Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-19; City Council; 3034; Consideration of Environmental Impact ReportT H L*CITY O F CARLSBAD, U,'—-. CALIFORNIA Agenda Bill No.^f^Y"Date: March 19. 1Q74. '" •Referred To : .City Council Subject: Consideration nf an Fnvi vnnmon ta 1 Fmn^r-H DQnn^bmitt^-J?^- , TABLED: * creation of the.Design .Review Zone District, and the establishment of a policy regarding development in the Civic Center area. Case Nos. C-10 and ZCA-56 .ing Comm. Statement of the CENTER Matter OVERLAY) As a result of Center prepared ,b,y the Planning Department does recommend the following: a special study on tne Civic sta'ff, the Planning Commission 1 By Resolution No. 1048 , dated February 26, 1974, the Planning Commission does recommend that the City Council create the Design Review Zone District to be- utilized in- the Civic Center' area as outlined In Exhibit A-Case No. ICA-56 . • As a part of this re- commendation the Planning Commission requests that the City Council certify. E.I .R. No. C-10. By Resolution No. 1Q4? , Commission does recommend establish development standards dated February 26, 1974, the Planning that the City Council adapt a'policy co for the Civic Center are'a. Exhibit 1. • 2. 3 4, 5 Staff Report for January 8, 1974 Staff Report .for February 26, 1974 Planning Commission Resolution No. Planning Commission Resolution No. Memorandum from City Manager dated March 14, 1973. 1047 staff Recommendations to the 'City Manager That the City Council implement the recommendations of the Planning Commiss-ion mm AS No.Sate- March 19, 1974 City Manager's Racommendatj.on Council'Action 3-19-74 It was agreed this matter be tabled, as the matter was prematurely advertised. . — 2 — CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR JANUARY 8, 1974 TO: .PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON: SPECIAL STUDY FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AREA I- BACKGROUND-PURPOSE The Planning Commission directed the planning staff in September to prepare a special study on a possible overlay zone and rezoning of the properties in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Stimulus for the special study came in part from several applications for commer- cial and professional rezonings in an area which, prior to construc- tion of the Civic Center complex, was exclusively single family residential. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIVIC CENTER OVERLAY ZONE A. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action^ 1. Project Description: The proposed action is to design an overlay zone and change of zone to further define land uses which, will be compatible with the Civic Center area. The study area includes that area from one lot north of Laguna Drive to approximately one lot north of Elm Avenue and from the freeway east to Highland Drive. Current zoning and land use of the project area is shown on exhibits A and B. The proposed overlay zone is shown on exhibit c. 2. Environmental Setting Without the Project: Without the project, the land use in the Civic Center region is guided solely by zoning and the General Plan designation of low density residential use, with from 2-7 d.u. per net acre. A crucial land use problem has arisen because of the location of the Civic Center. Governmental centers are ideally located in the hob of business and professional activities of a city. The Carlsbad Civic Center is located on the fringe of the downtown area, on the east side of Interstate 5, with several commercial parcels located adjacent to the freeway (a service station, the Uayside Inn'). The remainder of the study area is either existing single family, residen- tial, governmental, or proposed office/professional type uses. 3. Environmental Impacts: : The environmental impacts of the project will emanate from the conversion of Elm Avenue from low density residential use to office/ professional, or medium density residential use. Impacts which can be expected are as follows: a. Increased traffic on ElmAvenue east of the freeway b. Increased noise levels from traffic c. Alteration of water flow and percolation as a result of the increase in impenetrable surfaces which will accompany structures and paved parking areas. d. The aesthetic impact of office/professional structures or medium density residetnial structures on adjacent single family residential area. e. The detraction from office/professional uses in the ; downtown area.- 4. Environmental Impacts Which 'Cannot be Avoided a. Those associated with automobile traffic: As long as private cars will be used to provide transporta- tion to the uses anticipated with the rezoning/ overlay,the associated impacts of increased auto- mobile emissions, paved parking areas, increased traffic and noise will be unavoidable. 5. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact a. The overlay zone should include the requirement that the property lines of governmental , or office/pro- fessional uses fronting on residential property shall be: (1) Bordered by an attract!vesvtew obscuring masonry wall which is acceptable to the Planning Director (2) Landscaped with a minimum 10' buffer of trees or bushes adjacent to the wall. This buffer shall not be included as part of the required parking area landscaping. b. In order to preserve the residential character of Oak Avenue, all access/egress to property fronting on the south side of Elm Avenue shall be limited to Elm Avenue. c. Parking areas shall be located to the rear of the properties along Elm in order to minimize the visual impact from Elm Avenue, and assure that structures will be located away from residential areas. -2- d. Fc,~ i Titles allowed in the Civ.