Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-10; Planning Commission; ; SDP 80-11|CUP-181|CUP-182|V-310 - PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'SSTAFF REPORT DATE; September 10, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: SDP 80-11/CUP-181/CUP-182/V-310 -PEA SOUP ANDERSEN 1S -Request for approval of a Site Development Plan, two Conditional Use Permits and a Variance on property generally located on the northwest corner of Paseo Del Norte and Palomar Airport Road, adjacent to Interstate 5 in the C-T-Q Zone. I. Project Description and Background The applicant is requesting approval of 1) a Site Development Plan for a Pea Soup Andersen's restaurant and inn complex to include a 150 unit motel, two restaurants, a gasoline service station and a convenience store, 2) a Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in both restaurants, 3) a Conditional Use Permit to allow a gasoline station, and 4) a Variance to allow an increase from the building height limitation of the C-T-Q zone from 35 feet to 80 feet. The City Council acted on August 5, 1980, to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation for this site from NRR (Non-Residential Reserve) to TS (Travel Service Commerical). A change of zone to C-T-Q (Tourist Commerical with a Q Overlay) was found to be consistent with the TS land use designation and was approved by the City Council on August 13, 1980. The Q Qualified Overlay Zone, requires Planning Commission review and approval, in the form of a Site Development Plan, prior to any development. II. Analysis Planning Issues 1. Is the proposed traffic circulation acceptable? a. Off-site circulation? b. On-site circulation? 2. Is the proposed pedestrian circulation acceptable? 3. Can the mandatory findings for a Conditional Use Permit be found for both the gasoline service station and the sale of alcoholic beverages? 4. Can the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance be made in order to allow a portion of the proposed restaurant building to exceed the 35 feet height restriction? 1. Traffic Circulation With respect to off-site traffic circulation, staff has two primary concerns: The number of access driveways serving the project, and the ability of Paseo del Norte to handle the increased traffic volume which will be generated by the proposed uses. In terms of access, the applicant originally proposed a total of five access points within 250 feet of the intersection of Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road; a two-way access driveway on Palomar Airport Road, 2 two-way access driveways into the service station along Paseo del Norte and two access driveways serving as the main entrance and exit into the project off of Paseo del Norte. The applicant contends that the access driveways serving the service station along both Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road are vital to the successful operation of the gas station. Further, the applicant has stated that the successful operation of the service station and its ability to draw people to the site is necessary for the successful operation of the Pea Soup Andersen's restaurant. Staff strongly opposed four of the fire access driveways as originally proposed. Through detailed discussions and review, staff and the applicant have agreed upon a compromise solution for access driveways onto the site and this is shown on the revised site plan before the Commission tonight (Exhibit "D"). Several modifications were made. First, the access driveway along Palomar Airport Road has been modified to limit access to right turn out movements only to allow travel to Interstate 5 