HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-27; Planning Commission; Resolution 1791i L
* /I e e
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 1791
2
3
4
5
6
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT TO CONVERT 40 APARTMENT UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
TAMARACK AVENUE, BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND HIBISCUS
CIRCLE.
APPLICANT : NEVIN
CASE NO: CT 81 -2 /CP-14 7
7 WHEREAS, a verified application €or certain property, I
g wit:
9
10
Portions of Tract 23, of Thum Lands, in the city of
Carlsbad according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in tk
Office of the County Recorder, December 9, 1915.
11
said request: and 18
public hearing on May 27, 1981, as prescribed by law to consider 17
April, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued 16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 8th day of 15
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 14
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a reques 13
Planning Commission: and 12
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
19 I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
20
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, t 26
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 25
Commission a5 follows: 24
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 23
to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit. 22
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a11 factors rela 21
considering a11 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
Commission recommends DENIAL of CT 81-2/CP-147, based on the
27 following findings:
28 APN: 204-280-31
I 4 m e
1 Findings: II
2 1) That the design of the project does not conform with the
Condominium Ordinance since the project does not provide .
units from apartments to condominiums and offer them for '
3
ownership. 4
amenities required by the Ordinance in order to convert t'
5
reasons : 6
2) That the project does not conform to the required develop
standards of the Condominium Ordinance for the following
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A) The project does not meet the intent of the requireme
separately enclosed storage space, conveniently acces to the outdoors since:
1) Proposed storage space is located in three separa.
areas and therefore not conveniently accessible.
2) Proposed storage areas are limited in their poten.
uses by their reduced size.
B) The project does not satisfy minimum requirement for 1
recreation areas as follows:
I
1) The project does not provide the minimum 200 sq.f.
unit of useable open recreation area. At present
proposal consists of enclosing a larger area and 1
providing useable recreational facilities.
1 16 3) That the project does not conform to the required design
17 criteria of the Condominium Ordinance as follows:
18
A) The project is not comprehensively designed since:
1) The proposed storage structures are not well-inte 19 ! to the overall plan and not conveniently located
respect to individual units. 20
21 2) Proposed storage areas, to be constructed at the 1
were not comprehensively designed and incorporate(
the units and would serve to block light and air 22 the units and would create an indefensible space.
23
24
B) The project does not satisfy the design criteria of
providing adequate open recreational areas and other pertinent amenities as follows:
25 I 1) The amount of useable recreation area is inadequa,
26
21
2) Storage area is not adequately provided nor conveniently located.
28
[~'~ESO #1791
-2-
i ‘. c 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
C) The project does not satisfy the design criteria of
providing building structures and facilities which ari
integrated since:
1) Storage areas are not well-integrated, convenient
accessible or functionally useable with respect t
overall plan.
2) Storage areas, added to the units, are not well-
integrated to the units themselves, as they would
obstruct light and air.
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
8
27th day of May, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: 9
Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held
10
11
AYES : Commissioners Farrow, Schlehuber, Jose, Friested
NOES: Chairman Marcus and Commissioner Rombotis.
and L’Heureux.
12 /I ABSENT : None
13 ABSTAIN : None. l4I 15
16
17
TTEST :
Pjl L
MARY US, Chairman
CARLS PLANNING COMMIS 77”
COMMISSION
22
23
24 i 25
26
. ! C RES0 #1791 - 3-