Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 97-06; PARISI PROPERTY HOTEL; Redevelopment Permits (RP)CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE February 4, 2000 TO: Housing and Redevelopment Director FROM: City Attorney REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE- VARIANCE APPROVAL PROCEDURES, PROPOSED HOTEL AT GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN LAGUNA AVENUE AND DENNY'S RESTAURANT QUESTION Can the Design Review Board, rather than the Planning Commission, review a height variance request where a portion of the development is located outside of the Village Redevelopment Zone? SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Based on the information that you provided, the Design Review Board can review a height variance request where a portion of the development is located outside of the Village Redevelopment Zone. BACKGROUND You indicate in your memo of January 25, 2000 that staff is currently reviewing a proposed hotel development located at Grand Avenue between Laguna Avenue and Denny's Restaurant. The subject property consists of four parcels of land. Two of the parcels are located within the redevelopment project area and two of the parcels are located outside of the project area, in the RP Zone, In 1972 the City Council approved a specific plan for the property which allowed for the construction of a 106 room hotel. In reviewing the current proposal, staff concluded that the 1972 specific plan remains in effect, thereby allowing construction of the hotel. Although the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows the Planning Director to administratively approve design and site plan changes for the project, staff decided to require a major redevelopment permit for the project. The major redevelopment permit process will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Based on staffs decision, the specific plan will remain in effect for land use purposes, but the major redevelopment permit will require Design Review Board consideration of the project design and site layout. At this time, the proposed project meets all required development standards, except for a required ten foot height variance. Questions have recently been raised as to whether the Planning Commission must review the height variance for the portion of the project located in the RP Zone or can the Design Review Board review the height variance for the entire project. ANALYSIS A review of the Municipal Code suggests that the Design Review Board has the ability to consider a height variance for the entire project. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 establishes regulations for the Village Redevelopment Zone. Section 21.35.120 discusses procedures for the processing of permits and approvals required by Title 21, which includes height variances for the RP Zone. The section states in pertinent part: (a) Whenever a project would require a permit or approval under the provisions of this title, notwithstanding this chapter, the redevelopment permit shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for such permit or approval; provided, however, that in considering the redevelopment permit for said project the director, design review board and the housing and redevelopment commission shall apply the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of this title otherwise applicable to such other permit or approval for the project. (Emphasis added). Here the City is requiring the applicant to obtain a major redevelopment permit. Since the project requires an approval under the provisions of Title 21 (the RP Zone height variance), the approval can be included within the redevelopment permit approval process. It should be noted, however, that section 21.35.120 (a) requires that the design review board and housing and redevelopment commission apply the requirements of Chapter 21.35, as well as those of the RP Zone, in determining whether to approve the height variance. In addition to section 21.35.120, Municipal Code section 2.24.080 provides the Design Review Board with specific powers that are applicable to your question. The section states: Whenever in Title 21 it is provided that an action or a decision on a project or permit shall be taken or made by the planning commission and such permit or project is processed according to Chapter 21.35 and consolidated in the redevelopment permit under Section 21.35.120, then the design review board shall be the planning commission with respect to such project or permit. Here the development is being processed pursuant to Chapter 21.35. Based on section 21.35.120 (a), the RP Zone height variance may be consolidated with the major redevelopment permit. While the Planning Commission would generally review the variance request, in this instance the Design Review Board can serve as the Planning Commission and review the request. Finally, as I indicated in our telephone conversation, I have discussed this issue with Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi and with the City Attorney. In these discussions, it was suggested that the Planning Director also approve the changes to the subject property as a deviation from the specific plan (see Specific Plan Section 3 (A)). It is our recommendation that the Planning Director's actions in this regard be included in the staff report on the item. In addition, although the Municipal Code authorizes the Design Review Board to serve as the Planning Commission for the purposes of reviewing the RP Zone variance, staff may wish to provide the Planning Commission with a courtesy notice related to the approval of this program. I hope that this information is of some assistance. Please contact me should you have any questions or if you wish to discuss these matters further. \mEH B. BROWER DM Deputy City Attorney rmh City Manager Community Development Director Planning Director Assistant Planning Director City OfCarlsbad REOUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE TO: FROM: SUBJECT City Attorney Housing and Redevelopment Director Date Sent: Date Needed: Dept.: Januarv 25, 2000 Febmarv 8. 2000 Housing & Redevelopment Processing of Major Redevelopment Permit for Hotel Project which is to be located on property with parcels both inside and outside the Village Redevelopment Area. ADVICE REOUESTED Determination of whether or not the Design Review Board (rather than the Planning Commission) could take action to approve a height variance for a hotel project where a portion of the property is located outside the Village Redevelopment Area. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Prepare synopsis of facts, giving as many as possible. Add additional sheets if necessary or attach copies of supporting documents. The subject property is located at the east end of Grand Avenue (at 1-5), between Laguna Avenue and the Deimy's Restaurant. The property consists of 4 parcels of land - 2 inside the Redevelopment Area and 2 outside the Redevelopment Area. The 2 properties located outside the redevelopment area currently have RP Zoning. The 2 properties located inside the redevelopment area have VR Zoning. This property has a very odd history in that a Specific Plan for the subject 4 parcels of land was approved in 1972. The Specific Plan allows for the construction of a 106 room hotel on the subject site, and has no expiration date. Although approved separately, the Specific Plan was originally tied to the development of the restaurant (currently Denny's) and the gas station (currently Chevron) located to the south. From a land use perspective, without the Specific Plan, a hotel would not be allowed with the cunent zoning (RP) on the 2 properties located outside the Village Redevelopment Area. The VR zoning and related land use plan, however, will allow a hotel to be constmcted on the 2 properties located inside the Redevelopment Area. (Continued Next Page) Prepared by: OEgB/E R^UNJTA/M Approved by: lAjio ("X^U^vJx^iu^^ Department Head Request Noted: City Manager Request for Legal Advice - Permit Processing Page 2 After much discussion on the Specific Plan and its cunent legal status, the Community Development Director, Planning Director, Assistant Planning Director, City Engineer/Public Works Director, Assistant City Attomey (Rudolf) and myself agreed that the noted Specific Plan remains in effect allowing the 106 room hotel to be constructed on the subject 4 parcels. By accepting that the Specific Plan is in effect, no rezoning would be required for the properties outside the Redevelopment Area, and no separate permits would be required from the Planning Commission. Per staffs interpretation of the Specific Plan, the Planning Director can approve the design and site plan changes for the project without any further action by the Planning Commission/Design Review Board or City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Staff was uncomfortable with allowing the Planning Director to simply approve the hotel project design and site layout with no additional public hearing opportunities. Therefore, because the Specific Plan requires that the project be in compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines. Staff made a decision to require the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit for the project and to apply the development standards of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to the entire project (on all 4 parcels). Under this compromise decision, the developer is still required to obtain a permit and process through public hearings before the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. However, the developer is not required to process an application to rezone the property outside the redevelopment area to allow the hotel land use. It was staffs opinion that a hotel is desirable for the subject site and should be supported. Consequently, we decided that it would be appropriate and less bureaucratic to allow the Specific Plan to remain in effect for land use purposes, but then require the redevelopment permit to allow for appropriate review of the project design and site layout by staff and the general public. The cunent property owner has proposed a 106 room hotel for the subject site. Staff is working with the property owner to develop a complete application for processing. At this time, the proposed project meets all development standards as set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, except for one standard - height. The project as cunently proposed will require an approximate 10' height variance. This height variance is required to allow the property owner to develop the 106 room hotel project approved by the Specific Plan and also meet the cunent redevelopment area development standards which require a 5:12 roof pitch and a Village- character design. Planning and Redevelopment Staff agree that the design proposed by the property owner with the requested height variance is superior to all other possible designs, and we support the height variance. The challenge faced, however, is the processing for this variance request. Staff believes that all of the required findings can be made to approve the requested height variance for the subject project. Until the issue of the height variance became evident, Redevelopment staff intended to present the project to the Design Review Board and then to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for action. Once approved by the Board and Commission, the Planning Director would then administratively approve the plans for the properties located outside the redevelopment area. The issue of the height variance, however, poses a processing challenge. The Planning Director is unable to administratively approve the height variance for the portion of the project located outside the redevelopment area. Typically, this variance would require Planning Commission approval. Because the Design Review Board (which has legal standing equal to the Plarming Commission) and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council) will be taking action on the plans for the entire project including the height variance request, staff is requesting a legal opinion on whether or not it would be possible to simply have the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action on the Request for Legal Advice - Permit Processing Page 3 redevelopment permit (including the variance), and not require separate action by the Planning Commission on the variance. Because Redevelopment Permits are under the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission, they are not presented to the Planning Commission or City Council for action. For the subject project, no other permits, except for the Redevelopment Permit and related variance, will be processed. Consequently, if the height variance request must be submitted to the Planning Commission, it will be the only action item for the Planning Commission on this project. It seems more appropriate to simply have the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action on the proposed permit. However, this would be a very unique action which has no precedence. The alternative is to hold a joint public hearing between the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board and request action by the Planning Commission on the height variance only. The major redevelopment permit would be submitted to the Planning Commission for information only, no action would be taken on the permit by the Commission. The Design Review Board would then take action on the major redevelopment permit including the height variance. Under this scenario. Planning Staff believes that it is probably likely that the Planning Commission would deny the height variance. Redevelopment Staff believes that the Design Review Board would very likely approve the height variance. The issue would then need to be resolved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and City Council. Because this is a very unique case which will probably never arise again. Community Development Staff has discussed this matter and agreed that it would be best to allow the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to take action on the permit and variance for the entire project, with no separate action required by the Planning Commission. However, we also agreed that we do not know if there is appropriate legal authority to allow for this unique processing. Based on staff discussions, we agreed to forward this matter to the City Attorney's Office for a legal determination. Attached for review is a copy of the Specific Plan for the subject property. August 4, 1998 PAUL RICH ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS 1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 275 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-5341 RE: PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT, GRAND AVENUE, CARLSBAD Dear Mr. Rich: Thank you for your interest in pursuing development of a hotel project at the end of Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive (at the Freeway) within the Village Redevelopment Area of the City of Carlsbad. A preliminary review has been completed on the site plan you presented to my office approximately a week ago. As we discussed, a specific plan was approved for the subject site in 1972. The specific plan allows for a 106-unit hotel on the subject site. Although the land use was approved in 1972, the project design or related site improvements were not approved. The design and site improvements must meet all current development standards. A major redevelopment permit will be required for the project. Due to the preliminary nature of the site plan submitted, the comments set forth within this correspondence are not intended to represent a comprehensive list of issues. A more comprehensive list of issues will be identified at the time a formal application is submitted for review. The following are offered simply as initial comments for your consideration prior to submission of a formal application for the Major Redevelopment Permit: 1. Primary access to the hotel shall be from Grand Avenue. Laguna Drive shouid be used as emergency access only. 2. Full street improvements to Laguna Drive shall be required adjacent to the property. Property dedications will be required for the public right-of-way. Additional street improvements may be required on Grand Avenue to further accommodate the traffic volumes. The applicant will most likely be required to submit a traffic study for the project. 3. The project may need to extend the existing storm drain on Laguna Drive and replace the existing sewer line on Grand Avenue. The extent of these improvements will be determined at the time of formal application. 4. Lot line adjustments will be required to create a single parcel for the project. There are currently 4 parcels included in the subject project. 5. Maximum effort will be required to screen adjacent residential properties along the westerly boundary of the project. 6. Based on the preliminary site plan, it appears that the project will meet the parking requirement of 1.2 per room. Please note that if you intend to have a restaurant on site or include conference rooms within the hotel, you may have an additional parking requirement. Restaurants and conference rooms are typically parked at 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor space. 7. Please carefully review all of the development standards and design guidelines set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual document. If you did not obtain a copy of this document, please forward a check to my office in the amount of $25.00 per copy desired. Copies of the document will be fonA/arded to you for your review. 8. A total of 20% of your project site must be maintained in open space, which does not include parking spaces, driveways or drive aisles. It does, however, include all pedestrian amenities such as walkways, courtyards, landscape areas and planters, balconies and other open space pockets. 9. Based on your preliminary plan, it appears that you meet all minimum setback requirements. Please note that the identified setbacks must include landscaping. 10. Please consider a relocation of your trash enclosure to a site which is further away from the residential units to the west. You may wish to consider a location which is much closer to Grand Avenue or Laguna Drive for access and noise attenuation purposes. 11. With surface level parking, the height limit for the subject site is 35' with a requirement for a 5:12 roof pitch. The 4 story building shown on your preliminary plans will most likely not be able to meet this requirement. 12. As noted above, please review the design guidelines carefully. The applicant must make a good faith effort to design the project in a manner which is consistence with the Village Design Guidelines. Thank you again for your interest in developing a hotel project within the Village Redevelopment Area. If you have any additional questions or need additional information, please contact my office at (760) 434-2815. You also may contact Craig Ruiz, ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Office, at (760) 434-2811. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department July 31, 1997 GREG FRIESEN 402 WEST BROADWAY 27TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CA. 92101 RE: MARRIOTT TOWNEPLACE SUITES Dear Mr. Friesen: The following is in response to the correspondence you forwarded to my office, dated July 25, 1997 regarding the proposed Marriott Towneplace Suites on the site at the end of Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive, within the City ofCarlsbad. This correspondence provides some corrections to the information you received on July 24, 1997 from the Planning Department. I wanted to preface my comments by indicating that this project is slightly more complicated than most because two of the parcels proposed for development are inside the Village Redevelopment Area and two are outside. Properties within the Village Redevelopment Area must be developed according to the specific development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Attached is a copy of the standards which will apply to the subject project. A redevelopment pennit is required for the subject project. Therefore, the project must be in compliance with the attached development standards in order to obtain approval. If the development standard can't be met, the applicant will be required to request a variance. Unfortunately, the Planning Department did not have a final copy of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual when you called on July 24, 1997. Therefore, the planner was not aware of the changes which had been made to the development standards. The standards attached represent the standards which have been approved for development in the Village Area. Height Limit: The height limit for the land use district in which the subject project is located is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 roof pitch. To exceed this maximum height standard, a variance must be granted. To be granted a height variance, the Redevelopment Agency must find that the project height is 1) visually compatible with sunounding buildings, 2) the increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential areas, 3) the taller project will not adversely impact views, 4) the project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and the guidelines contained within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and/or 5) the project provides for exceptional design quality and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ G. Friesen July 31, 1997 Page 2 At this time, it would be difficult to tell you if staff will support a variance for the height. We will need to review the completed plan to determine any potential impact on sunounding properties. It is important to note that the impact on the single family homes to the east of the sight will be considered in any decision to support a height variance. Set Backs: The set backs standards are provided in ranges to allow for some flexibility to accommodate desirable design features. Typically, the top of the range is the desired standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project wanants such a reduction, and the appropriate findings are made by the approving body. The findings which must be made are included in the attached information. To go below the minimum or above the maximum, a variance must be approved with the appropriate findings. Please note again that there is no parking permitted within the front or rear set backs. Also, please note the open space requirements. Parking: No corrections to the parking information provided by Mike Grim. Engineering Comments: In a previous preliminary review of the project by the City's Engineering Department, comments were provided as related to access to the site and public improvements. I do not believe that this information had been previously provided to Mr. Shapery. Therefore, I am forwarding it to you at this time for review and consideration. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact my office at (760) 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst c: Planning, Mike Grim C.W.KIM ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS INCORPORATED July 25, 1997 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN Michael Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92009-1576 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REPORT PROJECT: """ Marriott Towneplace Suites 106 room, 2 building, 3 story hotel located adjacent to Freeway 5 between Grand Ave. And Laguna Drive. A.P.N. - 203 -130-18. 20, 15 and 34. DATE: 24 July 1997 REGARDING: Preliminary review of planning requirements for above potential development by Shapery Enterprises. CALLING: Michael Grim, Planner city of Carlsbad. Greg Friesen, C.W. Kim Architects & Planners. RESUME EMERALD PLAZA 402 WEST BROADWAY 2 7TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92101 TEL : (619) 234-0555 FAX: (619) 234-4703 E-MAIL:CWKIM@ WORLDNET.ATT.NET The following three issues regarding District Three were discussed as follows: (1) HEIGHT LIMIT Greg indicated that the current project proposes two three story structures which are approximately 40' tall at the peak of a 6:12 roof slope. He had concerns that the published requirements indicate that 35' is the maximum allowable unless the use is residential or commercial space located over a parking structure. Mike stated that in our case the height limit could be 45' because the project site was 2.42 acres which was larger than the minimum 1.2 acres required to be allowed 45'. (2) SET BACKS In response to questions regarding the range of dimensions indicated in the planning requirements, Mike stated that this depends on the articulation and volume massing of the elevations adjacent to these yards but that most likely this project would be required to meet the full set backs as follows: Front yard - 20' Side A - 10' (adjacent to residential) Side B - 5* (freeway or adjacent to commercial) Rear - 5' Mike also indicated that most likely both Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive yards would be established as front yards so that there would be no rear yard and added that no parking would be allowed in front or rear setbacks. (3) PARKING Mike clarified that in hotel usage for this zone that 1.2 parking spaces would be required per room and compact spaces could account for 40% maximum of total required. He added That those compact dimensions would be 8' x 15' and standard could be either 8.5' x 20 or 9' x 19' with 2.5' overhangs. All participants are requested to read this document, and attend to the items where appropriate. Unless we are notified in writing within 1 week, we will assume this information to be correct and proceed accordingly. Greg Friese Copies to: Those calling Deborah K. Fountain Senior Management Analyst Sandor W. Shapery Shapery Enterprises C.W. Kim C.W. Kim Architects & Planners Alan M. Turner C.W. Kim Architects & Planners June 25, 1997 TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST FROM: Associate Engineer Quon PRELIMINARY REVIEW PARISI PROPERTY We offer the following comments: 1. Primary access to the project should be from Grand Avenue. Other than for emergency purposes, we discourage using Laguna Drive for access to this project. 2. The plan submitted for this review is unclear with regard to the need for a cul-de-sac bulb on Laguna Drive. Additionally, it appears that the project site encroaches onto Grand Avenue. Please note that public improvements to be constructed as part of this project include frontage improvements to both Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive, which also requires property dedications for public right-of-way. Additional street improvements may be required on Grand Avenue to further accommodate the traffic volumes that are expected to be generated by this project. 3. Formal development applications for this project should include a copy of an agreement with the adjacent property for joint access. 4. It appears that some of the lot lines shown on the plan are not accurate. Please clarify. Please fon/vard the red-lined check print to the applicant. If you have questions regarding any ofthe comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON, P.E. Associate Engineer c: City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer May 16, 1997 TO: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE ON LAND USE MATTER Attached is some information I recentiy forwarded to the Assistant Planning Director regarding several parcels of land which are owned by the same party - two are located inside the redevelopment area (VR Zoning) and two are outside (RP Zoning). The property owner is trying to sell the four parcels. Consequently, we have had several people contacting both the planning and redevelopment departments to Ieam what uses can be developed on the properties. The problem was recently complicated by the fact that documentation for a Specific Plan on the property has been presented for consideration as to its current effectiveness. A motel could be developed in the VR zone, but it can't be developed under RP zoning. It appears that the Specific Plan would allow constmction of the motel, but the development probably doesn't meet current standards. Gary and I need some legal help. Does the approved Specific Plan allow the property ovmer simply to move ahead wiih the original plans from 1972, or can we require additional action now through the redevelopment regulations? Also, I believe that the revised ordinance for the VR Zone was suppose to allow for a redevelopment permit to be issued on the two properties which are outside the redevelopment area, but related to the same project? Any thoughts. I will try to set up a meeting or at least a conference call between the 3 of us to discuss this in more detail. I wanted to give you a little bit of time first to take a look at these docimients and think about the matter. Thanks. May 7, 1997 TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE WITH REVIEW RELATED TO ATTACHED MATERIALS I need some help understanding the implications of the attached documentation. Apparently, a Specific Plan was approved for property at the end of Grand and Laguna, adjacent to Interstate 5. A portion of the property is within the Village Redevelopment Area and a portion is outside. I believe we can make the entire property under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency, but I am not sure how the approved Specific Plan effects development on the property. The property ovmer still wants to develop a hotel. However, they need to make some design changes to reorient the hotel and perhaps some other modifications in the site plan. Would you please let me know the best method for pursuing this matter? Should I have the applicants schedule a meeting with Plaiming and Redevelopment, or just Planning? Or, do you want to assign a plarmer to research the matter and work with me to increase my understanding? As usual, the applicant is in a great hurry to find out what he needs to do to proceed with building a hotel on the site. I, unfortimately, am a little perplexed and do not know what to tell him. Help! Thanks.