HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-11-19; City Council; 3235; Request for Approval Preannexational Zone ChangeT H E A. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA/ /r
j'* & ~~ ( <-L
' /"«K
Agenda Bill NoJ[££f W V Da te: //- /?- ?</
Referred To:
Subject: Request for approval of preannexational Zone Change Submitted By:
Applicant: Cal Pacific Properties Planning Commtss/
statement of the Matter: The Planning Commission is recommending approval of
a preannexational Zone Change (Case No. ZC-149) from San Diego County E-l-A
to RD-M and C-l on 16.5 acres at the northeast intersection of El Camino
Real and Alga Road. The Planning Commission recommendations are outlined in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1106.
The applicant is proposing to build a neighborhood commercial facility on
16.5 acres and an apartment/condominium complex. The applicant has met all
ordinances and policies including Public Facilities of the City of Carlsbad.
In keeping with City Council policy with respect to annexation, the staff
is of the opinion that all property east of El Camino Real and North of
Alga Road, as shown on the attached Exhibit, should be annexed to the City.
The annexation of the identified parcels on Exhibit B will preclude develop-
ment of any unincorporated County" Islands along El Camino Real.
Exhibit:
Staff Report dated October 22, 1974
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1106
Plot Plan - Exhibit B
Staff Recommendations to City Manager: Staff recommends that the ZC-149 be
approved for the reasons outlined in the Planning Commission Resolution
1106. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation,
the Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents
as stated in Planning Commission Resolution #1106.
Additionally, City Council should direct staff to initiate annexation
proceedings on these parcels outlined in Exhibit B.
AS No Date: November 19, 1974
City Manager's Recommendation
Concur with staff recommendation.
Council'Action
11-19-74 The City Attorney was instructed to prepare documents necessary
for approval of the zone change. The staff was directed to
initiate annexation proceedings on the additional parcels
outlined in Exhibit "B". Further, the staff was instructed
to prepare the necessary ordinance relating to neighborhood
commercial zoning.
-2-
x».,.
TO:
FROM:
REPORT ON:
APPLICANT:
II
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 22,, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION . .'" ' ~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE #149
SPECIFIC PLAN ?T64
CAL PACIFIC PROPERTIES
Represented by: John Mamaux
1393 Basswoodj Carlsbad
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting APPROVAL of a preannexational
zone change from County E-l-A to RD-M and C-l and approval of a
Specific Plan allowing construction of a neighborhood commercial
and apartment complex on property located at the northeast corner
of Alga Road and El Camino Real. The site is approximately 16.5
acres and is described as:
Parcel B - A 4.978 acre parcel in San Diego County located in the
W one-ha If of the N.E. one-fourth of Sec. 26, T 12 S,- R 4 W.
(to be zoned RD-M)
Parcel C - A 5.500 acre parcel in San Diego County located in the
W one-half of the N.E. one fourth of section 26, T 12 S, R 4 W.
(to be zoned RD-M)
Parcel D - A 6.001 acre parcel in San Diego County located in the
W one-half of the N.E. one-fourth of section 26, T 12 S, R 4 W.
(to be zoned C-l)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. ZC-149 Staff recommends approval of ZC 149 based on the
ToTTowing justification:
1. The proposed zones are consistent with
proposed General Plan Standards.I
2. The preannexational zone changes meet with all
applicable City Ordinance and Policy requirements,
including the Public Facilities Policy and Annexation
Policy.
B- SP-164: Staff recommends DENIAL of SP-164 based on the
following justification:
1. Proposals for Ingress and egress to the property are
Inadequate.
Circulation
inadequate.
and parking in the commercial area is
III. BACKGROUND:
A. Zoning:Existing
Proposed
North:
South:
East:
West:
County E-1-A
RD-M and C-l
County E-1-A
RD-M
P-C (Kratter)
County E-1-A
B. General Plan: The existing General Plan shows the
subject property as low density residential at 3-7 du/
acre. The proposed Land.Use Element of the General Plan
shows the property as medium high density residential.
