HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-19; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 81; GombarHC4JSING AND - DEVELOPMENT COMMISS.-“Y - AGENDA BfLL
iB# 81 TITLE: RP 86-23 MARK T. GOMBAR ATG. 5119187
IEPT. RED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY Amhit&
CITY MO&?%-
If Commission concurs, your action is to adopt Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. s approving RP 86-23 Mark T. Gombar. ml?
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The applicant, Mark T. Gombar, is requesting approval of a major redevelopment permit to develop a professional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street in Subarea 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
Design Review Board at their meeting of March 25, 1987, heard this proposal and recommended denial because of the following factors:
11 The project did not comply with the 20 foot rear yard setback requirement of the RP Zone.
21 The project did not include integrated parking.
31 The project was not compatible with surrounding uses due to its height, mass and scale.
The applicant, at the request of the Design Review Board, worked with staff and the project was extensively redesigned. The Design Review Board is recommending approval of RP 86-23 Gombar, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report attached herein.
FISCAL IMPACT
No detailed economic impact analysis of this development has been determined.
EXHIBITS
l- Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. asp:0%8
2- Design Review Board staff report dated May 6, 1987.
I
2
5 .
4
F c
E
‘i
E
5
1C
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 888.-
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
AT THE 2558 ROOSEVELT STREET SUBAREA 6 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE FILE: RP 86-23
APPLICANT: MARK T. GOMBAR
WHFXEAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the
19th day of May, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of Lot 25 of Seaside Lands, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the County Recorder, County of San Diego.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to RP 86-23 Mark T. Gombar.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
11 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
21 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES RP 86-23, Mark T. Gombar, for the reasons stated in Design Review Board Resolution NO. 097. The findings of the Design Review Board shall constitute the finding of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission in the matter.
I///
////
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad,
California, held on the 19th day of May, 1987, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
(SEW
/I//
I///
/I//
/I//
,
. ’
-.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1986 w
STAP? RB?ORT
DATE MAY 6, 1987
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RP 86-23 - MARK T. 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.
Th.e 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 wi'th 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-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 097
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP AN 8400 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2558 ROOSEVELT STREET. APPLICANT: MARK T. GOMBAR CASE NO: RP 86-23
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City 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 6th day of May, 1987, hold a
duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on
property described as:
That portion of Lot 45 of Seaside Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
acco'rding to Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 86-23.
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 the public hearing, the Board APPROVES RP 86-23, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
(1) The project complies with the overall goals of Subarea 6 of the Village Design Manual and the development standards of the V-R Zone and the Village Design Manual.
/I//
/I//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
I///
////
The project has been redesigned to be less massive and its architeture more village like in appearance. Its parking ha: also been improved, to be acceptable, as discussed in the
staff report.
The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity 01
the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the development.
The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a)
b)
C 1
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 sewel service remains available, and the Planning Commission i: satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as the] 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 that public facilities wil: be available concurrent with need as required by the
General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on March 14, 1987 and approved by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1987.
This project requires the construction of the improvements OI
facilities listed in the conditions of approval or the
payment of fees in lieu of construction. This project
creates a direct need for the improvements or facilities for
the reasons stated in the staff report. If the improvements
or facilities are not provided the project will create an
unmitigated burden on existing improvements.and facilities.
Further, the improvements and facilities are necessary to
provide safe, adequate and appropriate service to future residents of the project consistent with City goals, policie!
and plans.
DRB RESO. NO. 097 -2-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(7) The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or
development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a development management or
public facility program ultimately adopted by the City of
Carlsbad. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created
by the project.
(8) The project is consistent with the provisions of Chapter I
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the plans adopted
pursuant of this Chapter or has signed an agreement to be subject to such plans when they are adopted.
Conditions:
(1) Approval is granted for RP 86-23, as shown on Exhibits "A"
and "B", dated April 23, 1987, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
(2) 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 facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until
time of occupancy.
