HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-25; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 347; KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17/CDP 00-51HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - A
AB# 347 m:
MTG.
DEPT. HIRED CITY MGR %
6-25-02 KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD
RP 00-17lCDP 00-51 CITY ATTY.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No&, APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 00-51) with a
variance for a front yard building setback which exceeds the maximum standard range for the
KFCKaco Bell Rebuild as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On April 29, 2002, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a major
existing fast food restaurant and drive-thru facility at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive. The .48 acre site is
redevelopment permit and coastal development permit for the demolition and reconstruction of an
of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed project consists of the complete
located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison Street in Land Use District 1
demolition of the existing 2,000 square foot building and drive-thru facility currently operated by
KFCnaco Bell and the reconstruction of a new 3,200 square foot building with associated drive-thru
further east on the subject property. The benefits associated with the redevelopment of the subject
property include improved on-site circulation and the construction of a new building with a design that
is consistent with the Village scale and character.
Circulation Improvements
The new site design layout provides two improvements to on-site circulation. First, the new site
design layout will provide greater stacking distance on the property for cars utilizing the drive-thru
facility. The proposed design increases the number of vehicles which can be waiting in the drive-thru
lane entirely on-site from 5 to 9 vehicles. This will greatly reduce the likelihood of drive-thru traffic
spilling over onto Madison Street during high peak times, as is the common occurrence with the
present site configuration.
The current site design does not lend itself to the efficient flow of traffic and results in traffic conflicts
along Madison Street where the drive-thru lane doubles as the ingress lane (from Madison Street)
and crosses the path of travel of vehicles exiting the site (onto Madison Street). Additionally, the
present site design does not regulate the amount of vehicles utilizing the alley for ingress and
and egress lanes for patrons parking on-site and a separate drive-thru lane. Furthermore, the design
egress. The proposed site design better regulates on-site circulation by providing separate ingress
together with the separation of traffic flow patterns greatly improves on-site circulation and eliminates
limits alley use to only those patrons exiting the drive-thru. The greater stacking distance on-site
the circulation conflicts that currently occur at the Madison Street entrance.
Villaae Scale and Character Desian
Traditionally, building design challenges are greater when dealing with a use in which the
architecture of the building is directly tied to a corporate image or identification. The typical building
designs of the more well-known fast food restaurants are a good example of corporate identification.
One of the greatest challenges associated with the proposed project was the creation of a building
design that was unique to the site, architecturally pleasing, and conducive to the Village scale and
character. The proposed building design is unique to the site and does not look like any other
"typical" KFCKaco Bell restaurant. The building design was created through the incorporation of
required development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan to achieve the desired Village
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 347
scale and several design elements recommended in the Village Design Guidelines to achieve the
desired Village character.
DRB Recommendation
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board voted 3-2 (Marquez and Baker opposing) to
recommend approval of the project as proposed to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
the property. Board members Marquez and Baker both opposed the project because they felt the
with findings to grant a variance for the front- yard building setback to exceed the maximum range for
reconstruction of the drive-thru contradicts the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan, which encourages pedestrian-oriented uses. Comments provided by the Board
members on the proposed project are provided in the attached draft minutes of the April 2gth
meeting. The approving resolutions along with the Design Review Board staff report are also
attached for the Commission's review.
Public Comments
the Design Review Board hearing. Mr. Siegel expressed concern that the proposed drive-thru
Mr. Gene Siegel, owner of the property across the alley on the east side of the subject site, spoke at
egress would impact access to customer and employee parking located behind the commercial
center on his property. However, following further discussion on this matter, Mr. Siegel indicated his
willingness to accept staffs explanation and accept that the new design would be a benefit over the
existing condition where vehicles utilize the alley for both drive-thru and vehicular ingress and egress
for parking at the KFCnaco Bell site. Mr. Siegel also stated overall he was supportive of the physical
improvements being made on the adjacent property as a result of the proposed redevelopment
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project
has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized
area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were received on
the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is
included in the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
County reassessment will result in an increase in tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency.
Redevelopment Agency. First, it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the site and subsequent
Secondly, the more efficient use of the property and expansion of the building are anticipated to
other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings,
result in higher sales tax generation. Finally, redevelopment of the site may serve as a catalyst for
through the aesthetic improvement of the existing property.
EXHIBITS:
A. Design Review Board Resolutions No. 283 and 284 dated April 29, 2002
C. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated April 29, 2002
B. Design Review Board Staff Report dated April 29, 2002, w/attachments
D. Resolution No. 355
2
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 355
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP 00-17 AND
VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT
CAFUSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: TRICON GLOBAL RESTAURANTS
CASE NO: RP 00-l7/CDP 00-5 1
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP 00-51, INCLUDING A
AND DRIVE-THRU FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745
WHEREAS, on April 29,2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 00-51) for the demolition and reconstruction of an existing fast
food restaurant and drive-thru facility on property located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive and
adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 283 and 284 recommending to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 00-51) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 00-5 I); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the
front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance for the
front yard setback which exceeds the standard range; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 1
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RF' 00-17) and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 00-51) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review
Board contained in Resolutions No. 283 and 284, on file in the City Clerk's Office and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission except as modified below:
A. The drive-thru cover shall be eliminated or redesigned and reduced in size
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director; and
B. An outdoor dining area shall be provided and incorporated into the project
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby approves
the environmental determination. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the
environmental determination reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 2
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1 .l6. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court
not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed
in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or hidher attorney of record, if he/she has
one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with
the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25‘h day of
June, 2002 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Nygaard, Hall
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: Commissioners Kulchin, Finn’
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 3
Exhibit A
Design Review Board
Resolutions No. 283 & 284
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
It
15
1E
1s
2c
21
22
2?
24
25
2t
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 283
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMlT NUMBER RP 00-17, INCLUDING A
VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND
DRIVE-THRU FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KFCRACO BELL REBUILD
APN: 203-351-18
CASE NO: RP 00-17
WHEREAS, A & S Engineering, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tricon Global
Restaurants, “Owner”, described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3339, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated April 29, 2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “KFCiTaco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 29‘h day of April 2002, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“KFCiTaco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
4
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
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or reconstruction of a
pre-existing structure on the same site) of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this
determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2
of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a front yard setback variance, is in conformance with the
Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth
in the staff report dated April 29,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provides
for the reconstruction of a legally existing fast food restaurant use in an
appropriate location within the Village.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that it provides for the reconstruction of a legally existing
fast food restaurant use which is classified as a provisional use in Land Use
District 1. Reconstruction of the nonconforming drive-thru component of the
restaurant is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan in that
incidental reconstruction of nonconforming uses is permitted so long as the
project conforms to the current development standards and reconstruction
does not constitute expansion or intensification of the nonconforming use,
which in this case is the drive-thru. Since no additional drive-thru windows
or additional alternate circulation routes providing access to a second drive-
tbru window are being provided, the proposed project does not constitute an
expansion or intensification of the non-conforming use.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for
Land Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the
exception of the requested variance.
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way bas been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -2- 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned
to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area
and the City’s Landscape Manual.
3. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a variance for a front yard
setback that exceeds the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that the subject property fronts on Carlsbad Village Drive, which is a secondary
arterial. City Engineering standards permit access onto a secondary arterial
only when no other access to the property is available. Therefore, vehicular
access to the subject property is limited to Madison Street (on the west) and the
adjoining alley (on the east). The site design of the project is further dictated by
other Engineering standards for drive-thru queuing distance (Le. stacking
distance on-site) and sight distance from intersections which requires the drive-
thru egress to he setback 35 feet from Carlsbad Village Drive in order to create
adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the alley.
Finally, the site design layout and location of the drive-thru on the subject
property is regulated by the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, which requires vehicle-oriented uses to be subordinate to the building
so they are less visible from adjacent public streets. Staff reviewed several site
design layouts and the proposed site design is the only alternative that complies
with City Engineering standards and the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The proposed location of the drive-thru egress onto the alley further
dictates the layout of the remainder of the building, which results in the front of
the building being setback 26 feet from front property line.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
unique condition associated with the subject property is its location adjacent to a
secondary arterial (Carlsbad Village Drive), which prevents vehicular access
when other options for access are available. Vehicular access to the subject
property is limited to Madison Street and the adjacent alley to the east. The site
is further constrained by City Engineering standards for queuing distance and
sight distance and the Village Design Manual which requires the drive-thru
facility to be designed in such a way as to have minimum visibility from the
public streets. These provisions set the parameters for the drive-tbru egress onto
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -3- b
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the alley in the proposed location. The location of the drive-thru egress further
dictates the location of the pick up window and its location in relation to the
front of the building.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will
not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the additional
setback is necessary to create adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with
vehicles turning right onto the alley.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In this case, vehicular ingress and egress of the subject
property is limited by both City Engineering standards and the Village
Redevelopment Design Manual. The increased setback along the front of the
property is the result of a design constraint associated with improving driver
visibility and reducing conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the subject
property. The granting of the variance will not contradict, but rather help to
achieve one of the design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Area, which is
to reduce the visibility of vehicle-oriented uses such as drive-thru facilities.
e. An increased setback on the front of the property is justified because the project
is in a location where other buildings in the area have varying setbacks from
Carlsbad Village Drive which exceed the setback range and setting the structure
back to the desired standard supports a more preferred building layout that is
consistent with the Village Design Manual in that the drive-thru becomes less
visible from Carlsbad Village Drive.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not he
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -4- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval and the applicant is conditioned to execute a
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA) with the City for future
public improvements.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLANDOLAN FINDING:
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1.
2.
3.
4.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City’dAgency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
2f
27
2E
5.
6.
I.
8.
9.
10.
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agee to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -6- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
13. The final landscape plan shall include a mow strip around all turf areas.
Noticing Conditions:
14. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 283 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing
and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with
the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 20 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A”.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibit “J”. Any changes to the sign
plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director
prior to installation of such signs.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment and coastal development permit, must be met prior to
approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first.
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -1- IO
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
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materi: %Is to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
3. Developer shall install sight distance comdors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards.
FeedAgreements:
4. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subject property into the existing City of Carlsbad
Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
5. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on
the site plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer
impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code, respectively.
Grading:
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
7. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Coastal Conditions:
8. All grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1".
Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1'' to October 1'' of each
year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15" upon written approval of the
City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place
by October 1".
Dedicationflmorovements:
9. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -8- \\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
10. The northwest corner return shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage
based on a property line radius of 25 feet in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards as shown on the site plan.
11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the applicant shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP)”. The SWMP shall comply with current requirements and provisions
established by the City. The SWMP shall address measures to reduce to the
maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and
post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
said pollutants.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education
on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of
pollutants.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction BMPs in
perpetuity.
12. The applicant shall ensure that the shrubs shown within the vegetated swale on the
preliminary landscape plans are replaced with an appropriately selected species of
grass or other plant effective in the removal of pollutants. This revision shall be
reflected on the final landscape plans subject to City approval.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
- Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -9- \a
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
General:
3. This approval shall become null and voi d if bui ilding permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
4. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Eneineerine:
6.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feeskxactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feeskxactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
DIU3 RES0 NO. 283 -10- \3
f
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
14
15
1C
15
1E
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29” day of April 2002 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES: Heineman, Lawson, Paulsen
NOES: Marquez, Baker
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DESIGN REVIEI%bb%RD
ATTEST:
n b-J”> -
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -11-
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
21
28
A RES01
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 284
NTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 00-51, INCLUDING A VARIANCE
FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND DRIVE-THRU
FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KFCRACO BELL REBUILD
APN: 203-351-18
CASE NO: CDP 00-5 1
WHEREAS, A & S Engineering, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tricon Global
Restaurants, “Owner”, described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3339, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated April 29, 2002, on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department, “KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51” as provided by Chapter
21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 29th day of April 2002, 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 Board considered all factors
relating to “KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51 based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve
as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development involves
the replacement of a pre-existing structure on the same property, the development
does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone,
and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the
site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to
the shore.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes exist
within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion
control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
Conditions:
1.
2.
...
...
...
...
1..
...
...
This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 00-17 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 283 for that other
approval and is incorporated by reference herein.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
DRB RES0 NO. 284 -2-
I
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
15
1f
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES lT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of April 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Heineman, Lawson, Paulsen
NOES: Marquez, Baker
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DESIGN REVIEW
ATTEST:
m
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 284 -3-
Exhibit B
Design Review Board
Staff Report
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN .REVIEW BOARD
AD~IIcATIoN COMDIETESATE STAff: LORI ROSENSTE~~
DECEMbER 14, 2000 Dnvid Rick
ENViRONMENTAl REVIEW:
CATE~ORiCAl EXEMPTiON
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: April 29, 2002
SUBJECT: RP00-17KDP 00-51 - “KFCTTACO BELL REBUILD’: Request for a Major
RedeveloDment Permit and Coastal DeveloDment Permit to ailow the demolition
and reconstruction of an existing fast food restaurant and drive-thru facility
located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 283 and 284
recommending APPROVAL of RP 00-17 and CDP 00-51 based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, A & S Engineering, on behalf of the property owner, Tricon Global Restaurants,
demolition and reconstruction of an existing KFCiTaco Bell fast food restaurant located on the
has requested a major redevelopment permit and coastal development permit to allow the
southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison Street.
The existing KFC/Taco Bell restaurant consists of a 2,000 square foot building situated on the
Carlsbad Village Drive. The drive thru is located on the east side of the building and was added
northwest corner of the subject property with extensive landscaping along Madison Street and
following approval by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission in April of 1989. Immediately
east of the drive-thru are 20 parking spaces which serve the existing restaurant. The property
east, and a health clinic (North County Family Medicine) to the south.
is bordered by Carlsbad Village Drive to the north, Madison Street to the west, an alley to the
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing facility and replace it with a 3,201 square
foot building further east on the subject property. The new building location would afford
greater queuing distance for the drive-thru, thus permitting more stacking distance on the
property for cars utilizing the drive-thru facility. The existing drive-thru design blocks on-site
circulation and results in a spillover of cars onto Madison Street during high peak times. The
applicant is hoping to resolve this issue through the new site design. The proposed drive-thru
circulation provides a vehicular entrance off Madison Street that would run along the south
property line curving along the east side of the proposed building and exiting onto the adjacent
alley. A majority of the alley is 20 feet in width except for the portion that abuts the drive-thru
egress, which is 22 feet in width. The alley provides for two-way traffic.
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 2
Immediately adjacent to and north of the drive-thru entrance (off Madison Street) are two lanes
for ingress and egress of vehicles seeking to park on-site. A total of 20 new parking spaces,
including two disabled access spaces, are proposed on the west side of the building adjacent to
Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison Street. A 10-20 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed
along the north side of the proposed parking lot adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive. An 8.5-fOOt
wide planter is proposed on the west side of the proposed parking lot along Madison Street.
The proposed restaurant includes 61 seats within the building. No outdoor dining is proposed.
This project was originally heard at the Design Review Board meeting of August 27, 2001. At
that time staff was recommending denial of the project because the design was inconsistent
with the Village Design Guidelines. The August 27* hearing was continued without discussion
at the applicant’s request. Prior to the continuance the Board elected to hear from the property
owner to the east (across the alley). Mr. Gene Siegel owns the property at 755-795 Carlsbad
Village Drive. Four tenants currently occupy his building including a restaurant (AI’S Cafe), a
nail salon, a carpet retailer, and a drycleaners. There are 13 parking spaces in back of his
building with ingress and egress off the alley. Mr. Siegel’s concern is that the proposed drive-
thru egress, which is lined up directly across from his parking lot, will impact access to his
parking lot. Since the applicant was not present at the August 27, 2001 meeting, the Board
continued the meeting without discussion and asked staff to share Mr. Siegel’s concerns with
the applicant. The applicant‘s representatives were made aware of the concerns raised at the
August 27Ih meeting and staff has spoken to Mr. Siegel who stated he would be present at the
April 2gth meeting to reiterate his concerns. A copy of the Design Review Board minutes of the
August 27, 2001 meeting is attached for the Board’s review (see exhibit 5).
Following the August 27Ih hearing the property owner hired a new architect to redesign the
project in accordance with staff‘s recommendation. Staff finds the current proposed design to
and a recommended action by the Design Review Board.
be acceptable for further processing and is now bringing the entire project forward for review
111. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The subject property is located in the Village Redevelopment Area as well as the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, the discretionary review process requires a determination by the Design Review
design are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, the Village Redevelopment Plan, and the
Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land use and project
land use regulations, development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual (which also serves as the Local Coastal Program for the
Village Redevelopment Area).
The following discussion is provided to support the determination that the proposed project is
consistent with all applicable land use regulations, design and development standards, and
other requirements.
A. LAND USE CONSISTENCY
As noted above, the proposed project involves the demolition of an existing fast food restaurant
and the subsequent construction of a new larger fast food restaurant. The original construction
KFClTACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29.2002
PAGE 3
of the KFC restaurant occurred Drior to the adODtion of the Villaae RedeveloDment Plan (1 981 ).
In 1989, the Housing and Redeielopment Commission approved a Redevelopment Permit and
Coastal Development Permit for the addition of the drive-thru facility. The existing fast food
restaurant and the associated drive-thru are considered legally existing uses.
Under current regulations, as set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, a large
fast food restaurant (gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or more and greater than 50 seats) is
classified as a provisional use within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
However, drive-thru facilities are no longer permitted in the Village Redevelopment Area. As a
result, staff had some difficulty in determining whether or not the drive-thru facility could be
reconstructed with the proposed project. The fast food restaurant is allowed, but the drive-thru
is legal nonconforming under existing regulations. Currently, nonconforming uses are allowed
to remain with no time specific abatement period. However, a nonconforming use may not be
expanded or intensified. A determination has been made by the City Attorney’s office that the
single drive-thru may be reconstructed.
In the opinion of the City Attorney, since the KFC site itself is not being enlarged, and since no
additional drive-thru windows or additional alternate circulation routes providing access to a
second drive-thru window are being added, the proposed project does not constitute an
expansion or intensification of use. Therefore, it was determined that KFC should be allowed to
entirely demolish and rebuild their restaurant on the existing site since there is no indication that
this would increase the degree of nonconformity of the drive-thru use.
B. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 1 are as
follows:
a. Buildins Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the
front, rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 1, the front setback is
0-10 feet, however, there is no minimum or maximum setback requirement for the side and rear
yards. The exception to this rule is that parking lots must be set back a minimum of 5 feet from
any property line for landscape purposes. The proposed building is setback 26 feet from
Carlsbad Village Drive (front yard), 81 feet from Madison Street (side yard), 24 feet from the
alley along the west side of the property (side yard), and 31 feet from the adjacent property to
the south (rear yard). A landscape buffer is provided on all sides of the proposed parking lot
that varies from 3-6” to 15 feet in width. Overall, the project conforms to the setback standards
for District 1 with the exception of the front yard setback, which exceeds the maximum range.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance must be
the findings set forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition,
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Variances may only be granted if
a variance for a setback standard that exceeds the top of the range may only be granted if the
project meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 4
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body.
The first criterion noted above applies to the subject project. An increased setback on the front
of the property is justified because the project is in a location where other buildings in the area
have varying setbacks from Carlsbad Village Drive and setting the structure back to the desired
standard supports a more preferred building layout that is consistent with the Village Design
Manual in that the drive-thru becomes less visible from Carlsbad Village Drive.
exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for setback standards that
findings necessary to grant the requested variances. In order to approve the requested
variance to exceed the maximum setback on the front the property, the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make all four findings contained
within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the following justification for
granting the requested variances to exceed the setback standards:
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
Variance Findina #I: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: The subject property fronts on Carlsbad Village Drive,
which is a secondary arterial. City Engineering standards permit access onto a secondary
arterial only when no other access to the property is available. Therefore, vehicular access to
the subject property is limited to Madison Street (on the west) and the adjoining alley (on the
east). The site design of the project is further dictated by other Engineering standards for drive-
thru queuing distance (i.e. stacking distance on-site) and sight distance from intersections
which requires the drive-thru egress to be setback 35 feet from Carlsbad Village Drive in order
to create adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the alley.
by the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which requires vehicle-oriented
Finally, the site design layout and location of the drive-thru on the subject property is regulated
uses to be subordinate to the building so they are less visible from adjacent public streets.
Staff reviewed several site design layouts and the proposed site design is the only alternative
that complies with City Engineering standards and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed location of the drive-thru egress onto the alley further dictates the layout of the
remainder of the building, which results in the front of the building being setback 26 feet from
front property line.
Variance Findinu #2 There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The unique condition
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
associated with the subject property is its location adjacent to a secondary arterial (Carlsbad
Village Drive), which prevents vehicular access when other options for access are available.
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 5
Vehicular access to the subject property is limited to Madison Street and the adjacent alley to
the east. The site is further constrained by City Engineering standards for queuing distance
and sight distance and the Village Design Manual which requires the drive-thru facility to be
designed in such a way as to have minimum visibility from the public streets. These provisions
set the parameters for the drive-thru egress onto the alley in the proposed location. The
location of the drive-thru egress further dictates the location of the pick up window and its
location in relation to the front of the building.
Variance Findina #3 The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will not have a
detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the additional setback is necessary to
create adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the alley.
Variance Findina #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. In this case,
vehicular ingress and egress of the subject property is limited by both City Engineering
standards and the Village Redevelopment Design Manual. The increased setback along the
front of the property is the result of a design constraint associated with improving driver visibility
and reducing conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the subject property. The granting of the
variance will not contradict, but rather help to achieve one of the design guidelines of the Village
Redevelopment Area, which is to reduce the visibility of vehicle-oriented uses such as drive-thru
facilities.
Based on these variance findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow a building setback that exceeds the established range on the
front of the property.
b. Building Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all
projects in Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage
is 15.3%, which is below the established range. While the bottom of the range is considered
the desired standard, unlike the setback requirements, a variance is not required for building
coverage that is below the standard range. Therefore, the building coverage is in compliance
with the established standard.
c. Buildinq Heiqht: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum
512 roof pitch. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 25 feet with a majority of the
building being 18-19 feet in height. The building has varying rooflines with pitched roof features
(512) along all sides of the building. The project is consistent with the building height
standards set forth for District 1 and provides for the required 5:12 roof pitch in all appropriate
areas.
d. Open %ace: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 6
areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. The project, as proposed,
provides for a total of 21.9% of open space all of which is devoted to landscape area and is
consistent with the open space requirement.
e. Parking: The parking requirement for a fast food restaurant is one parking space for
every 200 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed building is 3,201 square feet and
therefore requires 16 parking spaces. There are 20 spaces proposed for the new project,
including two ADA accessible spaces, which meets the parking standard for the site. The new
drive-thru facility provides queuing area for 9 cars between the entrance and the pick-up
window without spilling over onto the adjacent Madison Street.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must incorporate a design that is
consistent with a village scale and character. The Design Review Board and the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made a
concerted effort to conform to ten (IO) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character,
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
IO. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character,
Staff has worked very closely with the project applicant to encourage a building design that is
both architecturally pleasing and conducive to the Village character, Historically, this has been
more difficult when working with a corporation where the design of the building is part of the
corporate image. However, from the first meeting with the property owner on this project staff
made it very clear that a standard KFCiTaco Bell building design will not be acceptable for the
area, because it would not be compatible with the Village character, The applicant was
informed that a building design unique to this particular site would be required. Staff reviewed
many different design alternatives for this site and at one point scheduled the project for a
Design Review Board hearing with a recommendation for denial because agreement could not
be reached on the design of the building. After a request by the applicant to continue the
hearing, a new architect was hired by the applicant at the recommendation of staff. Howard
Schuss of Schuss Clark Architectural Firm was hired by the applicant to create a new design for
the building. Mr. Schuss also designed the Pat and Oscar’s on Palomar Airport Road. After a
couple reiterations consensus was finally reached on the design of the project.
