HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-16; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 385; Corner Grand Avenue Apartment ProjectHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL 1
G
0)
CO
Cd
M
Ucd
PH
CO
•H
CD
ro
O
S-ia.
PH
O<
CO
CO
oo
AB# 385
MTG. 4/25/06
DEPT. HIRED
TITLE:
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
RP 05-01 CITYATTY. £$&->
CITY MGR \5Jr
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 415 . APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit RP 05-01 for the construction of a 6,811 square foot 2 unit apartment
project, located at 786 Grand Avenue in Land District 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, including variances for a front and a side yard setback
which exceed the maximum standard range, as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On February 27, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a two-unit, two story, apartment project totaling 6,811 square feet in
Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 9,000 square foot site is
currently occupied by a 956 square foot single-family residence with building frontage along Grand
Avenue. The lot is bordered by a one-story medical office building to the west, a residential building
on the property to the north, a two-story office building across Grand Avenue to the south, and a
photography office across Jefferson Street to the east.
The proposed project involves the construction of two apartments. The two units are setback from
the street in order to reduce the massing of the two-story building along Grand Avenue and Jefferson
Street. Each unit within the project is equipped with a second story balcony and a private ground
level patio for private recreational purposes. Parking is provided for the project within a subterranean
parking garage.
The project includes extensive landscaping within and around the project, a pleasant architectural
design, and decorative walls along all street frontages. Vehicular access to the site is located off
Grand Avenue in order to reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Jefferson Street.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, Marquez
absent) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Establishment of the Medium-High Residential (RMH) density designation for the subject property
with a corresponding density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control
Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre;
2. A variance to increase the front yard setback from 15' to 18'.
3. A variance to increase the west side yard setback from 10' to 12'.
The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report, and the draft minutes
of the February 27th 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
I
PAGE 2
urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments
were received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental
determination is included in the attached Housing & Redevelopment Commission resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax. The current
assessed value of the project site is $688,500. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $1.6 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $ 9,115
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 within the area.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 415 , APPROVING RP05-01.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 307 dated February 27, 2006.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated February 27, 2006, w/attachments.
4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated February 27, 2006.
Contact: Cliff Jones, Housing & Redevelopment Department, (760) 434-2813,
cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1 RESOLUTION NO. 415
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
3 PERMIT NO. RP05-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,811
SQUARE FOOT TWO-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY
4 LOCATED AT 786 GRAND AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 2 OF
THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
5 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR A
FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
6 STANDARD RANGE.
APPLICANT: EDUARDO POSADA7
CASE NO: RP 05-01
8
9
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-01) for the
construction of a 6,811 square foot two-unit apartment project on the property located at 786
12 Grand Avenue in Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local
13 Facilities Management Zone 1, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 307
14 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment
15 Permit (RP 05-01) be approved; and
16
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
17
the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation
18
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-01); and
19
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings establishing the Medium-High
20
Residential (RMH) density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre for the subject property; and
21
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the
22
front and west side yard setback which exceed the standard range; 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
25
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be
26
categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant
to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of28
1 less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate
2 facilities.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-01) is APPROVED and that the findings
and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 307, on file in the City
Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission with the addition of one condition to read as follows:
a. The project shall include fiber cement siding on approximately 50% of the
building and the sound barrier masonry wall depicted in Design Review Board Exhibit No. B
12 dated February 27, 2006 shall include a stone finish.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
18 regulations;
19 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no
20 more than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
21 (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.
26
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination
27
28
1 reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
2 of Carlsbad.
3 4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
4 Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
5 "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
6
7 NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
8
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
9
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which
10
has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16.
11
Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later
12
than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within
13
ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings
14
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
15
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended
16
to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally
17
delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she has one. A written
18
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
19
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
20
21 //
22
23
24
25
26
27 "
28
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16fi day of May.
2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Hall, Kulchin, Sigafoose
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: Commissioner Packard
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
'ATCHETT, SECRETARY
r ^/ESTABLISHED \%c
— 5 : : eo ~
;Ui 1WO /IJ^;-... <«:/
EXHIBIT 2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 307
DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2006
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 307
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 05-01 FOR THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,811 SQUARE FOOT TWO-UNIT APARTMENT
PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 GRAND AVENUE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 2 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
6 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1 INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR A FRONT AND SIDE YARD
7 SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE.
CASE NAME: CORNER GRAND AVENUE
8 APN: 203-302-04
9 CASE NO: RP 05-01
10
WHEREAS, Eduardo Posada, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Aminet
13 Sharipova, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-302-04, and more thoroughly
4 described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
15 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16
shown on Exhibits "A-L" dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
Department, "Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of thelo
19 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 27th day of February, 2006, hold a
21 duly 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 "Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01."
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26 follows:
27 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board APPROVES the Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
^ 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. 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 a front and side yard setback variances and the
establishment of the RMH 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
12 Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth
in the staff report dated February 27,2006 including, but not limited to the following:
13
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
l^ as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a 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
16 project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping,
recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units will enhance the
17 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 2 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 2, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
26 requested variances.
27 d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
^^ improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
DRB RESO NO. 307 -2-
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
2 facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
3 management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
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
6 requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
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
o fire protection and other safety standards.
10 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
11 Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for two (2)
units.
13
h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
14 in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts
contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the
^ project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of
,,- surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all
conform to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which
17 serves as the adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project
provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, and off-street parking.
18 The parking is screened underneath the building and the project is compatible
with surrounding land uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns
in the area. The overall architecture is compatible with the surrounding area
20 and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the Village Design
Manual.
21
3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project is
22 RMH (8-15 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of
11.5 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as
23 follows:
24 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of
25 uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and
office. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property
26 would allow for the proposed multi-family development, which is a permitted use in
District 2 and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of
size, scale, and overall density.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -3- IQ
b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village
2 Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and
affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The higher density
3 designation allows for future development that would be consistent with the
development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master
4 Plan.
c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
g Use District 2 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
shops, restaurants, and mass transportation. Higher residential densities in close
7 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.
9 4. The Design Review Board finds that the RMH residential density is in conformance with the
10 Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February
27, 2006, including but not limited to the following:
11
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the proposed
density of 9.66 du/ac is within the density range of 8 - 15 du/ac specified for the site
13 as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The project's proposed
density of 9.66 du is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point density
14 (11. du) used for the purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government
Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's certified
' ^ Housing Element, all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward achieving
< s the City's share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in
approved projects are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These
17 excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly,
there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties
18 identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit
capacity adequate to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need.
20 b. Circulation - The project will take access off of Grand Avenue and is conditioned to
provide all necessary street improvements. On-site circulation consists of a private
21 driveway which provides access to a subterranean parking garage designed in
accordance with City standards.
22
~., c. Noise - The project is conditioned to provide all noise attenuation measures as
identified in the acoustical study prepared by Urban Crossroads
24
d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan
25 and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for two (2) units.26
27 5. 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.
28 The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
DRB RESO NO. 307 -4- (
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
2 drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
3 serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
^ a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
<- issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
6 remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
7 appty to sewer service for this project.
g
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
9 conditions of approval.
10 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
1 ~ 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained
in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts
13 caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in
rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
14
7. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front and side yard
15 setbacks that exceed the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
17 difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
18 that due to the location of the property being next to a commercial use and at a
busy street corner additional setbacks are required in order to protect the
1" livability of the residents. The increased setback area will be devoted to
2Q landscaping, to help buffer the edge of the property and protect the livability for
future residents.
21
Providing an increased setback at the front of the proposed building of IS feet is
22 necessary to provide parking access that is visually subordinated, as specified
within the Village Design Manual. The increased setback is necessary in order
to accommodate the appropriate drive angle so that residents do not scrape the
24 undercarriage of their vehicles as they enter the underground parking. By
providing an increased setback on the front of the building, the required
25 parking can be provided in a subterranean garage making the parking visually
subordinate, and landscaping can be provided along the front of the property,
^" both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad
27 Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -5-
Providing an increased side yard setback of 12 feet along Grand Avenue is
2 necessary to make the project compatible with the adjacent commercial use. The
increased setback helps to increase the livability of the residential units.
3
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
4 proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
, developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that by
allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will more closely match the
6 setbacks of the surrounding residential properties and adjacent office use. The
granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as a
7 precedent has been previously set within the V-R zoning for allowing residential
projects to exceed the maximum of the standard range. In addition, it is
noteworthy that staff is currently working on an amendment to the Carlsbad
9 Village Redevelopment Master Plan, subject to the approval of the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission, to allow for commercial and residential projects to
10 exceed the maximum of the setback standard range.
