Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 95-05; Pine Street Project; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)Ik # Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department May 12,2003 BILL SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: EXPIRATION OF MAJOR RP 95-05 - SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Bill: It is with regret that I notify you that the major redevelopment permit (RP 95-05) issued by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for your proposed mixed-use project on Pine (between Tyler and Roosevelt Streets) expired as of August 5, 2001. Because we received no application for a building permit or a request for an extension of the permit prior to August 5, 2001, the redevelopment permit may no longer be extended to continue its effectiveness. At this time, if you wish to pursue the proposed or an altemate project, you will need to submit a new redevelopment permit application for processing. It is unfortunate that you were not able to proceed with the proposed project. It was a very exciting project, and I believe it would have performed successfully and would have been an asset to the community. If you are interested in pursuing an altemate project on the site, please feel free to contact my office for further discussion. Or, if you would be interested in selling the property to the City or Redevelopment Agency for a public purpose, please also contact my office for further discussion. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or your redevelopment permit, please contact my office at (760) 434-2935. incerely, iBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 ^ Sity of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department January 25, 2000 JOHN C. SCHILLING BILL SCHILLING P.O. BOX 130924 CARLSBAD, CA. 92013-0924 RE: RP 95-05 - MIXED USE PROJECT, 507 PINE STREET Dear Mr. Schilling: For your information, I wanted to remind you that your redevelopment permit (RP 95-05) for the mixed use project proposed to be located at 507 Pine Street in Carlsbad will expire on February 5, 2000. It is my understanding that a decision has been made to discontinue efforts to develop the subject project due to financing issues. I was very excited about the proposed project and looking forward to its constmction. Therefore, I am now disappointed that the Village Area will not benefit from the subject development. However, I understand the decision and wish you the best of luck in your future ventures. As an additional reminder, any new project on the subject site or to continue the previously proposed project at this time will require the processing of a new major redevelopment permit. If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice, please contact my office at (760) 434- 2815. lincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Rooseveit St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department September 20, 1999 JOHN C. SCHILLING BILL SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - MIXED USE PROJECT, 507 PINE STREET Dear Mr. Schilling: Since I believe you have a very exciting project proposed for the property located at 507 Pine Street in Carlsbad, I wanted to remind you that your land use permit (RP 95-05) issued for this project will expire on Febmary 5, 2000. You must obtain your building permits by that date in order to remain in compliance vdth the approved redevelopment permit. If you do not obtain your building permits by the subject date, your redevelopment permit will expire and you will be required to submit a new application for any future development on the site. Because the building permit process can take several months to complete, I would like to strongly encourage you to immediately begin the process if you have not already done so and still intend to constmct the approved project. As of today's date, you have approximately 5 months to have your constmction drawings prepared and processed through the Building Department for approval. We look forward to constmction of your project. If you have any questions about your permit or the noted deadline, please contact my office at (760) 434-2815. ^erely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ ON FEBRUARY 4, 1997, THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TOOK ACTION TO APPROVE THE SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT. THE SUBJECT PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED ON AN EXISTING VACANT SITE AT 507 PINE STREET, BETWEEN TYLER AND ROOSEVELT. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A TOTAL OF 4 RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER 1536 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE (6 RETAIL SUITES TOTAL) AND 1851 SQUARE FEET OF WORKSHOP SPACE (4 WORKSHOPS TOTAL). A TOTAL OF 4 SINGLE CAR GARAGES ARE TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AN ADDITIONAL 9 PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS OF THE RETAIL/WORKSHOP SPACES. THE PROJECT REPRESENTS THE CONCEPT OF SHOPKEEPER UNITS WHERE A BUSINESS OWNER CAN LIVE ABOVE HIS/HER RETAIL STORE. AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE PROJECT'S APPROVAL BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. THE BUILDING PERMITS NEEDED TO BE OBTAINED BY AUGUST 4, 1998. HOWEVER DUE TO SOME FAMILY MATTERS, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMITS BY THE SUBJECT DATE. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF THE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS. IF APPROVED, THE NEW EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE PERMIT SHALL BE FEBRUARY 5, 2000. 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL PERMIT EXPIRATION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 304 WHICH WILL APPROVE THE 18 MONTH EXTENSION. City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department December 9, 1998 JOHN C. SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RP 95-05 Dear Mr. Schilling: On December 8, 1998, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved your request for an extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 95-05 for an additional 18 months. Your extended permit will expire on February 5, 2000. If you do not obtain approval ofyour building permits forthe Schilling Mixed Use project by that date, the redevelopment permit will expire. We look forward to construction ofyour project. If you have any questions about your permit or the approved extension, please contact my office at (760) 434- 2815. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director c: Bobbie Hoder, Planning 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ® August 10, 1998 TO: BOBBIE HODER PLANNING FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF RP 95-05 TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS As we discussed previously, the redevelopment permit for the project known as Pine Street IVIixed Use Project, or RP 95-05, was due to expire after 18 months if the building permits were not obtained. The applicant was not able to obtain the building permits during the period noted. So, he subsequently requested an extension ofthe redevelopment permit for an additional 18 months. In addition to his letter of request for an extension, I requested that the applicant complete the basic application form, conflict of interest statement and a project description. I also requested that he pay a fee for extending the original permit. The fee that was set was $450, which is equal to 25% of the current fee for a major redevelopment permit. As you requested, I am forwarding a copy ofthe application and the fee payment to you directly for processing. It is my understanding that a new project file will not be created. We will simply use the original project file. However, you indicated that you would ensure that the application was appropriately entered into the permit system and the fee payment was processed. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at X 2935. WaLLL\M & JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 JUNE 16, 1998 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing & Redevelopment Director CITY OF CARLSBAD 2965 Roosevelt St. Ste.B Carisbad, CA. 92008-2389 RE: RP-95-05-PINE ST. MIXED USE PROJECT Dear Debbie We herein would like to request an extension of eighteen months for the above referenced project fi-om the current expiration date of August 4, 1998. We understand that this would allow us to complete our current building plans and submit them for pulling a permit on or before 18 months fi-om August 4, 1998. We would Hke to meet with you in the very near future to review our current plans before going into final constmction drawings. We tmst this letter will be satisfactory for the purpose. If you have any questions plg^e call us. (760) 434-5999. Thank you for your cooperation toward completing a wonderful project for the City of Carlsbad. Sincerely; Bill Schilling ^ J6hn Schilling John Schilling P.O. Box 417 Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Carlsbad Debbie Fountain 2965 Roosevelt St. STEB Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 7,1998 Dear Debbie, Please find the enclosed check in reference to: RP 95-5. If you locate the lost check please forward it back to me. If you need anything else, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, John Schilling cc: check #1026 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department March 3, 1998 BILL AND JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - PINE AVENUE MIXED-USE PROJECT Dear Bill and John: Just a quick note to remind you that the major redevelopment permit for the Pine Avenue Mixed Use Project has a condition which requires you to pull building permits on the subject project within 18 months of final project approval. The subject project was approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on Febmary 4,1997. This means that you must pull building permits by August 4, 1998, or the approvals for the major redevelopment permit become null and void. If you are not going to be able to pull building permits by August 4*, you may want to initiate a request to extend your redevelopment permit as soon as possible. The Redevelopment Agency is looking forward to constmction of the subject project. If you have any questions regarding your project approvals or processing of the building permits, please feel free to contact my office at (760) 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Febmary 7, 1997 JOHN & BILL SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - PINE AVENUE MIXED-USE PROJECT Dear John and Bill: Enclosed please find copies of the resolutions which have been approved for the proposed mixed-use project on Pine Avenue. These resolutions include the conditions of approval for the proposed project. Your next step is to obtain the appropriate building permits to constmct the project. Please read the approving resolutions carefully because there are several actions you must take to satisfy the various conditions of approval for the proposed project. The conditions imposed on the project by the Design Review Board were accepted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission in their approval of the project on Febmary 4, 1997. If you have any comments or questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ Cfltv of Caflsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department October 9, 1996 TO: DESIGN REVIEV^ BOARD FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 16,1996 Enclosed is the agenda packet and related supplemental staff report for the Schilling Mixed Use Project. The continued public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 1996 at 5:00pm in the City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission does not have a meeting on October 16*. So, for the subject meeting the Board will not have the time pressures normally associated with the Design Review Board meetings. The Board will have full opportunity to discuss any issues or concems members may have about the project with staff and the applicant. Staff hopes, however, that the Board's concems and issues were adequately addressed in the attached staff report. I will be on vacafion for two weeks beginning October 11, 1996. Evan will be presenfing the revised report to the Board and other staff members will be present on October 16* to answer questions and provide information. Please contact Evan directly if you have any questions or will need additional informafion presented at the meeting. For information purposes. Chairperson Welshons requested that each member receive a copy of a map of the Village Redevelopment Area which outlines the boundaries of the Coastal Zone as well. Attached is a copy of the requested map. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ® Figure 5 provides two maps which indicate the coastal zone boundaries for the Village Redevelopment Area. The shaded area indicates the coastal zone. All non-exempt developmenl on properties within the Coastal Zone will require approval of a coastal development permit. kS'iIdari J"^^^ Redevelopment Area Boundaries and Coastal Zone Figure 5. Village Redevelopment Area Boundaries, Land Use District Boundaries and Coastal Zone Boundaries (shaded area). 3-^. October 7, 1996 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18,1996 The Design Review Board is scheduled to meet every l^t and 3^^ Wednesday just prior to the Planning Commission from Spm to 6pm. Due to time constraints, staff takes special care in preparing the project staff report for the Board to review prior to the meeting. This staff report is very comprehensive and includes all information that staff believes is necessary and appropriate in order for the Board to be able to take action on any given project. Every effort is made to forward the staff report to the Board at least one week prior to the meeting. If for some reason we are not able to get the report to the Board one week prior to the meeting, we, at a minimum, make sure that the Board members have received their reports by the Saturday prior to the meeting. Staff does not currently meet with the Board members in "briefings" prior to the meeting. However, we ask the Board members to contact staff if they have any questions or need additional information and indicate that we are willing to meet with them, if necessary. On September 18,1996, the Schilling Mixed Use Project was scheduled to be presented to the Design Review Board for consideration. For this project, the Board members received their packets on Saturday, September 14^^, Although the timing of the report distribution was not ideal, the Board was still given more than adequate time to review the subject staff report for a single project. Based on the discussion at the meeting, it was apparent that all Board members had the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including Larry Scheer who is a very recent appointment. Staff received no indication from the Board members that they had any problems with the project and that they would require additional information at the meeting. It is our understanding that a comment was recently made by a member of the public to a City Council member that the Design Review Board meeting of September 18^^ was an "embarrassing disaster". Although staff would agree that the meeting was frustrating, we would also say that the noted comment was both melodramatic and unwarranted. The Board was reviewing a unique project with unique features which resulted in questions and some concems. The attached supplemental staff report details the questions that were raised during the hearing and staffs response to them. From a staff perspective, the primary problem with the subject meeting was related to the fact that Chairperson Welshons asked a question about residential density towards the end of the meeting time which could not be adequately answered by staff in the amount of time remaining for the meeting. It should also be noted that this one agenda item did not commence until well after 5:00pm. Staff initially had some difficulty in understanding and clarifying Chairperson Welshons' concern/issue and then there was confiision among staff as to what the appropriate answer was to her question. Due to the time pressures. Chairperson Welshons felt that it was more appropriate to continue the public hearing rather than give staff additional time to discuss the question and properly answer it. For an applicant perspective, Staff contacted Robert Richardson, architect for the Schilling Mixed Use Project. Per Mr. Richardson, the Board was asking very simple questions which had very simple answers until Chairperson Welshons made her comments. Mr. Richardson felt that Chairperson Welshons raised DRB Meeting October 7, 1996 Page 2 a very major planning issue towards the end of the meeting. He felt that Chairperson Welshons should have taken steps to raise the density issue earlier rather than waiting until the end of the meeting because her issue could "kill" the project. He felt that it was inappropriate to let the meeting go along with such simple quesfions and then "drop a big bomb" at the end. From his perspective, he said that it looked like "Ms. Welshons was going after Planning and Redevelopmenf. It should be noted that Mr. Richardson shared these comments with staff in confidence. He does not want his comments to hurt his applicant's chances for getting the project approved. Mr. Richardson said that the Schillings want to do something good for the community and feel that they can make a difference with their project. So, he wants to help them obtain approval for the project. He said that the Schillings were at first "devastated" by the Board's behavior, but after speaking to staff following the meeting, they felt better because they were assured that staff did have answers to the question raised by Ms. Welshons and felt that the issue would be resolved at the next meeting on October 16, 1996. Also for perspective, it is important to remember that the "big" issue here is a recommended increase of density of .89 units for this mixed use project. Regardless of interpretations of rules about density, staff does not believe this matter deserves the attention it has received. Based on what happened, staff believes that the Board members may have a more fimdamental bias against mixed use projects and are straining to find faults with this type of project. Staff is very familiar with being placed on the defensive as a result of Chairperson Welshons questions and try to prepare for her inquiries. The general public or the applicant, however, is not familiar with this situation and may consequently be unsettled by the behavior of the Board. As a general rule. Chairperson Welshons does not share her concems or issues on a project with staff prior to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission meetings. So, staff simply needs to be prepared for any issue or question. Unfortunately, on September I staff was not completely prepared to answer Ms. Welshons questions and the meeting "broke down" at that point. In an effort to improve the Design Review Board meetings in the future. Redevelopment Staff will take the following actions: 1. Better coordinate staff review of redevelopment projects and ensure that staff members attending the DRB meetings are able to address the various issues addressed in the staff report. This will include better coordination between Redevelopment, the City Attomey's Office, Planning and Engineering Departments. 2. Work more closely with the Design Preview Board members in an effort to encourage them to share their concems and issues with Staff prior to the meetings so that we will be better prepared to respond. Also, hand-deliver packets rather than relying on the mail. 3. Process a change in meeting day and time to allow for more time to discuss projects and related questions and concems. It is anticipated that we will begin a new meeting schedule as of January 1, 1997. DRB Meeting October 7, 1996 Page 3 As the City Manager indicated in his E-Mail message, we do have room to improve and we will attempt to do so. We also think, however, that it is inappropriate to readily accept the type of misleading comments that were used to describe the subject meeting and immediately translate the matter into a need for staff to improve. EVAN E. BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director ^^^^^^ 1-3 i ^'^>i I.^1 RICHARDSON - RINGER October 1, 1996 City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt Street, Ste B Carisbad, CA 92008-2389 Attn: Debbie Fountain Re: Schilling Mixed Use Pine Street, RP-95-05 Dear Debbie, As discussed, we have prepared the following responses to the concems and comments expressed at the Design Review Board hearing of September 18, 1996. A. Parking Lot/vehicle exiting on to Tyler Street Response: This design layout was coordinated and modified under the direction of the City Engineering Department. Due to visual sight lines: the trash enclosure was relocated to the Roosevelt end of the site and the South West comer of the building was cut back to provide adequate visual control for exiting vehicles. B. Trash Enclosure located along Roosevelt Street. Response: Under the direction of City Engineer Department, the trash enclosure was relocated due to sight lines off of Tyler Street. The proposed location has been selected for ease of access for the trash company servicing the property. To screen the trash enclosure from Roosevelt we have proposed decorative masonry walls and a landscape planter area screening it from Roosevelt Street. C. Noise & Fire separation between garage/workshop from the residential unit. Response: One hour fire rated floors/ceilings/ walls shall be constmcted separating the two types of occupancies as required by the Uniform Building Code. Noise 2802 STATE STREET, STE C, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TEL (619)434-8400 FAX (619)434-8493 Control must meet minimum Sound Transmission Standards (STC) as well as Impact Insulation (IIC) requirements. The project will also use resilient sound channels and light weight concrete on the floor/ceiling assemblies between the garage/workshop and the residential units to reduce sound transmission between spaces. D. Security and Lighting in parking lot. Response: Two fi*ee standing parking light poles with shields shall be installed in the lot. Additional