HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 99-11; STAYBRIDGE SUITES; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)Shapery Enterprises
December 7, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Rooseveh Street, Suite "B"
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
Re: RP99-11 - Redevelopment Permit Application
Staybridge Suites
Dear Lori:
As per your request, enclosed please fmd a photograph of the materials board for
the Staybridge Suites site.
Thank you for your continuing assistance.
Sinoerely,
ick Polischuk
RP:
Enclosure
1133 Columbia Street, Suite 105 • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Citv of Carlsbad
Public Works Engineer
August 11, 2000
Ms Jeanne Kohnke
P.O. Box 230024
Encinitas, California 92023
STAYBRIDGE SUITES
Dear Ms Kohnke:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the approval of the Staybridge Suites project
located between Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive adjacent to the Interstate 5.
Your inquiry has been referred to me for a response.
During staff's review of the project the very subject to which you refer in your
inquiry was addressed. As a result, a Report of Preliminary/Feasibility
Investigation was obtained from the applicant's geotechnical consultant.
Furthermore, even though it is a standard requirement of all projects to obtain a
soils report prior to approval of a grading or building permit, a specific condition
was placed on this project to conduct a subsurface soils investigation prior to the
submittal of a grading plan for staffs review.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2733.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. WOJCIK, P.E.
Deputy City Engineer
RJW/fj
City Manager
Public Works Director
File
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 ®
5^ve-Agenda Item # ^ All ReWve-Agenda Item #
For the Information of the:
CITYCOUNCIL
AsstCM_CAJ::i;Cj::r
July 31, 2000
Date2i2LCity Mana^
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Housing and Redevelopment Director(
FROM: Management Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment
Staybridge Suites (RP99-11)
The purpose of this memo is to provide a response to the questions raised by Coimcil Member
Firmila during the briefing of the Staybridge Suite hotel project.
Noise Attenuation Condition: Coimcil Member Finnila asked for greater clarification on the
implementation of the mitigation measure for noise attenuation in the Negative Declaration. The
mitigation measure reads, "To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis
is required to determine the building upgrades for hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to
building permit issuance". Implementation of this condition falls to the Noise Element of the
General Plan and the Noise Guidelines Manual of the City of Carlsbad. The Noise Guidelines
Manual sets forth the permitted noise exposure levels for different land uses. The "conditionally
acceptable" noise level set forth in the Noise Guidelines Manual for hotels and motels is 65
CNEL (dB), which is the standard for implementation of the mitigation measure.
Conference Room: Council Member Firmila asked how many people the conference room
intended to serve. The conference room is located on the first floor and measures approximately
12' X 17'. The room is to be equipped with a conference table and 8-10 chairs and is intended to
serve small groups of people staying at the hotel. The conference room is provided for the
convenience of the business traveler and will not be used by anyone other than guests of the
hotel.
Pets: Council Member Finnila asked if pets would be permitted at the hotel. According to the
applicant, pets will not be permitted at the hotel.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this memo, please contact me at
x2813.
Respectftitt^c.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
July 6, 2000
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2000
The following represents a summary of the Design Review Board meeting held on Monday,
June 26, 2000:
Absent: None
RP 99-11 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES - EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
The Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider a request for a major
redevelopment permit for a hotel with variances for setbacks which exceed the standards and
height above the maximum. The height of the proposed project is 40 feet 5 inches. The
requested permit will allow the construction of a 106 unit/suite "extended stay" hotel on
property located immediately west of interstate 5 between the tenninus of Grand Avenue and
the terminus of Laguna Avenue. The Board unanimously (5-0) recommended approval of the
project with an additional condition to provide additional landscaping to screen adjacent
residential properties on the west side of the property subject to approval by the Planning
Director, Housing and Redevelopment Director and Public Works Director.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
c: City Manager
City Attomey
Assistant City Manager
Financial Management Director
Community Development Director
Department Heads
Commission/Board Liaisons
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Shapery Enterprises, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the
construction of a 106-suite "extended stay" hotel on property located immediately west of
Interstate 5 between the terminus of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive. The
subject property is bordered by Interstate 5 freeway to the east; a Chevron gas station, Denny's
Restaurant, and Motel 6 to the south; single family residential units to the west; and Las Villas
de Carlsbad Retirement Community to the north. The subject property consists of four
separate parcels all currently owned by the applicant. The total lot area is 2.41 acres of which,
1.11 acres are located within the Village Redevelopment Area with the remaining 1.3 acres
located outside the redevelopment area boundaries. Four single-family residences and two
accessory structures currently occupy the site. The remainder of the property is being used to
cultivate tomatoes.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 72,435 square foot, three-story hotel with
on-site amenities including; a swimming pool, buffet area, conference rooms, a business center,
library, and guest laundry.
Other on-site improvements include; 127 parking spaces, circulation drive isle, trash enclosure,
exterior lights, six-foot tall masonry perimeter wall, and street improvements in the form of curb,
gutter and sidewalk along Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive.
The various guest suites include a 380 square foot studio, 518 square foot one-bedroom suite,
and an 828 square foot two-bedroom suite. The following chart shows the breakdown of suites
per floor:
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a tourist/traveler serving use normally
associated with urban freeway interchanges in an appropriate location within the Village. The
use in turn provides an additional customer base for local restaurants, specialty shops, and
nearby convenience services. Additionally, the project provides new economic development by
replacing the existing underutilized uses on the subject property with the use originally intended
for the site and approved in 1972. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
A Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 9313) was approved on June 20, 1972 forthe subject property.
The Specific Plan allows for the construction of a 106-room motel and was originally tied to the
freeway-oriented development of the nearby restaurant (currently Denny's) and the gas station
(currently Chevron). The discretionary review process typically involves a determination by the
Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land
use and project design are consistent with the land use standards, development standards and
design guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As set forth in the
Village Master Plan, both motels and hotels are allowed as provisional uses within Land Use
District 3. However, for the subject project, the existing Specific Plan for the site (Ordinance
No. 9313) already established the approved land use. Namely, the site is already approved for
a 106-room motel. Additionally, under the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual hotels and motels are subject to the same design criteria and development standards
within the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to make any provisional findings to permit a
hotel in this location.
The existing Specific Plan does not include approval of the project design, therefore, it is
necessary for the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to find
that the project is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The staff report provides greater detail showing the project's consistency with the development
standards set forth in the Village Master Plan for Land Use District 3. The project is consistent
will all development standards with variance findings to grant the following:
• A variance to permit front, rear, and side yard setbacks that exceed the maximum
standard; and
• A variance to exceed the established building height.
In Land Use District 3, the front setback is 5-20 feet, the side setback is 5 feet, and the rear
setback is 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with the front yard setback off Grand
Avenue and the rear yard setback off Laguna Drive. Grand Avenue provides vehicular ingress
and egress to and from the project. An "emergency access only" driveway is also provided off
Laguna Drive. A 5-foot wide landscape strip is located along the southern property line
adjacent to the Denny's Restaurant parking lot and along the eastern property line adjacent to
the freeway right-of-way. These landscape areas are consistent with the 5-foot side yard
setback required for the district. A 10-foot wide landscape strip has been provided along the
western property line creating an additional landscape buffer between the project and the single
family residential uses on the west side of the subject property. The west side of the subject
property is located outside the redevelopment area boundaries and the 10-foot wide landscape
strip along this side of the property Is consistent with the 10-foot side yard setback established
for the area.
The proposed building is located in the center of the subject property with parking around the
perimeter. This project design provides significant setbacks from all property lines. More
specifically, the building is setback 63'-5" from Grand Avenue, 31'-0" from Laguna Drive, 43'-11"
from the Freeway right-of-way, and 35'-0" from the western property line.
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 a variance must be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. Staff supports the granting of the variance because the project is in a location
that transitions to residential uses and the increased setbacks protect the livability of the
existing residential development in the area. In addition, since the subject property is bordered
by the terminus of two streets and a freeway, consistency with the front yard setbacks of
adjacent properties is not a critical design issue for the area.
Based on the variance findings contained within DRB Resolution No. 275, it is staffs position
that the proposed project warrants the granting of a variance to allow building setbacks that
exceed the established range on the front, rear, and sides of the property.
The height limit for Land Use District 3 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 roof pitch. The proposed
project has a maximum roof height of 40'-5" with pitched roof features (5:12) at the front, rear,
and sides of the building. According to the applicant, a variance to grant the additional building
height is necessary to accommodate the 106-rooms approved for the site and the minimum
5:12 roof pitch required by the Village Design Guidelines. Staff supports the granting of the
height variance for the following reasons:
1) The increased height is visually compatible with the Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement
Community located immediately north of the subject property. The retirement facility is three-
stories, 40 feet high and encompasses three acres. The proposed project would result in visual
continuity along the west side of Interstate 5. 2) The increased height will not unduly impact
nearby residential uses because the proposed project provides a buffer between Interstate 5
and the residential uses located west of the subject property. 3) The taller project will not
adversely impact views in the area because the project would serve as a visual buffer between
Interstate 5 and the properties to the west. 4) The project will maintain a scale and character
compatible with the Village design guidelines and 5) The project provides for exceptional
design quality through the use of various building materials (i.e. stone, wood, and stucco),
varying roof heights, and the use of architectural treatments such as gable roofs, a columned
entry feature and divided-pane windows.
