The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 84-04A; POLLOS MARIA DRIVE THRU WINDOW; Redevelopment Permits (RP)APPLICWION COMPLETE DATE: SEPTEMBER 26. 1992 ^OS- STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1992 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING/HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS SUBJECT: RP 84-04rA) - POLLOS MARIA DRIVE-THRU - Request for an amendment to an existing Redevelopment Permit (RP 84-04) to approve a drive-thm window at the Polios Maria Restaurant located at 3055 Harding Street within Sub-area 7 of the Village Redevelopment Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 200, DENYING RP 84-04(A), based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The existing restaurant use at 3055 Harding Street within Village Redevelopment Sub-area 7 was approved with RP 84-04. The 900 square foot restaurant required nine (9) parking spaces. However, the project was approved with eight (8) spaces since a serious parking shortage was not anticipated, as discussed in the projecfs staff report (attached with approving resolution). The project was also approved, with a two way circulation that connects Harding Street with the rear alley. The drive-thm proposal is shown on Exhibit "A", dated December 2, 1992 and involves a parking lot and circulation redesign. IIL Project Issues 1. ANALYSIS Is the project consistent with the goals, objectives and development standards of the Village Design Manual, Sub-area 7 and the Zoning Ordinance? Is project consistent with Engineering Department policies regarding drive-thms? RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS J^UA DRIVE THRU DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION The existing restaurant use is consistent with Village Design Manual and the residential/commercial mixed use land use objectives of Sub-area 7. However, the proposed drive-thm and related parking lot and circulation redesigns do not meet all applicable regulations. The drive-thm as proposed does not conform to City standards and Engineering Department policies. Consequently project circulation is negatively impacted. Specifically, the following City standards (A-B) and Engineering Department Policies (C-E) cannot be met: A. The parking lot redesign ivitfa tandem parking does not function: The parking lot involves tandem parking which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for this situation. Per Section 21.44.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, tandem parking is only allowed in two cases: (1) for front yard parking in the Residential-Waterways (RW) Zone, and (2) for front yard parking, with certain provisions, for existing substandard frontage lots with a width of less than fifty feet. Parking space access conflicts and unsafe pedestrian movements would be created by the proposal. B. The handicap space woidd be blocked: The cars queuing and waiting in the drive- thm line will block the handicap space. City standards require that a queuing area be free of any conflicts from backing out of parking spaces. C. No access from a public street: The proposal would convert the existing two-way circulation that connects Harding Street to the rear alley into a one-way circulation with access off the rear alley and an exit only onto Harding Street. D. A minimimi of 4 standard sized (20 ft. long) waiting cars camiot be accommodated before the order box: The site plan. Exhibit "A", shows 4 cars before the order box, however, they are bumper to bumper and have compact car dimensions. (16 ft. long). E. A minimum of 2 standard sized (20 ft. long) cars cannot be accommodated between the order box and pick up window: The site plan shows 2 compact size (16 ft. long) cars lined up bumper to bumper, indicating an inadequate amount of space provided. Based upon the above factors, staff does not support the proposal since parking lot and pedestrian traffic congestion will be created by the projecfs redesign. The site is not large enough to accommodate the drive-thm proposal. Staff has reviewed the applicanfs design altematives that attempted to provide a drive-thm window while complying with all applicable development standards and policies. However, the site proved to be too small and constrained to accommodate a design that would meet (P RP 84-04(A) - POLLOS MARIA DRIVE THRU DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 3 all codes, standards and policies and get staffs recommendation of approval. Staff has made the applicant aware of the project concems regarding noncompliance with applicable development standards and policies as reflected in the attached letters by the City dated May 6, June 15 and August 3, 1992. Also attached is the Engineering Department review of this project (dated September 16, 1992). The applicant is also aware that staff caimot support the proposal but requests that the matter be brought to the Design Review Board for consideration. Staff recommends denial of the drive-thm request. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As provided for in Section 15270 of CEQA, a public agency is not required to perform environmental review on a project which is not approved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 200 2. Location Map 3. RP 84-04 Staff Report (with Resolution No. 39) 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Letter dated May 6, 1992 7. Letter dated June 15, 1992 8. Letter dated August 3, 1992 9. Engineering Department Project Review, dated September 16, 1992 10. Exhibit "A", dated December 2, 1992 ENM:lh:vd:km OCTOBER 22, 1992 (P I 1 GRAND AVE 0) 0) CARLSBAD VLLAGE DR 0) s UL SITE OC < z CO City tf Gartskai POLLOS MARIA DRIVE-THRU RP 84-4(A)