HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-04; City Council; 14037; FAST FOOD LAND USE STUDYI t
h cn cn rl
03
n
rl
k h
a a,
0
7
m 1 k
Fc
u-4
*rl u aJ 8
aJ
u
u 0
3 rl
g
c
-a aJ
*d u
c) :
k aJ
5
u u 8
..c a,
b 0
\ hl
€4
\
4.
a. 2 0 F 0
IJ 5 Z 3 0 0
a
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGE UA BILL
v
DEPT.HD. J
CITY ATTY. -
a 11
AB# I"i, 037 TITLE:
:lll.GR;
FAST FOOD LAND USE STUDY MTG. 2- y -92
DEPT. PLN &
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council accept the Fast Food Study and ADOPT Resolution of lntt
/VO, '-?-53 to initiate the zone code amendment process to establish stan
and criteria for the review of Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru restaurants.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In Spring of 1996 staff was directed by the City Council to perform a land use stL
fast food establishments and locations in the City. The objectives of the study we
(1) inventory existing fast food sites in the City; (2) assess current regulations reg
the location and criteria for fast food establishments including a survey of other
and, (3) recommend as needed any measures intended to prevent a proliferation
food establishments and/or the development of fast food sites which detract from design and quality Carlsbad development, especially along scenic corridors.
A copy of the Fast Food Study is attached. For the purposes of the study, a fas
restaurant is defined by the existence of a drive-thru lane. Technically, such a dei
for fast food restaurants does not exist in the zoning ordinance at this time; (
recommended as part of the study and follow up zone code amendment. A surnn
the study is as follows:
(1) Existinq sites: A Citywide inventory of existing fast food locations is provic
well as an overview of proposed, approved and future potential sites in the
Fast food restaurants are allowed in any non-residential zone in the City,
allows a sit down restaurant as a permitted use, via Conditional Use Permit
approval. Given the proposed fast food definition, there are currently 12 I
the City. In general, they are clustered in the downtown area (5 sites);
Avenida Encinas by the Poinsettia Plaza center (2 sites); off of Avenida E
(1 site); and, in the northeast part of the City near the malls (2 sites).
Current requlations/survev of cities: Currently, the CUP process is used to a
fast food establishments. There are four required findings to be made in c
approve a CUP. The first required finding addresses the short and long ter
use compatibility of the proposed conditional use against existing and
permitted uses. Mitigating the negative aspects of typical fast food establisl
(visual impact, bland corporate architecture, signage, stackedhdling vc
noise, odor and trash) has been done in the context of being able to make t
finding. The intent of the proposed zone code amendment is to standard
treatment and mitigation of these negative aspects by: I) adding develc
standardskriteria specific to fast food uses; and, 2) adding fast food finding:
north of Palomar Airport Road (PAR - 2 sites); off of Paseo del Norte south (
(2)
I a Fa 1
I
PAGE 2 OF AGEND ILL NO. 1 Lf, c 3 '1
existing CUP process specifically for fast food proposals.
The proliferation of fast food sites is currently controlled in the city since
certain zones allow sit down restaurants; and only in these zones can a CI
proposed for a drive-thru restaurant (fast food site). Proliferation can be f
controlled by implementing certain findingskriteria conceptually proposed I;
recommended zone code amendment.
Sixteen California cities were surveyed with regards to the regulation of fas
sites. Survey data show that while some cities prohibit fast food uses altog
others use the CUP or another use permit process to regulate and appro1
food restaurants. While prohibiting these uses outright is effective for reduci
negative aspects of fast food sites, success can be achieved by enforcing (
standards through the CUP process. The level of this effectiveness can be f
increased by the comprehensive establishment of findings andlor criteria
are designed with the objective of reducing the negative aspects of typic
food sites.
Recommended action: To address the issue of fast food proliferation, the e
allowance for these uses is restricted to certain zones in combination with i
approval. This has the ability to effectively control proliferation, however; thi
of control can be increased by implementing some of the conceptually prc
fast food findingskriteria. One of these involves an anti-proliferation finding
would try to prevent an undue concentration of fast food uses in the City (
specific part of the city.
To address the issue of site design, visual impacts and adequate functionir
fast food site, the establishment of a uniform approach for the review, ay
and regulation of fast food uses via codified findingskriteria is recomrr
through an appropriate zone code amendment. The attached Fast FOOC
Use Study contains an initial list of conceptual findings and criteria which cc
proposed with the recommended zone code amendment.
(3)
Attached for Council approval is a Resolution of Intention which would initiate thl
code amendment process to implement the recommendations of the Fast Food La1
Study. Since a Citywide zone code amendment is proposed and the City c(
coastal zone properties, a Local Coastal Program Amendment would need
processed concurrently with the Fast Food zone code amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Bypicai staff resources would be applied to any subsequent zone code ame
pursuant to the attached ROI and land use study. Anticipated time for completior
be 8-10 months and would inlclude Planning Commission, City Council and 1
Commission (for the LCP Amendment) review.
t e FB f
PAGE 3 OF AGEND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The attached land use study is exempt from the California Environmental Quali
(CEQA). A subsequent zone code amendment would be subject to sta
environmental review at that time.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution of Intention I i - 53
2. Fast Food Land Use Study
ILL NO. I “I ~ c‘3 3
e% :?
1 f
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
LAnlDll 1 0 0
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 9 7 - 5 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTEN/TION
TO CONSIDER A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO
ESTABLISH VARIOUS FINDINGS AND CRITERIA FDR THE
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City opCarlsbad, Califom
Pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code the Citl
of the City of Carlsbad hereby declares its intention to consider an amendment of Title
Carlsbad Municipal Code to:
/
1 /
/
/ /
Establish a definition for fast food restaurants and to establish various
findings and criteria within Section 21.42.01 0(5)(N) to further strengthen
the City’s role in the review, approval, control and enforcement of fast
food restaurants. Section 21.42.0 10(5)(N) currently allows drive-thru
businesses and facilities in all non-residential zones in the City via the
Conditional Use Permit process.
