HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-13; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 324; Escrow Transfers Office Building, ^.
HOUSING ANIJ REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL ’
AB# 8alf TITLE:
MTG. b- 13-00 ESCROW TRANSFERS OFFICE BUILDING,
AMENDMENT TO DESIGN -RF’ 99-04
I DEPT. H/RED CITY MGR.3
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3a-7 APPROVING
an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04, to allow for a redesign of the Escrow
Transfers Office Building to be located at 2928 Jefferson Street within the Village
Redevelopment Area as presented in Exhibit 3 to this report.
I ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 7, 1999, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a Major Redevelopment Permit for a new development project known as the Escrow Transfers Office
Building. The proposed project included a three-story, 7200 square foot commercial office
building, with two levels of office space above enclosed parking on property located at 2928
Jefferson Street, within the Village Redevelopment Area. The property is located on the east
side of Jefferson Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
The subject project was approved with a specific architectural design that met the guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and met the required development
standards with the exception of the setbacks. The project was approved to provide 50% of its
parking off-site through participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
During the plan check process for a building permit, the project was redesigned by the
applicant. Per the applicant, the redesign was necessary to accommodate various building
code and other code requirements. The redesign of the project, however, resulted in a
situation where staff is unable to make a substantial conformance determination to issue the
building permit for the project. In response to staffs determination, the applicant subsequently
submitted an alternate redesign which is provided for consideration by the Commission. At this time, action is required by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to either 1) approve
one of the redesign alternatives as submitted by the applicant, or 2) instruct the applicant to
comply with the original design approved on December 7, 1999. Copies of the original design
(Exhibit 5) as well as the revised designs (Exhibits 3 & 4) for the subject project are attached
for consideration.
I Key Design/Redesign Issues - Building Plan Check
When the project was originally approved, the height of the building (at its highest point from
grade) was 40 feet 2 inches, with the required roof pitch of 512. As redesigned by the applicant, the building height has increased to 44 feet with the required 512 roof pitch.
Although this height is still below the maximum height of 45 feet, which is permitted for projects
constructed over a parking structure, it is an increase which staff does not have the authority to approve without further Commission action.
AWAg q
Page 2
The project, as redesigned through building plan check, does not meet the expectation that all
aspects of the previously approved development project, specifically architecture, will be
completely implemented through to project construction. The final set of building plans
submitted for approval (4/21/00) reflected a significant change in the architecture of the
building from that which was originally approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Specifically, the project as redesigned through the building plan check process (See Exhibit 4)
resulted in the following notable design changes:
l The front elevation of the building plans does not provide for the tower feature or other
building setbacks/step-backs. The original “tower feature” and “step backs” on the second and third stories was a design technique encouraged in the Village Design
Guidelines to reduce the impact that taller buildings have on adjacent pedestrian areas.
These features also provide for greater architectural articulation or design variation. The
front elevation design as presented in the building plans is more likely to overwhelm the
adjacent pedestrian areas and, in staffs opinion, is not as architecturally appealing as
the original design.
l The northwest portion of the building has a large three-story blank wall setback 5 feet
from the property line. The redesign of the south elevation has resulted in placement of
the windows much closer together in the center of the building, resulting in two three-
story (solid) blank walls - one on the east and the other on the west end of this (south
side) building elevation. The original design showed fewer and more evenly spaced
windows along the entire wall face, which helped to break-up this highly visible fa$ade
and resulted in a better over-all design.
l The rear elevation (or east elevation) has been redesigned to enclose the stairway. ‘This redesign was deemed acceptable by staff. However, it does reflect a significant change
in building design.
l Originally, the air conditioning units were approved for placement on the roof with
appropriate screening. With the project redesign, these units have been relocated to the
ground and one unit is to be placed on the exterior of the building within a new enclosure, which was not identified in the approved redevelopment permit plans.
Placement of the air conditioning unit on the ground is not as desirable from a building
design/architecture standpoint.
It is staffs opinion that the revised building design submitted during the building plan check
process is not acceptable, and staff does not recommend approval of it. The Commission,
however, does have discretion to approve this building plan check redesign if so desired.
Alternate Building Design
Subsequent to staffs determination regarding non-conformance of the project design, the
applicant made an effort to make additional design revisions to improve the overall architecture
of the subject project. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the revised design alternative for consideration
by the Commission. It is staffs opinion that the subject redesign alternative is more acceptable
than the design proposed during the building plan check process. Although staff continues to
prefer the original design approved by the Commission, staff can support approval of the
AB# %lt-
Page 3
redesign alternative submitted as Exhibit 3 to this report. The building redesign alternative has
the following changes that would need to be deemed acceptable in order for the Commission
to approve the proposed amendment to RP 99-04:
l Reduced front elevation building articulation. No tower feature is provided, as originally
proposed, and there are very limited building “step backs” to reduce the overall mass of
the building from a pedestrian perspective.
l Northwest portion of the building will have a three story blank wall with very limited
architectural relief.
l Increased blank wall area on south elevation (towards front of building) due to enclosure
of balcony area (on south side).
l Revised rear (or east) building elevation to enclose stairway.
l Placement of one air conditioning unit on the exterior of the building at ground level
within a new enclosed/screened area.
l Increase in height of building from.40 feet 2 inches to 44 feet.
As mentioned above, staff prefers the original design over both of the redesign alternatives.
For an alternative, however, staff believes that the building design submitted in Exhibit 3 for
the subject project is more acceptable than the design submitted during the building plan
check process (Exhibit 4). Although the redesign alternative is not the most desirable, it
generally meets the design guidelines set forth for development in the Village Redevelopment
Area.
It should be noted that building design is discretionary. Therefore, the Commission may
approve the redesign as submitted by the applicant or require additional effort to further
enhance the building from an architectural standpoint.
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Action
The significant redesign of the subject building together with the increased overall height for
the project results in a requirement to amend the major redevelopment permit that was
approved in December, 1999. Staff is requesting that the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission take action to either 1) approve a redesign of the subject project by approving an
amendment to the previously approved major redevelopment permit (RP 99-04), or 2) deny the redesign amendment to RP 99-04 and require the applicant to prepare building permit plans
which are consistent with the originally approved design.
Following is a list of key project findings and conditions that the Commission must continue to support in order for a redesigned project to be deemed acceptable for approval:
l Project is consisfent with all applicable design guidelines and development standards.
Except for the height of the building, there are no development standards, which are an
issue as related to the project redesign. The height has increased to 44 feet. However, it
is one (1) foot below the maximum height allowed for buildings constructed over parking
structures. At this time, the issue is primarily related to the design of the building. 3
AB# 339 Page 4
l The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing
and architectural/v interesting. Although staff preferred the original design of the
building, Redevelopment Staff finds the alternative design (Exhibit 3) to be acceptable
and has recommended approval of it. The fact remains that the proposed project
represents a large building on a small site. To return to the originally approved design or
to add greater building articulation or “step backs” to the redesign alternative, the
applicant would be required to reduce the overall size of the building (in terms of square
footage) and completely revise the building permit plans. If the Commission does not
find the redesign alternative to be acceptable, the Commission does have the discretion
to require the applicant to make an additional effort to add more architectural interest to
the building and perhaps reduce the ultimate size of the building as part of the redesign
process.
Options of Action by the Commission
Following the public hearing on this matter, staff is requesting that the Commission take action
on an amendment to RP 99-04, Escrow Transfers Office Building, to allow for a redesign of the
subject project. The options available to the Commission for consideration are as follows:
1. The Commission may approve the redesign of the subject project as submitted by the
applicant during the building plan check process, dated April 21, 2000 (Exhibit 4); or,
2. The Commission may approve the redesign alternative submitted by the applicant,
dated May 19, 2000 (Exhibit 3); or,
3. The Commission may instruct the applicant to make additional modifications to the
redesigned project, and return with the modified design for further consideration at a
later date;
4. The Commission may remand the request for an amendment to Major RP 99-04 for a
redesign to the Design Review Board for a recommendation; or,
5. The Commission may deny the redesign amendment and require the applicant to revise
the building plans to conform to the originally approved project (Exhibit 5).
Staff is recommending approval of Option 2 that allows for approval
alternative submitted by the Applicant on May 19, 2000 and noted
report.
Environmental Review
of the building redesign
as Exhibit 3 within this
The development, as redesigned, has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review for this project. No additional environmental review is necessary.
Fiscal Impact:
The proposed project will provide additional property tax revenue (tax increment) to the
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency. There are no costs to be incurred by the City or the
Redevelopment Agency as a result of construction of the subject project.
4
AB# 3aq Page 5
Exhibits:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 3d 7 approving the redesign
alternative for the Escrow Transfers Office Building (RP 99-04) as shown in Exhibit 3.
2. Location Map
3. Reduced copy of Alternate Design Proposal for Escrow Transfers Office Building 4. Reduced copy of Redesign Proposal Submitted for Building Plan Check for Escrow
Transfers
5. Reduced copy of Approved Elevations for Escrow Transfers Office Building (RP 99-04)
6. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 317 originally approving RP
99-04 on December 7, 1999, with related Design Review Board Resolutions.
5
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 327
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT (RP 99-04)TO ALLOW FOR A REDESIGN OF THE
ESCROW TRANSFERS OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY TO BE
LOCATED AT 2928 JEFFERSON STREET WITHIN THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS OFFICE BUILDING
APN: 203-354-05
CASE NO: RP 99-04(A)
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1999, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04 for
construction of a new commercial building to permit an
office for Escrow Transfers at 2928 Jefferson Street, and
adopted Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.
317 approving Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to approval of Major
Redevelopment Permit 99-04, the applicant did revise plans,
specifications and renderings to redesign said office
building, and is requesting Housing and Redevelopment
Commission approval of an amendment to Major Redevelopment
Permit 99-04 to allow for said redesign of subject building;
and,
. . . .
. . . .
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-
HRC Resolution N0.32~ Page 2
WBEBEAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
did hold a public hearing on June 13, 2000 to consider the
revised plans, specifications and renderings for Major
Redevelopment Permit 99-04, as submitted by the applicant,
and to consider the recommendations and hear &l persons
interested in or opposed to the amendment to the subject
permit to allow for the redesign of the subject building;
and,
WHEREAS, the development, as redesigned, has no
additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier
environmental review documentation for this project. No
additional environmental review is required for the subject
amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission as follows:
l.That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the redesigned project is consistent with all applicable design guidelines and development standards with the variances originally approved by said Commission on December 7, 1999.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the applicant has redesigned the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting.
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
HRC Resolution No. 327 Page 3
4. The amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99- 04 to allow for the alternate redesign of the
proposed office building known as Escrow
Transfers is hereby approved as shown on
Exhibit 3 as presented to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission on the date of this
resolution, and on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department and incorporated herein by this reference. Development shall occur as shown on the approved exhibit. Any proposed development different from this approval shall require an additional amendment to this approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
5.The amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99- 04 is approved as indicated in Paragraph No. 4 above and subject to the additional findings and conditions set forth in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 317, approved December 7, 1999, and Design Review Board Resolution No. 270,approved October 25, 1999.
6.That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
"Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"This time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount
sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution NO. 327 Page 4
date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of June, 2000
By the following vote to wit:
AYEs' Commission Members Hall, Finnila, and Nygaard.
NOES: Commission Member Lewis.
ABSENT: Commission Membe
ABSTAIN: None
EXHIBIT 2
LOCATION MAP
c CD 2 CD
2 0 s
0
s- CD
Grand Avenue
-u s
-. 0
9 E CD w
Carlsbad Village Drive
.
EXHIBIT 3
ALTERNATE DESIGN PROPOSAL
MAY 19,200O
ESCROW TRANSFERS BUILDING
REDUCED COPY OF ELEVATIONS & SITE PLAN
._.-. _- .--.
,,,,. .., :-‘I r, 11.1. n '."CI DII -0, MUI
Ilr* -u mmwoPw3 OWSTUVO
>orry 9 ;~=>!vJJv ‘IPIZIE UOPJVI IXjDeOdS WQSYEddIF 800Z
s83adsMVUn lmIM301
..n-.” ,“.I -1 I&U n 1;. w#:
.,O,,CF’Y p ,oa,NJ’y ‘,J’1?.!8 “op~o~ v
.
- ,* ,,-..., -,r) -L .Y. n.rrsn h‘-., q
--- oI>arcv ‘) ,=a,,q=v ‘I;~Iw3 =PJw v
V’BdYOalV3 avEE7Kv3 da3lyI.t.B woeuad;par OK:BC
SU~dSMVUB bfmd-ma
,---------
_-------- ----__-------
--- --
. . “I c \il, 1 .,’ I % K:‘.’ :,: . . ...’ : .,.J
Y I hr Il. 4. L I
l;- 4
.HlL i
+. A k *
I - - W- - .’ w- - -
I I
-4
c -
ikEUS NOSi&3r --
MI . IU -* I I”,“..
EXHIBIT 4
BUILDING PLAN CHECK REDESIGN PROPOSAL
APRIL 21,200O
ESCROW TRANSFERS BUILDING
REDUCED COPY OF ELEVATIONS & SITE PLAN
:-
:.
, ,
,:
. :.,
..
._
:
,
: .-
.I
:
:
:
.’
‘.
/
-!‘ . - ‘:-2: ..;~ 1. ’ , ,.’ -. / .’ . ,,.-_, i.‘ ; .v.: .I.. / ,, _’ ~.:.
: .‘,,.., : . - : :. ., ; .T .: . _ .: .(
-
.
.’ :
‘< : . .: ,. .
.
-
!-_ .- - -- T-
@gq
-.
D--
)
i
I -’
.-
b
i ( , ,
?!a/~ 1’
i- . 1 I I j
II 1
! i
I’ iI’ ;s a r --r--. I I . I f I I I I t I 1 i
j ‘X I j I
“1 I . . I
b
I , . ..I ! u 1 1:) Q I I
,!.I; Yi j
.llz I
1.
.-is I I’ I :IN I .I? I I $ 1
.I- t
.j$ i
j 1% ’ ‘I- I
,!:I i
b, :I & I -1 I .I[ r
1,
..I I 11 I . : 1’ 3’l
f t1 I r- ,(.I ; ’ I
I
-*I .I ; ’ ‘A--.---
II i I !
-
P l
6
-- -----------
EXHIBIT 5
COMMISSION APPROVED PLANS
DECEMBER 7,1999
ESCROW TRANSFERS BUILDING
REDUCED COPY OF ELEVATIONS & SITE PLAN
.-r-----n/ / // /$vxw
I‘.) ,-.,.:. .,.. !.. ,:i
.
,
-, :
: _I
.I
,.. :
:
,
,. !
:
-,..;>.rl,* ,-_-- 1J.l
S.0
n-0
,e.v
I *'-w I 1 i
.
:,{!:f ': "!,
.
,-- - 14’~0’ -. .- .I
I-- M -- - 1-h
50.00’ -- N _1 is [ T- I I
1
1’ ‘-0’ , I I I I I I
I I
/I I
-iI I
I I
,.
“x
,I I, yl :.
., I I ’ Iz I ;lw
:I9 I ‘, IN !. I? I
I
:iP -14 I
:(n I
I
I
‘.T- I- ;‘lis .g i
::I- I
I
I
‘2;
: i
.:, -1’
.I
I 4
.’
. .
I
.\. ,:
-_----- __
6 G
I \ 1
\
II/ L- ---
b+ ft
\
2$?% 4
%
‘4
\_ R ‘boi(o / 9 = .
2 4
e b I
I I’-m
?
-
z s . $ iI 4 ml
g
9
----.
EXHIBIT 6
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 317
DECEMBER 7,1999
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 270
OCTOBER 25,1999
1
\
1
L .
f
i
E
E
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 317
A, RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 99-04),
INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD
SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE
AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK WHICH IS BELOW THE MINIMUM
STANDARD RANGE, FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2928 JEFFERSON STREET,
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 2 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPlMENT
AREA.
APPLICANT: LYNDIE MEISSNER
CASE NO: RP 99-04
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, the Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) for construction of a new
commercial office building on property located at 2928 Jefferson Street, and adopted Design Review
Board Resolution No. 270 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the
date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard
all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the front
and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range and a side yard setback that is below the
standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting authorization to provide
50% of the project’s required parking off-site through participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant
to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Statement of Prior Compliance was
issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on October 1, 1999 and recommended for
approval by Design Review Board Resolution No. 270 on October 25, 1999.
II
II
Ii
I/
II
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 1 a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct,
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-04) is APPROVED and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 270, on file in the City Clerk’s
Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission with the following changes and additions:
a. General and Planning Condition No. 21 is deleted.
b. Engineering Condition No. 7 is added to read as follows:
“Prior to building occupancy, the applicant’s contractor of work shall obtain a City right-
of-way permit to add sidewalk around the east side of the street light standard fronting
the property. A clear path of 48 inches in width shall be provided.”
3. That the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, hereby
grants a waiver from the moratorium on the issuance of building permits per NS-516 for the subject
project based on the following findings:
a. The subject project is located in an area where all public improvements, including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk have been previously constructed;
b. The project is required to reconstruct existing public improvements and the required
improvements will not be incompatible with the neighborhood; and
c. The applicant agrees to reconstruct the subject improvements.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter I. 16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review”, shall apply:
II
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 2
.
‘.
1
\
1
t
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
1'
II
1:
21
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time wjthin which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carl&ad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day followin, u the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to
cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on
which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of
record, if he/she has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the
proceedings shaI1 be filed with the City Cl.erk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
CarIsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of
DECEPVIBER, 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: None
HRC RESO NO. 317
PAGE 3
ATTEST: -
=iiiiizw (SEti>
,. ’ 1 0..
-
I--- - ,_.-..
LIESIGN REW3b’ BO.Am RESOLUTIOiU 8-O. 270
2
3
4.
