Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners raise design and traffic concerns at Buellton review of proposed In-N-Out
Summary
At a May planning commission meeting, staff and the In-N-Out development team reviewed conceptual plans for a 3,890 sq ft restaurant with a 35-car drive-through. Commissioners and neighbors pressed for a traffic study, stronger screening, pedestrian access improvements, and adaptation of the chain's prototype to Buellton's contemporary ranch design guidelines.
Buellton 'At a May 14 meeting of the Buellton Planning Commission, staff and the applicant presented a conceptual plan for a proposed In-N-Out Burger on an approximately 3.4-acre site between Highway 101 and McMurray Road (Rufus T. Buell Drive). Commissioners, staff and a neighbor raised questions about peak drive-through queuing, vehicle spillback onto McMurray Road, pedestrian access, and how the standardized restaurant prototype would be adapted to the city's contemporary ranch design guidelines.
Staff opened the discussion by explaining that the presentation was a one-time conceptual review intended to give preliminary feedback before a formal application is submitted. Planners said a formal submittal will require a local transportation (traffic) study and Caltrans coordination and that an architectural review consultant will evaluate compliance with the community design guidelines.
"This project is early in its development," said Bridget Williams, In-N-Out's development manager. "We look forward to hearing your feedback on these conceptual designs and taking those into consideration as we move forward." Williams described the proposal as a one-story, roughly 3,890-square-foot building with a 700-square-foot patio, 84 indoor seats, 24 outdoor seats, 76 parking stalls and a drive-through lane with a 35-car stacking capacity.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff and the applicant on whether the proposed 35-car queue would match actual peak demand and what design measures would prevent queue spillback.
"How does a proposed 35-car drive-through queue compare to the actual peak demand?" asked Commissioner Saria, noting that containment on site is more important than the nominal stacking number. Planning staff said those peak-usage questions will be analyzed in the required traffic study prepared by a consultant and that the study will evaluate on-site circulation, turning movements and potential spillover onto adjacent roadways; staff added that mitigation would be required if the study finds impacts.
Staff also said the proposal includes a lot-line adjustment to expand the southern parcel for the restaurant while leaving limited improvements on the northern parcel; the commission asked whether that configuration would constrain future development or shared access opportunities. "There's no known future use on parcel B at this point," staff said, adding that reciprocal access easements could be considered if a future development is proposed.
A trustee who identified themself as the property owner said the developer is entering a lease with an option to buy. A neighbor and nearby business owner, Adam Baris, urged the commission to protect local character and pushed for design controls on lighting and color so the site does not become a highway-style or truck-stop appearance: "You can push back on coloring. There are examples where planning commissions have maintained their neighborhood character and gotten corporate to say, 'Hey, tone it down,'" Baris said.
Several commissioners said they welcomed the economic activity a restaurant could bring but emphasized design constraints. Commissioners recommended enhanced screening of drive-through vehicles from Highway 101, muted exterior colors and lower color-temperature lighting consistent with the city's recently adopted outdoor lighting ordinance. One commissioner recommended an additional pedestrian crossing across the drive-through and stronger pedestrian connections from McMurray Road to encourage walking access.
Planning staff reiterated that the conceptual plans have not been reviewed for municipal-code or design compliance and that the architectural-review consultant and the traffic study will be key steps when a formal application is filed. No formal vote or permit decision was made at the meeting; commissioners provided initial comments for the applicant to consider in a later formal submittal.
Next steps: the applicant is expected to prepare and file a formal application that includes the traffic study and materials for architectural review; staff will coordinate Caltrans review as required and bring the formal project back to the commission for official action.
