HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 96-03; Hunsaker Carlsbad I; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (10).
January IO, 1997
Hunsaker Development Co., LLC
17761 Mitchell
Irvine, CA 927 14
SUBJECT: PIP 96-03 - HUNSAKER-CARLSBAD I
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Planned Industrial Permit, application no. PIP 96-03, 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 directlv to your staff planner bv appointment. All list items must be
submitted simultaneouslv and a COPY of this list must be included with vour submittals. No
processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete.
The second list is issues of concern to staff. 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 initiallv
filed, December IO, 1996, 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 If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must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 your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (61 9) 438-1 161, extension 4471, if
you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL 2. H~ZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:EB:kr
C: Gary Wayne
Team Leader
Bobbie Hoder
Bob Wojcik
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
NO. PIP 96-03
Planning:
Please indicate on the plans the project average daily traffic (ADT) for the proposed
use.
Please indicate on the plans the number of parking spaces required and the number
provided. You must use one of the following two methods to ensure that the proper
amount of parking is provided. You may either:
a) Provide parking at a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet of use area;
or,
b) Establish estimated use areas (e.g., square feet of office,
square feet of manufacturing, etc.) and provide the appropriate number of
parking spaces per Code requirements, and then place a deed restriction on
the project to ensure that any use going into the building does not require
parking in excess of this amount.
In establishing specific use areas (per "b"), the following parking requirement ratios
would apply:
office uses 1 sp per 250 sq. ft. of use area,
manufacturing 1 sp per 400 sq. ft. of use area,
warehouse 1 sp per 1000 sq. ft of use area, plus,
1 space for each vehicle associated with the use
If you use method a, the plans should show the parking required at a ratio of 1 :250
and the parking provided. If you use method b, the plans must include a breakdown
of the proposed square feet of each of the various use areas (in square feet), the
number of spaces required for each type of use area, and the number of spaces
provided for each use area.
The owner information on the Disclosure Form is not consistent with that shown on
the title report and Public Facilities Fee (PFF) Agreement. The Disclosure Form
should show the owner as "Hunsaker Development Company, LLC". Then, under
Item 3 on the Disclosure Form, the names, addresses, and titles of the officer(s) can
be shown (e.g., R. Brian Hunsaker).
The PFF Agreement includes signatures by both R. Brian Hunsaker and Richard C.
Hunsaker as "owners". This is not consistent with the owner information provided
on the other documents (title report, etc.). Please be sure that the information and
signatures on this document are consistent with that on the other documents.
The title report provided is dated 1992. You must provide a preliminary title report
current within six months.
_-
6. The plans must indicate the amount of. employee eating area required and the
amount provided. (This should be shown on each individual eating area and as a
total in the legend.) In addition, the proposed eating area amenities (including the
number and type of tables, benches, etc.) must be shown on the Landscape Plan.
7. The Landscape Plans must indicate the following:
a. the different landscape zones per the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual;
b. the number and typical size of the various proposed plantings;
C. an estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation (supplemental) water required
to maintain each zone; and,
d. landscape maintenance responsibility for all areas.
8. The project submittal should include a Water Conservation Plan.
9. The Conceptual Grading Plan must show the proposed earthwork volumes (cut, fill,
import, and export).
IO. Please call out on the architectural elevations the extent of popouthecess areas.
1 1. The architectural elevation for the West side of the building does not appear to be
entirely consistent with the site plan drawing. The elevation does not include the
trash enclosures shown on the site plan; and the elevation drawing seems to include
an additional popouthecess area that does not match the site plan drawing. (The
colored drawing submitted is consistent with the blueline sheets provided.
Therefore, this drawing may also require revision. However, you need not revise the
colored elevation at this time. Any revision to the colored drawing should be
deferred until all design issues are resolved and final changes to the blueline
drawings are agreed upon.)
12. The architectural elevation for the East side of the building refers to a "48"-60"
parapet". The meaning of this reference is unclear. If the proposed parapet is
intended to extend above the currently identified, building height of 37'9", the
drawing must be revised to incorporate the parapet and the building height shown
would need to be revised accordingly. If the parapet is already included in the
current elevation drawing, please remove the current reference and identify the
parapet as a portion of the current elevation drawing.
13. The plans must show the location, height, and materials of all walls and fences.
This should include the top and bottom and worst case condition elevation for all
walls and fences at each end and in the middle of the wall.
14. The Floor Plan sheets should show the amount of square footage associated with
each floor.
15. Although an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Part I was submitted, the
document contains no responses to any of the questions/items intended to be
addressed. Since much of this information (e.g., proposed earthwork volumes, etc.)
is also not included elsewhere in the project submittal, the EIA Part I will not be
useful in reviewing the project application or conducting the necessary
environmental review. Please revise the Part I (or provide an addendum sheet)
which discusses the proposed project and the basis for the conclusions checked off
on the environmental checklist. At a minimum, you should discuss the proposed
earthwork/grading changes and traffic.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. In future resubmittals, please include the project application number (PIP 96-03) in
the upper right-hand corner of the plansheets.
2. The proposed architectural elevations appear very flat and boxy, particularly for
such a large building. Staff suggests that you revise the proposed design to provide
greater building articulation. This might be done through popout/recess areas,
roofline variation, and/or other enhancements.
3. Please note that, although the colored elevations submitted with this application
show sign locations on the building, no signage is being approved at this time.
Should the project be approved, it will be conditioned to obtain approval of a Sign
Program and all necessary Sign Permits.
Engineering:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Show all facilities as "existing" or "proposed". If they are existing and shown in
greater detail on an approved improvement drawing, add the drawing and sheet #
for reference.
Show access and circulation of semi-trucks to proposed loading docks on the west
side of the building. If the applicant wishes he can use a separate sheet to provide
this information. Again if another sheet is used, a note should be placed on the site
plan to direct attention.
The driveway on Loker Ave. East is not located exactly as directed by memo from
Bob Wojcik. The location proposed is however acceptable. A profile of the driveway
should be included with your design because it appears that the driveway is coming
up from a 6 or 7 foot hole onto Loker Avenue without a safe area to queue and see
if the roadway is clear. Additional comments on this issue are on the site plan. As
previously mentioned we recommend a 36' wide driveway to access this site, the
proposed 35' driveway is less than effective for this purpose.
Show the required sight distance and corner cut - off to maintain visibility at the
proposed driveway on Loker Ave. East. The corner cut - off is a 25 triangle at the
property line and at the proposed driveway edge to be kept clear and visible to all
vehicles and pedestrians as a safety feature.
Show width, location, and use of all existing and/or proposed utilities and
easements. As previously stated, the existing sewer and storm drain easements
from Sea Otter Place, across this site, can be under the proposed parking lot, but
not in a sloDe or included in a retaining wall condition. Sewer and storm drain
easements must be kept clear and maintain access at all times. The approved and
existing condition of these easements is acceptable, The proposed slope over the
facility and in the easement is not.
6. From the site plan it is not clear where the applicant intends to take sewer and
water service for this project. The existing, approved plans show stubbed or
locations for service that you could use.
7. The proposed grading appears to create a problem with the existing sewer and
storm drain easements as well as with the driveway profiles to Loker Ave. East. The
site is a pre - graded pad and should not require this much of a headache as
proposed. We recommend that the Engineer review the existing condition of the
pad, maintain the existing grade of the sewer and storm drain easements, and not
concentrate all site drainage to one location. For a site this size about 4 or 5 inlet
locations would be recommended.
8. NPDES drainage requirements have not been addressed. Corrections and revisions
will be required.
Staff has included a redlined checkprint for your use in revising the plans. Please return
this checkprint with your next submittal.