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNI.-\, RECOiLI&IE‘NDli\lG APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPblENT PERNT NUXIBER RP99-04, WCLUDIXG
VIZRIKNCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH
EXCEED THE hIXYIIvIU?vI STANDARD R&vGE AND A SIDE YARD
SETBACK WHICH IS BELOW THE ?vvlINIivfLi?vf STANDARD RAXGE,
FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2925 JEFFERSON STREET, m LAh9 USE DISTRICT 2
OF THE VILLAGE REDE\‘ELOP&lENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES 2Oh-E 1.
CASE NAivfE: ESCROw TRAXSFERS
APN: 203-j jJ-0 j
CASE NO: FP 99-03
%XEREAS, Lyndie I\/Ieissner (a.k.a. Linda IMeissner), “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
owned by Linda Meissner, “Owner”, described as Lots 12 and 13, in Block 56 of Carlsbad, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No 775, filed in the
12
13
14 Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 15, 1894 (“the Propem”); and
15 . %?HEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a l.vIajor Redevelopment Permit and
16 variances for the front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the maximum of the standard range, and a , .
17 side yard setback that is below the standard range, as sho\s,-n on’.Exhibits A-I, dated October 25, 1999,
ia on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department as “Escrow Transfers RF’ 99-04”, as provided
19
20
21
by Chapter 2 1.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25’ day of October, 1999, hold a duly
..“noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
22 /i &T-IEREAS, at said public hearing on the 25” day of October, 1999, upon hearing and
23
24
25
26
27
28
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered
all factors relating to I\/lajor Redevelopment Permit 99-04.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Des&n Review Board as follows:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
DR8 RESO NO. 270
PAGE 1
E
5
1C
1'
1;
1:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
27
28
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
RECOM&lENDS APPROVAL of Escrow Transfers RP 99-04, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL.AJD REDEVELOPME;UT PLAN COXSTSTEi\;CY FINDISGS:
1
2.
3.
4.
c 5.
6.
The Planning Director has determined that:
a. the project is a subsequent activiry of a project for which a program EIR was
prepared, and a notice for the activity has been given, which includes
statements that this activity is within the scope of the program approved
earlier, and that the program EIR adequately describes the activity for the
purposes of CEQ.-\, and the project is one for which a &Iitigated Negative
Declaration was previously adopted;
b. this project is consistent Lvith the plans cited above;
C. The &laster Environmental Impact Report for the City’s 1994 General
Plan Update QIEIR 93-01) was certified and the I&litigated !Uegative
Declaration for the City of CarIsbad Village Redevelopment Area (SS 92-
01) was approved in connection with the prior project or plan;
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR and &litigated Negative Declaration;
e. none of the circumstances requirin g a Subsequent Negative Declaration or a
Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist;
‘The Design Review Boards finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the MEIR @iElR 93-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have
been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Design Review Board finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project
have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a building, or addition to an
existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds $150,000. . .
The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal Development Permit
is required.
The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development
standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the Village
Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Desin Guidelines, with approval of the
following required findings to allow for variances for f;ollt arzd rear )*nrd setbacks that
e.weed the standard range, and a side yard setback 011 tile north side of the properry that is
below the minimum standard range.
a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships which rvould make development inconsistent with the general
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 2 34
;
;
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
25 I
26 '
27
28
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan. The project is utilizing, in
its design, parking located below the building to allow more development and landscaped
area in compliance with the functional component of the office support area. Due to the
project site being only 50 feet in width and the required side yard setback of 5 feet on each
side, the site is reduced to only 40 feet of buildable width. Taking into consideration the
parking standards within the Carlsbad hlunicipal Code, the site cannot accommodate the
required drive-aisle width and parking space depth without encroaching into the side yard
setback. The adjoinin g lots to the north and south are built out and fully utilized leaving
limited development opportunities for the subject property. In addition, prior to its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated single family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use 1va.s nonconforming because it is one of the goals
for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has purchased
the property with the intent to redevelop the property with a conforming use that is
attractive and compatible with surroundinn development in terms of size and scale. The
width of the subject property coupled with-the setback standards and City’s requirements
for parking space size and drive-aisle lvidth make it difficult to provide a signiticant
number of parking spaces on-site. 7’he limitation on the amount of parking that can be
provided on-site makes it difficult to develop a project of significant size, which will meet
the Village LMaster Plan goal of increasing the intensity of development within the Village.
The increased setback on the front of the property for a portion of the building allows for
greater architectural interest and serves to break up the mass of the building. The
increased setback on the rear of the property allows for the provision of four open parking
spaces adjacent to the alley. This reduces the mass of the building immediately adjacent
to the alley and provides direct vehicular access off the adjacent alley, which is a
functional goal of the office support district.
b) There are exceptionai circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controis. The build-out of
the property to the north and south and the narrow width of the subject property leave very
few options for the redevelopment of the site, resulting in exceptional circumstances
unique to the property. Based on their age and condition, it is anticipated that the
buildings to the north and south of the subject property will remain for a very long time.
.-
c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The reduced side yard
setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent property because the building will comply
with all building code requirements for fire safety, Additionally, the portion of the
building that requires the side yard reduction is a single story element and does not run the
entire length of the proposed structure. The area of the encroachment is adjacent to a
three-story office building with semi-subterranean parking. The area of the encroachment
on the first floor will be located adjacent to the parking lot wall of the adjacent office
building and will have no detrimental impact. The setbacks above the maximum will not
have a detrimental impact on neighboring propenies because other properties along
Jefferson Street have setbacks which exceed 15 feet. The applicant has designed the entire
project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. Therefore,
the increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more visually
appealing building \\jithin the front elevation. The increased setback in the rear enables
more on-site parking without expanding the mass of the building, therefore reducing the
impact on neighboring properties to the east,
d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, because those standards were intended to be somewhat
DRBRESONO.270
J?.-\GE 3 35
I
<
1C
1'
1;
1:
1L
lC c
1&
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development. The pot,ions of the
project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation Lvhich contradicts the
intent of the standards established in the subject document. In addition, prior IO its recent
demolition, the subject property contained a deteriorated singie family residence and
detached single car garage. The prior use ws nonconforming because it is one of the
goals for District 2 to phase out existing residential uses over time. The applicant has
purchased the property bvith the intent to redevelop the propep/ Lvith a conforming use
that is attractive and compatible with surrounding development in terms of size and scale.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and set;ing the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The
subject project is in a location Lvhich has varying setbacks. The propert]; abuts an existing
three-story office building to the north that is setback 15 feet from the front properry line
and 30 feet from the rear property line. i\n open parking lot e.uists to the south that
provides parking to the existing bank building fronting on Carlsbad Viilage Drive. Across
Jefferson Street, buildings have setbacks in excess of 20 feet. Across thz alley to the rear
of the property structures are setback from 5 to 20 feet from the rear property line. It is
expected that these existing structures will remain for many more years. Therefore, staff
believes that the increased setback is consistent with the area. The varied setbacks on the
front and rear of the building allow for greater architectural articulation, resulting in a
building that is more visually interesting and appealing. The increased setback on the rear
of the property allows for parking adjacent to the alley, which is a desired project design
standard for the Village.
f) The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development and
where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition benveen commercial and
residential development. While the subject property is not directly adjacent to any
residential uses on Jefferson Street, it is in close proximity to some residential uses to the
north and the increased setback helps to soften the transition between the commercial area
to the south and the residential area to the north. Therefore, the increased setback is
consistent with the area and will reinforce the Village character.
The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development
standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth within the Village
Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Desi-gn Guidelines, with approval of the
findings noted above to grant the requested variances. The follotving required findings ivill
allow for the reduced front and side yard setbacks to the minimum of five (5) feet (of the
acceptable range):
DRB RESO NO. 270
a) The reduced standards will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The
proposed project is in a location which has varying setbacks. The commercial oftice
building to the north has a similar 5 foot setback from the adjoining side property line and
the subject property abuts an open parking lot to the south. In neither case ivill the five (5)
foot setback adversely impact these adjacent properties. Twenty-three linear feet of the
building’s front elevation located nithin 5 to 13 feet of the front property line. The
variations in the front elevation makes for a project that is more aesthetically pleasing and
reduces the mass of the building, thus mitigating any adverse impacts a reduced front yard
setback may have on surrounding properties.
b) The reduced standard will result in developing a project which meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district
in which the project is to be located. The subject property is jo feet wide, therefore the
,I -.
, !.
\
1
I .
c
;
t
5
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8)
-
-1 -.
reduced setback standards are necessary in order to allow the applicant to pm-de aS much
on-site parking as possible \vith adequate screening from public view, which is in keeping
with the objectives for land use district 2.
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting and visually
ippealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The proposed design is
consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the
variations in the front and side elevations make for a project that is more interesting and
visually appealing.
The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property Owner qualifies to participate in
the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will satisfy the parking
requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program is contained in the folloiving findings:
a) The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village hIaster Plan
and Design Manual. With the approval of the above referenced variances, the proposed
project is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. The project further meets the objectives of the Village
Master Plan by electing to provide 50% of the parking off-site through participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. This increases the amount of useable area on-site and
results in a project with a strong street frontage and subordinate parking.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
The proposed commercial office building is a permitted use within land use district 2.
c) Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project’s parking
demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in
August of 1998, indicate a 61% average utilization rate, which is less than the 85%
threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
d) The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
GEXERAL PLAY AND GROWTH MAN.AGE&lENT FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in conformance with
the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area. The project is consistent with
the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996, because it will provide for a permitted use
(commercial office) in an appropriate location within Land Use District 2 of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required public
right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the
development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in relationship to
the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-
oriented building design, landscapin g, and tiardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 5 3!
,I II ’
,
l(
1'
1;
1:
lf
I= c
IE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
4.
5.
6.
. .
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a progam of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of
pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
c) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within the
surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot which has appropriate
zoning for a commercial office facility. The project is also consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
d) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building and Fire
Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and
other safety standards.
The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable
local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or development fees, and
has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by the Local Facilities
Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which
are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual,
adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-354.
The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GEXERAL AlND PLANNIXG COKDITIONS:
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall have the right to revoke
or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under
the authority of approvals herein granted; institute ana prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the Agency’s approval of this Resolution.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 6
z .o ; . . *
‘
I \
L
E
e
7
E
c
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 a.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.
. . .
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 7
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary
corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit exhibits and/or other
documents to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the
project. Developer shall develop the property substantially as shoixn on the approved Exhibits
for the project. Any proposed development different from this approval sha!I require an
amendment to this approval.
Developer shall comply with all applicable prov.isions of federal. state and local ordinances in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereb;,, agree to indemnie, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members,
officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and ail liabilities,
losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred
by the Agency arisin,, 0 directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance of any permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water
service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the
application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will
continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy of the Site
Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the Agency. The plan copy shall be submitted to the Housing
and Redevelopment Director and approved prior to building or grading permit approval,
whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced, legible version of the approving resolution in a 24” X 36” blueline drawing format.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer
permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures Lvhich are required 2s
part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities iLIanagement Plan and any amendments made to that Plan
prior to the issuance of building pen-nits, including but not limited to, the Developer shall pay
his/her fair share for the “shot-t-term improvements” to the El Camino RealIPalomar Airport
Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. ‘The amount shall be determined
by the methodology ultimately selected by the City Council, including but not limited to, an
increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or ne\v Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a
Mello-Roos taxing district.
.I I, ”
*
1t
1'
1:
1:
lf
1:
1E
17
1E
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I’
1
2
3
4
5
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15,
16.
-
17.
IS.
