Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-18; City Council; 3511; Chinquapin @ Adams. CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. ei?5// DATE: November 18, 1975 DEPARTMENT: Enqineerinq Subject: M S 270 - APPLICANT: n/w corner of Chinquapin @ Adams OAKLEY PARKER Initial: Dept.Hd&? (&? C. Atty. C. Mgr. Statement of the Matter Applicant has appealed Condition No. 2 of his tentative parcel map approval letter dated October 21, 1975. Applicants letter requesting an appeal to City Council, dated October 30, 1975, is also attached. Notice of- a public hearing on Exhibit A. Letter dated October 21, 6. Letter dated October 30, Council. C. Location map. Recommendations this issue has been published. 1975, Notice of Prei iminary Decis ion. 1975, Letter request ing appeal to City That conditions of tentative parcel map approval as outlined in Exhibit A be upheld. \ Council action 11-18-75 At the request of the applicantc:hhe matter was continued to December 2, 1975. 12-2-75 The public hearing was continued to December 16, 1975'as requested by the applicant. 12-16-75 The matter was tabled at the request of the appljcant. , . D. 5. ANDREASEN ARTHUR E. GORE RUSSELL W. GROSSE DAVID R. THOMPSON RALPH L. WI LLIAMS ANDREASEN, GORE, GROSSE & THOMPSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 804 THIRD STREET OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054 P. 0. BOX 296 AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 722-1234 OF COUNSEL CHARLES R. CANGNATH Please reply to: DAVID 6. BARTELL JAM ES E. BET2 SUITE 104 DICK TAYLOR 7682 EL CAMlNO REAL 5850 Avenida Encinas LA COSTA, CALIFORNIA 92008 Carlsbad, California 92008 TELEPHONE 753-1113 714 729-9284 REPLY TO: November 18, 1975 City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: On behalf of my client, Oakley Parker, it is respectfully requested that the Public Hearing scheduled for your meeting of November 25, 1975, pertaining to Mr. Parker's parcel map be continued until the next regular Council Meeting. The purpose for this continuance is that it would appear at this time that we will be able to work out our differences with the Staff so that by the next meeting we will be in a position to withdraw our request for the Public Hearing entirely. Sincerely, RWG/db c L! ,.’ *+ s. ,tr J’ c _... i o 1; “;T,; f * j ; ,,,qy~~! .’ ,I -““;. r ,? - ( ,. 7;: .$ j-‘,. -7 ( y ( ,! I ,J I, ; ; n ‘I , MEMORANDUM November 12, 1975 TO: City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Public hearing on appeal of City Engineer's decision on conditions of approval for tentative parcel map MS 270 (Oakley Parker - assessor's parcel #206-050-03, northwest corner of Chinquapin and Adams) A public hearing has been noticed for the Council meeting of November 18, 1975 concerning the conditions of approval for the subject minor subdivision. The property is located immediately south of the Safeway shopping center on Tamarack. It is zoned R-3 and is approximately 4.38 acres. The subject property is partially developed with 50 apartment units constructed on the westerly 1.87 acres. It is the intent of the applicant to divide the parcel for sales purposes (i.e., sell the 50 unit apartment complex separately from the undeveloped acreage to the east). The existing apartments on the property were built without the requirement for additional street frontage improve- ments (curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking lane, etc.) or park in lieu fees, because these improvements and fees are only required when land is either subdivided or consolidated in accordance with Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The conditions of approval of the minor subdivision included the requirement for construction of frontage improvements along the entire frontage of both Chinquapin and Adams. This condition has been appealed by the applicant and is the reason, in accordance with Section 20.24.140 of the Municipal Code, for the public hearing. It should be clearly pointed out that the applicant is not objecting to the ultimate necessity for constructing frontage improvements, but he is objecting to the requirement to enter into a .bonded agreement to improve in accordance with Section 20.28.070. The applicant has indicated that he would be agreeable to entering into a lien contract for improvements (Section 20.28.090). I have required the construction of frontage improvements instead of a future agreement (lien contract) because there are no unusual physical restrictions that would prohibit or make extremely difficult the con- struction of such improvements. I have determined that there is a need for public improvements as a condition of the minor subdivision because: 1. There are substantial public improvements in the vicinity of this property. (a map will be prepared for the Council meeting showing these improved areas.) 