HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 95-02A; Dominie Press; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (2)November 14,1995
Ken Smith Architect & Associates
435 W. Bradley Avenue, Suite C El Cajon, CA 92020
SUBJECT: PIP 9542(A) - DOMINIE PRESS
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Planned Industrial Permit Amendment, application no. PIP
95-02(A), as to its completeness for processing.
The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your
application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the .
date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application,
request that you clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the basic information
required for the application. In addition, you should ais0 be aware that various design
issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled
for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the
date of this communication.
Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471, if you
have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Planning Director
cf Gary Wayne Brian Hunter Bobbie Hoder
Bob Wojcik
File Copy .
Data Entry
Marjorie/Rich
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 @
PLANNING
ISSUES OF CONCERN
1. Please indicate how many tenants are intended to occupy the proposed building.
This information is pertinent to both circulatiodloading (discussed below) and
required employee eating areas.
a. Planning Department Policy No. 19 provides for a 60%/40% outdoor/indoor
split for required employee eating areas in single tenant buildings. All of the
required employee eating area is to be provided outdoors when a multi-tenant
building is proposed. As indicated in Engineering Issue No. 1 (below), the proposed building addition as designed has the potential to house two
different tenants. However, you have not indicated that the proposed building would be for multi-tenant purposes.
6. The plans also show both indoor and outdoor eating areas. However, the site
plan indicates that all of the required eating area is met by 1320 sf of outdoor
eating area. Please clarify this information.
c. Please note that the Landscape Plan submitted is inconsistent with the Site
Plan regarding the concrete patio/eating area square footage. The Landscape .
Plan calls out 1125 sf rather than the 1320 sf indicated on the Site Plan sheet.
Please correct the appropriate plan sheet.
..
d. Please call out on the Landscape Plan the number of picnic benches and
tables to be provided.
2. Please. revise the plan sheets (twice on the Site Plan sheet) to reflect the correct
project application number, PIP 95-02(A), prior to your next submittal.
3. Specific Plan 181(A) requires a 10' interior sideyard setback. The site plan appears
to meet this requirement, but the setback called out is only 9'9 W8". Please revise
the plans or dimensions as necessary to reflect a 10' interior sideyard setback.
4. Please call out the proposed maximum building height on each elevation.
ENGINEERING
1. As stated in our comments for the Preliminary Review application for this project,
the plans show that with the proposed building addition, this site has the potential
to house two different tenants. Therefore, a circulation design should be provided
to accommodate this arrangement. The proposed location of the roll-up doors on
the east side of the building will cause a side-loading truck parked at these doors to
block the entrance to the truck well. Please relocate these doors so that they do not
obstruct the truck well entrance or other onsite circulation.
Attached is a redlined checkprint set of the plans for your use in making corrections and
changes as noted. You must return this checkprint plan set with the corrected plans to
assist us in our continued review.