Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-06; Design Review Board; ; RP 86-23 - MARK GOMBARDATE TO: FROM: • APPLICATI DECEMBER S'l'APP RBPOR'!' MAY 6, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DATE: 1986 A-.!)~ -----~ SUBJECT: RP 86-23 -MARKT. GOMBAR -Request for a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street in Subarea 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board recommend APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 097 recommending APPROVAL of RP 86- 23, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION This project, RP 86-23, was previously heard before the Design Review Board on March 25, 1987. At that time, staff was recommending denial of the project because the project: (1) did not comply with the 20 foot rear yard setback requirement of the RP zone, (2) did not include integrated parking, and (3) was not compatible with surrounding uses because of its height, mass, and scale. The Design Review Board passed a motion to send the project back to staff for redesign. Their specific concerns included: (1) the project's massive and non-village like appearance, as well as (2) its non-integrated parking. As shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", the project has been extensively redesigned to address these concerns as discussed on the following pages. The architecture of the structure has changed from a Federalist Revival style to a Bavarian Village style. The former project's non-village appearance, height, and mass have been effectively revised through the incorporation of the following architectural features into the structure: (1) changing the roof to a mansard style with a steeper pitch and cedar shake shingles, (2) incorporating window dormers into the sloping roof with the project's second floor located behind the roof, (3) incuding exposed false rafters at the base of the roof overhangs, (4) including a rounded tower entry with a segregated turret style roof at the front of the structure, and (5) using cultured stone as the primary construction material for the tower and the project's surrounding base wall. • • Although the project remains 35 feet in height, it is important to note that the upper four feet of the structure is used exlusively for storage of air conditioning and heating equipment. The applicant is willing to reduce the height of the structure by four feet; however, it is staff's opinion that in this case, the additional four feet of building height is important for purposes of creating this village oriented structure. Otherwise, with these revisions, the structure's total square footage has been reduced by 2400 square feet, from 10,800 square feet to 8400 square feet. All of the aforementioned revisions function to reduce the structure's mass thereby creating a more village like, pedestrian oriented structure. Because the roof has been more steeply pitched, and the second story has been effectively stepped back, the structure will not appear as tall from the street. The project has also been made more pedestrian oriented through the creation of an open landscaped plaza area within the front yard setback adjacent to the project's entry way. This plaza will include a brook and waterfall surrounded by textured walkways, specimen landscaping, and park benches. The project's parking layout has also been revised as much as is possible in order to come into compliance with Engineering Department Policy No. 22 which requires integrated parking. The project has been redesigned so that a car entering either project driveway can circulate in a forward direction in search of a parking space and exit the property onto Roosevelt Street via either driveway. This revision provides through circulation and reduces potential traffic conflicts associated with vehicles having to back up either internally or onto Roosevelt Street. However, complete compliance with Engineering Policy No. 22 would require that the project circulate entirely onsite without project vehicles having to use the traveled way of Roosevelt Street as a circulation element of the parking area. Although the project's driveway and parking layout does not technically comply with Engineering Department policy, the Engineering Department is willing to recommend support of this particular project because: (1) the overall project circulation has been improved onsite, and (2) since there is not a significant amount of traffic generated along this portion of Roosevelt Street, the use of Roosevelt Street as part of the project's circulation is not anticipated to cause significant conflicting traffic movements. With these revisions, the project also complies with the overall goals of Subarea 6 and all required setbacks and other development standards of the V-R Zone and the Village Design Manual. -2- • Overall, because the project applicant has been willing to redesign the project and its architecture so that it now is less massive and more village like in appearance, and because its parking has been improved, staff recommends approval of RP 86- 23. For additional details, please see the attached staff report to the Design Review Board dated March 25, 1987. ATTACHMENTS 1) Design Review Board Resolution No. 097 2) Staff Report, dated March 25, 1987 3) Exhibits •A• -•B•, dated April 23, 1987 CDD:dm 4/27/87 -3- ~· TYPICAi. BBCTIQN , litaaa•v•&:T !I!