HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-04-12; City Council; 712; Appeal - request for a zone change: Briggs-THE CITY — OF CARLSBAD '"- CALIF' ORNIA
Agenda Bill No. J/£, Date: APn'1 12» 1972
•'.Referred To: City Council =.....
•*
subject: APPEAL - Request for Change of Zone from R-l-7,5§Qbnltted Bto P'-C Zone, Adoption of-a Master. Plan, Amendment to the •
Land Use Portion of the General 'Plan, and Adoption of a PLANNING COMMIS-
Specific Plan on Phase A. APPLICANT: DONALD A. BRIGGS, JR. SION _
Statement of the Matter
These matters were heard and considered by-the-Planning Commission on
March 28, 1972 at their r.egular meeting. After "considerable discussi
a motion was made to adopt the resolutions subject to the conditions
of 'the staff report, plus several additional conditions outlined below:
l.That the 'Unit count be lowered from 968'units to 880 units on the
master plan. . •
2. That -the extension of Hillside Drive be taken -into consideration.
3. That a-check be made on the sewer,' water, drainage and traffic safety,
4. That- criteria' for accepting the development be drafted by staff. .
The motion failed to carry due to a tie vote, thereby constituting, denial
of the application due to the lack"of the required 2/3rds majority vote.
on
Exhibit
1 -Application
2 '-• Staff Report
3 -. Resolutions No. 767, 768,'769
4 - Department sketch
5 - Applicant's Exhibits .
Staff Recommend ations
Staff recommendations are more completely outlined in-referenced
staff report. • .
AS No. . Date
City Manager's Recommendation
Counci1'Action
4-18-72 -Resolution No. 1990, denying the appeal of the Planning Commission,
was adopted by title only, and further "reading waived.'
-2-
iSO T^iEX-a. "2.,
Instructions to Applicant: e-M^^*- pre^ -22L, vcn
1. Complete Parts A,B,C and D FOR: CHANGE OF ZONE TO
2. Filing Fee - $100.00 plus $5-00 PLANNED COMMUNITY and,
for each additional lot or parcel ADOPTION OF A MASTER PLAN
.3. Make check payable to City of Carlsb ad -k>^jv^*. xx.
**. Information to typewritten. tta-A-ass- i_
PART A - GENERAL INFORMATION
Telephone
Name of Applicant Donald A. Br'f^s Jr 729-1 n''3
Applicant's Mailing Address 4.3]5 Surryhill Dr-'ve, Carlsbad. Caljforrna °2CrP
Location of Property by Street -Easterly of Par'; Drive, westerly of Sn'-ryh']} Drive
ard bn.fi io ally south of Tanaracl: Averme.
PART B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Attach to this application One Copy of a comp1e te legal description of the
property for which a Change of Zone and Adoption of a Master Plan is being
requested. Fortiori of Lot -I, >'ap "o. f23 AGua Hed5orda, CoTmty of San D-'epo, Calif
PART C - REQUEST
Change of Zone from R-i 75PO to PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE (P-C)
and, Adoption of a Master Plan for // Acres.
PART D - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT (Attach separate sheet if required)
1. Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need
in the community for more of the types of uses permitted by the Zoning
requested than can be accommodated in areas already zoned for such uses?
* Attachnert 1
2. Is the property involved in proposed reclassification more suitable for
the purpose permitted in the proposed zone than for the purpose permitted
in present classification?
* Attachment 2
3. Would the uses permitted by the proposed zone be detrimental in any way
.•to surrounding propert
-''Attachment 3
4. What were the original deed restrictions, if any, concerning the type and
class of uses permitted on the property involved? Give the expiration date
of these restrictions.
one
The following spaces are for signatures of owners whose properties lie within a
radius of 300 feet of the property proposed to be reclassified and who approve
of the change (attach extra sheets if necessary).
No. on
Map Name Address Lot Block Tract
-2-
We, the undersigned property owners herewith request that our respective
properties which are included in the reclassification petitioned for, be
reclassified and for the reasons above enumerated. (This space is for
signatures of owners of property actually included in the proposed
reclassification. Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
No. on
Map Name Address Lot Block Tract
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) SS
CITY OF Carlsbad )
Donald A. nrlgga Jr being duly sworn, depose and say that I
all) of the property involved and this
I,
am tazs^ the owner (s) of
application has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the
City Planning Commission as printed herein and that the foregoing information
"thoroughly and completely, to the best of my fcsosoDi ability, presents an
argument in behalf of the application herewith submitted and that the
statements and information above referred to are in all refects true and
correct to the best of my f@Mr^x knowledge and belief.
Telephone Number 729-1783 Signe
Mailing Address; 4115 Sunnyhlll Drive
scribed and^^sworn—^feo before me this 1 day of February ,1972
ITng Clerk or Notary Pbblii
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and found to be complete and acceptable for filing with the City Planning
Commission.
apt No.
