HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-17; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 372; Pine Avenue UnitsAB# 372
MTG. 5/17/05
DEPT. H/RED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
- TITLE:
PINE AVENUE UNITS
RP 04-17
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 394 , APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-17, including variances for rear and side yard setbacks which
exceed the maximum standard range, for the construction of a 7,128 square foot multi-family
condominium on the property located at 507 Pine Avenue in Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 as recommended by the
Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On March 28, 2005, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a major
redevelopment permit for a four-unit, two story, condominium project totaling 7,128 square feet in
Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 11,781 square foot site is
currently vacant and is bordered by two residential units to the south, residential development across
Roosevelt Street to the west, a commercial complex across Pine Avenue to the north, and an auto
parts store across Tyler Street to the west.
The proposed project involves the construction of two similar building types. Each two-story building
contains a 3-bedroom unit totaling 1,718 square feet and a 4-bedroom unit totaling 1,846 square feet
over individual enclosed two car garages. The four condominium units total 7,128 square feet.
Parking is provided for each unit through the two car garages and two guest parking spaces are
provided for on site, one being covered and one uncovered. Each unit within the project is equipped
with a second story balcony and a private ground level patio for recreational purposes.
The project also includes extensive landscaping within and around the project, a pleasant
architectural design, and decorative walls along all street frontages. Vehicular access to the site is
located off Tyler Street in order to reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Roosevelt Street
and Pine Avenue.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (3-0, Baker absent)
to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Establishment of the High Residential (RH) density designation for the subject property with a
corresponding density of 15-23 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre;
2. A variance to increase the rear yard setback from 10’ to 27’.
3. A variance to increase the east side yard setback from 10’ to 12’.
4. A variance to increase the west side yard setback from 10’ to 24.5’.
The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report, and the draft minutes
of the March 28th meeting are attached for the Commission’s review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 372
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an
urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments
were received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental
determination is included in the attached Housing & Redevelopment Commission resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax. The current
assessed value of the project site is $145,102. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $1 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $ 8,549
per year. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements
in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a
blighting influence (vacant property) within the area.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 394, APPROVING RP04-17
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 297 dated March 28, 2005.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated March 28, 2005, wlattachments. 4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated march 28, 2005.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 394
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR REAR AND SIDE YARD
SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD
RANGE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,128 SQUARE FOOT
LOCATED AT 507 PINE AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF
THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: FRANCIS HELMUTH
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPO4-17,
MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM ON THE PROPERTY
CASE NO: RP 04-17
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2005, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-17) for the
construction of a 7,128 square foot multi-family condominium on the property located at 507
Pine Avenue in Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 297
recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment
Permit (RP 04-17) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-17);
and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings establishing the High
Residential (HR) density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre for the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the
rear and side yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
HRC RES0 NO. 394
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-17) is APPROVED and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 297, on file
in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission with the addition of two conditions to read as
follows:
a. That the developer prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to
noise from the railroad, among other things, in a form meeting the approval of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director and that this Notice shall be placed in all sales and/or rental
offices associated with the new development.
b. That the developer shall mitigate the noise with the use of dual pane windows,
landscaping and/or other appropriate measures to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
HRC RES0 NO. 394
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination reflects the
independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court
not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed
in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
HRC RES0 NO. 394
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or hisher attorney of record, if hehhe has
one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with
the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
day of Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17
May ,2005 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Lewis and Hall
ABSTAIN: None
MATT HALL, Vice-chairman
ATTEST:
RAQ@ND R. P’ATCHETT, SECRETARY
HRC RES0 NO. 394
PAGE 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 297
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
VARIANCES FOR REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 PINE AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5
OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PINE AVENUE UNITS
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-1 7, INCLUDING
7,128 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM ON THE
APN: 204-08 1-01
CASE NO: RP 04-17
WHEREAS, Francis Helmuth, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pine Associates,
LLC, “Owner”, described as Assessor Parcel Number 204-081-01, and more thoroughly
described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-E” dated March 28, 2005, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Pine Avenue Units RP 04-17”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 28‘h day of March, 2005, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring “Pine Avenue Units.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board APPROVES the Pine Avenue Condominiums RP 04-17, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Housing & Redevelopment Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of
projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on
the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infa development project. In making this determination, the Housing &
Redevelopment Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state
CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a rear and side yard setback variances and the
establishment of the RH density designation for the project is in conformance with the
Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth
in the staffreport dated March 28,2005 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family
residential use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves
to enhance the Village by providing the necessary residential support. The
location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to
shopping, recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units will
enhance the Village as a place for living and working. The project will also be
close to existing bus routes, furthering the goal of new economic development
near transportation corridors.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 5 through the following actions: 1) the project
provides a new residential development that will improve the physical
appearance of the village area, and 2) the building is designed in a manner that
compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating many of a same
architectural elements found in residential projects.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 5, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e.
f.
€5
h.
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best
management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City’s Landscape Manual.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
Agency’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for four (4)
units.
The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts
contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the
project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of
surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all
conform to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which
serves as the adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project
provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking,
recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well
integrated into the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land
uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common
areas and recreational facilities are located so that they are readily accessible to
the occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible with
the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the
Village Design Manual.
3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project
is RH (15-23 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RH General Plan density
designation is as follows:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of
uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and
office. Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property
would allow for the proposed multi-family development, which is a provisional
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
use in District 5 and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses
in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity,
and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The higher
density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with
the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
Master Plan.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
Use District 5 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
shops, restaurants, and mass transportation. Higher residential densities in
close proximity to areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater
jobhousing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic
congestion and improved air quality.
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide fhding to
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
6. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for rear and side
yard setbacks that exceeds the standard range:
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -4- 19
.1
n L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that by Providing an increased setback on the rear of the proposed building of
27 feet, is necessary to provide parking access that is visually subordinated, as
specified within the Village Design Manual, and that meets the required width of
24 feet. The additional 3 feet will be devoted to landscaping, to help buffer the
edge of the property. By providing an increased setback on the rear of the
building, the required parking can be provided at the rear of the residence
underneath the second story of the units making the parking visually
subordinate, and landscaping can be provided along the rear of the property line
for buffering, both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
Providing increased side yard setbacks of 12 feet along Roosevelt Street and 24.5
feet along Tyler Street is necessary to make the project consistent with the
existing and proposed development along these streets. Both side yard setbacks
of the subject property effectively function as front yard setbacks due to the fact
that both side yards have building frontage along residential streets. By allowing the east side yard setback to be set within the range for a front yard
setback, between 5-20 feet, the proposed project will be consistent with existing
and future developments along Roosevelt Street. Tyler Street has been
designated as an Alternative Design Street where sidewalk and street
improvements are no longer necessary (as of the year 2000). If street and
sidewalk improvements (in the amount of 5 feet) were required along Tyler
Street as they had been in the past, the west side yard setback would be 19.5 feet
(24.5, - 5’= 19.5’), which is within the range for a front yard setback (5-20 feet).
Therefore, considering the west side yard setback as a front yard setback for the
proposed project will be consistent with existing and future developments along
Tyler Street. The increased setbacks are similar to what is enjoyed by many
properties with building frontage along Roosevelt and Tyler Street. In addition,
the increased setbacks provide ample space for the required recreational space
to be placed within the side yard setbacks.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
project is unique in that the property has building frontage on three sides;
Roosevelt Street, Pine Avenue, and Tyler Street. Each frontage effectively
functions as a front yard setback. By allowing the proposed setbacks, the
subject property will more closely match the setbacks of the surrounding
residential properties.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback on the rear of the property will not have a detrimental impact
on neighboring properties, because it allows for additional space for landscaped
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
buffering and allows the required parking to be located at the rear of the
residence, visually screened. In addition, the increased side yard setbacks of 12
feet along Roosevelt Street and 24.5 feet along Tyler Street will not have a
detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because it is consistent with the
front yard setbacks enjoyed by adjacent properties and properties in the
immediate vicinity. Lastly, the increased setbacks provide for greater
landscaping opportunities and recreational space for the new residents, which
staff believes will have a positive effect on nearby residents and not a negative
one.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The placement of the building is setback similarly to
the surrounding properties, maximizing outdoor recreation opportunities for the
subject property, and providing increased landscaped buffering, which is
consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual’s goal of establishing
Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment
Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -6-
‘n Id
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of Minor Subdivision 05-01 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 297 for this
other approval and incorporated by reference herein.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13.
14.
Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit Rp 04-17 as shown on Exhibits
A-E, dated March 28, 2005, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space
condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as
an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the
time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.
LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:
15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
16.
17.
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
18. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of
a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment
Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the
Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor
of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the
City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right
to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City
within 30 days for the official record.
-8- iq DRB RES0 NO. 297
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed fiom view and the sound buffered fiom adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
NOTICING CONDITIONS:
23. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 297 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
ON-SITE CONDITIONS:
24. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
1. Engineering conditions of approval are provided for under Minor Subdivision 05-01 and
are incorporated by reference herein.
DRB RES0 NO. 297 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feeslexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
’
NOTICE
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2tIth day of March, 2005 by the following vote to
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BAKER
ABSTAIN: NONE
?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
II ATTEST:
\ ” .&(+/ iCXC %fL.(& !
DEBBIE FOMTAIN -
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
I/ DRB RES0 NO. 297 .lo-
Exhibit 3
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ADDkCATiON COMDhE DATE: STAff: Cliff JONES 1/27/2005 Dnvid Rick
ENViRONMENTAi RwiEw
CATECiOR/CA[ EXEMPTiON
I ITEM NO. 2
DATE: March 28, 2005
SUBJECT: RP 04-17- “PINE AVENUE UNITS”: Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit
to allow the construction of a 7,128 square foot, two story, four-unit condominium
located at 507 Pine Avenue in Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 297
recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-17 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. The
project also requires processing of a Minor Subdivision (MS 05-01) subject to the City
Engineer’s approval because the project involves separate ownership of four dwelling units. In
accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the major redevelopment permit is being
brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested,
consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project
and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested setback
variances.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Francis Helmuth, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit for a 7,128
square foot, two story four-unit condominium project. The property is located at 507 Pine
Avenue in Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The subject
property is currently vacant totaling 11,781 square feet with building frontage along Pine
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 2
Avenue, Roosevelt Street, and Tyler Street. The vacant site is bordered by two residential units
to the south, residential development across Roosevelt Street to the west, a commercial
compex across Pine Avenue to the north, and an auto parts store across Tyler Street to the
west. The majority of the east and west side of Roosevelt Street include single family and
multifamily residences and the majority of Tyler Street includes residences on the east side of
the street and automotive uses on the west side.
According to City records, the last known use for this site was a multi-family apartment complex,
which was demolished in 1990. The subject property was sold to a new owner, who applied for
a Redevelopment Permit in 1995 to construct a mixed-use project containing residential and
retail uses. The project was not constructed due to financial reasons. To this date, the lot has
remained vacant.
IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: I) a City which preserves,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the Village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a
City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use in an appropriate
location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance the Village by providing the
necessary residential support. The location of the project will provide the new residents an
opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units
will enhance the Village as a place for living and working. The project will also be close to
existing bus routes, furthering the goal of new economic development near transportation
corridors.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal I : Establish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Quality Shominq, Workinq and Livinq Environment.
The proposed project will result in the development of new condominium units where residents
will be within clear walking distance to District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village
Area. The new residences will increase the number, quality and diversity of housing units within
the Village, particularly those in proximity to transit, shopping and employment for those people
seeking to reside in the downtown area. The attractive architectural design will serve to enhance
the site and the surrounding area.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 3
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villase Area. The project has
been designed to minimize the pedestrianhehicular conflicts along Roosevelt Street by limiting
vehicular access to the site from the less vehicular frequented Tyler Street, thereby improving
vehicular circulation in the Village. Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to
both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus encourage and promote the use of mass
transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the Village.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property lmprovernents and New Development in the Village. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically by developing an existing vacant lot. Staff sees the
development of the vacant subject property as a key catalyst for future redevelopment along
both Roosevelt Street and Tyler Street.
Goal 4: lmprove the Phvsical Appearance of the Villase Area. The project has a design that is
visually appealing and sensitive to surrounding development within the area. The architecture
of the new structure will meet the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village. The
new structure is two stories, and is stepped back from the property lines, which is in keeping
with the scale and intensity of the surrounding properties. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning and
architectural design and materials that comply with City standards and requirements.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 5 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residential projects are a provisional use within this district.
Considerations that must be addressed to assess the appropriateness of this particular
provisional use within District 5 are: 1) that the multi-family residential use is appropriate to the
site and adjacent development, and 2) that the site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate required on-site parking without adversely affecting the visual environment of the
Village. Staff concludes that the proposed project complies with both of these considerations.
First, the multi-family use is consistent with the adjacent land uses which include primarily
single-family residences to the south and east, a commercial complex to the north, and an auto
parts store to the west. Second, due to the high number of residential uses in the vicinity along
Roosevelt Street and the east side of Tyler Street, a residential product on the subject property
is believed to be appropriate for the area. Finally, staff has determined that the site is adequate
in size and shape to accommodate the required on-site parking for both the future residents and
their visitors.
Location and development criteria that must be assessed for provisional multi-family projects
within District 5 are that; 1) residential and parking uses should not displace desired retail uses
or lessen active street frontage, 2) sites should accommodate parking requirements on-site or
below grade, 3) residential units should not be placed in proximity to health hazards, 4)
provision should be made to buffer train noise, and 5) multi-family housing located near the rail
station should be constructed as part of a mixed-use development project.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 4
Staff concludes that the proposed project complies with the criteria for the following reasons.
First, the proposed residential project will not displace desired retail space along the 3200 block
of Roosevelt Street for a majority of the uses are currently residential and are compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. Second, all proposed parking for the project is contained on site
and is placed in the rear of the building as specified within the Village Design Guidelines.
Thirdly, the adjacent land uses are residential and do not subject the future residents of the
proposed project to any potential health problems. Fourthly, the proposed project is one street
to the east of the train tracks, has buildings in between the proposed project, and the project
includes double paned windows which all help to buffer noise from nearby passing trains.
Lastly, the proposed project is located far from the rail station and distant form the downtown
core, therefore a mixed use product with a commercial component is believed to be
economically unfeasible and not included as part of the proposed project.
The overall vision for the development of District 5 (Hispanic Mixed Use Support Area) is to
accommodate a mixture of commercial and residential uses relating to Land Use District 1,
while also serving the special needs of the adjacent Barrio Neighborhood. The development
standards promote individual buildings set back from the street and surrounded by landscaping.
