HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-18; City Council; 11851; PALOMAR PLACE APPEAL (SDP 83-11D|PUD 92-04|CUP 92-01)aJ 2
2
a 3
a
C (d
l-i
a a
M G
rl 0 A
(d aJ
(d
c a, 4J
bo G .d
G aJ a
aJ c
h
v) U
u 9
0.
U au
k aJaJ 'r) (do
aJa
ou
4-1
a,
km
uo fduk
ha
.rl v)
d
[I)
43 uo
h
ac
rlc
u(d
u
ab
h aaJ ,-c
U
hO
Grl
03
a
U
V-
a0 ,-c .rl urn
a -I4
aJv
-4 M
.ri
*d G
Cd 3pI 0
z
0 - F 0 a
$ z 3 0 0
. 13 CIT~F CARLSBAD - AGEN~BILL
DE
CI'
CI'
PALOMAR PLACE APPEAL AB # //; 2'.5P TITLE:
MTG. 8/18/92
DEPT. PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(SDP 83-ll(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1)
If the City Council concurs, the Planning Commission and sta
recommending that the City Council direct the City Attor
prepare documents DENYING the appeal of the Planning Commis
determination to APPROVE SDP 83-ll(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On July 1, 1992, the Planning Commission approved (6-0) the referenced development permits, allowing the development of
restaurants north of Palomar Airport Road, between Avenida E and the Interstate 5 freeway. One of the restaurants prop
drive-thru facility, thus requiring approval of a Condition
Permit (CUP 92-1).
On July 9, 1992, the City Clerk received a letter of appea
appellant is requesting that the City Council deny the ap drive-thru facility for the same reasons that the pr
McDonald's drive-thru request on an adjacent site (SDP 83-11(
91-5) was denied. The City, however, does not evaluate proje
this basis.
All development permits, including the above referenced
Development Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
evaluated and approved on their own merits, based upon confo
with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and other appl
plans, standards, and policies. Development permits ai evaluated based upon a comparison with the merits of a project, as requested in the appeal. The permits were grant
the drive-thru restaurant because it was designed and loca conformance with the City's regulations and policies as fol
1. The proposed drive-thru traffic enters the site t
circulation aisle before entering the driv restaurant portion of the site. The entrance i drive-thru is located such that no conflicts wi
circulation of the overall site and adjacent system will occur.
The proposed drive-thru lane is functionally inte
within the site. Adequate stacking distance frl menu order board lessens the opportunity for pot parking lot circulation conflicts and a screenin with landscaping will shield the drive-thru head
from oncoming freeway traffic.
The proposed drive-thru exit is located close to th for the site, allowing exiting traffic to leave th
without travelling through any parking areas. streamlines the site circulation and lessens chanc
the McDonald's Corporation, copy attached as Exhibit 4.
a two way high use driveway and travels througl
2.
3.
vehicular conflicts. - -
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fees
3 -
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
b
J\
4
City of Carlsbad
SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD PALOMAR PLACE CUP 92-1
, !
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
PLANNMG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3415
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THREE
RESTAURANTS, ONE WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
AVENIDA ENCINAS NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NON-
CASE NO: SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, th
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning <
1 as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th
Commission hereby APPROVES of the Negative Declaration according
"ND", dated May 28, 1992, and "PII", dated May 15, 1992, attached
made a part hereof, based on the following findings: I
Findin=:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the I
have a significant impact on the environment.
The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmeni
The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by th
project.
2.
3.
I1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W w
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be s
impacted by this project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tl
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July, 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
Noble, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons.
ABSTAIN: None. I
%L
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COk ATTEST:
8
MICHAEL J. i'sdLZd ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
20 I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3415 -2-
i
1 , W e
NEGATIVE DECLARATtON
PROJECT ADDRESWLOCATION: West of Interstate 5 between Palomar Airport Roac
Avenida Encinas, City of Carlsbad, County of San I
PROJECT DESCFUPTION: Development of three restaurants, one with drive-th
facilities, and associated parking and landscaping on an
commercial site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described p
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quali and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result o
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sip
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification fc
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Pla Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fro1
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department \
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim s
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499.
DATED: MAY 28, 1992
CASE NO: SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92-4/ Planning Director
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 28, 1992
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LLER
CUP 92-1/MS 92-4
MG vd
- - r-
, 0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1
DATE: MAY 15. 1992
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
2.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS
APPI.,ICANT: RUSSELL W, GROSSE DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
(619) 434-2824
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 5. 1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DEVELOPMENT OF THREE RESTAURANTS. ONE IA
THROUGH FACILITIES, AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON
COMMERCIAL SITE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cit]
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigruficant effect on the
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a cl
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO1 J
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that an! project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify j
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects c
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" E
respectively .
,.
, W W
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
b1g) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? - -
unique physical features? - 2. Appreciably change the topography or any
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
-
4.
any bay, inlet or lake? - -
ambient air quality? - -
6. Result in subsfantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? - -
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
-
8.
water, ground water or public water supply? - -
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
stxucture or object? - -
-2-
I I W W
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(rig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
p lams) ? - -
13. introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? - -
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
or other farmland of state or local
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
importance? - -
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? - -
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to :>.e
16.
migration or movement of anxals? - -
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL. DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (insig) YES
(sigl
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - -
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or orher - public services? -
-3-
0 0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(Inslg) (slg)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? - -
20. Increase existing noise levels? -
21. Produce new light or glare? -
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
(including, but not limited to, oil,
or [he release of hazardous substances
- pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? -
human population of an area? - -
for additional housing? -
23. Substantially alter the density of the
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
25. Generate substantial additional traffic? - -
create a large demand for new parking? - -
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of c;rculation or movement of people and/or goods? - -
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? - -
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - -
emergency evacuation plans? - -
aesthetically offensive public view? -
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an -
32. Affect the quality or quantity of - exisring recreational opporrunities? -
-4-
I 0 e
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmenral
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs.in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) - -
Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
-
34.
35.
the effects of probable future projects.) - -
effects which will cause substantial
either directly or indirectly? -
36. Does the project have environmental
adverse effects on human beings, -
-5-
I e 0
DISCUSSlON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project consists of the construction of three restaurants, one with a drive thou
parking lot, and landscaping within a partially developed commercial site. The site is ~OC
Interstate 5 between Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas and already contains two resta
southern end and an office building on the northern end. The middle portion of the site, the a
for development, was graded in accordance to a previous approval and is currently scatted w
vegetatbn. Based upon field visits, staff determined that the infill site contained no siwficanr e
features and no adverse impacts should result from the proposal.
PHysrcu ENVIRONMENT:
1. Very minimal grading will be required for the construction of the restaurant develop
substantial changes to the existing terrain are proposed. All standard safety practices w
during grading operations and, therefore, no unstable earth conditions or geologic h(
result.
The site has been graded and left barren for several years. No unique physical feature
and the grading for restaurant complex shall not substantially alter the existing grade.
appreciable change in topography of the site.
All standard erosion control mechanisms will be implemented during grading and constx
improved surfaces will be built with adequate drainage. No erosion of soils, either on
expected.
No beach sands, river or stream channels, bays, or lakes exist on or in close proximity t
therefore, no impacts to such features will result.
h incremental increase in aerosol pollution will occur during construction and operati
restaurants, however, this small reduction in ambient air quality is considered insignifi
Some minor changes in climarological indices, such as moisture, temperature and air mo
will occur due to the transformation of surfaces on the site but this small change ii
characteristics is not considered climatologically significant.
No marine, fresh, or flood watercourses exist on or near the project site. This proposal
therefore, substantially change the course of flow of water.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Except for a small sump in the middle of the sire, no surface or public water supply e’
near the site. The proposal involves no deep excavation and no contact with grounc
anticipated. Therefore, no impacts to the quantity or quality of surface water, ground
public water supply is expected.
