Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-12; Planning Commission; Resolution 1044r3 . .- .. 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 29 30 31 0 a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION -___I_____ NO. 1044 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINC C(l!4MISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, PENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 21.16.040 OF THE WNICIPAL CODE !a!HICH WOULD ALLO!rl THE REDUCTION OF A RE?UIRED SIDEYARD FROM TEN FEET TO FOUR FEET, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SQUTH- WEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHESTNUT AVENUE AND 1-5. APPLICANT: 9IAQ.Y E. STOYE WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Plannin? Comlnission did, on March 12, 1974, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by YAPY E. STONE, for a Variance of Section 21.16.040 of the Municipal Code to allow the reducti of a required sideyard from ten (10) feet to four (4.) ft. to permit the construction of 18 units on property generally located on the southwest c( 0.f the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Interstate 5, more particular13 described as : A portion of lots 10 and 11, Block "C" of Resuhdivision of a portion of Alles Avocado Acres, shown on Pap KO. 2027, City of Carl sbad. VHEREAS, said apnlication is specifically exempted from the recluirem of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance, and; W!-lEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering testim and arguments, if any, the Planning Commission did .find the following fac and reasons to exist which make the DENIAL of said Variance necessar.y to out the Frovisions and general purpose of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Vunici Code: 7. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances appl to the property or to the intended use that do not apply general the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone The immediate proximity of an elevated Freeway and the resul tin5 impact could have been considered an exceptional circumstance il the applicant had designed the development as to mitigate the in For example, if the development had been limited to single stor) buildings, by locatins the buildings as close to the elevated fr as possible, the developer would have lessened the noise impact the development. If two-story buildings are to be utilized, St: is of the opinion that the proximity of the freeway should have resulted in a request by the developer for a variance to reduce required sideyard setbacks along the west property line to get 1 dwelling units as far away from the freeway as possible. This ( have been achieved by revising the proposed layout. 32 xx xx b-s 1. - 0 a 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 29 30 31 32 2. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation a enjoyment of a substantial pr0pert.y right possessed by other prope in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property question. The variance, as proposed, results from the design of the development rather than the existance of a physical characteri of the subject property which effects the rights of the property owner. The development standards for the subject property would b the same for other properties in the R-3 Zone District. 3. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvement: in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The design of the development would be injurious to the residents of the project, and the granting of the requested variance based onlj on design, would be establishing a precedent .for any property in 1 '2-3 Zone District which would be detrimental to the public welfarc 4. The granting of such a variance would adversely effect the ad( General Plan in that the General Plan requires adequate setbacks I provided for development. NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Conmission of the Ci- of Carlsbad, does hereby BENY subject Variance, for the reasons stated her PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 12th day of March, 1974, 0 the follow-ing vote, tc ~t: AYES: Commissioners Casler, kfrench, Little, close, Dominguez and Forn NOES : None ABSENT: None c- //,? .;jl ,,L,&.,&q i./&,>LS.&, 3 ,Ar: . ,I ii I MARY Cf@?ER , C ha i rman - ATTEST: {"l LL\\[pr..!!y- , ?,J -~ DONALD A. AGATEP, Secretary I ,.. - z-