Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-21; Design Review Board; ; RP 88-05|CDP 88-05 - HALVERSON FAMILY TRUSTAPPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: NOVEMBER 7. 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1988 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST - Request for a Minor Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit to renovate an existing residential structure and detached garage at 3050 Madison Street for use as an office. The Project is in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution Nos. 128 and 129 DENYING RP 88-5 and CDP 88-5. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a Minor Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit to convert and renovate an existing 1181 square foot residential structure and associated 440 square foot garage, and to use the structure as a general office building. As shown on the location map, the site is located at 3050 Madison Street. The site is surrounded by Kentucky Fried Chicken to the north. Southwest Bank and Family Institute to the west, Montessori World to the south, and medical offices to the east. III. ANALYSIS Issue: 1. Is the project consistent with Carlsbad's Redevelopment Program? Specifically, the Village Area Redevelopment Plan, Village Design Manual, and Village Redevelopment Segment of the Local Coastal Program? As shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", the applicant proposes some improvements to the existing structure and site. Changes of use and renovations of appropriate sites and structures are encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan when consistent with the design direction of the Village Design Manual. The proposed change in use from a rental residence to a general office building is consistent with the land use goals of the Village Area Redevelopment Plan and Subarea 1 of the Village Design Manual. However, the quality of the improvements to accommodate the change in the use do not appear to fully achieve the intent or quality standards of the City's Village Redevelopment effort. RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 ^ HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST DECEMBER 21, 1988 PAGE 2 For example, the overall goal of the Redevelopment Group "is to create development forms which preserve and enhance the existing character of the Village Area and surrounding Community". Although the proposed project preserves the existing character of the site, the proposed improvements do little to enhance the site or contribute to a more positive village atmosphere. This is of particular concern given the proposed change in use and intensity of the site from residential to general office. Subarea 1 is the focal point of the Village as outlined in the Village Design Manual. The design goals of this Subarea stress pedestrian orientation and "high open space amenities". The project does not significantly enhance the existing pedestrian orientation of this site nor elevate the site's open space to a high amenity level. No architectural improvements are proposed to significantly further these design goals. Staff has attempted to work with the applicant to provide such a design, however the applicant has indicated economic hardship. The proposed project is on the border of two special treatment areas - The Village Center and Elm Avenue Areas - within Subarea 1. As shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", the proposed project does little to enhance this proximity to these special areas. The only applicable requirement of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program for the Village Redevelopment Segment is that parking be provided according to City Standards. The project provides 4 full size parking spaces. These spaces meet the City's minimum standards for general office use. However since the Coastal Development Permit for the project is dependent on the Minor Redevelopment Permit for this site, staff also recommends denial of the Coastal Development Permit. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project qualifies for a Section 15303 Class 3 exemption for conversion of small structures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 128 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 129 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Notice of Exemption, dated November 28, 1988 7. Letter from applicant, dated December 12, 1988 8. Exhibits "A" and "B", dated December 2, 1988 November 23, 1988 LBS:kd City of Carlsbad HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 BACK5R0UND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 APPUCMJT: HALVERSC^ FAMILY TRUST REQUEST AND lOCATICXT: A renovation and chancfe in use from residential to qeneral office for a 1,181 sq. ft. structure and 440 sq. ft. garage. LEGAL DESCRIPTia^; Lot 9 and 10 in Block 48 of Carlsbad, Map No. 535 and 775 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego. 203-351-03 Acres N/A Prc^xDsed No. of Lots/Units N/A CTMERAL PIAN AND ZCMING Land Use Designation RMH/O Density Allcwed 11.5 du/nac GMCP Densitiy Prc^XDsed 11.81 sq. ft. general office Existing Zone VR Prc^x)sed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site VR Residence North VR Restaurant South VR Montessori School East _JJR Medical Offices West _VR Offices PUBUC FACIUTIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date July 28, 1988 ENVIRCM1ENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, Section 15303 Class 3 Exemption 11/28/88 DISCLOSURE FORM APPLICANT AGENT: Halverson Paqiily vTrust Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication^ P;0. Box 19-2 >hD^l Mar, CA 92 014 ] Business Address ~~ ~~ 792-0:377 Telephone Number Scott Schwartz Name 2919 Ivy Street #2 San Diego, CA 92104 Business Address 696-0230 Telephone Number MEMBERS: ttAaVlKl i~tAuri^^OKi Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, 1/we will apply for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development. I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. APPLICANT BY ^^^^ ^^^^ Agent, <Qwnerf)Partner 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 November 28, 1988 (tttto 0f ©arlabaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 County Clerk County of San Diego 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Project Title Halverson Family Trust Project Location-'Specific 3050 Madison Street Project Location--Citv Carlsbad Project Location--County San Diego Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project Minor conversion of a 1181 sq. ft. residence to a general office. Name of Public Agency Approving Project City of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agencv Carrying Out Project Melvin B. Halverson Exempt Status (Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a)} Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c)} X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class 3 Section 15303 Reason Why Project is Exempt: Minor conversion of a small structure. Contact Person Lance Schulte (619) 438-1161 If filed by applicant: 1) Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2) Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director December 12, 1988 \^ ^^T^ STAFF MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE Gentlemen; I am Melvin B. Halverson, owner of the property in question and before you today. On 12-9-88 I received your letter dated 12-7-88 from Mr. Holzmiller and, in turn, picked up the preliminary staff report. To save your time and mine, I would prefer to provide you with the following comments without stopping to converse on various items. Reference Page one item 2. It should not be interpreted that the 440 square foot garage is being renovated or used for an office. Reference item 3 (Issue) second paragraph. I must assume that exhibits A and B are the drawings I did provide to your department as there are no exhibits attached. Reference page 2, first paragraph. " Intensity of the site", gentlemen this is a very strong word for 1181 square feet of floor space which was to house two people as a branch civil engineering office. Or how much office do you feel can accommodate 1181 square feet which Includes two bath rooms and two utility rooms? Reference the Costal Development permit. No grounds are indicated for the denial. It does meet, as you say, the minimum requirements and what would be the max requirements and how comfortable is this with 1181 Square feet of which approximately 989 is actually useable for working office? Reference subarea 1. In looking at the maps and information provided to me, I must question this and ask why it is not considered subarea 7? I also have no idea what effect it would have on this project if it were considered subarea 7. You will note that the property is located between the lines you have on the map which has no designation or explanation for this area. I am also in a quandary as to why Resolutions No. 128 and 129 as they are identical on my review and are why conclusions printed for a meeting to be held in the future on these documents? Possibly to save time may I review what I feel we have here. This is a one story building of good sound basic structure, and is not a tear-down. The bath rooms and utility rooms are in excellent condition with new tile floors. The electrical has been inspected and revised, from the home owner additions, to code and inspected by your inspector. There are two new heat pumps providing air conditioning and heat. The interior has been painted and is in very presentable condition. New carpet will be installed at the time of occupancy. Four parking areas will be provided on asphalt and existing concrete, with more than the required space for each. The exterior trim will be painted as a last item. There is a large back yard, good size side yard, and fair size front yard all to be in grass. The existing shrubs will be maintained. The square footage is not capable of large client traffic or employee traffic nor do I plan to make a park out of the property, at my expense, for the city. If this were a large project I could see some of your suggestions, but it is not. How can you expect an owner to spend $45,000.00 for improvements, pay 33.00 a square foot for the property and receive $1.25 per square foot for the 1181 square feet? Also pay taxes, management, insurance, have one tenant- which affects the vacancy rate- have reasonable maintenance and still make any margin of profit, in fact it would be a negative. The increase in value is not foreseen in the future nor can it be calculated, not in this area of Carlsbad. The risk factor is 60 to 80 % of which 60% are city actions and they are not on record as being good. Agreed, these figures are to each his own and no one has the true calculations. In your fast pencil to the above, you must allow the owner to have 30 % equity. I sincerely feel that the existing structure can be office and the existing exterior maintained in good quality which, will consequently do more for the area than the existing condition. I request that you reconsider the rejection now planned and allow my existing plans to take place and see what we all can do in the future years. My confidence in your city is low now but your confidence in me could possibly change that feeling. In contacting your redevelopment center over eight months ago, there was never any indication that this amount of time was in the picture for such a simple project, nor demand for cost would be so high. I can not provide the costs that you are requiring. I will not buy this permit from the city by providing your extravagant suggestions to my plans nor do I feel that the people in the community would request it. Please understand that my attitude here today is not to be taken as negative or abusive to you or your staff. I do prefer to work with the community but, to this point, the street appears one way only, your way. The statements made are factual and possibly helpful to you. 1 have been very offended by the lack of cooperation, lack of courtesy, and the stalling I have received to this point. I feel I have now taken up the time you have allotted to me and do not request answers to my questions and comments at this time. However, I would request a reply in writing. Also, should you have questions, I would prefer these to be in writing. A copy of these comments is available to each of you. Thank you gentlemen for your time and consideration. Melvin B. Halverson