northbound. Signing indicating these movements is suggested as a condition of approval. Second, a median island with dual left turn pockets will be provided along Paseo del Norte. This median island limits access movements into and out of the service station to right turns only. Also, it provides sufficient stacking space to allow safe circulation into the main entry of the complex. Third, one access driveway was deleted along Paseo del Norte, thus reducing the potential conflict points along this street. With these modifications, staff is satisfied that the project will provide adequate access without creating severe traffic hazards. Staff's second concern relates to the ability of Paseo del Norte to handle the increased traffic volume generated by the project. The city's traffic engineering consultant projects an excess of 5,000 trips per day will be generated by the project. Currently, an average of 3,000 daily trips occur on Paseo del Norte and 10,000 daily trips on Palomar Airport Road. The increased traffic volume thus, will significantly impact both Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road. The traffic engineer is recommending that Paseo del -2- Norte be widened to four lanes along the entire frontage of the property to accommodate the increased traffic. In terms of on-site circulation, staff's primary concerns relate to entry and exit between Avenue of the Flags and the parking lot areas and the provision of tour bus parking spaces. As proposed, Avenue of the Flags serves as the main driveway through the complex. It is a two way drive separated by a large median island. A concern is that the relationship of the median breaks and the parking lot entrances may encourage wrong way traffic movements. In particular, the third median break from Paseo del Norte will encourage wrong way movements from the parking lot located east and adjacent to the restaurant complex. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to realign the median break 55 feet to the east to line up with the restaurant parking lot entrance. This will tend to discourage hazardous traffic movements while still providing efficient on-site traffic circulation. A number of other minor concerns relating to traffic movements and turning radii have been detected by staff and a conditions of approval is being recommended to work these details out with staff on the final site development plan. The second concern is the project's lack of tour bus parking spaces. Pea Soup Andersen's will attract customers on a regional basis and it can be expected that tour buses will stop to use the facilities. Staff is recommending that five tour bus parking spaces be provided on-site at locations acceptable to the Planning Director. 2. Pedestrian Circulation Staff feels the plan could be better designed to accommodate efficient and save pedestrian access. Specifically, pedestrian walkways from the parking area south of Avenue of the Flags to the restaurant complex have not been adequately provided. Staff is recommending that clearly defined sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks be provided to ensure safe, direct pedestrian movements around the parking areas and across Avenue of the Flags. The location of the sidewalks and crosswalks would be subject to the Planning Director's approval. Staff's second concern is that pedestrian circulation is not satisfactorily provided from the motel complex to the future gourmet restaurant. Given the lots irregular configuration, a large amount of unusable land has been created between the two uses. Because it can be expected that motel guests will dine out at this restaurant, staff feels it would be desirable to provide a meandering pedestrian walkway from the motel -3- to the restaurant. Further, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the establishment of passive recreational facilities within this area to include benches, gazebos, and possibly a children's play lot. Staff feels the provision of such facilities would maximize the use of this land. 3. Condition-al Uses The two Conditional Use Permits requested by the applicant include the operation of a gasoline service station and the sale of alcoholic beverages in the two restaurants. Staff feels that both proposed uses are consistent with the elements of the General Plan and are not detrimental to existing surrounding uses or to uses permitted in the C-T zone. Secondly, staff feels that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses, and the street system, as conditioned, will adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposed uses. Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of both Conditional Use Permits. 4. Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 21.29.060 of the Zoning Code which restricts the height of all buildings in the C-T Zone to 35 feet. A portion of the requested restaurant building is porposed to be a windmill tower which will be 80 feet high. The ground floor of the windmill will be occupied by a gift shop. The architecture of the tower will fit in with the restaurant, will serve as a landmark for the project and will be clearly visible from the freeway. In addition to serving as a landmark and housing the gift shop, the tower is proposed to be a fully functional windmill supplying 10 to 20% of the electricity for the project. In granting a request for a variance, the Planning Commission is required to make four mandatory findings which are as follows: 1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply to other property in the ~ame vicinity and zone. 2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. 3) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone. -4- 4) That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Commission is required to find sufficient facts to support all four of the findings. Staff has been unable to make these findings especially findings one, two and four and therefore is recommending denial of the variance. Regarding the first finding, staff cannot find that there are exceptional or unique circumstances applying to the subject lot which would warrant a variance to exceed the height limitations. If the lot were too small, two narrow, had unusual setbacks or was not visible from the freeway, staff could support a variance to exceed the height restriction of 35 feet. However, none of these conditions apply to the lot in question. Regarding the second finding, staff cannot find where the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant has indicated that the tower is an integral part of the architecture of the complex and will serve as a landmark for the project. Staff does not think that it is necessary, however, for the tower to be 80 feet high in order to accomplish this. The tower could comply with the height restrictions and since it is being designed as a windmill, could still serve as a landmark and an integral part of the design of the project. Therefore, staff does not believe that the property is being denied a property right. The applicant has indicated that a precedence has been established and that the property is being denied a property right granted to another property in the vicinity in that the city allowed the SDG&E tower at the Encina Power Plant across the freeway from the subject property to exceed the height restrictions. However, the SDG&E tower is located in a different zone {P-U) which was established for public utility operations where different height criteria must be considered. While staff agrees that the applicant's proposal to have the tower function as a windmill to supply some of the electrical power for the site is a worthy and energy conscious goal, staff does not feel that this addresses the findings required for the granting of a variance nor provides sufficient justification for approval. Perhaps, the Zoning Code should be considered for amendment in order to exempt windmills from the height limitations if it is considered in the best interest of energy con- servation. -5- Regarding the fourth finding for a variance which is that the approval will not adversely affect the General Plan, the General Plan does indicate Interstate 5 at this location as an eligible scenic highway. One of the items to be considered in protecting the view from a scenic highway is to regulate the height of buildings and structures so as to not create a negative visual impact. Although approval of this variance by itself may not adversely affect the scenic highways element of the General Plan, it may set an undesirable precedent for the Interstate 5 corridor through Carlsbad. III. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos: 1691, 1692, and 1694 APPROVING CUP-181, CUP-182, and SOP ao=TI, based on thetindings and subject to the conditions contained therein and DENYING Resolution No. 1693, Variance 310, based on the findings contained therein.-- A ttachmer. ts Background Data Sheet Disclosure Form Location Map PC Resolution No. 1691 (CUP-181) PC Resolution No. 1692 (CUF-182) PC Resolution No. 1693 (V-310) PC Resolution No. 1694 (SOP 80-11) Memorandum from Traffi•c Engineer dated, September 4, 1980 Memorandum from Traffic Engineer dated, August 28, 1980 Exhibit "C" dated, August 25, 1980 Exhibit "D" dated, September 3, 1980 MH/BH/CN/ar 9/4/80 -6- BMl{GlUJN[) DATA SHEET CASEN):. SOP 80-11/CUP-181/CUP-182/ and V-310 APPLICANT: PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S REXJJESTAND IOCATICN: Site Development Plan, two Conditional Use Permits, and a Variance located on the northwest corner of· Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Ciel Norte. ~ IFS ttJ?I<:E: That portion of Lots G & H of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, Map No. 823, County of San Diego, filed November 16, 1896. Assessc:i::s Parcel Nuni:ler: 211 -021 13, 14 Acres 15. 31 No. cf :..:,+-...s 2 ------- GENERAL PLAN AND ZONnG General -.:, an Land Use ·:-.es; ;:-..ation TS -------- N/A Density Al..loei -------- L-C Existing Zcne --------------- Su:a:our,f..; '1g Zoning an::. -.a."'.c. Ose: Zonincr North C-2 ----- south C-2 ----- Fast R-A-10 West P-M, C-2, R-A-10 School.. r::ist=ict N/A City of Carlsbad SetNE:r District City of Carlsbad Density Proposed __ N/_A ___ _ Proposed ZOne C-T-Q --------- land Use Car Country Connnercial Agriculture Industrial, Connnercial 180 allocated per EDU's CC Resolution #6102. ----------------June 11, 1980 ?ci:>2.ic Facilities Fee A~, dated ----------------- {Ct.11.e=: ---------------------,-------~-----> ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENI' Negative Declaration, issued ,!.ugust 28, 1980 ----X E.I.R. Certified, dated -------------- Other, 748 Log No. u: .ilJ-t(:l' UF~ irai:OLfit~:t'_ol\ ~1.1 lkll/~ !:uiJmiU,;cJ k~_!"; t,,:>c·n rcvi_0:,,rl, it is dc-t..::ri•1-i•1ed .. L-1.at fl.!! Uh.-r inft)rrnation n:qu:i.red, you \·Ji.11 l,~ :::;o adv 1. APP1,1cr-.r:·l': _p_e_~---·S.PJ,JP-__ l\n_dc.rsen~--___ V_inc~~t~ : __ ~v~~-~-~re_si_~ent ___ _ N,1me (i11divjdual 1 p.:1.rtnership, joint "~cntur:c, cc'-'-:-i•oration, ~yndicat:~on) AGCNT: MEMBERS: P.O. Box W, Buellton, Ca. 93427 -----,-----------------· ~usiness l.cldi:css ( 805) • 688-5581 'l'elcphon-:? Humber John c. White Uame Coldwell Banker Come~!!Y. _________ _ 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, ca. Business Address 92008 434-1081 'l'l?l!.!phone Humber _ _!'J!Ul and Nagd~_leD,_a_E_c_k_e ___ _ Name (individu;1l, partner, joint v1:,nturc, corpor,,tion, syndication) Encinitas, CA. 92024 ___ P.O. Box_488 _ Hc.me h:1dress -------------~------------------Business Addrl!~-:!; 'l\~ le phone Uumb8r ----------------------------llo!nc hk:ress -----------------------------------------Hur.iness Address 'l'ch~phonc r!rnnber 'l'elephr.>n-'..'! Nt!rr,bcr . . ---···~----··------.. ---·---·--.., ____ _ -------------------------·---------·---------------- nv . ;rc;,111_1 __ C_ .. ~Vh·i ·t_,~, j\~;c•rt 1- /\!J,. ·; i ~ , • , . ·,. I l . : .• ' P-M- P-M--~-, R-A-10---"~ c-, ----ll..1.- R-A-10----1-1-- c-2~---++- fror:: LC to CT-Q E-A · E-A R-A-10 PALOMAR AIRPORT RO. (71 C-2 ZONING MAP MEMORANDUM TO: CITY ENGINEER FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: September 4, 1980 SUBJECT: PEA SOUP ANDERSEN SITE PLAN Revision 3 September 1980 The revised Site Plan for the proposed Pea Soup Andersen Restaurant was reviewed and the fol lowing comments presented: 1. Palomar Airport Road The drive approach shown on Palomar Airport Road wil I create a severe accident potential for the street. There is not enough weaving dis- tance avai I able for vehicles to enter Palomar Airport Road from the development. Many vehicles wi I I want to travel southbound on 1-5, thus having to cross the bridge. This maneuver interferes with the traffic on the roadway wanting to go north on 1-5. To provide an exit only drive on Palomar Airport Road, the exclusive lane shown on the plan must be eliminated and the exiting traffic made to enter the traffic stream on Palomar Airport Road. 2. Paseo Del Norte Road The main entrance to the site is too close to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte. A left turn pocket that is a minimum of 150 feet in length is necessary for the Paseo Del Norte intersection. This leaves very inadequate left turn storage for the Pea Soup Andersen development. Their site should have a m1n1mum left turn storage of 160 feet due to the recreational vehicle traffic and heavy peak hour volume. The center median should be a concrete curbed island. 3. Site Circulation The on-site median shown at the entrance should be closed for a m1n1- mum of 150 feet from.the property line. The opening shown in this median would create a back up of vehicles into Paseo Del Norte from large R.V.'s and other vehicles waiting to turn left into the gas station site. This backup of vehicles would effectively close Paseo Del Norte to southbound traffic during peak flow periods. 4. Turning radii on-site is not enough to al low for movement of recrea- tional vehicles into the designated parking areas and the gas station. Most of the parking for the restaurant patrons is south of the entrance road requiring adults and children to cross this heavily trafficked ·roaaway. This is especially problematic with the driver's attention being distracted by the flags proposed for the center of the medians. Summary There are many circulation problems associated with this site plan as enumerated above. Many have not been enumerated since the purpose of this memo is to provide an analysis of the items of major significance. A previous report has been submitted, indicating the amount of antici- pated traffic that wi I I be