HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3586I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3586
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE
TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT SETBACK FROM
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN
AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SEA GABLES
CASE NO: V 93-02
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,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; ani
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided b
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of Decembel
1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said requesl
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commissio:
considered all factors relating to V 93-02.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission DENIES V 93-02, based on the following
findings:
....
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
0 e
FindiIlES:
1. 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, staffs issues letter dated November 1,1993,
included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in additiona
issues not currently identified.
2. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicablt
to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the othe:
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site include:
an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusua
configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop to thc
existing standards.
3. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but whicl
is denied to the property in question. While some other properties along Carlsbac
Boulevard have been built in the past with a smaller setback from the street, thos~
projects were approved prior to the requirement for the 40-foot setback
Therefore, no variance was required. (The PUD ordinance was amended to includ,
the 40-foot setback requirement January, 1987.) Were those properties to b
developed today as PUD's, they would be subject to the 40-foot requirement. Th
project immediately north of the subject project has a setback of 23 feet from th
existing right-of-way line. The applicant is proposing structures at 5 feet from th
existing right-of-way line (30 feet from the proposed right-of-way line). Th
variance would allow the applicant's proposed structures to be locate
approximately 16 feet closer to the street than the neighboring project wa
allowed. The only reason the applicant needs the variance is to allow th
proposed development to extend further westward into currently existing publi
right-of-way.
4. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfar
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in whic
the property is located. According to the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, Carlsba
Boulevard is a Scenic Comdor of special importance because it runs through tk
entire City and provides unique views of the City to visitors. The North Beac
Planning/Traffic Study also cites the importance of sensitive site design in tk
area. The granting of the requested variance would be contrary to these goal
The variance would also allow the project to be built in a manner inconsistel
with the Hillside Development Regulations.
....
PC RES0 NO. 3586 -2-
1
2
3
4
@ 0
5. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan because the area is designated for residential uses and the proposed project
is a residential use.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993,
5 I! by the following vote, to wit:
6
7
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz
Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall.
8
ABSENT: None. 9
NOES: None.
10 ABSTAIN: None.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
91
J,
BAILEY N&LE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
22
23
24
25
26 11
27 li PC RES0 NO. 3586 .3-
28