HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-04; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 353; Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition RP 02-26HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB# 353 DEPT. HD.0 TITLE:
CITY MG DEPT. H/RED
RP 02-26 MTG. 2-4-03 CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION CITY ATTY.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 361 , APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-26) with a variance for a front yard building setback which
exceeds the maximum standard range for the Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition as recommended
by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 16, 2002, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for the construction of a 2,260 square foot addition to an existing
veterinary hospital at 2739 State Street. The .25-acre site is located on the west side of State Street
between Beech Ave. and Christiansen Way (Coaster Station entrance) in Land Use District 1 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
The site is bordered by an automotive repair shop to the north (Drag Master); a commercial center
with a hair salon, some office uses, and a landscape nursery to the south; an alley and the Coaster
Station parking lot to the west; and state Street to the east. Across State Street are various
commercial retail shops and commercial services.
The proposed project consists of maintaining the existing 1,565 square foot structure and adding
1,510 square feet to the first floor and 750 square feet of internal floor area and a 243 square foot
balcony to the second floor. Other onsite improvements include; enhanced landscaping and an
expanded landscape area between the building and the street, modified parking with a one-way drive
aisle providing vehicular ingress off State Street and egress onto the alley along the rear of the
property, and a new trash enclosure along the rear of the property.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, Lawson absent)
to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant a variance for the front- yard
building setback to exceed the maximum range for the property and the addition of the following
condition regarding the relocation of the trash enclosure:
“The trash enclosure shall be redesigned to open to the alley and repositioned further
southeast, next to the last parking space, to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.”
In addition, the applicant requested that the Board consider supporting the use of-a standing seam
metal roof as an alternative to the composition shingle roof shown on the plans. The Village Design
Guidelines emphasize the use of composition shingle roofs or textured roofs of similar materials in
the Village to create a sense of material and color continuity due to the visual prominence of pitched
roofs and to better integrate commercial and residential developments into a visually unified mixed
use neighborhood. The Design Review Board reviewed various standing seam metal roof designs
presented by the applicant. The Board’s motion did not include the addition of a condition regarding
the modified roof material, but three of the four Board members did not object to the use of a metal
roof in a “Terra Cotta” or “Colonial Red” color. If the Commission wishes to grant the applicant’s
request to use a standing seam metal roof, then the Commission must incorporate a condition
specifying their intent into the final decision on the project.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 353
Comments provided by the Board members on the proposed project are provided in the attached
draft minutes of the December 16'h meeting. The approving resolution and 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 15301 (e) 2, Class 1 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet to an existing
building in an area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum
development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located an environmentally
sensitive area. 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.
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 $221,370. With the new addition, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $380,000. The increase in value will result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $1,600
per year. More importantly, 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, by providing
for the substantial rehabilitation and expansion of an existing building and associated on-site
improvements.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution approving RP02-26 (Resolution NO. 361) 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 290 dated December 16,2002
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated December 16,2002, w/attachments
4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated December 16, 2002
2
Exhibit 1
HRC Resolution
Approving RP02-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NG mn RFnFVFl OPMFNT (=OMMISSION RFSOl UTLQbl NO. 362,
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING 1,565 SQUARE FOOT VETERINARY HOSPITAL ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2739 STATE STREET IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP 02-26,
~
QF NO: RP 07-36
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2002 the City of Carlsbad Design Review
Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP
02-26) for a 2,260 square foot addition to an existing veterinary hospital on property
located at 2239 State Street, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 290
recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major
Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-26) 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 02-26); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a
variance for the front yard setback which exceeds the standard range; 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
HRC RES0 NO. 391
Page 1 of 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
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15301 (e) 2, Class 1 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet to an existing building an
area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum
development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located in an
environmentally sensitive area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-26) is AEERWE!2 and that
the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 290,
on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, except that the roof shall
consist of a standing seam metal roof in accordance with all applicable building codes
and standards and its appearance shall be to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
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 involves the addition to an existing structure and the
addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet;
(b) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are
available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan; and
HRC RES0 NO. 391
Page 2 of 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
(c) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally
sensitive. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental
determination reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City 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 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 his attorney of record, if he 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."
HRC RES0 NO. 391
Page 3 of 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 4th day of Eehay 2003, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
HRC RES0 NO. 391
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 2
DRB Resolution No. 290
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. 290
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
1,565 SQUARE FOOT VETERINARY HOSPITAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2739 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION
APN: 203-054-24
CASE NO: RP 02-26
WHEREAS, Shanna McGriff, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lauren Myers,
“Owner”, described as Lot 2 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California according to map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, July 28,1921 (“the Property”); and
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 02-26, FOR THE
c
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-F” dated December 16,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition W02-26”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 16* day of December 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
“Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition WO2-26”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(53
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
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition
RPO2-26, 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 15301 (e) 2, Class 1 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet to an existing building in
an area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum
development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located in an
environmentally sensitive area. 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 for a front yard setback variance, 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 December 16,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
project improves an existing resident-serving use and serves to retain the Village
character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards
and design guidelines set forth for the area, with the exception of the variance
for the front yard setback.
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 the area through the following actions: 1) the project serves to retain and
increase a use currently serving Carlsbad residents; 2) the project serves to
improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Village Area by removing
vehicular egress onto State Street and incorporating a one-way drive aisle with
vehicular egress onto the rear alley, thus reducing vehicular/pedestrian conflicts
on State Street; 3) the project will serve to stimulate property improvements and
new development in the area through the substantial rehabilitation of an existing
building in the Village; and 4) the project serves to improve the physical
appearance of the Village in that the project design improves the physical
appearance of the existing building and incorporates many of the design
elements encouraged for the Village.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines, and other applicable regulations
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual with the exception of the
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -2- 9
,
A
L
4
t
d
t
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
1:
It
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d.
I
e.
requested variance.
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.
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 as follows to allow for a variance for a front yard setback
that exceeds the standard range:
a.
b.
C.
That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that strict adherence to the front setback requirement of 0-10 feet would require
the complete demolition of the existing structure and its replacement with a new
structure closer to the street. This action would result in a substantial financial
hardship to the existing business/property owner. The proposed project would
permit the entire existing structure to remain relatively unchanged while
incorporating a significant addition of square footage and improved building
design modifications.
That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
unique condition associated with the subject property is the location of the
existing building on the property and the need for the existing structure to
remain for the economic viability of the project. Furthermore, the addition had
to be configured in such a way and maintain a maximum square footage to
provide for required on-site parking.
That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will
not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the proposed
addition will reduce the level of nonconformity on the front of the building by
moving the front of the building 5’-7” closer to the street than currently exists on
DFU3 RES0 NO. 290 -3- 10
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
d.
e.
the property. Moreover, the project will meet all other development standards
(i.e. all other building setbacks, on-site parking, lot coverage, open space, and
building height) and assist the area by improving the appearance of an out-dated
building design.
That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with mahy of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The granting of the variance will not contradict any
other development and design standards established in the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual and will assist in providing for the substantial rehabilitation
of the existing property.
An increased setback on the front of the property is justified because the project
is in a location where other buildings in the area have varying setbacks from
State Street and setting the structure back to the desired standard will not
contradict any other development and design standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and will maintain and reinforce the
Village character of the area by providing for the substantial rehabilitation of an
existing out-dated building.
