Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-04; Design Review Board; Minutes. .- MINUTES ..... Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: February 4, 1987 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Holmes called the Meeting to order at 5:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Holmes, Members Hall, McCoy and McFadden. Absent: Chairman Rombotis. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Community Redevelopment Manage Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Vice Chairman Holmes. DEPARTMENTAL/CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 21, 1987 1. RP 86-19 - DUFF - Request for a minor redevelopment permit for a proposed addition and remodel to an existing doctor's office located at 2690 Roosevelt Street to include reduced front yard setback and side yard setback. Br-an Hunter gave the staff report, stqting the report had been amended to show the six foot setback pointed out by Member Hall. He gave a brief synopsis of the previous report stating there were no specific changes in the report. One of the conditions is to maintain the existing yards at this time. Member Hall inquired about specifications on the fencing. Staff indicated this would be specified at plan check. Bob Wischnack, 2201 Zabyn Street, Oceanside, Architect for the project, addressed the Board stating there are seasoned plants within the property line where the six-foot setback is in question, and they would like to have those plants remain there. Also, the handicapped hallways must be four feet in width, which necessitates more space in that area. Mr. Wischnack stated the existing house has one bathroom used by staff and patients. This is inadequate, and another small bathroom is planned for personnel use. He explained the proposed examining rooms and location of the records and waiting room. The garage that exists there now will be demolished. The screen wall would be a protection and security for the supplies kept in the building, and would also serve as a buffer from the street and the neighbors across the street. Mr. Wischnack explained how the drainage was to be from the parking in the rear to the side yard. Although there is a large amount of property to the rear, that is not of use at the present time. Dr. Robert Allan Duff, 2690 Roosevelt Avenue, addressed the Board as the applicant and owner of the property. He stated it was very important to get this project underway as soon as possible. The location of the building is a problem, and to get parking in the rear, the driveway must be where it is. He stated the back portion of the property is of no use at this time . MEMBERS \1 h \ 3 J MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 4, 1987 Page 2 Dr. Duff reiterated the one bathroom is not adequate, and staf must work in very limited space at the present time. Dr. Duff also explained the traffic pattern for the office area, and planned privacy for staff and the doctor. He added this would be a temporary arrangement, as he plans to build a better office in the future. Dr. Duff also explained the need for the wider hallways for wheelchair use, causing the intrusion into the side yard. Member McFadden stated she could agree to the five-foot setbac on the side, but felt the front setback should be in conform- ance. Vice Chairman Holmes commented with all the space in the rear of the property, he felt the parking could be moved back. The front setback is not up to standard at the present time, and he saw no reason to make it worse. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated it was not the duty of the Board to re-design the project, but to apply the Ordinance There is no reason to grant the variance on economic hard- ship. Mr. Ball called attention to page two of the staff report, where it was stated "more than fifty percent of that" and stated that should be "forty percent". However, this proposed project would be thirty-seven percent, so it makes no difference. He pointed out on page three of the report, under Environmental Review, the Class I11 referred to is for expansion of existing offices. Member McCoy said there should be a wall around this property, and he would like to have that included with the Resolution. Design Review Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 093 APPROVING A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE LOCATED AT 2690 ROOSEVELT STREET. A masonry wall to be installed on the property lines per Building Department recommendations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Meeting held January 21, 1987, were approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Meeting of February 4, 1987, was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. The next Meeting of the Design Review Board will be held at the Safety Center. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk Holmes Hall McCoy McFadden Holmes Hall McCoy McFadden fl - X X X X X X X X REVISED STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1987 To: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: REDEVEIOPMENT OFFICE SUBJECT: RP 86-19 - DUFF - Request for a minor redevelopment permit for a proposed addition and remodel to an existing doctor's office located 2690 Roosevelt St. to include a reduced front yard setback and side yard setback. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 093 , RP 86-19 DUFF based on the findings therein. I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applican, is requesting a minor redevelopment perm t for a proposed addition and remodel to an existing doctor's office located at 2690 Roosevelt Street. Site renovation will include the addition of thirteen (13) parking spaces. The office space addition of 1386 square feet will produce a twelve (12) foot front yard setback and a five (5) foot side yard setback. The project is located within Sub-area 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area. ANALYSIS Does the project conform to the goals of the Village Design Manual? Does the project meet the standards of the zoning ordinance? Can the required findings for an exception be made; to wit, A. The application of certain provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, The granting of an exemption will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area; and The granting of an exemption will not contradict the standards established in the Village Design Manual? C. D. From a zoning perspective the existing medical office building is nonconforming by reason of inadequate yards. The zoning ordinance allows for enlargement of such structures as long as it is to the same degree of nonconformity as may exist and that any such enlargement shall not increase the floor space more than fifty percent of that existing prior to such enlargement (Municipal Code 21.48.090). The existing side yard setback is six (6) feet, where ten (10) feet would normally be required. The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot side yard setback. The enlargement increases floor space thirty seven (37) percent. The existing front yard setback is seventeen (17) feet, where twenty (20) feet would normally be required. The proposed setback is twelve (12) feet. To approve this proposal the required findings for an exception need to be made. These findings are based on practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, exceptional circumstances, that the granting of the exemption will not be materially detrimental to other properties, and that the granting of an exemption will not contradict the standards established in the Village Design Manual. Staff is unable to make these findings. While it may be argued that there are existing structures along Roosevelt Street in the vicinity of the project that maintain such reduced front yard setbacks, those sites were nonconforming at the adoption of the Village Design Manual. Rather than being precedent setting they serve to demonstrate the need for a uniform application of the established standards. The project is an existing medical office which may enlarge 2 to the same degree of nonconformity as existing (six (6) foot side yard, seventeen (17) foot front yard) without requiring a variance. While designing such an addition around the existing office may be viewed as a practical difficulty, staff cannot make the finding that this would be an unnecessary hardship that would make development inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan. This is due to the amount of the lot available for development behind the structure (over ten thousand (10,000) square feet) when compared to the amount of the encroachment requested (one hundred five (105) square feet). The applicant has stated that the increased encroachment is necessary due to the desire to enhance accessibility for those whose mobility is impaired. Staff agrees that this is a desirable quality but maintains that this is substantially a state wide goal rather than an exceptional circumstance or condition unique to the property. proposed development does not preclude the necessity of being able to justify the required findings for an exception. The desirability of a Granting of the exemption would contradict the standards established in the Village Design Manual. guidelines of redevelopment in subarea 6 support additional landscaped setbacks along Roosevelt Street to buffer the residential uses from office/professional uses, not an expanded encroachment into an already reduced required yard. Staff therefore, has conditioned the approval of RP 86-19 to respect the existing setbacks of a six (6) foot side yard and a seventeen (17) foot front yard as well as provide a landscape and irrigation plan to the satisfaction of the Redevelopment Manager. The design Complementary design elements and materials are proposed to integrate the addition with the existing structure. Staff is able to support the request for a minor redevelopment permit (without the exception of the increased yard encroachments) as this project will provide required off street parking at an existing use that is presently lacking same, the addition is compatible with the existing and surrounding buildings, and as conditioned the project is in accord with the development standards required by the zoning ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined this project qualifies for Class I11 Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3 ATTAC"TS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 093 2. Location Map 3. Vicinity Map 4. Disclosure form 5. Exhibit C 4 I LOCATION MA# RP 86-19 DUFF 4 a 23 STATE 8 ST cp \ 1 1 I I - -I DISCLOSURB FOR1 , ? Business Address Business Address Telepho ne Nunber Telephone Ndr (Attach mre sheets if mcessary) !?be applicant is reqaired to apply for Coastal Comiaaion Apprarrl if located in the coutal gone, I/Me declare mer penalty of disclosure is true d clorrect relied upon as being true and cor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I- RESOLUTION NO. # 093 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR REDEVEIAPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WEDICAL OFFICE LOCATED AT 2690 ROOSEVELT STREET. APPLICANT: ROBERT DUFF CASE NO.: RP 86-19 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the Cit] of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and: WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design Review Board did, on the 4th day of February, 1987, hold a meeting to consider said application on property describec as: That portion of Lot 40 Seaside lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1722 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921. WHEREAS, at said meeting, upon hearing and considering all tes-imony and arguments, if of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 86-19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at said meeting, the Board APPROVES RP 86-19, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS : 1) The project, as conditioned, conforms to the guidelines of the Village Design Manual and the goals of Subarea 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *- 2) The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer services remains available, and the Design Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find the public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. CONDITIONS: Approval is granted for RP 86-19, as shown on Exhibits I1Av1 and llBll, dated January 14, 1987, and Exhibit *ICtt dated January 27, 1987, incorporated by reference and on file in the Redevelopment Office. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise stated in the conditions of approval. The applicant shall prepare a 241*x3611 reproducible mylar of the final site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein. Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Redevelopment Manager prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted and approved by the Community Redevelopment Manager prior to the issuance building permits. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- ..I Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Community Redevelopment Manager prior to installation of such signs. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six foot high wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Community Redevelopment Manager. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioning, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sand buffered from adjacent properties and streets, pursuant to Building Department Policy No. 80- 6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building. Building identification and/or address shall be placed on a1 a new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible fro the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. The front yard setback shall be seventeen (17) feet and the side yard setback shall be six (6) feet. The applicant will execute a standard agreement to pay increased fees, approved by the Office of the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of building permits. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer capacity is available at the time of application for such permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. The grading for this project is defined as "regular grading" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. plan for approval which shall include all required drainage structures and any required drainage structures and any required erosion control measures. developer shall also submit soils, geologic or compaction reports if required and shall comply with all The developer shall submit a grading The 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provisions of Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off site siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved by the City Engineer. developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit an bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer. The basins and The Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the City Engineer. The developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of the project improvement plans and enter into a secured agreement with the City for completion of said improvements prior to issuance of any building permit within this project. The improvements shall be constructed and accepted for maintenance by the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit within the project. The improvements are: A) Curb, gutter and sidewalk replacement. B) On-site circulation and drainage. C) Street trees and parkway landscaping. 4 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 223 Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the pro j ect All plans, specifications, and supporting documents for the improvements of this project shall be signed and sealed by the Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each sheet shall be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may be signed and sealed on their first page. plans shall have the following certificate: Additionally the first sheet of each set of "DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE. CHARGE" I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design. Firm: Address : city, st.: Telephone: BY Date: (Name of Engineer) R.C.E. NO. # FIRE CONDITIONS : 1) Prior to the issuance of building permits complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. //// 5 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of February, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairperson DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: CHRIS SAIDMONE Community Redevelopment Manager //// //// //// //// 6