1 c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
, 2 public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
variances do not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized by
13 the zone regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family residential
use is a permitted use within Land Use District 2 of the V-R zoning.
14 Additionally, the increased setbacks are similar to the setbacks enjoyed by the
surrounding properties under the same zoning designation.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
17 Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The placement of the building is setback similarly to
the surrounding properties, allowing for increased landscaped buffering, which
20 is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of
establishing Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment. Additionally, the
project is consistent with the general purpose of the general plan and the
Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan.
23 GENERAL CONDITIONS;
24 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
27 implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
DRB RESO NO. 307 -6-13
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
2 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
3 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
4 Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
6 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.
7 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.o
9 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.
10
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
1 * of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
j2 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
13 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
14
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
16 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
17 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
jp 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
20 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
21
~~ 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
23 conditions approved by the final decision making body.
24 7. 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.
26
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
27 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.28 V
DRB RESO NO. 307 -7-
9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
3
10. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
4 project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
11. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
6 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
7 time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.8
12. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 05-01 as shown on Exhibits
A-L, dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
10 and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
11 13. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
12 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
1 ^ an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the
, 4 time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.
15 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS;
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
17 and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
18 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
19 15. 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
20 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
21 16. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
22 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
23 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
17. 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
25 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
26 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
27 approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -8- ' ^
18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
2 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
3 Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
4 NOTICING CONDITIONS:
5 19. 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
7 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 307 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
g 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
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
12 ON-SITE CONDITIONS:
•^ 20. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
I A 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
15 with the approved plan.
21. 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.
18
22. Noise barrier identified in acoustical study prepared by Urban Crossroads shall be
19 constructed in order to reduce noise levels to an acceptable level.
20 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
21 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
22 following code requirements.
23 Fees
24 23. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
24. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
27
25. 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
DRB RESO NO. 307 -9-\(0
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
2 of the City Engineer.
General
26. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
, approval becomes final.
6 27. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
7 building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
28. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
9 Code Section 18.04.320.
10 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon
the approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of building or grading
permit whichever occurs first.
13
General
14
29. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
17 30. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18
31. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
20
32. An adjustment plat shall be processed and approved through the City to consolidate
21 those portions of Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 of Block 50 of Carlsbad Townsite into one
lot within the site boundary.22 y
Fees/Agreements
33. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
24 recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
25 34. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
27 Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
28
DRBRESONO. 307 -10-n
Grading
2 35. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
3 plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
36. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
7 unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
10
Dedications/Improvements
11
.,- 37. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or
other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan.
13 The offer shall be made by separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be
offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are
14 already public are not required to be rededicated.
38. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best
17 Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
. Q limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
20 A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
21 hazardous waste products.
2?B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
23 antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
24 or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
~, containers,/o
27 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -11-
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
2
39. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
3 for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
5 40. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
6 improvement plans.
' 41. The Developer shall design and construct public water and sewer facilities substantially
o as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public
facilities shall be reflected on the public improvement plans.
9
42. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
10 issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -12-
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 27th day of February, 2006 by the following vote to
wit:
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Marquez
ABSTAIN: N/A
' '
COURTNEY HEINEMAN, C
DESIGN RCVIEW'BOARD
'ERSON
ATTEST:
_
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 307 -13-
ATTACHMENT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL OF LOTS 13, 14, 15, AND 16 IN BLOCK 50 OF CARLSABAD TOWNSITE, IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 535, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 2, 1888, EXCEPTING
THEREFROM, THE SOUTHWESTERLY 50 FEET THEREOF.
APN: 203-302-04
EXHIBIT 3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2006
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones
9/29/2005 David Rick
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
ITEM NO. 2
DATE: February 27, 2006
SUBJECT: RP 05-01 "CORNER GRAND AVENUE": Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit to allow the construction of a 6,811 square foot 2 unit apartment project,
located at 786 Grand Avenue in Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 307
recommending APPROVAL of RP 05-01 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. 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 with the requested setback
variances.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Eduardo Posada, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit for a two-unit
residential project totaling 6,811 square feet. The property is located at 786 Grand Avenue in
Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The subject property is 9,000
square feet and is currently occupied by a 956 square foot single-family residence with building
frontage along Grand Avenue. The lot is bordered by a one-story medical office building to the
west, two residential units on the property to the north, a two-story office building across Grand
Avenue to the south, and a photography office across Jefferson Street to the east. The
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 2
remainder of the Grand Avenue is comprised of a mixture of uses of various sizes including, a
one-story medical office building, a two-story office complex, a restaurant and bar (Grand
Avenue Bar and Grill), and a parking lot for the Old World Center.
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 apartment units where residents will
be within clear walking distance to District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village Area.
The new residences will increase the number, quality and diversity of housing units within the
Village, particularly those in proximity to transit, shopping and employment for those people
seeking to reside in the downtown area. The attractive architectural design will serve to enhance
the site and the surrounding area.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The proposed
project will be in close proximity to both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus
encourage and promote the use of mass transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the
Village.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the VillaQe. 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
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 3
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 redeveloping a corner lot on a prominent intersection.
Staff sees the development of the vacant subject property as a key catalyst for future
redevelopment along both Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street.
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 two-
story structure is stepped back from the property lines, which is in keeping with the scale and
intensity of the surrounding properties. 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 2 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residential projects are a permitted use within this district.
Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are
considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these
land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and
compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required.
The overall vision for the development of District 2 is to provide a continuation of Land Use
District 1 through building scale and character, while maintaining a pedestrian-oriented
environment. The development standards promote individual buildings set back from the street
surrounded by landscaping, with parking being located away from street frontages.
Staff believes that the proposed residential units, assist in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 2 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 providing ample
building setbacks, an abundance of landscaping, and underground parking.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 2 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 2, the required front yard
setback is 5-15 feet, the east street side yard setback is 10 feet minimum, the west side yard
setback is 10 feet, and the required rear yard setback is 5-10 feet. All setbacks are measured
from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 18 feet from the front
property line. On the west side yard, the setback is 12 feet from the side property line. The east
side yard has a setback of 10 feet. The rear of the building is located 10 feet from the rear
property line.
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27,2006
PAGE 4
The Design Review Board will be required to make appropriate findings to grant variances for
the front yard setback that exceeds the maximum range of 15 feet and the west side yard
setback that exceeds the maximum range of 10 feet. It is noteworthy that staff is currently
working on an amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan, subject to the
approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Commission, to allow for commercial and residential
projects to exceed the maximum of the setback standard range with no variance requirement.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance may be
approved by the Design Review Board for a Major Redevelopment Permit if the findings set
forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition, a variance for a
setback standard that exceeds the top of the range may only be granted if the project meets one
or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space subject
to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to the subject
project.)
The first two criteria noted above for allowing front yard setbacks, which exceed the maximum
standard (range) are justified as follows. The subject project is in a location with varying
setbacks. The adjacent office use to the west off Grand Avenue has a front yard setback that is
in excess of twenty feet and the adjacent residential use off Jefferson Street is set close to
eighteen feet. The increased setbacks will help to protect the livability of the project, as it will
provide a buffer between the residence and the busy street of Grand Avenue and between the
residence and the adjacent commercial use and provide for additional privacy. Also, the
increased setbacks of the project along the west side yard and front yard street frontage and the
stepping back of the upper levels of the building allows for greater architectural articulation and
increased landscaped area, which is strongly encouraged in the Village Design Guidelines as a
way to maintain and reinforce the Village character. Therefore, staff believes that the increased
setback is consistent with the area and will reinforce the Village character.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for a setback standard that
exceeds the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variance. In order to approve the requested
variances to exceed the maximum setback on the front and west side of the property, the
Design Review Board must be able to make all four findings contained within Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the following justification for granting the requested
variances to exceed the front and west side yard setback standards:
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGES
Variance FindinQ #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zone
regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
under identical zoning classification. Justification: Due to the location of the property being next
to a commercial use and at a busy street corner additional setbacks are required in order to
protect the livability of the residents. The increased setback area will be devoted to
landscaping, to help buffer the edge of the property and protect the livability for future residents.