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.
DIU3 RES0 NO. 290 -4- It
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
NOLLANDIOLAN 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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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
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’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, (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
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -5- 12
1
r
L
-
4
4
I
c
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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.
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.
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. 290 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
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -6- 13
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
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.
15.
16.
17.
18.
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.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parlung areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
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 and E”. Any changes to
the sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
The trash enclosure shall be redesigned to open to the alley and repositioned further
southeast, next to the last parking space, to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
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.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -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
27
28
FeedAgreements:
3. 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.
4. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Dedicationsflmprovements:
5. The Developer shall comply with the Storm Water Management Plan for Carlsbad
Animal Hospital Addition, dated October 1,2002, on file with the City.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall enter into an
Encroachment Agreement with the City to install within the State Street and alley
public right-of-way the proposed trees shown on the site plan. As an alternative for
the State Street public right-of-way, the applicant may process a street vacation
through the City to relinquish 10 feet of public right-of-way fronting the subject
property to the property owner.
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
taxes/fees 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. .
3. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on
the site plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer
impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code, respectively.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -8- 'I 5
1
r 1
L
4
e
P I
8
S
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General:
4.
5.
6.
...
...
. ..
...
...
...
.. .
...
.. .
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 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. 290 -9-
1
r
1
L
1
t
r I
E
s
1C
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 as
“fees/exactions.”
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 FURTHER NOTIFED 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 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 special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16’h day of December, 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Marquez, Heineman, Paulsen, Baker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lawson
ABSTAIN: None
DESIGN REV@W%&RD
ATTEST:
n
0
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -10- i7
Exhibit 3
DRB Staff Report
(with attachments)
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department @
Apolication Complete Date: Staff: Lori Rosenstein
911 2/02 David Rick Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption
1 I ITEM NO. 1
DATE: December 16,2002
SUBJECT: RP 02-26 - “CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION”: Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2,260 square foot addition to an
existing 1,565 square foot veterinary hospital on property located at 2739 State
Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 290
recommending APPROVAL of RP 02-26 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Dr. Laurie Bauer currently owns and operates the Carlsbad Animal Hospital located at 2739
State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. She is
requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2,260 square foot addition
to the existing building. The property is located on the west side of State Street between Grand
Avenue and Beech Avenue. The site is bordered by an automotive repair shop to the north
(Drag Master), a commercial center and landscape nursery to the south, an alley and the
Coaster Station parking lot to the west, and State Street to the east. Across State Street are
various commercial retail shops and commercial services.
The building in which the Carlsbad Animal Hospital is currently located is situated on the far
northwest corner of the 10,879 square foot lot. The existing single-story, 1,565 square foot,
masonry block building is set back 59 feet from the front property line, 17’-9 from the west
(rear) property line, and immediately adjacent to the north (side) property line. Between the
rear of the building and the adjacent alley are two existing sheds and an outdoor storage area
enclosed by a chain-link fence with razor wire. Parking is located in front of the existing building
and along the south property line. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site is via a 13’-6” curb
cut on State Street.
The proposed project consists of maintaining the existing structure and adding 1,510 square
feet to the first floor and 750 square feet of internal floor area and a 243 square foot deck on
the second floor. Since the existing building is located directly adjacent to the north property
line, the first story addition will be mainly along the rear and north side of the existing structure
with a small addition to the front. The second story addition will be situated directly above the
first story addition along the rear and a portion of the north side of the building. Without the
demolition and reconstruction of the existing building, structural engineering precludes the
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 2
addition of a second story above the existing structure. The first story addition will move the
front of the building 5’-7” closer to the street, which results in a setback of 53’4” from the front
property line. The second story addition will be setback 80 feet from the front property line.
Other onsite improvements include; enhanced landscaping and an expanded landscape area
between the building and the street, modified parking with a one-way drive aisle providing
vehicular ingress off State Street and egress onto the alley along the rear of the property, and a
new trash enclosure along the rear of the property.
The discretionary review process for the Village Redevelopment Area requires a determination
by the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed
land use and project design are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, the Village
Redevelopment Plan, and the land use regulations, development standards and design
guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The following discussion is provided to support the determination that the proposed project is
consistent with all applicable land use regulations, design and development standards, and
other requirements of the City of Carlsbad.
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 office use (medical treatment
office) in an appropriate location within the Village. As with most office uses, a medical
treatment office use is considered a provisional land use within District 1. Since the use does
not qualify as a nonconforming use, the expansion of the existing use is permitted as long as
the addition and associated site improvements comply with the development standards and
design guidelines of District 1.
The building in which the Carlsbad Animal Hospital is located was built in 1970 as a veterinary
hospital. Ten years ago, Dr. Bauer purchased the property and has continued to operate the
business. The property owner’s desire to expand the existing building is testimony to the
business’ success in its present location. The project improves an existing resident-serving use
and serves to retain the Village character 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:
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 3
Goal 1 : Establish Carlsbad Villaae as a Quality Shoppinu, Workina and Livina Environment.
One of the objectives of this goal is to retain and increase uses serving Carlsbad residents. As
the only veterinary hospital in the downtown area, the expansion of the Carlsbad Animal
Hospital will serve to retain this existing resident-serving use.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The project
modifies the existing vehicular circulation of the site by eliminating vehicular egress onto State
Street. The change to a one-way drive aisle forces cars to exit onto the alley, thus reducing
vehicular/pedestrian conflicts on State Street and improving pedestrian and vehicular circulation
in the area.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property improvements and New Development 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. The proposed project will result in the substantial rehabilitation of an existing
building in the Village, which in turn will encourage other improvements in the surrounding area.
Goal 4: Improve the Phvsical Appearance of the Villaae Area. The project design improves
the physical appearance of the existing building and incorporates many of the design elements
encouraged for the Village set forth in the Village Design Guidelines.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
In order to establish a baseline for existing uses during the preparation of the Village Master
Plan, a land use survey was completed by the Redevelopment Agency in November of 1991.
Since land use permits did not exist for many of the uses in the Village, the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Agency’s Land Use Survey served to establish the “original use” of the
property. The “original use” is considered to be the historical use of the site. Whether
conforming or nonconforming to current land use regulations, an “original use” is allowed to
remain. Unless an “original use” is determined to be nonconforming, the expansion or
intensification of the use is permitted as long as the changes adhere to current development
standards.
The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Agency’s Land Use Survey indicates the veterinary
hospital was in existence when the survey was conducted. Therefore, the existing use
becomes the “original use” of the property. Since the existing use does not meet the definition
of nonconforming use as set forth in the Village Master Plan, the expansion of the existing use
is permitted as long as it meets the development standards and design guidelines established
for the area. A major redevelopment permit is required because the proposed improvements
exceed a building valuation of $1 50,000
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 1 are as
follows:
Buildinn 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 0-1 0
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 4
feet, however, there is no minimum or maximum setback requirement for the side and rear
yards. The proposed addition is setback 53’-5” on the first floor and 80 feet on the second floor
from State Street (front yard), 0 feet from the alley along the west side of the property (rear
year), 0 feet from the adjacent property to the north (side yard), and 42’-2” from the adjacent
property to the south (side yard). The project conforms to the setback standards for District 1
with the exception of the front yard setback, which exceeds the maximum range.
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. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance must be
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Variances may only be granted if
the findings set forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition]
a variance for a setback standard that exceeds the top of the range may only be granted if the
project meets one or more of the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body.
The first criterion noted above applies to the subject project. An increased setback on the front
of the property is justified because the project is in a location where other buildings in the area
have varying setbacks from State Street and setting the structure back to the desired standard
will not contradict any other development and design standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual and will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the
area by providing for the substantial rehabilitation of an existing out-dated building.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for setback standards that
exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variances. In order to approve the requested
variance to exceed the maximum setback on the front the property] the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make all four findings contained
within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the following justification for
granting the requested variances to exceed the setback standards:
Variance Findina #7: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: Strict adherence to the front setback requirement of 0-10
feet would require the complete demolition of the existing structure and its replacement with a
new structure closer to the street. This action would result in a substantial financial hardship to
the existing business/property owner. The proposed project would permit the entire existing
structure to remain relatively unchanged while incorporating a significant addition of square
footage and improved building design modifications.
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
Variance Findina #2 There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The unique condition
associated with the subject property is the location of the existing building on the property and
the need for the existing structure to remain for the economic viability of the project.
Furthermore, the addition had to be configured in such a way and maintain a maximum square
footage to provide for required on-site parking.
Variance Findina #3 The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will not have a
detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the proposed addition will reduce the
level of nonconformity on the front of the building by moving the front of the building 5’-7” closer
to the street than currently exists on the property. Moreover, the project will meet all other
development standards (i.e. all other building setbacks, on-site parking, lot coverage, open
space, and building height) and assist the area by improving the appearance of an out-dated
building design.
Variance Findina ##: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The granting of
the variance will not contradict any other development and design standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and will assist in providing for the substantial
rehabilitation of the existing property.
Based on these variance findings, it is staff’s position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow a building setback that exceeds the established range on the
front of the property.
Buildinn Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for commercial
projects in Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage
is 28%, which is below established range. While the bottom of the range is considered the
desired standard there are no special findings that must be made for approval of a building
coverage standard that is below the established range. Therefore, staff finds that the project
meets the building coverage standard set forth for District 1.
Buildinn Height: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. The maximum height of the proposed addition is 25”” with various 512 roof
pitches incorporated throughout the added area. Thus, 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: 2,305 square feet of landscaping to screen the parking lot and a
223 square foot second story deck along the rear of the building. The project provides for a
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 6
total of 2,525 square feet of open space, which represents 23% of the site and is consistent
with the open space requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for office space in the Village Redevelopment Area
is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. The requirement for a 3,825
square foot office building is 13 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide all 13 spaces on-
site by way of a one-way drive-aisle with ingress off State Street and egress onto the adjacent
alley at the rear of the property. The prpposed project satisfies the parking requirements for the
existing use and the proposed square footage.
Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housing Requirements: 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
Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as
appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten
(1 0) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Development shall have an overall informal character.
Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
Development shall be small in scale.
Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
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 various design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The project has
an overall informal character. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through
the incorporation of several architectural features and details including; various pitched roof
elements, dormers, a variety of window sizes with decorative trim and projecting sills, a textured
roof, a main stucco color with complimentary stucco accent color, 36' high wainscot of
horizontal rock along the base of the building, decorative sconces, and a wall fountain at the
front entrance. The development is small in scale in that it maintains a one-story character
along the street frontage and a two-story character along the alley. Maintaining the existing
structure and providing required parking precludes moving the structure significantly closer to
the street. Similarly, while the parking layout has not been modified significantly, the parking
has been made more visually subordinate by reducing the width of the curb cut on State Street,
altering the perpendicular spaces to angled spaces, and changing the existing two-way drive
aisle to one-way with egress onto the alley along the rear of the property. Additional
landscaping is proposed as part of the project to enhance the area between the building and
State Street. Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired Village character in terms of size,
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 7
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).
The project plans show a composite shingle roof. This roof material was incorporated into the
project design after staff informed the applicant the originally designed metal roof was not
consistent with the Village Design Guidelines. However, the applicant and the property owner
believe the use of a metal roof is more desirable and would like the opportunity to present an
alternative roof material design to the Design Review Board.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The total building frontage of the building is 42.33 linear feet, which equates to 42.33 square
feet of total sign area allowed. As indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is
proposing to install one wall sign on the front of the building and one monument on the
southeast corner of the lot. The monument sign measures 24 square feet and is 60" tall. The
wall sign will not exceed 18 square feet in sign area. The combined sign area equates to 42
square feet, which is consistent with 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 an addition to
the building footprint of an existing structure with 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.
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 & Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 50 ADT/1000 sq ft x 2,434 additional area = 121.7
additional = 81.55 ADT = 203 ADT
A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant amount of additional traffic
projected.
Comment: All frontage and project related roadways are in place and no additional
improvements are required.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 8
Sewer EDU’s Required: 2,434 SQ FT addition / 1800 SQ FT = 1.35 Additional EDU’s 4,065 SQ FT / 1800 SQ FT = Total 2.26 EDU’s
Comment: A sewer main exists in the alley west of the property. The project site is currently
served by a sewer lateral and no additional upgrades are anticipated.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD Required: 220 gpd/edu x 2.26 edu’s = 497 GPD
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project.
Grading:
Quantities: Cut: 16 cubic yards Fill: 0 cubic yards Export: 16 cubic yards
Permit required: No
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: N/A
Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: N/A
Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project.
Drainaae and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: A
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: N/A
Erosion Potential: Low
Comment: Through resurfacing of the parking lot, drainage flow will be diverted from partially
draining westward to the alley and partially draining eastward to State Street to draining
southward at a 1% grade to a 3-foot wide grass swale abutting the neighboring property to the
south. Drainage will then flow eastward to a 1.5 to 2 foot deep settling pond. A Storm Water
Management Plan completed by a registered civil engineer was submitted with the application
for a redevelopment permit. The report analyzed the capacity of the swale and settling pond
during a 100-year storm. A basin volume of 381 cubic feet would be required based on calculations and enough storage for 386 cubic feet will be provided when including some
overflow into the parking stalls. The grades will be established such that if any overflow is to
occur, no flow will cross onto the neighbor’s property. All drainage will either percolate into the
soil or overflow from the settling pond out to the driveway to State Street.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easement: None
Easement dedicatioi required: No dedication is required. However, the property does have
excess public right-of-way of 10 feet on State Street. The applicant is proposing to plant trees within this right-of-way. Any trees planted within the right-of-way will require processing of an
encroachment agreement subject to the City Engineer’s approval. If the applicant desires, they
may alternatively apply for a street vacation to relinquish the right-of-way. Street vacations are
subject to the City Council’s approval. The project has been conditioned accordingly.
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL - RP 02-26
DECEMBER 16,2002
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project.
Improvements:
Off-site improvements: none required.
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 15301 (e)
2, Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet
to an existing building in an area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow
for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located an
environmentally sensitive area. 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 economic impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the rehabilitation and expansion of the existing building will
result in a reassessment of the property and an increase in property taxes. This increase in
property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency.
