HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-04; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 383; Madison SquareHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
o
UJsCCQ.
QL
V)
V)
OO
AB# 383
MTG. 4/4/06
DEPT. HIRED
TITLE:
MADISON SQUARE
RP 04-24
DEPT. HD.^^V f
CITY ATTY. P&S
^--^
CITYMGR -VV^
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 413 , APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-24 for the construction of a 6,234 square foot, three-story, four-
unit condominium on the property located at 2737 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 as recommended
by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 23, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a three-story, four-unit condominium project totaling 6,234 square
feet in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 8,648 square foot site
is currently vacant and is bordered by a surface parking lot to the south, postal office and surface
parking lot to the west, a one-story residential apartment building to the north, and a residential use
across the street to the east.
The proposed project involves the construction of four residential condominiums. There are two floor
plans for the four proposed units. Floor plan one totals 1,514 square feet and floor plan two totals
1,603 square feet. Each floor plan contains 3-bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and direct access to the
garage. Parking is provided for each unit through two car garages and two covered guest parking
spaces are provided as required. Each unit within the project is also equipped with a second and
third story balcony for recreational purposes.
The project includes extensive landscaping within and around the project, a pleasant architectural
design, and decorative walls along the Madison Street frontage. Vehicular access to the site is off
Madison Street and residents may access the units through the garage or at entries along the south
side elevation.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (5-0) 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;
The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report, and the draft minutes
of the January 23rd meeting are attached for the Commission's review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Housing & 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 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
PAGE 2
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 $342,884. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $2.5 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $ 21,571
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. 413. APPROVING RP04-23.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 305 dated January 23, 2006.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated January 23, 2006, w/attachments.
4. Design Review Board Minutes, dated January 23, 2006.
i
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 413
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
4 APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP 04-24
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,234 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-
5 STORY, FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2737 MADISON STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT
6 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 .
8 APPLICANT: BRUCE B. BAKER
CASE NO: RP 04-24 _
9
1° WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-24) for the
12 construction of a 6,234 square foot multi-family condominium on the property located at 2737
13
Madison Street, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 305 recommending to the
14
Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-24) be
approved; and16
j 7 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
1 8 the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation
19 and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-24);
20 and
21 WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings establishing the High
22
Residential (HR) density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre for the subject property; and
23
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
24
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to2o
21 be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
28 pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
HRC RESO NO.
PAGE 1
1
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
3 adequate facilities.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
5 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
^ 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
7 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-24) is APPROVED and that the
8 findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 305, on file
9
in the City Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions
10
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
13 reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
14 comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
15 (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
17 , •regulations;
18
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no
19
more than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
20
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
22 species;
23 (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
24 traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
25 (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services.
27
28
HRC RESO NO. Ll
PAGE 2 '
1
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination
reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
4 of Carlsbad.
5 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:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC RESO NO. P
PAGE 3 O
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
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
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she 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
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of April,
2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
RAYM ,SECRETARY
5 ^/ESTABLISHED \\ '-
- *: }u>-
\%\ 1970 f§~
HRC RESO NO.
PAGE 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 305
DATED JANUARY 23, 2006
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 305
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-24 FOR THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,234 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737 MADISON
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
6 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
7
CASE NAME: MADISON SQUARE
8 APN: 203-102-16
9 CASE NO: RP 04-24
10
WHEREAS, Bruce B. Baker, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tamarack Park,
13 LLC, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-102-16, and more thoroughly
14 described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16
shown on Exhibits "A-E" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
. _ Department, "Madison Square RP 04-24", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbadlo
19 Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a duly
2i noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to
24
25 "Madison Square (RP 04-24)."
26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
27 follows:
28 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Madison Square RP 04-24, based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
r 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
6 the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
7 Guidelines as an infill development project, hi 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.
9
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
10 findings contained herein for 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
^2 Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but
not limited to the following:
13
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
14 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
16 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
17 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.
19 b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
20 Manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project
21 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 the same
23 architectural elements found in residential projects.
24 c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
26 d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
27 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
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
DRB RESO NO. 305 -2-
facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
2 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants, which
3 enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. 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
6 the City's Landscape Manual.
7 f. 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.
9 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
10 Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
11 conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for four (4)
12
13 h. 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
14 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
17 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
20 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
21 Village Design Manual.
99 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project
23 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
24 designation is as follows:
25 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
use in District 1 and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses
28 in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
DRB RESO NO. 305 -3-
1
2 b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity,
3 and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The higher
density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with
4 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 1 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
7 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.
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.
11 The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding 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,
14
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
I-5 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
17 the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
18
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
20
c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
21 School District that the project has satisfied its obligation to provide school
facilities.
22
~<i d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
24
e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
25 be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
27 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
28 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
DRB RESO NO. 305 -4-
1 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
2 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
3 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
6 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
7 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
9 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
10 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.
13 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
14
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.
16
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
17 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.
20
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
21 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
23 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
24 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
25 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -5- 1 ^
6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
2 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
3
7. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Minor Subdivision 04-17 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 305 for this
5 other approval and incorporated by reference herein.
6 8. 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.
o
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
9 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
10
10. 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
12 Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
13 11. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
14
, - 12. 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
16 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
17 facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
18 13. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-24 as shown on Exhibits
19 A-E, dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
20 unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
21 HOUSING CONDITIONS:
22 14. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
23 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
24 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.
26 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:
27 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
DRB RESO NO. 305 -6-
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
2 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
3 16. 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
4 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
17. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
6 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
7 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
° 18. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants,
g 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
10 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
11 Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
^ minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
13 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
14 of, or in which the City has an interest.
15 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
17 within 30 days for the official record.
18 19. 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
19 such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
21 20. 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
22 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
24 taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
25
21. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
26 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
2_ substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -7-
22. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
2 passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
3
NOTICING CONDITIONS:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
successor in interest.
12 QN-SITE CONDITIONS:
13
22
23
24
25 „28. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall
26"
27
28
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. 305 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
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.
25. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
plan (Exhibit "A") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director.
26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
19
20 ii
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply
with the approved plan.
27. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
not be permitted.
29. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit.
DRB RESO NO. 305 -8- 1 ^
1 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
2 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
3 following code requirements.
Fees
4
1. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
5 required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6 2. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
3. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent
offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad
n Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10 General
11 4. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval
becomes final.
12
5. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
13 Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
14
6. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
15 Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the
17 approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior
18 to installation of such signs.
19 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
20 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain an administrative
approval of Minor Subdivision MS 04-17, consistent with this Major Redevelopment
Permit RP 04-24.
22"
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. 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 fees/exactions
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 fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006 by the following vote to
wit:
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
r
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 305 -10-n
ATTACHMENT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-102-16-00
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 37 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT WHICH IS
NORTH 55 DEGREES 27' EAST 170 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER
OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREEES 33' EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55
DEGREES 27' EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID LOT, 203.24 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT;THENCE NORTH 34 DEGREES 33' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
LINE, 50 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE
SOUTH 55 DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, 203.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
WITH ATTACHMENTS
DATED JANUARY 23, 2006
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones
6/28/2005 Bob Wojcik
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
ITEM NO. 2
DATE: January 23, 2006
SUBJECT: RP 04-24 "Madison Square": Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit to
allow the construction of a 6,234 square foot, three story, four-unit condominium
on the property located at 2737 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 305
recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-24 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 04-17) 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 staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project
and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant and part owner, Bruce B. Baker, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit
for a 6,234 square foot, three-story four-unit condominium project. The property is located at
2737 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The
subject property is currently vacant totaling 8,648 square feet after a 20 foot street dedication,
with building frontage along Madison Street. The vacant site is bordered by a surface parking
lot to the south, postal office and surface parking lot to the west, a one-story residential
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23,2006
PAGE 2
apartment building to the north, and a one-story office building across Madison Street to the
east. The majority of the east and west side of Madison Street include single-family and
multifamily residences and the majority of Arbuckle Place includes residences on both sides of
the street.
According to City records, the last known use for this site was a detached 768 square foot
single-family dwelling unit, which was in a state of deterioration. The property owner at the time,
not seeing any value in the structure, demolished the unit in 1994 in order to make the property
more marketable. To this date, the lot has remained vacant.
IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) 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:
GoaM: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping, Working and Living Environment.
The proposed project will result in the development of new condominium units where residents
will be located in 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.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The project will
provide a new sidewalk that will connect with the existing sidewalk south of the property
improving pedestrian circulation. Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 3
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 Improvements 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 Madison Street and Arbuckle Place.
Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is
visually appealing and sensitive to surrounding development within the area. The architecture
of the new structure meets the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village. The new
structure is three stories, and is stepped back from the property lines, which reduces the impact
the building has on the surrounding neighborhood. 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 1 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 1 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 a one-story
apartment building to the north, a post office and surface parking lot to the south and west, and
a one-story office building to the east. Also, a majority of the surrounding properties along
Madison Street and Arbuckle Place are residential uses, which makes the proposed project
compatible with the surrounding 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 1 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.
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 2700 block
of Madison 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
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23,2006
PAGE 4
and is placed on the first floor with garages for residents and covered spaces for visitors as
specified within the Village Design Guidelines. Thirdly, the adjacent land uses are residential
and offices, which do not subject the future residents of the proposed project to any potential
health problems. Fourthly, the proposed project is two and a half blocks 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. An acoustical analysis of the
project concluded that no interior or exterior noise mitigation would be necessary at any location
on-site. Lastly, the proposed project is located in a neighborhood dominated by residential
uses, which limits the need for a mixed-use project.
The overall vision for the development of District 1 (Carlsbad Village Center) is to provide a mix
of shops, restaurants, entertainment uses, visitor accommodations, and commercial services
encouraging mutually supportive uses to provide a major activity focus for the Village and the
City of Carlsbad as a whole.
Staff believes that the proposed residential units, assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 1 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 nearby residential projects, ample building
setbacks and an abundance of landscaping, finally 3) the project provides a residential use that
is complimentary to the retail and commercial services by bringing more people twenty-four
hours a day and within walking distance to the Village Center.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 1 are as
follows:
Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 1, the required front yard
setback is 0 to 10 feet and the side and rear yard setbacks have no minimum or maximum
requirement. All setbacks are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the
proposed building is 10 feet from the front property line after a 10 foot street dedication. On the
north side yard, the setback is 3 feet 1 inch feet from the side property line. The south side yard
has a setback of 16 feet 7 inches. The rear of the building is located 11 feet from the rear
property line. The proposed project is consistent with the setback requirements set forth for
Land Use District 1.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all residential
projects in Land Use District 1 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is
54%, 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.
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGES
Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. The proposed project will have a maximum height of 33 feet and a roof pitch of 5:12.
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 2,396 square feet of open
space, which represents 27.7% 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 Y* guest parking space per unit. The project provides four two-car garages and two
guest parking spaces, which satisfies the parking requirement for District 1.
Planned Development: 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.
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 Space: Private recreational space shall be provided for all planned
development projects with fewer than ten (10) units through a 15'x15' patio or 120 square feet of
balcony area for each unit. Plan 1 has three (3) separate deck areas totaling 202 square feet
and Plan 2 has two (2) separate deck areas totaling 201 square feet, which exceed the
requirement for recreational space.
Lighting: 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. 305.
Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been
incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 305.
Tenant Storage 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. Each unit has been designed with 406 cubic feet
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 6
of storage space adjacent to the garage on the first floor, which exceeds requirement for tenant
storage space.
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. 305.
Parking: 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.
Building Coverage. Height 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.
Residential Density and Inclusionarv Housing Requirements: The multi-family
residential unit results in a residential density of 17.1 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 1 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 1 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.
3. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
District 1 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
Inclusionary 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
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE?
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
residential 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
(10) 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.