Providing an increased setback at the front of the proposed building of 18 feet is necessary to
provide parking access that is visually subordinated, as specified within the Village Design
Manual. The increased setback is necessary in order to accommodate the appropriate drive
angle so that residents do not scrape the undercarriage of their vehicles as they enter the
underground parking. By providing an increased setback on the front of the building, the
required parking can be provided in a subterranean garage making the parking visually
subordinate, and landscaping can be provided along the front of the property, both of which are
preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan
and Design Manual.
Providing an increased side yard setback of 12 feet along Grand Avenue is necessary to make
the project compatible with the adjacent commercial use. The increased setback helps to
increase the livability of the residential units.
Variance Finding #2: The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
located. Justification: By allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will more closely
match the setbacks of the surrounding residential properties and adjacent office use. The
granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as a precedent has
been previously set within the V-R zoning for allowing residential projects to exceed the
maximum of the standard range. In addition, it is noteworthy that staff is currently working on an
amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan, subject to the approval of the
Housing & Redevelopment Commission, to allow for commercial and residential projects to
exceed the maximum of the setback standard range.
Variance Finding #3: The variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. Justification: The
variances do not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized by the zone
regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family residential use is a permitted use
within Land Use District 2 of the V-R zoning. Additionally, the increased setbacks are similar to
the setbacks enjoyed by the surrounding properties under the same zoning designation.
Variance FindinQ #4: The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
general plan, Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The placement of
the building is setback similarly to the surrounding properties, allowing for increased landscaped
buffering, which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of
establishing Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment. Additionally, the project is
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 6
consistent with the general purpose of the general plan and the Carlsbad village area
redevelopment plan.
Based on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow building setbacks that exceed the established range for the front
yard setback and west side yard setback of the property.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in
Land Use District 2 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 36%,
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. The lesser coverage allows for ample landscaping, recreational space,
and privacy.
Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 2 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. The proposed project will have a maximum height of 35 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, and roof decks and balconies above the ground floor. The
project provides for a total of 4,950 square feet of open space, which represents 55% 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 V2 guest parking space per unit. The project provides a subterranean garage with four
resident spaces and 1 guest parking space, which satisfies the parking requirement for District
2.
Residential Density: 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. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density
increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP.
After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for
Land Use District 2 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a Medium-High Density
Residential (RMH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RMH
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.
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE?
Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for
future multi-family development, which is a permitted use in District 2 and would be
compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
2. The RMH 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 RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
District 2 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.
The RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the
proposed project is .21 acres (9,000 square feet), which will accommodate 2.42 dwelling units
per the GMCP. The project applicant is requesting to construct a total of two (2) units. With two
(2) dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 9.66 dwelling units per acre, which
is below the GMCP.
The proposed project density, which is below the GMCP, is consistent with Program 3.8 of the
City's certified Housing Element because all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward
achieving the City's share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in
approved projects are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess
dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of
residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element
allowing residential development with a unit capacity adequate to satisfy the City's share of the
regional housing need. Justification to allow a density that is below the GMCP has been
incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 307.
Inclusionary Housing Requirements: 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 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 two (2) proposed residential units.
VIM. 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
•a?
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGES
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 the incorporation of various-sized, multi-paned windows,
wood railings, two complimentary stucco colors, and multiple roof elements with a 5:12 roof
pitch. The project will enhance the pedestrian-orientation by providing enhanced landscaping
along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street. The parking is visually subordinate in that it is
located in a subterranean garage accessed off Grand Avenue. 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 AND CIRCULATION:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 20
A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant impact that a two-unit apartment
would have on the surrounding street system.
Comment: All frontage and project related roadways are already constructed and adequate for
supporting this project.
SEWER:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU's Required: 2
(1) edu/dwelling x 2 dwellings = 2 EDU's
Comment: Sewer facilities, including a lateral to serve the site, exist in Jefferson Street. New
sewer lateral may be necessary to accommodate the two-unit apartment.
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27,2006
PAGE 9
WATER:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD Required: 550 gpd/edu x 2 edu = 1100 GPD
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project.
SOILS & GRADING:
Quantities:
Cut:1,840cy Fill: 0 cy Export: 1,840 cy Import: 0 cy
Permit required: Yes
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: N/A
Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: Soil Testers
Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project.
DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
Drainage basin: A
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: N/A
Erosion Potential: Low
Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. Drainage flowing to
the garage will be discharged by a submersed pump to Jefferson Street.
LAND TITLE:
Conflicts with existing easement: None
Easement dedication required: Public right-of-way dedication of 135 square feet is proposed at
the corner of the property fronting the street intersection.
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: The property consists of 4 lots established by the Carlsbad Township Map 535,
recorded in 1888. These lots will be consolidated into one lot via an adjustment plat. The
project has been conditioned to require processing of an adjustment plat through the City.
IMPROVEMENTS:
3\
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 10
Off-site improvements: Street frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.) already exist
on Jefferson Street and Grand Avenue. The improvements consist of some slight sidewalk
realignment, a new driveway approach, and a curb drain.
Standard variance required: No.
Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project.
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.
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.
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. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for a variance for the front and west
side yard setbacks to exceed the standard range. Development of the site will have a positive
fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the
goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 307 recommending approval RP 05-01
C. Location Map
D. Exhibits "A - L", dated February, 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: Corner Grand Avenue
The project has a 18-foot front yard setback along
Grand Avenue and a 10-foot setback along
Jefferson Street providing for a variation of
building placement along both streets.
The project provides a sound wall along Jefferson
Street for noise attenuation and provides low lying
walls along Grand Avenue.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
The project does not include a drive-thru.
Adequate setbacks are provided along the rear
and 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.
An abundance of landscaping will be provided at
the front yard o the building achieving the desired
landscaped green space.
The project does not contain a surface parking lot.
The property does not have access to an alley.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Parking lot areas are not part of proposal.
Driveway required for circulation.
Parking is provided within a subterranean garage.
Curb cut is required for the entrance to the
subterranean parking.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Appropriate setbacks and landscaping are
provided adjacent to pedestrian areas.
a
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
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
The parking is accommodated through the use of
a subterranean garage, which help to screen the
vehicles, which is an important design concept in
the Village.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
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 varied building planes
help step the upper level of the buildings back.
The size of the lot does not provide the opportunity
to break up the two units.
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 2.
The project does not include dormers as part of its
design.
The project provides slate composition shingle
roofing, which is consistent with the architectural
design intended for the project as well as other
projects in the area.
The building incorporates a 5:12 roof pitch as
required in District 2.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize 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.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
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 and
wood railings on balconies.
Various sized, multi-paned windows 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, various roof elements, use of a variety of
materials, and wood railings.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize stucco of neutral colors
and fiber cement sliding.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Wood coated doors and window frames will be
utilized.
No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
The project utilizes a neutral color scheme.
The project incorporates one primary base stucco
color, one complimentary accent, and a trim color.
Commercial Storefronts: '
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 property 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.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
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 on the upper levels.
The residential unit entries are oriented towards
the street.
The project design does not lend itself to front
entry porches.
Windows look out to the street.
The project utilizes a simple color scheme
Various sized windows with wood trim and two-
toned stucco are incorporated into the building.
The project design does not lend itself to "cottage"
form, scale, and character.
Open space and landscaping encompass 55% of
the property.
There is one access drive to the project off Grand
Avenue maximizing the amount of landscaping
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.
along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street.
Not applicable.
Masonry-block walls with glass panes match the
facade of the building and are incorporated along
the east side of the project and low lying stone-
walls are incorporated along Grand Avenue.
The design of the project serves to visually
separate the building into two smaller elements.
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 307
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 05-01 FOR THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,811 SQUARE FOOT TWO-UNIT APARTMENT
5 PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 GRAND AVENUE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 2 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
6 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1 INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR A FRONT AND SIDE YARD
7 SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE.
CASE NAME: CORNER GRAND AVENUE
8 APN: 203-302-04
9 CASE NO: RP 05-01
10
WHEREAS, Eduardo Posada, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Aminet
13 Sharipova, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-302-04, 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-L" dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
10 Department, "Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the1 o
19 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 27th day of February, 2006, hold a
21 duly 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 "Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01."24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26 follows:
27 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board APPROVES the Corner Grand Avenue RP 05-01, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
<- 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
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 a front and side yard setback variances and the
establishment of the RMH density designation for the project is in conformance with the
Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth
in the staff report dated February 27, 2006 including, but not limited to the following:
13
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a 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
16 project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping,
recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units will enhance the
17 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 2 through the following actions: 1) the project
provides a new residential development that will improve the physical
22 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 2, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
26 requested variances.
