HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-05; City Council; 5126; Proposed 6000 Sq ft Professional BldgC.ITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. * < Initial:
DATE: — : — July s. H77 - c.
DEPARTMENT : Engineering _ ' C . Mgr .
Subject:
Proposed 6000 Square Foot Professional Building at 12^1 Elm Avenue
Applicant: Minnich Investment Properties
Statement of the Matter
The developers of the subject proposal have requested exemption from the
City's sewer moratorium (see Exhibit 1).
Staff recommends denial of the request (see Exhibit 2).
Exhibi ts
1. Applicant's letter of appeal dated June 6, 1977
2. Staff report with attached sewer flow calculations
- 3- Location map
Staff's Recommendation
That Council deny the applicant's request to be exempted from Ordinance 70^7
which prohibits acceptance of building permit applications.
Council action
7-6-77 The Council granted the request by Minnich Investment Properties,
which exempts it from conditions placed by Ordinance #7047.
MINNICH INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
2971 Carlsbad Blvd. • P.O. Box 1141 • Carlsbad, California 92008
Area Code 714 729-9273
June 6, 1977
Carlsbad City Council
C/0 City Manager
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Re: Request for public hearing before the City Council at their
next meeting to appeal the denial of a building permit to
construct a 6000 sq.ft. professional building at 1241 ELm Ave.
The basis for this appeal is as follows:
1. The present moritorium does not apply to our particular
project.
2. If it were determined that it did apply then we wish to
request the ordinance be amended to exempt projects in the catagory
that we are in-(Existing sewer hook-ups in and paid for and presently
in use; all discretionary permission for the project previously
approved by the Planning commission prior to the enactment of the
sewer moratorium.)
3. That City Council consider the financial hardship created
by the unusual chain of events that delayed completion of our project.
4. That a short range allotment system for sewer permits be
set up seperate from a long range growth planning system. This
would allow reconsideration of deserving projects that had been
approved prior to the moratorium.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Minnich
Minnich Investment Prop.
cc:file
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Engineer
DATE: June 27, 1977
SUBJECT: Proposed 6000 S.F. Professional Building at
Elm Avenue - Minnich Investment Properties
Gene Yocum and Dave Minnich have requested exemption for the subject pro-
posal from Ordinance 70^7 which prohibits acceptance of building permit
applications due to the sewer moratorium. Their arguments for the exemp-
tion are presented in their letter of appeal dated June 6, 1977.
Since a building permit application for the proposed office building was
not made prior to April 19, 1977 and since the proposed office building
does not qualify for exemption under conditions of the interim sewer
moratorium ordinance, the project clearly cannot be processed without
special consideration by the Council.
One valid equivalent dwelling unit connection exists to serve the project,
but six EDUs are proposed by the applicant. As shown by the attached cal-
culations, estimated sewer flows of the proposed professional building will
clearly exceed those associated with a single EDU connection for which the
parcel is credited. Consequently, a sewer connection permit for five ad-
ditional EDUs is required to proceed with the project.
The sewer connection allocation system currently being developed should ad-
dress projects in the same category as this proposal. Staff recommends that
the applicant's request be denied because:
1. The project requires connection of additional equivalent dwelling
units and increases flows in the City's sewer system.
2. The forthcoming allocation system should clarify the suitability
of connecting both this project and similar projects.
Tim Flanagan
City Engineer
TCF:veb
MEMORANDUM - May 10, 1977 .tf^
P/)K
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Engineer • -
SUBJECT: SEWER CAPACITY - Proposed Minnick Office Building
1241.Elm Avenue
You have requested that I review the existing and proposed sewage .
discharge at 1241 Elm Avenue where an existing single family use
(with guest house) is proposed to be relocated to Wilson Street
and replaced with a 2-story 6,000 square foot office building.
The following information is offered:
Existing Use (single family with guest house)
Average water usage 170 gallons per day
(based on meter readinas (GPD)
4/15/76 - 4/15/77)
Average sewage generation rate 136 gallons per" day
water usage minus 20% for
landscaping
Proposed Use (2-story, 6,000 ft2 office building)
Use 12-25 GPD for each employee (ASCE Manual of Engineering
Practice #37, page 27 (1970 Edition)
MINIMUM REQUIRED AREA per employee =100 ft2 (UBC)
. Use 200 ft-2 per employee
6000 ft2 T 200 = 30 employees
30 employees x (12-25) GPD •= 360-750 GPD
EDU calculations (based on preliminary floor plans) yields 6 EDU ^
\
SUMMARY:
Existing Use = 0.5 EDU
Average Single Family = 1.0 EDU
Proposed Office = 1.3 - 2.8 EDU (based on anticipated flows)
Proposed Office = 6.0 EDU (based on fee collection by urinal
count)
Based on the above, the proposed office use will generate more sewage
than the existing use.
Tim Flanagan
City Engineer enclosure: Average Commercial Flows Table III taV^n
• from ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice
c: 1^ . _. . #37, page 27 (1970 Edition)Planning Director . » i- _>
-=«•
•— -- *
I >
«* 1 I! >. t3 !l -14 i gg g' • \ ^ -f. n1 '• -» ' tl* -" —"£ . •= I " '— —C _JT .— — C •/:*" — •/. —
2:
J = - i «3 X
a t T a
oi v '-t2 i X -;cj ^Z
"~~ 7", •-* -• ~
i!
