Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 96-02; Air Products & Chemicals; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (7)Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis May 30, ' 1996 Adrienne Landers 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: PREVIOUS APPROVALS ON THE SCHUMACHER PROPERTY Dear Adrienne: On Monday, May 20, 1996 I reviewed all of the files in you office relating to the Palomar Oaks (Birtcher) tentative map and Planned Industrial Permits in that subdivision. Although there were over half a dozen files they could be divided into three categories. After reviewing them I divided them into three piles, A, B, & C marked with yellow tabs. PILE A - CT 80-38/PUD-22 (PALOMAR OAKS SUBDMSION) These files all deal with the original approval of the Palomar Oaks subdivision, CT 80- 38/PUD-22, in 1980-1981. It was also referred to as the Birtcher project at that time. These files consist of the staff report, application, etc. and the exhibits. None of the exhibits shows building foot prints on any of the lots. This project was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1980. Paragraph 2 of page two of the staff report states that the applicant has not submitted any floor plans or elevations, but instead has submitted CC&Rs and the Palomar Oaks Design Guidelines which set up development regulations. This section of the staff report also states that where there is a conflict between these Guidelines and the City's ordinances, the City's Ordinances will prevail. I was unable to find a copy of these documents. I have tabbed this portion of the staff report for you convenience. There is also a file of exhibits in this group. Only one of the exhibits shows a building foot print at 1969 Palomar Oaks Way and this is an exhibit that was used for preparing the sign program for the overall project. A small scale copy of this exhibit is integrated into the sign program which is also in the file. The sign program was approved on April 17, 1984, after the construction of the buildings at 1969 Palomar Oaks Way. I have also tabbed this exhibit for your reference. 2386 Faraday Avenue Suite 120 Carlsbad CA 92008 (61 9) 438-1465 Fax: (619) 438-2443 I researched the Building Department files and it appears that a Building Permit was applied for at 1969 Palomar Oaks Way in 1982 and issued in 1983. This was prior to the City establishing the requirement for a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP). To the best of my memory this building along with the other buildings on the lots to the east of 1969 Palomar Oaks Way were all constructed by the original developer of the property with just a building permit. PILE B - PUD-22/PIP 85-22 (EATON LEONARD) These files deal with a proposal to amend some lots boundaries and grading for a building for the Eaton Leonard Company on lots to the west of Paseo del Lago. The PUD Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1985 and the Planned Industrial Permit was approved on July 10, 1985. This project was never built and this portion of Palomar Oaks was developed by the Madison Square project. PILE C- PIP 87-3 (MADISON SQUARE) These files all relate to the PIP for Madison Square located on lots to the west on Paseo del Lago. This Planned Industrial Permit was approved on October 21, 1987. The development allowed by the approval of this Planned Industrial Permit exists on these lots today. As you can see, neither of these Planned Industrial Permit files relate to the portion of this subdivision occupied by the Schumacher buildings. In addition, the original approval did not contain any exhibits showing foot prints or elevations. The only exhibit I could find in the file showing a foot print for the buildings occupied by Schumacher was the sign program, which was approved after the issuance of building permits for these buildings. As mentioned previously, the buildings occupied by Schumacher were some of the first to be build in this subdivision by the original owner Birtcher. They were built before the City established the Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) process, therefore the Planning Department would not have any files with floor plans and elevations for these buildings. At that time they only had to process building plans through the Building Department. Planning reviewed the building plans to ensure that they were in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the tentative map, then we signed off on the plans. In conclusion: 1. None of the files showed any approved building foot prints for the Schumacher properties. 2. PIP 85-2/PUD 22(A) was never built and superseded by PIP 87-3 (Madison Square) for the property to the west of Pam del Lago. 3. Therefore, the approval of the Planned Industrial Permit for the Schumacher property should not require an amendment to any of these previous approvals. I believe that this letter provides the information you need to complete your review of the project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Bill and I would like to thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss ways of processing this project without the need for a Planning Commission hearing. We appreciate your thoughts on how we could administratively approve the required revisions to the Palomar Oaks Development and Maintenance Standards. Mike Howes DATE : TO : FROM: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT October 22, 1980 Planning Commission Planning Department CT '8'0-38/PUD-22. - BIRTCHER - Request for a 20 lot Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road in the P-M zone. I. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTSON The applicant is proposing to develop a 20 lot .tentative map and planned unit development on an irregularly shaped 80 acre parcel located as described above. This planned unit development will have private roads, equestrian and jogging trails, and a picnic area. The proposed trails will be designed to connect with existing equestrian and jogging trails developed as part of Phase I1 of the Palomar Airport Business Park. The industrial lots created by this project will vary in size from -75 - 4.82 acres. At the present time the subject property is covered with scrub oak woodlands on the hillsides and mature live oaks in the valleys. A large portion of the site will be left in its natural state and whenever possible the existing live oaks on-site will b,e preserved. Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of grading will be required to create the buildable lots and private roads to serve this project. I1 . ANALYS'I s. Plannincr Issues 1. Does the project meet the design criteria and .development standards for an industrial project as stated in the P-M zone? 2. Is the project comprehensively designed and well integrated with the previously approved phases of the Palomar Airport Business Park? * I11 0' DI'SCUSSTON. As proposed staff fees that the project meets the design ~ criteria of the PUD Ordinance. The applicant proposes to " c * i '" .. I . ' ' -4%). , h. I. 8' . *,e . .. u ,. .*' . i : . , ' ' , I' b ,. . . _. . ,.< "; .:'i'%. .I, 4, utilize the flatter portions of the ?terrain and leave a large portion of the subject property in its natural state. As a result, the applicant is varying the size of .the lots so that a few of the lots will have lessthan the one acre minimum area required-in the P-M zone,%Sueh a'reduction is allowed by the PUD process. The lots created.by this project will be served by private streets which will be maintained by the property owners. The private streets-will be 30'feet wide curb-to-curb (50 ft. right-of-way) ..with no parking allowed on either side of the street,.-:';The streets will be posted for no parking.and staff is recornending that a provision be placed i'n the CC&R'S to.prohibit parking on these streets and to insure enforcement of the prohibition. The Planning Commission will note that '&the applicant has not submitted site plans or elevations as normally required by the PUD Ordinance. Instead the applicant has submitted to the Planning Department a copy of theSiienantwnditions and restrictionsagfor the project along with a copy of the Pa1omar::Oaks Design_Guidelines .. These guidelines set up strict regulations concerning"the type and design of the buildings on the subject property, i The design- guidelines state that whenever there is a conflict'between the design guidelines and the city's Zoning Ordinance, the ordinance will prevail. The applicant has also.submitted a conceptual landscape plan for one of the parcels to"give the city an idea of how each of the lots will be landscaped when developed. ' t .. . .. .. . . >. <. 3 . "...- . .. .* To support the modified standards to "the P-M zone the applicant proposes to provide substantial'landscaping and recreational amenities. . As shown on'the exhibits provided by the applicant, the pr.esent drainage will be modified so that it will flow through a couple of ponds and a small lake. This design will tend to reduce the velocity of the water. flow and act as sediment traps,...As shown on Exhibit C, all portions of the subject property'that are not left in their natural state or occupied by a,building or parking area will be heavily landscaped. . ' As shown on phibit ,B the applicant propo.ses to construct a pedestrian and jogging trail with 'a series of exercise stations. Also an eques.trian trail is proposed which will be designed to connect with .a previously.approved equestrian trail system. .. .. Overall, the project appears to be well integrated and compatible with the rest of the development in the Palomar Airport Business Park. Also, the pro.ject will-provide adequate open space, circulation and recreational facilities as shown on the attached exhibits. Staff f.eels that the project meets both 'the design criteria- and- the development standards of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. ,'- I. . I -2- One concern of staff involves the location of the intersection of Street A with Palomar Airport Road. Because of its proximity with the proposed, future intersection 0.f College Blvd. and Palomar Airport Road, staff is recommending that this intersection be restricted to right turns in and out only . IV. REc3XMENDAT:ION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 1716, recommending APPROVAL of CT38 and Resolution No. 1717, recommending- AP'PROVAL of PUD-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHmNTS. Background Data Sheet Location Map Disclosure Form PC Resolution No.. 1716 (CT 80-38) PC Resolution No . ' -1717 (PUD-22) Exhibit "A" dated October 17, 1980 Exhibits "B", and "C" dated September 18, 1980 MH:ar 10/16/80 -3- . 