Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-11; Planning Commission; ; ZC 222|CUP 189 - JACK IN THE BOXSTAFF 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. 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. 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:jt 3/5/81 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. PRQJECT 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 Elp. 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. DISCUSSIQN 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 further 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, 1981). 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:jt 1/27/81 -3- 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 zone 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-1, Neighborhood Commercial. In the C-1 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-1 designation would be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial classification of the General Plan. Both the C-1 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 and 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. While 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, such 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 large 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. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the negative declaration issued by the Planning Director and APPROVE 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- 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-