HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 97-01; Florexpo; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (4)March 20, 1997
Darin Laird
Salerno/Livingston Architects
363 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: PIP 97-01 - FLOREXPO
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Pursuant to our completeness letter of March 1 1 , please find attached a list of
issues of concern for the above-referenced project. Please contact your staff
planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (61 9) 438-1 161 I extension 4471 I if you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:EB:bk
c: Gary Wayne
Chris DeCerbo
Clyde Wickham
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sheet A.O1 indicates the proposed use to be "warehouse with mezzanine". This is
not consistent with the project description sheet and the EIA Part I, which describe
office and other uses. The various use areas (e.g., office, manufacturing,
warehouse) must be clearly delineated on the floor plans. In addition, you must
provide a breakdown on the plans of the various use area types and the amount of
square footage of each, and the total area of each floor and/or mezzanine.
The owner/applicant information on the various documents is inconsistent and/or
incomplete. The Disclosure Statement is not filled out completely. It identifies the
owners as "Kenneth Xavier Baca" and "Herbert Jordan", and has been signed by
Mr. Baca as owner. Mr. Baca has also signed as the applicant. However the
applicant is not identified on the front of the form. The Preliminary Title Report
shows the owner as "Pacific Western Mortgage & Investment Company". The
Public Facilities Fee (PFF) Agreement is signed by Mr. Baca and Mr. Jordan as
owner and developer. However, the signature area is incomplete in that it does not
contain the developers name(s), is signed by only one person (Mr. Baca), and does
not contain the information required per the note at the bottom of the signature
page to demonstrate authorization to sign for the owner. Please fill out the
Disclosure Statement completely, including all of the information requested such as
the names, addresses, and titles (if appropriate) for all persons having an interest as
either the applicant or the owner. Please be sure that all of this information is
consistent throughout the documents. If the Title Report is no longer accurate, you
must provide a new one which reflects the current ownership of the property. If the
Title Report is correct, then the owner (Pacific Western) must sign the other
documents as the owner. Note: Although the Title Report submitted is current
within the last 6 months (November 14, 1961, it may expire before the PFF
Agreement can be processed. If so, you would need to provide a more recent report
anyway.
The project data table on Sheet AO.l shows a "Net Lot" size of 2.4 acres and then
shows 83% lot coverage. It is not clear what this means. In the City of Carlsbad,
"Net Lot" would typically mean the net developable acreage of the lot after the
deduction of any undevelopable portions (e.g., steep slopes, high power
transmission line easements, etc.). Please clarify this information.
Sheet AO.l shows a required parking ratio of 1 space per 400 square feet for office
uses. This is not correct. The office parking requirement is 1 space per 250 square
feet. Staff cannot fully analyze the adequacy of the parking proposed until the use
area breakdown information is provided. (See Issue No. 1 above.)
You must provide employee eating areas in compliance with Section 21.34.070 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. (A copy of Chapter 21.34 - Planned Industrial Zone is
attached for your use.)
The architectural plans provided are inadequate to allow any analysis of the
proposed building's compliance with regulations. You must, at a minimum, provide
enough information to demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations.
Therefore, you must call out the proposed maximum building height as measured
from the proposed finished grade. Both of these elevations must be shown on the
architectural elevations and the scale must be shown on the plans. Be sure to
identify any roof parapets included in the design. Also, prior to any approval of the
PIP staff will have to review the proposed building materials and colors. You will
need to provide unmounted materials samples and colored elevation drawings.
These are normally required at the time of application submittal. However, since the
building will be to be revised anyway (See next item), staff suggests you wait on
the colored elevations until all design issues have been resolved.
7. The proposed architecture will need to be revised to comply with the architectural
guidelines contained in the Specific Plan. The current design is very flat and boxy
with little, if any, architectural relief. Staff suggests you review the architectural
guidelines contained in the Specific Plan (a copy of which is attached for your use).
8. The proposed roof plan does not show any roof equipment. Please note that any
proposed roof equipment must be shown on the roof plan and will be required to be
screened.
9. The Grading and Erosion Control Plan provided does not show sufficient information
to analyze the proposed grading. As indicated on our application submittal
checklist, you must at a minimum show the proposed amounts of cut, fill, import,
export, and total cubic yards per acre of grading.
IO. Generally, staff notes that much of the basic information necessary to review a
proposed project is missing from this application. We are including copies of the P-
M Zone Regulations (Chapter 21.34 of the Municipal Code), the relevant specific
plan regulations (SP 181 (A)), and a PIP application submittal checklist. We suggest
you review all of these documents fully and go through the submittal checklist
making sure to include all of the information required before making your next
submittal.