Loading...
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-