
l.USE-The project does constitute a mixed use project within the context of the
Village Master Plan. I believe the location and extent of the commercial component is
appropriate and I feel having some residential portions ofthe project on the ground floor
immediately adjacent to neighboring residential uses makes sense in order to buffer the
commercial component. In my opinion, the project complies with the Master Plan which
requires the ground floor of mixed use projects to be "devoted" to commercial uses.
2.INTENSITY-The proposed project is an intense development, perhaps overly
intense for the existing neighborhood which presently consists primarily of single and
two-story residential structures and a single-story commercial building across the street.
However, the area is in transition, the project is located in the Tourism Support District
which is one of the more intense districts in the Master Plan and where intensity of
development is encouraged and the project is very similar in intensity to a number of
other mixed use projects recentiy approved by the city. The density of the project is
14.89 dwelling units per acre which is about the mid-range of density for most attached
dwelling unit developments in the city and, therefore, probably not the source for the
perceived intensity of the project. However, the units are large for that density with at
least half of the units containing more than 3,000 sq. ft. of interior floor space.
Determinations on intensity are usually judgmental calls because different people,
including different planners working for the same city, have varying opinions on what is
too intense. Perhaps, some of the suggestions made in this analysis under the specific
findings section can help in addressing the intensity issue.
3.DEVEL0PMENT STAND ARDS-The Village Master Plan contains development
standards and I could find only one instance where non-compliance with a standard is
open to interpretation and that involves the requirement to provide 20% open space. This
is discussed in more detail in the specific findings section of this analysis. Otherwise, my
review determined that the project meets all standards. Some of these standards provide
for ranges but the city has been given the authority without violating any legal standard to
approve the project at any point within the range. The fact that the project is proposed at
the mid to upper end of the range for most of the standards probably is the basis for the
concem about overall intensity noted above but it does not mean that the development
standards are being violated. As long as the city can make the findings contained in the
Master Plan, the standards are being properly enforced.
4.DESIGN-The Village Master Plan also contains also contains design "guidelines" a
number of which are subjective and open to personal opinion and interpretation. I
personally and professionally feel that the project complies with the overall intent and in
most cases, the specific wording of the design guidelines. I believe a fine job has been
done with the proposed architecture with a lot of relief and interesting elements and that
it is consistent with the desired "village" architectural style approved on other projects in
the Redevelopment Area. Any suggestions made in the specific findings section of this
analysis are only meant to address the perceived intensity and neighborhood
compatibility issue and not the architectural design of the proposed project. '
SPECIHC FINDINDS AND OBSERVATIONS
1.Section n of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual contains
allowable land uses by District. The proposed project is located in District 9 which allows
residential use if it part of a mixed use project also containing commercial. The project
does qualify as a mixed use project. The Master Plan further states that "the ground floor
of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". I beheve the
key term here is "devoted". Does that mean that the entire ground floor space(100%)
must be commercial. In my opinion, that is not the case and devote means that a
substantial commercial component must be located on the ground floor. If you subtract
out the two required driveways on Oak and Lincoln, the commercial component
comprises over two-thirds of the building frontage along the two streets. Since the
proposed project is immediately bounded by residential on the east and south, I think a
better planning approach is not to have 100% of the ground level for commercial use and
instead have, as the project proposes, an edge of the residential component next to the
east and south property line. If it is desirable to increase the frontage of commercial, a
suggestion would be to further extend the commercial space along Lincoln Street and
Oak Avenue to the edge of each one of the driveways.
2.Section II of the Master Plan also contains universal standards for all development
in the Redevelopment Area. The importance of this part of the Master Plan needs to be
noted. For all development standards where a range has been established by the Master
Plan rather than a specific standard, the city has the authority to allow a project to be
approved anywhere in the range upon the making of findings related to the project. These
findings are listed on pages 97 and 98 of the Master Plan. Approving a project at the
maximum or the minimum of the range does not constitute a deviation, variance or
violation of the standards. District 9 which the proposed project is located in has a range
for development standards relating to building coverage and building setbacks.
3.Section If of the Master Plan provides development standards based upon the
District in which the proposed project is located. The Lincoln and Oak mixed use project
is located in District 9 which is established as a Tourism Support Area thereby requiring
a commercial component to the project but also containing standards that allow a more
intense development than permitted in some of the other districts. The individual
development standards for District 9 include setbacks, open space, building coverage,
building height and parking and these can be found on page 117 of the Master Plan. An
analysis of the project and compliance with these standards follows:
A.Setbacks-The project proposes a minimum 8'3" setback along the front yard
setback on Lincoln Street. The Master Plan allows for a range of 5' to 20'. Therefore, the
proposed project meets the setback standard with the required findings. It is my
professional opinion, however, that while the lower end of the range is appropriate for the
commercial component that the maximum 20' setback be required the residential
component (the side of the residential garages) located next to the southem property Hne.
This would provide more compatibility and a better buffer for the neighboring properties.
The same reasoning would apply to requiring the maximum setback for the residential
component (again the side of the garages) located on the street sideyard along Oak
Avenue adjacent to the easterly property line. The proposed setback at this location also
presently meets the standard with the required findings however compatibihty could be
enhanced with an increased setback. Finally, the Master Plan allows a range of 5' to 10'
for the side yard and 5' to 15' for the rear yard. The project proposes 7' for both. I think
that is acceptable if a masonry wall is constracted along these property lines, the
windows in the upper stories are treated to create privacy for adjoining properties and the
setbacks are increased for the sides of the residential garages along both street frontages
as discussed above.
