HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 42644
b
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 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4264
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN
CYPRESS AVENUE AND BEECH AVENUE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS-
VARIANCES TO ALLOW A TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
PALISOUL/BLAIR RESIDENCE
CASE NO: V 97-03
WHEREAS, Cindy Blair, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Philip R. Palisoul and Pamela F. :
husband and wife, as joint tenants, and Martin L. Blair and Cynthia S. Blair, husb
wife, as joint tenants, “Owner”, described as
Lots 15 and 16 in block “A” Hayes Land Co. Addition to
Carlsbad Map No. 2, City of Carlsbad
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for Variances ;
on Exhibits “A” - “G” dated May 6, 1998, on file in the Carlsbad Planning De]
OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS - PALISOULBLAIR RESIDENCE, V ’
provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of May, 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered :
relating to the Variances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1 0 e
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
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission APPROVES OCEAN STREET CONDOMINI1
PALISOULBLAIR RESIDENCE, 97-03, based on the following find
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applical
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property o
use in the same vicinity and zone, in that a) the site has a sloping topogra:
narrow lot width which limit automobile access to the eastern (street side) p'
the site which makes it impossible (without a large amount of fill) to providc
level garage without encroachment into the required front yard setback
sloping topography makes it difficult (without a large amount of fill) tc
reasonably livable levels within the structure as it steps down the hillsic
meeting standard building height requirements; and c) the sloping topogra
narrow lot width (50') make providing required parking at City st
impossible without approval of a variance for either reduced side yards or
parking with reduced garage dimensions and a compact-sized guest parking
2. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoymr
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
which is denied to the property in question, in that a) without approval of a 3
for a reduced front yard setback the applicant could not construct the t~
allowed by the General Plan because the narrow lot width and topog
constraints make the construction of a standard garage and parking arrangi
street level impossible; b) without approval of a variance for increased
height, the applicant would be required to substantially reduce the scal
project to such a degree that it would not be possible to develop reasonabk
units compatible with existing units in the area; and c) without appro
variance for tandem parking with reduced interior dimensions and a comp
guest parking space the applicant could not construct the allowed two UI
their associated required parking on the site; and d) the construction of re
units at a density allowed by the General Plan and which are compatible wil
a similar scale with surrounding development is a property right possessed
property owners in the same vicinity and zone.
I
3. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the publi
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in v
property is located, in that the project front setback, building height, and
arrangements are similar to and compatible with surrounding developmenl
project is similar in intensity and scale to surrounding developments in thc
and zone.
I PC RES0 NO. 4264 -2-
4 II e or
aJ
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
4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, in
proposed project, with the variances, remains consistent with the General PI
site is designated by the General Plan for Residential-High Density uses.
proposed is a residential use which is within the allowed density range and
below the growth control point.
Conditions:
1. Approval of V 97-03 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 97-17, HDP 97-
97-08 and CDP 97-36. V 97-03 is subject to all conditions contained in 1
Commission Resolutions No. 4263, 4265, 4266, and 4267 for SDP 97-17, HD
SUP 97-08, and CDP 97-36 and the Planning Department’s approval lette
97-05 and AV 97-07, and the Engineering Department’s approval letter fol
12.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May 1996
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, h
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Nielsen and Welshons
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
v
MICHAEL J. HO-MILL~
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4264 -3 -