HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-16; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 226; Pollos Maria Appeal.-
HOUSING AND -DEVELOPMENT COMMISSl-U - AGENDA BILL
iB# a26 TITLE: APPEAL BY POLLOS MARIA OF DESIGN
ulTG.-?/li/~ REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY RP
lEPT.wmn.s-- 84-04 (A)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT Resolution No. &XL denying appeal and upholding the Design Review Board's decision to DENY minor Redevelopment Permit Amendment 84-04 (A).
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is an appeal by the applicant (Pollos Maria/Michael Winfield) of a Design Review Board decision of December 2, 1992 to DENY minor RP 84-04 (A).
On September 26, 1992, the agent (Michael Winfield) for the property owners (Marie Davies and Carmen Gastelum) of 3055 Harding Street submitted a completed application for an amendment to an existing minor redevelopment permit (RP 84-04) to allow tandem parking in conjunction with the addition of a drive-thru window at an existing 900 square foot restaurant with outdoor dining.
The Design Review Board reviewed the plans submitted with the Pollos Maria application during their meeting on December 2, 1992. With a unanimous vote of the members present, the Board denied the requested amendment to minor redevelopment permit 84- 04 based upon the fact that the proposed drive-thru would create a situation of parking lot and pedestrian traffic congestion at the site. The Design Review Board supported staff's evaluation of the proposal which concluded that the drive-thru does not meet city standards or engineering guidelines for a drive-thru window because 1) the lot is too small given existing and proposed improvements; 2) there would be inadequate queuing for vehicles; 3) the handicap parking space would be blocked by queuing vehicles; 4) circulation via the rear alley would be unsafe to pedestrians and other vehicles; and 5) tandem parking, as proposed, is not allowed by City Ordinance. Also, the Board agreed that the site is simply not large enough to accommodate a drive-thru window.
Attached is the staff report prepared for the Design Review Board meeting of December 2, 1992 which outlines the proposed project in more detail. The report provides a summary/discussion of the various issues related to the Pollos Maria request.
In taking action on the appeal by Pollos Maria, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has the following three (3) options:
1. Uphold the Design Review Board's decision to deny the amended permit by denvinq the appeal.
--
EDi BILL # &2.&
2. Grant the appeal and return'permit to Design Review Board for conditions to approve the requested amendment to RP 84- 04 to allow the drive-thru window with tandem parking.
3. Grant the appeal with conditions for the amendment to RP 84-04 to with tandem parking.
approved by the Commission allow the drive-thru window
It is staff's recommendation that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission uphold the Design Review Board's decision to deny the amended permit by denying the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT
'None.
B=JBITS
1. Resolution No .a$!%, denying Redevelopment Permit 84-04(A). an amendment to minor
2. Notice of Appeal submitted by Michael Winfield (agent for Pollos Maria), dated February 16, 1993.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated December 2, 1992 (All appropriate exhibits and attachments are available for public review in the City Clerks' Office).
4. Minutes from December 2, 1992 Design Review Board Meeting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1%
13
14
1E
1E
17
1E
1s
2c
21
2:
2:
24
2:
2E
27
2E
EOUBING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 222
A RESOLUTION OF TEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT CONNISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENYING A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A DRIVE-TNRU WINDOW TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 3055 HARDING STREET WITHIN SUB-AREA 7 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. CASE NAME: POLLOS MARIA CASE NO.: RP 84=04(A)
WHEREAS, an appeal of the decision of the Design Review
Board denying an amendment to minor RP 84-04(A) has been
filed with the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the
16th day of March, 1993, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider said application on property described
as:
Lots 25 and 26 in Block 57, according to Map No. 775 in the City of Carlsbad, filed in the office of the County Recorder, February 15, 1894.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating
to the amendment of RP 84-04(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
--
. hereby DENIES the appeal and DENIES an amendment to RP
1 84-04(A) for the reasons stated by the Design Review
2 Board at their meeting of December 2, 1992. The
3 findings of the Design Review Board, as stated in
4 Resolution No. 200, shall constitute the findings of
5 the Commission in this matter.
6
7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
8 Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of March, 1993,
9 by the following vote, to wit:
10 AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, and Nygaard
1.1 NOES : Commissioner Finnila
ABSENT: None
16
23
24
25
26
27
28
120kELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Cify Clerk
I (We) appeal the fo llow ing decision of the Design Review Board
to the City Council:
APPEAL FORM
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
EXHIBIT 2
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Pollos Maria RP 84-04(A)
to amend an existing redevelopment permit to add a drive-through window to an
existing restaurant.
Date of Decision: December 2, 1992
Reason for Appeal: Minutes of the meeting refer to "inadequate queuing of
vehicles" by staff; and, a request by myselF "for queuing (sic) should be
reduced". This is untrue. Six (6) spaces for queuing were provided, which does
comply with the engineering department's (unwritten, unadopted and legally
unenforcable)standards. All safety issues raised will be mitigated by a concurrent
action to secure adjacent off-street parking and access rights.
February 16, 1993
Date
__ __... -- --.
Al’7CHlTUBA
J. MICHAEL WINFIELD, AIA
I
(6’191453-79A3
,1,0:-,7A ROSFLLE ST SAN DIEGO. ca 92121
Signature
J. Michael Winfield AIA c/o Architura
Name (Please Print)
10457 A Roselle St.
Address
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 481-6500
Telephone Number
b
;
3 6 4 II 111
3
i P E
4 ‘0 J P
’ I $ ’ I 1
, d-6’ k 7 -TYf! n
e
17 I ’ V 7 -- 7 I I 1 v %
1 ,,$I _” ‘I “p 1’1”/ I I \I \ , I’----- ;‘.l, , I
v $1, pl, ‘\ I & YF iI 3 4 i= ooP\
f 1 j . . ,i h J
. .
ni Z --I --I 0 b c D = w w ;. m
$ D I-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 2, 1992
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLANNING/HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS
RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS MARIA DRIVE-THRU - Request for an amendment
to an existing Redevelopment Permit (RP 84-04) to approve a drive&-u
window at the Pollos Maria Restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street
within Sub-area 7 of the Village Redevelopment Zone in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
APF -XTION COMPLETE DATE:
SEPTEMBER 26. 1992
STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 3 a~-
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 200,
DENYING RP 84-04(A), based on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The existing restaurant use at 3055 Harding Street within Village Redevelopment Sub-area
7 was approved with RP 84-04. The 900 square foot restaurant required nine (9) parking
spaces. However, the project was approved with eight (8) spaces since a serious parking
shortage was not anticipated, as discussed in the project’s staff report (attached with
approving resolution). The project was also approved, with a two way circulation that
connects Harding Street with the rear alley. The drive-thru proposal is shown on Exhibit
“A”, dated December 2, 1992 and involves a parking lot and circulation redesign.
III. ANALYSIS
FVoiectIssues
1. Is the project consistent with the goals, objectives and development standards of the
Village Design Manual, Sub-area 7 and the Zoning Ordinance?
2. Is project consistent with Engineering Department policies regarding drive-&us?
-.
- RP 84-04(A) - POLLO. AARIA DEUVE THRU
DECEMBER 2, 1992
-_ PAGE2
DI!KUSSION
The existing restaurant use is consistent with Village Design Manual and the
residential/commercial mixed use land use objectives of Sub-area 7. However, the
proposed drive&m and related. parking lot and circulation redesigns do not meet all
applicable regulations. The drive-&u as proposed does not conform to City standards and
Engineering Department policies. Consequently project circulation is negatively impacted.
Specifically, the following City standards (A-B) and Engineering Department Policies (C-E)
cannot be met:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Darkinn lot redeskn with tandem ~arkim does not fimction: The parking lot involves tandem parking which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for this
situation. Per Section 21.44.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, tandem parking is only
allowed in two cases: (1) for front yard parking in the Residential-Waterways (RW)
Zone, and (2) for front yard parking, with certain provisions, for existing
substandard frontage lots with a width of less than fifty feet. Parking space access
conflicts and unsafe pedestrian movements would be created by the proposal.
The handican mace would he blocked: The cars queuing and waiting in the drive-
thru line will block the handicap space. City standards require that a queuing area
be free of any conflicts from backing out of parking spaces.
No access from a Dublk street: The proposal would convert the existing two-way
circulation that connects Harding Street to the rear alley into a one-way circulation
with access off the rear alley and an exit only onto Harding Street.
A minimum of 4 standard sized (20 ft. lo& waitinn cars cannot be accommodated
before the order box: The site plan, Exhibit “A”, shows 4 cars before the order box,
however, they are bumper to bumper and have compact car dimensions. (16 ft.
long).
A minimum of 2 standard sized (20 ft. long) cats cannot be accommodated between
the order box and Dick UD window: The site plan shows 2 compact size (16 ft.
long) cars lined up bumper to bumper, indicating an inadequate amount of space
provided.
Based upon the above factors, staff does not support the proposal since parking lot and
pedestrian traffic congestion will be created by the project’s redesign. The site is not large
enough to accommodate the drive-&u proposal.
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s design alternatives that attempted to provide a drive&m
window while complying with all applicable development standards and policies. However,
the site proved to be.too small and constrained to accommodate a design that would meet
RP 84-04(A) - POLLC- JlARtA DRIVE THRU
DECEMBER 2, 1992 * PAGE 3
all codes, standards and policies and get staffs recommendation of approval. St& has
made the applicant aware of the project concerns regarding noncompliance with applicable development standards and policies as reflected in the attached letters by the City dated
May 6, June 15 and August 3, 1992. Also attached is the Engineering Department review
of this project (dated September 16, 1992). The applicant is also aware that staff cannot
support the proposal but requests that the matter be brought to the Design Review Board
for consideration. Staff recommends denial of the drive-that request.
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As provided for in Section 15270 of CEQA, a public agency is not required to perform
environmental review on a project which is not approved.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 200
Location Map
RP 84-04 Staff Report (with Resolution No. 39)
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Letter dated May 6, 1992
Letter dated June 15, 1992
Letter dated August 3, 1992
Engineering Department Project Review, dated September 16, 1992
Exhibit “A”, dated December 2, 1992
F.NM:lh:vd:km
OCTOBER 22,1992
.
.
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
DESIGN REMEVV BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 200
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING A
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A DRIVE-
THRU WINDOW TO THE EXISTING POLLOS MARIA RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF HARDING STREET BETWEEN CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND OAK AVENUE IN SUB-AREA 7.
CASE NAME: POLLOS MARIA
CASE NO: RP 84-04(A)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 2nd day of December, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said application on property described as:
Lots 25 and 26 in Block 57, according to Map No. 775 in the
City of Carlsbad, filed in the office of the County Recorder,
February 15, 1894.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to RP 84-04(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
I as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board DENIES RP 84-04(A), based on the following findings:
. . . .
.
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1C
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
1e
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
Fin*:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The proposal is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Design
Manual and Sub-Area 7 because the project site is not large enough to support the
drive-thru window and associated parking and circulation redesign The project
would create onsite vehicle congestion and unsafe onsite pedestrian circulation.
The project does not meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
existing restaurant use is one Parking space short as approved with the original
permit, Rp 84-04. This proposal involves the addition of a ninth, handicap space
as shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit “A”, dated December 2, 1992. However, this
space would be potentially blocked by the drive-thru queuing line. In addition,
tandem parking is proposed which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance in this
case.
The engineering analysis by City staff indicates that points of traffic conflict have
been created through onsite circulation design. The proposal converts an existing
two-way circulation access off a public street (Harding Street) into a one-way circulation design with access off the rear alley. Therefore, the access to Harding
Street would be an exit only and the only entrance to the site would be by the rear
alley which is unacceptable.
There would not be enough space available to comply with the standard of allowing
for a minimum of 4 standard sized cam to wait before the order box since the site
plan shows 4 compact sized cam touching bumper to bumper.
There would not be enough space available to comply with the standard of allowing
for a minimum of 2 standard sized cars to wait between the order box and pick up
window since the site plan shows 2 compact sized cars touching bumper to bumper.
The parking lot shown on the site will not adequately function for 8 cars since
tandem parking is proposed and the project’s redesign creates onsite vehicle and
pedestrian congestion.
DRE3 RESO NO. 200 -2-
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 1992
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: NOBLE, ERWIN, SAVARY, ROWLETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: GONZALES
ABSTAIN: NONE
DESIGN RE\rfEW BOARD ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 200 -3-
I II 1 GRAND AVE
E
II
I
CAMSAD VUAGE DR
‘
POLLOS MARIA DRIVE-THRU RP 84=4(A)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
STAFF REPORT
,APPL'?ATION SUBMITTAL DATE:
IBE .RY 17, 1984
May 23, 1984
Design Review Board
Land Use Planning Office
RP 84-4 - GASTELUM - Request for approval of a Redevelopment Permit to convert a house to a restaurant at 3055 Harding Street.
RECOMMENDATION '
It is recommended that the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 036, recommending APPROVAL of RP 84-4, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Redevelopment Permit to convert an existing residence to a restaurant on the west side of Harding Street between Elm Avenue and Oak Avenue. The
subject property is .16 acres in size and rears on an alley. Access to the site would be derived both from Harding Street and the alley. There are currently two structures on the lot. The building to the rear would be removed.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Is the project consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Design Manual?
2) Does the project conform with the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance?
Discussion
The applicant is requesting approval of a Redevelopment Pemit to convert an existing 690 square foot residence into a family restaurant. The project would include new facade treatment, a small building addition, driveway and alley improvements, landscaping and construction of a parking lot.
The project site is within Subarea 7 of the Village Redevelopment Area. The goal for Subarea 7 is to permit and encourage mixed uses among residential and service commercial/office uses. Staff believes that the proposed project would be consistent with these goals. Further, bonafide restaurants are specifically encouraged within the subarea.
The proposed project would conform to all development requirements of the underlying R-P (Residential-Professional) Zone. All required setbacks would be met, providing compatibility of appearance with residential uses. A parking lot, containing eight spaces, would be constructed to the rear of the restaurant. The project would,be one space short of satisfying the required ratio of one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Staff does not anticipate any serious parking shortage or impacts to surrounding land uses. The project site adjoins the parking lot for the Harding Street Community Center.
Overall, staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Design Manual and conforms to the development standards of the underlying R-P Zone.
IV. ARCHITECTURE/DESIGN
The proposed conversion would include facade treatment to the existing structure, landscaping and construction of a parking lot. French doors and stucco finish would be added to the building. A 30 inch high stucco wall would be constructed in the front yard. An earth tone color scheme is planned, featuring light beige stucco with light brown trim.
v. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
'The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review per Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Environmental Ordinance and, therefore, issued a Notice of Exemption on May 7, 1984.
Attachments
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 036 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Exhibits "A" and "B", dated May 23, 1984
CDN:ad S/9/84
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 039 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REMODEL AND CONVERT AN EXISTING RESIDENCE TO A RESTAURANT ON THE WEST SIDE OF HARDING STREET BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE. APPLICANT: GASTELUM CASE NO: RP 84-4
6 WHEREAS., a verified application has been filed with the
7 City of Carlsbad and referred to the Housing and Redevelopment
8 Commission: and
9 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
10 as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
12 the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the 23rd day of
13 May, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
14 application on property described as:
15 Lots 25 and 26 in Block 57, in the City of Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 775 filed in the Office of
16 the County Recorder February 15, 1894,
17 WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
18 testimony and arguments, if anyl of all persons desiring to be
19 I heard, said Commis.sion consid,ered all factors relating to RP 84-4.
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
21 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
22 (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
23 (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES RP 84-4, based on the following findings
24 and subject to the following conditions:
2511 Findings:
26 1) That the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Village Design Manual, as discussed in the staff report.
27 2) That the proposed project conforms to the requirements of the
28 Zoning Ordinance, as discussed in the staff report.
II
,
.
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
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
That the project is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Environmental Policies Ordinance and therefore, the Land Use Planning Manager issued a Notice of Exemption on May 7, 1984.
Conditions:
1)
2)
5)
5)
7)
3)
Approval is granted for RP 84-4, as shown on Exhibits "A" and “B”, dated May 23, 1984, incorporated by reference and on file in the Land Use Planning Office. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued.for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
This project is approved upon the express condition that the applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by City Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on file with the City.Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated February 23, 1984, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in'effect at time of building permit issuance.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irriga- tion plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Land Use Planning Manager prior to installation of such signs.
L
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
,) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a si,x-foot high masonry ‘wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Use Planning
Manager.
sngineering Conditions
10)
11)
12)
13)
74)
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision - unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the City Engi- neer.
Improvements including, but not limited to, the following shall be installed by the developer and approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Engineer and pay all associated fees and performance guarantees prior to issuance of any Building Permit. The developer shall install said improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or occupancy of any portion of the project for any purpose. To wit:
a) Street Trees
b) Street Light cl Full 20 foot wide alley improvements adjacent to the project and southerly to Oak Street.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, .regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the city, and the standard improvement plan check
and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map.
//// .
////
//I/
////
///I
////
-30
L3
, 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad,
California, held on the 19th day of June, 1984, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: &akSSiOwrS &Slff, bWiS, Kulchin, fiiCk ad -SC&t
NOES: mn@
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: NO=
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
-4-'
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET _ c
CASE NO: RP 84-04(A)
CASE NAME: PoBos Maria Drive-Thru
APPLICANT: Michael Winfield
REQUESI'ANDLOCATION: Drive-thru window for the existing Pollos Maria Restaurant at 3055
Harding Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 25 & 26 in Block 57. in the Citv of Carlsbad according to Man No.
775 as recorded in the office of the Countv Recorder on Februarv 15. 1894&N: 203-352-13
(Assesso~‘s Parcel Number)
Acres .16 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH/O
Density Ahowed 8-11.5 Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone VR Proposed Zone VR
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoning Land Use
Site VR Restaurant
North VR SF Residence
south VR Communitv Center Parking Lot
East VR Harding Communitv Center
West VR Multi-familv Residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District N/A Water District
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity)
Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Februarv 23. 1984
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, No Environmental Review since a Denial recommendation is being made.
ENM:lh:vd
. .
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPfJmNl-S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNEPSHIP lNTERESTS ON AU APPUCATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
Olsc~mo~fty ACTION ON ThE PART OF THE ‘3-f COUNCIL. CR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR CCMMtTEE.
;Pbua Print)
The following information must be disctosed:
1. &ollcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
J. Michael Winfield, AIA- ARCHITURA 10457A Roselle Street .
San Dlego, CA 92121
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Marie Davies . cm c%q&J&gl. 3055 Hardinq 3055 Hardins -Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a cbrporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the
partnership. N/A
-
4. lf any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as offfcer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. /A
. .
FRMOOOl 4191
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 l (819) 438-l 16 1
.
.
Dlsclosun statomont Pago 2
5. Have yqu had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No xx, If yes, please indicate person(s)
Porron is dothad U: ‘Ay in&vi&& firm. copartnorshlp. jomt venture. aSsOCdOn. socml club. fratornel organization, corporation. eatate. trust. WCW,C
ryndic& air and q 0m.r county, city and county. c:ty munxqwty. astrict or other politid rubdivlrlon. Or My other group or comDma!lon acting u h
unit.’
L
(NOR: Anacn additional pages as naeSSav.)
I
-
Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date
Marie Davies . . J. -1 WlnftPld. ATA
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
ch-vvtr”- 7 lgnature of Owner/date
Carmen Gastelum Print or type namesf owner
FRMOOOl 4191
-
HOUSINQ AND REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE
2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite B
Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 434-2811
Qitu af t!!nrlebnti
May 6, 1992
MR. J. MICHAEL WINFIELD, AIA ARCHITURA 10457 A ROSELLE STREET SAM DIEGO, CA. 92121
RE: DRIVE-UP WINDOW FOR POLLOS MARIA, 3055 HARDING STREET
Dear Mr. Winfield:
Thank you for contacting the City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency regarding Pollos Maria's request to add a "drive up'@' window to their existing restaurant facility at 3055 Harding Street. The attached concept/proposal was reviewed by the Redevelopment, Planning and Engineering Departments of the City for compliance with currents standards.
