Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 189; Jack in the Box; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)iMCKinUCBOC FOODMAKER, INC. 9330 Balboa Avenue, P.O. Box 783, San Diego, California 92112 (714) 571-2121 March 3, 1982 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ATTN: Catherine D. Nicholas RE: JACK IN THE BOX Planning Department 901 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA Dear Ms. Nicholas: As per our meeting of March 2, 1982, this letter will serve as confirmation that Foodmaker, Inc. will do the following: 1. The block wall at the south property line will be painted a stucco color. 2. We will submit a drawing showing the framing of the ends of the signs to blend into the roof lines with shingles. C 3. A stripe will be painted on the pavement at the trash enclosures and a small sigh requesting vehicles waite at line until vehicle ahead clears into drive-thru will be installed. The above items will be completed within 30 days of your approval Of the drawing listed as item #2. C/jJCtupf^^ r/^i^ U.OA/C t>jiy xj^^ ^} Very truly yours, E. Rubenstein Manager Construction QVaSiaVO 90 AllO cc: Kenn Schmitt Bob Radke 2861 8 0 FOODMAKER, INC.. A SUBSIDIARY OF RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 7, 1981 TO: Jim Hagaman, Planning Director ^ FROM: Jack E. Henthorn, Housing and Redevelopment Directo SUBJECT: VILLAGE DESIGN MNUAL SIGN GUIDELINES: The attached guidelines are provided for your information. The Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee at its meeting of November 10, 1980, recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Jack-in-the-Box development proposed at Harding Street and Elm Avenue. As a part of this approval, the Committee required that a sign program be submitted subsequent to C.U.P. approval. JEH:al MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: January 23, 1981 Planning Department Housing and Redevelopment SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Planning Commission action at their meeting of January 14, 1981, continued the Jack-in-the-Box item for redesign of circulation issues. Please be aware that Council has expressed a desire to maintain the goals and development standards setforth in the enclosed Village Design Manual. If any significant revisions are made to the plan approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee/Design Review Board, please be prepared to give a staff report to the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee explaining the changes. If you have any questions involving the determination of what constitutes a "significant change" please contact Drew Aitken. JEH:AJA:al MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING - CURRENT SECTION FROM: ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER - CURRENT DEVELOPMENT d^f. DATE: January 23, 1981 SUBJECT: MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT FOR ELM AVENUE ADJACENT TO PROPOSED JACK-IN-THE-BOX DEVELOPMENT In response to your concern over the proposed installation of a raised- median separation along Elm Avenue adjacent to the subject site. Engineer- ing staff wishes to make it clear that we are opposed to the construction of any non-contiguous median improvements. For reasons of traffic safety and accident liability. Engineering staff considers it inadvisable to re- quire the construction of a raised median at this location in the absence of a contiguous median located to the east of the project site. Consid- ering that the adjacent commercial development to the east of the subject site has established rights of ingress and egress to their properties via numerous access points we feel it would be extremely difficult if not im- possible to construct any viable median improvements in this area for a long time to come. We therefore recommend that Jack-in-the-Box not be required to construct any median improvement at this time, but that they be required to enter into an agreement with the City to construct such a median improvement along Elm Avenue adjacent to their property in the event the City is able to require the adjacent property owners to the east to construct the con- tiguous portion of the median. In addition, the developer should be made aware that the construction of such future median will overide any access rights that may be established under a site plan approval granted by the Planning Commission at this time. DAH:ls MEMORANDUM TO: Les Evans CITY ENGINEER FROM: William Stracker TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: January 21, 1981 SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX RESTAURANT Elm Avenue The Jack-in-the-Box site plan, dated January 20, 1981 was reviewed and the following comments are submitted. This plan is a radical departure from previous discussions held with the Foodmaker, Inc. representatives. The traffic circulation as shown on the plan is unacceptable. Elm Avenue is presently carrying approximately 17,000 vehicles per day with Harding Avenue carrying 4,700 vehicles per day. Elm Avenue will serve as the gateway to the City's redevelopment area from the 1-5 freeway, with additional traffic projected for the street. The Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant is showing access to Elm Avenue from the drive-through window lane and the parkinq area. This access contributes to contra-flow traffic, i.e. vehicles exiting on the wrong side of the driveway from the drive-up window creating serious conflicts with the vehicles entering from the street. This major accident potential could contribute to serious collisions with both vehicles and pedestrians, especially with the future increased traffic projections for Elm Avenue. For the restaurant arrangement shown, it is strongly recommended that the drive approach to Elm Avenue be closed and access be provided to the adja- cent alley at the rear of the parking lot. The concrete island in Elm Avenue shown on the plan is inadequate and should be constructed from Harding Avenue (at the ECR on Elm Avenue) to the alley. This will reduce considerably the conflicts occurring on Elm Avenue at this location. In previous meetings with Foodmaker, Inc., the Realtor, and the Project Architect, it was agreed to move the restaurant to the east end of the property next to the alley. This location provides a much better design for traffic circulation and conflicts and better utilization of the property for vehicle access. It is recommended that the easterly lot location of the restaurant and drive-up window be reactivated and diligently pursued by the City. llS:ls / cc: Catherine Nicholas, Planning ^ David Hauser, Engineering MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Holtzmi FROM: A.J. Aitken, DATE: December 2 SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX RECEIVED: DEC 29 1980 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department At their meeting of November 10, 1980, the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee requested that a copy of the Housing and Redevelopment Staff Report and a copy of the minutes regarding this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission when the Commission considers this item. AJA:ph MEMORANDUM TO: Catherine Nicholas PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Wi11iam Stracker TRAFFIC ENGINEER VIA: Les Evans ^ CITY ENGINEER DATE: December 23, 1980 SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX RESTAURANT Elm Avenue Access Jack-in-the-Box proposes to expand its existing facility at Elm Avenue and Harding Avenue with access indicated to both streets. Traffic impacts with regard to the driveway acess to Elm Avenue from the parkinq area and drive- up window was evaluated and my comments are included below. Elm Avenue is presently carrying approximately 17,000 vehicles per day with Harding Avenue carrying 4,700 vehicles per day. Elm Avenue will serve as the gateway to the City's redevelopment area from the 1-5 freeway, with additional traffic projected for the street. A large number of curb cuts presently exist along Elm Avenue where traffic enters the already heavy stream of traffic by turning either right or left. This entering traffic creates the congestion experienced by the motorists on Elm Avenue and Increases the potential for traffic accidents. New devel- opments along Elm Avenue should be reviewed to determine the optimum number of curb cuts necessary for the orderly movement of traffic while trying to reduce the traffic congestion and accidents. The proposed Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant can function effectively with its access to Harding Avenue and to the easterly alley. A curb cut Into the parking area from Elm Avenue cannot improve the traffic congestion on Elm Avenue and considering the additional traffic generated by the larger res- taurant, the traffic Impacts will most likely increase. A fast-food restau- ant generates long queues of vehicles during the peak hours from patrons waiting In the drive-up window line. These queues of vehicles could become long enough to need to store out on Elm Avenue while waiting in line to be served. This waiting on Elm Avenue would reduce the number of through travel lanes and back the cars through the Intersection at Harding Avenue. Harding Avenue Is a lesser traveled street and will not be as affected with traffic congestion or potential accidents as Elm Avenue. The on-site circu- lation would also be more efficient by separating the drive-through traffic from the traffic coming to eat Inside the restaurant. WS/ls # MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Catherine Nicholas DEC 22 1980 PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Richard Allen QLW- CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT* rUinnlng Department DATE: December 23, 1980 SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO JACK-IN-THE-BOX The Jack-in-the-Box is proposing a new fast food drive-through restaurant on the southeast corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street. One driveway access Is proposed on Elm Avenue and another on Harding Street. The appli- cant has discussed numerous alternatives and some of these have proposed an access on the adjacent alley. The Engineering Department recommends against any access on Elm Avenue for a number of reasons. 1. Elm Avenue is a secondary arterial. It Is the policy set by the Cir- culation Element of the General Plan that access on a secondary arte- rial should be minimized where possible. The subject property has two other access points: Harding Street and the alley. 2. The location of the property between the street intersection and the alley, which are only 150 feet apart, does not allow sufficient room for safe merging from an additional driveway. 3. There have been a large number of accidents along Elm Avenue in this vicinity. In the last three years, there have been 13 accidents at the Intersection with Harding Street, 8 accidents along the Jack-in- the-Box frontage on Elm Avenue (including the alley) and 9 accidents along the Poinsettia Plaza frontage. The cause of the majority of these accidents was listed as "inattention." Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the large number of driveways or "decision points" make it difficult to observe all traffic and avoid conflicts. It will be noted that the existing Jack-in-the-Box has two driveway open- ings on Elm Avenue now and the proposed plan has only one. It should also be noted, however, that the proposed Jack-in-the-Box will be much larger and is expected to generate significantly more traffic. It Is not known at the time of this report what plan will be formally sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. Currently, the formal submittal labeled Exhibit B, dated November 17, 1980 has an additional pro- blem with the proposed access on Elm Avenue. Vehicles entering the parking lot from Elm Avenue will have vehicles exiting from the drive-through lane on their right and vehicles exiting from the parking lot on their left. The driveway width of 36 feet exceeds the maximum permitted width of 30 feet. This design is not acceptable. RHA:ls MEMORANDUM TO: Catherine Nicholas PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Wi11iam Stracker TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: December 17, 1980 SUBJECT: ELM AVENUE/HARDING AVENUE JACK-IN-THE-BOX The revised drawing for the subject project was reviewed and the following comments are submitted. 1. Use plan with access to alley and back to parking area from drive-up window. This will allow vehicles to leave and to return to eat In parking lot. Condition allowance for closure of opening to alley should it become a problem. 2. Construct 100-foot concrete median in Elm Avenue to prohibit left turns. 3. Area showing stacked parking should be reserved for employees. WS: Is MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 1980 TO: Catherine Nicholes, Assistant Planner FROM: Andrew J. Aitken, Administrative Assistant,Housing & Redevelo ment SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX Enclosed is a copy of the staff report and minutes from the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee's meeting of November 10,1980 regarding the Design Review Board plan No. 4, Jack in the Box. The Committee approved the location of the proposed building along with the location of the landscaping and open space amenities(enclosed) The Committee did recognize some potential traffic circulation problems associated with the proposed curb-cut on Elm Avenue. The applicant was present at this meeting and appeared to agree with the Committee's concerns and expressed a willingness to work with the City during the C.U.P. process to correct the potential traffic problems with the proposed curb-cut. The sketches that you have provided us with show the proposed building and other amenities in a different location. Such a major change in the site design would have to be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee through the normal Design Review procedures. During the staff review of this item, discussions were held with Mike Holtzmiller regarding alternative circulation designs that included ingress-egress at a midpoint along the alley side, and possibly continuing the drive-thru exit into the parking area. Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me at ex. 5611 At tachment: DEPT. uf- HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT 3096 HARDING STREET 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALiFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 Citp of Carlsbab NOVEMBER 12, i98o FOODMAKER, INC. PO Box 783 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ATTN: LEA CORREIA, CONSTRUCTION RE: DRB NO. 4 DEAR APPLICANT: YOUR DESIGN PROPOSAL WAS REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1980 AND WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 11. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION. 2. APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE HRAC SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE C.U.P. 3. APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM BY THE HRAC SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE C.U.P. PRIOR TO SUBMITTING YOUR BUILDING PLANS TO THE CITY FOR FURTHER PROCESSING, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO SUBMIT A FINAL SITE PLAN SEPIA TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPT. FOR APPROVAL. THIS SITE PLAN WILL BECOME YOUR PLOT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. IN ADDITION, A COPY OF OTHER CITY STAFF COMMENTS IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR RECORDS AND FUTURE REFERENCE THROUGHOUT THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, YOU MAY CONTACT ME BY PHONE AT 438-5611 GR WRITE CARE OF THE ABOVE ADDRESS. You ANDRB^ J. AITKEN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AJA:PH ENC: