HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 6998
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 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR REVIEW PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARD OF THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
TO ALLOW A ONE-CAR GARAGE AND ONE COMPACT
SIZED UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED TWO-CAR GARAGE TO SATISFY THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A ONE FAMILY DWELLING ON A .08 ACRE LOT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3147 ROOSEVELT STREET IN DISTRICT 5 OF
THE VILLAGE REVIEW ZONE AND WITHIN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: TRAM PROPERTY CASE NO: RP 13-02
WHEREAS, Price Builders Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lien Tram, “Owner,” described as
Lot 24, Block 32 of Town Carlsbad AMD, in the City of
Carlsbad, State of California, as filed in the Office of the San
Diego County Recorder as Map No. 775 (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to allow a one-car garage
and one compact sized uncovered parking space to satisfy the residential parking space
requirement for a one-family dwelling (two-car garage) within a mixed-use building; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Minor Review
Permit (Variance) as shown on Exhibits “A” – “B” dated July 17, 2013, attached hereto and on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Division, RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY, provided by Chapter
21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 17, 2013, 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 Minor Review Permit (Variance).
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6998
PC RESO NO. 6998 -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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES RP 13-02 – TRAM PROPERTY, based on the following findings
and subject to following conditions: Findings:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, in that due to the narrow width of the lot (25 feet) and
the requirement to have a minimum 4 foot wide disabled path of travel along the
south property line leading to the office spaces, building a required two-car garage
(with a minimum interior dimension of 20’ x 20’) would result in the garage being built with a zero-foot north side-yard setback. A one-car garage as proposed, allows for enough room to include the required minimum 4’ wide disabled access from the disabled parking space to the offices while still providing a minimum 3’ wide
sideyard setback along the northern property line. In addition, it allows for an
exterior staircase that accesses the one-family dwelling on the second floor so that the future tenant would not have to access the dwelling unit from the first story of the proposed office. Furthermore, there are other single family residences within the northwest quadrant of the City which are located on similar 25’ wide lots which also
do not have two-car garages (including some which have been granted variances (V
11-03) and others which are non-conforming). With regard to the proposed 8’ x 20’ compact size uncovered parking space (rather than the required standard size 8.5’ x 20’ uncovered parking space), the
requirement for the 17 foot wide disabled parking space and loading area at the
rear of the lot does not leave enough room to accommodate a 8.5’ wide regular parking space on this 25’ wide lot.
2. That the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding,
in that the granting of the variance to allow for a one-car garage and an uncovered compact parking space to be built rather than the required two-car garage shall not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located in that there exist
other single family residences within the northwest quadrant of the City which are
located on similar 25’ wide lots which also do not have two-car garages (including some which have been granted variances (V 11-03) and others which are non-conforming).
PC RESO NO. 6998 -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
3. That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property, in that the proposed
mixed-use development is a provisional use in District 5 of the Village Review zone.
Mixed-use developments can be allowed in District 5 if the ground floor is devoted to commercial uses. The existing building in the front is used as an office, and the ground floor of the proposed new building will be devoted to office as well. The proposed second story residential unit enables the achievement of a mixed use
commercial/residential project, thereby satisfying one of the primary objectives of
the Village Review zone for District 5. The development of the proposed second story residential unit is not achievable without the proposed parking variance.
4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and
any applicable specific or master plans, in that the proposed variance is consistent with
the general plan in that it provides complementary uses such as a combination of
residential and commercial uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The variance is also consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual because it helps establish the Village as a quality working and living environment by providing
office space and a residential unit on the same lot which provides a live/work
opportunity.
5. That the City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15332 – Infill Development Projects, of the state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the City Planner has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Minor Review Permit
(Variance).
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Minor Review Permit (Variance) documents, as necessary to
PC RESO NO. 6998 -4-
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
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any conditions for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this
Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Minor Review Permit
(Variance), (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary
or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s
approval is not validated.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Minor Review Permit, the Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property
to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to
the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Minor Review Permit (Variance) by
Resolution No. 6998 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to
the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 6998 -5-
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
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the
Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section
21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council
must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review.
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
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. 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 fees/exactions
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.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .