HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-03; City Council; Resolution 89-41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
0 d Gm 28 gz 8
dO w 5 g b Z.$ c:zg mGz< u: ' "0 +&W - g2LV go-! >z a: >3
z 00
13
14
15
16
17
5 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 89-4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
PREJUDICE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 88-5 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF HEMLOCK AVENUE BETWEEN GARFIELD AND
WASHINGTON STREETS.
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING WITHOUT
APPLICANT: HEMLOCK APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: SDP 88-5
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed wit
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 municipal
the Planning Commission did, on November 16, 1988 consider
request on property described as:
The southeasterly 105 feet of lot 2, block rrRrr of Palisades No. 2 and the northeasterly 50
feet of the southeasterly 115 feet of lot 1 in
block rrRrr of Palisades No. 2, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the Map No. 1803, filed August 25, 1924.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said public hea:
upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of
persons desiring to be heard and did adopt Planning Commi:
Resolution No. 2789 denying the subject site development
without prejudice, and:
WHEREAS, the applicant duly filed an appeal of
decision to the City Council, and:
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on December 20, 1988,
a public hearing to consider the appeal, and;
k
0
Ln 98 <$ 2
gLL=z owa
zown GEzg mGz<
%Wad >do
- zo y
li.
wzoa oacm =-5 $ >O t 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 I
17
18
19
~
20
21
22
23
24
25
~
26
27
28
e e
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider all testimony
arguments in this matter including the arguments and evid
produced at the Planning Commission meeting and its minute:
November 16, 1988, the North Beach Traffic Study adopted Nove
1987 and other evidence,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council oi
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct
B. That based on the evidence and arguments prese
at the public hearing, the City Council denies without prejl
SDP 88-5 based on the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The overall design of the development does
conform to the North Beach Traffic Study or the Beach Area Ovc
Zone in that the front of the buildings facing the street arc
pedestrian oriented, creating a dominance of hardscape withir
front yard setback area, the garages and asphalt face the st1
2. The proposed development is not consistent wit1
intent of the Beach Area Overlay Zone in that it is not a E
scale building and is too stark and massive along ce:
elevations.
3. There is no setback of the second story which crI
architectural monotony and exacerbates the massive appearanc
the building.
4. There are three levels of living areas on top of
other in the proposed building which conflicts with the inte
the Beach Area Overlay Zone restricting dwellings to two st
2.
I/ 8 0
6 I1
I. II or 25 feet whichever is less.
2 C. This action of denial is final the date
3
6
Judicial Review" shall apply: 5
Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, I'Time Limits 4
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisiol
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT''
7
81
"The time within which judicial review of this
9 by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any
10 review must be filed in the appropriate court
11
becomes final a request for the record of the 12
date on which this decision becomes final;
sg estimated cost of preparation of such record,
zozwa filed in court is extended to not later than
SCZE 15 the thirtieth day following the date on which ma,$
LL ' do the record is either personally delivered or
CZLd WZOQ 16 mailed to the party, or his attorney of
oz2m record, if he has one. A written request for zo s >$ = 4: 17 the preparation of the record of the
18 Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue,
19 ...
20 ...
21 ...
22 ...
23 ...
24 ...
25 ...
26 ...
decision must be sought is governed by Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad
petition or other paper seeking judicial
not later than the ninetieth day following the
however, if within ten days after the decision
proceedings accompanied by the required
m m 13 deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
u= -,a o, gU=+ OWQ 14 the time within which such petition may be
n Q
to proceedings shall be filed with the City k 0 Carlsbad, California 92008.1'
27 I -e- 28 3.
t
1
* *
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting (
2
4
1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 3rd day of Ja
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and
0 - a *a 28 kK (\I >a D gLL=3 owa
zo5a ;gsE uyr2 ,>.do
$%S go I? >s a: %3
zwon
t 0
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 11
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ATTEST :
a/R"
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, C
(SEAL)
24 II
25
26
27
28 4.