An incremental increase in the use of fuel and natural resources will occur during COI
of the project but this small increase in considered insignificant and no natural resourcc
site.
9.
-6 -
f 0 0
10. See #9 above.
11. The site has been previously graded pursuant 10 a previous project approval (SDP e
sipllcant archeological, paleontological, or historical structures or objects exist on the prc
no impacts are anticipated.
The site is currently graded with a disturbed vegetation cover. No significant diversity of s
habitat or number of any species of plants exist on the site and, as such, no significant ii
will result.
The proposed landscaping for the project is in keeping with the landscaping of the surro
development and no impacts to the existing urbanized landscaping is expected.
No agricultural crops or prime farmlands exist on or near the site and, therefore, developr
the restaurants will not cause any adverse impacts to these features.
There are no significant habitats or species of animals on this graded, disturbed site impacrs to fauna or habitat diversity will occur due to this project.
The proposal does not propose to introduce new species of animals to the area, and no i
to the migration or movement of animals is anticipated.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
17. The present and planned land use for the site is travel services commercial. Both the
Ordinance and the General Plan allow restaurants within areas of this land use desig
therefore, no alteration of land use is proposed or necessary.
No significant increase in the demand on public facilities and services is expected as a r
this infill, commercial development. The project applicant has already committed to prov
for their proportionate share of public facilities impacts.
There will be no hazardous waste on site and no control systems will be needed. The incri
increase in the solid waste and sewerage disposal needs caused by the projecr
accommodated by the existing services.
No significant levels of noise will result from the construction and occupation of the re!
development and no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The parking lot lighting will be directed downward and all headlights entering the drive
will be screened from fkeeway views, therefore, no significant amounts of light or glare w
from this proposal.
No explosive or hazardous substances will be involved in the constmction and ope
restaurants and no adverse impacts due to such will result.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
-7-
I 0 0
23/24. The development of the restaurant uses does not involve any residential developme1
create a demand for additional housing. No adverse impacts to housing will occur.
25. While the commercial development will draw traffic to the area, the street system seni
adequate to handle the incremental increase in traffic generation.
The existing parking facility will be supplemented with additional parking and, taken tc
will be adequate to serve the entire restaurant development. No adverse parking imp:
result from ths development.
No transportation or circulation systems shall be affected by this project as no develol
proposed outside of the confines of the site.
No waterborne, air or rail traffic exists on or in close proximity to the project site and, ti
no impacts to such will result.
All construction activities will be confined to the project site and no significant traffic hai
expected .
The site is not included as a part of any emergency response or evacuation plans and no
to these plans will result from this project.
The development of the restaurant complex will be landscaped so as to offer aesthetically
views from Interstate 5 and other public views. No scenic vistas are taken from develol
this project and no impacts to aesthetics are anticipated.
This project will not affecr the quantity or quality of recreational opportunities
recreational facilities exist on site and no impacts to existing facilities will result.
The project site is currently graded and disturbed. No impacts to any significant envirc
features or significant examples of California history or pre-history will result.
The infill site is designated for commercial development and no short-term or 1
environmental goals will be compromised with the proposed project.
No cumulative impacts are expected as the incremental impacts listed above are very insi
and do not compound to a level of significance.
The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either di
indirectly, because all potential impacts are well below the level of significance and do r
adverse impacts.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
-8-
a 0
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, 0 alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) Phasing of the restaurant complex would result in a longer overall construction per
and more incremental disruptions to traffic and noise, therefore not being a prefer2
a1 tema rive.
The proposed site design and scale of development already minimize the impacts to
site and no alternate site designs would produce environmentally preferable results. b)
c) See "B" above.
d) The site is partially developed with and designated for travel service commercial u
Any other use would be less compatible to the existing development.
Development at this time provides allows a graded pad with disturbed vegetation t(
transformed into a landscaped, commercial complex as designated in the City's Gen
Plan. Postponement or prevention of development would leave a partially developed
bare, which has no environmental advantages.
The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and with sun
development. Alternate sites may not offer this consistency and would leave a site de
for development graded and disturbed.
e>
f)
g) See "E" above.
-9-
0 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sipficant effect on the environment, and
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environmen
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in con]
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental reviet
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmc
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVI
IMPACT REPORT is required. /
< * H/X<Y Signature 1
Planning Dire&
5/lS/h z 4U-k
1 Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
0 a
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MVIEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUUS
AND CONCUR WTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
MG:vd
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3391
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA, APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THREE
RESTAURANTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS NORTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
CASE NO: SDP 83-ll(D)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of C;
referred to the Planning Cornmission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provic
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, th
Commission did, on the 1st day of July, 1992, consider said request on propeq
as:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No. 13955, Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No.
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a1
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission COI
13937, and Parcels 1,2, 3, & 4 of Map No, 14014, in the City
1 factors relating to SDP 83-11(D).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning (
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
FindhgS:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the (
APPROVES SDP 83-1 1 (D), based on the following findings;
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surrou~
environmental settings as evidenced by the adequate onsite circulation
provision of required parking, is consistent with the various elements of
Plan since adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are being pr
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
15
16
17
18
19
e e
which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely im1
surroundings or traffic circulation because the proposed site design ant
development will not produce increased onsite congestion;
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accoi
facilities, and parking supply;
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and 01
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted futurc
neighborhood be provided and maintained because the necessary
screening and building setbacks are incorporated into the project des
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to prope:
traffic generated by the proposed use, because Avenida F.ncinas is c
secondary arterial and the peak flows for the project will be st2
2. use as demonstrated by the provision of adequate onsite circulat
3.
4.
surrounding uses.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for SDP 83-ll(D), as shown on Exhibits "A'
July 1, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise ni
conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", I
the site plan as.approved by the Planning Commission. The site plai
the conditions of approval by the City. The site plan copy shall be sut
City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building pe:
be issued for development of the subject property unless the (
2.
3. I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of applica
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupa
This project is also approved under the express condition that the app
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 an1
from time to time, and any development fees established by the
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or otl
adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and
plan and to fulfill the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facili
December 10, 1991, a copy of which is on file with the City
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this applicatic
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will b
4.
PC RES0 NO. 3391 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14 '
15
16 I
17
0 e
5, Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service i
between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, (
25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures v
be required as part of the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plar
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permit:
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilit
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as px
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determi
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determ.int
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
6.
7.
8, Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of 1
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time c
permit issuance.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issu
project within one year from the date of project approval.
9.
10. Approval of SDP 83-ll(D) is granted subject to the approval of
PUD 92-4, and MS 92-4.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be appro
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or mater
project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
11.
12. l8
19
2o
21
22
23
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent proF
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 8(
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups in locatic
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted fo
Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward anc
I
I
I
I
13.
~
14.
26
27
28
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fir(
the Planning Director.
!
PC RES0 NO. 3391 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
16. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan whi
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving con(
from weeds, trash, and debris.
Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall b
and/or topped. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be a1
Plan submitted showing existing onsite trees. Those trees which are ai
removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by th
Department.
Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape R
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in thc
Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and oi
plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual
or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and d
promote water conservation.
The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produc
litter and/or are too large relative to the lot size.
Planter width shall be a minimum of four (4) feet, not including cur
and/or other paving, and parking overhang.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape arc
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscapin;
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of C
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as :
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include bui
improvement plans and grading plans.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed cc
shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvl
17.
18.
19.
removal at the discretion of the Planning Department during the review I
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
I 1 25.
~
26.
27.
28.
29.
PC RES0 NO. 3391 -4-
I
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
e 0
30. Mounding shall be used in parking lot landscaping or preliminary plans
why mounding is not possible to the satisfaction of the Planning Dire
All parking lot trees shall be canopy trees.
The minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallons.
31.
32.