The proposed project is consistent with the ten design principles outlined above. The architect
has taken a use, which typically requires nothing more than a square building in which to
The project design is unique to the site and emphasizes both variety and diversity. Each of the
operate, and incorporated several design elements to achieve the desired Village character.
building facades incorporate desirable architectural elements such as varying roof heights on all
KFCITACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29.2002
PAGE 7
sides of the buildina. a clav tile roof. extended eaves with exDosed rafter tails, a cornice caD
along the top of the-parapei, and columns and archways along'the covered pedestrian walkway
and drive-thru. Additional architectural detail and color is added to the building through the use
of three shades of complimentary stucco colors, three shades of accent trim colors, wrought
iron accent treatment on the front of the building, decorative light fixtures, and red fabric
awnings above the windows. The project design provides for an overall informal character
while expressing the unique nature of the use and site location. The project incorporates an
abundance of informal landscaping along the perimeter of the property to enhance the
architectural design of the building and screen the parking at the corner of Carlsbad Village
Drive and Madison Street. It was staff's position that one of the assets of the existing
development on the subject property is the extensive mature and thriving landscaping at the
corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison Street. Staff worked with the applicant to
duplicate this on the proposed landscape plan. As a result, the owner will be transplanting 4
existing large palms along Madison Street and planting 8 large canopy trees along the
remainder of the perimeter of the property. Of the 8 large canopy trees, 5 will be 48" box and 3
will be 24" box, both of which are representative of mature landscaping. Finally, as discussed in
greater detail below, signage for the project is consistent with the sign standards for the Village
Redevelopment Area and appropriate to a village character. A summary of the design features
related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 3).
D. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE SIGN GUIDELINES
As indicated on the sign plan, the applicant is proposing one monument sign on the corner of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison Street, two externally-illuminated wall signs on the
Carlsbad Village Drive elevation (one KFC and one Taco Bell logo), two externally-illuminated
wall signs on the Madison Street elevation (one KFC and one Taco Bell logo), two small
externally-illuminated directional signs, and a 4 panel menu board.
a. Monument Siqn: The new monument sign will be in a similar location as the
existing monument sign, however, it will meet current sign regulations. That is, it will be no
more that 5 feet high with 24 square feet of sign area and it will be externally illuminated by
ground lights. The existing monument sign is internally illuminated which is no longer permitted
in the Village Redevelopment Area.
b. Wall Sians: The KFC wall signs measure 23.38 square feet each (4"2 x 5-7") and
the Taco Bell wall signs measure 25.15 square feet each (4"4" x 5-77. The total sign area of
all four wall signs is 97 square feet.
and stand 30 inches in height. The signs are not counted as part of the total sign area for the
c. Directional Sians: The directional signs measure approximately 3 square feet each
site. One directional sign will be placed along the south property line at the drive-thru entrance
and the other directional sign will be place along the alley at the drive-thru exit. The directional
signs are intended to direct on-site circulation and are not intended to be viewed from the
street.
d. Menu Board Siqn: The sign regulations set forth in the Carlsbad Village Master
would be based on the regulations adopted in the new sign ordinance for the City of Carlsbad.
Plan and Design Menu do not address menu board signs. Therefore, the applied standard
The new regulations permit drive-thru restaurants to have two 24 square foot menu boards per
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-SI
APRIL 29.2002
PAGE 8
site. The maximum height of the menu board is 6 feet above grade. Furthermore, menu
boards are allowed in adktion to other signs permitted for freestanding commercial bu’ildings.
Therefore, the sign area for the menu board is not counted towards the total sign area
permitted on the site. Due to the extensive list of menu items the applicant has elected to
combine the two permitted menu board signs into a single sign. The maximum combined sign
area is 48 square feet. The proposed menu board is consistent with the established standards
in that it is 46.9 square feet and 6 feet in height. The menu board can only be viewed from the
drive-thru area, it cannot be seen from the public streets.
The proposed building has 128 linear feet of street frontage, which translates into 128 square
feet of permitted sign area for the site. The total sign area proposed is 121 square feet, which
is below the 128 square feet allowed for the site. The proposed signs are consistent with the
sign regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of size, type and location
of the sign.
IV. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000. In
addition, since the subject property is located within the Coastal Zone a Coastal Development
Permit is also required. Both the Major Redevelopment Permit and the Coastal Development
Permit require a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permits requested, consider
the public testimony and staff’s recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested variance for a
front yard setback that exceeds the established range.
V. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
A. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The total projected average daily traffic (ADT) for the project is 2,080 ADT (3,201 sq ft bldg. x
650 ADT/1,000 sq ft), based on the most recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations. A
Traffic study was not required for the project because the increase in traffic above the traffic
warrant a study. Based on SANDAG generation rates, the traffic generated by the restaurant to
generations created by the existing restaurant to be demolished is not substantial enough to
be demolished is 1,510 ADT (2343 sq ft x 650 ADT/I000 sq ft). The new project will impose a
27% increase in traffic (570 ADT).
All frontage roadways are fully improved and capable of accommodating the projected traffic. No additional alterations are necessary. The project is designed such that all traffic exiting the
drive-thru will exit via the public alley located on the east side of the project site.
In addition, the drive-thru design is improved over that which exists today. The existing drive-
KFCmACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
thru lane has the ability to queue one vehicle between the pick-up window and the order board
and three to four vehicles at and before the order board. During peak hours, such as between
12 pm and 1 pm, vehicles will often queue into Madison Street. In addition, drivers waiting in
the drive-thru lane will often block the entryway for other customers wanting to enter the on-site
parking or exit the site onto Madison Street.
Under the proposed design, the new drive-thru window is located farther from the project
entrance and the drive-thru lane has been lengthened to accommodate additional queuing of
vehicles. The new site design will be able to accommodate four vehicles between the pick-up
window and order board and five vehicles at and before the order board. This increase in
queuing will reduce the likelihood of vehicles extending onto Madison Street. Furthermore, with
a wider driveway approach and driveway striping added, the drive-thru lane is clearly delineated
from the egress and ingress lanes for sit-down customers. Therefore, vehicles within the drive-
thru lane are not expected to disrupt traffic flow in and out of the parking lot.
B. SEWER
The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) required for the project is 11.52
(2.67 EDU plus 1 .OO per each 7 seats or fraction thereof = 2.67 + 62 seatsn = 11.52 EDU’s)
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will provide sewer service to the project. Sewer facilities
exist in Madison Street. The developer will extend a lateral to Madison Street. A bypass lateral
will connect with a grease interceptor underneath the parking lot as required per the Uniform
Building Code.
C. WATER
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will provide water service to the site. The proposed
water usage for the project equates to 253 gallons per day (GPD) (220 gpdledu x 11.52 edu’s). No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. The proposed project will
utilize the existing water service line and meter. A separate water line and backflow device will
service the fire sprinklers.
D. SOILS & GRADING
There are no major grading issues associated with this project. However, based on the
quantities of grading, this project is subject to a grading permit. Grading for the project will
involve 52 cubic yards of cut and 366 cubic yards of fill with 314 cubic yards of material being
imported. A grading permit will be required for the proposed grading. A soils report will be
submitted with the application for grading plan check.
E. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
A majority of the parking lot and drive-thru drainage will flow to a vegetated swale located
along the south side of the property. The intent of the vegetated swale is to collect polluted
storm water runoff and filter this water prior to discharging it to an inlet at the southwest corner
of the property. The inlet will be equipped with a filter to provide further filtration. The inlet will
direct discharge to the curb on Madison Street via two three-inch diameter drainpipes.
a7
KFWACO BELL REBUILD - RP 00-17KDP 00-51
APRIL 29,2002
F. LAND TITLE
title. An easement dedication for public right-of-way is being offered at the northwest corner of
There are no conflicts with existing on-site easements and the site boundary coincides with land
the property. The property line radius will be 25 feet. No other dedications are required since
all other portions of street frontage right-of-way are at their ultimate width.
G. IMPROVEMENTS
No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. All street frontage
improvements are in place. A new driveway approach will be constructed on Madison Street
and a streetlight will be relocated due to its alignment with the new driveway.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15302 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as the replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on
the same site.
VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the site and
subsequent County reassessment will result in a slight increase in tax increment to the
building are anticipated to result in higher sales tax generation. Finally, redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Agency. Secondly, the more efficient use of the property and expansion of the
site may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or
rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the aesthetic improvement of the existing property.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for a front yard
setback that exceeds the maximum standard allowed. Redevelopment of the site will have a
positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling
the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by improving on-site
circulation, reducing pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the adjoining streets, and replacing the
existing dated building with a design that is consistent with the desired Village character.
EXHIBITS:
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 284 recommending approval of CDP 00-51.
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 283 recommending approval of RP 00-17.
3. Location Map
4. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
5. Design Review Board Minutes of August 27, 2001.
6. Exhibits "A-J", dated April 29, 2002, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit 1
DRB Resolution No. 283
for
RP00-17
(
I
1(
1:
1:
1:
1r
I!
1t
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 283
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE ClTY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXI” STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 00-17, INCLUDING A
Dm-THRU FACILlTY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRTVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILlTIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KFCITACO BELL REBUILD
APN 203-351-18
CASE NO: RP 00-17
1 WHEREAS, A & S Engineering, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
2 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tricon Global
3 Restaurants, “Owner”, described as
t Lots 11 thru 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 535,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,1888
I (“the Property”); and
1 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Pennit, as
1 shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated April 29, 2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and !
,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 29* day of April 2002, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“KFCITaco Bell Rebuild RF’ 00-17”.
1
L
1 -
t
I
E
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KFCRaco Bell Rebuild RP 00-17,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or reconstruction of a
pre-existing structure on the same site) of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this
determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2
of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for a front yard setback variance, is in conformance with the.
Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth
in the staff report dated April 29,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provides
for the reconstruction of a legally existing fast food restaurant use in an
appropriate location within the Village.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that it provides for the reconstruction of a legally existing
fast food restaurant use which is classified as a provisional use in Land Use
District 1. Reconstruction of the nonconforming drive-thru component of the
restaurant is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan in that
incidental reconstruction of nonconforming uses is permitted so long as the
project conforms to the current development standards and reconstruction
does not constitute expansion or intensification of the nonconforming use,
which in this case is the drive-thru. Since no additional drive-thru windows
or additional alternate circulation routes providing access to a second drive-
thru window are being provided, the proposed project does not constitute an
expansion or intensification of the non-conforming use.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for
Land Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the
exception of the requested variance.
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -2- 3t
1
t
8
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
15
It
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned
to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area
and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a variance for a front yard
setback that exceeds the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that the subject property fronts on Carlsbad Village Drive, which is a secondary
arterial. City Engineering standards permit access onto a secondary arterial
only when no other access to the property is available. Therefore, vehicular
access to the subject property is limited to Madison Street (on the west) and the
adjoining alley (on the east). The site design of the project is further dictated by
other Engineering standards for drive-thru queuing distance (i.e. stacking
distance on-site) and sight distance from intersections which requires the drive-
thru egress to be setback 35 feet from Carlsbad Village Drive in order to create
adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the alley.
