The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 86-22; THREE STORY PROFESSIONAL BLDG; Redevelopment Permits (RP)APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE DECEMBER 1986 STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 1987 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 86-22 - KELSO - Request for a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building at 2933 Roosevelt Street in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. I . RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No 86-22, based on the findings contained therein. 092 DENYING RP II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The developer is requesting a major redevelopment permit for a professional office building located at 2933 Roosevelt Street. The proposal involves the development of a 6944 square foot two story office structure over parking with a kind of modified Tudor or "old world" style design. The building would be comprised of stucco with wood and brick accents. The roof would be wood shingle. The subject property is located just north of the City's Housing and Redevelopment Office and currently contains a storage yard. Ill. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the project conform to the standards of the VR zone? 2) Is the project compatible with the goals and policies of the Village Design Manual and the goals of Subarea 1? Discussion The proposed project meets most of the standards of the V-R zone. The zone basically has no standards relative to setbacks, site coverage, and landscaping. These standards are more or less negotiable. With respect to the setbacks, the applicant is not proposing much. The building generally runs along the property lines except at the rear setback, where a paved parking area is proposed. In terms of site coverage, the building and parking covers approximately 97% of the site. In addition, there is only 3% landscaping provided on site, and one of the landscape areas proposed to the rear of the garage is virtually unusable. For other standards, the V-R zone refers to general sections of the zoning ordinance. Parking is one of these categories. The building, at 6944 square feet, would require 24 parking spaces. Seventeen (17) spaces are being provided, and there are several problems with the 17 spaces as proposed. The spaces provided off the alley are only long enough for compact cars. If a full size car parks in these spaces, it will become a hazard to cars utilizing the alley. Also, the location of the trash enclosure blocks site distance along the alley, A similar problem exists at the front access to the street. The lack of any front yard setback restricts site distance along the sidewalk for cars leaving the underground garage. The applicant has also proposed a 20 foot wide driveway which does not meet the Engineering Department standards of 24 feet and would therefore require a standards variance. The V-R zone also refers to the Village Design Manual for further guidance. Once again, there are no specific standards, but the manual provides some general policies with regard to the type of development desired in Subarea 1. Pages 17 and 18 indicate the following policies: 1) The Design Review Board shall be looking for development which is oriented toward pedestrian traffic and is high in open space ammenities. 2) ... those uses which lend themselves to a village atmosphere, 3) The Design Review Board shall encourage designs that improve general circulation and utilize a high degree of landscaping along Elm Avenue and other street front s etbacks. None of the above policies seem to have been adequately addressed. The project is not pedestrian oriented as it has no people places or front yard setback. Additionally, the scale of the building will tower over pedestrians walking along Roosevelt. Because of the height, the lack of setbacks, and visual relief, staff also does not feel that the building fits into a "village atmoshphere", Finally, the poor site distance does not improve circulation, and a "high degree" of landscaping in the front setback was not provided as there is no front yard setback. Outside the perimeters of the V-R zone and Village Design Manual, there are other items which are normally negotiated between staff and the applicant in an attempt to meet the policies of the Village Redevelopment Plan and the direction provided by the Design Review Board. These include mass, scale, relief, and additional landscape areas. The building does provide some relief on the front of the structure, but the relief is virtually lost because there is no front setback. This creates a "wall effect" along Roosevelt. If a no-setback situation is utilized, the best mitigation to tone down the scale of a three story -2- building is to stepback the second and third floor of the building substantially. The proposed design provides only minimal second and third floor relief so that the "walled effect" persists. Besides relief, staff feels that the building is too massive for the site. Virtually all of the site is covered with either building or paving. Normally, other areas in the City have a maximum of 60% building coverage. This permits setbacks to eliminate the "wall effect", to soften the building, and allow areas for landscaping. In summary, staff cannot support the project in that as proposed it does not meet the City's parking standards (seven spaces short), it does not meet the intent of the Village Design Manual, and it is too massive for the site. Environmental Review The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration on March 14, 1987. Attachments 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 092 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4 . Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Document 6. Exhibits "A" - "D", dated December 16, 1986. CG: dm 3/11/87 -3- GENERAL PLAN ZONING RL RLM RM RMH RH RRI RRE RS C N TS O CBD PI G V RC E J H P RESIDINTIAL LOW DENSITY (01 5) LOW MEDILM DENSITY (0-4) MEDILM DENSITY (4-8) MEDII M HIGH DENSITY (8- H) HIGH DENSITY ( H-23) COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (eg Plaza Camino Real) EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (eg Car Country Carlsbad) REGIONAL SERVICE ( OMMl NITY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCLAL TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCL\L PROFESSIONAL R£L\TED CENTRAL BLSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED INDUSTRIAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES PL BLIC L TILITIES RECREATION COMMERCLVL SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY Jl NIOR HIGH HIGH SCHOOL PRIVATE OS OPEN SPACE NRR NON RESIDENTLVL RESERVE RESIDENTIAL P C PLANNED COMMLTMITY ZONE R-A RESIDENTUL AGRICLLTL RAL ZONE R E RL R.U RESIDENTUL ESTATE ZONE R-1 ONE F.A.M ILY RESIDENTUL ZONE R 2 rWO-FA.MILYRESIDE.NTUL ZONE R J Ml LTIPLE F.VMILY RESIDENTTAL ZONE R 3L UMITED ML LTl- FAMILY RESIDENTTAL ZONE RD M RESIDENTIAL DENSm-MLLTlPLE ZONE RD H RESIDENTLAL DENSITY HIGH ZONE RMHP RESIDENTLAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE R P RESIDENTUL PROFESSIONAL ZON'E RT RESIDENTLU TOLRIST ZONE RW RESIDENTLAL WATERWAY ZONE COMMERCIAL O OFFICE ZON'E C l NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCLVL ZONE C- 2 GEN'ERAL COMMERCLVL ZONE C-T COMMERCLVL TOLRIST ZONE C M HEAVY COMMERCLVL- LIMITED INDUSTRLVL ZONE M INDUSTRLVL ZONE P M PLANNED INDUSTRLVL ZONE OTHBR F- P aOODPLAIN OVERLAY ZONE L-C LIMITED CONTROL OS OPEN SPACE P-U PU'BUC UTIUTY ZONE KELSO Gity of Garlsbad RP 86-22 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP 86-22 APPLICANT: Kevin and Anna Kelso REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 9500 sq. ft. professional office building at 2933 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, California 92008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 21 and 22 in block 34 of town of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad, CA, County of San Diego, according to Map #535 APN: 203-292-11 Acres 0.16 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation CBD Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone VR Proposed Zone VR Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site VR Contractors yard North VR Commercial South VR Office East VR Parking Lot West VR Commercial PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Costa Real Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated October 31, 1986 Growth Management Fee Agreement, dated October 31, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R, Certified, dated Other, DISCLOSORB FORM CM APPLICANT: jtECT/ZJ O. /WO M/h^B /j^rEESO Name (individual, partnerships joint venture, corporation, syndication) Business Mdress ' ' -• . AGENT: Telejdione Number Name Business Mdress MEMBERS:• Telephone NurflDer indivi( Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Mdress Business Mdress Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Mdress Business Mdress Telephone Number Telefdione Number (Att:ach more sheets if necessary) The applicant is required to apply for Coastal Commission Approval if located in the Coastal Zone. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain tirue and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. APPLICANT BY MU/U^ Agent, Owner, Partner PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Citp of Carlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2933 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a three story, 9,500 square foot professional office building, providing seventeen (17) parking spaces. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described 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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA., 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 14, 1987 CASE NO: RP 86-22 APPLICANT: Kelso PUBLISH DATE: March 14, 1987 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEI Planning Director ND4 11/85