10. 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 trim ("Hardiplank") around the different sized windows and
building fascia, the use of a variety of materials including stucco, wood, and sheet metal,
exposed rafter tails, and varied roof forms with a 5:12 roof pitch. The buildings have a very
strong relationship to the street in that they are only set back from Madison Street by ten (10)
feet and enhance the pedestrian-orientation by providing a sidewalk and enhanced landscaping
along all street frontages. The parking is visually subordinate in that it is located underneath the
second story in individual garages or covered guest parking stalls. A summary of the design
features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibit A).
IX. 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 Madison 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.
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGES
Sewer:
Sewer District: City of Carlsbad
One new sewer lateral will be installed for each unit. The laterals will connect to the existing sewer
main in Madison Street that will be extended by the developer.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Each unit will be provided a water meter. A single connection to the existing water main in
Madison Street will be manifolded into four new services. A separate meter with a backflow
preventer will be installed for irrigation.
Grading:
Permit required: Yes
Offsite approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: n/a
Drainage 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. Runoff will be
intercepted by a private storm drain system and discharged to Madison Street through 3 - 3"
sidewalk underdrain pipes. In existing conditions, the peak flow is 0.10 c.f.s. to Madison Street and
0.29 c.f.s. to the adjoining property to the west. After development, no flows are directed to the
west, and with onsite detention, the peak flow to Madison Street is 0.19 c.f.s. The negligible
increase of less than one tenth of a c.f.s. is not expected to adversely impact existing drainage
facilities.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easements: No
Public easement dedication required: Yes
Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes
The project will be required to dedicate an additional 10 feet along the Madison Street frontage, for
a total half street width of 30 feet from centerline.
Improvements:
Offsite improvements: Yes
Standard Waivers required: No
n
MADISON SQUARE
JANUARY 23,2006
PAGE 9
The project will be constructing new curb, gutter and sidewalk across the Madison Street frontage,
and extending the existing sewer main in Madison Street.
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. Storm water runoff will be treated by inlet filters prior to discharge into the right
of way to remove oil, grease, heavy metals and trash from storm water. Other BMP measures are
detailed in the project Storm Water Management Plan.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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.
A noise study was prepared by Eilar Associates to determine whether there was a potential for
subjecting the future residents of the project to significant noise impacts. This study concluded
that no interior or exterior noise mitigation would be necessary at any location on site.
XI. 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.
XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the project. 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 and Design Manual.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 305 recommending approval RP 04-24.
C. Location Map
D. Exhibits "A - E", dated January 23, 2006, including reduced exhibits.
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Site Planning:
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Parking and Access: "'•*-* '•'.''
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Project: Madison Square
The project is predominately surrounded by
residential units.
The nature of the use does not warrant the
inclusion of benches and low walls.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
The project does not include a drive-thru.
Adequate setbacks are provided along the side of
the property to minimize privacy loss for adjacent
residential uses.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-street
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along the front, sides, and rear
of the building will provide for an informal setting.
Landscaping will be provided along the sides of
the building.
Parking is located within garages on the first floor.
The subject project will provide access to parking
on Madison Street.
Parking is located within garages on the first floor.
Parking lot areas are not part of proposal.
Driveway is required for circulation.
Parking is located within garages on the first floor.
Curb cut is required for driveway. Madison Street
is not a major pedestrian street.
Site is not located on a corner.
Appropriate setbacks and landscaping are
provided adjacent to pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces to divide parking lot paving
into smaller segments.
Building Forms:
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
Roof Forms: ^
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
The parking is accommodated through the use of
enclosed two car garages, which help to screen
the vehicles, which is an important design concept
in the Village. Ground level parking structures,
particularly with access off of vehicular frequented
streets, work better for residential projects
because they do not affect retail continuity.
The applicant found it to be financially infeasible to
provide parking below grade.
Not applicable.
The building has been designed specifically for the
unique layout of the property and topography. The
building design provides for articulation on all
sides, varying setbacks, and other architectural
features, which provide for a unique character.
Architectural features and relief appears to step
the upper level of the buildings back.
The size of the lot does not warrant breaking the
building up into smaller units. However, varying
roof peaks and various architectural features serve
to break up the mass of the building.
The height of the new structure is consistent with
other commercial and residential buildings in the
area.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
is not trendy or "look at me" in design.
The project is providing a 5:12 roof pitch as is
required in District 1.
The project includes dormers as part of its design.
The project uses a fiberglass composition roof,
with three-dimensional shingles, which have a
wood appearance.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Building Facades: : - , : &" ; ;
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
various architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all four building facades, thereby
creating visual interest in the building. The project
makes good use of various sized windows with
decorative trim, and the use of a variety of
materials.
Multi-paned windows with decorative trim are used
in the project.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections on the second story of the building,
which will create shadows and contrast.
The development is not a commercial structure.
The second floor of the residence will be accessed
through an internal stairway. No external
entrances are proposed.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
building, which include; decorative trim around the
windows and the use of a variety of materials.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize a "Hardiplank" siding
along with stucco, sheet metal, and wood fascias.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Wood or fiberglass doors and window frames will
be utilized.
No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
Commercial Storefronts: "• .W"*4": ''"?*•''; "1^7:«-\-<;
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
display windows.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
Residential:
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front properly lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
The project incorporates one primary base stucco
color, one trim color, and one color for the siding .
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Landscaping is proposed along all street frontages
to contribute to the overall visual quality of the
neighborhood. Ample room is available on the
balconies for residents to incorporate flower boxes
and landscape planters.
The residential unit entries are oriented at the side
yard because of the rectangular shape of the lot.
The unit closest to the street is oriented towards
the street.
The project design does not lend itself to front
entry porches.
Windows look out to the street on the end unit
facing Madison Street.
The project utilizes a simple color scheme
A variety of materials are being used along
facades with the incorporation of decorative trim
around windows.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller
components.
The project design incorporates cottage form,
scale and character.
Open space and landscaping encompass 27.7%
of the property.
There is one access drive to the project off
Madison Street maximizing the amount of
landscaping adjacent to neighboring properties.
Not applicable.
Low stucco walls match the facade of the building
and are incorporated along all sides of the project.
The design of the project serves to visually
separate the building into two smaller elements.
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 305
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-24 FOR ' THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,234 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737 MADISON
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
6 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE1.
7
CASE NAME: MADISON SQUARE
8 APN: 203-102-16
9 CASE NO:RP 04-24
10
WHEREAS, Bruce B. Baker, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tamarack Park,
13 LLC, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-102-16, and more thoroughly
described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16
shown on Exhibits "A-E" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
Department, "Madison Square RP 04-24", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad
1 o
19 Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a duly
91 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to
24
25 "Madison Square (RP 04-24)."
26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
27 follows:
28 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Madison Square RP 04-24, based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:4
<- i. 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
6 the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
7 Guidelines as an infill 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.
9
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
10 findings contained herein for 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
12 Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but
not limited to the following:
13
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
'4 as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family
. j. residential use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves
to enhance the Village by providing the necessary residential support. The
16 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
17 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.
19 b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
20 Manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 1 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 the same
23 architectural elements found in residential projects.
24 c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
26 d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
27 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
° been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
DRB RESO NO. 305 -2-
facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
2 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants, which
3 enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
4 e. 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
6 the City's Landscape Manual.
7 f. 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.
9 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
10 Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
11 conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for four (4)
2 units.
13 h. 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
14 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
jg 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
17 provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking,
recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well
18 integrated into the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land
1Q 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
20 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
21 Village Design Manual.
22 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project
23 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
24 designation is as follows:
25 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
27 would allow for the proposed multi-family development, which is a provisional
use in District 1 and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses
28 in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
DRB RESO NO. 305 -3-
1
~ b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity,
3 and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The higher
density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with
4 the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
Master Plan.
r c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
Use District 1 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
7 shops, restaurants, and mass transportation. Higher residential densities in
close proximity to areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater
8 job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic
congestion and improved air quality.
10 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.
11 The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
13 government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
14
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
15 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
17 the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
18
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
20 c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
21 School District that the project has satisfied its obligation to provide school
facilities.22
~., d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
24
e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
25 be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
96 5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
27 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
28 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
DRB RESO NO. 305 -4- O I
1 GENERAL CONDITIONS;
2 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
3 building permits.
4 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
6 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
7 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
9 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
10 Permit.
'1 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
12 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.
13 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
14
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.
16
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
17 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
19 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
20
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
21 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
22 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
23 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
24 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
26 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -5-
6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
2 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
3
7. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Minor Subdivision 04-17 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 305 for this
r other approval and incorporated by reference herein.
6 8. 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
7 format.
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
9 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
10
10. 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
j 2 Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
13 11. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
,c 12. 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
16 . 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
17 facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
18 13. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-24 as shown on Exhibits
19 A-E, dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
20 unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
21 HOUSING CONDITIONS;
22 14. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
23 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
24 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.
26 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS;
27 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
DRB RESO NO. 305 -6-
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
2 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
3 16. 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
4 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
17. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
6 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
7 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
o 18. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants,
n 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
10 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
' 1 Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
.« minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
13 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
14 of, or in which the City has an interest.
1 5 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
17 within 30 days for the official record.
18 19. 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
1" such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
,,„ requirement.
21 20. 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
22 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
24 taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
25
21. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
" concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
2y substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
28
MODRB RESO NO. 305 -7-
22. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
2 passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
3
NOTICING CONDITIONS:
4
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. 305 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
9 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
10 modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
12 ON-SITE CONDITIONS;
13 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
1 <- Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
16 25. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
plan (Exhibit "A") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
19 Director.
20 26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply
22 with the approved plan.
23 27. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
24 downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
25 28. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall
26 not be permitted.
27 29. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit.
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -8-
1 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
2 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
3 following code requirements.
Fees
4
1. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
5 required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6 2. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
3. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent
offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad
n Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10 General
11 4. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval
becomes final.
12
5. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
13 Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
6. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the
17 approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior
18 to installation of such signs.
19 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS;
20 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain an administrative
approval of Minor Subdivision MS 04-17, consistent with this Major Redevelopment
Permit RP 04-24.
22"
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -9-
1 NOTICE
2
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
. "fees/exactions."4
5 You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
6 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 fees/exactions
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 fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
12 expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006 by the following vote to
15 wit:
16
AYES:
17
NOES:
18 ABSENT:
19 ABSTAIN:
20
21
22 COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
23
ATTEST:
24
25
26 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
27"
28
DRB RESO NO. 305 -10-
ATTACHMENT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-102-16-00
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 37 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT WHICH IS
NORTH 55 DEGREES 27' EAST 170 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER
OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREEES 33' EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55
DEGREES 27' EAST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID LOT, 203.24 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT;THENCE NORTH 34 DEGREES 33' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
LINE, 50 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE
SOUTH 55 DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, 203.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SITE
MADISON SQUARE
RP 04-24
ARCHITECT JUDSON PITTAM AIA
X
"fOUf?ARCHITECT JUDSON PITTAM AIA
za 10 feoieve LT.ST. c-«e
ARCHITECT JUDSON PITTAM AIA
i i £ I ^ 1 1 S sr £
fj1
p p
[if Iff!
i f I
oo
Pi I i i
$ S |»i n«id 111
|5? Sii! j
? S S !T
! '
iii'i!
Q>
T ^>
^OCL O
^-R0^5s=s (\>
!CP p,
fija O^c r\
Qi 1^-^ 130) o(\>
>*~i,.JH*
MMVrWIVSOJOO'pWZSVYDEED) "$%
"-^•^ t 8 r-**- —-r -M-f -4^E"" -/ s ag gi r-
M"! ;
l
j«,:?1
- vh-o 2 3*w-^s• "r* M Tffl
fii J=lUhi
ill*fSl •< i?. ' stesls s!? .^ C2S»PI fi f IP*
50
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DATED JANUARY 23, 2006
51
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: JANUARY 23, 2006
Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Heineman called the Meeting to order at 6:00 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: Julie Baker
Tony Lawson
Sarah Marquez
Michael Schumacher
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Absent: None
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones
Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the November 21, 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 stated the first item on the agenda is a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for the Lincoln and Oak mixed-use project. Tonight Cliff Jones, our Assistant
Planner in Housing and Redevelopment, assisted by Dave Rick from Engineering, will make the
presentation.
Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant, Karnak Planning and Design, has requested a Major
Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction
of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six condominium units and 1,913 square feet of
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 2 of 24
retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 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 then $150,000. The project also requires the
approval of a Tentative Tract Map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In
addition, the project is required to process a Coastal Development Permit because it is located within the
coastal zone. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are being
brought forward for recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue at the edge of the VR
zoning boundary. The VR zoning boundaries are depicted in yellow on the screen above. The subject
property totals 17,514 square feet with building frontage along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The
existing structures on the property include one single-family residence and a surf shop. The structures
are in various stages of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the
proposed building. The project is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, to the east
construction recently began on a five-unit condominium project, the property to the north contains a
condominium project called the Monterey, and the project to the west of the proposed project across
Lincoln are commercial uses.
As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed three-story, 12,719 square foot mixed-use
project consisting of six condominium units with roof decks/patios and 1,913 square feet of retail space.
The three-story building consists of two stories of residential condominiums located over above ground
parking and retail space. The six units vary in size from 4,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The
building has a pleasant architectural design incorporating decorative materials such as travertine and
decorative black awnings in order to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential
condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper
levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The
residential portion of the project is significantly set back from the street in order to reduce the massing of
the building along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominant feature of
the corner. Vehicle access to the site is to be provided off of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the
Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Mixed-use
projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9. Permitted uses are defined as those,
which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals
established for the district. The Village Master Plan stipulates that the ground floor of all approved mixed-
use projects in District 9 must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is
proposed along portions of the frontage of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, closest to the travelers and
tourists along Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Highway, staff concludes that the project complies with this
requirement. The remainder of the site is occupied by setbacks, residential storage space, access points,
and required parking.
Staff believes the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use
District 9 through the following actions:
• The project provides for a desirable use;
• It may serve as a catalyst for future development;
• It provides for the development of an underutilized lot;
• It helps to attract additional tourist serving uses by providing additional retail close to Carlsbad
Boulevard;
• It increases the pedestrian circulation in the village through the additional new sidewalk;
• It is compatible with the surrounding residential area;
63
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 3 of 24
• It increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types.
The proposed project also meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan. The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping, not only on the ground
floor, but also on the balconies and private roof garden/patios.
The Village Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be maintained as open space. The
project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% on the site and is
therefore consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor
alone equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks, patios and balconies encompass the remaining
26.2%. It is noteworthy that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for private roof
decks/patios and balconies to be calculated in the 20% open space requirement. This open space
calculation is unique to the Village Redevelopment Area. This method of calculating open space has been
used on past redevelopment projects within the Village and allows for the intensity of development that is
encouraged within the downtown Village Redevelopment Area.
The building coverage of the proposed project is set within the middle of the range at 72.6% and is
appropriate for a mixed-use development project. The increased building coverage will allow the
developer to locate the parking within the building itself to screen the parking from view. In addition, the
proposed building coverage allows the developer to construct a building that has a retail component close
to the street. The necessary findings to allow the increased building coverage are contained within the
report to the Design Review Board.
Within Land Use District 9 the maximum height of the project is 45 feet for any size project, with
residential or commercial space located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum
height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary
for access to the roof decks/patios. However, the remainder of the building is set at a building height of 36
feet. Staff finds the building height of the project is in compliance with the established standard set below
the permitted maximum height of 45 feet.
Adequate parking is also provided for the proposed project through the use of six two-car garages for
residents and three.guest parking spaces as required. Ample parking is provided for the retail use
through six standard spaces and one accessible space. The project provides for a total of 22 parking
spaces, which is one space greater then the 21 spaces required, and therefore meets the parking
requirements.
In Land Use District 9 the permitted setbacks are as follows:
• The front yard setback is 5 to 20 feet;
• The side yard setbacks are 5 to 10 feet;
• The rear yard setback is 5 to 15 feet.
All the proposed building setbacks fall within the standard range or are very close to the middle of that
range. The front yard setback of the building and the street side yard setback are proposed close to the
street in order to create a strong retail presence at the corner and to attract visitors from Carlsbad
Boulevard. The upper levels of the residents are setback further from the street in order to reduce the
massing of the building at that corner. Permitted side yard setbacks for the adjacent properties are shown
on the screen above in order to demonstrate setback compatibility with the R3 zoning. The necessary
findings to allow the reduced setbacks, which are still within the setback range, are contained within the
report to the Design Review Board.
In addition to the Development Standards set forth for the Village Master Plan, the planned development
ordinance provides development standards for recreation space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 4 of 24
storage, tenant storage space, and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of these
development standards and design criteria of the planned development ordinance.
The proposed project is consistent with the desired village scale and character for the relatively dense
urban neighborhood desired by the Master Plan, providing an appropriate density and intensity of
development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street and is physically
located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, enhancing the
pedestrian orientation of the Village and enhancing the retail space of the corner. Upper levels of the
building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level building
planes. The project incorporates several design features to achieve the desired village character
including:
• The first floor is enriched with travertine;
• An attractive fountain is provided on the ground level at the corner of the site, in order to enhance
the first floor facade;
• Low lying walls to sit on are incorporated at the corner of the site around a decorative fountain;
• The building incorporates various sized windows and decorative glass block windows with
decorative trim;
• The second and third floor balconies have tempered glass balcony railings;
• There are various building recesses;
• The project has decorative cherry colored doors;
• The project proposes tile roofing with a 5 and 12 roof pitch as required;
• The building has varied building colors.
The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the building
and parking is visually subordinate contained within the building itself.
The proposed project has received substantial public comment from the property owner who is
constructing the building immediately east of the proposed development, Mr. Michael Bovenzi. Mr.
Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in the report to the Design Review
Board, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards and is consistent with the
land use requirements for the property.
Staff has also met with the property owner located immediately to the south, Mr. Dennis Bauern, to
discuss the proposed project. Mr. Bauern informed staff that his concerns for the proposed project were
the units' windows at the south of the building would have downward visibility into his apartment project.
Mr. Bauern also had concerns about the wall height along the south elevation and asked that the south
wall be raised in order to prevent persons from being able to look down into his units. Also Mr. Bauern
expressed to staff that he would like to see an increased setback along the south elevation.
Staff also met with the secretary to the Board of the Monterey Condominiums to the north of the proposed
project, Ms. Nancy Kaupp. Ms. Kaupp informed staff that she shared the plans with the board of the
Monterey and that the board did not have any major concerns with the proposed project. She mentioned
the board thought the block was one of the worst in the village and they were happy to see the corner
redeveloped.
Written public comment that has been received on the proposed project has been included as an
attachment to the report to the Design Review Board.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant
to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
55
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23,2006
PAGE 5 of 24
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 environment 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. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an underutilized lot will increase property taxes
and this increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment
Agency. Second, it is anticipated the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area,
either new development or rehabilitation of existing structures through the elimination of a blighted
structure and construction of a quality multi-family residential project.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. Development of this site is
anticipated to 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 and Design Manual.
Board Member Lawson stated he did get a briefing with staff to get some additional background on this
project. One of the items that needs clarification is the concern one of the adjacent neighbors brought up
regarding the walling around the south and eastern property lines. Could you elaborate a little bit on that
because that does warrant additional clarification if possible?
Mr. Jones said staff has received some concern from the property owner to the south and the east with
regards to the wall heights. The way the project is proposed currently the site is a maximum of three feet
higher on the proposed project's side and rear. In between a commercial project and a residential project
in the village area; a solid masonry wall is required. The applicant has proposed a nine-foot wall as seen
from the property to the south and the property owner to the east. The purpose of the six-foot masonry
wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall is for visual screening as a person is walking along the proposed
project so they cannot see down into the adjacent properties. We had discussion with the property owner
to the south and he had a preference to have the six-foot wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall in
order to maintain some sort of privacy along that elevation. That was also done along the eastside
elevation as well.
Board Member Lawson commented that procedurally as he understands it, we have a situation here,
which is not unlike many places throughout the city where you have different land uses adjacent to one
another. So there are different standards on one side of the property line versus the other. To my
knowledge, I am not aware of any requirement to create some hybrid standard because of what is
adjacent to the other side of your property line. Is there any requirement for purposes of creating
transition that is within the code?
Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, said this property is located in the
Redevelopment Area, and it is adjacent to other properties that have residential zoning only. That does
create a situation where you have properties adjacent to the site where they have totally different
regulations. They have more restrictive height limits on them then the Village Area. There isn't anything
within the Master Plan or the Municipal Code that would state you have the ability to create some alternate
codes. Obviously, you don't have to go to the maximum the codes will allow, and actually as Cliff showed,
in this project on several cases they didn't go to all of the maximums they would have been allowed on the
site. It does create some inherent conflicts so we try to work with the property owner and the applicant to
address those issues the best we can. We understood when the project came in there was some conflict
because it was immediately adjacent to these residential properties, but this is not unusual for the
Redevelopment Area. We actually have other locations within the Redevelopment Area that have a
similar type of situation where they are immediately adjacent to residential properties that have different
requirements. It is something, as a staff member, we try to work through the best we can and try to
address those conflicts the best we can in terms of trying to get more articulation or try to enhance the
privacy with the walls. There really isn't the ability at the Board level to start setting different standards for
SCp
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 6 of 24
the area. The standards are what they are, but there is some ranges in the Redevelopment Area and it
does allow some additional height on it.
Board Member Baker asked if the difficulty wasn't necessarily because it is next to residential, but that the
sites in white are subject to City of Carlsbad Planning Department regulations where the yellow sites are
Redevelopment regulations, which are different?
Ms. Fountain said that is correct. The Village Redevelopment Area has it's own Master Plan document,
which sets forth the standards for the Village Area. Any time that it is not stated in the Master Plan what a
standard is, then we would go to the Municipal Code. The properties that are outside the Redevelopment
Area are subject to the Municipal Code and whatever those standards are as well as any additional
overlays that might be in the area like the beach overlay zone or some others that might put some more
restrictive standards on them.
Chairperson Heineman asked if all the areas in white are subject to the Municipal Code and the areas in
yellow are subject to the Redevelopment Code?
Ms. Fountain said correct.
Robert Richardson with Karnak Planning and Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad. He is here
representing his client, Russell Bennett and Earl Miller. We have tried to work with the neighborhood as
best we can by meeting with our neighbors. On the south wall we did have it lower, and then he
expressed an interest in bringing it up, so we brought it up. Then we also looked at every window on the
south wall and analyzed where our windows were on an angle and we placed palm trees so someone
standing in the window would have to see through the palm tree before they could see into the apartment
to the south. We were very concerned about that. On the east property, our retaining wall and our land
was actually lower in some cases then the property to the east. At the last minute we were given the
working drawings, which lowered their grade 2 Vz feet below where they were, which developed a concern
for us. Otherwise, our wall was right on the money. They have taken that house out and by doing so, they
ended up cutting it deeper than the preliminary grading plans that was used for the public hearing.
Mr. Richardson continued they were concerned about the roof decks. We pulled them all to the center of
the building. There was some concern about visibility of our decks to the people around us on both sides.
They have been pulled down in the line of site. We did some line site drawing. You can't even see our
next-door neighbor. You can only see two or three lots out away from us. You would actually have to
climb out and crawl down to the edge of the roof to look down into the project next door. We have tried to
give privacy.
