Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-23; Design Review Board; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) Time of Meetl -: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: 3uly 23, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Rombotis called the Meeting to order at 5:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Rombotis, Members Hall, Holmes, McCoy and Schlehuber. Absent : None. Staff Present: Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Patty Cratty, AAII Clyde Wickham, Engineering Department Lance Shulte, Planning Department PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Rombotis. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RP 86-6 - CHANDLER - Request for a major redevelopment to construct a single story 8,470 square foot general office building on a 32,821 square foot lot located at the southwest corner of Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street in subarea 6 of the V-R Zone. Patty Cratty gave the initial staff report, showing slides taken of the site and the adjoining property. Lance Shulte continued the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the site. Clyde Wickham discussed Condition 39, using another transparency of the site plan to show the driveway use superimposed upon the transparency. Condition 39, stating staff would like the applicant to agree to a recipricol agreement for future parking and less waste of isle space. He discussed Member Holmes stated the agreement with the driveway would be putting a cloud on the title of the adjacent property. He stated he wondered what would happen if the owners did not get along ten years down the road. Staff stated they could not make the owner to the south agree to a recipricol agreement, until he came in for a permit or a request to redesign. Member Schlehuber stated there is the same sort of parking agreement on the Dooley's and 3azzercise site. It is very common to share easements as both parties could then benifit from the parking arrangment. In this case, the property owner to the south would receive additional parking and could count that additional parking in conforming to the parking requirements. Chairman Rombotis inquired whether the property owner had been contacted by the City. Staff indicated that he had not. Staff indicated they had talked with the Chandler Property about this recipricol agreement, and Chandler had contacted the owner to the south. reached as of this time. No agreement had been h \ 9 _- MINUTES 3uly 23, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Clyde Wickham stated this was a low-usage driveway for office use and would not ever be high-volume. there would be no sight problem at this driveway. He stated Member Schlehuber commented this would become a permanent low-use driveway, once it was installed. Chairman Rombotis opened the public testimony at 5:lO p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on this subject, the public testimony portion was concluded. In answer to query, staff explained the shed that is on the property at the present time would be removed when the Hawthorne improvement comes in. There would be a setback requirement and the building would have to be removed. It would not comply with standards. Member McCoy referred to page 2 of the Resolution, Condition No. 2, which reads "through the development of the proposed project as conditioned to provide recipricol access, a compatible and unified urban design with adjacent properties will be encouraged". He stated the the words "will be encouraged" was too nebulous. Member McCoy further referred to page 4, Condition No. 9: The words "Planning Director!' should read "Design Review Board". On page 7, line 24 1/2: "prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall record an irrevocable recipricol access agreement", Member McCoy stated he felt this should be done before this project is approved. Member Schlehuber stated the shed is in a bad location and Laguna is becoming a major thoroughfare. He felt intrusions like this should be studied carefully. Because of the angle parking on Roosevelt and on Laguna, there is a problem with turns. He felt this driveway would not make good planning sense. You cannot see the driveway when you make a turn, as the street curves in that area. Member Schlehuber stated because this driveway created a problem, he could not support the request. Staff stated this was a difficult site to plan and they had tried to work the parking design everyway they could. The driveway configuration had been worked on with the applicant. driveway onto Roosevelt. It is a low-use driveway because of the low footage of the building. Staff explained the possibility of angle parking as the only alternative to redesigning the entire lot. In attempting to provide a recipricol access agreement, staff thought when the other property comes in for a permit, all three driveways could be redesigned to afford a more efficient circulation for traffic. Staff felt there was a problem with the _- MINUTES July 23, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Member Schlehuber stated the property is developed and he did not believe there would be any plans coming in. reiterated the interim use would become a permanent use, and not a good idea. He Member Hall stated he felt staff had done a good job and he would move approval of the project. Member Holmes stated he had looked at the driveway on Laguna and thought