~ D~ .. 1a•JCGMM••a1AL I UPPER LEVEL DNE. (UPPBR 1.l!VBI. TWO BIMII.AR) ..,: "' 8 [i "' 0 0 cc Jli ti : ' ... .$11': i<' 'I!. -:· .. ~--- ... :!. ARCHITECT ...._n ~-a., •• a.1.a. HS6MOHNltJC.IJ eari ..... C::.I HOGI GENERAL. NDTE_Bj ans ACJ1&A01 •••• :.:· •••• :.:::~: .21, &.C11U I UJ.S!'UO lad/J.an au , , , •.... afflC&/OCNIIUCil, rllOl'oac ~ vat ••••••••••••• Of'l'IC&/Cl»Mll!Oil" : torU. 9UILDDIO COQJWII , ,•• ••• 6,ltO lltCL. aDllZIDIO IQ. l'OOTAH •• ••••• ••• 1100 ~. n, , nllezft 1-UmaCUllla , , , , , , , , , , , lf>I I~':~~::::::::::::::::::; JCCRPJC'l',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., •• 11Jtl I I -·. - iSECTION ~ .,c,,. -•~~UTH ELEVATION , WEST ELEVATION L .. 4. , aTAINaD 'woaa '.a~a.-. -TIM•a111.a AND. T , •Tuaaa ; .. OUL.TU ... D aTaN• ...... '°". ~ I':::! ~ d @:,, ~ ~ =>. p d y !:!cl ..I ~ c( !:!cl u p, -. d D !:!cl c( ~ m !:!cl ~ m. © ..I, a: © c(: ~i u APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: • DECEMBER ..__1_9_8_6 ____ _ • cJ< STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 1987 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 86-23 -MARKT. GOMBAR -Request for a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street in Subarea 6 of the Village Redevelopment area. I • RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 097 DENYING RP 86-23, based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building located as described above. The proposal would entail the development of a three story (34 foot tall), 10,800 square foot structure. The architecture of the proposed structure would be federalist revival in nature. The architectural materials of the structure would include sand textured stucco with painted wood trim. Gabled roof elements and shuttered windows with mullions would also be included to add architectural interest. Project parking (36 spaces) will be provided at grade and will occupy the entirety of the structures first floor. A six foot high masonry base wall with stucco will be incorporated to partially screen the at-grade parking lot from view from surrounding properties. The subject property is currently developed with the Carlsbad Board of Realtors office (one-story) with associated parking and landscaping. The property is surrounded by a one story single family residence to the north, a one story medical office (Eye Care Center) to the east, a one story neighborhood commercial center (Roosevelt Center) to the west and a concrete company to the south. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project conform with the goals of Subarea 6 and the development standards of the Village Design Manual? • • 2) Does the proposed project conform with the development standards of the V-R zone? 3) Is the proposed project compatible with surrounding uses? Discussion The primary redevelopment goal for Subarea 6 is to maintain the existing residential character of the zone while maximizing an office and professional buffer around the predominant residential subarea. In that the project is an office use which is in close proximity to the northern perimeter of Zone 6, conformity with this subarea goal is assured. The proposed project site is located within the V-R zone. However, since the V-R zone does not include specific development standards, it is implied by the Village Design Manual that development within any of the Village Subareas shall be subject to the development standards associated with uses permitted within the specific subarea. In this case, uses permitted within Subarea 6 include those uses permitted in the R-3 and R-P zones. In accordance, the proposed office project is subject to the development standards of the R-P zone. As proposed, this project is not in compliance with the required 20 foot rear setback of the R-P zone. Nor is the project in compliance with Engineering Department Policy No. 22, which requires that integrated parking be provided, so as to preclude the necessity for vehicles entering the driveway to maneuver, or stack within the traveled way (Roosevelt Street) or to use the traveled way as a circulation element of the parking area served by the driveway. Staff