Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 97-01; STARBUCKS COFFEE; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (9)City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Febmary 19,1998 DAVE WODEHOUSE WITCH CREEK WINERY 2906 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 RE: STORAGE AREA Dear Dave: As we discussed, I contacted the Carlsbad Police Department to discuss the storage area to the south of your building (between your building and the new Starbucks) and the requirement to screen the trash dumpster. I shared with the Police Department that I had recommended that color (green) slats be placed in the chain link fence to screen the trash dumpster. I also shared with them your concem about their prior comments related to security and reduced visibility as a result of installation of the slats within the fence. As you and I have discussed previously, the subject storage area is not aesthetically appealing. The property on which you are located is in a key visual corridor. Therefore, it is very important that some attempt be made to provide some visual relief from the unsightly storage area. The Police Department agreed with me that the colored slats placed in the chain link fence (or some other type of solid screening) would assist in the effort to provide visual relief by screening the items stored within the subject area from the general public. Although they indicated that the slats would reduce visibility, the Police Department felt that the amount and size of the items currently stored within the area are already obstmcting visibility. Therefore, they supported the Redevelopment Agency's requirement to install the slats within the chain link fence. You may wish to consider altemate security systems, such as reinforcement of your roll-up delivery door, if this remains a concem for you. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the property owner to the south, Jeff Rasak, in order to inform him that we wish to continue with the efforts to immediately install the colored slats into the chain link fence. It is my understanding that the slats and their installation are being financed by the property owner to the south and/or Starbucks. The Redevelopment Agency would also like to encourage you to take advantage of the Agency Facade Improvement and Signage Assistance Program to remove the existing signs on the building which do not conform to the existing sign standards. The subject 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 Wodehouse Febmary 19, 1998 Page 2 program can provide you with a grant of fiinds to assist in the removal ofthe non- conforming signs and the design, constmction and installation ofnew creative signage. The program can also provide assistance for other exterior improvements that you might wish to make to the building. If you would like to pursue assistance under the subject program, please give me a call at (760) 434-2815. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director c: Jeff Rasak Febmary 2, 1998 TO: POLICE CHIEF FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FENCING BETWEEN STARBUCKS AND WINERY ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD In the conditions of approval for the Starbucks project located at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, the property owner was required to screen a trash dumpster to be located within the fenced area between the Starbucks building and the Witchcreek Winery building located to the north. No portion of the trash bin may be visible to the public. In an effort to screen the trash bin from the public, the two property owners agreed to install "slats" within the chain link fence which would hide the items stored (including the trash dumpster) within this area from the public. When the property owner began the work to install the "slats", they were approached by members of the Police Department indicating that they should not install the "slats". The police officers indicated that the "slats" represent a security problem for the police department. The property owner contacted me for a solution to the conflict in requirements. For information purposes, I instmcted the property owner to go ahead and install the "slats" within the chain link fence to meet the condition ofthe City Council. However, I also told them that I would contact the Police Department in an effort to develop an altemate solution to the visibility issue. Assistance of the Police Department is requested to identify an altemate solution to the "screening" and "visibility" issues related to the area described within this memorandum. If you have any questions regarding this matter or need to discuss it fiirther, please contact my office at X2935. Thank You DEBBIE FOUNTAIN pe^ B0(5 U^lG (<:^^l-ZH-r) Police HAV6 NO PRoeceM perO^lNG. ^CRTO UDltC H6LP -the t>+or^^c a\r^^^ prdUcfY\. City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department July 23, 1997 JEFFREY RASAK 3252 HOLIDAY COURT LA JOLLA, CA. 92037 RE: CONVERSION OF OFFICE TO COFFEE HOUSE (STARBUCKS) - RP/CDP 97-01 Dear Jeff: Congratulations on the approval of your redevelopment permit (RP/CDP 97-01) which will allow you to convert your property at 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard from a medical office to a coffee house! Enclosed please find a copy of the agenda bill and related resolutions approving your project. Please read the conditions of approval carefully. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy, you will be required to satisfy various conditions set forth within the approving resolutions. Also, you will be required to comply with all conditions of approval in order to retain the subject permits. The next step of the process involves approval of all appropriate Building Permits for the interior and exterior improvements to the building. Please submit required plans to the City of Carlsbad for processing as soon as possible. If you have any comments and/or questions regarding this correspondence or your project, please contact my office at 434-2935. Sincerely, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^ JUL 8'97 15=45 FR DEL MPR PARTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P.02/03 /v<in C. liayUr, DoridJ. Yfiitklur, f-'aunde'- DEL /WIR PARTNERSHIP July 8, 1997 Housing and Redevelopment Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carisbad, Califomia 9200S Re: Permit #RP/CDP 97-01 Proposed Starbucks Coffee Project Dear Commission Members: In response to the issues raised in conneaion with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in downtown Carlsbad, I submit for your consideration thc following based on my direct experience as representative of the Property Owner and Landlord of Starbucks in downtown Del Mar: (1) Parking: Starbucks Coffee has shared a small parking lot consisting of eight (8) paiking spaces and one (1) handicapped parking space in downtown Del Mar with a bagd store. Union Bank and a Sower stand. Although the availabiiity of parking is extremely limited throughout the downtown area, this small lot has proved to be more than adequate to serve Starbuck's customers as well as those of the other uses. The parking lot has accommodated a quick turnover of customers from Starbucks and the bagel store in the moming hours and drivers can quickly observe whether there are parking spaces available in the lot. In the mornings when Starbucks and the bagd store have been the busiest, parking exists on-street and the parking demand from other businesses in the area is the lowest. Most of Starbucks' customers throughout the day seem to arrive by foot or park elsewhere. Undoubtedly, most are quite familiar with the paiking situation downtown Del Mar and are regular customers of Starbucks who live, work or visit the area on a regular basis. I understand that the proposed Starbucks location in downtown Carisbad is comparable in terms of parking availabiUty and I believe that you will similarly find that Starbuck's parking needs will be adequately accommodated. JUL 8'97 15:45 FR DEL MfiR PARTNERSHIP 619 792 1470 TO 17607202037 P.03/03 Housing and Redevdopment Commission City of Carload July 9, 1997 Page-2- (2) Traffic: Starbucks impact on traffic is minimal; most of thdr customers are drawn from local traffic already in the area. Starbucks is not a large generator of traffic to downtown Dd Mar; it feeds off of traffic already in'the area from the retail shops, offices, restaurants, etc. I am not personally aware of any traffic problems in downtown due to traffic generated by Starbucks. (3) Store Operations: We are extremdy pleased with Starbucks' design, operation and maintenance of its store in Dd Mar, it is well-stocked, wdl-staffed, well-maintained and well- recdved by local residents. Seating areas are kept clean and trash is picked up on a regular basis. I have no doubt that Starbucks will operate its store in Carlsbad in the same manner and will enjoy a similar reception frora local residents upon your approval of its permit. I appreciate your consideration of my comments in support of Starbucks Coffee Company. If there are fiirtfjer details that I may provide or questions that I may answ^, please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, DEL MAR P. TOTAL PAGE.003 ** Jul-08-97 13:57 Law orTices G192208788 P.02 Law Offices of David C. Anderson A Prolesiional Corporation 404 Camino del Rio South, Suite 605 San Diego, CA 92108 Fax (619) 220-8788 (619) 220-8688 July 8, 1997 Housing & Redevelopment Commission City ofCarlsbad 1200 Carlsbad ViUage Drive Carlsbad, CA 92(K)8 RE: PROPOSED STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE Dear Commission Members: In response to the issues raised in connection with the proposed Starbucks Coffee store in downtown Carlsbad, I submit for your consideration the following based on my direct experi^ice as a property owner and Landlord of Start>ucks in downtown Coronado. 1. Parking: The Starbucks store in Coronado occupies a building with a parking lot of five parking spaces. We have never experienced any complaints or problems regarding paiking due to Starbucks and the lot combined with street parking appears to be more than adequate to serve Starbucks' customers. Starbucks' peak hours of operation are in the moming before many businesses are open and at a lime when on-strect parking is readily available. Throughout the remainder of the day, customers arrive by foot, bus or park their cars elsewhere in thc area. 1 would expect that a Starbucks storc in downto\\Ti Carlsbad would result in a similar situation and I doubt that any new parking problems would result solely due to Starbucks. 