HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 93-05; McSherry Garage Conversion; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)December 6, 1993
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
COMMENTS REGARDING MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 93-05
Housing and Redevelopment Staff and Engineering Staff met with Mr. McSherry regarding the
change in use proposed for his site at 3043 Harding Street as outlined in his redevelopment
permit application received November 22, 1993. Although Mr. McSherry could probably
continue to operate his business without problems, he was strongly encouraged by my office to
process the appropriate redevelopment permits in order to legally operate as office/retail
buildings vs. the original approved use of residential and garage. When looking at the site, it
is apparent that the garage was built to be much more than a regular residential garage.
However, I am not sure what the building permits indicate as the use for the garage.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department is supportive of the conversion from residential
unit and garage to the proposed retail/office combined use because it is appropriate for the area
and compatible with surrounding uses. The property is very well-maintained and is aesthetically
appealing. The only issue outstanding is the parking - there is no "formal" parking on-site.
Currently, parking is provided on-site in a paved area. However, the parking stalls are not
striped. With assistance from the Planning Department, I believe the applicant will be able to
meet the appropriate parking requirement(s) in order to convert the use.
Housing and Redevelopment does not have any additional requirements. We would like to
resolve the parking issue and any other issues which would allow us to support the application
when submitted to the Design Review Board for approval.
Mr. McSherry has been very cooperative. He has been quite eager to resolve any outstanding
issues and obtain the appropriate discretionary and building permits. Since Housing and
Redevelopment believe that the change in use is desirable, we would like to facilitate the
resolution of issues to obtain an "approval" recommendation.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or staff's previous discussions with Mr.
McSherry, please contact me at X2935.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 22, 1994
From: MICHAEL PETERSON
To: ERIC MUNOZ
Subject: 3043 HARDING STREET
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH
THE APPLICANT RESTRICTING HIS USABLE FLOOR SPACE. THIS WOULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY CLOSING OFF THE DOOR TO ONE ROOM AND BUILDING A
NON-BEARING PARTION IN ANOTHER ROOM. THIS IS BEING ALLOWED SO
APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON
SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IREVTEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE: -^e^T^-f /^/ ^ REVISED PLAN
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT (MEMO ONLY)
* POLICE DEPARTMENT - ATTN: J. SASWAY
^tftE-BEPARTMENT • MIKE,5MIIH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY
COMMUNITY SERVICES - MARK STEYAERT
* COMMUNITY SERVICES - VIRGINIA McCOY
* WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK
SCHOOL DISTRICT
* NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - 311 S. Tremont Street,
Oceanside, CA 92054-3119 - THOMAS LICHTERMAN
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC - P. O. Box 1831, San Diego,
Ca 92112-4150 - BICH TRAN (MEMO ONLY)
* Always Send Exhibits
FROM: Planning Department
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. T^P '^5^
NOTE: PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS
APPLICATION.
PROJECT TITLE:
APPLICANT: /^^C ^ S4Z^lL^ C/
PROPOSAL: ^c^r '^^4^ Tc/eA cc: ^
PROJECT PLANNER: ^ O^/KY^YJ
Please review and subinit written comments and/or conditions to the Plaiming Department
by t ' // ^ ^ 1 If not received by that date, it will be assimied that you have
nqcoimnent and the proposal has your endorsement as submitted.
THANK YOU
COMMENTS: Saz^ cLJ feAko^ ^-'2-^^^ /oM L-^AJ^ ^
PLANS ATTACHED ; FRM0020 3/94
City of Carlsbad
Builciing Departrnerit
September 2, 1993 V"^^ ^ r
Harold V. McSherry / O l x P
3043 Harding Street ^
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: 3043 HARDING STREET; CV930160
This letter follows an inspection made on August 31, 1993 at the above address. As you know,
the City has no record of approval or permits for the conversion of the house and garage to
retail/professional office space. A redevelopment permit and building permits are required in
order to ensure that all (Tity codes and ordinances are followed. A redevelopment permit
application may be obtained at 2965 Roosevelt Street. Your contact there is Debbie Fountain
at 434-2811 exL 2935.
When Inspector Pete Dreibeibis and I made a courtesy inspection on August 31, 1993, we
observed many changes since the garage was originally built. The plumbing has all been
installed without inspection and has some obvious code violations. The ejector is wired and
vented improperly. The other drains in the building are not vented either. Furthur inspection
of this system will be necessary after permits are issued.