- Center area will be types which do not generate large amounts of traffic, . • e. Facilities allowed in the R-P al.ong the south side of Elm Avenue will be restricted to those which are ancillary to the Civic Center (e.g., law offices, engineering or planning firms, contractors offices, architects, real estate brokers, financial centers). This will minimize traffic generated by those users who frequently have business in City Hall. f. Buildings along Elm Avenue shall be low profile with rough aggregate/masonry treatment, which would harmonize with the contemporary style of the Civic Center complex. Landscaping shall be extensive, utilizing earth mounds and screening vegetation. B. Alternatives to the Proposed Overlay 1. No overlay zone - Existing Zoning: Single family resi- dential use is less than optimum along Elm Avenue because . of traffic activity? noise and aesthetic impacts associated with the public facilities and commercial properties. Without the overlay zone, there are no assurances for buffering single family residences from adverse impacts. 2. No overlay zone - Commercial Zoning: Further commercial zoning along Elm north of 1-5 is not desirable because: (1) Commercial zoning would detract from the CBD (2) Such zoning would not be necessary for the ancillary uses suggested (3) Commercial zoning allows more intensive uses and would increase the adverse effect on ad- jacent residences. 3. No overlay zone - Residential/Professional Zoning: The R-P zoning without the overlay zone, does not define whether residential or professional use is desirable. There would be no special controls for design^land- scaping, moderate intensity uses, and ancillary facilities, 4. No overlay zone - Civic Center Expansion Area to. be Kept as Single Family Residential: The Civic Center complex was originally planned for expansion in two areas: along the north side of Laguna Drive and adjacent to the fire station to the east on Elm Avenue. The existing facility is already operating beyond capacity and some form of expansion would seem inevitable at this point. Expansion of the present site would seem to be logical because of the need for coordination of municipal services and inter- dependence of the various agencies. 5. Special Civic Center Zone - A special zone classification for_properties near the Civic Center would not allow as strict controls on specific uses as the proposed underlying zone combined with the design review. Varying intensities cannot be allocated through a singular zone designation. -3- . C. Relationship Between Local Snort-term Use and Long-term Productivity: The Civic Center study area has been subject to several recent requests for commercial zoning. The short term effect of the proposed overlay zone would be to limit commercial zoning to the present zoning near the freeway on the south side of Elm. The long term effect would, essen- tially, be to diminish the intensity of uses as they go east on Elm. Another long term effect would be to ensure that the low density residential areas surrounding the study area would be protected from the adverse impacts associated with more intensive uses (i.e., traffic, noise, congestion, visual impact). D. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in The Proposed Action Should ItBe Implemented: The overlay zone would make a commitment to maintaining the low density residential character of the area east of the freeway. Staff believes that this commitment is the most beneficial alter- native available in maintaining environmental quality in the area. In that,the area is presently substantially developed and that it is heavily impacted by the freeway, the critical environmental impacts are the cumulative effects of land use commitments in this area. E. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Activity: Given the limited area which is directly affected by the overlay zone, the growth inducing impact would be negligible. Single family residences might be eliminated by Civic Center ex- pansion, but this would appear to be offset by the area to be designated as medium density residential. F. Summary: Environmentally, this study will have little impact. The true impacts will occur as a result of the ultimate development. Because of the existence of the Civic Center, the freeway, the existence of the circulation system, and the existing development, staff believes that the range of impacts is limited to the visual impact of the ultimate development and increased traffic. III. SPECIAL STUDY » Staff feels that special land use controls are necessary for the Civic Center area for several reasons. First, the very presence of the Civic Center complex has contributed to pressures to extend commercial and professional uses east of the freeway. Governmental centers have traditionally been located at the center of business and commercial activity. To allow the Carlsbad Civic Center to fall into this pattern would effect the economic viability of the existing CBD and negatively impact the single family residential neighborhoods. -4- Another source of pressure for raore intensive uses in the Civic Center area is its accessibility from 1-5 and Elm Avenue. If left to piecemeal rezonings east of the freeway, an extension of the Elm Avenue strip commercial could result. Given these pressures, staff established a series of values and assumptions on which the proposed zone changes and overlay zone are based: * The 1-5 freeway is the natural boundary for the downtown area * The single family residential character of the area east of 1-5 should be preserved and protected. * Land uses should decrease in their intensity as they move east along Elm Avenue * The Civic Center complex is already operating beyond capacity and room for expansion