Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-12; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 352; 2917 State Street Commercial BuildingHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL W AB# 352 DEPT. HD m: 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING MTG. 11-12-02 R P 01 -04 CITY Amy.& DEPT. nlRED CITY MGm RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No-, APPROVING a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) for a 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building on property located at 2917 State Street as recommended by the Design Review Board. 360 I ITEM EXPLANATION: On September 23, 2002, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a major redevelopment permit for a two-story commercial (officehetail) building in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 3,750 square foot site is located on the west side of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. The site is bordered by a two-story commercial building to the north, a single-story restaurant to the south, State Street to the east, and North County Transit District public parking to the west (across alley). The remainder of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive includes a mixture of one and two-story structures consisting of various commercial uses. A majority of the second story businesses on State Street are office uses. square foot residential structure fronting on the alley, and a 440 square foot storage building located Existing structures on-site include a 927 square foot retail structure fronting on State Street, a 1,212 between the two. The proposed development consists of the demolition of all three existing buildings and the construction of a two-story commercial building with 3,296 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 2,876 square feet of office space on the second floor. Access to the second floor of the building is by stairway and elevator at the front entrance and a stairway at the rear entrance adjacent to the alley. Also located along the rear of the building is a 6-foot wide landscape area and enclosed dumpster. At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, Lawson abstain) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for 100% of the required parking (21 parking spaces). Comments provided by the Board members on the proposed project are provided in the attached draft minutes of the June 23'd meeting. The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report are also attached for the Commission's review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution. I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 352 FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have a positive fiscal impact in terms of increased property tax. The current assessed value of the project site is $260,241. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $1,032,000. The increase in value will result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $7,718 per year. The retail component of the project will also generate additional sales tax revenues to the City. Finally, it is anticipated that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of an outdated and underutilized property within the area. EXHIBITS: 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 dated September 23, 2002 1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution approving RPOl-04 No. 360. 3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated September 23, 2002, w/attachments 4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated September 23, 2002 2 Exhibit 1 HRC Resolution Approving RPO1-04 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 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 360. A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP01-04, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMERCIAL (OFFICERETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2917 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. APPLICANT: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING CASE NO: RP 01-04 PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR A TWO-STORY, WHEREAS, on September 23,2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) for a 6,172 square foot commercial (officelretail) building on property located at 2917 State Street,, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) be approved; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04); and WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting authorization to provide 100% of the project’s required parking off-site through participation in the Parking In- Lieu Fee Program; and WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a HRC RES0 NO. 360 PAGE 1 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 site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) is APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 289, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City HRC RESO NO. 360 PAGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 of Carlsbad. 4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: NOTICE TO APPLICANT: “The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to, 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 not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within 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 hisker attorney of record, if he/she has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.” PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the mhday of November 2002 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: HRC RES0 NO. 360 PAGE 3 Exhibit 2 DRB Resolution No. 289 dated Sept. 23, 2002 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 289 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 01-04, INCLUDING A REQUEST THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL (OFFICWRETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2917 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING APN: 203-293-10 CASE NO: RP 01-04 WHEREAS, Leor Lakritz, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Village Drive Partnership, “Owner”, described as Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block I of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California according to map thereof No. 535, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,1888 (“the Property”); and FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as shown on Exhibits “A-D” dated September 23,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23d day of September 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to “2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”. ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT 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 at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. 2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the findings contained herein to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is in conformance with the Elements of 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 23, 2002 including, but not limited to the following: a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for a commercial (retaiVoffice) use in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area. b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and 3) the project serves to enhance State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village. c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land DRB RES0 NO. 289 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. ..I Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Design Review Board finds that the DeveloperProperty owner qualifies to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will satisfy the parking requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings: a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in that 1) the proposed project is highly compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional retail and office space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike; 2) the proposed project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing more ground floor retail space in an area of high retail activity and the absence of on-site parking improves pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional curb cuts; 3) the proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Village Center (District 1)’ by providing for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding area; and 4) the project design optimizes use of the property while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. b. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located in that ground floor retail is a permitted use in Land Use District 1 and strongly encouraged in the Village Master Plan as a means of promoting retail continuity. Business and professional office uses are classified as a provisional use in District 1 and all required findings to permit this use on the second floor can be made. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -3- I I 1( 1: 1: 1: If I! 1( 1: 1t 1: 2( 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking demands in that the last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS: 4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. NOLLANDOLAN FINDING: 5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project, GENERAL CONDITIONS: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so (1 DRB RES0 NO. 289 -4- 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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 8. implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condtion all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 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 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, @) Agency's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 l a 9 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. 10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Landscape Conditions: 11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Noticine Conditions: 13. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 289 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. On-site Conditions: 14. Outdoor storage of material shall not occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E S 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 16. 17. 18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Buildmg Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment. All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A-C”. Any changes to the sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In- Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (21 spaces total). ENGINEERING CONDITIONS Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed redevelopment permit, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first. General: 1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. 3. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. The property owner and developer shall comply with recommended best management practices and any other provisions of the “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for New Commercial Building 2917 State Street, Carlsbad, dated April 24,2002 and revised July 23,2002, on file with the City. FeedApreements: 5. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. ... DRB RES0 NO. 289 -7- 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 21 28 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following code requirements. Fees: 1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. General: 3. 4. 5. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of final project approval. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -8- I ,. 