HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 382; Village Master Plan & Design Manual RevisionsHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
382
3/28/06
H/RED
TITLE:
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
REVISIONS TO VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND
DESIGN MANUAL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO
DFVFI nPWIFNT STANDARDS
DEPT. HD. dW)ffl
CITY ATTY. (***'
CITY MGR. L/^
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution of Intention No. 412 to
initiate an amendment to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to revise one or more of the
development standards set forth within said Plan and Manual to facilitate new development
and/or redevelopment of properties within the Village Redevelopment Area of the City of
Carlsbad.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At the request of the Chamber of Commerce, the Carlsbad Village Business Association, and
various property and business owners within the Village Redevelopment Area, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission has been asked, and has agreed, to review the development
standards set forth with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. This review is to consider
revisions to one or more of the development standards within said Plan and Manual to facilitate
construction of additional desirable projects within the Village area. In response to the noted
request and previous Commission direction, staff has 1) completed an analysis of various
financial scenarios on the impact of the current development standards; 2) consulted with
developers/property owners and architects; 3) reviewed previous and current project applications;
and, 4) researched standards set forth for other coastal cities in Southern California.
The Economic Feasibility Study indicated that escalating land values and construction costs are
outpacing sales income and lease revenue for the Village area. This results in a need to allow
larger floor areas to provide additional revenues to offset building construction costs. The study
indicates that the Commission should consider development standard revisions to height,
setbacks, building coverage and parking in order to address the financial challenges for
development in the Village.
In the discussions with the various developers, property owners and business owners within the
Village area, they indicated that 1) parking requirements are difficult to meet; 2) density is too low;
3) reduced setbacks and increased building coverage would be desirable; and, 4) the Planned
Development Standards are not appropriate for residential development within the Village.
The following suggested revisions have been proposed to date for consideration by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission:
• Reduce parking standards for residential and commercial (restaurant) uses.
• Allow tandem parking for residential units.
• Provide greater flexibility on configuration of parking spaces and parking space
calculations; consider creative solutions such as parking lifts or elevators.
• Increase permitted residential densities to 40du/acre within the Village.
• Allow 100% building coverage; no setback minimums or maximums.
• Allow 45' height limit (all areas) and delete roof pitch (5:12) requirement.
• Eliminate or reduce the 20% open space requirement.
• Eliminate requirement to comply with Planned Development Standards.
Page 2
On October 19, 2005, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission held a workshop to consider
the above noted proposed revisions. At said workshop, the Commission provided the following
direction/feedback to staff on the suggested revisions:
• Willing to consider reduced parking standards for residential and restaurant but need more
land use and fiscal analysis information.
• Support the allowance of tandem parking for residential units.
• Willing to consider greater flexibility on configuration of parking spaces, calculation of
parking space requirement, and creative solutions such as parking lifts or elevators.
However, Commission indicated that more information was needed prior to a decision.
• No support to increase permitted residential densities within the Village above those
already set forth. However, willing to consider increased density on a case-by-case basis.
• Allow 100% building coverage and no setback minimums or maximums with understanding
that there must be good building design and there will be increased setbacks for "edge
properties" that abut residentially zoned properties.
• No change in height limits but willing to delete roof pitch (5:12) requirement.
• No change in 20% open space requirement but support a clear clarification that
requirement can be met through the use of private or public space within a project.
• Open to considering elimination of Planned Development Standards compliance but need
additional information on the impact.
With the Housing and Redevelopment Commission's approval of this Resolution of Intention, staff
will continue to research the above noted standards modifications that require additional land use
and/or fiscal impact information and return to the Commission with said information for further
consideration. In addition, staff will continue to proceed with the required actions to modify the
standards already supported by the Commission during their October 19, 2005 workshop.
Attached are the minutes and staff summary of the subject workshop for information purposes.
The noted modifications will require revisions to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
which will require approval by the Design Review Board, Housing and Redevelopment
Commission and Coastal Commission (as a Local Coastal Program amendment).
