HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-25; Design Review Board; Resolution 3131 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 313
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION DENYING
4 ADMINISTRATIVE REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT RP 06-08 TO CONVERT
AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE TO OFFICE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2898 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE
6 CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
7 CASE NAME: HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
APN: 203-291-03
8 CASE NO: RP 06-08
9
10 WHEREAS, Gary Nessim, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by MacDonald
12 Properties L.P., "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-291-03, and more
13
thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and14
-, t- WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Administrative Redevelopment
16 Permit, as shown on Attachment "E" dated May 24, 2006, on file in the Housing and
17 Redevelopment Department, "HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP 06-08", as provided
1 O
by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19
WHEREAS, the Housing & Redevelopment Director denied Administrative
20
Redevelopment Permit RP 06-08 HOME LIFE VILLAGE REALTORS on July 6, 2006;
22
23 WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an appeal of the Housing & Redevelopment
24 Director's denial of Administrative Redevelopment Permit RP 06-08 HOME LIFE
25 VILLAGE REALTORS to the Design Review Board; and
26
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25th day of September, 2006, hold a
27
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and2o
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
2 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to
3
"HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP 06-08."
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
6 follows:
7 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
o
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board DENIES the appeal of the decision made by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director regarding HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP
10 06-08, based on the following findings:
11 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS;
12 1. The Design Review Board finds that the project is not in conformance with the Elements of
13 the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth in the
staff report dated September 25,2006 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
as outlined within the General Plan, because the proposed office use will break
up retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue and eliminate a very
17 key retail location from the Village inventory, which does not help to preserve,
enhance or maintain the shopping experience within the Village but rather
detracts from it. Additionally, the pedestrian activity within the Village may be
reduced through the elimination of retail space at a very key location and the
break in retail continuity potentially creating a less profitable business setting
20 for the retail oriented Village Center.
21 b. The project is inconsistent with the Village Master Plan in that the proposed
project does not assist in satisfying the goals and objectives hi that: 1) an office
use at the proposed location will detract from the retail shopping experience
23 within the Village, 2) the proposed office use will upset the retail continuity
along State Street and Grand Avenue. The proposed office use will not provide
24 improvements to the pedestrian circulation within the Village Area, 3) any new
improvements associated with the proposed project will be negligible and
predominantly interior improvements therefore, the project will not help in
stimulating property improvements or new development in the Village, 4) the
proposed office use will not improve the physical appearance of the Village
27 Redevelopment Area.
28
DRBRESONO. 313 -2-
c. The project is inconsistent with Land Use District 1 of the Village
2 Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and does not satisfy the
findings that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals because an
3 office use at the subject property will negatively impact existing and future retail
continuity in the area as the site is located within a significant concentration of
retail shops and at a prominent pedestrian oriented location within the Village
_ Center where retail activity is encouraged. Adjacent uses along State Street and
Grand Avenue are primarily retail or restaurant which add to the retail
5 continuity of the Village and reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment in
the Village. An office use at the proposed location will break up the retail
7 continuity not only on State Street but Grand Avenue as well. Furthermore, the
subject property is at a prominent location within the Village center at the
intersection of two main pedestrian oriented arteries (State Street and Grand
Avenue) where many people converge to meet at the water fountain (across the
street from the site) and engage in pedestrian oriented shopping. An office use
10 at the subject property will hurt the pedestrian shopping experience by breaking
up the existing and future retail continuity in the area.
1« 2. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the requirement for
13 the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270-Projects Which Are
Disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 313 -3-
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 meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of September, 2006 by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
SCHUMACHER
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAKER, HAMILTON, HEINEMAN, LAWSON AND
NONE
NONE
NONE
COURTNE¥4ffiBffiMA1*r CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 313 -4-