Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 86-23A; Brittany Court Supplemental Parking; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)January 11, 1991 TO: MIKE GRIM/ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BRITTANY COURT SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING/AMENDMENT TO RP 86-23 The following should be included as the Redevelopment portion of your staff report on the amendment to RP 86-23. REDEVELOPMENT Redevelopment Department supports the applicants request to allow up to 3 600 square feet of the existing 8400 square foot office building to be used for medical use by providing eight parking spaces on an adjoining leased lot. A monitoring system will need to be developed by the Housing and Redevelopment Department for business license review to assure no more that the 3600 square feet are leased to medical tenants. This can be done by keeping a log either manual or computerized of all property address with special circumstances. All business license applications would be checked against the log. If the address appears on the log, all types of business license issued to that address would be verified for conformance with parking requirements. Staff receives frequent requests for medical office use in existing buildings within the Village Redevelopment Area. Assisting and accommodating this need will aid in bringing more businesses and people to the area. PATRICIA CRATTY ; ec Citv of Carlsbad Planning Departnnent January 9, 1991 Presidential Plaza 2558 Roosevelt Street, #305 Carslbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RP 86-23(A) - BRITTANY COURT SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Redevelopment Permit Amendment, application no. RP 86- 23(A), as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begxm, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Atttached is a list of items that must appear on the submitted plans along with marked-up check prints. Please return these check prints with your next submittal. Please contact your staff planner, Mike Grim, at (619) 438-1161 ext. 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. J. HOLZMILLER Director MJH:MG:km cc: Gary Wayne Robert Green Don Neu Jim Davis Patty Cratty Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 r No. RP86-23rA) LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: ITEMS OF CONCERN 1. The front property line is not shown correctly. Please show the existing 8 foot dedication. 2. The title report shows two easements that are not plotted. One is an SDG&E easement and the other is a City of Carlsbad easement for sidewalk. 3. Water main, water meter, and gas main must be shown. 4. Show a cross section of the street and all existing improvements. 5. Show a cross section of the parking lot. 6. See enclosed checkprints for comments. Please retum these checkprints with your next submittal. Q :"r] Mark yUj Gombar Sj Company Post Office Box 1667 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-1742 October 30, 1990 City of Carlsbad Attn: John McCoy Design Review Board Member 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Design Review Board Hearing, November 7, 1990 Concerning Brittany Court, 2558 Roosevelt Street Dear DRR Member John McCoy: This letter is written to provide clarification of the request being made by Brittany Court office building for the Design Review Board to allow a medical use at the above-referenced premises provided sufficient parking is provided to comply with the current parking ordinance. Brittany Court is requesting approval to allow between 2,575 and 4,200 square feet of office space to be leased with a medical use. Ihe request is being made pursuant to the condition stated in the building's redevelopment permit RP 86-23, Design Review Board Resolution No. 097, Condition Number 17, \^4lich states "Should the applicant at a later date intend to lease any of the structure for medical office use, additional parking shall be required to be provided at a ratio consistent with the parking ordinance in effect at that time." In order to comply with the existing parking ordinance, 2,575 square feet would require 13 parking spaces, 9 of which are already provided, and 4,200 square feet, would require 21 spaces, 14 of \\iiich are already provided. In order to make up the difference, Brittany Court is willing to construct a parking lot with between 4 to 7 spaces. It is important to keep in mind that we are not requesting a variance or a waiver of any ordinance, but singly the approval to conply with what was intended by our original redevelopment permit as quoted above. Currently there is 2,575 square feet of unleased space in the building. Brittany Court is requesting to be allowed to lease that space to a medical use only if the parking is provided \^hich is consistent with the current parking ordinance for medical. IWo problems have been brought to our attention by the planning staff. The first problem is that since the property on vhich. the parking lot is constructed will be leased, the lease to the medical tenant could run no longer than the term of the parking lot lease. Brittany Court is certainly willing to tie the City's approval of a medical tenant to a lease the term of \s^ich would be no longer than the term of the parking lot lease. This situation would be similar to restrictions commonly used \dien conditional use permits are granted. DRB Member John McCoy Design Review Board Heating, November 7, 1990 Concerning Brittany Court, 2558 Roosevelt Street Page Two of TWo The second problem is that the entire structure would not be used as medical but only a portion of the building would be and therefore the City would have difficulty policing how many square feet were leased to medical tenants. Currently the City has the means to police the type of use allowed at a specific site heeding restrictions of zoning and conditions inposed by the development permit. The imposition of a further restriction, namely that only 2,575 square feet of the building would be allowed to be leased to medical, would add no additional steps to the apptoval process - it would simply be one mote restriction. Each time a new tenant proposed to lease space or applied for a business license, Brittany Court would be willing to provide verification to the City that the total square footage proposed to be leased in the building to medical tenants was less than or equal to the total square footage allowed by the condition imposed on the building. Brittany Court is willing to spend extra money to provide as many as 7 parking spaces instead of only the 4 required because an issue has been raised concerning whether or not an existing tenant should be classified as medical. The tenant currently occupies approximately 1,600 square feet. Over a year ago the tenant was granted approval to lease the space as a psychological counseling office. At the time, psychological counseling was not considered medical. The office is comprised of 6 counselors, vitio share individual offices on a rotation basis. One of the six is not only a counselor, but also a psychiatrist and consequently holds an M.D. degree. Nevertheless, in the interest of avoiding confusion or the appearance that Brittany Court has received special treatment, Brittany Court is willing to provide an additional 3 parking spaces so that even if the whole office were now to be classified as medical, the building would then conply with the existing parking ordinance for medical. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions please contact either party listed below prior to the hearing on November 7th or at the hearing. Sincerely, BRITTANY COURT OFFI^EJLIILDING By: Mark T. Gombar Mrc:ts CC: Kathy Graham, Redevelopment Director Patty Cratty, Asst. Director Mark Gombar SI Company Post Office Box 1667 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-1742 Octobe r 1, 1990 Ms. Kathy Graham Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Brittany Court Office Building Dear Kathy: This letter is written to clarify numerous requests that Presidential Plaza has made to obtain approval to proceed with plans to construct a parking lot on property adjacent to the building for the purpose of leasing space to medical tenants. As I have told you previouslyf there is no point proceeding with plans if medical is not going to be allowed even though we build B pa rki ng lot. You have been given engineering drawings for this purpose from Presidentiel Plaza. The additional number of parking spaces we would construct would provide one parking space for every 200 square feet of office space for 2,b00 square feet of space in the building. Prior to proceedingy it is important that we determine from the Design and Review Board, as well as the Housing and Redevelopment Commlssiony if they will approve medical tenants provided that we construct a parking lot adjacent to the building in conformity with the Planning and Engineering Department restrictions. As you know, we have been trying to get on the calender for each of these bodies for some time now. Pleese make what ever arrangements are necessary or provide us with the guidelines to make the arrangements necessary to get us on the agenda. Si ncerely. PRESIDENTIAL PLAZA, LTD. By: Mark T. Gombar MTG:ts 8 9 10 11 12 16 18 20 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 084 A RESOLOTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AT THE 2558 ROOSEVELT STREET SUBAREA 6 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. CASE FILE: RP 86-23 APPLICANT; MARK T. GOMBAR WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the ^ City of Carlsbad and referred to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Coinmission did, on the 19th day of May, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: - That portion of Lot 25 of Seaside Lands, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the County Recorder, County of San Diego. •^"^ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to RP 86-23 Mark T. Gombar. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: '^"^ 1] That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 22 23 2] That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Coinmission APPROVES RP 86-23, Mark T. Gombar, for the reasons stated in Design Review Board Resolution NO. 097. The findings of the Design Review Board shall constitute the finding of the Housing and Redevelopment Coinmission in the matter. //// //// ////