Also, to our neighbor to the east we did include raising up a small screen wall on the east side so the two
units on the east would not have any opportunity of a view to the east. We have tried hard to work with the
neighborhood. We've tried to do something real quality to where it is a very expensive building. The
residential units are first class. Two of the units will be occupied by the owners at a really high end with
elevators. It is exciting to see something of this caliber coming into the Village, and you will see more of it
in the future. Cliff has done a good job and has been very thorough.
Board Member Lawson said he understands each of the units, with the exception of unit number 4, takes
utilization of the deck above the commercial and a portion of the garage. Is that correct?
Mr. Richardson answered yes.
Board Member Lawson continued by asking if unit number 4 only has a roof deck?
Mr. Richardson said it does have a small deck on the main roof deck as well as the one up on top.
51
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 7 of 24
Board Member Lawson asked if there was one tucked further back into the corner?
Mr. Richardson said right it is on the far side.
Board Member Baker asked about the corner and if Mr. Richardson could explain the concept with the
fountain and the low wall on the corner of Oak and Lincoln.
Mr. Richardson said they were asked to make it a public people space and more of a retail space. So we
put low seat walls and we did the fountain and the fountain wall is also a seat wall. We would have added
more to it, but there is a lot of utilities. On the south side of the front entrance way we did early sketches
and it looked even bigger and then we started plotting all the transformers, underground vaults on that
corner, there is a lot there so we tried to leave enough landscape around it and pull it a little bit to the north
corner of that. It doesn't look perfectly balanced but that is mainly because of the utilities. We tried to
keep a nice buffer. The travertine tile look and beautiful corners goes all the way across the front and then
we carried it past the driveways all the way to the end of the building so the whole entire front has a retail
look about it that feels strong and solid. Only the two units with beautiful curved balconies come out.
Everything else is pulled behind it. We also plotted shadows in the summer and in the winter.
Board Member Lawson asked about the retail use. Have you targeted or had discussion as to what type
of retail use you anticipate?
Mr. Richardson said there have been several considerations. There has been some inquiry about putting
in a small bookstore. It's too early to know for sure yet. We have tried to make it as visible as possible.
Board Member Schumacher asked about the grade that is three feet of fill? Is that right?
Mr. Richardson said no.
Board Member Schumacher said he is wondering if related to the wall on the south side and the east side.
Did the site get raised at all or is it level?
Mr. Richardson said no. The only site that moved was the east side, which is 2 1/a feet more then actually
in the plan. They have cut that out. That old house that was sitting on there was sitting on a knoll and
they took all that out and they brought it down. At the last minute we had our civil engineer replot that
grade.
Board Member Schumacher asked if the finished grade of fifty some feet is the same or equal to the lot on
the south? Will that be level?
Mr. Richardson said no. The neighbor to the south wanted the six-foot wall to come up three more feet so
he has more privacy.
Board Member Marquez asked if the adjacent property owners already have existing walls in place on
their property separating this one?
Mr. Richardson answered there is a wood fence on the south side. Right now it's bougainvilleas, weeds
and tall grasses to where it is like a jungle.
Board Member Marquez asked if it is true that the owner to the east just put up a block wall approximately
six foot high?
Mr. Richardson said he hasn't seen the new wall. If it has been in the last week, I haven't been there.
Board Member Marquez said she just drove by today.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 8 of 24
Chairperson Heineman opened public testimony and he has eight requests to speak. The requests are
for Ron Alvarez, Don Johnson, Peter Dreifuss, Dennis Sharp, Dennis Bauern, Joanne Sharp, Michael
Bovenzi, and Sandra Bovenzi. Each speaker has five minutes to make their comments. Those
comments should be addressed to the Board, not to the staff, not to the applicant or the public. After we
receive all testimony from everyone who wishes to speak, we will ask the appropriate person to respond to
all questions. Please speak into the microphone clearly, state and spell your last name and give us your
address for the record. We ask as new speakers come up, please not repeat what others have said.
My name is Ron Alvarez and I live at 354 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad. I am a designer in the City of Carlsbad
and have been a resident since 1986. I started some of the first design projects for redevelopment, and I
didn't have much to go by with standards and design, and I relied upon the Council to give me direction.
With much painstaking design submittals and such, we ran into lots of problems because there was only a
very small select group of people giving me information. There was basically no origin or basis at the
beginning of this Redevelopment Zone. Now we have a manual of standards and parameters. I have
looked through those. I had a meeting with the designer of this project that we are speaking about. I
talked directly with Deborah Fountain who is present and Cliff Jones who is present. I had some concerns
because I didn't feel the design standards were being met. The start of the project, I felt should have
started with a subterranean or complete submerged garage, which would have put to bed a lot of these
wall height issues, height of buildings, building setbacks, privacy and site line issues. I will quote what
Deborah Fountain said. She said, "setting a new trend" maybe that was the word she used, "when we
have a design manual to go by, we have a guide." When there is too much project-to-project basis of
what everyone thinks, that's not what I use in designing. I have been designing since 1985 with many,
many projects in the City and outside of the City. I was really taken back by that because I will have new
projects that my clients are hiring me at this time to work with the redevelopment. To make a long story
short, I am a little taken back by that. One of the biggest things about this project, I thought, was if I was
to design this, I would put a subterranean garage completely submerged so I could put a fully contained
retail space which is what I think this new $90,000 study is going to be, correct? It is based upon a greater
need for retail space within the cities. It is maybe not done yet. We'll find out when that comes about.
That is what I would have done with that project to start with, which would have reduced the heights of the
building, reduced these walls heights, reduced all these things that are going to be addressed after I
speak. The design parameters needed to start with fully submerged parking garages maximizing retail
space. To make my point clear, as a designer I would have not even presented a project as we see here
today. It would have been fully submerged parking, out of line of site; we would have less of a height,
which would have been a little more balanced to the community. It is way too tall for the community if you
look at it from a standpoint of all the surrounding areas. Finally it would have given you a much different
picture then what we have today. I think it is a little too overbearing and it doesn't even fit with
redevelopment, as far as architectural standards are concerned if you look in that guideline, which is what
we work with. I will be working with it, and hopefully they will be working with me in regards to what is
supposed to be set forth in that guideline when I bring in projects, because I don't want to have to come
here and present a project to the Board and have everyone say it is too big, it's too tall, it's too this
because I wasn't sensitive as a designer. Thank you for listening to me. Hopefully you will take into
account this project and re-evaluate it for what it is.
My name is Don Johnson and I currently live in Oceanside but I lived at the 3140 Lincoln Street in
Carlsbad, which is two houses down from this project. I lived there for about 30 years and my mom still
lives in that property since about 1925. My reason for speaking is that I will at some point be the inheritor
of the property, and I do not really like the idea of a property that is that large and of an oppressive height,
which does not fit the rest of the character of the neighborhood. Nothing else that is visible from my
mother's property is more then two stories. It does not seem to me that height is necessary. In addition,
when the two-story complex next to my mom was put up, the solar reflections caused the heating in the
summer on my mom's property to get to a point where it is oppressive. I suspect the same thing will
happen to the two-story complex to the north of us with the reflections from the new project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 9 of 24
Peter Dreifuss, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have lived in the City of Carlsbad for
13 years and have enjoyed it. This is the constitution for the City of Carlsbad for construction and new
development and what Mr. Jones read earlier, he must have a different manual then I do. If you wish to
change what is in this constitution, you can't
Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Dreifuss what is the name of the manual?
Mr. Dreifuss said it is the Redevelopment Master Plan. He continued that if the Master Plan is changed,
you can't do it on a whim. You have to do it by law and do it in a proper way. It has to be done in a legal
way. This Master Plan states inside it is a legal document. The standards are clear. The intent is clear.
It is an approved Master Plan. It was never meant to be just interpreted. The Redevelopment staff has
approved this current project because Debbie Fountain has said we are going to set a new precedent.
Well I am a co-developer of the property just east of this, the new condos that are going up that just broke
ground. I am sure they were trying to set a new precedent recently in Carlsbad when they approved the
most ugliest project that Carlsbad has ever seen adjacent or across the street from the military academy,
the retail space with the condo's on top of it. That is probably the ugliest thing that I have ever seen in a
city. I am sure that if Debbie Fountain was about to have a 40-foot high building that blocked all of her
views built right next to her 20-foot high residence, that she would just rejoice. But wait, I don't think she
even lives in Carlsbad. The redevelopment staff basically are non-residential directors who have done no
oversight review. The reports, which they have submitted to the Design Board contain outright lies and
deception. The Board should not have a predetermined point of view on this proposed project, and the
Board has the responsibility to be objective and to not take the staff's report at any way near accurate or
truthful. We will show you some of the inconsistencies in the staff report.
Mr. Dreifuss continued that they do not blame the Design Review Board for allowing this project to come
this distance, but we do blame the incompetence of the development staff. The current designer of this
proposed project is Mr. Karnak. We originally hired Mr. Karnak to do our project, which is right next door.
He accepted our $15,000 as initial payment. He represented himself as an architect. Mr. Karnak is not an
architect, but a draftsman. We found out he was not licensed in the State of California to design. He was
not licensed within his industry to build a five-unit project, more or less a six-unit project. He must be an
architect to design anything that is five units or more. Not only has he designed more then five units, but
the sixth unit is illegal. This project only allows for four condo units by the Master Plan. If you do your
calculations, it comes to 4.6 units is what is allowed. He has put in six units. Mr. Karnak is not licensed to
do the current project by California law and risks having some problems by doing so. In a recent set of
submitted plans to the City, not his most recent but in a recent set to the City of Carlsbad, he shows an
architectural stamp that has been illegally affixed to those documents. Not only has Mr. Karnak drawn a
plan, which allows two more condominiums than allowed by law, but has done so in an improper way.
Joanne Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. She is part of Sharp Design Consultants. My
husband, Dennis, and I have reviewed these plans in regards to access for persons with disabilities. I
would like to talk a little bit about that and give the Board some background. On March 13, 1991, the
housing provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 became effective in all state, city
and county jurisdictions that had not adopted regulations more stringent than that act. The California
Building Industry Association petitioned California's Department of Housing and Community Development
to adopt the federal regulations and to combine into one document the more stringent requirements of the
existing state regulations. On December 9, 1992, the California Building Standards Commission
approved the forum regulation adoption with an effective date of July 15, 1993, which incorporated them
into Title 24 of the California Building Code. Providing an environment where person's with disabilities can
have the same access to and ability to use housing that others enjoy is both a worthwhile goal and the
law. The regulations were developed to provide for the safety and welfare of persons with disabilities as
residents and visitors of apartment buildings, condominiums and timeshare units. The state regulations
require adaptations for newly constructed, privately funded apartment buildings having three or more units,
condominium buildings containing four or more units, and privately funded shelters intended as a
residence for homeless persons. An adaptable building is one that is accessible in terms of entry and
U)
iMINUnDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 10 of 24
circulation. That is a person using a wheelchair must be able to enter the unit, move around, have a
bathroom and a sleeping area that is accessible and usable. The unit must also be constructed so that it
can be adapted to meet specific needs of a person with disabilities for items such as grab bars, lowered
counters, etc. In other words, constructed in a way they can add things that are specific to their needs.
The regulations require that multifamily buildings have units that are adaptable to meet the needs of
mobility and sensory impaired persons.
Ms. Sharp added as a background about her and her husband, they received more then 250 hours of
official training on all state and federal disabled access regulations. They also provide disabled access
consultant services to government entities, businesses and individuals in their efforts to comply with the
requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, California's Title 24, which are the disabled
access regulations included in our state building code, and other state and federal regulations dealing with
access for persons with disabilities. We have done extensive fieldwork since 1993. We volunteer on
several committees advising on disabled access including the City of San Diego Community Services,
Citizen's Review Committee on ADA and Disability, the City of San Diego Facilities Access Review
Subcommittee, the City of San Diego Access Law Technical Group, and Scripps Park Project in La Jolla.
In 2004, I am very proud to say, that a Sharp Design Consultant was awarded a certificate of excellence in
appreciation by the City of San Diego for Outstanding Performance and Lasting Contribution.
Board Member Baker asked Ms. Sharp how she is involved in this project?
Ms. Sharp said they were asked by Mr. Bovenzi to review the plans for accessibility and to give him our
opinion on if we felt there were any problems with the project.
Board Member Baker asked if she was hired as a consultant?
Ms. Sharp said yes, that's correct. My husband will speak more about specific things in the plans.
Board Member Lawson asked while evaluating the project, are you comparing it then to the immediate
project to the east, the Bovenzi project. I am wondering, the things that you are suggesting this is deficient
in, the adjacent property complies with all those same areas?
Ms. Sharp answered no. We are basing our opinions strictly on the Federal and State standards that exist
for accessibility in privately funded, multifamily housing. We are not looking at any other project, only this
one.
Dennis Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. My wife and I both have been doing this since 1992.
The plans I see here that I have reviewed, the designs lack an understanding of accessibility. The
accessibility means independent living so that if you are in an apartment, not everybody can afford a full-
time attendant. You should be able to get in and out by yourself and do your laundry or whatever. The
way this is designed, that can't be done. The bathroom is not accessible, no details to show otherwise.
The common areas are not accessible, and by code, they should all be accessible. In some of these
places you just can't get to where you need to go because there is no connection. When I say path of
travel, it means to get from one place to another. For the path of travel for the apartments to the trash
does not exist for a wheelchair. The driveway is not set up for people who use wheelchairs or drive vans.
It is the wrong matrix. The van accessibility parking is both wrong. Signage is required and I see none. In
the commercial unit, there is one entrance and a second one, but you can't have an entrance with steps.
It all has to be accessible. It should have a ramp. I hope I am not getting too aggressive here, because it
is hard to be nice when you are saying all these things. The location of the pedestrian curb ramps are
confusing because I see them at different locations. There are new federal regulations coming out that
say you must have 48 inches, not counting the curb; that is minimum. If there is any street furniture, you
have to go further then that; I don't see that happening here. In fact, this is too small. Furniture means a
post, any kind of device that is in the cement you have to add 48 inches in addition to it, not landscaping,
but hardscape; they don't have that. If this project is approved and later on it is discovered it is wrong, the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 11 of 24
City will have to pay to fix it. This has happened all over California. It is a big problem in Sacramento. It
is a big problem in San Diego, but it is up to you people. I just don't think you have had the training to
know that if this is done incorrectly because technically that has to be put in according to your laws. If it is
not put in right, who is going to pay to fix it? That means if somebody falls and gets hurt, you are covering
that. What my wife and I have done a great deal in San Diego is to stop this because it costs too much
and the taxpayers are paying for it. Petco had a situation where it was going to cost the City of San Diego
over $200,000 for one walkway that was wrong. We caught them in time to have them fix it. The
contractor was there and said, you did it wrong and fix it and they did. Now if we hadn't done that, it would
have gone through, somebody could have fallen and sued and won. It is that simple. Get it while it is
right. So if you don't tell them what you want, you are not going to get it. This shows a lack of
understanding of what a wheelchair does. I encourage the building because it has a lot of wonderful
things, but it will not accommodate a wheelchair, and I think there is good tax credits here, but they are not
going to be available to this project.
Sandra Bovenzi, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have been a resident of Carlsbad for
22 years. I am not anti-development, but I am a firm believer in development of the greater good for the
people of Carlsbad. The Carlsbad bible, which everyone keeps referring to, was created by a qualified
Carlsbad staff and also subcontracted outside support as well. The book should be adhered to and
followed to the letter. On our project, which is to the east of the project we are talking about tonight, we
have had to follow everything to the letter. I think everyone else should follow it to the letter as well. A
perfect example of abuse by a mixed-use project, I'm not against a mixed use project, I think it certainly
does have some wonderful qualities to it, but the perfect example of a project gone array is the Anastasi
project, which is right across the street from the Coldstone Creamery. That is a real eyesore. It is terrible
because we had the opportunity to create a wonderful pedestrian area. Yes we did get our retail in, but
that is all there is. It butts right up almost to the street. If a car were to jump the curb, you'd wipe out
probably all the people on the sidewalk, but there are no trees, there is no vegetation, there are no
benches, it is not a pedestrian area; it is to get from point A to point B. I think it is a real eyesore to
Carlsbad and it is sad because it is a new project. I am afraid this mixed-use project that is going in next
to us is heading in the same direction. Because it is a massive project and it is two to three stories higher
then anything in the area. The whole block, which is a larger then average block, is all residential, and this
is a mixed use project, which is fine, I have no problems with that, but I think they should have been more
sensitive like the gentleman, Ron, said they should be more sensitive to the area.
Ms. Bovenzi continued by referring to the manual; the project that is underway is massive and contrary to
the book here to Goal 4.2 in the manual which clearly states "established buildings whose scale and
character who are compatible with the residential neighborhoods and Goal 4.5, which required design
sensitivity to surrounding development;" this project does not. I feel the proposed project is a kind of a
nightmare for Carlsbad, and I think if we are going to put in a mixed-use property, we should get it right the
first time.
Board Member Marquez asked Ms. Bovenzi what she felt about the improvements that are presently
existing on the subject site?
Ms. Bovenzi said it is an abomination. It is two to three stories higher
Board Member Marquez interjected that she is talking about what is presently there today. Right now, the
little house and the boarded up building. How do you feel about those improvements that are there now?
Ms. Bovenzi answered that a mobile home would look better than what is there.
Board Member Schumacher asked if Ms. Bovenzi's project has been approved? Is that right?
Ms. Bovenzi said yes, we are underway.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 12 of 24
Board Member Schumacher asked if that is 30 feet high? Did you get any resistance from the neighbors
when your project was approved?
Ms. Bovenzi answered no; none whatsoever.
Michael Bovenzi, 343 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92018. I have been a resident for close to 20 years.
First I wanted to discuss the wall issue. On the south property line we are showing an existing grade of 49
feet. They are proposing a 53.5 finished surface, which is almost level to that, which is a 41/z foot fill. The
fill is not a 3 foot fill as proposed; it is a 4 Vz foot fill with a 6 foot solid concrete wall on top of there, which
means Mr. Bauern to the south is going to have a wall that is a better part of 11 feet bordering his property
line. Myself, to the west here, I just put in a brand new perimeter wall on both the west and the east. The
west with the adjacent property. Mike Grimm, Senior Planner, who is my project planner, who is was very
specific when I spoke with him last week; do not build your wall higher then 6 feet from existing grade. I
was out there all day every day making sure this wall was not higher then 6 feet in height. That is not
because of my site; that is because you don't have an affect on your neighbor.
Mr. Bovenzi continued, when you get down to Policy 21 written by Michael Holtzmiller regarding perimeter
walls, it says: In a required side yard, total height shall not exceed 6 feet. He clearly states a 4 foot
retaining wall and a 5 foot fence would not be permitted because the total exceeds 6 feet. Starting with
Craig Ruiz, back in 2004, he was the assistant planner on the project, stated that the retaining wall shall
not exceed 6 feet as measured from the exterior from the property. Cliff Jones, December 15 wrote the
same thing, staff has concerns about combination wall/fences, being aware that the fences along the
property line shall not exceed 6 feet. Cliff Jones also said the same thing on March 28th and he also
quoted the same thing on'June 24th in the preliminary review letters to Robert Richardson. I asked many
times for the preliminary review letters. I was only given one or two, and I did find another three of them in
the City of Carlsbad last week. They also wanted in writing from Dennis Bauern what the walls were going
to be; they want his opinion and they never got his written opinion on the walls. The problem with the walls
and then the village redevelopment is, they want the wall as a 6 foot buffer, solid masonry wall, for privacy
and sound. It is pretty simple. If you can't build up the lot, that means the entries for all the units along the
east and the south have to be at grade level. The entries are not at grade level. Did they have a
challenging lot here? No. There was no challenge. What they could have done, which they didn't do, was
they could have put the parking below grade because it says in the manual, the ground floor shall be
devoted to commercial uses. Now the 12 thousand or so six hundred square feet, which defines the
ground floor, the 1,900 square foot retail combined with the parking for the commercial is less then 25% of
the ground floor. That by definition of devote, which means commit all to, is far from the definition. When
you get into parking, the ground floor of all mixed-use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses, avoid
buildings which devote significant portions of the ground floor space to parking uses, and they have
devoted 75% of the ground floor to parking uses. It would have been really easy to put the parking three
or four feet below grade, which it easily could have done, because the lot has a natural slope of.
approximately four feet and all the entries to the adjacent properties would have been at grade level.
Mr. Bovenzi said as far as the setbacks, the setbacks on both Lincoln and Oak, the buildings stick out 20
feet farther on Oak Avenue and 18 feet farther then anything on Lincoln Avenue. Not only are they going
up 4 1/2 stories, but the building sticks out 20 feet farther on both sides, and they claim there is no adverse
affect on existing residential. Not only do you lose the line of site down both Lincoln and Oak for the entire
block, we have loss of sun, we have loss of view, and you lose your ocean breeze. That is an adverse
affect.
Dennis Bauern, 3149 Coachman Court, Oceanside, CA 92056. My wife, Jeannie, and I own the building
to the south at 3134 Lincoln Street. We are here because we have problems with the development. Let
me just say, clearly what is there now is a blight and something needs to be done so there is no doubt in
all of our minds that much improvement can come from that area. However, we are very developer
friendly, to be honest. We have five units to the east of us going up, and the reason we have no comment
and have no problems is the setbacks are to the maximum and we have no loss of privacy for a five-unit
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 13 of 24
building. Our building is two stories, 18 foot tall, three units on the top and two on the bottom. They are all
with the living and family room facing the north, which would be facing right into the south facing side of
the new development. The biggest concern we have is, and I think the map up here earlier showed it, the
redevelopment has 270 degrees around an existing set of zone requirements. This means the developers
have a real responsibility to be very sensitive about the surrounding environment. In my opinion, they
really weren't in this case. First of all, 41 feet or 35 to 40 feet and we are at 18 feet. Secondly, even with
the southwest facing four units, rather than have them face south for the living and family room, they have
them southwest facing. That still looks into our properties. It seems to me with our five units facing north,
their four units facing southwest, we are going to have a conflict. When the developer is gone, we are
going to have people owning those properties. Our tenants are going to be in there and it is going to be a
conflict. If we could have had at least upfront involvement with the acclimation of which direction it was
facing, facing over Oak made just a whole lot of sense. The properties could have faced out over Oak.
Even if we look into the back of the unit, we have the privacy. So the orientation of the building from the
start is a concern. The height is the second concern. The setbacks I saw earlier were 5 to 10 feet. I
believe the recommended is 7 feet. Between our property and this new development is probably not going
to be over 18 or 19 feet apart. That is very tight and very close for a surrounding area. I believe for those
three reasons and just the simple fact that the insensitivity to the surrounding area I don't believe was
taken into account. The first I became aware of this was about June or July of last year at which time I
met with Cliff Jones, and I took him through some of our concerns. The bottom line is if this were
acclimated or at least oriented in a different fashion, we could deal with the height. We did agree in a
meeting I had with him, I said we've got to do something about this orientation, the height, and then the
ingress, egress, because everything is on our side. To be sensitive to the developer, I said if we could
increase at least the wall, then they are not looking over into our living rooms when they are walking into
their units. I look at what this is resulting in, and I just think we are going to have long-term problems with
our five residents and their four owners of their units with people looking into each other. They can put
palm trees in there, they can put walls higher that are above code, but I really don't think that is a good
long-term fix for that area. Those are my concerns.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Bauern how old his building is?
Mr. Bauern said it is about 40 years old.
Chairperson Heineman closed the public hearing. He asked staff, Mr. Rick and Mr. Jones, to respond to
the questions.
Mr. Cliff Jones asked if there was a particular question they would like him to start with.
Chairperson Heineman told him wherever he wants to start. There were a number of questions raised.
Mr. Jones started with the comment made about requiring underground parking. There actually isn't a
requirement for underground parking. There is a design guideline that talks about how parking should be
screened from public view. But there isn't anything in the Master Plan or municipal code that requires
parking to be provided below grade. As one of the basic ten design principals, parking is to be visually
screened and the structure surrounds the parking area so it is achieving that basic design principal.
Mr. Jones continued with regard to providing underground parking, which would make the entire ground
site be a retail space, staff felt as though it would create a compatibility issue with the adjacent residential
uses having such a large commercial space there at that corner space. In addition, it may be difficult to
lease a space that large as well, which could lead to undesirable tenants locating in the commercial space
there at the ground floor if the entire ground floor were devoted to a retail use. As with regards to height,
as the Board already knows, if a project is located over parking, the permitted building height is up to 45
feet. The subject project has a building height at a maximum of 41 feet. However, the majority of the
structure is set at 36 feet. With the comment with regards to the project being 2 to 3 stories taller then
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 14 of 24
anything on this street, the project is actually three stories with roof decks, so it actually is not 2 to 3
stories taller then anything on the block. There are a number of two-story structures on the block.
Mr. Jones said in regard to the comment about Title 24 accessibility. The Title 24 review, the detailed
review, is done at the time that the detailed construction plans are submitted. For the purposes of
receiving the redevelopment permit and related coastal development permit and tentative map, we do not
require detailed construction plans at this time. The applicant was made aware of the concern about the
Title 24 requirements and staff was assured they had met with our building plan check consultant for the
Title 24 compliance.
Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Jones what the Title 24 compliance is. Is that the handicapped?
Mr. Jones answered correct. He said those were the major issues that I heard. There might be additional
issues that I would be more than happy to respond to.
Mr. David Rick, Engineering, said he could verify some of the grade changes that have occurred with
respect to the wall.
Mr. Richardson responded regarding Ron Alvarez talking about line of site and putting parking
underground. We didn't put our parking underground. It is semi-underground, but it is out of sight to
where we have walls and we have garages. Our garages are garages that have roll up doors and there is
beautiful entry ways with lighting and pavement so that even though it is underground, it is going to have a
look and feel like an entryway instead of a backdoor. We feel most of the time they will come in that way
than the other way. The issue about being a licensed architect, I am not a licensed architect. I am a
planner. I have been in the business for thirty some years. I have had staff up to 17,18 people. I've done
all kinds of work up to a ten-story building. I have two architects that are outside consulting staff, a
structural engineer and no project that I have ever done had to be signed and stamped by an architect.
We do the planning and no way are we cheating anything or trying to do anything other then the right way
of doing it. This town would not allow it anyway. As far as the ADA issues, when this project started over
a year ago, this building was designed and since then there has been some changes. This last summer
there was a change with Title 24 and ADA so there are a few issues that have been pointed out tonight
that have to be addressed. Mike Bovenzi's projects would not meet the new standards that we are being
judged by tonight. He got in and had his plans in plancheck before the cut off for that.
Mr. Richardson continued with the comments about how massive the building is. This exhibit here is 30
feet and he is higher up on the street then we are and it is going up hill. He is at 30 feet, but if you look at
that exhibit and also at this other one covered up, Mike Bovenzi's project, his windows and our windows
are within a couple feet of each other. His project looks down on the lot going down Lincoln, the side of it.
They impact the neighbors every bit as much as we do, and it is sad to see that now that he has his high
building, he is complaining that we are doing the same thing. As far as the wall down on the south
property line, it was tapered, it was low, and if you look at the grades one spot or the other, as you will see
in the elevations, it tapers down with the grade. The south property line changes from the curb line and it
goes up almost four feet, so the wall and the grades along our building taper down with it to where we did
not carry the grade level all the way out. We originally had it at 6 feet from his existing grade and that's
when we asked to increase it only by that 3 feet. I feel for the gentleman to the south property. We have
tried to be instrumental; I know it well. My daughter lived in a downstairs unit so I have been there a
hundred times or more while she lived there so I was very sensitive to it. I feel like our windows are at an
angle to them, we have the buffering trees and we plotted so I think it has a lot less impact. It is also not
the main part of the house. The main part of the house is facing towards those patio decks on the north
side so that is a secondary use in that building.
Chairperson Heineman commented that Mr. Richardson mentioned that the handicapped access laws
have been changed or were changed at the time you were finishing the plans, is that correct?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 15 of 24
Mr. Richardson answered yes, right. The various codes that Ms. Sharp brought up have changed.
Chairperson Heineman asked if he does plan to change the plans?
Mr. Richardson said if we don't change the interior of this building, it will never get built. Sometimes we
have more corrections on ADA then we do on structural or architectural.
Chairperson Heineman confirmed that Mr. Richardson is planning to make corrections to be code?
Mr. Richardson said you have to be.
Board Member Lawson asked Mr. Richardson regarding him speaking of the southern property line and
for that matter even the eastern property line, as I am understanding the plans, the setback from the
property line is from the extreme of the building edge, which happens to be the corner points of the pop-
out windows, correct? Yet, the main flat portion of the building is setback even further from that. About
how much further is that additional setback?
Mr. Richardson answered it is approximately five feet.
Board Member Lawson continued that the perception of looking at this facing at you, then actually there is
a significant amount of this being recessed even further back from the property line than the eight feet or
whatever is set here. With respect to the wall along there, I would like to get clarification from staff first;
that has to do with the retaining wall. There was comment made earlier that the six foot walls are intended
for visual blocking and sound. I was not aware that sound was a built in requirement for those walls. Can
you clarify that?
Mr. Jones answered that for any type of commercial property that is located adjacent to a residential use,
it is written in the Master Plan that a solid masonry wall be provided. Typically it is for privacy and sound
from the commercial use for the adjacent residences.
Board Member Lawson asked when you speak of sound, is it hit with requirements of certain decibel
readings and that level of compliance?
Mr. Jones said no, not that particular wall.
Board Member Lawson commented it is intended in concept that everyone recognizes that a solid
masonry wall is going to provide better sound buffering, but it is not to require a certain precise dropage of
decibel readings.
Mr. Jones said that is correct.
Board Member Lawson said based upon that clarification, he doesn't have the question for Mr. Jones.
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, added there were a lot of comments on the Manual being the bible,
etc., and the standards have to be strictly followed, but I think it is important to understand that in terms of
development standards in many cases there are ranges. For instance, on the height, even though you
have parameters, the development can fit within those parameters at different points in the range. So that
isn't set in stone. Likewise, when you are talking about policies such as compatibility with surrounding
development and sensitivity to the neighborhood and compatibility in skill and character, those types of
decisions are by their very nature discretionary and that is why the Board is here, to make those decisions
and to make determinations based on the evidence and the presentation as to whether or not those
developments are in keeping with the neighborhood. It is not something that is black and white and you
can always definitively say, this is okay and this is not okay. There are guidelines, there are standards,
but within those standards, there is often discretion for the Board.
/ i
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 16 of 24
Board Member Schumacher asked about the wall between the subject property and the one to the east.
Also the one to the south as well. The project to the east is getting a six foot wall as well? Are they
required to put in a six foot wall also?
Mr. Richardson said yes. Their grade has been a little bit of a moving target to where we designed our
original grade to the proposed grade that he had within his project. It sounds like we know now our
engineer checked with the drawings and also worked with David Rick in Engineering, they gave us the
new grades. It has been dropped considerably, two and a half feet, which has also now changed for us.
At the last minute David Rick and Cliff Jones called us and we did an overnight design with the civil
engineer changing our grade on the east wall so that the drawings you have were accurate to the new as-
built condition that was set up by the grading plans that were used for the grading. If it is more then two
and half feet, I wonder if their grading meets the intent of their original design. I am shocked that it
changed that much. Normally Engineering is really tough on us. Once we do the grades like we have
here now, they are going to be really tough on us when we come back for a grading permit. It is
interesting it dropped so far.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Richardson about the property to the east that had a finished grade
that was the same as your existing finished grade. Now he has put up a six foot masonry wall, correct?
Then you are going to bring your finished grade up three feet, correct? Then put another six-foot masonry
wall on top of that? Is that what you are doing?
Mr. Richardson answered no. Our original grade was actually below his grade. Our grade on the east
side was actually below him to where we were originally.
Board Member Marquez asked if he lowered his?
Mr. Richardson said yes, he lowered his grade.
Board Member Marquez commented she noticed there is about a two foot difference between his grade
now and your existing grade. But now you are bringing your existing grade up another three feet with a
retaining wall? Is that true?
Mr. Richardson asked David Rick to answer that.
David Rick said the grade on the subject property is being raised anywhere between about a half foot to
two feet.
Board Member Marquez asked if that was where it is presently?
Mr. Rick answered right, on the southeast corner. Depending on where you take the grade, it has a
variation.
Board Member Marquez asked what kind of separation is going to be between these two walls separating
the properties?
Mr. Rick said he doesn't know the exact measurement, but it is anywhere between no more then a foot,
based on Mr. Bovenzi's plan and comparing with the subject property.
Board Member Marquez said Mr. Bovenzi put a wall cap on top of his nice masonry wall. I am wondering
how close the applicant's wall is going to be to that and how that is going to look.
Mr. Rick said that is a good question. I don't know how far that cap stretches out because I don't have
that detail in front of me.
(il
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 17 of 24
Board Member Marquez guessed about three inches on each side.
Mr. Richardson said originally it was set up that we had offered to even put the wall up for him and then he
got ahead of us and so he put his wall up separate from our's. Of course, his needs to be completely on
his property.
Board Member Marquez agreed and then said your footing will have to be designed differently because it
is a retaining wall.
Mr. Richardson answered absolutely. His footing should be engineered to be completely on his side.
Board Member Lawson just wanted to make this clear. So we are going to have a wall and a foot between
basically two walls?
Mr. Richardson said no, our's is a property line wall. You can only put it within an inch of the property line.
So we need to find out from Mike Bovenzi where he put his wall. Whether he put it right on the property
line or a distance in. Our wall cannot go over our property line, either the footing or the wall or the cap,
nothing can go over that wall, and it has to be completely self-designed to carry our loads, our design, and
anything that is against him. Like right now, if he is above us and he has a wall with a footing, our wall has
to be engineered to take his footing so his soil pressure is coming towards us, we have to engineer for
that.
Board Member Baker commented how odd that is going to be to have two walls with dead space in
between that will fill up with trash and weeds. Isn't there a way to share the wall? Make this work?
Mr. Jones said with regards to what the Board would like to see the finished wall appear as, the Design
Review Board has the discretionary approval to make a recommendation for what they would like to see
the wall height as. If that means having additional separation for the wall height, that could be done or
keeping the wall height very close, maybe up to that point where the walls meet at a higher point, that
could be proposed as well.
Mr. Rick clarified that he did some measurements and the subject property wall is six inches from the
property line, and it appears that from Mr. Bovenzi's plan, that wall is also six inches according to the plan
from the property line.
Chairperson Heineman said then there would be a foot gap between them?
Mr. Rick answered right, a foot gap.
Board Member Baker has a question for Mr. Jones. One of the speakers, Mr. Dreifuss, said this project is
over the amount of units that is allowed. Could you give the audience a brief explanation about the growth
control plan.
Mr. Jones said the City does have a Growth Management Ordinance, and the range within the RMH
designation that this property is receiving is 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The growth management
control point restricts that to 11.5 dwelling units per acre. I believe that is where they were getting that
lower calculation for the number of units. However, if certain conditions are made by the Board, the
number of units could be increased over that growth management control point. Those conditions are
included in the Design Review Board Resolution. They are related to certain types of public improvements
already being there in place and those findings have been found in the Design Review Board Resolution.
