HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-07; City Council; 6551; ZC-222 Jack-in-the-Box-•-* —
CITY OF CARLSBAD
• INITIAL
AGENDA BILL NO: (j> & *£~ I _ DEPT.
DATE: . APRTT. 7f 1Q81 . CTY. ATTY. _y
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING CTY. MGR
SUBJECT:
ZC-222 JACK-IN-THE-BOX: Zone Change from R-P to C-1-Q
(Originally requested as C-2)
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER;
This item is a request for a change of zone from R-P to C-2 of 7,000 square feet
of land on property located immediately south of the existing Jack-in-the-Box
Restaurant on Harding- Street. This parcel, along with the existing Jack-in-the-
Box property, would be used for the future redevelopment of the Jack-in-the-Box
Restaurant. The Planning Commission felt the request for C-2 was not appro-
priate for this site and that a better zone would be C-1 with a Q overlay. The
applicant agreed with the C-1-Q zone and the Commission was able to make all the
mandatory findings for a zone change and is therefore recommending approval to
• the City Council.
Through staff review and Planning Commission hearing, all issues on this matter
have been satisfactorily resolved.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not cause any signi-
ficant environmental impacts and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration,
dated December 18, 1980, which was approved by the Planning Commission on Janu-
ary 14, 1981.
. FISCAL IMPACTS
The applicant will provide all necessary public improvements prior to redevelop-
ment of the site. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facility fee
to ensure the .provision of all other necessary public services.
RECOMMENDATION
Both the Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend that this application
be APPROVED and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare documents APPROV-
ING ZC-222 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1752.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1752
2. Staff Report, dated March 11,. 1981
Council! Action;
4-7-81 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents.approving
ZC-222 per Planning Commission Resolution No.. 1752.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1752
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE
CHANGE FROM R-P TO C-l-Q ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARDING STREET BET-
WEEN ELM AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE.
APPLICANT: JACK IN THE BOX
CASE NO; ZC-222
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of Block 66 of the Town
of Carlsbad Amended, according to map thereof No. 775
filed on March 12, 1915.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided
by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 14th day of
January, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued
public hearings on February 11 and March 11, 1981 as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to
be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-222, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1) That the Zone Change to C-l-Q is consistent with the
designation of N in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, as discussed in the staff report.
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
2). As conditioned, that the lot is suitable in size and shape
to accomodate development permitted in the proposed zone.
3) As conditioned, that the Zone Change would not adversely
impact surrounding properties.
4) The project will not cause any significant environmental
impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by
the Planning Director on December 18, 1980 and approved
by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1981.
5) The project is consistent with all city public facility
policies and ordinances since:
a) All necessary public improvements have been provided
or will be required as conditions of approval.
b) The applicant has agreed and is required by the
inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a
public facilities fee. Performance of that contract
and payment of the fee will enable this body to
find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
c) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition to this zone change insured
that building permits will not be approved unless
the City Council finds that sewer service is
available to serve the project. Building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, the Planning Commission is
satisfied that the requirements of the public
facilities element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this
zone change.
6) As conditioned, that the street system serving the project
is adequate to handle any increase in traffic generated
by the change of zone.
General Conditions
1) -Approval is granted for ZC-222, as shown on Exhibit X,
dated December 29, 1980, incorporated by reference and
on file in the Planning Department.
2) This project is approved upon the express condition that
building permits will not be issued for development of the
subject property unless the City Engineer determines that
sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available
until time of occupancy.
PC RESO #1752 -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
3) This project is approved upon the.express condition that the
applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by
City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and
according to the agreement executed by the applicant for
payment of said fee a copy of that agreement dated October
23, 1980, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised,
this application will not be consistent with the General
Plan and.approval for this project shall be void.
4) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with
all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli-
cable city ordinances-in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
5) This approval shall become null and void if building permits
are not issued for this project within one year from the
date of project approval.
Engineering Conditions
6) The applicant shall file an adjustment plat to consolidate
the two subject lots. Assessors Parcel Numbers 203-353-03,
and 203-353-08, prior to issuance of any building permits
for either lot.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
on the llth day of March, 1981, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Leeds, Larson, Rombotis,
and Friestedt.
NOES: Commissioners Jose and L'Heureux
ABSENT:None.
ABSTAIN: None.
MARY MARCUS, Chairman
'CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST!
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO #1752 -3-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 11, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZC-222/CUP-189 - JACK-IN-THE-BOX - Request for
a Zone Change from RP to C-2 and a Conditional Use
Permit to construct and operate a drive-thru
restaurant on property generally located on the
southeast corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting to rezone a 7,000 sq. ft. par-
cel, immediately south of their existing property, located,
as described above. The applicant is additionally request-
ing approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct and
operate a new Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru restaurant on the
enlarged property, creased by the requested zone change.v
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing restau-
rant and replace it with a larger facility on the newly
created .48 acre site. The project site is a fully improved
corner lot fronting on both Elm Avenue and Harding Street.
The restaurant, as designed, takes access from both streets.
II. DISCUSSION
This item was previously considered at the Planning Com-
mission meetings of January 14, 1981 and February 11, 1981.
At the February 11, meeting, the Commission directed the
item to be continued to tonight's meeting and, during the
continuance, for staff to work closely with the applicant
concerning the plan and to have a meeting on the plan and
any proposed revisions with a representative from the Plan-
ning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Committee.
The plan before the Commission at this time (Exhibit "A"
dated February 27, 1981), was reviewed by all affected City
Departments and it represents the best compromise that all
interested parties, including the applicant, could agree to,
The plan was also reviewed at a meeting with the represent-
ative of the Planning Commission and Housing and Redevelop-
ment Committee and, at that meeting, it was determined that
the one primary issue which remains unresolved is the drive-
way access on Elm Avenue.
W
The plan still proposes an entrance/exit driveway on Elm
with a median island in Elm to prohibit left turns in and
out of the project. The-other aspects of the plan which
should be noted are as follows:
1) The exit from the drive-thru lane has been curved to
eliminate conflicts between vehicles exiting the drive-
thru and vehicles entering the site.
2) A pedestrian walkway has been designated across the
drive-thru lane to connect the parking lot with the
front entrance to the restaurant.
3) The stacking area -has been increased and the drive-way
leading to the stacking area widened in order to reduce
vehicular conflicts in this area.
4) The four parking spaces to the rear of the restaurant
have been changed to a loading area where only employees
would be permitted to park. These spaces are being
requested to be counted in meeting the overall parking
requirement (29).
Although the overall plan still presents some problems from
a on-site and off-site circulation standpoint, it appears to
be the best compromise feasible while still meeting the
design guidelines of the Redevelopment area and complying
with the plan orginally approved by. the Housing and Redevelopment
Committee therefore, staff is recommending approval. A Memo
from the Engineering Department is attached which indicates .
the reasons why it is felt that the plan represents a reason-
able solution.
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu-
tion No. 1752, recommending APPROVAL of ZC-222 based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and
adopt Resolution No. 1751, APPROVING CUP-189 based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution Nos. 1751 and 1752
Memo from Engineering dated March 11, 1981'"'
Staff Report of February 11, 1981^
Staff Report of January 14, 1981^
Exhibit A dated February 27, 1981
MJH:j t
3/5/81
c o
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Principal Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: JACK-IN-THE-BOX (CUP-189) - TRAFFIC CONSIDERATION
Summary: The proposed project represents a reasonable solu-
tion and is acceptable to all City Department staffs and the
applicant.
Discussion:' The major traffic concern with this project is
its impact on Elm Avenue. The current design has relocated
the drive-thru exit so that it will merge with the parking
lot traffic before exiting on Elm Avenue. This eliminates
the "contraflow" problem and significantly improves this
access. A future median (Currently being designed by a city
consultant) will eliminate left turns into and out of the
site from Elm Avenue.
A second concern was the stacking at the Harding Street
entrance. The order box was relocated so that when a vehi-
cle stops, it does not block the'exit from the parking lot
to Harding Street. The stacking lane will be adequate,
except for short peak periods. The impact on Harding Street
will be minor.
RHA:jt
3/6/81
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 11, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZC-222/CUP-189 - JACK-IN-THE-BOX - Request for
a Zone Change from RP to C-2 and a Conditional
Use Permit to construct and operate a drive-thru
restaurant.on property generally located on the
southeast corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting to rezone a 7,000 sq. ft.
parcel, immediately south of their existing property,
located, as described above. The applicant is additionally
requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct
and operate a new Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru restaurant on
the enlarged property, creased by the requested zone change.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing restau-
rant and replace it with a larger facility on the newly
created .48 acre site. The project site is a fully improved
corner lot fronting on both Elm Avenue and Harding Street.