Attached to this report are correspondence received from the Chamber of Commerce and the
Carlsbad Village Business Association regarding the suggested standards modifications. The
correspondence is provided for information purposes.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the attached
Resolution of Intention to revise one or more of the development standards set forth in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. As indicated above, Staff will proceed with modifications to the
standards as supported by the Commission on October 19, 2005, and return with additional
information on the noted standards where no decision was made. Unless directed otherwise, staff
will not pursue changes to the standards that the Commission did not support at the October 19,
2005 workshop. If the Commission would like to reconsider any of its past direction to staff on the
proposed standards modifications for the Village Area, this would be the appropriate time to do
so. The proposed Resolution of Intention directs staff to proceed with its efforts to revise one or
more of the development standards, as directed by the Commission, and to obtain additional
public input through workshops and other appropriate means. Public workshops to provide input
on suggested revisions are anticipated to be held in April/May, 2006.
PageS
Environmental Review
The adoption of the Resolution of Intention is statutorily exempt from CEQA review since there is
no possibility that this activity will have an adverse impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
An expenditure of staff time will be required to process the amendment to the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual for the development standards revision. The revisions will ultimately need to
be processed through the Design Review Board, Housing and Redevelopment Commission and
Coastal Commission (for the LCP amendment). The subject project is a Management Goal for
2005-2006. A total of $50,000 was previously appropriated through the goal process for the
subject project. The funding will be used for any consultant studies required to complete the
project and/or for architectural services to prepare visual demonstrations of any development
standards ultimately recommended for revision.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution of Intention No. 412 to revise
one or more of the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual for properties located within the Village Redevelopment Area.
2. Minutes from October 19, 2005 Commission Workshop on the proposed standards
modifications.
3. Staff summary of October 19, 2005 Commission Workshop on the proposed standards
modifications.
4. Written correspondence from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce.
5. Written correspondence from the Carlsbad Village Business Association
Contact: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department, (760) 434-2815,
dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 412
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGE
MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL TO REVISE ONE OR MORE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET FORTH WITHIN SAID PLAN AND
MANUAL TO FACILITATE NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
Be it hereby resolved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, that pursuant to Sections 21.35.150 and 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad hereby declares its
intention to consider an amendment to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to revise one
or more of the development standards, including height and density, set forth in said Plan and
Manual in order to further facilitate new development and/or redevelopment of properties located
within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Housing and Redevelopment Director is hereby directed to further research and
prepare said Village Master Plan and Design Manual amendment and set the matter to public
hearing before the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 28th day of March. 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hall,
^^aouii1"'/,,
/^•^\* * / \S> "-^^ -_ t ^sw«ni >j«>**4& • ^ _--- * f '•?<> 'r |/ESTABUSHH)\%
EXHIBIT 2
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
DATE OF MEETING: October 19, 2005
TIME OF MEETING: 11:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: 1635 Faraday Ave, Room 173A
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 11:03 A.M. All Council Members were present
except Council Member Packard who arrived at 11:12 a.m. Also present were the City
Manager and City Attorney.
The Mayor called for a discussion on Council Member reports on regional roles and
assignments. Mayor Pro Tem Hall reported on SANDAG activities. Council Member
Sigafoose reported on NCTD activities including ongoing work on the Sprinter line.
Council Member Kulchin reported on the timing of certain regional board meetings. The
Mayor reported on Metropolitan Water District activities including ongoing labor
negotiations leading to a possible memorandum of understanding.
The Mayor then called for a discussion of the proposed recreational vehicle ordinance.
The City Manager called on Deputy City Engineer Transportation Bob Johnson who
introduced the item. He reminded the Council that during the period from December
2003 to November 2004 there were 294 calls for service. He distributed a
memorandum summarizing the various alternatives before the Council for discussion.
(See memorandum attached). The alternatives included:
• Maintaining the status quo;
• Implementing a permit option; and
• Restricted duration parking option.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Johnson pointed out that 131 of these calls
originated in the northwest quadrant. He theorized that this is because there are fewer
master planned communities and therefore less RV storage areas in the northwest
quadrant. Mayor Pro Tem Hall pointed out that this provision was added to our code in
the 1990s after the northwest quadrant was substantially developed.
Council Member Sigafoose inquired about parking along Carlsbad Boulevard and Mr.