lighting shall be provided by down lights located in the soffit on the South side of the proposed building. Security for the residential units shall be controlled at the street level by providing lockable wrought iron gates and security lighting at both the South and North entry to the stair/mailbox center alcove. E. Street vacation along Pine Street. Response: The City Engineer Department suggested the Owner pursue the street vacation because the current right of way is not required for the final street section per the master plan. Note: Enriched paving and landscape is being proposed which compliments the City master plan. F. Quality of workshop and garage roll-up doors. Response: The roll-up doors shall be all matching. They will be sectional raised panel roll-up doors with glass lights. They will not be an "industrial" metal roll-up door. They shall be residential in scale and the quality is to match the architectural treatment of the building. G. Parking Signage. Response: Signage can be providing that indicates "additional parking in rear". It will be wall mounted on the Roosevelt Street side of the building. In conclusion, we would like to note this project has been a long term commitment of our client. He has worked "hand in hand" with the Redevelopment Agency for over one year. The "mixed use" proposal is unique to Carlsbad but is commonly found in many successful redevelopment areas in the state. The quality of the design, architecture and materials fit well with the City's ultimate goals for the community. Thank You, Robert G. Richardson III President 25 September 1996 SEP DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 RE: JOSEPH AND MARIETTA MARTIN LETTER DATED 11 SEPTEMBER 1996 REGARDING SCHILLING MIXED USE - COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 PINE STREET GENTLEMEN: We recently saw the letter written by the Martin's in regards to Mr. Schilling's project on Pine Street. As long-time residents of Carlsbad and long time business and property owners on Roosevelt Street, we fail to see the reason or rationale for the Martin's concern. Mr. Schilling's pro- ject would certainly enhance an area that has long been neglected and left to deteriorate. The proliferation of automotive type businesses, as well as other toxic producing type businesses are what is ruining the appearance and quality of the neighborhood. We have been in this area over 50 years and for the first time attention has been focused on this area. Many of the older generation wanted to retain the residential, historical and cultural heritage of the area. BUT because of the misinfor- mation and misrepresentations that has surfaced recently, many of the residents have become intimidated and made to feel afraid We cannot understand the Martin's concern now. Why was the con- cern not evident 28 years ago, when they bought their property and founded their automotive and auto wrecking and dismantling business? The area was then residential and many of the residents still lived there. Perhaps the residents should have been more vocal, but they failed to speak up and voice their concerns. We would certainly like to see something more conducive to what the General Plan specifies. Mr. Schilling's project certainly fits the bill and would be a tremendous improvement to the area We need to have more quality businesses, the type that will contribute to the quality of life for the community and that will discourage loitering of young adults on the street corners and outside of the stores that are open until the late hours of the evening. Our community needs job opportunities and homes for the young people in the area, something that will make them feel proud of their community and their heritage. We feel that Mr. Schillings project is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your consideration Mrs. Connie Trejo September 19, 1996 TO: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SENIOR PLANNER - B. HUNTER SENIOR PLANNER - C. DECERBO FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, FOUNTAIN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA In preparation for our team meeting on September 25, 1996 at 8:00am to discuss residential density within the Village Redevelopment Area, the following report has been prepared for your review prior to our discussion. Background On September 18, 1996, the Schilling Mixed Use Project was presented to the Design Review Board for consideration. Chairman Welshons raised a question and voiced her concem over the fact that staff is recommending a density bonus of one (1) residential unit for the subject project. Chairman Welshons felt that staff was making a "stretch" by granting a density bonus for a project so small. The main concem appeared to be that the Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 21.86) is only applicable to projects which have 5 or more units, and would not apply to a 3 or 4 unit project as proposed. The purpose of this report is to discuss density increases for the Village Redevelopment Area, more specifically how they should be processed. Village Master Plan and Design Manual The Village Master Plan states the following in reference to residential density: "The applicable General Plan residential density designation shall be determined for each project based upon compatibility findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code." "The Village Redevelopment Area is exempt from Council Policy No. 43 which regulates and/or prioritizes the use of excess dwelling units throughout the City." My first draft of the staff report presented a very simple picture for the density issue. It simply stated that the GMCP for the site was 3.11, or 4 total (rounded up). The project, therefore, did not exceed the GMCP and was consistent with the Village Master Plan in providing for 4 units. However, this argument did not pass the "legal" or "how we do things" tests. So, I went to Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and revised the staff report. Chapter 21.86 - Residential Densitv Bonus or In-Lieu Incentives Chapter 21.86 states that "The City shall grant either a density bonus and at least one additional incentive, as set forth in Section 21.86.060( c), or in-lieu incentives of equivalent financial value, as set forth in Section 21.86.060( c) to an applicant or developer of a housing development of at least five units, who agrees to constmct 1) a minimum of 20% of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to low-income households; or 2) a minimum of 10% percent of the total units of the housing development as restricted and affordable to very low income households; or 3) a minimum of 50% of the total units of the housing development as restricted to qualified (senior) residents." In considering the above statement, I did not interpret it to mean that a small 3 or 4 unit project is precluded from receiving a density bonus. I interpreted the ordinance section to mean that if a developer proposes to build at least 5 units that he/she is entitled to the density bonus if they provide the required minimum number of affordable housing units. I assumed that the ordinance allowed the City/Agency, but did not require us, to grant a density bonus for smaller projects if the minimum affordable housing units were provided. Under the Density Bonus Ordinance, the proposed Schilling project would receive a density bonus for 1 unit. If the assumption is correct that an RMH density designation is appropriate for the site, the GMCP for the site is 3.11. So, the applicant can build 3 imits on the subject site. With the 1 unit density bonus, the applicant can build the desired 4 units. The applicant offered to restrict all of the units for affordable housing purposes. However, due to the sensitivity to affordable housing within the Barrio Area, staff requested that they only restrict one of the units which would meet their inclusionary housing requirement and the intent of the density bonus law. Under this ordinance, I was proposing that the additional unit and an incentive of a reduced parking standard be granted to the applicant. The parking requirement for the project is 20 spaces with the application of the commercial/retail and residential parking standards. I was proposing that the project be required to provide for only 17 parking spaces - 13 on the site and 4 through payment of an In-Lieu Parking Fee. Attached is a copy of my discussion on the density bonus, inclusionary requirement and parking from the Design Review Board Staff report for further detail on this issue. Chapter 21.53 - Uses Generallv Chapter 21.53 refers to the requirement to process a Site Development Plan for an affordable housing project of any size. The Schilling Project has only one affordable housing unit and I assumed that the Redevelopment Plans would satisfy the Site Development Plan requirement. Based on my review of the ordinance, I could not find language which allows a density increase but the ordinance does say that the Site Development Plan may allow less restrictive development standards, which I assume would include a reduced parking standard. Since the ordinance did not seem to provide the authorization for granting a density increase, I decided to rely on the Density Bonus Ordinance to allow the additional unit. Subsequent to the Design Review Board meeting, I leamed that the City has been allowing density increases through the General Plan language rather than Chapter 21.53. It is my understanding that, per the General Plan, an increase in density can be granted through the Site Development Plan approval process. I guess this may have been the better method for approaching the density issue for the Schilling Project. I still feel, however, that the Density Bonus Ordinance seems to provide more direct authorization for granting the additional residential unit and the reduced parking as a related incentive. Questions/Issues r The above information leads me to the following questions or issues: ^ ^ tooccfl ^\ 1 • Were the calculations on density correct within the staff report? If not, what should CAP ^.V^^^V^ ^ they be? 3 iL - rv3 rouAclm^ op a{\ooocdl onder cif^M Ci rcc>r7isf<a/^re^ ^i-^2i5^ CoO general pinc^. pr-ae4tce- • V^^QA W7 ^' ^^^^i^y ^^^^^ ^^^i^^^^ to GMCP MD /-j^' \^ smaller than 5 units? If so, which is the best method to use for approving density <3.pply^i-6^ ^^^^><3^ increases in the Village Redevelopment Area - Density Bonus or the Site fe" p^^*^*^ Development Plan/General Plan? ^163 SrrKaU<rr-^^Y^n ^ DV<3^ ^ Cv-Vw doers jV!^^ 3- What does it mean in practical terms when we say that Policy 43 does not apply to the 1^ U>3V>V ?t>^^^\W^^^ redevelopment area? Meedl 4o anaencl yiWa^^ D?SigA Manoai » rro\)vi\<r_ ^ cy Mu3+ hav«c e.<ccss on/Is m bank, bo t pnon+i cs den'-)- ^ppl^V "^cAti VHH 4. Do we all agree that the proposed density for the Schilling site is acceptable and V^OOS supportable by staff? ^ OIOITS dkl - Attachments: 1. Copy of Pages 5-8 from DRB Staff Report dated September 18, 1996 <^ ^^ '^ 2. Copy of Chapter 21.86 ofCarlsbad Municipal Code 3. Copy of Chapter 21. 