HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 52251
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5225
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3016 HIGHLAND
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORJ DE VISTA SCHOOL
CASE NO.: CUP 01-12
WHEREAS, Jan Taylor, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Lamont Geissinger, "Owner," described as
That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson's addition to
town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 565,
files in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
September 22,1888
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" - "D" dated October 2, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, as
provided by Chapter 21.42 and 2 1 SO of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 2002, on the
2nd day of October, 2002, and on the 20th day of November, 2002 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CUP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, based on
the following findings:
Findinm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
...
1..
...
...
That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is not essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, and is detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is located, in that the development of the parking lot for the
use would be inconsistent with the General Plan objective “to preserve the
neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas” in that it would
have a negative visual impact and detract from the quality of the neighborhood. In
addition, the potential for traffic conflicts could be detrimental to existing
residential uses.
That the site for the intended use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use, in that the location of the required handicap pedestrian ramp reduces the
amount of landscape area necessary to screen vehicles.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood cannot
be provided and maintained, in that due to the site topography and location of the
handicap ramp, the proposed landscaping will not adequately screen vehicles from
off-site views.
That the street system serving the proposed use is not adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed on-site circulation has the
potential to detrimentally impact street circulation and that monitoring of the
proposed staggered start/dismissal times would be difficult and impractical to
enforce. Additionally, the parking arrangement for parents visiting before or after
school is inadequate.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the
requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270-
Projects Which are Disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines.
PC RES0 NO. 5225 -2-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Whitton, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner White and Heineman
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL~ILLM
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5225 -3-