HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 1587L - *I
” 0 0
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 1587
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COPXISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ COURT,
NORTH OF GIBRALTAR.
APPLICANT: JEREZ COMPANY
CASE NO: V-297
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property,
to wit:
Lot 358 of La Costa South, Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 6600, as filed in the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego
County on March 10, 1970
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to th
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a reques
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this project has been processed through
environmental review as required in Title 19, the Environmer
Protection Ordinance, and has been found to be categorically
exempt as per Section 19.04.090(~)4, which exempts minor
alterations in land use limitations.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 9th day of
January, 1980, 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 pers
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factorE
relating to V-297.
/////
L. ,. I1 I1 0 0
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2
4
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
5
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public heal
the Commission finds the following findings and facts i
reasons to exist:
6
7
8
9
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
on this property which do not apply generally to other
property in the vicinity and zone because the property
is the same and shape as surrounding properties, The
property is graded and a very little of the area is
devoted to unusable slope.
10 substantial property right possessed by other property
11 in the vicinity and zone since all new condominiums in the area Will be required to meet the setback requiremc
l2 c Based on these findings and reasons , the Planning commj
2- The variance is not necessary for the preservation of E
13 // recommends DENIAL of the Variance.
14
15
16
17
AYES: Rombotis, Marcus, Leeds, Larson, Schick.
ABSENT: Friestedt, Jose.
18
19
20
21
22 ATTEST :
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM'%S$ION
',~, 1 '\\.h
23 ;.,"'! ,.; e-( 24 ,gqies c * m " "'
/.q /' ~ f
,..'cARLSBAD PLXtEvG CO~~ISSION
M/&fd N ,;,;;;;'Secretary
2 5 ,/ 2' .:I
28 PC RES0 #1587 -2-