HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 6891
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 965
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL USE WITHIN AN EXISTING
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUSINESS WITHIN THE PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2717
LOKER AVENUE WEST, SUITE B, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: GUNTHER’S RETAIL
CASE NO.: CUP 12-02
WHEREAS, Gunther LLC., “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property” described as
Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract No. 03-12 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, According to Parcel
Map Thereof No. 19517, Filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 30, 2004
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit dated July 3, 2012, on file in the Planning Division, GUNTHER’S RETAIL – CUP 12-
02, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on July 3, 2012, 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.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES GUNTHER’S RETAIL – CUP 12-02, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6891
PC RESO NO. 6891 -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
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community,
and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including,
if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan, in that the
proposed retail use is not in harmony with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and that the General Plan Land Use Industrial Implementation Policy C.9
states that the conditional use must be clearly oriented to support industrial
development and their populations. As discussed in the staff report in Section A,
the project does not comply with this General Plan Land Use Policy and therefore
cannot be supported. Furthermore, the proposed retail use is not consistent with
Specific Plan 200(B) as discussed in the staff report in Section “B.”
2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted
in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located in that the proposed retail
business does meet or exceed the zoning development regulations, is architecturally
compatible with the surrounding industrial buildings, and the site is adequately
designed to accommodate the current on-line operations. The project does not meet
the intent and purpose of the zone, whose primary purpose is to cater to the
industrial populations in the area and not to cater directly to the general public.
Only retail commercial uses which will cater and/or be ancillary to the other uses
and populations in the zone are allowed. Therefore, the retail use is not consistent
in supporting the neighboring industrial zone users and will be detrimental to
surrounding industrial office uses and cannot be supported.
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the
City Planner, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other
uses in the neighborhood, in that the proposed retail use is proposed in an existing
building that is adequate in size and shape and meets all development standards and
parking regulations. The project cannot be supported due to its public serving
nature which does not integrate with the industrial office uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed use will not increase ADT’s
significantly (approximately 8 ADT increase) and the street system is adequate to
handle any traffic generated by the use.
5. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA
does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.