714-831-8031 .' Telephone Number .. .. 'lclep5one Number . Campbell :Palmar, a general partnership . ,~~AERS: . Robert H. Campbell , general partner a . Name (individual, partner, joint - " "- Ilcae Address venture, corporation, syndication) . . 27C11 La Paz Road, Laguna' Niguel , CA 92677 Business Address "" "" s 714-831 -8031 . Telephone Number. .. -. .. . .. .. .. i e.- Telephone Number. Campbell :Palomar,, . a general partnership . Ry: Birtcher Pacific (Ronald E. and Arthur B. Birtcher, genera; Partners) ' ~ 2761 1 La- Paz Road, Laguna Niguel ; CA 92677 . , Name - Home Address . .. Business Address - ... 714-831-8031 " .. . -. .' . . .a Telephone Number Telephone Number "- .. -!. .. .. _. .. " .. . , u: . " ,. (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/we declare under penal'ty Of perjury that" the infonnction contained in this dis- closure is. true and correct and thzt it will remain true and correct and may be relzed .upon aS,kieing true and correct'until amended. .. .. . - Birtcher Business Center-Corporate Palomar . Aqcnt, Owncr, Partner . . .. . ,. .. DEVELOPMENTAL ' SERVICES 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 0 Assls!ant City Manager (714) 438-5596 0 Bulldlng Department (714) 438-5525 0 Englneerlng Department 0 Houslng b Redevelopment Department J2n:z2;ament (714)43&6591 * (714) 438-5541 _.. June 11, 1981 Robert Campbell 27611 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677 SUBJECT: PALOMAR OAKS ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE . STANDARDS AND CC&R'So The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed development. standards for Palomar Oaks and found a number of instances where ' they conflict with the requirements of the P-M zone according to the Carlshad Zoning Ordinance. As you are aware Condition No. 5 of Planning Commission' Resolution No. 17.16 approving CT 80-38 stated : Approval of this request does not excuse -compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other . applicable city ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. In case of conflict between design guidelines of the CCLR'S and the Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the crdinance will prevail. Staff has briefly reviewed the proposed development standards and found the following conflicts: 1) Section 3. 3 Guidelhes 1 - the maximum building height in in the P-M zone is 35' not 45' . 1 2) Section 3.4 Guidelines 1 - the P-M zone requires a 50' front yard setback not 30' . . 3). Section 3.5 Guidelines 1 - the P-M zone requires buildings . to be setback at least 20' from the side property line rather. than 10' . 4) . Section 3.5 Guidelines 2 - the P-M zone requires that arking be setback at least 10' from an interior property Yine . .. Mr. Robert Campbell June 11, .1981 Page 2 .. 5) Section 5.2.5 Definition - the P-M zone requires a 10 foot ' ~ minimum planting strip along and adjacen.t to interior property lines rather than 5' . . Staff suggests that you revise the development standards to reflect the requirements of the P-M zone. Often potential developers do not bother-to completely read the development standards and assume that the development standards are in conformance with the zoning requirements. This could result 'in a sizeable loss of time and money if someone designed a project that was not in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Please be aware that these discrepancies were found during a brief review of the development standards, additional review may uncover other problems. The Planning Department suggests that you have one of your staff members carefully review the proposed development standards in light of. the requirements of the P-M zone. ? In addition Condition No. 9 of Planning Commission Resolution' . No. 1717 approving the PUD for this project stated: The applicant shall establish an owner's association with corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R'S shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to final map approval. Said CC&R'S shall contain a provision prohibiting parking on. the private streets and ensuring enforcement of this .prohibition to the satisfaction of the city. The CC&R'S shall also contain a provision which specifically ensures that the owners will continue to maintain all drainage improvements and facilities and allows the city to enforce said provision if necessary. The city shall have the right to enter upon the property to maintain the drainage 'facilities if the ,developer or subsequenk owners fail to do so and charge the cost for said maintenance to developer or subsequent owners. This condition is included pursuant to .Public Resource Code Section 30170 (.E) . After reviewing the CC&R'S as well as the Architectural, Development and Maintenance standards, staff did not find a . *provision .for the maintenance of drainage facilities in accordance .with this condition. The CC&R'S should be amended 8 Mr. Robert Campbell June 11, 1981 Page 3 ta fulfill this condition. . The final map for' this project cannot be approved until this problem is resolved. If .you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL HOWES Assistant Planner . MH:ar Y