HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-01; City Council; 6726; 9 Unit Tentative Map- Jefferson St & Hope Ave7 p7/ 0 AGENDA BILL 0 \2-1
r.
INITIAL: BH:ar
EENDA BILL NO: 2& DEFT. HD. fi& ---I&&
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1 , 1981 CTY.A"Y. ))ki
DEPAETMENC: PLABNSCNG- CTY. MGR.
~- -_ - -_ --- __ .
SUEJECT: 9 UNIT TE"JW.1~ TRACT MAP "D CONIXIMINIUM PERMIT: NONH SIDE OF
HOME STREET BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND HOPE AVE;NUE. WE NO: CT 81-15/CP-161 APPLICANT: RUSSELL ..__ _. . - - __ -
STATEM!Z" OF THE MATTER:
%is item is a request for approval of a 9 unit tentative tract map and condo-
minium permit located as described above. ing units per acre which is at the top end of the general plan range of 10- 20 dwelling units per acre designated for this site.
This item was originally heard at the Planning Comission meeting of June 24,
1981. At that time, staff remmended denial of this project because staff felt
the proposed density of 19.4 dwelling units per acre could not be justified. Also, although the project meets the minimum developtent standards of the Condo-
minium Ordinance, staff believes the project does not meet the design criteria
of the Condominium Ordinance. staff reprt dated July 22, 1981.
~t the June 24th meeting, the Commission continued the matter to give the appli- cant a chance to work the design problems out with staff. minor changes, however, not sufficient in staff's judgement, and staff again
recommended denial of the project. At the July 22, 1981 hearing, the Carmission
felt the project should be approved at the proposed density because it was located near the redevelopment area. The Planning Comission believes the find- ings for approval of this project can be ma6e and, therefore, it is recormmending approval of this application.
ENVTmma mm
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not cause any signi-
ficant environmental imacts and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration, dated May 30, 1981, which was approved by the Planning Comission on August 12, 1981. a copy of the environmental documents is on file in the Planning Depart- ment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant will provide all required public improvements to the project. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee to offset the msts of providing all other public services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Connnission reconanends that this application be APPROVED and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare documents pSPl?CmNG CT 81-lT,&~-161, per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1825.
ATTAC-
1. PC Resolution No. 1825
-
The project's density is 19.4 dwell-
The concerns staff has are reiterated in the
The applicant made
-
2. Staff Reprt dated July 22, 1981 w/attachments /.lppR@JEO I
9b
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
13.
a2
13
3.4
15
916
I'
18
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L c
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTEON NO, '1825 -- --
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMHISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALPFORNLA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
FOR A NINE UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY ZIQCATE;D QN THE NORTH S
OF BOME STREET BETWEEN LTEFFER§ON STREET AND HOPE AV. APPLICANT: RUSSELL CASE-NO:----CT 81-15/CP-161----- - . - . - . . .
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain propert!
to, wit:
AI% of Lot: 9 together with the most: southwester3.y f<
feet sf Lot 10'all of Schell. am6 sites addition to
Carlsbad according to Map thereof No, 2145, €ilea February 20, 1929
has been filed with %he city sf C;arEsbac;, and referred ts thc
Planning C0missionp and
WHEFWS p mid verified application ~onskitukes a
request as provided by Title 21 OE the Carlsbad Municipal, Cod
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th da
June, 1981, and the 22th day of JuJ.y, 1981, hold a duly trotsic
publie hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;.
and
WHEREASp at Said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persoi
desiring e0 be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin!
Commission as foljlows:
a) That %he above recitations are true and correct,
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearin<
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CT 81-15/CP-f61, bas
on the following findings and subyect to the following
conditions:
1
3.
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
z.2
13
3.4
15
16
19
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&/
Findings:
I) The project is consistent with the city's General. Plan si
the proposed density of 19-4 dues/acre is wi.thin the dens
range of 10-20 duqs/acre specified for the site as indicz on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and can be
justified for the following reasons:
A) The project is located across the street from the
B) The project exceeds the minimum requirement for open
C) As conditioned, additional on-gite amenities will be
2% The site is physically suitable for the type and density the development since the site is adequate in size arid st
to accommodate residential development at the density
propdsed and still meet a%% of the requirements of the Condominim ordinance.
Village Redevelopment Area;
recreation areas;
provid@de
3) The project is consistent with a11 city public facility policies and ordinances since:
a) The Planning Comission hasl by iricliusion of 8n
appropriate condition to this condominium permit: am tentative subdivision mapp insured that the final mi will not be approved unless the City Council finds 1
sewer service is available to serve the project, 11
addition, the Planning Comtission has added a eondil that a note shall be placed on the finad. map that
building permits may not be issued for the condomin: project unless the City Engineer determines that sei
the project unless sewer service remains available, Planning Commission is satisfied that the requiremei of the public facilities element of the General Plai have been met insofar as they apply to sewer servicr €or this tentative map and condominium permit apprw
b) School facilities will be available to this project indicated by the CarlsSad Unified School District p letter dated April 28, 1981,
service is available, and buifdhg cannot occur wit1 I
-_
c) Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval D
d) All necessary public improvements have been provide
will be required as conditions of approval,
////
////
PC FESO #1825 -2-
&-
e) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a publj facilities fee, performance of that contract: and payment of the fee will enable this body to find thz
public facilities will be available concurrent with
need as required by the General Plan,
is compatible with the surrounding land her properties in the vicinity have been developed at a similar density.
ted for CT 8f-f5/CP-l6lf a8 shown an
nCw, dated July 7, 7981, incorporated b! reference and on file in the Plarm$ng Department, Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions o
approved upan the express condition that not be appr~ved lrizless the City Council 1
f such appraval that sewer service is
available to serve the subdivision,
3) This project is approved upon the express condition that
building permits will not be issued f6r development of tl subject property unless the City Engineer determines thal sewer facilities are available at the time of applicatioi
such sewer permits and will esntinue to be available unt:
time of occupancy,
approved upen bhe express condition khak pay a. public facilities fee as required 1 City Council Policy No, 17, dated August 29, 1979, on f.
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference according to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said fee a copy of that= agreement dated Apri-1
1984, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated he. by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan
approval for this project shall be void.
5) The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the city, pi to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter : of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire eightei months from the date of City Council approval unless a f
map is recorded, applicant. Said extensionb shall be approved or denied # the discretion of the City Council, En approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions an1
may revise existing conditions,
6)
An extension may be requesked by khe
PC RES0 #1825 -3-
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
93
14
3.5
16
17
3.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b-
Planning Department:
7) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of the f site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein,
Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permi
8) The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association a
corresponding covenants I conditions and restrictions. Sa
CCbR's shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to final map approval.
irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved the Planning Director prior to the- issuance of buildhg permits, This landscape p1a-n shall include trees of a
substantial size,
IO) All Pandscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy aril thriving condition, Eree from weeds r trash I and debris b
11) Any signs proposed for this devellspaent shall be design& conformance with the city's Sign Ordinance and shall req~ review and approval. of the P2anning Department prior to installation of such signs,
9) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and
32) Trash receptacle areas shall be errclosed by a 6 foot big1 masonry wall. with gates pursuant to city standards,
of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director D
Loci
13) AI1 roof appurtenances I including air conditioners c shal architecturally integrated ar-Ed shielded from view and th sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets to t satisfaction of the Planning Department and Building 1 Director,
1 14) The driveway shall be concrete with textured areas locat
55) The walkways located in the recreation area at the rear
the project shall be eliminated,
16) All garages shall be equiped with automatic garage door
as shown on Exhibit "B",
openers o
Engineering Department
17) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site,
18) The grading for this project is defined as "regular grad
by Section 11,06,17O(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, developer shall submit a grading plan for approval which shall include all required drainage structures and any required erosion control measures. The developer shall
PC RES0 #1825 -4-
a
2
?)
4
5
6
7
a
9
1Q
I'
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
2o
'X
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 c-
submit soils, geologic or compaction reports if required i
shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 91.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code,
99) No grading shall occur outside the Iirnits of the SUbdiViSi
unless a letter of permission is obtained from the OWRQ~S the affected properties D
20) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures sha: be provided or installed as may be required by the County Department of Sanitation and Fload Control or the City
Engineer *
granted to the city, without cost ta the city, free and c
of all. liens and encumberanees,
22) The developer shall install street lights along all. publi
21 ) BPI land and/or easements required by this project shaal~.
and private street frontages in conformance with City af Carlsbad Standards,
23) The developer shall comply with a14, the rules, regulation
and design requirements of the respect he SWI~~" and water agencies regarding services to the project,
Fire. Department:
24) A fire hydrant shall be located on-site to the satisfacti of the Fire Marshall, or approved alternative,
25) The existing 4'$ water Pine shall be replaced front Yeffers
Street to the new fire hydrant, The new water line shall
have a minimum size of 6OZf or approved alternative.