53 of Carlsbad Municipal Code 4. Excerpt from Village Master Plan and Design Manual - Residential Density 5. Copy of section from recent Planning Staff Report on Carrillo Ranch - Density Increase/General Plan RP 95-05 September 18,1996 Page 5 project meets the "Universal Standards". A. General Plan: The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various elements of the General Plan. One of the goals of the City for the Village Redevelopment Area is to create a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including residential, offices, restaurants and specialty retail shops. The proposed mixed use project will provide for additional residential to support other existing uses within the Village. The project is located within easy walking distance of Village restaurants, specialty retail shops and the Commuter Rail Station. In addition, the project provides for an opportunity for residents to live and work at a single location which helps to create a very distinct identity for the Village as an area where a person can live, work and shop. The General Plan references the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as the implementing tool for the General and Redevelopment Plans. If the project is consistent with the Master Plan and Design Manual, it will also be consistent with the General Plan. B. Residential Density: Properties within the Village Redevelopment Area do not have assigned residenfial density designations. Per the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the applicable General Plan residential density designation is to be determined for each project based upon compatibility findings with the surrounding area. Properties located within the general proximity of the site, but outside the Redevelopment Area, have a General Plan residential density designation of RMH (Medium-High Residenfial). There are also several existing residential rental complexes with medium-high density within close proximity to the proposed project and located inside the boundaries ofthe Village Redevelopment Area as well as a number of single family homes, including one which is immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. Due to the mix of residenfial densities existing in the area and the fact that the RMH general plan designafion is applicable to other properties within the immediate area, staff is recommending a RMH General Plan Designation for the subject property. The RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the proposed mixed use project is .27 acres. With 4 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 14.8 dwelling units per acre which is within the RMH density range (8 to 15 units) but above the growth management control point of 11.5. Application of the GMCP (11.5 X .27) to the site results in permitted dwelling units equal to 3.11. The project proposes 4 one bedroom units, which exceeds the GMCP by 1 unit. RP 95-05 September 18,1996 Page 6 Per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point for the applicable density designafion unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code (and appropriate findings are made per Chapter 21.90). In general, the findings which must be made to exceed the growth management control point are 1) assurances that adequate public facilifies are provided to compensate for the increase in density; 2) that the granfing of the increase will not result in the northwest quadrant exceeding its housing cap; and 3) all required public facilities will be constructed or guaranteed to be constructed concurrently to meet the need created by this development. Design Review Board Resolufion No. 252 sets forth the formal findings which are required to exceed the Growth Management Control Point. Per the Municipal Code, a 25% density bonus, and one additional incentive, shall be granted to projects which are providing a total of 5 units or more and where the developer has agreed to restrict 20% of the units for affordable housing purposes. The subject project is very small, only 4 units are proposed. The developer has agreed to restrict one unit (25%) for affordable housing purposes for a low income household. In determining the number of density bonus units to be granted to the project, the maximum allowable residenfial yield forthe site (3.11) is mulfiplied by .25. Based on this formula, the subject project may be granted one (1) density bonus unit (3.11 X .25 = .78, which is rounded up to 1). To determine the number of units which must be reserved for affordable housing, the maximum allowable residenfial yield for the site (3.11) is mulfiplied by .20, which amounts to .62 or 1 when rounded up. With approval of DRB Resolution No. 252, the Board will recommend approval of the 25% density bonus of one housing unit for the project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission with the requirement for the Developer to enter into a density bonus housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad to deed-restrict one (1) (20%) of the residential units for affordable housing purposes for low income a household. The approval of Resolution No. 252 approves the project with a reduced parking standard for the enfire mixed use project; this modificafion of the parking standard shall serve as the addifional incentive required by Chapter 21.86 for granfing a density bonus with the provision of affordable housing. Chapter 21.86, Secfion 21.86.060(1) ofthe Municipal Code specifically allows for the reduction ofthe parking standard as an acceptable "addifional incentive" for the provision of affordable housing. C. Inclusionary Housing Requirements: Per Redevelopment Law, 15% ofthe private housing units constructed within the boundaries of the Village Redevelopment Area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less than 40% (or 6% ofthe total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per RP 95-05 September 18,1996 Page? City Ordinance, 15% ofthe total housing units must be affordable to low income households. Developers of housing within the Village Redevelopment Area must comply with both the Redevelopment Law and the City Ordinance in terms of the Inclusionary Housing Requirements. To satisfy both the Redevelopment Law and the City Ordinance, the applicant may pay an in-lieu fee rather than construct or othen^/ise provide the affordable housing units. However, since the project needs a density bonus of one (1) unit, the applicant has agreed to enter into an affordable housing/density bonus agreement to deed restrict one (1) unit within the project for the purposes of providing housing which is affordable to a low income household for a period of at least thirty (30) years. With the provision of one (1) unit for affordable housing purposes, the project will meet its Inclusionary Housing requirements. D. Parking: The project is required to provide off street parking per the standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. With a commercial land use designafion, the workshop space is parked at a commercial retail rafio (1:300), the total parking requirement for the subject project is twenty (20) spaces, calculated as shown in the chart below: Land Use/Square Footage Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Residential - 4 one bedroom units 2 parking spaces per unit, or 8 units 4 single car enclosed garages and 4 uncovered spaces on site. Retail - 1537 Square Feet 1 space per 300 square feet, or 5.12 spaces 5 uncovered spaces provided on site. Workshop Space -1851 Square Feet 1 space per 300 square feet, or 6.17 spaces Provided within public paikiag off site; pay parking in-lieu fee. Total 19.29 or 20 spaces 13 spaces provided on site; propose to pay fee for 7 spaces. As stated previously, staff is recommending that the workshop space be restricted in that it must be used in conjunction with an on-site retail suite; the space can't be leased to a separate, unrelated business. Due to the uniqueness ofthe project and to compensate forthis proposed restriction as well as to provide an "additional incentive" for the purposes of developing a unit on the site which will be restricted for affordable housing purposes, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board recommend approval of a modified parking requirement for the workshop space which will assist the entire project, which includes an affordable housing unit, to be financially feasible. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual references the Carlsbad Municipal Code as the applicable document to regulate on issues/standards not covered In the Manual. Neither the Master Plan nor the Municipal Code have an actual parking standard for workshop space. In this situation, the Municipal Code requires the use of the most comparable parking standard. The most comparable is the commercial or RP 95-05 September 18,1996 Page 8 retail parking requirement (1:300). Staff is, however, recommending that the Design Review Board recommend approval of a "hybrid" parking requirement for the workshop space of 1 space per 650 square feet of gross floor space, which is developed by averaging a 50% retail (1:300) and 50% warehouse (1:1000) standard. Staff believes that it can be safely assumed that at least fifty percent (50%) of the workshop space will be used for storing supplies for the workshop and warehousing finished products. Therefore, we believe that the "hybrid" parking standard is appropriate for the site and the project. It will result in a parking requirement for the project of 8 spaces for the residential, 6 spaces for the retail and 3 spaces for the workshop space, which amounts to 17 spaces total. This would result in a parking reduction of 3 spaces, which provides an "additional incentive" for the purposes of affordable housing development. As stated previously, the applicant will provide a total of 13 spaces on the site of the project. Also perthe Parking In-Lieu Program opfion oufiined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the applicant is eligible to pay a fee for up to 25% ofthe on- site parking requirement, which amounts to 4.25 or 5 spaces. With the provision of 13 parking spaces on the site and the payment of a Parking In-Lieu Fee for 4 spaces, the applicant will be able to satisfy the modified parking requirements for the subject project. It should be noted, however, that the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission has not yet approved a resolufion which would fully implement the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the fee. A condition has been placed on the project requiring that the applicant pay the appropriate fee prior to obtaining a building permit for the subject project. If, for any reason, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission does not implement the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and set the applicable fee, the applicant shall be required to obtain an amendment to the subject permit, revising the parking plan to add on-site parking and/or to reduce the total amount of commercial/residenfial space within the project. Ifthe project is revised, it will be returned to the Design Review Board for additional consideration. E. Building Coverage, Height and Setbacks: These standards are established individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The Universal Standards secfion ofthe Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides informafion on variances and criteria to be used in setting the standards for individual projects when a range is set forth for the subject standard. The details ofthe subject standards are described below. "Individual" development standards set forth specifically for new development within Land Use District 5 are as follows: September 13, 1996 JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT, PINE STREET, RP 95-05 Dear John: Enclosed please find a copy of the staff report for the project you have proposed for Pine Street, between Tyler and Roosevelt Streets. I apologize for the fact that you have not been given much time to review the staff report and the conditions proposed for the project. Generally, all of the conditions should be of no surprise to you, except for one condition requiring the lease of the workshop space together with the retail space. Please review the staff report and related resolutions very closely. The staff report will share with you the justification for requiring the lease of the workshop space together with the retail suites. 