Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-22; Planning Commission; ; CUP 164 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKENDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND REVISED STAFF REPORT August 22, 1979 Planning Commission Planning Department CONDITIONAL ADDITION TO APPLICANT: CUP-164 USE PERMIT_ TO ALLOW A 11 DRIVE-THRU 11 AN EXISTING CHICKEN STORE. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO. 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 C-2 C-2 C-2 R-P C-2 and R-P Subject Property: Chicken Restaurant North: Commercial businesses and single family residential South: Bank East: Single family residential West: Professional offices and gas station Past History and Related Cases CUP-136, S.G.P.A. (McDonald's). Planning Commission Resolution No. 1361, Coty 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 reason for denial, the Commission cited increased traffic and parking congestion, inadequate landscaping and poor traffic circulation on-site. The matter was subsequently appealed to the City Council. The Council concurred with the findings of the Planning Commission and upheld denial of the CUP on August 4, 1977. CUP-135, Santa Anita Develoement 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. Council- man 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. Env,ironmental Impact Information The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance as con- struction 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 Sewer: The subject property is currently served by the City of Carlsbad. The drive-thru addition would not consti- tute an enlargement of the present restaurant. There- fore, no additional demands are anticipated . . 2 Schools: This is a non-residential project and will have no effect on the Carlsbad Unified School District. Water Service: Water service will be provided by the city of Carlsbad. On-Site and Adjacent Public Im~rovements: All necessary on-site and immediately a jacent public improvements can be required per the City's Public Improvement Ordinance or as conditions of approval. Gas and· ETe·ctric: Gas and electric services will be provided by SDG&E. Other Publ"ic Facilities: The City Council has determined that they are not prepared to find that all other public facilities necessary to serve this project will be available concurrent with need. The Planning Commission may, by inclusion of an appropriate condi- tion, require that the project contribute to the costs of such facilities according to City Council Policy No. 17. Since the development would pay its appro- priate share of the public facility it would require, the Planning Commission could be assured that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan would be satisfied. Major Pl"anning Consideration 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 addition? .3 DISCUSSION Approval of the requested CUP would allow the addition of a "Drive-Thru" to an existing chicken store. As the Commission will recall, staff has been working with the applicant, Carlson Design Company, since early May to produce an acceptable plan. Two continuances have been previously granted by the Commission to allow Carlson Design the opportunity to revise the proposed lay-out to alleviate staff's objections. Site plan, Exhibit A, dated August 3, 1979, is the fifth, and in staff's opinion the best plan submitted to dated. However, the major concerns originally indicated remain unmitigated. Staff has, among themselves, attempted to design a drive-thru addition which resolved the problem areas uncovered in all plans previously submitted. Working within the parameters of the existing site and building placement, no acceptable layout was devised. As denoted by the location of the restaurant on the site, the original designers did not anticipate accomodating a drive-thru. Short of relocating the building and providing a median on Elm Avenue, staff was also unable to design a drive-thru which resolved the difficulties identified. It is, therefore our conclusion that the constraints of the site preclude the addition of a drive-thru without serious negative impacts. Staff has concern about many aspects of the proposed addition. The issues fall into three general categories: vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation and the development of the downtown area as an overall concept. Staff focused its major objections on traffic circulation on and off-site. Our primary concern is the impact on Elm Avenue, which currently experiences traffic flow problems during peak hours. The drive-thru lay-out would allow ingress & egress on both Madison Street and Elm Avenue. The drive-thru lane terminates at the Elm Avenue access, making this the logical exit for drive-thru customers. The City's consulting Transportation Engineer projects that traffic to the site will more than double with the addition. (See memo attached dated 8/7/79 from Transportation Engineer). He further anticipates the vast majority of drive-thru customers will exit onto Elm Avenue. Serious consideration must be given to resulting impact on the major downtown corridor. As the vehicles exit onto Elm Avenue, potential difficulties arise regarding off-site circulation. Directly opposite the Elm Avenue exit is a left turn pocket. Carlson Design has specified a "right turn only" sign at this point. However, staff expressed concern that the proposed sign as an outlet control would be ignored and unenforceable, providing potential vehicle conflict. Should a patron attempt to turn left onto Elm Avenue from this restaurant exit, they would cross a lane of traffic and the left turn lane. They would additionally conflict with travelers turning onto Elm Avenue from Madison Street and those exiting the gas station directly opposite the chicken store. Additional points of conflict are created as vehicles enter the facility from Elm Avenue by means of a left turn, congesting the existing left turn pocket. The close proximity of this exit to the intersection further makes it an area of forseeable conflict. These significant points of potential vehicle conflict would undoubtedly have a negative impact on traffic flow and turning movements on Elm Avenue. A second major area of concern involved on-site circulation. Numerous points of possible vehicle conflicts should be examined. A motorist existing onto Elm Avenue, from the drive-thru, may not have their vehicle clear of an incoming vehicle. Should this patron decide to turn left, a difficult turning movement at peak hours, the potential for conflict is extended. Staff predicts further conflict as vehicles entering off Madison Street and Elm Avenue attempt to merge into the drive-thru lane. Conflict can also be anticipated from vehicles blocking the movements of other motorists. Stacking of more than three vehicles in the drive-thru lane would block vehicles attempt- ing to exit the parking area