Based on these reasons, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the granting of
a variance to allow an increase in building height from 35 feet to 40'-5".
CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles contained in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual The project design provides for an overall informal character while
expressing the unique nature of the use and site location. The architectural design provides for
variety and diversity through the incorporation of the following elements: varying gable roof
heights; a variety of roof pitches that range from a minimum of 5:12 to a maximum of 12:12;
building articulation on all elevations; and varied building setbacks. The project incorporates an
abundance of informal landscaping along the perimeter of the property, throughout the parking
lot to breakup surface parking, and within the recreational area. The building provides for a
variety of architectural features and details, which in addition to those previously described
include divided-pane windows, a columned entry feature, applied surface ornamentation, and
decorative treatment above ground floor windows. Finally, as conditioned, project signage will
be designed in conformance with the sign guidelines set forth for the Village. A summary of the
design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department 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. Mitigation measures
were prepared with regard to noise and aesthetics (light and glare) and agreed to by the
applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study were released for public
review. The mitigation measures are as follows:
1. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to refiect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
2. To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine
the building upgrades for the hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to building permit
issuance.
The mitigation measures will mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment will occur. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the City that the project, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures, will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 274 will recommend approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project Is anticipated to have a significant positive financial impact on the City
and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of under-utilized properties will result
in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will result In increased tax increment
to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project will generate significant transient
occupancy taxes which will benefit the City as a whole. Third, it is hoped that the project will
serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation
of existing buildings. Finally, the project will result in the construction of a new development
and elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
CONCLUSION
Staff therefore recommends that the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board
Resolutions No. 274 and 275 recommending APPROVAL of RP 99-11 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
Mary S. Cappadonna
1014 Laguna Dr. #5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
June 19, 2000
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
I would like to express my opposition to the planned Staybridge Suites Hotel (Case file
no. RP 99-11). I feel that it would have a negative impact on the nature of my
neighborhood. If the project does go through, the traffic flow problem might be
lessened by having an emergency exit only driveway on Laguna. This part of Laguna
Drive is residential, while Grand, where the main entrance will be is more commercial.
Sincerely, //^-^ .
/?Uy y^-'--^^-^^^^'^
Mary g: cappadonna ^^^^^^^
UIIY Ul- UMHLODMD
HOUSING & REDEVtlOP/WCMT
DEPARTMENT '^'^
c
Norma J Richardson
1014 Laguna Drive #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1870
(760) 434-4589
June 19, 2000
CityofCarlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Lori Rosenstein
Subject: Case RP99-11 Staybridge Suites
Dear Ms. Rosenstein,
On behalf of the homeowners association of Laguna Terrace, a 22 unit Condo complex,
we wish to make known our desire that traffic resulting from the subject project does not, during
the constmction phase or after completion of the project, flow in either direction between Laguna
Drive and Jefferson.
RECEIVED
JUM 1 9 20D0
Oil r ur oMHLbbAD
HOUSING StREDEVELOPA/IEIV I DEPARTIVIENT ™
JUNE 8, 2000
TO: Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi
FROM: Management Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment Department
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT FOR JUNE 26, 2000
I have attached the staff report for the June 26*^ Design Review Board meeting.
Please note, Exhibits 8 and 9 are not attached, but will be added to final
document. The most unique aspect of the project is that the use as a 106-room
hotel was approved in 1972 under a specific plan that included the subject
property. DRB Resolution No. 274 may require some changes in tenns of linking
the current project to the previously approved specific plan. Please review and
return comments/corrections to me by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14,
2000. I apologize for the short turn around time.
If you have any questions and/or comments regarding the attached documents,
please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Debbie Fountain
Van Lynch
May 12, 2000
TO: LORI ROSENSTEIN
FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
RP 99-11: STAYBRIDGE SUITES - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project. The
Engineering Department is recommending that the project be approved subject to the
following conditions:
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
6. NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the
following conditions must be met prior to approval of a
building or grading permit whichever occurs first.
Genera/
7. 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.
8. 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.
Fees/Agreements
17. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City
Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold
Harmless Agreement.
18. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City
Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless
Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
22. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project. Developer
shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer for the annexation
of the area shown within the boundaries of the project into the existing City of
Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by
the City Engineer.
GradinQ
24. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs
first. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention
for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control
Board.
24A Developer shall provide a soils report for the project site to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The soils report recommendations shall be reflected
in the final design of the site.
25. Upon completion of grading. Developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan as
determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as
exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually
constructed and must be based on a contour map that represents both the pre
and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and
the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar
drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
26. This project requires off site grading. 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 Planning Director.
27. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown
on the site 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.
Dedications/Improvements
32. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and
provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer,
prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit.
33. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A secondary drainage system shall be
designed to provide for the surface drainage from the site to the streets,
precluding the possibility of flooding the building should the underground
drainage system fail. The structural section of all private streets shall conform
to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and
drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the
standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees.
34. Developer shall execute a City standard Development Improvement Agreement
to Install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including,
but not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing
and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, storm drain
system, fire hydrants, street lights, and retaining walls, to City Standards to the
satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
1. Grand Avenue along project frontage.
2. Laguna Drive along project frontage.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of
the development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said
agreement.
37. Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project
frontage based on a centeriine to right-of-way width of sixty feet and a standard
cul-de-sac bulb in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
38. Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, and secure with .
appropriate security as provided by law, to design and install a traffic "^/^
signal and advance warning system at Grand Avenue and Harding Street
This agreement shall terminate five years from the date the hotel is opened
for business.
40. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 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 ofthe 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.
0. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
44. Prior to building permit issuance. Developer shall have design, apply for and
obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access
aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck
access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500.
The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together
with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as
part of the building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following:
49. 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 ofthe City Engineer.
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
APR 262000
TO: REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GIIY UP GARLSBAD HOUSINGS. REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: RP 99-11 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES
The purpose of this memo is to inform you that the Planning Director has
reviewed the design of proposed Staybridge hotel project. The project falls
within both the Residential-Professional zone and Land Use District No. 3 of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
The project meets the development standards of the Residential-Professional
zone and is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 30 with the
exception of the proposed building height The required building height of 35
feet is to be exceeded by 5 feet, 4 inches to a total building height of 40 feet, 4
inches. The Planning Director has no objection to the design of the project or
the requested variance to the height limit. Other buildings in the immediate
vicinity are built to 40 feet. The proposed roof pitch of 5:12 is greater than
standard thus increasing the need for the requested building height. The
increased roof pitch also enhances the design of the building and conforms to
the Redevelopment Master Plan minimum roof pitch requirement. The building,
being next to Interstate 5, will act as a buffer to the adjacent residential to the
west.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call.
Michael J. Holzrhliler
MJHiVLcs
Gary Wayne
Lori Rosenstein
Van Lynch
file
04-17-2000 11=14AM FROM Shapery Enterprises TO ^ 17607202037 P.02/02
Shapil^ Enterprises
April 17,2000
Mr, Van Lynch» Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 9200S-7314
Re: Staybridge Suites Hotel - RP99-11
Dear Mr. Lynch:
Enclosed please fmd the executed original Environmental Assessment Fomt
which you sent to me on April 14,2000.
Please note that on page 11 under "I: Project Description/Environmental Setting",
the project is described as having an overaii roof height of 44 feet, 1 inch. The roof has
been modified to allow a height of 40 feet, 9 inches, instead ofthe 44 feet, 1 inch.
I hope this change will not negatively impact the timing of our application.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, as your thoroughness in the
assessment is beneficial to all and greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWSrrp
Enclosure
cc: Lori Rosenstein (via fax only w/o enclosure)
423 West "B" Street • San Diego. Califomia 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
TOTAL P.02
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATIG^MD HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, MS-65, SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406
(619) 688-6954
FAX (619) 688-4299
April 12, 2000
11SD-005
PM 50.1 (KP80.6)
99-11
Mr. Van Lynch, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Dear Mr. Lynch:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the plans for the proposed Staybridge Suites, a 106-
room motel located adjacent west of Interstate 5 (1-5) and north of Elm Avenue. We have the
following comments:
The proposed development must be compatible with proposed future improvements to 1-5
and the Carlsbad Village (Elm Avenue) interchange. Current plans call for the widening of
1-5 in this area and to require a right of way acquisition along the portion of the subject
property adjacent to 1-5 of about ten (10) feet. The applicant obtaining from the City of
Carlsbad an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) and a slope rights/drainage easement
can accomplish preserving this right of way;
• The proposed project will create about 850 additional trips and impacts to 1-5 and the
Carlsbad Village (Elm Avenue) interchange. A traffic report should be prepared to analyze
impacts to freeway segments, interchanges and ramp meter queues and to propose
appropriate mitigation measures. The traffic impacts and mitigation measures should be
based on existing and Year 2020 traffic volumes;
• Caltrans supports the concept of "Fair Share Contributions" on the part of developers due
to traffic impacts caused by the proposed development. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that the developer contribute their fair share for improvements to 1-5;
• A noise study, based on the ultimate configuration of 1-5 and Year 2020 traffic volumes,
should be prepared as part of the proposed development. No additional mitigation should
be required for this development for any initial construction or future improvements to 1-5;
Close coordination with Caltrans is encouraged. If you have any questions on the above
comments, please contact Vann Hurst, Development Review Branch, at (619) 688-6976.
Sincerply., yj
BILL FIGGE, Chief
Development Review and Public Transportation Branch
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 22, 2000
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SUITES, LLC
c/o SHAPERY ENTERPRISES
423 WEST "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SUBJECT: STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL (RP99-11)
Thank you for submitting the requested Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project.
The document was received by the Housing and Redevelopment Department on February
22, 2000. With the submittal of this document, the items requested from you earlier to
make your Major Redevelopment Permit application no. RP99-11 complete have been
received and reviewed by all applicable City departments. It has been determined that the
application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your
application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the
date of this communication.
Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues
that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues
should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City
may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct,
or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application.
Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a
meeting to discuss the project.
Sincerely,
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
c: Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department
Van Lynch, Planning Department
Mikhail Ogawa, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Mike Smith, Fire Department
Pat Kelley, Building Department
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
March 30, 2000
CalTrans
Attn: Bill Figge
Mailstop 65
PO Box 85406
San Diego Ca 92186-5406
Re: Circulation Impact Analysis for Staybridge Suites (RP99-11)
Dear Mr. Figge:
Per your request, 1 have enclosed a copy ofthe Circulation Impact Analysis for
Staybridge Suites located west of 1-5 between Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive
in the City of Carlsbad.
If you have any questions pertaining to the enclosed document or require
additional information, please contact me at 760-434-2813.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
Enclosure
2965 Rooseveit St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
•
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 8, 2000
Robert Hoglen
State of California
Department of Transportation
Mail Stop 38
PO Box 85406
San Diego CA 92186-5406
RE: RP 99-11 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES
Dear Mr. Hoglen:
Please find attached the plans for a proposed 106 room motel located west and
adjacent to the Interstate 5 freeway, north of Grand Avenue, and south of Laguna Drive
in the City of Carlsbad. As I mentioned on the phone today, the City has been
reviewing the plan for some time and would appreciate a prompt response as to
continue with the project or, if needed, to incorporate any modifications that Caltrans
may request. Also attached is the part II environmental impact assessment completed
by the City.
Please feel free to contact me regarding comments or questions at (760) 602-4613.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Associate Planner
c: Lori Rosenstein
Chris DeCerbo
file
VL:cs
Attachments
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^
02-22-2000 11= 10AM FROh^ehapery Enterprises
Shapery Enterprises
TO 17607202037 P.02
RECEIVED
EEB 22 2000
February 22,2000
VIA FACSIMILE TO (760) 602-8558 FOLLOWED BY U.S. MAIL
Mr. Frank Jimeno
Engineering Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Staybridge Suites Hotel (RP99-11)
Dear Mr. Jimeno:
On February 18, 2000, you left me a message in response to my request on where
to forward our traffic impact report. In that message, you also indicated that although our
Preliminar>* Feasibility letter regarding the soils condition was adequate in the beginning,
you needed a full soils report before you could condition the project. It was my
understanding that we could proceed to obtain our redevelopment pennit and then
provide the soils report at the time we apply for our building permit, I hope this is still
the case.
We are in need of a height variance for the project v\'ithout which the project
cannot proceed. We are not eager to expend additional money for a full soils report
without knowing we have a buildable project.
Please advise if there is a way for us to proceed through the variance application
process before we are required to provide the lull soils report.
Thank you in anticipation ofyour continued consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:ip
cc: Lori Rosenstein (via facsimile only)
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
TOTAL P.02
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
For Your Information
February 4, 2000
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Directed;;
FROM: City Attorney
REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE- VARIANCE APl^F^OVAL PROCEDURES,
PROPOSED HOTEL AT GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN LAGUNA AVENUE AND
DENNY'S RESTAURANT
QUESTION
Can the Design Review Board; rather than the Planrting Commission, review a height
variance request where a portion of the development; is located outside of the Village
Redevelopment Zone?
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ^
Based on the information that you provided, the Design Review Board can review a
height variance request where a portion of the development is located outside of the
Village Redevelopment Zone.
BACKGROUND
You indicate in your memo of January 25, 2000 that staff is currently reviewing a
proposed hotel development located at Grand Avenue between Laguna Avenue and
Denny's Restaurant. The subject property consists of four parcels of land. Two of the
parcels are located within the redevelopment project area and two of the parcels are
located outside of the project area, in the RP Zone. In 1972 the City Council approved
a specific plan for the property which allowed for the construction of a 106 room hotel.
In reviewing the current proposal, staff concluded that the 1972 specific plan remains in
effect, thereby allowing construction of the hotel. Although the Carlsbad Municipal
Code allows the Planning Director to administratively approve design and site plan
changes for the project, staff decided to require a major redevelopment permit for the
project. The major redevelopment permit process will provide the public with the
opportunity to comment on the proposal. Based on staffs decision, the specific plan
will remain in effect for land use purposes, but the major redevelopment permit will
require Design Review Board consideration of the project design and site layout.
At this time, the proposed project meets all required development standards, except for
a required ten foot height variance. Questions have recently been raised as to whether
the Planning Commission must review the height variance for the portion of the project
located in the RP Zone or can the Design Review Board review the height variance for
the entire project.
ANALYSIS
A review of the Municipal Code suggests that the Design Review Board has the ability
to consider a height variance for the entire project. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
21.35 establishes regulations for the Village Redevelopment Zone. Section 21.35.120
discusses procedures for the processing of permits and approvals required by Title 21,
which includes height variances for the RP Zone. The section states in pertinent part:
(a) Whenever a project would require a permit or approval under the
provisions of this title, notwithstanding this chapter, the redevelopment
permit shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for such permit or
approval; provided, however, that in considering the redevelopment
permit for said project the director, design review board and the
housing and redevelopment commission shall apply the provisions of
this chapter and the provisions of this title othenA/ise applicable to such
other permit or approval for the project. (Emphasis added).
.. Here the City is requiring the applicant to obtain a major redevelopment permit. Since
'••'the project requires an approval under the provisions of Title 21 (the RP Zone height
^variance), the approval can be included within the redevelopment permit approval
^process. It should be noted, however, that section 21.35.120 (a) requires that the
design review board and housing and redevelopment commission apply the
requirements of Chapter 21.35, as well as those of the RP Zone, in determining
whether to approve the height variance.
In addition to section 21.35.120, Municipal Code section 2.24.080 provides the Design
Review Board with specific powers that are applicable to your question. The section
states:
Whenever in Title 21 it is provided that an action or a decision on a
project or permit shall be taken or made by the planning commission
and such permit or project is processed according to Chapter 21.35
and consolidated in the redevelopment permit under Section
21.35.120, then the design review board shall be the planning
commission with respect to such project or permit.
Here the development is being processed pursuant to Chapter 21.35. Based on
section 21.35.120 (a), the RP Zone height variance may be consolidated with the major
redevelopment permit. While the Planning Commission would generally review the
variance request, in this instance the Design Review Board can serve as the Planning
Commission and review the request.
Finally, as 1 indicated in our telephone conversation, I have discussed this issue with
Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi and with the City Attorney. In these discussions, it was
suggested that the Planning Director also approve the changes to the subject property
as a deviation from the specific plan (see Specific Plan Section 3 (A)). It is our
recommendation that the Planning Director's actions in this regard be included in the
staff report on the item. In addition, although the Municipal Code authorizes the Design
Review Board to serve as the Planning Commission for the purposes of reviewing the
RP Zone variance, staff may wish to provide the Planning Commission with a courtesy
notice related to the approval of this program.
1 hope that this information is of some assistance. Please contact me should you |Lave
any questions or if you wish to discuss these matters further.
VIVAEN B. BROWER DAf
Deputy City Attorney
rmh
c: City Manager
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
REOUEST FOR LEGAT ADVICE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
City Attorney
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Date Sent:
Date Needed:
Dept.:
January 25. 2000
February 8, 2000
Housing h Redevelopment
Processing of Major Redevelopment Permit for Hotel Project which is to be located on pi^frty with parcels
both inside and outside the Viiiage Redevelopment Area. y
ADVICE REOUESTED
Determination of whether or not the Design Review Board (rather than the Planning Commission) could take
action to approve a height variance for a hotel project where a portion of the property is located outside the
Village Redevelopment Area. ". ..