is unable to make the findings necessary to support the requested rear yard setback exemption as discussed below. It is staff's opinion that the project as proposed is relatively massive in scale when compared to surrounding uses and when viewed from Roosevelt Street. In view of this concern the project applicant has been willing to setback the structure 30 feet from Roosevelt Street instead of the required 20 feet for purposes of mitigating the appearance of the large mass presented by the structure. However, by setting the building back an additional 10 feet from Roosevelt Street, the building as proposed encroaches into the rear yard setback. Staff believes that the propoed 30 foot front yard setback is preferable from a visual prospective, and would be more in keeping with the overall design and open space goals of the Village Design Manual. However, staff also believes that the structure, because of its height and mass, should also comply with the other setback requirements. Staff is also unable to support the projects non-integrated parking design, because of the additional conflicting traffic -2- movement that this could create along Roosevelt Street. In order to come into compliance with the required 20 foot rear yard setback and to provide integrated parking with an adequate number of parking spaces, the project would have to be redesigned. It is also staff's opinion that the project is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses primarily because of its height (35 feet), mass and scale. The majority of the existing surrounding uses are one story in height with variable setbacks and lot coverages. It is important to note that many of the surrounding uses are older structures which will likely be redeveloped over the next decade. Since Subarea 6 is currently only in the preliminary stages of being redeveloped (RP 86-23 is one of the first redevelopment proposals in this Subarea), it is extremely important that the first project approved within this Subarea include or comply with all of the specific development standards and design guidelines which are deemed necessary to ensure the creation of an aesthetically appealing and functional village redevelopment Subarea. This brings to issue a greater concern of staffs that the City's Village Design Manual simply does not provide enough specific direction with regard to applicable development standards, (le height, parking, lot coverage) and design guidelines (ie architecture, pedestrian orientations, open space amenities). Although the Redevelopment area needs more flexibility than other areas, staff feels that without more specific guidelines and standards for each unique Subarea, there is concern that several of the primary goals of the Village Area Redevelopment plan (including the creation of open space amenities, pedestrian pathways and linkages, pedestrian scale, active streetscapes, village atmosphere and a degree of Village conformity throughout) may never be achieved. In summary, because the proposed project does not comply with the rear yard setback requirement of the R-P zone, does not include integrated parking and is not compatible with surrounding uses because of its height, mass and scale, staff ls recommending denial of RP 86-23. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on March 14, 1987. ATTACHMENTS 1) Design Review Board Resolution No. 097 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Environmental Document 6) Reduced Exhibits 7) Exhibits "A" -"D", dated December 15, 1986 CDD:bn 2/18/87 -3- ,~---~~-~-- 1 ! I n > :II r-.. a, > g .. r-< g BEECH AVE GENERAL PLAN HSIDINTIAL Rl LOW DENSITI' ( O· I 5) RLM lOW·MEDll"M DENSITI' (0-4) RM MEDIL:M DENSITI'(4·8) RMH MEDIL:M HIGH DENSITI'(8-i,) RH HIGH DENSITI'(15-23) COMMIRCIAL RR! INTINSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (eg. Plaza Camino Real) RR.E EXTINSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (es. Car Country Carlsbad) RS REGIONAL SERVICE C COMMl"NITI' COMMERClAL N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERClAL TS TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERClAL 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED CBD CENTRAL BLSINESS DISTRICT Pl PLANNEDINDLSTRIAL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES U Pl"BLIC l"TIUTIES RC RECREATION COMMERClAL SCHOOLS E ELEMENfARY J Jl'NIOR HIGH H HIGH SCHOOL P PRIVATI OS OPEN SPACE NRR NON RESIDENTlAL RESERVE ZONING RISIDINTIAL P·C PLANmD COMML'NITI' ZONE R·A RESIDENTIAL AGRICl'lTlRAL ZONE R·E Rl"R.U RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONE R-1 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R-2 1"''0-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R· 3 :\ll"LTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R· 3L LIMITED Mt:LTI· FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE RD·M RESIDENTIAL DENSITY·Ml'LTIPLE ZONE RD·H RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-HIGH ZONE RMHP RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE R-P RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONE RT RESIDENTIAL TOL:RIST ZONE RW RESIDENTIAL \l:-\TERWAY ZONE COMMIRCIAL 0 omCEZONE C· 1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERClAL ZONE C· 2 GEN!'llAJ. COMMERClAL ZONE C·T COMMERClAL·TOl"RIST ZONE C-M HEAVY COMMERClAL·LIMITED lNDUSTRlAL ZONE M lNDUSTRlAL ZONE P·M PLANNED lNDUSTRlAL ZONE OTHIR F·P FLOODPWN OVERLAY ZONE L·C LIMITED CONTitOL 05 OPEN SPACE P·U PUBLIC lJTIUTY ZONE GOMBAR City of Carlsbad RP 86-23 • BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP 86-23 APPLICANT: MARKT. GOMBAR REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Redevelopment Permit to develop a profes- sional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street. LEGAL CESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 45 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map there- of No. 1722, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Acres .276 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 ---------- GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RMH/0 -----'---- Density Allowed ---------- Existing Zone V-R Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Site North Zoning V-R R-3 South V-R East V-R West V-R Density Proposed -------~ Proposed Zone V-R --------- Land Use Board of Realtors SF Residential Concrete Co. Eye Care Center Roosevelt Commercial Center PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 4, 1986 ------------------~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~Negative Declaration, issued March 14, 1987 E.I.R. Certified, dated -------------~ Other, •• DISCLOSURE FORM • APPLICANr: MARKT. GOMBAR AGENI': MEMBERS: Name (individual, i;:artnership, joint venture,. corporation, syrxlication) 2725 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, cA. 92008 Business Address 434-1742 Telephone Nl.Elber Henry Tubbs Name 690 Elm Street, Suite #204, Carlsbad, cA. 92008 Business Address 434-7173 Telephone Nl.Elber Robert Size Name (individual, i;artner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 28322 La Coleta, Mission Viejo 9269: Home Address 2725 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Business Address (714) 770-6060 Telephone Number Telephone Nurrber Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach nore sheets if necessary} The applicant is required to apply for Coastal Commission Approval if located in the Coastal lone. I/We declare under i:;enalty of i:;erjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct arrl may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. MARKT. GOMBAR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT €itp of €arlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION • 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: This project is located at 2558 Roosevelt Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project, RP 86-23, will include a 10,800 square foot professional office building over a .276 acre site in the V-R (Village Redevelopment) zone. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a r·esult of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents ls on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA., 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 14, 1987 CASE NO: RP 86-23 APPLICANT: Gombar PUBLISH DATE: March 14, 1987 ND4 11/85 .. ~L~~~ Planning Director TYPICAL. ••cTIDN Raaa•v•L.T aT. - .,. . - 1 i ~ ... v / ' ltn,- !III ::111 ...... , ............. I -, n .BCCND FLCCR PLAN THIRD FLDCR SIMILAR I --, ! - --1 I I I l~~ .1~·1 IJ...===··---=-1 U ..r ·a •1 .. .. .. cr::. .. -1 I I ........ r I I ----I -- I.. I ,. " I .. M M , ·-I ,-__ J I 4 ,flf l • •· ki-~ ,, • n . ., • .. I -.a •91 ·a ,,J~ tJ...1 --w.>0 UT ·:I Jt'• 1i...• 0 FM I • t! BITE PLAN VICINITY ·MAP ....... ..,.. - APPLICANT ---..... , ......... , c.r, ..... c..tlNI ARCHITEICT ...... , ....... ~ •• &. '"'..._ .... ., c.ra ..... c. . .- GENERAL NDTEIS 11n~ ...........•....•.• m...-. .,unr•~-............ ~ ~&,£9-................. ~,"' leta&. Nl&.9PII ............. '·"' ... "· •it.ai• •· ...,.... .......... u.ti• A'-n. nlClft ~1• •.••..••••• 1n .......... liQI u,, •••••••••••• )l -. = • !!! ,i ~ !!! u p . c::! a !!! c( ~ m !!! ID {!i) .I (:} a: (:} c( ~ u <i -fl.-... ., -., -°"' ---, •?, - '. --.. ~ ~ ~ d ••••••••• ea, . .............. ~ ~ = • ti .... .,. eAND TaxTu•• •Tu II ii ~ . ~ c( I ' ~ u I I F' . ' d D ~ c( l ~ m ~ m (OJ .I ~ a: ~ c( ~ u NCRTH BLl!VATIDN l!ABT llLEV~'T1CN SOUTH BLEVA'T1DN WEST EL&VATIDN 0 1 l .. J .. ..