J T \( O
AA
•- „,„ "! ' ^~ir- •>>_ ^ >> _: \ j_ \.< \For the City Planning Commission
-3-
ATTACHMENT
D. A. Brdrgs Jr. P. C. Appllcat-'on
1. Public neoe.-rnty requires the proposed change of zo^e fron R.-1 7500 to
Planned CoJinunity. There is an urgent need in the cor^ur:1' ty for Planned
Cor'T'iu1--' ty Developments .
At thi's time there is no property available in the City of Carlsbad that
is better suited to Flawed Cor^un^'ty Development.
The zone has been recently created by the City of Carlsbad to f-'ll a portion
of the housing needs in the City of Carlsnad.
2. The rrorerty proposed for reclassif 'cat'on is fore sir table for Planned
Comrunity Development than for development under its' present zo^^f of"
Featiiring:
10 F.F.F. internal road pystern
2 miles of walls, b-icTrc?inr and r,athv;ays
A forest of 5,rCO to 10,rrO trees nlanted around the
perimeter of the deve] opnent
2 tennis courts
4, swimminfr pools
1,200, CCO square feet of or.en srace
3. The use of the property as a Planned Copmmnity will be bene"ical to the
ding area and the City ^f Carlsbad as a whole.
The building of a corarvnrdty suited to adult reeds will be a most desireable
asset for the community.
A broadened tax base without further loading our school systems is essential
to the economic well being of the City of Carlsbad.
2 j!
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
52
PLANNING COMHISS.ION RESOLUTION NO. 767
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-l-7,500 TO P-C (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) ZONE, AND ADOPTION OF A MASTER PLAN, ON PRO-
PERTY LOCATED EASTERLY OF PARK DRIVE, WESTERLY OF SUNNY-
HILL DRIVE AND SOUTH OF TAMARACK AVENUE
WHEREAS, pursuant, to the provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission did on March
28, 1972, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applica-
tion of DONALD A. BRIGGS, JR., for a change of zone from R-l-7,500
to P-C (Planned Community) Zoning, and adoption of a master plan,
to be developed in conformance with all requirements of the City of
Carlsbad Planned Community Ordinance No. 9218, on real property
easterly of Park Drive, westerly of Sunnyhill Drive, and south of
Tamarack Avenue, more particularly described as follows:
Portion of Lot I, Map No. 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, Also known as San Diego County Assessor's
Parcels 18, 20, and 23 of Book 207, Page 21, and
more particularly described on file in the Carlsbad
City Planning Office.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be
heard, said Commission did find the following facts and reasons to
exist which make the denial of the application for change of zone
necessary to carry out the provisions and general purpose of Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code:
1. The motion to approve subject application was denied due to the
lack of the required 2/3rds majority vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad that it does hereby deny the amendment to Title 21
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code changing the existing R-l-7,500 zone
to P-C (Planned Community) zone and deny the adoption of a' master plan
for development under City Ordinance No. 9218.
XX
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
MOTION FAILED TO CARRY at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
jCity Planning Commission held on the 28th day of March, 1972, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Norman, Palmateer, Dominguez
NOES: Commissioners Little, Dewhurst, Jose
ABSENT: Commissioner Forman
ATTEST:
ELMER H. JOSE, JR., Chairman
EDMOND W. DOMINGUEZ, Secretary
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 768
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1271), FOR DONALD A BRIGGS, JR.
ON 44 ACRES, LOCATED EASTERLY OF PARK DRIVE, WESTERLY OF
SUNNYHILL DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF TAMARACK AVENUE
WHEREAS said Planning Commission did on the 28th day of March, 1972,
hold a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, to con-
sider the request of DONALD A.BRIGGS, JR. for an amendment to the
General Plan, by adopting EXHIBIT A, dated February, 1972, as attached
The Carlsbad General Plan amendment, Exhibit A, consisted of the
fol1 owing :
a. To permit a maximum of twenty-two(22) dwelling units per
net acre instead of the 7 units per net acre presently
permitted under Low Density in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the said Commission received the
recommendations, objections, protests, and comments of all individuals
and parties who desired to be heard;
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did find the following facts
and reasons to exist which make denial of said Amendment necessary to
carry out the intent of the General Plan:
1. The motion to approve subject application was denied doe to the
lack of the required 2/3rds majority vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Amendment to the General
Plan, by adopting said Exhibit A, is hereby recommended to be denied.
MOTION FAILED TO CARRY at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Planning Commission on March 28, 1972, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Norman, Palmateer, Dominguez
NOES: Commissioners Little, Dewhurst, Jose
ABSENT: Commissioner Forman
ATTEST:ELMER H. JOSE, JR., Chairman
EDMOND w. DOMINGUEZ, secretary
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
52
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 769
A RESOLUTION DENYING ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN, ON
PROPERTY LOCATED EASTERLY OF PARK DRIVE, WESTERLY OF
SUNNYHILL DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF TAMARACK AVENUE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did on March 28, 1972, hold
a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application of
DONALD A.BRIGGS, JR. for adoption of a Specific Plan, on real property
located easterly of Park Drive, westerly of Sunnyhill Drive, and
south of Tamarack Avenue; more particularly described as follows:
Portion of Lot I, Map No. 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California; Also known as San Diego County Assessor's
Parcels 18, 20 and 23 of Book 207, Page 21, and more
particularly described on file in the Carlsbad City
Planning Office.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be
heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to
exist which make the denial of an application for Adoption of a
Specific Plan necessary to carry out the provisions and general pur-
pose of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code:
1. The motion to approve subject application was denied due to the
lack of the required 2/3rds majority vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, that it does hereby deny the Specific Plan.
MOTION FAILED TO CARRY at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of March, 1972,by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Norman, Palmateer, Dominguez
NOES: Commissioners Little, Dewhurst, Jose
ABSENT: Commissioner Forman
II
•1
2iI3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IS
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
ELMER H. JOSE, JR., Chairman
ATTEST:
EDMOND W. DOMINGUEZ, Secretary
27
28
29
30
31
32
PROPOSED CHANCE OF E FROr
R-l-75 TO PCAPPLICANT: DONALD A. BOIGGS JR.
SCALE
I. Harwood
2; Sparkes
3. Rombotis
4. Salsen
5. Salsen
6. Salsen
7. 61issman
8. Rombotis
9. Salsen
10. Sparkes
II. Pannonia
12. Yarbrough
13. Walters
14. Archibald
15. McMatton
16v.--M.agui re
17. Merkie
18. Evans
19. Gwyan
20. Long
21. Hernoon
22. Roach
26. Cimolino
27.
28.
30.
31.
65.
32.
33.
34.
35.
37.
38.
39.
41.
45.
46.
48.
50.
51.
52.
55.
56.
57'.
58.
Watson
Steiger
Goss
McMillan
Cook
Guidotti
Johnson
Grey
Hoats
Regan
Farmer
Janzen
M a r q u a n d
'Zamora
Pollard
Peterson
Jones
San'tore
Steer
Barrett
Bitker
Derby
Tibbits
Geyer-77, 83, 84, 92, 54, 53, 49
47, 44, 43, 51, 72, 92, 40
64, 62
Briggs-23, 24, 25, 29, 63, 64, 61
67, 69, 7.0
60.
61.
65.
68.
69.
71.
72.
73.
74.
.75.
76.
78.
79.
80.
81 .
82.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
Burmeister 94.
Sexton 95.
Fox 96.
Pfafflin 97.
Pfafflin 98.
Mitchell 99.
Bonham TOO.
O'connor 101 .
Earie 102.
Garrett '°3-Ennerson 104.
Kraynak 106.
Hughes 105.
Eaton 1°7-
Pointek 108.
Low 109.
Osterberg 110.
Pinkerton HI-
Salsman H2.
Castner
Rogers
Itrona
Elbracht
Page
Dominguez
Dominguez
Nelson
Goar
Ferris
Goddard
Ballard
Pratt
Mathers
Ingold
F & S Development Co',
Kuether
Snodgrass
Aagre
Kalicka
Archer
Lone .
Gwynn
59. Clayton 93. Iverson
I—coO 53 •< oco—« C HIoo ooa
1711 Tamarack Ave.
Garlstad,Ca.92008
Carlsbad City Council
Gentleman:
I understand that at the council meeting Tues 4-4-72 you will consider
a appeal of the planning commission's decision against the ERIGGS planned community
development. I desire to go on record against this development. I am not against
the concept or even the location if adequate streets were planned to handle the traffic
But with one access for the entire 868 units coming off of Park Drive a ordinaty
city stmet I fear it would congest and tax the street beyond its capabilities.
If the develpoment allowed for one more and better two other streets to handle the
traffic there could not be as much opposition to it.
One planning commisipner who spoke in favor of this project and Ypted for it
Jjec&e&r ft* "t*-*-* •^-f wa^MM.' -•»£ -TVO** (*-*o JZ~r~**£&«r^c.^ -"*? (SC*^^^,
compared thertrarfic problem with that of OCEA.NA in Oceanside. That gentleman is like
comparing cats and dogs. Oceana traffic enters ELCamino Jfeal a 4 lane divided highway
with no other residences or developeraents putting traffic into it in that stretch.
.
While this development would go into a inadequate 2 lane street with residences fronting
it plus other developments such as the (cove putting traffic into it.
So please consider this traf xic problem when making your decision.
Thank you
Respectfully
George R.BURMEISTER
1?11 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008