Second, the substantial upgrade and improvements to the existing property may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, such as new development or rehabilitation of other
existing buildings.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for a front yard
setback that exceeds the maximum standard allowed. Development of the site will have a
positive economic impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in
fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by providing for the
substantial rehabilitation and expansion of an existing building and associated on-site
improvements.
EXHIBITS:
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 290 recommending approval of RP 02-26
B. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
C. Location Map
D. Exhibits "A - F, dated December 16, 2002, including reduced exhibits
Exhibit A
DRB Resolution No. 290
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. 290
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
1,565 SQUARE FOOT VETERINARY HOSPITAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2739 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION
APN: 203-054-24
CASE NO: RP 02-26
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 02-26, FOR THE
WHEREAS, Shanna McGriff, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lauren Myers,
“Owner”, described as Lot 2 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California according to map thereof No. 1722, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, July 28,1921 (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-F” dated December 16,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition RPO2-26”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 16* day of December 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
“Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition RPO2-26”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition
RPO2-26, 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 15301 (e) 2, Class 1 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet to an existing building in
an area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum
development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located in an
environmentally sensitive area. 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 for a front yard setback variance, 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 December 16,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a.
b.
C.
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
project improves an existing resident-serving use and serves to retain the Village
character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards
and design guidelines set forth for the area; with the exception of the ,variance
for the front yard setback.
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 the area through the following actions: 1) the project serves to retain and
increase a use currently serving Carlsbad residents; 2) the project serves to
improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Village Area by removing
vehicular egress onto State Street and incorporating a one-way drive aisle with
vehicular egress onto the rear alley, thus reducing vehiculadpedestrian conflicts
on State Street; 3) the project will serve to stimulate property improvements and
new development in the area through the substantial rehabilitation of an existing
building in the Village; and 4) the project serves to improve the physical
appearance of the Village in that the project design improves the physical
appearance of the existing building and incorporates many of the design
elements encouraged for the Village.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines, and other applicable regulations
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual with the exception of the
DRB RES0 NO. 290
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
requested variance.
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.
3. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a variance for a front yard setback
that exceeds the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that strict adherence to the front setback requirement of 0-10 feet would require
the complete demolition of the existing structure and its replacement with a new
structure closer to the street. This action would result in a substantial financial
hardship to the existing businesdproperty owner. The proposed project would
permit the entire existing structure to remain relatively unchanged while
incorporating a significant addition of square footage and improved building
design modifications.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
unique condition associated with the subject property is the location of the
existing building on the property and the need for the existing structure to
remain for the economic viability of the project. Furthermore, the addition had
to be configured in such a way and maintain a maximum square footage to
provide for required on-site parking.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will
not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the proposed
addition will reduce the level of nonconformity on the front of the building by
moving the front of the building 5’-7” closer to the street than currently exists on
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -3- ,r
L“i i “< I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the property. Moreover, the project will meet all other development standards
(i.e. all other building setbacks, on-site parking, lot coverage, open space, and
building height) and assist the area by improving the appearance of an out-dated
building design.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The granting of the variance will not contradict any
other development and design standards established in the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual and will assist in providing for the substantial rehabilitation
of the existing property.
e. An increased setback on the front of the property is justified because the project
is in a location where other buildings in the area have varying setbacks from
State Street and setting the structure back to the desired standard will not
contradict any other development and design standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and will maintain and reinforce the
Village character of the area by providing for the substantial rehabilitation of an
existing out-dated building.
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.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -4- ..... >. ;
.... .' L-
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
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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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
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'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 DeveloperiOperator 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, (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
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -5-
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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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.
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.
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. 290 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
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -6- . .*. I; . c ..i LJ’
I,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
15.
16.
17.
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.
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.
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 and E”. Any changes to
the sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
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.
FeedAgreements:
3. 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. 290 -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
27
28
4. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Dedicationsfimprovements:
5. The Developer shall comply with the Storm Water Management Plan for Carlsbad
Animal Hospital Addition, dated October 1,2002, on file with the City.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall enter into an
Encroachment Agreement with the City to install within the State Street and alley
public right-of-way the proposed trees shown on the site plan. As an alternative for
the State Street public right-of-way, the applicant may process a street vacation
through the City to relinquish 10 feet of public right-of-way fronting the subject
property to the property owner.
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 taxeslfees 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.
3. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on
the site plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer
impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code, respectively.
General:
4. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
DRB RES0 NO. 290 -8-
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
5. 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.
6. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
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
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. 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 FURTHER 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 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 special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16* day of December, 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SARAH MARQUEZ, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AlTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 290 ”:-? p‘ -9- i ” ,,
Exhibit B
Design Guidelines
Analysis
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.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
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.
Project: Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition
The project results in a 53'-5" setback from State
Street on the first floor and an 80 foot setback on
the second floor.
The project is not proposing any benches or low
walls along the front of the project; however, the
City maintains public benches on the sidewalk in
areas of higher pedestrian activity south of the
subject property.
The proposed project does not change the land
use that exists today. The proposed project will
not change existing retail continuity.
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, sides, 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, sides, and rear of the building to
enhance the appearance of the property/building
as viewed from the public street and alley.
Landscaping is provided along the perimeter of all
surface parking.
Vehicular egress is provided to the alley along the
rear of the property.
Project involves an expansion to an existing
building, which dictates the location of the parking.
All parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation are devoted to
landscaping.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
One minimum width curb cut is provided on State
st.
Site is not located on a corner.
L" ' I
I
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 to divide parking lot paving
into smaller segments.
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.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Landscaped setbacks are provided between
parking lot and adjacent sidewalk and alley.
Building does not incorporate enclosed parking on
the ground floor.
Below grade parking is not feasible for the project.
Parking lot is small enough with extensive
landscaping that an enhanced parking surface is
not necessary.
The proposed addition has been designed
specifically for this location in accordance with the
Village Design Manual and is not a generic copy of
other buildings.
The second stow is stepped back 27.5 feet further
than the first story on State Street.
A majority of the building is single story with the
second story located to the rear of the property,
which serves to break up the building into smaller
units.
The single story component of the building on
State Street is consistent with height of other
buildings on the same side of the street.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms. The building is not trendy or "look at
me" in design.
Hip roof features with the minimum 512 pitch
have been provided on the proposed project.
Dormers are provided on the south facing
elevation.
Composite shingle roof tiles are proposed, which
are consistent with the architectural design
intended for the area.
The existing flat roof will be maintained on the
portion of the building that is to remain due to site
limitations, which preclude adding greater loads to
the existing building. Pitched roofs are
incorporated throughout the addition.
2
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
I
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
II Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
3
This will be a requirement of the project.
~~ ~~
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
By providing decorative lighting, a wall fountain,
rounded glass, and by maintaining a single story
character, the building faGade is visually
interesting.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into the front, south side, and rear
building facades, thereby creating visual interest in
the building. The project makes good use of
various window sizes, trimmed windows with
projecting sills, horizontal stone wainscot along the
perimeter base, and stucco color.
Small individual windows are incorporated on both
the first and second story of the building.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections at both the front and rear of the
building. Architectural plant-ons are used on the
south-facing wall to help create shadows and
contrast.
The upper level sits far back from the street,
however, a tower element is incorporated along
the portion of the second story facing the street,
multiple windows and dormers are incorporated
along the portion of the second story facing south,
a landscaped balcony is provided along the upper
level of the building facing the alley.