City staff reviewing the proposal identified two major problems with the drive-up window project. First, as discussed with you previously, one of the strategies for the new proposed Master Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area is to prohibit drive-up and drive-through uses. Second, the City has drive-up window standards which are required for all similar projects.
The drive-up window requirements are as follows:
1) There must be queue space for two to three cars between "pick upI@ window and "order here" menu board or window.
2) There must be queue space for four to five cars behind "order here" menu board or window. The "waiting cars'@ cannot interfere with any circulation (i.e., alley traffic) or parking space (incl. employee parking).
It is staff's opinion that there is simply not adequate space on the Pollos Maria site to meet the above required standards in order to add the desired drive-up window. Staff's recommendation, therefore, is to deny addition of the drive-up window to the existing restaurant facility.
PAGE 2 - J.X. WINFIELD POLL08 MARIA
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact my office at (619) 434-2811.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
b
c: Property Owner Engineering Department Planning Department
June 15, 1992
MR. J. MICNAEL WINFIELD, AIA ARCEITDRA 10457 A ROSELLE STREET SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121
RE: DRIVE-UP WINDOW FOR POLLOS MARIA, 3055 HARDING STREET
Dear Mr. Winfield:
As requested, the City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency asked the Planning and Engineering Departments to review your most recent proposal for a drive-up facility at the Pollos Maria Restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street. The concept/proposal was reviewed for compliance with currents standards.
As staff stated in previous telephone conversations and written correspondence, the City has drive-up window standards which are required for all similar projects.
The drive-up window requirements are as follows:
1) There must be queue space for two to three cars between "pick upI@ window and "order here" menu board or window.
2) There must be queue space for four to five cars behind "order here" menu board or window. The "waiting cars" cannot interfere with any circulation (i.e., alley traffic) or
parking space (incl. employee parking).
Although you have attempted to provide a creative solution to the problem, it is still staff's opinion that there is simply not adequate space on the Pollos Maria site to meet the above required standards in order to add the desired drive-up window. You may pursue approval of the drive-up window by the Design Review Board. However,.please understand that Staff's recommendation will be to deny addition of the drive-up window to the existing restaurant facility.
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite 6 l Carlsbad, California 92006-2389 l (619) 434-281 O/281 1
PAGE 2 - J.N. WIWIELD POLL08 MARIA
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact my office at (619) 434-2811.
Sincerely, ‘-
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
c: Property Owner Engineering Department Planning Department
August 3, 1992
MR. J. MICHAEL WINFIELD, AIA ARCHITURA 10457 A ROSELLE STREET SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121
RE: DRIVE-UP WINDOW FOR POLLOS MARIA, 3055 HARDING STREET
Dear Mr. Winfield: .
Thank you for your patience as.the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, with assistance from the City Planning and Engineering Departments, completed an additional review of your proposal for a drive-up window at the Pollos Maria Restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street. The concept/proposal was reviewed for compliance with current standards as well as general desirability for the area.
According to the most recent plans submitted to my office, it appears that your proposal may be able to comply with the City's standards for "queue space" for drive-up windows. However, the parking arrangement still presents a problem for staff. As stated in previous letters to you from my office, the "waiting cars" must not interfere with any circulation or parking spaces. Per your current proposal, the handicap parking space will be blocked by cars which may be waiting for service at-the drive-up window. Also, staff is not supportive of tandem parking at this location. With tandem parking'and a drive-up window, a very congested situation is created on the property which is undesirable from the City's perspective.
It appears from the proposed plans that the customer entrance to the restaurant will continue to be off the patio on Harding Street. If this is so, the customers will park in the rear and then be required to walk past the drive-up window in the vehicle traffic area to access the restaurant; this represents an impediment to pedestrian circulation which concerns staff.
We are supportive of Pollos Maria's efforts to enhance their
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite 6 l Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 l (619) 434-281012811
. business through addition of a drive-up window. However, it is
staff's professional opinion that the proposed drive-up window at
the noted location will create an undesirable situation through 1) the in&ease of on-site vehicle congestion; and 2) the impediment to safe on-site pedestrian traffic.
We realize that staff's opinions regarding this proposal have been very frustrating t0 YOU. Please understand that it is not our goal to be difficult. We are simply trying to do what we believe is best for the Village Redevelopment Area.
If you would like for the Design Review Board to consider the addition of a drive-up window for Pollos Maria, please submit an application for the required permits to the Community Development Counter and pay the appropriate fees. You will be given the opportunity to present your case to the Design Review Board for l their consideration. Please understand, however, that Staff's recommendation has not changed; we intend to recommend denial of the application based on the reasons outlined above.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact my office at (619) 434-2811.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
c: Property Owner Engineeririg Department Planning Department Community Development Director
.
.
SEPTEMBER 16,1992
TO: ERIC MI/NO2
FROM: JIM DAVIS
VIA ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
!iw- RP 84-4(A), POLLOS MARIA
We have completed our review of the project. We find that the application is technically
incomplete due to the lack of a preliminary title report. However, since we cannot support
the approval of the project we are recommending the application be found complete.
We are recommending that the project be denied because of the following:
1. THE EXIT-ONLY ACCESS WOULD ALSO BE THE ONLY ACCESS TO
HARDING STREET.
The only entrance to the site would be by the alley. Alleys are not intended to
function as the only entrance to a commercial site. Use of alleys as the only access
has been allowed in the Redevelopment Area before but not for fast food
restaurants. Traffic congestion could occur in the alley at lunch time. This entrance
would also be the drive through (take-out-order) aisle. Back-ups in this aisle would
occur and cause more congestion in the alley.
2. NOT ENOUGH SPACE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR 4 TO 5 CARS TO
WAIT BEFORE THE ORDER BOX.
The site plan shows 4 cars in line before the order box, however the cars are all of
compact car length and lined up bumper touching bumper. There would not be
enough space for 4 compact cars to line up in a normal manner with a space between
cars. Some standard cars would also be in line. Therefore the site plan does not
provide adequate space for 4 to 5 cars.
3. NOT ENOUGH SPACE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR 2 TO 3 CARS TO
WAIT BEFORE THE PICK-UP WINDOW.
The site plan shows 2 cars lined up before the pick-up window, however the cars are
all compact car length and are lined-up with bumper touching bumper. For the same
reasons in 2 above not enough space would be provided.
4. THE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE WOULD BE BLOCKED BY
INCOMING CARS.
The site plan shows the handicapped space with its only access being the drive
through aisle. When the aisle is occupied by cars waiting to order access to the
handicapped space would be effectively denied. Cars exiting from this space would
disrupt incoming traffic and could cause more congestion in the alley.
-
. 5. THE PARKING LOT SHOWN WILL NOT FUNCTION IN AN ACCEPTABLE
MANNER FOR 8 CARS.
The site plan sho_ws 8 parking spaces, but only 4 spaces allow cars to enter and exit.
The other 4 spaces are end-to-end to the first 4 with no access. This is a tandem style
parking more suitable for storage rather than parking. When the 4 last mentioned
spaces are occupied no one will want to park behind the cars, therefore the lot
effectively functions as a 4 space lot.
m
!
F ‘\ ii. !*\ 3 I [; /q 1, 3; ! \> lb -a,‘& & IL) 3 ‘,‘t 3; 3 \$,,, - j\-’ 5 _-
-r L
-me r ’ - .’ / ; ; ,!\, / ‘; : :, \ I I
- EXHIBIT 4
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 500 P.M.
Date of Meeting: December 2, 1992
Place of Meeting: CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Noble called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Noble, Members Erwin, Rowlett, Savary
Absent: Member Gonzales
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Robert Green, Principal Planner
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney
Karen Sauer, Management Analyst
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Noble. .
APPRQVALOF MINUTES:
ACTION: Motion by Member F 'I, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of October i, s 992, as submitted.
AYES: Chairman Noble, Members Erwin, Savary
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Member Rowlett
ABSENT: Member Gonzales
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no requests to address the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 92-l O/CDP 92-08 - FISH HOUSE VERA CRUZ - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit
and Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of a retail building and construction of a
restaurant and retail building at 417 Carlsbad Village Drive in the Village Redevelopment Zone in the
Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Karen Sauer, Management Analyst, reviewed the fiscal impacts of the request and stated that tax
increment revenues are estimated to increase by $4,000 and additional sales tax revenue for the City’s
general fund is estimated to be $20,000 annually.
Robert Green, Principal Planner, stated that the existing retail building and adjacent storage buildings
would be demolished and replaced by a new 3,346 s.f. building featuring a seafood restaurant and small
retail fish market. The architecture will be stucco (adobe style) with a terra cotta tile roof. There will be 26
.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 2,1992 PAGE 2
parking places provided in addition to extensive landscaping. He concluded his remarks by requesting that
Condition #27 on page 4 of Resolution No. 198 be deleted.
At the request of Board members, staff clarified details regarding the parking space calculation, drainage,
and hardware for the emergency door.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Ron Butler, applicant, was present but declined to speak.
Bill Skidmore, 143 So. Cedros, Solana Beach, architect for the applicant, explained that the emergency
door would be located on the west side of the building and, for noise mitigation, the windows would be
made of plate glass but would be stationary and not able to be opened. Member Rowlett suggested that
some consideration be given to Plexiglas.
John Jones, 3044 State Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and stated that he is in favor of the Fish
House but is concerned about water runoff from the adjacent building due to the fire wall which is being
constructed. He also recommended that there be only one entrance and one exit to the parking lot (in a
loop manner), because he is concerned about cars traveling west on Carlsbad Village Drive which would
need to cross the median in order to enter the parking lot. He also hopes that the utilities will be
undergrounded prior to construction of the new building.
Bill Ryburn, 2019 Ester0 Street, Oceanside, addressed the Board and stated that he owns the adjoining
building. He is happy to see Fish House Vera Cruz come to Carlsbad because he is very impressed with
the operation they have in San Marcos.
Steven LaRue, Attorney, 2111 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, representing Mr. Ryburn, addressed the
Board and stated that the runoff issue needs to be resolved during the design phase. He requested that a
condition be added requiring the applicant to work with the adjoining property owner. Mr. LaRue is also
concerned that heavy equipment used for the demolition may cause structural problems with Mr. Ryburn’s
building. He suggested a condition requiring a hold harmless bond. Mr. LaRue expressed concern about
the adequacy of restaurant parking once the commuter rail line is operational, since some of the parking
allocated to the restaurant will be from a public parking lot.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Board on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the members.
Chairman Noble responded to Mr. LaRue’s comment about parking for the commuter rail and stated that
NCTD will have its own parking lot for the commuter rail. As a result, the restaurant parking will not be
affected.
Karen Sauer, Management Analyst, responded to Mr. LaRue’s comment regarding heavy equipment being
used for the demolition phase and stated that the existing building will not be bulldozed; the plan is for the
materials to be dismantled and used elsewhere.
Robert Green, Principal Planner, responded that staff is aware of the runoff issue and that the applicant is
currently working with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Green does not believe that the Design Review
Board can legally regulate this issue.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, indicated that a median is not included in the plans for Carlsbad
Village Drive between the railroad tracks and State Street, and that the utility pole referred to by Mr. Jones
is not included in Streetscape Phase V.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 2,1992 PAGE 3
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that a condition could be added to the effect that “the
applicant will design a building with an adequate drainage system which will not exacerbate drainage
problems on the adjacent property.”
Chairman Noble requested Mr. Skidmore (applicants architect) to comment on the proposed resolution to
protect the adjacent owner from a runoff problem. Mr. Skidmore generally agreed to the proposed
condition but could not offer to fix Mr. Ryburn’s roof. He was willing to arrange with his roofer to do the
work concurrently with the restaurant project, as long as Mr. Ryburn pays for it.
Robert Green, Principal Planner, stated that the existing buildings were constructed before there was a
requirement for a fire wall. At the present time, rain water from Mr. Ryburn’s roof runs off on to the
building to be demolished. The new fire wall being constructed will prevent runoff from the applicant’s
building onto Mr. Ryburn’s building. Mr. Green feels it is a private matter which needs to be worked out
between the parties.
ACTION: Motion was made by Member Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 197, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the
Planning Director, and adopt Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 198 and 199,
recommending approval of RP 92-10 and CDP 92-08, to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, with the following changes: (1) delete Condition #27 of
Resolution No. 198; and (2) add a new condition to Resolution No. 198, following
Condition #/20, which states that parking for the building shall be provided in accordance
with figures stated in the Design Review Staff Report dated December 2, 1992.
AYES: Chairman Noble, .Members Erwin, Rowlett, Savary
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Member Gonzales
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
1. RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS MARIA DRIVE THRU - Request for a drive-thru window at the existing
Pollos Maria Restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street within Sub-area 7 of the Village
Redevelopment Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, reviewed the background of the request and stated that
staff is recommending the requested amendment be denied due to their concern for safety issues. She
turned the time over to Eric Munoz of the Planning staff to explain the reasoning for the recommendation.
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, stated that the proposed drive-thru does not meet City standards or
engineering guidelines because the lot is severely constrained and would not provide adequate queuing for
vehicles, the handicap parking space would be blocked, and circulation via the rear alley would be unsafe
to pedestrians and other vehicles.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Michael Winfield, Architura, 10457A Roselle Street, San Diego, representing the applicant, addressed the
Board and stated that he disagreed with staffs findings. He submitted drawings which portrayed how the
drive-thru could accommodate the necessary vehicles. Mr. Winfield feels that most people would not
purchase single items at this drive-thru but, in actuality, would probably purchase dinner for four persons.
As a result, he feels that the engineering requirement for queuing should be reduced.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Board on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the members.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 2, 1992 PAGE 4
Member Savary feels that vehicles entering or leaving the rear alley from Carlsbad Village Drive .or Oak
Street would be a hazard to oncoming traffic.
ACTION: Motion was made by Member Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 200, denying RP 84-04(A), based on the findings contained therein.
AYES: Chairman Noble, Members Erwin, Rowlett, Savary
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Member Gonzales
Chairman Noble advised the applicant that she has the option of appealing the denial to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission within 10 days.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of December 2, 1992 was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
EVANBECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
. .
February 16, 1993
J. MICHAEL WINFIELD, AIA ARCBITURA 10457-A ROSELLE STREE!I! SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121
RE: POLLOS MARIA APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENYAMENDMENTTO MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 84-04(A) TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW
Dear Mr. Winfield:
On December 14, 1992, you submitted a request to appeal the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) denvinq an amendment to minor Redevelopment Permit 84-04 (A) to allow addition of a drive-thru window at the existing Pollos Maria restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street. The City Attorney reviewed your request for an appeal and determined that the appeal was invalid as originally submitted to the City Clerk's Office.
On January 15, 1993, a letter was forwarded to you which outlined the action you needed to take to refile your appeal. Although you missed the deadline of January 25, 1993 to refile your appeal, the Housing and Redevelopment Director agreed to accept your appeal as soon as you were ready to submit it. Your appeal was subsequently filed with the City Clerk's Office on February 16, 1993.
Staff has scheduled the Pollos Maria appeal for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 16,
1992. As stated in our January 15, 1993 correspondence to you, the public hearing notice materials (labels, etc.) you are required to submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Office were due on February 16, 1993. We have not yet received these
materials in our office. In order to properly notice the public hearing for your appeal, these items must be submitted immediately. Otherwise, the Commission will not be able to consider your appeal at their March 16th meeting.
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite I3 - Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 - (619) 434-281 O/281 1 @
-
.
PAGE 2 - J.M. WINFIELD 2/16/93
If you have any comments/questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at 434-2935.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Senior Management Analyst
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director City Attorney City Clerk/ Associate Planner, Eric Munoz
i
March 22, 1993 ,
J. Michael Winfield
Architura
10457-A Roselle St.
San Diego, CA 92121
RE: POLLOS MARIA APPEAL - RP 84-04(A)
The Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission, at its meeting of March 16,
1993, adopted Resolution No. 222, denying the appeal and minor redevelopment
permit (RP 84-04(A)) without prejudice.
Enclosed for your records is a copy of the fully executed Resolution No. 222.
L22ik2f&k
Assistant City
Encs.
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad. California 92008-I 989 - (619) 434-2808 69
Carlsbad SUN
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Laker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICEOF LOIS 25 and 28 in Block 57. III the PtJBLICHEARING Cily oTCarlsbad. according to Map notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
APPEAL No 775. recorded in the Ofrice or
RP &CM(AI POLL05 MARIA lhe San Diego Counly Recorder on notice of which the annexed is a printed
February 15.1994. ____
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN lhal If you have any queslions regard- copy, has been published in each regular
Ihe Housing and Redevelopmenl ing thi’ --aller. please call Debbie F0U”l Commission ollhe Cily olCarlsbad n lhe Housing and Rede- and entire issue of said newspaper and not
will hold a public hearing at the Citv Council Chambers 120 Carl- sbad Village Drive. Carlabad. Ca
Department. al 4343935. lallenge the appeal and
fornia. al 6:09 p.m.. on Tuesday. March 16. 1993. lo consider an appeal of a Design Revaew Board denial of an application for an amendmenl lo RP 8194 lo allow landem Darkine in conlunclian
or Amendment to lhe Redevelop-
men1 Permit in court. you may be
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit: ..-.. 1. . llmlrea 10 ralllngonly tnme ,SS”CI raised byyouorsomeoneels~al Ihe public hearing described tn (his
nOlice. or in wrillen correspond- ence delivered to lhe Cily of Carl. sbgd Cily Clerk‘s OIlice at. or prior lo. Ihe public hearing.
March 04 1993
with lhe addi& of a d&e-lhru window. al an exisling 909 square lool restaurant wilh outdoor dining
localed at 3055 Harding SIreel. in Ihe Village Redevelopment IVRI Zone. and more particularly de- scribed as:
Applicant: Pollos MariaiMichael Wimield CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
19-
19-
19--
19-
1 certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, CountytxiS$FhDiego, State of
California on WL , nn7 11, L2J.J day of
Clerk of the Printer
CJ 4117. March 4. 1993
DATE: 2117193
TO: 1 Debbie Fountain, Housing & Red.
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: APPEAL POLLOS MARIA - RP 84-04(A)
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item will _not be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of .
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 @
-I
. -
.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
@itg of Qhnlsbah
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Design Review Board
- to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Pollos Maria RP 84-04(A)
to amend an existing redevelopment permit to add a drive-through window to an
existing restaurant.
Date of Decision: December 2, 1992
Reason for Appeal: Minutes of the meeting refer to "inadequate queuing of
vehicles" by staff; and, a request by myself "for queuing (sic) should be
reduced". This is untrue. Six (6) spaces for queuing were provided, which does
comply with the engineering department's (unwritten, unadopted and legally
unenforcable)standards. All safety issues raised will be mitigated by a concurrent -
action to secure adjacent off-street parking and access rights.
February 16, 1993
Date Signature
J. Michael Winfield AIA c/o Architura
Name (Please Print)
10457 A Roselle St.
Address
San Diego, CA 92121
ARCHITURA (619) 481-6500
Telephone Number
J. r$CHAEL WINFIELD. AIA
(61 Dt 453-7983
10457A ROSELLE ST SAN DIEGO. CA 92121
.
/ : I I I <- I 1 ml -i =I
j
\R ’ \- I \J . 7;--
;P 7 \ I 9 i I
\; 4 :-- - \ i 1 I l”,
e - F-’ \I\, , ’ v 1
--
t Q.-
z u \n
i
b w
pn=
-
-_
-
-.*
.
- , .
February 16, 1993
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
POLLOS MARIA APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY AMENDMENT TO MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 84-04(A) TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW
This memo is forwarded to you to confirm that the Housing and Redevelopment Director gave Mr. Michael Winfield permission to submit his appeal of the above noted Design Review Board Decision after the January 25, 1993 deadline. No specific final date was given to Mr. Winfield for resubmitting his appeal. Therefore, please accept the appeal submitted by Mr. Winfield on the morning of Tuesday, February 16, 1993.
As discussed with Karen Kundtz this morning, our office will assume responsibility for determining whether or not the refiled appeal is "valid" based on the action taken by the Design Review Board.
Thank you for your patience throughout this situation! If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2935.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director Deputy City Attorney
.
January 15, 1993
J. MICHAEL WINPIELD, AIA ARCHITURA 10457-A ROSELLE STREET SAW DIEGO, CA. 92121
RE: POLLOS MARIA APPEAL OF DEGIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY AMENDMENT TO MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 84-04(A) TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW
Dear Mr. Winfield:
On December 14, 1992, you submitted a request to appeal the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) denvinq an amendment to minor Redevelopment Permit 84-04 (A) to allow addition of a drive-thru window at the existing Pollos Maria restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street. The City Attorney has reviewed your request for an appeal and determined that the appeal is invalid for the following reason:
The Design Review Board took action on your application dated September 26, 1992 to allow tandem parking in conjunction with the addition of a drive-thru window. This is the only decision which can be annealed to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission at this time.
The questions regarding whether or not the City Council is willing to lease adjacent public parking spaces or grant access through a public parking lot were not part of the application. Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be unable to consider them as part of the appeal.
Although you are required to file a llvalidll appeal within ten (10) calendar days following the Design Review Board decision, the City Attorney has stated that we may grant you an extension of time in order to allow you to refile your appeal. Attached is an appeal form for you to complete'and return to my office within ten (10) days of the date of this letter. Please note that the "reason for appeal" section of the form should be used to outline your response as to why you believe the application you submitted to the Design Review Board on December 2, 1992 should be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
If the appeal is not granted and your project is denied, you may choose to either discontinue your efforts to add a drive-thru window to the Pollos Maria restaurant or submit a new application with a redesign of the project including an alternate parking and site access plan.
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B - Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 l (619) 434-281 O/281 1 @
. * .
PAGE 2 - l/15/93 J.M. WINFIELD
For your information, Section 21.54.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code states that "no application for...any amendment to a previously issued permit or plan shall be accepted if a substantially similar application has been finally denied within one year prior to the application date. I1 The Planning Director is tasked with the responsibility of determining if a subsequent application is substantially similar to the previously denied application; his decision is final.
In response to your letter of January 11, 1993, the City Attorney has confirmed that your request for an appeal will be scheduled as a public hearing. You will, therefore, be required to comply with the noticing requirements as outlined within Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Also, per your request, your appeal of the noted Design Review Board decision will be scheduled for the Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting of March 16, 1993. The materials you are required to submit to notice the public hearing must be submitted to our office no later than February 16, 1993.
If you have any comments/questions regarding this matter, please contact Debbie Fountain, of my staff, at 434-2935.
EVAN E. BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director
c: City Attorney City Clerk J Associate Planner, Eric Munoz
lip0 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(6 19) 434.2808
APPEAL FORH
I (we) appeal the following decision of the
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
Date of Decision:
Reason for Appeal:
Date Signature
Name (Please Print)
Address
Telephone Number
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
KAREN J. HIRATA
DEPUTY CITY AlTORNEY
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALlFORNlA 92008-1989
(619) 434-2891
FAX: (619) 434-8367
January 13, 1993
J. Michael Winfield, AIA Architura 10457A Roselle Street San Diego, CA 92121
RE: POLLOS MARIA
Dear Mr. Winfield:
This letter is in response to your letter dated January 11, 1993, in which you asked the city attorney to make a determination whether or not a public hearing was required for your appeal of the denial of an approval for an amendment to a redevelopment permit. The project in question, Pollos Maria, was sent to the Design Review Board as a minor project because it involved a structural change costing less than $50,000, as described in Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.35.080. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.35.100, no public hearing was required because it was a minor project.
The appeal, however, is governed by Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.35.115 which states that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall hold a public hearing on a redevelopment permit which has been appealed. The fact that this is a proposed amendment to a redevelopment permit is not relevant because whether or not a public hearing is required has nothing to do with whether it is an original application for a permit, or an application for an amendment to a permit.
Your letter also requests a 60-day extension for the hearing of your appeal. This request must be answered by the redevelopment department and you will receive a response from them shortly.
Very truly yours,
/ KAREN J. HIMA Deputy City Attorney
afd c: Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, Housing & Redevelopment Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
ARCHll-IRA
January 11, 1993
City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Pollos Maria, Appeal redevelopment permit window
10457A ROSELLE ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 [619] 461-6500
- ‘I”-=
cl, MICHAELWIN~IELD. AIA ARCHITECT
of DRB to amend existing to provide a drive-up
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
As the owners' agent for Pollos Maria, I respectfully
request to hold over our appeal to the Housing & Community Development Commission hearing for 60 days for the following reasons:
1. To ask City Attorney to make a determination of requirement of a public hearing & noticing for an appeal of an amended redevelopment permit. The DRB meeting was not a public hearing. Why would an appeal of that decision fall into that category?
2. Time to assemble 600 foot radius public notice package. (It may not be necessary.)
3. Time to confer with Engineering & Redevelopment staff to study leased parking and access issues necessary for appeal hearing.
Sincerely,
ARCHITURA
J. Michael Winfield, AIA
cc: City Attorney Debbie Fountain, Redevelopment Department Carmen Gastelum & Marie Davies, Pollos Maria
Al-ICHITUIWi 10457A ROSELLE ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 [619] 461-6500
J. MICHAELWINFIELD. AIA ARCHITECT
December 15, 1992
Members of the City Council City Council Offices CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Pollos Maria Restaurant 3055 Harding Street
Dear Council:
Please accept this formal request on behalf of Pollos Maria. We respectfully request the following:
1) That the City of Carlsbad lease 4 - 5 parking spaces to Pollos Maria from the adjacent Harding Street Public Lot.
2) Additionally, we request permission to, or to lease access rights from the City to allow a "street entrance" from Harding Street to the alley to the west. This access could potentially serve as a street entrance (with proper signage) for a proposed drive-up window at Pollos Maria.
(The Housing & Redevelopment Cc a-mission is currently preparing a public parking leasing policy to incorporate into the Redevelopment General Plan.) ,
We are currently under appeal to the City Council (Housing & Redevelopment Commission) for this proposed drive-thru window, DRB (RP-04 CA). We request these issues be considered concurrently. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ARCHITURA
J. Michael Winfield, AIA
cc: Mr. Evan Becker, Redevelopment Commission Ms. Marie Davies, Pollos Maria Ms. Carmen Gastelum, Pollos Maria
I
DATE: Decerdber 15,i 1992
TO: Evan Becker, Housing & Red. Director
FROM: Karen Kundtz, Asst. City Clerk
RE: RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS MARIA DRIVE THRU
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item will IKKJ be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing 81
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of .
Signature Date
--
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 ‘.’ 8
! :
., / l
* -
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
.c
u TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the &Sfifl %V/&VV kk@&)
~LlffL,~~ity&~~~U
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): PF &04/&T .
. \f, IwGtpw, Wlr\lhew pczar
Name (Please Print)
mw E+7-A I%S%U& s-f-
Address
Telephone Number
aw OF fifiARlm .: 1200 CARtSBAD VIGLAG~ BRIVE CARILSWD, CALlFORNlA 92008
438-5621 *
D&%ERIi?T’ION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS MARIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, March 16,
1993, to consider an appeal of a Design Review Board denial of an application for
an amendment to RP 84-04 to allow tandem parking in conjunction with the addition
of a drive-thru window, at an existing 900 square foot restaurant with outdoor
dining located at 3055 Harding Street, in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone,
and more particularly described as:
Lots 25 and 26 in Block 57, in the City of Carlsbad, according to Map No. 775, recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on February 15, 1894.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, at 434-2935.
If you challenge the appeal and/or Amendment to the Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Pollos Maria/Michael Winfield PUBLISH: March 16, 1993
CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DATE: 2117193
TO: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Red.
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: APPEAL POLLOS MARIA - RP 84-04(A)
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Commission within
30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If a public hearing
is required, the item will not be noticed until the agenda bill is signed by all
parties, including the City Manager.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission Meeting of M6Wr-I 16 1 1543 .
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-I 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
SEr‘r;,BY : HSG QND REDE’JELOPMENT- ; 2-25-93 5:01PM : 0 B .
z202037+ 619 720 9461; # 2
. .
mIpxc11 O? OUBLXC IBARIYQ
#OZIcS 18 EIIRBBY QIVmI that the Hewing and Redevelopment Cmmiroion will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambere, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ( #mm&k+-), Carlabad, California, at 6:OOpm on Tuesday, March 16, 1993 tb consider an appeal by Bollem Maria of a Design Revirw Board deoirion al Dmoember 2, 1992 to DBIV'Y minor ?W 84-04 (A) to allow tandem parking in conjunction with the additicm of a drive-thru window at an exieting 900 square foot restaurant with autdoor dining located at 3055 Harding Street in the Village Redevelapment (VR) Zone.
The property is more partimalarly drmribed am:
Lots 25 and 36 in Block 57, according ta Map No. 775 in the City of Carlrbad, filed in the offiae of the County Recorder, February 15, 1894. APW: 203-352-15.
fi,
Department at 434-2935.
If you challenge the appeal or the Minor Redevelopment Permit amendment in cmrt, you may be limited to rairing only those iemes you or 6mmeone else raised at the public hearing described in thir notice or in vritten correspondence dsliverrd to the City of Carlrbad at or prior to the public hearing.
Came File: RB 84-04(A) Applicant: Ball08 laria/Wiohael Winfield City of Carlsbad Houeing and Redevelopment Coanmiomion
SEr~Tp,B’r’:~S~ QND REDEUELOPMENT,’ 2-25-93 5:0ZPM ;
.
7202037+ 619 720 9461:# 3
- -
POLLOS MARIA DRIVEyTHRU RP 84-4(A)
5:01PM ; z02037+ 619 720 9461;# 1
DATE: . . 3 UMBER OF PAGEB BEING TRANSMITTED -..,.- 3 wwudhg FAX ~ransmlttrl)
cQMPAMY:~;Cu _ act2 k (Dept. 1
. .
PHckE a .
-FAX9 . * ._, a _‘., 1. &. ‘. * ‘. ,
OEPT: yA?~m. ~’ ‘
t:! * ; ’
P~I~NE g (619) 424-2811. . .‘. I .
FAX 8 (619) &2&,- ‘, * - ’ ?‘. -
c
cm~l~&....soc~ QG-3 LJm=. t=-i
.
P ,hl m e 28&& &&t*St. l sultr 6 l clfh&md, t$,& 92~1 l (619) 434-2810 l Tdrfrx 72om37
.I. . .
. r4
*** 2 Printed *** Prepared for: ARCHITURA Attention: MICHAEL WINFIELD
? Id m Id CD = : d? 4.b -Lnx I
- .A z z .a I-1 2,773 I x0 c -2 2-r A r: ID c c: 7”
Lnr4ti 0 l-0 0 +13’-w tu+s I
2 0-G;: c; w
P”“’ ruc:nE i? G. ‘57 32 L T z-4 TL -TN
%
:: w
cagz c( - 0 ‘L’ tga ’ E” F” a-i-0 : ov t- ;,y l-l
2°C’; = i .J-: & e ‘LQ c I
Z%j,‘-: 0 at-; w trcL1
2 -. 3L.J ,)Ln -0 r3jrf h’ - 0 * pl,> ?-I zrcs r CD L -c. IZr trill I-- -U.-
L. c c L L L ‘L i J c L d
‘\ -\ 7 7 ?
J ‘n EJ DW 3 CY rrri Ip
7 ? (I) ‘3 > 3 f 5 7 .D b -w7 I in053 TX i3 P J4 FL- I dc'4 3 nLn -)I LLv '.I P
TN4N ru’wa w h3 * sn3 I
r rn <r
‘T 6:: n t
:z,“: w rtn n 5 Er 3-w (D
14-L P I-LIl- I
E,$L wwwr
5zL5 ’ or.oL
2 2
Lo2 rts r-
c
2 c ;: 5
o\DPEJ v co, 0 T t.lin 6 - 01 SF.’ F w,a= 5DiD I .!!-h
n ‘2 4 ‘4 w I-* 3 7 a2 P rnv I 311 sm r-J wwrP- 5TY I ZblD 3 nr’? 9
*s m
m f
0 ‘*I =: EJ w t-Y.3 7 *-a. -‘nw ,
;g;.g
5L I Y-’ -I 3
g; ‘;”
‘2 win rr
Lncn?lN w ‘3-i 5 3 u’w a
r)am'J V 3 iD 0 w I-P
?WF’.J w rm 3 ? 3)o A I-‘Alzl , 1 I O')Fi:r -w e 134-’ 3 r.7 I ,D 2 0 3 133w s-t a '0 0 LO 0 3
2g J
m m w
5
10 w 3 5 P
UY N 3
j;
CWiild I- 40 0 In03w rrt31 I D z:nK Or- I- Pw!?- I C 0: 00 ct5
2
n I c! c + cu 0 ul ii. r-t TO, SQ
9 ‘3
n
-w I Lcczw <xlilJI w rtr