27 d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
DRB RESO NO. 307 -2-
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
2 facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
3 management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
4
c 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
6 requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
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
n fire protection and other safety standards.
10 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
11 Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for two (2)
units.
13
h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
14 in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts
contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the
project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of
i g surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all
conform to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which
17 serves as the adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project
provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, and off-street parking.
18 The parking is screened underneath the building and the project is compatible
1 _ with surrounding land uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns
in the area. The overall architecture is compatible with the surrounding area
20 and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the Village Design
Manual.
21
3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project is
22 RMH (8-15 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of
11.5 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as
23 follows:
24 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of
25 uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and
office. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property
26 would allow for the proposed multi-family development, which is a permitted use in
District 2 and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of
size, scale, and overall density.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -3-
b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village
2 Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and
affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The higher density
3 designation allows for future development that would be consistent with the
development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master
4 Plan.
c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
5 Use District 2 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
shops, restaurants, and mass transportation. Higher residential densities in close
7 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.
9 4. The Design Review Board finds that the RMH residential density is in conformance with the
10 Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February
27, 2006, including but not limited to the following:
11
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the proposed
density of 9.66 du/ac is within the density range of 8 - 15 du/ac specified for the site
13 as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The project's proposed
density of 9.66 du is slightly below the Growth Management Control Point density
14 (11. du) used for the purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government
Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's certified
* 5 Housing Element, all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward achieving
,, the City's share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in
approved projects are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These
17 excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly,
there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties
18 identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit
capacity adequate to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need.
20 b. Circulation - The project will take access off of Grand Avenue and is conditioned to
provide all necessary street improvements. On-site circulation consists of a private
21 driveway which provides access to a subterranean parking garage designed in
accordance with City standards.
22
2-> c. Noise - The project is conditioned to provide all noise attenuation measures as
identified in the acoustical study prepared by Urban Crossroads
24
d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan
25 and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the as the Developer has been
_ , conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for two (2) units.26
27 5. 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.
28 The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
DRB RESO NO. 307 -4-
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
2 drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
3 serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
4 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
c issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
6 remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
9 conditions of approval.
10 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
. ~ 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained
in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts
caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in
rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
14
7. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front and side yard setbacks
15 that exceed the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
18 that due to the location of the property being next to a commercial use and at a
busy street corner additional setbacks are required in order to protect the
19 livability of the residents. The increased setback area will be devoted to
landscaping, to help buffer the edge of the property and protect the livability for
future residents.
21
Providing an increased setback at the front of the proposed building of 18 feet is
22 necessary to provide parking access that is visually subordinated, as specified
within the Village Design Manual. The increased setback is necessary in order
to accommodate the appropriate drive angle so that residents do not scrape the
24 undercarriage of their vehicles as they enter the underground parking. By
providing an increased setback on the front of the building, the required
25 parking can be provided in a subterranean garage making the parking visually
subordinate, and landscaping can be provided along the front of the property,
both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad
?7 Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
28
43DRB RESO NO. 307 -5- '^
Providing an increased side yard setback of 12 feet along Grand Avenue is
2 necessary to make the project compatible with the adjacent commercial use. The
increased setback helps to increase the livability of the residential units.
3
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
f developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that by
allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will more closely match the
6 setbacks of the surrounding residential properties and adjacent office use. The
granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as a
precedent has been previously set within the V-R zoning for allowing residential
projects to exceed the maximum of the standard range. In addition, it is
noteworthy that staff is currently working on an amendment to the Carlsbad
9 Village Redevelopment Master Plan, subject to the approval of the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission, to allow for commercial and residential projects to
10 exceed the maximum of the setback standard range.
That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
variances do not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized by
13 the zone regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family residential
use is a permitted use within Land Use District 2 of the V-R zoning.
Additionally, the increased setbacks are similar to the setbacks enjoyed by the
1 j. surrounding properties under the same zoning designation.
16 d- That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
17 Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The placement of the building is setback similarly to
the surrounding properties, allowing for increased landscaped buffering, which
20 is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of
establishing Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment. Additionally, the
project is consistent with the general purpose of the general plan and the
22 Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan.
23 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
24 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
£*+)
26 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
27 implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
DRB RESO NO. 307 -6-
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
2 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
3 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
4 Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
6 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.
7 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.o
9 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.
10
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
j2 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
13 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
14
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
16 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
17 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
19 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
20 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
21
22 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
23 conditions approved by the final decision making body.
24 7. 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.
26
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
27 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -7- M 4
9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
3
10. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
11. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
6 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
7 time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
o
12. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 05-01 as shown on Exhibits
A-L, dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
JO and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
11 13. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
12 certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space
condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as
^ an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the
I A time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.
15 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
17 and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
18 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
19 15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
21 16. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
22 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
23 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
17. 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
25 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
26 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -8- ^5
18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
2 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
3 Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
4 NOTICING CONDITIONS;
5 19. 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
7 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 307 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
8 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
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
1 successor in interest.
12 ON-SITE CONDITIONS:
•* 20. 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
15 with the approved plan.
21. 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.
18
22. Noise barrier identified in acoustical study prepared by Urban Crossroads shall be
19 constructed in order to reduce noise levels to an acceptable level.
20 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
21 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
22 following code requirements.
23 Fees
24 23. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
24. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
27
25. 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
DRB RESO NO. 307 -9-
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
2 of the City Engineer.
3 General
4 26. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
<- approval becomes final.
6 27. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
7 building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
8 • • • •28. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
9 Code Section 18.04.320.
10 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS;
11 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon
the approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of building or grading
permit whichever occurs first.
13
General
14
29. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
^ within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
I c for the proposed haul route.
17 30. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18
31. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
20
32. An adjustment plat shall be processed and approved through the City to consolidate
21 those portions of Lots 13,14, 15, and 16 of Block 50 of Carlsbad Townsite into one
lot within the site boundary.22
23 Fees/Agreements
33. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
24 recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
25 34. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
27 Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -10-
Grading
2 35. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
3 plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
36. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
7 unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
10
Dedications/Improvements
11
. - 37. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or
other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan.
13 The offer shall be made by separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be
offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are
14 already public are not required to be rededicated.
38. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best
17 Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
20 A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
21 hazardous waste products.
22 B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
23 antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
24 or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
~,- containers.2o
27 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -11-
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
2
39. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
3 for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
5 40. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
6 improvement plans.
n1 41. The Developer shall design and construct public water and sewer facilities substantially
as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public
facilities shall be reflected on the public improvement plans.
42. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
12"
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 307 -12-
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."
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
o annul their imposition.
9 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
.1 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
\2 expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
14 the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 27th day of February, 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. 307 -13-
ATTACHMENT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL OF LOTS 13, 14, 15, AND 16 IN BLOCK 50 OF CARLSABAD TOWNSITE, IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO. 535, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 2, 1888, EXCEPTING
THEREFROM, THE SOUTHWESTERLY 50 FEET THEREOF.
APN: 203-302-04
Map created by CarlsbadI CIS Department.
SITE
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
RP 05-01
avssiyvo do AIIO
i!
'3AV CD
Jill.. ,S is si*! i Sss a 's jMftj 1,1! |if Is ;lb thiKi *
Slsll ssSli*!
m -' i '« « K i f ^ ! n ,5 s Hi j-3
f r *ff
. s
"f S 5-S - I I - I
I j!! i Iji iJh,,, lifiiii in
5 :i: : I: siliJSS ec?
1!>CL
I?!
mn $ ii
iiil!i i m
: .
I isl
i1
I i!
!* si TJ s:a? , i| s* s s
iss a III - I" SH Ilii!!liilil!li:i
' lIUKI
i ij-ll!lI 1 sllllfl S!
53 ,
avasiyvo =10 AIIO
49, MAP NO. 775
RECORD 6250
ovasiavo jo AIIO
3TUQAV ONVW 93i
'3AV
CM
!<
QNViJO
LU
CD to
?3
u(0
55
10VJ.H03 CNOICIA3H
avasiyvo do AJ.IO
ii
wovacraw
QNVUO H3NdOO
C\l
c\i
avasiyvo do AIIO
i!
V3'OVBCT*Ointofx owas so/
•3AV I 8
ct
oo
CD
o
LU
CO s
ovasnyvo jo AIIO if
VO'OWCTSWD
'3AV
I
2-'
I
^
^?F
•V'-'»
\|3dOl£ JOO4)
7T
!i?
Hi
Xjlwis jooa
V"yifsis i
Nlno-K jooa
j- - -
^p*f«?~ibOB
WOTS J00«[/
r
r
W*
-^«
4>
f€>
>?
z<_l
Q.
LLo
SNOI6)A31I
ovasiyvo do AJJO
i!
arnotv anas XL
,1 31
Sc3o 5 oCoo
LU
UJ
co
Ul
104J.N03 CNOICIA3)
avasiavo do AIIO
\\
vo'ovasnivo
QNV^O I ri
CN
CO
<
<>
UJ
UJ
If-
ce
O
b
p||
lllsl
iy
lll
O
UJ
111 b
d
CoO
avasnyvo do AIIO
iS
VO'OVOSIHVSJHNiW QWS9 99Z
QNVHO
^O <0
s
avasiyvo jo AIIO
Hi CITY "OF CARLSBAt)!!9*,115!| ,™.t«W! KPARTUlm II 2 1GRADING FLAH8 POKGRAND CORNER PROJECT786 GRAND AVENUE(APPROVED Ii s
.«*?i smi°|o_o:
c ==
li
^Si
||
s S
1*REVI90N DESCRIPTION<I ;
> 1
;e« *s
II P
PgIm ct
Olsl
9=; as|lfg-| Mjllg «UULLCN?SW PK)CAPISBAPHONE: (;ss easas
SSlf
AND AVFNAD. CMJFS BROS 110203-30?-047B6CARLSTHOMAPN
EXHIBIT 3
DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DATED FEBRUARY 27,2006
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: FEBRUARY 27, 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 Schumacher 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
Michael Schumacher
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Absent: Sarah Marquez
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 January 23, 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 for an office building in
the village area. The presentation will be made by Cliff Jones, the Redevelopment Planner, assisted by
Dave Rick from Engineering.
Cliff Jones said the applicant, Bart Smith, on behalf of the property owner, Phil Salvagio, is requesting a
Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a two-story, 3,326 square foot commercial office
building on property located at 955 Grand Avenue in Land Use District 3 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area. The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because it involves
new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation that is greater than $150,000. In
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 2 of 12
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 subject property is located along the south side of Grand Avenue east of Hope Avenue. The subject
property totals 6,188 square feet with building frontage along Grand Avenue and is currently occupied by a
single family structure that is being used as an office use. The property is bordered by a Motel 6 to the
east, single-family residences exist across Grand Avenue to the north, two apartment buildings to the
west, and there is a vacant property to the south or to the rear of the subject property.
The proposed development is for a two-story office project with six office suites. The ground floor includes
a 134 square foot office suite, an elevator, two stairways, an area for refuse, and an elevator machine
room. Also on the ground floor within the footprint of the building are nine parking spaces. The second
floor of the building consists of five office suites with a combined total of 2,768 square feet of leasable
office space. Three private balconies also exist on the second floor; an open landscape terrace area, a
storage room, and a common restroom facility are also on the second floor. Access to the office project is
to be provided off of Grand Avenue.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the
Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 3 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Office is a
permitted use within Land Use District 3. The overall vision for the development of District 3 is to
accommodate traveler services as well as those services that meet the needs of the broader Carlsbad
community such as office uses and other commercial development. The development standards promote
individual buildings setback from the street and surrounded by landscaping intended to provide a quality
commercial and office environment within close proximity to shops, restaurants and other services
provided in the village. The land use standards encourage the phasing out of existing single family
residences over time.
Staff believes that the proposed office use assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land
Use District 3 through the following actions:
• The project provides for a desirable office use in a new structure;
• It may serve as a catalyst for future development;
• It is compatible with the surrounding area;
• It increases the number, quality, and diversity of office space within the village.
The proposed project meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan:
• The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping;
• The project provides adequate building coverage;
• The building height of the project is in compliance with the established standards set just below
the maximum height at 34 feet;
• The project meets the parking requirements of the Village Master Plan if the Design Review Board
makes the appropriate findings for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
The required amount of parking for this office project equates to 11 spaces. The spaces that are provided
is 9 spaces. The required justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for the two
remaining parking spaces is contained within the Design Review Board Resolution.
In Land Use District 3, the front yard setback is 5 to 20 feet, the side yard setbacks are 5 feet, and the rear
yard setback is 5 to 10 feet. The proposed project falls within the required setback ranges set at the
minimum setback range of 5 feet for the front, rear and side yard setbacks.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 3 of 12
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 project incorporates several design
features to achieve the desired village character, including multi-paned windows of various sizes with
decorative trim, multiple roof elements with a 5 and 12 roof pitch, decorative stone veneer columns are
provided along the lower level of the building fagade, and decorative stone veneer is provided along all
elevations. Galvanized steel lattices are attached to the lower levels of the sides and the rear of the
building, the second floor facade incorporates slate tile window boxes and varied stucco colors are
provided. The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of
the building. Parking is visually subordinate contained within the building itself.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department has conducted an Environmental Review of the project
pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has
been found to be exempt from the 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 economic impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was a previously underutilized 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, 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.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for participation in the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking spaces. 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.
Board Member Baker asked Mr. Jones about the property to the south which he mentioned was vacant.
Is this true?
Mr. Jones answered yes.
Board Member Baker asked where access is to that property.
Mr. Jones said the access to the property to the south is actually off of Carlsbad Village Drive. It is a flag
lot so it has access to the east of the Carl's Jr. and then comes to that vacant lot.
Board Member Lawson wanted clarification on the northern boundary which is along Grand; that is the
edge of the Redevelopment District is that not? So the homes directly across the street are not within the
village technically, is that correct?
Mr. Jones answered that is correct. They are not within the VR zoning.
Board Member Lawson continued by asking if there are any special provisions that we have as it relates to
compatibility when you would go down a street such as this where you have one zone, which I believe is
residential to the north, and then you have this area on the south side of the street. Most people wouldn't
know the difference and you would be looking for some aspect of compatibility.
Mr. Jones said within the Design Guidelines Manual there is a requirement to have the project be
compatible with surrounding properties. Typically it is done when there is a conflict of adjacent land use; it
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27,2006 "~V~1 "" -*.-
PAGE 4 of 12 C» fe ^ * * |
is done through architectural design. So the applicant tried to incorporate architectural design that is
similar to residential properties within the area.
Board Member Lawson commented that is exactly what he was wondering about. First reaction in looking
at the elevations was that it looked too residential in nature. Then when I recognized the setting, I wanted
to verify if indeed there may have been discussion or a suggestion by either you or by the applicant to try
to give it a little more of that character, which I can appreciate.
Mr. Jones said it was a joint effort.
Chairperson Heineman asked what the large grey area is that looks like a big concrete wall.
Mr. Jones said it is not a concrete wall. It is actually the entrance to the parking area. There should have
been something that said that area was open.
Chairperson Heineman asked if that is really an open space.
Mr. Jones said yes, that is just shading.
Chairperson Heineman commented that was better because it looked like a large wall there.
Board Member Baker asked if we would be hearing from the project architect this evening. The reason I
ask that question is because Mr. Heineman brought up what looked like a large wall. We have been doing
these projects all over Carlsbad in the redevelopment area where we have the parking underneath the
building and have these large gaping holes, and looking at them I am not sure they are achieving what we
want them to achieve. Even though they are hiding the parking, you still have the cars in there and there
is a big, empty black hole. I am curious if there are other options to soften the impact of that gaping hole.
Mr. Jones said the architect is present and will be making a presentation and may be able to address that
as well.
Board Member Baker said she is also wondering if we would allow a zero setback in this example to
maybe allow access to the garage on the side rather then in the front of the building. In other words, you
would go down a driveway on the west side of the building and enter the parking garage that way. We
would slide it over five feet.
Mr. Jones said he would have to talk to the architect, but it would probably take a complete redesign at
this point.
Board Member Lawson said there are implications of fencing going in along the sides, but I don't see
anything on the plans that call for it. Is there new fencing that is being proposed? I didn't find it in any of
the actual drawings listed as such.
Mr. Jones said they are proposing a wall there along that elevation. Currently there is a wall there where
Motel 6 is. They are also proposing a wall along that elevation that you are referring to, to the west.
Board Member Lawson said he couldn't find a note as to whether or not it was to save an existing,
preserve one, or build a new one, or what it might be.
Bart Smith, the project architect, his office is at 682 Second Street in Encinitas. Cliff did a great job on his
presentation of the project. I would be available for any questions you have. Otherwise, he covered the
square footage and the number of stories and the look of the building.
-ID
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 5 of 12
Board Member Baker said she appreciates his design. It fits in with the surrounding residences, but I am
noticing we have been doing these first floor parking with either office or housing above them. I'm not
sure we are getting the desired look that we want. Can you think of any options that would soften that
darkness or to see the cars inside there?
Mr. Smith said one of the options utilized on this project was we put an office on the ground floor that
faces the street so that's the area on the left side of the building. The Engineering Department has certain
requirements for the driveway and the opening into there, and I think they have actually let me go a little
below that to about 20 feet from 24 feet. So we have done everything we can to squeeze it. The problem
is that the lot is narrow; it is only 55 feet wide, so in order to do a driveway on the side area, you might end
up with the same effect because the building is still going to want to go over the top of that.
Board Member Baker asked if as an architect, he has any ideas on something that can soften that. I think
we all know of many examples all over the village and all over the City of Carlsbad where they just don't
quite look right. I appreciate your building, it looks great, but it could be a little better if there wasn't that
big hole right there.
Mr. Smith said the problem is that cars need a big hole. On the side of the building there is a large
opening where you can turn around, and that will also bring light into that area so our parking garage won't
be dark inside during the day. It won't be like Escrow Transfers building where it just has an opening on
either end. This will actually have multiple areas of light coming in. One of the issues is with working with
the Building Department, the lot is so narrow, and our building needs to be somewhat wide to make the
parking work, is that we end up too close to the property line and so we have to put walls all the way
around in order to meet the fire resistant standards.
Board Member Baker said she is sympathetic to his dilemma. I just want to make sure that we can get
the best possible design for the building that we can possibly get. Was there any thought given to a
motion sensor door that would go up so that people could access the parking?
Mr. Smith answered that would be an easy answer to that and we'd be willing to put the door on without
any problem. I really don't think it changes the overall design of the building. You would probably want it
to be solid so when it was closed you couldn't see in.
Board Member Baker expressed she would like something that would soften the black hole. Whether it
would be a gate, a solid door, etc.
Board Member Schumacher said since they've gone for the residential look, you might as well complete
the thought and make it a residential looking door. A gate wouldn't look like a residence.
Chairperson Heineman said it seems to him that a door would make sense.
Mr. Smith said it is only a 20 foot opening so they could do a residential style garage door, high quality
one. I think the owner would actually prefer that as an option because it provides more security for his
parking area. We have to work with the fire department to make sure it has the proper knox box and all of
that. The one door just to the left of the windows in the ground floor is our fire room for our fire equipment
so they wouldn't have to actually go into the garage area through our door to get to there.
Board Member Schumacher asked if there was visitor parking underneath or is it all reserved parking for
the office use.
Mr. Smith answered there is no designation in Carlsbad whether it is visitor or office use so it is use for the
building.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27,2006 ; ^ '
PAGE 6 of 12 »«*> a ^ ^ f
Board Member Baker said her only worry would be for your tenants that their clients wouldn't understand
or know that they could park there. That would be the only downside to a door.
Mr. Smith agreed and said he couldn't guarantee that the door would be closed all day long. It will
probably be open during business hours and then closed weekends and nights.
Ms. Fountain said that if this is something that the Board wants to look at, you might want to instruct staff
to look into it because we may have some Engineering and Fire and Building code issues that might
prevent gates and doors from going in. I wouldn't want to see us add that condition right now without it
being looked at a little bit closer by all the appropriate departments. A lot of times we don't have doors
and gates exactly for that reason because we either have Engineering issues or some other issues. It
would be okay for you to give us direction to look at that and see if it is possible.
Chairperson Heineman said the Board could amend the motion to include that.
Ms. Fountain agreed and said we would want to make sure that we look at it closely from all of those
different angles. The issue that you raised about making sure that it still accommodates the parking for
the customers coming to the site, we wouldn't want to prevent customers from parking because then they
end up on the street or somewhere else and we are already granting two parking spaces to be done in our
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. So we just want to be careful that we're not doing something that would
prevent that from being used.
Mr. Smith said maybe there could be a sensor in the driveway that the door opening automatically during
the day when people drove up to it and then it could be disconnected at night so it would stay down.
Chairperson Heineman said instead of trying to reach a decision now, why don't we just include that as a
provision of the motion.
Board Member Lawson said he was appreciative of the design and it will be a little bit more responsive to
the residential aspects of that street. On some projects sometimes it is suggested but it is not anywhere
in the plans and stated as such. Is there an intent to redo fencing or walls along the property lines?
Mr. Smith said yes there is. He thinks there is a detail of it in the lower left-hand corner.
Mr. Jones said yes it is on the cover sheet at the lower left-hand corner. It is an odd place for it.
Mr. Smith said it is noted on the site plan where that occurs.
Board Member Lawson said he overlooked it. Also, I noticed for office use you have laid out all the
individual offices. Is there a specific user that is intended and anticipated to be here because often you
will find it left for later demising depending upon tenant needs.
Mr. Smith said Mr. Salmen has an insurance company and at the time that we started designing this, he
thought the two suites to the south on the second floor were going to be the ones he needed, but it sounds
like, after speaking with him, that he might be using the entire building for his insurance company. There
was originally two or three small executive suites, but it may be that those get incorporated into his
business.
Board Member Lawson directed his next question to staff. He as a business owner in the village, one of
the great things about being down there is that you can head out to lunch and go to different places. I find
a five foot wide sidewalk right up against the curb is really not always real accommodating for a group of
people who take off to lunch together. While we don't have much in the way of setbacks, they are pretty
tight, is there a possibility we could allow more sidewalk in front of this? It would obviously consume a little
bit of the landscape. That is one of the things I find personally and professionally while down in the village
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 2
PAGE 7 of 12
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 W/iV' C"
that we need plenty of that urban space. If that is possible, is that something we can ask the applicant to
consider?
Mr. David Rick, Assistant Engineer, said the sidewalk design at five feet is per our standards. One of the
concerns we might have is if we are widening the sidewalk on one property, but it's not widened on the
other, you are going to have an inconsistent pattern for the sidewalk and down the street. If we were to
address that issue of making the sidewalks wider, we would probably want to look at it more on our
regional standard basis then just looking at it with individual projects. That is not to say that it couldn't be
done. Perhaps there could be a widening that doesn't have the same type of a concrete so it is obvious it
is more of a part of the project and becomes more of a private improvement that is maintained by them.
That might be the only type of variation we would look favorable on at this point.
Board Member Lawson said the reason he brings this up is out of pure experience and he's down in the
village a lot and knows staff is there as well. I'd like to see how we can make this work its way into
stronger consideration if possible. It does make a difference, in my opinion, as an observer. Am I to
interpret staff's comment that it might be a good idea, but we can't do it here?
Ms. Fountain said the Board could say they want a wider sidewalk on this project. What staff was saying
is that it is not a consistent policy right now so we'd have to make a consistent policy throughout the village
area and that may be something we would want to take to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
as a suggestion, maybe separate, from this project at this time and ask them if they want to generally
require wider sidewalks in the Village area and what would that be.
Chairperson Heineman said that would have to be a separate project.
Ms. Fountain said Engineering is feeling uncomfortable with applying it to one specific project when it is
not a general policy for the whole village area. Maybe we need to take that as a separate motion from the
Design Review Board. If that is subsequently approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
then it could be added to the project at that level.
Chairperson Heineman added it should be divorced from this particular project then.
Ms. Fountain agreed.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 306, recommending approval of RP 04-26 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Board Member Schumacher said it would be interesting to see what could be done about a possible
garage door, though Ms. Fountain said that may not be possible given the other dynamics within the city.
Other then that, I like it.
Board Member Baker said she thinks it is a great project. She does have a problem with the driveway,
and if we could look for some solutions subject to the approval of the Redevelopment Director, that would
be fine. I would just like to say overall, I would like us in future projects to start thinking of ways we might
solve the "empty hole in the middle of the building" problem. Like the Escrow Transfer building, there is
that office building on the corner of Jefferson and Grand, the medical office building, there are several of
them around town, and I just don't think we have achieved what we were hoping to with the building over
the parking. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe we could start thinking about other kinds of
buildings to solve that problem. I would just as soon see the landscaping out in front then more concrete
as a remark to Board Member Lawson's comments.
