The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV 296; BIRTCHER PACIFIC; Variance (V)- *4M Receipt No. L 0 7T APPLICATION NO. VARIANCE CITY OF CARLSBAD (Please Type or Print) ,--Date: October 8, 1979 1.. REQUEST: Variance to Front Yard Setback from ço' to ,c'• Rear Yard .(-briefly explain and indicate section of Zone Setback from 25' to Variable 0 to 25' Side YarcLjhrk from 70' to Variable -Ordinance affected) 0 to ö'; Sections 21.34.04, 21.34.05 and 21.34.06 2 LOCATION: The subject property is gene -rally located on the South -side of Palomar Arprt. Road-between Yarrow cj El Camino Real. 3.,. ASSESSOR'S NUMBE: Book 213 -Page 05 Q-Parcel AT7 Book 213 Page 05 Parcel 018 (I-fiore, please list on bottom of this page). 4. 0i4.NER(S): ;Nanie Address City lip Phone BIRTCHER-PACIFIC P.Q. BOX 15607 Santa Ana. CA 92705 (714) 835 -8035 ..5. ERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPrARATiiOi' OF A -P VLI CATiON: Name Address City . Zip Phone HENRY L. WORLEY 7875 Convoy Cnu rt . fl10r rx 92014 5717Z2.8.. -6. AP°PLICA-NT'S SIGNATURE: I hereby ideclare that all .infoniiation contained v.ithin this application is true; and that all standard conditions, as indicated n the attachment have been -read, -trnderstood and agreed-to. ame /Q..kL £H '- 'k LLddre - • City Zi p Phone ?5$3 411 epresenting (Company or cerpoion) 03 ja/ Relationshp to Property 0wner(s) The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the opportunity to work 'with the applicant throughout the Planning Stages of the proposed development. In an effort to aid the applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the application and plans prior to submittal. This request is not a requirement; however, it may avoid major redrafting or re- .-vision of the plan which only serves to lengthen the processing time. ,ATTACHMENTS: Supplemental Information Form - Planning 23 Standard Conditions - Planning 27 Preparation Check List - Planning 32 Procedures - Planning 35 Date of Planning Commission Approval - -FORM: Planning _5 6/11/79 .*a..... .( nil • C) :SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM V AR I A N CE 1) Gross Acres (or square footage, if less than acre) 24 2) Zone PM 23) General Plan Land Use Designation PLANNED INDUSTRIAL 4) By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are -found to exist. Please read these requirements carefully and explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts. 4Jse additional sheets if necessary. a) Expl:ain why there are •excep±i.onal or extraordinary circum- •s2ances or conditions applicable to the property or to the .ntended use that do not .apply generally to the other property r class of use in the same iiciii-ity and zone: The property consists of parcels which have had previous restrictions placed upon them limiting access to an interior cul-de-sac. This limitation forces dedication and construction of additional streets reducing the effective usable area for development in accordance with the existing ordinance. Landscape requirements for setbacks is in addition to slope bank landscaping & further reduces usable area. -bj -Explain why s-uch va-riance is --necessary for the preservation -nd--enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity -a-nd 20-ne but which is denied to -the :pr- ---overty in -question:The combined effect of slope banks, required dedication of additional streets for access, and setbacks produces a net usable area which is less than that available to other property in the same vicinity and greatly reduces the building area permitted by the P.M. ordinance. Reduction of the setback requirements will offset the requirement of street - dedication for interior access, and will provide an area for development equitable with adjacent properties. (See reverse side for continuation) c) Explain why the granti:ng of such variance will not be iva'terially detrimental to -the -public -welfare or injurious to :~-the property or improvements in s-uch vicinity and zone in which t4ie-:-property is located:Granting a variance to permit reduction of set- backs will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity, but will -provide for d èTöpment àñitent with existing facilities and in conformance .with zoning objectives. This will prmit expansion of the industrial base providing employment and tax revenues which will be beneficial to the public welfare. ) Explain why the gra n ting -of such variance will not adversely áffect-the comprehensive general plan: Granting the requested variances will facilitate the orderly development of the property for its highest and best use in conformance with the adopted comprehensive general - plan. -FORM Planning 23 Date of Planning Commission Approval . I b) Continued Existing site utilization allows for traffic circulation within the 50' setback producing a net landscaped area varying from 10' to 30 1 . Granting of a front yard setback variance would provide for a uniform 25' fully landscaped strip on all lots, and provide for use of the lot area in amanner compatible with existing development. Granting of side and rear yard setback variances would provide flexibility in site utilization, and compensate for encroachment of slope banks beyond the setback limits required by the ordinance. 