Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-25; Design Review Board; Minutes*. .. _- MINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Special Meeting) Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: March 25, 1987 Place of Meeting: Safety Service Center, 2560 Orion Way MEMBERS \1 ~~ CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Rombotis called the Meeting to order at 5:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Rombotis, Members Hall, Holmes, McCoy and McF adden. Absent: Norie. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Community Redevelopment Manager Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Mike Decerbo, Associate Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Rombotis. Chairman Rombotis requested Item No. 4 be taken out of order at this time. The Board Member concurred. DEPARTMENTAL 4. RP 87-1 - MYERS - Request for a minor redevelopment permit to allow a mobile telephone, auto radio, and windo tinting retail sales, seriice, and installation outlet at 920 Elm Avenue. Brian Hunter, Assistant Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report. Slides were used to show the existing business. Member McCoy asked about all of the signage on the building. be approved by the Community Redevelopment Manager. Brain Hunter replied the siqnage would have to Member McFadden inquired why no one had asked the applicant to do something about greenscaping at the entrance. She stated this was very minimal at the present time, and it is very minimal and very visible. She asked if this would be the appropriate time to include that request. Brian Hunter stated this would be the time to ask that, if the Board desires more greenary at the site of the project. Captain Kurt Arensmeyer, 920 Elm Avenue, representinq 3oe Meyers, stated he only had two questions of the Board at this time. Occassionally, a vehicle in for a telephone installation will be too large to fit inside the building. If this only happens on an occassional basis, would it be possible to work on that vehicle at the right of the building. Chris Salomone stated the reason that condition was in the Resolution was there was a problem with the previous tenant who had a similar type of operation at that site. Staff had received numerous complaints about it from the adjacenty property owners. Chairman Rombotis commented the last occupant had vehicles all over the lot. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 2 MEMBERS \ DEPARTMENTAL: (continued) Mr. Arensmeyer stated he recognized the problem with the previous tennant, and it would not be their regular practice. However, if the vehicle would not fit into the building, such as a van, he asked permission to work on that van outside the building. This would he an unusual set of circumstances and would not be the normal procedure. Member Holmes stated that although it was against the conditions, he was willing to 90 along with that until the first complaint from the neighbors. Mr. Arensmeyer continued stating there are six pieces of plywood attached to the east side of the building. It is not permissable to advertise on that side of the building and behind the plywood is a window. of his business and the value of the merchandise, he wanted to know whether he needed to brick that window in, paint it or just what would the Desiqn Review Board prefer . Becuase of the nature Chris Salomone stated staff direction would be to paint it. That would be the most appropriate method. It should not be decorated in any way. Mr. Arensmeyer stated they were within the restrictions on the front of the building, but to use the plywood on the east side of the building would put them outside of the restrictions. He stated they did not want advertisinq there. Chris Salomone added if the applicant wanted to brick up the window, that would probably be the best solution. Chairman Rombotis stated to the applicant either brick the window up or paint it a color that blends in the existing building. Member Hall asked the applicant if he had problems with doing some landscaping in front of the property. Mr. Arensmeyer stated the slide that was shown did not show the actual front of the gas island. He stated that was not within their lease and they would have to discuss that with the landlord. He pointed out that the area on the slide where landscaping would be possible, but said it was not within the lease. He added he had no problem with trying to develop more landscaping, provided the owner was agreeable. Member Hall said if they would agree to landscape the front of the location, he would not have any problem with the outside work. They need to buffer it and take the focul point off of the red sign and move it closer to the street. In answer to Member Holmes' question as to whether he had approved the signs, Chris Salomone stated he had not seen the permit. The previous tenant had a sign in that place. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated if the Board was willing to modify the condition about working entirely within the building, he suggested they modify it so the work would cease upon written notice from the City. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RP 86-23 - MARK T. GOMBAR - Request for a major permit to develop a professional office at 2558 Roosevelt Street in subarea 6 of the redevelopment area. Chris Salomone gave the initial staff report on this item, using a transparency to show the site. was no magic to the success of the Redevelopment Area. Everything has been discussed every step of the way. At this point the City is becoming more critical and choosy as each year goes by and the Redevelopment Area is more successful. Mr. Salomone stated tonight they were dealing with a period of re-examining where they are and later they will discuss the policy items presented. The issues that may arise in the next two items will be discuss individually and discuss the policy issue when the Board gets to Item 5 of the Agenda. He stated there Mr. Salomone presented slides showing the Roosevelt Street area and the site of the Gombar proposal. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, continued the report, as contained in the Agenda. He used transparencies to show the elevation of the proposed building and stated there were a number of issues unresolved at this time. First, the rear set-back encroachment. The read set-back encroachment is ten feet into the rear set-back. Because of the height of the building, the applicant wanted to increase the front set- back, and increase that to 30 feet. have a negative impact on the property behind the applicants property and to the east. lack of intergraded parking. If the parking lot is full under the building, a car could not turn around and would have to back out into the street. Staff felt the two driveways should be connected within the parking area. Another issue staff felt the height and the amount of the building on this site exceeded what the City would like to see in that area. It is an issue of compatibility with the surrounding area. The slides indicated the existing development is single family and single story. This would be the first project that would be coming under the redevelopment subarea 6 and it is very important. This would set the tone for the area. It was felt the goals of the Redevelopment Area were aeneral and difficult to interpret. villaqe at pedistrian oriented and use streetscapes and maximum open space. pro,iect would be compatible with those goals. recommended denial of this project. Staff felt this could Another issue is The manual stated the qoal is to keep the Staff has concerns whether this Staff Chairman Rombotis opened the public hearing at 5:25 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. Chairman Rombotis indicated he had received a letter from Mark Gombar Company dated March 23, 1987, and this letter was made part of the record. this hearing, but Mr. Henry Tubbs and Mr. Robert Size were authorized to speak on his behalf. Mr. Gombar stated he would not be at _- MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Henry Tubbs, 690 Elm Avenue, 8204, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He stated one of the major problems was with the parking, and they have provide turn- around spaces in each of the driveway portions to enable people to turn around without backing out into the street. This is desiqnated on the site plan, showinq the two different locations. Mr. Tubbs stated he had met with staff to develop the project complying with the letter and spirit of the Redevelopment Area. The project was designed and redesigned several time due to the concerns of the staf members. At the recommendation of the Redevelopment Department, the building was moved back ten feet. Mr. Tubbs referred to the drawings on display before the Board. Mr. Tubbs stated these drawings are to scale and were viewing from accross the street on Roosevelt Street, on an average height of a person looking at the project. He stated the fiaure of the people and the cars are all to scales on these drawings. Mr. Tubbs referred to the read yard encroachment, and stated it abuts the rear of a car center and they are only ten feet from the property line at the read of their property. The property to the north is a single family, and encroaching in the rear and side yard. The assessory building takes up more than 50% of that rear yard. The uses this project is being compared to should not be there. Mr. Tubbs described the other uses in the area surrounding this site and stated they are all in need of urban beatification. Mr. Tubbs stated they had tried to mitigate the negative feedback and had complied with that height limitation of the City. be approved as a three story building. steps back from the second story. Mr. Tubbs felt the project breaks up the skyline and adds interest for pedistrian and motorists in the area. A two- story flat building is the most economical way to go, but is not that attrative. Staff was afraid the applicant was overdeveloping the site, but the project would not viable without trying to make or use the guidelines laid down and make the most of them. He stated it was in their interest to have a beautiful project as they are trying to sell that space to tenants. They were never told that the project could not The third story Parking is screen and Member McCoy stated his agreement with having the driveways go around. driveway and would like to see if that was possible. He had thought about a continous Bob Royce, Architect, 2956 Roosevelt Street, addressed the Board stating there is a potential for internal circulation in the parking area. They did parking studies and they were concerned about having people back out onto Roosevelt Street. turnouts for cars to make a three point turn. As a matter of fact, having a loop throuqh the entire area might cause a safety concern for pedestrians. It was felt there would be the least impact from traffic looping around the site by permittinq cars to enter and make a three point turn and return if there was no parking available under the buildinq. They revised the plan and provide \I MEMBERS .. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Chairman Rombotis inquired whether the hammerhead was not for the last two spaces at the end. Mr. Royce explained they were at each end of the alley, to enable the cars to come back. Mr. Royce showed a blueprint of the building and the proposed traffic circulation. would encourage higher speed traffic, which could be dangerous. He stated a loop Member McFadden inquired about the six foot masonary wall around the property, and Mr. Royce stated that parking would be permitted in the side yard set back and the landscape would provide relief against the wall. That would be planted with ivy. Member Hall asked about where the edge of the building was and would the cars be protruding out from under the building. The screen wall surrounds the parking and each stall will be screened from view. The building is ten feet and the parking will be in the ten foot on the outside. Lilian Gordon, 605 Laguna, addressed the Board stating she was not certain whether he was referring to her house as the single family house. She asked how many offices would be in the building, and Chairman Rombotis stated that would be according to what amount of space was leased for each tenant. Mrs. Gordon asked how many parking spaces were allotted, and Chairman Rombotis stated there is one parking space per 300 square feet of office, which is per the code of the City. Mrs. Gordon asked whether the 34 feet included the entire roof, and staff explained that this is to the midpoint of the gable. This would be the midpoint of the pitch of the roof, which would make the top of the roof more than 34 feet. Mrs. Gordon asked how late there would be people in these offices and how late they could stay open. She felt there could be a great deal of noice and traffic going in an out at all hours. Chairman Rombotis stated that is not normally conditioned in an application for office spaces. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the pub testimony was concluded at 5:46 p.m. Member McFadden stated she felt the parking could be improved, the buildina was too massive, too tall, too b 2, and she was concerned about the surrounding area and she felt this was not oriented to pedestrians. Also, there was a variance asked for the rear yard to ten feet and she felt the project needed to be done better an scaled down. Member Holmes stated he had looked at the proposed project, and felt the "Village" was the keq to the Redevelopment Area. He felt the colonial design was uninterestinq and he did not see it as an asset to the Village. As to the comment made to other buildings, this is the economical way to build and from the appearance it would not be an asset to the village. Member Hall stated he would like to have seen the parking put down at least four feet or completely subterranean. MEMBERS ' ic y\\\ MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 6 \ MEMBERS PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Chairman Rombotis stated he felt they should lower the overall structure. Member McCoy stated we have three hearing in the same wavelength as far as size. Member McCoy stated he did not like the architecture and felt it was not in character with the Village atmosphere. He was also not satisfied with the parking. It was not a good situation to have to back into a parking space in order to turn around to go back out. He stated he could not approve this project. Chairmain Rombotis stated he felt parking needed to be circulatory in nature and the building could be lowered in height. He stated the ten feet rear yard did not bother him because of what it backed up to, but the building appeared to be massive from the street and perhaps it should have a step back effect so it would not look so high from the sidewalk. If this were done, he felt he could approve this request. Member McFadden questioned the over buildinq of office space, and Chris Salomone answered the Council had accepted the study that was made merely as guidelines. However, all of the office space in the downtown area is being leased. Member Hall made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 097. Member Holmes seconded the motion. Chairman Rombotis stated if this project were to be sent back to staff with the Board's input, it could come back. Mr. Tubbs stated he would like something specific as far as what the Board would like to have done with the project. Mr. Tubbs stated if they did a flow through as far as the parking, they would loose parking spaces, the would reduce the mass of the project due to the lose of the parking. He stated if they reduced the height, that would change the entire project. Charles Grimm commented staff would take the direction