HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-19; City Council; 3007; Appeal for a zone change (Gilfillan)f. THE^JJY OF CARLSPAD, CALIFOP-'-NV ')
9 f ^^J^S^^f^W ' '"""*' !**^
'Agenda Bill .x'o. '• ^Wf . . Date February 19, 1974
. Referred .To: CIT.Y'COUNCIL. / • .'' .. /» • •
Subject: APPEAL: Consideration of .an Appeal of Denial Submitted By:
by Planning Commission OJT- request for'a Change of Zone •
from R-l-7500 to RD-M on property generally located at the •
northwest corner-of the intersection of Locust Street and .
J\dams Street, approx. 2.9 acres. APPLICANT: J: C. EILFILLAN ' '
r. '' * ~~'CASE NO: ZC-139 " ~r~~~ U'^73r~4~Statement: of the Matter - >/
On-January 22; 1974 the Planning Commission did consider the reque'sted change of
zone, and by Resolution No. 1034, did DENY the request based upon: '\
. 1, Non'-Compatibilityof the requested zone to the uses of the
surrounding land uses.
'< ' ...••. ••-... ^ ' . •
. . 2. Change of-zone-would result.in further traffic circulatton-problems in the
". area. • v* ' . . . : -..'-.
* • • '. ... • . .
' Th& Applicant .has appealed this decision .to -your body.- Prior to the consideration
of th.is matter .by the Pl-an-ning Commission-, "the'apD'l.icaht had comp>ied with the
City Council Policy No. 17 reqa-rding Public Facilities. • :. - •". • '
The subject property consists of Lots 3, B-TO, Block A resubdivision of -Tracts
239'and 243, Thum Lands. • -. ' .• ••; •
Exhibit
1.Certification of Ownership
2. PI anning-i Department Staff Report' ' • ~ ' ••
3.Applicant's Exhibit (Map) " •'.'.-
4.-;Plannihg Commission Resolution 1034 Denying Zone Change .
5. City Council Resolution No. "
/- " ' ff- - . - ^ • .
.Staff Recomnriencfat ions to the City Manager: That it be recommended that the £ity
'Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and DENY the requested Appeal.
Justification is based upon the Planning Commission' determination.'that Harrison
Street be the division between-medium density residential and low 'density
residential. The majority of the Planning Commissioners seemed to feel that this
would better protect the existing single-fam'ily development to the east, and not
burden the circulation in the area. •
Citij Manager ' s Recommenda tion
T.P i-ho r-n-17 rhuncil supports the PlanningIf the City counc^x t>uFF , _t for a Zone change ana aem.'
in denying the ^^^J^l^ll be referred to the CityappUcant'sappea^th^matter should resoiution. If the
Cit^ouncU ovSrid^s ?he Planning Commission action and uph
the appeal the matter should be referred back,
'commission for report. _
Co v nci 1 'Action
2;19.74 The Appea! by Justus S,lf,Ul.J »as V-ted and ihe .tUr r.tu.n*d to the
3-,-H rSfriSt^
by the Planning Commission
APPLICATION Forhe,<,*f)GE OF zori1
OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) SS
CITY OF CARLSBAD )
JUSTUS C. GILFILLAN, As Agent
I, (He) and Attorney-in-Fact for Owners being duly sworn depose and
(Name) '
declare to the best of my knowledge that the foregoing is
(my, our)
true and correct under the penalty of purjury:
EXECUTED AT Carlsbad, California
(City)(State)
DATE October 31. 1973
(Month)(Day)(Year)
APPLICANT, OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT:
JUSTUS C. GILFILLAN, As Agent
and Attorney-in-Fact for the Owners
(Print Na<me)
2081 Business Center Drive
• - .(Mailing Address)
Irvine, California 92664
(City and State) (Zip)
(714)
(Area Code) (Telephone Number.)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS £~
V /($(=,,. c^Tm i TH
(Notary Public)
DAY OF
SEAL
Virginia M. Smith %
^i:i.lj- ;'•'.' """"' '"sue - CMKOLIIU '
•'•'.i>y' 'mmm OFFICE in•'=" SAN DIEGO COUNTY
| MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 9. 1977
-4-
February 21, 1974
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE -139 - JUSTUS C. GILFILLAN
The City Council, by a vote'of 401, granted an Appeal of the subject application
based on conformance to the General Plan land use recommendations that traffic
circulation would not be a substantial problem. Only the zone change was
appealed, and therefore, does not reflect any consideration of street vacation
or tentative map. In assessing conformance of the proposed zone with proposed
general plan land uses, the City Council is of the opinion that the General
Plan densities and the proposed zoning (RD-M) are appropriate. It was also
felt by the Council that the density proposed by the applicant would provide
a proper buffer between freeway and single-family units easterly of Adams.
