HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3597% 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. 3597
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAEUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE
TO REDUCE REQUIRED AISLE WIDTHS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF
CHINQUAPIN AVENUE.
CASE NAME: SEA GABLES
CASE NO: V 93-03
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; ar
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided k
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of Decembe
1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reques
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commissic
considered all factors relating to V 93-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic
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 93-03, based on the following
findings:
....
0 $
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Findirlm:
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", stafPs issues letter dated November 1,
1993, included herein by reference. Any redesign could, in turn, result in
additional issues not currently identified.
2. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The subject site includes
an aggregation of several smaller lots, none of which have any unusual
configuration or condition which would make the site difficult to develop to
existing standards.
3. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which
is denied to the property in question because the reduction of the private drive
width is not allowed to any other property by right. A variance would be required
for any PUD project proposing a private drive of less than 30 feet.
4. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located because the reduction could set a precedent for other such
reductions.
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 development.
18 ....
19 I ....
20
21
22
....
....
23
24
.... 25
.*"
....
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3597 -2-
28
e 8
1 I1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin
ll Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 199:
2
3 il by the following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Bet
Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. *
4*L&v n
BAILEY NOaE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3597 -3-