HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-25; Planning Commission; ; CUP 164 - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKENDATE:
REVISED STAFF REPORT
July 25, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A "DRIVE-THRO"
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 and 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, inade-
quate landscaping and poor traffic circulation on-site. The
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 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. 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 addit!Lon?
DISCUSSION
Approval of the requested CUP would allow the addition of a "drive-
thru" to an existing chicken store. Vehicles would gain access
from either Madison Street or Elm Avenue. An additional curb-cut
would be provided onto Elm Avenue to accommodate vehicles exiting
from the drive-thru lane. All vehicles would be directed to exit
onto Elm Avenue by means of a right turn. Signs designating "Right
Turn Only" would be posted at the Elm Avenue access. Additional
signs would be placed on Madison Street to demarcate "Entrance
Only" and "Drive-Thru".
-2-
CUP-164
Review of this proposal by the Planning Commission was originally
scheduled for June 27, 1979. Prior to the Commission meeting,
staff met with the applicant's agent to verbalize initial objec-
tions to the design. Carlson Design Company, agent for the
applicant, revised the plans and submitted an alternate. Evalua-
tion of the reworked design by staff resulted in a recommendation
of denial.
A continuance to July 25, 1979 was requested by the applicant
to allow them the opportunity to submit an acceptable plan. Staff
has reviewed the third design and concludes that the majority of
problems with the project remain unresolved.
Staff has concern about many aspects of the proposed addition.
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.
The City's transportation consultant has reviewed this proposed
design and has deemed it unacceptable. It is his recommendation
that the circulation layout must include a point of egress onto
Madison Street. The consultant foresees several potential diffi-
culties by the provision of an additional curb-cut onto Elm Avenue.
These problems center on the impact to turning movements and the
proximity to the intersection.
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 the "drive-thru" and those exiting
the gas station directly opposite the chicken store. Vehicles
traveling southwest on Elm Avenue may attempt to gain access at
the Elm Avenue entrance by means of a left turn, congesting the
existing left turn pocket. Conflict may also occur between
vehicles exiting the paired curb-cuts on Elm Avenue. Further
difficulties may arise if vehicles attempt to exit onto Madison
Street. The close proximity of this exit to the intersection
further makes it an area of possible conflict. Due to these many
points of conceivable conflict, it is the opinion of the City's
Traffic Consultant 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
-3-
CUP-164
the order board would result in the third obstructing the drive-
way, forcing all foot-traffic into the street. Additionally, the
second curb-cut on Elm Avenue, with vehicles attempting to exit
the "drive-thru", will have a similar effect.
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
enter 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
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.
The project has been reviewed by the redevelopment staff and their
affiliated urban design consultant. They have concluded that the
proximity of the exits to the intersection and the excessive number
of curb-cuts along this section of Elm Avenue would 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that CUP-136 be DENIED based on the following
findings:
-4-
CUP-164
Findings
1) That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for
the development of the conununity 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 Elm Avenue, Madison Street 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 l'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 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
-5-
CUP-164
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 within existing traffic
patterns.
EXHIBITS:
CUP-164, Site Plan, Exhibit A, dated July 11, 1979
CN:jd
7/19/79
-6-
.JEFF~50N St.
MADISON 61.
GUP-IIP4 I
KENTUCKY FP..IE.D C.14\CKEN
CASE N0.CJ,,lP-1'24 Date Rec'd ~7./79 DCC Date: W19/19 PC_Datet,Jz;zJ-a
Description of Request:cuem A,11,,Q\AJ A ''D51\J:e:n:1Bu II Arn::>mat:li "IP AN Ex!~
C.J:4)~~ •
Address or Location of Request: JHE_ EAt=Jr:5lQ'E. OE A.M A\/E, -e,EIW,=pij
MAQ\mN er & --JEEEJ=a,r;>r,J.
Applicant: KCNJ:U<=-t)Y :FB1S2 C-t:'JQ')EH /QBE: ,
Engr. or Arch.CAP,1£i'2N DF:e2J.6at-l.; ~1131 V:OON -De?JcaNEPS.
Brief Legal: A. POP,DOt:-l OE BLQ: t"a 40 >«:aP>O.lt-16 :::tn MAP t¥'), 715, 70WN oe
CAf51$a.>D arh:\EHJ:&42 • • •
Assessor Book: ~-Page: :BO-l Parcel :_·......,.te,..,__ _____ _
General Plan Land Use . Description: C::eo-(:.Etb::fY,.,L B,l'.51 H:e=-r? r,,::ro-,tc,_,:
Existing Zone:. C,..-z_. Proposed Zone: C.,-2 •
Acres: a,Ae . No. of Lots: I . • =n=u,....· s-.,~~, .... i;---n=u;-A,,_c_r_e_N,..,../..,.~-,.-·
school District: Ck-Blb&,..o Yt:llr:\SD.
Water District:CJl)' QECAP,\.£:IP;,P,D Sanitation District: __ C-=rr:/.i.a.+-------
Ce>ast Pennit Area :_)'e:-,.L.li,,~----------------------------