In the presentation to the City Council, the applicant indicated he would '
dedicate and improve the necessary right-of-way on Chinquapin, Harrison Street
and Adams Street. Therefore, the City Council determined that the circulation
would not be a significant problem.
I would recommend that the Planning Commission, prior to reporting back to the
City Council, consider the following issues:
1.- If the proposed street vacation is not approved, substantial design
change must be accomplished to allow satisfactory ingress and egress to
subject project, and a reduction in the proposed density would occur
in order to provide for the necessary ingress and egress.
2. That the Planning Commission request the Council, in its report,
to consider the following issues:
a. That second reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be held
until the proposed street vacation issue is resolved.
b. That second reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be held
until the dedications and improvements indicated by the applicant
to the Council are offered to the City. This would allow partial
mitigation of the potential circulation question regardless of
the type of residential development built.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
March 12, 1974
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT ON: STUDY AND REPORT FOR CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO: ZC-139
APPLICANT: J. C. Gilfillan
2081 Business Center Drive
Irvine, Ca. 92664
I. REQUEST;
On February 19, 1974, the City Council by a 5-0 vote
did indicate that they were inclined to grant the appeal
of the Planning Commission denial of a Change of Zone
request from R-l-75 (Single Family - 7500 sq. ft. lots
minimum) to RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple). The
matter has been referred back to your body for a study
and report.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
That it be moved by minute motion that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council that, as a part
of their approval of the subject change of zone, they
consider doing the following:
1. Requiring the developer to provide, prior to
the second reading of the rezoning Ordinance, an
offer of dedication and improvement of Adams,
Harrison, and Chinquapin be granted to the City of
Carlsbad.
2. That the second reading of the rezoning Ordinance
not occur until the proposed street vacation (Locust
Street) is resolved.
III. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES
The Council in their consideration of this request did not
seem as concerned, as the Planning Commission, with
traffic circulation and incompatibility of the proposed
use to the existing development in the area. As a part of
your consideration on January 22, 1974 of this request, the
Planning Commission did indicate by Resolution No. 1034
that these concerns were of sufficient importance to deny
the request. A subsequent action by the Planning Commission
was to table the proposed tentative map No. CT 73-54. Staff
would recommend that no action be taken on the tentative
map until the issue of the abandonment of Locus-^r St. is
resolved.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report dated January 22, 1974
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1034
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT •
STAFF REPORT
January 22, 1974
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION • ' ' ' ' '
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE
CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NOS.: ZC-139
CT73-54
APPLICANT: J. C. Gilfillan
2081 Business Center Dr.
Irvine, Ca. 92664
At the request of the applicant, these matters were contin-
ued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 1974. The
issue that initiated the continuance was the potential opposition
of adjacent property owners to the proposed abandonment of Locust
Street.
!• REQUEST: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council approval of a change of zone.from R-l-75 (Single
Family 7500 sq. fti lots minimum) to RD-M (Residential Den-
sity-Multiple) and approval of a Tentative Map for'a 49-unit
condominium development.
IT. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS;
A. RE: OPEN SPACE PERMIT: The development as proposed does
conform to all the requirements of the Open Space Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, it is recommended that the Plan-
ning Commission issue a Resource Management Permit for
the subject property.
B. RE: CHANGE OF ZONE ZC-139: That it be moved that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
ZC-139 BE APPROVED. Justification is based upon:
1. Given sensitive treatment as enforced through the
Tentative Map application, the proposed RD-M zone
could provide a transitional buffer between free-
way and single-family residences.
.2. The area east of Adams between Tamarack and Har-
rison appears to be in transition to multifamily
use.
3.
. .
The proposed zone change will not significantly
downgrade adjacent land uses.
4'. Conformance of the request to the adopted General
Plan.
RE: TENTATIVE MAP NO. 73-54: In order to comply to all
the requirements of the RD-M zone, the proposed abandon-
ment of Locust Street must occur. Since there seems to
opposition to this .abandonment, Staff is recom-
that the Tentative Map BE TABLED until the out-
the abandonment proceedings is known for the fol-
be some
mendi ng
come of
lowing
1
reasons:
The consideration of any abandonment should be
made on its own merits. The approval of a Tenta
Map before the fact contingent upon an abandon-'-
ment may be construed to prejudice the matter.
If the abandonment does not occur, substantial
changes of the Tentative Map would have to oc-
cur to comply to the required setbacks from
Locust Street and improvement and widening of
Locust Street.
III. BACKGROUND:
A. Description:
B. Location:
C. Size:
D. Total Units:
E. Density:
F. Type of Unit:
Lots 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block "A"
resubdivision of portions of Tracts"
238 and 243 of .Thum Lands, Map No.
2103, City of Carlsbad.
North of and adjacent to Locust Street
between Adams Street and Harrison
Street with a portion extending nor-
therly to Chinquapin Avenue.
2.9 acres.
49 DU's. .
20 DU1s per acre.
38 two-story, 11 one-story units.
G. Proposed Population: 152 persons.
H. EIR Finding:The Planning Department has determined
that the proposed development will not
have a significant impact on the envi-
ronment.
I. Existing Zoning: R-l-7500.
-2-
0. Adjacent Zoning: WEST - R-3 (Specific Plan)
NORTH - R-1-75 and R-3
EAST - R-1-75
• SOUTH - R-1-75.
K. General Plan: The General Plan indicates a major-
ity.of the property to be potential
medium density residential with 21-
47 families per net acre. The land
use commitment adjacent to Adams
Street is not clear. The logical
approach is to utilize the street
right-of-way as the.boundary line
which was done for the commercial
development at Tamarack Avenue and
Adams Street. Using this approach,
the total property would be within
the medium density designation.
L. Resource Management District: None.
M. Parks Ordinance Compliance: In-lieu fees.
N. Parking Compliance: Two covered spaces and additional
guest spaces as proposed would ex-
ceed Ordinance requirements.
IV. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS:
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONE: The applicant jusr
tifies the request for a change of zone for the following
reasons:
1. -The area west of Adams is in transition to multi-
family use, adjacent properties to the north and
west being .existing or approved multifamily pro-
jects.
2. Proximity of the project to the 1-5 freeway pro-
vides a good buffer transition between the free-
way and'sing!e-family residences on the east side
of Adams.
3. The shopping center on Tamarack is one block north
of the proposed development, making it a desirable
location for multifamily use.
In evaluating the request for a change of zone, Staff
considers a critical issue to be the effect of the housing on the
single-family neighborhood on the east side of Adams. The property
in its present, form is occupied by a few scattered-single-family
homes and an avocado grove. This present use has provided a natural
buffer for the adjacent neighborhood from the freeway. The avocados
are apparently approaching the end of their productivity and are no
-3-
longer economically viable in an area faced with increasing develop-
ment pressures. In considering the change of zone, therefore, it is
important to consider whether the residential quality' of the adja-
cent property would be significantly degraded.
B. CONSIDERATION OF THE TENTATIVE MAP CT73-54: The applicant
proposes 49 condominium units for the s.ite, 38 of which
would be two-story .and 11 of which would be one-story.
Forty-nine (49) attached two-car garages and seven (7)
visitor spaces will be provided. The units are proposed
to be clustered in groups of four'or five units with the
exception of nine units extending to Chinquapin.
The developer proposes a series of paths and green belt's"
between the clusters of units. A recreation facility is to be lo-
cated central to the small clusters. The peculiar shape of the site
is a result of the inability of the applicant to acquire the remain-
ing lots along Chinquapin. There are two homes on either side of
the central extension of the proposed development to Chinquapin. The
applicant proposes to minimize the adverse effects of these resi-
dences and the residences on the east side of Adams by:
1. Providing no driveways on to Chinquapin.
2. Directing the bulk of project-generated traffic
to Harrison Street.
3. Converting Locust Street (presently 40') to a
private 24' alley.
4. Providing a 20' landscape buffer along Adams
Street.
5. "-Landscaping the entire perimeter of the site exr
cept for Locust Street which would have garages
fronting on the proposed alley.
After reviewing the proposed Tentative Map, Staff is of the
opinion that the following revisions should occur:
1. The proposed dedication and improvement of Adams
Street is on the basis of a total of 24' addi-
tional right-of-way.
2. That the total right-of-way on Locust Street be
abandoned and that the proposed 24' wide driveway
be developed completely on the subject property.
The resulting private roadway shall be divided in
the approximate center of the property by extend-
ing the proposed open space to the southerly boun-
dary of the property. Approximately four guest
parking spaces should also be provided in this
area.
-4-
The applicant has revised the Tentative Map to reflect these changes
except for the'complete abandonment of Locust Street.
The development proposed for this property will substantially
change the character of the area as it presently exists. However,,
the proposed change in terms of intensity is less than envisioned
by the General Plan and will be compatible to the proposed develop-
ment along Harrison Street and, through adequate design techniques,
will have little impact upon the existing single-family development
located easterly of Adams Street. In addition, the widening of Adams
Street, if it is continued to the north to Tamarack Avenue and to the
south, will improve the traffic circulation of the area.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Director of Public Health, City of
Carlsbad, November 28, 1973.
• 2. Letter from Carlsbad Unified School District,
January 8, 1974.
3. Letter from Feist,' Vetter, Knauf and Loy, Ocean-
side, California, January 8, 1974.
4. San Diego County Assessor's Map 206-12.
** 0 "*.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1034
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING
A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-l-7500 to
RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF AMD ADJACENT TO LOCUST STREET,
BETWEEN ADAMS STREET AND HARRISON STREET, WITH A
PORTION EXTENDING NORTHERLY TO CHINQUAPIN AVENUE.
APPLICANT: J. C. GILFILLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 8th day of January, 1974,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request for a change of
zone from R-l-7500 (Single Family) to RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple)
submitted by J. C. GILFILLAN, on property generally located north of and
adjacent to Locust Street between Adams Street and Harrison Street, with a
portion extending northerly to Chinquapin Avenue, and further described as,
Lots 3,6,7,8,9, and 10, Block "A" resubdivision of
portions of Tracts 238 and 243 of Thura Lands, Map No.
2103, City of Carlsbad, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing of
January 8, 1974 to the next regular meeting of January 22, 1974, and;
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing of January 22, 1974, 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 a change of zone necessary to carry out the
provisions and general purpose of Title 21:
1. Zone Change would not be compatible to uses of
surrounding land.
2. Zone Change would create further traffic circulation
problems.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the
"City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972" and has been
declared to have a non-significant impact on the environment, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad, that it does hereby DENY an amendment to Title 21 for a change
of zone on said property, from R-l-7500 to RD-M.
XX ' • .
XX
l
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
PASSED, APPROVED AMD ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of
January, 1974, by the following vote, to vn't:
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Casler, Wrench & Little
NOES: Commissioner Forman
ABSENT: Commissioners Jose and Palmateer
E. W. DOMINGUEZ,
Chairman
ATTEST:
DONALD A. AGATEP,
Secretary
,.**•
V.
March 14, 1974
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: AGENDA BILL 3007 - PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL - J. C. GILFILLAN
On February 19, 1974 the City Council granted an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to deny a change of zone request by J. C. Gilfillan,
from R-l-7500 (single-family) to RD-M (residential-density-multiple).
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of March 12, 1974 was
presented with a report of the City Council action, and is now submitting
its report on the appeal to the City Council for consideration.
At the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1974, the Planning Director
presented the Commission with a report on the City Council action in granting
the appeal. The director indicated that the Council's decision was based on
the applicants' representation that circulation problems would be mitigated by
constructing necessary improvements on Adams, Harrison and Chinquapin, and
that Council was of the opinion that the existing General Plan provided for
multiple dwelling units, and the requested zoning was consistent with the
General Plan recommendation. The Planning Commission requested staff to report
fully on the proposed development in light of the request by the applicant to
vacate Locust Street, at'-their regularly scheduled meeting of March 12, 1974.
On March 12th the Planning Commission reaffirmed their original decision on the
subject zone change by reiterating incompatibility of land use and the inadequacy
of circulation in the total area south of Chinquapin and along the north shore of
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. It was the Planning Commission's feeling that the
incompatibility of the proposed zoning to that which exists (R-l-7500) was de-
rived by comparing the density in the existing General Plan along Adams Street
(3-7 d.u./acre) to the density west of the lots fronting Adams (22-47 d.u./acre).
It is the Commission's position that the transition of land use from the freeway
easterly to Adams should reflect densities which would not dfstract from the
existing single-family developments that front Adams. Therefore, although the
westerly portion of the subject project may have had higher densities, the
eastern portions of the project fronting Adams should have been maintained at
3-7 dwellings per acre.
General Plan designations for land use and densities are long-range (15-20 years)
and would only apply at such time as the project land use would be necessary
for the implementation of the General Plan. The Planning Commission feels
that the requested zoning (RD-M) is not appropriate at this time because there
is not sufficient reason for additional multiple-family property in Carlsbad.
City Manager
J.C.Gilfillan
Page 2.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that the existing density
(3-7 d.u./acre) and existing land use (low-density residential) is still valid.
The Planning Commission also directed its circulation comments to the entire
area south of Chinquapin, along Adams and the north shore of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, and the fact that the mitigation represented by the applicant was not
addressed to the entire area, but only to the localized area around his project.
It has been brought to the Commission's attention that several property owners
in the area were not notified of the date of the appeal hearing before the
City Council, however, after a review of staff files, there is an affidavit
of the notice in the newspaper, which legally meets notification procedure.
The Planning Commission is also requesting that at such time as this matter
is brought back on the Council agenda that the Chairman of the Planning
Commission be permitted to address the Council on the subject application.
In the event the Council approves the subject zone change request, the Planning
Commission would request consideration of the following conditions:
1. Require the developer to provide, prior to the second
reading of the rezoning Ordinance, an offer of dedication and
improvement on Adams Street, Harrison Street and Chinquapin
Avenue, to the City of Carlsbad.
2. That the second reading of the rezoning Ordinance not occur
until the issue of the proposed street vacation (Locust Street)
is resolved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The preceeding report constitutes the Planning Commission's
reply to the City Council on the subject Appeal, and it is further recommended
that final decision on the zone change request be held until a formal agenda
item can be placed for hearing on April 2, 1974.
DONALD A. AGATEP,
Secretary of the
Planning Commission