onto Madison Street and those vehicles entering the parking area from Madison Street. A vehicle exiting onto Elm Avenue may block the entrance, particularly if a left turn is attempted, resulting in blocking of traffic on Elm Avenue should another patron attempt to enter. A vehicle waiting to enter the drive- thru, having entered on Elm Avenue, may also block vehicles attempting to exit onto Madison Street. Difficult turning movements would be mandated by the design configuration. The interior curve immediately past the pick-up window has a turning radii of 16 feet, considered below city standards. A similar turning movement would be required to enter the drive-thru lane by vehicles gaining access off Elm Avenue. Motorists exiting the drive-thru lane must either make a hard u-turn to exit on Madison Street, or make a difficult movement to the left to exit onto Elm Avenue, quite possibly resulting in at least a partial obstruction of the entrance. A further concern was directed toward the potential impact on pedestrian activity. The addition of a drive-thru will effectively eliminate the walkway at the rear of the building. A patron wishing to enter the restaurant from the parking lot must either travel to the sidewalk to cross the drive- thru lane. .5 To mitigate the negative impacts on traffic and pedestrian circulation, Carlson Design advises us that Kentucky Fried Chicken is a low-volume fast food restaurant. The applicant has further indicated that this particular facility generates lower than average traffic. Staff did agree that having ovserved the site, there were not normally a large number of vehicles in the parking lot. However, this as a considera- tion minimizes traffic impact proportionately to a lack of business. Staff does not feel that approval of the CUP should be predicatedon the business being unsuccessful. Following this logic, staff also expressed concern that should the busi- ness fail, as the one at Carlsbad Plaza, the facility may be purchased by anothe fast food restaurant generating a higher volume. 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 layout of the proposed design would encourage exit onto Elm Avenue, impacting traffic movement along the 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 redeve- lopment project area comnunittee is currently reviewing a proposed village area redevelopment plan which outlines several objectives for this area. Among these objectives are: "Encour- age 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 circulation, staff has assessed the effect of this proposal to be negative on the development of the downtown core area as a singular concept. (See attached memo from Redevelopment) The project has been reviewed by the redevelopment staff and their affiliated urban design consultant. They have concluded that the proximity ·of the exit to the intersection Elm Avenue woule effectively create a second major intersection mid-block. Based on these design problems, poor provision for stacking and potential turning movement conflicts, the redevelopment staff and urban design consultant oppose this project . • 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that CUP-.164be 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 existing 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 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 conjunction with the additional traffic would have a detrimental effect on these residential uses. d} The negative impacts on vehicle and pedestrian circulation 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 ramifications 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 guideline of coordinating "the distribution, character 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 Element Utility and Public Service Development guideline of ensuring "the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed dev- elopment without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading 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 is expected to significantly increase the traffic generated to the site. Design configuration will encourage exit 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 within existing traffic patterns. Attachments CUP-164, Site Plan, Exhibit A, dated July 11, 1979 Memo from consulting Transporation Engineer, dated August 7, 1979 Memo from Redevelopment Coordinator, dated August 9, 1979 CN:ar 8/15/79 .8 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Consu 1 t Ing Transportation E_ng i neer DATE: August 7, 1979 SUBJECT: Proposed Drive-through at Kentucky Fried Chicken Of the numerous plans that have been submitted, only the attached plan comes close to being acceptable. However, I still find the plan unsat- isfactory for the ·fol lowi_ng reasons: 1. The turning radii scale to 16 feet, which is less than the 20-foot radii that I normally consider a minimum. 2. When a motorist exits from the drive-through onto Elm Avenue, his/ her vehicle may not be clear of an incomfng vehicle. 3. Adequate storage for drive-through vehicles still has not been pro- vided -any more than four cars wil 1 block vehicular movement thro_ugh the parking lot. 4. Previous studies have indicated that when drive-through facilities are incorporated in fast food restaurants, the overall traffic generated by that use usually more than doubles. • ~ 5. There is no direct route from the parking lot into the restaurant with- out crossing the drive-through lane. • 6. Since Elm Avenue and. the downtown area will hopefully continue to gen- erate more pedestrian traffic, it Is important to minimize the pedes- trian/vehicular conflicts wherever possible. Kent A. Whitson Consulting Transportation Engineer KAW:VEB C: Catherine Nicholas Attachment MEMORANDUM DATE: August 9, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Redevelopment Coordinator~ SUBJECT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, CUP-164 Comments: The Redevelopment Staff has completed its review of the latest Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru proposal, and we have determined that itrs design does not sufficiently mitigate the circulation concerns along both the public- right of way, especially along Elm Avenue, and on-site circulation problems which appear to be in conflict at the ingress & egress points of the drive-thru. Resolution of these issues appears to require extensive redesign of the total circulation of the present site plan. In its present design, the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive- thru addition should be denied. However, if the Commission wishes to grant the drive-thru addition, they may desire to have the applicant help mitigate the off-site traffic circulation problems by requiring the construction of a median on Elm Avenue at the intersection of Elm Avenue at Madison. This would preclude traffic from turning left off Elm and left out of the site westerly along Elm. DA:ar