1 did note within the report that you, as the applicant, are not supportive of the restriction on the lease of the workshop space. You may discuss this issue directly with the Design Reivew Board, if so desired. The Board has the ability to modify, or delete, any conditions proposed by staff for the project. The project has been scheduled as a public hearing before the Design Review Board on September 18, 1996 in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. The meeting begins at 5:00pm and must end by 6:00pm; the DRB meets for an hour before the Planning Commission. Since we know that there is at least one property owner (Martins, 3173 Roosevelt Street) who opposes the residential component of the project, it is important that you attend the meeting to discuss the details of the project and respond to any questions raised by the Board. If you have any comments or questions regarding the staff report or the Design Review Board hearing, please contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Robert Richardson, Architect <* itv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department September 16,1996 JOSEPH MARTIN MARIETTA MARTIN 2604 "B" EL CAMINO REAL #334 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT - 507 PINE STREET Dear M/M Martin: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1996 regarding the Schilling Mixed Use Project proposed for 507 Pine Street. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to the Design Review Board members for their consideration. For your information, a copy of the staff report related to the Schilling Mixed Use Project is enclosed for your review. As a note, the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual which became effective on January 12, 1996 does provisionally allow for mixed use projects (commercial and residential) on properties which are located on the east side of Tyler Street and both sides of Roosevelt Street, fi'om Oak Avenue to Walnut. The staff report will provide you with the specific details of the project and the recoinmended conditions for the project. A copy of your letter will also be forwarded to the applicant to give him an opportunity to address your concems at the Design Review Board meeting. If you have any additional comments or questions regarding the project, you may contact my office directly at 434-2935. Also, you are encouraged to attend the Design Review Board meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 1996 at 5:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Design Review Board Members 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ® Date: 28 August 1996 To: Debbie Fountain From: Principal Building Inspector Re: RP 95-05 Although the 8 V2 by 11 plans were difficult to read, I see no great hurdles from the Building Code or State Disabled Access requirements. It looks like there's some type of roof projection over the sidewalk along Roosevelt Street. This may give Engineering cause for concern. It appears the gas meter location does not comply with SDG&E requirements for meter locations in alcoves (attached). I suggest the architect move the meters to a locafion outside the building footprint. OthenA/ise I have no comments or observations. PATRICK KELLEY Principal Building Inspector attachment • Page 1 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department August 1, 1996 JOHN & BILL SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - PINE STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT Dear John and Bill: This correspondence is forwarded to you to provide a status report on your major redevelopment project (RP 95-05) proposed for Pine Street, between Tyler and Roosevelt Streets. The following chronology of major events which have occurred, or will occur, are provided below for your information: • The project permit application was deemed complete on April 2, 1996 with an indication that parking, garage sizes and various Engineering issues required resolution prior to further processing of the project. • All project issues, as identified in April, were resolved as of June 26, 1996 and project plans were appropriately revised by the project architect. • In July, 1996, the Planning Department worked on completing the environmental review documents for the project and preparing the notices required to open the 30 day public review and comment period on the environmental documents. • In August, 1996, the Redevelopment Department will prepare the necessary reports for the Design Review Board recommending approval of the project. Staff will also prepare the notices required to hold a public hearing on the project in September, 1996. • At this time, it is anticipated that the public hearing before the Design Review Board will be held on either September 4 or September 11, 1996. Following the DRB hearing, the project will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council) for final action. If the DRB does not continue their public hearing on the item, the project should be ready for presentation to the Commission by October 1 or October 8, 1996. Please note that the dates for public hearings are tentative. Due to possible scheduling conflicts and other unknown factors, the public hearing dates may be revised. I will attempt to keep you updated on the progress towards meeting the hearing dates noted above. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. 8 • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 J. & B. Schilling August 1, 1996 Page 2 At this time, it would be appropriate for your architect to begin preparation of the fiill size color site plan, landscaping plan and building elevations for presentation to the Design Review Board. A full size materials board, which includes samples of the materials to be used on the proposed building, would also be helpful for the presentation to the Board. As a note on the project, one of the conditions of approval will require that you participate in the new Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Your proposed project requires a total of 18 on-site parking spaces. You have proposed to provide only 13 parking spaces on the site. Per the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual effective as of January 12,1996, you are eligible to pay a fee for up to 25% of the on-site parking requirement; this is equal to 4.5 or 5 total spaces. Staff will recommend that the project be allowed to provide 13 spaces on site and pay a fee to "buy out" of 5 spaces; this action will allow you to meet the on-site parking requirement for your project as proposed. We will require that the full amount of the parking fee be paid prior to, or concurrent with, issuance of the building permit for the project. It is important to note that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission must execute a resolution approving implementation of the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program hefore you will be able to participate in the program. Prior to the Commission taking action on the implementing resolution, a study must be completed which 1) indicates that there is adequate public parking in the Village to implement the program and 2) recommends establishment of the in-lieu fee at a given amount. Redevelopment Staff is currently working v^th a consultant to complete the required study. It is anticipated that the study will be complete by the end of August, 1996. At this point in time, we do not know at what amount the In-Lieu Fee will be set or when the Commission will be able to take action to implement the parking fee program. So, there will remain some uncertainty as we process your project for approval. If you are concemed about the possibility that the Parking In-Lieu Fee may not be implemented in a time firame which meets your demand for project constmction, you may wish to consider a revision to your project which will reduce the size of the project in order to meet your entire parking requirement on site. Please let me know as soon as possible if you make the decision to revise your project. Otherwise, I will proceed to process your project as currently proposed. If you have any comments or questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Robert Richardson, Kamak July 22, 1996 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, REDEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER HALL REGARDING SCHILLING PROJECT As requested by the Community Development Director, the following information is provided to you as a status report on the Schilling project proposed for Pine Street, between Tyler and Roosevelt Streets: • The project application was deemed complete on April 2, 1996; parking , garage sizes and various engineering issues remained to be resolved through further discussions with the applicant. • All project issues resolved as of June 26,1996. • Planning Department is currentiy completely the environmental review documentation required for project approval. A thirty day environmental review and comment period will begin by the end of July, 1996. • Anticipated Design Review Board Public Hearing Date: September 4, 1996. • Anticipated Housing and Redevelopment Commission Public Hearing Date: last meeting in September or first meeting in October, 1996. For additional and more detailed information on the processing of the Schilling project(s), the attached chart reflects the chronology of events related to the proposed project(s) submitted by Bill and John Schilling. If you need additional information on the Schilling project or the processing, please contact my office at X2935. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Director SCHILLING PROJECT The following provides a chronology of events which have occurred to date as related to the Schilling project proposed for a vacant piece of property on the corner of Pine and Roosevelt Street, between Tyler and Roosevelt Street: January, 1993 Bill Schilling submitted a project for preliminary review. This project was for a 5000 sq.ft, 2 story, mixed use building. The proposal was to provide a 4 bay automotive repair station at the first floor and a 1650 sq.ft apartment on the second floor. January 29, 1993 and Febmary 4, 1993 Planning, Redevelopment & Engineering Staff completed preliminary review of the proposed project. Febmary 17, 1993 Planning forwarded letter to B. Schilling regarding staffs comments on the proposed project. Staff provided comments on compliance with standards. Redevelopment was not supportive of the proposed use. No formal application was submitted for this first proposal. August, 1995 B. Schilling and his architect, Ron Alvarez, presented a new conceptual plan for a different project on the same site to Housing and Redevelopment. This project included retail and workshop space on the first floor and 2 apartments on the second floor. Redevelopment commented that the design of the building needed a lot of work. Feedback was provided from staff as to design features which needed attention. September/October/November, 1995 B. Schilling hired a new architect to work on the new proposed project. Robert Richardson, Karnack & Associates, met with staff to discuss the desired design features for the project and the development standards. December 20, 1995 John Schilling (Bill's son) and R.Richardson submitted formal application for a major redevelopment permit for a new project. The project was revised in building design and slightly in use to include 4 apartments on the second floor and 4 retail & workshop spaces on the first floor. January 18, 1996 A letter was forwarded to J. Schilling indicating that the application was incomplete. A list of items needed to complete application and an issue list was forwarded to J. Schilling. Febmary/March, 1996 Schillings worked with architect to address design and development standSiFissues and prepare revised set of plans for submittal. March 7, 1996 Formal application was resubmitted for review by staff. April 2, 1996 Letter forwarded to J. Schilling indicating that the application had been deemed complete and was ready for further processing. Engineering and parking issues needed to be resolved. April 17, 1996 Redevelopment requested conditions of approval from the Engineering and Planning Departments. Parking remains an issue to be resolved for the project, based on information provided by applicant. April 18, 1996 Conditions for approval of project received from Water Department. April 24, 1996 Memo received from Planning Department recommending denial because project does not meet parking requirements and garages are not adequately sized. Redevelopment to work to try and resolve parking problem. Architect to discuss garage sizes direcdy with Planning. June 6, 1996 Memo received from Engineering Department recommending approval of project with specified conditions. All Engineering issues had been resolved. Parking remaining issue to be resolved. Redevelopment staff working to fmd a resolution to parking issue. June 26, 1996 Redevelopment staff discovered that an error was made on the site plan submitted with the project application. The square footages for each of the proposed uses on the site were incorrect. With the appropriate corrections, the parking issue was resolved. To meet the parking requirement, the applicant will need to provide parking on site and also pay an in-lieu fee, once the program is implemented and the fee is set. June 28, 1996 Information forwarded to Planning Dept. requesting initiation of environmental review for the proposed project. Parking and garage sizes were resolved. No addifional issues. July 22, 1996 Planning completing environmental review documentation. Will notice for review and comment period by end of July, 1996. 30 day comment period. Redevelopment staff to begin preparation of staff report for September 4'*' DRB meeting. June 28,1996 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, PLANNING FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT RP 95-05 - PINE STREET/SCHILLING MIXED-USE PROJECT I believe the issues identified by Planning as reasons to deny the subject project have been resolved in a manner which results in a situation where the project can now be recommended for approval by staff The following information is provided to explain how the identified issues have been resolved and request your assistance to complete the necessary environmental review, if you agree that the issues identified by Planning have, in fact, been satisfactorily addressed. 1. Parking. As I mentioned in my E-Mail message, the architect had incorrectly summarized the square footage amounts for the retail and workshop space on the front page of the project plans. They have since corrected those numbers to reflect the numbers shown on the floor plans. Attached is the revised "project data" for the proposed project. The total retail is 1537. The total workshop space is 1851. With the 4 residential units, the retail and the workshop space, the total parking requirement is now 17.75 or 18 spaces total. This is based on using the manufacturing parking ratio for the workshop spaces as you recommended. Due to the shopkeeper nature of the project, the applicant has indicated that there will be no additional vehicles used which are specifically related to the workshop space; therefore, the portion of the manufacturing parking requirement which addresses this matter does not apply. So, I calculated the parking by dividing the total workshop space by 400. The applicant is eligible to pay a fee for up to 25% of the on-site parking requirement. This is equal to 4.5 or 5 total spaces. Since the proposed project provides for a total of 13 parking spaces on the site and can pay a fee to "buy out" of 5 spaces, the applicant has satisfied the parking requirement for the subject project in a manner which is consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual. 2. Garages. The issue was raised that the single car garages proposed for the project did not have the appropriate interior dimensions. It is my understanding that the applicant's architect spoke with you and explained that the proposed garages are 2 double car garages and provide parking for a total of 4 vehicles. The architect indicated to me that you agreed that the double car garages are adequately sized and that this issue has been resolved. A concem was expressed that the enclosed garages would more likely be used for storage or some other purpose rather than parking and that staff may want to consider requiring covered parking only, no garage doors. Due to the mixed use nature of this project. Redevelopment staff believes that it will be important for the residential units to have the "enclosed garage" amenity. The provision of a garage is often the deciding point for someone looking for a place to live, when all other factors are comparable. It is important that this project be successful. Therefore, to assist in this effort. Redevelopment Staff will support maintenance of the enclosed garages for use by the residents of the project because the applicant believes they are important for marketing purposes. If the resolutions described above are satisfactory to you, would you please initiate the environmental review process for this project and then forward appropriate planning conditions to my office? I would like to take this project to the DRB for a recommendation of approval on August 21,1996. If you have comments or questions regarding this memo, please contact me at X2935. Thanks for your help! Debbie Fountain PREPARED BY: ARCHITECT KARNAK ARCMITECTURE- PLANNfNC* fNC. 28€>2 STATE 6TRHET STE. C CARLSBAD, CA 92(2>0g. OLUNER SfTE DATA: JOMN SCMILLING OPN ENTERPRISES INC. P.O. BOX 411 CARLSBAD, CA '^7003 SURVEYS: BAKER LAND SURVEYS 1844 RWCxB AVE. CARLSBAD, CA S2<2>08 (6B; 129-6616 SERVICE PROVIDERS: SEUCR AND LUATER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL LUATER DISTRICT Byb0 EL CAMINO REAL CARLOAD, CA °aO0& (hW 438-2122 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 801 PINE AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 32(2?iZ>8 EXfSTlN.3 ZONE: „ EXfSTIN<S LAND USE: PROPOSED-LAND USE^ SUB AREA 4 C-l C-M VACANT SITE .RETAIL, UJORKSWOP, AND RESIDENTIAL SITE AREA BUILDING COVERAGE BUILDING AREA RETAIL. II,1S<2> -4168 SO. FT. SO. FT, UJORKSPACE- RESIDENTIAL GARAGES ^^3l so. FT. I^Sl so. FT. -2,311 SO. FT. .846 SO. FT. 1,211 SO. FT. LANDSCAPE. HARDSCAPE i5iZ>4 SO. FT. Ii2>82 SO. FT. 2&86 SO. FT LANDSCAPE ^586 PERCENTAGE "11180" OFFSITE LANDSCAPE si2 OFFSITE HARDSCAPE 133 PARKING PARKING REQUIRED RETAIL \:300 Sd FT. lUORKSWOP \:Ae>0 so. FT APARTMENT 2:UNIT 21.3 % SO. FT. SO, FT. b.A 4i^ 8 PARKING PROPOSED SPACES REOCifRED I8i2> SCMILLIKG COMPLEX SUBMITTAL TYPE: REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE ADDRESS: S01 PINE STREET CARLSBAD, OA 32008 AF^ 2O4-08I-J2>1 LEGAL DESCRiPTIONt LOTS IX "8, AND 13 IN BLOCK 3(, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THERE OF NO. S35 FILED IN THE COUNTT RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON MAY 2, 1888. HANDICAPPED r3'x 2r-1V REGULAR ('8'-6' x 2r-T;_ COVERED GARAGE (\0'-0* X 20'-6V 8 4 SPACES' 13 Post-ir Fax Note 7671 ''''''U lV^U "^'^ i Fa* » June 26, 1996 TO: ROBERT RICHARDSON, KARNACK FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PARKING FOR SCHILLING PROJECT I was getting ready to defend the "creative" parking requirement for the Schilling project in a meeting this aftemoon with the Planning Director and Community Development Director when I discovered that we may not have a problem but simply an error on the front page of the plans under "Project Data". Planning and Redevelopment initially both calculated the project's parking requirement according to the information provided in the "Project Data" summary. However, today, I was reviewing the floor plans and decided to add up the square footages noted for the workshop and retail spaces. The numbers I came up with are different than the numbers indicated on the front page of the plans. I have shown the numbers I came up with on the attached reduced copy of the first floor plan. If those numbers are correct as shown on the floor plan, we don't have a parking issue even if we park the workshop at the manufacturing ratio of 1:400. The total parking requirement would then be 13.59. We can have the Schillings pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee for 5 spaces and then they provide 13 spaces on site. If the numbers on the floor plan are not correct, then we have a parking issue. Before I go and try to defend a "creative" parking requirement, would you please verify that the numbers on the floor plan are correct in terms of square footages? If they are, in fact, correct, then I need you to revise the front page of plans, "Project Data". With this issue resolved, we can move on to scheduling the project for hearings. Please let me know as soon as possible what you determine to be the correct numbers. Thanks!! RETAIL 243.0 ta FT. RCTAH. mi aa PT. RETAI. tnj$ 90. FT. RETAIL mj9 $0. nr. WORK REST SHOP ROOM 40^ taFT. ) REST ROOM WORK SHOP Mt.1 ta FT. GARAQE 10«J saFT. QARAQE tarr. REST-ROOM na ta FT.I QARAQE 2ot J sa FT. -7^ ® © QA8 METERS \2'.0' RETAIL 2S11 to. FT. RETAIL 243.6 ta FT. WORK SHOP S88.1 ta FT. REST ROOM REST ROOM WORK SHOP 4«».0 ta FT. l3fe'-0' & ® 7^ 7 RRST FLOOR PLAN 1/8' •z-^'-l ill 4 ' /6D?-APf5- U/A -Sis S.