The Planning Director is directed to study said amendment and after a
study set the matter for public hearing before the Planning Commission and this City CI
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cil
199 of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
day of
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
I i EX 0 0
FAST FOOD LAND USE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Study Assumptions/Objectives
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Summary of Surveyed Cities
8. Recommended ActiodMeasures
9.
Overview of Fast Food Concernsflssues
Inventory of Existing Fast Food Sites in Carlsbad
Overview of Future Likely Sites in Carlsbad
Commonly Used Controls and Tools
Current Regulations/Controls Used in Carlsbad
Initial List of Proposed Fast Food FindingsKriteria
, t 0 m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Per City Council direction of Spring 1996, staff investigated fast food sites in the City
Carlsbad with regards to existing locations, likely future sites and an overview of curre
regulations. Other cities were also surveyed. The main objective of the study was to focus (
the appropriate measures Carlsbad should pursue to regulate the negative aspects of typical fa
food developments. The attached study contains staffs findings which concludes with
recommendation to revise and strengthen the CUP process specific to fast food uses. As a us
fast food retail uses are not necessarily a major problem; rather it is the typical, corpore
mandated design aspects which accompany fast food sites, in combination with potential traff
noise and other land use compatibility impacts, that create the negative aspects of these uses. I
revising the CUP process to address the undesirable design and operational aspects of fast foi
uses, the City could effectively regulate these uses, require quality and compatible developmei
not address or regulate any of the common concerns and issues related to fast food sites.
Attached exhibits depict existing and fhture likely fast food sites in the City. Also attached i:
recent (Summer 1996) AICP Planners’ Casebook handout regarding fast food design issues. F
further background reading, staff can make available copies of related articles and curre
newspaper clippings regarding fast food restaurants and drive-thru developments in gener
Copies of some of the regulations and ordinances implemented by other cities which s
referenced in this report could also be made available by staff.
1. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS/OBJECTIVES
+
and stop short of imposing a prohibition. Current CUP provisions regarding fast food uses 1
The study assumes that a fast food restaurant is specifically defined by the presence o
drive-thm lane. Certain establishments, therefore, such as Subway or Domino’s Pizza,
not qualify as bona fide fast food establishments. Likewise, a Burger King locat;
franchise of a chain of fast food establishments. The presence of a drive-thru lane or 1
is further justified as the critical component of a fast food definition since it is the dri
thru component of the use that triggers the conditional use permit. A restaurant with01
drive-thru lane does not require a CUP.
The study’s objective is centered around the prevention of an unchecked proliferation
poorly designed fast food sites which generally create adverse impacts with regards
pedestrian movements and circulation, traffic generatiodcirculation, signage, litter, no
odor, air quality (idling engines) and visual aesthetics.
A recommendation to outright prohibit fast food uses is not proposed since it is possi
to address and regulate the negative elements of typical fast food sites. An appro,
that strengthens the City’s role in the review, approval, control and enforcement of
food uses by upgrading the CUP process with new findings and criteria is proposed.
without a drive-thru lane would not be considered a fast food site even though is i
+
+
Page 2
< I a 0
2.
Proliferation
+
+
OVERVIEW OF FAST FOOD CONCERNSflSSUES
Assess if there are enough existing or likely fast food locations in the City.
Discourage land use designation changes or shifts in policy direction that would increa:
the possibility of additional fast food locations beyond those already anticipated.
Access
+ Fast food uses seek high visibilityhgh traffic volume sites which are typically locatt
along busy and/or scenic roadway corridors. Development of these sites cannot disru
traffic flow on adjacent street systems and should be designed with the highest quali
possible since these sites are not only visible but typically serve as gateways to the C
or focal points within the City and therefore are subject to public interaction and visi
“ownership”.
Direct access to the busy/scenic corridor is usually a strong desire of fast food develope
Unregulated, this can lead to several curb cuts onto a busy street which could in turn le
to failure of the adjacent street system and/or a nearby intersection.
Traffic safety and general circulation flow concerns arise when multiple access points tc
busy or scenic corridor line up and congest the corridor.
A poorly designed site will create vehicular circulation conflicts when a drive-thru la
fails and subsequently impacts on-site parking spaces, driving aisles, and even off-s
traffic movements.
+
+
+
Design
+ Behind location, access and visibility, quality architectural design is typically a I(
priority for developers of fast food sites.
Standard, bland, corporate mandated architecture dominates the image of fast fc
restaurants regionally and nationally. Their prime objective is to maintain an instar
recognizable corporate identity throughout every component of the site and build
design; often in spite of the design context in which the building is located.
Most architectural styles for fast food restaurants center around creating mansards i
other areas for signage. They also center on transforming the entire fast food struct
into a multi-dimensional and recognizable sign consisting of standard logos, stand
lettering, standard colors/materials and standard building elevations and floor plans.
+
4
Page 3
1 r 0 e
+ Most current designs strictly use flat roofs and “token” mansard roofs. Pitched rool
quality design and materials, architectural interest and interior landscaping opportuniti
are largely ignored or overlooked.
Attachments to the building over time (banners, inflatable objects, window signage, lig
pole signs, banners, streamers, illuminated awnings, illuminated playground equipme
using primary colors, etc.) further lessen the quality of mediocre architecture and blai
building design.
Attention getting aspects of a fast food site usually include: drive-thru service wind07
facing public streets; unscreened menu boards; minimal landscaping exposing the site x
not complimenting the building design or architecture; dominant playground apparatus.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING FAST FOOD SITES IN CARLSBAD
+
+
3.