1 - 4 < - t 7 a 9 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience a: “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. I1 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Sectior 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager fo~ processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to time11 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, 01 annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of September, 2002 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: .. DESIGN REV A’ITEST: 3 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 11 DRB RES0 NO. 289 -9- Exhibit 3 DRB Staff Report dated Sept. 23, 2002 \l A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD &&CATION COMDIETE DATE: 11/05/01 -: DAvid Rick CATEVRICAI EXEM~T~ON STA~~: LORI ROSENSTE~N MikE GRIM ITEM NO. 1 DATE: September 23,2002 SUBJECT RP 01-04 - “2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING”: Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building on property located at 2917 State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 289 recommending APPROVAL of. RP 01-04 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The property owner, Carlsbad Village Drive Partnership, has requested a Major Redevelopment property located at 2917 State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot commercial (retaivoffice) building on Redevelopment Area. The property is located on the west side of State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. The site is bordered by a two-story commercial building to the north that includes a restaurant (Caldo Pomodoro), bar (The Alley), hair salon (De Stefano), ice cream shop (Cafe Dolce) with office uses on the second floor. Other surrounding uses include a single-story restaurant (Vigilucci’s) to the south, State Street to the east, and North County Transit District public parking to the west (across alley). The remainder of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive includes a mixture of one and two-story commercial structures consisting of retail businesses, hair salons, restaurants with outdoor cafes, a pub, coffee shop, and shoe repair. A majority of the second story businesses on State Street are office uses. The subject property measures 3,750 square feet. Existing structures on-site include a 927 square foot retail structure fronting on State Street, a 1,212 square foot residential structure fronting on the alley, and a 440 square foot storage building located between the two. The proposed development consists of the demolition of all three existing buildings and the construction of a two-story commercial building with 3,296 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 2,876 square feet of office space on the second floor. Access to the second floor of the building is by stairway and elevator at the front entrance and a stairway at the rear entrance adjacent to the alley. Also located along the rear of the building is a 6-foot wide landscape area and enclosed dumpster. 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23.2002 PAGE 2 111. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial (retaifoffice) project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area. IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows: Goal 1: 3 The portion of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive is characterized by one and two-story structures with retail shops, commercial services, and restaurants on the ground floor. The second floors include mainly office uses with some residential. The proposed project is highly compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional retail and office space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike. Goal 2: lmorove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The proposed project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing more ground floor retail space in an area of high retail activity. The absence of on-site parking improves pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional curb cuts. Goal 3: Simulate ProReifv lmorovements and New DeveloRment in the Villaae. The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Village Center (District 1) by providing for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding area. 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 3 Goal 4: ImDrove the Physical Aooearance of the Village Area. The project design optimizes use of the property while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, retail uses are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required. Office uses are classified as provisional uses and are permitted subject to discretionary approval. They are approved based upon the findings that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals under specific-conditions imposed by the permit. Uses in this category require special scrutiny concerning location, size, and anticipated impact on adjacent uses. Ground floor retail is a permitted use within Land Use District 1 and strongly encouraged in the Village Master Plan as a means of promoting retail continuity. Business and professional office uses are classified as a provisional use in District 1 and subject to the following findings: 1. The office development will be compatible in scale and character to the surrounding 2: The development is not likely to negatively impact existing or planned retail continuity in 3. Sufficient on-site parking will be available to serve employee parking needs. 4. The office development will not result in an undue reduction of livability for adjacent The proposed office use on the second floor is a positive addition to this portion of State Street as it will not negatively impact retail continuity in the area and the two story building is compatible in scale and character to several of the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the use will not impact residential livability, as the site is located in the center of a commercial district. Finally, public parking is available immediately west of the subject property and participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee program may only be permitted if all the conditions for participation are satisfied. (The project’s satisfaction of these conditions will be discussed later in this report.) District 1 (Village Center) has traditionally functioned as the Central Business District of Carlsbad. Although shopping centers and other development outside of the Village have drawn serving city residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of land use standards some uses away from the area, the Village Center continues to function as a strong retail core for this district is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage mutually supportive uses, and provide a major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole. objectives set forth for Land Use District I through the following actions: 1) the project Staff believes that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and 3) the project serves to enhance Village development. significant concentrations of commercial shops. residents. 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village. Vi. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 1 are as follows: Buildincl Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front, rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 1, the front setback is 0-10 feet, however, there is no minimum or maximum setback requirement for the side and rear yards. The proposed building is setback 4 feet from the front property line, which abuts an 11.5-foot wide sidewalk along State Street. The rear of the building is setback 6 feet from the rear property line on the first floor and 5 feet on the second floor. A 20-foot wide alley lies which is consistent with the remainder of the buildings on State Street between Grand Avenue immediately west of the rear property line. There is no setback from the side property lines, and Carlsbad Village Drive. As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is to be located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. These findings only apply to the proposed setback on the front of the building since there is no of the property falls within the established 0-10 foot setback standard. The proposed setback maximum or minimum setback on the sides and rear. The proposed 4-fOOt setback on the front will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as a majority of the buildings on State Street are either built to the front property line or are setback only a few feet. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 1 in that the second story office space in the center of the Village’s retail core. Finally, the reduced standard proposed land use includes highly desirable ground floor retail space and complimentary the Village character of the area in that the proposed 4-fOOt setback provides adequate space will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor and a landscaped balcony on the second floor creating an interesting and visually appealing front entrance and upper level faqade while providing the retail space with needed pedestrian and vehicular visibility. Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use District 1. projects in Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage Buildlna Coveraae: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for commercial is 88% which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 5 desired standard. However, an increase in the standard to the maximum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such an increase and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The increased standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The increased standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the village character of the area. The proposed building coverage is consistent with the building coverage for a majority of buildings on State Street and will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The proposed building coverage standard provides for the intensification of development desired for the area and a building with a strong street presence, which assists in creating a project design that is visually appealing and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 1. Therefore, staff finds that the building coverage is consistent with the desired standard. Buildina Heiaht: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 building. A hip roof design means the roof slopes up from all four sides with the peak of the roof pitch. The project proposes two separate hip roof elements on the front and rear of the of the building and 33 feet on the rear of the building. Both hip roof elements are designed with roof located in the center of the building. The highest point of the hip roof is 32 feet on the front the required 5:12 pitch. The proposed project meets the height requirements for Land Use District 1. Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. Qualified open space for the proposed project includes: landscape planters and decorative paving on the ground floor at the front and rear of the building, a landscaped balcony on the front of the building at the second floor, a landscape planter on the rear of the building on the second floor, and an open deck in the center of the building on the second floor. The project provides for a total of 976 square feet of open space, which represents 26% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement. Parking: The parking requirement for office and retail space is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. The requirement for a 6,172 square foot office building is 21 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide all 21 spaces off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The fees collected from the program will be deposited into an earmarked, interest bearing fund to be used for construction of new, or maintenance of existing, public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. For the purposes of determining participation in the program, the Village has been divided into two parking zones - Zone 1 and Zone 2. A property/business owner is eligible to participate in the in-lieu fee program according to the parking zone in which a given property is located and its proximity to an existing or future public parking lot. The subject property is located within Zone 1. In accordance with the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, developers/property owners within this zone may be allowed to make an 2l 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23.2002 PAGE 6 In-Lieu Fee oavment for UD to one hundred oercent (100%) of the on-site oarkina reauirement for the proposeb new development if the property is locatedwithin 600 feet’of an existing public parking facility. The subject property is located within 600 feet of all ten (10) existing public parking lots located within the Village with a total of 710 parking spaces. (See attached Exhibit D.) Therefore, the proposed project qualifies to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site parking requirement. As a condition of project approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. The current fee is $11,240 per required parking space to be provided off-site. In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program the following findings must be made: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located. 