HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 2019-0023; SLOWIK ADU; Consistency Determination (CD)•
• CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICATION FORM FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION APPLICATION
CITY USE ONLY Development Number: -D \
Original Project Number: co\P 'Ll>\'7 ~ OVb~ Consistency Determination Number:
PROJECT NAME: St..d w l I?. Z"'i:l 'D"'lcL-£-1.tv(;;.
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) and
Address: 2.01-0~4-(92-oO 3'lbtJ C:Su,-J,-.)'f/lJU. Da1u.e:
Description of proposal (add attachment if necessary): Moo1rieo ?~ 1]21M)C,l[}Z,,...:,~ :(0 Hlt\JJ~
~,J\,,J&, W~? ~ ~ In f.e(Jvc. ,~ ci-W0'2e' l'!• f2r\¼-. 4~'1ct.vL kWi::.-o ~
•f'(Z,t:1 pt?q?~'tfurJe~ fD fieWee. ~v\Ni-, "-'~ ,~ ~ fZ;of ~nfLA.flA
Would you like to orally present your proposal to your assigned staff planner/engineer? Yes D ~
□
Please list the staff members you have previously spoken to regarding this project. If none, please so state.
~H,2.LS ~,,__ ~ 14(g,~N~~ CH:Vk
OWNER NAME (Print): 4::Si-\Aec>('J St-ow ' IL
MAILING ADDRESS: 3'1bD SJNJ\.lYl-t,LL-Da..
CITY, STATE, ZIP: CAl2..LS,8AQ. CRr: °lwos
I
TELEPHONE: 7fo0 -<)? 0 ~ -~ "S '3
EMAIL ADDRESS: sba..ys\DLU\YQ~,(Y'GL\\. eq,..,....._
*Owner's signature indicates permission to conduct a preliminary
review for a development proposal.
IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE
NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS
APPLICATION. INVE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. I
CERTIFY THAI I AM TH LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFORMATI IS TR 7\ND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF Y
KNOWLE E.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print):
MAILING ADDRESS:
Cl.TY, STATE, ZIP:
TELEPHONE:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
APPLICANT NAME (Print): t-,'1p..<2..jL. Jv'.J &(2..(2..\ S
MAILING ADDRESS: I 015 ILH2&l2<;2l 5G 'Sr; $..?1t'EJ..
CITY, STATE, ZIP: S,=,,.,...,b1~0 I e,.A--q2..1c>'j
TELEPHONE: @5/B -Z1~ -5l732..
EMAIL ADDRESS: if".'.\B.r' '4Gl-axt5 l .s,-ao{, U:,/V\.
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
Sll-RE __ __
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. · 7: ,·-.. , . , ..... "• . ~ r~ f)
SIGNATURE DATE
FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: Sk? 21-, 0Q / \2j2../ZO\ q
RECEIVED sY: 5! u,.1a v-J \ll~u:zu.e\;
"''-
P-16 Page 2 of 2
, -I ~ <"
DEC O 2 2019
Revised 02/28/18
,J,I
J'
OASIS
Architecture &
Design, Inc.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION CRITERIA:
City of Carlsbad
Job Name: Slowik ADU (CDP 2017-0064)
Please find below the required findings for the Consistency Determination of the above
referenced CDP.
1. The changes to the project do not alter or delete any condition, feature, facility or
amenity that are considered essential to the projects design, quality, safety or
function. We have eliminated excessive site retaining walls and simplified the
structural design of the building.
2. The requested changes do represent an upgrade in the overall design as we have
eliminated excessive site retaining walls and simplified the structural design of the
building which will improve on the projects compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. The proposed changes do not change the density or boundary of the subject property.
4. The proposed changes do not change the existing land use on the original permit.
5. The proposed changes do not rearrange the major land uses within the proposed
development.
6. The proposed changes do not create changes of greater than 10%. We will still
maintain the development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code including; side
and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, building height and required parking.
7. The proposed changes will not result in any significant environmental impacts or
require additional mitigation.
8. The proposed changes will not result in any health, safety or welfare impacts.
9. There were no issues or controversies associated with the original project and therefor
the proposed changes will not cause any additional issues.
10. The proposed changes will not be readily discernible to the decision makers as being
substantially different from the originally approved project. The building area and
height have remained the same and the placement on the site is only slightly altered to
be more in conformance with the building setbacks.