Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 90-01; Arco AM/PM 511; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)Citv erf Carlsbad Engineering Department February 13, 1991 Bob Morris Desert Petroleum Inc. P.O. Box 1601 Oxnard, CA 92032 REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AT HARDING STREET AND ELM AVENUE I regret that your previous application for a project on the subject site had to be considered withdrawn. The withdrawal was required by City code because of regulated time constraints. I am offering to you my assistance in making a new application if you choose to do so. Please feel free to call me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4500 to make arrangements to meet and discuss any aspect of your new submittal. Also to assist you, I would like to point out that the major item that made your previous application incomplete was the lack of a suitable site plan/exhibit that fully illustrated the project. A suitable site plan/exhibit is needed to provide a documented basis of the project being approved, if approval is given. Another item of completeness was the requirement for a traffic impact analysis for projects with 500 or more AJDT. This item was allowed to become an issue and not an item of completion. The balance of your previous submittal, I believe, was basically complete. This does not mean there are not some issues that may come to light during further review. One of the major issues identified in your previous submittal was the closure of the most easterly driveway on Elm Street. We are willing to take another look at this issue once you resubmit and the traffic issues are analyzed. I am enclosing the current application requirements with checklists and also a redlined marked check print of your previous site plan to assist you in making a new application. I hope you find this information useful. I look forward to being of further assistance. [M DAVIS Associate Engineer JD:rz 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, Caiifomia 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1 161 # Citv of Carlsbad t=»I^HhilHd| D^jb^rtmelit December 31, 1990 Bob Morris Desert Petroleum P.O. Box 1601 Oxnard, CA 93032 RE: RP90-1 The above referenced application has been on file for more than six months (March 30, 1990 to December 30, 1990). Notification was given on April 30, 1990 that the application was incomplete, along with a list of items/information needed to complete the application, and a notice that failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. An extension to make the application complete was granted until December 30, 1990. The application is still incomplete. As a result, this letter is notification to you that RP 90-1 has been withdrawn per Chapter 21.54.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Zoning Ordinance: ''When a determination that an initial appUcation is incomplete has been transmitted to the applicant, the applicant shall have six months from the date the application was initially filed to either resubmit the application or submit the information specified in the determination. Failure of the applicant to resubmit the application or to submit the material in response to the determination within the six months ( or an approved time extension) shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn a new application must be submitted." Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c: Gary Wayne Robert Green Chris DeCerbo Bob Wojcik Jim Davis Erin Letsch Don Rideout File Copy Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 ^4 Citv of Carlsbad Engineering Department December 17, 1990 Attorney Kevin McCann McCann S Goldstein 1905 Apple Street, Suite 5 Oceanside, California 9205U-4480 Re: Streetscape - Carlsbad Village Drive/Gregory Losa Dear Mr. McCann: This letter is in response to your letter of November 30 offering to set up a meeting concerning access to Carlsbad Village Drive between Hard- ing Street and Interstate 5. I agree a meeting would be beneficial, and I will be available at your convenience. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cordially, LLOYD B. HUBBS City Engineer LBH/pmj c: Assistant City Engineftt^ Project Engineer G. Kellison 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN KEVIN E. McCANN C. DANIEL CARROLL MCCANN 8 GOLDSTEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW I905 APPLE STREET, SUITE 5 OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92054-4^80 (ei9) A33-7Z70 FAX (OIO) B00-0B30 November 30, 1990 ^ 1990 Lloyd B. Hubbs, P.E., City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Re: Streetscape - Carlsbad Village Drive/Elm Street My Client: Gregory Losa Dear Mr. Hubbs: Following our exchange of information concerning the above- referenced matter, I have received a copy of a letter from Petroleum, Inc., dated November 12, 1990. I understand that Desert Petroleum is disappointed that the City would not close the alley access to my client's property. More importantly, however, it seems obvious that a "neighborhood resolution" to the traffic configuration would be in everyone's best interest. I know that the City is anxious to move forward with the