should be considered * Any commercial and professional type uses proposed on the south side of Elm should be low profile and ancillary to the Civic Center * Elm Avenue is not a desirable street for single family residential use because of traffic volume and the impact of commercial and governmental uses * Design controls are necessary to preserve the character of the area and ensure architectural harmony * Landscaping is needed to buffer more intensive uses * The substantial commitment of public funds for the development of the Civic Center does require that special controls be implemented to guarantee compatibility of development adjacent to the Civic Center. Transformed into conceptual form, these values are represented on Exhibit C (Civic Center Overlay Zone). There are two areas, presently in single family use, which have been designated as Civic Center expansion area. The first of these is northern side of Laguna Drive adjacent to the Civic Center. When the Civic Center was originally designed, -this area was designated for future expansion. Assuming that expansion would best be carried out contiguous to the existing facility, this area appears to be the logical choice for Civic Center expansion. It is adjacent to the existing complex and is not separated by a major roadway. Also, Laguna could be converted to a cul de sac to prevent any traffic impact on residential areas. -5- The second expansion area is adjacent to the existing fire station on the south, side of Elm Avenue. This expansion area is for a proposed public safety complex (police station, fire station, and civil defense). The parcels currently zoned commercial at the corner of Elm and Pio Pico would maintain that designation. The remaining parcels have been suggested for "transitional" use, i.e., uses of decreasing intensity proceeding east on Elm. The overlay zone superimposes land use controls which address the unique land use (PROBLEMS) of the Civic Center area. These controls are aimed at: 1. Limiting intensity and specific allowable uses 2. Requiring landscaping buffer for all uses within the study area abutting single family residences 3. Establishing design controls. In order to implement these necessary controls, staff is recom- mending that three actions be taken. 1. First, 1s the creation and implementation of a design review zone. This would be applied to all the property within the study area. The proposed zone is as follows: COMBINATION DISTRICT - D DESIGN REVIEW Intent and Purpose: The intent and purpose of the -D combination district shall be: To protect society's investment in the Civic Center, the branch administrative centers and the numerous parks, schools and similar public and quasi-public facilities, by reviewing the design of all property developments surrounding or along the approaches to such facilities. To insure compatibility with the development of the Civic Center and other public institutions. To conserve and enhance the appearance and architectural quality of areas of existing or potential governmental, cultural, his- torical, architectural, scenic, or tourist interest. To preserve the high quality of existing residential areas surrounding the Civic Center. Principal Uses and Structure Permitted: The principal uses and structures permitted shall be as permitted in the underlying zone if sufficient justification can be provided and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council that such uses are compatible with and ancillary to the Ci<Hc Center, parks, schools or similar public and quasi-public facilities in the area. -6- Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted: As permitted in the underlying zone. Transitional Uses and Structures Permitted: As permitted in the underlyi ng zone. Uses and Structures Permitted by Conditional Use Permit Subject to Approval by the CommissiorT: As permi tted in the underlying zone. Development Standards: Lot area, minimum - as required in the underlying zone. Lot area per dwelling unit, minimum - As required in the underlying zone. Lot width, minimum - As required in the underlying zone. Front yard, minimum - 10 feet or as required in the underlying zone, whichever is greater. All required front yards shall be landscaped. Side yard, minimum - 10 feet or as required in the underlying zone, whichever is greater. All required side yards abutting streets shall be landscaped. Rear yard, minimum - As required in the underlying zone. Building bulk and; height limits - As required in the underlying zone. Lot coverage, maximum - Reserved. Parking, off-street - As required in the underlying zone. Signs, onsite - As required in the underlying zone except as further modified by the following specifications for identification signs in the non-residential zones: Number, maximum for each building - 1 Area - 1.5 square foot of sign area for each one foot of building floor area Area, maximum, for a single face sigh - 40 square feet All signs shall be wall signs. Post signs and roof signs are not permitted. Signs may be lighted but shall not be flashing. All onsite signs shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Special Conditions and Procedures: Approval 'by the Planning Commission. No permit shall be issued for any building, structure, sign, parking lot or other development of property, or appurtenances or alterations thereto, except in single-family residential zones, unless plans, elevations and proposed uses and signs for buildings or structures or alterations thereto have been approved by the Planning Commission. -7- Site Plan Information Required to be submitted to the Planning Commission. Applications for all building permits concerning property within this classification shall not be