3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project‘s parking demands. 4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Justification for the above referenced findings is as follows: 1. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for a commercial (retaivoffice) use in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area. 2. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: a) the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail space; b) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and c) the project serves to enhance State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village. 3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 23 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 7 Residential Density and lnclusionarv Housina Reauirements: There is no residential component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing requirements are not applicable to this project. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as (10) basic design principles. These design principles are: 1. Development shall have an overall informal character. 2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity. 3. Development shall be small in scale. 4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged. 5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street. 6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details. 8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. 9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated. 10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character. The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The applicant has incorporated several desirable design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The project has provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of several architectural features and details including; two separate hip roof elements, multi-paned windows on the upper level front trim around the windows, an ornate balcony, and columns. ?he development is small in scale elevation, expansive windows for retail display, recessed wood framed glass doors, decorative in that it maintains the two-story character of the street while still maximizing development of the site by relying on off-site parking. The project has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated close enough to the street to provide for desirable pedestrian visibility at the ground floor yet maintains an adequate setback to provide for recessed entryways and landscape planters. Landscaping plays an important role in the architectural design of the building as landscape planters are proposed at the ground floor entrance, second story balcony on the front elevation, and second story of the rear elevation. The parking is visually subordinate in that it is located off-site behind the proposed building. Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired Village character in terms of size, scale, and type of sign as discussed in greater detail in the next section. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit B). VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS The total building frontage of the proposed building is 37.5 linear feet, which equates to 37.5 square feet of total sign area allowed. As indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is sign on the front of the building above the retail space, one 8 square foot sign at the upper level proposing four wall signs; one 8 square foot sign on the rear of the building, one 15 square foot 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 8 of the front of the building, and one 4.5 square foot directory sign at the stairway entrance on the front of the building. The total sign area of all four signs equates to 35.5 square feet and is less than the maximum allowed sign area for the project. The proposed signs are consistent with the sign regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of size, type and location of the sign. IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000. The project requires a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the request for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development Permit is not required. X. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following: Traffic 81 Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 20 ADT/lOOO sq ft x 2,876 office = 57 ADT 40 ADT/I 000 sa ft x 3.296 retail = 132 ADT TOTAL = 189 ADT A Traffic study was not required because the amount of anticipated traffic is not significant enough to warrant the need for a traffic study. The land use and surrounding streets were designed to accommodate a project of this size. Comment: All frontage and project related roadways are in place and no further upgrades to the street and alley are needed. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer EDU's Required: 6,172 sq fUl800 = 3.43 EDU's Comment: Sewer facilities are already in place and the need for upgrades is not anticipated. Water: Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District GPD Required: 220 gpdedu x 3.43 edu's = 752 GPD 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 9 Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Gradinq: Quantities: No grading is proposed. Permit required: No Off-site approval required: No Hillside grading requirements met: N/A Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: GeoSoils Inc. Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project. Only minor excavation for utilities and foundation will occur. Drainaae and Erosion Control: Drainage basin: A Preliminary hydrology study performed by: NIA Erosion Potential: Low Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was submitted addressing measures to reduce off-site sedimentation. Erosion control measures to be incorporated include gravel bags, plastic sheeting for stockpiles, excavating during forecasted dry weather. Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: None Easements dedication required: None Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project. Imorovements: Off-site improvements: None Standard variance required: None Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 10 the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board resolution. XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. XIII. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings recommending participation in the the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the Village Redevelopment Master Plan. A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 recommending approval RP 01-04. B. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines C. Location Map D. Map of Public Parking Lots E. Exhibits "A - D, dated Sepfember 23, 2002, including reduced exhibits. Exhibit A “D raft” DRB Resolution No. 289 1 1 t z I z 5 1( 11 1; 1: 14 15 It 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 289 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 01-04, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL (OFFICEIRETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2917 STATE STREET Ih’ LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING APN: 203-293-10 CASE NO: RP 01-04 WHEREAS, Leor Lakritz, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Village Drive Partnership, “Owner”, described as Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block I of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad; County of San Diego, State of California according to map thereof No. 535, filed in the ofice of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,1888 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as shown on Exhibits “A-D” dated September 23,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of September 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to “2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”. ... I < 1( 11 1; 1: 14 15 1f 15 18 19 2a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2917 State Street Commercial Building FW 01-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. 2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the findings contained herein to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is in conformance with the Elements of 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 23, 2002 including, but not limited to the following: a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for a commercial (retaiVoMice) use in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area. b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and 3) the project serves to enhance State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village. c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land DRB RES0 NO. 289 -2- I I 1( 1: 1: 1: 1L 12 1f 17 1E 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into andlor are transported within storm drainage facilities. e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City’s Landscape Manual. 3. The Design Review Board finds that the DeveloperProperty owner qualifies to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will satisfy the parking requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings: a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in that 1) the proposed project is highly compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional retail and offce space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike; 2) the proposed project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing more ground floor retail space in an area of high retail activity and the absence of on-site parking improves pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional curb cuts; 3) the proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Village Center (District l), by providing for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding area; and 4) the project design optimizes use of the property while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. b. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located in that ground floor retail is a permitted use in Land Use District 1 and strongly encouraged in the Village Master Plan as a means of promoting retail continuity. Business and professional offrce uses are classified as a provisional use in District 1 and all required findings to permit this use on the second floor can be made. ... DRB RES0 NO. 289 -3- 3\ I ! 1( 11 1: 1: 14 1: 1C 1; 16 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking demands in that the last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS: 4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. NOLLANDOLAN FINDING: 5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. GENERAL CONDITIONS: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so DRB RES0 NO. 289 -4- 52 1 t 8 5 1( 11 1; 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 8. implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City'dAgency's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 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 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. ~Thc Developer/Operator-shallhnd- does herebyagree to indemnify, protect; defend and hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -5- 77 1 t , t 5 1( 11 li 13 14 12 1C 1; 18 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. LandscaDe Conditions: 11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Noticing Conditions: 13. Prior to the issuance of the building.permit,-Developer shall^ submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 289 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. On-site Conditions: 14. Outdoor storage of material shall not occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 11 DRB RES0 NO. 289 -6- 1 1 - I s 5 1( 11 1: 1: 14 1: If 1; 1E 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 16. 17. 18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment. All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A-C”. Any changes to the sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In- Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (21 spaces total). ENGINEERING CONDITIONS Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed redevelopment permit, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first. General: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or ~from~ any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The property owner and developer shall comply with recommended best management practices and any other provisions of the “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for New Commercial Building 2917 State Street, Carlsbad”, dated April 24,2002 and revised July 23,2002, on file with the City. FeedApreements: 5. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. ... DRB RES0 NO. 289 -7- ( I I( 1: 1: 1: 1r I! It 1: 1t 15 2( 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following code requirements. Fees: 1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. - 2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. General: 3. 4. 5. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of final project approval. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. DRB RES0 NO. 289 -8- 1 t I 5 1( 11 1: 1: 14 1: 1f li I.! 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “feedexactions.” You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are. hereby FTJRTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor.planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of September, 2002 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SARAH MARQUEZ, VICE CHAIRPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AlTEST DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RES0 NO. 289 -9- Exhibit B Design Guidelines Checklist VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial block front. Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian frontages. Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented frontages. \void drive-through service uses. Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major Iedestrian walkways. Imphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to xeate an informal character. rreat structures as individual buildings set within a andscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on: 2arlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue, Zarlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street 'rovide landscaping within surface parking lots 'rovide access to parking areas from alleys wherever lossible. .ocate parking at the rear of lots. ___I_ - Project: 2917 State St. Commercial Building The following features provide a variety c setbacks on the front and rear of the project: Thl project maintains a 4' setback from State Streel which provides room for a landscape planter anc recessed entry on the ground level am landscaped balcony on the upper level. On thc ground floor facing the alley a 6' setback i: maintained, which includes a 6' wide landscape area. There is a 5' setback from the alley on tht upper level with a landscape planter extending 2.5 into the setback area. A low wall for the landscape planter is providec along State Street. Street benches are locatec within the public right-of-way along the entire street. The proposed project provides ground floor retai space maintaining the retail continuity of State Street. The project does not include a drive-thru. There are no residential uses located to either side of the proposed project. The nature of the use does not warrant off-street courtyards for pedestrian use. Landscaped areas along the front and rear of the building will provide for an informal setting. The project fronts on State Street, therefore, this standard does not apply. Landscaping is provided along the front and rear of the building at the first and second levels to enhance the appearance of the building as viewed from the public street and alley. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this xoject. Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for parking spaces or circulation to landscaping. Avoid parking in front setback areas. Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas. Avoid parking in block corner locations. Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved pedestrian areas. Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their ground floor space to parking uses. Place parking for commercial or larger residential projects below grade wherever feasible. Enhance parking lot surfaces. Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant and should be designed especially for their sites and not mere copies of generic building types. Step taller buildings back at upper levels. Break large buildings into smaller units. Maintain a relatively consistent building height along block faces. Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me" design solutions are strongly discouraged. Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12 or greater. Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. 2 No on-site parking is proposed as part of this oroiect. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this Droiect. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this project. No on-site parking is proposed as part of this oroiect. The proposed building has been designed specifically for this location in accordance with the Village Design Manual and is not a generic copy of other buildinas. The second story is stepped back 4 feet from State Street and 5 feet from the alley. Two hip roof features, separated by an open balcony on the second floor, help to break up the laraer buildina into smaller units. The height of the building is consistent with other two story buildings on the street, including the building immediately north of the subject property. The building has been designed with simple lines and forms but allows for representation of the Village character desired for the area. The building is not trendy or "look at me" in design. Hip roof features with the minimum 512 pitch have been Drovided on the DrODOSed Droiect. The project design does not lend itself to the use of dormers. ~ ~~~ and composition shingle roofs, with the exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are acceptable. 8 Avoid Flat Roofs Screen mechanical equipment from public view. Avoid mansard roof forms. Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building facades should be visually friendly. Design visual interest into all sides of buildings. Utilize small individual windows except on commercial storefronts. Provide facade projections and recesses. Give special attention to upper levels of commercial structures. Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail Slements for visual interest and scale. 3espect the materials and character of adjacent jevelopment. Synthetic roof tiles are proposed, which consistent with the architectural design intended for the area. There are no flat roofs proposed as part of this project. This will be a requirement of the project. The project does not utilize mansard roof forms. By providing for attractive facades and Visual interest is added to the building through landscaping, the project is ved visually appealing. architectural features. The design of the building incorporates design elements into the front and rear building facades, thereby creating visual interest in the building. The project makes good use of multi-panted windows on the upper level, recessed word framed glass entry doors, decorative trim around the windows, an ornate balcony, and columns. Small multi-paned windows are proposed for the upper level of the street faGade. The building design provides for recesses and projections that will create shadows and contrast along all sides. The upper level includes a landscaped balcony with decorative railing along the street elevation and a window box planter along the upper level of the elevation facing the alley. Wood framed glass door are provided along the front building elevation leading to an elevator and staircase to the second floor. A smaller door along the rear building elevation leads to a second staircase. Both entries seem to be appropriate for their specific locations. front and rear sides of the building which include; Detail elements have been incorporated into the decorative trim around the windows, columns, ceramic tile along the planters, and a decorative railing. The materials and colors proposed for the building will not conflict with adjacent developments. 3 sidihg; wood shingles; wood boariand batten siding; and stucco. Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor carpeting; distressed wood of any type Avoid tinted or reflective window glass. Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated metal door and window frames. Avoid metal awnings and canopies. Utilize light and neutral base colors. Limit the materials and color palette on any single building (3 or less surface colors) Provide significant storefront glazing. Avoid large blank walls. Encourage large window openings for restaurants. Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront Nindows and entries. Emphasize display windows with special lighting. Encourage the use of dutch doors. Jtilize small paned windows. t At this time, none of the noted materials have been indicated for use. The windows are clear glass. Wood or vinyl coated doors and window frames will be utilized. No metal awnings and canopies are proposed. The project utilizes a light and neutral color scheme. The project incorporates 1 primary base color, two primary accent colors (slightly darker shades oi the base color), and two trim colors (used sparingly around windows and doors). Given the small size of the structure, the mix of colors used on the front and rear facades give depth to the building and provide greater visual interest withoui appearing overwhelming. Significant storefront glazing is provided along the ground floor. The only blank walls are along the sides of the building and will abut an existing two-story structure to the north and a single story structure to the south, both of which are built to the property lines. It is anticipated that the single story structure to the south will eventually be replaced by a two-story structure built to the propsaw lines. Project does not include a restaurant use. No fabric awnings are proposed over the storefront windows and entries. Overhangs from the level above or extended eaves are provided in place of awnings. Display windows are provided along the ground floor retail space. Display lighting has not yet been determined. Dutch doors are not proposed. Small divided paned windows are proposed along the upper level of the street elevation. 4 Provide frequent entries. Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve display windows. Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along street frontages. Emphasize storefront entries. Two entries are proposed along State Street providing access to ground floor retail and second , floor office. A single rear door is provided along the alley providing access to the first and second stories. There are two entry openings on the front of the building. Together they equate to less than 30% of the total storefront, which allows adequate display window space. The project does not include pull down shutters, sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along the street frontage. Both the front entrance to the ground floor retail space and second story office space is emphasized along State Street. Integrate fences and walls into the building design. Fences and walls are not proposed as part of this oroiect. cant was able to develop a total design concept which is functional and visually interesting. Encourage front entry gardens Not applicable. Locate residential units near front property lines and I Not applicable. orient entries to the street. Provide front entrv porches. I Not applicable. Provide windows looking out to the street. Not applicable. Utilize simple color schemes. Not applicable. Provide decorative details to enrich facades. Not applicable. Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character Not applicable. Emphasize an abundance of landscapina. Not applicable. hit access drives to garages or surface parking areas. Not applicable. Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in Not applicable. disual imortance to the house itself. 'rovide quality designed fences and walls. Not applicable. 5 Exhibit C Location Map SI STATE STREET MIXED USE PROJECT RP 01-04 Exhib.it D Map of Public Parking Lots Exhibit E Exhibits “A-D” Dated Sept. 23, 2002 375' .. - .. - .. - .. - .. - I EOSTlNG 5 I II 11 .& TO BE REMOVED .G *I . II 21 I II II :I I. IJ I. """"" -!I Ib I I 16 I :c""-L 11.25' I I I I EXISTING DUPLEX I' i, . 1212 SF 22.5 I I EXISTING 5TORAbE TO BE REMOVED I 5 440 SF LO1 AREA = 3750 5F EXISTING RETAIL TO BE REMOVED 1 1's 1 In J 927 SF. """""V 36.8' ih LINE NRN COMMERCIAL BUILDING CARLSBAD VILWE DRIVE PARTNEEHIP STATE STREET NUT TO SCALE EXH I BIT" .. .. . .. 3 $ r 4. 1 s i ,1 .. . . .. .. , ... . .. .. r 0 E Z NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING CARLSBAD VlLLAtE DRIVE PARTNEWHIP ~~ie~ NOT TO SCALE EXH I B ITA- 32 NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP NOT TO XALE EXHIBIT% ! Q WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE NEW COMMaZClAL BUILDING CARLSBAD VILLACE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP 2917 STATE STREET EXHIBIT?? 5L 2 J . . 1 I T 8t , Exhibit 4 Draft DRB Minutes dated Sept. 23, 2002 DRAFT Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M. Date of meeting: SEPTEMBER 23,2002 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Marquez called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Baker to lead in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with the roll call of Board Members Present: Commissioners: Tony Lawson Julie Baker Courtney Heineman Larry Paulsen Vice Chairperson: Sarah Marquez Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein Project Engineer: David Rick Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi APPROVAL OF MINUTES to accept the Minutes of June 24, 2002, as written. ACTION: Motion by Board Member Paulsen, and duly seconded by Board Member Heineman VOTE: 3-0-0 AYES: NOES: Heineman, Paulsen and Baker None ABSTAIN: Marquez and Lawson Vice Chairperson Marquez reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, RP 01-04 "2917 State Street Commercial Building" - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building on property located at 2917 State Street in land use district 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Board Member Lawson stated that because of a possible conflict of interest with the item, he must abstain from the meeting. Vice Chairperson Marquez asked the applicant if he wanted to proceed with the meeting with four members remaining. The applicant, Mr. Lakritz, said he would like to proceed with four Board Members Ms. Rosenstein reported the following to the remaining Board Members: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 2 of IO DRAFT The project is located at 2917 State Street; the west side of State Street between Grand and Carlsbad Village Drive. The property is 37% feet wide and a 100 feet deep for a total of 3,750 square feet. The slide depicted the front of the existing property on State Street. It currently houses a collectibles trading card shop and a hair salon in a retail space that is approximately 927 square feet. There are also existing street trees and angled parking located on State Street. She pointed out that at the rear of the property is an existing residential structure that fronts on the alley. The building is 1,212 square feet. Between the retail space on the front and the residential unit on the back is a 400 square foot storage building; none of the buildings are connected. Ms. Rosenstein continued the proposed development consists of the demolition of all three structures on this site. Immediately north of the subject property at the corner of Grand Avenue and State Street is a building which houses Caldo Pomodoro Restaurant with outdoor dining, the Alley Bar is located in the back along the alley, DeStefano's Hair Salon is also located on the first floor, Cafe Dolce Ice Cream Shop, and on the second floor there is an array of various office uses. To the south of the subject property is Vigilucci's Restaurant, which is a single story restaurant with outdoor dining as well. Immediately west of the subject property exists public parking owned by North County Transit District. The remainder of State Street, between Grand and Carlsbad Village Drive, includes a mixture of both one and two story structures with a majority of the second stories being devoted to office uses. On the first floor along State Street there are numerous retail businesses including: hair salons, restaurants with outdoor cafes, a pub, a coffee shop and shoe repair. The proposed project consists of the construction of a two-story commercial building with retail on the first floor and office space above. The first floor consists of 3,296 square feet of retail space. Some of the first floor is also devoted to access to the second story. State Street is on the front with the building stepped back, access to the second story is by way of an elevator and staircase on the front and a staircase on the back. Also in the back is an enclosed trash dumpster that is fully integrated into the proposed building. The second floor consists of 2,876 square feet of office space. The office space is broken up into two individual office suites; one fronting on State Street and one in the back on the alley. Separating the two with the stairs leading to the lower level. Staff sees the proposed office use on the second floor as a office suites is an open outdoor patio area, open to the sky in the middle, and a common restroom facility positive addition to this portion of State Street as it does not negatively impact retail continuity in the area and the two story building is compatible both in scale and character to several of the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project meets the development standards for land use district one in terms of building setback, open space, lot coverage and building height. The height limit for land use district one is 35 feet with a minimum 5 and 12 roof pitch. The proposed project includes two separate hip front is 32 feet and the peak of the hip roof on the rear of the building is 33 feet. Both hip roof elements roof elements; one in the front and one in the rear of the building. The highest point of the hip roof on the include a 5 and 12 roof pitch as required for this area. Ms. Rosenstein continued that the proposed project is also consistent with the design guidelines outlined village character including the two separate hip roof elements described, multi-paned windows on the in the Village Design Manual. The project incorporates several design elements to achieve the desired glass doors at the entry, decorative trim around the windows and an ornate balcony on the second story upper level front elevation, expansive windows for retail display on the ground floor, recessed wood frame with columns incorporated. The development is small in scale in that it maintains a two-story character, which is common to this street while still maximizing development of the site by relying on off-site parking. for desirable pedestrian visibility at the ground floor, yet it maintains an adequate setback to provide for The project has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated close enough to the street to provide recessed entryways and landscaped planters. Landscaping plays an important roll in the architectural design of the building as landscape planters are proposed at the ground floor front entrance, the second story balcony on the front elevation, and the second story of the rear elevation. 51 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 of 10 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 DRAFT The parking is visually subordinate in that it is not located on the site at all. It is located offsite. The closest public parking lot is immediately west of the subject property across the alley. Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired village character in terms of scale, size and type of signage proposed. Ms. Rosenstein continued with the slides showing two slides of the side elevations. Essentially this project goes property line to property line on both the north and the south sides of the property, which is common on this portion of State Street. The north elevation also includes a cross section showing the open outdoor patio area between the two office spaces on the second floor. In order to meet the parking requirement for the project, the applicant is proposing participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. floor area. For a building that totals 6,172 square feet, 21 parking spaces are required. The applicant is The parking requirement for both office and retail is one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross of $1 1,240 per parking space. The fees collected from the program are then deposited into an earmarked proposing to provide all 21 spaces offsite through participation in the program, which requires a payment facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. As a condition of project approval, the applicant would interest bearing fund to be used for the construction of new or the maintenance of existing public parking be required to enter into an agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of building permits for the subject project. In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, four findings must be made: First, the proposed project must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. In staff's review, the project was found to be consistent with the Design Manual and Master Plan because it provides for a commercial use in an appropriate location in the village. The project also provides greater shopping and employment opportunities and enhances pedestrian orientation of the area and retains the village character and pedestrian scale The second finding is the proposed use must be consistent with the land use district in which the through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the village. property is located. The property is located in land use district one and meets the objectives of district one in the following ways: the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail space in the area; the project provides a mutually supported office use on the second floor which creates more employment opportunities in the village and adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants and commercial services in the area: and the project enhances State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the village. The third finding is that adequate parking is available within the village to accommodate the utilization rates for the village parking lots must be below 85%. The last utilization counts for the project's parking demands. In order to participate in our parking program for the village, the village public parking lots, which was conducted in February of 2002, indicated a 76% average The last finding is that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has not terminated or utilization rate, which is less then the 85% threshold required for participation in this program. suspended the program. As of yet, the program is still in effect and hopefully we will have the opportunity to provide some more public parking opportunities in the village. The Planning Department has conducted the environmental review for the project and the project was found to be exempt from State CEQA guidelines as an infill development on a site of less then five acres finding for this environmental determination is in the Design Review Board resolution included in the in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate local facilities. The necessary Board's packet. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. As with most of our redevelopment projects, the redevelopment of an under-utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Secondly, it is anticipated that this project will serve as a catalyst for other DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 of 10 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 DRAFT improvements in the area; either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings through the substantial upgrade of an existing property. Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Program. Staff believes development of this site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Before concluding, Ms. Rosenstein pointed out a packet that was distributed to the Board Members before the meeting. The packed includes correspondence from Mr. Tom Betz, the property owner to the north. He owns the building that Caldo Pomodoro is located in. Currently the drainage from the roof of Mr. Betz' building drains onto the subject property, which raised a concern when development of the site was proposed. If the property is developed as is currently planned, what will happen to that drainage? Both property owners got together and worked out a resolution to that problem and David Rick from the Engineering Department is present tonight to respond to that. Mr. Betz was unable to attend this meeting and wanted to make the issue was known to the Design Review Board and make sure that it was read into the record. Essentially, it looks like the drainage from the building to the north will be diverted through a further. Also, hanging on the wall are plans of the proposed project. Ms. Rosenstein distributed the color drainage line between the buildings and then carried out to the alley and David Rick can go into that and materials board for the project and concluded the staff presentation. Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if any Board Members have questions of the staff at this point. Board Member Paulsen inquired about the roof drainage. Are the roofs going to drain into a common line? He noticed on the elevations that one roof slopes down and dumps onto the subject property. and will run between the buildings at the property line. Mr. Rick from the Engineering Department answered that the proposed drainage line is four inches wide served by the roof drainage or storm drainage? Board Member Paulsen inquired that in the event of demolition, is the other building still going to be Mr. Rick answered if one is demolished, they should both be served. Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Rick if a four-inch line is sufficient? Mr. Rick answered that it should be sufficient. The area that it is actually collecting is a small area. Board Member Heineman thanked Mr. Rick. Vice Chairperson Marquez opened the public hearing. She invited the applicant to step forward and make his presentation. Mr. Leor Lakritz, the applicant, said he did not prepare a presentation. Mr. Lakritz's address is: 1272 good job. The project would be a nice addition in value for the redevelopment of the Carlsbad Village. He Peacock Hill, Tustin, California. He did not feel a need to prepare a presentation as Ms. Rosenstein did a spent a lot of time to come up with a beautiful building. It will add some more rental space and office space, which is in short supply in the Village. He asked the Board Members if they had any questions. Board Member Baker asked Mr. Lakritz if he had any idea to whom the retail space will be rented Mr. Lakritz said he did not have any idea. He did add that he owns quite a bit of space in the Village and he does not have any vacancy. He has a waiting list in case there is a vacancy. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 of 10 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 DRAFT Board Member Paulsen asked about the 85% maximum parking utilization. He asked if it applies to certain areas or all parking areas within the minimum distance of the proposed project. Ms. Rosenstein answered that a couple of years ago staff developed a comprehensive parking program for the Village Redevelopment Area and part of that parking program was determining the amount of the Parking In-Lieu Fee and how the City was going to charge for it. The utilization rate comes from an various public parking lots in the Village, which have a total of 710 parking spaces. Staff looks at the assessment of all public parking lots. One of the exhibits in the Board Members packets depicts the overall utilization rates during different periods of time of all of our existing public parking lots. Board Member Paulsen said he talked to one of the merchants in the Village and the merchant thought there isn't enough parking close to his store. Is this a valid complaint? Ms. Rosenstein responded that staff looks at the total public parking. For instance, there are a couple of parking lots located on Roosevelt Street, just one block away from the subject property, there are a couple public parking lots located just south of Carlsbad Village Drive behind Fish House Vera Cruz on both sides of the railroad tracks. All of which are looked at in assessing the total utilization rate. Staff also hears complaints regarding the lack of available parking right in front of a business. We look at the public downtown area. parking lots in their entirety and try to encourage people to park and walk to do numerous errands in the Vice Chairperson Marquez said she understands that the applicant does not have this building preleased. She asked if he was going to start construction without having the building preleased? Mr. Lakritz answered in the affirmative Vice Chairperson Marquez continued that different uses for the commercial retail space, i.e. if it was to be a full-service restaurant, would probably require additional parking. Mr. Lakritz answered that whenever a tenant is applying for rental space, he sends them to the members to make sure that they understand what they have to do in order to qualify for this space. Redevelopment Agency to ask questions and get information from Ms. Rosenstein or another staff Vice Chairperson Marquez continued that the Board does not want a parking situation in the Village. project begin? Board Member Baker asked the applicant when he anticipates starting the demolition and when will this now to arrive at this stage. He said possibly another two years. Mr. Lakritz answered as soon as he gets the permit. He has been trying for the last two and a half years Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if staff wishes to respond to any of the Board's concerns or any questions? Ms. Rosenstein responded to the question of the restaurant use. At the present time, what is being proposed is strictly retail, which is one parking space for every 300 square feet and office space on the what we are going to be taking forward with the positive recommendation from the Design Review Board second floor also proposed at one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, and that is to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. There could be no changes to that unless they amend their redevelopment permit. If a restaurant use were proposed, we would have to look at an amendment to their Major Redevelopment Permit and return to the Design Review Board for a recommendation on parking participation before returning to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 6 of IO DRAFT Board Member Heineman asked Ms. Rosenstein based on the provisions she talked about, how many parking spaces would be required. Ms. Rosenstein asked for a restaurant use? offices on the second. Board Member Heineman said no, for the use that was outlined which would be retail on the first floor and Ms. Rosenstein answered there would be 21 parking spaces total Board Member Heineman asked if staff felt it could be handled in the present downtown parking situation? Ms. Rosenstein answered in the affirmative Vice Chairperson Marquez asked fellow Board Members if they wished to discuss this among themselves or if the Board was ready to make a recommendation. Board Member Heineman suggested that they start with Board Member Baker and then go down the line. go into this space beyond what currently seems to be arriving downtown to encourage more people to Board Member Baker said she is in favor of this project. She hopes that some interesting kind of retail will or a used bookshop. She continued that this looks like a nice project and would attract some interesting shop in the area. Either an upscale clothing store or art gallery or just something beyond an antique store retail opportunities. She is in favor of the project. Board Member Paulsen said he spent a part of an afternoon investigating the neighborhood downtown and this looks like it would be a definite improvement and he feels favorable towards it. Board Member Heineman added that he thinks it is a remarkably attractive building. He feels the attractiveness is particularly important in that location. He sees no drawbacks and is very much in favor of it. Vice Chairperson Marquez said she feels it is a very attractive building and certainly an upgrade, considering what is there presently, and will be warmly received by the community. When looking at redevelopment, these infill projects can be charming and bring character to our village as opposed to a homogenous block development. I think that this is a nice, unique way to preserve our village character. ACTION: Motion by Vice Chairperson Marquez, and duly seconded by Board Member Baker, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 289, recommending approval of RP 01-04 to the contained therein. Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Baker, Paulsen. Heineman and Marquez NOES: ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawson None Board Member Lawson returned to join the Design Review Board, STAFF PRESENTATION: of redevelopment efforts from 1981 to present. Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, gave a presentation regarding the status DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 of IO SEPTEMBER 23,2002 DRAFT Board Member Lawson thanked Ms. Fountain for her presentation. He commented on one item that was not mentioned was the old theatre. He inquired as to whether or not anything was happening with that. Ms. Fountain said over the years that staff has tried to encourage the theatre to do more regular programming at that location where people could depend on every weekend. The current owner has made the decision that it would be used as a rental property. Staff is still trying to encourage some more regular programming. We are starting to see more activities there that are open to the general public. One of the events we are holding in November is to have a movie week the week of Thanksgiving where we'll show movies every day, both matinee type movies and evening movies, and they will be with the holiday theme. We are hoping this will show the current property owners that there is a demand for regular shows and they will want to do a little bit more with the theatre. The property owners have done quite a bit of rehabilitation on the inside of the facility. They've added a movie screen and they have a little stage, but it is still more used as a rental property. visual type of a person and staff speaks of a vision. He tries to draw an actual picture in his mind. Does Board Member Lawson commented he has been meaning to go inside of the theatre. He said he is a very the City do that to determine what might be successful when looking at other cities for their successes or failures. Some that come to mind are Santa Barbara, Capistrano, Laguna Beach, and on the flip side is Oceanside which has struggled for years and has invested a lot of money into the area including the theatre area, and I think it is questionable