of the Board as stepping the building back, with the three stories still being possible. The staff would work with the applicant to interpret what the Design Review Board indicated. Member Holmes stated it was important to get back to the word "Village". on where the building is located. The height limitation of 35 feet depends At this point, Member Hall withdrew his previous motion, with the consent of the second. Design Review Board returned this request for a major permit for a professional office at 2558 Roosevelt Street back to staff for further review to work under the guidelines for the Redevelopment Area. Rombot is Hall Holmes McCoy McFadden MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 7 MEMBERS \1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: - (continued) 2. RP 86-21 - CALIFORNIA BUILDERS - Request for a major permit to develop a professional office at the s/w corner of the 3efferson and Grand intersection in subarea 1 of the redevelopment area. Chris Salomone gave the initial report on this item, using slides to show the site of the proposed building. is a single story structure on the site at the present time . There Mike Decerbo continued the staff report, as contained in the packet. He described the structures to the north arid the south of this building and the single family structures. An artist drawing was shown of the project. Staff indicated that there were too many compact parking spaces, and the Design Review Board may approve up to 40% compact parking spaces. and could be resolved through redesign. The plan does include integrated parking, with a two way alley, this could be eliminated. This project does not help create the villaqe atmosphere in design and use of pedestrian- scaled structures. There is no relief in the structure, and it is truly no the village type of structure. Low rise buildings are preferable with towers. buildings in the neiqhborhood referred to were approved in the Redevelopment Area at a time when the economic revitalization was the primary driving force behind the redevelopment. consideration, but also it is important to consider the Village goals. addressed with pedestrian orientation, streetscape and village architecture continuity. Staff felt this was a minor issue The other The economics are still a vital It was felt that those goals needed to be Chairman Rombotis opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. Charles Rowe, 2910 3efferson Street, Suite 202, addressed the Board stating this was a two story buildina, not a three story building and not 35 feet in height. There are only two 12 foot floors and the roof structure of approximately seven foot high. If they went to the middle of the roof, it would be about three and one half feet. From the curbing, there is about 30 feet overall as far as the height. Mr. Rowe asked staff what kind a building they would like for this corner, because this building was the type of building they wanted to see build in the downtown Carlsbad area. He stated he had the Community Redevelopment Manager's input, as well as the Planning Department. The ten foot set back on the front side and ten foot in the rear is including the parking. The underground parking is services by a well in the middle. This qoes to the basement parking with natural ventillation and light and there is a tree growing out of that well. Mr. Rowe stated they planned on putting a mature tree that would come up to the height of the second story. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 8 MEMBERS ' PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Mr. Rowe referred to the artist rendering showing the round portion of the building, stating this gives architectural relief to the north side of the building. Mr. Rowe stated they felt they had addressed all the concerns of the staff. He explained further that the upper parking enters on 3efferson Street and exits on the alley to provide good circulation pattern. If anyone enters on the top parking at Jefferson, they can make a right hand turn and enter the underground parking just north of Jefferson. He indicated the parking circulation for the Board Members. He stated there was no dead end on the parking circulation. Peter Longanbach, P.O. Box 8193, Rancho Santa Fe, Mr. Rowe's partner, was recognized by the Board and spoke regarding the purchase of the land for this site and the instructions to Mr. Rowe to work with the City. He stated they had not intended to request any variances, exceed set backs and wanted to build a building the City would be proad of. Mr. Longanbach stated staff had said the project conforms to development standards of the design manaual and was in conformance to the zoning requirements. He stated his disappointment that this project did not provide the village atmosphere in downtown Carlsbad. wanted a village look. The building has been set back 14,000 square feet with a very impressive entry way. thought this was a far more appealing building. He He As to office demand in Carlsbad, Mr. Longanbach stated there is a trremendous demand for office space in downtown Carlsbad. The building built across the street from this proposed building was 80% preleased during construction and is now 100% leased. He stated they put a rendering on their site and the