33. 30% of trees in industrial and commercial projects shall be 24" box o
34. The signs shown on Exhibits "H" - "I.,'', dated July 1, 1992 are e
approved. In addition, no freestanding signs are approved with this
uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to
Director for his review and approval prior to occupancy of any buildi
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access ra
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background col
SDP 83-ll(D) is approved under the condition that the eastern elel
buildings will be screened from Interstate 5 freeway and off-ramp
satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to issuance of a Certificate c
The screening for the Building "B", the Claim Jumper restaurant, sh
specimen trees and shrubs. All planting shall be at a minimum of t€
&bits "E" - "G", dated July 1, 1992.
SDP 83-ll(D) is approved under the condition that all approved la
shown on Exhibits "E" - "G', dated July 1,1992, remain in its entirety,
to on site landscaping can OCCUT without prior written approval of
Director.
SDP 83-11 (D) is approved under the condition that the drive thru lan(
"C', is the only drive thru facility on the site and no additional drive t
allowed within this Site Development Plan.
This project is approved upon the express condition that the parking 5
project meet all requirements of Chapter 21.44 including, but not li
requirements of number of off-street spaces required for the propc
parking space size, and the percent of compact spaces. No site deve
amendment shall be approved for Pad A unless conformance With Chi
maintained."
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
EnheerinK Conditions:
40.
-
Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
PC RES0 NO. 3391 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0 0
41. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design r
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the E
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E.,
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from this project may be
addition to the requirements for a sewer connection permit the ap
conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Munkip:
applicant shall apply for an industrial waste water discharge permit
with the building permit for this project.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantiti
the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior tc
approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grad
accordance with City Codes and standards. Prior to issuance of a bui
for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work t
in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a grac
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit M
In that case the applicant must either amend the site development pl;
the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a m
substantially conforms to the approved site plan as determined by the (
and Planning Director.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive apprt
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall cor
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with re
hauling operation.
42.
43.
44.
45. easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If I
46.
1 I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I 1 47. 1 The developer shall exercise special care during the construction I
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shal:
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engine€
Chapter 11 -06.
48. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structl
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building perr
required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Natioi
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be apl
City Engineer prior to approval of the parcel map, issuance of gradin
permit, whichever occurs first.
49. '
-6- I pc RESO No. 3391
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 0
50. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a tr:
and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement (
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test
and approved by the City as part of the building site plan review.
The proposed "Burger King" building on Parcel A of MS 92-04 is in cod
requires the removal and or relocation of an existing fire hydrant, pc
easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Carkbad Mu
District. This shall be all accomplished prior to the issuance of a buildi
Parcel A.
5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the
51.
existing water main and the quitclaiming of portions of the existing
Fire Conditions:
52. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall
by the Fire Department.
53. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, I
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and 1
The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the 1
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency sa
shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the a
Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to hclema
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that
operations cease until the condition is corrected.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall bc
before combustible building materials are located on the constructior
54.
55.
56. Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, a sprinkler systems, and other fire protection systems shall be submim
Department for approval prior to construction. I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in buildin
aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
Water Conditions:
58. The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subjecl
be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure
landscaping and fire flow demands are met.
The developer's engineer shall schedule a meeting with the District Enj
City Fire Marshal and review the preliminary water system lap
59.
preparation of the water system improvement plans.
PC RES0 NO. 3391 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0 0
60. The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the IT
charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. TI
shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge wl
collected at issuance of application for meter installation.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building pen
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water dis
the development determines that adequate water and service is availabl
of application for water service and will continue to be available L
occupancy.
61.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of i
Cornmission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July, .
following vote, to wit:
I
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Cornmissioners: Schlehuber
Noble, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons.
ABSTAIN: None.
1
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI(
ATTEST:
I 2o
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
I '
i 221P
-8- I pc RESO No. 3391
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3392
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THREE RESTAURANTS ON SEPARATE LOTS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NON-
AVENIDA ENCINAS NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
CASE NO: PUD 92-4
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City (
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as F
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, tl
Commission did, on the 1st day of July, 1992, hold a duly noticed public
consider said application on property described as:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No. 13955, Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No.
13937, and Parcels 1, 2, 3, & 4 of Map No. 14014, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and coni
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said (
I 1 1 I considered all factors relating to PUD 92-4.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning (
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the (
APPROVES PUD 92-4, based on the following findings:
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
Filldin=:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be
with the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan, applicable specific pla
plans, and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencic
proposed project does conform to City standards and policies regardi
and loading facilities, driveways, onsite circulation, and landscaping;
That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and d
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term ge
being of the neighborhood and the community because the area will b(
the increased variety of dining facilities;
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to p'
improvements in the vicinity because adequate onsite circulation and I
pedestrian walkways provide for a generally safe development;
That the proposed development does meet all of the minimum dl
standards of the underlying zone, as demonstrated by the provision
2.
3.
4.
parking.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for PUD 92-4, as shown on Exhibits "A" -
July 1, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning I:
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise not
conditions.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sect
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect
building permit issuance.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not is:
project within one year from the date of project approval,
Approval of PUD 92-4 is granted subject to the approval of SD
CUP 92-1, and MS 92-4. PUD 92-4 is granted subject to all cc
SDP 83-11(D), CUP 92-1, and PAS 92-4, Planning Commission Res
3391, and 3393, incorporated herein by reference and on
Planning Department.
2.
3.
4.
....
PC RES0 NO. 3392 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tf
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES; Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners; ScNehuber
Noble, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons.
ABSTAIN: None.
4
1 c- 1 PDn
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
ATTEST:
\
PLANNING DIRECTOR
I I$ I
21
22 23 I I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
l8
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2a
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3393
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU
RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
CASE NO: CUP 92-1
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as 1
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, t
Commission did, on the 1st day of July, 1992, hold a duly noticed public
consider said application on property described as:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No. 13955, Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No.
13937, and Parcels 1, 2, 3, & 4 of Map No. 14014, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said 1
considered all factors relating to CUP 92-1. I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning I
l' of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
APPROVES CUP 92-1, based on the following findings:
j FhdhP:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the develop]
community because the adequacy of onsite circulation and provision
parking will enhance the henefit gained by the increased variety of dini
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 1
17
0 0
and adequate drive thru circulation will reduce the opportunity for COI
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the g
since adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are being provi
not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in t
which the proposed use is to be located because of the adequate omit1
thru circulation, provision of headlight screening, and the adequay
parking;
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to acr
the use as demonstrated by the provision of adequate onsite drive thru
loading facilities, and parking supply; while still providing building an
screening.
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and 0th
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future
neighborhood will be provided and maintained because the necessary 1;
screening and building setbacks are incorporated into the project desi
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to proper1
traffic generated by the proposed use.
3.
4.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for CUP 92-1, as shown on Exhibits "A" -
July 1, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning I:
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise not
conditions.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sect
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect
building permit issuance.
2.
l8 19
20
21
22
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not iss
project within one year from the date of project approval.
Approval of CUP 92-1 is granted subject to the approval of SDI
PUD 92-4, and MS 92-4. Approval of CUP 92-1 is granted subject to a1
of SDP 83-11(D), PUD 92-4 and MS 92-4, Planning Commission Res
! I
I ~
, 4. i
~
23
24
25
26
27
28
Department.
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of 10 years. This
use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yea
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the 1
have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties 01
health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the u
significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recomei
5.
PC RES0 NO. 3393 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6,
7
8
9’
lo
11
12
l3
0 0
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity tc
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. r
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that 1
a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the pub
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met, p
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10
written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days p
expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commissio
that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the put
and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permittec
substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s
welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original apF
a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extc
Planning Commission may grant.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tl
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July, 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
Noble, Savary & Erwin. I
14
15
16 I
17
18
19
20
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons.
ABSTAIN: None.
