HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-07; City Council; 6642-1; CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF VILLAGE AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY.4 CITY 03 cnmsz;-D 0 --.
-- $j AGENDA BILL KO- ---... &c&- - f L-likial:
De~t-Bti,
e, ZL-qf-.*
6, r4cjr..
-_-...-_._- --Ix.- .~--___
July 7, 1981 ---__"_ DATE :
DEPAP,T~~E~J~~: Housing and Redevelopment
-4 - ----__ ---.-----_-
subject: CONTINUED JOINT PUKF'FE~T~~FE?T AND RE~G~EIEAWOPTMININC COMMISSION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF VILLAGE AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY.
---- -I-__.---_I --I---- -_ __ --CI-----__
Statement OF the Xakter
At its meeting of June 24, 1981, the Planning Commission considered the amendment
Following a presentation by staff, the.Commission took the following actions by minute moti on.
A. Accepted the staff report and recommended to the Council that the Village Area Redevelopment Project Boundary be amended as shown in Exhibit I.
Reported to the Council that the boundary amendment proposed does not alter the Commission's original finding of General Plan conformity.
These two actions allow the Coun.cil/Housing and Redevelopment Commission to procet with the adoption process initiated on June 23, 1981.
EXHIBITS
11. Amended Legal Description for Village Area Redevelopment Plan.
111.
FISCAL IMPACT
Removal of the Subarea six (6) portion of the project will not change the financial feasibility of the proposed plan.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
Accept Planning Commission report and recommendation and proceed with Joint Public Hearing Process.
-
of the Vi 1 lage Area Redevelopment Project Boundary as referred by the City Counci
B.
I. Amended Village Area Redevelopment Project Boundary Map, -
Planninu Commission Minutes from Meeting of June 24, 1981.
..
&I a I I /---?---JmFl~ll
I' B EEITBIT 11 e
..I* -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All those portions ~f the City of CarPsbad, @aunky erf San Dhgo,
California described as follows:
BEGINNING at the mOS$ Westerly corner Of Lot 5% of @sanv~~~@ Par according to Map thereof No,. 2037 fixed in the Office of the Goct
of San ~ieg~ COU~Y, June 18, 1927; thence along the Northwostes
Northerly and Northeasterly line of said Map 203'9 to the mast Ea-
Lot 133, Easterly to the most Westerly corner af Lat 174 QE said
2037; thence 60nkinUingF Easterly along the Southerly line QE sai 174, 20-00 feet more QP less, to the Easterly line of the State 1
(Carlsbatd Boulevard) as granted to the State of CaliEornia in 230 Page 240 af Official Records; thence Nartheasterly along the Eas line of said State Highway and along the Easterly line of the Stl
Highway (Carlsfaad Boulevard) as granted to the Skate QE CaX3,km-d
deed recorded in Book 316, Page 309, of C9fficiaL Recards t,~, the :
Northwesterly comer of %and described in deed to McBfkahaa Furnit.
a California corporation, recorded January 3, 1975 as File No, 7!
being also a point of intersection between the Easterly line of ! State Highway and the Southwesterly ]Line a€ State Street, 60,OQ :
wide, as shown on the records of the County Assessor of saia San County; thence Northeasterly, radially from said Southwesterly 1: of State Street to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Sta'
being also a point in the boundary of land described in Parcd 7 to the State of California recorded August 19, I974 as Pi.3-e No, y
223647; thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly Zine sf ssic Street to a point in? the Northerly line af Lot 3.9 of Seaside Lam
Recorder of Sari Diego county, July 28, 1.921, thence Easterly aLoi
Northerly line to the Northeast corner of sak3 Lot 1.52, being a3,sc point in the Easterly Sine of land described in deed to R,R, Eobi
et ux, recorded July 6, 1972 as File No, 174347; thence atlonythc
Westerly boundary of said Robinson's land North 0"03'00" East to Northwest: corner thereof; thence South 89"50'06" East along the-
Northerly line of said Robinson's land and its Easterly prolongat the most Westerly corner of Lot 1 of Buena Vista Gardens, nc;cord+i Map thereof No,- 2492, filed in the Office of the County Recaxt-der
Diego County,. August 4, 1948, thence along the boundary of said I. South 56O57'40" East, 89-97 feet and South 77'39"OO" East LC, a li parallel with and 90.00 feet Westerly sf the West line of a 40,OC easement for private road as shown on. said map 2492; thence SOLIC?