Based on the definition of a fast food restaurant having a drive-thru lane, twelve sites curren’
exist in Carlsbad. These twelve sites are listed below and also are mapped on the exhib
attached to this report labeled Existing Fast Food Sites.
1.
2. Jack In The Box APN: 203-353-09 901 Carlsbad Village Drive (NW)
3. Carl’s Jr. APN: 203-320-40 950 Carlsbad Village Drive (NW)
4. Alberto’s APN: 203-355-04 2952 Harding Street (NW)
5. Village Donuts APN: 203-291-01 2885 Roosevelt Street (NW)
6. McDonalds APN: 2 10- 170-06/07 5990 Avenida Encinas (NW)
7. In N Out APN: 210-170-17 5950 Avenida Encinas (NW)
8. Taco Bell APN: 21 1-050-15 6017 Paseo Del Node (SW)
Taco BellKentucky Fried Chicken APN: 203-35 1-1 8 745 Carlsbad Village Dr. (N\
9. Jack In The Box APN: 214-430-26 7050 Avenida Encinas (SW)
10. Pol10 Loco APN: 214-430-25 7120 Avenida Encinas (SW)
1 1. Carl’s Jr APN: 167-830-52 2608 El Camino Real (NE)
12. Kooter’s Barbeque APN: 167-030-50 2506 El Camino Real (NE)
The letters in the ( ) above indicate the City quadrant the site is located within.
Page 4
Category (1) Approved sites
Category (2) Pending/Projects in process
Category (3) Future potential sites
One site total
One site total
7 sites shown
Southern intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road
and La Costa Avenue within the Rancho La
Costa Plaza commercial center.
Approved via Site Development Plan SDP 1
03(A) 3/6/96.
Located at 925 Palomar Airport Road (current
NurseryLand site) and proposes a Carls
Jr./Green Burrito drive-thru restaurant.
Involves the following entitlemc
applications: (currently complete applicatj
package) Site Development Plan SDP !
OS/Conditional Use Permit CUP 96-07/Coas
Development Permit CDP 96-06.
1. Calavera Hills Master Plan
2. Sycamore Creek Specific Plan
3. Price Club Pad
4. SE corner of Poinsettia Lane/I-5 freeway
Commercial site-Community Commerc
General Plan designation
Community Commercial General P
designation
Regional Commercial General P
designation
Neighborhood Commercial General P
designation
Category (3) - Cont.
5. NE corner of La Costa Av./El Camino Real Community Commercial General P1:
6. Green Valley Master Plan Contains Community Commercial Gener
7. MAG Properties Community Commercial General Pli
Future Potential Projects
designation
Plan designation
designation
L
0 0
cities that issue CUPs allow the permit to run indefinitely with the land; Carlsbad is one of tl
very few cities that could truly modify or eliminate a conditional use if warranted via the CL
process. This powerfd tool could be made even more potent for the regulation of fast foc
developments through the introduction of various fast food findings and criteria.
Strengthening the Carlsbad CUP process is recommended because negative design ai
Prohibiting fast food uses altogether may be too extreme of an alternative if the desire of the ci
is to prohibit bad, visually offensive design and related operational problems. Fast food CU
(and in fact most Carlsbad CUPs) are approved by the Planning Commission and can
appealed to the City Council. Typical aspects of conditional use permits are listed as follows:
+
+
operational aspects can be regulated in combination with the already powerful CUP proce:
Accepted/commonly used tool in fast food regulation.
Adequate tool for case by casekite by site assessment of fast food restaurant applicatio
if supplemented with clear and supported standards, criteria and findings specific to f;
food developments.
Annual reviews and extension requests for fast food site CUPs (and CUPs in gener
allow more City scrutiny and the justification for allowing continuance of the use.
Currently, only the standard four CUP findings are required; no special design or otl
standards specific to fast food uses are currently mandated by the zoning ordinance.
Currently, can be used in any non-residential zone Citywide to propose a fast food use.
+
4
+
Scenic Corridor Standards
Scenic corridors can be designated with design standards applied to the development adjacent
the designated corridor. These standards can include grading provisions, landscaping critei
allowable uses, signage, building height, etc. Currently only El Camino Real has suck
designation and corresponding standards in the City. In addition to creating new standards
the ECR Corridor specific to fast food development, other corridors may be designated with f
food regulationdstandards incorporated into the package of standards for that corridor.
alternative is to specify corridors subject to specific fast food regulations and include thi
corridor specific regulations in the package of new fast food findings and criteria. Typi
aspects of scenic corridor standards are listed as follows:
4
+
Commonly used/accepted tool for fast food regulation.
At this time in the City; only one formally designated corridor (El Camino Real) T;\
development standards exist.
Currently, no corridor standards (ECR) or other corridor guidelines adequately acco
for, or address, the concerns specific to fast food restaurants (with drive-thru lanes).
+
Page 7
PLACENTIA
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SANTA BARBARA
SIERRA MADRE
SOUTH PASADENA
Case by case use permit
Case by case wlscreeninglarchitecture findings
Prohibits new drive-thru businesses
Prohibits new drive-thru businesses
Prohibits new drive-thru businesses
Moratorium in effect until Nov. 6, 1997
ANAHEIM
BUENA PARK
BURBANK
C APITOLA
CAMEL
MISSION VIEJO
PALM SPRINGS
PASADENA
LAGUNA BEACH
Case by case CUP w/stacking standard
Case by case CUP
Case by case CUP w/special findings
Case by case use permit w/architectural criteria
Prohibits drive-thru & “formula” restaurants
Case by case permit w/strict signage criteria
Case by case CUP w/strong design review
Case by case with separation standard
Prohibits drive-in or fast food uses in areas
1 0 0
t
+
CAMEL
+
Use permits required for all commercial/retail uses & desigdarchitectural review.
City published booklet available-Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects.
Take out/drive-thru restaurants are defined in addition to “formula” restauran
(which offer standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, decor or uniforms); the
uses are then prohibited from eating places in Carmel.
In addition to the above, existing typical lot sizes in the commercial core of Cam
prevent the development of fast food sites.
+
LAGUNA BEACH
+ Full service and take out restaurants are allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan art
however, such restaurants are specifically prohibited if they qualify as a drive-in
fast food restaurant.
MISSION VIEJO
+ Case by case approach: Site Development Permit required for restaurants under 4,O
square feet and a Conditional Use Permit required for restaurants over 4,000 square feet
Stacking standard of 8-12 cars based on expected volume/turnover on the site.
Signage restrictions include: no exposed neon; 1 sq. ft. of signage for every 1 lineal fi
of building frontage (Carlsbad allow 1.5); up to 25% of total window area can be used 1
window signage for up to 30 calendar days out of one year; and, monuments signs i
only allowed if the subject parcel has at least 99 feet of public street frontage.
+
+
PALM SPRINGS
+ Case by case approach; CUP required with quality site design and architect1
negotiated.
Emphasis on quality building materials, heavy screening of drive-thru lane and scrutj
of proposed playground apparatus via strong design review board.
+
PASADENA
+ Requires a 500 foot separation between fast food establishments; and between fast fc
establishments and schools, parks and playgrounds.
Page 10
0 0
PLACENTIA
+
+
Case by case approach; Use permit required (similar to CUP without the aspects
permit termination and extension requests) but only in CUC2 zones.
Usually located in shopping/commercial centers with established design, architectural ai
building material and color criteria in place; otherwise negotiated case by case.
SAN BERNARDINO
4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
+
Code requires: screening of service areas, parking, etc. and compatible architecture.
No drive-thru lanes of any kind (donuts, banks, fast food, etc.) are allowed in SL
since 1982 with the passing of Ordinance 941-1.
Environmental issues were cited as the justification for the above referenced regulati
including: trash, air qualityhdling engines, increased surface runoff due to increas
pavement and a visual impact component as well.
With regard to “fast food” sit down restaurants without a drive-thru lane, the Cit]
architectural and design review process heavily regulates design and in some cas
prohibit playground apparatus.
+
+
SANTA BARBARA
New drive-thru businesses of any kind have been prohibited in Santa Barbara since 1993.
Existing drive-thru sites are governed by the non-conforming provisions which allows existi
drive-thru sites to remain if no expansion, use intensification or even use change is allowed. I:
example an existing drive-thru Burger King can become a Jack in the Box with the same drii
th; but an existing drive-thru bank cannot become a drive-thru bagel shop.
+ In Santa Barbara, the fast food definition is not tied to the presence or absence of a drii
thru lane. Architectural design review is applied to any new commercial building as m
as any new structure in the Presidio Historic District.
SIERRA MADRE
+ As of October 8, 1996, the City of Sierra Madre prohibits any new drive-th
businesses.
+ Rationale for this prohibition based on General Plan policies to encourage pedestr
oriented development in downtown and commercial areas. In addition, bland architect
was cited as not being “interesting” for pedestrians.
Potential economic losses were justified by pointing out that the General Plan and Cit
Economic Development Strategy calls for a variety of uses and businesses (arts/cra
+
Page 11
a 0
restaurant/dinner houses, computer services, bookstores, commercial/retail with outdo1
amenities, etc.) and these do not primarily rely on drive-thru operations.
SOUTH PASADENA
+ Currently a moratorium is in effect for all drive-thru uses including banks, (
change services, gas stations and fast food locations until November 6,1997.
The issue is currently being studied concurrent with a Citywide General Plan updz
effort; an emergency ordinance citing continuing threats to public health, safety ai
welfare was used to initiate and extend the moratorium.
+
8. RECOMMENDED ACTIONNEASURES
Implementing the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance will involve responding to fast fol
development applications for particular areas in the future. The City has an opportunity
require these proposals to address certain concerns and be subject to specific criteria applical
to fast food uses. Common negative aspects of drive-thru restaurants such as signage, design a
architecture, litter, noise, and traffic impacts can be regulated via stronger code provisions. ,
an alternative to prohibiting drive-thru fast food uses, quality design and development within t
context of a conditional use permit could be required by the code.
Staff recommends the initiation of a zone code amendment to:
+ establish a definition for fast food restaurants in 21.04 of the zoning ordinance based
the presence of a drive-thru lane;
establish findingdcriteria relative to the review, approval, control and enforcement of f:
food restaurants in 21.42.010(5)(N) and related code sections; and
cross reference in certain other zones (that indicate drive-thru restaurants and businest
as conditional uses) the new findings and criteria of 21.42.010(5)(N).
INITIAL LIST OF PROPOSED FINDINGS/CRITEFUA
+
+
9.
The following items are conceptual elements of fast food findings, requirements and crite
which could be proposed or addressed in some manner through a zone code amendment desigr
to regulate fast food development in the City. It can be considered a refined brainstorming
intended to provide an insight into types of findingdcriteria that can be proposed and codified.
1. Require adequate stacking/compliance with Engineering’s Drive-Thm Policy (2
formalize such a policy if one currently does not effectively exist); to eliminate on-:
circulation conflicts and to prevent on-site circulation failure from impacting adjac
public street systems.
Page 12
, 0 0
2. Require adequate site specific design (sensitive to surrounding building material
building massing, streetscapes, design themes, etc.); not corporate standard. “Mandate(
corporate site designs may or may not be acceptable given a particular project site.
3. Site specific/high quality architecture (encourage roof pitch and quality buildii
materials); not corporate standard. Designing a quality building is the objective; n
designing a building so that all of its elements combine to be a form of corporate signag
Location, placement, screening and landscaping of drive-th lane; so that the lane
effectively hidden and completely screened from adjacent public views.
Landscaping, screening and berming/mounding for open parking areas; so that opt
parking areas are effectively hidden and completely screened fiom adjacent public view
4.
5.
6. Sign program requirement addressing window signs, banners, temporary signs: over;
signage criteria, limitations and allowances. Strictly condition, monitor and enfor
window signs, banners, inflatables, etc. in addition to reassessing the overall allowan
for signage for fast food uses. Possibly lower current signage allowance for these us<
A sign program can be a required part of a fast food CUP submittal package and could
designed to address related signage issues.
Playground apparatus is “earned” through design quality; must be subordinate a
accessory to main restaurant structure and may be regulated with respect to size, heigl
colors, location, signage and screening. Playground apparatus cannot dominate a site 01
building frontage/elevation. Proposing a fast food establishment does not guarantee
playground apparatus on-site; their design, appearance and colors should reflect thc
purpose as an amenity for the fast food user; not an amenity which also acts as attentil
getting devices to the traveling general public.
Required, documented annual and random reviewslmonitoring of use, traffic, signage a
landscaping; these components are already part of the standard CUP entitlement proce
but could be emphasized and/or strengthened for fast food purposes.
Include a land use compatibility/anti-proliferation finding. Do not locate adjacent
residential. Fast food sites cannot degrade quality of life or substantially create land L
compatibility issues. Residential areas should be especially protected from fast fo
siteshses. Noise studies and odor assessments may be required.
Drive-thru lane conversion plan. This is a concept/tool whereby a fast food project
required to submit a plan showing the conversion of the drive-thru lane to eitl
landscaping and/or restaurant area. The conversion plan could be initiated if 1
monitoring and annual review of the site revealed that problems exist to the point of 1
Planning Commission having to invoke the conversion plan. Invoking the conversi
would nullify the CUP on the site; a sit-down restaurant would remain. The conversi
receive staff review and Commission action just like all other official project exhibits.
7.
8.
9.
10.
plan would be a required exhibit as part of the initial CUP submittal package and woi
Page 13
, e 0
11. Consider restricting fast food uses from individual ‘lot developments along maj
roadways and/or scenic corridors (preventing strip development); scenic corridc
especially should not see strip/individual lot commercial developments. Therefore, f:
food sites should be part of a contiguous development linked to other parcels and/
commercial sites; the goal is to prevent repetitiodadjacent lots with fast food uses.
Additional scenic corridor regulations (streets may have to be identified in the code
qualifying for scenic corridor status for fast food purposes). This could involve t
outright prohibition of fast food uses on specifically designated streets or speci:
standarddcriteria relative to fast food sites located along designated corridors.
Assess and mitigate nuisance factors, specifically odor; and noise (from stacked car
Some aspects of fast food uses (odor, noise) are elements of conflict with regards to la
use compatibility and may be worthy of a focused effort to be reduced or eliminated.
Discourage zone changes to commercial type designations which would more read
accommodate fast food restaurants (recognizing that currently, drive-thru lanes a
facilities are potentially allowed in any non-residential zone via CUP approva
Citywide, commercial designations appear to be adequate in location and designati
type. In addition, the ability to propose a fast food site in the City appears to be cwren
adequate; the intent is to not amend existing land use designations andor text so that t
potential sites for fast food uses increases Citywide.
Consider a residential buffer (whether it is distance, a wall, landscaping or combinatic
when residential property is located nearby.
Consider regulations designed to address double drive-thru lanes on one site and mob
or relocatable fast food uses.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
EMERGING FAST FOOD TRENDS
The following fast food trends may or may not be considered “problems” for the Carlsk
community, however, they represent current and emerging trends in the fast food industry a
most of these items have local (North County) examples. They may warrant the focus of futi
fast food findingdcriteria.
o
4
4 Double drive-thru lanes.
v
Joint use fast food restaurants (Taco Bell/KFC, Carls Jr/Green Burrito) at same site.
Joint use fast food and gas stations (UNOCAE 76Burger King) at the same site.
Mobile or relocatable, “temporary” fast food sites.
EM 1
Page 14
+E g Existing Fast Food Sites
W
5 %.I
@ 1996 City of Carlsbad GIS /cargis2/products/planning/rl38 96 12/24/96
+ ($ Existing Fast Food Sites - Sheet 1
W 11 - Carl's Jr, 2608 El Camino Real
12 - Kooter's Barbeque, 2506 El Camino Real
5 %d
- __ ~- 09/19/96 /cargis2/products/planning/rl38 96/6htl am1 ___. $1 1996 City of Carlsbad GIS
ELEMENTARY
Existing Fast Food Sites - Sheet 2
1 - Taco BelVKentucky Fried Chicken, 745 Carlsbad Village Dr
2 - Jack In The Box, 901 Carlsbad Village Dr
3 - Carl's Jr, 950 Carlsbad Village Dr
+E (fJ 4 - Alberto's, 2952 Harding St
5 - Village Donuts, 2885 Roosevelt St
W
5 %( '.
09/19/96 ____ <g 1996 CITY of Carlebad GIS /cargis2/products/planning/rl38 96/sht2 arnl ~_-~ .__ ~_ 5 -_
Existing Fast Food Sites - Sheet 3
6 - MacDonalds, 5990 Avenida Encinas
7 - In N Out, 5950 Avenida Encinas
8 - Taco Bell, 6017 Paseo Del Norte + 6 W
5 Q4
09/19/96 ~- ___~ /cargis2/product6/planning/rl38 96/sht3 am1 ~__ 0 1996 City of Carlsbad GIS __ _._ - .__
Existing Fast Food Sites - Sheet 4
9 - Jack In The Box, 7050 Avenida Encinas
10 - Pollo Loco, 7120 Avenida Encinas
W + ff
5 %l(
09/19/96 __~ -- - /cargis2/productslplanning/rl38 96/sht4 am1 __.. - $c) 1996 City of Carlsbad GIS 1 ____--
t
k Fast Potential Food Site
Sites
+ @ +& W A Approved Project
0 Pending/ in Process S %,
@ 1996 City of Carlsbad GIS /cargis2/products/planning/rl38.96 11/15/96
-
Fast Food Sites Sheet 1 * Potential Site
A Approved Project
0 Pending/ in Process
I
Fast Food Sites Sheet 2 * Potential Site
A Approved Project
0 Pending/ in Process
Fast Food Sites Sheet 3
~t Potential Site
A Approved Project
0 Pending/ in Process
Saving Face: How corporare Franchise Design Can Respect
PAS Report 452, by
Ronald Lee Fleming,
Association, 122 s.
Michigan Ave., Suite
60603; 312-431-9100
($30 from Planners
This 72-page report
takes a comprehensive
ties can advocate for
franchise designs that
respect traditional architectural character. It includes numerous
photos.
Community Identity,
American Planning
1600, Chicago, IL
Book Service).
ook at how communi-
case studies and color
rants have spread across America and around
the globe with astonishing speed. Today, there
are more than 150,000 fast food franchises in
the US., generating sales in excess of $85
billion a year. More than half of U.S. resi-
dents live within a three-minute drive of a
McDonald’s. Obviously, many people like fast food; if they didn’t, fast food restaurants wouldn’t ’
such an enormous financial success. Yet, as fast food operations have spread, many people have que
tioned the loss of community identity and cultural distinctiveness that accompanies the “cookie-cui
architecture” of fast food chains.
Does a frAnchise in Maine have to be in the same stylts building as one in Maryland or Montana?
Does a franchise on Main Street have to look the same as those on the commercial strip outside of
town? The answer is “of course not.” Franchises can be encouraged and, if necessary, required to IT
their buildings fit with the natural and historic character of each community.
This Casebook provides a few of the better examples I’ve come across of how communities have
worked with national restaurant chains to either reuse historic buildings or to construct new buildi
that respect local identity. It also describes the tools and techniques that cities and towns can use tc
.
This Burger King in Chesterfield County, Virginia, is j
one of the area‘s community-friendly franchises.
Subway to operate one of their outlets
within a specified area in
return for an initial fee and a
percentage of gross sales. The Piua Hut parent company usually
provides supplies, equipment, DaivyQueen
KFC training, advertising, and an
overall business plan or
concept. By offerin, 0 a stan- Little Caesars Pizza
Taco Bell dardized product through a
systematic operation, fran- chises or chains are able to Domino’s Pizza
offer low-cost products and Wendy’s
services in a wide variety of
McDonald’s
Burger King
I I I I I 1
I 9.747
8.064
7,959
I 5,542
I 5,031
4,700
4,550
4,242
r 3,983 - -. . ___... . .... . . .. .. ....-------..--... .-.. ... ..-.. . ..-
W w SUMMER 1996
franchises to make design concessions in ex-
change for a permir to conduct business in a
profitable location. Besides friendly persuasion,
tools include: design guidelines: historic distnct
ordinances: conditional use permits; corridor
overlay zones; sign controls; landscape ordi-
nances; site plan reviews that include architec-
ture; and such incentives as relaxed parking or
setback standards, density bonuses, and tax
credits.
Reusing Historic Buildings
Expansion of fast food franchises into new areas
has opened up ways to reconsider franchise
design. One opportunity is to renovate, restore,
or reuse existing buildings, an approach that has
worked in Europe and in American cities such as
Albany, Boston, Charleston, Chicago, Miami
Beach, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Raleigh,
Sarasota, San Francisco, and Washington.
have more than a dozen fast food restaurants in
restored historic buildings, including an old fire
house, an art deco bank, turn-of-the-century
townhouses, and a variety of other buildings.
Both cities have used regulations and incentives
to control the location and design of fast food
outlets. San Antonio provides tax credits to
developers who adaptively reuse historic struc-
tures, and Washington uses reduced parking,
setback, and traffic access requirements as an
incentive to reuse older buildings.
Nor is the trend confined to large urban
communities. In the small town of New Hyde
Park, New York, prospective brides sometimes
pose for their portraits inside a fast food restau-
rant. The popular backdrop is the stairs in the
dining room of a stunning 1860s Greek Revival
mansion that McDonald’s has restored into a
highly profitable, 140-seat restaurant. In Juneau,
Alaska, tourists and locals flock to the
McDonald’s in a restored turn-of-the-century
grocery store on a downtown corner.
projects in three small and medium-sized
communities.
Freeport, Maine (pop. 7,200)
A bustling town in southeastern Maine, Freeport
is the home of mail order giant L.L. Bean. It is
also the site of one of America’s most famous
and attractive McDonald’s.
old Colonial stvle residence on Main Street with
the intention of tearing it down to build a new
restaurant. However, the proposed restaurant
required a conditional use permit from the
town’s zoning board of appeals, and many local
citizens were opposed to demolishing the
e
Washington, D.C., and San Antonio, Texas, The following examples look at building reuse
(e
In 1982, a McDonald’s purchased a 130-year-
a
A Freeport, Maine, McDonald’s (left) occupies a house from the 7830s; another McDonald‘s set up shop
in a restored house in New Hyde Park, New York.
9 PLANNERS’ CASEBO - m
building. While not a designated local landmark,
the building was viewed as a significant part of
the town character.
McDonald’s to reuse the existing building. A
new wing, compatible with the original building,
was constructed behind the old house to hold
the kitchen and serving areas. The restored house
provides seating for the restaurant as well as a
community meeting room. 6734.
The new McDonald’s quickly generated
national publicity, and it led to the adoption of a
local design review ordinance and a prohibition
on “drive-thru” windows. Arby’s has since
place-responsive building.
By making all fast-food restaurants
subject to a “conditional use” or “special
use” permit, communities have an opportu-
nity to consider the design of a building, its
size, arrangement on the lot, landscaping,
parking, signage, lighting, buffering, and
other issues before granting a permit. This
example also demonstrates another critical
point: Most national chains have alternative
plans they are willing to use to secure site
approval in desirable locations.
Contact: Town Planner, Municipal
Offices, Freeport, ME 04032; 207-865-4743.
Red Wing, Minnesota (pop. 14,892)
Red Wing lies along the Mississippi River, one
collection of Victorian-era buildings and five
locally designated historic districts. It also boasts
two restored turn-of-the-century railroad
stations; one contains the offices of the local
chamber of commerce, the other houses a
Hardee’s Restaurant. company’s original
In 1979, Hardee’s acquired the 1906 Chicago
and Great Western Railroad Station intent on
demolishing it to make way for a new fast food
outlet. At the time, the building was not in a
historic district and there was no design review
process. Howwcr, a group of local citizens
approached the developers and talked them into
saving the station. A company official explained
that it had not occurred to Hardee’s to preserve
the building until it was suggested to them by
local citizens. For the past 15 years the two-story
Hardee’s franchise. The restaurant has a large
collection of railroad memorabilia in the seating
areas. The food ordering counter resembles a
ticket agent’s window, and the old baggage
loading dock is used as the drive-thru. ’
Red Wing proves that even communities
without design review, sophisticated zoning, or
strict preservation controls can use the power c
public opinion to convince corporate America
that historic preservation is good for both
business and the community.
P.O. Box 34, Red Wing, MN 55066; 612-388-
The ZBA approved the location but required
Contact: Planning Director, City of Red Win
Fort Collins, Colorado (pop. 102,509)
Fort Collins, Colorado, shows it’s never too la1
to achieve contextual design. In 1994, when Ta
located in Freeport, in a new attractive and
e Bell sought to replace
its 20-year-old eatery
model, city officials
saw the opportunity
to get the real thing
instead of “Santa
Fake.” The
proposal was to
demolish a large
Spanish Colonial
Revival style home
(built 1930), which
stoocr next door to the current Taco Bell-and
on the edge of a row of vintage houses.
Again, the older building was not a designat
landmark, but its red tile roof, ornate wood
details, and round-arched windows made it a
very important part of the neighborhood
residential area. Instead of demolition, the city
suggested that Taco Bell reuse the house for it:
new restaurant, especially since the Spanish/
Mission style architecture reflected the typical
hour east of Minneapolis. It has an impressive with a larger, 90-seat
brick building has been a popular and profitable landscapeand a good transition to the nearbi
.. # w SUMMER1996 - retro designs of Taco Bell franchises.
Initially, the company rejected the city’s
proposal but, at a key point in the negotiations,
the city held up issuance of a required variance
for installing a drive-thru within a residential
neighborhood. This led to the adaptation of the
existing house, along with a sensitive new rear
addition for the kitchen and a drive-thru lane.
Instead of demolishing the historic house, Taco
Bell tore down its original prototype structure.
ties. Vancouver, Victoria, and other Canadian
communities require fast food outlets to be bdt
up to the front sidewalk, with parking in the rear
or on the side, thereby fostering significant
architectural innovation.
In other places, developers themselves have
taken the lead in designing buildings that draw
on local historic and architectural tradition. The
riverboat McDonald’s in St. Louis is one ex-
ample. Another is the farmhouse-style
McDonalds’s with a front porch and rocking
chairs in rural Rockbridge County, Virginia.
Other communities with good examples of
sensitive new designs can be found all across the
country, including: Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Belmar, New Jersey; Cary, North Carolina;
Cathedral City, California; Cedar Falls, Wiscon-
sin; Evanston, Illinois; Independence, Ohio;
Jackson, Wyoming; Key West, Florida;
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; Madison, Georgia;
Paella, Iowa; Annapolis, Maryland; Stowe,
Vermont; Leesburg, Virginia; and Nashville.
new design.
Woodlands, Texas (pop. 33,000)
The Woodlands is a thriving planned community
outside of Houston. Upscale, mobile, with
plenty of families and children, it would seem to
be the perfect place for a fast food restaurant.
Until 1990, however, there were none. The
reason was simple: strict zoning controls prohib-
ited billboards, big signs, “high-visibility” treeless
lots, and other undesirable aspects normally
associated with fast food outlets.
In 1990, following extensive negotiations with
town officials, a McDonald’s finally came to
Woodlands. Instead of the telltale golden arches,
billboards with 20-foot-tall french fries, or a
Ronald McDonald playground, this outlet had a
tree-shaded patio and a lushly landscaped
parking area. There was only a small wooden
sign, tastefully placed amid a bed of flowers.
an instant mcnney-maker, consistently ranking
among the top five grossing McDonald’s in
metropolitan Houston and routinely outper-
forming the chain’s national average in gross
annual sales per unit.
like it-demonstrates is that attractive, place-
responsive design can also be good for business.
As an architect for the Southland Corporation,
which operates 7-Eleven convenience stores, told
a magazine on franchises recently: “A normal
0
Below are detailed examples of site sensitive
Taco Bell in fort Collins, Colorado (upper
left) moved into a restored house. A
railroad station in Red Wing, Minnesota,
is home to a Hardee‘s, and Sedona‘s
McDonald’s (above) occupies a new
adobe building.
The new Taco Bell has won several
design awards and is among the top five
percent in gross among Taco Bells in the
Contact: Ft. Collins Planning Depart-
ment, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO
80522; 303-221 -6750.
Furthermore, this McDonald’s proved to be Sensitive New Design
The range of techniques being used to encourage
improved design for new fast food outlets is
impressive. Austin and New Orleans have “road
corridor” ordinances that subject fast food
outlets and other auto-oriented businesses to
special architectural and landscape standards.
Coral Cables, Florida; Santa Barbara; Santa Fe;
and Scottsdale, Arizona, all require new com-
mercial buildings to reflect the distinctive
architectural styles of those Sunbelt communi-
What the Woodlands example-and others
e
. w w -* *
PLANNERS‘ CASEBOOK
The Greek Revival
McDonald’s can be founc
Independence, 0 hio.
Sedona-including Denn
McDonald’s, Texaco, an
Wendy’s-have departed
from their “off the shelf
designs to construct
buildings compatible wit
Sedona’s unique chaiactt
Sedona’s planning direct
notes that the city’s
business community
supports the design revie
process, “because it reali
that Sedona’s continued desirability as a touris
destination is dependent upon preserving its
unique sense of place.” Or as other business
leaders have said: “Without a comprehensive
become Anyplace USA.”
Contact: Debartment of Community Develoj
ment, P.O. Box 30002, Sedona, AZ 86339; 602-
282-31 13.
Chesterfield County, Virginia (pop. 244,400)
Several communities have used “corridor
zoning” and “overlay controls” to influence
architectural designs along major roadways.
Chesterfield County, Virginia, has been particu
larly successful in using these techniques to wo
with fast food franchises.
Encompassing the rapidly growing suburbs
south of Richmond, Chesterfield County has
developed overlay zones for several areas of tht
county. These overlay districts encourage
developers to maintain the area’s “rural visual
high-story trees and by requiring new building
designs that are compatible with existing histoi
buildings and historic architectural styles.
A: a result, Chesterfield County is the site o
numerous sensitively designed franchises incluc
ing Burger King, Taco Bell, Wendy’s,
McDonald’s, Arby’s, and a variety of service
stations and convenience stores.
similar design review procedure. “The initial
response from the development community to
design guidelines was one of confusion and
sometimes anger,” says Albemarle County
Design Planner Marcia Joseph. “But in the past
convenience store generates $8,000 to $12,000 a
week, (but) a well-designed store can produce
$20,000 to $25,000 a week.”
Contact: The Woodlands Corporation, P.O.
Box 4000 Woodlands, Texas 77387; 713-377-5700. design review process, Sedona would simply
Sedona, Arizona (pop. 8,500)
There are no golden arches in Sedona. Instead,
they’re turquoise and beige, to complement the
high desert setting of this southwestern commu-
nity. Set amid the beauty of Northern Arizona’s
red rock country, this busy resort community is
one of the most popular and attractive destina-
tions in the American Southwest. Incorporated
as a city in 1988, Sedona quickly developed
comprehensive design review standards to
promote compatibility between the manmade
and natural environment. The city’s design
review manual expresses the following impera-
tives for new development:
Architectural transplants from other locales are
neither appropriate nor desirable.
and integrity in the built environment.
Commercial, public facilities, and multifamily
residential developments can be designed with
architectural L haracter that accommodates the
structures in harmony with their natural settings.
Franchise/monoculture (corporate signature)
buildings and shallow or artificial imitations of
“Western” architectural styles are not desirable.
Natural structural rhythms, proportions, and
color schemes can enhance our environmental
surroundings. Careful site planning is the
essential basis for designing and building struc-
tures on sensitive, often difficult terrain.
The national chains that have located in
The natural environment deserves authenticity character’’ through the preservation of mature,
Nearby, Albemarle County, Virginia, has a
v 6
-A>.
i
L SUMMER 1996
m c I!*
0
Experience shows that if you
accept the standard “cookie-
cutter” design, that’s what you’ll
get. On the other hand, if your
community insists on a custom-
ized, place-responsive building,
then that is what you’ll get. The
bottom line for most fast food
companies is securing access to
good trade areas. They evaluate
locations based on their economic
potential. If they are required to
address local historic or architec-
tural concerns, they wilI usually do
so. Hundreds of local communities
have successfully worked with
national fast food chains to get
buildings that respect local
community identity. Your
community can too.
Use incentives . . . and public
opinion, too. In cases where chain
stores and franchises insist on
foo
. Experience also show
signs are controlled,
do a better job of selling
surprise that businesses
drive-thru facilities
However, given the
orientation of most
are not a requirement
restaurants. There are 0
government offers pre-
meetings. Misunder-
can be avoided if the fast
pany is given a chance to
marly with staff and
n members prior to
ments can use a variety of regula-
tions and incentives to foster
compatibility between franchises oriented locahons
and communities. These include
incentives, such as relaxed parking
standards, density bonuses, and
tax credits, as well as regulatory
techkques such as historic
districts, design guidelines and
review, conditional use permits,
zones, sign controls, and landscap
ing ordinances. However, with or
without legal tools, no community
should forget the power of public
opinion. Many of the successes
featured here grew out of public
calls for a site specific aesign or for
saving a cherished building.
Reconsider the location of the
playground. Fast food chains
large playground in front of their
ofcen argue
account for over
food restamt‘s
percent of their business
drive-thrus, this does no
fact, the total number of
may be identical, but the
sale will be different. Ma
thrus conditional on design
concessions is a very effective
technique.
guides that graphi-
r
more about some things . For example, they are
oversized signs are one
objectionable aspects o
restaurants. Left unche
competition often results in
than they are about
1 styles or sign heights.
sometimes insist on building a UCOpyat” logic of corporat oric preservation
0