Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-15; Design Review Board; Minutes. MINUTES Meeting of: Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: February 15, 1989 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) Chairperson Schramm called the Meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Schramm, Board Members Hall and McCoy. Absent: Board Members McFadden and Rombotis. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Housing & Redevelopment Director Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lance Schulte, Planning Department Marty Orenyak, Community Development ' Direct or Bob Wojcik, Developmment Processing Serv ices PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairperson Schramm. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES: Chairperson Schramm read the Procedures as a transparency was used to show them for the audience. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no requests to address the Board. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. RP 87-11(A)/CDP 88-1 VILLAGE FAIRE. Board Member McCoy left the room to abstain from the discussion and voting on this item, to avoid a conflict of interest, as he owns property within 300 feet of this property. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated that there were two Members present who could take part in the discussion and voting on this item. Two Members of the Board were disqualified due to the conflict of interest rule, and the other Member of the Board was absent tonight. Inasmuch as there were two Members present to discuss the item, that constituted a quorum for this item. At the conclusion of the discussion on this item, the other Member of the Board could return to the dais. Mr. Ball stated that if the vote resulted in a tie, no action would be taken and the item would have to be continued until the third Member was present. Member Hall asked how the third Member would be able to vote, not having heard the presentation tonight. Mr. Ball stated that if that Member listened to the tape and reviewed the Minutes and was fully informed on the matter, then that Member would be allowed to participate in voting on that matter. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Feburary 15, 1989 Page 2 Chairperson Schramm reiterated that the third Member could vote if it were stated that the tapes of the meeting had been reviewed, and Mr. Ball said the only thing missing would be the demeanor of the applicant arid the other Members. He added that all evidence, including diagrams, charts, etc., should be made available to the absent Member. Chairperson Schramm said if the two Members present tonight disagreed, the third party could make the decision, and Mr. Ball said there would be no action taken, and the third person would be the deciding vote. Chairperson Schramm asked to review the February 1, 1989, Minutes at this time, as they reflect on the first part of the Public Hearing, and the latter part of the Minutes would include Member McCoy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 1, 19889, Meeting were approved as amended, as follows: Item 83 - Members Rombotis arid McCoy excused themselves from the room and did not sit in the audience. Page 4, the Board voted to continue this matter, and the Minutes did not show that. The matter was continued to February 15, 1989, and following that Members Rombotis and McCoy returned to the room. (Since this meeting was taped, and no Minutes Clerk present, the person transcribing would not have access to the above information). Member McCoy left the room for discussion of Item #I. 1. RP 87-11(A)/CDP 88-1 VILLAGE FAIRE. Chris Salomone gave the staff report, using a transparency to show the site at Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Avenue. He said that most of staff's input has been heard at previous meetings on this amendment. However, for the benefit of the Board, Mr. Salomone stated he would reflect on the entire project and focus on the restaurant and outdoor eating area the applicant has requested. Mr. Salomone referred to a transparency showing the site plan for the entire project and said the project was truly a redevelopment project, incorporating some non-traditional ideas, notably the parking, which is arund a retail center with access from all four sides of the site. On the inside of the site, there are 30 to 31 parking spaces adjacent to Rotary Park, in the public right-of-way and partially in the railroad right- of way. Mr. Salomone stated that directly on the western side of the Twin Inns building is Neiman's Restaurant. There were 9 parking spaces in front of the building there, and the Design Review Board felt to improve the project, it would be best to remove those spaces and increase the amount of landscaping on that side along Carlsbad Boulevard. As those were important parking spaces to the operation of the restaurant, the Design Review Board eliminated those from the calculations for the parking on the site. Schramm Hal 1 McCoy X X X , MINUTES OESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 3 On the right, to the north of the project, there is an off-site parking lot. That lot is a leased parcel, with a 49-year lease, and staff negotiated the lease between the property owners and the applicant and this was reviewed by the City Attorney. City staff felt it would more than adequately meet the needs of the project, and was determined to be acceptable in counting toward the parking for this project. Mr. Salomone said that these were the areas that unique on this project. Also, with the 15 percent mixed use credit given, this made a reduction in the over-all parking requirements. project of this size and is done throughout the City. This was granted on this project and it was parked at a ratio of 1 to 250 square feet. This was a hybrid ratio, and the reason was to allow the applicant to have flexibility in putting food uses into the center and not have to park as if it were all food service and not as though there was to be