said parallel line and its Southerly prolongation to a point on t
ly line of Laguna Drive as shown on Map of Seaside Lands No, 1722
also a point in the Northerly line of Lot 20 of said Seaside Land thence South 89°50100" East along the Southerly Pine of said Lagu
to the most Easterly corner of Lot $6 of said Seaside Lands; then continuing South 89°50'00'8 East along the Southerly I-ine of said
Drive to a point on the Northeasterly line of Fourth Street (Jeff
' corner of Lot 133 of said Map 2037; thence leaving the b~oundary
accordinq to Hap thereof No, 1722, filed in the offie& oE' tl~o CUI
1 a. e .\
Street) as shown on Map of Garlsbad Ladsp Hap 1661; filed fn th of the County Recorder of San Diego County March 1, 1915; thence
and Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line to the most West
corner of at 1 of SchePP and Sites Addition to CarPsbad, aecard Map thereof No, 2145, filed in the office af the County Recorder
San Diego County, February 20, 1929; thence continuing Southeastl
along said Easterly line of Fourth Street to the most Westerly cc Lot 14 of said Map 2145; thence NOXth2aStxxQ tat the most No&thc
corner of said Lot 14; thence Southeasterly to the m~st Westerly of Lot 20 sf said Map 2145; thence Northeasterly to the most Nor corner of Lot 26 of said Map 2145; thence Southeasterly to the M Easterly corner of said Lot 26; thence Northeasterly to the most ly corner of Lot 27 of said Map 2145; thence Northeasterly to th
Easterly comer of Lot 31 of said Map 2145; thence Northwesterly
Northeast corner of said Lot 31, being also an angle point in. tkt Westerly boundary of land described in deed to FT- Joseph Pasi-si,,.
recorded November 10, 1969 as File No. 205432; thence Northerly;
said Westerly boundary and its Northerly prolongation, 330 feet - Northerly line of Tract 117 of said Carlsbad Landsp according $0
thereof No. 1661; thence Easterly along- said Northerly line to a section with the: Southwesterly Pine of California State Highway. :
2B; thence SOuth@aSterly along said SQUthWeStesly line of the St< Highway to the most Easterly corner of Parcel B of Parcel Map 33
in the Office of the County Recorder sf San Diego County, ~ebruat;
1973, being a portion sf. said Tract 3-17; thence along the Souttlei
boundary of said Bareel 1 South 48*22s2’718 ~ast 26-59 feet to an i point in said Southeasterly boundary of said Parcel 1; thence COI Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line of the State Hiyhway Northeast corner of land described in deed to the State of Calif(
recorded February 16, 1968, as File No- 27350; thence along the 2 westerly line of said State of California Land, Southwesterly to intersection with the East line of land described in deed to Ver;
Aguilar Soto, an unmarried woman, recorded June 3, 3-968 as File E
92031; thence Northwesterly along saLe Eask Pine Z0,OO %eet to cz in the Northerly line of that portion of Oak Avenue as vacate& ai
closed to public use; thence Southwesterly along said Morther3-y :
to a point in the Westerly line of land describeif in Parcel- &:E u:
ment of Final BistsPbution on Waiver of Accounting in the Est-rit-e Darrell Alexander Welch, also known as DarrelP A, Welch, deceasai
Superior Case No, PN 1232, a copy of which was recorded May 5, 25 File No. 75-106699; thence Southwesterly in a straight line tcl tl
Northerly corner of Lot 17 in Block 58 of Tom sf Carlsbad,, a-ccm
San Diego County, February 15, 1895; thence along the Northweste~ line of said Lot 17 and its Southwesterly prolongation, tc). the IM Westerly corner of Lot 3.7 in Block 40 of said Map 775; thence Sot easterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 17 Block 40, ar
Southeasterly prolongation to the most Westerly corner of Lot 17
Block 42 of said Nap 775; thence Southwesterly along the Southwes
prolongation of the Northwesterly line sf said Lot 17, Block 43. t point of intersection with the Northeasterly Pine of Lot 8 of In6
Tract, according to Map thereof No- 1743, filed in the Office of
County Recorder of San Diego CoUnty, january 3, 3-923, thence alor Northeasterly line, Southeasterly to the most Easterly corner of
Lot 8; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly Pine of said
and its Southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the s westerly line of the Atcheson Topeka 2nd Santa Fe Railway Right c
to Map thereof No. 775, filed in the Office of *he county Record€
'> * -3- @
.A
4
thence Northwesterly along said Southwesterly line to an interse with the Northeasterly prolongation sf the Southeast fine sf Blc
of Town of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, L88CJ,
Southwesterly along said S~utheast ]Line and its Northeasterly px: to the most Southerly corner sf the Nartheast half of the Southe
half of said BlocR 16; thence Northwesterly along the Sautkbsseste line of said Northeast half of the Southeast half to the most We corner of said Northeast half of the S~ratheast half of said Bloc thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line a€ the- Soukhea
of said Block 16 to the Northwest corner of the Southeast half a Block 16; thence Southeasterly along the Southwest line of said
