HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-01; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 355; Kent Jessee Office BuildingHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB# 355 DEPT. HD. TITLE:
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BUILDING MTG. 4-1-03 RP 02-02 ._
DEPT. H/RED 1 I CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 364 , APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-02) for a 10,490 square foot commercial office building on
property located at 2815 Jefferson Street as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On February 24, 2003, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a three-story commercial office building in Land Use District 7 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 13,100 square foot site is located on the west side of
Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and Arbuckle Place.
The site is bordered by a single-story commercial office building to the north (Tague Insurance), a
single-family residence with a detached garage to the south, a two-story 16-unit apartment building
and single family residence to the west, and a three-story senior apartment complex across Jefferson
Street to the east. The remainder of the block is comprised of a mixture of uses of various sizes
including; two separate two-story apartment projects with 6 and 12 units respectively, four single-
family homes, a single-story office building (chiropractor’s office), a two-story office complex, a
restaurant and bar (Grand Avenue Bar and Grill), and a parking lot for the Old World Center. The
block is also broken up into four different land use districts; District 1, 2, 7, and 8.
The lot is currently vacant with a temporary structure located in the far northeast corner of the lot that
is used for the sale of flowers grown on the remainder of the property. The proposed development
consists of the construction of a three-story commercial office building comprised of two levels of
office space above surface level parking. The ground floor includes 735 square feet of commercial
office space devoted to a front lobby, elevator, two stairways, an equipment room, and an electric
room. Also on the ground floor within the footprint of the building are 17 parking spaces, an enclosed
trash enclosure, and a storage area. Between the back of the building and the rear property line are
14 additional open parking spaces. The second and third floors of the building consist of 4,937
square feet of gross floor area each, including approximately 3,362 square feet of leasable office
space. Both floors also include three decks, and outdoor patio area, restroom facilities, and storage
space. The property owner intends to occupy 2,267 square feet of office space on the third floor of
the building and lease out the remaining office space to separate tenants.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, Lawson abstain)
to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. A variance to increase the rear yard setback from 10’ to 71’;
2. A variance to increase the maximum building height from 35’ to 38’-6 for a portion of the
3. Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four parking spaces.
roofline; and
The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report, the draft minutes of the February 24‘h meeting, and a copy of the public comment letters received by the Board are attached
for the Commission’s review.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 355
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project
has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized
area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were received on'
the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is
included in the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution.
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 $316,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that
the assessed value will increase to approximately $1.6 million. The increase in value will result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $1 2,840
per year. Finally, it is anticipated that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in
the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of an
outdated and underutilized property within the area.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution approving RP02-02 (Resolution No. 364)
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 291, dated February 24, 2003
3. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated February 24, 2003 w/attachments
4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated February 24, 2003
5. Public Comment Letters
Exhibit 1
Housing & Redevelopment
Commission Resolution
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT CO"ISSI0N RESOLUTION NO. 364
A-RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
C0"ISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK
WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXI" STANDARD RANGE, A
VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE ROOF TO EXCEED THE
MAXI" HEIGHT LIMIT, AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,490
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815 JEFFERSON STREET IN LAND
USE DISTRICT 7 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: KENT JESSEE OFmCE BUILDING
CASE NO: RP 02-02
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP02-02,
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A MAXI" OF FOUR
ll WHEREAS, on February 24, 2003,' the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-02) for the
construction of a 10,490 square foot office building on property located at 2815 Jefferson
Street, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 291 recommending to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-02) be approved;
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 02-02);
and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance for the
rear yard setback which exceeds the standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance to
increase the maximum height of the proposed structure from 35 feet to 38 feet 6 inches for a
ll HRC RES0 NO.
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
portion of the roof; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum .of four parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities. t
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 02-02) is APPROVED and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 291, on file
in the City Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations;
HRC RES0 NO. 364
PAGE 2
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) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no
more than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination
reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
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:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
HRC RES0 NO. 364
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court
not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed
in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or hisher attorney of record, if he/she has
one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with
the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special ’meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on thexday of APRIL,
2003 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
HRC RES0 NO. 364
PAGE 4
Exhibit 2
DRB Resolution No. 291
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. 291
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 02-02, INCLUDING A
VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXI” STANDARD RANGE, A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE
ROOF TO EXCEED THE MAXI” HEIGHT LIMIT, AND
MAXI” OF FOUR PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A 10,490 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815 JEFFERSON STREET IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 7 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KEW JESSEE OFFKE BUILDING
APN: 203-1 10-29
CASE NO: RP 02-02
WHEREAS, Smith Consulting Architects, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application
with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by W. Kent
Jessee and Associates, “Owner”, described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-110-29, and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-H” dated February 24,2003, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-02”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 24’h day of February 2003, 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
“Kent Jessee Offke Building RP 02-02”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
9
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
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public heari ,ng, th le Design Revie1 W
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-
02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an
in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has
no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. In making this determination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a rear yard setback variance, a height variance, and
findings to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the
facts set forth in the staff report dated February 24, 2003 including, but not limited to the
following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
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
project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the
area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence
to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals
and objectives set forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1)
the project provides permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2)
the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by
incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in residential
projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from the
street and surrounded by landscaping.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 7, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -2- IO
1
.- L
-
4
L -
c
7
a
9
la
I 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design,
landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to
serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and
reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm
drainage facilities.
e. The.proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City’s Landscape Manual.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a variance for a rear 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 due to the excessive depth of the property (201 feet), strict adherence to the
setback standards on both the front and rear of the property makes it impossible
to provide required on-site parking. By providing a substantial setback on the
rear of the building a majority of the required parking can be provided under
the building and between the back of the building and the rear property line,
both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
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
property has an unusual width to depth ratio. A majority of the lots in the area
that are of similar width (i.e. 65 feet wide) have a smaller depth (i.e. less than 201
feet). The subject property would have to be wider to accommodate the
necessary parking if the building were built to both the front and rear yard
setback standards.
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 on the rear of the property will allow the front of the property
to be developed at a setback that is consistent with neighboring properties while
providing a greater setback from neighboring residential properties along the
rear of the parcel. The 71-foot setback ‘on the rear of the property serves to
protect the livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a
buffer between them and the office building.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -3- II
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. 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. In this case, the narrow width of the subject property
compared to the excessive depth necessitates the need for an increased rear yard
setback to allow for maximum on-site parking. The design of the building
maximizes on-site parking opportunities by providing parking below and in
back of the proposed building, both of which are consistent with the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual’s goal of making parking visually subordinate
in the downtown area.
e. An increased setback on the rear of the property is justified because the
property abuts a single-family residence and a 16-unit apartment building to the
west and a single-family residence to the south. While the single-family
residential uses are considered nonconforming uses in District 7, they will
remain until such time as the lots are redeveloped into commercial office uses
(permitted uses) or perhaps multifamily residential uses (provisional uses). The
mixture of existing uses in the immediate vicinity and the subject property’s
close proximity to multiple land use districts are evidence that this is an area in
the process of transitioning from what was originally a single-family
neighborhood to the commercial office district envisioned in the Village Master
Plan. The 71-foot setback on the rear of the property serves to protect the
livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a buffer
between them and the office building.
4. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for an increase in maximum height
from 35’-0” to 38””:
a.
b.
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 the combination of the property’s width to depth ratio and its restricted
vehicular access to a single public street dictate a site design with parking on the
lower level and usable floor area above in order to achieve a feasible amount of
onsite parking. However, construction of a three-story structure within the 35-
foot height limit precludes the inclusion of the required 512 roof pitch. In order
to develop the subject property in a manner that is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Carlsbad Area Redevelopment Plan, a portion of the roofline
will exceed the maximum height of 35 feet.
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
subject property’s width to depth ratio (65’ x 201’) and its restricted vehicular
access to a single public street (Jefferson Street) make development of the site
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -4- 12-
1
F L
rl -
4
4
I
f
7
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
14
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
....
difficult to achieve. This condition is not typical of lots in the surrounding area.
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
additional height will be located in the center of the building and is necessary to
achieve the required 512 roof pitch. The additional roof height will not
negatively impact the livability of nearby residential units.
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 redevelopment of underutilized properties and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In the case of the subject property, many factors affect
the feasible development of the site including, the lot’s width to depth ratio, its
limited frontage on Jefferson Street, the need to maximize onsite parking, and
the desire to design a building that is consistent with the design guidelines set
forth for the area. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and consistent
architectural feature within the Village. Strict adherence to the 35-foot height
limit on this project precludes the incorporation of this significant design feature
on the building and would therefore contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
While a majority of the buildings in the area are either one or two stories in
height, the proposed structure is comparable to and visually compatible with
Jefferson House Senior Apartments located immediately east of the subject
property. The senior apartment project is three-stories and 35 feet in height.
The proposed project is also comparable in height to other commercial office
buildings located further south on Jefferson Street.
The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides sufficient setbacks from all adjacent property lines
and sits 3 feet lower than the elevation of adjacent properties.
The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
is not located near any designated view corridors.
The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and
the guidelines contained in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The
Village contains a variety of building types and sizes. This is considered
desirable per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The height of the
building is consistent with others in the Village Area. For instance, for that
portion of Jefferson Street that falls within Land Use District 2, the maximum
building height for a similar structure is 45 feet. The boundary for District 2 is 3
lots south of the subject property.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -5- 13
1
r L
c -
4
C
I
f
7
E
s
.' IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i. The project provides for exceptional design quality through the incorporation of
several architectural features and details including; multiple roof elements with
the required 512 roof pitch, various sized multi-paned windows with decorative
trim and complimentary colored mullions, a two-story arched entryway with
multiple panes of glass, rounded balconies on the second and third stories on the
front and rear of the building, and open rail balconies/decks on the second and
third stories on both sides of the building. The overall design of the building is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area. '
5. The Design Review Board finds that the DeveloperProperty owner qualifies to
participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will
satisfy the parking requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Villsge. The
project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for
the area.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth
for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: Staff believes that the
proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1) the project
provides permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is
designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects; and 3) the
project consists of an individual building set back from the street and
surrounded by landscaping.
c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's
parking demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots,
conducted in August of 2002, indicate a 79% average utilization rate, which is
less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
6. 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
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -6- IV
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
>
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.
NOLLANIDOLAN FINDING:
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1.
2.
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.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -7- TS
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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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
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 pennit, 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
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -8- Ib
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
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. 291 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
14.
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 parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 31 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A ”.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A & C”. Any changes to the
sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -9- \-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
I
19.
20.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
four (4) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space
in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking
spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (4 spaces total).
Solid masonry walls shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an
existing residential use.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment, 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.
FeedAereements:
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 subject property into the existing City of Carlsbad
Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
GradinP:
5. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
6. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan and preliminary grading plan, a grading permit for this project is required.
Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -10- I ?;
1
2
3
4
< L
c
7
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the
site plan and preliminary grading plan reflecting the conditions as approved by the final
decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer,
reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner
prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans,
whichever occurs first.
DedicationsDmprovements:
8. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook'' to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Manangement Plan
(SWMP)". The SWMP shall be in compliance with current requirements and
provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWMP shall
address measures to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, storm water
pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction stages of the project.
The SWMP shall:
a. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
b. Recommend source control and structural Best Management Practices to filter
said pollutants.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
d. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
- Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan'check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Engineering:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion 'control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
. ..
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 291 20 -12-
1
r L
r -
4
L -
t
7
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 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 regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24* day of February 2003 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Marquez, Heineman, Baker, Paulsen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Lawson
DESIGN REVIEW B&&D u
ATTEST: n
8 - DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 291 - 13-
Exhibit 3
DRB Staff Report
February 24, 2003
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
ADDlication ComDlete Date: Staff: Lori Rosenstein 911 1 102 Jeremy Riddle
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption
DATE: February 24,2003
SUBJECT: RP 02-02 - “KENT JESSEE OFFICE BUILDING”: Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 3-story, 10,490 square foot
commercial office building on property located at 281 5 Jefferson Street in Land
Use District 7 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 291
recommending APPROVAL of RP 02-02 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The property owner, W. Kent Jessee, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit for the
construction of a 3-story, 10,490 square foot commercial office building on property located at
2815 Jefferson Street in Land Use District 7 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The
property is located on the west side of Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and Arbuckle
Place. The site is bordered by a single-story commercial office building to the north (Tague
Insurance), a single-family residence with a detached garage to the south, a two-story 16-unit
apartment building and single family residence to the west, and a three-story senior apartment
complex across Jefferson Street to the east. The remainder of the block is comprised of a
mixture of uses of various sizes including; two separate two-story apartment projects with 6 and
12 units respectively, four single-family homes, a single-story office building (chiropractor’s
office), a two-story office complex, a restaurant and bar (Grand Avenue Bar and Grill), and a
parking lot for the Old World Center (See attached Exhibit C). The block is also broken up into
four different land use districts; District 1,2, 7, and 8.
The subject property measures 65 feet wide by 201 feet deep. The 13,100 square foot lot is
currently vacant with a temporary structure located in the far northeast corner of the lot that is
used for the sale of flowers grown on the remainder of the property. The proposed
development consists of the construction of a three-story commercial office building comprised
of two levels of office space above surface level parking. The ground floor includes 735 square
feet of commercial office space devoted to a front lobby, elevator, two stairways, an equipment
room, and an electric room. Also on the ground floor within the footprint of the building are 17
parking spaces, an enclosed trash enclosure, and a storage area. Between the back of the
building and the rear property line are 14 additional open parking spaces. The second and third
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 2
floors of the building consist of 4,937 square feet of gross floor area each, including
approximately 3,362 square feet of leasable office space. Both floors also include three decks,
and outdoor patio area, restroom facilities, and storage space. The property owner intends to
occupy 2,267 square feet of office space on the third floor of the building and lease out the
remaining office space to separate tenants.
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 building in an appropriate
location within the Village. The project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances
the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1 : Establish Carlsbad Villaae as a Qualitv Shopping, Working and Livina Environment.
The proposed project will result in development of a new office facility which will have a positive
visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a quality
shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will increase the amount of
new office space in the area which will improve the overall working environment.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The proposed
project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing
benches and enhanced landscaping along Jefferson Street
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. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Office Support District (District 7) by providing for an
appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding area.
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 3
Goal 4: lmDrove the Phvsical ARRearanCe of the Villaae Area. The proposed project converts
an underutilized, blighted site into a physically attractive project. The proposed project
promotes the following objectives:
It creates a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging design
It establishes a commercial building whose scale and character are compatible with
It minimizes the land area required to accommodate additional parking in the Village
It results in a design which is sensitive to surrounding development within the area.
diversity;
surrounding residential neighborhoods;
by participating in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program; and
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, office uses are classified as
permitted uses within Land Use District 7 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses
are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be '
consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these land uses may
be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance
with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required.
The overall vision for the development of District 7 (Office Support) is to accommodate
professional and medical offices contained in new structures and converted residences. The
development standards promote individual buildings set back from the street and surrounded by
landscaping intended to provide a quality office environment within easy and pleasant walking
distance to shops and restaurants. Permitted land uses in District 7 include all office uses,
parks, and parking lots. Provisional uses include the following: multi-family dwelling units; bed
and breakfast inns; child care centers; churches; youth facilities; and some commercial
services, such as blueprint and copying services, word processing services, and office
equipment rentals. The land use standards encourage the phasing out of existing single-family
residential uses over time. The development standards for District 7 also encourage any new
non-residential development to be designed in a manner that respects the area's residential
character.
Staff believes that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and
objectives set forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1) the project provides
permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner
that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural
elements found in residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set
back from the street and surrounded by landscaping.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 7 are as
follows:
Buildinq Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 7, the front yard setback is 5-
2s
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 4
20 feet and the side and rear yard setbacks are 5-10 feet. All setbacks are measured from
property lines. In addition to these setback standards, parking is not permitted in either the
front or the rear yard setback areas. The front yard setback of the proposed building varies
from 8 to 20 feet from front property line. On the south side of the building, the setback varies
from 5 to 10 feet from side property line. On the north side of the building, the setback varies
from 5 to 13 feet from side property line. The rear of the building is located 71 feet from the
rear property line. A majority of the ground floor is devoted to required parking, however, there
is no parking located within either the required front or rear yard setbacks.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the
minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a
reduction and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use
district in which the project is to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
These findings apply to those portions of the building on the front and sides that fall within the
established setback range. The findings noted above for allowing a reduction of the front and
side yard setbacks to the minimum of the range are justified as follows: 1) The proposed
project is in a location which has varying setbacks and will, therefore, not have an adverse
impact on surrounding properties. 2) The subject property is only 65 feet wide, therefore the
reduced setback standards are necessary in order to allow the applicant to provide as much on-
site parking as possible with adequate screening from public view. 3) The proposed project is
consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the reduced
setbacks will provide greater articulation on all sides of the building, therefore, making the
project design interesting and visually appealing.
In addition to the above findings to allow for the reduced front and side setbacks to the 5 foot
minimum, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission will also be
required to make appropriate findings to grant a variance for the rear yard setback which
exceeds the maximum range of 5-10 feet.
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. 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.
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 5
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board andor Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to
the subject project.)
The second criterion noted above for allowing a rear yard setback that exceeds the maximum
standard (range) applies to the subject property. The subject property abuts a single-family
residence and a 16-unit apartment building to the west and a single-family residence to the
south. While the single-family residential uses are considered nonconforming uses in District 7
they will remain until such time as the lots are redeveloped into commercial office uses
(permitted uses) or perhaps multifamily residential uses (provisional uses). The mixture of
existing uses in the immediate vicinity and the subject property’s close proximity to multiple land
use districts are evidence that this is an area in the process of transitioning from what was
originally a single-family neighborhood to the commercial office district envisioned in the Village
Master Plan. The 71-fOOt setback on the rear of the property serves to protect the livability of
existing nearby residential development by creating a buffer between them and the office
building.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for a setback standard that
exceeds the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variance. In order to approve the requested variance
to exceed the maximum setback on the rear of the property, the 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 variance to
exceed the. rear yard setback standard:
Variance Findinu #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: Due to the excessive depth of the property (201 feet), strict
adherence to the setback standards on both the front and rear of the property makes it
impossible to provide required on-site parking. By providing a substantial setback on the rear
of the building a majority of the required parking can be provided under the building and
between the back of the building and the rear property line, both of which are preferable site
design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual.
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 lot’s width to depth ratio. A majority of the lots in the
area that are of similar width (i.e. 65 feet wide) have a smaller depth (i.e. less than 201 feet).
The subject property would have to be wider to accommodate the necessary parking if the
building were built to both the front and rear yard setback standards.
Variance Findinu #3: The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 6
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setback on the rear of the property will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties, because it allows the front of the property to be developed at a setback that is
consistent with neighboring properties while providing a greater setback from neighboring
residential properties along the rear of the parcel. The 71-foot setback on the rear of the
property serves to protect the livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a
buffer between them and the office building.
Variance Findins #4: 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. In this case, the
narrow width of the subject property compared to the excessive depth necessitates the need for
an increased rear’ yard setback to allow for maximum on-site parking. The design of the
building maximizes on-site parking opportunities by providing parking below and in back of the
proposed building, both of which are consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual’s goal of making parking visually subordinate in the downtown area.
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
rear of the property.
Buildinq Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 7 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 41.5%,
which is below the established range. While the bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard, unlike the setback requirements, a variance is not required for building coverage that
is below the standard range. Therefore, the building coverage is in compliance with the
established standard.
Buildinq Height: The height limit for Land Use District 7 is 35 feet with a minimum 512
roof pitch. As defined in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, building height is measured from the
lower of existing or finished grade. Based on this definition, the maximum height of the
proposed project is 38’-6” as measured from finished grade. The portions of the building that
exceed 35 feet are located in the center of the building. Of the total roof area, approximately
38% exceeds the %-foot height limit. The remaining 62% is at or below the 35-foot height limit.
In order to reduce the height of the building as viewed from adjacent properties, the building
has been designed so that it sits 3 feet below the existing grade of the subject property, which
existing grade is comparable to the grade of adjacent properties and the street elevation. That
is, as viewed from neighboring properties the height of the proposed building will appear to be
no higher than 35’-6” at the highest point of the roof.
In order to exceed the maximum height standard, a variance must be granted by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. Furthermore, a variance may only be granted if the project
meets one or more of the following criteria:
1 ) The increased height will be visually compatible with surrounding buildings.
2) The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses.
3) The taller project will not adversely impact views.
4) The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and the
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02 FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 7
guidelines contained within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
5) The project provides for exceptional design quality and is consistent with the goals and
Justification for meeting the above noted criteria is as follows: 1) While a majority of the
buildings in the area are either one or two stories in height, the proposed structure is
comparable to and visually compatible with Jefferson House Senior Apartments located
immediately east of the subject property. The senior apartment project is three-stories and 35
feet in height based on City records. The proposed project is also comparable in height to
other commercial office buildings located further south on Jefferson Street. 2) The increased
height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the proposed project provides
sufficient setbacks from all adjacent properly lines and sits 3 feet lower than the elevation of
adjacent properties. 3) The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because
the project is not located near any designated view corridors. 4) The project will maintain a
scale and character compatible with the Village and the guidelines contained in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The Village contains a variety of building types and sizes.
This is considered desirable per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The height of the
building is consistent with others in the Village Area. For instance, for that portion of Jefferson
Street that falls within Land Use District 2, the maximum building height for a similar structure is
45 feet. The boundary for District 2 is 3 lots south of the subject property. 5) The project
provides for exceptional design quality through the incorporation of several architectural
features and details including; multiple roof elements with the required 512 roof pitch, various
sized multi-paned windows with decorative trim and complimentary colored mullions, a two-
story arched entryway with multiple panes of glass, rounded balconies on the second and third
stories on the front and rear of the building, and open rail balconies/decks on the second and
third stories on both sides of the building. The overall design of the building is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for a building height that
exceeds established standard, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variance. In order to approve the requested
variance, the 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 variance to exceed the height limit:
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: The general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Area Redevelopment Plan is to create a pleasant, attractive, accessible environment for living,
shopping, and working through the elimination of blighting influences and the redevelopment
and restoration of underutilized properties in a manner that enhances the character of the
Village Area and the surrounding community. The subject property’s width to depth ratio (65’ x
201’) and its restricted vehicular access to a single public street (Jefferson Street) make
development of the site difficult to achieve. These two site constraints dictate a site design with
parking on the lower level and usable floor area above in order to achieve a feasible amount of
onsite parking. However, construction of a three-story structure within the 35-foot height limit
precludes the inclusion of the required 512 roof pitch. In order to develop the subject property
in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Area Redevelopment
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 8
Plan a portion of the roofline will exceed the maximum height of 35 feet.
Variance Findinu #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: As previously stated,
the subject property’s width to depth ratio (65’ x 201 I) and its restricted vehicular access to a
single public street (Jefferson Street) make development of the site difficult to achieve. This
condition is not typical of lots in the surrounding area.
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
variance request is to increase a portion of the roofline from 35 feet to 38’6“. The additional
height will be located in the center of the building and is necessary to achieve the required 5:12
roof pitch. The additional roof height will not negatively impact the livability of nearby residential
units.
I Variance Findinu #4: 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 redevelopment of underutilized properties and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. In the case of the
subject property, many factors affect the feasible development of the site including, the lot’s
width to depth ratio, its limited frontage on Jefferson Street, the need to maximize onsite
parking, and the desire to design a building that is consistent with the design guidelines set
forth for the area. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and consistent architectural feature
within the Village. Strict adherence to the %-foot height limit on this project precludes the
incorporation of this significant design feature on the building and would therefore contradict the
standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Based on these variance findings, it is staff’s position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow a portion of the building to exceed the 35-foot height limit for
District 7.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating
areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. Qualified open space for
the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the front, rear,
and sides of the building and eight (8) open decks on the second and third floors along four
sides of the building. The project provides for a total of 2,790 square feet of open space, which
represents 21.3% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for office space is 1 parking space per 300 square
feet of gross floor space. The parking standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual also permit a maximum of 40% of the total number of parking spaces provided
on-site to be constructed to meet the requirements of a small or compact vehicle. The
requirement for a 10,490 square foot office building is 35 spaces. The applicant is proposing
to provide 31 spaces on-site and 4 spaces off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu
KENT JWSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02 FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 9
Fee Program. The on-site parking spaces include 22 standard (9’ x 19’) parking stalls, 2
disabled accessible stalls, and 7 compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. The number of proposed compact
spaces equates to 32% of the total number of parking spaces provided on-site and is consistent
with the permitted standard of a maximum of 40%.
The fees collected from the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program are deposited into an earmarked,
interest bearing fund to be used for construction of new, or maintenance of existing, public
parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. For the purposes of determining
participation in the program, the Village has been divided into two parking zones - Zone 1 and
Zone 2. A propertyhusiness owner is eligible to participate in the in-lieu fee program according
to the parking zone in which a given property is located and its proximity to an existing or future
public parking lot.
The subject property is located within Zone 2. In accordance with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan, developers/property owners within this zone may be allowed to make an
In-Lieu Fee payment for up to fifty percent 150%) of the on-site parking requirement for the
proposed new development if the property is located within 600 feet of an existing public
parking facility. The subject property is located within 600 feet of a public parking lot on
Roosevelt Street. (See attached Exhibit D.) Based on the parking in-lieu fee standards set
forth in the Village Master Plan, the proposed project qualifies to make an in-lieu fee payment
for up to fifty percent (50%) of the on-site parking requirement. The applicant is requesting
participation in the Program for four (4) parking spaces or 11 % of the total required parking for
the project. As a condition of project approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into an
agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of building permits for the
project. The current fee is $1 1,240 per required parking space to be provided off-site.
In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program the following findings must be made
by the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands.
4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
Justification for the above referenced findings is as follows:
1. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for a
commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and
retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the land use
regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
2. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual in
..i ?\
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02 FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 10
that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use
District 7 through the following actions: Staff believes that the proposed commercial
project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 7
through the following actions: 1) the project provides permitted professional office space
in a new structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby
residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in
residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from
the street and surrounded by landscaping.
3.
4.
I
Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in
August of 2002, indicate a 79% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85%
threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants granting
participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four (4) parking spaces. If
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission grants participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program the project will satisfy its parking requirement as set forth in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan.
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 several desirable design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 11
project has provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design
provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of several architectural features and
' details including; multiple roof elements with the required 5:12 roof pitch, various sized multi-
paned windows with decorative trim and complimentary colored mullions, a two-story arched
entryway with multiple panes of glass, rounded balconies on the second and third stories on the
front and rear of the building, and open rail balconies/decks on the second and third stories on
both sides of the building. The project has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated
in close proximity to the street and incorporates a grand entry, two balconies, various
architectural elements, and a ground floor outdoor seating area on the front of the building.
Landscaping plays an important role in the architectural design of the building as landscape
planters with flowering vines are proposed on all balconies and decks, lattice trellises with
flowering vines are proposed along the north elevation and the rear of the building to work in
conjunction with multiple stucco colors and accent windows to break up what would otherwise
be blank walls adjacent to the elevator and mechanical rooms, and tree pockets are proposed
along the sides of the building to shield the ground floor parking-and provide additional visual
relief to the sides of the building. The parking is visually subordinate in that it is located both
under and in back of the proposed building. Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired
Village character in terms of size, scale, and type of sign as discussed in greater detail in the
next section. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit
to this report (See attached Exhibit B).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The total building frontage of the proposed building is 49.6 linear feet, which equates to 49.6
square feet of total sign area allowed. The sign plan for the project includes one freestanding
monument sign on the front of the property situated perpendicular to Jefferson Street. The
monument sign is 5-0 high with a total sign area of 11.7 square feet, which is significantly less
than the maximum permitted sign area. Therefore, the proposed monument sign is consistent
with the sign regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of size, type and
location of the sign.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000.
The project requires a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider
the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the following requests:
1) variance for the rear yard setback to exceed the standard range,
2) variance to allow a portion of the building to exceed the 35 foot height limit, and
3) participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four parking
spaces.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development
Permit is not required.
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02 FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 12
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): 198 ADT
Due to the size of this project, this project does not trigger the need for a traffic study. This project
is served by Jefferson Street and has direct access to public streets. The streets in the area have
been designed to handle the traffic volumes generated by this project.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU's required: 6 EDU's
Sewer lines for this project will gravity flow, via an existing private sewer lateral that connects to an
existing public sewer main in Jefferson Street.
- Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD required: 220 GPD/EDU x 6 EDU's = 1,320 GPD
Water service to the project will be provided via an existing water lateral that connects to an
existing water main in Jefferson Street.
Grading:
Quantities: Cut: 657 cy Fill: 265 cy Export: 392 cy Remedial: 725 cy
Permit required: Yes
Offsite approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: ria
Preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by: East County Soil Consulting, dated 2/13/01
The geotechnical report indicates that there are no major grading or soils related issues with the
proposed project.
Drainaae and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: Buena Vista Watershed
Erosion potential: High
Existing surface storm runoff currently drains in westerly direction. This project proposes to
collect and convey storm water by a proposed onsite private storm drain and inlet system, which
discharges via a proposed curb outlet on Jefferson Street.
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003 PAGE 13
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easements: No
Public easement dedication required: No
Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes
The right-of-way widths Jefferson Street conform to City standards and no additional right-of-way
dedications are required.
Improvements:
Offsite improvements: No
Standard Waivers required: No
I No public improvements are required as part of this development.
Storm Water Qualitv:
The applicant is conditioned to submit a detailed storm water management plan (SWMP) that
identifies pollutants of concern as it relates to the project. The applicant is also required to
implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the maximum extent practical, to
ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed to the watershed. The SWMP
must ensure storm water quality is not impacted as a result of the project.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in
an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. The
necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design
Review Board resolution.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for the following:
1) A variance for the rear yard setback to exceed the standard range,
KENT JESSEE OFFICE BLDG. - RP 02-02
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 14
2) A variance for a portion of the roof to exceed the 35 foot height limit, and
3) Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four parking spaces.
Development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the
Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village
Redevelopment Master Pian.
EXHIBITS:
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 291 recommending approval RP 02-02.
B. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
C. Location Map
D. Map of Public Parking Lots
E. Exhibits "A - H", dated February 24, 2003, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit A
Design Review Board
Resolution No. 291
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. 291
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVEW BOARD OF THE CEY OF
CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
“UM STANDARD RANGE, A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE
ROOF TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, AND
MAXI” OF FOUR PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A 10,490 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815 JEFFERSON STREET IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 7 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FAClLlTIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KENT JESSE OFFICE BUILDING
APN: 203-1 10-29
CASE NO: RP 02-02
WHEREAS, Smith Consulting Architects, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application
with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by W. Kent
Jessee and Associates, “Owner”, described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-110-29, and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 02-02, INCLUDING A
PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-H” dated February 24,2003, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-02”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 24* day of February 2003, 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
“Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-02”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
38
1
r L
4
4 -
t
5
E
S
1c
I 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kent Jessee Office Building RP 02-
02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1.
2.
The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an
in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has
no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. In making this determination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a rear yard setback variance, a height variance, and
findings to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the
facts set forth in the staff report dated February 24, 2003 including, but not limited to the
following:
a. 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
project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the
area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence
to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals
and objectives set forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1)
the project provides .permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2)
the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by
incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in residential
projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from the
street and surrounded by landscaping.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 7, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -2- 3 $(:\ '.__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
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 rear 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 due to the excessive depth of the property (201 feet), strict adherence to the
setback standards on both the front and rear of the property makes it impossible
to provide required on-site parking. By providing a substantial setback on the
rear of the building a majority of the required parking can be provided under
the building and between the back of the building and the rear property line,
both of which are preferable site design strategies set forth in the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
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
property has an unusual width to depth ratio. A majority of the lots in the area
that are of similar width (i.e. 65 feet wide) have a smaller depth (i.e. less than 201
feet). The subject property would have to be wider to accommodate the
necessary parking if the building were built to both the front and rear yard
setback standards.
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 on the rear of the property will allow the front of the property
to be developed at a setback that is consistent with neighboring properties while
providing a greater setback from neighboring residential properties along the
rear of the parcel. The 71-foot setback on the rear of the property serves to
protect the livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a
buffer between them and the office building.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. In this case, the narrow width of the subject property
compared to the excessive depth necessitates the need for an increased rear yard
setback to allow for maximum on-site parking. The design of the building
maximizes on-site parking opportunities by providing parking below and in
back of the proposed building, both of which are consistent with the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual’s goal of making parking visually subordinate
in the downtown area.
e. An increased setback on the rear of the property is justified because the
property abuts a single-family residence and a 16-unit apartment building to the
west and a single-family residence to the south. While the single-family
residential uses are considered nonconforming uses in District 7, they will
remain until such time as the lots are redeveloped into commercial office uses
(permitted uses) or perhaps multifamily residential uses (provisional uses). The
mixture of existing uses in the immediate vicinity and the subject property’s
close proximity to multiple land use districts are evidence that this is an area in
the process of transitioning from what was originally a single-family
neighborhood to the commercial office district envisioned in the Village Master
Plan. The 71-foot setback on the rear. of the property serves to protect the
livability of existing nearby residential development by creating a buffer
between them and the office building.
4. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for an increase in maximum height
from 35’-0” to 38’-6”:
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 the combination of the property’s width to depth ratio and its restricted
vehicular access to a single public street dictate a site design with parking on the
lower level and usable floor area above in order to achieve a feasible amount of
onsite parking. However, construction of a three-story structure within the 35-
foot height limit precludes the inclusion of the required 5:12 roof pitch. In order
to develop the subject property in a manner that is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Carlsbad Area Redevelopment Plan, a portion of the roofline
will exceed the maximum height of 35 feet.
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
subject property’s width to depth ratio (65’ x 201’) and its restricted vehicular
access to a single public street (Jefferson Street) make development of the site
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -4- Yi
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
a
9
la
1 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
....
difficult to achieve. This condition is not typical of lots in the surrounding area.
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
additional height will be located in the center of the building and is necessary to
achieve the required 512 roof pitch. The additional roof height will not
negatively impact the livability of nearby residential units.
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 redevelopment of underutilized properties and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In the case of the subject property, many factors affect
the feasible development of the site including, the lot’s width to depth ratio, its
limited frontage on Jefferson Street, the need to maximize onsite parking, and
the desire to design a building that is consistent with the design guidelines set
forth for the area. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and consistent
architectural feature within the Village. Strict adherence to the 35-foot height
limit on this project precludes the incorporation of this significant design feature
on the building and would therefore contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
While a majority of the buildings in the area are either one or two stories in
height, the proposed structure is comparable to and visually compatible with
Jefferson House Senior Apartments located immediately east of the subject
property. The senior apartment project is three-stories and 35 feet in height.
The proposed project is also comparable in height to other commercial office
buildings located further south on Jefferson Street.
The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides sufficient setbacks from all adjacent property lines
and sits 3 feet lower than the elevation of adjacent properties.
The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
is not located near any designated view corridors.
The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and
the guidelines contained in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The
Village contains a variety of building types and sizes. This is considered
desirable per the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The height of the
building is consistent with others in the Village Area. For instance, for that
portion of Jefferson Street that falls within Land Use District 2, the maximum
building height for a similar structure is 45 feet. The boundary for District 2 is 3
lots south of the subject property.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -5- YL-
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
i. The project provides for exceptional design quality through the incorporation of
several architectural features and details including; multiple roof elements with the
required 5:12 roof pitch, various sized multi-paned windows with decorative trim
and complimentary colored mullions, a two-story arched entryway with multiple
panes of glass, rounded balconies on the second and third stories on the front and
rear of the building, and open rail balconies/decks on the second and third stories
on both sides of the building. The overall design of the building is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
5. The Design Review Board finds that the DeveloperProperty owner. qualifies to
participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will
satisfy the parking requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings:
a. The 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 provides greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for
the area.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth
for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: Staff believes that the
proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set
forth for Land Use District 7 through the following actions: 1) the project
provides permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is
designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects; and 3) the
project consists of an individual building set back from the street and
surrounded by landscaping.
c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s
parking demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots,
conducted in August of 2002, indicate a 79% average utilization rate, which is
less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
6. 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
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -6- %
1
2
3
4
5
c
7
a
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
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.
2. . 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.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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
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
DIU3 RES0 NO. 291 -8- q”\s
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
I
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. 291 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
14.
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 parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 31 parlung spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A ”.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A & C”. Any changes to the
sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -9- qb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
S
la
1 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
four (4) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space
in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking
spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (4 spaces total).
Solid masonry walls shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an
existing residential use.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment, 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:
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 subject property into the existing City of Carlsbad
Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 , on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading:
5. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this
approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for
and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
6. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan and preliminary grading plan, a grading permit for this project is required.
Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -10- c1?
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
7. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the
site plan and preliminary grading plan reflecting the conditions as approved by the final
decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer,
reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner
prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans,
whichever occurs first.
Dedicationsflmwovements:
8. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination . System (NTDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
c
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City, requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
-
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -11- qg
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
I
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Engineeriw:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Gradmg Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. 1
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -12-
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
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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24* day of February 2003 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: .
SARAH MARQUEZ, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 291 -13-
Leqal Description
W. Kent Jessee Propertv
APN 203-1 10-29
Parcel 1:
The southwesterly 50.00 feet of the northwesterly 241 feet of Lot 48 of the
Seasides 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 ; except the southwesterly 120 feet.
Parcel 2:
The southwesterly 15.0 feet of the northwesterly 151 .O feet of Lot 48 of the
Seasides 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 ; except the southwesterly 120 feet.
Exhibit B
Design Guidelines
Consistency
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial The front setback of the proposed project varies
block front. I from 8 to 20 feet from Jefferson Street.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
The project incorporates benches and enhanced
landscaping along Jefferson Street.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
The project does not include a drive-thru.
Adequate setbacks are provided along the sides of
the property and an extensive (71') setback is
provided along the rear of the property to minimize
privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. I Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-street
courtyards for pedestrian use.
~
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
Landscaped areas along the front, sides, and rear
of the building will provide for an informal setting.
Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
building.
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Landscaping is provided along the perimeter of all
surface parking. 11 Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
I The subject property does not abut an alley.
possible.
1 Y Locate parking at the rear of lots. Parking is located at the rear of the lot and
underneath the building. I Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation are devoted to parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
All parking lot areas not specifically required for
landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
One minimum width curb cut is provided on Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
Jefferson St.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Site is not located on a corner.
A majority of the parking is completely screened
from public view by being integrated into the
building. The remainder of the parking is located
in back of the proposed structure.
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
block faces.
height along
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
3r greater.
Although much of the parking is located at ground
level with the building above, the project is
designed with the lobby and front entrance having
a strong presence in the front of the building along
Jefferson St. with the parking structure located
behind them. The ground level parking is fully
integrated into the building design and plays a
more subordinate role by being fully screened.
The width and depth of the lot makes below grade
parking difficult. However, all ground floor parking
has been designed three feet below adjacent
elevations. In addition, the applicant has chosen
to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program
by providing a portion of the required parking off-
site.
There is a minimal amount of surface parking
visible to the public to warrant the use of enhanced
paving.
The proposed building has been designed
specifically for this location in accordance with the
Village Design Guidelines and is not a generic
copy of other buildings.
Varying setbacks on the front of the building and
balconies on the second and third stories serve to
provide sufficient articulation on the upper levels.
The size of the lot does not warrant breaking the
building up into smaller units. However, varying
roof peaks and various architectural features serve
to break up the mass of the building.
By reducing the elevation of the lot by three feet,
the height of the building, as viewed from adjacent
properties is consistent with three-story senior
apartment project directly across the street and
the height will be consistent with adjacent
properties if the properties redevelopment in a
manner that is consistent with the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
is not trendy or "look at me" in design.
Hip roofs and roof features with the desired pitch
have been provided within the project.
2
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. T
~~
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
3
The project design does not lend itself to the use
of dormers.
The project provides a clay tile roof which is
consistent with the architectural design intended
for the project as well as other projects in the area.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
various architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all four building facades, thereby
creating visual interest in the building. The project
makes good use of various sized multi-paned
windows with decorative trim and complimentary
colored mullions, a two-story arched entryway with
multiple panes of glass, rounded balconies on the
second and third stories of the front and rear of
the building, and open railed balconies/decks on
the second and third stories of the on both sides of
the building.
Multi-paned windows with decorative trim and
colored mullions are used through out the project.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections on all sides of the building which will
create shadows and contrast.
The upper levels of this commercial building
provide for balconies, railings, attractive window
features, and archways that reflect special
attention in design.
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
building which include; decorative trim around the
windows, open railings along the decks and
balconies, projecting trims, architectural designs
along the upper level, and decorative lighting.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
stucco.
neutral color. siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
The exterior walls utilize a textured stucco finish of
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor None of the noted materials have been indicated
carpeting; distressed wood of any type for use.
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass. The windows are clear glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated Wood or vinyl coated doors and window frames
metal door and window frames. will be utilized.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies. No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
Utilize light and neutral base colors. The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
I Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
The project incorporates one primary base stucco
color, two complimentary accent stucco colors,
and a complimentary trim color around the
windows and front entrance.
~ ~~ ~ ~~
The proposed office use does not lend itself to the
use of display windows, however, a two story
arched glass entryway makes up a significant
portion of the front entrance. I Avoid large blank walls. The project has been design not to have large
blank walls. I
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
storefront operation. windows and entries.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
Project does not include a restaurant use.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting. The office use does not have a need for display
windows.
Encourage the use of dutch doors. The project design does not lend itself to the use
of dutch doors. I Utilize small paned windows. Windows of various sizes and shapes are included I throughout the project.
Develop a total design concept.
cant was able to develop a total design concept
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
which is also functional and visually interesting.
Provide frequent entries. The project incorporates a single primary entry
along Jefferson Street, which is appropriate to the
use.
~ U I U
4
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
The extent of the entry opening has been limited
display windows.
through the design of the building.
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
design of a two-story 'arched, glass entryway
situated close to the street. 1 Integrate fences and walls into the building design. Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
11 Provide front entry porches. I Not applicable.
~~
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Not applicable. Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Not applicable. Utilize simple color schemes.
Not applicable.
-
~
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Not applicable. Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Not applicable. Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
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
Exhibit D
Map of Public Parking Lots
I
Exhibit E
Reduce Exhibits “A-H”
m
zc X Lu :1
t 6C
a
4 f "il
s
4I?
B
E
ii e
8
4 I- - m
" I
C
l .I
I
Q)
L e
I- -
x UJ
1 B J L e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
* ,." . . ..
MAP Ni3 1
~
I ., =
ti 1- -
. . . . . ".
I
Exhibit 4
Draft DRB Minutes
February 24, 2003
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of meeting: FEBRUARY 24,2003
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Marquez called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Heineman to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Marquez proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Commissioners: Tony Lawson
Julie Baker
Larry Paulsen
Courtney Heineman
Chairperson: Sarah Marquez
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Management Analyst: Craig Ruiz
Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board Member Baker
to accept the Minutes of December 16, 2002, with one correction on page 5 to change the word “steal” to
“steel.”
VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Baker, Paulsen, Heineman, and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Lawson
CONSENT ITEM
Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, presented the Consent Item of a General Plan
Consistency for the City of Carlsbad to purchase the property, 2578 Roosevelt Street, for affordable
housing purposes.
Board Member Heineman moved to consider this item as a Consent Item and approved as that. Board
Member Lawson seconded to approve the purchase of 2578 Roosevelt Street. The Board unanimously voted for the adoption of Resolution 292.
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.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 2 of 13
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, RP02-02 “Kent Jessee Office Building.” Board
Member Lawson abstained from hearing the above item due to personal involvement with his landscaping
business. Mr. Lawson removed himself from the room during this Agenda Item.
Ms. Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst, stated the item before the Board is being proposed by Kent
Jessee who is requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a three-story, 10,490
square foot commercial office building on property located at 2815 Jefferson Street in Land Use District 7
of the Village Redevelopment area. The property is located on the west side of Jefferson Street between
Grand Avenue and Arbuckle Place.
Ms. Rosenstein showed a picture of the current property. The site is 65 feet wide and 201 feet deep for a
total of 13,100 square feet. As depicted in the picture, the site is currently vacant with a temporary
structure located at the far northwest corner of the lot. The structure is currently used for the selling of
flowers grown on the remainder of the property. The property is bordered by a single-story commercial
office building to the north, Tague Insurance, a single-family residence with a detached garage to the
south, located on the rear of the property there is a single-family residence to the immediate west, and
next to the single-family residence is a two-story, sixteen unit apartment building, both the single-family
resident and the apartment building are located on Madison Street.
Continuing, Ms. Rosenstein stated immediately east of the subject property across Jefferson is a three-
story senior apartment project, Jefferson House. The remainder of the block is comprised of a mixture of
various uses with structures of various sizes. They include two separate two-story apartment projects; one six units and one twelve units, four single-family homes, a single-story office building, a chiropractor’s
office on Grand Avenue, a two-story office complex on the corner of Arbuckle and Jefferson, a restaurant
with a bar, the Grand Avenue Bar and Grill on Grand Avenue, and a parking lot for the Old World Center
located on Madison at Grand Avenue. The block this property is located on is a mixture of various uses.
There are also four different land use districts that comprise the block, which is going to dictate continued
mixed use development in this area in the future in accordance with the build out of the Village Master
Plan.
Ms. Rosenstein said the overall vision for Land Use District 7, which comprises the west side of Jefferson
Street between Arbuckle and Grand, is to accommodate both professional and medical office uses in new
structures and older single-family residences that have been converted to office uses, whether they are medical or professional offices. The development standards also promote individual building set back
from the street and surrounded by landscaping intended to provide a quality office environment with an
easy and pleasant walking distance to shops and restaurants in the remainder of the downtown area. The
land use standards encourage the phasing out of existing single-family residential uses over time, which is
the reason there are still a significant number of single-family homes remaining on this block.
Ms. Rosenstein continued with her slide presentation, showing the proposed development consists of the construction of a three-story commercial office building comprised of two levels of office space above
ground floor parking. The ground floor of the proposed structure includes 735 square feet of commercial
office space devoted to a front lobby off of Jefferson, an elevator, two stairways, an equipment room, and
an electric room. Also on the ground floor and within the footprint of the building, underneath the office
space, are 17 parking spaces, an enclosed trash enclosure, and a storage area. The footprint of the
building, Ms. Rosenstein points out, is shown in white. In the back of the building, between the building
and the rear property line, are 14 additional open parking spaces. Above the ground floor, there are the
second and third floors of the building, both include 4,937 square feet of gross floor area. Of that,
approximately 3,362 square feet is leaseable office space. Both the second and third floors include three
decks each, an outdoor patio area, restrooms, and storage space. The property owner intends to occupy
2,267 square feet of office space on the third floor and the remainder of the building will be leased out to
other offices.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 3 of 13 DRAFT
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out the building elevations on all sides of the building. The architectural design of
the building provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of several architectural features
and details recommended in the Village Design Guidelines. These include multiple roof elements with the
required 5 and 12 roof pitch, various size multi-paned windows with decorative trim, and complementary
colored mulleins, and a two-story arched entryway off of Jefferson with multiple panes of glass, rounded
balconies on the second and third floors of the front and rear of the building, open rail balconies and decks
on the second and third floors on both sides of the buildings, and the architectural design also includes
several complimentary colors to help also break up the faGade of the building. The project, as viewed from the east elevation, has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated in close proximity to
Jefferson and incorporates a grand entry, two balconies, various architectural elements and a ground floor
outdoor seating area on the front of the building.
Ms. Rosenstein continued that landscape planters with flowering vines are proposed on all balconies and
decks. Lattice trellises with flowering vines are proposed along the north elevation and also along the rear
of the building to work in conjunction with the multiple stucco colors and adjacent windows to break up
what would otherwise be blank walls adjacent to the elevator shaft and the equipment room. Tree pockets
are also proposed along the sides of the building to shield the ground floor parking and provide additional
visual relief to both sides of the building.
Ms. Rosenstein said parking for the proposed project is visually subordinate and recommended in the Village Design Guidelines in that it is located both under the building and in back of the proposed building.
Finally, Ms. Rosenstein stated signage is appropriate to the desired village character in terms of size scale
and type of sign. The total frontage of the building is 49.6 feet, which gives them 49.6 square feet of total
sign area. The only sign they are proposing at this time is a small monument sign at the front of the
building between the drive isle and the front pedestrian entrance to the building. The small monument
sign will measure 11.7 square feet, which is significantly under that which would be allowed for this site.
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out in the packages the Board has, there are two sets of elevations. The first one
has already been referred to that showed the building as it would look if you stood on the subject property
right next to the building. She showed a slide modified to show what the property would look like from
adjacent properties. The site has been reduced three feet so that as viewed from adjacent properties, it
actually would appear to be three feet lower then the overall height proposed. The applicant is requesting
a variance to increase the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 71 feet. As the Board knows, our requirement
in the Village Master Plan for variance to increase a setback is a standard that we are looking at changing
in the future through an amendment to the Master Plan, but for the time being, the way it is written, this
would require a variance. In this case, a greater setback on the rear of the property allows the building to
have a close proximity to the street and meets the design guidelines and creates and maintains the
livability of the surrounding residential structures to the immediate west. A greater setback on the back is
actually viewed as a benefit to surrounding residential uses, as viewed by staff. Within that 71 foot
setback there will be open parking. There will be landscaping along the rear setback and then between
the landscape area and the building will all be open parking.
Ms. Rosenstein stated the applicant has requested to increase the height limit from 35 feet to 38 feet, 6
inches. The maximum height in Land Use District 7 is 35 feet. Height is measured in the City of
Carlsbad, not just in the downtown area but for all projects, from the lower of existing or finished grade. In this case, finished grade is actually lower. The applicant is doing what they can to reduce the height of the
overall structure, and in order to get as much parking on the ground floor as possible and enough useable
office space above, they are exceeding the 35 foot height limit. They have proposed to reduce the overall
pad of the property three feet down. This will give the perception that the building is three feet lower as
viewed from Jefferson Street as well as neighboring properties, but technically the overall height is
measured from the ground floor of the building straight up. So overall, based on our definition of building
height, the building is 38 feet, six inches, at the highest point. Not all portions of the roof exceed the 35-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 4 of 13
DRAFT
foot height limit. One of the exhibits in the packages distributed, the applicant clearly showed how much
of the roofline was going to be over the 35 feet.
Ms. Rosenstein went over past slides of the roof height. The dotted line on the north elevation shows the
ground floor level, but with the three-foot retaining wall on the side property line and a 6-foot high masonry
wall on top of that, it blocks the lower portion of the building. This is the perception of the 3 feet, which will
be under street level. The same is true for the south elevation.
The third request the applicant is making, stated Ms. Rosenstein, is the participation in the Parking In-Lieu
Fee Program for a maximum of four parking spaces. At 10,490 square feet, the project requires 35
parking spaces on site with the width of the lot being 65 feet wide, a maximum of 31 spaces can be provided on site. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program
for the remaining four spaces and justification for participation in the program has been provided in the
Design Review Board Resolutions.
She continued that the Planning Department has conducted the Environmental Review for the proposed
project and found the project to be exempt from CEQA as an infill project on less than five acres in an
urbanized area on a site that is served by adequate facilities. The proposed project is anticipated to have
a positive economic impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First the redevelopment of what
was previously an underutilized lot will result in increased property taxes; this increase in property tax will further result in an increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Secondly, it is our hope that
these kinds of projects will serve as a catalyst for other projects in the area, whether that is new
development or rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for the following: the variance to increase the
rear yard setback, the variance to increase the maximum height limit from 35 feet to 38 feet, 6 inches, and
participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four parking spaces. Development of
the site will have a positive fiscal impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency and staff sees this
type of project will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan. That concludes the presentation.
Ms. Rosenstein continued that the Board has a memo in front of them from the Housing and
Redevelopment Department. There was a standard condition regarding our Storm Water Management
Plan, a standard condition for all new construction. It was inadvertently left out of Resolution 291, and we
outlined that in the addendum distributed for this item on the agenda. Essentially, it is a condition, which
requires the applicant to demonstrate they are exercising best management practices for the treatment of
all drainage onsite before it is sent to our storm water system. This is a standard condition on all new
projects and in keeping with the NPDES, which are National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
requirements.
Also, two letters were received today in regard to the project. A copy has been distributed to each of the
Board members. One is from Mr. Jonathan Goll who is the owner of the property to the immediate south
at 2865 Jefferson Street. Mr. Goll is in the audience will probably be asking to speak on this item.
The second letter was submitted to staff from the Packard Dental Group and they outline their issues
regarding the proposed project, and they are not here tonight to speak on this issue.
Board Member Heineman expressed a concern to Ms. Mobaldi regarding a legal matter. He asked if the
Mark Packard is a member of the City Council, is it inappropriate for him to be speaking when he is a
member of the Urban Redevelopment Commission.
Ms. Mobaldi answered that it is the same Mark Packard who is a Council Member, but in this particular
case he is writing a letter as an individual, not as a member of the City Council; not as a representative of
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 5 of 13 DRAFT
the City. He will have to recuse himself when this matter comes before the City Council and he cannot
express his opinion as a Council Member, only as an individual who owns property near the site.
Board Member Heineman reiterated that Mr. Packard would have to recuse himself.
Ms. Mobaldi said yes.
Chairperson Marquez asked if any Board Members have any questions of staff concerning the
presentation of the project given by Ms. Rosenstein.
Board Member Baker asked Ms. Rosenstein since there are two letters that take issue with the Parking In-
Lieu proposal, would she for the record, briefly tell the Board the justification for allowing that variance.
Ms. Rosenstein said participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program technically isn’t a variance. The
Program itself was put in place to allow one to assist in the redevelopment of the downtown area,
predominantly because of small lot sizes; meeting parking requirements on site is very difficult for most of
our projects. Applicants have several alternatives to meeting their parking requirements; one is doing it all
on site, one is leasing off-site private property, another is doing a shared parking arrangement, and the
fourth is to participate in our Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission set the program up as a way to assist in the redevelopment in the downtown area, and it also creates a fund by which developers can participate in. Those monies are then earmarked only to increase
parking opportunities in the downtown area. Those funds are intended to be matched by redevelopment
agency funds and also city funds that can be used to purchase more property for surface parking or it is
the department’s intent to build a multilevel parking structure, which would significantly add to the amount
of parking downtown. There are four findings that have to be made in order to grant participation in the
program. One of the findings is that the program hasn’t been eliminated, and it hasn’t. A second finding
is that the threshold the Housing and Redevelopment Commission established was 85% utilization rate.
Essentially once our public parking lots get to an 85% utilization rate, the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program will
be suspended. Right now, based on our parking counts the last of which were done in August of last year,
which is our busiest time of the year, we showed a utilization rate of 79%. Again, the parking counts are
done at various times of the day and on various days of the week. The last one just happened to be done
during the peak season of the summer time. We haven’t reached the 85% threshold so that finding can
be made. The other two findings have to do with the project and is something that is encouraged for the
downtown area and a project that is consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Village Master
Plan. In this case, we have an office building that is proposed in our office support district so it is a
permitted use and meets the development standards with the granting of the other two variances, the
setback variance and the height limit variance.
Board Member Baker also asked about the height variance. She commented that Ms. Rosenstein said
that depending on where it was measured, is it 38.6 from finish grade or from the underground parking?
Or street level grade or when you are standing at the front door, what is the height of the building at that point?
Ms. Rosenstein answered: At the highest point, it is 38 feet, six inches. The highest point is where the
elevator tower is. The elevator was sunk as low as it possibly could go, even below finished grade and
then there is the elevator tower and then the need to put in our five and twelve roof pitch, which adds
some height. From the center of Jefferson Street, it will appear to be three feet lower then the 38 feet, six
inches, because from the sidewalk, you step down a couple of steps to go into the building.
Board Member Baker continued with her question: If you measured from Jefferson Street, is it still 38.6
feet?
Ms. Rosenstein answered it is lower. It is comparable to 35 feet, six inches.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 6 of 13
Board Member Baker stated she noticed in the Staff Report that there was quite a bit of cut being
exported, was any consideration given to lowering it even further so that you actually had underground
parking rather then half underground, half above ground?
Ms. Rosenstein answered yes. There are two factors related to that. The architect is here and can expound on these a little more. One is the significant cost factor in doing completely subterranean parking
or even dropping it further then what they are doing. The second is the ramp and the angle of the ramp as
you gain access to the site. You don’t have enough room to get the right pitch and you will lose parking
spaces because that ramp, in order to not drop straight down, has to be so gradual that it takes a number
of feet to get to the point where you can access the significant slope down.
Board Member Baker said she had one other question. Why is there more interest in giving height
variance rather then giving a roof pitch variance?
Ms. Rosenstein said from staff‘s perspective, the 5 and 12 roof pitch is not only a significant design
guideline, but a development standard. It is something that we are encouraging in all of our projects. The alternative would be to do a flat roof, and our staff hasn’t supported that. We haven’t seen the support to
do that from the Board in the past or also from the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Board Member Baker commented that it was safe to say we would rather have the 5 to 12 pitch and have
a height variance.
Ms. Rosenstein answered yes.
Chairperson Marquez recognized Board Member Paulson who asked Ms. Rosenstein if the building, when looking at it, will it look like it is 35 feet high?
Ms. Rosenstein agreed it will look like 35 feet high from adjacent properties.
Board Member Paulson continued is that meeting the intent? It seems like it is not critical.
Ms. Rosenstein answered that it is meeting the intent, but it would not be meeting the technical definition
of how we define height.
Board Member Paulson stated that he wished he had the letters earlier, because he went to the site last
Saturday and looked at the building across the street, and that is a three-story structure and it looks like it
is higher then this one is going to be.
Ms. Rosenstein said that Jefferson House, based on our records, which is the senior apartment project
across the street, is at 35 feet. That was what our land use documents show. Under construction, things do change, but it is right around 35 feet.
Board Member Paulson said he couldn’t see any evidence that they dropped to a lower level like this
building is, and I still bet it is higher.
Ms. Rosenstein said they do not have the 5 and 12 roof pitch because it wasn’t required back then, but
they do have a roof pitch.
Chairperson Marquez recognized Board Member Heineman who asked Ms. Rosenstein if she knew for
sure the height of Jefferson House.
Ms. Rosenstein answered that the records show it scales out to 35 feet. They are older records. Also, Mr.
Wojcik did bring up an important point. Back then there was also a different definition of building height
and how the height was defined for Jefferson House; it could have been measured differently.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 7 of 13
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Wojcik if it might actually be higher then as a result of the difference
in measuring.
Mr. Wojcik said yes there would be. The old way of measuring the height was from the face of the
building, five feet out, measure the ground elevation there, and then you measure up. In some instances,
people would have half of the building actually at street level, but they would mound up the earth against
the building so that isn’t counted as building height. That was the difference between then and now.
Board Member Heineman asked if that change just came in the past five or six years?
Chairperson Marquez recognized Board Member Baker who asked Mr. Wojcik if the City has any
requirements to have a final measurement of a building, so that if we expect this to be at 38.6, will it
indeed be that.
Mr. Wojcik answered it is not part of the final inspection. It is reviewed at the time of the building plans
being submitted. The building plan consultant would check the plans against the approval to make sure it complies with those heights.
Chairperson Marquez asked Ms. Rosenstein about the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, can you clarify as to the proximity of these parking lots to the site, and did we have any requirements for these parking lots to
be within a certain distance from the proposed sites?
Ms. Rosenstein replied, the way the program is written, there are two zones: the downtown is broken up
into two zones. Zone one are those properties that are fairly easy walking distance, real close proximity to
all of our public parking lots. We have ten public parking lots. Zone two are those properties that are on
the periphery of the downtown area. While it is still a five minute walk in many cases to our public parking
lots, you can’t look across the street and see it or it is not down at the corner. Sometimes it is down the
street, turn a corner, and that’s where the public parking is located. When measuring how far a particular
property is away from our public parking lot, we typically do as the crow flies, a direct shot to it. The way
our Parking In-Lieu Fee Program reads is that in Zone One, you can participate for more of the required
parking the closer you are to a public parking lot, that applies to both Zone One and Zone Two, but in
Zone One because you are already physically closer to these public parking lots, you can participate to a
greater extent. This property happens to be located in Zone Two. They can qualify to participate up to
50% of their required parking because of their proximity to a public parking lot. Out of the 35 spaces, they
could qualify for 17 spaces, and they are asking to participate in up to four.
Chairperson Marquez asked what the utilization is for the closest parking lot to this project?
Ms. Rosenstein answered the closest parking lots are on Roosevelt Street. There is one in the center of
the block on the east side of Roosevelt, between Grand and Carlsbad Village Drive, and there is another
one two lots south of that on the corner of Roosevelt and Carlsbad Village Drive. Based on the calculation
that was done in August, most of them were around 79%. That was an overall utilization rate for all of our
public parking lots, and keeping in mind that the public parking lots adjacent to the Coaster Station are
almost 100% utilized at most of the times our counts are done, Monday through Friday for instance
between 7 and 5 p.m. These two parking lots have a slightly lower utilization rate because they are not in close proximity to the Coaster Station plus they are also located across the street from my office so I can
probably attest to how occupied they are. I would say 79% is probably on the high side; it depends on the
time of day.
Ms. Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, added that counts are actually done on every
single one of our parking lots and the ones on Roosevelt stay at about 50 to 60% for most of the time. On
Wednesdays, which is when our Farmer’s Market is, during that time that parking lot is not available; that
is mid block Roosevelt. The one on the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive, in that case, will stay fully
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 8 of 13
utilized, but when they do these counts, they typically don’t do them on Wednesdays. They do them
typically on Monday’s or Thursdays. Typically those lots themselves stay at 50 to 60%. As Ms.
Rosenstein mentioned, the parking lots that are basically a 100% full all the time are the three that are
closest to the commuter rail station. All the other parking lots usually average 50 to 60 and sometimes
less.
Chairperson Marquez thanked Ms. Fountain and Ms. Rosenstein. She asked Mr. Wojcik how many off-
street parking spaces are there adjacent to the project.
Board Member Heineman stated Mr. Wojcik would not know that.
Chairperson Marquez continued, she asked Mr. Wojcik how the City was going to handle the grading in
the rear setback of the project. Was that also going to be three feet lower, and how is the integrity of the
property going to be retained?
Mr. Wojcik replied the subject property would be lower then the adjacent property. It will be a three foot
retaining wall viewed from inside the parking lot, and then on top of that would be an additional three feet
of solid wall so from the parking lot, you see a six foot wall, but from the adjacent property, you just see a
three foot wall. That would be towards the rear of the property, because the property slopes up as you are going towards Jefferson.
Chairperson Marquez asked Mr. Wojcik if he is saying that on the property line there is going to be a six-
foot wall and then a planter wall, perhaps a stubbed wall of three feet of plants. How are the plants going
to be planted between the walls? The Board Members do not have a section of that in the plans.
Ms. Rosenstein interjected that at the rear of the property there is a six-foot wall along the adjacent
property, but it steps down to a three-foot retaining wall.
Chairperson Marquez asked if she could outline that on the plans.
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out the single-family residence next door. The view from the neighboring
property, in this case it would be to the west, there is a six-foot wall along the rear property line. However,
the entire parking lot is three feet lower then their adjacent grade. The landscaped area is a two to one
slope, so it will slope up.
Chairperson Marquez inquired as to the distance.
Ms. Rosenstein answered it would be ten feet from the tree line. There is a five feet backup distance so
that cars can back up and exit the site heading forward. From the asphalt paving in the parking lot, there
will be a curb going up to a two to one landscaped slope with a six foot wall along the rear property line.
Chairperson Marquez stated that would be sunk three feet below. So from the site, it will look like a nine foot wall from the rear of the site?
Ms. Rosenstein agreed, but a portion of that would be a landscaped embankment. If the rear property line to the west has a six foot wall on it, then you will step down, slope down three feet to the parking lot. From
the grade of the parking lot to the top of the wall is nine feet, but the wall itself is only six feet technically.
Board Member Heineman commented that it looks like three feet from the outside.
Ms. Rosenstein corrected him and said it will look like six feet from outside.
Chairperson Marquez commented the plan is incorrect as far as north is.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 9 of 13
Both Board Member Heineman and Ms. Rosenstein agreed.
Chairperson Marquez asked on the north and south side, how will that change in grade be handled in that
rear setback area?
Ms. Rosenstein answered that on the south side of the property it is the same, but in this case there is a three foot retaining wall as viewed from the subject property, and the wall on the adjacent property will be
six feet so it will look like a nine foot wall from the subject property. That is needed in order to retain this
property three feet lower then the adjacent grade on all sides.
Chairperson Marquez asked about the north side?
Ms. Rosenstein said it is the same on the north side. She pointed out the walkway for handicap
accessibility. There will be a paved walkway adjacent to the property on the north side of the property.
Along Jefferson Street, there will be two or three steps down to the front entryway. There are two
handicapped parking spaces, and a wheelchair can enter the front lobby at the ground floor so there is no
need to go down the steps.
Chairperson Marquez inquired as to whether that slope into the split level parking garage going to meet
the handicapped requirement at 5%?
Ms. Rosenstein answered yes because in this case the slope is at the drive entrance. When you get to
the other side of the property, it would be relatively flat except for enough grade to drain to the street.
Chairperson Marquez said her last question was concerning signage. She feels it is wonderful that the
building is going to have such a small sign, but what kind of sign will be approved for tenants within the
building. Will there be a directory within the lobby area, is that going to be the restriction on their signage
or will they be allowed to have signage on the exterior of the building?
Ms. Rosenstein replied the applicant was asked what kind of signage they were proposing. We have one
monument sign located directly between the vehicular access and the front pedestrian access on
Jefferson Street. It is perpendicular to the street. No other signage on the face of the building is
proposed. There will be address signage on the front identifying the address of the building. They have
not mentioned, nor do we regulate what kind of directory signage they do inside.
Chairperson Marquez asked if there were any other questions of the Board.
Board Member Paulsen asked if he needed an office in this building, could he park on the street out in
front?
Board Member Heineman said certainly.
Board Member Paulsen asked then what is the significance of four outside parking spaces; however many
feet away they are? Are those people going to be required to park over there?
Ms. Rosenstein explained the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is set up to have each development
responsible for satisfying their own parking requirements to create a level of fairness. We cannot force
anybody to use any parking anywhere else; however, strongly encourage the applicant to have, for instance, employees park off site on the Roosevelt Street would be ideal. There is a lot of employee
parking in our area that utilizes both Roosevelt parking lots, but we cannot control everybody who would
be parking on this site. Of course, street parking is available to anybody at any given time. There is no
time limits in this area and there is no paid parking.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 10 of 13
Board Member Paulsen said his other question deals with what provisions are there for storm water to get
out from the parking area?
Mr. Wojcik said there are slot drains just underneath the building. In the area that is open in the back, the
rain would drain towards the slot drains. The slot drains go to a sump pump that will also have a battery
backup in case there is a power outage, and that will be pumped back up to the street.
Board Member Paulsen asked if there would be two of them?
Mr. Wojcik said no, instead of having a backup pump, what we required them to do was to have a backup
power system.
Board Member Paulsen said if the power goes out, two power systems won’t do any good.
Mr. Wojcik said but then you are assuming the pump goes out when there is a storm.
Chairperson Marquez said after having heard staff report and since there are no other questions from the
Board Members, I’d like to open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please step forward to make a
presentation. Please state your name and address for the record and speak into the microphone.
Scott Cairns of Smith Consulting Architects, representing Mr. Jessee who is present also. He thanked
Debbie and Lori because a lot of time has been spent on this building. There have been a couple of
different iterations, trying to satisfy all of the requirements, as it is a delicate balance. From Mr. Jessee’s
side, he has to get a certain amount of square footage in order to make the project work, and at the same
time, he has to respect the budget so that when he leases the property, it is economically feasible. Lori
addressed the lowering of the building and not going full subterranean so we could get maximum parking,
and not burdening the project with the cost of a full subterranean garage. When you only have a six
thousand some square feet of leasable space, that is not a lot of space to lease and recover your investment in the project. We worked with Lori and Debbie to create a building that had a lot of
articulation for not a large building, dealt with the roof, we buried the mechanical well which you can’t see
any of the mechanical equipment because it is hidden in the center, and tried to create a street presence
that really will make Jefferson a very pedestrian friendly street. There is a nice entry, seating area out in
front, very friendly approach, created balconies to respect the residential, even though we realize one of
the goals of the District 7 is to phase out residential, there is still going to be residents there for some time
to come and we were trying to come up with a project that respects that residential component that will
remain for a number of years. Also a design that is compatible with the design goals.
Mr. Cairns continued that with so many different elements needed to be satisfied, and he feels they came
up with a balance that works well. He asked if there were any further questions.
Chairperson Marquez had a question regarding the balconies. Are the balconies just for articulation only
or will they be useable?
Mr. Cairns said the balconies in the front and on the south side are really very minimal and more for
articulation. The balcony on the north side has a considerable amount of patio where tables could be
placed. There was a restriction in the amount of space available, and it was better to concentrate it in one
area that could really be useable with tables and chairs.
Chairperson Marquez said okay, and asked how wide the front driveway apron is there?
Mr. Cairns answered it shows up on A-1. It is 30 feet.
Chairperson Marquez commented with the building side yards and a 30-foot driveway, then there is one off-street parking in front of the building.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 11 of 13
* Mr. Cairns said no, it is all landscaping in front of the building.
Chairperson Marquez corrected him and said no she meant on-street parking, perhaps one space. She
continued asking Mr. Cairns what type of tenancy are they looking for in this building?
Mr. Cairns said besides Mr. Jessee’s business, it is going to be office.
Chairperson Marquez asked how many square feet Mr. Jessee will occupy in the building?
Mr. Cairns said he thinks it is about 2,500 square feet.
Chairperson Marquez inquired as to what type of business Mr. Jessee is in?
Mr. Cairns said they do safety programs for companies and all the required OSHA programs; they do the
printing of all those documents for different companies.
Mr. Jessee interjected they are a risk control consulting firm.
Mr. Cairns said that is more impressive. He continued that it is primarily offices.
Chairperson Marquez asked if any member of the public would like to speak? There is a request for a Mr.
Jonathan Goll. Mr. Goll, please step forward and state your name and address for the record into the
microphone.
Mr. Jonathan Goll stepped forward, stated his name, his address is 2865 Jefferson Street, which is next
door to the proposed project. He has several concerns. First is the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Looking at the map, it looks like a five to eight minute walk from the site to any of the existing lots. He
commented that if he was working in the building, he would just park in the street. There is not a lot of
street parking right now. It is pretty well utilized during the day. It is a very attractive building. He feels they’ve done a good job with the design of the building. The concern he has is that it is a huge building for
that size of lot. He asked what the setback from either side to the property line would be?
Chairperson Marquez said staff will make that presentation after you are finished. Just let us know what
your concerns are.
Mr. Go11 continued that he feels it is a very large project on a street that was originally designed to be
residential. Maybe one of.them isn’t going to have a huge impact, but if there are a number of these
oversized projects, it will certainly lose some of its charm in that area. You will have a monolithic view as
you traverse the street. His other concerns include, though it will not be 38 and a half feet above his
property, it will be 35 feet. Still, there is a significant shade impact and he is concerned about loss of
privacy from the balconies that are out there. He understands there is a plan to phase out single-family residences in that area, but at the same time, it is a very desirable place to live, close to an improving
downtown and he would hate to see all the residential leave that area.
Board Member Baker asked Mr. Go11 if his property was the one that had the dumpster sitting in the front
yard? What are you doing, remodeling?
Mr. Goll answered that he is cleaning it up, changing floor, removing the brush, as it was tented for termites recently.
Board Member Baker continued with her question, is that property used as a residence or as an office?
Mr. Goll replied that it is a residence as a rental.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 12 of 13
Board Member Baker asked if his property was the same width and depth as the property to the north?
Mr. Go11 answered that judging from the map, it is the same depth but a little bit narrower; it is a fairly
narrow lot.
Chairperson Marquez commented to Mr. Go11 that his lot is a non-conforming residential use.
Mr. Go11 said he did not know what that means.
Chairperson Marquez thanked Mr. Goll for his comments. She asked if anyone else was in the audience
who would like to speak on this project. She asked Ms. Rosenstein to answer Mr. Goll’s question as to
the side yards.
Ms. Rosenstein said the proposed building, on the south side of the property, the building varies from five
to ten feet to the side property line which is consistent with the setbacks for that area. There are portions
of that building that are as close as five feet, but a majority of it are setback ten feet. On the north side of
the building, the setback varies from five to thirteen feet, four inches, with a majority of it being ten feet
back from side property line.
Board Member Baker asked for a clarification from Ms. Rosenstein if she means it is five to ten feet from
the property line or five to ten feet from the setback.
Ms. Rosenstein said the building is five to ten feet from the side property line on the south side and five to
thirteen feet from the property line on the north side.
Chairperson Marquez asked the Board Members if they would like to speak on this project. Board
Member Paulsen said he did not have any comments.
Board Member Baker said she initially had some concerns about the variance of the building height,
simply because she doesn’t like to be in a position to grant variances on building height. It puts us in a
tough spot, but having said that, I recognize this property has some unique features about it that make it
difficult to develop any other way and so I feel the applicant has addressed my concerns about the pitch in
the roof and that from the street, it won’t appear enormous. Parking is always going to be a problem in the
village, and I think the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program was created because the lots there are almost all too
small to create on-site parking. I believe the Parking In-Lieu Program, though it is a long hike, is just a
fact of life in the village. Over time, the best interest of the City and Jefferson would be served by going
ahead with this project so I can support the project.
Board Member Heineman agreed with Board Member Baker. He agrees the future of downtown is
commercial and multifamily residential and doesn’t believe this building is going to look massive in the
future. It will be across the street from Jefferson House, which is pretty massive in itself. He is not as
concerned about parking as he might have been a year ago, but the Escrow building which is across
Grand from this site and which gave us many worries because of parking, I know from personal
experience it seems to be working out beautifully. I do feel this building is worth supporting, despite
concerns about height.
Chairperson Marquez said she was also concerned about the mass of this project, and it is too bad a
developer couldn’t come in and do more from the corner; some sort of redevelopment of that whole area.
Since the property owner wants to improve this property and has handled the challenge of getting the
square footage that he needs in building with engineering his parking facilities to accommodate that, she
feels this is the only way to handle this type of development on such an unusually narrow lot. In
consideration of that, I also support the project as presented to the board.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24,2003
PAGE 13 of 13
ACTION: Motion by Vice Chairperson Heineman, and duly seconded by Board Member
Baker, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 291, recommending approval of RP 02-02 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and including the condition regarding
storm water management.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: Baker, Paulsen, Heineman and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lawson
Board Member Lawson returned to join the Design Review Board.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Fountain commented that the CRA Conference is next week, starting on Wednesday through Friday.
Everyone should have received their information. The hotel rooms have been reserved as well as the
registration to the conference. The only thing that might be needed is if anyone requires transportation.
Everyone has been sent their confirmation. All reservations are under Ms. Fountain’s name. If any other
information is needed, give Ms. Fountain a call.
Ms. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, explained the law changed on January 1, 2003, with regard to
conflicts. Now if you have a conflict, you have to announce with some specificity on the record what the
nature of the conflict is so that a person would be able to determine what the nature is, whether it is
financial interest, etc. If it has to do with property, you do not have to give your address, just announce
you own property or you reside in property within 600 feet of that project, then you have to actually leave
the room. The only exception to that is if you want to testify as a member of the public, not as a Board
Member, giving your personal opinion, because you still have your right to free speech, with regard to the
project, but other then that you leave the room.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of February 24,2003, was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT1
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEFT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
Exhibit 5
Public Comment Letters
I
I
t s
February 2
City of cal
Housing ar
2965 ROOS
Carlsbad, (
Re: FV 02-
To Whom ;
My family
planned prc
both shoulc
The reques
allowed on
41 I
1
I I
6388396594 J GOLL PAGE 62
2003
)ad
Redevelopment Department
dt Street, Suite B
92008
, Kent Jesse Office Building
May Concern:
m the single-farnily residence at 2865 Jefferson Street, adjacent to the
ct. X am concerned about two of the proposed variances, and believe that
e denied.
x a height variance infers that a structure larger than would nomally be
at lot size is being planned. Given that the area is zoned for mixed use, th 4 massive structures will diminish livability and desirability of the residential uses.
Additionally the charm of ?he downtown area will be degraded if many of &e lots arc
packed with e maximum amount of structure. There is also an increasing amount of
vehicle ttaffi along Jefferson Street, and any large projects are certain to exacerbate that
problem. I I
I take issue with is the Parking In-Lieu proposal. While this might
some instances, the practicality in this case is that there is no
lots within reasonable walking distance. Parking along
problem, and it would be a shame to make it worse as a result
I would like to commend the city on the many positive changes to the
number ofresidences have been upgraded or built in
of town, and I would like to see that trend continue.
sincerely, 1
I I
I
.
PACKARD DENTAL GROUP
k
725 Grand Avenue'. Carlsbad, CA 92008
4 1 690 Enterprise Circle North Suite 1 1 4 Rancho California, CA 92390 Sl
(7bOcj 729-4904 (7W) 699-4777 FAX ( 729-3 132
L
Kent Jessee Office BuildingHousing & Redevelopment CommissionApril 1, 2003
Subject Property
Adjacent Property to the North
Adjacent Property to the South
Adjacent Property to the West
Adjacent Property to the West
Adjacent Property to the East
DRB RecommendationRecommending approval of project with findings to grant the following:Variance to increase rear yard setback.Variance to increase maximum height limit from 35’ to 38-6”.Participation in Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of four parking spaces.