no food service. Parking at 1 to 300 square feet allows no food, and 1 to 200 allows unlimited food service--a compromise of 1 to 250 was reached, and the project conditioned that no food service was to be over 2,000 square feet. This was very typical on a Mr. Salomone used a transparency of the Village Fiare Parking as Provided chart included in the packet, showing 324 stalls provided for the project, and actually 327 will be built on the site, with 3 extra parking spaces at this time. Mr. Salomone said that in December a request was made by the applicant for a 3,600 square foot restaurant in the center, and the Board approved that request, finding that there would be adequate parking with the off-site parking lot. That parking lot had two versions; one that would barely meet the needs for the site, and a larger one, and the larger one with excess parking was the one conditioned. Before the previous request went forward to the Redevelopment Commission, an issue of service to outdoor eating areas arose, and it was deemed the item should come back before the Design Review Board for clarification to determine the issue of outdoor eating area and how it should be parked. Several options were presented over the last two meetings. At the last meeting, staff was directed to do research on verifying the square footage as submitted by the applicant, which was a reduced riumber than approved, arid the Engineering Department was to determine the square footage at this time. The other issue was common usage areas, and how they are dealt with typically throughout the City. Mr. Salomone stated he would discuss the common usage areas first. Common areas are areas that open to the populus and are considered amenities when they come throuqh the Planning Department. Retail projects, such as the one before the Board, have common areas. The issue comes when those common areas may be used as an enclosed area or leasable area, or areas that would normally be parked. Then staff has to deal with a condition or address the use of common areas. \ MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Salomone said the request for a common area to have table service from an adjacent restaurant is a typical use, This Design Review Board has dealt with that several times recently. Mr. Salomone read a condition that had been placed on the Von Der Ahe project: No food or beverage service outside of an approved building pad or building shall be allowed on this site. Outdoor cafes or seating in conjunction with an established food or beverage service building are allowed upon review by the Planning Director. In such instances, no employees are allowed to serve customers outside of an approved building or building pad. Mr. Salomone said they were trying to strike a middle ground, where it is possible to have benches and outdoor common areas where employees can take their lunches or even food from an adjacent food area. This is an amenity, and is encouraged in the Redevelopment Area. However, some restrictions have to be put on this to keep it from being unlimited. Mr. Salomone said he would read a condition on a project that would be coming before this Roard involving an outdoor eating area on a flower stand: No food or beverage service outside of the restaurant shall be allowed on the site. (The restaurant abuts the flower stand that this Board will be approving.) Outdoor seating in the area between the flower stand and the restaurant and in conjunction with the restaurant operation is allowed upon review and approval by the Redevelopment Director. In such instances, no employees are allowed to serve customers outside of the restaurant. Customers must pick up and dispose of food arid beverage items themselves. Mr. Salomone stated that typically outdoor areas where it is self-serve are not considered restaurants, and sometimes not parked at all, but certainly not parked at 1 to 100 square feet. Mr. Salomone said that addressed the common area; that staff sees that the same as landscaping or open space as an amenity, and often is conditioned as being larger than the applicant would like in order to provide an amenity to the public. Mr. Salomone continued, stating the next issue was parking, and the applicant, in his requested amendment for the 3,600 square foot restaurant, proposed to the Design Review Board a parking scheme and several options. A transparency was used to show the Village Faire Parking as provided by the applicant. The applicant contends that the the project is actually smaller than the approved project that was parked; that is is 68,355, some 1,500 square feet less than the original design. Staff was directed to verify the numbers submitted, and it was difficult, but the Engineering Department did measurements and they will verify that the building is 69,540 square feet. The Engineering Department feels that number is believable, making the project 360 square feet less than it was parked originally. as-built condition of MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Salomone stated that there was a situation where there were 3 extra spaces (verified when the parking lot across the street was configured) and the 360 square feet that is parked but not built. Then, the restaurant approved by this Board has been reduced from 3,600 square feet to 3,200 square feet, aiving 400 square feet parked at 1 to 100. Mr. Salomone stated that staff felt there were 6 spaces excess on the entire project, based on the plan check and information staff has and with the confirmation that the restaurant is reduced 400 square feet. In an.swer to query regarding the 400 square feet reduction in the restaurant, Mr. Salomone stated he wanted the applicant to address that, because if the area was then retail, it would qo back in to the parking at 1 to 250. He reiterated that the 6 spaces came from the 360 square feet not built and the original 3 extra spaces. Also, if the 400 feet is not a retail store, then that would also be valid to be applied to the parking. Member Hall inquired about the traffic area by the proposed eating area and dsked what the standard was for the walkway. Engineering replied 44 inches, which is the handicapped standard, and that recently the Planning Commission had placed a condition on a mixed-use center that required six feet of clear pedestrian space along any pedestrian corridor, and that seemed to work for that project. Chairperson Schramm inquired of staff whether the 360 square feet was being parked at 1 to 100, arid Mr. Salomone said that was up to this Board. There is 360 square feet difference in the size of the center; three spaces that are not committed and the 400 square feet difference in the restaurant size to be discussed. He added it would depend on how this Board chose to park the area--whether at 1 to 100 or 1 to 250. In answer to query, Mr. Salomone stated the traditional parking for a restaurant is 1 to 100. Steve Densham, 3965 Monroe Street, General Partner of the Village Faire Project, stated he would like to comment about some of the things mentioned in previous meetings. Mr. Densham stated that the makeup of the Design Review Board is such that there is Planning Commission input and input from the Redevelopment Area representatives. However, due to the interpretation of the law, all of the Redevelopment input and thinking on this matter will not be considered. He asked the remaining Board Members to reflect on what the input of the Redevelopment arm of this Board might be in this matter. One issue Mr. Densham mentioned was that of precedent. He stated he had presented an idea a couple of meetings ago that was a way to address this matter from another angle as suggested by the Planning Commission, and this Board said it was not bound by precedent. Mr. Densham said that is not an issue in the Redevelopment Area--as what is done on one project does not and will not necessarily follow. He said he would like to put precedent aside. On the other hand, if it is the right thing to do, then it becomes a precedent--and that is what is being discussed here. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Densham said that this Roard had before it in November or December of last year a way to handle outdoor eating areas, which was in the form of 10 percent of the inside area of seating would be allowed outside without being parked. This was never put in the ordinance and he asked what happened to that. Mr. Densham said the Board discussed that there needed to be a different look in the villaqe and the Redevelopment Area and a different way to address these outdoor eating areas. Mr. Densham felt there is confusion about the whole thing, and that he would not like to see this project and the entire Redevelopment Area suffer because of this. He asked the Board to look at this and set it up in a realistic way to deal with this or any other project, or redo the ordinance, if necessary, as the Board needs to change its policy on outside eating areas. Mr. Densham stated that a patio area is not an inside, contained building, and in their other operations in Carlsbad they find that 41 percent of the time is when outside eating areas are used---with weather and demand determining the use. A patio cannot be enclosed and is not an extension of the restaurant. Self-service and waiter-served was discussed next by Mr. Densham, saying that self-service promotes a disposable lifestyle, and the village atmosphere is not to be a paper.cup or plate type of area. This is in Subarea 5 of the Redevelopment Area and the Village Design Manual says this is a major tourist, commercial-related center for the Redevelopment projects area. Land uses include bona fide restaurants--not self-service delis, walk-up to the window or drive-through type of thing. Mr. Densham said there had been comments about the leased parking and he read from the Manual, stating that innovative methods of providing off-street parking through a combination of public and private efforts should be encouraged. The lease he has is for 49 years and the parking lot is already finished and is being used by the construction workers to avoid creating an impact on downtown parking. Many hours were spent in obtaining this parking lot and Mr. Densham felt it should not be a negative thing. Mr. Densham continued, stating that the Redevelopment manual it says that the feeling of village townness is a prerequisite to order, amenity and sound City planning and must be actively promoted by City officials. Mr. Densham stated he would ask that the condition on outside table service be removed and that outside table service be allowed without additional parking in the Redevelopment Area as a whole, and especially at Village Faire. This would be subject to review by the Redevelopment Director. Mr. Densham commented that the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee is studying the parking, traffic and general master plan for the downtown area at this time. MEMBERS \ MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 7 Another suggestion by Mr. Densham was to compromise and use the Crazy Burro Plan of having to close inside table service on a corresponding number of tables being served outside. That plan could be used until input is received on actual experience and observation. Mr. Densham stated that in answer to the questions as to the measurement of the center, his own engineers and contractor had measured and it contains 68,355 square feet, measuring the way leasable space is properly measured. Mr. Densham added that with the streetscaping project, there will be an improved flow in traffic and circulation and an increase in public parking--as there already is--with an additional 500 projected parking spaces in the area. The third solution suggested by Mr. Densham was that outside eating areas are different from inside restaurants and should not be parked as such, which would jusify parking such an area at 1 to 250 square feet--as that area outside with waiter/waitress service is really an extension of the square footage of the center, which is