13 4 1* If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined that further information is required, you will be so advised. APPLICANT: 1ii. I?.s c>s - K Name , partnershipTjoi.t_venture-,corporation, syndication) 1 30 i S,vv+* ,4q-, i ;LrP Business Address / (7i Telephone Number AGENT: AJ Name Business Address Telephone Number MEMBERS: qk ML 2 1 LtJ Name (individual, joint Home Address venture, corporation, syndication) Business Address _________________ Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address 313o E. Business Address (7i —ts Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. C) Applicant By - t7l- x . I ' HENRY WORLEY ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING 0 SURVEYING 0 PLANNING August 14, 1979 RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A AND PARCEL B (LOT 2, PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK, Unit #1) Parcel Nos. PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST FOR 300' RADIUS MAP 215-05-1 Leonard H. McRoskey 1915 Armacost Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 215 -05 -3 Palomar Airport Business Park 6361 Yarrow Drive, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 215-05-4 Glen F. Hare & J. Lae] 6200 Yarrow Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 215 -05-15 Nell W. Fox, Jr. & Robert L. Laughlin P.O. Box 583 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 215-05-19 Palomar 67 Associates do Eli Perlman Realty Co. 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 216 San Diego, CA 92108 213-02-14 Hughes Aircraft P.O. Box 90515 Los Angeles, CA 90009 213-02-18 County of San Diego 7875 Convoy Court 0 Suite A-2 0 San Diego, California 92111 0 (714) 571-7728 LEONARD H. McROSKEY 1 1915 ARMACOST AVE. LOS ANGELES, CAL. 90025 PALOMAR AIRPORT BUS. PARK 6361 YARROW DRIVE, SUITE "Afl CARLSBAD, CAL 92008 GLEN F. -HARE & J. LAEL 6200 YARROW DRIVE • : CARLSBAD, CAL 92008 , NEIL W. FOX, JR. & ROBERT L. LAUGHLIN P.O. BOX 583 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA.92067 PALOMAR 67 ASSOCIATES do ELI PERLMAN REALTY CO. 1660 HOTEL CIRCLE NO. SAN DIEGO, CAL. 92108 • •• • HUGHES AIRCRAFT • P.O. BOX 90515 LOS ANGELES, CAL.90009 -15. DATE NT: E Richard Hanson, Manager Leucadia County Water District P.O. Box 2397 Leucadia, CA 92024 John P. Henley r— Li Acting General Manager Carlsbad Municia1 Water Dist. 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ej Jack Kubota Woodside Kubota & Assoc. P.O. Box 1095 Carlsbad, CA 92008 L] San Marcos County Water Dist. 788 San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, CA 92069 William Hollingsworth Manager Olivenheim Municipal Water Dist. 1966 Olivenheim Rd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Ij Dr. Ralph Kellogg, Supt. San Marcos Unified School Dist. 274 San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, CA 92069 E Postmaster City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 Water Quality Control Bd. 6154 Mission Gorge Road Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92120 Attn: Arthur Coe, Charlene Dennis, or Peter Silva TO BE RE TVED: • . .-. Dr. Robert Crawford, Supt. Carlsbad Unified School Dist. 801 Pine Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 E Bill Berrier, Supt. San Dieguito Union School Dist. 2151 Newcastle Ave. Cardiff, CA 92007 Donald Lidstrom, Supt. [I! Encinitas Elementary School Dist. 185 Union Street Encinitas, CA 92024 n—i John R. Philp, M.D. [_J Director of Public Health 1600 Pacific Hwy. San Diego CA 92101 Brice Warren, Executive Dir. San Diego Coast Beg. Comm. 6154 Mission Gorge Rd. Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92120 Mr. B. L. Brown, Jr. [J San Diego Fiood Control Dist. 55555 Overland Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Edwin J. Heimlich Federal Housing Admin. P.O. Box 2648 San Diego, CA 92112 L North County Transit 1lstrict P.O. Box 1998 Oceanside, CA 92054 do Paul Price FOR INFORMATION I" San Diego Gas & Electric 101 Ash Street Nailing: P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112 Pacific Telephone Co. Right-of-Way Dept. 4838 Ronsons Court San Diego, CA 92111 IjCalifornia Div. of Real Est. 107 S. Broadway, Boom 8107 Los Angeles, CA 90012 CITY PERSONNEL LII WATER DEPARTMENT 4 [] FIRE DEPARTMENT UTILITIES DEPARTMENT El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT eXA ,4..4] ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LIJ LII Form Planning 53 Don Brown 1 Carlsbad. Chamber of Commerce Elm Avenue Carlsbad, -CA 92008 Bruce Eliason F] Dept. of Fish & Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 Dekema Ej J. Dist. Dir. of Trans. P.O. Box 81405 San Diego, CA 92138 T. C. Martin Programs & Budget Engineer - State of California Dept. of Transport. District 11 P.O.. Box 81406 San Diego, CA 92138. V-% Cr 79-14 Si FiTC..kEF CASE NO. 2A L. Date Rec'd__ DCCVDate: PC Date____ Description of Request: rVdJ - p,- 15 f-ôvcF k6k 50 - s efr,L Address or Location of Request: _ Tt2i. c, &rro i-e Old, t( Applicant: V, Engr. or Arch. He-. L. oA-e.j V Brief Legal: /4 + 3 ç - 'orw Lii l3 C+Lj O Cr(so-4 rr1 c 7 1C17, Assessdr Book: )-.t-)SO-(V.Parcel: V V General Plan Land Use Description:?