Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-25; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 122; Kentucky Fried Chicken Drive-Thruc B# 122 ‘JlTLE: DEPT. HO. L - J-G, b/25/89 RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CITY A EPT. RED CHICKEN DRIVE-THRU e CITY MGR. F RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 [f Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs, your action is t :o adopt Resolution No. 135 approving RP/CUP 88-6 Kentucky Fried C Zhicken Drive-Thru, Resolution No. 136, approving negative i declaration and Resolution No. 137, approving CDP 88-6 Kentucky I Pried Chicken Drive-Thru. 1! CTEM EXPLANATION 4n application has been received from Kentucky Fried Chicken testaurant located on the south east corner of Elm Avenue and ladison Street in Sub-area 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area to 1110~ a drive-thru facility. The original construction of this Festaurant was prior to the adoption of the Village Redevelopment ?lan and Design Manual, therefore, prior to Design Review Board review. The original development of the restaurant did not include plans for a drive thru facility. '1 1 C C E E 1 L ; n 'he Design Review Board originally heard this item at their Iecember 2, 1988 meeting. At that time staff recommended denial If the project based on the following: l] the project did not :omply with the design goals of subarea 1; 21 the project did 'not zovide adequate on-site parking; and 31 the project had non- >edestrian oriented, poor on-site circulation design. Che applicant redesigned the project to address these concerns ind returned to the Design Review Bard. The board approved ?P/CUP/CDP 88-6 Kentucky Fried Chicken Drive-Thru at their fleeting of February 1, 1989 with the following added conditions: 11 The portion of the existing 6 I high wall located along the alley, east of the proposed 24' wide driveway, which is not needed to enclose the redesigned trash area, be reduced to a maximum height of 32". ’ HOUSING AND ^EDEVELOPMENT COMMIS8--‘N - AGE 21 A pedestrian crosswalk from the five compact spaces, westerly to the proposed handicap space may be striped. o detailed economic analysis of this development has been etermined However, staff has determined by inclusion of ' ppropriate finding, that the proposed project will contribute to he economic revitalization of the Redevelopment Area. AGENDA BILL NO. 122 PEIGE 2 EXHIBITS: 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 135, approving RP/CUP 88-6 Kentucky Fried Chicken. 2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution 136, approving a Negative Declaration. 3. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 137 approving CDP 88-6 Kentucky Fried Chicken. 4. Design Review Board staff report dated February 1, 1989, with Design Review Board Resolutions 124, 136 and 137, recommending approval. , 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 2% HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 135 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CI MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AT AN EXISTING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 745 ELM AVENUE. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO. : RP/CUP 88-6 WHEREAS, The Design Review Board did on the 1st day of February, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider recommendation of approval for a Major Redevelopment Permit and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 136; and WHEREAS, pursuant of the Municipal Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the 25th day of April , 1989 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: tots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, according to the Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of County Recorder of San Dieqo County, May 2, 1986. WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to RP/CUP 88-6. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Design Review Board contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 136 shall constitute the findings of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 3. That RP/CUP 88-6 Kentucky Fried Chicken, Builders, for the construction of a drive through facility at an existing restaurant approved subject to all of the conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 136. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, FSPPROVED f?ND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of April , 1989, by the following vote, to wit: CIYES : Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux NOES : Commissioners Lewis and Larson CSBSENT : None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST : ALETHh L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit$ Clerk ( SEAL 1 i //// ///I //// //// Housing and Redevelopment Commission No. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 136 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AT AN EXISTING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 745 ELM AVENUE. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO. : RP 88-6 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 1st dav of February, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitation are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibits ” ND ” dated November 2, 1988 and “PII” dated October 26, 1988, on file in the Redevelopment Department, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. The initial study and public review process evidence that the pro on the environment. comments received during the show that there is no substantial ject may have a significant impact 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 I.5 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of April , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux NOES : Commissioners Lewis and Larson ABSENT : None ABSTAIN : None Of 1989, , ATTEST : ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk ( SEAL ) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 136 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 137 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FCSCILITY AT 745 ELM AVENUE APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO. : RP/CDP 88-6 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the i City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request ’ as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and / WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal , Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the 1 4th day of April, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, according to the Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1986. I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all 1 persons desiring to be heard, said Housing and Redevelopment ~ Commission considered all factors relating to RP/CDP 88-6. I NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and 1 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: cl) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That the findings and conditions of the Design Review contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 137 shall constitute the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. I/// //// //// >, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of April , 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Council Members Kulchin, Pettine, and Mamaux NOES : Council Members Lewis and Larson ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None S, Chairperson ATTEST : adcoL$?R- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit Clerk (SEAL ) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 137 APPLICAlION COMPLETE DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP/CUP 8%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 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area and located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 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: (1) 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 i;i;;;;; off of the adjacent public alley to the east will be created. 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 KENTUCk, FKIED CHICKEN FEBRUARY 1, 1989 PAGE 2 (3) The existing pedestrian entrances located along the east and west sides 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 KENTUCK FRIED CHICKEN FEBRUARY 1, 1989 PAGE 3 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 I 2 I 4 : E ‘; E E 1C 13 If 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 124 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AT AN EXISTING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 745 ELM AVENUE. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO.: RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 1st day of February, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the &sign Review Board considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration, according to Exhibits "ND" dated November 2, 1988 and "PII", dated, October 26 1988 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. 2. 3. 4. //// The initial study and comments received during the public review process shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 3 x ..: 4 : t : E z l( 11 1: 1: 14 lf 1t 17 1E 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairman CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: CHRIS SALOMONE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 124 -2- -_ EXHIBIT “ND” 2075 us PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 920094359 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION TELEPHONE (619) 438-l 161 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The Project Site is located at 745 Elm Avenue in Sub Area 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Redevelopment Penait/Conditional Use Permit Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit to add a drive through facility to an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a resLit of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: November 2, 1988 CASE NO: RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 Planning Director APPLICANT: Kentucky Fried Chicken PUBLISH DATE: November 2, 1988 MJH:CD/lh A:\NEGDEC\RPCUP.886 . EXHIBIT “Pll” I. 1. 2. 3. II. 1. IRONBSENTAL IHPACT ASSB88=m BOW - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 DATE: October 26. 1988 BACKGROUND APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3750 S. SUSAN STREET SUITE #lOO. SANTA ANA. CA 92704 714-241-0811 DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: OCTOBER 7. 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) a. b. C. d. e. f. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?, Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? Change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion, of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ' MAYBE NO x x x ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X . 4. a. b. C. d. 5. a. b. C. d. 6. 7. 8. aant J,ifq - Will the proposal have significant results in: Change in the diversity Of Species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into dn area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? - Noise Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? aht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use,of an area? -3- j MAYRE X X X X X X X X X X - 14. a. b. C. d. e. f. 15. a. b. 16. a. b. C. d. e. f. 17. us . Public SewIces - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or - altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Demand upon existing sources of energy f or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? NO X X x- x X X - 22. a. b. C. d. Flan&gtorv findinas of sianificance - Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of ,, time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project entails the construction of a drive through facility on an already existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant site. As part of the proposal, the existing restaurant parking lot would be redesigned. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to thm property and found that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this project. This conclusion is baaed on three findings: (1) Currently, the site is fully developed; (2) The site is located in an urban area: and (3) there are no sensitive resources existing on or in close proximity to the sita. - MITIGATING MmSURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature MJH:CD/ lh A:\EIA.KFC -9- 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 136 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AT AN EXISTING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 745 ELM AVENUE, IN SUBAREA 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO.: RP/CUP 88-6 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design Review Board did, on the 21st day of December, 1988, the 18th day of January 1989 and the 1st day of February, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1986. WHEREAS,,at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP/CUP 88-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows: (A)That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing, the Board APPROVES RP/CUP 88-6, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinqs: l.The proposed drive through facility complies with the overall goals of subarea 1 of the Village Design Manual and the development standards of the V-R Zone and the Village Design Manual. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That the proposed use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in this zone for the reasons stated in the staff report. 3. The subject property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use for the reasons stated in the staff report. 4.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 will be provided and maintained for the reasons stated in the staff report. 5. The street system serving the subject property is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use for the reasons stated in the staff report. 6. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Village Redevelopment Area local Coastal Plan. 7. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. 8. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. 9. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. 10. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on November 2, 1988, and Recommended for Approval by the Design Review Board on February 1, 1989. In approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the significant effects this project could have on the environment. 11. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. PC RESO NO 136 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. Conditions: 13. Approval is granted for RP/CUP 88-6, as shown on Exhibit(s) "A"-"B", dated January 16, 1989, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 14. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The Site Plan reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. 15. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. 16. This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider's agreement to pay the Public Facilities Fee dated August 19, 1988, and the agreement to pay the Growth Management Fee dated August 19, 1988, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk and are incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void. 17. Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Costa Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983. 18. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 1, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits. General Planninq: 19. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such PC RESO NO 136 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project‘without the condit with all requirements of law. 20. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances time of building permit issuance. on complies I sections of n effect at 21. Approval of RP/CUP 88-6 is granted subject to the approval of CDP 88-6. 22. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of 5 years. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 5 years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. Onsite Conditions: 23. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 24. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent prooerties and streets, oursuant to Buildinq Department and Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction-of the Directors of Planning Building. 25. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to ref downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. for lect PC RESO NO 136 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 i 21 ~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director. 27. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. 28. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 29.Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. 30. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. 31.This project is approved subject to the condition that the project applicant repair the portion of the sidewalk along the east side of Madison Street near the existing Pine Tree, which is located 70 feet south of the Elm Avenue/Madison Street intersection. This sidewalk portion shall be repaired to mitigate an existing trip hazard. The above mentioned sidewalk repair work will commence with the issuance of a building permit. 32. This project is approved subject to the condition that the portion of the existing 6' high wall located along the alley, east of the proposed new 24' wide driveway, and not needed to enclose the redesigned trash area, be reduced to a maximum height of 32". 