Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 87-12; THE JEFFERSON BUILDING; Redevelopment Permits (RP)STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 6, 1988 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING - Major Redevelopment Permit for two-story office building with underground parking at 2815 Jefferson Street, in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 113ND APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and recommend APPROVAL to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of RP 87-12, based on the findings and conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 113. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is re(3uesting approval of a major redevelopment permit for an 8800 scjuare foot professional office building, located as described above, on the south side of the Psoriasis Center property. The building would be two-story, with redwood siding, cedar shingles, pane windows with wooden trim, open balconies with wooden rails, and some stucco on the side and rear walls. Butterscotch in color, the building will also incorporate white and light brown colors in the trim. The front of the building features a doorway at street level, planter boxes, a balcony, and an upstairs porch. Toward the rear of the building on the south side, an interior courtyard has been created, which will be open from the second story to the patio below. Parking will be underground; 30 spaces would be provided. A layer of used brick will be placed on the walls leading into the garage to soften that typical concrete appearance. The project is located in an area where a variety of uses are prevalent — as mentioned earlier, the Psoriasis Center is next door to the north; further north is the Austin-Pacific office building. To the south is a three-story senior housing project under construction and other office buildings. To the east are small scale offices mixed in with residential. Both multi-family and single family residential are interspersed throughout the area. The property lies in subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area which is the central business district and, as such, functions as a financial and commercial area. Professional offices are a permitted use. The Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan APRIL 6, 1988 RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING PAGE 2 covers the Redevelopment Area. The General Plan designation is Residential Medium High/Office and zoning is Village- Redevelopment . III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Does the project meet the goals of Subarea 1 and comply with the Village Design Manual development standards? 2. Does the project meet the standards in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, including compliance with the Growth Management Program? Discussion Subarea 1 The primary goal of Subarea 1 is to provide uses which are in concert with a central business area such as offices, commercial retail, and restaurants. Development should be oriented to pedestrian traffic, have open space amenities, and generally portray a village atmosphere. The proposed project complies with these goals. The design of the structure, and in particular the east elevation, is very "street-friendly". The front door is at street level, the building articulates, there are windows at a pedestrian level and window boxes and landscaping lend warmth to the street scene along Jefferson. The front yard landscaped setback is almost 35 feet (23 feet on subject property, 10.5 feet of City right-of-way) — that, in addition to the interior courtyard feature, will provide adequate open space amenities for the public as well as the tenants occupying the building. Unfortunately, the large evergreen tree in the front yard of the house which currently occupies the lot cannot be saved because it falls in the middle of the new driveway. To compensate, the project has been conditioned to plant larger size trees than normally would be retjuired in the new front yard setback. Overall, the scale of the building (32 feet), the design as described previously, the materials, the features that relate to the street, and the landscaping depict a village atmosphere and will be compatible with the goals of Subarea 1. Development Standards/Zoning Ordinance Other technical standards relate to parking, setbacks, building height and coverage, and landscaping. Thirty parking spaces would be provided, in accordance with code. The building is APRIL 6, 1988 RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING PAGE 3 ade(3uately set back per R-P (Residential-Professional) standards, 23 feet in front, 13 feet in the rear, and 6.5 feet on each side yard. The concrete block retaining wall, which is part of the underground parking garage, extends three feet above grade within the side and rear setbacks. This is necessary because the parking structure can only be undergrounded 8 feet in order to meet an acceptable 11 percent grade for the ramp. Since the underlying zone is V-R, which allows some flexibility in setbacks, and since the building itself is set back appropriately, it is staff's opinion that setback recjuirements have been met. That wall would be painted a color complimentary to the structure. The area between the wall and the building would generally be open to the parking below, i.e., by a grate, to provide ventilation. Building height, 32 feet to the top of a pitched roof, is within code. The Design Review Manual has as a guideline that lot coverage should not exceed 80 percent. Lot coverage is about 85 percent, but is deceiving because that includes the underground parking which is wider than the building but cannot be seen. The landscaped area is adequate and includes, in addition to what is shown on the landscape plan, the courtyard area which will have seating areas. In summary, the project complies with the goals and standards of the Design Review Manual and the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. There are two other conditions that will be discussed. The first one relates to the office building (Austin-Pacific) several lots to the north at Jefferson and Arbuckle which originally was approved with wood siding. The subsecjuent change to stucco substantially altered the character of that building, somewhat negatively in that it now looks like it should be located in an industrial area. That building is no longer compatible with the "village" style architecture. In order to ensure compatibility, a condition has been added that should the proposed project request any changes to the building materials, the project would be brought back to the Design Review Board. The second condition relates to the landscape requirements. It was mentioned earlier that the large evergreen tree, which is a holly or mesa oak, could not be saved because of its unfortunate location in the middle of the proposed driveway. The driveway is located as such because that location yields the highest parking space scenario, i.e., two aisles of parking rather than one aisle, which in turn allows a higher scjuare footage yield in the building. The large statuesque oak tree is estimated to be 30- 40 years old and is one of several prominent trees along this portion of Jefferson Street. This tree should be replaced with a APRIL 6, 1988 RP 87-12 JEFFERSON BUILDING PAGE 4 large, similar specimen to compensate for this loss. The project has been conditioned to provide one 70-inch box tree similar to the one lost and the remaining proposed trees to be 36 inch box specimens. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 was approved on September 1, 1987. The proposed project complies with that plan in terms of being well within the future estimated stjuare footage for office in the Redevelopment Area. Thus, the impacts of that office use were considered in the facilities analysis. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined this project will have no significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on February 26, 1988. The Negative Declaration was issued based on field checks by staff and the fact that the site is already developed with a residence and associated buildings, there are no sensitive resources on or adjacent to the site, and the project would be located in an urban, developed area with structures of similar sizes and uses. In addition, no comments were received in response to the notice for a Negative Declaration. Summary The project, as proposed and conditioned, will meet the goals set forth in the Design Review Manual and complies with technical standards. Staff recommends approval of RP 87-12. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 113 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 113ND 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Environmental Documents 7. Exhibits "A" - "D", dated March 18, 1988 NER:dm 3/14/88 EXHIBIT "ND" 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT m^l/ JM (619) 438-1161 Citp of Carlfibab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2815 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two story office building, 8800 square feet with underground parking. Located in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 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, 2 075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILiER DATED: February 26, 1988 CASE NO: RP 87-12 Planning Director APPLICANT: JEFFERSON BUILDING PUBLISH DATE: February 26, 1988