Board Member Lawson said he can support the project. I think they have done a nice job. My reason for
the paving isn't necessarily to eliminate landscape, but landscape comes in all forms. You can have
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 8 of 12 ' «» *
enhancement to an area that isn't necessarily made up of a planting bed. What we are sometimes
forgetting is that we are somewhat trying to create a little bit of an urban environment and part of that
urban environment is to introduce more of those pedestrian spaces. A planting bed doesn't necessarily
create a pedestrian space and that is why I bring that up and that is something I think I'd like to have some
consideration for in the future. Otherwise, I am supportive of this project.
Chairperson Heineman said he is in support of the project.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Marquez
Ms. Fountain presented the next item which is another Major Redevelopment Permit to allow construction
of a two-unit residential project. Again, Cliff Jones, our Redevelopment Planner, and Dave Rick, our
Engineer, will present the project.
Mr. Cliff Jones said the applicant, Eduardo Posada, is requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit for the
construction of a 6,811 square foot, two-story, two-unit apartment project located at 786 Grand Avenue in
Land Use District 2 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. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the
Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board
and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located at the corner of Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street. The subject property
totals 9,000 square feet with building frontage along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street and is currently
occupied by a 956 square foot single-family residence. The project is bordered by a residential use to the
north, to the west of the proposed project is a one-story medical office, a two-story office building sits on
the property across Grand Avenue to the south, and the property across Jefferson Street to the east of the
proposed project contains a single family structure, which was converted into a photography office use.
As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed two-story, two-unit apartment project totaling
6,811 square feet. The units are significantly setback from the street in order to reduce the massing of the
building along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street and to provide an abundance of landscaped open
space for recreational purposes. To provide additional private recreational opportunities, each unit is
equipped with a private roof deck. Access to the two units is to be provided off of Grand Avenue and
parking is to be provided within the subterranean garage. The overall vision for the development of
District 2 is to provide a continuation of Land Use District 1 through building scale and character while
maintaining a pedestrian oriented environment. Staff believes that the proposed residential units assists
in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 2 through the following actions:
• The project provides a desirable use that will improve the physical appearance of the area;
• It will serve as a catalyst for future development;
• The project is compatible with the surrounding area;
• It increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types.
The proposed project meets all of the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan excluding setbacks, which I will address shortly.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 9 of 12
• The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping through reduced building
coverage and setbacks;
• The building height of the project is in compliance with the established standard set at the
maximum of 35 feet;
• Required parking of five spaces is provided through the use of a subterranean garage.
In Land Use District 2, the front yard setback is 5 to 15 feet, the west side yard setback is 5 to 10 feet, and
the east street yard setback is 10 feet. The rear yard setback is 5 to 10 feet. The proposed project falls
within the required setback ranges except for the front and west side yard setback. The Design Review
Board will be required to make appropriate findings for granting variances for the front and west side yard
setback to exceed the maximum range of 15 feet in front and 10 feet on the side. It is noteworthy that
staff is currently working on an amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan subject to
final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to allow for commercial and residential
projects to exceed the maximum of the setback standard range with no variance requirement. It is also
noteworthy that the Design Review Board has set prior precedence for granting variances to allow projects
to exceed the maximum of the setback standard range. The necessary findings for the requested
variances are included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. Staff offers the following
justification for granting the requested variances to exceed the front and side yard setback standards:
• For variance finding number one, the justification is due to the location of the property being next
to a commercial use and at a busy street corner; additional setback is required in order to protect
the livability of the residence. The increased setback will be devoted to landscaping to help buffer
the edge of the property and protect the livability for future residents. Providing the increased
setbacks helps to increase the livability of the residential units and helps to make the project more
compatible with the adjacent commercial office use.
• Variance finding two's justification is by allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will
more closely match the setbacks of the surrounding residential properties and adjacent office use.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as a precedent has
been previously set within the village redevelopment zoning for allowing residential projects to
exceed the maximum of the standard range.
• The justification for variance finding number three is that the variance does not authorize a use or
activity which is not expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property as
a multifamily use is a permitted use within Land Use District 2 within the Village Redevelopment
zoning. Additionally, the increased setbacks are similar to the setbacks enjoyed by the
surrounding properties under the same zoning designation.
• The justification for variance finding number four is as follows. The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible, in order to
encourage diversity and a variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The placement of
the building is setback similar to the surrounding properties allowing for increased landscape
buffering, which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of
establishing Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment. The project is also consistent with
the general purpose of the General Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
As I mentioned previously, these findings are contained within the attached Design Review Board
Resolution. 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 project's
architectural design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project incorporates several
design features to achieve the desired village character including various sized windows with decorative
trim, varied roof heights with slate composite shingles and a 5 and 12 roof pitch, wood trim, and decorative
wood like siding is provided on the sides of the building. The project provides wood railings around the
balconies, and the project provides complimentary stucco colors.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 10 of 12
The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the
residence and provides low decorative stone veneer walls. Parking is visually subordinate contained
within a subterranean garage.
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 the 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. The proposed project is anticipated to have a
positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First the redevelopment of what was
a previously underutilized lot will result in increased property taxes, and this increase in property tax will
further result in increased increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, 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 construction of a quality, multifamily residential project.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for variances for the front and
west side yard setback to exceed the standard range. Development of the site will have a positive fiscal
impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives
of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
Board Member Baker asked about the six-foot high wall that would be on the Jefferson Street side. Do we
have any examples anywhere in the village where we have a wall that high? I appreciate the need for the
wall, but I am a little concerned there aren't walls anywhere else. How does that blend in with the
consistency of the area?
Mr. Jones said the wall was required for sound attenuation purposes. Staff spoke with the applicant and
tried to figure out if there was an alternative to the wall and that was the best alternative they could find.
We did request they provide windows so you could actually see through the wall and to try and make that
wall as visually pleasing as possible.
Board Member Baker added then that staff had the same concerns as well.
Mr. Jones agreed that it was a concern of staff. We did our best to try and find a wall that was pleasing
architecturally.
Board Member Baker asked if that was a City of Carlsbad noise abatement rule or the village or where
does that wall requirement come from?
Ms. Fountain said they are actually required to do a noise study because they are in the area that requires
that. Then there has to be recommendations on how to deal with the attenuation of noise there. They are
on a busy corner, which is part of their problem. Staff did have a concern about walls. Typically we don't
like to encourage walls around residential properties, and we usually do most anything we can to try to
discourage them. If we don't have another good solution to that from the noise impact standpoint, then we
have to require them and try to get the best design we can on them to try not to enclose properties. There
is a requirement in the Master Plan for most areas, that if you are building commercial property next to
residential property, you have to put in a six-foot wall. We had that issue come up on the last project.
There is an office project that was recently constructed that is just to the north of this. There is a
residential property and then that commercial property that does have the six-foot walls. It is one that
causes us more concern on residential, but there wasn't another good solution to deal with that noise
situation.
Board Member Baker commented that those walls generally seem different because they are property line
walls. The reason why this one caused concern for me is because it is along a sidewalk and it is along the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 11 of 12
busy thoroughfare as opposed to being walls that are running between property lines that aren't quite so
noticeable.
Ms. Fountain agreed that it is just an issue with it being a corner property that causes the concern.
Board Member Lawson said he noticed on all of the elevations there appeared to be a good implication of
abundance of planting. In looking at the plans, I notice that on the third floor there is reference to a
planter, but actually on the second floor for all of the strip planning that is out front, I don't see any
reference to that. I like the elevations and what they convey, but I am questioning if there is a strong
enough commitment that those are going to be actual planters that are there. If you go to the second floor
plans, there is no specific statement as to those being planter strips. That would be on plan sheet A2.3
where there is implication that there are planters there. There is no reference yet, but if you go to A2.4
where there is a roof deck, they do call it out as a planter box. I just want to make sure that those really
will be there and are intended to be there. I am sure that they intended, but I'd like to make sure that they
don't get overlooked down the road.
Mr. Jones said correct, that is something staff did notice as well. They do call out the plant material in the
landscape plan itself, but they didn't put a small pop out showing where it is on the landscape plan. The
Board can add a condition of approval requiring those areas to be landscaped as depicted on the floor
plans.
Board Member Lawson said he is sensitive too because he knows it does require some special
consideration on how those are built, waterproofed and all of that. If they are not as such stated on the
building plans, then a lot of times the building doesn't bid it and then it ends up being left out and they are
asking for a hard luck situation, certain drainage lines were not anticipated, therefore aren't there, etc.