It is up to the Board to adopt it. It is also noteworthy that this project as it is proposed, is at a density of
14.89 dwelling units per acre. Within the Redevelopment Area, you can actually dedicate a higher density
based upon project compatibility. So the project could have received a RH zoning designation. However,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23,2006
PAGE 18 of 24
it wouldn't meet the general plan because it would be less then the 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. So
the project did receive an RMH density designation.
Chairperson Heineman reiterated then it is in compliance.
Mr. Jones said correct.
Ms. Mobaldi interjected with regard to the question about the wall; Ms. Fountain and I have been
discussing it. I believe the manual requires that you have a masonry wall in between residential and
commercial development, and it seems to me that there is already one there even though it is on the
adjacent property, that you are meeting that requirement. At least as to the east side and perhaps on the
south if there is no masonry wall, you would have to have this developer install one there.
Chairperson Heineman said he thinks that is the answer to the wall.
Mr. Jones said the additional height was proposed for screening, but a six-foot wall could be proposed.
Ms. Mobaldi said the Board can also consider other things for screening, assuming the wall is already
there, additional landscaping and that sort of thing in terms of screening if you feel that is necessary. They
wouldn't have to have necessarily two walls.
Board Member Marquez said the property owner to the east, his wall will not retain the soil they are going
to back up against it. The extra three feet they are putting up against it so the applicant has to construct a
wall. Now are you saying that wall will just extend three feet over the retaining wall that is retaining the soil
because that is part of finished grade, that retaining wall, and you have to go six feet up over that .so that is
nine feet of masonry wall?
Ms. Mobaldi said she is not addressing this from an engineering standpoint, so I don't have an
understanding of that.
Board Member Marquez questioned still needing two walls.
Ms. Mobaldi said you may feel you need two walls. I am just saying that the Manual says there needs to
be a masonry wall between the commercial and the residential. That doesn't necessarily mean that you
need to have two, one on each property. I was just trying to answer Board Member Baker's question
about the wall.
Board Member Marquez thought maybe we could have the two walls married at the ends so that we
wouldn't have the foot separation. We'll talk about that when we get to our discussion.
Board Member Lawson reiterated what he was hearing Ms. Mobaldi say that there is the potential that
however you get to this pad elevation that is equivalent to the perimeter, which is approximately three feet
of additional retaining, but above and beyond that point, that remaining wall doesn't necessarily have to be
masonry wall if there already is a masonry component along the property line. Am I making any sense
with that?
Ms. Mobaldi said that is a legitimate interpretation, yes.
Board Member Lawson said then it may be open for an alternative material that if the asthetics issue of be
it 9 feet or 11 feet, or whatever it is, there is an opportunity to either be working with a different material,
whether it be wood fencing or something else that the owner is willing to put there instead of continuing a
masonry wall along that boundary line. That would be up to them if they want to proceed further with this
project.
>MINlDESIGN REVIEW BOARD NflNUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 19 of 24
Chairperson Heineman commented it is not the Board's decision.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 302, recommending approval of RP 04-11 and adopt Design
Review Board Resolution 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30 and adopt Design Review Board
Resolution 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Board Member Lawson wanted to know how we can put in a request to try to get the wall issue resolved or
whether or not we really even need to. Because understanding the process by which this project moves
forward, we are just providing a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission which
is an additional public hearing process. Between now and then the applicant may explore alternatives on
how to address some of the discussions that have surfaced here this evening. Is there any need to add
anything else into that because I personally hope this issue with the wall around the perimeter will be
addressed.
Chairperson Heineman said he could add that into the motion by saying, "With the understanding that the
question of the wall will be settled by staff and developer." Does that sound good Ms. Mobaldi?
Ms. Mobaldi said she doesn't know what "settled" means but, I think they could come up with some
recommendations for how to resolve that in light of the Board's concern about the double walls.
Chairperson Heineman said then we can say, "With the understanding that they will come up with a
settlement."
Board Member Lawson commented that he knows there was a lot of heartburn and frustration here this
evening with those who have expressed their concerns, and I sympathize with them. I have been through
something similar when you have adjacent land uses where the codes are slightly different. It is a
question of why aren't the rules that I operated under the same for the guy across the street or next door.
When those are not always the same, it can be quite frustrating, but I find staff has done a remarkable job
to prove compliance with their codes. I have no reason to think there is any smoke in mirrors to try and
get around those codes, and with that in mind, I am very supportive and I do like the design. While I've
been on this Board, I have been waiting to see something that I thought looked like this and I am
impressed with it. I might not reflect the sentiments of the audience that is here, however what I have
seen over the years, and I was born and raised here and go back a number of generations beyond, but
this is what I was hoping we would see more of while I have been on the Design Review Board. With that
in mind, I am very supportive of this project.
Board Member Baker said she supports the project. She does have sympathy. I think Mr. Lawson said it
very well. It is difficult when there are different land uses right next to each other. I think the properties to
the east and the south develop under the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and these are under
Redevelopment Code. I haven't heard anything at the public hearing tonight that would lead me to think
this project doesn't comply with the Design Standards. That being said, it is difficult to make any findings
that it isn't compatible with the neighborhood. I think because of the retail, it does have to be closer to the
street. Some speakers made reference to the Anastasi project. Retail is close to the street. You walk
down State Street, you walk down Grand and they are close to the street with the sidewalk right there.
That is something we have been trying to encourage in the village; the 24-hour live/work sort of thing. I
think this project will go a ways to help create that atmosphere. I agree with the wall, it seems redundant
to have two walls right next to each other with some dead space in between so I would like for the
engineer and the applicant and the property owner to the east to try to come to some resolution on how
that can happen so we don't have a double wall, one higher, one lower, dead space in between; that just
makes no sense.
10
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 20 of 24
Board Member Marquez commented that she is a Village resident and has been for 23 years continually
and lives not too far away from this project. The beach bungalow, I am afraid, that I occupy is an
endangered species in the Village and it looks like there will be more and more of this type of development
coming into town. I think this is a high quality design. I felt very happy with it, and I was very glad to see
the tourist serving commercial aspect of the development. I am in total support of the project. I
understand a little bit about construction and know about how walls have to be engineered and whatnot so
I know this is going to be a challenge for staff, but we will leave it to them.
Board Member Schumacher said he doesn't have anything much more to add then what has already been
said. I like the project. I think it wasn't maximized in every way. They could have gone a little taller, they
could have gotten some more retail in there, and I appreciate that. I think the setbacks on the second
level offer some relief architecturally and pull it back away from the street. They could have elected to not
do that and get more square footage and then they would have sacrificed the design, but they didn't. I
think it is a good model.
Chairperson Heineman commented he thinks it is an outstanding project. I think we will be proud of it.
VOTE: 5-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Ms. Fountain presented the next item which is referred to as Madison Square and it is another Major
Redevelopment Permit. Again, Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in Housing and Redevelopment, will do
the presentation with assistance from Dave Rick.
Mr. Jones said the applicant and part owner, Bruce Baker, is requesting a Major Redevelopment permit
for the construction of a 6,234 square foot, three-story, four-unit condominium located at 2737 Madison
Street in Land Use District 1 for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Representing Mr. Baker today
is his architect, Judson Pittam. The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because it
involves new construction that has a building permit valuation that is greater then $150,000. In
accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought
forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and final approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located on the west side of Madison Street, south of Laguna Drive at the
intersection of Arbuckle Place and Madison Street. The subject property is currently vacant totaling 8,248
square feet with frontage along Madison Street. According to City records, the last known use for the site
was a detached 768 square foot single-family dwelling unit, which was in a state of deterioration. The
property owner, at the time, not seeing any value in the structure, demolished the unit in 1994 in order to
make the property more marketable. To this date, the lot has remained vacant. The proposed project is
bordered by a post office, not only to the south, but behind to the west as well. To the north of the
proposed project is a residential use. To the east, across Madison Street, exists a residential use.
The proposed development application is for a three-story, four-unit condominium project totaling 6,234
square feet. There are two floor plans for the proposed units. Floor plan one totals 1,514 square feet and
floor plan two totals 1,603 square feet. Each unit has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Vehicular
access to the covered resident and guest parking is provided off of Madison Street. Residents may
access the units through the garage or at the entries along the southside elevation. The Village Master
Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the Village. The
proposed project is within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residences
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 21 of 24
are classified as provisional uses within Land Use District 1. Considerations that must be addressed to
assess the appropriateness of this particular provisional use are on the screen above and are as follows:
• The multi-family residential use is appropriate to the site and adjacent development;
• The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the 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 many of the surrounding, adjacent residential uses along Madison Street.
Second, the site is adequate in shape and size for the proposed multi-family use and has parking that is
visually subordinate within the garages and will therefore, not affect the visual environment of the Village.
Staff feels the multi-family residential use is appropriate for the surrounding predominantly residential area
as it would add to the residential character of Madison Street and the Village area and the use complies
with the vision and related goals of the district.
Staff believes the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use
District 1 through the following actions:
• It provides for a desirable use;
• The project may serve as a catalyst for future development;
• The project provides for the development of a vacant lot;
• The project is compatible with the surrounding residential character of the area; and
• The project increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types in the Village.
The proposed project meets all of the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan. 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 standards set just below
the permitted maximum height. Adequate parking is provided for the residential units through the use of
two-car garages and two covered guest parking spaces as required. In Land Use District 1, the required
front yard setback is 0 to 10 feet, and the side yard and rear yard setbacks have no minimum or no
maximum requirement. The proposed project falls within these required setback ranges. The front yard
setback is set at 10 feet after a 10 foot street dedication. The south side yard setback is 16 feet, 7 inches.
The north side yard setback is 3 feet, 1 inches, and the rear yard setback is set at 11 feet. The proposed
setbacks are therefore consistent with the setback requirements for Land Use District 1. In addition to the
development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the planned development ordinance provides
development standards for recreational space, lighting, tenant storage space, utilities, recreational vehicle
storage, and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of the development standards and
design criteria of the planned development ordinance as well.
The proposed project is also consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village Design Manual.
The project provides for:
• An overall informal character in design;
• The development has a strong relationship to the street;
• The building is enriched with architectural features and details such as various sized windows
with decorative trim, composition wood shingle roofing with a 5 and 12 roof pitch, simulated wood
siding, varied building recesses, second and third floor balconies, and varied building colors;
• The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the
building;
• Parking is visually subordinate contained within garages and/or covered guest parking.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 22 of 24
The following two slides show the proposed building's architectural design and mature landscaping from
the front and the rear elevations and from the north and south side elevations as viewed from the adjacent
properties.
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 (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 findings for this environmental determination
are 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. First the redevelopment of
what was previously an underutilized, vacant lot will result in increased property taxes, and this increase in
property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, it is
anticipated 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 blighted, vacant lot and construction of a
quality multi-family residential project.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project. Development of the site is anticipated to
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.
Board Member Lawson asked for clarification on understanding along the northern property line.
Specifically I am looking at the tentative map and the tentative map indicates that entire area between the
building and the property line is a concrete drainage swale. Am I reading that correctly first of all?
Mr. Rick said that is correct.
Board Member Lawson continued with that exhibit if you go to cross section C, it looks like the separation,
they are offering a dimension of 2.4 feet, to what would be the stem wall that would be for the structure
itself. Is that correct?
Mr. Rick said yes.
Board Member Lawson said with that in mind, I am going back to the building elevations where if you look
at the west elevation of the structure, which is sheet A3, the base of the building there, which seems to be
elevating up from the structure then as it climbs up higher from the ground, it pops out even further back
towards the property line. My question is I am unclear as to if you think about all of that second and third
floor, how far it really is setback from the property line and whether or not that is truly useable space along
that north side if it is consumed with a concrete drainage channel. Could you provide some clarification on
that? Based upon the way I am reading the dimensions here that the majority of this building, if you are
looking at it from the neighbor's property and you are looking over a fence, which is at the property line,
then the majority of that entire building is actually even closer than the three foot from the property line as
well as the fact that it is being utilized for landscape, does it meet landscape the open-space requirements
along there if it has this concrete drainage device?