conclusion of its streetscape installation, and we need something to move us past this point of impasse so that this can be accomplished. Mr. Losa and I would welcome an opportunity to have a meeting with you and/or Mr. Hauser, together with Mr. Grant and his associates. Desert Petroleum, Inc. and its representatives, and Carl's Jr. who has the present possessory interest in Mr. Losa's property. Perhaps in such a conference we can arrive at an integrated solution, and the neighboring property owners might become more aware of the needs and burdens being placed on one another by this reconfiguration of the roadway. Lloyd B. Hubbs, P.E., City Engineer City of Carlsbad November 30, 1990 Page 2 We are available for this purpose, and if you or Mr. Hauser agree to this concept, I would appreciate knowing of it. If you would like, I would be pleased to attempt to coordinate with the various property owners and City staff on a mutually convenient date for such meeting. Thank you for your continued courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, McCANN & GOLDSTEIN KEVIN E. McCANN cc: Gregory Losa Carl's Jr., Attention: Colleen Ford Mr. John Grant Desert Petroleum, Attention: Mr. Gary W, Carson desert petroleum inc. Gary W. Carson ^ Q ^ , jj/^ ' y EKCuiivc Vice President c^-^ '^'^ l>/ /—..^ November 12, 1990 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: 920 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA Street Access Dear Mr. Hubbs: I am in receipt of a letter dated October 24, 1990, from the City of Carlsbad to Kevin E. McCann of McCann and Goldstein. Apparently Mr. McCann has been retained by the Losa and Grant property owners . On September 24, Mr. Bob Morris of our office, yourself, Mr. Jim Davis, Mr. David Hauser and a representative of the City's Planning Department met to discuss the access problem of our Gasco service station. At this meeting Mr. Morris presented plans from our Architect, Mr. Tom Southgate, also present during the meeting. The plans showed Carl's Jr. as not having access to exit from, the alley. Carl's traffic would have to exit through their own property, a setup not uncommon with fast food businesses . All parties in the r^.eeting agreed at that time, with Carl's Jr. having access to the alley, their drive-through business would cause congestion, further causing traffic to be unable to enter our service station- The plans, as presented were verbally approved by all concerned, and we left the m.eeting proceeding with the proiect based on these plans. I was quite shocked to see the October 24 letter from the City, which now has Carl's Jr. with access to the alley once again. Mr. Jim Davis of your office now advises the City no longer supports this solution. POST OFFICE BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032 • TELEPHONE (805) 644-6784^ I would like to ask for a meeting with yourself, or whoever is the decision maker in the City, regarding this problem. I woula be available to meet on either November 28 or the 29. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience to discuss a meeting With the loss of our driveway as you propose, Carl's Jr^ having access to the alley, and our customers using the alley for exiting, it would be disastrous to our business. Please be _ ^ advised, I would not be willing to move forward with the proiec.. under these circumstances. Very truly yours, Gary W. Carson GWC:ca cc: L. M. Carpiac, Esq. B. Morris J. Davis - City of Carlsbad G. Kellison - City of Carlsbad K. McCann, Esq. Citv of CarlsbacP^ ———THSHsnaai October 24, 1990 Kevin E. McCann McCann and Goldstein Attomeys at Law 1905 Apple Street, Suite 5 Oceanside, CA 92054-4480 CARL'S JUNIOR ACCESS/STREETSCAPE PHASE V Upon receipt of your letter, the City Engineer called a meeting with members representing the Municipal Projects and Land Use Review Divisions. We reviewed the past proposals and discussed various options to provide for joint access to Mr. Losa's and Mr. Grant's property. Our position with regard to consolidating the two driveways into one contiguous driveway remains firm. The location of the common driveway could be varied to some extent provided we obtain concurrence from the property owners as well as this Department and the Plaiming Department. For our part, we see two options. The first option is to locate the driveway on Mr. Grant's property pretty much where it exists today. Mr. Grant would need to grant ingress and egress access to Mr. Losa's property as necessary to provide the access into the Carl's Jr. parking lot. See Option 1 attached. Option 2 would be to close Mr. Grant's driveway and relocate the proposed median access to line up with the existing Carl's Junior access. In this case Mr. Losa would need to grant to Mr. Grant rights of ingress and egress across a portion of the Carl's Jr. parking lot. Both options require construction of an intercoimecting drive between the properties at a location which would align with the existing east/west aisleway at the front of the Carl's Jr. parking lot. Option 2 better accommodates the higher volume of existing traffic which occtirs on the Carl's Jr. site. Option 2 may raise Planning Department issues in that a greater nimiber of parking spaces are lost. It remains to be determined if adequate spaces would be left to provide the required number of parking spaces for either the existing or proposed Carl's Jr. projects. 