Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-11; Design Review Board; Minutes_- MINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) Time of Mee-ing: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: 3une 11, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers MEMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Vice-chairman Holmes called the Meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice-chairman Holmes, Members McCoy and Schlehuber. Absent: Chairman Rombotis and Member Hall. Staff Present: Patty Cratty, Administrative Assistant, Community Redevelopment Department Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Vice-chairman Holmes. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 1. RP 86-5 - PUCCI - Request for approval of a major redevelopment permit to construct a 5,700 square foot warehouse and add 1,000 square feet of office to an existing building at 3235 Tyler Street. Vice-chairman Holmes announced that staff is requesting that the public hearing on the above-named matter be continued to June 25, 1986. Vice-chairman Holmes declared the public hearing opened at 5:05 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. There being no person in the audience desiring to address the Board, Vice-chairman Holmes declared the public hearing closed at 5:05 p.m. and advised that the public hearing will be renoticed for a future date. The Design Review Board continued the public hearing on RP 86-5 - PUCCI to 3une 25, 1986. DEPARTMENTAL 2. RP 84-3(A) - CARLSBAD INN - Revision to deck Patty Cratty, Administrative Assistant, introduced Brian Hunter who will give the presentation on this matter. Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the supplemental staff report. He pointed out that although the deck has a railing around it that makes the usuable space less than the 900 square feet, the deck area would still require an additional parking space. Board as: (1) to allow the applicant to apply for an amendment to the redevelopment permit to satisfy the as- built dimensions of the deck; or (2) to require the applicant to comply with the originally approved plan. He listed the options available to the Vice-chairman Holmes declared this matter opened to the public at 5:08 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Holmes McCoy Schlehuber 3 i MINUTES 3une 11, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 2 3im Watkins, Carlsbad Inn Ltd., addressed the Commission and stated that he is open to doing whatever the direction of the Board is. He showed drawings of the deck how it is presently built, and stated that they had incorrectly assumed that the Board's concern was to limit the seating in the deck area and not the actual size of the deck itself. For that reason, a railing was constructed to reduce the actual usuable space. There being no other person present in the audience desiring to address the Board, Vice-chairman Holmes declared the matter closed at 5:lO p.m. Member McCoy stated that there was nothing wrong with the appearance of the deck itself, but it was just a question of the way the deck was done. Member Schlehuber stated that at some point the Board needs to make a decision and follow the rules. He stated that he would be more interested in seeing how much is involved in reducing the deck size to comply with the original approved size. He stated that it is not a question of appearance; if the Board allows this to go through, it would set a precedent. Vice-chairman Holmes stated that he saw no reason why the deck could not have been built to the approved dimension, and the position of the railing had nothing to do with the deck size itself. A motion was made to require the applicant to remove 2 1/2 feet from the front setback of the deck in order to make it comply to the originally approved dimension of 15 feet front setback. Member Schlehuber pointed out that the width of the deck ties into the building itself, and stated he was more concerned with getting the front setback to the approved size. In a discussion that ensued whether the applicant would have to comply with the approved dimension for the width of the deck, 42'1'', Mr. Hunter confirmed that the additional feet of the width the deck as it is built now will not require an additional parking space. The Design Review Board ordered the applicant to remove 2 1/2 feet from the front setback of the deck making it comply with the originally approved dimension of 15 feet, and to accept the width of the deck, 46'8'', as built. 3. Patty Cratty, Administrative Assistant, stated that this item is a sign program for the retail shops at the Northeast corner of State Street and Elm Avenue. She deferred to Mr. Hunter. RP 86-2 VILLAGE CORNER - Sign Program Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report, and stated that this matter is presented for the Board's information. He described the colored renderings of the various signs. \ MEMBERS Holmes McCoy Schlehuber MINUTES June 11, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 3 Vice-chairman Holmes declared this matter opened at 5:16 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. There being no person present in the audience desiring to address the Board, Vice-chairman Holmes declared the matter closed at 5:16 p.m. In response to a question by Member Schlehuber, Mr. Hunter stated that the canvas awning does not have a sign. Vice-chairman Holmes stated that he felt that the signs are an asset to Carlsbad. The Design Review Board approved RP 86-2 - Village Corner (Grant) Sign Program as presented. Member McCoy noted that there has been a lot of alterations on Mr. Grant's building, and inquired whether the Planning or Building Department objected to the Board's original authorization. Marty Orenyak, Comnunity Development Director, replied that staff met with the contractor and assured him (Mr. Orenyak) that the original intent of the Board was continuing .to be met. 4. SMALL PORTABLE SIGNS-FREE STANDING SIGNS Patty Cratty, Administrative Assistant, advised the Mr. Orenyak would be making the presentation on this item, but prior to that a slide presentation would be shown. She presented the slide show of various free-standing signs in the city and gave the locations of the signs. Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, gave the presentation on this item as contained in their memorandum to the Board. He stated that although these signs may have been acceptable in the past, some are pretty tacky. The problem is enforcing the code regulations prohibiting these signs. He stated that with the proper types of signs, proper locations and proper text, it may be an acceptable program to have in the redevelopment area. He stated that if the Board wants to have these signs, then staff can design a program that meets setback requirements from the right-of-way, incorporating any recommendations that the Board may have. This program can then be brought back to the Board for its formal approval. He added that from a code enforcement standpoint, it would be easier to not allow any of these signs in the redevelopment area. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, emphasized that free standing signs in public right-of -ways (sidewalks) are not allowed anywhere in the City, and there should be no exceptions to that in the redevelopment area. Vice-chairman Holmes inquired whether the City has a potential liability when these signs are located on public property and the code is not enforced. Mr. Hentschke stated that they are illegal on public property; however, if some decided to sue the City, it would be a defensible case. Holmes McCoy Schlehuber MINUTES 3une 11, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 4 Member McCoy inquired if the newsstands fall into the same category. Mr. Hentschke stated that they fall into a different category. amendment. Carlsbad. the sidewa k as long as they do not obstruct people walking on the sidewalk. particular location, the news vendors have been notified and reques ed to place their newsrack in such a manner that the sidewalk is not obstructed. By doing this, Carlsbad has avoided litigation, a problem many other cities are facing. They are protected by the first There is not a newsrack ordinance per se in The ordinance says that they may be located on When a problem has come up in a Member Schlehuber stated that although he could see some benefit in allowing some of these signs in the redevelopment area, he questioned how a program could be accomplished with the public right-of-way problem. Orenyak stated that there is always the possibility of granting individual encroachment permits in the right-of- way. Mr. Mr. Hentschke cautioned that when you are regulating signs, you are regulating the first amendment's right of the people to speak. Once special permits are given to people, you need to be evenhanded. You get into a regulatory problem that would invalidate the ordinance. Member Schlehuber inquired whether the lights that are in the trees constitute a sign, and are therefore a violation. Mr. Orenyak stated that he believed this was permitted under the ordinance. Vice-chairman Holmes stated that if signs can be located on private property, as many storefronts are set back for that purpose, there is no problem. Otherwise, the signs should meet the sign ordinance. The Design Review Board directed that the sign ordinance be enforced in the City, with no exceptions. Mr. Orenyak advised that the individuals are given thirty days to remove their signs, upon which staff goes out and enforces the code. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member McCoy noted the following correction in the Minutes of May 28, 1986, Page 2: After Item No. 1, Resolution No. 072, it goes directly into the discussion of Item No. 2. The heading of Item No. 2, however, was not inserted. The heading would be as follows, and will be inserted after Item No. 1 Resolution No. 072: 2. RP 85-17 - JOHNSTON, 3ESS - Request for a major redevelopment permit to develop a mixed use project including a 496 square foot offic with two apartment units attached, located at the second lot south of Pine Avenue/Roosevelt Street intersection along the east side of Roosevlet Street. The Design Review Board approved the Minutes of May 28, 1986, as corrected. Holmes McCoy Sch lehuber Holmes McCoy Schlehuber MINUTES June 11, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 5 AD30URNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of 3une 11, 1986, was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk EC: tc MEMBERS \