2. Traffic: We have not experienced aoy traffic problems due to the Starbucks store in downtown Coronado. There is no double parking as most customers prefer to linger and enjoy their coffee. While downtown Coronado experiences traffic congestion, it has been my experience that Starbucks does not create new traffic on its own, but seems to draw its customers from the stores, restaurants, otfices, galleries and movie theater that dominate the area. National Network of Estate Planning Attorneys Jul-08-97 13:57 Law Ofifices 6192208788 P. 03 3. Store Design: Starbucks operates a pleasant and inviting store offering high quality products and friendly ser\ice. We are extremely pleased with all aspects of their store design and operation. Seating areas and adjacent sidewalks are well maintained and kept clean by the store personnel. I am sure that Starbucks will operate its proposed store in Carlsbad in a similar manner I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments in support of Starbucks Coffee Company, Please contact me if you need additional infomiation or have any questions, Ver>' truly yours. l---7t^c^77 y-^,y<y^ y DayicfC. Anderson DCA: df NatkmaJ Nirtwurk of Estaic Plannscg Attomeys Date: 8 July 1997 To: Sr. Management Analyst Debbie Fountain From: Principal Building Inspector Re: Starbucks RP and CDP 97-01 As I read the exhibits attached to your staff report for this project, there is an inconsistency with respect to the disabled access parking. Exhibit 3 states that there will be a van accessible parking space; Exhibit 8 shows a conventional disabled access space. The distinction between the two is a matter of providing a wider loading zone in the van accessible space than in the conventional space. Van accessible spaces require an eight foot wide loading zone. See attached graphic directly from the State Disabled Access Regulations. With the additional space requirements ofthe accessible space, it does not appear that there will be adequate room for the remaining four spaces. However, since the project is a tenant improvement to an existing building, the State regulations for new structures are not strictly applicable in their entirety. There is a general hardship exclusion, which I will discuss in the following paragraph, for projects that have a total valuation of less than about $85,000. Projects above that threshold must fully comply with the regulations for new buildings. For projects less than $85,000 in total valuation, the State regulations require that an additional amount of at least 20% ofthe project valuation be spent upgrading existing access features for that building. The State reg's also prescribe a priority list for this expenditure as follows: 1. An accessible entrance, 2. An accessible route to the altered area, 3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex, 4. Accessible telephones (if provided), 5. Accessible Drinking Fountains (if provided) and, 6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage and alarms. Hypothetically, they may not have to modify the parking space underthis priority list. For instance, ifthe project valuation is $80,000, their access upgrade obligation is an Page 1 additional $16,000. They cannot count the items they are going to modify as part of this 20% such as the entrance and path of travel they plan to do anyway. They can not count the cost of those two items against the 20% expenditure requirement. But they could spend the obligation prior to getting down to the van accessible parking space requirement. They could easily spend $12,000-14,000 building another accessible restroom for public use inside the store. Providing an accessible public phone and drinking fountain could cost as much as $2,000-$4,000. These features, if they cost this much, would be their entire obligation. Of course they may then provide a parking space that is accessible, but not necessarily van accessible. This may seem like a work-around, but its not. It would comply literally with the State regulations for existing buildings, and more importantly, with the intent ofthe reg's. That intent is to provide the greatest access for the greatest number ofthe disabled in the order ofthe priority list established by the disabled community during the adoption Code process. It makes sense that while not everyone needs a van accessible parking space, all ofthe disabled community could use a restroom, telephone, or drinking fountain if they are accessible. Having an accessible parking space, even one with a five foot loading zone, along with all of those features would make for a highly accessible existing building. This entire discussion is of course dictated by the valuation ofthe improvements to the building. The project valuation should be determined in sum, not broken into small projects to evade their responsibility. If the project valuation exceeds $85,000, the building must fully comply with the reg's for new buildings. PATRICK KELLEY Principal Building Inspector attachment Page 2 May 30, 1997 TO: CAROL CRUISE FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN TAPES AND OTHER INFORMATION FROM 5/29/97 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Enclosed please find the tapes and various other related documents from the special Design Review Board meeting held on Thursday, May 29, 1997 in the City Coimcil Chambers. I put approximate times of the begirming and ending of the meeting. Unfortimately, I forgot to check the clock at the time we opened and closed. We did start the meeting late because the applicant did not arrive until approximately 6:15pm and then we had to discuss the issues related to the project in regard to the fact that Peggy Savary could not attend the meeting and Sarah Marquez could not vote. So, I believe we began at approximately 6:25pm. The ending time was between 8:45pm and 8:50pm. I did not check the tapes very closely so I do not know if Kim may have mentioned the time or not. So, you may need to use the approximate times shown. I checked the first tape and it appears that everything worked property. I hope the rest of the tapes are OK as well. I tried to take some notes as the speakers were presenting and have provided you with a copy of my notes to help in transcribing the tapes. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks,