HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-19; City Council; 3033; Projects in agricultural resource mgmt district. . ._
. Subj ect : APPEAL: PACESETTER HOMES: Request for consideration of a'variance of Qection 4,043 Submitted By: ..
! ' of 'the Municipal Code relatinq to development standards PLANNING COPclMISSION '
for projects within the Agricil tural Resource Manaqement
e -- District (RM-4) \I Lyj *
-. ?$ 65
M 73-57 .... - - -Statement of the Matter
.
*
.
At their regularly scheduled meeting of February 13,'1974, the P1ann;nng Commission DENIED the applicant's request f.or relief from the Interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance (RM-4). of 25% coverage. '-Coverage in this instance .is defined as "any 'surface which.allows less than 75% penetrability".
The Planning,Commissioh*expressed sympathy toward the applicant's dilemma in meeting
a Variance as explicitly out-lhed in?Section 8:OO of the .Interim Open- Space Zonin q Ordinance. had. not. .been met. ..
The Commission's. reasoning in voting for DENIAL-of the .Va.riance.wa$ that any decisions '
as.to the jnterpretation of the RM-4 requirements (such'as defining.the request as an .
sn-going project which would be specifically exempt from the Open Space Zonina Vrdinance .
requirement;) would, most appropriately, -be 1'e.ft to the discretion of'ttie City Counci'l. .
. The specific standards for existing aqriculture reauir.e *a maxiium'
. The applicant proposes approximately .41% coverage .- \ by this def-inition. .. .- .
-.
. . RM-4 requirements; but declined.to approve a Variance bec,ause the leqal criteria for .
. . .. ..
..
.-
I. .. ._ .- .?
_.
Fxh i b i t ..
1. Planning Epartment. staff report of 2-13-74 e. . -2. Ltr., from Pacesetter Homes dated 1-24-74
3. Ltr. fromTPacesetter Homes dated 2-19-74 4. Planning Cornmission Resolution' 1042 Denying Variance. ~ - ..
.- *r
e ..
*
PLANNING COMMISSION c
meet the required findings of a Variance, as outlined in Section 8.00 of the Interim
Recornnendst ions : That the subject request be denied-because it does not 9Mff
Open Space Zoning Ordinance. *.
STAFF COMMENT: Inasmuch as the applicant does not meet .the criteria set forth in the RM-4 District of the IntePim Open Space Zoning Ordinance, the new hen Space Ordinances which will be considered by the City Courfcil on March 19, 1974 effectively replace the Interim Ordinance and as such, the subject application would-not 'fall under the re- quirements of the new ordinances. Because the new ordinances will not levy the same standards for development, it is recommended that the Council CONTINUE thi! matter, pending adoption of the new Open Space Ordinances.
A rj No . - Date:' March 19, 1974
City Manager's Recommendation
Should the City Council, as a policy matter, grant the requested
appeal, the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission for report. If the City Council denies the appeal, the matter should be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the necessary documents.
Two things should be noted about this application. The first is an
attached letter requesting that the annexation for this land which
is 'also on this agenda be held up pending a decision on this matter.
It is the applicant's intent that the annexation not proceed unless he is granted'the variance. I do not believe annexations should be - used as negotiating tools to seek approval of certain developments from the Council. I have, therefore, told the applicant that I would recommend against the withdrawal of the annexation.
The second, and possibly the major issue involved, is the variance itself. The project presently falls under the Agricultural Resource Management District under the interim Open Space Ordinance. Neither the staff nor the Planning Commission found justification under that interim ordinance for a variance. However, the staff has indicated that the land in question would not be affected under the new ordinances which are to replace the interim Open Space Ordinance. and adoption of those ordinances has not occurred yet, and at this writing it is presumptuous of the staff to presume that the Council
will adopt them as presented. The logical option for the developer
is to seek a continuance until the new ordinances are adopted. This
has been discussed with the developer, however,he wishes to proceed.
The options for the Council are to grant the appeal, .deny the appeal, or,to continue the matter pending the adoption of the new Open Space Ordinance as suggested by the Planning staff.
Final decision
co unci 1 Action
3-19-74 It was agreed this matter be tabled until such time as the new Open Space Ordinance has been adopted.
-2-
I n. ..,,
I
TO:
REPORT ON:
CASE NOS.:
APPLICANT:
I.
11.
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 13, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP
U-239 SP-155 CT-73-59
Terry Crowther for Pacesetter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of:
A. A Specific Plan and Tentative Map for a 326-unit Planned Community Development on a 59.42 acre site located .to the east of Lowder Lane between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane; and,
8. A Variance of Section 4.043 of the Municipal Code relating to the Development Standards for projects within the Agricul- tural Resource Management District.
R E C OI.1M EN DAT I 0 N S :
A. ON THE VARIANCE: Staff recommends that the Variance of Section 4.043 of the MuniciDal Code from the requirements of the Agricul- tural Resource Management District be DENIED and that Tentative Map CT-73-59 and Specific Plan 155 be held in abeyance until such time that the requirements of the City Emergency Open Space Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 9375)
are met. Justification of this recommendation is based upon:
The Open Space Zoning Ordinance is quite explicit in stating that Variances shall be granted only on the grounds of:
"Special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
-1-
shape, topography, location of surround i ng s" whi ch woul d deprive the "property of privileges enjoyed by other property in this vicinity and in the same Resource Management
Di s tr i ct . I'
Staff believes that these criterion have not been met. Substantial development can still occur on the subject property within the Standards of the Open Space Zoning Ordinance. There are no unique or special circumstances of size, shape, topography or location applicable to the property . Likewise, the applicant would not be denied property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity and within the same resource management district.
B. ON TENTATIVE MAP: Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of Tentative
Map, Staff recommends that it be subject to the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The developer must obtain off-site public sewer easements prior to any grading of the project.
"A" Street shall be constructed to 42 foot half width.
The developer shall participate in traffic signal installations as determined by any future policy of the City Council.
The developer shall dedicate access rights to "A" Street.
Lots 8, 9 and 10 shall be dedicated as open space lots on the final map.
The developer shall obtain off-site right
of way and develop one half width (34') of Camino De Las Ondas to the Lowder Lane intersection.
.- .
'IB" Street shall be aligned with the Street in CT-73-23 at their intersection with Camino De Las Ondas.
Lots numbers 18, 19 and 20 shall be revised to show a direct alignment of the park corridor between CT-73-23 and the subject property. Said realignment shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
-2-
111.
C. ON SPECIFIC PLAI\I: That if the Commission should move to approve Specific Plan 155, such approval be subject to the following condition:
1. The park dedication of lots 19 and 21 shall occur at the time of final map approval.
BACKGROUND:
A. Description: A portion of the west half of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, S.B.B.M., in the City of Carlsbad.
B. Location: East of Lowder Lane, between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road, further described as Assessor's parcels:
214-14-12 and 13.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
r.
J.
K.
Size: 60 acres
Lots: 21 lots
Units: 326 total
Single family attached - 166 units (both 1 and 2 story units)
Four pl ex - 160 units (40 four plex) (Two story)
Density: 5.5 d.u./gross acre 6.5 d.u./net acre
Coverage: By Planned Community definition f 32%. Agricultural Resource Management District (less than 75% penetrability) 2 43%.
Projected population: - 1000
By definition of
+
E.I.R. Finding: The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report per City require- ments and the findings of that report were accepted by the Planning Commission on November 27, 1973 and the City Council on December 18, 1973.
Existing Zoning: P-C (pre-annexational)
Adjacent Zoning: West - P-C, East: E-I-A
F(lort-,: )p-C and ErI-A (County) and South, County
. . - - . . . P-C and -RD-M
L.
M.
General Plan: The General Plan shows a . low density residential (3-7 d.u./acre.) designation. The density on the approved Master Plan for the project is 7 d.u./net acre. The applicant shows a density of approxi- mately 6.5 d.u./net acre.
Resource Management District: The subject property is in three Resource Management bi stri cts : RM-1 - Prime Open Space and Conservation Areas; RM-4 - Agricultural Resources; and RM-5 - Unique and Special Resources.
The requirements of the RM-1 and RM-5 Districts are that the park area shown on the Tentative Map beiexpandedc-to conform to. the Prime Areas Map. This would entail aligning the subject park corridor to the corridor on the Hester develop- ment(CT-73-23) to the North. The developers have partially fulfilled this requirement by align- ing lot 21 (Park dedication) with the Hester park; however, they have failed to provide the necessary physical continuity with the green- belt on the western edge of the site.
The RM-4 District requires that a maximum of 25% of the subject property be covered [the criterion for coverage being anything that allows less than 75% penetrability). Of the required uncovered land, 40% must be in one contiguous parcel. The Tentative Map shows approximately 43% coverage. The greenbelt in the central part of the project does qualify as the contiguous parcel.
The applicant has requested a variance to the- requirements of the RM-4 District (see attached letter from Terry Crowther, Pacesetter Homes, dated January 24, 1974). The applicant feels that the variance is justified for the following reasons :
1. The zoning and master plan for the property have already been approved.
2. The density has been reduced from 351 units to 326 units.
3. Both one and two story units have been utilized to maximize open space while maintaining aesthetic variations.
-4-
\’
i - i
IV.
4. The development will preserve and create an open space value which will maintain community identity-
N. Parks Ordinance Compliance: The applicant is proposing the dedication of an approximately
2.5 acre park to meet the requirements of the Parks Ordinance.
0. Parking: The applicant is providing a. 2-car garage for each of the single family units and one covered and one uncovered parking space for each 4-plex unit.
P. Planning Commission Policies: Complies.
DISCUSSION:
A. Resource Management District Requirements: In view of the explicit language of the Interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance, Staff feels that the variance which the applicant has requested is not justifiable.
In the instance of the requirements of the RM-1 and RM-5 Districts, Staff feels that no undue hardship will be placed on the applicant in meeting the full requirements. The applicant had been informed of the need to provide a connective park corridor in order to maximize recreational area for both the Hester and Pacesetter developments prior to the passage of the Interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that alignment of the Park Corridor is a necessary condition of ap- proval-
The matter of compliance with the RM-4 District is more complex. The applicant has two basic a1 ternatives:
1. To meet the requirements of the Open Space Zoning Ordinance, either by variance or compliance; or
2. To suspend consideratinn of the Specific Plan and Tentative Map in anticipation of a revised Agricultural Overlay Zone.
The former alternative does not appear appro- priate, in light of the fact that the variance request is not substantiated and the applicant
-5-
has declined to comply with the RM-4 require- ments.
Therefore, Staff feels that the Planning Commission's only recourse is to hold the Tentative Map and Specific Plan in abeyance until the matter of RM-4 compliance is resolved.'.
B. The Specific Plan: The Specific Plan proposes a roughly equal number of four-plex and single family attached units. The four-plex units would be located on the eastern quarter of the site. The units will all have individual yards in addition to common open space; however, a disproportionate amount of the common open space is oriented toward the single family attached units.
An onsite recreation building, with pool and tennis courts is to be provided near the central greenbelt area. Some thirteen tot lots are to be interspersed throughout the site.
BEDROOM COUNT
Single Family Fourpl ex Totals
Two bedroom 0 120 120
Three bedroom 116 40 156
50
Totals 166 160 326
- 0 - Four bedroom 50
BREAKDOWN OF FLOOR AREAS FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
( 1,419 S.F. Floor Area (4 BR) = 50 Units
( 1,309 S.F. Floor Area (3 BR) = 44 Units 1 Story (
( 1,761 S.F. Floor Area (3 BR & Den) = 72 Units 2 Story ( 7 166 Units
-- f
BREAKDOWN OF FLOOR AREAS FOR FOURPLEX UNITS
Each 2 story fourplex structure will contain one each
of the following units:
1) 1,794 S.F. floor area - 2 BR
2) 1,248 S.F. floor area - 2 BR
3) 1,030 S.F. floor area - 2 BR
4) 1,260 S.F. floor area - 3 BR
-7-
t’ -i
AFFIDAVIT
Feb. 6, 1974 APPLICANT: Terry Crowther for DATE:
Pacesetter Homes
4540 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca.
CASE NO. CT-73-59
I, Terry Crowther , on February 6, , 1974
did review the proposed requirements to be attached to any approval
of Case No. CT-73-59 by the Planning Commission. In addition, I
Terry Crowther, am aware that any development must comply
to all requirements of the Municipal Code; and I, Terry Crowther ,
also have read Standard Conditions Nos. 1 through 20 of
Planning Commission Res. No. 1000, dated November 27, 1973, and
do agree by the following signature to comply with these conditions
as a part of any development of said Planned Community Development.
Pacesetter Homes Company f 4540 Campus Drive - Address
Newport Beach, Ca. 93660
Phone No.
AFFIDAVIT
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.;
Terry Crowther, for DATE: Feb. 6, 1974
Pa c eset er Ramflq -.
4540 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca.
SP-155
I, Terry Crowther , on February 6,
, 1974; did review the proposed requirements to be at-
tached to any approval of Case No. SP-155 by the Planning
Commission. In addition, I, Terry Crowther
am aware that any development must comply to all requirements
of the Municipal Code; and I, Terry Crowther
also have read Standard Conditions Nos. 1 (Exhibit A), 28, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14,,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 A City Engineer,
23, 24, 25, 26, 33, dated November 27, 1973, and do agree by the
following signature to comply with these conditions as a part of
development of said P1 anned Communi ty , Devel opmen t . - //’
4540 Campus Drive Address
Newport Beach, Ca.
January 24, 1974 JbN 2 8 1974
:4r, Paul Williams Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California
Re: SP-155 and Tentative Map 73-59
Dear Flr. Williams:
After our meeting last Friday I met with our Engineer and Architect to analyze a reduction in land coverage of our development. After reviewing tL4e site plan and
tentative map we believe it is appropriate to continue
with the approval of the project as presently desicjned for the
1.
2,
3.
4.
The zoning and master p1.m with circulation and open space elements have Seen approved.
We have reduced the densit.1 from the approved
351 units to 328 units.
We havz utilized two story structures in order to maximize the open space and at the saiie time provided an awl@ number of one story units to
assure an asstfietic variation in the street scene.
We believe the developnent as planned will preserve and create an open space aesthetic value that will
maintain com.unity identity.
..
4540 CAMDUS DRIVE f( NEWPORT DEACH. CALlFORNiA SI PHON5 548-3801
February 19, 1974
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
. 1200 Elm Avenue
2 1 1974
CITY OF CARLSBAD . Planning Department
Re: V-237, SP-155, CT-73-59
Gentlemen:
We would like to appeal the Planning Commissions action
OR Variance 239 and have the abcve referenced items placed
on the next available City Council Agenda
consideration.
Another item of concern is the annexation
to the City.
- for their
of this property
The annexation has bee3 approved by L.A.F.C.O. ‘However, the
original application was based on developing under your P-c
Ordinance. Since the adoption of your open space energency
ordinance and the possibility or’ having to conform Lo said
ordinance, which would drastically chanqe the proposed
development, we are requesting that this annexation be held
until %he City Council
item.
makesa finding on the above referenced
-
.. .
Very truly yours,
Manager, Project Development
TLC/cm
3.