2. Significant development has occurred in this neighborhood in the last several years and these developments have constructed or agreed to construct frontage improvements (Papagayo, Royal Homes, Safeway City Manager November. 12, 1975 Page Two shopping center, St. Patrick's Church). 3. There are significant pedestrian-oriented traffic generators in the area (Jefferson School, St. Patrick's School, Safeway shopping center). 4. The subject property itself is generating sufficient traffic to warrant the completion of the subject improvements. 5. A nuisance and health hazard exists because storm waters from up- stream are not adequately carried past the subject property (nuisance ponding in front of the existing apartments is evident on a year- round basis). Another subject of the appeal has to do with the park in lieu fee ordinance (20.44). While this area of the appeal is not part of the public hearing, I am sure that the applicant will wish to speak on two areas of the park in lieu fee ordinance as follows: 1. 2. The applicant feels that the value of his property is over-assessed and that the ordinance provision to use the assessor's value times 6 as the fair market value is unfair, as the assessor's value is by law required to be 25% of fair market value. I have reviewed the ordinance with the applicant and his attorney and have given the names of three appraisers acceptable to the City, so that the applicant may have his land appraised as provided for by Chapter 20.44 of the Municipal Code. The primary reason for the letter of appeal has to do with the require- ment to pay a park fee of $19,273.40 as a condition of "splitting" the parcel. The applicant argues that the mere subdivision of the land does not generate the need for parks and that the ordinance should have a provision to allow for collection of park in lieu fees at the building permit issuance stage. This argument has been raised by other subdividers in the past and deserves serious consid- eration. I have not found any provisions in the Municipal Code that allow for a deferment of payment of park in lieu fees. In summary, I have had several meetings and conversations with the applicant, his attorney and his engineer to try to resolve the problems presented. They have been most cooperative and understanding of the requirements and provisions of the existing ordinances. Because of a difficult timing problem for the applicant, he has decided on the appeal request rather than wait for a revised park in lieu ordinance. TCF/dh cJLk5?&. Tim Flanagan GctoSer 2’1, 1975 I Brian Sn;ith Engineers, fnc. 2456 State Street Cartsbed, CA $!008 Attent im: kkrry t. irusx Strbject : Yfy-jf-aj;jvc Farc:@l b:c;;:, !,I.$. Go. 270, tiiGt?cc Llf: Prel hliftary Owls ion Dear Hr. Truax: Oaljley Parker n/w Chinquapin and Adams Proposed Minor Subdivision No. 270 FEES AND DEPOSITS I- 1 . Final map filing fee 2. Park in lieu fee 3. Water1 ine connect io;ndeApdo;p n/e corner . 4. Sewer laterals - as required to be installed as part of street improve- ment . I 5. Monument-at ion depos it or bond 6. Street light energy (City owned lights to be instal led at developers expense) 3-7,000 Lumen, L.S. 2-B rate, 18 months energy @I $3.97/mo. $ II *100.00 rg,273.40 N/A N/A 4.00.00 2i4.38 - i -2. = QAKLEY G. PARKER P.O. BOX 1219 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: 729-2050 October 30, 1975 Tim Flanagan Brian Smith Engineers, Inc. 2656 State Street Carlsbad, -Calif. 92008 Subject-Tentative Parcel Map, M.S. No. 270, Notice of Preliminary Decision Dear Mr. Flanagan, Pursuant to your letter dated October 21, 1975, pertaining to the above captioned matter, please be advised that we disagree with the valuation used by the Parks and Recreation Department to determine park in lieu fees.. We therefore request that the value be established,pursuant to alternative estimate as set forth,in ordinance 20.28.070(b)2. If the city has a list of acceptable appraisers, please advice me. We would also request that a future improvement lien agreement be used rather than a bond or cash deposit since we do not intend now or at an antis- ipated date to develope the property, but are attempting to obtain the lot split soley for the purpose of selling that portion of property already improved. It is respectfully requested that both of the above items be set upon the next city council agenda for discussion and action thereon, . . L. . . . . ECEBVE ---.. \ CITY OF CARLSBAD Engineering Deparmnt .b,,; J&f;;’ Jk -< $h 3‘ ‘: Q&y\, MS z70 \ -$.;‘, A+~~;? qy, l, ?, 1. .J P”\h %* i’“,..-. , e. I’ &..” i\., “: ‘.$ (. d&r! #.-,“- / ,,/‘~;,, ‘\< This js p-f q r,:,%~--y ,qi &c 7 !=a<:, i>:.:[ 1T v‘;:: -i:+ .-! c::y :;:.. * ;,.. ‘i ii<.,,rj e,v ..- ? 1; ;: ‘J c ;q . ,,I, . . Pf :I:,> r.;;-< E ? ; - f;3.y f;; .,:i’. :: - ;! c(-.cy ‘-. .,,I :(;,c-‘. ,.., j’.$i? ;..,‘.,) ;..,- ] ,,. )l. ,..t.r:*-z >-:.:,-.: ‘:I, ;.:‘i j’* c-,. ;:<;. , ; ; : ‘i,: -: c; ‘) IL & Ii ; i c- lvr-*#-.I .,. I I .* ._, I c .- .I’; \:$‘:, ‘:;:;;:,,, i.‘t;, : t ; ) ‘,!