as to the success of that. Do you feel the City of Carlsbad in the Village has a unique opportunity to be able to exploit these other ideas? Maybe we don't want to be like comparison between Carlsbad and other cities, and are there some things that are unique that we can do Laguna Beach or Santa Barbara, but those places have a remarkable viability. How do you draw a to mirror what might have been done in other cities? Ms. Fountain answered that one of the things the staff did when working with the Advisory Committee was ask that question. The response we received was that Carlsbad doesn't want to be like anyone else, another specific City. We just want to be ourselves. We asked if Carlsbad would like to be like Carmel or One thing we tried to do through the Design Guidelines is to inquire as to the features wanted such as: do Santa Barbara or Monterey but we were told Carlsbad should be unique. We just want to be the Village. you like the pedestrian orientation, do you want to make it a nice place to walk around, and do you want interesting buildings? The guidelines depict the desired Village character at the time the Master Plan was developed. Board Member Lawson said the faCades don't have to look like Santa Barbara or Carmel, but there is a formula associated with those cities, such as the types of businesses and the orientation to either the ease of parking or the ratios of different types of uses. He doesn't mean demolishing everything and starting over for it to actually look like something else. He said he is in the Village about every day of the week contributes to the under-utilization. Does the land use factor get influenced into the encouragement from because he works there. There is a lot of uniqueness to it, but there is also a lot of sameness that the development agency? Ms. Fountain answered because we have the nine land use districts downtown, there is an effort to provide a wide variety of mix of land uses. Everyday we struggle with trying to encourage the property owners to not open another antique store or another coffee shop when we may already have, from some people's opinion, too many. We actually do work with the property owners quite a bit in trying to encourage them. Ultimately, who they decide to lease their property to, we can't do much about as long as it is consistent with the land use plan. Fortunately, we are starting to get some property owners that have an interest in putting more exciting, interesting uses and we are starting to see that happen like with Madison's on State Street and Ohana's the Hawaiian store. Staff has also been trying to help people to understand the need for national chain type of businesses in the Village. Our goal is to try and provide a good mix of businesses. We have started to team up with the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has actually formed a subcommittee to try and work with property owners in the downtown area to encourage DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 8 of IO DRAFT economic development and a better mix of businesses in the Village. We are trying to partner with the Chamber of Commerce, which is positive. Though it may seem slow, good things are happening. Board Member Baker commented she feels strongly that we need to strive for businesses that don't just serve tourists. There aren't many businesses in the Village that people who live in Carlsbad actually go there for other then to eat. I would like to see us continue to strive for retail opportunities that people in this community would go downtown for. She realizes there isn't much staff can do about this. That is what makes Santa Barbara unique. Not what it looks like, it is the variety of shopping and lots of activities that makes you want to shop. She questioned about the assessed value. Is redevelopment different then residential where the property tax doesn't change unless the property has sold, or has the property sold enough in this area or been upgraded enough that it would have triggered a reassessment by the county? Ms. Fountain answered we are going to see an increase in tax increment if there is a resale because there are not otherwise increases unless there is some substantial rehabilitation that would trigger a reassessment. For a while, we saw property owners holding their property, not selling, and we weren't seeing increases in the tax increment, except through rehabilitation projects or new construction only. We are starting to see more sales of property now and more interest coming in to actually develop properties. These are developers we haven't seen before, coming from the outside. Commercial property and residential property are going to be the same in the way taxes are assessed. We are starting to see a little more turnover in property, which helps with increases in property taxes. Board Member Paulson inquired as to what is happening north of Chestnut. Ms. Fountain asked if he was talking about Roosevelt, almost near Walnut, Board Member Baker asked if he meant Madison. Board Member Paulson agreed that it is Madison Board Member Baker said it is Pine School. The maintenance yard was moved. Ms. Fountain agreed that it is the Pine School site the City purchased and it will be a park in the future. Board Member Heineman said there will be a community center on that site also, the Master Planning process right now. That property is not in the redevelopment area. Ms. Fountain agreed that yes it will probably be a park and community center. The City is going through Board Member Heineman said that three or four years ago at the League of California Cities Annual Planning session, there were two very interesting sessions regarding the upgrading of downtown areas, similar to ours. One of the things that they mentioned was that they were stealing retailers from the local mall. Are we faced with that same problem? For instance, if we get a Gap, there probably won't be a Gap at the mall. The many stores that go into malls would help our downtown area a great deal. Do we ignore them if they are in the mall? demographics and they don't have stores too close to each other. We have started to see more stores, Ms. Fountain answered that we don't ignore them, but most businesses like that will have certain not necessarily in our redevelopment area, but in redevelopment in general moving out of shopping malls into downtown areas. We haven't seen that happen yet, because I don't think our demographics are future. As we add residential we start to create a customer base that we are hoping will attract more of showing that there are enough customers in the area for their type of product, but there may be in the those types of businesses into the downtown area. Board Member Heineman stated that Starbucks is about the only one DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 of 10 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 DRAFT" Ms. Fountain agreed, and said we had to encourage Starbucks to come to our downtown. Those are things that are challenges. As the city continues to develop with other shopping areas that will continue to be a challenge as businesses pick where they want to go and what customers they are serving. Board Member Lawson responded that he had heard that some of the major retailers are developing a different division of their own self that is tailored for a smaller shop into some of these places in redevelopment areas. He asked if staff is aware of some of those. they are going into village type areas, such as La Jolla. We haven't seen that in the Village yet for several Ms. Fountain agreed and said they are changing. They are not requiring as big of an establishment and reasons, but we hope it might happen in the future. Board Member Lawson asked if there is any marriage counselors available of some sort that would direct our owners to some of those sources? Ms. Fountain said we do try to encourage that, but one of the areas in which we're going to step up our efforts is related to the economic development component to seek those types of businesses a little more aggressively. We will work with the property owners that have space available. San Diego tries to get the Super Bowl, that you put on a dog and pony show? Board Member Lawson asked if that was a campaign that is put on by the City similar to when the City of area because a lot of them don't know about new projects that are coming into town. They may not Ms. Fountain agreed and said we actually need to give the business owners the demographics for the realize that there is a market that maybe they are not paying attention to. We are going to try and step up our efforts to inform and encourage desired businesses. We have done it to a certain degree already where we sent out letters to some of those types of desirable businesses and encourage them to come in, but it will take a lot more proactive effort to actually get them in. Vice Chairperson Marquez inquired about the Parking-In-Lieu Fee, the program's boundaries. Since our one time there was a project, the Escrow Building that was built downtown, that just barely made it in and parking lots are currently under-utilized, do you see any chance those boundaries could be extended? At was able to participate in the program. There are so many infill properties in the downtown area that foresee any new public art projects? We lost the controversial sculpture park. Do you see anything in the aren't able to be improved because they are so narrow and small. Do you foresee any of that? Do you way of public art coming to our downtown? Also, the concerts at Heritage Park seem to be very successful. She asked if there was going to be any further implementation of major public improvement projects such as a pier or any kind of lagoon enhancement for the lagoon to the north, the Buena Vista Lagoon that is an entryway into our downtown. Ray Patchett mentioned something about the railroad even repaving in the Village due to the sewer line improvement that has just gone on and it has trashed bridge being retrofitted. Any further streetscape programs in the Village that are going to happen? Maybe our streets. Ms. Fountain said one thing she'd like to share before answering those questions is we have a situation to incur any new debt so we only have a couple of years before we can no longer incur debt. We have a right now where the current redevelopment plan for the Village Area expires in 2006. We have until 2004 team right now looking at whether or not we can extend the Redevelopment Plan or not. There are certain findings that you have to make to be able to extend. The honest answer is there are no big projects in the works right now because of the question regarding financing for them. We wouldn't be able to issue bonds, which is some of what we had done to get the streetscape project. It doesn't mean that there do plan to go back and repave the streets. Some of those types of things are in the works and will aren't other little projects in the works, for example the sewer lines that they are putting in right now; they continue to be in the works. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 of 10 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 Ms. Fountain continued, in terms of art projects, there isn't anything on the horizon right now and probably from a political standpoint, there isn't going to be any big type of project. There may be some small projects that might be implemented. We do have a new Arts Manager, and I don't know what all of his goals are for different areas. I think the concerts in the parks will probably continue. There might be other activities that will be encouraged in the Village area, on a small scale. In terms of streetscape, most has already been done. There may be other efforts made like on Grand Avenue. We are looking at ways to increase on-street parking so we might look at diagonal parking on Grand, which might result in some other streetscape, but those will be incremental rather then one comprehensive streetscape project. We are at a point of winding down on redevelopment projects, not on private projects. If the plan is extended, that might bring on some new projects. We are definitely trying to look at additional public parking in the downtown area so that is more likely what you will see in terms of public projects. We are trying to work with North County Transit District on a parking structure on their property and maybe in another location as well. From a financing standpoint, that will probably be one of our biggest projects that will be in the works in the next couple of years. Vice Chairperson Marquez thanked Ms. Fountain NEW BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Marquez asked the Board Members if they'd like to nominate a new Chairperson to the Board. Board Member Lawson nominated Sarah Marquez to operate as the Chair during the upcoming session Board Member Heineman said it is only a one-year term and he seconded Sarah Marquez to Chair. The nomination for Chairperson was closed. Sarah Marquez was approved as the new Chair Vice Chairperson Marquez opened the nomination for Vice Chair for the Board. Board Member Baker nominated Courtney Heineman, Vice Chairperson Marquez seconded Courtney Heineman's nomination. All Board Members are in favor and Courtney Heineman was approved as the new Vice-Chair. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of September 23, 2002 was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director PATRICIA CRESCENT1 Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED, NOVEMBER 7,2002 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment 2917 State St. Commercial Building - Letter Received The Housing and Redevelopment Department received the attached letter from Mr. Harry Guzelimian in response to the public hearing notice for the above referenced project. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on November 12, 2002. This information is being forwarded to you for review and distribution to the Commission. If you have any questions, please contact me at x2813. I will also be available for Cwbriefings as scheduled for Tuesday, November 12'h. L?- LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Harry L. Guzelimian Managing Partner of Elm Avenue Commercial A Tenancy-In-Common Partnership P. 0. Box 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075-0206 October 22, 2002 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CITY OF CARLSBAD 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Major Redevelopment Permit CASE FILE NO. "RP 01-04" ~~ 2917 State Street Commercial Building "'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" Dear Sir or Madam: The City of Carlsbad has acquired several parcels, throughout Carls- bad Village area, to provide Public Parking for the benefit of the existing Commercial Properties which had been developed years ago when Onsite Parking had not been given much consideration and St- reet Parking had been felt to be adequate, when population was ra- ther sparse! Business Owners feel the same way (except that most people are me- I strongly believe,and I am sure many other existing Property and ek and do not come out to speak their mind openly: they only com- Parking Sites are to serve the existing Commercial Facilities and plain within themselves, unfortunately), that the existing Public Businesses. As New Developments are added without the provision of adequate onsite Parking, it defeats the main purpose for which them rendering them inadequate, specially with the evergrowing the existing Public Parking Sites were provided and will overload Coastal North San Diego County Community "VILLAGE BY-THE-SEA"! population because of Carlsbad's Reputation as a very desirable as shortsighted as the forebearers who thought only street par- In fact, allowing new development without onsite parking is just growth that took place! king was adequate; they did not foresee the impending population plus all of the other meek and silent Property and Business Ow- So, speaking on behalf of the Property Owner Group I represent, without Adequate Onsite Parking Availability! BIG MISTAKE!!! ners, I strongly oppose the City's Permitting New Developments I do not know how pactically applicable is the "Parking In-Lieu Fee Program"? By the City lulling itself and believing that the because overloading a specific Business Area's Public ParkingLot "Parking In-Lieu Fee" solves the problem is, at best, very naive, will render it inadequate affecting that Area's Businesses adver- sely and the provision of a new parking lot, with the In-Lieu Fees collected, in an area unrelated to the affected Business Ar- ea will not help the adversely affected Businesses! ENOUGH SAID! If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is wiser than their Forebearers, it will give this point strong cosideration and act accordingly in a Farsighted Manner! GOOD LUCK!!! Respectfully submitted, B Commercial Property Owner and Represen- tative of Elm Avenue Commercial, a Te- nancy-In-Common Partnership, Commercial Property Owner. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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 to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I/ Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising 11d 122mi This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Rwd //-/.OJ Proof of Publication of STATESTREET MIXED USE PROJECT October 18, RP 07-04 CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, November 12,2002 to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RPO1-04) for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot commercial building consisting of 3,296 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 2,876 square feet of office space on the second floor on property located at 2917 State Street. The proposed project also includes the demolition of three existing buildings (927 square feet of retail, 440 square feet of storage, and a 1,212 square foot residential unit). No on-site parking is being proposed; the applicant is requesting participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program to satisfy the parking requirement for the project. The proposed project is located on the west side of State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue in Land Use District No. 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (Assessor Parcel Number 203-293-10). Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008. As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 at, or prior to, the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 01-04 CASE NAME: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PUBLISH: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18,2002 SI STATESTREET MIXED USE PROJECT RP 01-04 Anastasi Development Co L L C Redondo Beach, CA 90278 1200 Aviation Blvd Anastasi Development Corp Redondo Beach, CA 90278 1200 Aviation Blvd 203 Luvik & Veronica Grigoras 2802 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Catheryn T Christiansen 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505 Catheryn T Christiansen Torrance, CA 90505 2601 Airport Dr 300 Ralph F Burnette Carlsbad, CA 92008 390 Grand Ave Me zrahi Los Angeles, CA 90079 110 E 9Th St C871 Llc I Catalyst La Jolla, CA 92037 3252 Holiday Ct 225 Tlf Investments Partnership Santa Monica, CA 90403 3130 Wilshire Blvd Ted T Tanaka 11307 Hindry Ave Los Angeles, CA 90045 Anastasi Development Corp Redondo Beach, CA 90278 1200 Aviation Blvd 100 Anastasi Development Corp 1200 Aviation Blvd 100 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Ralph F & Lana Burnette Carlsbad, CA 92008 390 Grand Ave Ralphf T & Lana Burnette Torrance, CA 90505 2601 Airport Dr 300 Gericos Ptnshp 850 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ralphf T & Lana Burnette 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505 Mezrahi Los Angeles, CA 90079 110 E 9Th St C871 Llc I Catalyst La Jolla, CA 92037 3252 Holiday Ct 225 Tlf Investments Partnership 3130 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90403 David R Thompson Carlsbad, CA 92008 580 Beech Ave C Daniel C Wiehle Camp Verde, AZ 86322 2148 S Pearl Dr Dewhurst Family Carlsbad, CA 92008 3425 Seacrest Dr Dunham 4028 Park Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Marital T Howard-Jones Carlsbad, CA 92008 2785 Roosevelt St Tr Ward 32 Marigold Irvine, CA 92614 Roosevelt Tamarack Investment 6 Venture 215 Irvine, CA 92618 Ester Ahronee 4440 Cather Ave San Diego, CA 92122 Village Corner L L C Carlsbad, CA 92008 2998 State St Abel C Garcia 2960 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008 Douglas M Avis 234-3Rd St Encinitas, CA 92024 Daniel C Wiehle 2148 S Pearl Dr Camp Verde, AZ 86322 Dewhurst Family 3425 Seacrest Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dewhurst Carlsbad, CA 92008 3425 Seacrest Dr Frances L Smith Carlsbad, CA 92018 PO Box 864 Ostrie Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 PO Box 8 Bieri-Avis Vi Ltd 5055 Avenida Encinas 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Macdonald Properties L P & Ma 2016 Sheridan Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 Carlsbad Inn Ltd Oceanside, CA 92054 1438 Lemon St Leo & Dianna Pacheco 2100 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mission Square Shopping Cente 1691 Caminito Aliviado La Jolla, CA 92037 Harold V & Catherine Clarke Carlsbad, CA 92009 824 Caminito Del Reposo 2921 Roosevelt Ltd *M* Encinitas, CA 92024 365 Sunset Dr Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054 Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054 Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054 Leor & Ophira Lakritz Tustin, CA 92781 PO Box 1029 Leor & Ophira Lakritz Tustin, CA 92781 PO Box 1029 Leor & Ophira Lakritz Tustin, CA 92781 PO Box 1029 Baumgartner Newport Beach, CA 92659 PO Box 1333 Bill F & Laura1 Ryburn Oceanside, CA 92054 2019 Estero St Marvin S & Idella Humphreys 140 Acacia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Clark R & Shelley Knapp 215 W Palm St San Diego, CA 92103 Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054 Gunter PO Box 749 San Pedro, CA 90733 Tr Betz Carlsbad, CA 92008 3240 Donna Dr Leor & Ophira Lakritz Tustin, CA 92781 PO Box 1029 Leor & Ophira Lakritz Tustin, CA 92781 PO Box 1029 Satterly 1349 Melrose Way Vista, CA 92083 Butler Properties San Marcos. CA 92069 1229 Linda Vista Dr George R & Jackye Willis 2050 Laurie Cir Carlsbad, CA 92008 Harry L & Alice Guzellimian PO Box 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Rosalie T Kopp Oceanside, CA 92049 PO Box 764 Jerry Peters Cardiff By T, CA 92007 PO Box 1091 *** 63 Printed *** Michael K & Howard Murphy 400 N La Costa Dr Carlsbad, CA 92009 City Of Carlsbad Redevelopmen Public Agency Carlsbad, CA 92008 Great Western Bank Newport Beach, CA 92658 PO BOX 7788 Great Western Bank PO Box 7788 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Walker-Gilbert Tr 4350 Highland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tr Sims Carlsbad, CA 92008 2820 Wilson St Sara C Teran 305 Date Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Vermilyea Gsd 11620 Kismet Rd San Diego, CA 92128 John M & Nina Gordon PO Box 130065 Carlsbad, CA 92013 Great Western Bank PO BOX 7788 Newport Beach, CA 92658 City Of Carlsbad Redevelopmen Public Agency Carlsbad, CA 92018 Bank Of America Nt&Sa San Diego, CA 92101 750 B St 1500 Carlsbad Village Partners 872 Chelsea Ln Encinitas. CA 92024 Carlsbad Village Partners 872 Chelsea Ln Encinitas. CA 92024 *** 14 Printed *** Peacock 2763 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ralph F & Lan Burnette Carlsbad, CA 92008 390 Grand Ave Marital T Howard-Jones Carlsbad, CA 92008 2785 Roosevelt St Carlsbad Equity Properties Carlsbad, CA 92008 2965 Roosevelt St Palenscar 2139 State St Carlsbad. CA 92008 Robert L Nielsen Carlsbad. CA 92008 355 Carlsbad Villagedr Village Corner L L C 2998 State St Carlsbad. CA 92008 *** 7 Printed *** TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice 2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING (RP 01-04) for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The attached public hearing notice must be published, posted and mailed at least 10 days before the hearing. Please notice the item for a *Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting on f%. 2% ,2002. +GIs\ Thank you. Sor \OISlU? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE