HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-19; City Council; ; AB 6168 Appeal variance No. 297 a variance to reduce required building setbacks for condominium Applicant-358 Jerez CompanyCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. DINITtiALHd f)Oy-:i-. ep . . Ul_~
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1980 C ty. At ty ._-\\FJE!3~~:--~ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING Cty. Mgr. --~~~~----------------------------
SUBJECT:
APPEAL VARIANCE NO. 297, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS
FOR CONDOMINIUM. .
APPLICANT: 358 JEREZ COMPANY
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The Variance is for a project on .37 acres of land on the west side of Jerez
Court, north of Gibraltar in the La Costa area. The Variance is to allow a
reduction in a setback from a private drive for two of the 5 proposed units.
The required setback is 10 feet. The two buildings that the driveway separates
are p~oposed at 4~ feet from the driveway.
The Planning Commission denied the variance since they could not find the
necessary facts to approve the variance.
Since the variance is a part of an application for a condominium permit, the
applicant has appealed the variance so that the City Council may have the.:
opportunity to approve the condominium if so desired. However, prior to
approving the condominium as submitted, the City Council would have to
grant the subject variance appeal. (See applications for condominium,
CT 79-17/CP-20).
EXHIBITS
Memo from James Hagaman dated 2/14/80
Staff Report dated November 28, 1979
PC Resolution No. 1587 RECOMt,1ENDA TI ON
Both the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the appeal of V-297
be DENIED and that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare
documents DENYING the appeal as per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587.
Council Action: . 2-19-80 Council granted the variance and directed the City Attorney to
prepare documents approving the variance subject to a 5 ft.
setback and redesign subject to approval of the Planning director.
.. •· '
l
2
3
4
5
6
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1587
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO~~ISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ COURT,
NORTH OF GIBRALTAR.
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
JEREZ COMPANY
V-297
7 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property,
8 to wit:
9 Lot 358 of La Costa South, Unit No. 5, in the City of
Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 6600, as filed
10 in the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego
County on March 10, 1970
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this project has been processed through
environmental review as required in Title 19, the Environmental
Protection Ordinance, and has been found to be categorically
exempt as per Section 19.04.090(c)4, which exempts minor
alterations in land use limitations.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 9th day of
January, 1980, 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 V-297.
IIIII
•
l NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
3 A.
4 B.
5
6 1.
7
8
9
10
11
2.
12 c.
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing
the Commission finds the following findings and facts and
reasons to exist:
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
on this property which do not apply generally to other
property in the vicinity and zone because the property
is the same and shape as surrounding properties, The
property is graded and a very little of the area is
devoted to unusable slope.
The variance is not necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right possessed by other property
in the vicinity and zone since all new condominiums in
the area will be required to meet the setback requirements.
Based on these findings and reasons, the Planning Commission
13 recommends DENIAL of the Variance.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AYES: Ronmotis, Marcus, Leeds, Larson, Schick.
ABSENT: Friestedt, Jose.
ATTEST:
28 PC RESO #1587 -2-