HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 57061
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. 5706
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPPROVING A
VARIANCE FROM THE FOLLOWING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH,
BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS,
REQUIRED PRIVATE REAR YARDS, PARKING, VISITOR
PARKING, AND SETBACKS FROM OPEN PARKING, FOR A
DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COVE DRIVE BETWEEN
PARK DRIVE AND MARINA DRIVE AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LBC PROJECT
CASE NO: V 04-01
WHEREAS, Jerzy Lewak, “Developer”/”Owner” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 31 of that tract described in map No. 5162, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
California, on April 23,1963
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as
shown on Exhibits “A“ - “I” dated August 18, 2004, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, LBC PROJECT - V 04-01 provided by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August, 2004, 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 testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVES LBC PROJECT - V 04-01 based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That special circumstances do apply to the subject property in that it meets the
development standards of the RW zone, and is similar in size and shape to other lots
in the same vicinity. The Bristol Cove community is a unique community with an
association that maintains a private inlet cove for recreational use, allowing each
residential unit to have a private boat dock in their backyard. The community is
almost completely developed with the exception of a few remaining vacant lots.
Many of the existing residential units consist of duplexes or triplexes. The
developments directly to the north and south of the project site are of similar size
and use, however they were developed prior to the PD ordinance and were
developed to the RW requirements which allow them to achieve 2 units on each lot.
The applicant is able to meet all the RW requirements. The PD requirements are
unable to be met due to the size and shape of the lot. For example, the lot is too
narrow to meet the lot width and the 2 car garage requirements, but is able to meet
the RW parking standards. The proposal also is in excess of the PD 30-foot height
requirement but is consistent with the other residences within the Bristol Cove
community and the RW requirement of 35-feet. In addition, the lot is only 4,680
square feet in size. The PD standards require at least a 7,500 square foot lot size for
a duplex. This is a unique community with unique zoning of RW.
Given the above, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the subject property that do not generally apply to other properties in
the same vicinity or zone. The existing 4,680 square foot lot was legally created and
is consistent in size and shape with other developed lots in the immediate vicinity
and should therefore be entitled to similar development rights. .
2. That the variance 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 in that the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that the other properties in the
community have been built as multifamily. As mentioned above this is a unique
community which allows for a higher density product by virtue of the RH (15-23
dwelling per acre) Land Use designation. If the applicant were to provide only 1
unit, the density would be 9.3 dwelling units to the acre, as opposed to 18.6 dwelling
units to the acre for 2 units, which is within the allowed range of 15-23 dwelling
units per acre.
The existing 4,680 square foot lot was legally created and is consistent in size and
shape with other developed lots in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the granting of
the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by others but denied to the property in
question.
3. That the granting of such variance will not 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, in that the granting of the variance is not injurious to the
PC RES0 NO. 5706 -2-
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
surrounding property as the construction of a duplex condominium is entirely
consistent with surrounding development within the Bristol Cove Community. The
duplex condominium is in conformance with all RW zoning requirements. The
Bristol Cove Association has reviewed and approved the project proposal.
4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan
in that the General Plan designation for the subject property is High Density
Residential (RH) 15-23 dwelling units per acre. The proposed variance would allow
the placement of a duplex condominium at 20 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the RH range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre. The planned density is also in
conformance with the surrounding properties in Bristol Cove. Therefore, the
granting of this variance request will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for V 03-01, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “I” dated August 18,
2004, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. This approval is granted subject to the Planning Director approval of CP 04-02 and is
subject to all conditions for those other approvals, incorporated by reference herein.
3. Approval of V 04-01 is granted subject to the approval of a coastal development permit
issued by the California Coastal Commission.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“ feedexac t ions .”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5706 -3-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
,,l@ANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO~MIL~R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5706 -4-