generated by the site. (r;;Jf~ ~ BILL STRACKER Traffic Engineer BS: Is (ff) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: • MEMORANOOit CA1HERINE NJ 0-101.A.5 1Rt\FFIC ENGINEER AUGUST 28, 1980 PEA SOUP ANDERSON SITE PLAN (SDP 80-11) The attached figures arc from two traffic studies (Carlsbad Pacific Industrial Park and Rancho Cabril.lo). These studies indicate that Palomar Airport· Road has projected traffic volumes of 33,S00·ADT west of Melrose Avenue. The Koll property adds 16,000 ADT west of El Cami.no Real. From these studies it can reasonably be ascertained that Palomar Airport Road at 1-5 will suffer.from severe ron<lway capacity problems and possibly have as many as 55,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. ' Tlie Pea Soup Anderson Restaurant consists of the following uses with the t1·affic generation f igurcs indicated below: • • USE UNIT FACTOR TRIP ENDS l<btel 150 rooms 10. 2 TE/Room 1530 Restaurants Pea Soup 12 ,372sq. ft. 200 TlVl 000sq. ft. 2474 Gourmet 125 scats 1. 2 TE/scat 150 4} Convenience Market lOOOsq. ft. . 400 TE/1000.~·} •ft. 400 Service Station ·weekday TE 750 5304TE Analyzfog the driveway volumes indicates that approximately 1225 vehicles per day will be using tJ1e northerly driveway at the Motel and approximately 4000 vehicles will be using the southerly m:-dn driveway with the three most southerly and Palomar J\irp.ort Road driVC\\'ays closed. This analysis shm·.'s that the southerly main drive,,·ay is too close to th<! Intc:r!;cct:ion of Pa.lom;n: J\h110rt Road and Pasco Del Norte and shou1d he moved northerly approximately 125 feet to accomnK.xlatc adequate left turn storage for thl: Pea Soup Andcr~~on development rn1d th~ jntcrsection of Pa!;co Del Norte: and Palomar Airport RoaJ. WES/td Att,,clrn:~nts I \/ I C I N: I MA i 5 N -re KRUGER AACHIT ■CT ■ Ii I I . I 1 1; 11'1 1 ', :'l ,r.:.·,~~ A N J E ~ 5 ~ ~ 15 C>{'-'..,h~K) C .. L-l~A Bl!NBEN ZIEMER AIA -W. A .... I AeA 11T. ....... aAWIIIA CALJll'alllNIA ILi . ,,,_. ,, _, --·--"· ,, c~ -----·:__~·...,._. .••.• ~-----~ •s· l "'1 .,. r "-·-·--;a - ti > " . " L~.c.L......._-~_,<,,-~~•;~;,.;.;.... _ _;___ -~-,C 0.:,....-,--_C½ '-• •,c""'_--,."C'~"., , ,. • ~ --_.J;; __ -i'. ,- --,-__ ,. ____ _ L. VA 0 N H e \t A C N - i; ' ' "J~. > Cl PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S 750 SEAT RESTAURANT, 150 UNIT MOTEL, CONVENIENCE STORE, SERVICE V - ',- e. Vv '. y e w 0 ; --,...;,., .. _;;,., "' _:(;;·, 0 0 0 t. j,,~,t ;. ,,,,a '\;;. ,: ;.; -;, ~ . ~..,,,_,,, • -''• l:i !. e A I" 0 -CARLSBAD STATION AND 125 SEAT GOURMET ffl ~... ,ii" ,. " .. -.-. _·..;;;:,.::_,_ -,, ., ' ' . ; ilP.'.~✓.:::-: ~-:~;~~-{-;_~ '". .4liii-----. ,_. ---= ---.... , •. -cc.~ , ' • • • ~-cc7 ,.'.-,c.c.,-, .. ·-•"••'' 1 i:s,o }.· "' "'" __ . -· -- RESTAURANT (FUTURE) ; '.,' ', ""'",.." - ~-"~, r-.7,1QJ; -> • li , ; l-"''"' -~=o-~, -·trE!f , .,_,_ -----~'== --•"'· --·-··------:;,,.....,_"',::,.;;,.,.~~:~:~~"y--' .;: + ):sis'.'J/.;g-,::;'"~~'--f;,z::&"""~ • ,, l) • 0 • ~~-T d' • d • \ .· ~. ••• • • '/_r . . .f ,, .. . ' ' . . 'L, __ r ~~ ·-·-'--""---~~, -__.,.,'---"'" _.y,._~" ,;'..".,$'.'¥/l"".o.--.-"""'...,;.,_.,,.,,~,~, ....... ....,,~."""."'c,o;#~~~,!;~;,.':.;,~-~~-:;:;;-._~ ;~ , ; ., , •0,'sc's ,"; • _, • • --~-'--. ... ,. 2.~,--""". ··-'-"-··~-- ,m~~-: ··,:::':-~:-_:':".:Z:.:::...::'.2:2.~~Z:" 7!.;,, i , ~---' • . . . ~ .• ~-n~ y M J • • KRUGER BENSEN ZIEMER • AACHITECT8 AIA KIINNSTH C KIIIU-■FI AIA• OGNAl.0 '/,I JWl:i' l"ISD 1'5 Al.lG l'!W f!i;.v, ("ti"+~) •ANTA ■AR■ARA N ■■N-N AU,• DC1NA1.D Zl■M■FI AIA JIP e, NO.: j,!, -2.?, i~::-_/-_-r~;,. ~>&,:~; ;t):'· ' '.i;,w.,c·: . • ,; -· -< .. :ry\s-~--.. MOTEL • • • • . ,._ ',, '\ ~ '. \\---. .-' 1-- 1' h frfM Building® Two story· . 32 Units, Man~qer 1 s Swiriming Pool Area Unit, OffiCf~, Reception Area, \ P\rte Coche-i uilding® ·Two story 16 Uni ts ui lding© ·Two story . 36 Units Bu:lding ,:I) Two story 13 Units Building® wo story 24 Units Buildins (D Two ':. Lory 24 Units o'CS,I iS.0Units@ 70.833 s.L'-' f,L,,.-klnq required -l car space per urdt) ~ ~'¾Jtel Public Pa..-king !SJ sp~ces ;·<; \~t-el Employee Par-<.ing 6 spac~s t-otal Mote 1 Pa.rk i ng :.: ... llESTAUAANT Seating space ( Pub 1-i c) Non-seating space (Public) Employee & Service (Non-public) 156 750 seats (JO Emp I oy•e•) (15 Handicc,:-1 12,372 4,040 8,838 s. f. s. f. s. f' Total Public Area 16~412· s.f. • \ ' (Parking requi'red Ito. spaces+ l space per each SO s.f. of. public floor area over 4,000 s.f.) • 40 -t (16,li12 -1i 1000)= 288 Public spaces 50 Employee parking provided 'To,:af Restaurant Parking CONVENIENCE STORE 31 z sp.aces (S a. V. spaces) (17 Hafldicap spaces floor Area (Pa_rk.ing required 1,000s,L 300 s.f. per space) Total Convenience Store Parking_ a space$ (5 ~.V~ spaces) ,,,. (l l'tandic&p space SERVICE STATION ~_; \ :ft5•. X 8o-1 c-etn,py w/ Vehicle service three gH pUlltp is lands & :9ne 3 spaces..., R-.V. Island for Recreational FUTURE 125 SEAT GOURMET RESTAURANT Seatln9 Space (Pub! le) Non•seatlng space (Public) Employee & Service (Non-public) Total Public Area 125 seats 2,500 s.f. 1~000 s.f. 3,000. s.f, s. f. (Parking reqotred ltO sp3ces + 1 space per ea~ 50 3,500 s, f'. of ~ublic _floor area over 4,000 s.f.) i 40 + (~,Soo -4,ooo) = 70 . 50 . Pt,ib l i efsp-aces Employee ~arking provided Total Restaur1nt Parking TOTAL PROJECT PARKING 15 spaces. 85 spaces (5 Hand/ cap F ~64 SPAcES1 f·4ifitiiii j ' • \ I \ r \ \ ' \ \ / L.--J-"'- Q ~~=;) . ";j;>C]Z:of<. .'8e.::::r--.. r-----------0 __ .' ·u7c., I ~ \ \ \\ \\, •, \. I / \ \. \ '/, '/. ... :. ( ~•,,,l . . • \\ J ~--.. ··• .. \. ----. ·. ·' • .r ,tJ""-• • ~---~'.::.!-,•.; --, 91":.· .,.,:j'.J ·_;---.. ,.,· ~;;;?' . . . , .'::' 11."'' ' -1··· '.l/ '~::'. ; A f'\/ p 0 / ! \ \ -/ ! -,-'I / . _; \ _,/ ,::i:'· / . ~: / • 6 %<::101(. u ~' \ \ \ \ I t 0 . • • \ \ \ I \ \ I I \ \ W &UM .I I s \ \ I I ' I I I I ' ' I ' I ' I I I ' ' I ' I ' ' ' I I. I I . I I I ' I I ' • • i \ ' \ ' I I \ ' \ \ \ • I I \ \ \ ' \ / \ \ - :r:::::::J c:::::i c::::J / N!l.W C>l<1bU>'"-i.JNE, ~10!. C,::,N"!"O':..,C t.--P·-l~ ' LI NS '--. -·~'-''; .;, ,, "•_; ~ '! i•[.' .• ., " ''i?ii!i ·.\.Mt;~ v.:· .. ··_ 1l\~ ,~ .. • ~-'-, ,'-· ;..l: • . ,,i • • .,:.·: ":,t• ,. • .,, '~\'.ti .: .\~;~ ",t:.,"i '·:.}!t: • "'ii "-'# ' ·,.·,_,; ; ,•·';.,.2; '-·; -::--,~ l-r • ,.,; '"~ ·--' , __ ........ ~~ ·: ~l; ;, ·,' \{_;-, i-,..,·.*t ... , .. ... . • .-'.""'- ,,._., ·~""·-• ' '2, <>T.· 1NTE(:Y,M.;(!CO&t-f ~) r .. Fi" JN-n;;l.""'-1.. ~-• tr±: tttit# ~-. \--·-----\. \ {) /-:------------ .)_,___-..-- ~ M'"f:. p.,;_J, N 1~"10 PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S ,. 750 SEAT RESl'Al.JRANT, .150 UNIT. MOTEL,. CONVENIENCE STORE, SERVICE ~·--. . • • .-.c.:.._~~--0--_:__,_ --"--'-.!"~-~--•----- ., . __ , ~-~ ,.----. . --"""' ~-.,-..~ ··-. .:.. ............. ' -cc.---,_ ----...,-~.' ,_ -,.--·- -CARL s BAD STATION AND 125 SEAT GOURMET RESTAURANT tFUTURE) '• . . 1/ . -----------------.. ------------------- KRUGER ARCHITECTS AIA KENNll!TH C KRUGER AIA• 2"! A\A1' 11 ~0 <e;v. 'I. 1. JLINli ,4e,,::, (""'"° ,:ev. -r ;,I.la.. l'!bO ()j.;P.j l!.~V-3 StiPT. 1980 -,,,U.~/>IC. BENSEN ZIEMER SANTA BARBARA DONA!,.D K BENSEN AJA• DONALD ZIEMER AIA Jae, i,I,:,, 'lb· 12.i p.t V , !'i, "1,u'f'. .~ () • ' .. k. "t"",_1 1 "-!~ .. ,, '•· ~'"'='' f_~¥"'~,-.. '•· ••"-...c '.c...-2, .. o. ~-""-~--~ ;;_,.-:••• C\JP