HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-28; Design Review Board; Resolution 2541
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
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 254
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING THE APPEAL AND DENYING
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE TO A COFFEE
HOUSE AT 2924 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1
AND THE LOCAL COASTAL ZONE OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: MEDICAL OFFICE CONVERSION (STARBUCKS)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (ARP 97-01) TO ALLOW THE
APN: 203-174-04,05
CASE NO: ARP 97-01
WHEREAS, Jeff Rasak, “Applicant” filed a verified application with the
Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad for a conversion of an existing
medical office to a coffee house and exterior improvements at property located at 2924
Carlsbad Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1997, the Housing and Redevelopment Director, after
considering all factors relating to the Administrative Redevelopment and Coastal Development
Permit (ARP 97-01), aRDroved said application and gave notice of the final local decision,
pursuant to 2 1.8 1.055@), based upon the requirements of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual, the Village Redevelopment Plan and the Local Coastal
Program (which consists of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and the
Village Area Redevelopment Plan); and
...
....
...
....
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
20
r
DRB Reso. No. 254
April 28,1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, several appeals of the Housing and Redevelopment Director’s
noticed decision to approve the subject project (ARP 97-01) were filed in a timely manner with
the Secretary to the Design Review Board (Housing and Redevelopment Director) on April 1 1,
1997 and April 14, 1997, and did identify specific reasons for the appeals, which included
problems with traffic, trash, parking and inconsistencies with established standards; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 1997, the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeals and at
said hearing considered all the evidence, testimony, and arguments of those persons present and
desiring to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
Board as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented during the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby GRANTS the appeals of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director’s decision on the subject Administrative
Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit (ARP 97-01) and
DENIES the administrative permit, overturning the Director’s decision,
based on the following findings:
1. The appellants did show with a preponderance of evidence that the decision
of the Director was in error and inconsistent with State Law, the General
Plan, the Village Redevelopment Area Plan, the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, Chapters 21.81 or 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
or any policy of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission or the City
of Carlsbad because the Design Review Board did determine that the
administrative redevelopmentkoastal development permit was not
appropriate for the subject project because the cost of the interior and
exterior improvements were estimated to exceed $60,000 and therefore the
Housing and Redevelopment Director exceeded his authority in granting
approval of the subject administrative permit.
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
P
DRB Reso. No. 254
April 28, 1997
Page 3
2.
3.
The Design Review Board did determine that the applicant was required to
submit an application for a Minor Redevelopment Permit and Minor
Coastal Development Permit in order to be consistent with the Local
Coastal Plan, Village Redevelopment Plan, Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, and Chapters 21.35 and 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Design Review
Board. The action is not appealable to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission or City Council. Since the project is not located in the
appealable area of the Local Coastal Zone, it is also not appealable to the
California Coastal Commission. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANTn
“The time withii which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if withiin ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of
such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the
thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party,
or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
proceedings shall be filed with the ”Secretary to the Design Review Board”, which is the Housing and
Redevelopment Director, City of Carlsbad, 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, California,
92008. ”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28” day of April, 1997 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES: Welshons, Compas, Scheer
NOES: Savary
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Marquez
Design Review Board
Evan E. Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director