processed until an application for a precise plan is con- sidered and approved by tfee Planning Commission. An application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission containing a plot plan showing the following information, where applicable: Name and address of all persons owning or leasing any or all of the property proposed to be improved. Evidence that the applicant for building permit: Is the owner of the premises involved; or has written permission of the owner or owners to make such appli- cation; or, Is or will be the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the premises involved, or any portion thereof; or, In the case of a public agency, is negotiating to acquire a portion of the property involved. Location of property involved (address or vicinity) Legal description of property. Proposed facility or use and/or range of uses. The lot dimensions. Topography, if property is in a hillside area. All buildings and structures and their location, elevations, size, height and proposed uses. Location and design of recreation areas. Yards and spaces between buildings Walls and fences and their location, height and materials. Landscaping and sprinkling system, including location, type, and plant names and proposed disposition of existing trees. Off-street parking, including the location, number of stalls, dimensions of the parking facility, and internal circulation system. Access, pedestrian, vehicular, and service, points of ingress and egress, and driveway locations and dimensions. Signs and their location, size and height. -8- Loading, including the location, dimensions, number of berths, internal circulation, and means of accessibility to structure or use served. Lighting, including the location, general nature, and hooding devices, if any. Street dedications and improvements. Location of.utilities and trash collection areas. 2. In order to further implement the Design Review Zone, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following policy which establishes design standards to be followed: p.c. POLICY NO. ^^ WHEREAS, the P.C. believes that the substantial commitment by the Public in the creation of the Civic Center requires that adjacent development be compatible with this commitment; and WHEREAS, the P.C. has recommended and the City Council has created a Design Review Zone District to be applied to the Civic Center area; and WHEREAS, the P.C. believes that it would be of benefit to future developers in the Civic Center area to have some design standards to guide any development that might occur in the Civic Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad that it does hereby adopt the following standards of development for that area known"as the "Civic Center Area": 1. The consolidation and maximization of area to be developed shall be encouraged. 2. The architectural design of any development shall be of low profile and harmonious with the Civic Center complex. Buildings shall be designed with exteriors utilizing subdued earthtones and rough aggregate masonry materials. The emphasis shall be placed upon the utilization of natural materials and compatibility of any development to the terrain and surrounding land uses. 3. Along all property lines abutting the extremeties of the Civic Center study area there shall be provided a wall and landscape system which will adequately buffer the adjacent single family residential develop- ment. Said landscape area shall be a minimum of 10 ft, in width and moundings shall be implemented wherever possible. -9- (4.) For all new development along Elm Avenue, the design of the project shall be such that the parking is located to the rear of the property. Every effort shall be made to limit the number of access points to Elm Avenue. (5.) Those areas designated appropriate for commercial and/or professional office shall limit uses to those which are considered ancillary to tire Civic Centercomplex. (6.) No direct access shall be permitted to Oak Avenue. (7.) Any development shall conform to all P.C. and C.C. policies regarding development. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad this the _day of ____> 1974, by the following vote, to wit: 3. Vfhen staff began the initial consideration of the Civic Center; we were of the opinion that by the implementation of an overlay zone compatibility of development would be guaranteed. However, as the study progressed it became apparent that good planning practices dictate that specific land use commitments should occur so that all the parameters for development within the Civic Center area could be provided. Therefore, staff has prepared some alter- native land use designations for those properties which are most influenced by the Civic Center activity. It is the opinion of the staff that other land beyond these parcels could remain unaffected by the Civic Center if the proposed overlay zone and P.C. Policy were implemented. The two areas of potential rezoning are the two parcels east of Elm Avenue south of the City Fire Station and those parcels north of the Fire Station on both sides of Elm Avenue. Exhibits D and E represent the two alternatives proposed for these properties. The first alternative indicates that: 1. That two lots west of the fire station would be desig- nated R-P. 2. That property east of the Civic Center and north of Elm Avenue and that portion of the Ellsworth property adjacent to Elm Avenue would be designated RD-M at 10 d.u.'s per acre. The second alternative indicates that: 1. Those two lots west of the fire;station be designated C-l (neighborhood commercial). -10- 2. That property east 'of the Civic Center and north of Elm Avenue and that portion of the Ellsworth property adjacent to Elm Avenue, would be designated R-P. It is felt that either of these alternatives would make for a smooth transition from the Civic Center activity to the adjacent single family residential development. Staff believes that the Ellsworth property is no't appropriate for a more intense commercial activity because such an allocation would seem to ex-tend the impact of the Civic Center further east along Elm Avenue. With a RD-M or R-P designation of this property, the transition from the Civic Center activity to single family residential could occur within the Ellsworth property. IV. IMPLEMENTATION This study in its present state is the result of the evaluation of the Civic Center that has occurred in a number of forms-over the last five years. If the Planning Commission concurs with some or all the recommendations outlined herein, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission initiate a public hearing on February 12,1974 to consider acceptance of the final EIR, adoption of the Design Review overlay zone, adoption of P.C. Policy No. 12, and possible rezonings of specific properties in the Civic Center area to conform to one of the alternatives shown on Exhibit D or E. All property owners within the Civic Center will be notified of your consideration of this special study and their input may require further elaboration on certain areas of this report. In addition, the public hearing on February 12, 1974, will permit further public input. - 11 - CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR February 26, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION TO: REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF CIVIC CENTER STUDY CONSIDERATION OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY CASE NOS. C-1Q 2CA-56 Policy No. 12 I. These matters were considered and continued at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 1974. At said meeting, the Planning.Commission did act upon the E.I.R. pre- pared by staff and then action was to recommend to the City Council that they certify the E.I.R. These three items were continued to permit staff to review all the city records to see if the precise boundaries of the potential civic center expansion area could be established. After review of said records,staff found that: 1. Beginning with the first General Plan for Carlsbad in 1957 entitled, "Community Develop- ment Plan,"and consistently up to the present, those lots just north of Laguna Drive have been indicated as potential expansion area. The reports and studies leading to the adoption . of the latest General Plan which ocurred from v 1964-1967 did discuss the present civic center site and the adopted land use map does depict the civic center as extending northerly of Stratford Lane. However, the text of the adoptive General Plan indicates the civic center area as being bounded by Pio Pico, Elmwood Avenue and both s.ides of Laguna Drive (see attached). If the public were just to view the land use map, they could construe that the ultimate civic center area would extend northerly along Elmwood Avenue. This is a problem that results from using such a large scale base map as the land use map. 2. In early 1972, a moritorium on building in the civic center area was established by the City Council and staff was directed to prepare a study and report regarding the civic center area land use, by July 1, 1972. Several alternatives were evaluated by staff, and the Planning Commission did review.one alternative which showed the potential expansion areas as shown in the attach- ments of this staff report. No official action -1- •was taken was taken on this study by the City Council. While the determination of any expansion of the, civic center can only be addressed after a precise space analysis, staff deemed it appropriate to establish as a part of this study those areas into which expansion could occur. The size and precise location of the expansion has yet to be determined. All the indications are that any expansion onto the property north of Laguna Drive would be in the form of parking areas with any build- ing expansion occurring within the present civic center complex. If expansion were to occur adjacen-t to the Fire Station in the form of a police complex, the existing civic center buildings would have available floor area to house some additional personnel. Thus, the space needs could be met in several ways and it was not the purpose of this study to depict precisely the amount and location of any expansion, other than to indicate generally those areas which have previously shown as expansion areas . Rather than to cloud the issue, the Planning Commission may want to ignore the potential expansion areas for this civic center and to just consider the appropriate land use designation for these areas. An R-l designation for both areas is considered appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The present civic center activity is oriented such that it does not greatly effect these areas. 2. The property is of sufficient size to permit development and still be able to mitigate the impacts of the freeway, Pio Pico, and Elm Avenue. No justification seems apparent to allow the conversion of this property along the north side of Laguna Drive ana the back portion of the lots along Oak Avenue to a more intense activity such as multiple residential or professional office. Generally the adverse impact of Pio Pico, the Freeway, and Elm Avenue appear to be mitigated by the resulting adverse impact of such development on the adjacent established single family development. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A. , On the E.I.R., the Planning Commission has already -2- made a recommendation on the E.I.R. No further action is required on this item. B. ON THE CIVIC CENTER STUDY: That it be moved that the Planning Commission initiate a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing on April 9, 1974 to consider a General Plan Amendment to consider implementation of Alteration No. 2 which shows the transitional lots as either R-P or C-l. Justification is based upon the fact that these land use designations do adequately mitigate the impacts of the civic center activity to the adjacent established residential areas. C* On ZCA-56 ;T.hat it be moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Design Review Combination District be created to be utilized in the civic center area. In addition, that the Planning Commission direct the staff to prepare a program for holding public hearings to establish the " D Combination District" on those properties within the civic center area. Said program is to be presented to the Planning Commission upon the creation of this zone district by the City Council. D- ON THE PROPOSED POLICY; That it be moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt a policy dealing with development standards for property within the civic center, area. III. DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIAL STUDY A. Staff.feels that special land use controls are necessary for the Civic Center area fro several reasons. First, the very presence of the Civic Center complex has contributed to pressures to extend commercial and professional u-ses east of the freeway. Governmental centers have traditionally been located at the center of business and commercial activity. To allow the Carlsba.d Civic Center to fall into this pattern would effect the economic viability of the existing CBD arid negatively impact the single family residential neighborhoods. Another source of pressure for more intensive uses in the Civic Center area is its accessibility from 1-5 and Elm Avenue. If left to piecemeal rezonings east of the freeway, an extension of the Elm Avenue strip commercial could result. Given these pressures, Staff established a series of values and assumptions on which the proposed zone changes and overlay zone are based: * The 1-5 freeway is the natural boundary for the downtown area. -3- * The single family residential character of the area east of 1-5 should be preserved and protected. * Land uses should decrease in their intensity as they move east along Elm Avenue. * The Civic Center complex is already operating beyond capacity and room for expansion should be considered. * Elm Avenue is not a desirable street for single family residential use because of traffic volume and the impact of commercial and govern- mental uses. * Design controls are necessary to preserve the character of the area and ensure archi- tectural, harmony. * Landscaping is needed to buffer more intensive uses. * The substantial commitment of public funds for the development of the Civic Center does require that special controls be implemented to guarantee compatibility of development adjacent to the Civic Center Transformed into conceptual form, these values are represented on Exhibit C (Civic Center Overlay Zone). There are two areas, presently in single family use, which have been designated as Civic Center expansion area. The first of these is northern side of Laguna Drive adjacent to the Civic Center. When the "Civic Center was originally designed, this area was designated for future ex- pansion. Assuming that expansion would best be carried out contiguous to the existing facility, this area appears to be the logical choice for Civic Center expansion. It is adjacent to the existing complex and is not separated by a major roadway. Also, Laguna could be converted to a cul de sac to prevent any traffic impact on residential areas. The second expansion area is adjacent to the existing fire station on the south side of Elm Avenue. This expansion area is for a proposed public safety complex (police station, fire station, and civil defense.) .4. .The parcels currently zoned commercial at the corner of Elm and Pio Pico would maintain that designation. The remaining parcels have been suggested for "transitional" use, i.e., uses of decreasing intensity proceeding east on Elm. The overlay zone superimposes land use controls which address the unique land use (PROBLEMS) of the Civic Center area. These controls are aimed at: 1. First, is the creation and implementation of a design review zone. This would be applied to all the property within the study area. The proposed zone is outlined below. 2. In order to further implement the Design Review Zone, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following policy which establishes design standards to be followed. 3. When staff began the initial consideration of the Civic Center; we were of the opinion that by the implementation of an overlay zone compatibility of development would be guaranteed. However, as the study progressed it became apparent that .good planning practices dictate that specific land use commitments should occur so that all the parameters for development within the Civic Center area could be provided. Therefore, staff has prepared some alternatives land use designations for those properties which are most influenced by the Civic Center activity. It is the opinion of the staff that other land beyond these parcels could remain unaffected by the Civic Center if the pro- posed overlay zone and P.C. Policy were implemented. The two areas of potential rezoning are the two parcels east of Elm Avenue south of the City Fire Station and those parcels north of the Fire Station on both sides of Elm Avenue, Exhibits D and E represent the two alternatives pro- posed for these properties. The first alternative indicates that: 1. That two lots west of the fire station be designated R-p (.professional office) and two lots west designated RD-M on both sides of Elm Avenue -5- . • 2. That property .