HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 89-01; Bentson Building Conversion; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •jjfffl/ J M TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WT^J^M (619) 438-1161
(Eitu 0f (ttarlabaa
PU\NNING DEPARmENT
May 2, 1989
Jim Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, CA 92104
SUBJECT: RP 89-1 Bentson Preliminary Staff Report
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available
for you to pick up on Friday, May 5, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report
will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.)
meeting which will be held on Monday, May 8, 1989. A twenty (20) minute
appointment has been set aside for you at 11:30 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with
you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning
Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements
to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the
Planning Department at 438-1161.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
Planning Department
LBS:MJH\lh
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, California 92104-5005
(619) 280-8173
May 1, 1989
Chris Salomone
Housing and Redevelopment Director
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008-2389
Re: MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Dear Mr. Salomone:
We have been informed by Mr. Schulte the staff recommendations
have been completed and are positive. Mr. Schulte has further
informed us that our application is scheduled to go in front of
the Design Review Board on May 17, 1989, and because Mr. Schulte
will be on vacation, you will present our application to the
Board.
We are happy that you will be presenting our application. Your
familiarity with the project will be a positive influence. The
city has required a great deal of changes since we have
previously discussed the project. We think we have complied with
all of the rules and regulations.
To assist you in the reasons for some of the changes, we would
like to offer the assistance of Mr. Royce and myself for you to
consult with prior to the meeting. Mr. Royce and myself will
also be present at the Design Review Board hearing to respond to
any questions or comments regarding the application.
If you have any questions or comments
please contact myself or Mr. Royce.
regarding this project,
Very truly yours,
Jim Bentson
cc: Mr. Robert Royce
Costa Real
Municipal Water Distrbt
^^^1^^^^ 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008
^ Telephone: (619) 438-2722
Engineering Dept: 438-3367
April 25, 1989
To: City of Carlsbad
Land Use Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attn: Lance Schulte
Subj: Bentson, 2644 Madison (Conversion of Residence to Office)
CRMWD Project No. 89-C-00(H)
The subject project has been reviewed by the District's Engineering
Department to determine the extent of District's involvement regarding
existing and proposed water system to serve proposed project as follows:
YES NO
Are there transmission lines that affect project? ( ) (X)
Are there existing facilities that will have to be
reconstruction? ( ) (X)
Are there new facilities that will have to be
constructed? ( ) (X)
Are there existing District agreements that have a
financial impact on these projects? ( ) (X)
We have the following comments:
1. The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits
plus the major facility charge which will be collected at
time of issuance of building permit.
2. Presently the residence has an existing 1" water service that
serves property.
Page two
Lance Schulte
April 25, 1989
We ask that you include the above recomendations as a condition
of approval. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.
Very truly yours.
F. Jei
Engineering Supervisor
FJW:sjs
CRMWD 89-C-00(H)
cc: Mike Smith, Fire Marshal
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, California 92104-5005
(619) 280-8173
April 17, 1989
Lance Schulte
Planning Department
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #RP 89-1
Dear Mr. Schulte:
Thank you for calling me on the telephone the other day. We are
happy to hear that the application for the minor re-development
permit is finally moving. As I understand the next step is the
preparation of the staff report and then the design review board.
After reviewing my records, I think that I was in error when I
told the counter person that we had already paid the $175.00 fee.
We have paid so many fees, and cost in this project to date, I
think I just assumed it had been paid. Here is the $175.00 for
the permit. I Hope this will not cause any further delay.
I will call you next week to check on the progress. If there is
anything that I can do to move this project along, please call
me.
Thank you very much for you assistance.
Very truly yours,
James T. Bentson
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE M 4rm AM TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 M^Wlr jfm (619) 438-1161
(flitu nf (CarlHbab
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 11, 1989
Jim Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, CA 92104-5005
SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-1
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The
Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application
no. RP 89-1, 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 also be aware that various design issues may exist. These
issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing.
Please contact your staff planner. Lance B. Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you
have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:LBS/af
cc: Charles Grimm
Mark Granich
Erin Letsch
f
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MARCH 15, 1989
TO: CHRIS SALOMONE
FROM: LANCE SCHULTE
SUBJECT: BENTSON - RP 89-1
Chris, I met with Mr. Bentson and Rob Royce yesterday. We went over the issues
letter and it appears most of the issues will be resolved within the next week
or two. With those issues resolved, we should be able to take Mr. Bentson's
project to Design Review Board fairly soon. I will let you know the exact status
when the new submittals come in.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
LBS:af
bentson.mem
c: RP 89-1
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, California 92104-5005
(619) 280-8173
March 15, 1989
Lance Schulte
Planning Department
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #RP 89-1
Dear Mr. Schulte:
This letter confirms the results of our meeting on March 14, 1989
at approximately 10:45am at the site for the proposed office.
Present were myself, you and Mr. Royce. Also, Pete Schmidt the
realtor stopped by the site during our discussion.
We discussed the outstanding ISSUES OF CONCERN mainly the garage
and the exterior improvements.
THE GARAGE
We discussed several areas. First, we showed you the clearance
for the cars to back up and gain access to the garage. Next we
agreed that because of our safety concerns the best way to assure
the garage will be used as a parking will be to install two big
windows in the front of the garage facing the street.
EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
We then outlined the proposed exterior improvements to enhance
the site and to accommodate the proposed use. We noted that the
following exterior improvement will be made:
1. Stucco to the exterior
2. New windows
3. New roofing surface
4. Landscaping
We also discussed the fact that we will be adding exterior wood
trim where allowable. Next we discussed the cities desire for a
sign. We agreed to have the sign on the gable end of the garage
with the business name and the street address. Lastly, you
indicated that the old wood picket fence in the front yard should
be removed and we agreed.
If this letter materially departs from your understanding of our
meeting, please contact me as soon as possible. Mr. Royce will
be submitting to you three rough drafts of our proposed plans.
You graciously offered to review these plans and make any final
suggestions or comments. We look forward to a speedy final
resolution of all outstanding matters in this project.
Thank you very much for you assistance.
Very truly yours,
James T. Bentson
cc: Robert J. Royce, A.I.A.
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, California 92104-5005
(619) 280-8173
February 25, 1989
Lance Schulte
Planning Department
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California
FEB »
92009-4859
Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IRP 89-1
Dear Mr. Schulte:
We are in receipt of the letter from Mr. Holzmiller dated
February 17, 1989 with the attached list of concerns. Let me
assure you that we will work very hard to resolve the points on
the list and all other concerns of the city.
In order to begin work on the issues, it is necessary that I
speak with you regarding a few of the items. That is why I
called you three times on Friday. There are a few items that I
do not understand completely and other which some comments from
you would be of great assistance. After the architect and myself
have worked on these issues, we will schedule a meeting with you
as per your suggestion and run our proposals by you.
To that end, I would appreciate you returning my calls at your
earliest convenience so that you can clear up some areas that I
do not understand.
Thank you very much for you assistance
Very truly yours,
James T. Bentson
FEBRUARY 28, 1989
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Management Analyst
VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
JANES BENTSON
Mr. Bentson has requested that he be placed on the next available
Council agenda to discuss the processing of permits for his
proposed project in the Redevelopment area. This report provides
a description of Mr. Bentson's project, a summary of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the processing of his project to date (a
chart of events can be found in exhibit 1) and an outline of the
steps necessary to complete the processing of his application for
a Redevelopment Permit.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project involves converting an existing single family detached
dwelling (located at 2644 Madison) to an office building. It
proposes no real significant alterations to the site and requests
the use change. To date, a few minor design changes would provide
for a favorable staff review of the project. Without these
changes, staff has some concerns over the adequacy of the proposed
modifications to accomodate the proposed use. In a phone call to
Mr. Bentson on February 23, 1989, the project planner explained
the issues (exhibit 2) and offered to visit the project site to go
over these concerns with Mr. Bentson in person. Mr. Bentson
responded that he understood the issues, how the process to
complete his application would occur and that he didn't have any
problems with the process and was generally satisfied with the
plan for resolving the issues.
II. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr. Bentson first contacted the City at the Las Palmas facility in
September 1988, ostensibly for information on the steps necesary
to convert a Downtown residence into an office. Upon this initial
contact with Mr. Bentson, in September. 1988. he was advised first
to contact the Housina and Redevelopment Office for a Redevelopment
Permit (at no cost to him) because through the Redevelopment Permit
application process a determination. of the feasibility of his
plans could be made. He was also advised at this time to apply for
a compliance inspection to identify any major problems with the
structure that might preclude its use as a commercial building.
Mr. Bentson chose not to follow the procedure outlined^\f^or him.
He applied for the complianceprTispection on October 7, 19u9;Jit was
conducted on October 14. 1989.) and at this time Mr. Bentson was
again informed that his ^n^t priority must be to obtain a
Redevelopment Permit.
The building inspector identified some necessary structural
modifications and qualified his opinion by stating that the
conversion appeared to be feasible with approval of a Redevelopment
Permit. He then advised Mr. Bentson that an architect's services
would be necessary and plans of the proposed project would have to
be submitted. (Note: many problems with projects cannot be
identified prior to Planning and Engineering review of plans).
Mr. Bentson's next contact with the City was at a meeting between
the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Mr. Bentson and the
Prin^ij^ Building Inspector. Once again, at this time, November
15. "1939/ Mr. Bentson was informed bv the Housina and Redevelopment
Direcfcoif that he could not move forward on his proposed proiect
withoirlE a Redevelopment Permit. "
On November 29, 19^9, )Mr. Bentson returned to the Las Palmas
facilit;y^'T^th a plak^pheck application. At this time, on November
29. 1989.1 a Counter Technician informed Mr. Bentson that a
Redevdklop^ent Permit was required before anv other processina of
his proposed proiect could occur. He maintained, however, that the
Housing & Redevelopment Director had told him that "everything was
fine". The Technician then called an Associate Planner to the
counter to explain the Permit process to Mr. Bentson. Together,
the Counter Technician and Associate Planner explained that a
Redevelopment Permit was necessary prior to the issuance of
building permits and that initiating the processing of his building
plans was pointless at that time since the review of plans for
projects in the Redevelopment area is contingent upon approval of
a Redevelopment Permit. Mr. Bentson insisted, however, on
submitt ina buildina permit applications prior to receivina approval
of a Redevelopment Permit and stated to the Associate Planner that
he would "take his chances."
Mr. Bentson's plans were sent through Plan Check and the plan
checkers reviewed them, made comments and corrections, identified
that a Redevelopment Permit was necessary and rejected any further
processing until a Permit was acquired. Upon receipt of the plan
check review results, Mr. Bentson sent a letter to the Community
Development Director on December 14, 1988 (exhibit 3) requesting
that he determine if any "alternatives" were available for him to
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. The Director responded in a
letter to him on December 22, 1988 (exhibit 4) that he would do
what he could to help Mr. Bentson when he completed the plan check
process, and then only within the constraints of the Uniform
Building Code.
It is unclear at exactly what point Mr. Bentson submitted his
application for a Redevelopment Permit. According to both the
Technician and the Planner who helped Mr. Bentson on November 29,
1988, at no time did Mr. Bentson state or indicate in any way that
he had already submitted the application. If he had, the Planner
could have initiated action on processing the Permit. Mr. Bentson
did, however, submit his plans and Redevelopment Permit Application
to the Housing & Redevelopment Department (correct procedure is to
submit them at the Las Palmas facility) some time between November
18, 1988 and January 29, 1989. Due to an error by staff, however,
his application, which he dated November 18, 1988, and plans were
not stamped with the date received and were set aside until they
were transmitted to the Planning Department January 30, 1989.
For our part, staff acknowledges that an inordinate amount of time
passed before the processing of his plans was initiated. Mr.
Bentson, however, has acted unconscionably in his attempt to obtain
approval of his project. Mr. Bentson has contacted various members
of staff in several departments. He has repeatedly sought out the
advice of anyone who will listen to him and has chosen to ignore
that which he doesn't want to heed. He is often contentious and
demanding and has tried to manipulate the "system" by
misrepresenting direction he receives from staff.
In conclusion, Mr. Bentson is attempting to win exemption from City
standards by placing blame on staff for his inability to fund his
project. He maintains that he would not have purchased the
property if he had been made aware of all the modifications
necessary for project approval. He repeatedly told the Compliance
Inspector, however, that he lacked the funds to make the structural
changes suggested on the day of inspection, a date supposedly
before the date of purchase. Furthermore, all issues of concern
cannot be identified at a Compliance Inspection; it can only become
clear to planners and engineers what is actually being proposed in
a project when the plans are submitted. Finally, Mr. Bentson was
repeatedly advised to follow the Redevelopment Permit Application
process first, at no cost to him, so the feasibility of his
proposals could be determined prior to any further processing of
his project and expense to him. The City cannot be the scapegoat
for Mr. Bentson because he has been unsuccessful in his attempt to
circumvent City policies and regulations designed for the aood of
all and applied to all equally.
III. REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE AND
REOUIREMENTS
As of March 1, 1989, there are four steps remaining to complete the
processing of Mr. Bentson's project. Processing cannot take place
concurrently but rather the requirements of each must be completed
before moving on to the next step.
1. Mr. Bentson must complete his application. (Exhibit 2, Issues
Letter)
2. Staff conducts environmental review. In this case, the review
can be completed in one day.