(3) This project is also approved under the express condition
that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by
the City Council on April 22, 1986 and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated December 4, 1986, and the agreement to pay the Growth Management Fee dated May 4, 1987,
1986, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk and are incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
('4 1 Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
(51 Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Costa Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
////
DRB RESO. NO.097 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
////
.-
The applicant shall prepare a 24" x 36" reproducible mylar o
the final site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein. Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved b the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irriga- tion plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits, whichever occurs first. All trees propose
shall be of a high canopy variety and be of a specimen size.
All shrubs shall be a minimum of five gallons in size.
All landscaped areas including the water feature shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
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 Planning Director prior to
installation of such signs.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry and cultured stone wall with gates pursuant to City
standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved b
the Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the
sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, pursuan to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Planning and Building.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on
all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible
from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements
or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without
the condition complies with all requirements of law.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance a storage plan
will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director.
DRB RESO. NO.897 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
applicant shall be required to submit elevations for the
northern and eastern sides of the building. These elevations shall be required to be comparable in design as
the southern and western elevations, and shall be subject to
th.e approval of the community Redevelopment Manager.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit,
whichever comes first, a soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report
indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material
then a two phased program shall be undertaken to avoid
possible significant impacts on paleontological resources.
This project is approved subject to the condition that no
medical offices be allowed to occupy/lease any portion of the
building. Should the applicant at a later date intend to lease any of the structure for medical office use, additional parking shall be required to be provided at a ratio
consistent with the parking ordinance in effect at that
time.
This project is approved upon the condition that flatstone paving materials be incorporated into both project driveways.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Director, for review and approval, a detailed site plan for
the entryway plaza.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits
are not issued for this project within one year from the date
of project approval.
This project is approved subject to the condition that it be constructed per the approved elevations shown on Exhibit
"Bnl dated April 23, 1987. Any revisions to these approved
elevations shall require the approval of the Planning Director.
Engineering Conditions:
(2'2 1 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.
/I//
I///
DRB RESO NO. 097 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(301
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
Prior to hauling dirt or construction mateerials to or from 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 th
hauling operation.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
The owner of the subject property shall execute a hold
harmless agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent
property prior to approval of any grading or building permit
for this project.
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 install street lights along all public
and private street frontages in conformance with City of
Carlsbad Standards.
The developer.shall install street trees at the equivalent c
40-foot intervals along all public street frontages in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The trees shal
be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
The developer shall install sidewalks along all public stree
frontages of this project in conformance with City of
Carlsbad Standards prior to occupancy of any buildings.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this
project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1.
The developer shall post a cash deposit in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer to ensure the replacement of any damaged public improvements incured during the development of this site.
~11 driveways serving this development shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and built in accordance with City standards.
DRB RESO NO. 097 -6-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
2:
24
25
26
27
2E
Fire Conditions:
(351
(36)
(371
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal.
The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval.
Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building
plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Department.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior to combustible building materials
being located on the project site.
Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with 'Knox"
key operated override switch, as specified by the Fire De- partment.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire Lane-To Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code'.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Building exceeding 10,000 sq.ft. aggregate floor area shall be sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with no openings therein which shall split the building into 10,000 sq.ft. (0 less) areas.
Water District Conditions:
(44) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the entire water
system for the subject property shall be evaluated in detail
to insure adequate capacity for domestic landscaping and to
ensure that fire flow demands are addressed.
(45) The applicant's engineer shall be required to schedule a
meeting with the Water District Engineer to review the
preliminary water system layout prior to preparation of the water system improvement plans.
////
I///
DRB RESO. NO. 097 -7-
, ’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 : 5.
.$’ 1E
p 1s
2c
21
2i
22
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 6th
ATTEST:
day of May, 1987, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairperson CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CHRIS SALOMONE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
DRB RESO. NO. 097 -8-
i..i;: :
;4
-
‘0 z 10 0
::! I
i. - --
-1
<r n
‘?
1: 6 t
L- .z
t
t
1-1 II
t --
3 !fl :! go D2 L 6
- :..
~
yYf&
lf : ‘L < :.
0
f i w
u
‘..& ‘4-o _ ’ 9 -. ;
‘# -.- --
ROBERT J.rROYCE A.I.A. e@oosEvEkv EmiEc:ruq)vg pi.bizm
Archit~ctur~tPlann~~glln~rior~
APPLICA-?N SUBMITTAL DATE:
DECEMBEh 4, 1986
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 25, 1987
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBgECT: RP 86-23 - MARK T. 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. PR03ECT 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 off ice (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 sp-ecific
direction with regard to applicable development standards, (ie 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 is 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 IIA1t - “D”, dated December 15, 1986
CDD:bn
2/18/87 -3-
.
L
.
.
i i
GENERAL PLAN ZONINQ
RWSIDINTlAl RI. LOW DE!MlY (0.1.3) RLW 1OW.MEDIC.M OENSllY(04)
RW MEDICM DENSIlY(4.8) RMli MEDICM HIGH DENSITY (0. IS) RJf HIGH DF.NSIlY(lS~ZS) COMMlRclAl RN INTENSR-E REGIONAL REMIL (m Plus Cmtno Meal t RRE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL llETAlL (cc Car Country Cuhbacl) RS REGIONAL SERVICE C COMHL’NIlYCOMMEKlAL N NEIGHBORHWD COMMERCLAL TS TRAVEL SEllVICES COMMERCLAL 0 PROFESSIONAL REFILATt3’ CID CENTRAL 8CSINESS DIS
RcslDRNm~~ ,-m P-C PlAMWJDC( %iMcNITY ZONE %A RESIDENTLU L AGRKL-LTMAL ZONE KE RClcU RESIDEMlAL ESTATE ZONE RI ONE.FAMILY RESIOFB-TLU ZOM R.I l=‘O.FAMILY RESIDE!! ZONE X.3 .W(cLTlPLE FAMILY RESIDENTlALZONe ll.SL LLMITED MCLTi.FMILY MSIDENllAL LONE RD.M RESlDEhTlAi L DENSIlYMLZTIPLE ZONE m.H RESIDENTLA~~. ~~~ L DENSIlYHlGH ZONE RMHP RESIDENTLU .~OlllU E HOME PARK ZONE R.P RESIDENIUL PROOW iSlONM ZONE Rr RESI DEhl-lAL TOURIST ZONE aw R.ESl DL*FIW WATERWAY ZONE CO1 ilUCY
..-
PI PUVNED INDCSTMAL G tO\‘ERNMENT FACILITIES U PllLlC LTlLlTIES C RECXEATION COMMERCW II
SCnOOLs E ELE.WENTAAIIY , JI’NIOR HIGH H HIGH SCHOOL P PtUVATE
0 C.I C.1 GE CT co
ICE ZONE ;HFtORHWD CO.WMERClAl ZONE NERAL COMJ - -~MMERclAl-T GM HEAWCOMMEl M lNmm-m,*, 7oF.c P4
WERCWZOM ‘OCNST ZONE RCLALLIMITED INDUSTNAL ZONE .mm
City of Carlsbad
- ---.. ----. - I( Pl.ANNEDIMX’STILWZoNE
OTWR F.P FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ZONE (y nDCN CD.l-C NR I_ -._ . ..I. ..-- 1 NON RESIDENTLAL RESERVE
LX LIMITED COKlwL ret% CDU-r -cG I-.- .-...-
r.1 - u PLmJc utlm ZONE
RP 86-23 GOMBAR
.- -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE No: RP 86-23
APPLICANT: MARK T. GOMBAR
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Redevelopment Permit to develop a profes-
sional office building at 2558 Roosevelt Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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 /O
Density Allowed -s-B Density Proposed ----
Existina Zone V-R Proposed Zone V-R
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Site V-R
North R-3
South V-R
East V-R
West V-R
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Land Use
Board of Realtors
SF Residential
Concrete Co.