\&._VV Existing Zone:':7y V V V V Proposed Zone: V V V V Acres: No. of Lots: DU's VDU/Acre School District: WA VV V V V Water District: CMt) 0_V Sanitation District:f-f fCir- k ba.a Coast Permit Area: VYS V V V V . . E: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORMS Receipt No. A er% Date: October 2, 1979 \JV YcyI Name of Applicant: Birtcher-Pacific Inc. Address: P.O. Box 15607, Santa Ana, California, 92705 Permit Applied For: Variances to PM Zoning Setbacks Case Nos.: Location of Proposed Activity: Palomar Airport Business Park BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Give a brief description of the proposed activity (attach any preliminary development plans). Granting of variances to permit reduced front yard setbacks to 25' and variable side and rear yard setbacks in the P.M. Zone. 2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. Refer to E/A for Carlsbad Tract 79-14. 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated the design and/or operation of the project. Refer to C.T. 79-1+ o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM II. Environmental Impact Analysis Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. Yes No 1. Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? 2. Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value? 3. Could the activity affect the functioning of an established comnunity or neighborhood? - 4. Could the activity result in the displacement of x community residents? 5. Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the County, State, or nation? -. 6. Could the activity significantly affect a historical or archaelogical site or its setting? 7. Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural res- ource? 8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source nesting place, source of water, etc. for rare or endangered wildlife or fish species? 9. Could the activity, significantly affect fish, wildlife or plans life? . x 10. Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity-area? . . X_ 11. Could the activity change existing features of any.of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? X 12. Could the activity change existing features of any of the City's beaches? X 13. Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of .agricultural lands? .' - 14. Could the activity serve to encourage development of .presently undeveloped areas or intensify development of already developed areas? 15. Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc)? 16. Will the activity require certification, authorization or issuance of a permit by any, local, State or Federal environmental control agency? 17. Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? 18. Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? 19. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood 'plain? 20. Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? 21. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? 0 22. Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of noise? . Yes No X X X x x X 23. Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? 24. Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? • 25. Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or' water resources? • (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore). 26. Will there be significant change to existing land form? (a) indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards. N/A (b) percentage of alteration to the present land form.N/A (c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes. N/A .27. Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? III. State of No Significant Environmental Effects . If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II but you think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: The-proposed development will intensify existing development and wi-ll require 'ariances' to the P.M. Zoning ordinance'to accomplish the development concept. The intensification of development is in conformance with previously approved plans and will produce no additional environmental effects. X X X X x • • •. •• : ) IV: Comments or Elaborations to Any of the Questions in Section II. (If additional space is needed for answering any qUestions, attach additional sheets as may be needed.) Signature L (Person coipleting report) Date Signed: /Q-8 - 7 c/ • • Conclusions (To be completed by the Planning Director). Place a check in the appropriate box. (.) Further information is required. ( ) It has been determined that the project will not have significant • environmental effects. ( ) You. must submit a preliuinary environmental Impact statement by the following date . ( ) You should make an appointment with the