Loading...
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.