response to that by prospective tenants was overwhelming. Steven Densham, 3965 Monroe Street addressed the Board stating he owned two business. buildinq at Elm Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. to addres comments relating to both projects the Board has been discussing and a point of discussion on the review of the Design Manaual. Mr. Densham stated he is Chairman of the Village Merchants Association and circulation and a key element of the Village is people and the circulation of the people. people, there will be no people in the village. the Board to keep in mind the people that are important as far as the downtown area where they come to shop and return with their families. One at 840 Grand and the He wanted If this is no circulation pattern for the He asked Mr. Densham continued, stating when they discuss the design manual, he asked the Board to keep in mind that you do not want buildings all of the same height and same kind of architecture. The difference in architecture and styles of buildings is what makes a village atmosphere. He felt the village much better than when it started, but it is necessary to look at individual projects and to determine what the Village will eventually become. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 9 MEMBERS PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 3eanine Marrow, 2879 3efferson Street, a nearby property owner, addressed the Board stating the project does not offend her and she like the project. This project is across the street from the property she owned and she finds it as a nice addition to Carlsbad. She asked the Board to approve the design. Kathy Parker, 3215 Maezel Lane, owris property on Madison Street, he agreed with Mr. Densham, stating he did not think the City should become a "cookie cutter". The thing that makes a village is the difference in architecture and style. He felt it was important to have different design criteria throughout the village and important to have density. The density is needed. You have to build more than one story in order to have more people in the building. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public testimony was concluded at 6:24 p.m. Member Holmes stated the Board needs to look at the Design Manual and needs to give the applicant and staff more direction and have the applicants get approval when they come before the Design Review Board. Member Holmes felt this piece of property was one of the best in the City and felt it was deserving of something more outstanding than the proposed building. He felt the subterrdnian parking should have been here some time ago and he did commend the applicant for doing that. like to see something different above ground. He would Member McCoy stated the projects have not followed the Design Manual. They are massive in height and dense and tight as far as parking. there were too many compact parking spaces percentage wise. He commented on the fact that Member McCoy stated the architecture did not bother him as much as the fact that they are not following the Design Manual. He felt they should be considering commercial with residential above. This was to be one of the prime factors in the Redevelopment Area. He did not believe that this was being accomplished. Member Hall stated that there was more quality needed in the visual aspects. This is a prime corner and even the type of roofing on the building would not be the type to call attention to the village flavor. Member McFadden agreed with Member McCoy that architecture is a personal thing. She stated she felt the applicant could do better with the outside of this building. She felt the internal part of the propose project was better, but there was too much on too little ground. MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Member McFadden questioned the traffic in the alley. stated something had been mentioned about putting lights in the alley. She Member McFadded stated she agreed with Member McCoy and felt the Board should look at the heiaht more positively if it included residential above the off ice space. Chairman Rombotis stated he liked the parking, and they are dedicating two feet on the alley. architecture did not bother him, but he felt it could be more pedestrian oriented and more inviting to come into the courtyard. He stated he would like to see this project reworked and have it brought back before the Board. He stated the Member Hall stated he supported the parking, with the constraints of the downtown area. Member McCoy commented he would only approve the parking on the condition that no medical offices were permitted in this building. Chris Salomone stated the comment was made of residential over the commercial area. He stated this was a different situation than staff was looking at in this project. This is office as such and the Board was not here to design the building. They do want quality material and to work on the design to show more character. Chairman Rombotis commented the entry way could be open more to invite the people to come into the building. Member McFadden stated she wanted the City to look into the matter of the alley traffic. Mr. Rowe explained how there parking would work, and the fact the tenants would not be backing out into the alley. He also commented that nothing had been said about living units above the office units. He stated this might not be the site for that type of construction. Mr. Rowe also commented the site plan trees were not shown on the drawings, and that would tend to bring the building height down. Design Review Board sent back to staff the request of California Builders for a major permit to develop a professional office area at the southwest corner of the 3efferson Street/Grand Avenue intersection in subarea 1 of the Redevelopment Area, with instructions to bring the project back as soon as possible. 1 MEMBERS Rombot i Hall Holmes McCoy McFadden MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 3. RP 86-22 - KELSO - Request for a major permit to develop a professional office building at 2933 Roosevelt Street in subarea 1 of the redevelopment area. Chairman Rombotis stated there has been a request for a continuance on this item. Design Review Board continued RP 86-22 - KELSO - request for a major permit to develop a professional office building at 2933 Roosevelt Street in subarea 1 of the redevelopment area, to the meeting of April 15, 1987. DEPARTMENTAL : 4. RP 87-1 - MYERS This item was taken up out of order. (See page 1) DISCUSSION ITEM: 5. DESIGN MANUAL/GUIDELINES Chris Salomone referred to the memorandums in the packet to review the Design Manual. The general criteria and specific criteria should be considered and should be brought to the Board for their consideration. He felt the manual could come closer, to focus on what the City wants in the Redevelopment Area. Mr. Salomone stated a workshop could be held to reflect on what Redevelopment Area is trying to do. Staff proposes that the Planning staff and Mr. Salomone review the Design Manual, and to review the criteria developed for the various subareas. Chairman Rombotis asked whether Mr. Salomone had a date in mind at this time, and Mr. Salomone stated he was willing to have a workshop. This could be half a day meeting with lunch to look at visually and talk with the Planning staff and direct staff to do your bidding. The date of April 13th was suggested. There was a comment made to perhaps review the Redevelopment Plan itself, and it was suggested this not be done, inasmuch as this is within the realm of the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee. It was stated this Board is the Design Review Board and has to deal directly with the Design Manual. It was felt it would be a full day task to review the Design Manual and make an revisions. Design Review Board will hold workshop on April 13, 1987, to review the Design Manual. As far as pending applications, this review of the Design Manual would not hold up any review of said applications. The location for the workshop will be determined at a later date. Y MEMBERS Rombot is Hal 1 Holmes McCoy McFadden Rombot is Hal 1 Holmes McCoy McFadden .. .. .c MINUTES March 25, 1987 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PAGE 12 DISCUSSION ITEM: (continued) Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated the notice for this workshop could be posted at City Hall and/or the Library so people interested in this review could find out the place decided upon for the workshop. The agenda for the workshop was discussed, and it would involve whether to change the purpose as far as the Village area is concerned, and also the style of architecture. The standards for each area would be discussed and prioritized what this Board feels the intention should be in each area. 6. PARKING DISTRICT Chris Salomone introduced this item, and asked for direction from the Board as to how they wished to proceed. Mr. Salomone said this is not a standard type of fee, there are different ways this could be done basically at this point the Board would be asking him to push this item and get some information available to bring back to the Board. Design Review Board directed staff to get all facts and figures with regard to forming a parking district and bring this report back to the Design Review Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting held February 18, 1987, were approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT : By proper motion, the Special Meeting of March 25, 1987, was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk HB: tb MEMBERS ' Rombot is Hal I Holmes McCoy McF adden Rombot is Hal 1 Holmes McCoy McFadde n MARCH 25, 1987 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: REDEVEIDPMENT OFFICE SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING - MARCH 25, 1987 This agenda contains three major Redevelopment Permit proposals. For all three, the recommendation is for denial. I see this meeting as an opportunity to give direction to staff. The Design Manual is broad in guidance and not specific in most of its criteria. For this reason, I support a recommendation that staff review and update this document. However, the flexibility to view each project on its own merit will necessarily have to remain. I would like to see this Design Review Board meeting function as a workshop. I will present a short redevelopment review for each proposal in addition to the planning department report enclosed. After your review of the agenda materials please feel free to call with any concerns. CHRIS SAIAMONE CS : a1