Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 89-13; Mercotac; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (11)March 1, 1990 David Smith Plant & Cook 2385 Camino Vida Roble, #117 Carlsbad, Ca 92009 SUBJECT: PIP 89-13 - MERCOTAC Dear Mr. Smith: In response to your letter dated December 27, 1989, it appears that your firm does not have a clear understanding of the City's permit application process in general, and specifically :IS it relates to Planned Industrial Permits (PIP). State Planning and Zoning laws give the City authority to determine what information is necessary to adequately review permit applications. The City has established these requirements and it is only to you and your client's advantage that your firm either initially submit complete applications, or that our requests for additional information be complied with and not challenged. Questioning the City's authority to require information to adequately review a permit could lead to delays in processing which could be costly for your clients. With respect to your closing paragraph commenting on City plan checking procedures: "Please note, however, that most of these recommendations are new and should have been addressed earlier in the process. Fine tuning and higher definition of planning is to be expected while design issues should have been addressed and explained before other limitations make them impossible." It should be noted that items requested have been requested since first or second check. Some items were not requested until third plan check because all pertinent issues were not completely addressed on previous submittals. It is also apparent that the first submittal was of non-functional design by the number of issues - some of which were impossible to resolve because of existing conditions which were noted in our site visit. " ~ "" __ ~ "" ~ ~ "" .~. " . 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 ~ ~~~~~~ Mr. David Smith March 1, 1990 Page 2 Engineering 1. Fire service requires an easement 15 ft. Please show on site plan. 2. Move toe of slope to 5 feet from fire service line. These two issues were raised for the first time on plan check number 3 dated 12/21/89. This was the first time the fire service was shown. Each time changes are made on the site plan, they are reviewed for consistency with City standards, ordinances and good engineering practice. 3. Label proposed curb outlet D-25. 4. Label existing curb outlet modified D-25. These issues were addressed as items 5a, 5b in our first check letter dated 10/12/89 and as items la, lb in our second check letter dated 11/27/89. With each plan check letter, a redlined copy of the checkprint has been included to give detailed information. When it became obvious you were disregarding comments on the checkprint as well as not addressing the issues of concern, a very specific issues letter was written (dated 12/21/89). 5. Adjust driveway to be three feet away from the catch basin. A comment to this effect was made on the second plan check checkprint dated 10/20/89. Again, the checkprint is sent along because comments are made directly on the plan. Granted the comment was not in writing, but it was not apparent at second plan check that the redline checkprint was not being used. Proposed driveway created a situation where the driveway apron ended at a storm drain inlet. This could create a maintenance problem through time as trucks jump the curb. 6. Driveway can still work for the access of trucks without designing both sides different, see site plan. This comment was originally addressed at first plan check as 6i (dated 10/12/89). Granted a portion of the driveway was straightened as requested, upon closer inspection it was noticed that the driveway could be designed in a manner which is closer to a standard driveway and still allow desired access. 7. Include flowline elevations and percent slope throughout parking and on driveway. Include more spot elevations. c Mr. David Smith March 1, 1990 Page 3 This comment was originally addressed during the first plan check items 5h and 11, dated 10/12/89 and again during the second plan check items Id and 3, dated 11/27/89. Elevations are an important instrument in the engineering plan check process. They allow us to check grading and drainage issues. It should be noted that a number of spot elevations were given in your submittal received January 11, 1990. These have been shown for the first time and you have changed drainage, grading and driveway cross-sections. Two retaining walls have also been added. These additions require further review and raise more issues. It should be apparent that if these comments were addressed after the initial plan check, redesign to accommodate drainage and grading would not have been necessary. 8. There is no sidewalk in this development, please remove from typical section. This comment was shown on the second check redlined checkprint, but not mentioned in the letter. Street cross-sections may be obtained from improvement plans, and site visits. The architect/engineer should visit the site and submit accurate plans. There was a high number of issues raised during the first plan check. As those issues are addressed, others may arise. The City of Carlsbad staff can not design your project. We act as consultants assisting the project by checking for conformance with City standards and ordinatlccs. Thc City staff attempts to assist in creating a functional project. You, as the architect may feel these issues are final design, when in fact they are necessary for review. Some issues were addressed to prevent future maintenance problems. The following is a list of outstanding Planning and Engineering issues which were identified in the fourth plan check of this project. issues must be addressed in the next resubmittal. EnnineerinP Issues: 1. Per Carlsbad Ordinance 21.44.080( l), drainage cannot cross driveways, gutter proposed on driveway is not acceptable. Another means of transporting drainage to the street must be found. 2. The City of Carlsbad prefers tilt sections for driveways. The ribbon gutter proposed in the loading area will not be allowed. The slope is such that ponding will occur in the parking lot. Placing a concrete ribbon gutter in the driveway will create future maintenance problem. Mr. David Smith March 1, 1990 Page 4 3. Show slope of two parking spaces on the northwest corner of the building. Not enough information is given to determine whether or not a sump condition has been created. These spaces should drain away from the curb (to the west) or it can drain to the east of the planter area has a gutter. 4. 'Two retaining walls have been proposed, one at the southern end of the parkinghoading area and one at the employee eating area. Include top of wall bottom of wall elevations. 5. Show flowline elevation for southern grate picking up drainage from parkinghoading area. 6. Show direction of flow for trash container pad. Planning - Issues: 1. Revise parking information summary. There is no "planning directive" in the City of Carlsbad that allows for lunchroom and restroom areas to be exempt from parking requirements. All area of a building's square footage must be accounted for and parked according to the use it serves. 2. On landscape plan, the employee eating area and the blow-up of the eating area do not match in area. 3. Provide the correct scale for the blow-up diagram of the outdoor eating area. 4. For new trees, specify size and type (species) of proposed trees. 5. You stated in your last written response that there was a landscape note addressing on-grade irrigation pipes. This is not the case. Please provide it. 6. Provide staff with a local (San Diego County) example of the multi-color landscaping similar to what you are proposing; or is this the first time it will be done? What colors are proposed? 7. Provide some vertical landscape treatment to the area indicated on the checkprint. This landscaping should be planted to the side of the windows. Mr. David Smith March 1, 1990 Page 5 Finally, when quoting sections of the City’s zone code one should make sure that that section supports that point (i.e., that design and aesthetics are not part of the PIP review process). Specifically, your December 20, 1989 letter references Section 21.06.090 (Carlsbad Municipal Code) which refers to development standards that supplement the underlying zoning where Site Development Plans are required. The section of the code that establishes the development standards for the P-M Zone, 21.34 (Carlsbad Municipal Code) gives the City discretion not only over development and performance standards, but design criteria as well. PIP 89-13 is being reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the P-M Zone, Section 21.34 (Carlsbad Municipal Code). The City endeavors to create the circumstances and procedures which provide for quality development through cooperation between the developer (through his engineer and architect) and the City of Carlsbad (through its staff). Please be certain that staff takes its project review responsibilities seriously. We do not request unnecessary information to create more work for the applicants. It is very important that the project being reviewed and approved is the project that gets constructed because any changes to the site plan submitted for building permits will require a PIP Amendment. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact either of the undersigned at (619) 438-1161. Acting Assistant Planning Director GEW/RJW:ENM/SH/af wy w+ ROBERT J. WOJCIK Principal Civil Engineer c: Marty Orenyak Chris DeCerbo Sherri Howard Eric Mufioz