The proposed Land Use Element describes Neighborhood
Commercial facilities as follows:
Neighborhood convenience establishments may exist as a group of
small stores and service shops in a planned shopping center or
as a single facility. Typical establishments within this sub-group
are grocery stores, drug stores, beauty and barber shops and
laundromats. Establishments of this kind serve the immediate
surrounding residential area and draw a high percentage of walk-
in patrons, although a certain amount of automobile traffic can
be expected because of the low population densities common in
newer areas. Often the convenience center is isolated from other
business activity, but in close proximity to such community facilities
as schools, parks and recreation areas. Usually these clusters
require from 2 to 3 acres.
- Local shopping areas are larger groupings of stores and shops of
the local convenience type. Frequently occurring at the periphery
of a residential area at the intersection of collectors or arterials,
they serve two to four adjacent residential areas (local con-
venience clusters serve one residential area) and may contain
supermarkets, drug stores, a hardware store, specialty stores,
personal services, and business and professional offices. A
local shopping group usually requires 5 to 10 cares for development.
Locational cirterion for neighborhood commercial uses are
based on guideline contained within the Land Use Text. Until
such time that Specific Plans are developed, the following
guidelines apply in distributing Neighborhood Commercial
uses:
(1) Encourage the development of neighborhood commercial activities
in centers with common planning, design and facilities (such as
parking, ingress and egress). ' -
(2) Wherever possible, locate neighborhood commercial develop-
ment at intersections of primary and secondary streets; where-
ever. neighborhood commercial development must of necessity be
located adjacent to major streets, ingress and egress should
be from the lesser of the intersecting arterials.
(.3) Locate neighborhood commercial development so that where-
ever possible it is cer.^ally located within its service area.
Locate neighborhood commercial sites at an optimal distance
from regional and community commercial centers.
Neighborhood commercial centers should be generally located
one mile apart.
(6) While there is no absolute standard for the number of local
commercial .acres needed to adequately service a given number of
people, there should generally be one acre of neighborhood
commercial development per 1,000 population of the service area.
This standard should be tempered by the character of each particular
service area.
({?) The area of a local commercial development should, generally
be four to ten acres. . .
( g) In order to assist the Planning Commission in determining
the adequacy and appropriateness of neighborhood commercial develop-
ment, justification in the form of a statistical analysis of the
market service area of a proposed neighborhood commercial develop-
ment should be provided by the developer at the time of zoning.
.19) Excessive undeveloped commercial zoning should be regularly . ;
reviewed and evaluated for its ability to serve the community.
lFollowing these guidelines, Staff notified the applicant that •
they believed the. site to be suited for neighborhood '
commercial (based on 1 ocation) , -but that a Specific Plan would
be necessary to define and limit uses to those specified in
the neighborhood commercial category. .*
The applicant, at present, wishes only to prezone and annex the
subject property. In response to staff's request for a
Specific Plan, the applicant submitted a conceptual proposal
whjich, delineated ingress/egress and internal circulation ';
general locations of structures, and types of uses. ||;
'*
(
jj
With the Specific Plan thus established, Staff believed that any
eventual development proposal could be processed as an amendment
to the Specific Plan. However, several problems became apparent:
1. A "concept" does not meet the City's legal requirements
for Specific Plans.
2. Engineering improvements need to be conditioned precisely;
the proposed plan has some problems with ingress and egress
which need to be addressed in relation to a precise j
proposal. In this case, it is not possible to condition I
a revised circulation system. ' ' |
Summarized, the City is faced with finding an alternative solution ^
which would provide the following: [
1. A means for attaching a site development plan requirement I
to zone changes; {
2. A method for assuring General Plan conformity for neighbor-
hood commercial uses;
3. A means for ensuring future control over public improve-
ments and project design without prematurely committing
the City to a specific proposal.
Staff is preparing a zone code amendment which can provide site
development control over the subject property (to be applied at
the time of annexation). A resolution of intention will b'e forwarded
to the Commission in the near future.
IV. SUITABILITY OF THE PROPOSED ZONES: Staff believes that, given proper
design, neighborhood commercial and multiple residential uses are com-
patible with the site's topography, physical configuration and location
next to a major roadway and secondary arterial. The commercial area
would be central to planned«and established residential areas and one
mile away from the already established La Costa Commercial Complex. The
site has access from major roads and is proximate to areas where people
will be working.
LAFCO requires that the City prezone property so that service requirements,
etc. can be evaluated prior to annexation. Staff realizes that the need
for such a facility may be five or more years in the future. Market
conditions must be evaluated when a development proposal is made. If
General Plan guidelines are met at that time, then the City will be in a
position to approve such a use.
ATTACHMENTS
ZC-14^ EXHIBIT A - Plot Plan
SP-164 EXHIBIT A - Site Plan
School Letter - Carlsbad Unified School District
215-020-
, BUCKNER ET AL
SWENSON ( SINNOT ET AL
BATIQUITOS TT-20
'BONS
RHO LA COSTAMARY 'BRESSI
NO RECORD FND
RHO LA COSTA
' MARY
49
54
55
53
-.215 050
.CAL PACIFIC
.CANNING ET AL
PLANNING DEPT
DATE 11-13-74
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
801 PINE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
October 8, 1974
Reference: El Camino Heights
155 Dwelling Units
Cal-Pacific Properties, Inc.
Mrs. Mary Casler, Chairman
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Donald A. Agatep, City Planning Director
Gentlemen:
Our district has reviewed the proposed 155-unit residential development
generally located northeast of the intersection of Alga Road and
El Camino Real as referenced above and have evaluated the impact of
that development on the facilities of our district.
Please be informed that our district is able to assure you that school
facilities and services will be available concurrent wix|:h need for this
development as it is presently proposed. ]
Very
Fred H. Lance for
R. A. Crawford
District Superintendent
FHL:RAC:aw
CC: Cal-Pacific Properties, Inc.
ADMINISTRATION 729-9291
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. 1106
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE PREANNEXATIONAL
ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY E-l-A TO RD-M AND C-l TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
APARTMENT COMPLEX ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH-
EAST CORNER OF ALGA ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL, ON A
SITE APPROXIMATELY 16.5 ACRES. CASE NO. ZC-149,
APPLICANT: CAL PACIFIC PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to wit:
Parcel B - A 4.978 acre parcel in San Diego County located
in the W one-half of the N.E. one-fourth of Sec. 26, T 12 S,
R 4 W. (to be zoned RD-M)
Parcel C - A 5.500 acre parcel in San Diego County located
in the VI one-half of the N.E. one-fourth of Sec. 26, T 12 S,
R 4 W. (to be zoned RD-M)
Parcel D - A 6.001 acre parcel in San Diego County located
in the W one-half of the N.E. one-fourth of Sec. 26, T 12 S,
R 4 W. (to be zoned C-l)
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code"; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and in the place
specified in said notice on October 22, 1974; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with the Public Facility Policy of
the City of Carlsbad and has provided the necessary information which insures
Public Facilities will be available and current with need; and
WHEREAS, the subject application has complied with the requirements of
the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972"; and
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 considered all factors relating to the pre-annexational zone
change and found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1. The proposed zones are consistent with proposed General Plan
Standards.
2. The preannexational zone changes meet with all applicable City
Ordinance and Policy requirements, including the Public Facilities
Policy and Annexation Policy.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows: That a preannexational zone change is
approved for use of said property to allow construction of a neighborhood
commercial and apartment complex on property located at the northeast corner
v
of Alga Road and El Camino Real, on a site approximately 16.5 acres, as shown
below as Exhibit A, dated October 8, 1974.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the^City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission held on October 22, 1974 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Watson, Dominguez, Fike, Jose, Casler
NOES: Commissioner Wrench
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Donald A. Agatep,
Secretary
Mary Casler, Chairman
\
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEFT
APPLICANT JOHN MAMAUX
CASE NO ZC-149 AND S.P-164
DATE OCT 8 , 1974
-2-