Loading...
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