Finally, the site design layout and location of the drive-thru on the subject
property is regulated by the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, which requires vehicle-oriented uses to be subordinate to the building
so they are less visible from adjacent public streets. Staff reviewed several site
design layouts and the proposed site design is the only alternative that complies
with City Engineering standards and the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The proposed location of the drive-thru egress onto the alley further
dictates the layout of the remainder of the building, which results in the front of
the building being setback 26 feet from front property line.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
unique condition associated with the subject property is its location adjacent to a
secondary arterial (Carlsbad Village Drive), which prevents vehicular access
when other options for access are available. Vehicular access to the subject
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -3-
1
I
1
1
t
I
5
1(
11
1;
1:
1L
1:
1t
1;
18
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
property is limited to Madison Street and the adjacent alley to the east. The site
is further constrained by City Engineering standards for queuing distance and
sight distance and the Village Design Manual which requires the drive-thru
facility to be designed in such a way as to have minimum visibility from the
public streets. These provisions set the parameters for the drive-thru egress onto
the alley in the proposed location. The location of the drive-thru egress further
dictates the location of the pick up window and its location in relation to the
front of the building.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will
not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the additional
setback is necessary to create adequate visibility and reduce conflicts with
vehicles turning right onto the alley.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. In this case, vehicular ingress and egress of the subject
property is limited by both City Engineering standards and the Village
Redevelopment Design Manual. The increased setback along the front of the
property is the result of a design constraint associated with improving driver
visibility and reducing conflicts with vehicles turning right onto the subject
property. The granting of the variance will not contradict, but rather help to
achieve one of the design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Area, which is
to reduce the visibility of vehicle-oriented uses such as drive-thru facilities.
e. An increased setback on the front of the property is justified because the project
is in a location where other buildings in the area have varying setbacks from
Carlsbad Village Drive which exceed the setback range and setting the structure
back to the desired standard supports a more preferred building layout that is
consistent with the Village Design Manual in that the drive-thru becomes less
visible from Carlsbad Village Drive.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -4- 33
11
1
1:
1:
Id
1:
1(
1:
It
15
2(
21
2;
2?
24
25
26
21
28
a.
b.
C.
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not bc
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewel
service is -available,-and building cannot~accur -within dhe project unles!
sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that thc
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have beer
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required a!
conditions of approval and the applicant is conditioned to execute 2
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement VIA) with the City for futura
public improvements.
The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Develope~
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City’dAgency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -5-
1
I:
L
1
f - 1
E
5
1c
11
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66820. If any~suchzondltion is determined~to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -6-
1
!
1(
lj
1:
1:
1L
1:
1f
1;
18
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
13. The final landscape plan shall include a mow strip around all turf areas.
Noticing Conditions:
14. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 283 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing
and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with
the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 20 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A”.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibit “J”. Any changes to the sign
plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director
prior to installation of such signs.
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -7-
I
I
!
1(
11
1:
1:
14
15
1c
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon tk
approval of this proposed redevelopment and coastal development permit, must be met prior t
approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction sit
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Enginec
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements c
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program i
formally established by the City.
3. Developer shall install sight distance comdors at all street intersections in accordanc
with Engineering Standards.
FeedAgreernents:
4. prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shd
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the are
shown within the 'boundaries of the subject property into the existing City of Carlsba,
Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
5. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown or
the site plan are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewe
impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code, respectively.
Grading:
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs firs1
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the sta
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
7. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the sit1
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain ~
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for thl
project.
Coastal Conditions:
8. All grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1''
Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1" to October 1" of eacl
year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15" upon written approval of thl
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -8-
le
:0
;e
:r
,f
IS
e
I1
a
d
1
r
1,
t
e
a
e
t
1
m "
37
I
I
4
1(
1:
1:
1:
lr
I!
It
1;
1t
15
2(
21
2;
2:
24
25
26
27
28
City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place
by October 1”.
9. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
10. The northwest comer return shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage
based on a property line radius of 25 feet in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards as shown on the site plan.
11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the applicant shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP)”. The SWMP shall comply with current requirements and provisions
established by the City. The SWMP shall address measures to reduce to the
maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and
post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
said pollutants.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education
on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of
pollutants.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construction BMPs in
perpetuity.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall process an adjustment
plat to consolidate Lots 11,12,13,14,15 and 16 of Block 48 of Map No. 535 into one
parcel.
13. The applicant shall ensure that the shrubs shown within the vegetated swale on the
preliminary landscape plans are replaced with an appropriately selected species of
grass or other plant effective in the removal of pollutants. This revision shall be
reflected on the final landscape plans subject to City approval.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -9-
I
I
!
I(
11
1:
1:
1L
12
1t
li
16
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #I special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If‘ the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
4. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Engineering:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure. to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
11 DRB RES0 NO. 283 -10- 39
1
f
I
<
I(
11
1:
1:
14
1:
1C
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise ~-exf)ired--~ ~~ ~
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29a day of April 2002 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SARAH MARQUEZ, VICE CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 283 -11-
Exhibit 2
DRB#Resolution No. 284
for
CDP00-51
1
t
8
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
12
1C
li
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 284
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMlT NUMBER RP 00-51, INCLUDING A VARIANCE
FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAX”
STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION
FAClLITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: KFCRACO BELL REBUILD
APN 203-351-18
CASE NO: CDP 00-5 1
OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND DRIVE-THRU
WHEREAS, A & S Engineering, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Tricon Global
Restaurants, “Owner”, described as
Lots 11 thru 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 535,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,1888
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated April 29, 2002, on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department, “KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51” as provided by Chapter
21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 29th day of April 2002, 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 Board considered all factors
relating to “KFC/Taco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51”.
1
1
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
14
15
1f
1;
18
IS
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of KFCmaco Bell Rebuild CDP 00-51 based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve
as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development involves
the replacement of a pre-existing structure on the same property, the development
does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone,
and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the
site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to
the shore.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes exist
within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion
control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 00-17 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 283 for that other
approval and is incorporated by reference herein.
2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
...
...
...
...
11 DRB RES0 NO. 284 -2-
<
1
t
t
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
1:
1C
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES lT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of April 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SARAH MARQUEZ, VICE CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 284 -3-
Exhibit 3
Location Map
KFCKACO BELL REBUILD
RP 00-17KDP 00-51
Exhibit 4
Village Master Plan
Design Guidelines
Checklist
47
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
The project maintains a 26 setback on Carlsbad
Village Drive, but incorporates two tower elements
into the front facade that give the perception of
varying setbacks. The Madison Street elevation
has varying setbacks broken up by columns and a
covered walkway.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
The project is not proposing any benches or low
walls along the front of the project; however, the
City maintains a public bench on the sidewalk
adjacent to Carlsbad Village Dr. directly in front of
the subject property
The proposed project does not change the land
use that exists today. The proposed project will
not conflict with retail continuity.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
It has been determined that the existing drive-thru
may be rebuilt. However, the new drive-thru
location will greatly improve the pedestrian-
vehicular circulation on the subject property from
that which currently exists. Also the drive-thru as
been designed to be less visible from the public
streets.
There are no residential uses located to either side
of the proposed project.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-street
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along all sides of the building
will provide for an informal setting.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
of the project as viewed from the public streets. Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
incorporated into the project to enhance the look Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
however, extensive landscaping has been landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
The project fronts on Carlsbad Village Drive;
Parking and Access:
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Landscaping is provided on all sides of the
proposed parking lot and creates a nice buffer
between the parking area and Carlsbad Village
Drive and Madison Street.
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever alley to provide for efficient and effective
The proposed drive-thru exits onto the adjacent
possible. circulation.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
visible from the public streets, the parking cannot
To accommodate the drive-thru and make it less
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
Darkina maces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
SteD taller buildinas back at umer levels.
~ ~~~ ~~
Break large buildings into smaller units.
~~~ ~
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
I be located at the rear of the property.
All areas not required for parking spaces and
driveway aisles have been landscaped.
There is no parking proposed in the front setback
area. The IO-foot setback between the parking
and the front property line is landscaped.
There are no curb cuts proposed along Carlsbad
Village Drive and the curb cut along Madison
Street is the minimum width permitted for vehicular
ingress and egress.
In order to improve the vehicular/pedestrian
circulation associated with the drive-thru and make
the drive-thru less visible from the public streets,
parking was placed at the corner of Madison
Street and Carlsbad Village Drive. Extensive
mature landscaping is proposed for the Carlsbad
Village Drive and Madison Street corner to screen
the proposed parking area.
A 10-15 foot wide landscaped area is provided
along Carlsbad Village Drive and a 8""' landscape
area is provided along Madison Street to screen
the parking lot from adjacent sidewalks.
No portion of the ground floor space of the
building is devoted to parking.
It is not feasible to provide parking below grade.
Landscaping will be used to screen the parking
area; however, no enhanced paving is being
proposed.
The proposed building has been designed
specifically for this location in accordance with the
Village Design Manual and is not a generic copy of
other KFC/Taco Bell buildings.
The proposed building is single story.
The building is small in size and does not warrant
being broken up into smaller units.
The height of the building is fairly consistent with
other commercial buildings on adjacent properties.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
2
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Buildini Facades:
l%,ili,i , , , ,, , , ,I , ,,,,, ,, , , ,,I ;x,, ,, ,,, ,
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
~~~~ ~
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
is not trendy or "look at me" in design.
Roof features with the minimum 5:12 pitch have
been provided throughout the exterior of the
project.
The project design does not lend itself to the use
of dormers.
The project provides an authentic clay tile roof
which is consistent with the architectural design
intended for the area.
Flat roofs are avoided wherever possible.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
By providing for attractive facades and
Visual interest is added to the building through
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project makes
good use of archways, extended eaves, exposed
rafter tails, varying roof heights, colorful fabric
awnings, decorative exterior lighting, and
landscaping.
The sizes of the proposed windows are
appropriate for the intended use.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections that will create shadows and contrast
along all sides.
While the building is a single story, signage and
decorative arches have been added above the
entry doors to provide architectural interest.
There are no entries proposed above the ground
floor.
Detail elements have been incorporated into all
sides of the building which include; various stucco
colors, colorful fabric awnings above ground floor
windows, decorative arches, wrought iron
ornamentation, and decorative exterior lights.
3
materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carDetina: distressed wood of any tvDe
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
l..illll:'":ill!l, %I, ,,,lj4jlifi P,,t!l!l,,, , , ,, , ,,>, , , Commercial Storefronts:
,,
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows,
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings.
4
The materials and colors proposed for the
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize a stucco finish of varying
neutral colors.
At this time, none of the noted materials have
been indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Aluminum frame windows will be utilized.
All awnings will be fabric material.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates 3 stucco colors and three
accent trim colors.
Glazing is provided along the ground floor.
Faqade projections, varying roof heights, columns,
covered walkways, and various window designs
serve to break up exterior walls.
Large windows and glass doors are provided
along both street frontages.
Colorful fabric awnings are proposed over all
windows and entry doors.
No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Dutch doors are not proposed.
Small divided paned windows are not proposed,
but the size of the proposed windows are
appropriate to the overall design of the building
and the Village character.
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
cant was able to develop a total design concept
which is functional and visually interesting.
Entries are proposed on the Carlsbad Village Drive
and Madison Street elevations.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
F&sidentiali""
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller
components.
8, ,,
,, ,, , , ,, ,, , ,, ,,) ,,,',, ,,
,,
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
The front entry off Carlsbad Village Drive is the
focal point of the project.
Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
5
Exhibit 5
DRB Minutes
of
August 27,2001
s3
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m.
August 27,2001
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members: Anthony Lawson Courtney Heineman
Sarah Marquez Chairperson: Bill Compas
Absent: Harriet Marois
Staff Present:
Assistant Ci Attorney: Jane Mobaldi Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Compas .asked Board Member Courtney Heineman to lead in the pledge of
allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21,2001 Minutes:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson to accept the Minutes of May 21, 2001 with one noted
change.
VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES:
NOES:
Heineman, Lawson, Marquez and Compas
None ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Compas reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Compas moved ahead to the first Agenda Item and gave the floor over to Lori
Rosenstein.
August 23, 2001 following receipt of a written request for continuance of the DRB meeting from Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff had notified the Design Review Board Members on Thursday,
the applicant, A and S Engineering, representing Tri-Con Global Restaurants, owner‘s of the
from Tri-Con Global Restaurants was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. property. She said the applicant is requesting a 45-day continuance, because the representative
Ms. Rosenstein stated that, at the request of the applicant, the issue on tonight’s agenda was
the request is that staff and the applicant have come to a point of disagreement on the project
going to focus on project design only, but not the project in its entirety. She stated the reason for
54
DESIGN REVIEW BOWS
AUGUST 27,2001
PAGE 2 of 4
design following twelve design reiterations and the applicant requested the item be taken forward for a Design Review Board determination on the design. She asked the Board to take action on
the request for the continuance and since the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting is held on the fourth Monday of each month, rather than continue the item for 45 days, she
the applicant will be available to speak on staffs recommendation. recommended that the Board continue this to their regular meeting of October 22nd to insure that
Chairperson Compas asked if anyone had a problem with this kind of a continuance?
voting on the continuance. Ms. Rosenstein asked the Board if they would like to hear from the people in the audience before
Chairperson Compas stated that since they are facing the probability of continuing this project to
October 22nd, is there anyone present who cannot attend that October 22nd meeting and wishes to address the Board?
to KFC at 755-795 Carlsbad Village Drive, and KFC is located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive. He Gene Siegel, 5553 Trinity Way, San Diego, CA 92120 stated that he owns the property next door
said that he would like to see them come in, but does not support the location of their drive-thru
next to the alley. He stated that their current drive-thru is in the rear of the property and does not affect him at all. He said if they are going to move the drive-thru exit closer to Carlsbad Village
Drive in the front of the property, people will be driving through, picking up their orders and going
parking in the rear of his building. He stated he has five stores with employees that park in his
right out into the alley, which will make it difficult for his tenants'who use the alley to get into the
back parking lot. He stated that the only reason he is present at the meeting is to get KFC to move the drive-thru exit to where it is now or something similar. He stated otherwise he would
love to have a brand new building next door to him.
Chairperson Compas confirmed that Mr. Siegel just wanted the Board to be aware that he is opposed to this location for the drive-thru?
Mr. Siegel confirmed that it is just the exit of the drive-thru. He added, the way they have it
designed, the cars will be entering the alley right behind the San Diego Gas and Electric easement, which is in the front of the property and exactly where his people drive in to park on his
lot.
Board Member Lawson asked if through this process whether Mr. Siegel has been aware of this
application and had any opportunity to talk to the applicants or staff?
Mr. Siegel stated that he did not and that he just received the letter about a week ago saying what
and said that when he saw the plans that he felt it was going to kill him.
Kentucky Fried Chicken is thinking about doing. He said that he called to take a look at the plans
property and if he accesses them from the alley? Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Siegel how many parking spaces he has to sewice his
alley no matter if it is from Carlsbad Village Drive or another street that there is no other way in.
Mr. Siegel said he has about 15 or 16 parking spaces and said yes, they access them from the
Chairperson Compas asked Mr. Siegel how many cars come in and out a day?
stated that he was surprised that Bob Nielsen did not see this and come here. He said they have
Mr. Siegel stated that he is not here that often and Bob Nielsen manages the property for him. He
nice stores -- a restaurant, a dry-cleaners, a floral shop, a real busy little beauty shop, and a
55
DESIGN REVIEW BOWS
PAGE 3 of 4
AUGUST 27,2001
carpet store. He said that those people have action as the people are in and out and in and out.
with the Board 100% to come in and do something, but he asked that the Board give him a break.
He restated that what he is here for, if the Board is representing Kentucky Fried Chicken, he is
Chairperson Compas stated that Ms. Rosenstein is representing the Ci and that the Kentucky
Fired Chicken people are not present because they wanted to postpone the hearing, as they could
not make it.
Mr. Siegel understood and asked if he cannot make the next meeting if this is going to be on
record for them to see that there is a little problem with the next property?
Chairperson Compas stated that this will be on record and the Board will be at that meeting and
will be aware of what Mr. Siegel said. He told Mr. Siegel they appreciated him coming tonight.
Mr. Siegel thanked them.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Lawson, and duly seconded by Board Member
Marquez, that RP 00-17 and CDP 00-51 KFClTaco Bell Rebuild be continued to the October 22,2001 Design Review Board Hearing date.
VOTE 4-0-0 AYES:
NOES:
Heineman, Lawson, Marquez and Compas
None ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Siegel asked if he would get a notice of that next meeting at his address?
Chairperson Compas asked how he got this notice?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that since the Board has continued the meeting to a specific date, unless the Board directs them otherwise, they would just hold the meeting on that date without further
notice. She said she would share Mr. Siegel's concerns with the owners of KFC and their representatives and will give them Mr. Siegel's address to contact him or via his phone number.
Mr. Siegel stated that his phone number is 619-582-1089 or 619-583-2727.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that if the Board as a whole believes staff should renotice the hearing, because it is two months away, then staff will do so.
Board Member Heineman stated that the Board could assure Mr. Siegel that the members who
are here will remember his concerns and they will take it into account.
Chairperson Compas asked if the Board thought they should renotice or not?
Board Member Lawson asked if it would be noticed in the paper?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the item has been noticed in the paper for this evening and staff
subject properly ten days prior to the hearing. She added that, unless staff is directed otherwise
mailed the notice to all properly owners within 600 feet and all occupants within 100 feet of the
to renotice the future meeting, they will not put it in the newspaper again and mail out additional
notices.
DESIGN REVEW BOARbdNUTES
PAGE 4 of 4
AUGUST 27,2001
Chairperson Lawson asked if that is standard procedure?
specific date staff is not required to renotice it.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that as long as the Board met this evening and continued the item to a
Board Member Heineman stated that he feels it is not necessary to renotice and Board Member Marquez concurred.
Chairperson Compas closed the public hearing and asked if the Board Members had anything
else they wished to bring up?
Board Member Lawson asked staff if they anticipate any items for next month’s agenda?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that they do not have anything docketed for the September meeting, so it
will probably be cancelled and the October meeting will include the item continued this evening and possibly one other item on the agenda. She said that by the end of the year, they are looking
at four more projects coming forward.
By proper motion, the regular meeting of August 27, 2001 was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Housing and Redevelopment Director
JUDY KIRSCH
Minutes Clerk
APPROVED.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE
57
Exhibit 6
Exhibits “A-J”
dated
April 29, 2002
::
1
4
D
Lk
Exhibit C
“Draft”
Design Review Board
Minutes
DRAFT
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: Date of meeting: APRIL 29,2002 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Marquez called the Special Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Lawson to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
comes from the Planning Commission and she proceeded with the roll call with all Board Vice Chairperson Marquez introduced and welcomed their newest member, Julie Baker, who
Members present.
6:OO P.M.
Present: Board Members: Julie Baker Larry Paulsen Tony Lawson
Courtney Heineman
Vice Chairperson: Sarah Marquez
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Project Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 25, 2002 Minutes:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson to accept the Minutes of February 25,2002.
VOTE: 4-0-1
AYES: NOES: Marquez, Lawson, Heineman and Paulsen None
ABSTAIN: Baker (She was not present at the last meeting.)
Vice Chairperson Marquez reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, RP00-17/CDP 00-51 -
“KFCnACO BELL REBUILD: Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
and drive-thru facility located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad
Development Permit to allow the demolition and reconstruction of an existing fast food restaurant
Village Redevelopment Area. She introduced Lori Rosenstein to present the staff report.
Ms. Rosenstein stated the applicant, A & S Engineering on behalf of Tricon Global Restaurants, is requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 2 of 12
APRIL 29,2002
demolition and reconstruction of the existing fast food restaurant and drive-thru facility located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
Ms. Rosenstein shared pictures of the existing site and shared that the property is bordered by
Carlsbad Village Drive to the north, Madison St. to the west, an alley to the east and the North County Family Medicine to the south. She stated that the existing building is a 2,000 sq. ft. fast
food restaurant situated on the northwest corner of the site with extensive landscaping along Madison St. and Carlsbad Village Drive. She added that the drive-thru is located on the east side
of the building and was added following Housing & Redevelopment Commission approval in April of 1989 and vehicular parking is located on the east side of the existing building as well.
with a 3,200 sq. ft. building further east on the subject property. She pointed out the location of She stated that the plan for the proposed project is to demolish the existing facility and replace it
queuing or stacking distance for vehicles in the drive-thru where as the existing site allows one proposed drive-thru on the site plan. She stated that the new building location affords greater
vehicle between the pick up window and order board and 3-4 vehicles at and before order board. Conversely, the proposed site allows four vehicles between the pick up window and order board
and five vehicles at and before the order board.
Ms. Rosenstein also shared that the new site design improves ingress and egress conflicts on
times during the day. She stated that 20 new parking spaces are proposed on the west side of Madison whereas the existing drive-thru results in a spill over of vehicles onto Madison St. at peak
proposed building. She shared about the proposed landscape area, that there is an 8.5' wide landscape strip along Madison St., a 10'-20' wide landscape strip along Carlsbad Village Drive, a
9' wide area along the alley, and a 5' wide area along the south property line.
She pointed out that one of the benefits of the existing project is the existence of extensive mature
said that staff wanted to duplicate the amount of extensive mature landscaping on the new project landscaping, especially at the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Madison St. Ms. Rosenstein
and as a result, the owner will be transplanting four existing large palms along Madison St. and planting eight large canopy trees along the remainder of the perimeter of the property. She said of the eight large canopy trees, five will be 48 box variety and three will be 24" box variety, both of
which are representative of mature landscaping.
Ms. Rosenstein next pointed out the changes to preliminary landscape plan. She pointed out that
Engineering Condition No. 13 on page 9 of Resolution No. 283 states the shrubs shown within the
vegetated swale along the south property line must be replaced with an appropriately selected species of grass or other plant effective in the removal of pollutants and in addition. She added
that while the two 48 box Carrot Wood Trees proposed at the southeast corner of the site will be
that the three 24" box Carrot Wood Trees proposed along the south property line (vegetated
included in the final landscape plan the City's landscape plancheck consultant is recommending
swale) be replaced with three 15 gallon Purple Orchid Trees which are proposed elsewhere on the site. She shared that in consultation with our Engineering Department it was determined that this
is the best mix of vegetation in the landscaped drainage swale.
Regarding the building elevations of proposed project, Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff has
worked very closely with the project applicant to encourage a building design that is both
when working with a corporation where the design of the building is part of the corporate image.
architecturally pleasing and conducive to the Village character which is not always easy, especially
would not support approval of the project unless the design of the building were both unique to the She stated that from their first meeting with the property owner staff made it very clear that they
site and compatible with the Village character.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 3 of 12
APRIL 29,2002 DRAFT
Ms. Rosenstein stated that Howard Schuss of Schuss Clark Architectural Firm created the final design of the project and staff finds the project design to be consistent with the ten basic design
principles contained in the Village Master Plan. She added that the architect has taken a use, which typically requires nothing more than a square building in which to operate, and incorporated
several design elements to achieve the desired Village character. She added that each of the
sides of the building, a clay tile roof, extended eaves with exposed rafter tails, a cornice cap along building facades incorporate desirable architectural elements such as varying roof heights on all
the top of the parapet and columns and archways along the covered pedestrian walkway.
She added that additional architectural detail and color is added to the building through the use of
three shades of complimentary stucco colors; three shades of accent trim colors; wrought iron accent treatment on the front of the building, decorative light fixtures and red fabric awnings above
the windows. She also stated that the proposed signs are also consistent with the Village Sign Guidelines and that the project includes one monument sign at the corner of Madison St. and
west side building elevations), two small directional signs at the drive-thru ingress and egress, and Carlsbad Village Drive, four wall signs (one KFC and one Taco Bell sign on both the front and
one menu board sign. She stated that all the signs will be externally illuminated and each sign
total allowable sign area for the site is 128 square feet and the total sign area proposed is 121 meets the size requirements for that type of sign. She said that with 128 linear feet of frontage the
square feet.
Ms. Rosenstein went on to discuss the following three issues associated with the project:
the addition of new drive-thru facilities in the Village Redevelopment Area, which makes the
1) Reconstruction of the existing drive-thru- She stated that the Village Master Plan prohibits
existing drive-thru a legal nonconforming use. She stated that in accordance with the Master Plan, a nonconforming use cannot be expanded or intensified, however, incidental reconstruction is permitted. She shared that a determination has been made by the City Attorney's office that the
single drive-thru can be reconstructed because it does not constitute an expansion or intensification of the drive-thru use.
2) Variance for front yard setback that exceeds setback range- She stated that the Village
Master Plan requires a variance for any setback which exceeds the established standard. She
working on a comprehensive Master Plan amendment to remove the need for a variance when a
mentioned for Board Member Baker's edification, that this is currently a technicality and staff is
yard setback is 0-10' from front property line and the proposed building is 26 from front property
building is setback further than the established standard. She added that in District 1, the front
line. Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff has provided justification for the necessary findings in Design Review Board Resolution No. 283.
3) Location of drive-thru-She stated that the location of the drive-thru is dictated by engineering standards for drive-thru queuing distance and site distance from intersections, along
with standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual which require vehicle- oriented uses to be subordinate to the building so they are less visible from adjacent public streets. Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff reviewed numerous site design layouts and found the
proposed design to be the only alternative that complies with City Engineering Standards and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Ms. Rosenstein went on to explain the benefits of the new project which include; improved on-site circulation, greater stacking distance for drive-thru which prevents overflow onto Madison,
reduced ingress and egress conflicts on Madison St., and an improved building design conducive to the Village character.
She stated that the Planning Department found the project to be exempt from environmental
review pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines as the replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site. Furthermore, she added the proposed
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 4 of 12
APRIL 29,2002
structure is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and Redevelopment Agency,
for it is anticipated that redevelopment of the site will result in a slight increase in tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency and the more efficient use of the property and expansion of the
serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area.
building are anticipated to result in higher sales tax generation plus redevelopment of the site may
a variance for a front yard setback that exceeds the maximum standard allowed. She stated that Ms. Rosenstein concluded that staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant
redevelopment of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the
Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village
conflicts on the adjoining streets, and replacing the existing dated building with a design that is Redevelopment Master Plan by improving on-site circulation, reducing pedestrian/vehicuiar
consistent with the desired Village character.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if any of the Board Members had any questions for Ms. Rosenstein.
Board Member Lawson asked regarding the timing of this project if the business would be completely shut down while they are in the process of building in the parking lot or are they
anticipating staying operational while they are building and constructing where the parking lot currently is?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the applicant could provide more clarification, but it was her
understanding that the building will be completely demolished, the site will be cleared, and then the new construction would start, so there will be no conflict between existing operations and future construction.
Board Member Lawson asked who owns the alley and if it is a public travel lane? He stated that
and west of it, so there is not an easement. He asked Mr. Rick if he is aware of anyone having based upon the exhibits that he sees in the staff report it appears the property lines stop both east
any rights that would be in conflict with this use?
Mr. Rick replied that it is a public alley and that most of it is owned by the City and most public
alleys are covered by a public easement with general access to the public. He stated that it is probably an easement but the property line representation usually does not show it to the center
with this use. line of the alley. He replied that he was not aware of any one having rights that would be in conflict
dining area which they currently have? He stated that it was briefly mentioned in the staff report, Board Member Lawson asked why they did not receive any requests for continuing the outdoor
but not in the presentation. He was wondering how that relates to some of the goals in the Village Master Pian which support pedestrian-orientation?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the applicant took out the outdoor dining. She explained that originally there was an extensive outdoor dining area with a trellis in front which blocked much of the
exposure of the building. She stated that in August of last year staff was coming forward to the Design Review Board with a recommendation of denial for the project because of design-related
redesigned the project and at that time the applicant decided they were not interested in doing the issues. Following a requested continuance by the applicant, a new architect was hired and
outdoor dining area. She explained that it is something they could add because there is a 20-foot wide area located in front of the building, not including the pedestrian walkway, where they could
provide some tables and chairs conducive with the Village character.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 5 of 12
APRIL 29,2002
Board Member Lawson asked if the applicant decided to propose this at a later time, if that would
be possible with some level of substantial conformance? He also asked what provisions are there
relative to the type of temporary signs pertaining to special deals that tend to be in windows and
on the sides of the buildings? He stated that he did not see any reference to this in the sign package presented in this document. He pointed out that he sees temporary signs on other fast
food restaurants throughout District 1.
Ms. Rosenstein stated the outdoor dining area could be added by the applicant at a later date
through the issuance of an administrative permit, just as other businesses have added outdoor dining. She stated that the Sign Guidelines do not allow any additional signage other than what is
being proposed. She pointed out that temporary window signs are allowed in the Sign Guidelines,
but it sets forth that they are limited to 10% of the window area and any more would be a violation
of the sign guidelines. She added that staff is presently undertaking extensive code enforcement on other issues in the Village, but they do not include window signs, however, this is an issue that
could be looked at more closely in the future.
Board Member Lawson noted some potential conflicts with the site plan and was wondering if it
could be looked into regarding the proposed landscaping, for example, at the egress lane on Madison which has a large tree in the small planter that would be clipped by a truck passing by it.
He suggested some possible changes regarding the parking spaces and moving some of the
planters because of this potential problem. He also pointed out that the landscaping in the front of
the building could be crossed over by pedestrian traffic, thus there should be some changes to that area. He stated that there is a signage problem with the monument on the corner of Madison
and Carlsbad Village Drive as the landscape in that area will grow taller than the base and there may need to be some adjustments for this.
Ms. Rosenstein responded that these landscape issues could be addressed in the final landscape plan and agreed that there should be direct pedestrian access to the front door from Carlsbad
Village Drive.
Board Member Heineman suggested that the signs advertising specials could be put on a portion
of the menu board, because it would be visible as cars enter making it possible to eliminate the specials from the windows.
something else. She expressed her concern that a fast food restaurant may not be appropriate for
Ms. Baker asked if this necessarily had to be a KFC or a fast food restaurant as opposed to
this area of the Village.
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out that in Land Use District 1, a number of different uses are allowed. She shared that TriCon Global Restaurants owns the site and they own a number of different fast food chains. She said if they are not permitted to do what they are proposing then they won't be
where it may not fit in with their current economic scheme for growth of their company and as a able to do anything to the existing building, and they will pretty much let the building go to a point
thru component of the building would most likely dictate that another fast-food restaurant would result they may look at selling the site. She pointed out that if they sold to someone else the drive-
want to take over the site. Historically, smaller fast food restaurants such as a mom and pop taco
shop have taken over these types of locations because the drive-thru makes it a very desirable site.
She stated that the drive-thru is tied to the property not the particular business and a new
could let the building deteriorate making the site less desirable than it is today, which does nothing
business owner could go in with a business license. Another scenario is that the current owners
to benefit the area.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 6 of 12 DRAFT
Board Member Baker expressed concerns that the requested variance to permit a greater setback from Carlsbad Village along with permitting parking on the corner of Madison and Carlsbad Village
Drive did not support a pedestrian-oriented Village character. She stated that the project does not
seem to be improving the street scene or the Village. She also shared her concern regarding the height of the building not fitting in with the area and asked where in the Village are there tile roofs
and Spanish style architecture?
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out the Blockbuster Video building across the street and the two-story
Village Master Plan and Design Manual encourages the use of tile roofs in Land Use District 5
building just east of it were both of comparable height to the proposed project. She stated that the
(located south of Carlsbad Village Drive) and the style of architecture and roof material has also been used on other projects throughout the Village.
Carlsbad Village Drive or does the Village have to wait until the present ones die of old age before Board Member Heineman asked if there was any practical way they could eliminate drive-thrus on
anything else can be put there?
Ms. Rosenstein replied that the Village Master Plan absolutely prohibits any new drive-thru facilities. She stated however that in accordance with the non-conforming standards set forth in
the Master Plan, nonconforming uses may not be expanded or intensified but they remain until the
property owner decides to eliminate them.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked how the menu board was going to be illuminatecCexterior or
at the present time. She was concerned if these signs were operating within the Sign Ordinance.
interior as it is not specific and she stated the Village does not have a standard for menu boards
street, being only visible from the drive-thru, she believes it would be internally illuminated for Ms. Rosenstein said because the menu board sign is not intended to be viewed from the public
visibility purposes. She said that from her perspective as long as it not visible from a public street
that it would be permitted. She stated that all other proposed signs for the project were externally
the drive-thru menu board sign should also be externally illuminated they should discuss this with illuminated in accordance with the Village sign regulations. She pointed out that if the Board feels
the applicant to see if it would impact night-time visibility.
Vice Chairperson Marquez cited Page 57 of the Village Master Plan sign regulations, as they
should be willing to design specifically and uniquely for the Carlsbad Village Visual Environment
pertain to the temporary signs mentioned by Board Member Lawson, ‘The DevelopedFranchisee
as well as agree to restrictions on temporary advertising signs.” She pointed out that regarding Board Member Baker’s concern about the height of the building, the Design Manual recommends that the upper levels of the building elevations be stepped back from the property line and that the
design of the proposed project seems to be contrary to this standard. She next pointed out the non-conforming use section states “...as long as there is no intensification or expansion of the original use then the non-conforming use may be allowed to continue.” She asked if the new
building and its design with the two windows servicing the drive-thru portion of the business is an expansion or intensification of the business.
building, which needs to be addressed separate from the building itself. She pointed out that the Ms. Rosenstein replied that the drive-thru is the non-conforming component of the existing
determination received from the City Attorney’s office was that expansion of the building is
permitted because it is a conforming use. She stated that the drive-thru facility could not expand:
meaning that additional drive thru lanes would not be permitted. She shared that if there were two lanes feeding into one pickup window it would be considered an expansion or intensification
because they would be adding drive-thru lanes. She said as long as there were no more drive-thru lanes added that the addition of a paying window was for the sole purpose of moving traffic
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 7 of 12
APRIL 29,2002 DRAFT
through the site as quickly and efficiently as possible and did not constitute an expansion of the drive-thru.
Vice Chairperson Marquez was concerned that it was an interpretation of what an expansion or an
determine what an intensification or expansion of a use or a business would be as there is nothing intensification of a use is and there is nothing written down as to what guidelines you would use to
in the Village Master Plan that clearly sets those guidelines.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that there are no specific regulations that clearly state what constitutes an
expansion or intensification of a drive-thru facility. She stated that typically an expansion is
determined by square footage and intensification is going from one use to another which would
trips and more parking required. require more parking such as going from retail to restaurant where there would be more traffic
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if when the Taco Bell component was added to the original KFC
it was considered a modification of the business? She stated that according to the Master Plan
Guidelines, they are to “avoid drive-thru service uses, drive-thru windows for banks, fast-food restaurants and similar uses which take up valuable Village land area and create potential
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.” She added that the spirit for which the manual was written was to create a real Village/pedestrian oriented atmosphere with the signage etc.
Board Member Baker, referring to the drive-thru use, asked if it is being created to become more efficient will it not be used by more people and if so, isn’t it being intensified as more cars are able
to take advantage of the drive-thru than have in the past?
Ms. Rosenstein replied that the proposed project was not considered an intensification of the current use based on the City Attorney’s determination. Once that determination was made staff worked with the applicant to design the project in accordance with engineering standards and the
Village Design Guidelines.
then it doesn’t matter what the Board may say, it is not an expansion. Board Member Heineman stated that the City Attorney made a ruling that this is not an expansion,
Ms. Mobaldi stated that Ms. Rosenstein has accurately summarized what the Attorney’s office
position is on this. She pointed out that it is a situation where you need to look at the facts and determine if it is in fact an expansion or intensification and as Ms. Rosenstein pointed out it does not necessarily mean they are going to have more cars drive through than previously, but it will
help improve the cueing distance and keep the traffic from building up on Madison Street. She pointed out that existing drive-thru facilities are allowed to remain as long as they were not intensified and that no drive-thru lanes are being added to the existing use.
Vice Chairperson Marquez seeing there were no further questions of staff opened the public
hearing.
Howard Schuss of Schuss Clark Architectural Firm, 9474 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego, CA., representing Tricon Global Restaurants. He pointed out that they support the elimination of Engineering Condition No. 12 on Page 9 of DRB Resolution No. 283 regarding consolidating the
lots because it has been done. He explained that moving of the tree raised by Board Member
landscaping changes for the front entrance could be easily changed as suggested as well. He Lawson could be done easily and pointed out where it could be moved. He also stated that the
pointed out that they absolutely have no intentions of doing anything with the signs that is illegal.
He shared that the height of the building was done in order to accommodate the development standards, which required them to have a pitched roof, and the height was to accommodate the
design of the building with the pitched roof features. He pointed out that the new building is going
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 8 of 12
to look a lot nicer than the old building and also that it is unusual for a national restaurant to
conform to a different style of building than they normally have in other places. He said that regarding the drive-thru, they are taking a situation that is problematic and making it a lot better.
what staff had presented.
Board Member Lawson asked the applicant for comment regarding construction timing if it was
construction on the new building therefore, there would be no conflict with existing operations. Mr. Schuss stated the existing building would be completely demolished before they began
to 54” and if the height is going to be adequate to screen the roof equipment from view from Vice Chairperson Marquez asked regarding the height of the parapet that on the plan it states 42
Madison Street?
Mr. Schuss assured the Board that the parapet would adequately screen all roof equipment.
Skip Hunter, Real Estate Manager for Tricon Global Restaurants, 207 West Alameda Avenue
#203, Burbank, CA requested clarification on the storm water management conditions and what constitutes “best management practices”? He also provided some options for meeting these
standards including the use of a vegetated swale.
Vice Chairperson Marquez stated that they would need more information as to what exactly he had in mind and how it would affect the design of the project.
Board Member Heineman added that there is a person in the Engineering Department, Rosanna
Lacarra, who is charged with the whole Storm Water System and she could answer any questions
he has.
Mr. Rick shared that he could provide some clarification on this as well and stated that they plans
did incorporate the use of a vegetated swale along the south side of the property. He pointed out on the map how it would work on this particular site.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked how this interfaces with the paving for the parking lot? She also asked what is to keep the dirt from backwashing back onto the pavement?
once the dirt crosses the pavement it drops into the swell. Mr. Rick pointed out on the map where the drains would flow into the swale. He explained that
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the project,
Mr. Gene Siegel, 5553 Trinity Way, San Diego, Ca shared that he attended the last meeting and
his only concern was the cars coming in and out of the alley as the alley is the only access to his
property. He pointed out that the existing drive-thru is at the very south end of the alley. He was
concerned that moving the drive-thru exit further north would impact commercial parking behind his property at 755-795 Carlsbad Village Drive.
Board Member Heineman asked if Mr. Siegel was aware of the proposed plan shown on the wall
where it shows that once the cars leave the pickup window there is room for the cars to wait until traffic is clear before turning onto the alley. He stated that when the traffic comes away from the pickup window they will go to the right side of the alley to exit onto Carlsbad Village Drive.
the car then would pull forward, stop, and make a left to cross over the southbound traffic on the Ms. Rosenstein clarified this by pointing out on the map where the last pickup window is, where
alley and exit to Carlsbad Village Drive or make a right and go southbound along the alley.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 9 of 12
Mr. Rick agreed and stated that they did not anticipate any impact to the customer parking across the alley on Mr. Siegel's property. He pointed out that the drive-thru actually regulates the flow of traffic onto the alley. He pointed out that during the time the customer is waiting at the window
there is going to be ample time for any vehicles to pull into Mr. Siegel's parking area across the alley and it would be an improvement compared to what exists today. He agreed with Mr. Siegel's
stay there it would shorten up the cueing distance on the drive-thru and essentially they would not point that the existing access is toward the south side of the property, but if the access were to
have any more cueing distance than they have today.
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Rick if he felt traffic traveling southbound on the alley from
Carlsbad Village Drive would be able to get past the occasional car exiting the pickup window?
Mr. Rick stated that yes, it is in fact the reason they set the drive-thru exit back 35 feet from
Carlsbad Village Drive so they would have ample space to avoid that conflict.
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Siegel if he thought it looked like it would work?
Heineman that it would work. Mr. Siegel stated that if Mr. Rick feels there will be no conflict he agreed with Board Member
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if the applicant would like to respond to any of Mr. Siegel's concerns?
The applicant agreed that currently it is a problem, but the new setup would make it much better
and certainly not any worse.
egress of all vehicles. However, the proposed project would limit alley use to only those vehicles Ms. Rosenstein shared that the existing access to the alley from the KFC site permits ingress and
exiting the drive-thru, which should reduce the amount of traffic on the alley. She stated that
currently they do not know how many people choose to take the alley versus Madison Street, but
right now there is a choice and, with the proposed design, there would not be a choice which will
reduce the amount of cars pulling onto the alley.
thru would be staggered and they would not be coming out all at one time.
Vice Chairperson Marquez added that the cars pulling out into the alley from the proposed drive-
between each car.
Ms. Rosenstein agreed and added that as Mr. Rick pointed out there would be a time increment
Vice Chairperson Marquez added that she sees it as an improvement from the current situation. Seeing there were no further questions, Vice Chairperson Marquez closed the Public Testimony. She asked if the elimination of Engineering Condition 12 that was on page 9 of DRB Resolution
No. 283 would change the legal description in the same resolution.
Ms. Rosenstein clarified that they will make that change as well.
DISCUSSION
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked for a motion.
~~~~~ ~
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board
Member Paulsen that the Design Review Board adopt Design Review
condition of 12 on page 9 of Resolution No. 283 recommending approval
Board Resolution No. 283 and 284 including the elimination of the
77
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 29,2002
PAGE 10 of 12
conditions contained therein. of RP 00-17 and CDP 00-51 based on the findings and subject to the
Board Member Lawson pointed out that he came having reviewed this project with a couple minor things to bring up especially with respect to the landscape. He stated that he had failed to pick up on something that Board Member Baker had brought up that concerns him at this point and time,
which is a failure to take advantage of an opportunity of promoting the Village Master Plan
particularly in regards to a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. He stated as he looked at the plans
he was bothered that they did not do more to the sidewalk, but he is wondering if the Board is missing an opportunity to enhance it a little bit more, to create a little bit more of an inviting
pedestrian experience other than the six foot sidewalk that happens to be there. He stated that he had mentioned the things about the outdoor dining and he stated that he does not care whether there is or is not outdoor dining, but it was more of a curiosity to find out whether or not there was
any need to have it. He agreed that by adding the outdoor dining it may improve that experience,
the project and believes that staff has done an excellent job on all the other elements, but he is but was wondering if this is something the Board is concerned about. He stated that he really likes
struggling with the pedestrian edge along Carlsbad Village Drive and was wanting to throw that out on the table for other Board Members to discuss. Otherwise, if there is no support from other Board members he will support the project as proposed.
Board Member Baker stated that she does not know what they are accomplishing as they are
replacing a building that is not very attractive with one that is only slightly better, but she wondered in the overall scheme of the Village whether they are really moving forward very much with this
could be as they are still ending up with a parking lot on Carlsbad Village Drive, still ending up with project. She stated that it is better than it currently is, but she did not know that it is as good as it
the fast food restaurant that now is going to be there a really long time because it is a new building
rather than just here for a short time.
Board Member Lawson pointed out as a business owner in the Village he can attest to the fact that his employees frequent the existing facility. He thinks the use is fine and he has no problem
with it being a drive-thru facility. He said he understands that in the big picture as the City has
decided to eliminate the drive-thru's many fast food restaurants are combining uses, which he does not see as a problem. He pointed out that the site is currently a combined KFC and Taco
Bell and that Carl's Jr. is now combined with Green Burrito so there are ways in which they are dealing with that issue. He thought the applicant has done a very good job at trying to make something better than exists today, which he thinks is an improvement. He stated that the best
thinks the proposal is very reasonable and that there is a good demand for this use in the Village
situation would be to put something else there although he did not know what that would be. He
and he could support the project from that standpoint. His only concern was whether or not they are enhancing the pedestrian experience.
Board Member Heineman agreed with Board Member Lawson's points and did not feel the Board
would want a GAP Store or something else. He added that it is the role of the Board to decide if
is in a position nor has the power to say that they do not want this business here, but that they
the proposed project is better looking or worse looking than what is already there, if it meets the
not within the Board's purview to decide what uses are going in the downtown area except in the
requirements that are set forth in the Redevelopment Area and take it from there. He said that it is
case of prohibited uses. He added that even if the Board takes a position on what use would be most appropriate on the subject property, they are not in position to take the positive steps that
are necessary to put in something else. He stated that he thinks this is a tremendous improvement over what is there today and he is in favor of the project.
across the street on Madison and he has been caught in some weird happenings out in the street Board Member Paulsen stated that this is a good project. He shared that he goes to the bank
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 11 of 12
APRIL 29,2002
with the cue line waiting to go into the existing facility and just from that standpoint alone he said
he likes this project and stated he is in favor of it.
Vice Chairperson Marquez stated that she shares Board Member Lawson's and Board Member
that goes on within the Village. She stated that she does have empathy for the struggle that they Baker's concerns about whether this project really reflects the Boards focus on the development
do have with what goes on with Madison Street at times because of the traffic problem. She
applauded the applicant for an attractive improvement for this site. She stated that it is not ideally what she would like to see happen with the site as they would like to get more retail types of uses
in District 1. She stated that the project does address the problem that they currently have and it will straighten out the traffic situation presently on Madison which is unsafe and getting worse with
the expansion of the local high school which seems to be the big problem when the kids get out for lunch as it is very congested along Madison Street. She stated that with her vote she hopes to send a message to the City Council, letting them know she did have misgivings about the drive-
thru element and the proliferation of a non-conforming use. She stated that she is not going to
support the project for this reason.
Vice Chairperson Marquez called for a vote on the motion.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board
Board Resolution No. 283 and 284 including the elimination of the Member Paulsen that the Design Review Board adopt Design Review
condition of 12 on page 9 of Resolution No. 283 recommending approval
of RP 00-17 and CDP 00-51 based on the findings and subject to the
VOTE:
conditions contained therein.
AYES: Lawson, Heineman and Paulsen NOES:
ABSTAIN: Marquez and Baker None
3-2-0
Vice Chairperson Marquez closed the public hearing
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
orientation of future projects which would help make the community a little more unique and to
Board Member Lawson encouraged the Board and staff look for ways to improve the pedestrian-
really go to the heart of some of the components contained within the Master Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the special meeting of April 29, 2002 was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
JUDY KLINE Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
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
. .I - / i'
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 355
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAWBAD, CALFORW,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP 00-17 AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERm NO. CDP 00-51, INCLUDING A
VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT
AND DRIVE-THRU FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: TRICON GLOBAL RESTAURANTS
CASE NO: RP 00-l7/CDP 00-51 -
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 00-51) for the demolition and reconstruction of an existing fast
food restaurant and drive-thru facility on property located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive and
adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 283 and 284 recommending to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 00-51) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 00-51); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the
front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance for the
front yard setback which exceeds the standard range; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 1
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
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 00-17) and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 00-51) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review
Board contained in Resoluticns No. 283 and 284, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby approves
the environmental determination. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the
environmental determination reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review’’ shall apply:
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 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
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court
not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a .request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may,be filed
in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or hidher attorney of record, if he/she has
one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with
the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, m.ADOPTED at a Special meeting of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day
of .TITNE ,2002 by the following vote to wit:
.4YES: Commissioners Nygaard, Hall
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSENT: Commissioners Kulchin, Finnila
CLAUDE A. LEWIS. CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
,RAYMOND R. PATCHE’IT, SECRETARY
HRC RES0 NO. 355
PAGE 3
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(201 0 6% 201 1 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: 1 am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
JUNE 14,2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Datedat San Marcos California
this 17TH day
of June, 2002
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
/+&&&A b+?i22.