33. This project is approved subject to the condition that a pedestrian crosswalk from the five compact spaces, westerly to the proposed handicap may be striped. . . . . . . . . . . . . , PC RESO NO 136 -5- 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on thti 1st day of February, held on thti 1st day of February, 2 2 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3 3 AYES: AYES: 4 4 NOES: NOES: 5 5 ABSENT: ABSENT: 6 6 ABSTAIN: ABSTAIN: 7 7 a a 9 9 SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 10 ATTEST: 10 ATTEST: 11 11 12 CHRIS SALOMONE 12 CHRIS SALOMONE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 ia ia 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 PC RESO NO 136 27 PC RESO NO 136 -6- 28 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 137 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AT AN EXISTING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 745 ELM AVENUE. APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CASE NO.: CDP 88-6 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of 8 Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and 9 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided 1o by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design 12 Review Board did, on the 21st day of December, 1988, the 18th day of January, 13 1989 and the 1st day of February, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to 14 consider said application on property described as: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1988. WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board 15 16 17 18 19 2. considered all factors relating to CDP 88-6. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the 22 City of Carlsbad as follows: 23 (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 24 (B) That based on the evidence presented at public hearing, the Board recommends APPROVAL CDP 88-6, based on the following findings and 25 subject to the following conditions: 26 Findinqs: 27 ‘* The project is consistent with the goals and policies established by the City's Local Coastal Plan for this Redevelopment area. 28 - 1 2. The project is consistent with the parking signage, and landscaping 2 requirements specified in the Carlsbad Zoning ordinance, and the Local Coastal Program for the Village Redevelopment Area. 3. Approval is granted for CDP 88-6, as shown on Exhibit(s) "A"-"B", dated January 16, 1989, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 4. This approval is subject to the conditions of RP/CUP 88-6. All conditions of Design Review Board Resolution 136 are hereby incorporated herein by referral. 8 General Planninq: 95. 6 Approval of CDP 88-6 is granted subject to the approval of RP/CUP 88- . 10 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review 12 Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February, 13 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 14 15 AYES: 16 NOES: 17 ABSENT: ia ABSTAIN: 23 ATTEST: 24 SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 25 CHRIS SALOMONE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER 26 27 APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1988 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP/CUP BB-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 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area and located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 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. 125, and 126 DENYING RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6, based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting 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 as described above. As shown on Exhibits "A" and "8") the proposal entails the construction of a 64 square foot addition (drive through window) to the existing building, and a reconfiguration of the parking lot to include a 12 foot wide drive through aisle. With this parking lot redesign, additional planter areas and curbs are added and the existing number of parking spaces (20 total) is maintained. Otherwise, the proposed drive through structural addition is composed of similar stucco and metal trim materials to match the existing building. Access to the proposed drive through would be from Elm Avenue and Madison Street. The project site is currently developed with a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. It is surrounded by Home Savings and Loan to the north, a single family residence to the south, mixed commercial to the east and Southwest Bank to the west. III. ANALYSIS 1. Does the proposed project conform with the goals of Subarea 1 and the development standards of the Village Design Manual and the V-R Zone? RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DECEMBER 21, 1988 PAGE 2 2. Can the four findings required for the granting of a Conditional Use Permit be made? a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; b) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; cl That 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 will be provided and maintained; d) That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. 3. Is the proposed project consistent with the segments of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Plan pertaining to the Village Redevelopment Area? 4. Is the proposed project consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan? DISCUSSION The primary redevelopment goal of Subarea 1 is to function as a major financial, specialty, and commercial center for the downtown area. Specific design goals ;~~~~;,~his Subarea include:,l and (2) rich in development whi.ch i:, (1) "oriented to pedestrian open space amenities . Staff believes that this proposed'drive through facility which caters specifically to drivers rather than pedestrians would directly conflict with the Subarea design goal of creating developments which are "oriented to pedestrian traffic". There currently exists other drive through facilities within the immediate project vicinity, i.e., Jack- in-the-Box Restaurant, Carls Junior Restaurant, and financial institutions. Although the effect of this proposed drive through may only incrementally impact (reduce) pedestrian use within the redevelopment area, staff believes that the approval of this use would further conflict with the Redevelopment goal of encouraging pedestrian oriented uses, while setting an undesirable precedent for future development within the Village Center. In addition, as discussed below, because of the limited size of the existing lot, construction of this proposed drive through could result in unsightly onsite automobile congestion, a condition in direct conflict with the desired Subarea goal of enhancing open space amenities within the project. Staff believes overall that for these reasons, this proposed drive through is not consistent with the design goals for this eastern entryway (Elm Avenue) to the Village Center. RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DECEMBER 21. 1988 The project as proposed also does not comply with all of the development standards of the V-R Zone. Specifically, the project provides a total of 20 onsite parking spaces. With the addition of the proposed drive through facility, including the 64 square foot structural addition, the project will require one additional parking space. However, there appears to be no room available onsite to locate this additional required parking space. It is also important to note that any amendment to required development standards (including parking requirements) would necessitate that a Local Coastal Program Amendment be approved by the California Coastal Commission. With reference to the aforementioned reasons, staff believes that the proposed drive through does not meet all of the four findings required for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, the use as proposed is not consistent with the design goals of Subarea 1, nor is the site adequate in size to provide adequate onsite parking, thereby not fulfilling the first two findings required for granting a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the projects noncompliance with Subarea design goals, and inadequate parking, there are other site planning issues associated with the proposed project. These issues include, (1) potential traffic problems associated with conflicting onsite traffic movements, and (2) an unacceptable location of a handicapped parking space, which would necessitate that handicapped patrons cross drive through traffic to access the restaurant. As noted on Exhibit "C" (Memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer, dated October 31, 1988), while the onsite circulation design does not violate City Standards, since none exist for drive throughs, the drive through design nevertheless would result in nonpedestrian oriented, poor onsite circulation. Staff also wants to note that because the proposed project does not comply with the design goals of the Subarea, and does not provide adequate onsite parking, it is not consistent with Carlsbad's Local Coastal Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area. As noted earlier in that the project is not consistent with this Local Coastal Plan, this project could not be approved without a Local Coastal Program Amendment being approved by the California Coastal Commission. The proposed project is consistent with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. As discussed within the Zone 1 Plan, all public facilities and services are in conformance with the adopted performance standards. In summary, because the proposed drive through facility, (1) does not comply with the design goals of Subarea 1, (2) does not provide adequate onsite parking, (3) cannot meet the findings necessary for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, and (4) is not consistent with Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program for the Village Redevelopment Area, staff recommends denial of RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6. 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 November 2, 1988. The environmental analysis along with the field checks by staff identified that there are no sensitive environmental resources located upon or in close proximity to the site. Because the site is currently developed, is located within an urban area, and no sensitive resources are RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DECEMBER 21, 1988 PAGE 4 located upon or in close proximity to it, no environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS :: Design Review Board Resolution No. 124 Design Review Board Resolution No. 125 :: Design Review Board Resolution No. 126 Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Exhibit "C" - Memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer, dated October 31, 1988 7. Exhibits "A"- "B", dated October 17, 1988 CDD/af November 2, 1988 . by of Garlsbad BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 APPLICANT: Kentuckv Fried Chicken REQUEST AND LOCATION: A Redevelonment Permit/ConditionalUse Permit to construct a drive throush facilitv at an existins Kentuckv Fried Chicken Resturant at 745 Elm Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieao, State of California accordina to MaD thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieao Countv. Mav 2. 1988. APN: 203-351-18 18,900 so. ft. Proposed No. of Lots/Units -- GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation CBD Density Allowed -- Density Proposed -- Existing Zone VR Proposed Zone VR Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoninq Land Use Site VR Kentuckv Fried Chicken Restaurant North VR Bank South VR SF Residence East VR Commercial West VR Bank PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date Ausust 19, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative Declaration, issued November 2. 