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Prepare synopsis of facts, giving as many as pDssible.
additional sheets if necessary or attach copies of supporting documents.
Add
W
The subject property is located at the east end of Grand Avenue (at 1-5), between Lagima Avenue and the
Denny's Restaurant. The property consists of 4 parcels of land - 2 inside the Redevelopment Area and 2 outside
the Redevelopment Area. The 2 properties located outside the redevelopment area currently have RP Zoning.
The 2 properties located inside the redevelopment area have VR Zoning.
This property has a very odd history in that a Specific Plan for the subject 4 parcels of land was approved in
1972. The Specific Plan allows for the construction of a 106 room hotel on the subject site, and has no
expiration date. Although approved separately, the Specific Plan was originally tied to the development of the
restaurant (currently Denny's) and the gas station (currently Chevron) located to the south. From a land use
perspective, without the Specific Plan, a hotel would not be allowed with the current zoning (RP) on the 2
properties located outside the Village Redevelopment Area. The VR zoning and related land use plan, however,
will allow a hotel to be constmcted on the 2 properties located inside the Redevelopment Area.
(Continued Next Page)
Prepared by: OsgB/g F^M;farAm
Approved by: S^^^gl^g f^tX.-^"v^i:^x>^>
Request Noted:
Department Head
City Manager
• Re'quest for Legal Advice - Permit Proces
Page 2
After much discussion on the Specific Plan and its current legal status, the Community Development Director,
Planning Director, Assistant Planning Director, City Engineer/Public Works Director, Assistant City Attomey
(Rudolf) and myself agreed that the noted Specific Plan remains in effect allowing the 106 room hotel to be
constructed on the subject 4 parcels. By accepting that the Specific Plan is in effect, no rezoning would be
required for the properties outside the Redevelopment Area, and no separate permits would be required from the
Planning Commission. Per staff s interpretation of the Specific Plan, the Planning Director can approve the
design and site plan changes fier.the project without any further action by the Planning Commission/Design
Review Board or City Council/Sflising and Redevelopment Commission.
Staff was uncomfortable with ad^@>ying the Planning Director to simply approve the hotel project design and site
layout with no additional publiS"hearing opportunities. Therefore, because the Specific Plan requires that the
project be in compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines, Staff made a decision to
require the processing of a Major Redevelopment Permit for the project and to apply the development standards
of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to the entire project (on all 4 parcels). Under this compromise
decision, the developer is still required to obtain a permit and process through public hearings before the Design
Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. However, the developer is not required to
process an application to rezone the-property outside the redevelopment area to allow the hotel land use. It was
staffs opinion that a hotel is desirable'for the subject site 'and should be supported. Consequently, we decided
that it would be appropriate and les$ bureaucratic to allow the Specific Plan to remain in effect for land use
purposes, but then require the redevelopment permit to allow for appropriate review of the project design and
site layout by staff and the generaij^gublic.
The current property owner has proposed a 106 room hotel for the subject site. Staff is working with the
property owner to develop a complete application for processing. At this time, the proposed project meets all
development standards as set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, except for one standard -
height. The project as currently proposed will require an approximate 10' height variance. This height variance
is required to allow the property owner to develop the 106 room hotel project approved by the Specific Plan and
also meet the current redevelopment area development standards which require a 5:12 roof pitch and a Village-
character design. Planning and Redevelopment Staff agree that the design proposed by the property owner with
the requested height variance is superior to all other possible designs, and we support the height variance. The
challenge faced, however, is the processing for this variance request.
Staff believes that all of the required findings can be made to approve the requested height variance for the
subject project. Until the issue of the height variance became evident. Redevelopment staff intended to present
the project to the Design Review Board and then to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for action.
Once approved by the Board and Commission, the Planning Director would then administratively approve the
plans for the properties located outside the redevelopment area. The issue of the height variance, however, poses
a processing challenge.
The Planning Director is unable to administratively approve the height variance for the portion of the project
located outside the redevelopment area. Typically, this variance would require Planning Commission approval.
Because the Design Review Board (which has legal standing equal to the Planning Commission) and the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council) will be taking action on the plans for the entire project
including the height variance request, staff is requesting a legal opinion on whether or not it v/ould be possible
to simply have the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action on the
Request for Legal Advice - Permit ProcessI
Page 3
redevelopment permit (including the variance), and not require separate action by the Planning Commission on
the variance. Because Redevelopment Permits are under the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board and
Housing and Redevelopment Commission, they are not presented to the Plarming Commission or City Council
for action. For the subject project, no other permits, except for the Redevelopment Permit and related variance,
wiil be processed. Consequently, if the height variance request must be submitted to the Planning Commission,
it vvill be the only action item for the Planning Commission on this project. It seems more appropriate to simply
have the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action on the proposed
permit. However, this would be a very unique action which has no precedence.
The alternative is to hold a joint public hearing between the Planning Commission and the Design Review'
Board and request action by the Planning Commission on the height variance only. The major redevelopment
permit would be submitted to the Planning Commission for information only, no action would be taken on the
permit by the Commission. The Design Review Board would then take action on the major redevelopment
permit inciuding the height variance. Under this scenario. Planning Staff believes that it is probably likely that
the Planning Commission would deny the height variance. Redevelopment Staff believes that the Design
Review Board would very likely approve the height variance. The issue would then need to be resolved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission and City Coimcil.
Because this is a very unique case which will probably never arise again. Community Development Staff has
discussed this matter and agreed that it would be best to allow the Design Review Board and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to tal<:e action on the permit and variance for the entire project, with no separate
action required by the Planning Commission. However, we also agreed that we do not know if there is
appropriate legal authority to allow for this unique processing. Based on staff discussions, we agreed to forward
this matter to the City Attomey's Office for a legal determination.
Attached for review is a copy of the Specific Plan for the subject property.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
5950 £1 Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 438-3367
Memo
TO: Lori Rosenstein, Housing & Redevelopment
FROM: Mikhail Ogawa, CMWD '^'"t^^
DATE: January 18,2000
RE: Staybridge Suites Hotel-RP 99-11 CMWD 97-271
RECEIVED
'JAN 2 0 2000
DEPARTMENT
There are no further comments at this time.
Beyond the elimination of the proposed trees that impeded access to the 6" waterline, the developer needs
to address the CMWD comments provided by Kelly Weaver which you incorporated in your letter to the
developer on December 10,1999.
If you have any questions please call me at extension 7127.
Shapery Enterprises rNr-^^..
RECEIVED
, ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
January 10, 2000
HAND-DELIVERED
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite "B"
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
Re: RP99-11 - Redevelopment Permit Application
Staybridge Suites
Dear Lori:
I met with Kelly Weaver of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and we
established the exact location of the fire hydrant on the east property line as required by
the fire department. Kelly indicated that a 20 foot wide water easement would also be
required in the driveway area to the hydrant. She also required that the trees planted in
the 10 foot water easement on the west property line be removed. Both of her
requirements are being met as set forth in the amended plans dated January 4, 2000
accompanying this letter.
I also met with Mr. Mike Smith of the Carlsbad Fire Department who required
that the emergency fire entrance on Laguna Drive have a radius sufficient to allow a fire
truck to enter in either direction including against the flow of traffic. Mr. Smith further
indicated that the fire hydrant located on the northwest comer of the property would not
likely be used and that the walkway adjacent thereto was unnecessary. The plans have
been modified to be in compliance with Mr. Smith's requirements.
The traffic impact analysis has been ordered and should be complete within the
next several weeks.
I have also included the modified Request For Variance for height, attached to the
Variance Justification form you faxed to me.
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Housing & Redevelopment Department
January 10, 2000
Page two
I am most eager to proceed to obtain the Redevelopment Permit and request that
the final issue involving my variance application be addressed at the earliest opportunity.
Thank you for your continuing assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosures
JAN- 7-nO FR! fi;23 PM HOUSIKG KED. FAXNO, 7607202037
.JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
By law a Variance may be approved only if certaio facts are found to exist. Please read these
requirements carefully and explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts. Use additional
sheets if necessary.
1. Explain why there are exceptional or octraordinary chrcunistanccs or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in
the same vjcinity and zone;
(see attached)
Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
properly right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone b«t which is denied to
the property in question:
(see attached)
Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvetnents in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located:
see attached)
4. Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan:
see attached)
FRM0004 5/96 Page 5 of 5
TO: The Housing & Redevelopment Commission
City of Carlsbad, California
RE: STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL (RP99-11)
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF HOTEL BUILDING TO
ALLOW THE HOTEL STRUCTURE TO REACH A HEIGHT OF
EITHER 44 FEET 1 INCH OR A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET 9 INCHES
INSTEAD OF THE ALLOWABLE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT
Staybridge Suites is a new extended stay hotel concept by Holiday Inn. The
property owner will be entering into a franchise agreement with Staybridge
Suites/Holiday Inn to develop and operate the property as a Staybridge Suites. Holiday
Inn, in creating this new hotel brand, is not allowing deviation fi-om its basic design
concept as they require that their guests will be able to recognize and be familiar with a
Staybridge Suites property whether it is located in Carlsbad, California or any other city
across the country. For this reason, a height variance is essential for the development of
the project at this location.
As a threshold test in order for staff to support the variance, the project must meet
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 guidelines contained within this Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
5. The project provides for exceptional design quality and is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The project as proposed meets all five of the above criteria for the following
reasons:
1. The increased height will be visually compatible with surrounding buildings.
Directly across the street at 1088 Laguna Drive lying adjacent to
Interstate 5 and positioned similarly to the subject property is the Las
Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community. This facility covers
approximately three acres of land and consists of three stories with a
pitched roof All parking is surface with some carports. The height of the
Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community is 40 feet. This is four feet
short ofthe subject proposed variance or equal to the alternative 5:12
pitched roof; however, the finished grade elevation at Las Villas is
approximately five feet higher than the subject site, making both projects
approximately the same height.
2. The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses.
The subject property backs up to Interstate 5 on its easterly
boundary and the residences east of Interstate 5 are high enough that the
building will not adversely impact them. There are therefore no
residential uses which would be adversely impacted by the granting of the
variance. The project will actually benefit the adjoining properties by
screening the freeway noise, dirt, and pollution.
3. The taller project will not adversely impact views.
As discussed above, because the project backs up to the freeway,
the views of any properties in the immediate vicinity will not be adversely
affected, while the height will be compatible with the adjacent retirement
home in the immediate vicinity, creating a design continuity next to
Interstate 5.
4. The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and
the guidelines contained within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
As pointed out above, the proposed project will be in scale with the
immediate neighborhood. The Village Master Plan allows commercial
projects as tall as 45 feet in this Land Use District when building over a
parking stmcture. As such, the subject property will be lower than the
height allowed under the Village Master Plan for other properties that
could be built in the Village or the immediate neighborhood.
5. The project provides for exceptional design quality and is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The site is specifically approved for a 106-room hotel, which is
what the applicant proposes. The design guidelines are set up to
encourage maximum pitched roofs of not less than 5:12 pitch. This
project is designed using an 8:12 roof pitch and in many areas a 12:12 roof
pitch with an altemative plan using a 5:12 roof pitch. The building is
situated on the site in order to create the least intmsion on adjoining
properties to the west with the longest side of the building facing Interstate
5.
The extensive use of varied materials including stone, wood, lap
siding, and stucco enhance the design and create interesting textures. The
building is of a style and design that the City of Carlsbad should be
pleased to have on the site.
Having met more than one of the above criteria, the following findings will
support the grant of the variance:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
This property was specifically zoned and designated by the
Carlsbad City Council by ordinance nos. 9313 & 9314 to allow the
constmction of a 106 room hotel.
In achieving a building 35 feet tall, which would contain the
allowable 106 suites, it would require a flat roof in violation of the Village
Master Plan and Design guidelines. The subject property abuts Interstate
5. The 44 foot 1 inch height of the building or the alternative 40 feet 5
inch height, although below the maximum height allowed for buildings in
the Village, affords added height which serves as a protective barrier
against noise, dirt, pollution, and the constant motion of cars and tmcks
passing on the highway. Because of the particular location of the site
adjacent to the freeway, its shape, the lot's access, and the positioning of
the building on the lot away fi'om the adjoining residences, this property is
unique to the vicinity and zone.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone but which is denied to the property in question.
The Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community built directly
adjacent to Interstate 5 and across Laguna Drive to the north exceeds the
35 foot height limit by at least five feet. That building also enhances the
neighborhood by acting as a barrier to the traffic on Interstate 5. To deny
the requested variance but still allow the retirement property to exceed the
allowable height would deny the subject property a substantial right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located.
The granting of the variance will actually create a benefit to the
public welfare and will enhance the property in the vicinity and zone in
which the subject property is located. Interstate 5, which bisects the City
of Carlsbad, is an element that although necessary for efficient flow of
traffic, is also a substantial liability to the peaceful enjoyment of property
in the vicinity of the highway. Pollution fi-om the Interstate comes in
various forms including noise, dirt, hydrocarbons polluting the air, mnoff
and occasional damage from wreckage. Those negative elements will be
blocked by the proposed hotel project which will serve as a buffer between
Interstate 5 and the property adjoining the hotel project. The variance to
the height will create an additional benefit by extending this buffer.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive
general plan.
The comprehensive general plan will be complied with if this
height variance is granted. District 3 - Freeway Commercial Support
Area, which encompasses the subject property allows the following
building height:
45' maximum with minimum 5:12 roof pitch for any size project
where a residence or commercial/office space is located over a
parking stmcture.
Although the proposed project does not contain a parking stmcture,
the regulation does establish the maximum allowable building height
within the zone. From an aesthetic standpoint, one cannot readily discern
whether a building contains a parking stmcture underneath. The project as
proposed will therefore not create any apparent deviation from the
maximum building height that will be allowed within the particular zone.
For all of the above reasons, the applicant hereby respectfully requests the
granting of the height variance as herein described.
Dated: January 10, 2000 Respectfiilly submitted,
by: '^'C^/; r
Candor W. Shapery ^ ^
Shapery Enterprises
December 23, 1999
HAND-DELIVERED
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite "B"
Carisbad, CA 92008-2389
Re: RP99-11 - Redevelopment Permit Application
Dear Lori:
Enclosed please find the latest revisions to our Permit Application. Enclosed also
please find two sets of elevations. Staybridge Suites will allow a modification of their
roof to a 5/12 pitch which lowers the roof to 40'5". Those drawings are marked A-6.01-
02B. Although the elevafions do not look as good, perhaps this compromise will allow
the Planning Department to support our variance application.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosures
423 West "B" Street • San Dlego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
December 10, 1 999
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SUITES, LLC
c/o SHAPERY ENTERPRISES
423 WEST "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SUBJECT: STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL (RP99-11
All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your
application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) stiil needed in order to
deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to the
Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of
this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can
occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are
submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the
application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will
be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, July 16, 1999, to either resubmit the application or submit the
required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials
necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal
of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application
must be submitted.
In addition to the items identified to deem the application complete, 1 have included a
second list of current outstanding issues that should be resolved before the project is
scheduled for a public hearing. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincere
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
c: Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department
Van Lynch, Planning Department
Kelly Weaver, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Mike Smith, Fire Department
Pat Kelley, Building Department
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Permit No. RP99-11
Engineering:
The Engineering Departmem has completed its third review of the subject project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are
mcomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or
incomplete items:
1. The proposed drainage system is still incomplete. The proposed surface
drainage to the inlets needs to show elevations and grades. A two percent
grade is recommended to avoid drainage problems on asphalt surfaces.
2. Show the parking stall dimensions.
3. A subsurface soils investigation is required so that the project can be
conditioned.
4. A Circulation Impact Analysis will be required for this project. The
classification of the project as a strictly business hotel is not acceptable. Due
to Its location, the hotel will attract some tourist traffic. A traffic generation
rate of 8 ADT per room needs to be used. As stated previously, the reduction
in traffic generation based on the assumed occupancy rate is not acceptable.
Traffic data from business hotels in other cities or states is not applicable in
Carlsbad. Even if the lower rate of 7 ADT per room is used, the traffic
generated would be 742 ADT, which requires the Circulation Impact
Analysis.
5. Based on the final outcome of the traffic generation, additional improvements
could be required.
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Permit No. RP99-11
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has completed its third review of the subject project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are
incomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or
incomplete items:
1. The proposed drainage system is still incomplete. The proposed surface
drainage to the inlets needs to show elevations and grades. A two percent
grade is recommended to avoid drainage problems on asphalt surfaces.
2. Show the parking stall dimensions.
3. A subsurface soils investigation is required so that the project can be
conditioned.
4. A Circulation Impact Analysis will be required for this project. The
classification of the project as a strictly business hotel is not acceptable. Due
to its location, the hotel will attract some tourist traffic. A traffic generation
rate of 8 ADT per room needs to be used. As stated previously, the reduction
in traffic generation based on the assumed occupancy rate is not acceptable.
Traffic data from business hotels in other cities or states is not applicable in
Carlsbad. Even if the lower rate of 7 ADT per room is used, the traffic
generated would be 742 ADT, which requires the Circulation Impact
Analysis.