Staff believes that the proposed residential unit, assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 5 through the following actions: 1) the project provides a new
residential development that will improve the physical appearance of the village area, and 2) the
building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects, ample building setbacks
and an abundance of landscaping.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 5 are as
follows:
Buildina Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 5, the required front yard
setback is 5-20 feet and the required side and rear yard setbacks are 5-10 feet. All setbacks
are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 8 feet from
the front property line. On the west side yard, the setback is 24.5 feet from the side property
line. The east side yard has a setback of 12 feet. The rear of the building is located 27 feet
from the rear property line.
The Design Review Board will be required to make appropriate findings to grant variances for
the rear 81 side yard setbacks that exceed the maximum range of 10 feet.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance may be
approved by the Design Review Board for a Major Redevelopment Permit if the findings set forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition, a variance for a
setback standard that exceeds the top of the range may only be granted if the project meets one or more of the following criteria:
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 5
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space subject
to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to the subject
project.)
The first two criteria noted above for allowing side and rear yard setbacks, which exceed the
maximum standard (range) are justified as follows. The subject project is in a location which has
varying setbacks. Many of the rear set backs for these properties exceed the IO-foot rear yard
setback. Both the east and west side yard setbacks effectively function as front yard setbacks
due to the fact that both the east and west elevations are visible and directly face public streets.
Many of the front yard setbacks for the surrounding properties are set back between 15 and 20+
feet. The adjacent structures are functioning and are likely to remain for the foreseeable future.
The varied setbacks of the project along all street frontages and the stepping back of the upper
levels of the building allows for greater architectural articulation, which is strongly encouraged in
the Village Design Guidelines as a way to maintain and reinforce the Village character. The
proposed setbacks also help to soften the visual transition between the proposed project and
the permitted existing commercial uses. The increased separation also helps protect the
livability of the proposed residential development and that which may be developed in the area
by creating more privacy for the residents through increased setbacks. Therefore, staff believes
that the increased setback is consistent with the area and will reinforce the Village character.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for a setback standard that
exceeds the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variance. In order to approve the requested variance
to exceed the maximum setback on the side and rear of the property, the Design Review Board
must be able to make all four findings contained within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35.
Staff offers the following justification for granting the requested variance to exceed the rear and
side yard setback standards:
Variance Findina #7: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: Providing an increased setback on the rear of the proposed
building of 27 feet, is necessary to provide parking access that is visually subordinated, as
specified within the Village Design Manual, and that meets the required width of 24 feet. The
additional 3 feet will be devoted to landscaping, to help buffer the edge of the property. By providing an increased setback on the rear of the building, the required parking can be provided
at the rear of the residence underneath the second story of the units making the parking visually
subordinate, and landscaping can be provided along the rear of the property line for buffering,
both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 6
Providing increased side yard setbacks of 12 feet along Roosevelt Street and 24.5 feet along
Tyler Street is necessary to make the project consistent with the existing and proposed
development along these streets. Both side yard setbacks of the subject property effectively
function as front yard setbacks due to the fact that both side yards have building frontage along
residential streets. By allowing the east side yard setback to be set within the range for a front
yard setback, between 5-20 feet, the proposed project will be consistent with existing and future
developments along Roosevelt Street. Tyler Street has been designated as an Alternative
Design Street where sidewalk and street improvements are no longer necessary (as of the year
2000). If street and sidewalk improvements (in the amount of 5 feet) were required along Tyler
Street as they had been in the past, the west side yard setback would be 19.5 feet (24.5’ - 5’=
19.5’), which is within the range for a front yard setback (5-20 feet). Therefore, considering the
west side yard setback as a front yard setback for the proposed project will be consistent with
existing and future developments along Tyler Street. The increased setbacks are similar to
what is enjoyed by many properties with building frontage along Roosevelt and Tyler Street. In
addition, the increased setbacks provide ample space for the required recreational space to be
placed within the side yard setbacks.
Variance Findins #2: There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development, which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The unique condition
associated with the subject property is that it has building frontage on three sides; Roosevelt
Street, Pine Avenue, and Tyler Street. Each frontage effectively functions as a front yard
setback. By allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will more closely match the
setbacks of the surrounding residential properties.
Variance Findins #3: The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setback on the rear of the property will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties, because it allows for additional space for landscaped buffering and allows the required parking to be located at the rear of the residence, visually screened. In addition, the
increased side yard setbacks of 12 feet along Roosevelt Street and 24.5 feet along Tyler Street
will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because it is consistent with the
front yard setbacks enjoyed by adjacent properties and properties in the immediate vicinity.
Lastly, the increased setbacks provide for greater landscaping opportunities and recreational
space for the new residents, which staff believes will have a positive effect on nearby residents
and not a negative one.
Variance Findins #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The placement of
the building is setback similarly to the surrounding properties, maximizing outdoor recreation
opportunities for the subject property, and providing increased landscaped buffering, which is
consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual’s goal of establishing Carlsbad
Village as a quality living environment.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 7
Based on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow building setbacks that exceed the established range on the side
(east and west) and rear of the property.
Building Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in
Land Use District 5 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 37%,
which is below the established range. While the bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard, unlike the setback requirements, a variance is not required for building coverage that
is below the standard range. Therefore, the building coverage is in compliance with the
established standard and the lesser coverage allows for ample parking and recreational areas.
Buildinq Height: The height limit for Land Use District 5 is 30 feet with a minimum 4:12
roof pitch. The proposed project will have a maximum height of 29 feet 10 % inches and a roof
pitch of 4:12. Therefore, the building height is in compliance with the established standard.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, and/or patios. Qualified open
space for the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the
front, rear, and sides of the building. The project provides for a total of 3,921 square feet of open
space, which represents 33% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for a multi-family dwelling is two standard spaces per
unit and % guest parking space per unit. The project provides four two-car garages and two
guest parking spaces, which satisfies the parking requirement for District 5.
Residential Density and lnclusionarv Housing Requirements: The multi-family
residential unit results in a residential density of 14.8 dwelling units per acre. The Village Master
Plan and Design Manual does not set forth specific densities in the land use districts that permit
residential uses. Instead, an appropriate General Plan residential density is to be determined
for each project based upon compatibility findings with the surrounding area.
After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for
Land Use District 5 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a High Density
Residential (RH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RH
General Plan density designation is as follows:
1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses
including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and office.
Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for
future multi-family development, which is a provisional use in District 5 and would be
compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
2. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of
housing units within this area of the Village. The higher density designation allows for future
development that would be consistent with the development in the area and the goals and
objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 8
3. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
District 5 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops,
restaurants, and mass transportation. Higher residential densities in close proximity to
areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and
help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality.
All residential projects within the Village Redevelopment Area are subject to the City’s
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and those
requirements imposed by Redevelopment Law. In accordance with Redevelopment Law, 15%
of the private housing units constructed within a redevelopment area must be affordable to low
and moderate income persons, of which not less than 40% (or 6% of the total newly constructed
units in the redevelopment area) must be affordable to very low income households. Per City
Ordinance, projects of six or fewer units are eligible to pay an in-lieu fee of $4,515 per market
rate unit. The project has been conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee for the four (4) proposed
res iden t ia I units.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design
review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as
appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten
(1 0) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
IO. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project
provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a pleasant architectural design
conducive to the surrounding neighborhood and overall Village character. The applicant has
incorporated several desirable design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The
architectural design elements include the incorporation of recessed windows, arches around
windows, wrought iron fencing, wrought iron wall decorations at upper levels, varied stucco
colors, multiple roof elements with a 4:12 roof pitch, and various sized windows with decorative
trim. The buildings have a very strong relationship to the street in that they are physically
located in close proximity to the public sidewalk area along Pine Avenue and enhance the
pedestrian-orientation by providing enhanced landscaping along all street frontages. The
parking is visually subordinate in that it is located at the rear of the residence and underneath
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 9
the second story. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an
exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibit B).
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
The Village Master Plan includes a specific condition for residential units proposed for separate
ownership which states that all such units shall comply with the development standards and
design criteria set forth by the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. This requirement was added during the 1996 update to the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual with the intent to provide an additional layer of
development standards to insure that any development standards unique to condominium
projects were included in the Master Plan.
In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the Planned
Development Ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting,
utilities, recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space, and antennas. The project was
found to comply with each of the development standards and design criteria of the Planned
Development Ordinance. The following is an analysis of how the project provides for the
development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance, that are standards not
already addressed within the Village Master Plan:
Recreational !%ace: Private recreational space shall be provided for all planned
development projects with fewer than ten (I 0) units through a 15x1 5’ patio or 120 square feet of
balcony area for each unit. Three of the four proposed units have a 15’ x 15’ patio. The
remaining unit has a 12’ x 24’ patio, which by square foot calculation (1 2’ x 24’ = 288) is much
larger than a 15’ x 15’ patio (15’ x 15’ = 225).
Liahtinq: Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to
minimize security problems shall be provided. As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant shall be required to submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition has been incorporated into
attached DRB Resolution No. 297.
Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been
incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 297.
Tenant Storaae Space: The Planned Development Ordinance requires separate storage
space of at least four hundred eighty (480) cubic feet for each unit. If all the storage for each
unit is provided in one area, this requirement may be reduced to three hundred ninety two (392)
cubic feet per unit. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that
are normally part of a residential dwelling unit. The project has been designed with a storage
closet within the guest parking area. The total storage area required is 1,568 cubic feet and
1,634 cubic feet is provided. Therefore, sufficient storage area has been designed into the
units.
Antennas: Individual antennas shall not be permitted. The project shall have a master
cable television hookup. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution
No. 297.
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 10
Parkinq: The Planned Development Ordinance does not trigger any additional parking
requirements beyond what is required within the Village Master Plan. Therefore, the project
meets the parking requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance.
Buildinq Coveraqe, Heiqht and Setbacks: These standards are established individually
according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The details
of these development standards were previously discussed above.
X. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER. WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
Traffic & Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 32 ADT
Due to the project’s low generation of traffic, this project does not trigger the need for a traffic study.
This project is served by Tyler Street and has direct access to public streets. The streets in the
area have been designed to handle the traffic volumes generated by this project.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Four new sewer lateral will be installed for each unit. Three laterals will connect with a main in
Tyler Street and one will connect to the main in Roosevelt Street.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Water service to the project will be provided via an existing water lateral that connects to an
existing water main in Pine Ave.
Grad i nq :
Permit required: No.
Offsite approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: n/a
Drainaae and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: Buena Vista Watershed
Erosion potential: low
This project proposes to collect and convey storm water to the public right-of-way. Driveway runoff
will flow through a grass swale before discharging to the public right-of-way.
Land Title: Conflicts with existing easements: No
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 11
Public easement dedication required: No
Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes
The ultimate right-of-way widths of Tyler Street, Pine Avenue, and Roosevelt Street are provided.
Therefore, no additional right-of-way dedications are required.
Improvements:
Offsite improvements: No
Standard Waivers required: No
No public improvements are required as part of this development. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist
on all street frontages.
Storm Water Quality:
The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the
maximum extent practical, to ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed
downstream of the project. The developer is subject to complying with the City’s Storm Water
Management Plan.
XI. ENVl RON M ENTAL REV1 EW
The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary
finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board
resolution.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XI 11. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for a variance for the rear and side
yard setbacks to exceed the standard range. Development of the site will have a positive fiscal
impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and
objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 297 recommending approval RP 04-17
PINE AVENUE UNITS
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 12
B. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
C. Location Map
D. Exhibits "A - E", dated March 28, 2005, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit 4
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of Meeting: MARCH 28,2005
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Heineman called the Meeting to order at 6:Ol p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Marquez to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Heineman proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Board Members: Tony Lawson
Sarah Marquez
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Absent: Julie Baker
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones
Assistant Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: The Board was unable to approve the minutes. The minutes could only be voted on
by two members of the Board, as Board Member Marquez was not present at the February 28, 2005,
meeting.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, to present
the item on the agenda tonight.
Ms. Fountain said the first item is a redevelopment permit amendment to address a request from the
Carlsbad Village Business Association for the Village Farmer’s Market to be extended to a Saturday event. Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, will make the
presentation tonight.
Mr. Cliff Jones said the applicant, Carlsbad Village Business Association, is requesting an amendment to
the existing major redevelopment permit for an additional day to the weekly Farmer’s Market proposed to
be held on Saturdays in the same parking lot the Wednesday’s Farmer’s Market is currently held.
Because the proposal includes an addition to the days and hours of the operation of the market, final
a9
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 2 of 12
approval of the amendment must be granted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. In
accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the major redevelopment permit is being brought
forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The proposed Saturday Farmer’s Market will be held in the public parking
lot located mid-block on the east side of Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand
Avenue in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Farmer’s Market was originally established on September 27, 1994. The Carlsbad Village Business
Association, as official sponsor of the event, has aided in operations of the event since that time. With the
help of the current Farmer’s Market manager, Cynthia Bueker. The current Wednesday Farmer’s Market
is not due to expire until September of 2009. The Farmer’s Market currently takes place every
Wednesday afternoon from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. from the second Wednesday in September through the
second to last Wednesday in June. During the summer season, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. from the last
Wednesday in June through the first Wednesday in September.
The maximum number of booths for the Farmer’s Market is 33 spaces. Product sales are primarily limited
to fresh agricultural products such as fruit, nuts, herbs, vegetables, eggs, honey, cut flowers and nursery
stock. Non-produce items such as dried fruit, juice, dried beans, meat, fish, and dairy products may be
sold if the producer has proof that he or she grew, raised, collected or caught the product. Of the 33
spaces, a maximum 4 non-produce, non-certified product sales booths can be provided for such items as
locally made fresh bread, pastries and/or pastas, and these booths are limited to pre-made local goods to
be consumed offsite. Two of the 33 spaces can be arts and crafts booths, and for educational purposes,
the CVBA operates one booth on a rotational basis free of charge to individuals and organizations that
would provide educational materials on issues such as soil conservation, recycling, composting, organic farming, and sustainable agricultural business endeavors. Finally, the CVBA also provides one
informational booth for local village business to promote and advertise their businesses.
The CVBA, as official sponsor of the event, wishes to amend their existing major redevelopment permit to
allow an additional day for Farmer’s Market to be held on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. in the same
public parking lot that the current Wednesday’s Farmer’s Market is held. The public parking lot would,
therefore, need to be reserved an hour prior to and after the event from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. in order to set up
for the event and for cleaning up after the event. The configuration and operations of the proposed
Saturday Farmer’s Market will not change as part of the amendment. The same number and types of
booths will remain. The same parking lot and boundaries will be utilized. The same Farmer’s Market
manager, Cynthia Bueker, will continue to operate the Farmer’s Market and the placement of signs will
remain in the same place.
As part of this amendment, new signage reflecting the new day and hours of the proposed Saturday
Farmer’s Market will need to be installed. A slide was shown to indicate the proposed language for the
parking lot signage. Staff supports the proposed language to be placed on the sign indicating that parking
is prohibited on Wednesdays from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to noon. These hours
help to assure the Farmer’s Market manager will be able to set up prior to the event and clean up after the
event.
The Police Department has reviewed the proposed language for the parking lot signage and has
determined that the proposed language is appropriate. The CVBA has been responsible as a condition of
approval for the existing permit to pay for the cost of the construction and the placement of new signage
as needed. The CVBA has agreed to pay for the cost of the construction and installation of that new
signage.
The Village Farmer’s Market appears to have been well received by local merchants, residents and
visitors alike. The popular weekly event continues to attract many people to the village every Wednesday
afternoon by offering a unique shopping opportunity not afforded elsewhere in the City of Carlsbad. The
nature of the use has also helped to encourage greater pedestrian activity in the area. Therefore, it
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 3 of 12
enhances the overall village character. Through the passage of the proposed amendment, the Saturday
Farmer’s Market will offer an additional opportunity for residents and visitors alike to experience the
unique shopping opportunity afforded through the Farmer’s Market. In particular, the Saturday Farmer’s
Market will allow working residents and visitors of Carlsbad an opportunity to shop outside of normal
working business hours, generate more shopping activity and livelihood within the village.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with the following conditions:
0 First the initial approval will be granted for a six month period and can be extended up to five
years if the Housing and Redevelopment Director determines that those conditions have been met
and the project has no detrimental affect on surrounding properties.
Subsequent time extensions, up to five years, will be subject to the Design Review Board
approval.
Finally, the CVBA is to pay for the cost of the new construction and placement of the signage as it
has been a condition of approval in the past.
0
0
Mr. Jones thanked the members of the Board.
Chairperson Heineman asked if the Board had any questions.
Board Member Marquez asked if we have any kind of parking studies related to that parking lot utilization
during Saturdays? I know we do have a parking lot in-lieu fee and some developers have bought into that
parking lot. I was wondering what kind of legalization this would entail.
Ms. Fountain said the City does surveys twice a year in February and in August on all of our public parking
lots. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but the weekends are actually one of the lower utilization rates
so I think the Saturday won’t have as great an impact as the Wednesday’s Farmer’s Market does right
now. When we do the parking in-lieu fee program, actually we don’t have any property owner buy into
specific parking lots. They pay a fee that says they are going to be using public parking to help meet their
needs, and those public parking spaces can be at any public parking lot in the village area. The two lots
on Roosevelt Street are probably the least utilized on weekends. The closer ones still tend to be on State
Street and in those surrounding areas right there.
Board Member Marquez asked about signage. The signage they are proposing does not reflect the
summer hours, which I believe were extended till 8 in the evening during the summer time. It looked like it
was only till 6 p.m. for the Wednesday’s market.
Mr. Jones said that is true, and that was a request of the applicant. I believe the intent was the booth
would still be set up at that time so people would not be able to park there.
Board Member Marquez agreed, but won’t the booths still be there at 8 in the evening? So wouldn’t we
want to modify those signs to reflect that?
Mr. Jones said that is something we can do.
Board Member Marquez said those are her only questions.
Board Member Lawson asked Mr. Jones to clarify with respect to any conflicts for any of the special
grandfathered events. If you could offer some clarification of that.
Mr. Jones said condition number 11 of the Design Review Board agenda requires that major special event
applicants that have utilized the public parking lot in the past prior to the adoption date of the resolution
when it does get adopted will have a vested right to use that parking lot.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 4 of 12
Board Member Lawson said it was his understanding when the Carlsbad 5000 happens, all those farmers
will be properly notified to not plan on working that day.
Mr. Jones said correct.
Board Member Lawson stated that he saw the applicant submitted their request back in October. Is this a
typical amount of time that is needed? It seems like a simple request, though I know there is a lot more to
it behind the scenes that you have to do.
Mr. Jones answered that it did take some time for our Police Department and staff to review the proposed
signage. That was one thing that we had to pull the appropriate sections of the law, and that did take
some time. Typically, with a major redevelopment permit application, it does take some time to prepare
the staff report and resolution.
Chairperson Heineman asked if the Board can assume, in view of the question about the closing time, that
it is 8 p.m. now on Wednesdays? Is it 1 to 8, rather then 1 to 6?
Ms. Fountain said the later hours are only in the summer. It is not year around. We will need to correct it
and state the summer hours, maybe temporary signage.
Chairperson Heineman asked if this approval would be conditioned on the production of the signage,
which would take into account the changes.
Ms. Fountain said yes it would properly state for the summer as well.
Chairperson Heineman asked if that would be appropriate?
Ms. Fountain answered yes.
Board Member Lawson noticed the existing signage is noon to 7 and then the proposed is 1 to 6. What
should it be? Noon to 7 still? Or is that something we should just assume you will get cleared up, and I
don’t want to make a big issue out of it.
Chairperson Heineman said he thinks the Board will have to depend on staff going over all of the signage,
because it does appear that we have some problems.
Ms. Fountain said when the Farmer’s Market has been 2 to 5 and in the summer hours it is extended.
The setup is really the issue. Whether they set up at noon or they set up at 1, and we don’t want it too
early because the farmers get there early anyway, they just start setting up a little bit earlier. We will
double check to see when we actually need to have it closed, which is usually about an hour before the
event starts.
Chairperson Heineman commented that the Design Review Board can assume the signage will be
changed to conform to the correct hours.
Ms. Fountain said correct. Staff will make sure those are the current and correct hours.
Chairperson Heineman asked if there is an applicant available to make a presentation?
Ms. Fountain said only if you have questions.
Chairperson Heineman wanted to point out to the applicant that the Design Review Board has only three
members, a bare quorum, and is that satisfactory? Since we have no applicant, we will proceed.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 5 of 12
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded by Board Member
Lawson, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution number 296, recommending approval of the major
redevelopment permit, RP 94-05(A)X3, and add an additional day to the Farmer's Market to be held on
Saturday in the Village Redevelopment area, with appropriate signage.
VOTE: 3-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Lawson and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSTAIN : None
ABSENT: Baker
Chairperson Heineman stated the next item will be presented now.
Ms. Fountain said the next item is another major redevelopment permit. This is a request to allow
construction of a new project on Pine Avenue. Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner, will make the
presentation.
Mr. Jones said the applicant, Frank Helmuth, is requesting a major redevelopment permit for the
construction of a 7,128 square foot, two-story, four unit condominium located at 507 Pine in Land Use
District 5 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed project requires a major
redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit
valuation that is greater than $1 50,000. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the
major redevelopment permit is being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board
and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The subject property is located at
the corners of Pine Avenue and Roosevelt Street and Pine Avenue and Tyler Street.
The subject property is currently vacant totaling 11,781 square feet with building frontage along Pine
Avenue, Roosevelt Street and Tyler Street. According to city records, the last known use for this site was
a multi-family apartment complex, which was demolished in 1990. The subject property was sold to a new
owner who applied for a redevelopment permit in 1995 to construct a mixed use project containing
residential and retail uses. The project was not constructed due to financial reasons. To this date, the lot
has remained vacant.
