The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-06-27; Planning Commission; ; CUP 164 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKENSTAFF REPORT DATE: June 27, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A "DRIVE-THRU". ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHICKEN RESTAURANT. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO: CUP-164 BACKGROUND Location and Description of property The 0.48 acre site is located on the southeast side of Elm Avenue between Madison Street and Jefferson Street. The project site is a flat corner parcel with points of ingress and egress on both Elm Avenue and Madison Street .. The lot is relatively square with the northeastern property line abutting an alley. EXISTING ZONING Subject Property: North: South: East: West: EXISTING LAND USE Subject Property: North: South: East: West: C-2 C-2 C-2 R-P C-2 & R-P Chicken Restaurant Commercial businesses & Single Family Residential Bank Single Family Residential Professional Offices & Gas Station PAST HISTORY AND RELATED CASES CUP-136, S.G.P.A. (McDonald's}. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1361, city Council Resolution No. 5148. On May 11, 1977, the Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant at the east side of El Camino Real near Haymar Drive. As reasons for denial, the Commission cited increased traffic and parking congestion, in- adequate landscaping and poor traffic circulation on-site. 'I1he matter was subsequently appealed to the City Council. The Council CUP-164 concurred with the findings of the Planning Commission and upheld denial of the CUP on August 4, 1977. CUP-135, Santa Anita Development Corporation, (Carl's Jr.). Planning Commission Resolution No. 1353 and City Council Resolution No. 5150. On April 27, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru fast food restaurant at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Marron Road. The Commission found that the street systems were adequate to handle all traffic generated and that the restaurant was included within a comprehensively designed community shopping center. Councilman Skotnicki appealed the decision to the City Council. Mr. Skotnicki stated his reason for appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on this project was to bring it to the attention of the Council based on his concern with regard to the impact on traffic on El Camino Real. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 5150 on July 20, 1977, approving the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings of the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INFORMATION The project is catagorically exempt from the requirements of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance as construction of minor appurtenances to existing commercial facilities (19.04.090 C(5)). GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION The project site is located in the central business district as designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. PUBLIC FACILITIES All public facilities are available and presently serving the project site. MAJOR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1) Would the expanded use have a detrimental effect on surrounding land uses? 2) Would the expanded use adversely impact the traffic situation? 3) Is the site appropriate for a drive-thru additon? DISCUSSION Approval of the requested CUP would allow the addition of a "drive- thru" to an existing chicken store. Vehicles would gain access only off Madison Street. Signs would be posted at the Madison Street entrance to designate a "drive-thru" and be directed to exit onto Elm Avenue by means of a right turn. Two additional signs would be posted at this point to demarcate "exit only" and "right turn only." Staff has concern about many aspects of the proposed addition. CUP-164 Page 3 ,--. The issues fall into three general categories: vehicular cir- culation, pedestrian circulation and the downtown area as an overall concept. Staff focused its major objections on traffic circulation on and off-site. The design would require all vehicles to exit onto Elm Avenue, further impacting the traffic flow problem which exists at peak hours. The City's Consulting Transportation Engineer predicts a minimum of 10% to 20% increase in vehicles traveling to the site. Staff expressed concern that the proposed signs as inlet and out- let controls would be ignored and are unenforceable, producing numerous points of potential vehicle conflict. Should a patron attempt to turn left onto Elm Avenue from the restaurant exit, they would cross two lanes of traffic and a left turn pocket. They would additionally conflict with travelers turning onto Elm Avenue from Madison Street, and those exiting the gas station directly opposite the chicken store on Elm Avenue (see Exhibit C). Vehicles traveling northeast on Elm Avenue, missing the Madison Street turn, may attempt to enter at the Elm Avenue exit. The close proximity of this exit to the intersection further makes it an area of possible conflict. Due to these many points of con- ceivable conflict, it is the opinion of the City's Traffic Consult- ant that any acceptable, comprehensive design of this lot must incorporate points of ingress and egress on both Madison Street and Elm Avenue. A second area of concern was directed toward the potential impact on pedestrian activity. Stacking of more than two vehicles at the order board would result in the third obstructing the drive- way, forcing all foot-traffic into the street. Consideration should also be given to