Johnson reviewed that issue which was the subject of a previous workshop. Council
Member Packard inquired whether or not ordinances regulating RV parking have been
successful in other communities. Mr. Johnson explained that this has not yet been
done and that he will check with the City of Encinitas to see how effective its ordinance
has been.
After a discussion of this issue and considering the report and information presented to
the Council by staff, the Council felt that maintaining the status quo was in the best
interests of the City at this time.
The Mayor then called for a discussion and review of the redevelopment standards for
the Village Area. The City Attorney explained the process for obtaining a quorum when
a majority of the Council has a potential conflict of interest under FPPC Regulation
18708 (copy attached). Council Member Kulchin implemented the lottery system called
for in that regulation and Council Member Sigafoose was picked at random to
participate in the discussion in order to obtain a legal quorum. Mayor Pro Tem Hall and
Council Member Packard were excused and did not participate further in the item.
Council Member Sigafoose explained that the potential conflict of interest was due to
her real property interests and business ownership of the property located at 2805
Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California.
Redevelopment Director Fountain then introduced the item with the aid of a slide
presentation (on file in the office of the City Clerk) entitled "Development Standards
Review". Council listened to the presentation, asked clarifying questions and then
engaged in a discussion of the issues. The Mayor summarized the issues as density,
height, parking and setbacks. After further discussion, the Council directed staff to
process the item for consideration of certain changes but with no changes in density,
height or parking at this time. The Council indicated that it was acceptable to process
an amendment to the Redevelopment Standards to eliminate the 5-12 roof pitch and to
allow all setbacks at zero feet and 100% building coverage with good design, except for
"edge properties" that abut residentially zoned properties. Redevelopment Director
Fountain will begin the process to make these changes, which will be returned to the
City Council at a regular meeting for further consideration.
The City Manager recommended a parking study first including the financial impacts
associated with any changes before further Council discussion on this issue.
Redevelopment Director Fountain indicated that she will return to the Council with
examples of the impacts of removing the provisions of the Planned Development
ordinance, which currently applies in the Redevelopment Area.
The Mayor then called for a working lunch at 12:18 p.m. He called for a discussion of
the Rancho del Oro interchange. Mayor Pro Tem Hall and Council Member Packard
rejoined the Council.
The Mayor called on the City Manager who introduced Deputy Public Works Director
Glenn Pruim who gave the background of the Rancho del Oro interchange project. It
has been included in the City's General Plan for over 20 years and is included in the
SANDAG traffic modeling for traffic studies for current projects. Our staff has attended
meetings with Oceanside and has continued to express its desire to see the Rancho del
Oro interchange constructed. The draft EIR/EIS has not been released to the public for
review and comment. Council directed Mayor Pro Tem Hall its SANDAG representative
to request this issue be discussed at the next SANDAG board meeting.
The Mayor then called for public comment and there being none, thanked all for their
thorough participation and adjourned the special meeting at 1:07 p.m.
espectfully submitted
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
as Clerk Pro Tem for the meeting
October 20, 2005 EXRIBIT 3
TO: CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
The following is a summary of the direction/feedback that I believe I received at the City
Council's workshop on October 19, 2005 regarding possible revisions to the development
standards for the Village Area. Please let me know if I am incorrect or any modifications are
required to my understanding.
1. Height Limit - no changes. The Council was not supportive of increased heights in the
Village.
2. Eliminate roof pitch requirement - OK with change.
3. 0'Setbacks and 100% building coverage - OK with change with understanding that there
must be good building design and there will be increased setbacks for "edge properties"
that abut residentially zoned properties. In addition, projects must continue to meet other
development standards (including parking).
4. 20% open space requirement - maintain but clarify that open space refers to private space
as well as public space in a project.
5. Elimination of PD Standards Compliance - open to suggestion, but need additional
information on actual impact.
6. Set GMCP at 40 du/acre - no. Leave density standards as is. Consider density increases
on a case by case basis according to current practices.
7. Reduce required parking for residential and restaurants, and allow other creative solutions
for providing parking - willing to consider but need more land use and fiscal analysis.
8. Allow Tandem Parking - OK.
If you have any further direction on this matter, please contact me at X2935.
You,
\
*—Debbie Fountain
C: Community Development Director
1
CARLSBAD
V-^ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Speaking for Business, Listening to the Community
March 20, 2006
Debbie Fountain, Director Housing & Redevelopment
City of Carlsbad
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Design Standards Suggestions
Dear Ms. Fountain:
Oh behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce's Village Enhancement Committee, we
are writing you to address the proposed changes to design standards in the Carlsbad
Village redevelopment area. To encourage good and innovative design, we support your
proposals, and offer the following comments.
We strongly support your suggestion of easing the parking requirements. In addition, we
would also suggest the expansion of creative parking solutions, i.e.: more diagonal
parking where desirable, more extensive "Free Public Parking" signage throughout the
Village, etc., and shared parking programs between the City of Carlsbad, private owners,
and public agencies such as NCTD.
Another suggestion we support is to eliminate the 5:12 roof pitch requirement, allowing
builders and developers more leeway in building design. We would also suggest that due
to the small size of many of the lots in the Village, developers be allowed to purchase
credits for affordable housing, or into affordable projects in other areas of the
northeastern or northwestern quadrant of the City, rather than having to try to
accommodate them on site.
Furthermore, we also strongly encourage, on a case by case basis, special project
enhancements which will allow for a 45 foot high limit without the need for sub-terrain
parking requirements. We also support an increase in the building concentration levels
(density), and 100% coverage of properties in the Village area, while eliminating the
planned development (PD) standards.
It is our belief that these suggested changes will encourage good and innovative design in
the redevelopment process of the Carlsbad Village redevelopment area. If you have any
questions, comments or concerns please do not hesitate to contact the Carlsbad Chamber
of Commerce at (760) 931-8400 for any clarification.
Thank you for your leadership in modifying the design standards for the Village.
Sincerely,
Ted Owen Stephen "Hap" L'Heureux
President/CEO Chair, Village Enhancement Committee
Carlsbad Village Business Association
2579 State Street, Suite B • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Phone: (760) 434-2553 • Fax: (760) 434-5569
info@shopcarlsbadvillage.org • www.shopcarlsbadvillage.org
EXHIBIT 5
December 6, 2005
Deborah Fountain
Housing & Redevelopment Director
City of Carlsbad
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Debbie:
On behalf of the Board of Directors I want to applaud your suggested revisions to the Village
Development Standards as listed below:
• Reduce all setback requirements to zero with no minimums/maximums. No ranges.
• Allow building coverage to 100% of property.
• Allow 45' max. height with no other requirements (i.e., roof pitch, over parking, etc.)
• Eliminate roof pitch (5:12) requirement; simply use as a design guideline.
• Increase permitted residential density to 40 to 50 dwelling units an acre.
• Consider reduced parking requirements for residential and restaurant uses.
• Eliminate requirement to comply with Planned Development Ordinance; simply
comply with other development standards in Village Master Plan.
We greatly appreciate your efforts and feel that these recommendations will greatly enhance the
further growth of the Village.
Sincerely,
Bill Ostrie
CVBA President
Development Standards ReviewVillage Redevelopment Area
Don’t Overemphasize ThePurely visualChoose simpleAnd economicalsolutionsPromote CreativityBe FlexiblePeopleGatheringPlacesWalkable, Human-ScaledNeighborhoodsHigher DensitiesBuild Close To SidewalkOne at a timeInteresting BuildingsUrban VillageDavid SucherCity Comforts –How to Build anUrban Village
Current StandardsSetbacks: 0’-20’Open Space: 20%Building Coverage: 50% to 100%Parking: Varies by UseDensity: 15 to 23 du/acre; 19 GMCP Height: 30’- 45’PD Standards -condosVillage by the Sea
Existing ProjectsKent Jesse OfficeLaguna PointeVillage by the SeaVillage by the Sea
Review StatusCompleted financial scenarios on impact of development standards.Consulted with developers/property owners and architects.Reviewed previous and current project applications.Researched standards of other coastal cities in Southern California.
Economic Feasibility StudyEscalating land values & construction costs are outpacing sales income & lease revenue.Need to allow larger floor area to provide additional revenues to offset building construction costs.Consider revisions to height, setbacks, building coverage and parking.
Developer/Owner/ArchitectFindingsParking requirements difficult to meet.Density too low.Reduced setbacks and increased building coverage allowance is desirable.Planned Development Standards are not appropriate for Village.
Developer/Owner/ArchitectSuggested RevisionsReduce parking standards for residential (guest parking) and commercial uses.Allow tandem parking for residential units.Greater flexibility on configuration of parking spaces; consider creative solutions such as parking lifts.Increase permitted densities within the Village to at least 40 to 50du/acre.
Developer/Ower/ArchitectSuggested RevisionsAllow property line to property line building; 100% building coverage; no setback minimums or maximums. Allow 45’ height limit (all areas) and delete roof pitch (5:12) requirement.Eliminate or reduce the 20% open space requirement; or, clarify that 20% open space may include all public and private open space (i.e., patios, courtyards).
Standards ComparisonCarlsbadDel MarEncinitasOceansideSolana BeachLaguna BeachSan ClementeCarlsbad Village Standards as currently provided are comparable to other cities surveyed or more liberal in most cases.
Suggested ModificationsAllow 45’ height limit – all land use districts; no roof pitch requirement.Allow all setbacks at 0’ and 100% building coverage with good design, except for “edge properties” that abut residentially zoned properties.Maintain 20% open space but clarify that it can include private space and does not need to be provided at ground level.
Suggested ModificationsEliminate compliance with PD Standards.zMinimum private street width (34 feet)zMinimum driveway width (24 feet)zMinimum community recreational space.zRecreation vehicle parking.zMinimum storage space.zMinimum building separation.Set Growth Management Control Point at 40 units per acre (in Village Area); no requirement for density increase or bonus findings unless exceed GMCP.
Suggested ModificationsReduce required parking for residential from 2.5 spaces/unit to 2 spaces/unit (guest parking off-site); allow tandem parking; only 1 covered.Reduce required parking for restaurant from 1space/100sf to 1 space/200 sf. Maintain retail and office parking at 1space/300sf.Give credit for square footage of any current building on site towards calculation of parking requirement for change in use and/or new development.Maintain parking in-lieu fee program.Allow use of parking lifts/elevators (w/approval of Engineering and/or Fire Departments).
Parking ExampleCurrent RulesProposed RulesParking Required: 10 spaces for retail10 spaces for restaurant 25 spaces for condosParking Required: 10 spaces for retail5 spaces for restaurant20 spaces for condosParking Provided: 45 spaces totalParking Provided: 32 spaces total (Incl.3 space reduction for existing 1000 sf retail bldg on site)New Mixed Use Project: 3000sf retail; 1000sf restaurant; 20 condos (2 bdr).On-site: 1000sf existing retail building.
Council FeedbackOctober, 2005Height Limit – No changes.Eliminate Roof Pitch requirement.0’ setbacks and 100% building coverage OK with good design and increased setbacks for “edge”properties.Maintain 20% open space – can be private or public space.
Council Preliminary FeedbackOpen to elimination of PD standards –need additional information on impact.No change in density.Willing to consider reduced parking standards or creative parking solutions, but need more information/analysis.Allow tandem parking for residential.
Proposed Revisions/ActionsSetbacks (0 feet; Districts 1-4)Building Coverage (100%; Districts 1-4)Roof Pitch (None – all Districts)No guest parking for residential; restaurant at 1:200 (all Districts -if study indicates appropriate)
Proposed Revisions/ActionsTandem parking for residential (all Districts)Creative parking solutions (all Districts - if study determines they are appropriate)Eliminate Planned Development Standards (all Districts) zMinimum driveway width (24ft)zRecreational Vehicle StoragezRecreational SpacezSeparate Storage SpacezMinimu building separationzMinimum Patio size
Next StepsPublic Hearing(s)Design ReviewBoardMay/June2006Public Hearing(s)Housing &RedevelopmentCommissionJune/July, 2006Public Workshops(Residents)April/May2006Coastal Commission Application/Hearing
RecommendationAdopt Resolution of Intention 412 to initiate an amendment to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to revise one or more of the development standards set forth within said Plan and Manual to facilitate new development and/or redevelopment of properties within the Village Redevelopment Area.