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Kevin E McCann Carl's Jr. Access/Streetscape Phase V October 24, 1990 P^g^' ^ We investigated other options which place the driveway over the property line; however, such options would create an offset firom both existing drive aisles and would lead to increased traffic conflicts. With regard to your request for assistance in determining dimensions of the driveway, our standards allow a maximum commercial driveway opening of 30 feet. We recommend the maximum width in this case as it aUows for easy ingress and egress to the site. The width of the connecting drive between Mr. Grant's and Mr. Losa's property should be a minimum of 24 feet and no wider dian the existing drive aisle within the Carl's Jr. site. We also recommend that the driveway onto Carlsbad Village Drive (Ehn Avenue) be constructed utilizing a standard driveway type approach in the manner that exists today. I wiU be happy to meet with you or Mr. Losa to fiirther discuss this matter at your convenience. If you wish to discuss this by phone, my number is 438-1161, extension 4362. Thank you for your cooperation on this difficult issue. Respectfully, DAVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer DAH:rz c: Community Development Director City Engineer Municipal Project Manager Traffic Engineer Housing and Redevelopment Director Principal Gvil Engineer - LURD ^ Associate Engineer - Gary Kellison desert petroleum mc. September 25, 1990 Mr. Eric Munoz City of Carlsbad Planning Departinent 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: 920 Elm Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Munoz: With this letter we are requesting a 90 day extension on our application for a Conditional Use Permit. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have regarding this request. Sincerely, is ^ Bob Morr: Director of Construction BM: jc POST OFFICE BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032 • TELEPHONE (805) 644-6784 September 5, 1990 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR /^/^/^l"^^ CITY ENGINEER ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER jT/^/^ L . PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER, LAND USE REVIEW ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, TRAFFIC DIVISION FROM: Municipal Projects Manager STREETSCAPE PHASE V, PROJECT NO. 3347 A staff meeting of August 28th was called to discuss ways to facilitate the right-of-way acquisition for the Gasco and Carl's Jr. properties which are required for Streetscape, Phase V. Both property owners have pending development permit applications and have indicated an unwillingness to consider voluntarily granting the required right-of-way until the City determines its requirements for driveway access to the street and alley on Elm Avenue. The attached conceptual plan was produced by Municipal Projects to summarize and illustrate the preferred locations ofthe driveway entrances onto Elm Avenue as expressed by Engineering. The plan shows Gasco's existing easterly driveway approach as closed. The existing Carl's Jr. driveway approach is relocated next to the alley and the side access to the alley is also closed. Please let us know if the plan correctly reflects your comments from the meeting and Engineering's position with respect to both applications. If the City's position is going to be that the property owners will not be able to keep their existing driveway locations, it is unlikely we will be able to obtain a voluntary, no-cost, and timely right-of- way dedication from either property owner. Both applicants have recently resubmitted their site plans, and Land Use Review should inform them exactly what the City will require for street access and site circulation. At that point, we will know whether the City has any hope of a voluntary dedication or whether we will have to proceed with the appraisal and condemnation process. Municipal Projects has obtained all other required right-of-way dedications, voluntarily and at no cost to the City, for the upcoming Streetscape, Phase V project. These two (2) remaining acquisitions, Gasco and Carl's Jr., are also required for Phase V. If we are forced to proceed to condemn the required right-of-way, we should be knowledgeable of the costs and additional time required. It is very likely that the cost of appraising the property, making offers, lawyer's fees to file and administer the condemnation action, staff time, etc., will exceed the value of the right-of-way. Additionally, we should weigh the potential of withstanding a property owner's appeal to closing off existina driveways for commercial uses on Elm Avenue in which the City will be installing, in Streetscape Phase V, a raised median on Elm Avenue preventing left turns into and out of these two (2) businesses. Finally, I'm not sure that condemning privately owned rights-of-way is consistent with either the intent or the spirit of the downtown Redevelopment Streetscape project. Maintaining existinq driveways seems to be a small price to pay for harmony with some downtown merchants considering the inconvenience we will be causing them with the upcoming final phase of the Streetscape project. September 5, 1990 Page 2 Even if the City goes to the trouble of condemning the required rights-of-way to widen Elm Avenue consistent with the approved Streetscape design, the attached driveway location plan for Gasco and Carl's Jr. may still not happen. These two (2) property owners can afford to wait us out. The driveways would be replaced in their present locations as a part of the Streetscape construction with expensive brick pavers consistent with the established Streetscape materials theme. It would then be likely that the owners of the Gasco and Carl's Jr.'s properties would reinstate their applications with the goal of appealing the condition that they be forced to remove newly installed and costly driveways. It is possible, perhaps probable, that Gasco and Carl's Jr. would be successful in their appeal. If so, the City will have paid for the right-of-way, delayed the Streetscape Phase V construction, and still not removed the driveways. I feel it is important that we ask these questions during our formulation of a City position with respect to the Gasco and Carl's Jr. access issues. Gary Kellison, from this office, has been dealing with both property owners for several months attempting to secure right-of-way dedications and has been participating in the staff meetings on this subject. Please indicate to Gary what the City's position will be concerning Gasco and Carl's Jr. Alternatively, perhaps another meeting to discuss the larger policy implications would be appropriate. JOHN a CAHILL Municipal Projects Manager JJC:jkb c: Gary Kellison, Project Manager (9 Citv qf Carlsbad Planning Department Apr/7 30, 1990 Theresa Johnson PO Box 1601 Oxnard, CA 93032 SUBJECT: RP 90-1 - DESERT PETROLEUM Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits In the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Redevelopment Permit, application no. RP 90-1, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. All list items must fee sutmiitted simultaneously at the Communily Development Building counter, and to the attention of Erin Letsch. A copy of this list must fee included with vour subm'ittaL No processing ofyour application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials have been submitted as outlined above, the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, March 30, 1990, to either re- submit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Eric Munoz, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. MJH:ENM/lh Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo Jim Davis Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik Crystal/Angelina Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 UST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPUCATION: No. RP 90-1 ' DESERT PETROLEUM PLANNING: 1. Provide a landscape plan which details the sizes and species of existing and proposed landscaping. 2. Provide elevations for all four sides of the AM/PM structure with a scale and label by direction (i.e. "north" elevation, etc.) Also provide elevations for the gas island/canopy. ENGINEERING: 1. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant, owner and Engineer or Architect who prepared the plan. 2. Vicinity map showing major cross streets. 3. Project name and application types submitted. 4. Name of sewer, water and school districts providing service to the project. 5. A summary table of the following: a. Street address and assessors parcel number b. Site acreage c. Existing zone and land use. d. Proposed land use. e. Total building coverage. f. Building square footage. g. Percent landscaping. h. Number of parking spaces required/provided. 6. Average daily traffic generated by the project broken down by separate uses. 7. Approximate location of existing and proposed buildings and permanent structures on site and within 100 feet of site. (Sufficient distance to show relationships.) 8. Bearings and distances of each exterior boundary line. 9. Distance between buildings and/or structures. 10. Building set backs (front, side and rear). 11. Typical street cross sections for all adjacent and streets within project. 12. Public utilities clearly identified. 13. Show distance between all intersections and medium and high use driveways. 14. Show all existing and proposed street lights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas and fuel lines, major electric and telephone facilities) within and adjacent to the project. 15. Show location of all fire hydrants within 300 feet of site. Theresa Johnson April 30, 1990 Page 3 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE - ENGINEERING (CONTINUED): 16. Approximate contours at 1' intervals for slopes less than 5%, 2' inten/als for slopes between 5% and 10%, and 5' intervals for slopes over 10% (both existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within a 100 foot perimeter (sufficient distance to show drainage relationships) of the boundaries of the site. Existing on site trees; those to be removed and those to be saved; 17. Earthwork volumes; cut, fill, import and export, if any. 18. Method of draining lot. Site must drain to a grease trap. 19. For projects with an average traffic (ADT) generation rate greater than 500 vehicles per day: Two (2) copies of a Circulation Impact Analysis for the project. The analysis must be prepared by an appropriate registered Engineer. The analysis must show project impacts to all intersections and road segments identified as impacted within the included Local Facilities Management Plan. The following should be included with the study: a) 8 1/2" x 11" or 8 1/2" x 14" plats showing zone impacted roads, background and project AM and PM peak hour impacts and traffic distribution. b) Project traffic generation rates. c) Necessary calculations and or analysis to determine intersection and road segment levels of service. d) Any proposed mitigation requirements to maintain the public facility standards. Theresa Johnson April 30, 1990 Paae 4 ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. The project site is within the Elm Avenue special treatment area of the Village Redevelopment area, Subarea 1. This is a landmark site within the entry corridor to the Village area and the project, through landscaping and architecture, must make a correspondingly appropriate statement A copy of the Village Design Manual is enclosed for your use and reference. The following are issues of concern: A) Architecture: • The proposed architecture is unacceptable and inconsistent with the objectives of the Village Design Manual. • An example of acceptable architecture would be wood shingle roofs for the gas island canopy and main structure roof, breaking up the roofiine of the main structure with small gables, projection or other architectural features, the use of brick and framing or treating some of the windows. • CaH out all building materials on the elevations. 2) Parkina: • This use is typically an intensive use needing more parking than required by code; additional parking may be required. • Compact spaces cannot share an aisle with standard spaces. • A standard parking space is 8 1/2' x 20'. A compact space is 8' x 15'. Provide typical dimensions on the site plan. 3) Signage: • Signage at this high profile location is a major issue. Posters and signage covering the windows facing Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue) and Harding Street will not be allowed. • The "24 hours" signage is not allowed and will not be approved. Theresa Johnson April 30, 1990 Paae 5 ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING (CONTINUED): • The AM/PM logo/identification signage needs to ^ woodjo4ylend in with the "Village"-like architecture of the structure. • Provide an elevation for the proposed monument sign including materials (needs to be Village-like), colors and copy. 4) Landscapina: • As required by the Design Manual, this site needs heavy landscaping. • Provide for landscaping adjacent to the building especially along both street frontages. Ornamental shrubs or flowers should be combined with vertical landscaping. The corner of the site provides an opportunity for a strong landscape statement. Propose something that will highlight the site as one of the entryways to the Village area. ENGINEERING: We will need a Site Traffic Impact Analysis. The analysis should address the following: 1. New traffic generated by the project, now and projected. 2. Change in traffic patterns caused by the project, now and projected. 3. Closing the most easterly driveway and use the alley for the easterly access, with the alley improved to a 24 foot width. 4. Recommend a more easterly location for the westerly driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue), or show how the proposed location is better. A 25 foot radius corner dedication will be required at the corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street. 5. The alley will require widening to 24 feet. A 2 foot dedication will be required from this project. The developer of this project may be required to obtain a 2 foot dedication on the other side. 6. Show existing improvements and proposed improvement as per City project 3288, drawing 291-2. Use the driveway location recommended by the traffic analysis as per item number 4 above. Close the most easterly driveway on Elm Street and use the alley for entrance to replace the closed driveway. 7. Show drainage to a collection system and grease trap on the site and show drainage piped to the catch basin shown on Drawing 291-2. Theresa Johnson April 30, 1990 Paae 6 ISSUES OF CONCERN - ENGINEERING (CONTINUED): 8. Show a 20 foot clear queuing area in the alley entrance. 9. Show a 5 foot backing clearance area for parking stall No. 6. This may result in a loss of one parking space, but more than one space could be gained near the alley with the required nose that would be needed to establish the 20 foot queuing area mentioned above. 10. We suggest you move the air and water service to the most easterly corner at the site, near the "gained spaces" mentioned above. 11. Attached is a red lined check print, which illustrates these comments. This checkprint must be returned with your resubmittal.