There is no separate upper level use proposed for
the site.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
building which include; decorative trim around the
windows, projecting window sills, horizontal stone
wainscot, decorative sconces, and a wall fountain.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize a stucco finish with a
horizontal stone wainscot.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass. The windows are clear glass.
~ ~~~~~ ~ I
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Wood or vinyl coated doors and window frames
will be utilized.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies. I No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
I Utilize light and neutral base colors. The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates one primary base color,
one primary accent color around the windows
(slightly darker shade of the base color), and a
stone wainscot along the base.
Provide significant storefront glazing. The proposed office use does not lend itself to the
a rounded privacy glass wall make up a significant
use of display windows, however, a glass door and
portion of the front elevation.
Avoid large blank walls.
of the building and will abut an existing automotive
The only blank wall is located along the north side
repair shop located on the common lot line.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants. Project does not include a restaurant use.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
No fabric awnings are proposed over the
storefront windows and entries. The design of the
front faGade includes a sloping roof and does not
lend itself to the use of awnings. I Emphasize display windows with special lighting. The office use does not have a need for display
windows. I1 Encourage the use of dutch doors. The project design does not lend itself to the use
of dutch doors. 11 Utilize small paned windows. I Windows of various sizes and shapes are included II I throughout the project.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
cant was able to develop a total design concept
around maintaining the existing building.
The project incorporates a single primary entry
along State Street and three employee entrances
along the south facing wall of the building, which is
appropriate to the use.
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
display windows.
front entry is the width of a standard door. storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
The use does not utilize display windows and the
U I
4
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed The project does not include pull down shutters,
security grilles over windows along street frontages. sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
Emphasize storefront entries. The front entrance is emphasized through the use
of signage, a pedestrian pathway leading from the
parking lot, and decorative glass.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design. Fences and walls are not proposed as part of this
project.
Encourage front entry gardens I Not applicable.
Locate residential units near front property lines and Not applicable.
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches. 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 landscaping. Not applicable.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas. Not applicable.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in Not applicable.
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls. Not applicable.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller Not applicable.
components.
5
Exhibit C
Location Map
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL
RP 02-26
Exhibit D
Reduced Exhibits “A-F”
NIMAL HOSpITAL
EXHI BIT.&.
. ”
I
..
I
t I TopcTWXf
lt-7
IL I
t TopcTGca-
W -I
EXHIBITL
Exhibit 4
DRB Minutes
(December 16,2002)
DRAFT
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of meeting: DECEMBER 16,2002
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Marquez called the Special Meeting to order at 6:Ol p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Baker to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Marquez proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Commissioners:
Chairperson:
Absent:
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director:
Management Analyst:
Assistant City Attorney:
Project Engineer:
Julie Baker
Larry Paulsen
Courtney Heineman
Sarah Marquez
Tony Lawson
Debbie Fountain
Lori Rosenstein
Jane Mobaldi
David Rick
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Paulsen, and duly seconded by Board Member Heineman
to accept the Minutes of September 23, 2002, as written.
VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Baker, Paulsen, Heineman, and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lawson
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
Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, RP 02-26 “Carlsbad Animal Hospital Addition.”
A request for a major redevelopment permit for the construction of a 2,260 square foot addition to an existing 1,565 square foot veterinary hospital on property located at 2739 State Street in land use District 1
of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Chairperson Marquez invited staff to make their presentation.
Ms. Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst, stated the item involves property owned by Dr. Laurie Bauer
who currently owns and operates the Carlsbad Animal Hospital located at 2739 State Street in land use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Dr. Bauer is requesting a major redevelopment permit for
the construction of a 2,260 square foot addition to the existing veterinary hospital. The existing veterinary
hospital is located on the west side of State Street. The nearest cross street to the north is Beech
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 2 of 8
Avenue. The nearest cross street to the south is Christiansen Way, which is also the entrance to the
Coaster Station. The existing site is 84 feet wide by a 129 feet deep. The total lot area is 10,880 square
feet. The existing building, depicted in the picture, sits far back from the front of the property off of State
Street. The existing veterinary hospital is situated in the far northwest corner of the lot. The existing
building is 1,565 square feet and it consists of a concrete masonry block building, all single story. Based
on our records, the building was constructed back in 1970 as a veterinary hospital and Dr. Bauer has
owned and operated it for the past ten years.
Ms. Rosenstein continued that the existing parking is located in the front of the hospital and along the
south side. The existing building is setback 59 feet from the front property line and almost 18 feet from
the rear property line, which abuts the alley. The building is immediately adjacent to the north property
line, which abuts an existing building. Vehicular access is by way of a 13-6” curb cut on State Street.
Currently, vehicular ingress and egress are both off of State Street. There is no through access to the
alley in the back; it is fenced off. The existing building has a flat fagade and a very low flat roof with
existing roof equipment on top. The rear of the building is located almost 18 feet from the rear property line. Between the rear of the building and the alley are two existing sheds and some outdoor storage
area. Due to the nature of the business and for security measures, the chain link fence along the rear
alley has razor wire on top. This is the alley that runs along the parking for the coaster station.
Dragmaster is located just north of the subject property. It is an existing automotive repair shop and both
the animal hospital and the automotive repair shop share a common property line. Both buildings are
located directly on that property line. To the south there is an existing commercial building. Currently,
there is a hair salon in the front and offices located along the side. In the back there is an outdoor
landscape nursery with parking in the front.
Ms. Rosenstein said that across State Street are various commercial retail shops and commercial services; including the Carlsbad Art and Antique Mall that is located immediately across the street from
the veterinary hospital. The proposed project consists maintaining the existing structure where it currently
stands. Ms. Rosenstein displayed a slide showing the existing structure in white and the first story
addition in yellow. The applicant is asking to add 131 0 square feet to the first floor and 750 square feet to
the second story, as well as, a 243 square foot deck along the back. Most of the second story addition will
cover the rear portion of the first story and then run along the south side of the building. Without the
demolition and reconstruction of the existing building, structural engineering precludes the addition of a
second story above any portion of the existing single story structure. The first story addition will move the
building 5-7” closer to the street, as outlined in yellow, and will result in a setback of 53’4” from the front property line.
The second story addition will start further back, which is 80 feet back from the front property line. Other
onsite improvements include: enhanced landscaping, an expanded landscape area between the building
and State Street, and a modified parking arrangement. Currently there is perpendicular parking and
vehicular ingress and egress off of State Street as previously stated. The new design has ingress only off
of State Street and egress onto the back alley with angled parking on both sides of the drive aisle. This
parking layout solves a reoccurring problem Dr. Bauer experiences anytime there is a special event in the
downtown area. Her business is one that operates on a 24-hour emergency basis, and whenever the
streets are shut down, especially State Street, her patients have a difficult time getting to her business. We discussed opening up the back of the property to the alley, since the alley always remains open during
the special events. The new parking layout will solve that problem and help Dr. Bauer’s patients have
access to the facility whether or not State Street is closed.
The architectural design of the building provides for both variety and diversity through the incorporation of
several architectural features and details. The architect for the project has incorporated various pitched
roof elements, dormers, and a variety of window sizes. The architect, Shanna McGriff, has prepared a
model, which she will present to the Board. The design of the building is a little hard to depict from the
building plans alone. Essentially, the whole front roofline slopes back considerably and appears to be a
55
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 3 of 8 DRAFT
one-story element. The second-story element sits much further back. This is depicted in the model which
will be shown later.
On the front of the building are a rounded privacy glass feature, front entry doors, and decorative sconces
for the lights. On the side elevation there are various sized windows with two windows along the top of the
building extending out from the wall of the building. This is more clearly shown in the model. There is a
36-inch wainscot that completely borders the perimeter of the structure comprised of a thick, horizontal,
natural stone. Along the rear of the building are more pitched roof elements. The addition on the north
side of the building maintains the existing zero lot line.
The development is small in scale. It maintains a one-story element along the street frontage, with a two-
story element along the side and rear. Maintaining the existing structure and providing the required on-
site parking precludes moving the structure any closer to the street then what is currently being proposed.
Similarly, while the parking layout has not been modified significantly, the parking has been made more visually subordinate by altering the perpendicular spaces to angled spaces and by changing the two-way
driveway to a one-way access only. Additional landscaping is proposed as part of the project to enhance
the area between the building and State Street, and finally the signage is appropriate to the village area.
On the site plan, a monument sign is shown, proposed to be 24 square feet in sign area, which meets ttie
sign standards. The sign will be externally illuminated if it is illuminated, and it will stand no higher than 60
inches. The building frontage is 42 feet wide and the allowable sign area for the site is 42 square feet.
With 24 square feet of sign area devoted to the monument sign, the remaining 18 square feet of sign area
will be devoted to a wall sign on the front of the building.
Ms. Rosenstein continued, the discretionary review process for the Village Redevelopment Area requires
a determination by the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the
proposed land use and project design are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, the Village
Redevelopment Plan, and the land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with all the
development regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area District 1 with the exception of the
front yard setback. As presently stated in the Master Plan, if the building is setback more then the
established standard, and in this case the established standard for District 1 is zero to ten feet, then a variance is required and certain findings set forth in the Master Plan must be made. In this case, the
proposed building would be set back 53’-5” from the front property line and would require a variance. Staff
has provided the justification for granting the variance in Design Review Board Resolution No. 290.
The benefits to the redevelopment area from the proposed project include improved onsite circulation,
which will reduce ingress and egress conflicts on State Street, and an improved building design, which is more conducive to the village character then what is currently on this site. The Planning Department has
conducted the environmental review for the project and found the project to be exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. The necessary findings for the environmental determination are also found in the DRB Resolution 290. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive economic impact on the
city and the redevelopment agency. First, the rehabilitation and expansion of the existing building will
result in a slight increase in tax increment to the redevelopment agency. It is also anticipated that the
project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, particularly on North State Street, which
has been an emphasis for both staff and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for the front
yard setback to exceed the maximum standard. The development of this site will have a positive impact
on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives for the
Village Redevelopment Area.
Chairperson Marquez asked if any Board members had any questions for Lori Rosenstein.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 4 of 8 DRAFT
Board Member Baker asked Ms. Rosenstein about the property to the north of the proposed project. She
inquired as to if it is a two-story building, so it would be a two-story building against another two-story
building?
Ms. Rosenstein answered no, the adjacent building to the north is a single story building. However, the
adjacent building is taller in the back then it is in the front, as that is where the bays are located for the
automotive repairs.
Board Member Baker said her question was, is there a wall there? That is how does the roof tie into the
wall on the west and north property line.
Ms. Rosenstein said that the entire north side of the building will be a solid parapet and the reason for that
is to meet the Uniform Building Code standards for being located on a zero lot line. There is a flat parapet
extending along the entire northern property line, which will be up against the side of Dragmaster. The
proposed building will extend above a portion of Dragmaster on the front of State Street; Dragmaster is a
single story. On the back it is squared off with more of a two-story element.
Board Member Baker asked if it is shown on the model?
Ms. Rosenstein said the model shows the existing building and then the addition.
Board Member Baker continued with her question. If you were at Dragmaster and you were looking south,
would there be a flat wall?
Ms. Rosenstein said yes. However, the building in which Dragmaster is located extends closer to the street than the veterinary hospital.
Board Member Baker said she is talking about in the back roofline.
Ms. Rosenstein said there will be a flat roofline next to the pitched roof line.
Project Designer, Shanna McGriff, said Dragmaster starts approximately 20 feet in front of the proposed
building and it is one story until the back. The parapet is going to be abutting the zero setback.
Board Member Baker inquired as to whether it will be built where it exists right now?
Ms. McGriff pointed out on the model the area that already exists and then the area that will be new.
Board Member Heineman inquired as to whether the animal hospital has parking on the adjacent parking
lot to the south?
Ms. Rosenstein said no. All those spaces that are on the property to the south were done when the
landscape nursery went in.
Board Member Heineman asked if the change to angled parking provides as many spaces as were there
before?
Ms. Rosenstein said there would be more.
Chairperson Marquez asked Ms. Rosenstein: Since an avenue of egress is going to be added to the
project, does the width going into the alley from the property meet the standards for ingress and egress.
Ms. Rosenstein asked Mr. Rick, the Project Engineer to answer that question.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 5 of 8 DRAFT
Mr. Rick said it does meet the standards for a one-way drive aisle with an 18-foot driveway.
Chairperson Marquez continued by asking if the parapet wall is a party wall with Dragmaster or is that
solely on the subject property?
Ms. Rosenstein said it is solely on the subject project. Dragmaster has their own wall as well.
Board Member Paulsen commented about the razor wire atop the fence in the back and asked if the
proposed egress opening will have a gate or if it is going to be a controlled entrance?
Ms. Rosenstein said there is no gate currently shown on the plans.
Board Member Paulsen asked about the security the razor wire offers now if the gate is always open?
Ms. Rosenstein said she will have the applicant respond to that, but it is her understanding based on the
design of the new building that it resolves some of the security issues.
Chairperson Marquez opened public testimony and invited the applicant to approach the podium and state
her name for the record.
Shanna McGriff said she is the applicant for the Carlsbad Animal Hospital. They are proposing the
addition to the animal hospital. It will be a great improvement to what is already architecturally there. As
stated, a two-story building is being built over the new addition on the first floor. An issue that they would
like the Board to address is to replace the proposed roof material with a metal roof with the same color the
model is representing. With the treatment of metal roofs today they don’t rust and they have long lasting
color. The process has really improved. Dr. Bauer and her husband, Ted Myers, would also like to make
a comment since they know the product much better.
Chairperson Marquez asked if there are any questions of the applicant.
Board Member Paulsen asked for Ms. McGriff to describe the metal. Is it going to be copper or
corrugated steal?
Ms. McGriff said she has information on the gauge and the color of the metal roof. She said she had
drawings and passed them around. The colors being considered are Terra Cotta and Colonial Red.
Ted Myers introduced himself. The proposed roofing material is 22-24 gauge metal roofing. The coating
is a baked on polymer paint, similar to Teflon. It is very rugged and does not fade quickly. He’s used this
type of roofing before with good results. This particular brand has a 20-year warranty stating that the color
will not fade more than 5% within 20 years. As far as a corrosion problem, it is addressed with a cynart
finish. As far as the aesthetics of the roof, when you look at the lines, it looks really clean and
aesthetically nice.
Chairperson Marquez asked if there are any questions from the Board of the applicant.
Board Member Heineman stated to Mr. Myers that the roof material should have been worked out with
City staff before ever reaching this point. Mr. Heineman asked if Mr. Myers had talked to Mr. Rick
regarding whether or not this was permitted in the City.
Mr. Rick said it could be answered by Ms. Lori Rosenstein.
Ms. Rosenstein answered that, while the metal roof will meet Uniform Building Code standards, the Village
Master Plan and the Design Guidelines set forth design guidelines that address more the look and texture
of the roof. The Design Guidelines don’t specifically prohibit metal roofs in the Village, but other roof
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 6 of 8 DRAFT
materials are encouraged. The Design Guidelines only address metal roofs when referring to Land Use
District 6, which is a light industrial district off of Tyler Street. The Design Guidelines state that in District 5
metal roofs would be appropriate. She added that staff has seen some very creative uses of metal roof
materials and while staff couldn’t come to an agreement with the applicant on changing the roof material,
staff was supportive of the applicant bringing this issue forward for the Board’s recommendation.
Board Member Heineman said the Board is not comprised of engineers and the Board should not have to
decide on an engineering issue.
Ms. Rosenstein assured the Board that it is not an engineering issue. Both roof materials, the metal roof
and the composite shingle roof are allowed, it’s just a matter of aesthetics.
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Myers if the roof material shown on the materials board was also
metal.
Mr. Myers said no.
Ms. Rosenstein continued, the model shows a composite shingle roof material, but the applicant would
like to do a metal roof. Again, staff is just asking the Board to respond to the aesthetics of the proposed
roof materials. It is not an engineering issue.
Ms. Debbie Fountain, the Director of Housing and Redevelopment, interjected that the Design Guidelines
are not actually standards, so the Board or Commission does not have to grant a variance if the project
does not meet them. Staff’s position is that what the applicant is proposing on the plans is more
consistent with what the Village Design Guidelines are recommending. The guidelines actually discourage
metal roofs, but it is a material choice and the Design Review Board has the right to be able to say if they
think that is acceptable on this project and in this area, but it definitely is not an engineering issue. It is a
choice of materials, and whether or not the Board thinks from a design standpoint, that it is appropriate for
the area.
Chairperson Marquez asked Ms. Fountain if the Board would be setting precedence for this area if they
were to support the metal roof. Are there other buildings in that area that have metal roofs?
Ms. Fountain answered there are other buildings with metal roofs, and you do always take that risk of
setting precedence when you allow them. Staff suggested the material type shown on the plans and the
materials board and did not support the applicant changing it to a metal roof, but the Board can change
this on a case-by-case basis if appropriate. The Village Design Guidelines were created to move away
from metal roofs and steer towards what is being proposed originally, but it doesn’t mean the Board can’t
approve metal roofs.
Mr. Myers commented regarding a meeting they had at the City offices. They were standing out front of
the Housing and Redevelopment Office after the meeting and noticed the building has a metal roof.
Chairperson Marquez also questioned the composition shingle material. Is that also acceptable in the
Design Review Manual?
Ms. Fountain answered that it is actually what is preferred.
Chairperson Marquez asked if there was any other input the applicant would like to present to the Board.
She asked if anyone else had any further questions of the applicant? She asked if the applicant would
consider turning the trash enclosure 90 degrees and set it a little further south in the planting area so there
would be an increased line of sight as people exit out onto the alley. By turning it 90 degrees to the south
it could be setback a little bit from the drive aisle.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 7 of 8
Board Member Paulsen clarified that the doors would then be facing west towards the alley.
Chairperson Marquez asked how Mr. Rick felt about this.
Mr. Rick answered that he does not see any issue with turning the opening of the door to the alleyway.
That it might be better for access by Coast Waste Management.
Board Member Paulsen inquired as to what that would do for the ingress and egress of that trash
container if it has to be wheeled out into the alley? He questioned what it might do to the sight distance if
the doors are open.
Chairperson Marquez said she was talking about cars heading north on the alley; not seeing a car coming
out into alley or vice versa.
Board Member Baker directed a question to Mr. Rick asking if that would meet engineering standards?
Mr. Rick said there isn’t a sight distance requirement for the alley. Nevertheless, the location of the
enclosure could be improved. Having the trash enclosure doors facing the alley is not uncommon; it
appears in many businesses in Carlsbad.
Chairperson Marquez commented that it makes trash pick up a little easier for Coast Waste Management.
She asked the applicant to step forward and asked if they would be willing make the change.
Ms. McGriff agreed it is a good idea.
Chairperson Marquez closed the public comment to discuss the issues amongst the Board.
Board Member Baker said she has no problem with this project. She feels it will be an improvement to
what currently exists. Also, she has no problem with the metal roof.
Board Member Paulsen said he has been to the project, he has looked it over, talked to some of the adjacent property owners and business owners, and they all seem to think it is a good thing.
Board Member Heineman said he feels it would be an enormous improvement, a much more attractive
building, and much more fitting for the location. As far as the metal roof goes, he said he has seen many
attractive metal roofs so he doesn’t think they should rule it out.
Chairperson Marquez concurred with her fellow Board members. She likes the look of some metal roofs, and it looks like this applicant has chosen to go with a quality metal roof material, which will be fitting for
the animal hospital. With the reorientation of the trash enclosure, she feels all of her concerns have been
met.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman and duly seconded by Board Member Baker to adopt
Design Review Board Resolution Number 290 recommending approval of RP 02-26 with the minor
change in the trash enclosure to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Fountain asked the Board to think about going to the California Redevelopment Association
Conference, which is going to be held in Palm Springs in March. Staff will be contacting the Board
members to see if there is any interest in attending the conference. The dates of the conference will be
announced in the future.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 16,2002
PAGE 8 of 8
Board Member Heineman asked if the date would be in conflict with the Planning Conference.
Chairperson Marquez said she talked with Ms. Holder regarding the Redevelopment Conference and she
believes it is March 6th.
Ms. Fountain thanked the Board for agreeing to have this special meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of December 16, 2002 was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT1
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FTLE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
From: Pat Kelley
To: Cindee Hollingsworth; Marilyn Strong; Ray Patchett
Date: 2/4/03 9:44AM
Subject: Carlsbad Animal Hospital - RP 02-26
During briefings Council person Hall inquired about the above proposed project's building code
compliance in terms of the proposed property line walls. The Noith-elevation is proposed to be right up to
the PIL and is proposed to be constructed of solid masonry w/ no openings. This will comply with the limits
in the UBC for P/L walls. The wall parapet must extend above the roof surface a minimum of 30". They
may delete or lower this parapet if the roof structural framing is otherwise protected with fire resistive
materials inside the animal hospital. This will be detailed completelyduring the building permit plan check
review.
The walls that face the alley and are next to that P/L (west elevation) are not subject to the same
protection requirements and limitations since the alley is considered a public way and is therefore
unbuildable. Those walls may have openings and be unprotected in terms of the fire resistivity (no
parapets required). Roofs adjacent to the alley need no special treatment.
