HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-08; City Council; Resolution 91-336c
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
c)m SuJ: ,3 (I)> $Eg
5>:z &'o
ZOZ$
<SZ&
OUU
U: #<i nu. 15
SW(I)O >m< gZ26 16
>2'9 17
EO 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ooaa 14
qgf?
e 0
RESOLUTION NO. 91-336
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO SDP 83- 11(C) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 91-5)
FOR DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AT A McDONALD'S
RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
5990 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CASE NO. : SDP 83-llfC) /CUP 91-5
APPLICANT : McDONALD'S RESTAURANT
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed wit1
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; anc
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a re(
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the munil
code, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of August,
consider said request on property described as:
IIThat portion of Lot lIHlg of Rancho Agua
16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California."
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heari
August 21, 1991 and upon hearing and considering all testimon
arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, the Pla
Commission denied said application; and
Hedionda, according to Map 823, filed November
WHEREAS, appellant appealed the decision of the Pla
Commission to the City Council by letter dated August 26, 1991
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed p
hearing on October 1, 1991 as prescribed by law in ordc
consider said appeal and at said hearing after consideration c
the evidence, testimony and arguments of those persons presen
desiring to be heard, the City Council denied appellant's a
and directed the City Attorney to prepare documents upholdin
decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal:
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 90
&zcb
geng 0: g % ooaa 14 Z>JZ Ql-sr muoB u. 841 15
,->me woo ZZJ =ad 16
>2% 17 50 18
19
20
21
a> mug 13
$053 '58y
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council o
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correcl
2. The City Council finds that the requested use ii
properly related to the site, surroundings, or environmc
settings in that:
a. The existing proximity of a three-way tri decision point to the entrance for the causes stacking onto Avenida Encina: secondary arterial roadway. This forc deceleration lane in the public right-o to serve as a queuing lane for the entrant the parking lot, jeopardizing safe tr,
flow on the public street;
b. The inadequate stacking distance from proposed menu boards and order positior the resulting potential for cutting off ac
parking lot. This would increase conge:
and confusion, aggravating the exi: situation rather than alleviating it; ani
c, The conflicts occurring upon exiting drive-thru. The proposed exiting circuL travels through a double-loaded parking and the loading zone for Marie Callendc This impedes both automobile circulatioi truck loading access and increases tr< volume in an extremely congested area.
The City Council further finds that the original
Development Plan (SDP 83-ll(c)) and Conditional Use Permit (CU
5) approved the site for a restaurant grouped with buildings i
to parking spaces and circulation througl
3.
southeast corner of the project site in order to accommodat
applicant's desired location in order to ensure maximum fr
visibility. This design necessitated access to the bull
through the parking areas and resulted in an on-site circul
pattern which was constrained and the Planning Commi
conditioned this original site approval such that no drive
2
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
iWZ VJ>C 13 &Em $$ns $biz 14
Z>jZ
msnL 15 u8a-1
5WVJO >ma E526 16 zQs$
p2 17
uo 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Qt-gg
q8y
e 0
facilities would be allowed. There are no new facts presentc
consideration of this matter which would cause the City Counc
modify or remove that restriction.
4. The City Council further finds that appell,
proposed use is not consistent with the various elements oj
General Plan because it neither improves the existing circul<
situation nor guarantees sufficient loading facilities sinc
inhibits the adjacent restaurant's existing loading zon
directing traffic through the loading area as more fully expl
in the memorandum from the Traffic Engineer dated May 13,
The request is also detrimental to existing uses and adve
impacts the site, surroundings, and traffic circulation as
not certain to be compatible with the adjacent restaurantls lo
zone or the current parking lot circulation.
5. The City Council further finds that the sit(
times, barely accommodates the traffic circulation and parkin
the existing uses. Addition of a drive-thru facility without '
site redesign would increase existing on-site circulation pro
and, therefore, the site is not adequate in size and shaI
accommodate the proposed use. The Council further finds tha
the same reasons set forth above, appellant's appeal of
Planning Commission's denial of CUP 91-5 is denied.
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which
has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth
day following the date on which this decision
3
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 n
L%W% y?? 13 rruum >ps
ou;% noaa 14
Z>jZ Pcsg manu u'ai 15
,->mu ZZJ woo
203g qgy
Urd 16
z:; 17
0 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
becomes final: however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to
not later than the thirtieth day following the
date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting o
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 8th day of -&
1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Stanton, and
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
i'/ // f/( f' ;, flp/ ,& c /I J# * [ i&-,i,/ v CLAUDE A. tLEWx3, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALw iUT%eCkerlc
(SEAL)
4