The restaurant, as designed, takes access from both streets.'
This item was originally heard at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 14, 1981. Citing design problems with
parking and access, the Planning Commission continued the
project to the meeting of February 11. The issue of access
onto Elm Avenue was discussed at length and each commissioner
questioned as to their feeling on the matter. The majority
indicated that if access was to include Elm Avenue, that
such access be designed to provide right-turn, exits only,
preferably from the drive-thru lane only.
II. DISCUSSION
The applicant has submitted a new site plan incorporating
some modifications to the plan originally submitted to and
conditionally approved by the Design Review Board. The
overall restaurant size has been reduced from approximately
3200 sq, ft. to 2860 sq. ft. Thirty parking spaces, including
eleven compact, would be provided on-site, satisfying the basic
parking requirement.
The Planning Commission's major concerns, regarding traffic
circulation on and off-site, remain unresolved. The new
plans would still allow ingress and egress from Elm Avenue
directly opposed to the Commission's desire for a right
turn, exit only driveway. As the Commission is aware, the
access driveway was the primary concern on all previously
submitted designs (please refer to staff's identification of
problems related to Elm Avenue access in the attached staff
report dated January 14, 1981).
As an attempt to mitigate these traffic concerns, the appli-
cant has proposed a small median, on Elm Avenue, opposite
the driveway opening, (please see attached Exhibit C, dated
January 20, 1981). Staff found several problems associated
with this design. First, the island would not prohibit or
even discourage entrance to the site from Elm Avenue, as
directed by the Commission. Additionally, the median itself
is not large enough to prohibit left turns in and out of the
site, but would, in fact, encourage vehicles to circumvent
the island, creating the potential for additional traffic
conflicts.
Staff had further concern regarding the advisability of the
median island at this location. As outlined in the attached
memorandum from the Engineering Department, dated January
28, 1981, a partial median at this location could contribute
to potential traffic hazards. The only safe and acceptable
median configuration would be a contiguous median from
Harding Street to the freeway access. As farther discussed
in the above-referenced memorandum, construction of such a
median would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
As a median is not a viable alternative to restrict traffic
movements to and from the site, the plan is essentially the
same as the design originally reviewed by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission. The problems associated with
this design also remain unchanged: serious impacts on Elm
Avenue, contra-flow at the Elm Avenue access, potential off-
site stacking problems, traffic and pedestrian conflicts,
and on~site stacking and circulation problems (for complete
discussion of these concerns, please see attached staff
report, dated January 14, 198.1).
Staff does not feel that the new design addresses itself to
the -concerns discussed or direction given by the Commission.
Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission
either allow the applicant one more continuance to redesign
the project to satisfy all the concerns or to deny the
project..
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this
item pending redesign or adopt Resolution No. 1751, DENYING
CUP-189 based on the findings contained therein.
-2-
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 1751, February 11, 1981
Memo from Traffic Engineer, January 21, 1981^
Memo from Engineering Department, January 23, 1981-
Staff Report with attachments, January 14, 1981-
CDN:j t
1/27/81
._ o _,
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 parking a.-ea. 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.
US: Is
cc: Catherine Nicholas, Planning
David Mauser, Engineering
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING - CURRENT SECTION
FROM: ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER - CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
DATE: January 23, 1931
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 fora
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
STAFF REPORT
'DATE: January 14, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZC-222/CUP-189 - JACK-IN-THE-BOX, Request for a
Zone Change from R-P to C-2 and a Conditional Use
Permit to construct and operate a drive-thru
restaurant on property generally located on the
southeast corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street,
I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to rezone a 7,000 sq.ft. parcel,
immediately south of their existing property, located, as
described above. The applicant is additionally requesting
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct and
operate a new Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru restaurant on the
enlarged property, created by the requested zone change.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing restaurant
and replace it with a 3200 sq.ft. facility on the newly created
.48 acre site. The project site is a fully improved corner
lot fronting on both Elm Avenue and Harding Street. The
restaurant, as designed, takes'access from both streets.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
Zone Change^
1) Is the requested zone change consistent with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan?
2) Is the lot suitable in size and shape to accommodate
development permitted in.the proposed zone?