%sY E-
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI I ATTEST
23
24
25
26
27
P
28 1
APPLICni'ION COMPLETE DA'
APRIL 4, 1992
0
419 STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 1, 1992
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD 924/CUP 92-1/MS 924 - PALOMAR PLACE - Reqi
for an amendment to an existing site development plan and a non-resider
planned unit development, minor subdivision, and conditional use ped
allow three restaurants, one with drive thru facilities, on the east sid
Avenida Encinas north of Palomar Airport Road, in Local Fad
Management Zone 3.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Plam
Commission Resolution No's. 3391,3392, and 3393 APPROVING SDP 83-11 (D), PUD (
and CUP 92-1, based on the findings contained therein. Note: The City Engineer intc
to approve the minor subdivision MS 92-4 subject to Planning Commission approval oj
other development permits.
11. PROECX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing site development plan, a;
conditional use permit, non-residential planned unit development permit, and m
subdivision to allow the construction of, and resubdivision around, two stan
restaurants and one drive thru restaurant on the east side of Avenida Encinas, nor.
Palomar Airport Road. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed drive
and a non-residential Planned Unit Development is needed because the proposed lor
not front on the street. The site is zoned C-T-Q (Commercial - Tourist with a Qual
Development Overlay) and is designated TS (Travel Services), except for the northern
portion which is designated P-M, PI (Planned Industrial). Currently, the site is pan
developed with McDonald's and Mane Callender's restaurants in the southern portion
an office building at the northern end. The site receives access from Avenida Encina:
is bound by the Interstate 5 freeway to the east and Palomar Airport Road to the s(
As shown on Exhibit "A", dated May 20, 1992, the restaurants would be located beh
the existing office building and the MaAe Callender's Restaurant.
9 0 SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92- / ,UP 92-1/MS 92-4
PALOMAR PLACE
JULY 1, 1992
PAGE 2
Originally approved in July of 1984, Site Development Plan 83-11 was to contain
restaurants, a two story office building, a 380 seat dinner theater, and a 150 room hc
Since this original approval in 1984, the two restaurants and office building M
constructed and an application was made and withdrawn for a Medieval Times Dir
Theater within the undeveloped portion of the site. Since building permits were not iss in the prescribed time limits for the originally approved dinner theater and hotel,
portion of the Site Development Plan has expired.
The proposed development involves a 10,600 square foot Claim Jumper restaurant, a 2,
square foot drive thru Burger King, and a pad for a future, maximum 6,000 square
restaurant. The proposed buildings would lie within the eastern portion of the site I
parking and landscaping along the west. The architectural elevations for the Claim Jun
and Burger King are attached as exhibits. No elevations have been prepared for the fu
building on Pad A and therefore, a subsequent Site Development Plan Amendment r
be processed prior to issuance of permits for the future restaurant. Within the soutl
portion of the site, the Site Development Plan amendment will improve circulatior
redesigning the existing Marie Callender's loading zone.
111. ANALYSIS
1. Can the findings required for a Site Development Plan Amendment an
Conditional Use Perrdt be made? Namely,
a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development oi
community, is properly related to and does not adversely impact the
surroundings, and environmental settings, essentially in harmony with
various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimc
to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which
proposed use is to be located;
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shapl
accommodate the use;
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other feat
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future us1
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to pro]
handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
b)
c)
d)
2. Can the findings required for a Non-Residential Planned Unit Development be m
Namely,
a) That the granting of the permit will not adversely affect and wi
consistent with the code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, m
plans, and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agenc
0 0 SDP 83-11 (D)/PUD 92-4/ ,UP 92-1/MS 92-4
PALOMAR PLACE
JULY 1, 1992
PAGE 3
b) That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirabl
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-b(
of the neighborhood and the community;
That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general we1
of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to propert
improvements in the vicinity;
That the proposed non-residential planned development meets all of
minimum development standards of the underlying zone.
c)
d)
3.
DISCUSSION
Is the project consistent with the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan?
1. Findinns Required for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan
a. Desirability and Harmony of Use
The site is designated for travel service commercial uses by the Land Use Eler
of the General Plan. The proposed restaurant uses are consistent with
designation and increase the variety of dining establishments for the traveler
the Carlsbad resident, as well as tax revenue for the City's General Fund.
proposed development's circulation, utilities, and other improvements are integx
into the partially developed site and no environmental constraints exist with!
near the project area. By providing adequate off-street parking and loading faci
the proposal demonstrates consistency with the policies of the General
Circulation Element. With regard to the drive thru for Building C, a four foot
wall with landscaping will screen drive thru headlights from the freeway Offri
In addition, the drive thru traffic is separated into a long queuing aisle and ex
traffic is directed out of a main entryjeit for the site. This reduces the opportl
for congestion in this part of the project. These various attributes of the projec
desirable for the community, properly related to the site and surround
consistent with the General Plan, and not detrimental to existing or proposed
b. Adeauacv of Site in Size and Shape
As shown on Exhibits "A1 - "G", dated July 1, 1992, the site is adequai
accommodate the proposed restaurants along with all required parking, landsca
and loading facilities. The site is also large enough to conditionally allow a
thru at Building C with a separated queuing area and proper screening
landscaping.
restaurants is 281. By redesigning the Marie Callender's loading zone, six SI
are eliminated. The newly developed portion of the site therefore contains
spaces to provide exactly that required by code for the entire development.
The total number of additional spaces required for the
0 0 SDP 83-11 (D)/PUD 92-41 ,UP 92-1/MS 92-4
PALOMAR PLACE
JULY 1, 1992
PAGE 4
eventual size of the restaurant on Pad "A" may be smaller than the maximum 6,(
square feet, perhaps providing extra parking for all uses.
c. Features Necessary to Adiust the Use
Since the uses are allowed by right and are compatible with the neighboi
developed industrial office uses, very few features are required to adjust the use
their surroundings.
southbound off-ramp for Palomar Airport Road, which are included within both
City's and the State's Scenic Highway Systems. Ideally, a combination of setba
architectural quality, and enhanced landscaping would be applied to create
aesthetically pleasing freeway side development. The long linear shape of this !
however, causes the restaurant buildings to locate close to the freeway. The prc
therefore includes dense landscaping along the eastern portions of the restaur;
for softening of freeway views. This screening would consist of specimen trees
shrubs, smaller shrubs and a flowering espalier wall, as required by condi
number 35 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3391 and shown on Eh
"A" - "L", dated July 1, 1992. The existing loading area for Marie Callender's is
being adjusted to provide for improved circulation.
d. Adequacy of Street System
The site is served by Avenida Encinas and Palomar Airport Road, both artc
roadways. Avenida Encinas is designed to accommodate up to 20,000 average c
trips. The 4,562 additional average daily trips generated by the proposal, a:
with the existing ADT of the site are well below the ultimate capacity of Ave
Encinas. In addition, the peak flows of this project are staggered from those oj
neighboring office and industrial uses. The street system is therefore adequat
accommodate this proposal.
Findings Required for a Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Permit
a. Consistency with the Code and General Plan
As discussed above, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use and Circuk
elements of the General Plan by virtue of its travel service commercial use,
adequacy of parking and loading areas. The proposed development does not COI
with any goals or policies or the remaining General Plan Elements. The projc
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance since a Site Development Plan, 1
Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit are t
processed and all applicable development standards are being met. The project
under the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area, however the proposal doe
contradict any requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan. Given the above
granting of these permits will not adversely affect and will be consistent wit1
code, General Plan, and all applicable plans adopted by the City and (
governmental agencies.
The site is prominent from the Interstate 5 freeway
2.
0 e SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD 92-4, ,UP 92-1/MS 92-4
PALOMAR PLACE
JULY 1, 1992
PAGE 5
b. Provision of a Necessary and Desirable Service
The proposed restaurant uses would provide additional dining facilities for both
employees in the vicinity and travelers passing through Carlsbad. This will not (
increase tax revenue from the site but will also increase the variety of restaur;
in the area. The proposed uses are therefore desirable to the community.
c. tmpact on Persons in the Vicinity
As discussed above, all required parking loading facilities, and circulation stand<
are being met. The drive thru circulation aisle for Burger King will be screenec
a 4 foot high wall to avoid any potential conflicts with headlights shining ontc
freeway off-ramp. The project, as conditioned, will treat all runoff for UI
pollutants, thus reducing any impacts to storm water quality due to developrr
The proposal should therefore not be detrimental to the health, safety, or ger
welfare of persons in the vicinity.
d. Conformance with Development Standards
The underlying zoning designation of C-T-Q allows restaurants by right, but reqi
a Site Development Plan prior to the issuance of any building permits. The
applicable development standard of the C-T zone is building height, which mu!
kept under 35 feet to the peak of the roof. The Claim Jumper and Burger restaurants measure approximately 25 feet and 28 feet high, respectively. 1
regard to parking, the total required by code for the entire development, 472 sp;
is being provided and, as shown on Exhibit "A", dated July 1, 1992, all parkii
close to the proposed and existing uses. The code allows the creation of
without frontage on a publicly dedicated street through a PUD perrnit, whic
being processed along with this application. The project is therefore in conform
to all requirements of the underlying zone.
3. Consistency with the Local Facilities ManaRement - Plan
The project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 3 in the north
quadrant of the City. With no dwelling units proposed, the project will not irr
a number of facilities. As conditioned, all public utilities and services tha
impacted will be available to serve the project prior to building permit issuar
SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92- ? ,UP 92-1/MS 92-4
PALOMAR PLACE
JULY 1, 1992
PAGE 6
The impacts on public facilities created by construction of the three restaurants and
compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized below:
w. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since the site has been graded through a previous discretionary action and the prop(
project is compatible with the surrounding development, the Planning Director
determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result due to this prc
and has, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on May 28, 1992.
SUMMARY
Considering that the findings required for a site development plan, conditional use per
and non-residential planned unit development permit can be made, staff is recornmen
approval of SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1/MS 92-4, as conditioned.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Disclosure Statement
8.
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3415
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3391
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3392
Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3393
June 3 Exhibits "A" - "L", dated July 1, 1992.
e dALKtiRUUND DATA SHEET
SDP 83-ll(D) 1 PUD 92-4 ) CUP 92-1 ) MS 92-4
0
CASE NO!
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
APPLICANT: RUSSELL GROSSE DEVELOPMENT
REQUES AND LOCATION: DEVELOPMENT OF THREE RESTAURANTS, ONE WITH DF
THRU FACILITIES. ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, NORTH OF PAL0
AIRPORT ROAD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF MAP NO. 13955, PARCELS 1 AND 2
MAP NO. 13937, AND PARCELS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF MAP NO. 14014 IN THE CITY
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AI”: 210-170-05 THRU 13 Acres 6.8 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 4
(Assessor‘s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone C-T-Q Proposed Zone C-T-0
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad‘s Zo
Requirements)
zoning Land Use
Site C-T-O VACANT
North P-M OFFICE
South C-T-0 RESTAURANTS
East C-T-O INTERSTATE 5
West P-M OFFICE
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water District CARLSBAD Sewer District CARLSE
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 69
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated DECEMBER 5, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
MG:vd:lh
c
A3ot,lCANTS S'AT'HEhT OF 3SCt9SdRE OF CEmUN OwNE8SMlP tlrCrEPEflS ON ALL APPUUTIONS '&WCM
2 SCSGOWn ACTICN :N %E aMT OF *E Cv COUHCL 3R ANY APPOl~~ IO*BO COMMISSION OD CZMI
0 0 ri.
-
Jisclosure Statement
I
5. Have you had mare than 5250 wORh Of business transacted with any member of C
Commtssions. C3mmittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - NO a If yes, please indicate person(s) '
omon 13 aahnaa u 'Any inervt8u.l. firm. cooaMerih~o locmvrntura uroetruon. mud club. tratomd OfgMUSUOn. cor:orauc
r.cetvar syndlcata. mi. me any omor saunry. cy ma county. cy munlcrpaIq. acamct 01 otnor pormcu woaivtmon. ar any
comocnauon acting u unit.
-
[NOTE: Attach additional pages as neCeStary.)
fl- &iiY f-7 6
, Signature ot applrcanuaate
AR & (Y7- nrrcw w rnnccp nm7 rn
Pnnr or rjpe name of owner Print or type name at appricanr '
Signature of Owner/date
&A 6- LWp-
FRM00013 8/90
Page 7 CO An July 1, 1902 PLASSISG C33MLSSION
L nch, Planning Technician 11, pointed Out the two sites
us qg a map on the west wall.
There eing no other persons desiring to address the
Commiss on on this topic, Chairman Erwin declared the public
testimon closed and opened the item for discussion among
the Commis 'on members.
Commissioner 11 is concerned about the noise and
review. Otherwise, he sees no problems.
ten years and wcndked if the Commission might want to
Commissioner Schiehuber w Id prefer five years but would
accept ten.
Chairman Erwin stated that his
related to EHF. If it becomes a ajor issue, he feels it can be handled through the CUP. would support ten years.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and c rried to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3413 approving the
Negative Declaration issued by the Plannl g Director, and
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3 4 approving
CUP 92-03, based upon the findings and subje t. to the
The Planning Commission recessed \\ at 7:lO p.m. and re nvened
conditions contained therein.
RECESS
at 7:22 p.m.
3)
'\ \x
aesthetics, an \ excellent alt job\ ugh He he noted believes that that the request the applicant is for will do
consider bringing it ack in five years for a mandatory
iggest concern is health
SDP 83-1l(D)/PUD 92-41CCP 92-1/MS 92-4 - PALOMAR PLAGE
Request for an amendment to an existing site
development plan and a non-residential planned unit
development, minor subdivision, and conditional use
permit to allow three restaurants, one with drive thru
facilities, on the east side of Avenida Encinas north
of Palomar Airport Road, in Local Facilities Management
Zone 3.
Michael Grim, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of
the request and stated that the applicant is requesting to
develop two standard restaurants and a drive thru restaurant
on the east side of Avenida Encinas, north of Palomar
Airport Road. A CCP is required for the proposed drive thru
and a non-residential PUD is also needed because the
proposed lots do not front on the street and may eventually
be of different ownerships. A minor subdivision is being
processed with these permits and since the proposed
subdivision conforms to the Subdivision Map Act and Title
20, per staff memo of July 1. 1992, the City Engineer
intends to approve the minor subdivision if the related
permits are approved. Yr. Grim stated that all references
to Resolution No. 3394 should be deleted per the staff memo.
The original site development plan (SDP 83-11), approved in
July 1984, was to contain two restaurants, a two-story
office building, a 380-seat dinner theatre, and a 150-room
hotel. Since that approval, the two restaurants and office
building were constructed and an application was made and
withdrawn for a Medieval Times dinner theatre within the
undeveloped portion of the site. Since building permits
MISSION ERS
Erwin
Hall Noble
Savary
Sch 1 ehube
Schramm
were not issued within the prescribed limits for the dinner
theatre and hotel, that portion of the SDP has expired.
The proposed development involves a 10,600 s.f. Claim Jumper
restaurant, a 2,860 s.f. drive thru Burger King, and a pad
for a future maximum 4,400 s.f. restaurant. Referring to
location of the McDonald's, Yarie Callender's restaurant,
and the office building as well as the location of the
proposed Claim Jumper and Burger King restaurants. The
non-residential PED and minor snbdivision would permit lot
lines to be drawn around the proposed buildings to allow
them to be purchased by the representative restaurants. The
parking lot would remain the common ownership of the
landlord, who also owns the Marie Callender's and the office
building lots.