1988 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, _^ DISCLOSURE FORM APPLICANT: Pamela Grudek for Kentucky Fried Chicken Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 3750 S. Susan St. #lOO, Santa Ana, CA 92704 Business Address 714/241-0811 AGENT: Telephone Number Pamela Grudek Name Same Business Address Telephone Number MEMBERS: NA Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, l/we will apply for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development. I /We acknowledge that in the process of reviewinq this application, it may be necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners] ‘Design Review Board members, or City Counci I members to inspect and enter the property that is the subject of this application. I /We consent to entry for this purpose. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. Pamela Grudek APPLICANT Agent, Owner, Partner MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT “C” October 31, 1988 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER PROPOSED KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE THRU (RP 88-06) We have completed our review of the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken drive thru. The design as proposed poses many minor onsite traffic prob K.F.C.) a potential offsite traffic conflict. \ ems and None of the problems is serious enough to warrant our recommendation for denial but taken together the overall drive thru layout is a poor one. First off the layout of the existing building and parking lot precludes the placement of an efficient and proper drive thru. As proposed the desi cross the path of ve a n requires that vehicles utilizing the drive thru must twice icles circulating within the parking lot. Vehicles queuing behind the order window will block vehicles wishing to enter or exit the site. The design also requires walk-in patrons to cross the drive thru lane to gain entrance to the restaurant from the parking lot. The overall design is nearly identical to the one at the Jack-in-the-Box just down the street. During peak loads at Jack-in-the-Box queuin Harding Street creatin 9 vehicles byh\o;;; design would 8 Q conflicts with traffic on the Pub ic road. volumes on Ma otential y cause the same ison are considerably less t R roblems on Madison; however, traffic an on Hardin more with the proposed streetscape median design. In a % and will be reduced even dition it is not ex ected that the KFC volumes will be as great as those at Jack-in-the-Box. Overal e the effect to Madison and Elm Street caused by the addition of the drive thru would be minimal. In conclusion, the design will result in poor onsite circulation and not be pedestrian oriented; However, the design does not violate City Standards since none exist for drive thrus. Engineering staff believes the traffic concerns are minor and not sufficient to recommend denial of the project; however, because of the inherent problems our recommendation for approval is weak at best. DAVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer DAH:rp c: Lloyd Hubbs Bob Wojcik Bob Johnson Chris Decerbo d . -4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RP/CUP 88-6/CDP 88-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Car&bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, April 25, 1989, to consider an application 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 on property generally located at 745 Elm Avenue, in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area and located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, and more particularly described as: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1986. If you have any questions, please call the Redevelopment Department at 434-2811. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: Kentucky Fried Chicken PUBLISH: April 14, 1989 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 4 City d CUISW KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RPICUP 88-w CDP 88-l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to construct a drive through facility at an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant on property generally located at 745 Elm Avenue, in Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area and located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Lost 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Block 48 of Carlsbad Townsite, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1986. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Redevelopment Department at 434-2811. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. -2 CASE FILE: Rl?/CUP 88-6/CUP 88-6 APPLICANT: KENTUCKY PRIED CHICKEN CITY OF CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD _--... - -- T HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT OFFICE 2965 Roosevelt Street Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-2811 March 17, 1989 TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: Housing and Redevelopment Director RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FIttached are the materials necessary for you to notice RP/CUP/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Builders - for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Please notice the item for the Commission meeting of c/v ,v-+-+--- WA A Thank you. K- -- * 7P- dq@ ‘i . CHRIS SALOMONE Housing and Redevelopment Director DATE AfiDRESS LIST OF G=VERS WITHIN 600' RADIUS OF,=UBJECT PROPERTY 203-292-11 203-303-21 203-305-09 l&rvin t Idella Hu@reysTRS Packard Development Corp. Percy & Lucille Cloud 140 Acacia Avenue 725 Grand Avenue 5201 Shore Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-292-15,16,17, t 19 RoyA. &NancyL.Boyer, TR P. 0. Bax 545 Carlsbad, CA 92008 203-292-18 203-303-24 Uno Kaskla, Venus Investments TheBettyWoodTrust c/o Israwi Salim 8221 Seabixd CFrcle 425 North