Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 283; Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility\ c’- &J&4../ @ AB# AS3 TITLE: 419196 WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING MTG. FACILITY HOUSING k,dD REDEVELOPMENT COMhdSION ‘- AGENDA BILL 0 DEPT. HD. L CITY ATTY. CITY MGR. DEPT. H/RED I RECOMMENDED ACTION: Housing and Redevelopment Commission That the C?ity-Svuncit consider the appeal of Mr. Michael Murphy as related to the Design Review Board decision on February 7, 1996 to revoke a previous approval of joint parking and a 15% reduction for common parking facilities for two existing retail commercial centers known as the Wilson Roosevelt/Jazzercise Center and Murphy Old World Center and to direct the City Attorney to prepare appropriate documents related to the Commission’s decision on the appeal. ITEM EXPLANATION: On February 7, 1996, the Design Review Board considered the revocation of approval previously given by the Planning Commission to allow joint use parking and a 15% parking reduction for the two existing commercial centers known as the Murphy Old World Center and the Wilson Roosevelt Center located on the north side of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street within the Village Redevelopment Area. This matter was presented to the Design Review Board for consideration at the request of the owners of the Wilson Roosevelt Center because the owners of the Murphy Old World Center were not allowing joint use of the smaller parking lot at the northwest corner of Madison and Grand. The subject parking lot was used in the original calculation to determine if the two projects met the required parking with the joint use and 15% reduction in number of parking spaces. The details of the parking situation are outlined in much greater detail within the attached copy of the staff report to the Design Review Board, dated February 7, 1996. The Design Review Board made a determination that the parking issue would be treated as a Minor Redevelopment Permit for processing purposes. The Board then took action to approve staff’s recommendation to revoke the previous approval of the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction for the two centers. On Minor Redevelopment Permit matters, the Design Review Board has authority to take action on the permit without further approval required by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. However, the decision of the Board is appealable to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission by any interested party. On February 20, 1996, Mr. Michael Murphy filed an appeal of the Design Review Board decision regarding the subject parking agreement. It is Mr. Murphy’s argument that the smaller parking lot on the northwest corner of Madison and Grand was intentionally excluded from the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Murphy further contends that the conditions for project approval simply stated that the two centers must provide a total of 181 spaces but did not specify that the subject parking lot must be used on a “joint use” basis. Based on staff’s understanding of the argument, Mr. Murphy did not include the subject parking lot in the reciprocal parking agreement or allow for joint use of the site because that would prevent future development of the site. He did not want any restrictions on the property in order to protect future development opportunities. Attached is a copy of Mr. Murphy’s appeal form. I iage 2 of Agenda Bi,. No. 2 8 ?I Revocation of the previous parking approvals means that the two subject commercial centers will be required to individually comply with City parking requirements for uses existing or proposed in the centers in the future. At this time, Old World Center meets its parking requirements because the existing restaurant site is vacant. However, if the restaurant site is proposed for occupancy, the Old World Center will not meet its parking requirements. With revocation of the previous reduced parking and joint use approvals, the owners of the Old World Center will not be able to lease the existing vacant restaurant suite on the site for another restaurant use until additional parking is provided for that specific use. Staff is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission uphold the decision made by the Design Review Board on February 7, 1996, and in effect deny the appeal of Mr. Michael Murphy, to revoke approval of the joint parking and 15% reduction for common parking facilities for the Wilson Roosevelt Center and the Murphy Old World Center. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City of Carlsbad or the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency as a result of this action. EXHIBITS: 1 - Appeal Form from Michael K. Murphy. 2 - Design Review Board Resolution No. 245. 3 - Staff Report to Design Review Board, dated February 7, 1996, on Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility. 4 - Copy of draft minutes from Design Review Board meeting of February 7, 1996 related to the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility. 2 , . I 2 EXHIBIT . 1 APPEAL FORM , I (We) appeal the following decision of the Design Review 'Oard . . * to the City Council. Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): Design Review Board Resolution No. 245 Date of Decision: February 7, 1996 Reason for Appeal: Murphy does not accept the approbation of Resolution 245 bv the Desiqn Review Board on February 7, 1996. Evidence suggests the exclusion of a parking ,lot’from the Reciprocal Parking Agreement was intentional. Murphy should not be damaged due to the reliance on a document that was recorded over 15 years past, whereby the City had conditioned a Certificate of Occupancy thereon. p--ZW-?b Date 6 30 Address ei&ck~~ c4 5Lmk L/T 434-~nr7 Telephqne Number 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 EXHIBIT 2 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 245 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA REVOKING APPROVAL OF JOINT PARKING AND A 15% REDUCI-‘.lONFORCOMMONPARKINGFACILITIESFOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA CASE NAME: WlL.SON/MUR.PHY JOINT PARKING FACILITY CASE NO: APN: 203-301-5, 203-302-l. 203-182-4 WHEREAS, staff has referred a request to the Design Review Board to consider revocation of a previous approval for Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for two existing commercial centers located between / Grand Avenue and Madison and Roosevelt Streets; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Design Review Board, on the 7th day of February, 1996, did hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request on property described as: Lots 33,34, and 35 of Seaside Lands, Map 1722 and Portions of Blocks 37 and 50 of Map 775. 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 the revocation of the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review 1 Board as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby REVOKES the previous approval of Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for the two existing retail commercial centers located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street based upon the following findings: - r . . 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The project is a minor project as described in Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The conditions of approval of the Joint Use Parking and the 15% parking reduction for the two commercial centers required that a minimum of 181 spaces be provided for joint use parking. The conditions of approval also required the recordation of an agreement between the two centers for joint parking and reciprocal parking easements covering the 181 spaces. A minimum joint use parking facility of 181 spaces requires the inclusion of a smaller parking lot located at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Grand Avenue. It has been determined that the joint use parking agreement and reciprocal parking easements does not include this smaller parking lot and therefore the minimum required 181 spaces for joint use parking is not being provided. Despite numerous efforts by the City, the property owner of the smaller parking lot -is not willing to amend the joint use parking agreement to include the smaller parking lot. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: . AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Board Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary & Vessey. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson DESIGN REVIEW BOARD EVAN E. BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RESO NO. 245 -2- EXHIBIT 3 Application complete N/A date: Project Planner: Debbie Fountain Michael Holzmiller DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1996 Project Engineer: NJ TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: Housing and Redevelopment Department SUBJECT: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING FACILITY - Consideration of Revocation of Approval of Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for the two existing Retail Commercial Centers located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board APPROVE Design Review Board Resolution No. 245 recommending revocation of a previous Planning Commission approval to allow joint use parking and a 15% parking reduction for the two existing commercial centers known as the Murphy Old World Center and the Wilson Roosevelt Center located on the north side of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street. II. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a request from the Murphy Family, developers of the then proposed Old World Retail Center, to allow a joint use parking facility with the adjoining Wilson Retail Center. The request was made under Section 21.44.050(a)(4) (then Section 21.44.160) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in order to allow the Old World Center project to be built. By itself the Old World Center project did not meet minimum parking requirements particularly because a restaurant use was being requested as part of the project (previously Dooley McCluskey’s Restaurant). The existing Wilson Retail Center (now known as the Roosevelt Center) had a surplus of parking and was willing to enter into an agreement to share their parking with the proposed Old World Center. The conditions of approval required a minimum joint use parking facility of 181 spaces which required the inclusion of a smaller proposed parking lot at the northeast corner of Madison and Grand which was owned by the Murphys. The Commission approval also required the processing and recordation of an agreement for joint parking and reciprocal parking easements. The Planning Commission documentation for this approval is attached as Exhibit “A” to this staff report. ‘d ’ VVILSON/MURPHY -1NT USE PARKING FACILITY - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 . . PAGE 2 On September 24, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a request from Mr. Wilson to change one of the uses in his existing center from a furniture store to a Jazzercise Center which required more parking. Because this would increase the required parking for the joint use facility above the 181 spaces previously required, the approval allowed a 15% reduction per Section 21.44.050(5) (previously Section 21.44.160(5)) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Again, this approval was conditioned on providing at least a minimum of 181 spaces which required the inclusion of the smaller Murphy lot at the northeast corner of Madison and Grand. The Planning Commission documentation for this 1980 approval is attached as Exhibit “B” to this staff report. Several years ago, the City was made aware by the new owners of the Wilson/Roosevelt Center that the smaller parking lot at the northeast corner of Madison and Grand was not being used for joint parking and that the Murphys had installed signs reserving the parking for the Old World Center only and threatening towing of any cars using the lot which were owned by employees or customers of the Roosevelt Center. After numerous discussions and research, it was discovered that the required and recorded agreement for joint use parking and reciprocal parking easements did not include this smaller lot owned by the Murphys. Although none of the staff members originally involved in this matter presently still work for the City, it is the City’s position and the position of the owner of the Wilson/Roosevelt Center that it was purely an inadvertent mistake not to include this lot in the agreement. The position of representatives of the Murphy Family is that they never intended to legally restrict or include this smaller lot in the agreement for joint parking. Although the original approval for the joint use parking and 15% parking reduction was approved by the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board now has the authority to consider this matter because the affected properties are located in the Redevelopment Area and the V-R Zone. The Design Review Board’s action will be a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council). Ill. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is to consider whether the previous approval for joint use parking and a 15% parking reduction should be revoked because the conditions of approval are not being complied with. By not including the smaller lot owned by the Murphys on the northeast corner of Madison and Grand in the recorded agreement for joint parking, there are not 181 spaces available for joint use by both Centers. This lot is explicitly being excluded from joint use by the owners although the previous approvals were based upon the inclusion of this lot in the joint use parking. Staffs review of all the background information and documentation pertaining to the previous approvals indicates that it was always intended that this smaller lot be included as part of the joint parking facility. Staff has had numerous discussions and meetings with representatives of the Murphy ownership but they have continuously indicated that -_I ’ WILSON/MURPHY f-- NT USE PARKING FACILITY - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 l . PAGE 3 they have no intention of amending the agreement to include their smaller lot for reciprocal use with the Roosevelt Center. Staff has also advised the private parties on numerous occasions to try to work this out but they have been unable to do so. Exhibit “c” is a site plan showing existing parking the in the Wilson/Roosevelt Center and the Murphy Old World Center. A breakdown of the required parking (based on square footage and uses) and the parking provided for each center is as follows: PROJECT REQUIRED PARKING PARKING PROVIDED Murphy Center 70.4 spaces 51 spaces (37 spaces in Main Lot 14 spaces in smaller Lot) Wilson Center TOTALS 135.8 spaces 206.2 spaces 141 spaces 192 spaces As this breakdown shows the total required parking without the 15% reduction granted by the City in 1980 would be 206.2 spaces. With the 15% reduction the required spaces would be 175.27 although the conditions of approval for both the joint use facility and the 15% reduction required a minimum of 181 spaces. The breakdown also shows, with the inclusion of the smaller Murphy parking lot, 192 spaces are provided for joint use. Without the inclusion of the smaller Murphy lot, 178 spaces are available for joint use which is not in compliance and violates the conditions of approval. A review of existing parking spaces in the centers indicates that the Wilson/Roosevelt Center can comply with it’s own parking requirements based on present uses and square footage without the need for a joint use parking agreement. The Old World Center would be substantially affected by revocation of the joint use parking approval particularly in light of the fact that the restaurant portion of the center (previously Dooley McCluskey’s) is presently vacant. If the joint use approval is revoked, future use of the previous restaurant space would be based on parking provided only in the Old World Center parking lot. There is definitely not enough parking provided individually in the Old World Center parking lots to allow another restaurant use in the vacant space. Staff has explained this to the Old World Center representatives but, again, they are not willing to amend the joint parking agreement to include their smaller parking lot. Based upon all of the foregoing information, staff believes that the City has no recourse other than to revoke the approval for joint use parking and the 15% reduction. -.. ’ -WILSON/MURPHY .- --. - NT USE PARKING FACILITY FEBRUARY 7, 1996 *. PAGE4 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed action is categorically exempt from environmental review according to Section 15321 of CEQA Guidelines. Class 21 of the categorical exemptions specifically identified as being exempt from environmental review actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by the regulatory agency. V. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the approval for joint use parking and the 15% reduction of parking for common facilities should be revoked because the required joint use agreement does not include the 181 parking spaces required by the approval and despite numerous attempts by the City, the owner of the Murphy Old World Center is not willing to sign an amended agreement to include property which would increase parking to the required 181 spaces. Revocation would mean that the two commercial centers; the Murphy Old World Center and the Wilson/Roosevelt Center, must individually comply with City parking requirements for uses existing or proposed in the centers in the future. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 245 2. Location Map 3. Exhibit “A” - Planning Commission documents relating to Joint Use Parking Facility 4. Exhibit “B” - Planning Commission documents relating to 15% Parking Reduction 5. Exhibit “c” - Site Plan showing existing parking. MJH:vd 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 REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 245 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING REVOCATION OF APPROVAL OF JOINT PARKlNG AND A 15% REDUCTION FOR COMMON PARKING FACILITIES FOR TWO EXISTING RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTERS LOCATED NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. CASE NAME: WILSON/MURPHY JOINT PARKING FACILITY CASE NO: APN: 203-301-5, 203-302-L 203-182-4 WHEREAS, staff has referred a request to the Design Review Board to consider revocation of a previous approval for Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for two existing commercial centers located between Grand Avenue and Madison and Roosevelt Streets; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Design Review Board, on the 7th day of February, 1996, did hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request on property described as: Lots 33,34, and 35 of Seaside Lands, Map 1722 and Portions of Blocks 37 and 50 of Map 775. 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 the revocation of the Wilson/Murphy Joint Use Parking Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby REVOKES the previous approval of Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parking facilities for the two - I * .” 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 existing retail commercial centers located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street based upon the following findings: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,... . . . . The conditions of approval of the Joint Use Parking and the 15% parking reduction for the two commercial centers required that a minimum of 181 spaces be provided for joint use parking. The conditions of approval also required the recordation of an agreement between the two centers for joint parking and reciprocal parking easements covering the 181 spaces. A minimum joint use parking facility of 181 spaces requires the inclusion of a smaller parking lot located at the northeast comer of Madison Street and Grand Avenue. It has been determined that the joint use parking agreement and reciprocal parking easements does not include this smaller parking lot and therefore the minimum required 181 spaces for joint use parking is not being provided. Despite numerous efforts by the City, the property owner of the smaller parking lot is not willing to amend the joint use parking agreement to include the smaller parking lot. DRE3 RESO NO. 245 -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 7th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: EVAN BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RESO NO. 245 -3- 12 @ NOLni MURPHYWILSON “JOINT USE” PARKING STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT “A” DATE: December 13, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PLANNING CGMMISSION APPROVAL OF A "JOINT USE" OF A PARXING FACILITY, WILSON/MURPHY RETAIL CENTERS Background Location & Description of Property The project site has two locations. The primary location is on the north side of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt and Madison Streets. This portion of the project is divided into two lots each under a separate ownership. The larger lot is now occupied by Mr. Wilson's development and contains 2.66 acres. The smaller lot is currently being graded for Mr. Murphy's project. This lot is .69 acres in size. Another smaller lot is located on the northeast corner of Madison and Grand. This lot is .16 acres and currently holds a duplex. Existing Zoning Subject property: R-P & C-2 North: R-P South: C-2 East: C-2 West: C-2 Environment Impact Information Both the Wilson and the Murphy developments have received Negative Declarations for their respective projects. This action before you does not require a separate environmental review. General Plan Information The Land Use map designation of the subject property is CBD (Central Business District). The present proposal does not conflict with the General Plan. Public Facilities It has been previously determined that the necessary public facilities to serve the projects are available. This request will not generate a need for additional facilities or alter the previous determination. Major Planning Considerations . 1. Could the retail centers' parking needs be better served by antoher method? 2. What guarantee does the City have that, if granted, the joint use facility will be of a permanent nature? Discussion Section 21.44.160(a)(d)(i-iii) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for such requests as this one: “(til PaMies concmned in -the joint tie 06 o~~-&~t-t pmking 6acieitie.4 4hdee evtience agheemeti do/r duch joint uA e by a prropeh &gait it~3~ument approved by Xhe City AaXomey a6 to damn and content. such Lta&umeutt, when approved ab connoting &J -the p/rov~iovu 06 ltkib atinance, ah& be rreco/rded in lthe 06&x 04 Xhe cowzty /recozrda and copieb fhemo~ &L&d ukth tie bu&kng dewent and Xhe p.fk.nning COmmi6AiOn;" The code also provides for a reduction in the reguired nurrber of spaces for certain mixed uses. How%er, theapplicants in this instance arenotrequesting a reduction inthenumberof spaces. The request is limited to joint use of a single facility. Staff has ccknputed the parking requirements for the two projects. A total of 181 spaces is needed. The applicants propose to provide 181 spaces. Together the projects can meet the parking requirement. However, when viewed separately, the Murphy project cannot meet its parking need. Staff feels that the request is reasonable. This section of the code allows the city to treat certain developments as one for parking purposes, much like a shopping center. Developing the parking lots separately would increase the demand for curb cuts onto the public streets and reduce the scale at the proposed Murphy development. The combined lots will provide for an integrated circulation pattern, landscape plan, fewer drives and allow for a larger retail center. On street parking will also be increased by reducing the number of curb cuts. Continued use of a joint facility can be assured by making the City a party to the "agreement" requred by the city code. The redevelopment director feels that a joint use facility will result in an economic benefit to the city. Recommendation That the Planning Commission approve the request for a joint use facility subject to the following conditions: 1. An agreement shall be processed and recorded pursuant to Section 21.44.16.0(4) (d)(iii) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Said agreement shall provide for mutual easements for parking -2- C l - ’ 9 purposes and shall further provide that said easements cannot be removed or modified without the consent of the City of Carl&ad. .- 2. The parking facility shall provide a minimum of 181 spaces. 3. The parking facility plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction of the facility. 4. A comprehensive landscape and irrigation plan for the facility shall be approved by the Planning'Director prior to construction of the facility. -3- -_ .- . a. -. . -- -__ . : . . . 7 zx1 trt. Ox 2 .‘x: . . . . December 4, 1978 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Mr. James Hagaman Re: Request for approval of the use of a joint parking facility pursuant to Sec. 21.44.160(4)(D)(i-iii) CMC On behalf of Dr. Howard F. Murphy and Robert Wilson, we request . the City of Carslbad Planning Commission to review and approve : the use of the parking facilities as a joint parking facility. The parking area is on parcels owned by Dr. Murphy and Mr. Wilson. The proposed 182 space facility would coordinate ingress and egress points, lighting and landscaping. Exhibit "A" attached describes the facility design and circulation system. We respectfully request that this matter be considered by the Planning Commission at the earliest practical date. Sincerely, DJWj j Att. p.c. Dr. Howard Murphy Mr. Robert Wilson Mr. Jack Henthorn 2921 Roosevelt Street l Post Office Box 590 l Carlsbad l CA 92008 l (714) 729-8973 -. PLALIJNING COMMISSION -WTFS December 13, 19.78 Page Four (4) 0. The question was posed as to whether or not those dedications and public improvements attached to phase I would be completed prior to occupancy of this project. Staff indicated that this could be a conditon of approval. Chairman Larson asked if the representative of the developer wiahed to address the Commission. Jim Hicks, Le Gran Via, Carlsbad, indicated that building permits hadbeenissued for grading, sewer, etc. and that they hope to pour slab within the next 30 days. He stated that he would hope that said conditions would be placed on the.first, rather than the second phase occupancy. A motion was made APPROVING SDP 77-1(A), subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report dated December 13, 1978, plus the following additional conditions: 1. Said approval is for building to be occupied by a financial institution. 2. Occupancy is conditioned upon the completion of public improvements and the tying together of the parking lots. 3. Public improvements on Alga, El Camino Real, dedications, signals, landscaping, etc. must be installed prior to occupancy of this phase. APPROVED hOTION: L'Heuruex SECOND: Jose AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Marcus, Larson, Schick . EL Wilson/Murphy Retail Centers Mr. Don Rose presented the staff report. Commissioner Schick expressed concern over the removal of the mature trees on the north corner of the property. 'Mr. Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator, related that much thought had gone into the planning of the parking lot and that in order to acquire the total 131 parking spaces, all but two of those trees would have to be removed. Staff indicated that possibly the applicant could apply for a reduction in parking spaces required, thus saving those trees. -- PLA~JMING COMMISSION '-iUTES December 13, 1978 Page -_ VII. Five (5) A motion was made APPROVING the "joint" use of this parking facility, for the reasons as set forth-in the staff report dated December 13, 1978, and subject to the conditions contained therein, and with the additional condition that the applicants will make every effort to sav c the mature trees on the site. APPROVED MOTION: , L'Heureux -SECOND: Jose AYES: L'Heureux, Jose, Marcus, Larson NOES: Schick c. c 1979 Planning Commission Calendar -: A motion was made approving the 1979 Planning Commission Calendar as submitted. APPROVED MOTION: L'Heureux SECOND: Jose AYES: L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Marcus, Jose * . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made approving the minutes of November 22, 1978 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: L'Heureux AYES: L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Marcus, Jose .VIII. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS A. No. 1484, CUP-159, Don Sharp A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1484, CUP-159 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Marcus, Jose B. No. 1485, SDP 78-1, Don Hubbard A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1485 Don Hubbard, as read. APPROVED - MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Marcus, Jose ._ Fkw-75 . W\LSi2t\\ . .._ . . ..-a..- ., . a’ 1 L . . -i : - . J ,: . . L . . , :: .( _* . . . . . . . .’ . . , llllllll~ I i I . 4 : i i i I z .O 1 ,s rz E -l ‘; x e . . I ! I I . 8 . . R!VXGROUND DATA SIlEEl' . 1 ~- c-. CASE i\ii?: 'PCD-25 __-_. -_ fAJ?I'LJCANr:~~ilson _-._- .I- rJ:&$,WST MD WX'YIOTr: North side of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street andTadison Street _---- -- JJ3XL, DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot 37 of Seaside Lands, according to map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the County Recorder-July 2: 203- 301 203-302-01 1980 p,&essors Parcel NunWr: 703 -A-. Acres 3.51 No. of Lots 3 GENEFaL PLAN AND ZONING -- Ceneral Plan Land Use Designation CBD Density Allmed N/A Density. Propsed N/A misting Zone c-2 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Proposed Zor.2 c-7 North south R-P c-2 -- East . West C-2 & R-P -- c-2 School District N/A Ea?cr District City of Carlsbad S,r?-..;sr Dis t-i& City of Carlsbad Zoning Lland us2 Post Office Retail -- Retail Retail 'PUBLIC FACILITIES EDU's No additional needed --.- P~k1i.c Faci li,tics Fee Agreement, dated -- (.-:+ , .-zsr : > ---. ------__-- ______-- ENVIRGG~ IMPACT AS%SSE?!T N/A Negative Declaration, issued Lee No. -_--._- ----_-- --.- -___- E.I.H. Certified, dated -_-.__-___ Ol:h:?r’, ----.-__- -- ----_-.. -___-__ - -.- -- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: w EXHIBIT “8” .4 0 3 STAFF REPORT September 24, 1980 Planning Commission Planning Department PCD-25, WILSON - Request for a Planning Commission Determination for a 15% reduction in required parking for a previously approved "joint use" parking facility on the north side of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street in the C-2 Zone. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is the Wilson/Murphy retail center. The center is comprised of the 2.66 acre "Carlsbad Bazaar", the .69 acre "Old World Center" and a .16 acre auxiliary parking lot, at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Grand Avenue. On December 13, 1978, a "joint use" parking facility was approved by the Planning Commission for the Murphy/Wilson retail center under the provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.44.160(A). Parking requirements for the existing Wilson project and proposed "mall" expansion totalled 110.5 spaces. Requirements for the Murphy project were calculated at 70.4 spaces. The Murphy project, alone, was unable to satisfy this requirement. The two projects, evaluated collectively, could meet the total parking requirement of 181 spaces. An agreement for joint parking facilities and grant of reciprocal parking easements was executed and recorded by the two parties. Mr. Wilson would now like to convert the "Wilson's Fine Furniture" building to accomodate "Jazzercise" classes and professional office space. The change of use would create an increased demand for parking. Mr. Wilson is, therefore, requesting a 15% reduction in required parking per Section 21.44.160(5) Carlsbad Municipal Code for "common facilities". II. ANALYSIS Planning Is.sue 1) Can the Wilson/Murphy parking lot accomodate the increase in parking demand generated by the change of use? *- Discussion Section 21.44.170(5) of the Zoning Code provides that common parking facilities may be approved by the Plann- ing Commission in lieu of applying individual require- ments. Further, that when such common facility is to occupy a site of 5,000 square feet or more, the Commis- sion may grant up to a 15% reduction in required parking. Parking requirements for the Wilson furniture store were calculated at a ratio of one space per 600 square feet of gross floor area, creating a requirement of 17.7 spaces for this use. Staff has recommended a ratio of one parking space for each 3 individuals enrolled in a "Jazzercise Class". The applicant has estimated a maximum class load of 90 students, re- quiring provision of 30 spaces. Five-thousand square feet would be converted to office use which would require 12.5 parking spaces. The revised parking requirement, for the area of the previous furniture store, would be 43 spaces, creating a shortage of 25 spaces. Approval of a 15% reduction would amend the total required spaces to 175; a de- crease of 6 spaces from the 181 requirement originally approved. Staff has visited the site at various times and has consistently found a substantial amount of parking available. Certain uses with high parking demands, such as the two restaurants, experience their prime influx of parking demand at hours which are not in conflict with those of the commercial and professional uses which predominate the center. Additionally, a center of this size and variety usually attracts customers who frequent more than one business, further reducing the demand on available parking. It is staff's opinion that approval of the requested 15% reduction would not create a shortage of parking at the center. Staff does have some concern regarding the parking lot layout. A comprehensive parking facility and landscape and irrigation plan, for the Wilson/Murphy Center, has been approved by city staff, as directed by the Planning Commission in their original action on the joint-use parking. This design incorporates revisions to on-site circulation, provision of parking lot lights, land- scaping and an increase in parking stalls as condi- tioned in the Commission's approval. These revisions and improvements, including striping of the auxiliary lot, have not commenced. Staff feels that the design, as approved, constitutes a vast improvement over the existing arrangement. With the anticipated increase in traffic on-site, good circula- tion becomes even more important. Staff is, therefore, recommending as a condition of approval, that the parking lot be improved per approved plans. III. REXOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1701, APPROVING PCD-25, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS Background Data Sheet Location Map PC Resolution No. 1701 Exhibit: A dated September 18, 1980 CN:jt Exhibit: D dated January, 1, 1980 26 EXHIBIT “B” PROPOSED “JOINT USE” PARKING LOT PMNING COMMISSION Rl%OLUTION NO. 1701 c- - A RESOLUTION OF THE PT,AXNING COX>!ISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSEAD, CALiFO~R8IA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNING CObQ4ISSION DETEPJ4INATION FOR A 15% REDUCTION OF TiIE APPROVED "JOINT USE" PARKING FACILITY 3N PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE CiF GRAND AVENUE, BETWEEN EOOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET. APPLICANT: WILSON CASE MO: PCD-25 -- MHEREAS, a verified apk>lication for certain property to wit: c+. A portion of Lot 37 of Seaside Lands, according to map thereof No. 1722, filed in the.Office of the County Recorder, July 28, 1321. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and-referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided. by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission did, on the 24th day of September, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and . WHEREAS, at said public 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 'Planning Commission Determination; and I . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of PCD-25, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . Findinqs: -b 1) That the proposed 15% reduction in parking will not create- * . I ‘28 .*- 1 2 3 .4 . 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 X6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 . -_ . a shortage of parking for "Lhe existing :'Old World Center" and the existing and proposed "Carlsbad Bazaar" as shown on Exhibit "A", dated September 18, .1980. That a 15% reduction of parking will not create a significant traffic impact withi'n the existing "Old World Center" and the existing and future "Carlsbad Bazaar". Conditions 1) 2) 3) 5) 6) . The parking facility shall consist of a minimum of 181 spaces. Prior to any construction or remodeling, the applicant shall. obtain all necessary building permits. This project is approved upon'thc express condition. that the<. applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by * City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1980, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by referecce, and according to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said fee a copy of that agreement is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference. If said'fee is not paid as premise?, this application'will not be consistent'with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void. The applicant shall improve the parking lot landscape and irrigation par the approved plan, labeled Exhibit "B", dated January 1,. 1980, on file in the Planning Department prior to final. occupancy of the building or issuance of a business license for any use in the ,"Wi;son Furniture Eui:.Zng". Per class enrollment for Jazzercise shall be limited to 98 persons. Further, a minim-um break period of.15 minutes shall be provided between classes to help reduce traffic congestion on the site. A bond shall be posted with the'city in an amount to be determined by .the Planning Director or the City Engineer ensuring the improvement of the parking lot, landscape and irrigation within a six month period from the date of this resolution per the approved plan labeled Exhibit '*B", dated January 1,' 1980, on file in the Planning Department. Said. bond shall be-posted with the city prior to final occupancy of the building or issuance of a business license for any use in the "Wilson Furniture Building*'. . : //// //// //// i/U PC RESO 81701 . -2-’ l . -. . -_ 1 2 3 . 4 5 . 6 7 e 9 3.C 11 1% 13 . . 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .-- . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commissiofi of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24th day of September, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: I AYES: Commissioner Schick, Ronibotis, Friestedt, Larson, Leeds and Jose. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus. ABSTAIN: riOne. . ATTEST: PC RESO 11701 : - . i August 13, 1980‘ . . City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 From: Robert Wilson I, Request for.a 15% Parking Requirement Municipal Code 21.44.160 (5). EST :’ COPY Reduction as per -% .% # .- First, some background on this project. - A joint use parking facility for the Murphey/Wilson Retail Center was approved on December 13, 1978, subject to the conditions of Municipal'Code 21.44.160 (4). While negotiations were transpiring to fulfil1 one of the conditions ( a legal agreement between the owners 1, Mr. Murphey built the "Old World Center". Parking requirements for the shops, offices and a restaurant were calculated to pro- _ vide for 70.4 cars;!- On the same lot as the "Old World Center", 40 parking stalls are provided. Across. the street, on the corner of Madison and Grand, a supplementary lot was built. This lot is currently unstrLped but estimated to provide an area for 12 parking stalls,. making a total of 52 stalls provided of the re- stalls,for the "Old World Gentef". X'&n has building plans for wThe Carl&ad Ba- re-110.5 parking stalls. A breakdown of the 17..7 I 1 1 We& Side:zRetail:.- We& Side:zRetail:.- _ _ ,v ,v II,.8 II,.8 Restaurant!;~& j-i-. ,. Restaurant!;~& j-i-. ,. _ .; .~ : i . . _ .; .~ : i . . -_ -. -_ -. 33.3' ' 33.3' ' Mall Shop~$;L~;~-- 1”. ..I:..- Mall Shop~$;L~;~-- 1”. ..I:..- .‘-;, -- “’ _ .-: 47; 7 .‘-;, -- “’ _ .-: 47; 7 ,< :- ,< :- -., -., ,- =-... *‘) i __ ,- =-... *‘) i __ - .*, ;:.:. - ..“., ::.. ‘. : _ : _ - - - ?; -’ ,. “-.~,+ *. - d. .,. “-.~+;..*. . . . . ._ . ..z. ,+ . . >.. . . >.. -. _.. -. _.. ., - .b++: ;... ., - .b++: ;... . . :, . . :, ;-.: : ;-.: : *-p..->. -L.< “.; *-p..->. -L.< a.-*.; ... 130.5’ 130. 5’ . - .c Cue.. - .c Cue.. .- Tc; - .- Tc; - ,. ,. _ _ _ .,- . . _ .,- . . . . i . . i i__*:, -;* _. : i. .-. .: -: i__*:, -;* _. : i. .-. .: -: _: _: 5. -- 5. -- i .., .:. ^ --. .‘.-: --. .‘.-: _,/ ^ .- .i .c .c .7-.<3 _ _‘_ ._ .7-.<3 _ _‘_ ._ _- *:I. \. “.y’ _- *:I. \. “.y’ .?-,y.. r _ * . .?-,y.. r _ * . . __- . __- :-.. :-.. ,._. . 1 “Y.. ~- ,._. . 1 “Y.. ~- ^“:Ji- ^“:Ji- . . ” .*r-.;.+,,..‘-. ._ .a i :.: ” .*r-.;.+,,..‘-. ._ .a i :.: . . . . Fram,~-10/10/78'm~o-'.to Don-Rose‘?& ;James- Ha&&; Planning Fram,~-10/10/78'm~o-'.to Don-Rose‘?& ;James- Ha&&; Planning Director,.‘ from Jack. Henthorne.i‘-Redeve&o-pmentC!oordinator. Director,.‘ from Jack. Henthorne.i‘-Redeve&o-pmentC!oordinator. ,L',. ,L',. * * x ,__ i-:.: 7- . . x ,__ i-:.: 7- . . . -- . -- I_ ;.+" I_ ;.+" ,-,; WC r;,:T,-. ,-,; WC r;,:T,-. _ _ , .-.. _ , .-.. _ ; ; :... ,t- :... ,t- _: +,: _: +,: - , ~ _..... -, r: ,s,.-n+- ;: _; ‘; r - , ~ _..... -, r: ,s,.-n+- ;: _; ‘; r .ZAFc-y.? .ZAFc-y.? :-?_.c .*;y:~. -:..- -.- :-?_.c .*;y:~. -:..- -.- .,.-. .,.-. . ,. ,- . ,. ,- I;.*-:;;- .:‘ I;.*-:;;- .:‘ -.>-+ ,i %;$1 :;c-*l.&s. ,,;,.<.:‘:.i' : : :.'. -.>-+ ,i %;$1 :;c-*l.&s. ,,;,.<.:‘:.i' : : :.'. % % .i :.s. .~. LA,+. ..- -.., .,* :y-:.* .'_ ..- ;- +-y;--.. rij>?-3.+-.c.::,-:. : .-, ,,!- '- -'. .i :.s. .~. LA,+. ..- -.., .,* :y-:.* .'_ ..- ;- +-y;--.. rij>?-3.+-.c.::,-:. : .-, ,,!- '- -'. _': ,...._ _': ,...._ : :- : :- '.-.,y, _i '.-.,y, _i :'. I G .,1 "7jl-,* 2.. :'. I G .,1 "7jl-,* 2.. n business, but the mall shops which were to be-' built in the vacant "Mayfair" market have never been built--- . .' ( and now are not expected,, by Mr. Wilson, to be built 1, leaving the old "Mayfair" market currently vacant. At this time, Mr. Wilson would like to cease operations of his furniture store, "Wilson's Fine Furniture", so that space can be remodelled to provide for a "jazzercise" and professional of- fice space. The professional office space will require 11 park- ing stalls. The preliminary ruling by the Planning Commission for the "Jazzercise" is to provide 1 parking stall for each 3 people in the class. With an anticipated class of 90 people, this will require 30 parking stalls. So now our requirements have been altered. While the 'furniture store had a requirement for 17.7 parking stalls, we now have a "Jazzercise"/Office re- quirement for 41 cars. Also, provisions for the old "Mayfair" market space of 47.7 parking stalls remain, although, at thi time, the requirements, like the occupancy, are unknown. So the new total: West Side Retail 11.8 Restaurant 33.3 "Mayfair" Market Space 47.7 Professional Office 11 "Jazzercise" 30 133.8 ' Now the parking requirements for Mr. Wilson's (133.8) and Mr. Murphey's (70.4) retail center.total 204.2 (204) parking stalls, while the parking stalls seen in the site plan submitted with this letter, total 178 ( 126 on Mr. Wilson's property plus Mr. Murphey's 52 ) leaving the combined retail centers 26 park- ing stalls short, However, with a request for- a 15% parking requirement reduction, provided for in Municipal Code 21.44.160 (51, there are actually "extra" parking stalls: 204 x .85 = 173.4 (173),;&38 7 173 = 5 "extra" parking stalls. .A* ;.