Proof of Publication of
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD
1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO prn on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP00-17) and Coastal Development Permit
(CDPOO-51) to allow the demolition and reconstruction of the existing KFC/Taco Bell fast
food restaurant and drive-thru facility located at 745 Carlsbad Village Drive. The
reconstruction will include the relocation of the existing drive-thru and the addition of 1,200
square feet to the size of the existing structure. The proposed project also includes a
variance request for a front yard building setback that exceeds the maximum range,
resulting in a greater building setback from Carlsbad Village Drive.
The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and
Madison Street in Land Use District No. 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
(Assessor Parcel Number 203-351-18-00).
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You
may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite 6, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning
Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement
for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as the replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same
site. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the
environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit or Coastal Development Permit in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008 at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 00-17/CDP 00-51
CASE NAME: KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD
PUBLISH: June 14,2002
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
KFCmACO BELL REBUILD
RP 00-17/CDP 00-51
OCCUPANTS LIST WITHIN A 100' RADIUS OF
745 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR, CARLSBAD JN 8-55
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT, '
675 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 710 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 745 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
.. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
755 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 775 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 785 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
~ ~ ~.
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
770 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 3021 JEFFERSON ST ' 3037 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3039 JEFFERSON ST
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT,
3039 JEFFERSON ST #A. 3039 JEFFERSON ST #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT
3039 JEFFERSON ST #C 3039 JEFFERSON ST #D
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
3039 JEFFERSON ST #F 3039 JEFFERSON ST #G
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3062 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3055 MADISON ST #A
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3065 MADISON ST
OCCUPANT
CAilLSBAD CA 92008
3065 MADISON ST #C
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3050 MADISON ST
OCCUPANT
3055 MADISON ST #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCilPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3065 MADISON ST #A
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3039 JEFFERSON ST #E
' 3070 MADISON ST OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3055 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
A&S ENGINEERING
BURBANK CA 91502
207 W ALAMEDA AVE #203
OCCUPANT .
3055 MADISON ST #C CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT-
3065 MADISON ST #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
I I
CLARK R 8 SHELLEY I KNAPP
215 W PALM ST
SAN DlEGO CA 92103-5522
602 S PACIFIC ST
BOYER NANCY L FAMILY TRUST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3910
2921 ROOSEVELT LTD
7040 AVE. ENCINAS, 140
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
GUNTER TRUST
SAN PEDRO CA 90733-0749
PO BOX 749
MICHAEL K MURPHY
400 N LA COSTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5002
JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC
2879 JEFFERSON ST #J
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720
KINGSTON J R 1998 TRUST
PO BOX 884
CARLSBAD CA92018-0884
MOJTABA 8 AZITA V ESFAHANI
1952 CREST DR
ENClNlTAS CA92024-5216
2959 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 9200&-2333
GENE s a MARGARETA RAY
DAVID R ZULICK
2943 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSEAD CA 92008-2333
725 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2331
PACKARD BUILDING PARTNERSHIP
2958 MADISON ST
CHIN LUNG 8 YU 0 TSAl
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2359
MCMILLIN REAL ESTATE ~MTG
2727 HOOVER AVE
NATIONAL CITY CA 919506625 VISTA CA 920844041
BANK OF COMMERCE
1381 E VISTA WAY
CARLSBAD GRAND LLC
701 B ST
SAN DEGO CA92101-8101
MRMILYEA VEBLEN 8 N TRUST CITY OF CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT JOHN M a NINA c GORDON
1112 ISABELIAAVE PUBLIC AGENCY
CORONADO CA 921 18-2832
PO BOX 1055
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-7055
GREAT WESTERN BANK
9200 M/S OAKDALE AVE N-1121
CHATSWORTH CA913116519
3215 MAEZEL LN
PARKER FAMILY TRUST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1 131
WALKER-GILBERT TRUST
4350 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 920084225
775 MARSOPA DR
JOHN 8 BARBARA.Wm TR
VISTA CA 920836484
PAUL 8 TERl J RAPPAPORT
2910 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 920086568
NOBEL TRUST
PO BOX 99550
SAN DlEGO CA 92169-1550
MCCOMAS FAMILY TRUST
1265 CYNTHIA LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1506
STEVE L ROBINSON
SAINT PAUL MN 55108-2132
1513HOYTAVEW 509 N MAPLE DR
IRIS KORNEERG
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-3408
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK
24012 CACLE DE LA PLATA STE 340
LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653-3632
BANK OF AMERICA NT a SA
PO BOX 37000
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941370001
JOHN MONTALBANO
20 N RAYMOND AVE
PASADENA CA 91 103-3953
I I
SlMS TRUST
2820 WILSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1531
CARLSBAD VILLAGE PARTNERS
ENClNlTAS CA 92024-6675
872 CHELSEA LN
SARACTERAN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7432
305 DATE AVE
.
GILBERT ACUNA TRS
91 MAYNARD AVE
NEWBURY PARK CA 91320-4259
ILARIO 8 MARIE MANNO
CARLSBAD CA 92008-231 3
3067 ROOSEVELT ST
MAR VISTA TRUST
CARLSBAD CA 9201.5-1481
PO BOX 1481
COUNTY HEALTH PROJEC NORTH KEAN CHILINGIRIAN
SAN MARCOS CA 92089-2944
150 VALPREDA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2310
3080-3082 MADISON ST
ATKIN FAMILY TRUST
.CARLSBAD CA 92008-2840
3565 TRIESTE DR
4240 SUNNYHILL DR
JERRY 8 SHIELLA MCNULTY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3646
3071 JEFFERSON ST
JOHN PRIETTO
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2309
MARTHA E BARKER
2435 MARK CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2816
JAMES VITALIE
5557 ALABAMA DR
CONCORD CA 945214106
EHSINVESTMENTSCO
5553 TRINITY WAY
SAN DlEGO CA 92120-4503
KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO
WICHITA KS 67201-0970
PO BOX 970
DAVID C 8 BARBARA J BOUTELLE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024-5208
1485 CREST DR
CAVALEA TRUST 06-05-95
3640 FELlZ CREEK RD
HOPLAND CA 95449-9701
323 HILL DR
GASTELUM FAMILY TRUST 11-16-94
VISTA CA 92083821 1
HAROLD V 8 DARCY W MCSHERRY
3995 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602
PO-BOX 1035
GOOD SHEPHERD ASSEMBLY OFGOD
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1035
P G P CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037-4524
GEORGE MERKLE
4225 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3647
LINDA MEISSF(6R
1275 HOOVER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4232
PHYLLIS E TR NORMAN
PO BOX 1395
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1395
SCANLON FAMILY TRUST
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
JAMES A 8 LANA D BESAW
PO BOX 3928
DANA POINT CA 92629-8928
MARK A a HELENE M HOPPER
2945 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1818
BANK OF CALIFORNIA
NEWPORT BEACH CAWO-5922
1 CIVIC PLAZA #290 2040 LINCOLN ST
NESTA CAROLINE
OCEANSIDE CA 920546509
THATCHER CHARLOTTE L TRUSl
3490 SEACREST OF?
CARLSBAO CA 92008-2040
I
JORDAN FAMILY TRS
OCEANSIDE. CA 92054
901 PIER VIEW WAY #B
MARY G ,Anderson Tr
3121 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2404
.. .. .
3175 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CHURCH
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2402
PO BOX 80
MAURO C & RAMONA H FLORES
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0080
PO BOX 874
VICTOR F & MARIE M MONTANE
CARLSBAD CM~OIB-OW~
BARBARA JOHNSON
CARLSBAD CA 92018
897 OAK AVENUE
A & S ENGINEERING CO
207 W. AIAMEDA AVE
SUITE 203
BURBANK. CA 91502
BERTHAPACHECPACHECO
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-1025
910 WOODME DR
COLES ROBERT J TRUST 04-23-98
31 11 JEFFERSON ST #13
CARLSBAO CA 92008-2404
2106 CROWN MEW WAY
RODRIGUEZ FLORENCIO FAMILY TRUST
OCEANSIDE CA 92056-3214
JESSICA DU SHAUNE
3150 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-301 7
MAURO c RAMONA H FLORES
CARLSBA~ CA 9z01e-oom
PO BOX 80
STUART C & MA!!LYN WILSON
4920 COLLINCMDD DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
CARLSW EQUITY PROPERTIES
2965 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHASE LEWIS L
4045 BALDWIN LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4102
CHASE LEWIS L 8 P F TRUST
2478 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233
CUNNINGHAM TRS
RANCHO SANTA FE. CA 92067
P.O. BOX 3634
3119 MADISON ST
MIGUEL & F GONZALEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3002
STEPHEN J 8 GINA S RUGGLES
3149 FAIRVIEW DR
VISTA CA 92084-1521
LP SHELLEN I1
,4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103-1 163
SHERYL F BULUXK
ENCINITAS CA 92023
PO BOX 230926
Jf 8 JPS
US VEGAS. NV 89170
P.O. BOX 70802
Smooth Feed SheetsTw
Occupant
Carlsbad CA 92008
3039 Jefferson St
Occupant
Carlsbad CA 92008
3062 Madison St
Shellen I1 Ltd Partnership Occupant 4522 Trias St 675 Carlsbad Village Dr
San Diego CA 92103 Carlsbad CA. 92008
Circle K Stores Inc
PO Box 52085
Phoenix M 85072
Use template for 5160@
Occupant
Carlsbad CA 92008
755 Carlsbad Village Dr
Martha Barker Trust
Carlsbad, CA 92008
3039 Jefferson St
May 21,2002
TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice KFClTACO BELL REBUILD (RP
00-17/CDP 00-51) for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. The attached public hearing notice must be published, posted and mailed
at least 10 days before the hearing. Please notice the item for a special Housing and
Redevelopment Commission meeting on June 4,2002.
Thank you.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE
City of Carlsbad
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
KFC/TACO BELL REBUILD
bad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Cha , to consider -
Village Drive. The
(Assessor Parcel Number 2
Those persons wishing to spea
hearing. If you have any question like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Lori Rosenstein in the Housing an
-existing structure on the same
site. The Housing and velopment Commission e considering approval of the
If you challenge th
court, you may be I
CASE FILE NO.:
CASE NAME:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 (760) 434-2810/2811 FAX (760) 720-2037 @
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION MEETING FOR JUNE 25,2002
To provide greater clarification in assisting the Housing & Redevelopment
Commission in their review of the KFClTaco Bell Rebuild (RP 00-17/CDP 00-51),
staff offers the following information providing a comparison of the proposed
building to the existing building:
Lori Rosensteln
Management Analyst
C City Attorney
City Clerk
j
m
0 0 E
I
0
x LL
Q 0 ~ - a > a 'c3 a p1
cn J - 0 I
C 0 w cn m- E E
"
0 0
cv 0 0 cu
h
a C 3 7
0
0
> a
W
i n
>
W
I
0 I
0 L
X W
> 0
II 0
S 0
,i 'I
_. j
:-. !
3
c L
L 0
0 3
cn S 0
.I CI
L CI
0
Q) 3 L n
'c3
Q) cn 0 Q 0 L n
I. 0 cn .cI
I.
C
vj CI 0
I. S 0 0
.I
Q E
0 m- E
~
0 C 0 0 W
a U W
c)
a, c
S
CI
.-
a,
0 CI
CI S 0
a, c
L I.
CI
I. 5
a, 0 S m
>
S m
0)
0
cn
0) S
U S G
.I 5
CI
L
CI
.I
. x 0 m a
a, cn
CI
U m h
L