Arden Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Los Angeles, Ca 90004 203-301-05; 203-302-01 Howard&BarbaraMuzphy Gerald G. Kelly, TR. 400 North La Costa Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-302-02 203-303-27 Jeanene Enterprises, Inc. La Jolla Bank & Trust Co. 752 Grand Avenue P. 0. Box 22629 Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 San Diego, CA 92122 203-302-03 Stuart & Marilyn Wilson 1846 Avocada Road Oceanside, CA 92054 203-302-04 Josephine R. Kingston 786 Grand Avenueulevard Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-303-16 Robert & Darlene Pearson 2125 Wocdwind Drive Olivenhain, CA 92024 203-303-17,18 Sachio & TaekoMatsubara Gene&MargaretRay 1360 Forest Avenue Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-303-19,20; 203-305-12 Leon t Sonja Per1 215 North Palm Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 203-292-10 203-304-29 Eva s. MC Cleall mrk&MaryGmbas Thelma B. Williams John&BarbaraGcanbas P. 0. Box 206 . P. 0. Box 1667 Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-305-10 John M. MC Cmas 1265 Cynthia Lane Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-303-26 Home Savings & IoauAssoc. 3731 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 970 Ias Angeles, CA 90010 203-305-11 Eddie L. Robinson Bokby D. Robinson 2022 Ester0 Street Oceanside, CA 92054 203-305-15 Pacific Southwest Realty c/o Corporate Tax H20-12 P.O. Box 2097 Term.Annex ILX Angeles, CA 90051 203-304-01 203-305-16 VeblenP.Vermilyea JohnMontalbano and Natalie H. Vermilyea Ann Smuels 645 Grand Avenue 2503 Via Rancheros Carl&ad, CA 92008 Fallbrook, CA 92028 203-304-02,03,04,05 203-352-12 City of Carlsbad 203-306-01 James andMarilyn Sims 2820 Wilson Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-304-09,20 MimieCarpenterand Louise Williams 2992 Roosevelt Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-306-02 ITTContinental BakingCo P. 0. Box 731 Rye, New York 10580 203-304-15,16,24,26,28 203-351-03 OakleyParker Charlotte V. Norris 3215 Maczel Lane 2538 Jefferson Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-304-17,18,19 OceansideFed. Savings &Loan c/o Pacifica Management 1901 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 203-351-04,05 ~red&~nnParkerTRS. 14088 Rue Monaco De1 Mar, CA 92014 263-351106 203-352-14 203-354-08 Lloyd&BarbaraWMccarthy Thamas & Nancy Nocman Jame~&IdaSdOn 549 south Third street 3043 Harding street 7306 Borla Place Avocado Heights, CA 91746 Carl&ad, CA 92008 car&bad, CA 92008 203-351-07 203-352-15,18 203-354-12 Fby&PatriciaAtkin Good Shepard Asseinbly of God C. Thatcher/R. H.Sonnm 3565 T%+ste Drive CityofCarlsbad C/O Pmperty Tax Division Cadsbad, CA 92008 P 0 Box 1035 - P 0 Box 7600 Carl&ad, CA 92008 Los Angeles, CA 90051 203-351-08,17 203-352-19 203-354-13 kedericoC.Melendez Glenn A Hick Engr. C Deve. James&LaMBesaW 3091 Jefferson St. #l/2 5620 Friars Rcad 2221 Win&&ton lane Cads&d, C& 92008 San Diego, CA 92110 IA Habra, CA 90631 203-351-11 203-354-01 203-354-15 Nicolas &Marg.Crun@on Lloyd A. & Rae Davies. TRS. Gordon&MarilynLarsen Nicolas C. Cnqton Gecrge&MaryMerkle c/o Mitsubishi Acct.Dept 3071 Jefferson Street 1067 Sandalwood P 0 Box 60261 Cmlsbad, CA 92008 El Centro, CA 92243 LOS Angeles, CA 90060 203-351-12,13; 203-352-11 203-354-07 204-031-01,02,03 204-032-01 Fred & Phyllis Norman, TRS. VirginiaY.Dyke Robert&MarthaBarker 2673 Vancouver St. 3120 Madison St 2435 Mark Circle Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 203-351-14 Frank & Thelma Vitalie 3037 Jefferson Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 2'03-292-21 204-031-04 CARLSBAD EQUITY PROPERTIES, CONS mn R. Yr-w C/O BRYN B. EVANS 3130 Madison St. 2965 ROOSEVALT STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-351-15,16 Eugene H. Siegel, TR. 4930 El Cajon Blvd. San Diego, CA 92115 204-031-05 Gerald/Norma Bowers, TES Richard Bowers 3199 Falcon Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 203-351-18 KFC National Management Co P. 0. Box 35910 Lcuisville, Kentucky 40232 203-352-02,03,04 MacG.Morris and Janet Venable 3680 Feliz Creek Road Hopland, CA 95449 203-352-13 David t Carmen Gastelurn 323 Hill Drive Vista CA 92083 204-031-06 Nobel International Cc. 4944 Cass St., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92109 204-031-11 Bertha & Martha Pacheco 2622 Lancelot Street Oceanside, CA 92054 204-031-14 Lewis t Pauline Chase .P 0 Box 295 Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-031-18 ,- Robert J. Coles 3111 Jefferson Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-031-20 CeeBee P 0 Box 295 Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-032-02,03,09 CarlsbadUnion~hurch 3175 Harding Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 204-032-10 Barbara Anne Johnson 897 oak Avenue Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-01 Floreucio Rcdriquez Consuelo Rcdriguez 675 O&Avenue Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-02 Miguel t kancisca Gonzalez 3119-B Madison St. Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-03,04 Mauro & Ramma Flores POBox80 Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-05 Stephen & Gina Ruggles 4003 Isle Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-06 Victor t Marie Montanez P 0 Box 874 -Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-12 JessicaDu Shaune 3150 Roosevelt Avenue Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-13,14,15 She&on I. Brockett, TR. 4522 Tt5as Street San Diego, CA 92103 204-085-01 Boys Clubof Carlsbad 3115 Roosevelt Avenue Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-084-16 Provident Bank, 5% c/o Circle K Corp. #3986 P 0 Box 52084 Phoenix, Arizona 85072 203-305-13,14 Sheryl F. Bullock 326 Santa Helena Solaua Beach, CA 92075 203-354-05 MildredR.Cruwley 2928 Jefferson Street ~lsbad, CA 92008 203-354-14 Johu&MaryGrantTRS. 7173 Cbelisco Circle Carl&ad, CA 92008 204-031-19 William D. Hendrick 228 SouthHill Street Oceanside, CA 92054 .