HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-02; City Council; Resolution 77641
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
v c u If
19
2c
21
22
2:
24
2E
2f
27
2E
RESOLUTION NO. 7764
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PRICE SIGN SIZE TO
32 SQUARE FEET AT THE ARC0 STATION LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND LA COASTA
AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD
CASE NO.: V-361
WHEREAS, a verified application for a variance for
certain property to wit:
That portion of Lot 9 of Section 35, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian
according to Official Plat thereof.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25th day of
July 1984 hold a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by lav
to consider said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on said day after
said public hearing adopt Resolution No. 2329 denying the
variance; and
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1984 the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as proscribe(
by law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after
consideration of all of the evidence, testimony, argument of
those persons present and desiring to be heard the City Council
directed the City Attorney to prepare documents which would deny
the appeal; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0
19
2c
21
2%
22
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and
correct.
B. That the findings of the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 2329 constitute the findings of the City Council
in this matter.
C. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial
of V-361 (Atlantic Richfield) is hereby denied based upon the
facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated July
25, 1984 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2329 attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein and the variance is therefore
denied.
D. This action of denial is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of
Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for
Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes
final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A
written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California
9 2008. "
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 2nd day of October , 1984 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Mrs Casler, lewis, Chick and Prescott
ABSENT: Council Wrher Kulchin
ATTEST:
dh7L d41 ALETHA L. RAUTENSNZ, City perk
1
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2329
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
'PRICE SIGNAGE FROM 16 SQUARE FEET TO 24 SQUARE FEET FOR
AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND LA COSTA AVENUE,
APPLICANT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD
CASE NO.: V-361
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
That portion of Lot 9 of Section 35, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian according to
Official Plat thereof,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25th day of
July, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
Variance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES V-361, based on the following findings:
////
////
////
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2%
24
2E
26
27
2€
indings:
) There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply to
other property in the same vicinity and zone for reasons
stated in the staff report.
for
llanning
he 25th
iTTEST :
) The granting of 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 reasons stated in the staff report.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
day of July, 1984, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Rombotis, Commissioners Marcus, Farrow,
McFadden and Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Smith and Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
.
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RES0 NO. 2329 -2-
SITE
LA COSTA AV
t
STAFF REPORT
DATE : July-258 1984
TO 2 Pla-fining Commission
FROM : Land Use Planning Office
MAY 16, 1984 0
SUBJECT: V-361 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD - Request for an increase in
allowable price sign area from 16 square feet to>;!
square feet for an existing service station located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Cost:a
Avenue .
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE
Resolution No. 2329 DENYING V-361 based on the findings contained therein.
I1 0 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In November, 1983, the City Council approved a zone code amendment to allow price signs to have a maximum of 16 square, feet in area. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to increase the price sign area from 16 square feet to
24 square feet.
111. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
Can the four necessary findings for a variance be made which are as follows:
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;
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;
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.
That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. (Ord. 9060 s1802).
Discussion
Staff feels there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property. The service station is located at a highly visible intersection and a 16 square foot
price sign Wld be easily seen at this location. The applicants feel the increase in signage is necessary for the preservation of
a property right because they desire to post the price of two gasoline products and feel 16 square feet is not adequate enough
for this. Staff cannot make the finding that the applicant is being denied a property right enjoyed by others. The other
service stations in Carlsbad have complied with the price sign ordinance and some have been able to price up to three products within the allowable 16 square feet.
Staff also feels that an approval for an increase in the size of
the price sign above ordinance requiremens could set an undesirable precedent as other service stations would have
grounds to get approval of a variance for the same request.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review8 based on Section 19.04.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2329 2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement
5. Exhibit "A" - "B", dated May 25, 1984
EVR: ad
7/12/84
-2-
CSE No: V-361
APPLICAEPT: Atlantic Richfield
REQUEST m mIW: Increase price signage from 16 sq. ft. to 24 sq. ft.
Northeast corner Of El C2m.h Real and La Costa Avenue.
LM;AL mscRfPTICN: That portion of Lot 9 of section 35, -hip 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian accordinq to official plat thereof. APN: U6-124-03
Acres .5 Proposed No. of Lotsnnits 1
Larrd Use Designation C
Density Allowed c-2 Density Pmposed N/A
Existing Zone c-2 Prapsed Zone N/A -
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site C-2 Service Station
North c-2 &tail
south c-1-0
Est C-2
West C(wunty)
Shopping Center
Retail
Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES San Diequits
school District minitas Water Olivenhain Sewer bucadia W's
Public Facilities F& Agreement, dated N/A
- Negative Declaration, issued Exerrpt 19.04.07
E.I.R. Certified, dated -
Other,
AGENT :
.. .
E&BEitS:
1213) 486- 0343
Telephone Nunher we KALINAK
Name
.'
Hame *(individual, partner, joint. . Home i?ddress
venture, coqora tion, syndication)
Basiness Addtest
Tele2hone Nuzkr Telephone %umber
\?at Eome Wdress
3;siness Atidrest
f/We dfclren ude: penalty of
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
perjury that tSe infoneation contained in this dis-
closure is trae 2nd-correct and that .it will remain true and corzect ad nay be
relie? upon as bahg true and correct until tnended.
b
8 4
1- --.-
b -.
a
/
I/
I p1 2 Q
/*
? I
c W
- -4