HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 35840 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3584
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PLANNED
PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SEA GABLES
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
CASE NO: PUD 92-09
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of Block W of Palisades #2, according to Map
thereof No. 1803 and Lots 3-8 of Palisades, according to Map
thereof No. 1747,
IO I1 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
11 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Titi
12
15
14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of December, 199: 13
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
16
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 testimon
I.7 ll and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a
18 factors relating to the Planned Unit Development.
19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio~ I
20 I/ as follows:
21
22
23
24
DENIES PUD 92-09, based on the following findings:
25
findings for those Variances cannot be made. 26
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissio:
Findings:
1. In order to develop the project as proposed, Variances are required. The requirec
27
28
1 ....
2.
1
2
3
4 3.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 6.
16
17
18 7.
19
2o 8.
21
22
23
24
25
26
4.
5.
9.
10.
0 0
Significant unresolved issues remain, which would require a redesign of the project.
These issues include failures to comply with City ordinances, standards, and policies
as identified in Exhibit "Z", stas issues letter dated November 1, 1993, included
herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additional issues not
currently identified.
The granting of this permit will adversely affect, and will not be consistent with, the
zone code, and all adopted plans of the city and other governmental agencies
because the project does not provide a common recreation area as required by the
Planned Unit Development regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code) and
does not comply with the intent of the Hillside Development regulations (Chapter
21 -95 of the Municipal Code). The project includes structures located over the top
of the slope.
The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community because the area is designated for residential uses
by the General Plan, and the proposed type of use is a residential use.
The use will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity because the project design does not comply with the applicable regulations
and standards which would be applied to other proposed PUD developments in the
area.
The proposed planned development does not meet all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Section 21.45.090 because the project does not provide a 40-
foot setback from Carlsbad Boulevard, does not provide a common recreation area,
and does not provide a 5-foot front yard setback from the private drive.
The proposed planned development does not meet all of the design criteria set forth
in Section 21.45.080 because it does not provide the required recreational area
amenity.
The project is not designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site because it includes structures to be located along and
extending over the top of the slope.
The proposed project does not maintain and enhance significant natural resources
on the site because there are no significant natural resources on the site.
The proposed design and the density of the developed portion of the site is not
compatible with surrounding development and does create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood because the project is designed to extend
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3584 -2 -
e e
1
over the top of the slope and would be located approximately 16 feet closer to th
street than the neighboring project.
2
4
3
11. The proposed project's circulation system is designed to be efficient and we:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin;
5 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993, b:
6 the following vote, to wit:
integrated with the project and does not dominate the project.
7
8
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betn
Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall.
9 NOES: None.
10 ABSENT: None.
11 ABSTAIN: None.
12 n
fk 13
15
14
BAILEY NOBeE, Chairperson
16
18
PLANNING DIRECTOR 17
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 /I PC RES0 NO. 3584 27 -3 -
II 28