Additionally, the north walls on both buildings may need to be modified to meet fire resistivit
requirements of the building code. The house needs to be made handicap accessible by means
of a ramp, and the bathroom may need to be modified to accommodate a handicap person.
Altematively, if the garage bathroom had an exterior door and was a public on-site facility, no^
modification of the house bath would be necessary.
In response to your August 30th inquires, I know of no immediate unsafe or dangerous
conditions on your property. The soil conditions in the downtown area are very stable and
suitable for the type of low-rise development typically built there. It would be prudent to have
your old building's foundation bolts inspected as many buildings of that era lack secure
foundation attachment.
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
^^^^
September 2, 1993
3043 Harding Street
Page Two
At this point, the City has no means by which one might pay fees in installments. The building
permit for necessary modifications must proceed with an approved inspection secured at least
every six (6) months. You probably wouldn't want construction to drag on indefinitely, and
even though this case is a violation, the City would prefer steady progress towards compliance.
If you have any other questions, please call me at 438-1161 ext. 4503.
Sincerely,
PAT KELLEY
Principal Building Inspector
PK:rs
c: Debbie Fountain
SITE PLAN
Scale: 3/4"=10'
K= 50'0"
24'0" - 16'6"-
Alternative 2
4 Parking Spaces
HARDING STREET
TREES & GRASS
22'6'
26'0'
12'0"
140'0"
34'6'
40'0"
5'0'
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING
1125 sq.ft.
Retail/Office
453 sq.ft.
Stor/
Ware
Storage/
Warehouse
<7-
20
HANDICAPPED
PARKING 3
>
7r
8'xl2',
utility
shed ,
k 9'5" ->|
PARKING 2
PARKING 1
8'6'
8'6'
JL. 2'0'
Storage/
Warehouse
Retail/Office
715 sq.ft.
N/ /
Exit/Entrance
22'0' 26'0"
LEGEND:
Buildings = 24% of total lot
Landscaping = 16% of total lot
Total Retail/Office Space =
1,168 sq.ft.
Total Storage/Warehouse Spacer
510 sq.ft.
Total Both Buildings =
1,678 sq.ft.
77C-ej y^/
SITE PLAN
Scale: 3/4"=10'
K 50'0'
24-0' 16'6"
Alternative 1
5 Parking Spaces
HARDING STREET
TREES & GRASS
A A
22'6'
i-
26-0'
12'0"
140'0"
34'6'
40'0'
S'O"
v__
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING
1125 sq.ft,
Retail/Office
453 sq.ft. Stor/
Ware
Storage/
Warehouse
LEGEND:
Buildings = 24% of total lot
Landscaping = 16% of total lot
Total Retail/Office Space =
1,168 sq.ft.
Total Storage/Warehouse Space=
510 sq.ft.
Total Both Buildings =
1,678 sq.ft.
f
f
mU)"
20
0
HANDI-
CAPPED
PARKING
8'X12
utility
shed
PARKING 4
CTLt^A^y/^^Cf-
8'0"
PARKING 3 Nt/8'0"
2^C7>
PARKING 2 ¥-8'6'
PARKING 1 A/ ,8'6'
£/l'6"
Storage/
Warehouse
Retail/Office
715 sq.ft.
lr CK ^//^/e
1 c^ $~^:/^Cl^a^f^ ^^OyC^
7} {/-^^
7o 7< a7s''
7 ^'^'T'
Exit/Entrance
(. 22'0" 26'0"
SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER, ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Associate Engineer, Davis
VIA PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER FOR LAND USE /^]/^
RP 93-05, McSHERRY GARAGE CONVERSION
We have reviewed the re-submitted site plans. The parking arrangement shown on both
altemate plans will work for the number of spaces shown on each plan, five spaces for
altemate 1 and four spaces for altemate 2. However the dimensions for the various parking
spaces are not correct. The site is adequate in size for the correctly dimensioned spaces to
work at the locations shown on both altemate plans.
We recommend that the applicant revise the site plan to show the correct dimensions prior
to submitting the project to the DRB. You may give the attached red-lined check prints to the
applicant to illustrate the revisions.
H:\LIBRARY\eng\WPDATA\davis\RP935MAC.SRY
MAY 18, 1994 ' M
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER, Eric Munoz
FROM: ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, Jim Davis
VIA PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER FOR LAND USE yy?i^
RP 93-05, MCSHERRY GARAGE CONVERSION
We have reviewed both of the site plans submitted. Some items are missing on both plans, such
as set backs of the garage, dimensions of the separate parking space and the width of the
exit/entrance to the alley. Therefore, the submittal is technically incomplete. However, a site
visit revealed that the exit/entrance meets the requirement to be 24 feet wide and the handicap
space will fit the area shown so we were able to do an engineering review for issues. There is
only one easily resolved issue as follows:
The issuers with the backing out manoeuver refluifed for the separate parking space
located souuKof the main stmcture as shpwiTori both plans. The manoeuver requires
more than a thraSspoint tum. Engirjeering staff believes that the findings could be made
for a variance fronHJie usu^l^-standards for this manoeuver. Such a variance could be
written to be included)h<^ staff report, if needed.
Both plans show mridng layouts that wiik^ction for the all other tuming movements. We do
not prefer on^-^Jlan over the other. Plan ishoj^five parking spaces including two compact
spaces djii&onc handicap. Plan 2 shows four parHn^>spaces, three standard and one handicap.
LTE/?A I'l 2^^ 2. yuB7ET.S £7/1^^!:.) yt^^ B7^j /t^jPi/jyteiyt^eryi^
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\DAVIS\MCSHERY.518
OTY OF CAilLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPUCATTON
I) .APPLICATIONS .APPLIED FOR: (CHECK SOXES)
CFOR DEPT
•JSE QSin
FOR PACE I OF 2
i~ Mascer Plan
' 3 5pec:.~.c Plar.
3 Precise Deveicrrr.e.".: P'.ar.
~ ~e.-:a::ve "rac: Map
?'.a.-_".ei Deveics.T.e.".: Perrr-t
i ^ Ncr.-Residenciai Pla.'v.ed Deveicprr.enc
I Q Cor.dorLirauir. Permic
~ 5pec-.ai wSe Perrrjc
1
I ^ P.edeveioprr.er.c Perruc
I
i Ter.'acive Parcei Mac
I n Adrrup.iscrac:ve Va.'-.ance
^ General Plan .Anrendmenc
I n Local Coascal Plan .•\me.-.d.T.e.''.c
i
j Sire Deve:crrr.e.''.c Plan
i
, Zcne Cha.".?"
; "~ Ccr.dic-.or.ai L'se Perrr.::
I
i Hillside Deveicpme.nc Pernuc
I ~*
I • E.Tvrror.n'.er.cai [mpacc .Assessmenc
2 Vanance
I 2 Planned [nduscnai Permit
f] Coastal Development Permit
Q Planning Commission Decermi.iacion
C List any other appUcations no: specinced
.S£ zsjr
Existing Buildings on site; "Change" of use only.
WEST 1) LGCATIC.N OF PROJECT: ONTHE
^JNORTH^SQL"^ E.AS7. '^ST)
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND
SIDE OF HARDING STREET
(NA.ME CF STR££T)
3ErA-E£.N OAK AVENLTE
i^NAME OF STrLEcT)
3) 3PJ£r LEG.AL DESCRiPTION:
(NAME OF STREET)
3043 Harding Street; Lots 23 & 24 in Block 57 of Carlsbad,
according to Map 775, San Diego County Recorder/ Feb. 15/ 1894.
4) .ASSESSOR P.ARCEL NO(S).
5) LOCAL F.ACILTHES
.MANAGE.ME.NT ZONE
3) EXJSTl.NG ZONLNG
in PROPCSED NU.MBEROF
RESiDE.NTTAL UNITS
203-352-14-00
VR
0
6) LXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
9) PROPOSED ZONING
12) PROPOSED NLMBER
OF LOTS
same
0
7) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATiON
10) GROSS SITE
ACREAGE
13) TYPE CF SUBDIVISION
same
n/a
n/a
(RESIDE.NT-AL
COMME.RCLU
INDCSTRiAL)
14) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDE.NTIAL UNITS n/a
15) PROPOSED INDUSTRLAL
OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGE
n/a 16) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1678
NOTE: A PKCPOSro PfU3JBCr RSQGDIiriC THAT lAJLTTPU
REQUOUM: IHAT ONLyoMAmcAXiaNBK Rtm i«m-BesiiBMns FRMOOOI63/'
crrv OF CARLSBAD
LANO USE REVIEW .APPLICATION FCR.M PAGE: :?:
17) PERCE.NTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT LN OPEN SP.ACE /landscaping
13) PRCPCSED SE-A-ER USAGE IN £QUn.'ALE.ST DWELLING UNITS
ly^ .-RCPCSED ;.NC?.L^.iE :N AVER.ACE D.AiLY TR.A5r!C
3043 Harding Street
3P.:£= OESCRIPrCN CF PRCJECT:
16.07%
n/a
' same
change in use of buildinqs from r^f^id^n^^^i/rj^r-.rj^
to professional office/retail
12) :N THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THtS .APPLICATION IT MAY 3E NECESS.ARY FOR MEMBE.RS OF CrPf ST.AfF.
PLANNING CCMMISSICNE.RS. DESIGN REVIEW 30ARD MEMBE.RS. OR CITY CCUNCIL MEMBE.RS TO INSPECT .AND
F THIS .APPLICATION. l/TrVE CONSENT TO E.NTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE
23) OWNER 24) .APPUCANT X (^
NAME (PRi.NT OR TYPE)
HAROLD V. Sc DARCY W. McSHERRY
NAME (PRiNT OR TYPET ^ V /
M.AILING ADDRESS
3043 Harding Street
MAiUNG ADDRESS^ /
CITY .AND ST.ATE ZIP TELEPHONE
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2321 (619) 434-5029
CITY AND STATE ZI?'^ TELEPHCNE
y
i c£.ir:Fy THAT t AX THE LECAI GWXER
A,NO "HAT AU. THE .^aOVT iNFORMATICN
:S rRUE A.ND CCWlfCT TO THE BEST OF
MY KXCWt^DCE.
SIGNAXL'BfeE 11-11-93
t2z2.
1 CEimFV THAT 1 M*. THE LECAi, OWNER-t RIPRESE-VTATTVE A.SO
THAT ALL "THE AflOVt LNPCRMATION IS TRUE AWO CORRECT TO THE
BEST Of MY KNOWUJXE.
SIGNATURE DATE
FCR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUT.ATION:
.APPUCATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
DATE FEE PAJD
RECEIVED BY:
RECEIPT NO.
PRQJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT NAME: HAROLD V. McSHERRY
Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may aiso include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
Existing buildings on site; "change" of use to professional office/retail is
requested. The site was previously approved as residential. No expansion
of existing structures is planned; the only changes will be to meet the
limited building code improvements.
R.V. 4/91 ProiD«.c.frm
Citv of Carlsbad
RIanning Department
DISCLOSURE ST.'\TE.MENT
APSL CANT-S STA-=VEST CF DlSCUCSUPE OF CEfTTAiN 0WN£.s»SHlP lNTc=S3TS CN ALL APP^CATICNS WHiCH *VILL =cCU.
z-scnE~.cs>Af^y ACTCN CN T:«C fAm" OF THE C.TY CCONC.'L OR ANY AppciNTED acAflo. CCMMlSSlCN Cfl ccw.Mrr-i=.
• Please Pnnt)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
HAROLD V. McSHERRY
DARCY W. McSHERRY
3995 Alder Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the properry involved.
SAME
if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar:
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersr:;
interest in the partnership.
NO
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names arc
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiar,
of the trust.
NO
FRA100013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
Disclosure Statement
fOver;
Page 2
5. Have you had m.ore than S250 worth of business transacted with any m.ember of City staff. 5ca:
Commissions. Ccmm.ittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No X_ if yes. please indicate person(s)
Peraon 19 defined aa: 'Any individual, firm. coDartnarshiD. jOint venture, aaaocietion. jocial dub. fraternal organization. corDoration. estate. :r-^st.
receiver, syndicate, thia and any otner county, crty and county, c/ty municipalrty. dutnct or other poirticai suddiviaion. or any other ;rouo or
comomation acting as a untt'
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/data
HAROLD V. McSHERRY HAROLD V. McSHERRY
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
FKM00013 8/90
SITE PLAN K
Scale: 3/4"=10' |\9'6"-^v
50'0'
24.0" 16'6" ^
Alternative 1
5 Parking Spaces
HARDING STREET
TREES & GRASS
SIDEWALK
A
22'6'
LANDSCAPING
1125 sq.ft.
i-
LEGEND:
Buildings = 24% of total lot
Landscaping = 16% of total lot
26'0'
f
12'0"
i-
EXISTING
RETAIL/OFFICE
798 sq.ft.
140'0"
Or,
HANDI-
CAPPED
PARKING
5
TF
PARKING 4 J.8'0
PARKING 3
34'6'
PARKING 2
8'0
PARKING 1
40'0"
5'0"
1
.8'6'
yi'6"
EXISTING
RETAIL/OFFICE
880 sq.ft.
^7
V
7 -A
Exit/Entrance
( 22'0" 7
SITE PLAN 1^
Scale: 3/4"=10' ^ 9'6'-i^--
50'0'
24'0' 16'6" >|
Alternative 2
4 Parking Spaces
HARDING STREET
TREES & GRASS
22'6"
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING
1125 sq.ft.
LEGEND:
Buildings = 24% of total lot
Landscaping = 16% of total lot
26'0"
EXISTING
RETAIL/OFFICE
798 sq.ft.
12'0"
140'0"
8'xl2'
utility
HANDICAPPED
PARKING 3
34'6"
PARKING 2 r
PARKING 1
shed
15'6"
8'6"
8'6'
40'0"
S'O"
JLc 2'0'
EXISTING
RETAIL/OFFICE
880 sq.ft.
/ ? 3^
Exit/Entrance
1^-22'0" 9
DECEMBER 16, 1993
TO: ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Jim Davis , ,
VIA PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER OF LAND USE_g_
RP 93-05, MCSHERRY GARAGE CONVERSION
Continued review of the project has revealed that the project as submitted cannot obtain the
required six parking spaces and meet requirements. The meeting with you and the applicant at
the site did not result in any change in this position. And this position was confirmed at the
subsequent meeting with you and Debbie Fountain. The following progressive items show why
the project cannot meet the requirements:
1. One analysis we made of the site layout showed that the project can provide four parking
spaces including the required one handicap space and meet all requirements.
2. Another analysis we made provides five spaces and can meet UBC handicap accessibility
requirement but has the following problems:
A. Engineering requires clearances for car door openings. Car door opening
clearances at two locations, one adjacent to the residential building and the other
adjacent to the garage are not provided.
B. The existing door to the side of the garage would be blocked.
C. Mixing compact spaces and standard spaces in the same aisle would be required
and this does not meet a parking ordinance requirement.
3. Another analysis of a five space layout can provide four compact spaces and one
handicap and meet handicap accessibility; but this arrangement meets only one car door
clearance requirement (it needs two) and does not meet the parking ordinance for
percentage of compact spaces, 50 percent in the VR Zone.
4. Another analysis we made of the project could also provide five spaces including one
handicap, two standard and two compact. UBC handicap accessibility requirement would
not be met and two other requirements would not be met, as follows:
A. A door entrance into the side of the existing residence building would be partially
blocked and no room is left to provide an access to the front. This would not
meet the handicap accessibility requirement.
H:\LffiRARY\ENO\WPDATA\DAVIS\MACSHERY.DNY
B. Clearances for car door openings could not be provided at two locations, one
adjacent to a fence, the other adjacent to a building.
NOTE:
Several other arrangements of the five spaces were analyzed. All were more
objectionable than 2, 3 and 4, above.
5. The possibility of opening another driveway from Harding street in order to free up the
site and create the required six spaces was investigated. This possibility is not reviewed
favorably by staff because of the loss of public parking along Harding Street of at least
one space. Furthermore a power pole and street tree would need to be removed. The
expense involved could be excessive since the power pole is an end pole with an anchor
and some undergrounding would likely be involved.
It still remains to be proven if the required six spaces could be obtained and meet all
requirements, especially landscaping requirements, even if the relocations were done.
Further analysis of this scenario was not pursued because the relocation costs are
believed to be in excess of $10,000 and staff would not be able to support the loss of
street parking anyway.
6. Six all compact spaces would physically fit on the site. This is not workable because:
A. There would be no handicap space.
B. There would be no handicap access to the existing residence building or garage.
C. Has no standard spaces.
D. Does not provide car door opening clearances at any of the above barriers, fence
and the two structures.
As was discussed at the above second meeting, if Redevelopment does ultimately want to show
some support for the land use or the project itself, we recommend that the above information
be presented to the DRB in the staff report. Any recommendation for denial on the basis of not
meeting a parking requirement is in the Planning Department's province.
H:\LmRARY\ENG\WPDATA\DAVIS\MACSHERY.DNY
CFTY OF CARLSBAD
L/vND USE REVIEW APPUCA"nON FOR PAGE 1 OF 2
1) .APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES)
(FOR DEPT
^ USE OMY)
• Master Plan ' ^
Spec:nc Plan /
77 Precise Developr.e.^.t P'.an
77 T'er.raci've Tract .\'.3p
~ Pla-'^'ied DeveiopT.e.nt Perrrjt
[j .\on-Residential Planned Development
Q Condommium Permit
[j Special Use Permit
j^X; Redevelopment Permit y^^»/jov^
LJ Tentative Parcel .Map
Q .Administrative Vanance
-OR Zl?-
[1 General Plan .Amendment
r] Local Ccastai Plan .Amendment
[j Site Deveiopment Pian '
TTl Zone Change
[j Conditional L'se Permit
• . Hillside Deveiopment Permit
• Environmental impact .Assessment
Q Variance
Q Planned Industriai Permit
• CoastaJ Development Permit
Q Planning Commission Determination
• List any other applications not specificed
Existing Buildings on site; "Change" of use only.
2) LOCAnO.N/ OF PROJECT: ON THE
^0RTO>S
WEST SIDE OF HARDING STREET
(NORTHJSOLTH EAST. WEST) (NAME OF STREET)
BETWEEN CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND OAK AVENUE
(NAME OF STREET)
3) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(NAME OF STREET)
3043 Harding Street; Lots 23 & 24 in Block 57 of Carlsba^,
according to Map 775, San Diego County Recorder, Feb. 15, 1894.
4) ASSESSOR PARCEL N0(S).
5) LOCAL FACILmES
MANAGEMENT ZONE
8) EXISTING ZONING
11) PROPOSED NUMBEROF
RESIDENTLAL UNITS
203-352-14-00
VR
0
6) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
9) PROPOSED ZONING
12) PROPOSED NUMBER
OF LOTS
same
0
7) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
10) GROSS srrE
ACREAGE
13) TSfPE OF SUBDP/ISION
same
n/a
n/a
(RESIDENTLAL
COMMERCLAL
INDUSTRLAL)
14) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTLAL UNFTS n/a
15) PROPOSED INDUSTRLAL
OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGE
n/a 16) PROPOSED COMMEROAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1678
NOTE; A PROPOSED PROJECT REQCaWNG THAT UULTlPta APWiOOIONS BS TOJD MUST W SUBfcflTTH) PWOR TO 330 Pl*. A PROPOSED PROJECT
REQUnUNG THAT 0^4:3r Otm. /^PUCATTON M PILED MUST BE SUBWmZD PRIOR.TO 4:00 PJt FRMOOOl6 8/9
(!)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPUCATION FORj? PAGE
p) pPRCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE /landscaping
jg) PROPOSED SEWTR USAGE IN EQUIVALE.NT DWELLING UNITS
I 19) PROPOSED [.N'CRLASE IN .AVER.AGE DAILY TRAFFIC
16.07%
n/a
same
;0) PROJECT .N'.AME: 3043 Harding Street Coo^fo^f^ C/y^^s\o/^
21) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Change in use of buildinqs from rec^i d^nhi ^i/gpr;.go
to professional office/retail
22) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICA'DON IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY ST.AfF.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW 30ARD MEMBERS. OR CITY COUNCIL ME.MBERS TO INSPECT .AND
ENTER THE PR0PER2;^AT;^I^THE^BJEQ^F THIS APPLICATION. IAVE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE yy^U"^O^/'^/^^^^f^/^-
23) OWNER 24) APPUCANT /7
NAME (PRINT OR TYPE)
HAROLD V. & DARCY W. McSHERRY
NAME (PRJNT OR TYPE)
7"
MAJLING AD^S MAJUNG ADDRESS
3043 Harding Street
CnY AND STATE ZIF
/
CITY AND STATE ZIP
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2321
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-5029
TELEPHONE
1 CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER
AND THAT AJU. THE ABOVE INFORMATION
is TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWUDCE.
i CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER'i REPRESENT.snVI
THAT AU. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT
BEST Of MY KNOWLEDGE.
ANO
TO THE
SIGNA 11-11-93
SIGNATURE DATE
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION:
APPUCA'nON TYPE
BECEiVED
FEE REQUIRED
l\O.VO
7
1
y
fJOV 2 2 1993
CiTY OF cmiBEm
DATE STAMf APPLltLATlON R£CttVEd
RECEIVED BY:
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
DATE FEE PAID ///W^5 RECEIPT NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTiON/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT NAME: HAROLD V. McSHERRY
Please describe fuliy the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
Existing buildings on site; "change" of use to professional office/retail is
requested. The site was previously approved as residential. No expansion
of existing structures is planned; the only changes will be to meet the
limited building code improvements.
R«v. 4/91 ProjDMC.frm
Citv of CarlsbaH
Rlartninq Oepartment
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A?=L,CA.VT-S STATEMENT OP ::iSCLCSUlPE OF CERTAiN 0WN6BSHIP INTE.«6STS ON ALL APPLICATJCNS WHICH WILL SECU.?
3.SC"ETiCNAflY ACTiCN CN r:-,£ PART OF THfi CTY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BCAflO. CCMMfSSiCN Cfl CCMMfT-EH
• Please Pnnt)
The foiiowing information must be disclosed:
1. Appiicant
List the names and addresses of all persoas having a financial interest in the application.
HAROLD V. McSHERRY
DARCY W. McSHERRY
3995 Alder Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
SAME
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names an:
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersr:;
interest in the partnership.
NO
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names arc
addresses of any person sen/ing as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
NO
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palnnas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
Disclosure Statemerrt
^Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had m,ore than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scar
Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No 5C__ If yes, please indicate person(s) '
Peraon is defined aa: 'Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, asaociation. social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate tr^st.
receiver, syndicate, thia and any other county, city and county, crty municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or
combination acting as a unit"
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
"Signature of Owner/date
//-//- f/
Signature of applicant/data
HAROLD V. McSHERRY
Print or type name of owner
HAROLD V. McSHERRY
Print or type name of applicant
FRM00013 8/90
SrrE PLAN
5cale: "^A'^ lo'
> 50'o"
HARD me STREET
&
0
o
^ I oev^AL K >
existing landscaping LEGEND:
Buildings: 23.97% of
total lot;
Landscaping: 16.07% of
total lot.
^ Security Fence J( Entrance/Exit
ALLfY
8' of fence to be /
replaced for bettdr
.driver visibility[
DECEMBER 2, 1993
TO: ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Jim Davis
VIA: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
RP 93-05, McSHERRY GARAGE CONViatSION
Engineering finds this application incomplete because the submitted parking layout cannot be
supported. We do not directly see a way to get the required parking. A variance from the
parking requirements may be the only way out. This may ultimately require a re-submittal
therefore the application is incomplete. The issues with the submitted parking layout are:
1. The proposal to have one parpng space (employee only) blocked by other cars is not
supportable.
2. The row of four parking spaces puts compact spaces next to standard spaces. The parking
ordinance does not allow/this.
3. The two parking spaces on the end of the row of four do not have the additional two feet
for door opening cle&rznce that engineering recommends.
H:\LroRARY\ENG\WPDATA\DAVIS\MACSHERI.RP
DECEMBER 8, 1993
TO: ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Jim Davis
VIA: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
RP 93-05, McSHERRY GARAGE CONVERSION
Engineering fmds this application incomplete because the submitted parking layout cannot be
supported. A variance from the parking requirements may be the only way out; however we are
willing to meet with the applicant and work for a different solution. This will ultimately require
a re-submittal therefore the application is incomplete as submitted.
We could support a new driveway opening from Harding Street. Then a driveway to the back
of the lot may allow a different parking lot layout and ultimately lead to a way to meet the
parking requirement; however this remains to be determined.
The issues with the submitted parking layout are:
1. The proposal to have one parking space (employee only) blocked by other cars is not
supportable.
2. The row of four parking spaces puts compact spaces next to standard spaces. The parking
ordinance does not allow this.
3. The two parking spaces on the end of the row of four do not have the additional two feet
for door opening clearance that engineering recommends.
H:\LffiRARY\ENO\WPDATA\DAVIS\MACSHERI.RP