Mr. Rick said in regards to the width of the pop out, I just measured it to scale and it was about a half of a
foot; 6 inches.
Chairperson Heineman commented that it looks more like 10 feet.
Mr. Rick said unless I am not understanding you.
Board Member Lawson asked if he had the building elevation?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 23 of 24
Mr. Jones said yes he does. With regards to the open space calculation, the proposed project is at 27.7%
and the swell, if I recall, was calculated as not part of the open space, but I can't say a hundred percent
sure, but it wouldn't affect the overall open space calculation at 27.7%.
Board Member Lawson said the reason he brings this up is when we were doing the Escrow Transfers
project, there were some concerns of being able to drain out along those properties and still when you are
trying to convey that water along that distance, to be able to truly utilize it for landscape purposes I know is
an extreme challenge. Maybe that can be addressed by the applicant or the representative, but I was
wanting to get clarification from staff as to how they were treating that and looking at that.
Mr. Jones said the setback area at the swell area was calculated when you are looking at it from a bird's
eye view. It would be the three feet, one inch.
Chairperson Heineman commented that it certainly looks like it is more then ten inches.
Mr. Jones said that is correct, it is.
Board Member Lawson said what he is referring to is in the lower exhibit and the lower left-hand corner.
The wall comes up from the ground and then it goes up, I am speculating somewhere in the
neighborhood, of 6 to 7 feet and then it starts to curve out. Then the rest of the building goes on up. I am
just trying to understand where we find that three-foot setback.
Mr. Jones answered the setback would be from the higher point that is closer to the property line.
Board Member Lawson asked if that would be the case?
Mr. Jones said correct.
Board Member Lawson said it is not clear when he compares it to the civil drawing.
Mr. Jones said that is something he can fix on the proposed plans. With the side yard setback, there is no
minimum or maximum setback so with that portion the project still does meet the standards if the Board
wants to recommend approval.
Board Member Lawson asked whether it is three feet or two feet it is still correct?
Mr. Jones answered that is correct.
Judson Pittam, 2810 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008. He has lived in Carlsbad for several years. I
am speaking for the applicant, Bruce Baker, who is the owner of the property and my client. I would like to
clarify the issue of the drainage swell. We first started on this project almost two years ago, and it has
taken a long time to get to this point. We have had input from the Redevelopment Department and a lot of
input from the Engineering Department, Mr. Van Pesky at the City of Carlsbad. A lot of time has been
spent between Mr. Van Pesky and our Civil Engineer from San Diego resolving the drainage on this
property. We knew we had a problem to begin with because the lot was basically flat. A flat lot poses
problems that lots with natural drainage do not. The swell there is concrete and it actually drains to the
rear of the property and around the building to the driveway, and the reason for that is because the runoff
on the north side of the building, the roof falls in that side yard setback and there is not enough room at
the front of the building to have any kind of retention to keep the water from flowing into the street too fast
in case of a heavy downpour. So therefore, the Engineering Department of this City and the Civil Engineer
resolved this by reversing the flow to the rear of the property, and it is at a 1 % slope which is paved. Now
it could have been at 2% and planted. However, it would have raised the grade considerably at the front
of the building, and everybody agreed we would pave it and the landscape architect has provided plots
with plants in that area. It was never intended to be a walking area, but there is landscaping there, which
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
PAGE 24 of 24
will grow up between the building and the adjoining property to the north. As far as the setback is
concerned, the setback is three feet, one inch, all the way up from the ground to the roof, except for where
it steps back at the balcony area and some more at the third floor level. I would also like to point out that
in the design of the building, the second floor level is approximately twice the area of the third floor level.
We tried to scale it down so it would read more as a two-story building then a three-story building, and I
think we have accomplished that.
Chairperson Heineman asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak that hasn't
submitted a request to speak? Seeing none, public testimony is closed.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Marquez,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 305, recommending approval of RP 04-24 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 5-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No report by the Director of Housing and Redevelopment.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of January 23, 2006, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT!
Minutes Clerk
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am 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
North County Times
Formerly 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
171349, 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
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
thMarch 24tn, 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 24th, Day of March, 2006
Proof of Publication of
public'hea
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-24
CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
MADISON SQUARE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission
will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, to consider approval of a
request for a Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP04-24 for the construction of a 6,234
square foot, three-story, four-unit condominium on the property located at 2737 Madison
Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may
also providev your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
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 Housing
& Redevelopment 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 Housing &
Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental
determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge 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 Office, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-24
PUBLISH: March 24, 2006
CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
S/7E
MADISON SQUARE
RP 04-24
ALLAN DRESDNER
416 DAHLIA AVE
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625-
2844
AMINAT SHARIPOVA
786 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2330
ARLENE OLIVAS
5065 ENCHANTED OAKS DR
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-
7659
CLIFFORD WARD
945 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD
APTD
PASADENA CA 91105-1793
DONALD DEWHUR3T
7541 GIRARDAVE
LA JOLLA CA 92037-5102
DOROTHY PATERSON
1375BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1904
ESTER AHRONEE
4440 GATHER AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92122-2614
HENRY TREJO
PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0281
ISOKAZU TABATA
4929 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3825
JACK PHILLIPS
2667 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
JAMES DAVIS
13215 PENNST
APT 610
WHITTIER CA 90602-1725
JANE WILSON
2710 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1727
KAREN BARLOW
226 E BROADWAY
VI STAC A 92084-6018
LISA BENTSON
2644 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1721
HOWARD-JONES
2785 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617
HOWARD-JONES
2785 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617
MARK NOLAN
PO BOX 7045
SAN DIEGO CA 92167-0045
MARSHALL MACK
3542 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2722
MICHAEL MURPHY
630 GRAN DAVE
APT I
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2364
MICHAEL MURPHY
630 GRAND AVE
APT I
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2364
PAUL WEBER
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1657
RALPH STRAESSER
1518 AVOCADO RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-5706
ROBERT DUFF
2690 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1613
SETH HOENIG
PO BOX 232401
ENCINITAS CA 92023-2401
SONDRACURTIN
3499 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2039
MR & MRS BEAZLEY
16633 VENTURA BLVD
APT 1030
ENCINOCA 91436-1861
MR & MRS BANDEMER
2720 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1703
MR & MRS PERKETT
812 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1821
MR&MRSWULLENJOHN
1462 S 33RD DR
YUMAAZ 85364-9139
MR & MRS BURKE
2755 JEFFERSON ST
APT1
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1737
MR & MRS BURKE
2755 JEFFERSON ST
APT1
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1737
MR & MRS DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
MR & MRS DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
MR & MRS SMITH
3271 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1146
MR & MRS SMITH
3271 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1146
MR&MRSAGUINA
2646 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1626
MR & MRS JACKSON
2718ROOSEVELTST
APTF
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1685
MR & MRS JACKSON
2718 ROOSEVELT ST
APTF
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1685
MR & MRS CASTENS
2381 JEFFERSON ST
APT A
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1484
MR & MRS APODACA
2647 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1722
MR & MRS HARRISON
364 2ND ST
APT 6
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3557
MR & MRS PENA
2712 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1727
MR & MRS CHAMBERLAIN
2653 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1667
MR & MRS ROCK
2421 S EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-3351
MR & MRS ROCK
2421 S EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-3351
MR & MRS DESAI
2266 CHANNEL RD
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661-
1513
MR & MRS ROJAS
2650 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1613
MR & MRS ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2711
MR & MRS ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2711
MR & MRS ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2711
MR & MRS ZAVALANI
735 LACUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1651
MR & MRS ZAVALANI
735 LACUNA DR
92008-1651
MR & MRS TAGUE
PO BOX 429
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0429
MR & MRS WILSON
4920 COLLINGWOOD DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92109-2243
MR & MRS HARRIS
722 ARBUCKLE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1701
MR & MRS BALAKER
3811 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2704
MR & MRS CONNER
1535MANZANAWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92139-1982
MR & MRS DALY
PO BOX 260
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0260
BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550 LACUNA DR
SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1698
BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550 LACUNA DR
SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1698
BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550 LACUNA DR
SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1698
BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550 LACUNA DR
SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1698
BENCHMARK PAC POINSETTIA
550 LACUNA DR
SUITE B
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1698
BICAJESSEE ADVENTURES
LLC
2075 CORTE DEL NOGAL
SUITE S
BLACKBURN
202 RAINBOW LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3537
BLACKBURN
202 RAINBOW LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3537
BLACKBURN
202 RAINBOW LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3537
BONSALL TRUST
31499 LAKE VISTA CIR
BONSALL CA 92003-5308
DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
DUNHAM
4028 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2619
EISLER
6631 LITTLER DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92119-2435
COLL
18 GETTYSBURG
IRVIN EGA 92620-3266
HUSTON
2631 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1653
HYSPAN PRECISION PROD
PO BOX 636
VISTA CA 92085-0636
JEANENE ENT
PO BOX 2258
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2258
JEANENE ENT
PO BOX 2258
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2258
JEFFERSON PROF BLDG
2755 JEFFERSON ST
SUITE 200
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1714
JOHNSON
4513 COVE DR
APT 12
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4213
KLETT
PO BOX 4086
CARLSBAD CA 92018-4086
MACDONALD PROP
2016 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024-1144
MAZZILLI
750ARBUCKLEPL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1701
NEMETH
1132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024-2225
NEMETH
1132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024-2225
OSTRIE
PO BOX 8
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067-
0008
PGP CARLSBAD
PO BOX 13247
KANSAS CITY MO 64199-3247
PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS
1120SILVERADOST
LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524
ROOSEVELT TAMARACK
6 VENTURE
APT 215
IRVINE CA 92618-7364
RYANNEAPTS
1540 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011-1230
SCANLON SCARPELLI SCARPELLI
7306BORLAPL 929 ORCHID WAY 929 ORCHID WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802 CARLSBAD CA 92011-4830 CARLSBAD CA 92011-4830
STROTHER SWANSON TAMARACK PARK
3811 MARGARET WAY 24 BLUFF VW PO BOX 27781
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3409 IRVINE CA 92603-3602 SAN DIEGO CA 92198-1781
TGMS INC TREJO TUCKER
PO BOX 230562 2687 MADISON ST 2810 MADISON ST
ENCINITAS CA 92023-0562 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1722 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1733
TUPPER
2785 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1718
Madison SquareHousing & Redevelopment CommissionApril 4, 2006
Location MapSITE
Subject Property2683 & 2687 Roosevelt Street Apartment Buildings
Post Office to the South and WestWRONG PHOTO
Adjacent Residence to the NorthWRONG PHOTO
Residential building to the East
Proposed DevelopmentThree-Story 4-Unit Condominium Project Frontage and access off Roosevelt Street.
Building CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 54%HeightRequired: 35’ w/ min 5:12 roof pitchProposed: 33’ w// 5:12 roof pitchOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 27.7%ParkingRequired: 10 spaces (2 spaces/ unit & ½ space/ unit for guests)Proposed: 10 spaces; 4 two-car garages & 2 guest spaces Standards ComplianceSetbacks Proposed:Front: 10 feet*S. Side: 16 feet 7”N. Side: 3 feet 1”Rear: 11 feet* 10-foot front yard street dedicationPD Ordinance
Project Design
Project Design
Proposed Project Meets Goals of District 1:Provides desirable useCompatible with surrounding area.Development of a vacant lotServe as catalyst for future developmentIncreases number, quality, and diversity of housing types.Goals & Objectives of Land Use Plan
Environmental ReviewProposed project is an in-fill development project and Exempt from CEQA.No comments received.DRB recommended approval of environmental determination.
DRB RecommendationDRB voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project.Project will have positive financial impact and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.