Eventually, they put in some plastic plants that look terrible. If you could just make sure that is included I
would be appreciative of that.
Mr. Jones said sure.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 307, recommending approval of RP 05-01 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Board Member Schumacher said he likes the project.
Board Member Baker said she likes the project. She is not as crazy about the wall around the side, but
staff has convinced her it has to be.
Board Member Lawson supports the project. He finds the architectural design very interesting. He hopes
it has as much flair as it appears graphically because it is a nice addition to the village.
Chairperson Heineman supports the project.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Marquez
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No report by the Director of Housing and Redevelopment.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 ^ t
PAGE 12 of 12
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of February 27, 2006, was adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENTI
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:
April 15th, 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 17th Day of April, 2006
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
ment protect, located at 786 Grand Aveni203-302:04) in Land Use District 2 of the (Village Redevelopment Area.
Thoseare
CASE FILE NO.: RP 05-01
HOUSING ft REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOT 1926650 •04/15/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, to consider
approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-01), to allow the
construction of a 6,811 square foot 2 unit apartment project, located at 786 Grand Avenue
(APN: 203-302-04) in Land Use District 2 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 provide 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 Design Review
Board will be considering recommending 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 Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 05-01
PUBLISH: APRIL 15, 2006
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SITE
CORNER GRAND AVENUE
RP 05-01
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
TAMARACK PARK LLC
PO BOX 27^781
SAN DIEGO CA 92198
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
JEFFERSON PROFESSIONAL
UNIT 200
2755 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AVERY® 6241™
TOMMY & GLADYS HARRIS
722 ARBUCKLE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARK NOLAN
PO BOX 7045
SAN DEIGO CA 92167
WILLIAM & ROSA DALY
PO BOX 260
CARLSBAD CA 92018
NAZZILLI FAMILY TRUST
750 ARBUCKLE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROGELIO & KEELY ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD CA 92018
TUPPER FAMILY LIVING TRUST
2785 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JACK PHILLIPS
2667 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCANLON FAMILY TRUST
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN & RENEE TAGUE
PO BOX 429
CARLSBAD CA 92018
BICAJESSEE ADVENTURES LLC
UNIT 5
2075 CORTE DEL NOGAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TUCKER FAMILY TRUST
2810 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PETER & GEORGETTE ROCK
2421 S EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
GOLL FAMILY REVOC TRUST
18 GETTYSBURG
IRVINE CA 92620
JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC
PO BOX 2258
CARLSBAD CA 92018
TGMS INC
PO BOX 230562
ENCINTAS CA 92023
ROOSEVELT TAMARACK
UNIT 215
6 VENTURE
IRVINE CA 92618
BRENT BEAZLEY
UNIT 1030
16633 VENTURA BLVD
ENCINO CA 91436
SCARPELLI FAMILY TRUST
929 ORCHID WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DANIEL & SUSAN BURKE
UNIT 1
2755 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BENCHMARK PACIFIC POINSETT
UNIT B
550 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BENCHMARK PACIFIC LTD II
UNIT B
550 LAGUAN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALVIN & MALINDA PERKETT
812 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PGP CARLSBAD LLC
PO BOX 13247
KANSAS CITY MO 64199
DANIEL & IRENE LOPEZ
928 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WINDRUM FAMILY TRUST 3
4230 CLEARVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALLAN DRESDNER
416 DAHLIA AVE
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625
JOHN GIROUX
PO BOX 1065
CARLSBAD CA 92018
EMILIO & MARYELLEN ADAN
UNIT B
880 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AH1AV-O9-008-1 ®091S )ueqe6 a| zasiipn
apidej aBeipas e ja eBejjnoqijue uoissajduii
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
WILLIAM LANPHEAR
PO BOX 817
CARLSBAD CA 92018
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
CONSTANCE MARTIN
7206 DURANGO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AVERY® 6241™
DILL FAMILY TRUST
UNIT E
880 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUNDLE FAMILY TRUST
1754 BLACKBIRD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIMBERLY YORK
UNIT G
880 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY ROTH
UNIT A
882 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DANIEL & DEBBIE DOLAN
903 SPRINGWOOD LN
ENCINITAS CA 92024
EDMOND & SANDRA SHEHAB
2914 AUSTIN TER
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOMKINSON FAMILY
3181 FALCON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SOOHOO 06-30-90
82 LAKESIDE DR
BUENA PARK CA 90621
CERDA 2005 FAMILY TRUST
429 GAIL DR
VISTA CA 92084
SWYS CORP
UNIT 100
8787 COMPLEX DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037
MICHAEL MURPHY
UNIT I
630 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STUART & MARILYN WILSON
4920 COLLINGWOOD DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
AMINAT SHARIPOVA
786 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MOJTABA ESFAHANI
14824 VISTA DEL OCEANO
DEL MAR CA 92014
GENE & MARGARET RAY
2959 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ZULICK TRUST
1687 BRADY CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PACKARD BUILDING PARTNRSHP
725 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHIN LUNG & YU TSAI
2958 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCMILLIN CARLSBAD INVTRS
2727 HOOVER AVE
NATIONAL CITY CA 91950
BANK OF COMMERCE
1381 E VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92084
CARLSBAD GRAND LLC
701 B ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
VERMILYEA GSD
11620 KISMET RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GORDON FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 130065
CARLSBAD CA 92013
GREAT WESTERN BANK
PO BOX 7788
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
PARKER FAMILY PROPERTIES
560 HIGHLAND DR
DANVILLE CA 94526
WALKER-GILBERT TRUST
4350 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AH3AV AH3AV-OD-008-1
apidej 36eipas e IB aBejjnoquue uoissaidiui
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 6241™
M & M G TRUST
PO BOX 1667
CARLSBAD CA 92018
PAUL & TERI RAPPAPORT
2936 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PARKER FAMILY
3215 MAEZEL LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
E H S ENTERPRISES L L C
5553 TRINITY WAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92120
KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO
PO BOX 35370
LOUISVILLE KY 40232
CARLSBAD CHRISTIAN ASSEMB
PO BOX 1035
CARLSBAD CA 92018
GEORGE MERKLE
UNIT A
2727 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LINDA MEISSNER
1275 HOOVER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PHYLLIS NORMAN
PO BOX 1395
CARLSBAD CA 92018
SCANLON FAMILY TRUST
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BESAW FAMILY TRUST
34382 STARBOARD LANTERN
DANA POINT CA 92629
KEN LARSEN
1016 SANTA HELENA PARK CT
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
CHARLOTTE THATCHER
PO BOX 1539
PASO ROBLES CA 93447
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
UNIT 111
2945 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOROTHY METROS
919 N PECK AVE
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266
JERRY JACKSON
2504 MANCHESTER AVE
CARDIFF CA 92007
NEAL & CAROL BAKER
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
MULLEN CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: ED MULLEN
SUITE 202
2890 PIO PICO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AH3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S WieqeB e| zasjijin
apidej aBeipes e ia aBejjnoqjiue uoissaidiui
Corner Grand AvenueHousing & Redevelopment CommissionMay 16, 2006 (continued from April 25, 2006 meeting)
Location MapSITE
Subject Property
Adjacent Property to the North
Adjacent Property to the West
Property to the South
Property to the East
Proposed DevelopmentTwo-story 2-unit Apartment Project Consistent with development standards.CEQA Exempt
Project Design
Project Design
DRB RecommendationDRB voted 4-0 (Marquez absent) to recommend approval of the project.Project will have positive financial impact and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.
NORTH
EAST
WEST
SOUTH
Building CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 36%HeightRequired: 35’ w/ min 5:12 roof pitchProposed: 35’ w// 5:12 roof pitchOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 55%ParkingRequired: 5 spaces (2 spaces/unit & ½ guest space/unit)Proposed: 5 spaces (subterranean garage)Standards Compliance
Standards ModificationsRequired: Front: 5-15 feetWest Side: 5-10 feetEast St. Side: 10 feet minimumRear: 5-10 feetProposed:Front: 18 feet*West Side: 12 feet*East Side: 10 feetRear: 10 feet* Variances required to exceed front & west side yard setbacks12 ft.18 ft.10 ft.10 ft.
Proposed Project:Provides desirable useCompatible with surrounding area.Serve as catalyst for future developmentIncreases number, quality, and diversity of housing types within the Village.Goals & Objectives of Land Use Plan