The drive thru would have a separate entrance at the
northern-most end of the site to eliminate any congestion
near the Marie Callender's entrance. Since this SDP
involves the entire site, staff is also recommending the
elimination of six parking spaces adjacent to Marie.
Callender's to provide a dedicated loading zone for tnat
restaurant.
Because the site is adjacent to the Interstate 5 freeway,
staff is recommending that heavy landscaping be used behind
the new restaurants to soften their appearance from the
freeway.
the drive thru so that headlights of queued vehicles do not shine into oncoming freeway traffic. Staff can make the
findings and recommends approval as conditioned and with the
changes included in the staff memo of July 1, 1992.
Commissioner Noble requested staff to repeat who would own
the parking lot. Mr. Grim replied tnat Marie Callender's is
currently under a lease and the property, as well as the
parking lot, is owned by the Grosses.
Chairman Erwin noted for the record that the Commission has
received two letters: One letter is dated July 1. 1992 and
is from Jeffrey Chine of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
representing their client, Harie Callender's. The second
letter is dated June 27, 1992 and is from David Cortina of
Marie Callender's. The letters will be on file in the
Planning Department.
Chairman Erwin inquired if additional wording was needed to
dedicate parking spaces of 170 s.f. as compact spaces per
Section 21.44.110. Mr. Grim replied that the proposal
provides for an overhang, allowing the spaces to be
classified as standard parking spaces. He feels that the
condition which has been recommended in the staff memo of
July 1, 1992 will conform to the parking requirement.
Chairman Erwin is concerned about the asphalt shingles and
would like a condition included that the type and style of
the roofing material for the Claim Jumper restaurant be
determined by the Planning Director. Mr. Grim replied that
the Claim Jumper has provided sanples of the huilding
materials, which was passed to the Commissioners for their
review. Chdirman Erwin would still like to add the
condition.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Chairman Erwin's
proposed condition is for the Planning ,Director to
the mounted color exhibits, he pointed out the existing
There will also be significant screening around
"determine" or "approve" the roof material I
"approved. "
Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Bebe Grosse, Russell M. Grosse Development Co., 5850 Avenida
Encinas, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that
she agrees with almost all of the staff report. As regards
the new condition to Resolution No. 3391, set forth in staff
memo dated July 1, 1992, she stated that they would like to
deal with that issue at the time they bring forth a plan for
Pad A. With regard to Condition 115 of Resolution No. 3393,
they object to the five year time limit because it creates
difficulty in attracting investors and financing. She feels
that the new restaurants will create a restaurant row effect
and will be instrumental in drawing customers to the area.
She noted that the Claim Jumper restaurant i4 named as one
of the top 100 restaurants in the United S--res. She
requested the Commission's support for the .reposed project.
Craig Nickeloff, owner of the Claim Jumper Restaurant,
16721 Milliken Avenue, Irvine, addressed the Commission and stated that ,:aim Jumper presently has eight restaurants;
the proposed Carlsbad restaurant will be number nine. company was started with his father in 1977 and all are
family owned and operated, and are geared toward family-type
customers. The restaurants are a step above a coffee shop
but a step down from a formal restaurant, which is what
makes them so popular.
be a "high value" food establishment.
Chairman Erwin stated that he is concerned about the asphalt
shingles and inquired if the other restaurants have asphalt
shingles. Mr. Eickeloff replied that the Corona and City of
Industry buildings have asphalt shingles and are prototypes
of Carlsbad.
Chairman Erwin inquired if Mr. Nickeloff could accept the
new condition he is proposing regarding the type and style
of the roofing material to be approved by the Planning
Director. Mr. Nickeloff replied that he likes the proposed
design with the shingles. He cannot accept the Chairman
Erwin's condition because to change the roofing material
would add a significant cost and they are operating on a
Chairman Erwin
replied that he prefers "determined" but could amend it to
The
They are perceived by the public to
very tight budget.
Bebe Grosse then introduced John Macaluso of Burger King,
who desired to speak to the five year limitation. She noted
that she had done some research and found out that no other
drive thru restaurant in the City of Carlsbad has a CUP or a
time limitation.
Chairman Erwin stated for the record that he had spoken with
Ms. Grosse on several occasions prior to the meeting
regarding this issue.
John Macaluso. 260 Cagney Lane, Fewport Beach, addressed the
Commission and stated that he and his partner are Burger
King franchisees who own and operate 30 restaurants
throughout California. This will be their second Burger
King in north San Diego County. He is very concerned about
the five year time limitation of the CUP for the following
reasons :
I
\
MINUT a S 0
* The franchise is for 20 years: he would like a 20 year CUP
* Approximately 50% of the business will be generated by the
time approval to dovetail with the franchise;
drive thru portion and a five year time limit would put
the viability of the restaurant in question every five
years;
problem with a five year term because of the possibility
that the CUP could be withdrawn;
* The five year time limit is redundant since the Planning
Director does an annual approval and inspection;
a No other drive thru restaurant in Carlsbad presently has a
CUP or five year limitation; - Nothing is happening or likely to happen adjacent to the
restaurant which would make the drive thru incompatible.
In light of the above, Mr. Macaluso requested that the CUP
be granted for a period of 20 years.
Jeffrey Chine of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps,
addressed the Commission and stated that his client, Narie
Callender's, was not formally noticed and did not receive
the proposed site plan until late last week. He feels the
project has serious implications for his client and would
like a continuance so that they can look into it further to
determine the extent of the problems. One of his concerns
is the statement in the Uegative Declaration t.hat the
additional 4,500 ADT's would not be significant. He would
like to have additional time to study this because the
information he has available is inadequate to determine
whether or not the additional traffic impacts would be detrimental to his client.
Commissioner Soble stated that he was very opposed to the
Medieval Times because of the high traffic volume. He
thinks it is interesting that parking is now an issue with
Marie Callender's when they once offered excess parking to
Medieval Times. ?lr. Chine replied that he is not sure his
client is contending there is inadequate parking but,
rather, is concerned about the additional traffic being
generated because it was not fully disclosed in the Negative
- Prudent investors and lenders will have a basic economics
Declaration.
Commissioner Noble stated that the additional traffic didn't
seem to be a problem when the Medieval Times was proposed
and that project would have generated six hundred cars per
show, coming and going.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Chine is contznding
that his client is entitled to legal notice. He replied
that he was not. However, he would like additional time to
analyze the effect of the project on his client's business.
His main concern is the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration.
Kris Schulz, 2648 Marmal Court, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he has been the operator of the
McDonald's restaurant for over six years. He feels his
establishment has been a good citizen and has supported the
community. He has tried on several occasiozs, without success, to get a drive thru for his restaurant since his is
the only fast food restaurant in the city without a drive
thru. He feels that a competitor coming in with a drive
thru will take a significant amount of business away from him and that his lack of a drive thru will cause a hardship.
He requested the Commission to direct staff to find a way
for him to have a drive thru so that he may be competitive.
Paul Nolan, McDonald's Real Estate Department, 4370 La Jolla
Village Drive, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that he is not too happy about the proposed project.
He was led to believe that McDonald's would be the only fast
food establishment in this development. He is surprised to
hear that a competitor will be added and given the advantage
of a drive thru. He requested consideration be given to
permitting a drive thru for the McDonald's as well.
Cpmmissioner Schlehuber stated that McDonald's desire for a
drive thru is not an issue under consideration at this time. The issue being addressed is whether or not these
restaurants can come in.
Mr. Nolan continued his comments, stating that the Burger
King is proposing a nine car stacking lane which is illegal
in most other cities and counties in southern California.
McDonald's recent submittal for a drive thru had a 13-car
stacking lane and it was deemed insufficient. He cannot
understand why the Burger King is being recommended by staff with a stacking lane for only nine cars. If the Burger King
is approved, he hopes it will be done with the same scrutiny
that has been given to McDonald's over the past six years.