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
29
30
31
32
A RESOLllTION OF THE PLANNING COrMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,. CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AMI !1EREBY DENYING A VARIANCE
FOR RELIEF FROM THE DEVELGPKENT STANDARDS FOR
PROPERTY IN P,GRICULTURAL USE AT TI?E OF 9DQPTION OF INTERIM O?E!'l SPACE ZDNIPIG ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: PACESETTER HOIYIES, INC.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, the Planning Commission did, on February 13, 1974, hold a duly noticed
public hearing on a request by PACESETTER HOMES, INC. for relief from the
development standards for property in agricultural use at the time of the
adoption of the Interim Open Space Zoning Ordinance. Said property is
generally located east of Lowder Lane and north of Poinsettia Lane, and is
more particularly described as:
That portion of the West Half of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to United Stated Governnent Survey.
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report was accepted by the
Planning Commission on November 27, 1973 and the City Council on December
18, 1973, and;
WHEFZFAS, at said public hearirw, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, the Commission did find the following facts and
reasons to exist which make the 3EFIIAL of this Variance request necessary, to
carry out the provisions and general purpose of Title 27 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code:
1. The Open Space Zoning Ordinance is quite explicit in stating that a Variance shall be granted only on the grounds of - "Special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location of surroundings the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in this vicinity and in the same Resource Management District (RY-4).
- which would deprive
2. Any decisions as to the interpretation of the %!-4 requirements, such as defining the request as an on-going project which would be specifically exempt from the !)pen Snace Zoniny Ordinance rclquirenientl would, most appropriately be left to the discretion of the City Council. xx
xx
xx
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
29
30
31
32
h
... .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planninq Conmission does
reby DENY this request for a Variance, for the reasons stated herein.
PASSED, APPROVED RF!D ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planninq
Comiriission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 13th day of February, 1974,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Jose, Little, Forman, Dominguez and Wrench
NOES : Coiiirni ss i oner Cas1 er
ABSENT: None
ATTEST :
- DONALD A. AGATEP,
Secretary
MARY CASLER, Chairman
-2-
x -
hulICE OF PROPOSED, VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, will hold a Public Hearing on February 13, 1974
at 7:30 , in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
to consider a request submitted by PACESETTER HOMES, INC.
CASE NO: V-239
for a Variance of Section 4.043 of the Municipal Code relating to development
standards for projects within the Agricultural Resource Management District
(RM-4).
of Poinsettia Lane, and more particularly described as:
Said property is generally located east of Lowder Lane and North
That portion of the west half of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 4 Nest, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposed Variance request
are cordially invited to attend the Public Hearing.
CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLISH: January 31 , 1974
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA [
County of San Diego { Is'
I ., ,, ... .,. , says that she is the Principal Clerk
of The Carlsbad Journal, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the
City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. and State of California, and that the notice of which the
annexed is a true copy, was published L
...., AD. 19
times in said newspaper, commencing on the ....... ! .......
,. day of ................................ :: namely on the following dates:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council ot the City of
Carirbad will hold a Public Hearing
on March 19, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in
the City Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
to consider an appeal Of the deci-
sion of the Planning Commission in
denying a Variance IV-2371 in con-
nection with Section 4.043 ot the
Carlsbad Municipal Code relating
to development standards for pro-
iects within the Agricultural
Resource Management oistricl I RM-4). Said property generally
located east of Lowder Lane and
North of Poinsettia Lane, more
Particularly described as:
That portion ot the west hall of
Section 21, Township 12 Sooth,
Range4 West, Sa" Bernardino Base
and Meridian. in the County of san Diego. State 01 California.
APPELLANT: PACESETTER
HOMES, INC.
Carlrbad City Co~ncll
Pub: March 7, 1974
NO. 1074 .................
Legal Decree No. I72342
., 1( ....... ,...:...- ........ !Lr ...... :.:..! .
............ .......................................................... ....-...._....C....-....-.....
.................. ..........
................................................................
Signed at Carlsbad, California th
/// -' c :L
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
day of : 19 ...... :
......... QleL ..<i? ...* 9,- d.,ui...; 1- , .............
Principal Clerk