- -.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the Agency a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the Cic of Carlsbad’s Redevelopment Agency has issued a &hjor
Redevelopment Permit by Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution Xo.- on the
real property owned- by the Dec-eloper. Said Xotice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and
record an amendment to the notice Lvhich modiiies or terminates said notice upon a shoLL.ing
of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a sis-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad tilunicipal Code
Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
No outdoor storage of material shal1 occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such
instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the
approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall be
submitted to and approval obtained from the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to
the approval of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall
construct and install all landscaping as shov,n on the approved plans, and maintain all
landscaping in a healthy and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
Prior to the installation of any signs on the subject property, the Developer shall submit
and obtain approval of a separate sign permit application from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. All signs shall be consistent with the sign regulations set forth
within the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment hIaster Plan and Design Manual.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
twelve (13) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in
effect at the time of building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces needed
to satisfy the project’s parking requirements (12).
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further
aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a
linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE S
t
s
1C
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project
becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the
Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee
shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a
request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case,
the &e shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance,
required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required
for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan
and approval for this project will become null and void,
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redev$Iopment Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 12 parking spaces, as shorin on
Exhibits “C” and “D”.
The number of employee parking spaces on-site shall be restricted to 2 number mutually
agreed upon by the applicant and the Director of Housing and Redevelopment.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
‘1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. -.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the
proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City
Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The owner of subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices
as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to
reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for
such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not
be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 9
,(I 19 - ’ II : * 4
1
2
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
3
4
, or storm water conveyance Systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
5 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants I
6 when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
7 WATER, SEWER AN-D FIRE CONDITIONS
8 1. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees,‘deposits and charges which wiil be collected
before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
9 Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for any meter
installation.
10 2. Water, Sewer and Irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
11 Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
12
<13 IJ
14
3.
4.
Developer shall install a sewer lateral cleanout to be equipped with a traffic rated cap
adjacent to the pubic right-of-way at the front property line substantially as shown on
Exhibit “II” to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. _
Developer shall install and maintain automatic fire sprinklers throughout the entire
building in accordance with Uniform Fire and Building Code requirements.
15 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: I
16 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following code requirements.
17
18
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2.
..-
Developer shall pay the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad >funicipal
Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD $1 special tax (if applicable), and the Citywide Public
Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #II’, subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local
Facilities IManagement Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90. All such taxes/fees
shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this approval will
not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
3.
4.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project
within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building pet-r-nit
issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
27 5.
(I
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
28 II
DRB RESO NO.270
PAGE10 4% I.
:
L
E
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
27
28
6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Community Development and Planning.
7. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual
and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Director.
8. Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad bvlunicipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.,.
. . .
: . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
DRB RESO NO. 270
PAGE 11 43
:
I \
L
c c
E
7
E
E
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 9O’hays from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading
or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT
APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or
as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired,
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25’ day of October, 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Vice-Chairperson Marquez,
Marois, Heineman and Lawson. *
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
v BILL COMPAS, CHA@PERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
f- ,-t&Q i5Le.c
-DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
and Lawson voted ‘!yO ” 011 t/t e addition of GeneraI and
May 252000
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice ESCROW TRANSFERS
OFFICE BUILDING - AMENDMENT TO RP 99-04 for a public hearing. Please notice
the item for the Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting on JUNE 13, 2000.
Thank you.
DATE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ESCROW TRANSFERS -BUILDING REDESIGN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:OOpm on Tuesday, June 13, 2000 to
consider approval of an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04 to allow for
an architectural redesign and height increase for the Escrow Transfers Office Building
which received original approval by the Commission on December 7, 1999. The project
is to be constructed at 2928 Jefferson Street which is located in Land Use District 2 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area, and on the east side of Jefferson Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue.
The requested redesign would allow for revisions to the front (west), side (south) and rear
(east) elevations of the building plans for the subject project. The front elevation redesign
will result in reduced building articulation and eliminate the originally proposed tower
feature. However, it will not result in any further encroachments into the front yard
setback. The rear elevation redesign is a result of enclosure of the exterior stairway, and
relocation of the air conditioning units from the roof to the ground. The height of the
building is proposed to increase from 40 feet 2 inches to 44 feet. The project will
continue to comply with applicable development standards with variances for several
setbacks. The redesign of the building and increased height requires approval of an
amendment to RP 99-04 by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission before a
building permit may be issued for the subject project. No additional environmental
review is required as a result of the proposed building redesign and increased height of
the project.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposed amendment to RP 99-04 are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on June 9,
2000. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-28 13. You
may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
If you challenge the amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04 in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing
CASE FILE: RP99-04
CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 2000
-I..
GRAND AV
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR alj
9
PROJECT LOCATION
! -
OAK AV
GRAND AV
iii
1
-,*--
E
-
-..-
--
OAK AV
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Jux 3, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Sal-. mcos , California
this 5th day
This space is for the County Clerks Filing Stamp
R ECEIVED
JUN 0 9
CIIY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public He&g
CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ESCROW
TRANSFERS-BUILDING REDESIGN
OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the city of Carfsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers,1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad at 6:rXpm on Tuesday, June 13,2tMO to consider approval of an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04 to allow for an architectural redeslln and height increase for the Escrow Transfers Office Building which received original approval by the Commission on December 7,1999. The project is to be constructed at 2928 Jefferson Street which is located in Land Use Distrid 2 of the Carfsbkd Village Redevelopment Area, and on the east side of Jefferson Street between Carlsbad Viftage Drive and Grand Avenue.
The requested redesign would allow for revisions to the front(west), side(south) and rear (east) elevations of the building plans for the subjct project. The front elevation redesign will result in reduced building articulation and eliminate the originally proposed tower feature. However, it wltl not result in any further encroachments into the front yard setback. The rear efevation redesign is a result of enclosure of the exterior stairway, and relocation of the air conditioning units from the roof to the ground. The height of the building is proposed to increase from 40 feet 2 inches to 44 feet. The project will continua to comply whh applicable development standards with variances for several setbacks. The redesign of the building and increased height requires approval of an amendment to RP 99-04 by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission before a building permh may be issued for the subfect project. No additional environmental review is required as a result of the proposed building redesign and increased height of the project.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposed amendment to RP 99-94 are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on June 9,2OM1. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carfsbad, California, 92008.
If you challenge the amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-04 in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice br in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing
CASE FILE: RP9904 CASE NAME: ESCROW TRANSFERS HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Legal 67290 June 3,200O.
NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising
TF nsmission Report-
Date/T I me
Local ID
Loca I Name
company LOQO
5-31-00; 7:22AM
760 720 6917
carlsbad city clerk
This document was confirmed.
(reduced samp I e and detai Is below]
Document Size Letter-S
FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE: May 31,2000
lKk Suz4nne Ryan, tiorh County ‘fimes
FAX 761-0908
FROM: C!!lstmd City Clerk’s Dqxwtnmnt
3 P3’5
PERSON PLACING AAD: .Janice Breitenfeld, Dqwty City Clerk
Phc: (760) 434-2927 FAX (760) 720-6917
NAME OF AD: PUBLIC I-INC: ESCROW TRANSFERS - UUlLDINCi REDESIGN
PLEASE PUBLISH I-HE FOLLOWING:
Lo@ Ad X Display Ad
Accoont No. L-5386 Accomnt Nu. 5386
1 TIME(S) IN THE:
Zune 3 (Carkbmd/La Coala) 011: SAI’URDAJ: JLINF. 3: 2000
Skc of Ad nndh Special Instructions: 3 X 5 BORDER AD WITH MAP AND CITY SEAL Phse size map rppmprhbely. =A%Is~ acknowledge receipt of this ad: Jmicc 434-2927
1200 C&bad Village Drive l Chrisbad, California 92008-I 9X9 l (760) 434u108
@
.
Tota I Pages Scanned : 3’ Tota I Pages ConfIrmed : 3’
NO. DOC Remote Statlon start Time
1 080 7610908 5-31-00; 7:20AM
** Notes **
EC: Error Correct RE: Resend
BC: Broadcast send MP: Multi-Poll
CP: Completed RM: RecelVe to MemOI-y
I-S: Local Scan LP: L0C.a I Pt- I nt
Durat I on Pages Mode comments Results
2’06” 31 3 G3 CP 14400
PD: Pal I ed by Remote MB: Receive to Mallbox
PG: Polltng a Remote PI: Power lnterruptlon
DR: Document Removed TM: Termfnated by user
FO: Forced Output WT: Waiting Trans+er
JERRY W LAWRENCE JACK D PHILLIPS SCANLON 2785 JEFFERSON ST 2667 OCEAN ST 7306 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008-1718 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
STEVEN M & RENEE TAGUE S I FINANCIAL CORP TUCKER 2801 JEFFERSON ST PO BOX 825 2810 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720 FALLBROOK CA 92088-0825 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1733
PETER A ROCK GOLL FAMILY JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC 2421 S EL CAMINO REAL 860 MORNINGSIDE DR C222 PO BOX 2258 SAN CLEMENTE 92672-3351 FULLERTON CA 92835-3552 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2258
PETER A ROCK MARY A JOHNSON WILLIAM DONOVAN 2421 S EL CAMINO REAL 988 GRAND AVE PO BOX 877 SAN CLEMENTE 92672-3351 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1811 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0877
THOMAS L BEVILACQUA RICHARD DUQUETTE LOIS N BLACKSTONE 2886 HOPE AVE 2860 HOPE AVE 2854 HOPE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832
ROBERT L SHOWALTER STEPHANIE BROTZMAN HELEN & HASTINGS MARKS 5687 YERBA ANITA DR 5242 SAPPHIRE ST 41743 ENTERPRISE CIR N
SAN DIEGO CA 92115-1027 ALTA LOMA CA 91701-1348 TEMECULA CA 92590-5625
ALEX A BANUELOS DAVID C DAFFERN GILBERT J PRANGE 2820 HOPE AVE B 2715 JUNIPER ST 2820 HOPE AVE D CARLSBAD CA 92008-1867 FOREST GROVE 97116-1545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1867
RICHARD ASHTON TERRY J MCFATE JONATHAN W CAMPBELL
2820 HOPE AVE E 620 ROUNSAVILLE RD 327 N VALENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1868 ROSWELL GA 30076-1023 GLENDORA CA 91741-2416
MARCIA A HANKAMMER ROOSEVELT TAMARACK INVE DONALD K DEWHURST PO BOX 633090 6 VENTURE 215 3425 SEACREST DR SAN DIEGO CA 92163-3090 IRVINE CA 92618-7364 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2038
CALVIN R PERKETT PGP CARLSBAD LLC DANIEL D & IRENE LOPEZ 812 HOME AVE 1120 SILVERADO ST 928 HOME AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1821 LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1826
ROY T WINDRUM JOHN J GIROUX JAMES W TRENTALANGE 4230 CLEARVIEW DR 2818 ROOSEVELT PMB-550 880 HOME AVE B CARLSBAD CA 92008-3631 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1808 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1863
HOWARD & SALLY DOYLE ARLENE S BERMAN THOMAS S VETLESEN 880 HOME AVE C 880 HOME AVE D 880 HOME AVE E CARLSBAD CA 92008-1863 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1863 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1800
WILLIAM K HARVILLE BRIAN J BARTOLMEI MICHAEL L JONES 880 HOME AVE F 880 HOME AVE G 882 HOME AVE A CARLSBAD CA 92008-1800 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1800 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1862
EVA M TARDY EDMOND T SHEHAB ROBERT H TOMKINSON 882 HOME AVE B 6321 ESDLAWADE 2892 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1862 PLAYA DEL REY 90293-7581 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1719
HOM Y YEE DANIEL J CERDA SWYS CORP 2905 NATIONAL AVE 1743 LOTUS AVE 8787 COMPLEX DR 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92113-2419 EL CENTRO CA 92243-9505 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1419
EDMOND T SHEHAB PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS LT MICHAEL K MURPHY 6321 ESPLANADE 1120 SILVERADO ST 400 N LA COSTA DR PLAYA DEL REY 90293-7581 LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524 CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002
MICHAEL K MURPHY JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC STUART C WILSON 400 N LA COSTA DR 2879 JEFFERSON ST J 4920 COLLINGWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720 SAN DIEGO CA 92109-2243
R K JOSEPHINE MOJTABA ESFAHANI , GENE S & MARGARET RAY PO BOX 884 1952 CREST DR 2959 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92018-0884 ENCINITAS CA 92024-5216 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333
DAVID R ZULICK PACKARD BUILDING PARTNE CHIN L & YU TSAI 2943 JEFFERSON ST 725 GRAND AVE 2958 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2331 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2359
MCMILLIN REAL ESTATE & RANCH0 VISTA NATIONAL B GRAND G CARLSBAD 4900 RIVERGRADE RD 550 1381 E VISTA WAY PO BOX 8193 IRWINDALE CA 91706-1404 VISTA CA 92084-4041 RANCH0 SANTA 92067-8193
-
STEVEN C & GAIL RYAN MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P
955 GRAND AVE 14651 DALLAS PKY 500 14651 DALLAS PKY 500 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1812 DALLAS TX 75240-8807 DALLAS TX 75240-8807
ROBERT & ANN FARRELL G S & GLORIA CARROLL GREGORY W LOSA PO BOX 4432 302 E MANCHESTER BLVD PO BOX 96 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4432 INGLEWOOD CA 90301-1815 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0096
GREGORY W LOSA MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P NORTH COUNTY HEALTH PRO PO BOX 96 14651 DALLAS PKY 500 150 VALPREDA RD CARLSBAD CA 92018-0096 DALLAS TX 75240-8807 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2944
MARTHA E BARKER MARTHA E BARKER JANETTE R GRIMM 2435 MARK CIR 2435 MARK CIR 129 CALIFORNIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2816 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2816 MISSION VIEJO 92692-4079
E H S INVESTMENTS CO E H S INVESTMENTS CO KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT
5553 TRINITY WAY 5553 TRINITY WAY PO BOX 970
SAN DIEGO CA 92120-4503 SAN DIEGO CA 92120-4503 WICHITA KS 67201-0970
CAVALEA TR CAVALEA' TR CAVALEA TR
3640 FELIZ CREEK RD 3640 FELIZ CREEK RD 3640 FELIZ CREEK RD HOPLAND CA 95449-9701 HOPLAND CA 95449-9701 HOPLAND CA 95449-9701
GASTELUM
323 HILL DR VISTA CA 92083-6211
HAROLD V MCSHERRY GOOD SHEPHERD ASSEMBLY
3995 ALDER AVE PO BOX 1035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1035
GOOD SHEPHERD ASSEMBLY CARLSBAD S PGP FITZPATRICK FAMILY
PO BOX 1035 1120 SILVERADO ST 991 LOMAS SANTA FE DR C
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1035 LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524 SOLANA BEACH 92075-2125
FOODMAKER INC
1777 NE LOOP 41012
SAN ANTON10 T 78217
RAYMOND W KELLEY PHYLLIS E NORMAN
1067 SANDALWOOD DR PO BOX 1395
EL CENTRO CA 92243-3825 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1395
SCANLON LDB JAB INC MARK A & HELENE HOPPER 7306 BORLA PL PO BOX 3928 7173 OBELISCO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802 DANA POINT CA 92629-8928 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6522
-
BANK OF CALIFORNIA CHARLOTTE L THATCHER DOROTHY METROS
1 CIVIC PLZ 290 PO BOX 52085 919 N PECK AVE
NEWPORT BEACH 92660-5922 PHOENIX AZ 85072-2085 MANHATTAN BEA 90266-6132
JERRY L JACKSON ' JERRY L JACKSON NEAL T &CAROL BAKER
3464 RIDGECREST DR 2504 MANCHESTER AVE 1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2032 CARDIFF BY TH 92007 SAN BERNARDIN 92408-3416
WILLIAM E THOMPSON PO BOX 1601 OXNARD CA 93032-1601
*** 37 Printed ***
JOHN M & NINA GORDON GREAT WESTERN BANK GREAT WESTERN BANK
PO BOX 1055 9200 OAKDALE N1121 AVE 9200 OAKDALE N1121 AVE CARDIFF BY TH 92007-7055 CHATSWORTH CA 91311-6519 CHATSWORTH CA 91311-6519
GREAT WESTERN BANK PARKER MARK T & MARY GOMBAR 9200 OAKDALE N1121 AVE 3215 MAEZEL LN PO BOX 1667 CHATSWORTH CA 91311-6519 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1131 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1667
PAUL & TERI RAPPAPORT PARKER SECURITY PACIFIC NATION
2910 LANCASTER RD 3215 MAEZEL LN PO BOX 230926 CARLSBAD CA 92008-6568 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1131 ENCINITAS CA 92023-0926
*** 69 Printed ***
_. -- ~ -.-.i.- .---._.----~ .-.. ._
1 ‘f&Tl< Mannen - Council lnquinf 011 Es. _ ____--.--.--- ___ +!!!&&I - --.---.- .._._._ _
Transrers / i /
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Hi Frank/Ron.
Debbie fountain
Frank Mannen; Ron Ball
6/l 2/00 3:31 PM
Council Inquiry on Escrow Transfers
- --- FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ CITY MANAGER
+s i D’ATE - *iyjT. !:i “I
During Councilmember Nygaard’s briefing, two questions were raised which needed further research to
answer. The questions and answers are noted below:
1. How.tall is the office building to the North? The building is 35 feet in height according to the plans. So,
the Escrow Transfers building will be approximately 9 feet taller.
2. Could the applicant design arched windows or half windows above the square balcony doors to add
more visual interest? This is a question that would be best answered by the architect. The doors are
currently about 6 feet in height and the ceiling height is proposed to be 9 feet. So, the applicant has about
2 to 3 feet in which to work. Staff believes it is possible to add some arch to the doors. However, the
architect might have a reason why this wouldn’t work
Your assistance is requested in distributing this information to Council member Nygaard and the other
council members. Thanks!
)ECElVI”2
iI JUN 13
CITY 01’ CARLA “SAD
J7-Y MS OFFICE