that should be the entry. should be on Roosevelt, with a right turn only. He felt they should not count on being able to negotiate part of the property for common parking. This is a difficult site and someone has to bend. He restated his idea of a right turn only on Roosevelt as an exit only. The exit In answer to Chairman Rombotis' question as to whether that would provide a safer traffic circulation, staff indicated it would. Chairman Rombotis suggested a compromise that if the Redevelopment Manager finds a problem at a future time, a right turn in and out could be imposed then. Member McCoy stated that cars coming out from Laguna onto Roosevelt cannot see. He stated there are also trees blocking the view and the sight distance is a problem with the shed. The Design Review Board cannot force the owner to move the shed. He felt the owner to the south should be contacted to see whether negotiations could be worked out for a compromise on the traffic circulation. Member Holmes stated he felt good things have happened in the Redevelopment Area and felt any proposed project should be an asset. He felt this building was extremely plain and unattractive. This is a prominent corner and he felt the City should demand better quality. Member Hall made a motion to approve the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 078. Chairman Rombotis seconded the motion. The motion failed due to the lack of a majority. Design Review Board returned this item to staff for further review to design other driveway options. This item is to be rescheduled in two weeks and the applicant is to be present at the hearing. Rombot is Hall Holmes McCoy Schlehuber Rombot is Hal 1 Holmes McCoy Schlehuber X X X X X X MINUTES 3uly 23, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. RP 86-9 WILLIS - Request for a major redevelopment Dermit for the construction of two-second story 'apartments over 2,485 square feet of leasable retail commercial space at 539 Elm Avenue. Patty Cratty presented slides showing the present structure and the improvements on Elm Avenue. Brian Hunter, Associate Planner, continued the report using a transparency to show the site, and describing the project as contained in the staff report. Mr. Hunter used wall charts showing the two apartments over the retail space located at 539 Elm Avenue. indicated there would be twelve parking spaces on site, which would meet the code. 22 112 feet backup space, instead of the required 24 feet. There is room to adjust the garage location in order to allow for the 24-foot backup. Also, the standard for compact parking space is 8 feet. One of these spaces is 7 feet 6 inches. allow the space to meet standards. He Two parking spaces have only There is ample space to adjust that to Mr. Hunter described the materials to be used for the building, and stated the setback would be 26 feet from Elm Avenue. Chairman Rombotis opened the public testimony at 5:39 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. George Willis, 3286 Westwood Drive, owner of the property at 525 Elm Avenue, addressed the Board, stating this project was a fantasy of his. work and live in the same place. He designs and manufactures jewelry and is looking forward to living in the unit above the commercial area. His parents will occupy the other unit. He had always wished to Mr. Willis stated there was no problem as far as moving the garage to allow for the additional parking space. Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the public testimony was concluded at 5:42 p.m. Member Holmes stated he would like to see the building moved back approximately 5 feet, and some landscaping installed in the front of the lot in keeping with the Redevelopment area. Discussion followed regarding handicapped parking, and it was determined handicapped parking space would be required on this project. Mr. Willis stated greenery was fine, and he was in favor of landscaping, but not in front of his jewelry business. He stated he wanted to spend all of his time there, but he also wanted to make a living. He did not want anything to keep the public from being able to see his place of business. Mr. Willis stated five feet of greenery would cut down the visibility for his merchandise and for others renting in the building. He stated he did not want to move the building back five feet to put bushes in front of the windows. L * .. , MINUTES 3uly 23, 1986 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Design Review Board approved the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 077, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO FEET OF LEASABLE RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELM AVENUE AND STATE STREET. CONSTRUCT TWO-SECOND STORY APARTMENTS OVER 2,485 SQUARE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Meeting held 3une 11, 1986, were approved as presented. Minutes of the Meeting held 3une 25, 1986, were approved as presented. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Chairman Rombotis stated the need for a workshop on parking requirements downtown. Friday, August 15, 1986, at 8:30 a.m. The tentative date set was ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of 3uly 23, 1986, was adjourned at 5:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk HB: tb Rombot is Hall Holmes McCoy Schlehuber Rombot is Hall Holmes McCoy Schlehuber Rombot is Hall Holmes McCoy Schlehuber Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y