Should the applicant desire to utilize standing seam metal roofing in lieu of composition fiberglass/asphalt
architectural grade shingles, this will present no special building code challenge. Either material is suitable
as a Class A, non-combustible roof covering provided it is listed with UL as such and installed in
accordance with manufacturer's installation recommendations for such a listing. It would look significantly different than comp shingles however and should be reviewed for architectural desirability and
compatibility w/ Village Design Guidelines (Debbie's crew).
Pat K
cc: Debbie Fountain; Karyn Vaudreuil; Lori Rosenstein; Sandra Holder
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
Fomerly 'I;~GW~ 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 nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
JANUARY 25,2003
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
this 27TH day
of JANUARY, 2003
Signature
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
PUBLISH DATE: SA'KJRDAY. JANUARY 25.2003
HOUSING AND CARLSBAD ANlW.HOSPITI REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RP 02-26
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION
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 pm on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, to
consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-26) for the construction of a
2,260 square foot addition to an existing 1,565 square foot veterinary hospital on property
located at 2739 State Street. The proposed project consists of maintaining the existing
structure and adding 1,510 square feet to the first floor and 750 square feet of internal
floor area and a 243 square foot deck on the second floor. The proposed project also
includes a variance request for a front yard building setback that exceeds the maximum
range, resulting in a greater building setback from State Street.
The proposed project is located on the west side of State Street between Grand Avenue
and Beech Avenue in Land Use District No. 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area (Assessor Parcel Number 203-054-24).
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 15301, Class I, (e) 2, of
the State CEQA Guidelines as an expansion of no more than 10,000 square feet to an
existing building in an area; 1) where all public services and facilities are available to allow
for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and 2) the site is not located
in an environmentally sensitive area. 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 Clerks
Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 02-26
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL ADDITION
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 25,2003
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SITE’
CARLSBAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL
RP 02-26
a09TS JasEl
Chamberlain, Michael & Kimberly
2903 Camden Dr.
Vista CA 92083-8101
Jackson, Virginia L. et a1
2718 Roosevelt St #F
Carlsbad Ca 92008
Anastasi Development Co. LLC
1200 Aviation Blvd #203
Redondo Beach CA 92078
Dunham Family Trust
C/o Tom McMahon
4028 Park Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Roosevelt Tamarack Investments
6 Venture #2 15
bine CA 92618
Beazley Brent William et a1
16844 Clark St.
Encino CA 91436
Murphy, Michael K TR et a1
400 N. La Costa Dr.
Carlsba d CA 92009
Venstrom, Carl J.
2933 L-mcaster Rd.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Brown, Arthur & Alice FT
5 157 Shore Dr.
Carlsba d CA 92008
Swanson Family Trust
24 Bluff Vw.
Irvine CA 92612
Bieri Avis Vi. Ltd.
C/o Benchmark Pacific Inc.
550 Laguna Dr. #B
Carlsbad CA 92008
Tomaro, Anthony F Rev. Trust
367 Beech Ave.
Carlsbad CA 92008
BurneGe,. Ralph & Lana TRS
390 Grand Ave.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Ward Family Trust et a1
32 Marigold
Irvine CA 92614
Ahronee Ester
4440 Cather Ave
San Diego- CA 92 122
MacDonald Properties LP et a1
C/o Donald MacDonald
20 16 Sheridan Rd.
Encinitas CA 92024
Palenscar 1999 Trust
2739 State Street
Carlsbad CA 92008
Speert, Ellen Family Trust
2633 State St.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Yang, Huang T. & Young H.
291 5 Cacatua St.
Carlsbad CA 92009
Straesser, Ralph A.
15 18 Avocado Rd.
Oceanside CA 92054
Beazley, Brent William et a1
16633 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 1030
Encino CA 91436-1861
Anastasi Development Co. LLC
C/o Brian Samuels
1200 Aviation Blvd #lo0
Redondo Beach CA 90278
Orexciv, LLC Bumette
Bumette, Ralph Jr. & Lana
13440 'Ventura Blvd, #200
Sherman Oaks CA 91423
Dewhurst, Walter & Virene
5646 Rutgers Rd.
La Jolla CA 92037
Betz Family Trust et a1
3240 Donna Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Satterly Family Trust
1349 Melrose Way
Vista CA 92083
Nelson Family Trust et a1
3425 Ann Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Ballerini Family Trust
4161 Rhodes Way
Oceanside CA 92056
Blackburn, Jack H. & Betty J.
202 Rainbow Ln.
Oceanside CA 92054
Weber, Paul J.
580 Beech St.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Smooth Feed Sheetsm
Trejo, Henry
P.O. Box 281
Carlsbad CA 92018
Davis, James R. Trust
13225 Philadelphia St. #B
Whittier CA 90601
Peacock & Peacock et a1
2763 State St.
Carlsbad CA 92008
'Vigne, Thomas & Lucinda
3880 Hibiscus Cir.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dewhurst, Donald & Lael TRS
3425 Seacrest Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Paterson Family Trust
C/o Golden Key Properties
2727 Roosevelt St. #A
Carlsbad CA 92008
Grigoras, Ludvik & Veronica
2802 Carlsbad Blvd.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Howard-Jones Marital Thst
C/o Carolyn Woerpel
2785 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Clarke, Catherine J. TR
824 Caminito Del Reposo '
Carlsbad CA 92009
Use template for 5160@
Chamberlain, Michael & Kimberly Huston Family Trust
4579 Blackwell Rd. 2631 Roosevelt St.
Oceanside CA 92056 Carlsbad CA 92008
Druff, Robert A. Army & Navy Academy
2690 Roosevelt St. P.O. Box 3000
Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92018
Hill Family Trust
P.O. Box 1935
Carlsbad. CA 92018
Smith, Edmund & Edith FT
3271 Westwood Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Eisler Family Surivors Trust
663 1 Littler Dr.
San Diego. CA 92 1 19
Welch Family Trust
35 1 Beech Ave.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Cantabrana, Ruben & Mary
3570 Donna Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Blackburn, Jack & Betty
2690 State St.
Carlsbad CA 92008.
Aguina, Frank & Ana
2646 State St.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Hoard, Steven & Long Deann
163 1 Mountain View Ave.
Oceanside CA 92054
.y Caan, Robert & Jo Ann TRS
8038 Valle Vista
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
Orexciv LLC, Christiansen
Catheryn Trust
13440 Ventura Blvd #200
Sherman Oaks CA 91423
Bieri, Avis Vi LTD Ostrie Family Inc.
C/o Benchmark Pacific Inc. C/o William Ostrie
5055 Avenida Encinas #210 PO Box 8
Carlsbad CA 92008 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067
Shan~ MC Gki
Ke\\aqg, WcGr;CS S c\ssoc~~~s
lQl\ ShCA4oYh b\u<
€nt;das, C A 9202!!
~AVERW Address Labels laser 5160@
Carlsbad Animal HospitalHousing & RedevelopmentCommissionFebruary 4, 2003
Carlsbad Animal Hospital
Rear Elevation
Adjacent Property to the North
Adjacent Property to the South
Adjacent Property to the East
DRB RecommendationRecommending approval of project with;Findings to grant variance to allow increased front yard setback, andCondition on relocation of trash enclosure. DRB also supports use of standing seam metal roof.
Benefits of ProjectImproved on-site circulationImproved building design Positive impact on the redevelopment area and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.