Parks - and - Recreation - Department t
26) The applicant shall install three 15 gallon street trees I the species Metrosideros Exeelsa,
Building -Department;
27) Second exits are required from the third stories, or appi
28) Both buildings shall have fire retardant roofs to the
alternative,
satisfaction of the Building Director,
////
//I/
////
////
//I/
PC RES0 #1825 -5-
I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California,
held on the 12th day of August, 9987, by the following vote,
AYES: Chaiman Marcusp Commissioners Rombotis, Far
Schlehubes, Jose and Friestedt,
NOES: None-
ABSENT., Commissioner E'Heureux.
ABSTAIN :None-
PC RES0 #1825 -6-
J
s b Q -* 'I
STAFF REPORT
DATE : July 22, 998%
TO : Planning csmissiow
FROH s J?llanning Department
SUEME@%: CT 84-45/CP-I64 - RUSSELL - R@qWSt for a %Unit Tent:
tive Tract Map and Condominium Pentit: on property lac on the north side of Home Streek between Jefferson St and Hops Avenue in the 8-3 zone, Continued from the
P%anxaing Cammission meeting of $.una 24, 1981.
I, PROJECT ISESCREPTION AND BACKGROUND
This ikew w+s cgzn"einue8 from the Com~ission rnetimg of June 24, 1989, As the Planning CSRU.~~SS~OW may reczPbr the applicant is
p~op~sing to esnstruet two buildings providing 3 tatal of SF dwe
ing units covering two lots with a total area of -46 acres, As
mentioned in the staff report of June 24, 1981, the project wil. result in a density of 99-44 dwelling units per acre which ks a the top of the General Plan desigwation af 10-20 du/acre far tk site.
At the June 24, 9981 meeting, members of the Conmission had a
number of concerns with the project, SpecificaU.y, members of Comission felt that the design of the project did nat justify density requested by the applicant, The Commission also had cc cerns with the design of the proposed rrecreakion areas- The Cc
to the design of the prroj@et OF reduce its density if the same
design was to be used, The staff has met once wi,th. the aplplice
to review the original plan and reiterate the Plannkg Comissi concerns m
11, ANALYSIS
mission suggested that the applicant snake substantial modlf %cat
Planning Issues
1) ~oes the project conform with the development standai of the Condominium Ordinance?
Does the project conform with the design criteria of
Condominium Ordinance?
- ._
2)
111- DISCUSSION
The applicant has made some changes to increase the amount of recreation area and reduce the amount of paving of the propose{
project. Specifically, the deck areas for both the A and B un
have been enlarged so that they have a minimum dimension of si.
feet as required by the Condominium Ordinance. In addition, m
(1 ,
of the excess paving at the rear sf the project has beers remave and replaced with landscaping and an additional picnic area, A
redesigned, the project has appr~rximatcly 325 square feet of re ation space per unit,
The applicant has slight-ly enlarged the sundeck so that it will. possible to provide two guest parking spaces underneath it, Th
applicant also proposes to put a wd,5. in the first floor of the units so that: the extra space in the garage can be used i%n: vis
parrkinq for those specific units at as additional recreatiari SF
As shown on Exhibit B, the applicank proposes to add textured concrete to break up the asphalt,
Although the applicant has made a number of changesc staff feel still has not followed the Comissian's suggestions of either s
nifieantly redesigning the project or reducing the density. St believes that the long Pinear design of the proposed buildings create a canyon effect for anyone driving into this project, 7: addition, staff feels that the asphalt driveway rumring thi:ough
middle sf the site will still be the dominant feature of this E
jeet. As mentioned in the staff report of June 24, 1981, staff feels that these problems could be mitigated and still retzin t basic design of the project if the applicant was willing to red
the density sf this project, By daing that, it wou3.d not be ne sary far the Planning Commission ta make specific findings just
ing the maximum density according ta the criteria provided in t General Plan which r@quires mor@ ;am@nities and a desk~m whk!h E eeeigs the minimum standards of the Condominium Ordinance, Over
although the proposed project conforms with the development ste
datds of the Condominium Ordinance, the Planning Department sti has concern^ about the design of the project and cannot rec~rsw approval of the proposed project at a density of 79-44 dwellin5
units per care.
IV, EWTRONMENTWE REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project wiXl not
have a significant effect on the environment and therefore has sued a Negative Declaration on May 30, 198T,
V, RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negz Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt.,.Resol,utic
No, 9825 recommending DENIAL of CT 81--TS/CP--761 to the''Ci..tzy Cot based on the findings mned therein,
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No, 1825
2. Staff Report, dated June 24, 4981
3. Location Map
4, Background Data Sheet
5. DiSdOSUKe Form
6. Environmental Documents 7. Exhibits C dated July 7, 1981
___j 12
P
>I , (a. ).. -@J
STAFF REPORT L
. DATE: Yuna 24, I981
To.: planning Commission
FROM z Planning Bepartmapst
SUBJECT: CT 8I-I§/CP-I6I, RUSSEEL - ReqU@St fOP a 9,unit Terita-,
ted OB $ha€? PlOPkh Side Of HOTBE? skrC?et b€&WC?€?n ~ErffC%~SOI’L
tiva Tract, Map and Condominium Permi.% on property Slocra-
a Street and Hope Avenue in the Et-3 zone,
/ e x? /
0 -
1, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant= prspsses to construct $wo bui.Sbdhgs providing 3
.46 acresm The subject properties are presenely occupied by twa
oPder single family homes, The project wiX%--.l=esuj/t in a net den
sity 02 approximately 19,44 dwelling unftsi/aere which is 7i.t the
site, A single family home exists on %he property to the east, while the properties to the northB south and west hase been
developed with apartments,
11, ANALYSIS . .,-
Planning ~~sues .’
.e..
total of 9 dw&mJKj units ceavcring twcJ l?ot:s with a tota?& area 6t
-. .
top of the General PJaw designation-of lO--2Q du/acre ~OP this
1)
2)
Does the $sofeet conform with the devellopment standard:
Does the project eonfsrn with t.h@ ciesign cx,-iteria crE tl Condsminium 8rd inance?
of the! Condominium Ordinance?,
111, D3ESCUSSEON
Development Standards .
As shown 81% Exhibit B, parking for the proposed project wi%P be
provided in two cas garages located underneath each unit,
required storage for each unit will be located within the build ings adjacent to the garages, The applicant proposes to locate
e, four sf the required five guest parking, spaces on the street,
The other required guest parking space wi11 be located adjacent:
to Building B in a carport,
he -
-.
c c
ea, ’ .. .
APsO a5 shown on Exhibit %$a $he applicant proposes to provide two barbequa areas ta the rear of the dwelling units and a jacuzzi
posing ai handBaIb8 backboard adjacent $8 a large asplralt area be.- staff feels that this area should not count towards fulfi%$ing the recreation re~pi~em~~~t because it will
probably be used for parking cars or stsring recreatianal- vehi- cles D mined that the project falls short of eke minimum recreakLm1 axe:
regtui~ad by the Gandominium Ordinances -
o and deck EiPeE?. iD f%.aSlt of the Units, The appbieant Elfso iS pro-
’ hind mflagikig lizip0
~ot including the handball baekboaiz6s F staff has deter-
Design criteria
P
0 As prev~ously’ men%hn~d, this pE33jeCt W%B& resra%t j-12 a, darrsdtg 0
99.4 dwelling units .par ace’ which is at the tog af the ~engral,
staff feels that this project i$oes not justify approval, at the high end 0% the d%ansi%y range,. The long qinear design of these buildings will create a mcanycmm effect .for anyone driving OK
walking into this grsajeet, This efzect cw%d p~ssibly be rer;u,c~
-. %f the applicant broke up Building ‘€4’ by eliminating iz middle unit and replacing it with usable 02en space, This plan could also be improved by mixing the two fPaar p3.a~~ in one bui-%dino; t vary the building setbacks f~011-t the driveway, In addition, if
the number of units was reduceds the amou.nt of paving in this project required for parking could be signiEicant.fy reduced and replaced with usatale reereation space,
%he kand usk‘ ESATW~~ of the General PS~R states that a project
guaranteed &he lower endl o€ *he density range OE the Gsnerab P1,
and that additional density musk be -justified, staf‘f cannot fi where the project as prop~sed justifies the maximum density per
mitted by %he General Plan,
~[f the applicant were to eliminate one or two units and wedesic
the project, staff feels that most if not all. of the problems previously mentioned could be’ eliminated, A redesign along thc lines would create a p~~ject that would be much more a,ttrac:tivc to live in. The applicant was informed. of staffis concern but w3s not desirous of reducing the density or further redesignin,
the project.
AS p~op~sed, staff feels this-project daes nok cornply with the
development standards OK ths design criteria of the c:ondoniniu ordinance and therefope# ‘staff cannot Leeommend approval of teh
eo Plan designation Of 30-20 dra/as for this site, As prcrpased,
..-*
-
- project, --
*
IV, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined khat this project wi.711. XI( have a significant impact on the environment and therefore ha:
.issued a Negative Declaration on Kay 30, 1981,
- -2-
-9 ..
. . Yb - :
GI' - .
V o RECBNMERDATIaH
%;t p~ ~~~~~~~a~~ that the PIZUSIB~~ CCXT~RT~SS~U~ ~~PPRQVE the
.. Negative DecPgrnaQi*fi iagued by the PIan.niiq mrectar and 2(m?t
Resolution NO, 1825 re~~mendiwg DENXPJ~ of CT 85-15/~~-+6! Ca
the City Council based on the fiwdings*contained therein,
ATTACHMENTS e
1) -2) B;P&~KOU~~ Data Sheet . 3) Loeation Map
5% $aofxonwentaI pocameats-'
e PC Reso%uklon No, 11825
P 4) Disclosure Form 0
. e 6) Exhibits A and B dated, May TP 1981 L
. -..
MfI:lS
6/-17/81- -.
, -3-
.*
-. -. .. - __
-.. __ - -- .
-.
6
/
,' ' .. .
m k V'_. /4 ' -. f
.. g
..
.. .O
e-
: .
. .. . -
_.
-. - - .. ..
-.
..
._ -. .. e. -- _.-.
e
-.
..
~ ..=
..
..
_-
-tIC_1hatCr-f t- .. ~~pqqJ!~~\,ur R@!C!UL a-
b-
: mtative mct mp and @nb-fimi r---.--- p&it to mmtxuc
dtS 81p the ma sZ~ of HCXE Swt kbv- J&feS3n See& ZU'd HOP3 AVW
.3xciA-L $ alb$ of bk 9 tw~m with @-e Tmst sout~~@st~lLy EVur Ip-x9-91 1
of 1i3$ ~8 acm- to. m '2145 filed FA^ 20 e NB c -
As -_
--
p& -: 203 0;. 200 on - 9 d IO
-. e kw e463 No, of
-_ - _- 0.
I .. .. .
a
-0 c
cknexd Ph U*MiW%4m RYE . e.
69:;4 &/ac - l32rsiq ProXE-%3- 1________1___
i* IO-ZS Wac
.. I&&%tAng zone pi-3 ~0~~~. 7mie __y . Nb*
~ -.
-g zaw aria. Iard use::
zorlbq . IalX3ers - .. ' NQm 'R-3 PAl-l% - -.-.
---+ =
* -. ,?ma.
+ -- *
ScKlt3-i It-3
East pi-3 .. -- -- SED
-1__ --
R-3 Apm* West p ~
I P
3?UBLIC mcmm
. mm1 DiStCiCt mad - -.
mta ~istrict carlsbad .
*%wer District Carlsbad . EMJ'S N/A
8. -. -1i.c Facilities F= ~gxeeremt, da~ A+X 24, ,1981 f-
(other : -.
mR.C)mEN'I'& DPACT ASSESS~PEBT
f. . X Nqative b)eclarati.on, issued Pay 27, 2981 Log 130- .-
E-I-R- Ccrtif id, dated
OEher @
-
gme fu$rmeK ALL*wJ.w--
-1 ,
' a?a?IJIwT=
.%525-K JBfferssn Street p - -- CLrlsba&, P CA, 920638 ___N_
329-5197 ' -. -.
._ - - ..
.- - ~ .. - . -. - - -
. -. -- ...
-. 4 .. -- I.."c
. .Ken C~Z~SS
I *- f .- - --
-.. -
-- .. ____a___DB_o_aQ_____.
AGEBT:.
7- - .- -.
-. -_ ..
.c- i -- . -- -..* - _* - .. -e
e-. --
._ -_ - -.
?-* - -_ .- _. -- -. _*
. .. . _. c. .. .. - .- - .BEmEmn
PZ&ESS . . ~mvid&~mep jaht -* . . $Tepd$PaKes ca~z~ozi;B synaica~anl'
- _* -- -- _- ---e-- - r ---- ..
3asiness i3dCikess
-.
-- : %2hPhOA3 ~uSsdC€kE
0- .
" c :;zzXE2 Etea@ X*&ass
3-ainess Ai53=sis -- -.
,elep%me N&I_P
-. --- -
----a -- Telepbns srunpex -_ -.
. -- ._ - -- -. .. : .
- -_E_
7 - - *
I ___I_ _D
(Attach more sheets %E necessaq)
- 3[/pJ;Je dncl2.r~ xnser peh%abtY Qf pepjury that the infOm.ation &orrtaine& in th3
closure is t~ix? and CQrKeCe and'that it Wixl remain trrre and correct and 13;
rdi& ~pri ES being true and correct until +mended, .
BY
- Agcct, CT.:ner, P~rtner