The property is bordered by two single-family residential units to the south. To the east of the proposed
project are residential uses across Roosevelt Street. The property to the north contains a commercial
use, and the properties to the west of the proposed project, across Tyler Street, are the Carlsbad Village
Storage and an auto repair store.
As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed two-story, four unit condominium project,
totaling 7,128 square feet. Access to the residences is to be provided off of Tyler Street. The Village
Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the village. The
proposed project is within Land Use District 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residences are classified as provisional uses within Land Use District 5. Considerations that must be addressed to
assess the appropriateness of this particular provisional use are:
0
0
The multi-family residential use is appropriate to the site and adjacent to development.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate on-site parking without adversely
affecting the visual environment of the Village.
Staff concludes the proposed project complies with both of these considerations. First the multi-family use
is consistent with many of the surrounding adjacent residential uses. Second, the site is adequate in
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 6 of 12
shape and size for the proposed multi-family use, and has parking that is visually subordinate with the
garages at the rear of the residents, and will therefore, not affect the visual environment of the Village.
Staff believes the proposed resident's units and garages assist in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 5 through the following actions:
0
0
0
0
0
It provides a desireable use.
It serves as a catalyst for future development.
It provides development of a vacant lot.
It is compatible with the surrounding residential area.
It increases the number of quality and diversity of housing types.
The proposed project meets all of the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan excluding setbacks, which I will address shortly. The project provides for an abundance of open
space and landscaping through reduced building coverage. The building height of the project is in
compliance with the established standard set just below the permitted maximum height. Adequate
parking is provided through the use of two-car garages and two guest spaces.
In Land Use District 5, the front yard setback is five to twenty feet. The side and rear yard setback are
both five to ten feet. The proposed project falls within the required setback ranges, except for the rear and
side yard setbacks. The Design Review Board will be required to make appropriate findings to grant
variances for the rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the maximum range of ten feet.
Staff offers the following justification for variance finding number 1
0 The proposed project provides an increased setback on the rear of the proposed building of 27
feet. This necessary to provide parking access that is visually subordinate as specified within the
Village Design Manual and that meets the required driveway width of 24 feet.
The additional three feet will be devoted to landscaping to help buffer the edge of the property. 0
Providing increased side yard setbacks of 12 feet along Roosevelt Street and 24.5 feet along Tyler Street
is necessary to make the project consistent with the existing and proposed development along these
streets. Both side yard setbacks of the subject property affectively function as front yard setbacks. Due to the fact that both side yards have building frontage along residential streets. By allowing the east side
yard setback to be set within the range for a front yard setback, between five and twenty feet, the
proposed project will be consistent with existing and future developments along Roosevelt Street.
Tyler Street has been designated as an alternative design street where sidewalk and street improvements
are no longer necessary as of the year 2000. The street and sidewalk improvements in the amount of five
feet were required along Tyler Street as they had been in the past. The west side yard setback would be
19.5 feet; the 24.5 feet, and subtract the 5 feet. This is within the range for a front yard setback of five to
twenty feet. Therefore, considering the west side yard setback is a front yard setback for the proposed
project will be consistent with existing and future developments along Tyler Street. The increased
setbacks are similar to what is enjoyed by many properties with building frontage along Roosevelt and
Tyler Street. In addition, the increased setbacks provide ample space for the required recreational space
to be placed within the side yard setbacks.
Staff offers the following justification for Variance Finding number 2:
0 The unique condition associated with the subject project is that it has building frontage on three
sides; Roosevelt Street, Pine Avenue, and Tyler Street. Each frontage effectively functions as a
front yard setback. By allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will more closely
match the setbacks of the surrounding residential properties.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 7 of 12
Staff offers the following justification for variance finding number 3:
0 The increased setback on the rear of the property will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties because it allows for additional space for landscape buffering and allows
the required parking to be located at the rear of the residents.
In addition, the increased side yard setbacks of 12 feet along Roosevelt Street and 24 % feet
along Tyler Street will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties because it is
consistent with the front yard setbacks enjoyed by adjacent properties and properties in the
immediate vicinity.
The increased setbacks provide for greater landscaping opportunities and recreational space for
the new residents, which staff believes will have a positive affect on nearby residents and not a
negative one.
0
0
Staff offers the following justification for variance finding number 4:
0 The standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were identified to be
somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment
area.
The placement of the building is setback similar to the surrounding properties, maximizing outdoor
recreation opportunities for the subject property and providing increased landscape buffering,
which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of establishing
Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment.
0
These necessary findings for the request of variance have been included in the attached Design Review
Board Resolution. In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the plan
development ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting, utilities,
recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space and antennaes. The project was found to comply with
each of the development standards and design criteria of the plan development ordinance.
The proposed project is also consistent with the design principals outlined in the Village Design Manual.
The project provides for an overall informal character in design. The proposed development is small in
scale. The project incorporates several design features to achieve the desired village character, which
include various sized windows, decorative trim, recesses, multiple roof elements with four and twelve roof
pitch, rod iron fencing and decor, and varied stucco colors.
The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the
residence. Parking is also visually subordinate and contained within the two-car garages at the rear of the
property.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the project
pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of the said review, the project has
been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State Sequa
Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary findings for this environmental determination
is included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution.
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment
Agency.
0 The redevelopment of what was previously an underutilized vacant lot will result in increased
property taxes and thus an increase in property tax will further result in an increased increment to
the Redevelopment Agency.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 8 of 12
0 It is anticipated the new project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area; either
new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings through the elimination of a blighted vacant
lot and the construction of a quality multi-family residential project.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for variances for the rear and
side yard setbacks to exceed the standard range. Development of the site will have a positive financial
impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives
of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
Board Member Lawson said Mr. Jones talked about the setback and there are some private areas along
the sides. Within that area, is there a height limit for fences or wall, especially along the Roosevelt edge
because that is up against the sidewalk?
Mr. Jones answered yes. It is 42 inches.
Board Member Lawson asked if that was within the proposed plan?
Mr. Jones said yes.
Board Member Lawson asked about the slide Mr. Jones showed on the elevation. Is that Roosevelt or on
Tyler Street?
Chairperson Heineman said it would have to be Tyler Street.
Mr. Jones said yes, that is Tyler Street.
Board Member Lawson said he wanted to clarify that because it is showing vegetation in front of that patio
area. On Roosevelt Street, that wall being right up against the back of the sidewalk, was there any
consideration for trying to create a buffer so that wall isn’t right against the sidewalk? Those tend to be
vulnerable for vandalism.
Mr. Jones said he believes there is a minimal amount of landscaping along that right area.
Board Member Lawson commented he couldn’t tell based upon the site plan. It looks like the columns are right up against it and equally the wall. That is just an area of concern I would have. I would like it if we
could address that. Secondly, I am trying to understand how these outdoor patios are to be utilized. In
sheet number 2 it shows the two internal patios, the two in between, you can’t see the walls and how they
are actually utilized to get into those areas. I am wondering if the southern one is land locked and
trapped? Does that create any kind of code problem from that standpoint? Because they can’t get out
through the garage based upon the walls, or there appears to be some kind of wall there.
Mr. Jones said during the review of the project, the Building Department did not mention that there were
any codes being violated where that recreational patio space is proposed. We can double check.
Board Member Lawson said he would just like to make sure of that. The northern one, which is the one
that is open to the north side, my concern would be that appears to be patio for unit B, but it has windows
right into the living room of Unit C, and I would just want to be sure that is still a viable space for someone
to have as their private area. Typically when you have a zero lot line type of outdoor use area, you don’t
have windows there. You would have a solid wall, and I would be concerned about that. If that could be
looked into to verify, that would be good. I don’t typically see that when I look at other plans.
Mr. Jones said we can look into that.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 9 of 12
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Jones to refer to Page 1 of the document. It says we are requesting a
minor redevelopment permit to allow construction of a 4,371 square foot building.
Chairperson Heineman said that is the lot coverage.
Mr. Jones agreed that was the lot coverage.
Board Member Marquez continued that she felt staff was saying they want the variance because they are
considering Pine and Roosevelt Street and Tyler Street major frontage streets. What are City standards
concerning parking in your front yard setback. I always thought you couldn’t have parking in your front
yard setback.
Mr. Jones said the parking is within the two car garages.
Board Member Marquez said she was talking about the guest parking.
Chairperson Heineman said that is in the rear.
Board Member Marquez said it is accessed from the rear but it uses the front yard setbacks. I thought
there was a City standard concerning parking in your front yard setback.
Mr. Jones commented there is a setback of 14 feet.
Board Member Marquez said right. There is a setback of 12 feet on Roosevelt and there is the setback,
once we put in the sidewalk, of 19 feet 5 inches, but they have parking spaces in both of those front yards.
In one, we are calling it a front yard rather then a side yard. On the other hand, it‘s really a side yard. So
the variance I don’t think should be utilized then.
Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Jones which is the front yard and which is the rear yard?
Mr. Jones answered the front yard is off of Pine Avenue.
Chairperson Heineman said the parking is in the back is it not?
Mr. Jones said yes it is in the rear of the residence.
Chairperson Heineman said it is in the rear, and not in the front yard at all.
Board Member Marquez said for variance purposes, they want us to allow them instead of between 5 and
10 foot setback to go 12 feet because they are calling it a front yard setback on Roosevelt. Then on Tyler
Street, they are also calling that a front yard setback. On one hand, we are calling it a front yard, and then
on the other hand when we try to apply our parking standards and our conditions for homes, we are saying
it is really a side yard. You can park in a side yard, but you can’t park in a front yard setback.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi, said she is correct that normally the City standard doesn’t allow
parking in the front yard setback. I think Mr. Jones meant to say it was a front yard setback, but for
purposes of the variance, he is making an analogy saying it is a unique property because it has frontage to the three streets on three sides. In essence, there is only one front yard setback on this project and it is
on Pine.
Board Member Marquez commented that is right, but we are being asked to give them a variance. Part of
the justification for that variance is this is a unique property and we want to apply the front yard setback
rule to it because they are main streets. My second question concerned the two covered guest parking
spaces in the center of the project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 10 of 12
Chairperson Heineman said there is one parking space on Tyler and one in the rear.
Board Member Marquez commented that it looked like the one space is covered so there will probably be
some considerations from the Fire Department on that being covered as opposed to being open to the air.
Mr. Jones said the project was reviewed by the Fire Department, and that wasn’t an issue of concern they
brought up, but I can bring it up to them again.
Chairperson Heineman asked if the suggestions met Board Member Marquez’s approval as far as her
objections?
Board Member Marquez said she was concerned we are bending the rules for this as far as when they
apply for a variance, what we call a front yard setback and side yard setback. Now that Assistant City
Attorney Mobaldi has told me no, the front yard setback is in the front, I will go with that.
Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Mobaldi if she feels the setback approvals are fine.
Ms. Mobaldi said yes, she thinks they are justifiable because I think Mr. Jones was making an analogy,
and he was saying it is a unique property. It looks like you have three sides and you wouldn’t ordinarily
have that. I don’t think he was actually saying they are front yard setbacks. They are similar to a situation
where you have a front yard. That is where the confusion came in.
Chairperson Heineman asked about something on the small drawing. It appears the patio on Roosevelt
Street, which Mr. Lawson was concerned about, does indeed have a 42 inch wall around the edge, does it
not?
Mr. Jones answered the building wall can go up to 42 inches.
Chairperson Heineman said then it will have a wall. What Mr. Lawson was concerned about was that it
was right on the sidewalk, and there was nothing between the patio and the sidewalk. Is that indeed the
case? It looks to me from the drawing, there is actually a wall there.
Frank Helmuth is the applicant and lives at 12902 Via DelToro in Poway, California. He explained the
dotted line indicates the east side of the sidewalk. There is about a 2 and % foot side area. There will be
a wall put in there.
Chairperson Heineman asked if a wall will be in there?
Mr. Helmuth said the wall is in there.
Chairperson Heineman commented there is a wall in there. That is what I thought from the drawing I
could see.
Mr. Helmuth said it doesn’t run right up to the sidewalk. We left about 2 and % feet of planting area.
Chairperson Heineman commented that is plus the wall on the patio.
Mr. Helmuth said yes.
Board Member Lawson said he was just trying to get clarification because the drawing itself does not
indicate any kind of a setback.
Chairperson Heineman said it is on the little drawing but not on the big drawing.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 1 1 of 12
Mr. Helrnuth said while we are talking about setbacks, on the other side on Tyler Street, there are two of
the parking spaces.
Chairperson Heinernan asked Mr. Helrnuth if the dotted line was the edge of the sidewalk. That would
answer the question right there. The applicant was asked if he wanted to make a presentation.
Mr. Helrnuth said he would just like to respond to questions.
Board Member Marquez asked about the trash pickup. Will that be accessed off the curb on Pine
Avenue? I’d like to know how your residents or your occupants will access trash service from the City.
Will they just be putting their cans out on the curb?
Mr. Helrnuth said yes on the curb.
Board Member Lawson said he raised a question about the two internal patios. The issue of the one unit’s
windows facing directly into that, do you see that as a potential conflict or not?
Mr. Helrnuth asked if the Board had a full size floor plan?
Board Member Lawson said yes, he is looking at it.
Mr. Helrnuth said the windows are on one side.
Chairperson Heineman asked if the windows are high windows on one side.
Mr. Helrnuth answered yes.
Board Member Lawson said that is to face in towards the patio that is not his patio.
Chairperson Heinernan said the windows are above eye level.
Mr. Helrnuth said they are 9 foot ceilings. This way we get ventilation and light.
Board Member Lawson commented that he was concerned about the legitimacy of having some private
outdoor space with being right up against somebody’s living room. He asked what the height of the wall is
that separates those two patios?
Mr. Helmuth said 6 foot.
Board Member Lawson said they have a lower 42 inch similar to the other’s.
Mr. Helrnuth said it is actually a fence.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 28,2005
PAGE 12 of 12
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Lawson, and duly seconded by Board Member
Marquez, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution number 297, recommending approval of RP 04-1 7 to
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
VOTE: 3-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Lawson and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSTAIN : None
ABSENT: Baker
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
The Director wanted to remind the Board the next meeting is on April 18, 2005, at the Senior Center.