pedestrian circulation on- site. The addition of a "drive-thru" will effectively eliminate the walkway at the rear of the building. A patron wishing to nter the restaurant from the parking lot must either travel to the sidewalk or cross the "drive-thru" lane. As a final consideration, staff attempted to evaluate the project with regards to the central business district as a whole. The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking a project, utilizing community development block grant funds, which calls for improving the present condition of the traffic circulation, parking and streetscaping in the downtown area. The channeling of all traffic onto Elm Avenue, as mandated by the proposed design, would impact traffic movement along a major corridor. The generation of additional traffic and potential • conflict on this key downtown corridor would seem inconsistent with the goals of both the City project and good planning. The project is located in the redevelopment area. The redevelop- ment project area committee is currently reviewing a proposed CUP-164 Page 4 village area redevelopment plan which outlines several objectives for this area. Among these objectives are: "Encourage a variety of residential accommodation and amenity in the village area ... ", "provide ... a variety of spaces and locations for specialty, unique and attractive shops with strong pedestrian orientation" and "provide a convenient circulation system." In viewing the potential difficulties and their impact on circu- lation, staff has assessed the effect of this proposal to be negative on the development of the downtown core area as a singular concept. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that CUP-136 be DENIED based on the following findings: Findings 1) That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is detrimental to exist- ing uses or to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located because: a) The addition of a drive-thru would impede vehicular circulation. The expansion will generate an increase in traffic and create numerous points of potential con- flict on and off-site. b) Pedestrian movement would be adversely affected. Foot- traffic on both Madison and the project site would be hindered. c) Neighboring residential uses would suffer. The restaurant operates from 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The addition of a speaker and order board in conjunc- tion with the additional traffic would have a detri- mental effect on these residential uses. d) The negative impacts on vehicle and pedestrian circu- lation would adversely affect the development of the downtown community. Elm Avenue is held to be a crucial corridor of the central business district. Adverse effects on this corridor may have long~term ramifica- tions on the development of the downtown core as a whole. 2) The requested use is not in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. a) The increased traffic congestion generated by the addition conflicts with the circulation element guide- line of coordinating "the distribution, character CUP-164 Page 5 and intensity of all land uses with the Land Use Element to preclude the increased levels of traffic which would be generated beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system until such time as adequate facilities can be provided". b) The increased traffic congestion generated by the addition conflicts with the Land Use E'lement Utility and Public Service Development guideline of ensuring "the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without sub- stantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system .... " 3) All yards and landscaping and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood may not be maintained because: a) The existing landscaping has been neglected. Inspection of the site revealed these areas to be filled with weeds and all groundcover to be dead. 4) The street system serving the proposed use is inadequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use because: a) The "drive-thru" addition will result in an expected 10% to 20% increase in traffic to the site. All vehicles will be funneled onto Elm Avenue, compounding the traffic congestion experienced there, particularly at peak hours. b) The proposed design will produce numerous points of potential vehicle conflict, creating negative traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. CN:jd 6/15/79 ... . . .JEFFE.F450N sr. L° _j uJ MADl'bON GUP-llP4 ·1 KE.NTtu:KY FP>lE.D C.~lCKEN. .... , .... .:.."':. , occ Date: t,./1A /19 PC Date tde:r/'79 . . Description of Request: GtJeID Al) OY,J A, .. Del\le::n:IBu n APDmDM :m M Ex~ CJ.ltt'.>:6J;N ~ . 8 Address or Location of Request:~ JSlt<5Ceioe OE Fl-M"AvE,, -eervveP: MAQtePb\ ex: a _,~;.;r Applicant: Kr,.tu l(tiY :F082 Gt\J<::.16aJ <'l2E5e Engr. or Arch .o,..a,eat,l Df?216aH 4 COh,l4;,1}3\ \Q10N -oe=,,16at::\f-a -- Brief Legal: A POPIDQN OF B\.0:1'-t 4e ~OPPJHCI ,o MAP H0,715,::JOWH CE cM1:2eAf? Arb1B::lu::l2 • • • • • Assessor Book: ZO?) Pa9e: Bo) . Parcel:_· _,e, __________ _ General Plan Land. Use Description:e,er:,-~ :BU5IN~ D~<:---C Existing Zone:· • ,c.-e;. · · · · · P;roposed Zone: G-2 < · Acres: 0,:4e No. of Lots: 1 DU'S ~""' DU/AcreN/A school District: CA8,),6&,o uwn==1eD Water District: CJ.Tl ClE: CAP,I Fe.be? sanitation District:.-c.=tttl..l.4------- ~c•oa._s_t __ P. e11111ruu._·_tAr...,.ea_:::fe:::::::::.-:_-:_-:_:,-:_-:.-:.-:.~:.-:.:-:.~-:.:-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.:-___ :_-__ ---.-=-.. -=--=--=-~-=--=--:.-:.:.:.:-:.:::.::.-:..-:.:-.J I ~---,...,~ .PW_