HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 97-04; Cornerstone Corporate Centre; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (15)4350 LA IOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE. SUITE 130, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1233 TEL: 619.453.1200 FAX: 619.453.1913
BRIAN PAUL &
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS
& PLANNERS
June 2,1997
MEETING NOTES
Re: Cornerstone Corporate Centre PIP 97-04 / HDP 97-07
Present: Gary Wayne, CPD
Terri Woods, CPD -''
James McCann, NNC
John Couvillion, NNC
Brian Paul, BPA
Len Zegarski, BPA
Meeting Date: 31 May, '1 997
Location: Carlsbad Planning Department
Purpose: Review PIP/HDP Application review comments from the Planning Department.
I. JM provided an overview of the site development/grading concept for the project, specific site
requirements requested by the TriTeal Corporation (tenant for Building D), and the time
requirements necessary to meet TriTeal's move in date of April 15, 1998.
2. JM presented options addressing CPD's comment regarding the height of retaining walls along
Palomar Airport Road. All proposed options maintained the pad elevations and overall grades
established in the current application:
A. Option 1 incorporated a 1.5 to 1 slope bank at the 50 foot setback limit.
B. Option 2 incorporated a 2 to 1 slope bank with total revegetation in natural habitat
materials.
3. JM presented product literature indicating the proposed retaining walls incorporate plant
materials to soften the visual impact of the walls particularly along Palomar Airport Road.
4. JM discussed the retaining wall along the east property line adjacent to the open space and
indicated the degree of visibility was limited from Palomar Airport Road. A habitat survey is
underway by Greg Evans of Planning Systems who confirmed coastal sage is present on the
open space lot but not on the manufactured slope bank.
MfG NOTES:
June 2, 1997
5. After some discussion of the options presented GW questioned the purpose and outcome of this
meeting. JM indicated, due to the critical time schedule, NNC would like to determine the right
direction to take in resolving the site planninggrading conflicts identified in the PIP Application
comments.
6. GW and TW indicated that both procedural and design issues exist but they would collaborate
with NNC to find a workable solution.
7. The following procedural issues were identified by GW and TW:
A. A Non-Residential PUD Application must address the entire site, all three lots.
B. A Hillside Development Permit must address the entire site, all three lots
C. A separate PIP is required for each building on the three contiguous lots.
D. A revised application should include a PIP for Buildings D and C. GW indicated it may
be possible to eliminate the second PIP application for Building C. CPD will respond.
E. The required Grading Permit and slope analysis must address the entire site, all three
lots.
F. Building A on Lot 15 across Palomar Oaks Way should not be shown on the drawings
included in the revised permit application.
G. A CUP is required for development of Building B on Lot 7 since it is located in Area 2 of
Carlsbad Airport Centre. GW indicated a CUP requires a hearing before the Planning
Commission, however this will not affect current processing of the PUD, HDP, and PIP
applications for Building D on Lot1 1.
8. The following design issues were identified by GW and TW:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
GW indicated the grading options presented were not acceptable but suggested some
combination of variation and undulation in the slope bank along Palomar Airport Road
used in conjunction with a series of lower walls may provide an acceptable solution.
TW indicated the current parking lot layout has design problems that will be identified in
Engineering comments due sometime next week. These issues should be addressed
directly with Ken Quon in the Engineering Department.
TW indicated a concern over the parking layout related to overall travel distance in
excess of 300 feet.
TW indicated that all setbacks must be adjusted one foot horizontally for each foot
vertically that the building exceeds the allowable height of 35 feet. This additional
setback must be maintained as landscape open space. This requirement is not a
problem along Palomar Airport Road or at Wright Place but will required adjustment at
the east and west property line. All setbacks to be increased accordingly.
TW indicated a swimming pool will not be considered a structure but did question the
items noted as "Mechanical Yard Building C and D" on the Site Plan.
LZ indicated the mechanical yards shown are not buildings but are 6 foot high screen
wall enclosures, open to the sky, and housing the building heating and cooling system.
TW indicated the current plan allows parking overhang in the setbacks which is not
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
LZ noted all parking overhangs are currently 10 feet from side yard property lines.
TW indicated this is acceptable but needs to be increased to meet yard requirements for
building height in excess of 35 feet.
-
MTG NOTES:
June 2, I997
G. Tw expressed concern regarding the overall height of the retaining wall along the east
property line indicating a 12 foot encroachment 6 feet high in manufactured slopes is the
maximum allowable per the current Hillside Development Guidelines.
H. TW indicated the current Guidelines are under review but will not be revised within the
next three months.
I. GW and TW indicated an environmental review of habitation on the open space lot will
be necessary due to the extent of development and may assist in developing a benefit
exchange or trade off for mitigation of the adjacent retaining walls.
9. BP reviewed the exterior design concept and exterior material selection for Building D in
response to Item 5 concerning the flat roof line.
Please review and respond within five (5) days if content is incomplete or incorrect.
Prepared by: Len Zegarski for Brian Paul & Associates.
Revised by:
Copy: All present
Scott Merry, NCC
Mark Rowson, L33
Don Ueno, KYU +A