Mr. Nolan cited a recent Time magazine article which
commended the YcDonald's organization for their community
involvement. He feels they have gone out of their way to be
involved in Carlsbad as well, and he requested that some
direction be given to staff to help McDonald's get a drive
thru for their restaurant. He would appreciate that this
hearing be continued so that McDonald's and Marie Callender's problems can be worked out.
Commissioner Hall stated that if Mr. Nolan honestly feels
staff has been unfair to McDonald's, they have recourse to
the Planning Commission. If he feels that the Planning
Commission has been unfair, the issue can then be taken to
the City Council.
Russell Grosse, 5850 Sunny Creek, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he is very familiar with the
history of the parcel where the McDonald's is located. It
goes back a long way to an original proposal for a Jack in
the Box. Staff determined long before McDonald's ever moved
in that a drive thru would be unsuitable and the Mr. Ecke's
lease with McDonald's clearly states that a drive thru will
not be allowed. As far as Marie Callender's is concerned,
he feels they don't want the competition of another
restaurant and that the traffic situstion is just an excuse.
He stated that Xarie Callender's has had the sit.e plan in
their possession for three months. As far as Mrs. Grosse's
statement regarding the new parking condition, he is not
opposed to meeting the standard. He just wants to discuss
it later when Pad A is developed.
Chairman Erwin requested clarification on the last comment.
Mr. Grosse is not opposed but he doesn't want it included?
Mr. Grosse replied that he has no problem with including the
condition.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman Erwin declared the public
I
MINUT & m
\
testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among
the Commission members.
Chairman Erwin requested staff to address the five year
limit of the CUP. Robert Green, Principal Planner, replied
that a CUP does contain a time limit but it also contains an
opportunity for extensions. The reason for the time limit
is to allow staff to make sure that things are operating
smoothly.
operating smoothly.
Chairman Erwin requested staff to address the comment by Mr.
Chine that no traffic study was done and that his client had
also requested an EIR on traffic. Mr. Green replied that ?Ir. Chine's letter was received at 5:OO p.m. this evening,
just prior to the meeting. A traffic report is on file and
staff is comfortable that the Segative Declaration is
adequate for this application. Yr. Wojcik is available to
address the traffic issues. Hokever, staff is not prepared
to address all of the comments in detail in ?lr. Chine's
letter because it was received at such a late hour.
Chairman Erwin inquired if the City Attorney had any
comments on Mr. Chine's letter. Karen Hirata, Deputy City
Attorney, replied that notice was properly given because it
was p,iven to the owner. She feels that staff has addressed
the adequacy of the Negative Declaration.
It would only be questioned if things are not
Commissioner Schramm requested staff to comment on the loading zone issue raised by Mr. Chine. Mr. Green replied
that the issue he raised was whether or not consent had been
given; staff was under the impression that consent had been
given by Marie- Callender's, although there is no written
confirmation.
Commjssioner Schlehuber commented that this appears to be a
tenant issue, i.e. a matter between the owner and the tenant
rather than staff. Mr. Green replied that ha hopes the
owner and tenant can work it out.
Comm-.ssioner Schlehuber requested staff to coment on the
inadequate stacking issue of nine cars which was brought
forwcird by Mr. Nolan of McDonald's. Mr. Green replied that
staf: would not like to comment on the merits of the
McDonald's project because it was not noticed for tonight
nor was it the subject of the hearing. However, Mr. Green
stated that the Burger King was reviewed by the Traffic
Engineer who feels there is adequate circulation and
sufficient stacking space to function efficiently.
Commissioner Savary requested staff to address the
possibility of extending the CUP time limit from five years to ten years. Yr. Green replied that there is ample
opportunity for extensions. Staff is a comfortable with the
five year time period.
Commissioner Hall inquired if there are other drive thru
restdurants with CUP'S. Mr. Green replied that the other
drivl? thru's have redevelopment permits. In this case,
staf€ is trying to retrofit a drive thru into an existing
site, thus necessitating a CUP.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that Lhe Coinmission has
gran:ed ten year CUP'S in the past. Mr. Green confirmed
that to be true.
July 1, 1992 PLANKING COMMISSION Page 13
Commissioner Hall stated that he can support ten years. He
thinks more restaurants in this area will increase the
volume of business. He is sorry that McDonald’s doesn’t
have a drive thru. However. he thinks this area is an ideal
location for multiple restaurants and he will support the application proposed tonight.
Commissioner Schramm can accept ten years because it is a
big investment. She also likes the idea of having multiple
restaurants, although she, too, sympathizes with McDonald’s.
She thinks the applicant has done a good job in designing
the new site which is before the Commission now.
Commissioner Koble was against the Medieval Times because of
the potential trafflc problems. Although there will be
increased traffic with this project, he feels it will be
much less of a problem. He also likes the restaurant row
concept and could support it with a ten year time limit.
Commissioner Savary concurs with what has been said.
Callender’s loading zone will alleviate their problems.
Chairman Erwin stated that he has visited the Claim Jumper
restaurant in the City of Industry. It is very attractive and he would not support any changes to the prototype,
although he would like to keep the condition for the
Planning Director to approve the roofing material. If the
Planning Director can accept asphalt shingles, he can accept
them.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3415 approving the
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3391, 3392, and
3393, approving SDP 83-ll(D), PUD 92-4, and CUP 92-1.
based on the findings contained therein, with the inclusion
of the changes set forth in staff memo dated July 1, 1992
and a change in the CUP time limit to ten years.
DI$CUSSION ITEM:
She,
also, can support ten years. She hopes the Marie
\
Chairm
ahead of tern ir4.
5) DISCUSS1 ‘i ITEN 92-4 - FAIRWAYS - Substantial
Erwin requested staff to present Agenda Item 115
conformance review of changes to approved architectural
elevations an floor plans for The Fairways, ‘j CT 90-23jPUD 90 \ 3 B
Anne Hysong, .4ssistant Pld ner, reviewed the background of
the request and stated that %he Fairways project, which was
approved by the City Council ?\January 1991, consists of 132 single family homes with fouydifferent floorplans and
three different architectural style&, The applicant is
proposing changes to floorplans, colors, materials, and
architecture.
issue is being brought before the Commissi& because the
changes will cause the project to look somewhqt different
than the approved project.
the perameters specified for minor amendments in tke PUD
Ordinance.
the bulk and mass of the structures and the proposed \
architectural styles are similar to those which were approved.
Staff is supportive of thse changes and this
The proposed changes fall within
The architectural changes will gerierallyv\educe
She described each of the proposed changes which
COMMISSIONER:
Erwin
Hall
Noble
Savary
Schlehube
Schramm
9 br&3 CMSTOrn s
e rl
I-
Ji I Y r' .- -.
r? 0'1 r) f" I_,
C!T'! \I - I, ' ' ::ISBAD II 0 _. 11, mF@
July 8, 1992
City C1 erk
1200 Carl sbad Vi 11 age Drive
City of Carl sbad
Carlsbad, CA 92009
@ear Si rlMadam:
McDonald's Corporation is hereby appealing the recent decision of the City o Carlsbad Planning Commission to allow the proposed development of a Burger
King Restaurant wi th drive-thru service. referenced by the Planning Department as: The Burger King appl i cation i s
SDP83-11 (D)/PUD 92-4/CUP92-1/MS92-4; Pal omar P1 ace, Aveni da Enci nas, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a
Ne request that the City Council deny the Burger King drive-thru facility on the same grounds that the McDonald's located in the same shopping center was denied such a drive-thru facility less than one year ago.
Enclosed is the required appeal fee of $470.00.