parked at 1 to 250. Mr. Densham concluded, stating he would like to be permitted to answer any questions. Member Hall inquired about the seating number for the restaurant, and Mr. Densham answered he did not know that. Mr. Hall continued, stating a year or so ago the Members thought this should be a restaurant, and they. were trying to work toward that end at that time. He said it was not that the Members did not foresee this sometime ago and they have tried to work out a remedy for this. He then asked how many tables would be in that outside corner area and Mr. Densham said 8 to 10 of varying sizes -- two to four chairs per table, with mostly two chairs. Elr. Densham used a wall map to indicate where the fire pits were located and the other sitting areas. they were not far enough along on the design to know just what the seating area would be--as in designing restaurants, the first area is the production area, and then the seating is worked out. In answer to Mr. Hall's question as to the total distance along the east side, Mr. Densham said it was approximately 25 feet. He said At this point, Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, stated that he would like to clarify the 44 inches space between tables. He indicated on the map there was an exit required of approximately 7 feet, with a clear pathway. The 44 inches was between tables, but did not include the access required by the fire and building codes. Mr. Densham added that this was an open area and not one that was walled in like a courtyard. Mr. Hall said he was concerned about pedestrians trying to pass through the area while people were being seated and served by waiters or waitresses. Mr. Densham stated he hoped that would be a problem--but that seriously, the people coming through that area would be coming from the corners. Mr. Hall added that people from the parking lot across the street would be entering that way. MEMBERS MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Densham said there had been an incorrect statement made at the last meeting with regard to the parking lot and that it was edicted to be employee parking. that was not true, and the CUP says nothing like that. The employees and tenants are being told that they WILL park in that lot; freeing up the parking in the center itself for customers. The lot is lighted and controlled and close by, and if the employees do not park there, they could possibly have their cars towed. He said In answer to query regarding the square footage for the tables, Mr. Densham stated when he had talked about the restaurant and this outside table service reared its ugly head, he had been talking about the entire center as a whole. There were two potential areas where there would be outside seating and waiterlwaitress service could occur. However, there are other areas that might become restaurants, and they might want to put some tables outside, unless this one restaurant had already used up all the allotted tables. He felt a fixed amount of square footage should be approved, rather than saying a certain area is the ONLY space where tables could be placed. designated to be used for that, then there would be flexibility. He added if 3,000 or 4,000 square feet were In answer to Board query, Mr. Densham stated these two areas contained approximately 3,800 square feet--each one 1,900 square feet. Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the public testimony was closed at 5:58 p.m. Chairperson Schramm inquired about the verification of the square footage of the center and Mr. Salomone stated that he would have to abide by the figures of the Engineering Department. Member Hall said he felt this project would be highly successful and the outside seating makes sense. He had concern with the intensity of the use and the safety of people coming around the side of the building. if there is an access of 7 feet, that should be adequate. His other thought was the parking and how intense it might become. spaces, that would be 10 spaces for the 1,000 square feet--using the restaurant code. Mr. Hall added that is a long way from the 3,800 square feet. However, he said he could support that for one year. However, If credit was given for the Mr. Hall commented he would feel more comfortable if the entire Board were voting on this issue and wished the law were different. Chairperson Schramm stated if the patio area were used and served, it would have to be parked at the restaurant standard. She liked the outdoor seating, but was concerned with the parking in the Redevelopment Area and leased parking in other areas--not just this one. She said she could only approve the request if the area were parked to meet code requirements. MEMBERS \ .'.' MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 15, 1989 Page 9 Uesign Keview Board approved RP 87 -11(A)/CDP 88-1 Village Faire with 1,000 square feet allowed for outside served seating. This action is approved specifically as indicated on Exhibit 4 showing a restaurant of 3,200 square feet and this proposal approved for a period of five years, but shall be reviewed by the Redevelopment Director annually and returned to the Design Review Board at any time they deem necessary. listed as verified by staff. The square footage of the Center to be Member Hall inquired what would happen if in one year there was a parking district or there were no problems, and what options did the applicant have. Mr. Salomone answered he could present an amendment and go through the same discussion. Chairperson Schramm stated she would like a staff report in a year to see how the project is proceeding. Assistant City Attorney Ball sugggested the report be one year from the opening date. Member Hall passed the gavel to incoming Chairperson Schramm for the coming year. AD30URNMENT : By proper motion, the Meeting of February 15, 1989, was adjourned at 6:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A CHRIS SALOMONE Housing and Redevelopment Director Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk Schr amm Hall McCoy