Planning Director to discuss further processing of your project, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code. •. DATE RECEIVED:• • * BY:_________________________ • • • • • Planning Director, or, Revised 713/74 . •. • • FORM PLANNING 40 • c17 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING V-296 NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 12, 1979, to consider a Variance to reduce front, rear and side yard setbacks on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road between Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real, and more particularly described as: Parcels A and B of Parcel Map 4713, being a resubdivision of lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract 73-49, Map No. 8054 as filed in the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego County. Those persons. desiring to speak on this subject are cordially invited to attend the meeting. If you have any questions, please call 729-1181 and ask for the Planning Department. APPLICANT: B±töhe Pacific PUBLISH: . December 1, 1979 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 1 0 f Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3088 PlO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been 'HEARING published in each regular and entire issue of said NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on Planning ?1on of the City of the following dates, to-wit: (arlsnaa Wilt nolaa pupilo nearingat the Citj'Council Chambers,-120Q Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, December 12,1979, to consider a Variance to re luce frpnt, Dec ember 1 79 rear and aide yard setbacks onproperty located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road between Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real, apdmoreparticu- larly described as: Parcels A and 9 of Parcel Map 4713, .................................1 9 . I being a resubdivisioff of, lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract 73-49, Map No. 8054 as filed in the Office of the Co,unty Recorder for San Diego County. Those persons desiring to speak on 19 this subject are cordially invited to at- ..................................... tentthe meeting. if you have any ques- tions, please call 729-1181 and ask for the Planning Department. 4pplicant: BIRTCIER PACIFIC CARDSBAD PLANNING - COMMISSION CJ S614: December 1, 1979 ..............................19.... I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carad,ouJty of San Diego, State of California the I Si day of JJecemcer 19(9 7 / 2M/5-79 Clerk of the Printer • . •_) • . • - T E PROJECT REVIEW -- NO V I G 1979 DATE: To: CITY OF CiULSBAD Fknrwig Dc;rmenL FROM: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad RE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: eJo 4YOr+ ak - DC VLJ2S) sld +h_ DCC APPLICATION REVIEW: 6 DCC FINAL REVIEW:____________________________________ Please comment below and return. For further information call the Planning Department at 729-1181, extension 25. ISSUES: tAr JL-e e (t( I', • - - I ; j( rk1 -h 5 dk COMMENTS: T £ 3 V p pôit M A- / 1J7/Q/ 2 /D 'Y 4 Kd r D 4 cc 7i—ii-79 S. S • _i) S PROJECT REVIEW DATE: TO:__ FROM: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad RE: CASE NO.:V2i1 , REQUEST: J2QOC 46rf +kth 2 dbocL , 6k (o-s') bk Vrc-bk LP2_o t) DCC APPLICATION REVIEW: DCC FINAL REVIEW:_____________________________ Please comment below and return. For further information call the Planning Department at 729-1181, extension 25. ISSUES: A re eijir o rcLi vt 'wi& riad-c COMMENTS: S v h-Ce Sr tLYV C p p'kt/ ,w -,S1_• IZQ A /10 • 'j . 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181 V1114 of adbab DATE: ip\Je*LQr .Ig) q'7_. TO: (Applicant) SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETED APPLICATION, CASE NO: 1JL2' We have determined that your application for VOrct''cQ. is complete. This item will be heprd at the Planning Commission meeting on (2 I7 beginning at 7:00 P.M. In addition, there will be a Departmental Coordinating Committee meeting on -D -e- L.) ICI -7q , startingat 9:00 A.M. The preliminary staff report will be reviewed at this time. We WOUi like to have you attend both o these meetings. If you have any questions, please contact me at 729-1181, extension 25. Sincerely, • biJi /9 PLANNING: DPARTNT KJL:jd 7/13/79 FORM 50 1200 ELM AVEN CARL SD LIONY2 92008 c1 (Catb& DATE: October 24, 1979 •TO: R.M. Campbell (Applicant) SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION, CASE NO: V-296, Birtcher.Pacjfjc TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 We have reviewed your application and have determined that it is not complete. Before processing your application, we need the following information: We found that the proposed setback lines are barely discernable on the site plan. A revised plan showing only lot lines and proposed setback lines would be easier to read. If this information is received by Nov. 28, 79 , this item (Date) will be placed on the Dec. 12, 1979 , Planning Commission (Date) Agenda. If you have any questions, please call me at 729-1181, extension 25. Sincerely, ,ç9 PLANNING DI?ARTMENT I<JL/ar 4/4/79 . . STAFF REPORT DATE: December 12, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department RE: V-296 APPLICANT:, Birtcher Pacific REQUEST: VARIANCE TO REDUCE SETBACKS IN THE PM ZONE. BACKGROUND Location and Description of Property The subject property is located north of Corte de la Pina and east of Yarrow Drive. A subdivision map is being processed on this. property creating 11 lots on 24.3 acres. A short cul-de-sac runs north off of Corte de la Pina to service this subdivision. Existing Zoning Subject property: PM North: PM, LC South: PM East: PM, LC West: LC Existing Land Use Subject property: Vacant North: Vacant, airport South: Industrial park East: VAcant, Industrial park, Animal shelter West: Industrial park, vacant GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION This project is exempt from environmetal review according to Section 19.04.080 ,(a)(8) which exempts minor changes in land use limitations. GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION I.. Public Facilities Sewer Service: The project is loc.ted within the Carlsbad Sewer District. The applicant is.-proposing septic systems to serve the entire subdivision. The City Engineer has determined that based on the county septic approval for the subject property, adequate sewer disposal will be available to serve the subject property. Water Service: The property is located within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The applicant is required to conform to all requirements of the water district. Schools: The project would not have any direct impact on the Carlsbad Unified School District. On-site and adjacent Public Facilities: All necessary on-site and adjacént public facilitisWoild 'be: required per the City's Public Improvement Ordinance on as condition' of approval. Other Public Facilities: The Planning Commission and City Council has determined that they are not prepared to find that all other public facilities necessary to serve this project will be available concurrent with need. The Planning Commission may, by inclusion of an appropriate condition, require that the project contribute to the costs of such facilites according to City Council Policy No. 17. Since the development would pay its appropriate share of the public facilities it would require, the Planning Commission could be assured that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan would 'be satisfied. Land Use Element The Land Use Element designates this property as P1, Planned Industrial. This project conforms to this designation. Other Elements This project i.s consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. HISTORY AND RELATED CASES There have been no previous applications for a variance of this type in the PM zone. CT 79-14, Birtcher Pacific, Planning Commission Resolution 'No. 1556. On November 14, 1979, the Planning Commission approved this industrial subdivision for 11 lots. The major problems were the access, including the cul-de-sac and the proposed private drive from Palomar Airport Road. The applicant will be required to improve Palomar Airport Road and the cul-de-sac. MAJOR PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Are there extraordinary circumstances On the property which are not found on other property in the vicinity and ozne? 2. Will denial of this variance deny a substantial property right? 3. What is the intent of the PM setback requrements? . . STAFF REPORT DATE: December 12, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: V-296 APPLICANT: Birtcher Pacific REQUEST: VARIANCE TO REDUCE SETBACKS IN THE PM ZONE BACKGROUND Location and Description of Property The subject property is located north of Corte de la Pina and east of Yarrow Drive. A subdivision map is being pro- cessed on this property creating 11 lots on 24.3 acres. A short cul-de-sac runs north off of Corte de la Pina to service this subdivision. Existing Zoning Subject Property: PM North: PM, LC Sbuth: PM East: PM, LC West: LC Existing Land Use Subject Property: Vacant North: Vacant, airport South: Industrial Park East: Vacant, Industrial Park, Animal Shelter West: Industrial Park, Vacant Environmental Impact Information This project is exempt from environmental review according to Section 19,04.080(a)(8) which exempts minor changes in land use limitations. General Plan Information 1. Public Facilities Sewer Service: The project is located within the Carlsbad Sewer District. The applicant is proposing septic systems to serve the entire subdivision. The City Engineer has . . determined that based on the county septic approval for the subject property, adequate sewer disposal will be available to serve the subject project. Water Service: The property is located within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The applicant is required to conform to all requirements of the water district. Schools: The project would not have any direct impact on the Carlsbad Unified School District. On-site and Adjacent Public Facilities: All necessary on- site and adjacent public facilities would be required per the City's Public Improvement Ordinance or as condition of approval Other Public Facilities: All other public facilities necessary to serve this project will not be available concurrent with need. The Planning Commission may, by inclusion of an appropriate condition, require that the project contribute to the costs of such facilities according to City Council Policy No. 17. Since the development would pay its appropriate share of the public facilities it would require, the Planning Commission could be assured that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan would be satisfied. 2. Land Use Element The Land Use Element designates this property as P1, Planned Industrial. This project conforms to this designation. 3. Other Elements This project is consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. History and Related Cases There have been no previous applications for a variance of this type in the PM zone. CT 79-14, Birtcher Pacific, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1556. On November 14, 1979, the Planning Commission approved this industrial subdivision for 11 lots. The major problems were the access, including the cul-de-sac and the proposed private drive from Palomar Airport Road. The applicant will be required to improve Palomar Airport Road and the cul-de-sac. -2- S . Major Planning Considerations 1. Are there extraordinary circumstances on the property which are not found on other property in the vicinity and zone? 2. Will denial of this variance deny a substantial property right? 3. What is the intent of the PM setback requirements? DISCUSSION This application is a request for a reduction in yards in the PM Zone. There have been no provision requests for yard variances in this zone. The request would reduce the front yards from 50 feet to 25 feet. The rear yards would vary from 0 to 25 feet and the side yards would vary from 0 to 20 feet. The changes in yards are shown on Exhibit A, dated 11/13/79. Section 21.50.020 states that the sole purpose of a variance is to prevent discrimination and shall not grant a special privilege. The next Section, 21.50.030, contains four findings which must be made before a variance can be granted. These findings are also required by State Law (Government Code Section 65906). 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. (Ordinance 9060, Section 1802). The applicant's justification for this variance is that previous conditions required the dedication and improvement of an interior cul-de-sac which reduces usable area. In addition, there are some unusable slopes on several of the 1911 . . lots which again reduces the usable land area. The applicant feels that the street dedication, slopes, and standard PM setbacks produces a net usable area which is less than adjacent properties. This property was recently subdivided into 11 lots. Nine of these lots are less than two acres. The minimum lot size in the PM zone is one acre. The small lot size is one of the factors causing the decrease in usable land area. This is not a problem which is inherent in the land, but is rather a result of subdivision. The applicant was informed of the set- backs when the subdivision map was submitted. The cul-de-sac which services this property provide access to the subdivision. This is which is unique to this property. All lots access. Some of the property is devoted to However, other properties in this area have developed by grading and leaving some porti unusable slopes. is necessary to not a situation must have adequate unusable slopes. been and will be on of the lot in The request for a reduction in side and rear setbacks to a variable figure will reduce open space and landscaping. The applicant is requesting a reduction in setbacks to 0' in some cases. This would allow paving and/or buildings to extend right up to the property line. These setbacks have been applied to all other lots in the PM zone. Street dedication and man-made slopes were necessary in many of the adjacent properties in this zone. Staff finds it difficult to justify the findings for the side and rear yard setbacks. 'However it may be possible to make the find -ings allowing reduced setbacks in the front yard along the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is entirely within the project. A condition could be attached which would require that all 30 feet of the front yard be landscaped. Through oversight when the building permits were approved for nearby buildings, driveways and parking were allowed in the front setback. Section 21.44.210 (1) states that no parking is allowed in the front yard, but does not prohibit driveways. This request may be better considered as an attempt to amend the zone than as a variance. The requested variance would apply to nearly all setbacks on the eleven lots and could result in a drastic change in the structure of the PM zone. Recommendation Staff recommends DENIAL of V-296, based on the following findings: _/1_ . . Findings 1) There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone. a) Surrounding properties in the PM zone were also required to provide adequate access to their lots. b) Other properties have been developed through the use of man-made slopes which may extend into buildable area. 2) This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. a) Other properties in the PM zone have been required to develop according to the setback requirements. 3) This variance would constitute a special privilege because: a) Surrounding properties have been and will be required to meet the standards of the PM zone. b) Other properties are required to provide access to the lots without necessitating reduced setbacks. 4) This variance would be detrimental to the property and improvements in the vicinity and zone because: a) It would reduce the quality of the area by allowing O foot setbacks and by eliminating a considerable amount of open space and landscaping. b) The open space and landscaping are an integral part of the quality of development in the PM zone. Attachments Exhibit 'A" dated 11/13/79 Location Map Disclosure Form KL:jd 12/5/79 -5- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1583 2 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO 3 REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 50 FEET TO 25 FEET; THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 4 VARIABLE 0 TO 25 FEET; SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO VARIABLE 0 TO 20 FEET ON PROPERTY 5 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN YARROW AND EL CAMINO REAL 6 CASE NO.: V-296 7 APPLICANT: BIRTCHER-PACIFIC WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, 9 to-wit: 10 Parcels A and B of Parcel Map 4713, being a resubdivision 11 of Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract 73-49, Map No. 8054 as filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. 12 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the 13 Planning Commission; and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request 15 as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 16 WHEREAS, this project has been processed through. environ-• 17 mental review as required in Title 19, the Environmental 18 Protection Ordinance, and has been found to be categorically 19 exempt as per Section 19.04.080 (a) (8) which exempts minor 20 changes in land use limitations. 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 12th day 22 of December, 1979, hold aduly noticed public hearing as pre- 23 scribed by law to consider said request; and 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi-. 25 dering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons 26 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 27 relating to V-296 and 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote, 0.0 4 9 :ic U 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 denied the variance based on the following findings: dis 1) There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances app1icble to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone. a) Surrounding properties in the PM zone were also required to provide adequate access to their lots. b) Other properties have been developed through the use of man-made slopes which may extend into buildable area. 2) This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. a) Other properties in the PM zone have been required to develop according to the setback requirements. 3) This variance would constitute a special prvilege because: a) Surrounding properties have been and will be required to meet the standards of the PM zone. b) Other properties are required to. provide access to the lots without necessitating reduced setbacks. 4) This variance would be detrimental to the property and improvements in 'the vicinity and zone because: a) It would reduce the quality of the area by allowing 0 foot setbacks and by eliminating a considerable • amount of open space and landscaping. b) The open space and landscaping are an integral part of the quality of development in the PM zone. AYES: Schick, Rornbotis, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Larson NOES: None NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the foregoing recitations are true and correcL. EDWIN S. SCHICK, JR., pIairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMNION ATTEST: 11MES C. H2GAr1 7kL9.( Secretary ARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. Resolut.in 1583 .3 I . 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CARLSBAD ) I t JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meeting of said Commission held on the 9th day of January, 1980, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Marcus, Larson, Schick, Leeds. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Friestedt, Jose. V-296 PC PESO # 1583 Page 3 4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 -S .1. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28