5. Based on the final outcome of the traffic generation, additional improvements
could be required.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Permit No. RP99-11
Planning:
1. A variance application and corresponding filing fees must be submitted to the
Planning Department for the height variance request. The variance request will
require approval by both the Planning Commission and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. The revised sign plan for the project is still inconsistent with the sign criteria for the
Village Redevelopment Area. Maximum sign area for a monument or ground sign is
24 square feet. Additionally, all monument signs must be externally illuminated
with fixtures designed to complement the appearance of the sign. The sign plan
should be revised to be consistent with these regulations.
Fire:
Outstanding Fire Department related issues that must be resolved or adequately addressed
prior to public hearing are as follows:
1. An additional access must be provided from Laguna Drive.
2. An additional fire hydrant must be installed along the east boundary of the property.
3. Landscaping at the northeast corner must be modified to permit access to existing
fire hydrant from the project property.
4. All interior driveways must accommodate the following turning radii:
Outside: 42 feet; Inside: 20 feet
Note: The Fire Department finds the current project design unacceptable due to inadequate
emergency access and circulation.
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has made a further review of the project for engineering
issues. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to
conditioning of the project:
1. The 20 ft wide parking aisles will need specific approval from the Fire
Department. A verbal approval was given in a telephone conversation.
2. The 5-ft. offset required between parking stalls still needs to be met at the
northwest corner, and the new angled parking by the southwest corner. The
minimum clear distance of 5 ft. required when adjacent parking stalls are
located perpendicular or at an angle to each other applies to both stalls. That
is, from the back of the parking stall to the corner of the curb needs to be 5
ft. for each of the stalls at an angle to each other, or there needs to be a 5-ft.
clear distance between the back of the stalls.
Issues of Concern
RP99-11
Page 2
3 The new pavement sections in the streets and the parking aisles will be
determined by the Soils Engineer's recommendations based on the R-value
tests.
This review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project,
additional items of concern may be identified upon submittal of the incomplete items
noted above.
Carisbad Municipal Water District (CMWD):
1. The Developer should meet with the Fire Department to establish fire protection
requirements to include the following: fire hydrant locations and fire sprinkler
requirements.
2. The Developer then shall meet with CMWD to discuss the following issues: water
line looping, water meter sizing and location, sewer lateral sizing and location, and
irrigation meter size and location. These improvement shall be shown on a public
improvement plan to be signed by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
3. The Developer shall be responsible for providing a recycled water use map to
CMWD for review and approval.
4. The Developer shall be aware of existing water facilities within the project
boundaries. These facilities will be required to be shown on all grading and
improvement plans, and have said plans signed by the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities. The Developer shall be responsible for coordinating any impacts to these
facilities with CMWD prior to beginning any work.
These reiterate the comments made in August. CMWD has not heard from the Developer
regarding any of these issues.
^^i Carlsbad village Suites, LLC
November 1, 1999
Mr. Mike Smith
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPT.
2560 Orion Way
Carisbad, CA 92008
Re: Staybridge Suites Hotel
Redevelopment Permit (RP99-11)
Dear Mr. Smith:
We recently communicated regarding the development of the Staybridge Suites
Hotel in Carlsbad between Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive abutting Interstate 5.
You indicated that you required a drive lane for fire tmcks of not less than 20 feet
wide. We have redesigned the driveways and made them one-way with a minimum
width of 20 feet and a 42-foot tuming radius as required by code. Enclosed is a copy of
the revised site plan along with the planning department's requirement that your
concurrence with the 20-foot drive lane be in writing.
Would you please confirm your acceptance of the 20-foot wide drive lane by
letter to me at your earliest convenience?
Thank you in anticipation of your continued cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosure ^prcn/cn
cc: Lori Rosenstein rttUtlVtU
CU Y OF CARLSBAD
OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
October 28, 1999
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SUITES, LLC
c/o SHAPERY ENTERPRISES
423 WEST "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SUBJECT: STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL {RP99-11)
All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your
application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to
deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to the
Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of
this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can
occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are
submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the
application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will
be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, July 16, 1999, to either resubmit the application or submit the
required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials
necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal
of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application
must be submitted.
In addition to the items identified to deem the application complete, 1 have included a
second list of current outstanding issues that should be resolved before the project is
scheduled for a public hearing. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
c: Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department
Van Lynch, Planning Department
Kelly Efimoff, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Mike Smith, Fire Department
Pat Kelley, Building Department
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. RP99-11
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has completed its second review of the subject project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are
incomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or
incomplete items:
1. Change the name of the sewer district to City of Carlsbad.
2. Put back in the site plan the existing contours as previously shown. Also
show pad and finish floor elevations in addition to the spot elevations shown.
3. Put back in the site plan the proposed drainage as previously shown. Also
show where the proposed "storm septer" or equivalent system would be
installed.
4. Street cross-sections showing what's existing and what's proposed still need
to be shown for both Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive. Also show existing
grades for both streets.
5. Show new street lights at the end of the cul-de-sac at Grand Avenue and at
the Northwest corner of the site on Laguna Drive, they will be a requirement
for this project.
6. The soils letter you have submitted will be accepted for this review, but a
subsurface investigation will be required prior to conditioning of the project.
7. The traffic generation from the project requires further review. Preliminarily,
it seems that the proposed project will require a Circulation Impact Analysis.
The occupancy reduction used is not acceptable for use in Carlsbad. The
classification of the project as a business hotel needs further clarification.
8. Based on the final outcome of the traffic generation, additional improvements
could be required on Grand Avenue.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. RP99-11
Planning:
1. The trash enclosure should be placed on site as to not impact the surrounding neighbors
by noise and aesthetics.
2. Additional feedback on the level of staff support for the height variance will follow.
The variance request will require approval by both the Planning Commission and the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. The project still violates Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.050(a)(1)(C), the
minimum drive aisle width for 90 degree parking. The applicant should include a
variance request for a reduced drive aisle width along with the height variance. Written
statements from the Engineering and Fire Departments as to the acceptance of the
reduced drive aisles should also be provided.
4. Please review the two locations (by trash enclosure and courtyard) where parking
spaces meet at right angles. Engineering usually requires a five foot setback from the
adjacent perpendicular row of spaces.
5. Any lighting that may spill over onto the adjacent residential property will not be
permitted. The project will be conditioned to require that shields be placed on the lights
to prevent impacts to the adjacent residential area.
6. Is the project proposing a pool or flat courtyard? Please label the area appropriately.
Housing & Redevelopment:
1. On the revised plans please include the following:
a. Show setback from Laguna Drive as a rear yard setback vs. a side yard setback.
b. Is rough grading calculation in cubic yards or cubic feet? Please clarify
c. Label the structures in the courtyard. It appears that there is a pool and gazebo.
2. The sign plan for the project is inconsistent with the sign criteria for the Village
Redevelopment Area. The current sign regulations prohibit freestanding pole signs and
there are specific restricts on the size of monument signs. In general, the sign'criteria
for the Redevelopment Area allow one square foot of signage per linear foot of building
frontage. The City's Sign Ordinance further restricts total signage to a maximum of
100 square feet. A copy of the sign regulations for the Village Redevelopment Area is
enclosed for your use. The sign plan should be revised to be consistent with the
enclosed sign regulations.
Engineering:
The Engineering Department has made a further review of the project for engineering
issues. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to
conditioning of the project:
1. The Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive dedications and improvements will be
conditioned.
issues of Concern
RP99-11
Page 2
2. The overhead utilities on Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive need to be
investigated; there could be conflicts with the proposed development.
3. As stated in our previous review, the parking stalls by the driveway at Grand
Avenue presents a circulation conflict. No parking is allowed that conflicts with
the traffic entering the site. Please relocate the five stalls.
4. The minimum clear distance of 5 ft. required when adjacent parking stalls are
located perpendicular or at an angle to each other (like at the northwest corner)
applies to both stalls. That is, from the back of the parking stall to the corner of
the curb needs to be 5 ft. for each of the stalls at an angle to each other. The
same situation occurs at the center of the parking area, between the east and
the west wings.
5. The 20 ft wide parking aisles will need specific approval from the Fire
Department. A verbal approval was given in a telephone conversation.
This review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project, additional items
of concern may be identified upon submittal of the incomplete items noted above.
Cartsbacn/illage Suites, LLC
October 19, 1999
Mr. Frank Jimeno, P.E.
Engineering Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite "B"
Carisbad, CA 92008
Re: Development Permit No. RP99-11
Staybridge Suites Hotel
Dear Mr. Jimeno:
I am writing regarding several issues involving our proposed Staybridge Suites
hotel.
Holiday Inn, the owner of the Staybridge Suites brand has expressed a concern
that Grand Avenue, the road leading up to the hotel entrance, is unfinished lacking curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks on the north side and looks more like a mral back country road
than a cify street one block off of the central street into the Village core.
As developers, we recognize our obligation to complete the improvements
adjacent to our property and have budgeted the anticipated costs. I am interested in
determining if the City has any allocation for capital improvements to complete the
balance of the roadway south of our parcels on the north side of Grand Avenue. Could
you please research this matter and let us know what can be done to solve the issue as it
is important to the success of the hotel and the image of Carlsbad.
Secondly, our title report submitted to you (a copy of which is enclosed) shows as
item number 12 an easement granted to Alzina B. Franck for a road on November 16,
1938. The property owned by Ms. Franck is now the site of Interstate Highway 5. As
such, the easement has been extinguished.
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Mr. Frank Jimeno, P.E.
Engineering Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
October 19, 1999
Page two
I have asked the title company to provide me with evidence that Ms. Franck's
rights thereunder have been extinguished. Upon my receipt, I will forward the material to
you.
Lhope all is going well with your review of our project, and hope to hear
favorably from you soon regarding the possible road improvements to the remainder of
Grand Avenue's north side.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery ^
SWS:rp
cc: Lori Rosenstein
Shapery Enterprises RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 ms
CITY OF CARLSSAD
September28,1999 PLANNING DEPT.
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite "B"
Carisbad, CA 92008-2389
Re: RP99-1I - Redevelopment Permit Application
Dear Lori:
The following is a response to your letter of August 16, 1999, and its attachments,
regarding our application #RP99-11 for a Redevelopment Permit to constmct a 106-room
Staybridge Suites hotel.
We have made the following additions and corrections to each department's
comments:
Planning Comments:
1) Noise report showing compliance with Noise Guidelines Manual is being
prepared and will be submitted upon completion. According to the Future
Noise Exposure Contours, the site could have noise levels reaching 70dB
(see Figure i), summary, page V of the City of Carlsbad Noise Guideline
Manual. Figure iii. Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise
Environments Matrix (summary, page V), indicates that transient lodging
will be conditionally acceptable with noise exposure levels of 70dB using
"conventional constmction, but with closed windows and fi-esh air supply
systems or air conditioning will normally suffice". The applicant proposes
to comply with that standard;
2) Title Report current within last six months - enclosed;
3-10) Have been complied with on the drawings;
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
September 28, 1999
Page two
11) Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Mike Smith of the Carlsbad Fire
Department, Mr. Smith indicated that the Fire Department required a
minimum driveway width of twenty feet. Discussions with Mr. Frank
Jimeno of the Carlsbad Engineering Department confirmed that a
driveway width of twenty feet would be acceptable according to code
provided the driveway was one-way only. As a result of the above
conversations, the driveway was reconfigured to be one-way with a
minimum width of twenty feet;
12-18) Have been complied with.
Housing and Redevelopment Comments:
1-12) Have been complied with.
Engineering:
1-6) Have been complied with;
7) Enclosed please find an analysis of traffic generated by the project
indicating that less than 500 ADT's will result fi'om the development,
negating any need for a circulation impact analysis;
8-9) Have been complied with.
Issues of Concern:
Housing and Redevelopment:
1) 35 foot height limit. Enclosed please find our Request For Variance fi-om
height limit.
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
September 28, 1999
Page three
Engineering:
1) Dedication to complete improvements of Grand Avenue and Laguna
Drive. The applicant will make the required street dedications as
requested.
2) A new set of improvements plans for half-street improvements will be
provided as a condition of obtaining any permit to do any street
improvements.
3-5) Have been complied with.
6) Based on an analysis of traffic generated provided herewith, the project
will generate less than 500 ADT. Therefore, no circulation impact
analysis will be required.
7) Has been complied with.
Water District:
The applicant will comply with the Water District's requirements as outlined in
items 1-4.
Fire:
1) The trees and shmbbery along Laguna Drive have been reduced to permit
curbside emergency access and access to the existing northwest fire
hydrant fi-om the interior of the project.
2) Mike Smith of the Fire Department confirmed that a twenty foot wide
driveway would be acceptable. The tuming radius at the comers of the
project have been increased to 42 feet pursuant to CalTrans 407E.
Landscape Plancheck:
All landscape plan corrections have been made.
Ms. Lori Rosenstein
Management Analyst
CITY OF CARLSBAD
September 28, 1999
Page four
We believe these corrections along with the granting of our requested variance
will put us in compliance with all City requirements to constmct the Staybridge Suites
hotel. Please advise if you need anything further.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosures
Owen Geotecli
625 Broadway, Suite 1025, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 515-9988 • Fax: (619) 515-9989
Mr. Will Rigley
Shapery Enterprises
423 West B Street
SanDiego, CA92101
Subject: Report of Preliminary/Feasibility Investigation
Proposed 106 Room Hotel
2.39 Acre Site
East End of Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive
Carlsbad, California
Project No. 1062.1
September 27, 1999
RECEIVED
SEP 2B
CITY Ot CmLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Rigley,
In accordance with your request, we have performed a preliminary/feasibility investigation of the
subject site relative to the proposed hotel development. Based on the information provided, the hotel
will be a three-story, wood frame building with associated swimming pool and parking.
Approximately 24,000 cubic yards of on-site cut and fill are planned.
Site Conditions
The site is located at the far east end of, and between. Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive adjacent to
Interstate 5, in Carlsbad, Califomia. There are two existing older residences situated on the south
side of the property fi-onting on Grand Avenue. Otherwise the site is vacant and presently under
cultivation for tomato plants.
The site slopes approximately 8 feet down to the west.
Surface Soils
The surface soils appear to be low expansive, silty sands or sandy silts. The upper 1 to 2 feet of soils
are probably loose due to cultivation.
Subsurface/Groundwater Conditions
Subsurface conditions require fiirther investigation including test borings and soil sampling. Presence
of fill and other unsuitable materials is unknown at this time. Likewise, depth to groundwater is
unknown but is probably of sufficient depth that it will not impact the proposed development.
Shapery ^terprises
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSaAD
September 22, 1999 Mr. Frank Jimeno
Engineering Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2965 Rooseveit Street, Suite "B"
Carisbad, CA 92008
Re: Staybridge Suites Hotel (RP99-11)
Traffic Generation Analysis
Dear Mr. Jimeno:
This letter and enclosures support the position that a traffic circulation impact
analysis is not required for this project. The information obtained for this conclusion
came from the following sources:
1. Kent a Whitson, Consulfing Transportafion Planning/Engineer - San Diego
Association of Governments (Sandag) - (619) 595-5352;
2. Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region - San
Diego Association of Governments (Sandag) - July, 1998; and
3. Traffic Data Report of Trip Generation for Candlewood Hotels, a comparable
extended stay hotel in Wichita, Omaha, and Denver prepared by Johnson &
Associates, Inc., Traffic Consulting Engineers - (405) 843-8075, along with a
facility comparison between Candlewood Hotels and Staybridge Suites.
This project consists of 106 extended stay hotel rooms, designed to cater to the
business traveler on temporary assignment, corporate relocation, and other extended
stays. The facility has no restaurant or banquet facilities and serves only a
complimentary continental breakfast. Due to the longer stay of the average guest, the
facility will employ only eleven full-time employees.
Based on the Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
region, the average business hotel will generate approximately seven weekday vehicle
trips per occupied room. Because there are no historical comparable business hotel
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Mr. Frank Jimeno
Engineering Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
September 22, 1999
Page two
occupancy rates for Carisbad, the county wide hotel occupancy of 67% average for the
past five years is used; the property, according to the Sandag guide will generate the
following weekday average daily trips:
106 rooms x 7 trips x 67% occupancy = 497 average daily trips (ADT)
As additional support for the position that no traffic circulation impact analysis
should be required because the project generates less than 500 (ADT) as set forth in your
report, enclosed is a copy of a Traffic Data Report on trip generation for three idenfical
hotels of the type and style with the same amenities as the proposed project (see the
enclosed corporate literature for Candlewood Hotels and Staybridge Suites.
The result of the Traffic Data Report revealed that the daily average trips per
occupied room was 4.28; not the seven as indicated by the ITE trip generafion book
which was also the basis for the Sandag estimate. The study was performed in three
different geographical locafions with very similar results. According to the Johnson &
Associates study, the computation of average daily trips should be as follows:
106 rooms x 4.28 trips x 67% occupancy = 303 average daily trips (ADT)
Based on either the Sandag analysis or the Johnson & Associates Traffic Data
Report, a traffic circulation impact analysis should not be required.
Respectfully submitted,
/A
SWS:rp
Enclosures
hy: yy^><i^^ /jy^^
"Sandor W. Shapery^ ^ ^
MEMORANDUM
August 18, 1999
TO: LORI ROSENSTEIN
FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
RP 99-11: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are
incomplete and unsuitable for further engineering review due to the following missing or
incomplete items:
1. Show project name and application types submitted.
2. Show the street address for the project.
3. Show existing topography, including buildings and permanent structures,
on site and within 100 feet of the site. Include existing street cross
sections,
4. Show proposed pad elevations, spot elevations and site drainage.
5. Submit a preliminary soils report.
6. Show all easements and access restriction as listed in title report Items 1
to 4 of Schedule B.