Because we had to move the date from our normal meeting date, the Council Chambers were not
available so it will be at the Senior Center in the Cafeteria.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2005, was adjourned at 7:OO p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT1
Minutes Clerk
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I ann a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
North County Times
Fonmerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171.349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
publlished in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
May 06fh, 2005
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 061h Day of May, 2005
CASE FILE NO.:
CASE NAME: PINE AVENUE UNITS
CARLSBAD HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NCT 1793238
RP 04-17
1 May06,2005
8
Signature
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO PM on Tuesday, May 17,2005, to consider a request for approval of a
Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP 04-17 for the construction of a 4,371 square foot, two-story, four-unit condominium on the property located at 507 Pine Avenue in Land Use District 5 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available after May 13,2005. If you have any questions, please contact Cli Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-281 3.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department has determined that the project
is; categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. The Commission will consider approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the approval of the environmental determination or the
request for approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Oflice, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
Publish: May 6, 2005 CARLSBAD HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION __
PINE AVENUE UNITS
RP 04-17
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PINE AVENUE UNITS RP 04-17
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of
the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO PM on Tuesday, May
17, 2005, to consider a request for approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit
No. RP 04-17 for the construction of a 4,371 square foot, two-story, four-unit
condominium on the property located at 507 Pine Avenue in Land Use District 5
of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available after May 13, 2005.
If you have any questions, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-281 3.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad, the Planning Department has determined that the project is
categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental
documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill
development project. The Commission will consider approval of the
environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the approval of the environmental determination or the request
for approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad, City Clerks Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008,
at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-17
CASE NAME: PINE AVENUE UNITS
Publish: May 6,2005
CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SI
PINE AVENUE UNITS
RP 04-17
First Owner Full Name
MAILING ADDRESS2
SAN KATRINA L L C
7136 VISTA DEL MAR AVE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
KATHLEEN M CLARK
3060 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 Mailing Address
Mailing Address City Ma Mailing Ad
FALCON
1664 VIA LA PLZ
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
NOBEL
SUITE C
6435 CAMINITO BLYTHEFIELD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
FALCON
3080 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUSSELL L BENNETT
6039 E MARIPOSA ST
SCOTTSDALE A2 85251
RUSSELL L BENNETT
6039 E MARIPOSA ST
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
MATTHEW HALL
UNIT 334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MATTHEW HALL
UNIT 334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CAFUSBAD
MATTHEW HALL
UNIT 334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MATTHEW HALL
UNIT 334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JESSICA DU SHAUNE
3150 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MATTHEW HALL
UNIT 334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE L
SUITE 1330
2601 MAIN ST
IRVINE CA 92614
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE L
SUITE 1330
2601 MAIN ST
IRVINE CA 92614
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT D NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT D THOMAS D & LUCINDA VIGNE
3880 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DARIN M DIAZ
12937 POMERADO RD
POWAY CA 92064
JANICE B LOPEZ
3225 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID C MCCHESNEY
3235 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ECKHARDT & SHIRLEY EISEL
421 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ECKHARDT & SHIRLEY EISEL
421 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUBEN I GASTELUM
1975 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DARIN DIAZ
SUITE A
12937 POMERADO RD
POWAY CA 92064
JAVIER A & JOHN URETA
3280 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOIN HANDS-SAVE A LIFE
3528 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ECKHARDT L SHIRLEY EISEL
421 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ECKHARDT L SHIRLEY EISEL
421 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VOGEL
UNIT 301
2558 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM L ELLEN SCHNEIDER
PO BOX 891
CARLSBAD CA 92018
E M JOHNSTON
1025 12 IRVING RD
EUGENE OR 97404
JOSE A L SYLVIA VALADEZ
3790 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOEL A URETA
3280 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRANCES MORENO
1611 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GASTELUM EVA R
640 WALNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAMON A KHALONA
3267 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HYUNG T L YOUNG YANG
2915 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GENTRY TERHUNE
UNIT 1312
645 FRONT ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
MONICA P MIER
PO BOX 4301
CARLSBAD CA 92018
REYNALDO L REGINA BARRERA
3221 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEVE F RODRIGUEZ
3207 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
M MUNOZ
3250 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARTINEZ
3274 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MONICA P MIER
PO BOX 4301
CARLSBAD CA 92018
RAMIREZ 05-27-98
735 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CATHY MANGEN
3228 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TONY F HERNANDEZ
3230 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF S D
PO BOX 85728
SAN DIEGO CA 92186
ROBERT J MONTANE2
3240 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GOMEZ
4765 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KATHLEEN PALMER
3905 DAISY PL
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
RODRIGUEZ FLORENCIO
2106 CROWN VIEW WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
MIGUEL 6 FRANCISCA GONZALEZ
SUITE B
3119 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNETH SWIFT
210 ACACIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANGELITA F MAMARIL
4232 HUBBARD RD
STOCKTON CA 95215
RUGGLES STEPHEN J L GINNA S FAMI
3149 FAIRVIEW DR
VISTA CA 92084
JOHN C & PATRICE WALTERS
6948 CLEARWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DARREN M HAMILTON
3190 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JESSICA DU SHAUNE
3150 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHELLEN I1 LTD PARTNERSHIP
4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
ROOSEVELT PLAZA LLC
869 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERTO M RICARDEZ
422 SAN DIEGO ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ROBERTO M RICARDEZ
422 SAN DIEGO ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
SANTANA
3183 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY J PINAMONTI
SUITE B-02
2244 S SANTA FE AVE
VISTA CA 92084
SHELLEN I1 LTD PARTNERSHIP
4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
CIRCLE K STORES INC
PO BOX 52085
PHOENIX AZ 85072
ROOSEVELT PLAZA LLC
869 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERTO RICARDEZ
3177 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KORBONSKI 03-29-94
33731 GLOCAMORA LN
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675
STOUT FAMILY INTERVIVOS
2914 LUANA DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
JOSEPH S FRIEDRICHS
3160 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHELLEN I1 LTD PARTNERSHIP
4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARLSBAD
PO BOX 913
CARLSBAD CA 92018
JOYCE A JAMES
3931 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELVA M CASTRO
158 LANCER AVE
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
HARRY M L SHARON MELLANO
PO BOX 100
SAN LUIS REY CA 92068
CYPRESS COVE APTS L P
UNIT 201
1322 SCOTT ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92106
Pine Avenue UnitsHousing & Redevelopment CommissionMay 17, 2005
SITECorner of Roosevelt Street & Pine Avenue
Adjacent Residences to the SouthOff Roosevelt StreetOff Tyler Street
Residences to the East
Commercial Property to the North
Carlsbad Village Storage & Auto Repair use to the West
Proposed Development1,718sq. ft.1,718sq. ft.1,846sq. ft.1,846sq. ft.
Standards ComplianceParkingRequired: 10 spaces (2 spaces/unit & ½ space/unit for guests)Proposed: 10 spaces; 4 two-car garages & 2 guest spacesBuilding CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 37%HeightRequired: 30’ w/ min 4:12 roof pitchProposed: 29’ 10.5” w/ 4:12 roof pitchOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 33%Planned Development Ordinance
Standards ModificationsRequired Setbacks: Front:5-20 feetSides:5-10 feetRear:5-10 feetProposed Setbacks:Front:8 feetE. Side:12 feet*W. Side:24.5 feet*Rear:27 feet** variance required to exceed 10 foot rear & side yard setbacks
Project Design
Goals & Objectives of Land Use PlanProposed Project:Provides desirable useServe as catalyst for future developmentDevelopment of a vacant lotCompatible with surrounding area.Increases number, quality, and diversity of housing types.
Environmental ReviewProposed project is an in-fill development and exempt from environmental review. No comments received.DRB recommended approval of exemption from environmental review.
DRB RecommendationDRB voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the project with findings to grant the following:Variances for rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the range. Establish the High Residential (RH) density designation (15-23 du/ac.)
Benefits of ProjectPositive impact on the redevelopment area and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.Catalyst for future redevelopment.