The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-03-25; Design Review Board; ; RP 86-23 - MARK GOMBARAPPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE DECEMBER 3^ 1986 STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 1987 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 86-23 - MARK T. GOMBAR - Request for a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street in Subarea 6 of the Village Redevelopment area. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 097 DENYING RP 86-23, based on the findings contained therein. II. PR03ECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building located as described above. The proposal would entail the development of a three story (3^ foot tall), 10,800 square foot structure. The architecture of the proposed structure would be federalist revival in nature. The architectural materials of the structure would include sand textured stucco with painted wood trim. Gabled roof elements and shuttered windows with mullions would also be included to add architectural interest. Project parking (36 spaces) will be provided at grade and will occupy the entirety of the structures first floor. A six foot high masonry base wall with stucco will be incorporated to partially screen the at-grade parking lot from view from surrounding properties. The subject property is currently developed with the Carlsbad Board of Realtors office (one-story) with associated parking and landscaping. The property is surrounded by a one story single family residence to the north, a one story medical office (Eye Care Center) to the east, a one story neighborhood commercial center (Roosevelt Center) to the west and a concrete company to the south. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project conform with the goals of Subarea 6 and the development standards of the Village Design Manual? 2) Does the proposed project conform with the development standards of the V-R zone? 3) Is the proposed project compatible with surrounding uses? Discussion The primary redevelopment goal for Subarea 6 is to maintain the existing residential character of the zone while maximizing an office and professional buffer around the predominant residential subarea. In that the project is an office use which is in close proximity to the northern perimeter of Zone 6, conformity with this subarea goal is assured. The proposed project site is located within the V-R zone. However, since the V-R zone does not include specific development standards, it is implied by the Village Design Manual that development within any of the Village Subareas shall be subject to the development standards associated with uses permitted within the specific subarea. In this case, uses permitted within Subarea 6 include those uses permitted in the R-3 and R-P zones. In accordance, the proposed office project is subject to the development standards of the R-P zone. As proposed, this project is not in compliance with the required 20 foot rear setback of the R-P zone. Nor is the project in compliance with Engineering Department Policy No. 22, which requires that integrated parking be provided, so as to preclude the necessity for vehicles entering the driveway to maneuver, or stack within the traveled way (Roosevelt Street) or to use the traveled way as a circulation element of the parking area served by the driveway. Staff is unable to make the findings necessary to support the requested rear yard setback exemption as discussed below. It is staff's opinion that the project as proposed is relatively massive in scale when compared to surrounding uses and when viewed from Roosevelt Street. In view of this concern the project applicant has been willing to setback the structure 30 feet from Roosevelt Street instead of the required 20 feet for purposes of mitigating the appearance of the large mass presented by the structure. However, by setting the building back an additional 10 feet from Roosevelt Street, the building as proposed encroaches into the rear yard setback. Staff believes that the propoed 30 foot front yard setback is preferable from a visual prospective, and would be more in keeping with the overall design and open space goals of the Village Design Manual. However, staff also believes that the structure, because of its height and mass, should also comply with the other setback requirements. Staff is also unable to support the projects non-integrated parking design, because of the additional conflicting traffic -2- movement that this could create along Roosevelt Street. In order to come into compliance with the required 20 foot rear yard setback and to provide integrated parking with an adequate number of parking spaces, the project would have to be redesigned. It is also staff's opinion that the project is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses primarily because of its height (35 feet), mass and scale. The majority of the existing surrounding uses are one story in height with variable setbacks and lot coverages. It is important to note that many of the surrounding uses are older structures which will likely be redeveloped over the next decade. Since Subarea 6 is currently only in the preliminary stages of being redeveloped (RP 86-23 is one of the first redevelopment proposals in this Subarea), it is extremely important that the first project approved within this Subarea Include or comply with all of the specific development standards and design guidelines which are deemed necessary to ensure the creation of an aesthetically appealing and functional village redevelopment Subarea. This brings to issue a greater concern of staffs that the City's Village Design Manual simply does not provide enough specific direction with regard to applicable development standards, (ie height, parking, lot coverage) and design guidelines (ie architecture, pedestrian orientations, open space amenities). Although the Redevelopment area needs more flexibility than other areas, staff feels that without more specific guidelines and standards for each unique Subarea, there is concern that several of the primary goals of the Village Area Redevelopment plan (including the creation of open space amenities, pedestrian pathways and linkages, pedestrian scale, active streetscapes, village atmosphere and a degree of Village conformity throughout) may never be achieved. In summary, because the proposed project does not comply with the rear yard setback requirement of the R-P zone, does not include integrated parking and is not compatible with surrounding uses because of its height, mass and scale, staff is recommending denial of RP 86-23. IV. 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. 097 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Environmental Document 6) Reduced Exhibits 7) Exhibits "A" - "D", dated December 15, 1986 CDD:bn 2/18/87 -3- — QENERAL PLAN RESIDINTIAL RL LOWDE.NSITY(0-1 5) RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (0-4) RM MEDILM DENSITY(4-8) RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSmr (8-H) RH HIGH DENSITY(15-23) COMMERCIAL RJU INTENSIVE REGIONAL RJETAIL (cg. Plaza Camino Real) RRE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (eg Car Country Carlsbad) RS REGIONAL SERVICE C COMMLNiry COMMERCL\L N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCLAL TS TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCUL O PROFESSIONAL REUTED CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PI PLANNED INDUSTRUL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES V PUBLIC UTIUTIES RC RECREATION COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS E ELEMENTARY J JUNIOR HIGH H HIGH SCHOOL P PRIVATE OS OPEN SPACE NRR NON RESIDENTIAL RESERVE ZONINQ RISIOINTIAL P C PLANNED COMML^NITY ZONE R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICLXTURAL ZONE R-E RURAL RESIDENTTAL ESTATE ZONE R-I ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTLAL ZONE R- 2 T«0- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R- 3 .MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R-3L UMITED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE RD M RESIDENTLAL DENSirr-MUXTlPLE ZONE RD- H RESIDENTLAL DE.NSITV- HIGH ZONE RMHP RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE R-P RESIDENTLAL PROFESSIONAL ZONE RT RESIDENTLAL TOURIST ZONE RW RESIDENTLAL WATERWAY ZONE COMMIRCIAL O OFFTCE ZONE C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COM.MERCLAL ZONE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCLAL ZONE CT COMMERCIAL-TOURJST ZONE C M HEAVY COMMERCLAL-UMITED INDUSTRLAL ZONE M INDUSTRLAL ZONE P M PLANNED INDUSTRLAL ZONE OTHIR F- P FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ZONE L-C LIMITED CONTROL OS OPEN SPACE P-U PUBUC UnUTY ZONE I Gity of Garlsbad GOMBAR RP 86-23 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP 86-23 APPLICANT: MARK T. GOMBAR REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Redevelopment Permit to develop a profes- sional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 45 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map there- of No. 1722, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Acres .276 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RMH/O Density Allowed Density Proposed Existing Zone V-R Proposed Zone V-R Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site V-R Board of Realtors North R-3 SF Residential South V-R Concrete Co. East V-R Eye Care Center West V-R Roosevelt Commercial Center PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 4, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative Declaration, issued March 14, 1987 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, DISCLOSURE FORN m APPLICANT: MARK T. GOMBAR AGENT: MEMBERS: Name (individual, partnership, joint venture,, corporation, syndication) 2725 Jefferson Street, CarIsbad, cA. 92008 Business Mdress 434-1742 Telephone Number Henry Tubbs Name 690 Elm Street, Suite #204, Carlsbad, cA. 92008 Business Mdress 434-7173 Telephone Number Robert Size Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 28322 La Coleta, Mission Viejo 9269 Home Mdress 2725 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Business Mdress (714) 770-6060 Telefiione Number Telephone Number Name Home Mdress Business Mdress Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) The applicant is required to apply for Coastal Commission Approval i£ located in the Coastal Zone. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the infonnation 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. MARK T. GOMBAR APPLICANT BY Tkqenu xmM:;^mmM:x HENRY W. 'TUBBS III 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE GARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNINGDEPARTMENT Wl^J^M (619) 438-1161 Citp of Carlsfiab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROOECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: This project is located at 2558 Roosevelt Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project, RP 86-23, will include a 10,800 square foot professional office building over a .276 acre site in the V-R (Village Redevelopment) zone. 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. Oustification 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. MICHAEL 0. HOLZMILLER DATED: March 14, 1987 ^¥V\JUy^Ul^eirr^^ MICHAEL 0. HOLZMIl CASE NO: RP 86-23 Planning Director APPLICANT: Gombar PUBLISH DATE: March 14, 1987 ND4 11/85 > J K < ^ U - U e U ij ff • — »• r _ • H mmu -.V-i'V •i — JMlT UM 1\ lllll.. mm ii^/^v*ii. —.... rad HI 11 4r"i H — "S^T"^ —Ay-—**• SL 1: IMORTH BLEVATIOIM EAST ELfVATIOlM SOUTH BUSVATIOIM WEST ELEVATION