The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-03-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 6949 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 CONVERT UP TO 1,359 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE AREA TO A RETAIL USE FOR THE STORAGE, SALE AND TRANSFER OF FIREARMS 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 2 CASE NO.: CUP 12-15 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 as shown on Exhibits “A” – “E” dated March 20, 2013, on file in the Planning Division, GUNTHER’S RETAIL 2 - CUP 12-15, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2013, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6949 PC RESO NO. 6949 -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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES GUNTHER’S RETAIL 2 – CUP 12-15, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is not 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 conditional retail firearm use is not in harmony with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, pursuant to General Plan Land Use Industrial Implementation Policy C.9, the conditional use must be clearly oriented to support industrial development and their populations. As discussed in Section A of the staff report, the project does not comply with this General Plan Land Use Policy since it caters to the general public; therefore, the project cannot be supported. Furthermore, the proposed retail use is inconsistent with Specific Plan 200(B) as the subject lot was not identified to be developed with commercial uses. In addition, the proposed retail firearm use does not clearly support the tenants of the industrial park. 2. That the requested use is detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located even though the proposed retail firearms business meets or exceeds the zoning development regulations, is architecturally compatible with the surrounding industrial buildings, and the site is adequately designed to accommodate the current on-line and proposed retail operations. The project does not meet the intent and purpose of the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone, the primary purpose of which 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 P-M zone are allowed. As the proposed retail use caters to the general public and does not directly support the adjacent industrial zone users, the use is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the P-M zone. Therefore, the project 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 firearms use is proposed in an existing building that is adequate in size and shape and meets all development standards and parking regulations. However, the project cannot be supported due to its public-serving nature which does not complement 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 10 ADT increase) and the street system is adequate to handle any traffic generated by the use. PC RESO NO. 6949 -3- 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 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. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 March 20, 2013 by the following vote, to wit: A YES: Commissioners Black, L'Heureux, Scully and Segall NOES: Commissioner Montgomery ABSENT: Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: Chairperson Siekmann NEIL BLACK, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 6949 -4-