Loading...
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