< -5 '~. -, <.:+ - so, at.yyefiis t-e, I am requesting a 15% parking requirement re- duction in the total parking required by the Murphey/Wilson Retail Center so that I may go ahead with the remodelling of "Wilson's Fine Furniture" into spaces for "Jazzercise" and professional ents to the parking lot. .. .: B EST COPY RW/jmj/as cc: Catherine Nicholas. . _ - ~.,_* .j...; ; * .-a . - . . .‘I c - .- ,- I Recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on February 22, 1980, under File/Page No. 80-060731. AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PARKING FACILITIES AND GRANT OP RECIPROCAL PARKING BASE?tENTS THSS AGREEMENT is made thisl4th day of February I 9 nd - 1980, between HOWARD P. MURPHY BARBARA H. MURPHY,MQXXXUQXQRZ~. V (hereinafter referied to aa Party A) and ROBERT W. WILSON and SHARON L. WILSON (hereinafter referred to aa Party B), both _ of Carlsbad, California. RXCITALS ------m-w WHEREAS, the parties own adjoining parcels of real estate in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described aa fallows: 1. Parcel A is owned by Party A and is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. Parcel B is owned by Party B and is described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. WHEREAS, Party A has constructed a commercial building, including a restaurant on Parcel A. The principals of Party B are developing Parcel B as a shopping and professional complex, which also includes a restaurant. . . . . WliEREAS, Section 21.44.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for Che joint use of parking facilities in certain cirpustances. In this case, the restaurant operations on . . Parcel A, and Parcel'B have been determined to be primarily a nighttime use. Therefore, under the terms of the ordinance a portion of the parking spaces on Parcel A may be made available to satisfy the nighttime parking requirement on Parcel B, which has been classified primarily aa a parking spaces on Parcel B may . . . .t . . . . . daytime use; and a portion of the be made available to satisfy the -l- Exhibit 1. :. ’ . ; \ :. -a . -- nighttime parking requirement on Parcel A, which har been claasl- fled primarily as a daytime use; and WHEREAS, Party A and Party B have asked that the City of .,. ." Carlsbad approve said joint uae of parking facilities in order to facilitate the planned development, it is a condition of such 1. approval that the parties exchange mutual agreements and covenants and easements to insure that the parking spaces will be available in the future. The joint parking facilities are more particularly described in Exhibit "C" and shown on Exhibit "DD attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties covenant and agree for themselves, and their heirs, successors and assigns as follows: 1. Party A hereby grants to Party B, and to all tenants and licensees of Parcel 8, or any part thereof and their business invitees and licensees a non-exclusive easement to use the parking areas, including entrances, exits, driveways and walks encompassed within the area described in Exhibit "C", in common with Party A and all tenants and licensees of Parcel A. Provided, and%%? that Party B shall require employees a& his tenants to utilize only parking spaces within Party B's parcel. 2. Party B hereby grants to Party A and to all tenants and licensees of Parcel A, in any part thereof and their ..*. business invitecs and licensees, a non-exclusive easement to use the parking areas, including entrances, exits, driveways and walks encompassed within the area described in Exhibit "C", in . . common with Party B and all tenants and licensees o Parcel B. and Provided, that Party A shall require employees 613 ?? is tenants to utilize only parking spaces within Party A's parcel. 3. The parties hereto agree that these easements may not be extinguished, or modified without the written consent of the City of Carlsbad and each Party agrees that the City of . . Carlsbad shall have the right to enforce these covenants. 4. Each party, at his own expense, shall maintain and keep in good repair the aforesaid-'parking areas, entrances, exits, driveways and walks located within his parcel and shall keep such areas free of rubbish and obstructions of eve‘ry nature and shall provide adequate lighting thereon, except that Party A shall, in addition, maintain and keep in good repair the southerly thirty-two (32) feet of Party B's parcel between Madison and Roosevelt Streets. . 5. Neither party shall construct, or permit con- struction of any structure on parking area within his parcel which will reduce in any way the available parking areas as delineated on Exhibit "D". 6. The easements hereby granted and the agreement contained herein shall be easements and covenants running with land and shall enure to the benefit of, and binding upon, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns, including all subsequent owners of Parcels A and D and all persons claiming under them. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agrement at Carlsbad, California, the day and year first above written. Howard F. Murph -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 15s COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) b . ..‘. .~ .- On the % # day of February, 1980, before me, the :, .L’ undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared HOWARD F. MURPHY Bnd BARBAPA M. MURPHY, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. STAT& OF CALIFORNIA ) 19s COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) On the /y%ay of February, 1980, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ROBERT W. WILSON and SIIARON L. WILSON, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. - s NICHOLAS C. BANCHE NOIARI PUBLIC . CAlIfORNIA PRINCIPAL OfflCt IN SAN DltGO COUNT-f .-’ c Notary Public L My Cammbrlm Opirtr hnwy 9. 19t4 3 ~~'.~~~~~~~~S~.*'.' 4 ” ,. I .i . . . :. ; 1. r ,: ‘. , f > : ;,. . . . . -.. 4 . . . ., . - PARCEL A Lots 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 37 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Seaside Lands Map No. 1722 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Also known as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel No. 203-301-5. . . EXHXBIT "A" PARCEL B Lots 34, 35 and 36 in Block 37, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Seaside Lands Map No. 1722, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Also known as San Diego County Assessor's Parcels Nos. 203-182-04 and 08. EXHIBIT "B" 7&w - - _ .’ . .’ . . ** . ., -0 Legal Description For: Date: Murphy/Wilson Parking Lot JULY 26, 1978 Commencing at the intersection of the Northwest line of said Lot 33’bFth the East line ‘of Second Street (Roosevelt Street, 25.00 foot half width) as shown on said Map No, 5S027'OO" East, 1722; thence along said Northwest line North a.00 feet to an intersection with the East Line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); South 34'33'00" East, thence along said East line nin l 65.0 feet more or less to the True PoLnt of Begin- or f thence leaving said ;ss; East line North 55'27'00" East, 24.0 feet more thence South 34 33'00" East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence North 55°27’OO” East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence South 34’33’00” East, 96.5 feet more or less; thence North 55°27'OO" East, 98.0 feet more or less; thence South 34O33’00” East, 18.0 feet more or less; thence North 5S027'OO" East, 185.5 feet more or less to an intersection with the West line of Madison Street (70.00 feet wide); South 34O33'00" East, thence along said West line 205.5 feet more or less to the beginning of a tangent 25.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 75'44'07" North line of a distance of 33.05 feet to an intersection with the, Grand Avenue (100.00 feet wide) as shown on said Map No. 535, a radial line to said intersection bears South 48'48'53" East; thence leaving said curve along said North line South 55°27'OO" West 136.5 feet more or less; thence leaving said North line North 34'33'60" West, 59.0 feet more or less; thence South 5S027'OO" West, 79.0 feet more or less; thence North 34°33'OO" West, 43.0 feet more or less; thence So:~:h 55o27'00" Wesc,93.0 feet more or less to an intersection with the East line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line North 34°33'OO" West, 263.5 feet more or less to the True Point of Beginning. IllIlllII 11111111111111111 EXHIBIT “C” GRAND AVE EXISTING PARKING PLAN EXHIBIT 4 OESIGN REVIEW L &ID February 7. 19% Page 3 Chairperson Welshons called for a vote on the main motion, 0 VOTE: 5-O (0 AYES: Compes, Maquez, Savary, Vessey. Weishons 4i@ NOES: None P ABSTAIN: None 2. WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKlNG FACILITY - Consideration of Revocation of Approval of Joint Use Parking and a 15% parking reduction for common parklng faciiitlcs for the two existing Retaii Commeroial Centers located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madison street in the Viitage Redevelopment Zone. .*. L Michael Hofzmiiler, Planning blreotor, ~viewed the baokgrour)d of the request and stated that in 1978 the Planning Commission approved joint use parking for the Old World Retail C&tar (owned by the Murphy Famiiy) and the adjoining Wilson Retail Center (now Jazzer&e). The old World Certter project (und@r .- deveiopment) did not meet minimum parking requIreme& due to the restaurant use batrig proposed (Dootey McCluskey’s Restaurant).‘- The Wilson Retail Center had a surplus of P&king and was willing to enter into an agreement to share their parking with the Old World Center. The conditions of approval required a minimum of 181 spaces, which included the smaller proposed parking iot at the northeast comer of Madison and Grand, atso owned by the Murphy Family. Several years ago, the City was made aware by the new owners of the Wilson/Roosevelt Centertbat the smaller parking lot at the northeast comer of Madison and Grand was not being used for joint parking and that the Murphys had installed signs reserving the parking for the Old World Center only; and threatening to tow any oara owned by employees or customers of me Roosevett Center. Afler numerous discussions and research, tt was discovered that the smaller lot had been inadvertently omitted from the recorded joint usa parking agreement. The Murphy Family has taken the posiiion that they never intended to legally restrid or include the smaller lot in the joint use parking agreement. Mr. Holzmiller stated that stah has reviewed all of Ihe background information and documentation pertaining to the prevlous approvals and determined that it was always intended th&t the smatter lot be included as part of the joint parking fecillty. Staff has had.numerous dbcussions and meetings with representatives of the Murphy Family but they have continuously indicated that they have no intention of amending the agreement to include their smaller lot for reciprocal use with the Roosevelt Center. Staff has also advised the private parties on numerous occasions to try to work this out but tbay have been unable to do so. I A review of existing parking spaces indicates that the VVilson/Roosevell Centet can comply with its own parking requirements based on present uses and square footage, without the need for a joint use parktng agreement The Old World Center would be substantially affected by revocation of the joint use parking approval, particularly in light of Ihe fact that the restaurant portion of the oenter (previously Dooley McCluskey’s) is currently vacant. if the joint use approval is revoked, future use of the restaurant space would be based on parking provided only in the Old World Centet Parking lot. Staff believes that the approval for jolnt use parking should be revoked because the required joint use agreement does not include the 181 parking spaces required by the approval and despite numerous attempts by lhe City, the owner of the Murphy Old World Center is not willing to sign an amended agreement to include property whit would increase parking to the required 181 spaces Revocation would mean that the two commercial centers, the Murphy Old World Center and the Wilson/Roosevelt Center, must individually comply with City parking requirements for uses existing or proposed in the centers in the future. . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 7.1998 Page 4 Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that normally jaint use parking would be considered as a minor redevelopment permit. If the Design Review Board concurs, it would only go forward lo the City Council if appealed. The Board inquired If any options other than revocation were available. Mr. Holzmilter replied that the only recourse available is revocation or taking the matter to court. Chairperson Wetshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation lo speak. Nick Ban&. 810 MIsston Avenue, Oceanside, attorney for Mr. Wilson, addressed the Board and stated that the Ctty promoted the joint use agreement. Old World now stales that it was never their intent to altow use of the small lot. He beiieves the stmplesl way to resolve the matter is !o revoke the agreement. The Wilson/Roosevelt Center has adequate parking for their needs.4 If Old Wotld gets a tenant for thetr restaurant, they can oome back with the necessary parktng. Mike Murphy, 340 El Amtgo Road, Del Mar, addressed the Boati and Stated that Dr. Murphy’s ortginal : intention we to develop a commerctat csnter. He needed 70.4 spaces and there were only 52 spaces. A : restaurant woukl require nighttime use and the Wilson Center required daytime use, hence the redprocat part&g agreement, However, the ptan continues to be specious. There have been enurs end omissions since the beginning. Two documents were filed by Dr. Murphy and Mr. Wilson which cottedively showed there were 181 parking spaces. Nick Banche was Mr. Wilson’s attorney at the time the joint parking agreement was signed. Mr. Murphy further stated that he is again4 revooation of the parking agreement. The small lot was never intended for joint use. Although the map signed by Mr. Wilson shows the small tot, the joint use agreement does not Include the small lot nor do any recorded documents include the small tot. He doesn’t understand why now, after 15 years, the City is asktng for revocation of this agreement. The documents were recorded. It was never the intention of Dr. Murphy to encumber the small tot because that would mean it could never be developed. There being no other persons desiring lo address the Board on thii topic, Chairperson Welshons declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Board members. After discussion, several Board members commented that it looks like the simplest way to resolve the conflict would be to revoke the agreement. ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duty seconded, to adopting Design Revew Board Resolution No. 245 revoking approval of joint parklng and a 15% reduction for common parking facilltles for two existing commercial centers (known as the Murphy Old World Center and the Wilson Roosevelt Center) located north of Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Madiwn Street in the Village Redevelopment Area, Including the following changes: (1) correction of the title in Resolutton No. 245 replacing the words %?commending revocation of’ with “revoking:’ (2) including a new Finding #l that the project is a minor projti as described in Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and (3) renumbering of the remaining five findings, VOTE: 50 AYES: Compas, Maquer, Savaty, Vessey, Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next scheduled meeting of the Design Review 8oard is February 21,1996. . r, . 63u 9L&. c2czt22 x- t$& -&d32UU8 f643) JK%Y-4’ L!hTk.Lk APRIL 4, IQ96 M -+ CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAYOR MR. LEWIS MAY I INTRODUCE MYSELF. MY NAME IS MICHAEL KEVIN MURPHY. I AM THE OWNER OF THE OLD WORLD CENTRE. I AM THE MURPHY OF THE WILSON/MURPHY JOINT USE PARKING FACILITY THAT IS APPEALING THE REVOCATION OF THE RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT TO BE HEARD ON APRIL 9, 1996. 1 BESEECH YOU TO REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE THE HISTORY OF THIS RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT. THE RESULT WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE Cm CONDITIONED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THE EXECUTION OF A RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT. MURPHY AND WILSON SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. BOTH MURPHY AND WILSON WERE REPRESENTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS’. WILSON’S’ A-ITORNEY DID NOT ABROGATE WILSON FROM SIGNING THE AGREEMENT. WILSON FOUND THE AGREEMENT AUSPICIOUS AS EVIDENCED BY HIS SIGNATURE. THE CITY REVIEWED THE AGREEMENT, GRANTED MURPHY A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY I 7. 1980, THEREAFTER THE DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. IN SEPTEMBER 1980, SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THE CITES’ REVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT, WILSON REQUESTED A I 5% PARKING REDUCTION VIS A VIS THE RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT. THE CITY APPROVED THE REQUEST. THE CITY NOW REVOKES THE AGREEMENT SIXTEEN YEARS LATER. THIS UNEXPLAINED DELAY AND NEGLECT TO ENFORCE AN ACTION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN 1980, THAT NOW CAUSES MURPHY TO BE DISADVANTAGED AND DEFENSELESS, , IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I .- h ‘*- . t . ’ *g+ THE TAXPAYERS SHOULD LIKE TO KNOW THEY WILL BE FINANCING A VOYAGE TO COURT TO DEFEND WHY THE CITY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER, AND THE RESULT OF CORRECTING WHAT THE CITY PERCEIVES TO BE A MISTAKE IS ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO A PROPERTY OWNER AND NEIGHBORING BUSINESS’S. I ASK You TO REJECT THE REVOCATION OF THE RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT. RESPECTFULLY MICHAEL KEVIN MURPHY L MKMM Cc: JIM FERGUSON: SPARER, FERGUSON, NAUMANN, PONDER & RYAN 2 ..- -- ” _. * . . 6’ :” / * h * AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PARKING FACILITIES AND GRANT OF RECIPROCAL PARKlNG EASEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made thisl4th day of February I and 1980, between HOWARD F. MURPHY/BARBARA M. MURPHY,X%%q>. X!IK!XZXX (hereinafter referred to as Party A) and ROBERT W. WILSON and SHARdN L. WILSON (hereinafter referred to as Party B), both of Carlsbad, California. RECITALS 1 --------I WHEREAS, the parties own adjoining parcels of real estate in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: 1. Parcel A is owned by Party A and is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. Parcel B is owned by Party B and is described in Exhibit "B" attac,hed hereto. WHEREAS, Party A has constructed a commercial building, including a restaurant on Parcel A. The principals of Party B are developing Parcel B as a shopping and professional complex, which also includes a restaurant. ',.. WHEREAS, Section 21.44.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for Che joint use of parking facilities i.n certain circumstances. In this case, the restaurant operations on a Parcel A, and Parcel B have been determined to be primarily a nighttime use. Therefore, under the terms of the ordinance a portion of the parking spaces on Parcel A may be made available to satisfy the nighttime parking requirement on Parcel B, which has been classified primarily as a daytime use; and a portion of the parking spaces on Parcel B may be made available to satisfy the -. . a:. . . *.e -l- Exhibit 1. - ___ _ jQyJE4cEQ p cpYrJCI(- j?y fv\ICtf&&‘L yL\ clRPd7 47 cA”IJCLL MCET/F’G JJ i/7/76, \ .* -, ‘1, v . . .,- . L . . a” l , l .- nighttim& parking requirement on Parcel jr, which has been classi- fied primarily as a daytime use; and WHEREAS, Party..+A and Party B have asked that the City of Carlsbad approve said joint use of parking facilities in order to facilitate the planned development, it is a condition of such approval that the parties exchange mutual agreements and covenants and easements to insure that the parking spaces will be availabl,-? in the'future. The joint parking facilities are more particularly described in Exhibit !'C" and shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties covenant and agree for themselves, and their heirs, successors and assigns as follows: 1. Party A hereby grants to Party B, and to all tenants and licensees of Parcel B, or any part thereof and their business invitees and licensees a non-exclusive easement to use the parking areas, including entrances, exits, driveways and walks encompassed within the area described in Exhibit "C", in common with Party A and all tenants and licensees of Parcel A. Provided, and %$?$? that Party B shall require employees e& his tenants to utilize only parking spaces within Party B's parcel. 2. Party B hereby grants to Party A and to all tenants and licensees of Parcel A, in any part thereof and their . . business invitees and licensees, a non-exclusive easement to use the parking areas, including entrances, exits, driveways and walks encompassed within the area described in Exhibit "C", in common with Party B and all tenants and licensees Parcel B. and Provided, that Party A shall require employees ~8 <is tenants to utilize only parking spaces within Party A's parcel. 3. The parties hereto agree that %hese easements may not be extinguished, or modified without the written consent of the City of Carls'bad and each Party agrees that the City of . I -2- _ ,_. _- _ - - . - . . ..-.__ ___ _. . . .- _.-- Carlsbad shall Iii\\ e t;he rlcj’?t to enfo.'.ce these. cc,v*;nantu. 4. Each party, at !;is own eXt’f.?il.Xt?. ii-1 A 1 1 ma i n cg~ in ') and keep in good rcy.air the aforesaid parking ,.~reas, entrances, exits, driveways a!ld walks located within his I>arcIi and shall keep such areas free of rubbish and obstructions of every nature and shall provide adequate lighting thereon, except that Party A shall,. in addition, maintain and keep in good repair the southerly thirty-two (32) feet of Party B's parcel between Madison and Roosevelt Streets. 5. Neither party shall construct, or permitcon- struction of any structure on parking area within his parcel which will reduce in any way the available parking areas as delineated on Exhibit "D". 6. The easements hereby granted and the agreement contained herein shall be easements and covenants running with land and shall enure to- t5e 3enefit of, and bind1r.g upon, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns, including all subsequent owners of Parcels A ani'i B and all persons claiming under them. IN WIT?;LSS WHEREOF, the parties heret:, have executed this Agrement at Carlsba-l, Zalifcrnia, the day anti year First above written. -3- _ __-. _. . -,(, :‘;?g *’ 7 i- - . T. ,. - ;. * . . 0 ,’ 4’ ‘4 Legal Description For: Date; Murphy/Wilson Parking Lot July 26, 1978 Coxrmencing at the intersection of the Northwest line of said Lot 35'bFth the East line 'of Second Street (Roosevelt Street, 25.00 foot half width) as shown on said Map No. 1722; thence along said Northwest line Ncrth 55°27'()O" East, 8.00.feet to an intersection with the East Line of Roosevelt Srreet (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line South 34'33'00" East, 65.0 feet more or less to the True Point of Begin- nin ; or f thence leaving said East line North 55°27'OO" East, 24.0 feet more ess; thence South 34 33'00" East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence North 55°27'OO" East, 20.0 feet more or less; thence South 34'33'00" East, 96.5 feet more or less; thence North 55'27'00" East, 98.0 feet more or less; thence South 34O33'00" East, 18.0 feet more or less; thence North 55'27'00" East, 185.5 feet more or less to an intersection wLth the West line of Madison Street (70.00 feet wide); thence along said West line South 34O33'00" East, 205.5 feet more or less to the bcgi.nning of a Fangen! 25.00 foot radius curve concave Nort!lwesterly; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly along the arc of saFd curve through a central angle of 75’44’07” a distance of 33.05 feet to an intersection with the North line of Grand Avenue (100.00 feet wide) as shown on said Map No. 535, a radial line to said intersection bears South 48'48'53" East; thence leaving said curve along said North line South 55'27'00" West, 136.5 feet more or less; thence leaving said North line North 34'33'00" West, 59.0 feet more or less; thence South 55'27'00" West, 79.0 feet more or less; thence North 34O33'00" West, 43.0 feet more or less; thence SO:J*\ 55“2? ’ 03” W2s t , 93.0 feet more or less to an intersection with the Easi’line of Roosevelt Street (33.00 foot half width); thence along said East line North 34O33'00" West, 263.5 feet more or less to the True Point of i5eginning. . EiLi &’ cl-’ ; 3hV ONV13 --I-- -- -. _.__----_.-__--____._~-_- .- , /. ! I . i. f . i ‘. 1;. ‘I,:- 1, . ‘# b :I _ ,~ _e.-. - ---f--- --?- G i 3 !r) / 1 j / ! I 1 1 ! ’ I!!? 11 ’ i : +-4+j+- b, / I ’ I? i v , i !i! ; i i .a.\,-&*mr*-M 11 ,I: j jl-j !, .I’ i y 3 ,: B , / !.;I! ; L ,:. t-7 ( > I I---- :I--- f -t- ----?----- -- -+- / , Ii ‘, ij. .j: / ; It^-‘; Ii :, 1 I ! i t I 1 1. .‘j/ r I: j 1.1, ii, : 1 I ! .I I 1 I/ / i. ( I i ’ ‘1 I i 1 ‘4 (/’ I I ,p; i - !t i i- i-l I 1 I ---___i ._---- -. - QW --- _ -.- “V EXHISIT .- _.. . - i