7. Determine the traffic generated by the project based on the uses as listed
in the SANDAG traffic generation tables. Use the specific building areas,
not the gross lot area.
8. As part of the circulation design, please verify that a truck with a 42-ft
turning radius (CalTrans 407E) will be able to maneuver to pick up the
trash.
9. Show the parking stall dimensions.
RP 99-11: STAYBRIDGE SUITES PAGE: 2
ENGiNEERING REVIEW
AUGUST18,1999
In addition, the Engineering Department has made a preliminary review of the project
for engineering issues. The following issues need to be resolved or adequately
addressed prior to conditioning of the project:
1. Dedications to complete the improvements of Grand Avenue and Laguna
Drive will be required.
2. Full half street improvements will be required along both frontages. A new set
of improvement plans will be required (existing drawings are outdated).
3. Clarify the entrance driveway width on Grand Avenue, maximum driveway
width is 40 feet.
4. The parking stalls by the driveway at Grand Avenue presents a circulation
conflict. No parking is allowed that conflicts with the traffic entering the site.
5. A minimum clear distance of 5 ft. is required when adjacent parking stalls are
located perpendicular or at an angle to each other (like at the northwest
corner).
6. If the traffic generated by the project is greater than 500 ADT, a circulation
impact analysis could be required. The analysis shows projected impacts to
existing intersections and road segments.
7. Indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System criteria will be
met. Show parking lot water flow through a filtering system prior to discharge
into a storm drain.
This review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project, additional
items of concern may be identified upon submittal ofthe incomplete items noted above.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please contact me at (760) 438-1161
extension 4501.
FRANK J. JIMENO
Associate Engineer
Principal Civil Engineer - Land Development
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
August 16, 1999
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SUITES, LLC
clo SHAPERY ENTERPRISES
423 WEST "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SUBJECT: STAYBRIDGE SUITES HOTEL (RP99-11)
Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and
Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments has
reviewed your Administrative Redevelopment Permit, application no. RP 99-11, as to its
completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information
which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted
directly to the Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously
and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your
application can occur until the appiication is determined to be compiete. The second list
represents issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted to the
Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a determination of
completeness. Ifthe application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the
application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, July 16, 1999, to either resubmit the application or submit the
required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to
determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the
application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be
submitted.
Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a
meeting to discuss the application.
Sincere
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
c: Frank Jimeno, Engineering Department
Van Lynch, Planning Department
Kelly Efimoff, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Mike Smith, Fire Department
Pat Kelley, Building Department
Larry Black, Landscape Plancheck Consultant
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @
MEMORANDUM
Augusts, 1999
TO: MANAGEMENT ANALYST - LORI ROSENSTEIN
FROM:
RE:
ASSOCIATE PLANNER - VAN LYNCH
RP 99-11 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES
Below are the Planning Department's comments on the Staybridge Suites project:
1. Application is determined to be complete as submitted.
2. Please have the applicant submit a noise report showing compliance with the
Noise Guidelines Manual for Non-Residential structures.
3. Provide a title report that is current within the last six months.
4. Place application number on upper right hand corner of plans.
5. Show and label all existing parcel lines on the site plan.
6. Correct site information - Parcels 15 and 34 are RP.
7. Provide details of monument and pole signs proposed.
8. Show buildings within 100 feet of property.
9. Provide setback dimensions for structures.
10. The masonry wall on the western border of the site shall be six foot maximum
rather than the eight shown.
11. Trash enclosure encroaches into setback off Laguna Drive.
12. Drive isle widths shall have a minimum width of 24 feet.
13. Dimension drive isles.
14. Provide parking stall dimensions.
RP 99-11 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES
AUGUSTS, 1999
PAGE 2
15. Show fire hydrants within 300 feet of property.
16. Walkway at southwest corner of building appears to stop. Consider continuing this
path to the front walkway.
17. The walkway at the northern end of the building appears to conflict with the
walkway.
18. Show driveway location on south side of Grand Avenue.
19. Provide a lighting plan. Plan should include any parking lot lights, wall mounted
lights, and signs that may impact the adjacent residential development.
Thaf s all I've got for now. Debbie can probably fill you in on the history of the project
better than 1 can. I will not be requiring any discretionary permits as the project will
probably be found in substantial conformance with Specific Plan (SP) No. 30, approved
back in 1972. The original SP called for the architecture to be compatible with the
restaurant (Denny's) and the gas station (Chevron), but 1 don't think we want a three
story Denny's at this site. I can't really address architecture other than 1 don't have any
issues with what's proposed. A review of the surrounding area should determine if the
proposed design is compatible with the area.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call at 4447.
VAN LYNCH
VL:mh
c: Chris DeCerbo
Data entry
File
Cartsbad Village Suites, LLC
July 14, 1999
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carisbad, CA 92008
Re: Redevelopment Permit to construct a 106-suite Staybridge Suites
extended stay hotel by Holiday Inn located between Grand Avenue
and Laguna Drive, abutting Interstate 5
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed please find an application for a Redevelopment Permit along with ten
(10) sets of plans, three (3) copies of the Title Report, Environmental Impact Assessment
Form, Public Facilities Agreement (two copies, one notarized). Disclosure Statement,
typewritten list of all property owners within a 600 foot radius, two (2) sets of mailing
labels, and traffic study prepared by Candlewood Hotels, an extended stay hotel company
of identical design and market segment, which establishes the total daily automobile trips
at less than five hundred.
Please review the application and advise us if you need anything further. Thank
you for your consideration in this matter, as we look forward to contributing to the
betterment of the City of Carlsbad.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosures
423 West "B" Street • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 239-4700 FAX (619) 237-0191
Shapery Enterprii
September 15,1998
Mr. James L. Brakas
DUNHAM & ASSOCIATES
123 Camino de la Reina, Suite 100-B South Bidg.
SanDiego, CA 92108
Re: $950,000 Carlsbad, CA Hotel Site Financing
Dear Jim:
This letter follows our meeting of this afternoon with respect to the above-
referenced matter.
I am in need ofa $950,000 one-year loan secured by a first trust deed on 2.6 acres
of commercial property zoned for a 106-room hotel located in Carlsbad, Califomia.
I have had the property under option for the past one and one-half years at a price
of $950,000. It was my original intention to joint venture the property with a hotel chain
with them providing one-half ofthe required equity and hotel management expertise. The
other one-half ofthe equity was to come from my equity in the land. The property is
currently valued in excess of $20-25 per square foot with the current hotel entitlements for
a valuation range of $2,000,000 to $2,500,000. All other hotel sites m Carisbad require a
conditional use pennit which requires an 18-month processing time. This parcel only
requires design review approval which can be obtained within 4-6 months.
I spent four months working on a joint venture structure with Candlewood Hotels
which failed to materialize because their lender would not give me credit for my
appreciated equity in the land.
Just about the time I began negotiating with Candlewood, I received an offer to
purchase the property from Homegate Hospitality Corp. They offered $18.00 per square
foot which equaled $1,898,000. I rejected the offer in favor of the Candlewood joint
venture.
When the joint venture failed to materialize, I called Homegate back and was told
they were acquired by Prime Hospitality Corp. I contacted Prime's corporate
headquarters in New Jersey and they indicated that they had an interest in the acquisition.
They flew out the next week and we then negotiated the sales contract.
423 West "BT Street • San Ditgo, Cillfpmli 92101 • (019) 239-4700 FAX (819) 237-0191
l\/z 'aovd PPOZ L6^ 619 ONni aovoiHow oossv ^ wvHNna 9^-9: (am) 96 . zz -das
Mr. James L. Brakas
DUNHAM & ASSOCLATES
September 15,1998
Page two
All zoning is in place and their contract is contingent upon receiving city design
approval which is expected within the next four months.
I have enclosed a packet of materials which will more fully inform you of the
nature ofthe property, the entitlements, and the contrarts pending for the purchase and
sale of the property.
Once you have reviewed the enclosed materials, please call if you have any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Sandor W. Shapery
SWS:rp
Enclosures
u/£ -aovj i'i'OS. L6^ 619 aNfii aovoiHow -oossv ^ wvHNna 9^-9; (ani.) 96. zz 'das
Z03-I3
SKT. I OFZ
ICHANGES
1 =±i= 1. ^ f ^—
—t-
' • j
—H
1
1—^
1 =1: -4-=b H-
MAP KH42-CARLS8AO TCT NQ80H6fc0N0M)
lup qc32 - muEE HOMES UCT rci t - uns 1-'^ MP 2W3 - SCHELL & SHK «IITO CJBLSWJ) ' LtJtS 27-32 nr 1851 - OtfJLSaiO UWJS - PW TCT 117
ABM Hd Ofio- N*
"0
AP|si. z03-lSO- l?,zo,\£^sO|