Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-01; Design Review Board; ; RP 88-06|CUP 88-06|CDP 88-06 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE THRUAPPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE THROUGH - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a drive through facility at an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, located at 745 Elm Avenue, in Subarea I of the Village Redevelopment Area and located in Local Facilities Management Zone I. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 124 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 136 and 137 APPROVING RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. DISCUSSION This project, RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 was previously heard before the Design Review Board on December 21, 1988. At that time, staff was recommending denial of the project because the project: (I) did not comply with the design goals of Subarea 1, (2) did not provide adequate onsite parking, and (3) had a non pedestrian oriented, poor onsite circulation design. The Design Review Board passed a motion to send the project back to staff for redesign so that these identified issues could be resolved. As shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", the project has been redesigned to address these concerns as discussed below. (1) The drive through addition has been reduced by 8 square feet. This reduction in proposed building square footage (from 2008 sf to 2000 sf) will reduce the need for an additional parking space, thereby bringing the project into compliance with the City's parking requirements (1 space per 200 s.f. or 20 spaces). (2) The driveway along Elm Avenue is proposed to be closed and a new driveway off of the adjacent public alley to the east will be created. In order to accommodate this new driveway, the existing 4 feet tall block wall along the eastern property line will be demolished and replaced with; (1) a 24' wide driveway, located adjacent to (north of) the existing trash enclosure in the southeast corner of the lot and, (2) a new 2 foot tall planter box, which will extend from the proposed new driveway to the front of the lot. This driveway redesign will serve to: (1) reduce potential onsite conflicting traffic movements and (2) increase the amount of landscaping and onsite amenities consistent with the subarea design goals. RP/CUP 88-6 KENTUCKY ^lED CHICKEN FEBRUARY 1, 1989 PAGE 2 (3) The existing pedestrian entrances located along the east and west sites of the building will be relocated to the front of the building along Elm Avenue. With this proposed redesign, vehicular/pedestrian conflicts will be significantly reduced in that the pedestrian pathways to the building have been oriented to avoid intersecting the proposed drive through area. More specifically, the pedestrian pathway which currently exists immediately adjacent to the eastern site of the building where the drive through aisle is proposed, will be deleted and replaced with a new planter box. This planter box will extend along the full length of the structures eastern wall and will function to buffer drive through automobile traffic from the structure. The primary pedestrian pathway will be relocated to the front of the structure, where it will be safer for pedestrian use and oriented to Elm Avenue pedestrian traffic, consistent with this subarea design goal. With these revisions, the four findings required for granting a conditional use permit can be made as discussed below. The requested use is desirable for the development of the Village Redevelopment Area in that (a) the existing site will be designed to be oriented to pedestrian use, (b) landscaping amenities will be enhanced, and (c) an existing driveway cut along Elm Avenue will be eliminated thereby improving circulation within the immediate project vicinity. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that it conforms to all development standards and design guidelines of the General Plan's implementing ordinances. (The Village Design Manual and the V-R Zone.) In view of the fact that the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant has occupied the existing site for years, and because the proposed drive through improvements will improve the area streetscape and circulation, the proposed use would also not be detrimental to other uses permitted in this zone. Because the driveway access to the site has been relocated to the public alley to the east, adequate area has been created onsite to accommodate this redesigned use. Through this project redesign, which increased landscaping, reduced building square footage and improved onsite circulation, all of the yards, setbacks, and landscaping necessary to adjust this use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. The street system serving the proposed use, including the redesigned Elm Avenue corridor and the public alley to the east, will be adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by this drive through facility. The project will also comply with Carlsbad's Local Coastal Plan pertaining to the Village Redevelopment Area, and the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. Overall, because the project applicant has been willing to redesign the project whereby; (1) it now conforms to the subarea goals and development standards of the Village Design Manual and the V-R Zone, (2) the four findings necessary for granting a conditional use permit can be made, and (3) it is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Area Local Coastal Plan and the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, staff recommends approval of RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6. For additional details, please see the attached staff report to the Design Review Board, dated December 21, 1988. RP/CUP 88-6 KENTUCKY FEBRUARY 1, 1989 PAGE 3 ED CHICKEN ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 124 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 136 3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 137 4. Staff Report, dated December 21, 1988 5. Exhibits "A"-"B", dated January 16, 1989 CD:lh January 17, 1989