3. Mr. Bentson and staff work together to resolve any issues.
4. Staff compiles staff report for public hearing. This
requirement can be fulfilled within 30 days from the date step
number 3 is completed.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
ERIN K. LETSCH
Management Analyst
arb
c: Phil Carter
Chris Salomone
Lance Schulte
Tony Mata
Bentson-Chronology of Events
EXHIBIT 1
Sep-1988 Oct-14-1988 Nov-15-1988 Nov-29-1988 Jan-30-1989 Feb-10-1989 Feb-23-1989
Applicant
advised to
contact H&R
office for
a permit
and then to
apply for
Compliance
Inspection
Applicant
applied for
Compliance
Inspection
which was
conducted on
Oct. 14 per
applicant's
request.
Inspector
informed
applicant he
needed a
Redevelopment
Permit
Applicant
informed by
H&R Director
that he
must get a
Redeve1opment
Permit
Applicant
submitted
plans for
building
permits.
Both Counter
Technician
and Planner
explained
that a
Redeve1opment
Permit is
required
prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Applicant
insisted that
he would still
rather submit
building permits
prior to
obtaining
Redeve1opment
Permit
and would
"take his chances."
Application
submitted
sometime
between
Nov-18-1988
and
Jan-29-1989
Applicant's
plans and
Permit
application
received
by the
Planning
Department.
Planner
called
Applicant
same day
and discussed
problems
with the
plans
Applicant
submitted
revised
plans
Applicant
understands
processing
and is
satisfied
with plans
to resolve
issues
raised by
Planning
and
Engineering.
Applicant
voiced
same
sentiment
in subsequent
discussions
with Planner
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
EXHIBIT 2
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
(EitQ of (Harlfibaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 17, 1989
Mr. Jim Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, CA 92104
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The
Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application
no. RP 89-1, as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first
list is information which must be provided to complete your application. The
second list is issues of concern to staff. To help speed processing of the
application, it is suggested that each item on the lists be rectified or
addressed in a letter to your staff planner. You should be aware that no
processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to
be complete.
Please contact your staff planner. Lance Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you have
any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMTLLER
Planning Director
MJH:LBS/af
Attachment
cc: Charles Grimm
Mark Granich
Erin Letsch
Mike Howes
Chris Salomone
Bob Wojcik
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE APPLICATION:
RP 89-1
The application is missing the following materials
a. EIA Form
b. PFF Agreement
c. Title Report
d. Radius Map (6007300')
e. Property owners' list
f. Envelopes (2 complete sets)
g. Labels (Postage Paid ) 1 set/2 sets
ISSUES OF CONCERN
PLANNING:
1. There appears to be inconsistency in your drawings and a potential conflict
between auto and pedestrians at the proposed building entryway. In
particular, parking space number 3 provides potential for auto/pedestrian
conflict. Turn movements with that conflict point would be difficult.
2. The proposed garage parking area needs to be further defined. Does the
proposed garage provide sight distance for clear movement in and out of
the garage. Also, the design of that garage parking needs to assure that
it will only be used as a parking facility.
3. No exterior improvements building are shown. Conversion of a single family
dwelling to an office requires a requisite enhancement of the site and
building to accommodate that use.
4. No signage is shown on the application. Please provide a preliminary
indication of proposed signage.
ENGINEERING:
1. Driveway width dimensions are not shown.
2. No dimension is shown for area accessing garage. It is unknown if cars
will have sufficient maneuvering room.
3. It does not appear that parking space #4 will be able to turn around and
exit the site front first. It is undesirable to have the vehicle back out
on to the public street.
4. No existing public improvements or R.O.W. is shown. Items such as curb,
gutter, sidewalk pavement, etc. Should be shown and called out on the site
plan. Also show % slope of drainage and driveway.
EXHIBIT 3
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, California 92104
(619) 280-8173
5005
December 14, 1988
Marty Orenyak
Community Development Director
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
Re: Project address:
Plan Check No:
Project description:
2644 Madison
88-1594 Set I (Esgil Corp.)
Conversion from.R-3 to B-2
Dea r Mr. Orenyak:
This letter confirms our telephone conferences of December 13 and
14. I informed you that a few months ago we were investigating
the feasibility of purchasing a residence in Downtown and
converting it into an office.
We located a property which we thouglit might fulfill our needs.
We then inquired into the City of Carlsbad to determine the
feasibility of the conversion. The plan cfieck person informed
us that the proper procedure was to have a compliance inspection.
We were informed that the compliance inspection would tell us of
all changes or modifications which we would be required to make.
We paid the fee to the city and had a compliance inspection
before we finalized the purchase.
After reviewing the property, the inspector told us that we would
need to make handicapped access, update the electrical and some
other insignificant modifications. He said, other than these
items, the building was fine. We then estimated the cost of
these modifications and determined that we could, with great
difficulty, bear the costs. Relying on the results of this
inspection we closed escrow and became owners of this property.
We then did exactly what the inspector told us. To our surprise,
our plans were returned from ESGIL with lumdrcMis of c o r r or t i o ii s .
I spoke with two Architects today, and based on our current
situation, and ESGIL's corrections, it now appears that we must
start from scratch. We will have to spend, in addition to the
monies already anticipated, approximately $15,0 0 0.00 to
$20,000.00 more dollars! This excludes the costs incurred in
monthly payments in our current location and the Madison
location.
We simply can not afford to spend this kind of money. Had we
been told the full story at the compliance inspection, we would
not have purchased this property. Now we are in the untenable
position of having all of our money tied up in this project which
we can not afford to finish.
The specific areas (not mentioned in the compliance inspection)
which seem to be causing the most trouble are the one hour fire
requirements, the structural requirements and the framing
requirements.
As I mentioned to you on the telephone, it is our goal to obtain
a Certificate of Occupancy. We in no way wish to fray with the
city. The reason I contacted you was to determine if there are
any alternatives available to us ? Are there any exceptions or
limitations within applicable law ? Do you think a variance
might be a viable solution ?
I would like to personally thank you for your concern and
interest that you have demonstrated in investigating our dilemma.
We are confident that a solution to our situationcan be found.
In the interim, we will retain a local Architect to determine tho
most cost effective solution. We look forward to hearing from
you at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours.
EXHIBIT 4
City of Carlsbad
December 22, 1988
James T. Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, CA 92104-5005
CONVERSION AT 2644 MADISON, PLAN CHECK 88-1594
Dear Mr. Bentson:
Your letter describes problems you are experiencing with your project and asks
me for assistance. I researched your project, and this is what I found. When
you came to our office in September, 1988, the first advice you were given was
to contact the Housing and Redevelopment Section for a permit which would tell
you if what you planned to do was possible. You were also advised to apply for
a compliance inspection to see if there was any major faults that might prevent
the old building from being used for anything.
You applied for the compliance inspection on October 7, 1988, but you did not
apply for the Redevelopment Permit until November 18, 1988. Two inspectors made
the inspection and agreed the building was sound.
After applying for a Redevelopment Permit, you came to the office with a plan
check application on November 29, 1988. At this time a Counter Technician told
you a Redevelopment Permit was required and called an Associate Planner to the
counter who carefully explained that your plan check fee was not returnable, and
the first plan check correction from Engineering and Planning would be
"Redevelopment Permit required", at which point their portion of the plan check
would stop until the permit was granted or denied. Even with this knowledge you
insisted on presenting your plans for plan check.
The first plan check has been completed. Planning and Engineering have responded
as outlined above, and the Building Department, through its contractor, has many
corrections. This is always the case in a change of occupancy of this type
because of the more restrictive fire protection and load requirements of the
office occupancy.
2075 Las Palmas Drive• Carlsbad, California 92009-4859• (61 9) 438-1161
Mr. James Bentson
December 22, 1988
Page Two
You have asked me, as the Building Official, if I can somehow alter or diminish
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Your letter states that the
specific areas which are the most troublesome are the one hour fire requirements,
the structural requirements and the framing requirements. I will do what I can
for you when you have completed the plan check process, but keep in mind, that
the Uniform Building Code limits what the Building Official can modify, and only
if appropriate findings can be made that the proposed use or occupancy is less
hazardous than the existing use.
You ask if a variance would be a solution. The Uniform Building Code does not
contain a provision for variance. A variance is used for requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance, such as setbacks, number of units, fence heights, etc.
No further action will be taken by this Department until you have received
appropriate discretionary approvals from the Design Review Board.
MARTY ORENYAK^
Community Development Director
bjn
Redevelopment
Principal Building Inspector
Carter Darnell
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
(Eito 0f (Earlabai
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I' u
February 17, 1989 y
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
Mr. Jim Bentson
3076 Palm Street
San Diego, CA 92104
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The
Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application
RP 89-1, as to its completeness for processing. no.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first
list is information which must be provided to complete your application. The
second list is issues of concern to staff. To help speed processing of the
application, it is suggested that each item on the lists be rectified or
addressed in a letter to your staff planner. You should be aware that no
processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to
be complete.
Please contact your staff planner. Lance Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you have
any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZhfllLER
Planning Director
MJH:LBS/af
Attachment
cc: Charles Grimm
Mark Granich
Erin Letsch
Mike Howes
Chris Salomone
Bob Wojcik