\west of" the Fire Station would be designated C-l, and that property north of Elm Avenue and that portion of the Ellsworth property adjacent to Elm Avenue would be designated R-P. It is felt that either of these alternatives would make for a smooth transition from the Civic Center activity to the adjacent single family residential development. Staff believes that the Ellsworth property is not appropriate for a more intense commercial activity because such an allocation would seem to extend the impact of the Civic Center further along Elm Avenue. With a RD-M or R-P designation of this property, the transition from the Civic Center activity to single family residential could occur within the Ellsworth property. DISCUSSION OF ZCA-56: In order to establish the Design Review Combination District, it is re- commended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following Ordinance: -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 32 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A POLICY ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AREA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the substantial commitment by the Public in the creation of the Civic Center re- quires that adjacent development to compatible with this commitment; and WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission has recommended and the City Council Fras created a Design Review Zone District, which is suitable for application .to the Civic^Center area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that it would be of benefit to future developers in the Civic Center area to have some design standards to guide any development that might occur in the Civic Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad that it does recommend to the City Council tha- the following standards be adopted for development in that area known as the "Civic Center Area": 1. The consolidation-of small parcels, and maximiza- tion of laVge areas to be developed, shall be encouraged. (dJL 2. The architectural design of any development shall be of low profile and harmonious with the Civic Center complex. Buildings shall be designed with exteriors utilizing subdued eartKtones and rough aggregate masonry materials. The emphasis shall be placed upon the utilization of natural materials and com- patibility of any development to the terrain and surrounding land uses. 3. Along all property lines abutting the ex- tremeties of the Civic Center study area there shall be provided a wall and landscape system which will adequately buffer the adjacent single family residential develop- ment. Said landscape area shall be a minimum , of 10 ft. in width and moundings shall be30 implemented wherever possible. 31 1 " For all new development along Elm Avenue, the design of the project shall be such that the parking is located to the rear. ancillary to the Civic Center complex. 5 6. No direct access shall be permitted to Oak Avenue and C.C. policies regarding development. 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the P.C. of the City of Carlsbad this the 26th day of February, 1274, by the following vote, to wit: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 of the property. Every effort shall be made to limit the number of access points to Elm Avenue.. Those areas designated appropriate for commercial and/or professional office shall limit uses to those which are considered - on Highland Drive. 7. Any development shall conform to all P.C. AYES: Commissioners Little, Forman, Casler, Wrench, Domi nguez and Jose NOES: None . MARY CASLER Chai rman ATTEST: DUNALD A. AGATEP,23 Secretary 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 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. 1048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING THE DESIGN REVIEW ZONE. CASE NO. ZCA-56 WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 8, 1974 and continued said Public Hearing to February 13, 1974, and then to February 25, 1974, to consider Amendments to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to create the Design Review Zone and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing held on the 26th of February, 1974, upon hearing testimony, and arguments if any, of all persons wishing to speak, the Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist which make the approval of this Amendment appro- | priate: 1. To insure compatibility of development with the civic center and other public institutions. WHEREAS, as a part of this action the Planning Commission does recommend that the City Council certify the E.I.R. (Case No. C-10) as complying to the City of Carlsbad Environmental Guide- lines, and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby recommend to the City Council an Amendment to Title 21 as outlined in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and made a part hereof, be enacted into law, for the reasons stated above. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED staff is directed, that if the City Council elects, to create the Design Review Zone District, to prepare a program for holding public hearings to establish said zone designation on those properties within the civic center area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 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 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of February, 1974, by the following vote, to wit; AYES: Commissioners Little, Forman, Casler, Wranch, Dominguez and Jose NOES: None MARY CASLER Chairman ATTEST: DONALD A. AGATEP, Secretary