B.Open Space-The Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be
maintained as open space. The project proposes to meet this standard by providing a
public, hardscaped area next to the entrance to the commercial part of the project and by
counting the private decks. The use of private decks to meet the open space requirement
is open to professional and practical interpretation. It is my professional opinion that the
private decks should not be counted and that any open space used to meet this
requirement should be available to the general public or at least, in common, to all the
residents of the project. For example, if a deck was provided for common use by all the
residents of a project even though it was not for general use by the public, I beheve it
should count toward the open space requirement. However, an open space feature that
could only be privately used by one occupant should not be counted. It is my suggestion
that additional, non-private open space (approximately 4%) be provided in the project. It
would also be my suggestion to delete the low level walls that enclose a portion of the
public, hardscaped area in front of the commercial entrance and that just benches be
provided to make this more area more visually open and available forpublic use.
C. Building Coverage-The project is proposed at the higher end of the allowable
building coverage and this meets the standard if the city makes the required findings.
D. Building Height-The Master Plan permits building heights to 45' in District 9 and
the elevations for the project show that the project complies with this standard. Most of
the surrounding residential projects are two-story and do not exceed 35'in height.
However, given the requirement for the subject project to provide a commercial
component on the ground floor, I believe that three stories with the additional height
allocation is warranted. I would suggest that every effort be made make the southerly and
easterly elevations as compatible as possible with adjoining properties through the use of
such things as enhanced landscaping and walls and the special treatment of upper story
windows.
QO.
E.Parking Requirements-The project meets the parking standards contained in Chapter
6 of Section II of the Master Plan.
4.The final part of Section II of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual that I
analyzed for confonnance of the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project was the Design
Guidelines. Not all the guidelines are applicable and many are open to subjective
judgment and personal opinion. The guidehnes are not development standards that apply
in the same way to every project and a proposed project is not expected or legally^
required to comply with every guideline because they are not all applicable. However,
based on my review, I believe the proposed project is in overall compliance with the
intent and/or the specific wording of the applicable guidelines as follows:
A.The Design Guidelines begin wilhlO basic design principles for which the city
must be satisfied that the project applicant "has made an honest effort to conform to".
The 10 principles are listed on page 119 on the Village Master Plan. I believe a
substantial and acceptable effort has been made to conform to ^11 the appHcable design
principles. One design principle worth noting since the overallf)rqject appears to be
intense in relation to the surrounding neighborhood is Principle #4 which states "Intensity
of development shall be encouraged." Conformance with this principle provides a basis
for the city to make the findings required for development standards relating to building
coverage and setbacks. This principle needs to be balanced, however, with the fact that
the neighboring properties to the south and east are not in the Village Redevelopment
Area and not subject to this design principle and, therefore, design features need to be
incorporated to buffer and make compatible the intensity of development.
B.Most of the specific Design Guidelines relate to architectural design and, as a mixed
use project, the applicable ones include building forms, roof forms, building facades, and
commercial storefronts. Conformance was found with the following architectural
guidehnes:
(a) .Building forms-The elevations of the building provide for variety and diversity, the
upper levels are stepped back and simple building forms consistent with the "village"
architecture of other newer buildings in the Redevelopment area are used.
(b) .Roof forms-Sloping, gable roofs with dormers are proposed.
(c) .Building facades-Facade projections and recesses are provided and all sides of the
building are visually treated with surface ornamentation and otiier detail elements.
(d) .Commercial storefronts-Most of the elevation of the commercial component of the
project is devoted to window space with very little blank wall space.
There is one other section of the Design Guidelines that i& worthy of some discussion.
This relates to the design of parking. The guidelines encourage below grade or
underground parking for commercial and large residential projects whenever it is
feasible. Although I believe it would be ideal if underground parking could be used for
this project in order to enhance compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, it has
been my experience that the city has never forced a project applicant to provide
underground parking if the project can otherwise meet all of the city's parking and other
development standards. Underground parking is usually proposed when it is the
applicant's own desire to provide it or because it is essential to developing the project in
conformance with the city's parking requirements and other development standards.
^^SSsion of my analysis is lhat the Uncoln & Oak Mixed Use Project comphes
witJ^^e devSopment standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment
StS Pta and Design Manual (a)with the exception of my personal, profession^
™2n of the 20% open space standard and (b)if the city makes Ae required
SJs for buMng coverage and building setbacks. Based on my analysis, the
?otwing° uggestions for project revisions are offeml for staff consideration ^
iTncrease the public open space component ofthe project by approximately 4%.
2Send the commen:iaI space along Uncoln Street and Oak Street to the edge of the
^-etSSe residential component (sides of garages) to the
Jimum of the range adjacent to the southerly and easterly property hnes.
TSnate the low level wall that encloses a portion of the public open space aiea m
t f'^fthP commercial entrance and replace with a few benches.
sugg" will requiie revisions to the proposed plans for the proj-t».s my
feeSg that fhe revisions could be accomplished by reducing the size (square footage) of
a couple of the units.
30