Eve Care Center
Roosevelt Commercial Center
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU’s ----
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 4, 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued March 14, 1987
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
-22
DISCLOSURE FORM b
APPLICANT:
AGENI:
MEMBERS:
MARK T. GOMBAR
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture,.corporation, syrdication)
2725 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Business AddreSS
434-1742
Telephone Nunber
Henry Tubbs NdIE
690 Elm Street, Suite #204, Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Business Address
434-7173
Telephone NUnher
Robert Size 28322 La Coleta, Mission Viejo 921
Nm (individual, partner, joint time Address venture, corporation, syndication)
2725 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Business Address
(714) 770-6060
Telephone Number Telephone N-r
Home Pddress
Business Address
Telephone N&r TelephoneNtir
(Attach nxxe sheets if necessary)
The applicant is required to apply for Coastal Commission Approval if located in the Coastal Zone,
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true ard correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
MARK T. GOMBAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ditp of CarIs’bab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619)436-1161
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: This project is located at 2558 Roosevelt
Street.
PR03ECT IX%CRIPTION: 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 result 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 is 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 ND: RP 86-23
MICHAEL 3. HOCZMILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: Gombar
PUBLISH DATE: March 14, 1987
ND4
11/85
. .- - -. .
.’
ROEERT J. F’C3YCE A.I.A.
ArchltocturwP ng~lnmriam RCNDOlWELU lEXlEC’-T.lVE PLAZA =j,am: $ . . . . r.9. ., C-rlammm. C.,. ..OD. .a.-.*.. CARLOBAD, CA.
_ _ .- _. - -.- _ _ _ ._ .- - - .. . _ ._ _.._ .._., _ _-- . ..- -.-... .---.. ---__ __._ _ ._-- _.._
I : II
b . II
.
/.’
87
t I
. --
K
a -A t ----- \
/ \ 3 . .
.--w
db d i .ti
-- I I
.-
.
Car&bad Journal
Decreed A legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party toor interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligenceof a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next --- preceding the date of publication of the notice
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
No. 1722; filed In the Office of the
COIintY Recorder of San Dlego
County.
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
NOTUZ IS HEREBY GIVEN that Those persona wlshlng to speak
the Housing end Redevelopment on this proposal are cordially ln. published in each regular and entire issue of said
Commlrslon of the City ofcerirbed vtted to attend the public hewing,
WlU hold II publlc hesrlng nt the If YOU have any questions please newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
CltY Councfl Chambers, 1200 Elm call the Redevelopment Office at
Avenue, Cwlnbrd, Cslllornta, on 42c2811. the following dates, to-wit:
Tuesdw, May 18,1887, et 8:oo p.m., If YOU challenge the Redevelop
to consider rpprovrl of a major re- ment Permit In court, you may be
dwWmmnt permit to develop P llmlted to rrlslng only those lrsuep
ProfeSSIonPI ~fflce bulldlng gener. You Or someone eke relsed at the May. .e,. 19.87.
malls located et 2Sde Roorevejt publtc herrlng described tn this no- ._..,..,_...........
street In Subarea 6 of the Vlll~pe ttce. or In wrltten correspondence
Redevelopment Area and more delivered to the City of Cerlsbnd at
Pertlculerly described 83: or prior to the public hearing.
That portton of Lot 46 of Serslde Crse Ftle: RP 86-22
Lands, In the City of Carlsbad, Applicant: MARK T. GOMRAR
County of San Diego. State of ceil- CITY OF HOUSING AND
fornia, accordlng to Map thereof REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
I RP ae23
. . . . . . . . . . . 19..
. . . . . . . . . . . 19..
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the
day of _ Msy r I%7 fik-z.j $Y&Qg J, of the Printer
CJ 4681: May 8, 1987