Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-18; Design Review Board; Minutes.- MINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: 3anuary 18, 1989 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hall called the Meeting to order at 5:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Hall, Board Members McCoy, McFadden, Rombotis and Schramm. Absent: None. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Housing & Redevelopment Director Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lance Schulte, Planning Department PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Hall. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES: A transparency listing the Design Review Board Procedures was shown for the audience. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no requests to address the Board. Chairman Hall announced that Board Member Rombotis had requested a change in the order of the Agenda due to another meeting at 6:OO p.m. Chairman Hall said that he would like to move the Village Faire to #I, and Halverson to #2, and then the selection of a Chairperson. However, he said he would like to have the election before Member Rombotis had to leave. Design Review Board changed the order of the Agenda to proceed with Item 84. DEPARTMENTAL : 4. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON. Board Member Schramm was unanimously elected Chairperson for the coming year. Board Member McCoy was unanimously elected Vice- Chairperson for the coming year. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. RP/CUP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE-THROUGH. Request to be continued. Hal 1 McCoy McFadden Rombot is Schramm \ \ MINUTES January 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 2 Chris Salomone stated staff had presented a staff report at the last meeting and the Board gave direction to the applicant and continued the Public Hearing to this date. All problems have been worked out and there will be a recommendation of approval at a future meeting. The applicant requested that the Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting. Chairman Hall opened the Public Hearing at 5:05 p.m., and asked for testimony from anyone not able to attend the February 1, 1989 meeting. Since there was no one requesting to speak, the public testimony portion was closed at 5:06 p.m. Design Review Board continued this item to February 1, 1989. 2. RP 88-5/CDP 88-5 HALVERSON FAMILY TRUST. Request for a Minor Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to renovate an existing residential structure and detached garage at 3050 Madison Street for use as an office in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Lance Schulte gave the staff presentation as contained in the Staff Report, using an overhead to show the site and slides showing the house. He concluded his report stating that staff recommended denial of the request, because the quality of the improvements did not appear to achieve Carlsbad's redevelopment goals. to the plans on the walls, showing that the applicant intended to paint the exterior and make some modifications to the interior; with none of the exterior design modifications to accommodate an office use. Onsite parking is provided by the applicant, but with no high amenity level; therefore staff's recommendation for denial was for Redevelopment Permit as well as the Coastal Permit. He referred Board Member Rombotis inquired whether staff had discussed with the applicant the criteria and amenities to be added to make this project up to standard Mr. Schulte replied they had been close to approval; however, the applicant removed the exhibits and wanted to go forward with the proposal as shown now. Chairman Hall opened the Public Hearing at 5:11 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. Me1 Halverson, 1151 Luneta, Del Mar, the applicant, stated he didnot feel it was cost effective to put in all the amenities staff had asked for; the building would be better to look at than before. He said everything was covered in his letter to staff dated December 12, 1988. Mr. Halverson requested approval of the project as submitted, as that would be an enhancement to the area. Hall McCoy McF adde n Rombot is Schramm L \ ; - X X X X X MINUTES 3anuary 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 3 Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the public testimony was closed at 5:15 p.m. There was a discussion about which subarea this property was located in, and staff used a transparency to show the subareas, and this property is located on the edge of subareas 1 and 7. However, this use would be allowed in both areas. Design Review Board adopted the following Resolutions: (one motion) RESOLUTION NO. 128, DENYING A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 3050 MADISON STREET AND CHANGE USE TO GENERAL OFFICE. RESOLUTION NO. 129, DENYING A COSTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 3050 MADISON STREET AND CHANGE USE TO GENERAL OFFICE. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. RP 87-11(A)/CDP 88-1 VILLAGE FAIRE. Board Members McCoy and Rombotis left the dais, as they own property within 300 feet of this property and want to avoid a conflict of interest. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated that it appeared the applicant was denied an opportunity to respond to a condition which was placed on the project after the close of the public testimony. Mr. Ball stated as he looked back at that meeting, that could be the decision of a reviewing court. The condition should be one that is fully and fairly argued and evidence is presented so that it should not be a surprise to the applicant. Mr. Ball said that in this case, the issue of outdoor table service was addressed, but the additional condition, itself, was not contained in notices or in the preliminary staff report or any other written documents. That is reason the matter is back before the Design Review Board. The Redevelopment Commission, which desires this Board's serious consideration and deliberation of each item before you before it makes a recommendation, would have rcommended, in this case, at a hearing before them for the first time, that this item be returned to you for review. Mr. Ball continued, stating that the original resolution and any amendment this Board would make would be the recommendation to go forward to the Commission. Mr. Ball said that the recommendation from another Commission over another issue, is not binding on this Board. There was a reference made in the staff report to a decision by the Planning Commission, and that is a separate body with separate facts, and each project is considered unique. Each Commission or Board applies the facts as they pertain to the project as a unique one and is not bound to follow a similar decision in another area of the City which has a different factual setting . Hall McCoy McF adden Rombot is Sch ramm MINUTES 3anuary 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 4 Chris Salomone stated that the intention of bring this back was in no way meant to indicate that anything was done improperly at all. It beame apparent following the last meeting that the applicant was unaware of the ordinances governing outdoor eating areas and staff had written the report based on the applicant's request for a 3,600 square foot restaurant. This Board dealt with that request and approved it. There was some misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, for whatever reason, and when this item came before the Redevelopment Commission, that item would be open for discussion, as it was deemed very important to the applicant. Attorney to ask whether there was a way to reconsider this, as it will probably come right back to this Board. It was determined that an amendment was the way to bring this item back prior to forwarding it to the Commis sion. Chris Salomone stated he approached the Ron Ball said it would not have been proper for a motion to reconsider, because the project was, indeed, approved. The Board retains the jurisdiction and discretion to reconsider its previous recommendation. Member McFadden said she heard the Board was considering an amendment--what were they considering--as the staff report she had in front of her said the applicant had withdrawn original the amendment. Is that true? Chris Salomone said that what is being considered tonight is an amendment to the amendment (RP87-A), to consider outdoor eating only. He said the confusion of the withdrawal of the application came because the original letter from the application would be withdrawn. The subsequent letter is included in the packet where the applicant asked to address the outdoor eating area only. As the Attorney said, this Board's recommendation has already been made on the 3,600 square foot restaurant fully enclosed on the site, which is compatible with the original Village Faire approval. This item tonight is dealing only with the outdoor eating condition that no service be to that area. Member McFadden said that when they considered the original, it said in the applicant's memorandurn on page 2, paragraph 2, that this was for walk-up eating, and that was what we considered. She said she didn't understand what the Board was back here considering tonight. She asked why they were amending and amending. Chris Salomone said simply because of the lack of understanding of the ordinance by the applicant. He said that it has been the idea to accommodate these things in the Redevelopment and deal in a more conscientious way than in other parts of the City. This item would come back or the Redevelopment Commission would uphold your hearing. the applicant was genuinely unaware of the condition that was placed on it, or unaware of the ordinances that applied to that condition, and simply wanted to discuss it with you. In either case, MINUTES 3anuary 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 5 Chris Salomone stated that staff wanted to bring the item back to the Board before sending it forward, and did not expect it to be precedent-setting. Mr. Salomone said the outdoor eating area as requested by the applicant with walkup service was legitimate, without table service. Member McFadden agreed that she hoped this would not be precedent-setting. Member Schramm said she was confused, as her recollection was that when it passed, there would be no waiter service to the tables; that the walk-up was to be allowed. Mr. Salomone said "Absolutely." Mrs. Schramm asked of Mr. Ball whether this is being returned because the applicant did not understand or have an opportunity to respond--as he agreed. Mr. Ball said the first reference to service in the patio was during the public testimony portion with the applicant explaining what that would be with a 10 or 15 percent portion of the inside seating. was closed and an added condition was added that no outside table service be allowed outside, and he felt the applicant should have been allowed to address that prohibition at the time it was an added condition. That did not appear in the resolutions or staff report. It was discussed in a way that a court could say was not due process, allowing an applicant an opportunity to discuss or present evidence or arguments regarding a new condition presented at the conclusion of the public testimony. If there is a question about that type of thing, the applicant could ask for a continuance or present arguments. Mr. Ball said that was why he reommended to Mr. Salomone that this Board could hear the matter as an amendment. The Public Testimony There is no legal reason for not allowing a multitude of amendments to an application. Mr. Ball said this was not precedent-setting, because if the prohibition had been described in the staff report or in the resolution, it would not be reconsidered. Member Schramm said even though he accepted it, and Mr. Ball said that he did not recollect whether that condition was accepted and the Minutes did not reflect that. Member McFadden asked for the Minutes to be corrected and Mr. Ball concurred. She said she had listened to the tape and felt the matter should be continued until the Minutes are re-typed. Also, the exhibits and information could be properly given to the Board rather presented to them verbally at the meeting. recommended continuing the matter. She Mr. Ball said the Minutes would be redone for review by the Board. Member McFadden recommended having the Clerk listen to the tapes to re-type the Minutes. Chris said only the original exhibits and overhead were available, with no seating diaqram for the outside seating area, as the applicant wished to discuss that. MEMBERS \ MINUTES 3anuary 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 6 Chairman Hall opened the Public Hearing at 5:37 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. He asked whether the applicant, Mr. Densham, wished to make any comments . Steve Densham, 3965 Monroe, General Partner, Village Faire Project, said that there was no threatened court action by any of his partners, and no drawing that he could put before the Board would show what was anticipated, as the construction is not far along enough at this time. Mr. Densham said he was painfully aware of the ordinances and what they say, and it was a major mis- communication between himself and staff and staff and himself as to the usage of the common areas of the Village Faire as a whole. There were many hours of discussion spent on the importance of outdoor eating areas to the Faire; specifically the area of Grand and Washington, which staff felt needed to be opened up more for more outside eating and gathering areas to be there. Consequently, one of the buildings was cut back. Coming out of those meetings was the idea, as he said in his second letter in the amendment to the amendment, was the European-type of atmosphere, which the Village Faire is supposed to be all about. Mr. Densham said this is apparently not the case. He felt this was a case of mis-communication. Mr. Densham stated if anyone had asked him, he would have indicated at the last meeting that the condition was not acceptable and they would talk about it some more. He felt it was an error of omission rather than commission. Mr. Densham referred to the walk-up area, and said that was an additional amenity to that, where there was a full-service operation, and in addition to that, a walk- up window where a shopper could avail himself of a very limited menu. He said that hecould have made that clearer in his letter, and would have that evening, if he had more opportunity and thought it would be an issue. Mr. Densham was prepared to present other options and in no way did he represent that this Board should do anything just because some other City body had done something. Member McFadden stated she would like to see those things in writing; those options; in the staff report, so the Members can think about them before they come to the meeting, instead of just getting verbal input by the applicant. Mr. Densham said he thought he had done that, and asked what additional information she wanted. Member McFadden said the alternatives he mentioned. Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the Public Hearing was closed at 5:43. MINUTES 3anuary 18, 1989 DESIGN REVIEW ROARD Page 7 Design Review Board continued the Village Faire item to the February 1, 1989, meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 21, 1988, meeting were continued to the next meeting. Member Schramm inquired if the December 21, 1988, Minutes are approved, that will complete what was passed December 21, 1988? She added that the applicant is now asking for a change, and would that be based on a CUP? Member McFadden said that is not what he is asking for; he is asking for an amendment. Chris Salornone said the applicant is asking for the ability to offer alternatives in order to somehow allow table service to the outdoor eating areas in the Village Faire. He will present alternatives to allow this. Member Schramm asked if this would be part of the Redevelopment Permit, and Mr. Salomone said it would be. Mrs. Schramm said she would be in Hawaii from the 24th to the 30th. She said it might be difficult to lead that Meeting, depending upon when she received the . packet. 9D30URNMENT: By proper motion, the Meeting of January 18, 1989, was adjourned at 5 : 47 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Housing and Redevelopment Director Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk Hal 1 McCoy McF adden Rombot is Schramm Hal 1 McCoy McFadden Rombot is Schramm