HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-09-12; Planning Commission; Resolution 1547L . >.
- II 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1547
FSSOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHICKEN STORE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, BETWEEN MADISON STREET AND
JEFFERSON.
CASE NO. : CUP-164
APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; 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 Codt
the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of August and the
12th day of September, 1979 hold a duly noticed, public hearil
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 Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888.
WHEREAS, the subject property has complied with the requ
ments of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordina
of 1972 and the State Environmental Quality Act in that the
project is catagorically exempt per Section 19.04.090 C(5) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, construction of minor appurtenap
to existing commercial facilities; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings a staff report was
submitted, and all persons desiring to speak were heard. At
the conclusion of said hearing, upon consideration of all evi
presented, the Planning Commission found the following facts
r .I 0 0
1 reasons to exist:
2
3
Findings
1) That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for
the development of the cornunity and is detrimental to
in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located 4 existing uses or to existing uses specifically permitted
5 because :
6
7
a) The addition of a drive-thru would impede vehicular
circulation. The expansion will generate an increas in traffic and create numerous points of potential C
flict on and off-site.
8 ll b) Pedestrian movement would be adversely affected- Fo
9 traffic on the project site would be hindered.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
c) Neighboring residential uses would suffer. The
restaurant operates from 1O:OO A.M. to 1O:OO 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. 1
17 2) The requested use is not in harmony with the various
18
elements and objectives of the General Plan.
a) The increased traffic congestion generated by
19 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
capacity of the existing or planned street system
provided. I'
2o I 21
until such time as adequate facilities can be 22
of traffic which would be generated beyond the
23
24
elopment without substantially altering existing 26
of ensuring "the capacity of major street linkage 25
addition conflicts with the Land Use Element b) The increased traffic congestion generated by the
Utility and Public Service Development guideline
to provide for the needs of the proposed dev-
traffic patterns or overloading the existing
27 street system.. . .I1
28 ii .2
*. L I.
-1 - )I e
1 3) All yards and landscaping and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted
because : 2 future uses in the neighborhood may not be maintained
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4)
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.
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 significant increase the traffic generated to 'the site. Design configuration will encourage exit onto Elm
Avenue, compounding the traffic congestion experienc
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.
13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote,
14 DENIED CUP-164:
15
ABSENT : Wrench 17
NOES : Jose 16
AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Larson
I.8 I 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitatio
I 20 are true and correct. II
21
22
23
24
ATTEST :
tq ,,7 .
N
25
~c&-&:q/p,7 [ / -8'
"- ,..~;~/;&z+$+~&*yJJg4 /-
26 .JFS C. HAGAMAN, ,,'S'ecrifary .."<
'I GARLSBAD PLANNING CO@ISSION
2?,..,' / /
r. ,'
I
e/' 28 -3
.I - <*,.*
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
I
0 m
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 ss
I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meeting
of said Commission held on the 12th day of September, 1979
by the following roll call vote:
AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Larson
NOES : Jose
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT : None
CUP-164
FF /> . "'7yH ,,,,<,/'
"-. 'J, ",/7./7 /;4i?,>, 5,+
i' ARLSBAD PLANRINGAOMMISSI
ES C. HAGYN, %=fetal
,/*
/'
,/' // /'
/' i'
,,/"
F* "-. ARLSBAD 'J,
/? .- "'7yH ,,,<,/'
/
:/7./7 ( / /;ai?,>, 5,+ HAGqN ,' %&fetal
PLANRINGAOMMISSI //
*/'"