HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-22; Design Review Board; ; RP 83-15|CUP 240 - NIELSENSTAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
February 22, 1984
Design Review Board
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: RP 83-15/CUP-240 -NEILSEN -Request for approval of a
Redevelopment Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to
construct an 18 unit senior apartment project on the
west side of Roosevelt Street, south of Pine Avenue in
the V-R zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Design Review Board APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and
ADOPT Resolution No. 028, recommending DENIAL of RP 83-15/CUP-
240, based on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 18 unit senior
apartment project on .24 acres, located as described above. The
subject property is a through lot, fronting on both Roosevelt
Street and Tyler Street. Access to the project would be derived
from Tyler Street.
The applicant is proposing to develop 18 studio units on two
levels. Seven parking spaces would be provided, six in
partially enclosed garages and one open space. All parking
would back out onto Tyler Street. The project would include a
laundry/recreation room, a jacuzzi and shaded picnic area. The
project would result in an overall density of 75 du's/ac, the
maximum permissable under the provisions of the senior
ordinance.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Is the project consistent with the goals and objectives of
the Village Design Manual?
2) Can all of the findings, required for approval of a
conditional use permit, be made? Specifically:
(A) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for
the development of the community,· is essentially in
harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses
or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which
the proposed use is to be located;
(B) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the use;
(C) That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences,
landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested use to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
(D) That the street system serving the proposed use is
adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by
the proposed use.
3) Does the project comply with City Engineering Standards?
Discussion
The project site is within Subarea 4 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. The goal for Subarea 4 is to create a light
manufacturing/heavy commercial area that would serve the
downtown area. Uses encouraged in the Village Design Manual
include vocational educational centers, auto-related services,
contractor's yards, laundry and dry-cleaning plants, storage
areas and neighborhood commercial uses.
The proposed project is not consistent with these goals nor
compatible with these uses. A primary objective of
redevelopment, however, has been to provide housing in the
downtown area. A general pattern of a centralized
commercial/office core surrounded by residential uses, has been
established by the Village Design Manual. The project site is on
the outer fringe of the redevelopment area. Subarea 7, on the
opposite side of Roosevelt Street is specified for a combination
of residential and commercial uses. Staff, therefore, believes
that residential development, at this location, could be a
desirable addition to the Village area, is essentially in harmony
with the objectives of the Design Manual and General Plan and
would not be detrimental to existing or future uses.
The subject property is .24 acres in size, which is adequate to
accommodate a senior project of this scale. The project would
be self-contained with security gates and 6 foot high wood
fencing. The project would observe a 10 foot front yard setback
off Roosevelt Street and a 5 foot setback off Tyler Street,
generally consistent with surrounding uses. Staff does have
concern, however, with the parking arrangement which requires
vehicles to back out onto Tyler Street.
-2-
The project is served by both Roosevelt Street and Tyler Street
as discussed above, seven resident parking spaces are accessed
from Tyler Street. Guests would most probably utilize Roosevelt
Street, towards which the project is oriented. Both streets are
adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use.
The proposed project does not meet City Engineering standards.
These standards permit no more than 40 percent of the property
frontage of residential lots to be driveway. The driveways on
Tyler Street comprise over 80 percent of the lot frontage. The
Engineering Department finds no unusual site conditions to
warrant a departure from City standards.
Overall, staff believes that although the findings can be made
for approval of the requested conditional use permit and that the
project may comply with the general intent and objectives of the
Village Design Manual, it is not consistent with the specific
goals and uses of Subarea 4 nor does it comply with City
Engineering standards. Staff would recommend that the goals and
policies of Subarea 4 be re-evaluated to make sure they are
consistent with current attitudes regarding this area.
IV. ARCHITECTURE/DESIGN
The proposed development would be constructed in basically a
traditional architectural style, incorporating wood, stucco and
a shingle roof. Architectural elements would include wood
clapboard siding, paned windows and eave dormer vents. The
color scheme is planned in beige-gold tones with light olive
trim.
v. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and,
therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on February 6, 1984.
Attachments
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 029
2. Location Map
3. Subarea Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Environmental Documents
7. Reduced Exhibits
CDN:ad
2/9/84
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 028
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT PROJECT
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ROOSEVELT STREET, SOUTH OF PINE AVENUE.
APPLICANT: NEILSEN
CASE NO: RP 83-15/CUP-240
City of
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board: and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
the Design Review Board did, on the 22nd day of February, 1984,
13 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on
property described as: 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lots 27, 28 and 29, in Block 31 in the Towne of Carlsbad,
according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder, May 2, 1880,
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 83-15/CUP-
240.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Board recommends DENIAL RP 83-15/CUP-240, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Ill/
Ill/
Ill/
1 Findings
2 1}
3
4 2}
5
3) 6
7
8
That the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and
uses of Subarea 4 of the Village Design Manual, as discussed in
the staff report.
That the proposed project does not comply with City Engineering
standards, as discussed in the staff report.
This project will not cause any significant environmental
impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Land
Use Planning Manager on February 6, 1984 and approved by the
Design Review Board on February 22, 1984.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
9 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
10 the 22nd day of February, 1984, by the following vote, to wit:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CHRIS SALOMONE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
ORB RESO NO. 028
MANAGER
JOHN MCCOY, Chairperson
CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
-2-
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
RE: RP 83-15/CUP-240
ATTN: Catherine D. Nicholas
Dear Ms. Nicholas:
'\ J
15 February 1984
First, I would like to voice a complaint on the time elected to hold
the Design Review Board Meeting. The major part of home owners can
not attend at 5:30 p.m., since most of them work, etc. I would propose
a more convenient time (say 7:30 p.m.) so that the people who object to
the subject proposal can be present to defend their position.
I have attached a list of signatures, mainly the property owners who
are in close proximity to the area that is now being considered by
Nielsen Realty, for the construction of an eighteen (18) unit senior
citizen apartment complex. The feeling among the property owners is
one of objection to the proposal. The reasons being:
Most of the owners bought their property many years ago and have held on
to it with the expectation of the eventual growth of the city towards the
South/West area. Many are close to retirement age and had been looking
towards some sort of security, just knowing that their property had
some value, now they are afraid that the property values will change
with the downgrading of the zoning or the influx of lower income units.
Another point is that the area is not conducive to apartment living,
especially eighteen (18) units, the congestion it would create could
become a problem, since there is no parking available to accomodate
the influx of 18 apartment dwellers. Tyler Street is not what you
would consider a major street, in fact it is more-or-less an alley
and as it stands now, parking is already a problem there.
The property owners are afraid that if this project is allowed to
proceed, it will eventually lead to a further deterioration of the
area, so please reconsider this proposal carefully.
Thank you
~ Mrs. Ofelia E. Escobedo
1611 James Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
CC: Building and Planning Department
~ _________ I _I
PINE AVE
I
WALNUT AVE
I
SITE
I: > C -a,
0 z
a,
-t
NEILSEN RP 83-15/CUP-240
·.,
6 ---I . I !
I ·----
1 2 --.. > n -... -n
0 .
n
"' > --z
·cARLSIAD
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SUl•AIIA MAP ,
,t,/.tJ/t•
BACKGOOUND DATA SHEET
CASE 00: RP 83-15/CUP-240
APPLICANT: Bob Neilsen
Request for approval of a Redeveloµrent Pennit and a
REQUEST AND LOCATIOO: Conditional Use Permit to develop an 18 unit senior
housing project on the west side of Roosevelt St., south of Pine Avenue
LOOAL DESCRIPTION: I.Dts 27, 28 & 29 in Block 31 of the town of Carlsbad,
according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder, May 2, 1888 APN:
Acres .24 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 18 --------------
GENERAL PIAN AND ZOOING
Land Use Designation CBD --------
Density Allowed non-residential
Existing Zone V-R ---------
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Site V-R
North V-R
South V-R ---
East V-R
West V-R
Density Proposed 75 du's/ac
Proposed Zone N/A
Land Use
Vacant/SFRS
Multi-Family
SFR
SFRS
Indust.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Carlsbad
School District Unified Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Novenber 4, 1983 -------'----------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
!__Negative Declaration, issued ___ F_eb_ru_a_ry __ 6~,_1_9_8_4 __
E.I.R. Certified, dated --------------
Other, ------------------------------
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
-
Citp of Carlshalr
NEXiATIVE DECIARATIOO
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
P~ECT ADDRESS/IDCATIOO: 3279 Roosevelt Street, the west side of
Roosevelt Street, south of Pine Avenue.
P~ECT IESCRIPI'IOO: Request for approval of a Redevelopment Pennit
and a Conditional Use Pennit to oonstruct an 18 unit senior ~nt
project on .24 acre through lot fronting on both Roosevelt Street an:l
Tyler Street.
'!be City of Carlsbad has oonducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act an:l the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant inpact on the environment) is hereby issued for the
subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Land Use Planning Office.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive oocuments is on
file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008. carments £ran the public are invited. Please
subnit ccmnents in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten
(10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: February 6, 1984
CASE N:>: RP 83-15/CUP-240
APPLICANT: Neilsen
PUBLISH 01\TE: February 11, 1984
Nlr4
5/81