HomeMy Public PortalAbout86-079RESOLUTION NO. 86-079
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 283-86, VARIANCE NOS. 219-86 AND
220-869 AND DESIGN OVERLAY REVIEW NO. 334-86
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES
AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Salud Rivera,
requesting a conditional use permit, two variances, and site plan and
design review of a 10 -unit multiple family dwelling project utilizing
a relocated structure. The property is located at 1249 E. Carson Street
in the RM -25-D (Residential, MultipleFamily-25 units per net acre -Design
Overlay) zoned district.
Section 2. On April 22, 1986, the Planning Commission, following
a duly noticed public hearing at which evidence, both written and oral,
was duly presented to and considered by said Commission, approved the
application subject to certain conditions.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 9173.4 of the Carson Municipal
Code, a notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was
timely filed. On June 2, 1986, the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal. Evidence, both written and
oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council at said
hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council
announced its intended decision to deny the application for a conditional
use permit, two variances, and site plan and design review approval.
Section 4. The City Council finds, pursuant to sections 9172.21,
9172.22 and 9172.23 of the Carson Municipal Code that:
(a) The subject property is in the RM -25-D zoned
district. The applicant proposes to develop the site with a ten unit
multiple family dwelling utilizing a relocated structure that would
occupy portions of the site's side yard setback areas. A multiple
family dwelling is a permitted use subject to conditional use permit
and site plan and design review approval. Adequate sideyard setbacks
must be provided unless special circumstances warrant granting of a
variance.
(b) There are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the subject property which result in the
strict application of the Zoning Ordinance depriving such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. The property is a rectangularshaped
parcel with adequate size for multiple family dwelling uses. The RM
zoning permits the establishment of a multiple family dwelling as a
conditionally permitted use. There are no physical conditions associated
with the property that prevent it from being developed in accordance
with the standards of the zoning ordinance.
(c) The requested variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Other properties
within the area have been developed with multiple family uses with
setbacks in conformance with code requirements.
(d) Granting the requested variance would constitute
a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is situated. Other properties in the same vicinity and zone have been
likewise required to have adequate setbacks.
Resolution No. 86-079/Page 2 of 3
(e) The proposed land use and development would not
be consistent with the General Plan. While the subject property is
within the area designated for Multiple Family Residential Use and
apartments are permitted in such areas subject to a conditional use
permit and site plan and design review, the addition of the proposed
use to this area would: (1) increase congestion on streets and increase
traffic within the surrounding neighborhood, in direct conflict with
the stated objectives of the Circulation Element, (2) increase the
level of noise in the area, inconsistent with the Noise Element's
objective to abate noise exposures for citizens in the community; and
(3) permit the relocated structure to remain on the property,
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Housing Element to
ensure a visually aesthetic living environment.
(f) The proposed land use is not compatible with the
existing and future land use in the vicinity. The relocated building
is too large for the site, and would not leave sufficient room for
setback and landscaping. The surrounding uses are predominantly lower
density. The addition of the proposed unacceptable levels of traffic
would impair the convenience and safety of traffic circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles.
(g) The architecture and design of the proposed project
is not compatible with existing and anticipated development in the
vicinity in that the existing building is not aesthetic, substandard
and cannot be converted or remodeled to meet the design standards of
the City.
Section 5. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Council
hereby grants the appeal, reverses the decision of the Planning
Commission, and denies the application for approval of Conditional
Use Permit No. 283-86, Variance Nos. 219-86 and 220-86 and Site Plan
and Design Overlay Review No. 344-86 with respect to the property
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1986.
ATTEST:
CITY CL R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-� ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Resolution No. 86-079/Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF CARSON )
I, Helen S. Kawagoe, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is
five; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 86-079 was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said
Council, duly and regularly held on the 23rd day of June, 1986, and that the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Calas, DeWitt,
Mills and Yuise
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Egan
A4lerk
0-t—
C y,
City of arson, California