-s-S -Per l?e-U;l 8 ^ q.63> -^^^^ JN^-o^o free # # F. 01 * * . ' - TRANSACTION REPORT * * JUN-26-96 WED 12:24 PM t t I * FOR: HOUSING 1. RED. 61 97202037 * * 1 * DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE * )j( I * JUN-26 1 2:22 PM 4348493 l'2r' 2 SEND OK * ^l/^\l/\i/\l/^l/^L'^l/^i/^^^l!'^L'^l/^L'^l/^^^^l^'^^^l/^ T'rTTTTT'T'TTT'r'r April 24, 1996 TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT FROM: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RP 95-05 - Schilling Complex The Planning Department has reviewed the Schilling Complex final submittal and RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the project due to the following: 1. Workshop areas should be parked at a manufacturing, rather than a warehouse, standard. There appears to be only the perceived parking shortage criteria as a basis for the warehouse suggestion, rather than a specific use that would meet the warehouse definifion. Manufacturing - One space/four hundred square feet of gross floor area plus one stall for each vehicle used in conjuncfion with the use. ^ 2. Mulfiple single car garages in one structure shall have interior dimensions of ^ ^ ^ twelve feet by twenty feet, exclusive of supporting columns. As a minimum, each . SSy^J? space shall be separated from the adjacent garage, floor to ceiling, by a <^6 permanent stud partition with one-half inch gypsum board on one side, where no ^ addifional fire protecfion is required (21.44.130(2) (C)). The single car garages ^^^^4/ identified on floor plan sheet A-2.0 have a width dimension less than or equal to sjf^ <^ ten feet. The Planning Department strongly supports the mixed use concept of residential and retail. While it is possible to hypothesize how in a perfect world this particular site arrangement could work, it is more likely the constraints of economics and living arrangements will conspire to construct a lesson in creafive avoidance of the ^ intent of the zoning ordinance. Per your department's recognifion, parking is an rp 4^^^ issue and there is no guarantee that the garaged spaces will be used for parking. ^(y^ ^ As often is the case, the garage becomes storage and/or workshop space. The ^ ^ difference between residential versus commercial workshop space may be too fine v!; ^^^^ ^^'^ comprehend. The concern is that we would not be able to <^M^ recognize the garages being used as addifional retail workshop space, even if that ^ ^ p was the case, and the project may degenerate into a commercial incubator ^J^r^ experience. While it is possible to condifion the project any number of ways, experience dictates that, unless crafted masterfully, all such condifioning does ^is change a planning problem to a code enforcement and redevelopment problem. Therefore, the Planning Department does not recommend approval of Ooi-^' this project as we understand it is being proposed today with the reduced parking standard and the in lieu fee program incenfive. While the provision of adequate parking on site will not preclude the above concern with potenfial misuse for economic gain, at least it will not exacerbate the problem. RP 95-05 - SCHILLING COMPLEX APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE 2 As the applicafion has been deemed complete by the Redevelopment Department on April 2, 1996, a determination regarding the nature of the environmental review must be completed by May 2, 1996. It is my belief that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project at this fime, but I need to know by that date what the project is, that is, a straight Redevelopment Permit with a new parking standard for retail/workshop or a Redevelopment Permit with an exception (variance) for the parking. psn^\4v^ -for no4 Compl^r^iO::^ BnvircnmcryU-l 10L( sla he. BRIAN HUNTER BH:bk iX^^ j Can do ajn^)rr)c . Onon pKc|. (<33oe r<^so|\jedy Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department April 2, 1996 JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - PINE STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate city departments, have reviewed your Redevelopment Permit application No. RP 95-05, as to its completeness for processing. The application has now been deemed complete, as submitted. However, there are some issues which remain which must be resolved before processing can confinue on your applicafion. Attached is a list of Engineering issues related to the plans resubmitted to the Housinq and Redevelopment Office. This issue list from Engineering indicates that some corrections are needed to the plans in order to complete processing of the project. Once you have completed the corrections or addressed the Issues related to the Engineering Department's concerns, please resubmit your final plans for further processing. Initially, you may submit only five (5) copies of your revised plans. Upon approval by staff, we will request an additional five (5) copies for presentafion to the Design Review Board. Please contact my office at 434-2935 if you have any quesfions or wish to set up a meefing to discuss the application. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Gary Wayne Bob Wojcik Data Entry Bobbie Hoder File Copy Brian Hunter Ken Quon 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ March 27, 1996 TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST FROM: Associate Engineer Quon PROJECT ISSUES STATEMENT - PINE STREET PROJECT, RP 95-05 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the resubmitted project application for completeness and/or engineering issues. The project application is now or was previously found complete forthe purpose of continued engineering review. The project application does contain some engineering issues or concerns which remain to be resolved by the applicant. All engineering issues should be fully resolved or addressed priorto resubmitting the project for our review. The outstanding engineering issues or concerns are as follows: 1. The sum of the different Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes is incorrect. 2. City records show that the existing street cross section for Roosevelt Street consists of the following widths: Centeriine to face of curb 24' wide travel way Face of curb to edge of sidewalk 11' wide parkway Edge of sidewalk to edge of parkway 4' wide sidewalk Edge of parkway to property line 1' wide parkway Please indicate these on both the plan view and the typical street cross sections, and note if they are to be removed and/or replaced. Please also show how any new street improvements will join and transition to the existing improvements. 3. Vehicular sight distance to Tyler Street is blocked by the proposed buiilding. The required sight distance is 150' measured 15' from the face of curb. 4. In order to provide pollutant mitigation for surface runoff, a preferred method for draining this site is to convey runoff through a landscaped swale priorto discharge into the street. So that this swale is a maximum length, we recommend locating just one catch basin at the end of this swale. 5. The legal description noted on the site plan does not match the legal description contained in the preliminary title report. 6. Several notes and references on the site plan appear to be missing lines and arrows. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please fon/vard this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any ofthe comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer CTtv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department January 18, 1996 JOHN SCHILLING P.O. BOX 417 CARLSBAD, OA. 92008 RE: RP 95-05 - PINE STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT * Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate city departments, have reviewed your Redevelopment Permit applicafion No. RP 95-05, as to its completeness for processing. The application has been deemed Incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is informafion which must be submitted to complete your applicafion. 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 submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list represents issues of concem to staff. When all required materials are submitted to the Redevelopment i Office, the City has an additional tiiirty (30) days to make a detennination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have sbc months from the date the application was initially filed, December 20,1995, to either ;; resubmit the application or submit the required infomnation. Failure to resubmit tiie application or to submit tiie materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application I is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact my office at 434-2935 if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. ij r^JU/yotaji/>f DEBBIE FOUNTAIN ^ Senior Management Analyst c: Gary Wayne Bob Wojcik Data Entry Bobbie Hoder File Copy Brian Hunter Ken Qiion 2965 Roosevelt St.. Ste. B • Carlsbad. CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 PINE STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT RP 95-05 ITEMS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION The following information is required on the plans for the project in order for the Engineering Department to complete its review of the subject project 1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated by the project broken down by separate uses. 2. Location of existing driveways adjacent to and sun'ounding the project. 3. Typical street cross sections for all streets adjacent to the project 4. Parking stall and parking lot aisle dimensions. 5. Proposed grading and earthwori< volumes, including cut, fill, import, and export. 6. Spot elevations of the project site. 7. Layout and method of draining the project site. 8. Location of water and sewer hookups to the project site. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist Engineering in its continued review of the project. PINE STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT RP 95-05 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. According to calculations of Planning Staff, the project as cun'entiy designed is seven spaces short of meeting its on-site parking requirement This is based on a calculation for the wori<shop spaces at 1 space per 400 square feet, rather than tfie warehouse ratio of 1 space per 1000 square feet Also, the residential uses require an additional two (2) spaces for guest pari<ing. Per Planning staff calculations, the partdng requirements for the project should be as follows: 6 spaces for the retail; 7 spaces plus 1 space per vehicle used for the wori<shop areas; and, 8 spaces for the residential units. This amounts to a total of 20 pari<ing spaces; the project proposes to provide 13 spaces. This is an issue which vynll need further discussion for resolution purposes. 2. Per City Code, the minimum dimension for a single car garage is 12' X 20'. The plans indicate that the single car garages will be 10' X 20'. This is a design issue which will need to be resolved prior to final presentation of the project to the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Engineering: 1. The parking lot aisle, which scales to 19' wide, does not meet City standards for vehicular maneuvering and circulation. In parking areas that contain botii loading doors and vehicular circulation, such as proposed for this project, the minimum required pari<ing lot aisle width is 32*. 2. A 20' long queuing area to serve in-bound traffic is required at the driveway off Roosevelt Street This queuing area is to be measured from the back of the driveway and is to be clear of all pari<ing spaces and loading areas. 3. The proposed trash enclosure blocks sight distance for vehicles exiting the parking lot 4. The applicant may wish to consider requesting a 10' street vacation along Pine Street, which would provide additional lot area to the project along this street frontage, which would subsequentiy allow space for the building overhangs (awnings) and some site improvements on privately owned property rather than public property as currently proposed. 5. The plans should clearly identify existing and proposed street improvements, such as driveways, sidewalks, curi3, gutter, and street lights. 6. It is unclear as to the reference of the 40'6" dimension from Roosevelt Street to tfie project boundary. 7. Vehicular sight distance lines should be plotted on the site plan at the intersection of Pine Street and Tyler Street to demonstrate that sight distance is not blocked by the proposed building. 8. Please have the applicant review the requirements for handicapped pari<ing spaces, as the width is usually required to be over the 9' shown on the site plan. 9. The legal description noted on tiie site plan does not match the legal description contained in the preliminary titie report. January 15, 1996 TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST FROM: Associate Engineer Quon VIA: Assistant City Engineer COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT PINE STREET PROJECT, RP 95-05 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or incomplete items: 1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated by the project broken down by separate uses. 2. Location of existing driveways adjacent to and surrounding the project. 3. Typical street cross sections for all streets adjacent to the project. 4. Parking stall and parking lot aisle dimensions. 5. Proposed grading and earthwork volumes, including cut, fill, import, and export. 6. Spot elevations of the project site. 7. Layout and method of draining the project site. 8. Location of water and sewer hookups to the project site. In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review ofthe project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project are as follows: 1. The parking lot aisle, which scales to 19' wide, does not meet City standards for vehicular maneuvering and circulation. In parking areas that contain both loading doors and vehicular circulation, such as proposed forthis project, the minimum required parking lot aisle width is 32'. 2. A 20' long queuing area to serve in-bound traffic is required at the driveway off Roosevelt Street. This queuing area is to be measured from the back of the driveway and is to be clear of all parking spaces and loading areas. 3. The proposed trash enclosure blocks sight distance for vehicles exiting the parking lot. 4. Please note that enhanced or decorative paving, benches, landscaping, tree wells, bollards, and other non-standard items are not allowed in the public right-of-way. 5. The site plan shows that portions of the building overhang will encroach on to the public right-of-way of Pine Street, which is not allowed. The applicant may wish to consider requesting a 10' street vacation along Pine Street, which would provide additional lot area to the project along this street frontage. 6. The plans should clearly identify existing and proposed street improvements, such as driveways, sidewalks, curb, gutter, and street lights. 7. It is unclear as to the reference of the 40'6" dimension from Roosevelt Street to the project boundary. 8. Vehicular sight distance lines should be plotted on the site plan at the intersection of Pine Street and Tyler Street to demonstrate that sight distance is not blocked by the proposed building. 9. Please have the applicant review the requirements for handicapped parking spaces, as the width is usually required to be over the 9' shown on the site plan. 10. The legal description noted on the site plan does not match the legal description contained in the preliminary title report. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please fonA/ard this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. t6^ . KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad RIanning Departnnent February 17, 1993 Bill Shilling 0. P. N. Enterprises, Inc. POBox 417 Carisbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: 507 PINE STREET PROJECT APN: 204-081-01 Preliminary review of your project was conducted on January 29,1993 and February 4, 1993. Usted below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your pro|ect Additional Issues of concern may be raised after your application Is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. 1. The project site is zoned V-R (Village Redevelopment), with a General Plan designation of CBD (Central Business District), and is subject to the provisions of the Village Design Manual. With regard to land use, the area between Tyler Street and Roosevelt Street sen/es as a transition zone between the R-S (Regional Service) uses west of Tyler Street and the primarily residential uses east of Roosevelt Street. The Village Design Manual calls for uses tiiat are tess intense tiian those uses allowed on tiie west side of Tyler Street. The portion of your proposal that includes the retail, storage, and residential uses would conform to tills land use provision, however the residential uses are not compatible with the automotive use. In addition, under the current Village Design Manual, the automotive use would not be consistent with the transition area concept, and therefore is not recommended. The long-term development of the Village Redevelopment Area is currentiy being reviewed and revised, incorporating input from an ad hoc citizens committee. One of the land use issues discussed by the committee involves the ultimate location of heavy commercial uses within the Village. Until this issue is resolved, an automotive use could not be recommended on tiie east side of Tyler Street. The committee is expected to resolve most land use issues by mid-Spring, however, it is unlikely that the committee will do anything to intensify the uses altowed on the east side of Tyler Street. 2. Another recommendation being discussed at the committee involves an Hispanic architectural theme for tiie properties along Roosevelt Street, south of Carisbad Village Drive. The architectural intent of your proposal is consistent with this theme. The one story element around the perimeter of tiie building keeps tiie structure in a pedestrian scale and reduces the mass on this visually prominent site. Without elevations showing the Roosevelt Street frontage, no comments can be made regarding design. 3. With regard to landscaping, tiie Village Design Manual requires that 20 percent of tiie lot be landscaped. Half of this required landscaping can be comprised of textured paving, outdoor seating, or sculptures that improve the convenience and amenity of the Village Redevelopment Area. 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 507 PINE STREET, APN: 204-081-01 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PAGE 2 4. The amount of parking provided for the project meets the requirement of ttie Zoning Ordinance, however some design issues exist that may affect the proposed parking supply. a. The lineal curb cut to provide onsite parking adjacent to Pine Avenue is specifically not permitted. Vehicles cannot back out into tiie traveled way. b. The parking area fronting on Roosevelt Street requires screening. This could consist of a solid decorative masonry wall, a fully landscaped earthen berm, or combination thereof, not less than 4 feet in height. The wall must be setback a minimum of 5 feet from tiie front property line. All walls must not block the sight distance at driveways. c. The amount of landscaping in any parking areas with five or more spaces shall be equal to or greater than 10 percent of the paved area of the parking lot. No landscaping area shall be less than 30 inches in width. d. Clear drive aisle width must measure at least 24 feet wide. 5 foot "pop-outs" at the ends of parking area are needed to facilitate vehicular backing maneuvers. e. The parking layout at the automotive repair area would need redesign to be more uniform, without a mix of north/south and east/west oriented parking. 5. While no established setbacks exist for tiie site, additional landscaped setbacks should be added around the perimeter of the project. The maximum lot coverage for alt buildings, parking areas, and driveways is 80 percent of the lot area. Your proposal appears to exceed this, however tiie lack of scale precludes accurate evaluation. 6. The following information would need to accompany any resubmittals: a. Show all drainage patterns on site with a 1% minimum fall. b. Show topography with finished floor and spot elevations. c. Show the location of any public or private easements. d. Show all dimensions to scale. e. Show sewer and water availability. f. Show the traffic increase generated by this project. Attached is a red-lined site plan with staff comments. Ptease inctude tills site plan with any subsequent submittals. Feel free to contact me at 438-1161, extension 4499 if you have any questions. Sincerely, MICHAEL Assistant Plari Attachment c: Adrienne Landers Bob Wojcik Mike Shirey Debbie Fountain MQ:lh 20406101 .MQ City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 15, 1992 Al Tamasabi 4702 Telescope Ave. Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: VILLAGE HAND CARWASH APN: 204-081-01 Preliminary review of yoiu: project was conducted on Friday, May 15,1992. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminarv review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of vour project Additional issues of concem mav tie raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. 1. The site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed use. There are conflicts with minimum standards for onsite circiilation, parking, queuing, and landscaping. 2. The proposed building and site amenities are imacceptable. 3. Although auto related uses are encouraged in this subarea of the Village Redevelopment Area, uses which front onto Roosevelt are to be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. A traffic analysis should be prepared for this type of use. The current "vision" for the frontage along Roosevelt is to maintain as much residential use as possible. 4. Noise impacts from the machinery wiQ need to be considered as it effects the residential uses in the immediate vicinity. 5. The project must comply with all setback, landscape, height and other regulatory standards of the Village Design Manual. 6. A request can be made for ten (10) feet of street vacation on Pine street. If you should have any further questions, please contact me at (619) 438-1161 ext. 4448. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner CW:Ih CARWASHsLTR 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161