! g 25 •= 3 2 - '* £ I = '= i_ _ - r-, ~ — ~- - '_ •""• - ~ ~ '"" - -5 S S ~ .- - '-> '—- - = ••:•«-_—_ "—- °- °- • X t: "r :— — •— - - ^ — ~ ~ 5
^ § H 4" 3 ?. ~ '= "=: r: p -= - ~? '^ P
I ^i ^^-^—i ~.-=— rv-u -^. -« - -^ "^; — .,. /: -:" 7; "« - ^ v: rl — •" — /: ^j
y r-
r, '— —
— - i .-- Z. ~^- -^ '" "2 "n --~ ~ ^ — -~
> ^ | « | "1 "^ c I •= 3 £ ^ | J
ofj
s
1 =-< rf
"5^
ii tosO^--
J ~
|
i
: 3-I u
J =•I ix* — ^i <Z
•i ->
— v
i 1 1*-• s
~
a
^i
c.to
>0tQ ^T'T- ?
O >r*i O ^>! id "•
1 I
_. •
1
"1
O
3
*"5 _3
3 3• a J
CJ t3
1
___ •
3 ZS S
C3 S
*^j ^
<D *^U
1 el
3 11ill
§o_o"XOCl
— ~ —
1 •- --0 C -3
•^ 5 a i— o ^ s
c.<^? 5
4aSS
^ *>0 «•sls.s
O I 1 C1»o,o rs ^~
10 ^ —0 T -^ 0
o
r ' 1 O
1 ' 2
C "C .0 co ±^ "-* ^
S i ^ a ",' g ^5 r3
P^C. "0° «5 ^-C. -D ifl O - 71 c 1 2•ESS ri | 2 j 1«" => T H^S ~ a -
0 2 => = ~ "2 ^S - - O IT ^- ^ jf -5 • .•j1 71 *~* •••* y '/I "^
-§ |'o - g-Cl^^J k',1
E
3a -IT
H ^£
ui —
S 2
•n ~*
•± 7T
"^ 3?T —
l 1 1 1 I
0 04
±i c~~ u
S|° S-
-n "'
"^ t£
•B >
g
3co~
^i Jjf
^ Oa -^c. 2
o T.
O .-;— '- o
lO C^H ^"
1C - —> 2
1
i 1 1
|
11
T5
-U 3— 3*5£ 5•-* 71
? So 3
"-'- S;o sO > _i«n -• -1
r-^ ^ _-51 H 115 ^iil.ll!liii1!f!J
5 1 . a s S* S S -2 S 8 ! 3 - • '- 3 •= ' - -8 I i
—- -O ^ '-—' —'' '—' ^* -~\ ~" "~ >Sooo=== §5S- ~ J-.
0_ 0_ —, "^_ -<. —- O ~- __- _.- ; = <,
O
r
7/7 7
"> ,•.-...'•..£ '
MINNICH INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
2971 Carlsbad Blvd. • P.O. Box 1141 • Carlsbad, California 92008
Area Code 714 729-9273
May 17, 1977
1 Carlsbad City Council
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Re: Written correspondence for sewer moratorium priority
procedures.
Dear Members of Carlsbad City Council:
This letter is written as a comment on the sewer permit
procedures which you will be addressing this evening. As you
may realize, my partner Gene Yocum and I are adversely affected
by the sewer moratorium. Due to the fact that you are going to
be considering permit priority procedures this evening, I would
like to offer some thoughts on the matter.
(1) The actual application for a sewer (building) permit
should not be the sole criteria for determining whether or not
a project should continue. In some instances, zone changes,
coastal commission approval, "Q" requirements for project app-
roval by the planning commission, all require more time and
work and extremely more expense in dealing with city staff
before a permit application will be accepted by the city. On
the other hand someone desiring to build on a parcel that re-
quired no special discretionary action by the planning comm-
ission may have made application for a permit and would then be
home free. There appears to be some inequity here regarding
degree of progr&s with city staff.
(2) Single lots, single unit developments within the
existing city sewer area should certainly be more desirable
to help the city "fill in" the established areas. These type
of developments should, in my opinion, receive priority over the
larger subdivision requiring all new feeder services.
("5) Development of an existing lot with existing sewer
facilities should be exempt from this ordinance when no add-
itional sewer tie-in is actually being required.
(4) Any ordinance that can have such a profound effect
on the citizens should have been adopted only after some type
of notice to the individuals who were "in the pipe line'.1 By
not doing so the city may have taken action without legal notice.
(5) Regarding hardship priorities, I would think that the
City of Carlsbad should give consideration to local residents
ahead of out of town developers, since our City council is
elected by and for the citizens of Carlsbad.
Thank you for hearing my comments and I hope we all survive
the solution of this problem.
A Sincere^ s
f^JL/'r
Dave Minnich
cc: City Manager