HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 85-19A; SEA HORSE INVESTMENTS; Redevelopment Permits (RP)APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
NOVEMBER 1. 1988
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1988
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders - Amendment to add 18
hotel units and 27 parking spaces to a previously approved
redevelopment permit for a 70 unit hotel/commercial complex at the
southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street and Coastal
Development Permit in Subarea 5 of the V-R zone of Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 121 recommending APPROVAL of
the Prior Compliance/Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and
ADOPT Resolution Nos. 122 and 123 recommending APPROVAL to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained herein.
II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
On March 25, 1986, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a major
Redevelopment Permit to construct a 70 unit hotel complex above a commercial area
with underground parking. The applicant is currently proposing to add an
additional 18 units by dividing 18 of the hotel suites. Twenty-seven parking
spaces are being proposed on an adjacent lot to accommodate the increased parking
needs.
The original hotel/commercial complex received environmental review when the
project was processed in 1986. This review determined that the project would
not create any adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration was
issued. At the time the original project was reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, the City did not have coastal permit authority;
however, the City has subsequently received certification and permit authority
for the Redevelopment Area. In addition to the Redevelopment Permit Amendment,
the applicant is now requesting approval of the required Coastal Development
Permit for the entire project.
The attached environmental documents include a Prior Compliance for the original
proposal and an initial study and Negative Declaration for the additional 18
units and parking lot.
RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders
November 16, 1988
PAGE 2
III. ANALYSIS
Planninq Issues
1. Does the proposed project comply with the standards and conditions of RP
88-19?
2. Does the proposed project provide the required parking?
3. Can the existing circulation system adequately handle the increased traffic
generated by the additional hotel units?
4. Has the site of the stonecutting operation been adequately preserved as
required under Title 22 of the Municipal Code?
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the segments of Carlsbad's Local
Coastal Plan pertaining to the Village Redevelopment Area?
6. Does the project comply with the requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1?
DISCUSSION
Standards and Conditions of RP 85-19
The proposed project complies with all development standards and conditions
established for RP 85-19. The project has remained basically the same with the
exception of the adjacent lot used for additional parking. The building
footprint and square footage have not increased or changed. The architectural
style, and detailing have all remained the same. The only difference between
the approved plan and the proposed plan is that the 18 larger suites have been
divided thereby creating 18 additional units and the need for 22 more parking
spaces. These spaces will be accommodated on an adjacent lot (See location map)
now owned by the applicant.
Parkinq
The proposed project complies with the parking requirements established for
hotels at 1.2 spaces for each unit and for retail uses at 1 space for each 300
feet of gross floor area. The additional 18 hotel units will require an
additional 22 spaces above the 116 spaces required for the original project.
The applicant is providing 142 spaces or an excess of 26 spaces. The parking
is located as follows: 115 spaces in the interior of the building; 27 spaces
on the adjacent lot. The parking area of Building B has been slightly modified
so that ingress and egress can also be obtained through the open parking lot.
The parking and circulation provided comply with all planning and engineering
requirements.
RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders
November 16, 1988
PAGE 3
Traffic
The applicant provided a traffic study when RP 85-19 was originally reviewed.
At that time the transportation planner made the determination that the project
would have no significant adverse traffic impacts. The project's primary traffic
distribution on Carlsbad Boulevard can be efficiently absorbed through the
traffic signals at Carlsbad/Grand, Carlsbad/Elm, and Carlsbad/Tamarack. The
additional 18 units will create an additional 144 trips per day. This is a very
minimal impact and easily absorbed by the existing circulation system.
Stonecutter's House
The site of the proposed open parking lot is currently occupied by an older
single family dwelling and accessory buildings used for a former stone cutting
operation. On June 13, 1988 the Historic Preservation Commission added this site
to its Historic Resource Inventory. This means the site has the potential to
be designated as a Point of Interest which requires the site to be photographed
and documented. At the same time, any artifacts the Historical Preservation
Commission may want to see preserved would then be relocated to another site.
The Commission is presently uncertain of what actions they will take with regard
to the site, however, the project has been conditioned to comply with any future
recommendations of the Commission prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed project is consistent with the two segments of the Local Coastal
Plan that pertain to this area of the City. These segments include: 1) the
provision of adequate visitor-serving facilities within the Redevelopment Area;
and 2) the provision of adequate parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed project implements the Local Coastal Plan by providing additional
visitor-serving facilities near the western terminus of Elm Avenue. The proposed
hotel, including the additional 18 units, provides adequate parking facilities
and actually exceeds the parking requirements established in the Zoning
Ordinance. In summary, the proposed project is a visitor-serving use which meets
the parking requirements established by both the City and the Coastal Commission.
LFMP Zone 1
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 was approved on September 1,
1987. The project originally approved for this site was included in the
calculations used in preparing the Zone 1 plan. The increased facility demand
created by the additional 18 units complies with that plan in terms of being well
within the future estimated square footage for commercial uses in the
Redevelopment Area. All performance standards continue to be met or exceeded
within Zone 1.
RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders
November 16, 1988
PAGE 4
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject site was previously approved to construct 70 hotel units over a
commercial complex and underground parking. This approval is presently being
amended by the addition of 18 units and 27 parking spaces on an adjacent lot.
The subject site is located in an infill area of Redevelopment and currently in
transition from older residential uses to commercial development. Based on field
checks by staff and the fact that the site is already developed with a residence
and accessory structures it was determined that there are no sensitive resources
on or adjacent to the site. The Planning Director has determined that this
project will have no significant impacts on the environment and, therefore,
issued a Prior Compliance/Negative Declaration on October 28, 1988. In addition,
no comments were received in response to either the previous or present Negative
Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 121 (Negative Declaration)
2. Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 122 and 123
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Form
6. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
7. Exhibit "X", dated November 16, 1988
8. Exhibit "Y", dated November 16, 1988
9. Item 3, dated January 21, 1987
10. Staff Report dated March 5,1986
11. Reduced exhibits
12. Exhibits "A" - "I" , dated October 19, 1988
AML:af
October 26, 1988
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
EXHIBIT "ND'
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
Olitu of (EarlHbaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of a
portion of the project described below have already been considered in
conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore,
no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination
will be filed.
Project Title: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builder
Project Location: Southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street.
A previously approved 70 unit hotel over commercial complex and underground
parking increased by the addition of 18 interior hotel units and adjacent lot
to accommodate 27 parking stalls. A Coastal Development Permit is also requested
for the entire project.
In addition, the City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance
of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration
(declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the amended subject project. Justification
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments
in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
Dated: October 28, 1988
Case No.: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7
Applicant: California Builders
Publish Date: October 28, 1988
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
EXHIBIT "PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 85-19(A)
DATE: October 28, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: California Builders
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 142
Carlsbad. CA 92008
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: September 15, 1988
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affinnative Answers are to be written
under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? X_
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? X_
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X_
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patters, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X_
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X_
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species? X.
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X_
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)? X_
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unic[ue,
rare or endangered species of animals? X_
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals? X_
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare? X_
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an
area? X
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? X_
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X_
10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions? X_
11. Population - Will the proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? X
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing? X_
13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement? X_
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X_
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? X_
e. Alterations to waterbome, rail or
air traffic? X.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X.
-4-
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services? X_
15. Enerav - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? X_
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? X_
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X_
b. Communications systems? X_
c. Water? X_
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X_
e. Storm water drainage? X_
f. Solid waste and disposal? X_
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)? X_
-5-
YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical
- Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paieontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The parking lot is too small to be phased. The 18 additional
hotel units will be constructed at the time the hotel itself is
constructed.
b) Given the L-shaped configuration of the parking lot, there are no
alternative site designs possible. Surface striping of the
parking is not a significant design feature.
c) The proposed parking lot is a minimum scale of development for a
commercially-designated site.
d) The subject site is designated for commercial types of uses.
These types of uses would be difficult to develop due to the small
size of the property as well as a difficult lot configuration that
has little street frontage.
e) Development later would have little change in the environmental
impacts.
f) The subject site is well situated to be developed in conjunction
with the previously-approved hotel project.
g) A "no project" alternative would leave the subject site with a
rather rundown single family dwelling, shed, and deteriorating
equipment. The site has the potential, given its CBD land use
designation, to develop as a commercial site.
-6-
YES MAYBE NO
22. Mandatory findings of significance -
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, or curtail the diversity
in the environment? x
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) x
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A
project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The subject site was previously approved for the construction of 70
hotel units over a commercial complex and underground parking. This
approval is presently being amended by the addition of 18 hotel units
and 27 parking spaces on an adjacent lot. The subject site is located
in an infill area of Redevelopment and currently is in transition from
older residential uses to commercial development. Based on field checks
by staff and the fact that the site is already developed with a
residence and accessory structures it was determined that there are no
sensitive resources on or adjacent to the site.
Potential impacts from the additional 18 units and the 27 parking stalls
include:
(1) Noise generated from the parking lot on adjacent property
owners.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
(2) Impact upon existing roadways.
Potential noise impacts from the parking lot will be mitigated by the
construction of a solid masonry wall on the perimeter property lines of the
parking lot. This is considered adequate because surrounding property is
designated for commercial rather than residential land uses and likely to
be redeveloped in the future at a higher land use intensity.
The amended project, which includes the additional 18 hotel units, will
generate 144 ADTs more than the original project. While this is an
incremental increase of traffic along Carlsbad Boulevard, this impact is not
considered a significant impact in that it doesn't meet the test for
significance per Section 15064 of CEQA.
Overall, the environmental analysis and field checks conducted by staff
indicated that because there are no sensitive resources on the subject
property and because the site has been previously developed and is within
an urban area no significant project environmental impacts are anticipated.
There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a
Negative Declaration.
-8-
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-
llll lllll 1^
Oi'l X X X nxj
1985
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 5, 1986
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RP 85-19 - CALIFORNIA BUILDERS - Request for approval of
a redevelopment permit to construct a 70 unit hotel
complex above a commercial area with underground parking
at the southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech
Street in Sub-area 5 of the V-R zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board recommend APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution
No. 068, recommending APPROVAL of RP 85-19, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a redevelopment permit to
develop a 70 unit hotel complex above a commercial area on 1.1
acres, located as described above. The subject property, which
is irregularly shaped, presently vacant and slopes slightly to
the east. The site fronts on three streets - Carlsbad Boulevard,
Beech Street, and Christiansen Way.
The proposed three-story structure, averaging 32 feet in height,
would be developed over semi-subterranean parking. Access to
this parking area would be derived from both Beech Street and
Christiansen Way.
Surrounding land uses include assorted commercial uses to the
south, and school offices to the north. Small, older, single
family dwellings are located to the east. To the west, small
commercial uses exist as well as a church and the Lutheran Home.
Other, larger, commercial developments in the general area
include the Twin Inns, Carlsbad Inn, the Rombotis office-
commercial project, and the Tamarack Beach Resort.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Does the proposed project conform with the goals of Sub-
area 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area?
2) Does the project comply with the development standards of
the Village Design Manual?
3) Can the existing circulation system adequately handle the
increased traffic generated by this project?
Discussion
V-R Area Goals
The proposed project is located towards the northern end of Sub-
area 5 in the Village Redevelopment area and is "envisioned as
serving as the major tourist/tourist commercial center" for this
portion of the City. It also falls within the Carlsbad Boulevard
Special Treatment area which encourages pedestrian traffic,
specialized commercial uses and heavy streetscaping along
Carlsbad Boulevard. Staff believes the proposed project meets
these goals. Small specialty shops catering to tourists have
been proposed at the ground-floor of the structure along Carlsbad
Boulevard. A 70 unit hotel is planned for the upper two stories
of both the front and the rear building. It is expected that
tourists utilizing the hotel will also patronize the tourist-
oriented shops. Staff believes the proposed project is
consistent with" both the goals and permitted uses of Sub-area 5.
Village Design Manual Standards
The proposed project does meet all requirements of both the
Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines Manual. Setbacks are
not required in a commercial zone, however, the applicant has
provided generous, landscaped setbacks of 19* - 20' on Beech
Street, Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way. A 10' setback
has been provided along the interior property line.
Approximately 36% of the site consists of landscaping. One
hundred sixteen parking spaces have been required for this
project, 120 spaces have been provided. This parking has been
located in a semi-subterranean parking garage. Staff finds this
acceptable, even for the retail uses, because similar situations
have worked successfully in other areas (i.e. Old Town San Diego
and Carlsbad Inn) . Access to the parking garage can be taken
frora either Beech Street or Christiansen Way. Through
circulation to either street has been incorporated into the
traffic design.
Land Use and Compatibility
As previously stated, the project site provides uses stipulated
in Sub-area 5 of the Redevelopment area. This site is also
designated for tourist-commercial uses under the Local Coastal
Plan. It should be noted, however, that this particular block is
in an area of transition. Although the subject site is vacant,
-2-
many lots in this block consist of older, single family homes.
Since this area is desingated for tourist commercial development
by the Village Design Manual, it is likely that these older
single family homes will eventually be replaced with commercial
uses. Staff believes, the proposed use is still justified and
desirable based on other projects which have been approved for
this general vicinity (listed earlier). Staff sees this project
as a continuation of tourist/commercial uses on Carlsbad
Boulevard and an encouragement for intervening sites to develop
in a similar fashion.
Architecture
The three-story structure, featuring a contemporary Spanish style
of architecture, has an average height of 32'. This complies
with the 35' height limit of the Village Redevelopment Area. The
buildings themselves will be an off-white stucco with Spanish
tile roofs. As previously stated, the ground floor of the most
westerly building will house specialty shops which are entered
from an arched arcade accented with promenade planters and
trellises for climbing vines. The roof line has been varied and
augmented with a tower to add interest. The major architectural
feature along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage will be a simulated
porte cochere at the entry backdropped by a two-story glass
atrium over the lobby area. All the hotel units will have
private balconies and the occupants will also be able to utilize
the interior courtyard. This has been designed for outdoor
eating and lounging, featuring both a spa and lap pool. Staff
believes the modulated facade emphasized with cobalt blue tile,
lattice and railings and accented with 48" box Queen Palm trees
will handsomely compliment the downtown area.
Traffic
The transportation planner believes this project will have no
significant adverse traffic impact. The typical peak hour
traffic generation does not coincide with normal street peak
traffic hours, thus the project's primary traffic distribution
on Carlsbad Boulevard can be efficiently absorbed through the
traffic signals at Carlsbad/Grand Carlsbad/Elm, and
Carlsbad/Tamarack (see attached traffic plat).
The driveway entrance on Beech Street is closer to the corner
than is desirable, but Beech is a lightly traveled street,
extending only one block easterly from Carlsbad Boulevard. Even
though the developer's frontage on Beech Street is only 95 feet
wide, a driveway there is a fair trade-off for not having any
driveway access to the property from Carlsbad Boulevard.
As proposed, this use is consistent with the design concepts of
the Village Design Manual and the goals of Sub-area 5 of the
Village Redevelopment Area, therefore, staff recommends approval
of RP 85-19.
-3-
JV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not
have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, has
issued a Negative Declaration on February 15, 1986.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Design Review Board Resolution No. 068
2) Location Map
3) Vicinity Map
4) Exhibit "B", dated January 26, 1986
5) Traffic Plat
6) Background Data Sheet
7) Disclosure Form
8) Environmental Document
9) Exhibits f dated .
AML:bn
2/19/86
-4-
rxit.r'tm tiML
4^ (6-
T
"* I »«"'piK'.'-e''
BUILDINQ B
SITE PLAN
(5) ^
EAST
I, —ll- <r :i
?
I
m 1pi|3J^:IlllIl
WEST,
BULOMO A BJEVAT10N8
-ma*. 6i.o'
T f
fr re-ti 0e o ' I
NORTH SOOTH
T ?! T
-I. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiteu.
B:^H o£|£i;U i-\m^ mmm >--m • ! :j • p UA • Y3 r:i p i:i r:i
t-IS
EAST
iiiiiiii
1 — ll ,Jl_ij
IMA. A0I.Aa.«
WEST.
BULDMQ 8 ELEVATKMt