3) Would the requested zone change adversely impact
surrounding properties?
4) Is the street system serving the project adequate
to handle any increase in traffic generated by
the change of zone?
Conditional Use Permit
5) Can the findings required for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit be made, specifically:
A) Is the requested use desirable for the develop-
ment of the community, essentially in harmony
with the various elements of the General Plan
and not detrimental to existing uses or to
uses specifically permitted in the zone?
B) Is the site adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the intended use?
C) Are all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences,
landscaping and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or
permitted future uses in the neighborhood
provided?
D) Is the street system serving the project
adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use?
III. DISCUSSION
Zone Change
The applicant is requesting a zon3 change from R-P to C-2.
on a 7,000 sq.ft. parcel, adjacent to the existing restaurant
facility, on Harding Street. The land-use designation for
this property, as established by the General Plan, is "N",
Neighborhood Commercial. Typical uses cited in the Land
Use element include supermarkets, drug stores, specialty
stores and business and professional offices.
The zone which most closely corresponds to the "N", land-
use designation, would be C-l, Neighborhood Commercial. In
the C-l zone, a drive-thru restaurant would be a use permitted
through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The land-use designation for the existing Jack-in-the-Box is
also "N". This property presently, however, carries a
C-2, General Commercial zoning. For reasons of consistency,
staff desired to have both parcels under the same zoning.
However, staff was unable to make the required finding of
General Plan consistency to rezone the second parcel to C-2.
Staff is, therefore, recommending that both parcels be rezoned
to C-l-Q. The C-l designation would be consistent with the
Neighborhood Commercial classification of the General Plan.
Both the C-l and C-2 zones share the same development standards
and would permit drive-thru restaurants with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
-2-
Staff is recommending tha the "Q" Overlay zone be placed on
these properties due to the unique traffic and access problems
associated with this location. Additionally, the nature
of the smaller parcel, its narrow configuration, limited access
and proximity to residential/professional uses, warrant
special consideration in development. In this instance,
approval of a site plan for a Conditional Use Permit would
satisfy the requirements of approval of a Site Development
Plan.
Utilizing the "Q" Overlay review process would alleviate
staff's other concerns with respect to potential impacts to
surrounding properties and the street system. Due to the
proposed intensification of use, staff feels that approval
of the zone change should be based upon the acceptability of
an overall site plan for both properties.
Conditional Use Permit
As witnessed by the success of the existing operation, there
appears to be a demand, within the community, for this type
of use. Staff had numerous concerns, however, relating to
the actual designs submitted for enlargement of the Jack-in-
the-Box facility.
Staff has been working with the applicant for several months,
first with the Redevelopment Review Board and most recently
with the city planning and engineering staff. On November
10, 1980, the Housing and Redevelopment. Design Review Board
conditionally approved the attached Exhibit B, dated December
30, 1980, subject to approval of the Conditional Use Permit
and subsequent approvals of a landscape plan and sign program
by the review board. In its review, the board and the
redevelopment staff noted possible circulation problems, on
and off-site, however, left this issue to the discretion of
the Planning Commission. (Please refer to attached minutes
and staff report from the Design Review Board).
Planning and engineering staff found the design presented
to Housing arid Redevelopment to be unacceptable due to
parking deficiencies and traffic conflicts on and off-site.
After several meetings with the applicant, attached Exhibit
"A", dated December 23, 1980, was submitted. Staff, similarly
found this plan to be unacceptable for many of the same
reasons.
Staff's concerns pertained, primarily, to traffic circulation,
specifically: with respect to consistency with the elements
of the General Plan, potential impacts on surrounding uses,
consideration'of on~site circulation, and impacts on the
affected street systems. As these concerns are all inter-
related, they will be discussed together with an evaluation
of the circulation designs.
-3-
Staff's primary concern relates to access on Elm Avenue.
Elm is a secondary arterial; the function of which is to
conduct large volumes of traffic between larger arterials
(Carlsbad Blvd) or freeways (1-5). As set forth in the
guidelines' of the Circulation Element of the General Plan,
private driveway accesses upon secondary arterials should
be minimized whenever possible.
It should be noted that the existing facility has two
driveway openings onto Elm Avenue and a third access available
by utilizing the adjoining alley. VThile the proposed designs
reduce the number of accesses to one, (the alley still
serving traffic), staff feels that any driveway opening on
Elm Avenue is in conflict with the General Plan, would
adversely impact Elm Avenue and create numerous potential
traffic conflicts.
The proposed new facility will be nearly three times the
size of the existing restaurant. While the new design is
an improvement over the current situation, a consequential
increase in traffic can be expected and consideration must
be given to the impacts on Elm Avenue.
Secondary arterials, suqjh as Elm Avenue, are designed to
carry between 5,000 - 20,000 vehicles a day. Elm Avenue,
constructed at slightly less than standard right-of-way
width, is accommodating in excess of 18,000 vehicles each
day, in this area. The result is extreme congestion,
particularly in areas with a proliferation of driveway
openings, as exists in the block between the freeway and
Harding Street. The problem is increased at peak hours,
which appear to generally correspond with prime hours for
fast-food.
The project, in both designs, will funnel the majority
of traffic onto Elm Avenue. The drive-thru lane, which,
according to Jack-in-the-Box officials, approximately
75% of its patrons utilize, terminates at Elm Avenue, making
this the most convenient and logical exit. The impacts
of this additional traffic are further compounded by the
proximity of the driveway opening to the intersection of
Elm Avenue and Harding Street.
Vehicles attempting to turn left onto Elm Avenue would be
required to cross two lanes of eastbound traffic and a left
turn pocket. Eastbound vehicles entering from Elm Avenue
would be slowing down to make this turning movement at
a point where other vehicles would be accelerating.
Vehicles .traveling west and attempting to enter the facility
and those exiting the restaurant would have the additional
difficulty of potential conflicts with other vehicles
entering and exiting the numerous other driveway accesses
along this block. •
-4-
As discussed in the attached memo from the Engineering
Department, there have been a largo number of accidents
along this block. It is staff's opinion that a significant
contributing factor to' this high figure are the numerous
driveway openings and potential conflict points.
In addition to potential vehicular conflict points, access
onto Elm Avenue adversely impacts pedestrian and bicycle
circulation. Elm Avenue is a designated bike route by the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. This element sets
safe pedestrian and bicycle movement as circulation goals.
To maximize good pedestrian and bicycle circulation, to
minimize potential vehicular conflict and adverse impacts on
Elm Avenue and to conform with the adopted General Plan,
staff urges that no individual access to Elm Avenue be
approved. Staff feels that whenever possible, individual
accesses to Elm Avenue should be restricted. In this
instance, the subject property has adequate frontage on
Harding Street and the alley from which access can be adequately
taken without the need for a driveway on Elm. As Elm Avenue
is already functioning at near capacity and the street
serves as the major corridor into the redevelopment area and
Central Business District, additional congestion could have
long term ramifications on the safety of this street,
adjoining properties and the development of the downtown
community as a whole. Staff has discussed alternative
designs with the applicant and recommends that if access to
Elm Avenue is to be permitted, that a joint use arrangement
be made utilizing the existing alley opening.
Staff had additional concerns with respect to onsite
circulation and design. The project, as shown on Exhibit
"A", has a serious parking deficiency. The applicant is
proposing a new 3200 sq.ft. restaurant. The corresponding
parking requirement would be 32 spaces. The project, as
designed, includes only 26 spaces, two of those spaces being
tandem and unacceptable by code. This would create an
overall parking shortage of 8 spaces. The applicant is
requesting that the Commission, allow a reduction to the
parking requirement.
The zone code would not permit and staff would recommend
against such a reduction. Fastfood restaurants experience
large influxes of traffic during peak hours. Vehicles
unable to find parking spaces will contribute to on-site
congestion and may result in vehicles stacking into the
street. Staff does not feel that 24 parking spaces' would be
adequate for a 96 seat restaurant.
•5-
.
The project, as designed in attached Exhibit B, also has
parking deficiences. The overall design has an initial
shortage of two spaces. An additional problem arises due to
the fact that the Village Design Manual permits the Design
Review Board to grant up to 40% credit for small car spaces.
In accord with this provision, Exhibit "B" includes 11
compact spaces of a total of 30 parking spaces.
On-site stacking of vehicles was an additional staff concern.
In both designs, when one car is ordering at the menu board,
a second vehicle would obstruct movement into the parking
area. Stacking vehicles, on Exhibit B, would preclude the
use of 5 parking spaces, including the handicapped parking
spaces.
Additional on-site circulation problems exist with the
design shown on Exhibit B. Vehicles exiting the drive-thru
lane would be on the wrong side of the driveway, creating a
situation called contra-flow, (please refer to the attached
memo from the Engineering Department). This situation would
require vehicles attempting to enter the site, from Elm
Avenue, to drive up the middle of two exiting cars, creating
a dangerous conflict point.
The site itself is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in concept. However, all designs, reviewed by
staff, had parking deficiencies. It would appear, the
refore, that the restaurant, as designed, may be too large
for the site and perhaps should be modified accordingly.
Due to these on-site concerns and the severity of the
potential impacts on Elm Avenue, staff recommends this
project be redesigned and that any future designs eliminate
individual access from Elm Avenue.
IV • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will
not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore,
has issued a negative declaration on December 18, 1980.
V •
It is recommended that the Planning Commission A£PROVE the
negative declaration issued by the Planning Director and
A_ETR_OVE Resolution No. 1752, recommending APPROVAL of
ZC-222 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein and CONTINUE CUP-189 pending redesign.
Should the applicant choose not to modify these designs,
it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No..1751, DENYING CUP-189, based on the findings
contained therein.
-6-
c
ATTACHMENTS
PC Resolution No. 1751
PC Resolution No. 1752
Memo, Richard Allen, dated December 23, 1980
Minutes of November 10, 1980
Background Data Sheet
Location Map
Disclosure Form
Exhibit "A" dated December 23, 1980
Environmental Documents
CDN:ar
12/31/80
.7-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Catherine Nicholas
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Richard Allen
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 23, 1930
SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO JACK-IN-THE-BOX
DEC 2E 1380
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Manning Department
The Jack-in-the-Box is proposing a new fast food drive-through restaurant
on the southeast corner of Elm Avenue and Hardii") Street. One driveway
access is proposed on Elm Avenue and another on llnrdi ng. Street.
cant has discussed numerous alternatives and soni
an access on the adjacent alley.
The appl i-
of these have proposed
The Engineering Department recommends against
a number of reasons.
any access on Elm Avenue for
1.Elm Avenue is a secondary arterial. It is I he policy set by the Cir-
culation Element of the General Plan that .-..cess on a secondary arte-
rial should be minimized where possible. H"'- subject property has .
two other access points: Harding Street
2.
3-
The location of the property between the
alley, which are only 150 feet apart, doe
for safe merging from an additional driveway
,! the a i1ey.
,-fct intersection and th?
not allow sufficient room
There have been a large number of accident". '~jlon9 E1m Avenue in this
vicinity. In the last three years, there IMVC been 13 accidents at
the intersection with Harding Street, 8 an Merits along the Jack-in-
the-Box frontage on Elm Avenue (including 1 1"' alley) and 9 accidents
along the Poinsetlia Plaza frontage. The t .-Hise 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 ii-'T and avoid conflicts.
M<'X has two driveway open-
, <>n ' Y one- ' t should also
be" noted, however, that the proposed Jack- in-tli«" Hox. wi ] ] be much 1a>~ger
and is expected to generate significantly more M'-ufic.
It will be noted that the existing Jack-in-the •
ings on Elm Avenue now and the proposed plan h,i'<"
It is not known at the time of this report what l'lan wil1 bc f°™any SLlb"
mitted to the Planning Commission for cons ider.i I 'nn • Currently, the formal
submittal labeled Exhibit B, dated November 17. ' qfi° has an additional Pro"
blem with the proposed access on Elm Avenue.. Vehicles entering the parking
lot from Elm Avenue will have vehicles exiting I ">m the drive- through lane
on their right and_ vehicles exiting from the p.-«iH!»n lot on their left.
The driveway width of 36 feet exceeds the maximum permitted width of 30
feet. This design is not acceptable.
RHA:1s
A:;D REDEVELOPMENT
Vm, ,-, COiiMIXTEE (DESIGN RKVIK: /;0.\.U
AGENDA NO. 2
DISCUSSION ON:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLAN MO. 4 Foodmaker
BATE: November 10, If) SO
Southeast corner of the intersection of Elm Avenue and Harding
Street, (being lots 11,12,13,14,15,16 of Block 66, Carlsbad Subdivision
Mat>" 533), in the City of Carlsbad.
LAND USK:
to the north
to the south
to the cast
to the west
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
l-^L JiOC AT ION :
S u b area t w o ( 2 )
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION:
MAJOR
•AGENDA. //2
•page 2
DISCUSSION: •
The proposed development consists of approximately 3,200 square feet
jf commercial space on a 21,000 square foot parcel. The use will be for
a fast food restaurant (Jack-in-the-Box). The proposed development does
meet the coverage requirements as set forth in the Village Design Manual.
The Design Manual requires that 20% of the net lot be allocated to
landscaping/open spaces. The proposed plan devotes 38% to landscaping/
open spaces. The open space is being met via textured paving and street
furniture in the form of benches along Harding Street and Elm Avenue. The
proposal provides landscaping/open spaces and the street furniture sited
in a manner that will be accessible to external pedestrian traffic along
both street frontage sides of the lot. This is compatable with the goals
and design suggested in the Design Manual for Subarea Two(2). The building
will be one story and will not exceed the thirty-five foot(35') height
limitation. The structure appears to be sited in a manner that is
consistent with the Design Manual for the Subarea.
The Design Manual
that the goal is to ".
traffic circulation...1
be concerned with curb
however, does indicate under Subarea Two(2)
.emphasize better design of on and off site
' and that the Design Review Board should "..
cuts and adequate screening of parking areas
along the Elm Avenue Special Treatment Area.
The Traffic Engineer has suggested that access to the parcel be
limited to Harding Street and the alley right-of-way. Staff recognizes
that there may be some circulation problems both on and off site;
'lowever, this proposal must also be reviewed by the City's Planning
Jommission under the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) process. At that
titfe, the issue of circulation will again be addressed and receive a more
comprehensive review, that will focus on issues outside the Housing
and•Rcdeve1opment Adivsory Committee's jurisdiction. Since the proposal
appears to address the concerns noted in the Design Manual, it may be
advisable for the Committee to conditionally approve the plan subject
to C.U.P. approval by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee concurs
with this report then they should conditionally approve Design
Review Board No.4 subject, to the conditions listed below, and direct staff
to forward a copy of the minutes on this item to the Planning Commission
at the time of the C.U.P. hearing.
1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit by the
Carlsbad Planning Commission.
2. Approval of a Landscape Plan by the Housing
and Redevelopment Advisory Committee
subsequent to the approval of the C.U.P.
3. Approval of a sign program by the Housing
and Redevelopment Advisory Committee sub-
sequent to the approval of the C.U.P.
V . *1Y OF CARLSBAD A, (
£ .HOUSING AMD REDEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MI N U T E S
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1980
TIME: 4:00 P.M.
PLACE: HARDING STREET COMMUNITY CENTER
I. Roll: (P=Present A=Absent),
f A CHRISS p CARNEY A HALL p HAYES _.
A MARIZ p SANCHEZ p RUNZO p WARD
2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLAN # 4 - FOODMAKER:
Staff presented DRB No.. 4 a 3,200 square foot major conraerical
proposal located on the southeast corner.of Harding Street and Elm Avenue
(Subaren ?.). T!ii.s proposal meets the guidelines o£ the Design Manual, however;
staff noted that this development proposal must go before the Planning Commission
for a Conditional Use Permit. Discussion was held on proposed sign standards.
%,
Motion by Member Helton to approve staff recommendation as outlined;
subject to the approval of the C.U.P. by the Planning Coirjnission. Member Runzo
seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Members Chriss, Hall and Mariz absent.
HUAC '• .'
MlKUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 1980
page 2
ft\
Discussion followed on the intention of the Committee to aid Foodmaker
with the further processing of this proposal by attaching copy of Housing
and Redevelopment Advisory Committee minutes to the plans indicating approval
of the Design Review Board.
3. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLAN // 5 - RICK:
This item tabled awaiting appliant to be present.
*• DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLAN # 6 ~ LANDRY/IIOWARD-JONES; ..
Staff gave the report on DRB #6, a 5,400 square foot major commercial
development to be used as a delicatessen located at 2775-2785 Roosevelt
(Subarea 8). Staff noted that this development proposal did meet the requirements
for landscaping/open space as indicated in the Design Manual.
Motion by Member Sanchez to approve DRB #6 as presented in the staff report.
Seconded by Member He].ton. Motion carried 6-0. Members Chriss, Hall, and
Mariz absent.
3. DHSIGM.REVIEW BOARD PLAN NO. 5 - RICK:
Staff gave presentation of DRB #5, a 48 unit senior housing proposal.
It was the first project to go through the City's Senior Housing Ordinance, which
requires a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission.
i*Si^.«&iS**a(tfeiWi 'i-.T**
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
N0: ZC-222/CUP-189 '
APPLICANT: (Correia) Jack In The Box
REQUEST mo LOCATION: Zone Change from KP to C-2/ and a CUP for a Drive-Thru
restaurant on the south side of Elm Ave. between Harding Street and 1-5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 66 of Town of
Carlsbad Amended according to inap^thjareofNo. 775 filed in the office of the
county recorder on March 12, 1915.
Assessors Parcel Number: 203 ~ .353 ~ 03 & 08
Acres .16 No. of Lots 7
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation
Density Allowed N/A _ Density Proposed
Existing Zone R-p Proposed Zone c-2
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
North C-2 _______
South R-P
East c-2
West R-p
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District N/A
Water District City of Carlsbad
Sewer District City of Carlsbad EDU's As Required
Public Facilities Fee Agreement., dated October 23, 1980
(Other: •
' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X_ Negative Declaration, issued Dec. 38, 1980 Log No. ZC-227
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other, ;
o
\ \
>>, PHOP^SED
u REZOt4U4Ci
TO
MO. ZC-ZZZ/CUEL!
' If after the informat^^P you have submittec; has been reviewSBF it is determined
that further information is required, you will be so advised.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
FogpMAKER, INCORPORATED
Naine (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
9330 Balboa Avenue San Diego, California 92123
Business Address .
714 - 571-2121
Telephone Number
Leandro Correia
Name
9330 Balboa Avenue P. 6. Box 783 San Diego, California 92112
Business Address
714 - 571-2285
Telephone Number •
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home Address.
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true .and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
FOODMAKER, INC. (Leandro Correia, _
Applicant^Construction Engineer)
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92003
€iti> of
TELEPHONE:
(714)) 433-5621
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ''".'•
.PROJECT APPRESS/LODYTION: The southeast corner. of Elm Avenue and _
.Harding Street . _ • ' _____ _ ___. . /.- . ^._ _ . •• • _ . • • • •_ ..____
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed rezoning of a 7,000 sq. ft. parcel front
R-P to C-2 and a conditional use permit to "demolish the existing
facility and replace it a larger, 3100 sq. ft. Jack-in-the-Box
drive-thru restaurant on the enlarged .48 acre site. It is antici-
pated that the cup review process will mitigate any potential
impacts to the environment. . . '.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the ahsve described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby
issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
. Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, City Ilall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008J__Cor>_pients
from the public are invited. Please submit commtfivtjs in writii
Department within ton (10) days of date of publ;
^ N0: ..ZC-222/CUP-189.
AT>PL1CANT:CORREIA
ZTAMTiS C. IIAGAMAN
Director of Planning
.City of " * ' ^'"'
PUIU.1SI1 DATE: December 20, 1980
1200 ELM AVENUE W ^g^ IS TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 t^jJ2Wr^f/3 (714)723-1181
Citp of Cartebafc
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a
• x Negative Declaration, Conditional Negative Declaration,
r Environmental Impact Report for the following project:
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to rezone a
7,000 sq. ft. parcel from R~P to C-2. The applicant is
additionally requesting a conditional use permit to demolish
the existing facility and replace it with a larger 3100 sq. ft.
Jack-in-the~Box drive-thru restaurant on the enlarged
• -.48 acre site. • • • • ' ; -
Project address/Location:
and Hard jng_,S t r ee t : . •»_
.Anticipated significant impacts: None. It is anticipated'that
the CUP review process_j,yill jmitiqateahy_ potentj.al impacts,
Vfe need to know your, ideas about the effect this project might have on
the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be re-
vised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage. Your •
ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environmental
review of this project.
Your comments on the environmental impact of the proposed project may
be submitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than
~7
CASE NO:___^C"222/CUP^189 SIGNED: __ "~ /!/ ^'-^^'S.•*-''
JAMHS (:.*
APPLICANT•-_4.j£Lcklln_-r±he^Eo^-) >'/. - Planiving Director XX
PUBLISH DATE: J^ember__6_,'JL980