Sincerely,
Paul {d/* J. N lan
Real Estate Representative
PC Bill Robards
Enclosure
3896r/sjc
McDonald s Coraoration 4370 La Jolla Village Drive. Suite 800 San Diego. California 92122 619 535-8
881 @ 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
SOP 83-ll(D\/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will I.
a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, August 18, 1992, to consider appeal of an amendment to an existing site development plan, a non-resident planned unit development, and a conditional use permit to allow tb restaurants, one with drive thru facilities, on property generally located on east side of Avenida Encinas, north of Palomar Airport Road, in Local Facil it
Management Zone 3, and more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 and 2 of Map No. 13955, Parcels 1 and 2 of Map No. 13937, and Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Map No. 14014, in the City of Carlsb County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Mike Grim in Planning Department, at 438-1161, ext. 4499.
Development, and/or Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hear described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
APPELLANT: McDonald's Corporation PUBLISH: August 6, 1992
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
If you challenge the amendment to the Site Development Plan, Planned U
dtSlTE 0% 4( O%+ 5 5 =, 4 c" bb\\
CltY
SOP 83.
f PALOMAR PLACE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Comm.ission of the City of Carlsbad will hol
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad VUage Drive, Carlsbac
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 1992, to consider approval of c"
amendment to an existing site development plan and a non-residential planned UT
development, conditional use per&, to allow three restaurants, one with drive th
facilities, on property generally located on the east side of Avenida Encinas north
Palomar Airport Road, in Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more particular
described as:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No. 13955, Parcels 1 & 2 of Map No. 13937, and
Parcels 1, 2, 3, & 4 of Map No. 14014, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the pub1
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 24, 1992. If yc
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at 438-1161, el
4499.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan/Planned Unit Development/Conditional L
Permit in court, you may be li&ted to raising only those issues you or someone else rais
at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to t
City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1
CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE
PUBLISH: JUNE 18, 1992
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
MG: km
L.'
I*\
., ti/ i
'Ld !
~ I
i (PALOMAR PLACE)
SDP. 83d.1.1 (Dl /PUD 92-4, .CUP. 92-1 21 ?,. ..
,i *., ~
L 1 I ,..
*
I
i
I
) ,(-J ~
,", I b; _. .. __
j ;>, .k~ e yt :i_ <::! E, E i'j i:: :i rj
I-, 2 ..d 1
.- q
: G'
! x-..
C
C-i
a!
_,
I, +. i ..
\../
~
I"' :.j :I. ("-Ji
, *> i .:. ..
..
L .L I- ,
I *'? ! -,
!fi -k 1 i"t 3::
f-! ,Ti L'e 1, [;: jL ,::I f)
-_-
I %,
i
'.
,."_
(3 1 __. . i I
(5, I
2. 1
1
! ; ;i ,-; c:I jyI i-1. .!; !.,i CI. 1" j _,_, :I_ .!' e; j: I'j Ti. {.)..C ;:I (~ - ,~
i
.i
_I , .. -_. . __ .. .
\. .
Oi
.. 1. :
1
-. .. ..
I ,J j 1 :. ,- ',-. (GQJ
\3 i [. , .; .i' -_
1 roQa.. 1
. -_ _,_ . L' :r i.. .. ,
... --__ -_ --- -. ., -..___ ... -. ._ -- i cz?: i
/. _-.-.-. ---...-- .------------'-~
:. I .- .
... . . .. .
.. . . ~. . l., -
_. __I__._I._I .-.-. --------' ,__--..I_. '
r' ', . ,' ' i:. ? ,. .
, -3 ,' I ... Ii, .j .",
(3
,'j/ 1 1 4.
c,
", 1'7 I1 ..I i::, ,
,I ..i . 3; ", i-) [, i") ..it .........
\ I
,,
,r' .... f :I Ci '\ i:.;., 1:
::I 2
1.
5, .
.. i .. ..
I I_' . _I
'/
,, i I .. i 1 L?
)
\%, l!
,i
I,
... '...,.. IC_' r-8 .,.. -.\ ,.. %.' -&I !". .... i, 'I [-.
.I
I
d 2' .I
/)/'
......... e---. !, .* e *)?A G&fl...f.. & *)Jl 06
-&.-- --._ -
-
.- .8
.. 7437i7 &pd+ / , el
., . i,: &e, &- 7~6!z!z
i -1
XI r .> ... .- f=J
w- -?
3;Pm A&W &&UJ
e-, ZL 9- . .l
L 'I 1 c, e
(Form 4)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice -
SDP 83-ll(D>/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1 - PALOMAR PLACE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
1
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
e-- ' /
P
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK 7/231 Assistant City Manager Da t
m:
licularly described as
1_- =--.
i
I certify under penalty of PC
foregoing is true and correc
Carlsbad, County of San DI
California on the 6th August, 19%
I I
I
I day of
qq (13 P \. '> 1.77 -j- -,/" Q
( I' Cler
' \=-- ~
'c
i, \'\ T ,,
c , i LC I:.C
PALOMAR PIACE
dot. '_-'.
' 0) v w
1200 ELM AVENUE TELE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 4
Olflce of [he C/ry Clerk aitg af @rtrls;bttil
DATE : July 9, 1992
TO : Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
FROM: Karen Kundtz, Clerk's Office
RE : SDP 83-ll(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1/MS 92-4 (Palomar Place)
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: Tile item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off b
__ all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained 1 n th
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
________________________________________----------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
- 'f' 9
July 8, 1992
City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carl sbad Vi 11 age Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Si r/Madam:
McDonald's Corporation is hereby appealing the recent decision of the City Carlsbad Planning Commission to allow the proposed development of a Burger King Restaurant with drive-thru service. referenced by the P1 anni ng Department as : The Burger King application is
SDP83-11 (D)/PUD 92-4/CUP92-l/MS92-4; Palomar Place, Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California
We request that the City Council deny the Burger King drive-thru facility 1 the same grounds that the McDonald's located in the same shopping center w denied such a drive-thru facility less than one year ago.
Enclosed is the required appeal fee of $470.00.
Sincerely,
.,I ** ,l 43. J ] -p$LL-J.
Paul J. Nblan Real Estate Representative
PC Bill Robards
Enclosure
3896rlsjc
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBA, VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, ,ALIFORNIA 92008
438-5621
REC'D FROM DATE
DESCRIPTION
i !
- -~ 1
- ___ -_
210-170-06 5990 AVENIDA ENCINAS RESTAURANT C-T-Q
21 0-1 70-07 PARKING LOT C-T-Q
21 0-1 70-09 PARKING LOT P-M
21 0-1 70-1 0 5980 AVENIDA ENCINAS - RESTAURANT C-T-Q
210-170-11 VACANT C-T-Q
21 0-1 70-1 2 VACANT C-T-Q
21 0-1 70-1 3 PARKING/VACANT C-T-Q
21 0-17O-08 5850 AVENIDA ENClNAS OFFICE BLDG P-M
1 SQUARE PARKiNG PARKING BU ILOIN G DESCRl PTI ON FOOTAGE REQUIRED PROVIDED 1
1 O16OO 43 43
6,000 80 80 EXISTING OffIG€
CLAIM SUMPER RESTAURANT 1 o,wa 172 I72
MARIE CALENDERS RESTAURANT 7,040 101 101
McDONALDS RESTAURANT 3,800 38 38
BLDG A RESTAURANT
BLDG C RESTAURANT 2,860 29
MARIE CALENDERS RETAIL 1,760
29
9 9
TOTAL 42,660 472 472
SITE ACREAGE 6.8 ACRES
TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 37,660 S.f.
PERCENT LANDSCAPING 16%
CONSTRAINTS NOT APPLICABLE SEWERAGE PROVIDED BY CiTY OF CARLSBAD
WATER SERVICE PROVIDED BY CARLSBAD MUNICiPAL WATER DlSTRlCT CARLSBAD SCHOOL DISTRICT
0 0 0 0