half af Block 16 to the most Southerly COrReP Of said Southeast thence Martheasterly along the Southeast line of said Soutjie8-st
Block 16 for an intersection with the Northwesterly prolongaticw
Northeasterly line of the 'Westerly %5O0O0 feet of Block 17 of sa 535; thenee Southeasterly along said Northwesterly pralongaeian q Northeasterly line to the most Easterly corner of the Morthweste
100.00 feet of said Westerly 150.00 feet of Black 17; thence Sou
along the Southeasterly line of said Northwesterly hOC),QO feet a Southwesterly prolongation to a point in the Southwesterly Xj-nc I
east 158.00 feet of Block 18 said point being the most Sou'Chesly land described in deed to John W. Rodgexs, et ax, recorded July :
as File No, 75-193415; thence Southeasterly along the Southcaste: prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Rodger*s land to an ani
in the Northerly Boundary of Tract 180 sf Carlsbad Lands, Map IC;
also a point on the Northwesterly boundary of land described in '
in deed to Thelma B, Williams, et a1, recorded March 9, 1964 as -
43082; thence along the boundary of said Parcel 1. of said WFlLj.iix Southwesterly 31-50 feet to the most WestexPy corner thereof and
easterly 64.00 feet to the most Easterly corner of Parcel. 2 of si Williams deed; thence leaving the boundary of said Parcel X and i boundary of said Parcel 2, Southwesterly 1148.58 feet to an ancjJ~c: the Southerly boundary of Tract 100 sf said ~ap 1661; thence SOU^ along said Slouthesrly boundary of said Tract PO0 to its most SoutE
corner, thence Southeasterly in a straight line to the mast Kcxt corner sf Block 20 in said Map 535; thence South 34°33'00" East- z the Northeasterly Bine and the Southeasterly prolongation of the
easterly 1he of said Block 20, 140.00 feet to the most Northeas1
corner of land described in deed to Ciebis Properties, a partner2 recorded September 12, 1977 as File No. 77-371495; thence akung t boundary of said Ciebis' land as follows: Southeaster1:y 53.00 feet, more or less, to the most Easterly con thereof; thence South 55°27f00" West, 60000 feet.; thence South 34
East, 7.00 feet; thence South 55O27'00" West 60-00 feet to the rbar
Northerly corner of land described in deed to Ciebis Properties,
partnership, recorded September 12, 1977 as File No. 77-371497; 1 leaving the Ciebis land first above described and along the bound the Ciebis' land last described above, as follows::
Southeasterly along the Northeasterly Bine thereof, 210,OO feet t most Easterly corner thereof; thence South 55"27'00" West, 3.28.53
to the beginning of a tangent 10-00 fook radius curve, concave NC thence Southwesterly Westerly and Northwesterly along said curve
a central angle of 90" an arc distance of 15-71 feet; thence lcav
boundary of said Ciebis* land Northwesterly in a straight line to
e -4- @
+.
most Southerly corner of land described in deed to the State of
recorded August 25, 1967 as File No, 128584; thence along the WE boundary of said State of California land North 30*39’55” West,
feet to the Northwesterly corner thereof; thence leaving the bou of said State of California land Northerly in a straight line to
most Southerly corner Qf Tract 94 of Caslsbad bandsp Hap i6gL;: t
Northeasterly along the Southerly line sf said Tract 94 to the rt corner of said Tract 94, being also the most Easterly CCX~~P of
of the Town of Carlsbad, Map 535; thence Northwesterly alang tk easterly line of said Block 13 to the most Northerly comer of s Block 13; thence Northwesterly in a straight Pine to the mast- Ea
corner of Block 8 of said Town sf Carlsbad, accasding to said Ma
thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Block most Northerly c~rner thereof; thence continuing Northwesterly i
straight fine to the most Easterly comer of Block 3 of said Kap thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line: of said Block most Northerly corner thereof; thence continuing Northwestex3-y i
straight line ta the most Easterly comer ~f Lot 86 of said Gra
Park Noo 2, according to said Map No, 2037; thence continuing No
westerly along the Northeasterly lines of Lots 86, 8’1, 88, 89, 9
92, 93 and 94; thence continuing Northwesterly in a straight 1i.n
Lots 95, 96 and 97 to a point on the Westerly prolongation of thc line of Cypress Avenue as shown on said Map No, 2037; thence aPol
Westerly prolongation to the Southerly Pine sf Del Mar Avenue as
on said Map No. 2037; thence Westerly along said. Southerly hkle .
point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 74 being the Southwe terminus of a line in the Northwesterly boundary of said Lot 74 1
distance of 70.21 feet; thence leaving the boundary of said mt
continuing Northwesterly in a straight line to the most Soukhexl! of Lot 69 of said Map 2037; thence continuing Northwesterly alonl
Avenue adjoining Lots 66 and 61, Lot 61, 60, 59 and 58 to tk~e Pa:
Beginning o
S0uthwesterl:y lines Of Lots 69, 68, 67, 6GF tha.t portion of La C:
EBS : cj-h
7-1-81
J-N. 5256
b'
The meeting was called to order by Co-Chairman Friestedt at i
Present - Co-Chairman Priestedt, Commissioners L'Heureux, '
Jose, and Farrow.
Commissioner Schlehuber arrived at 7:02 P.M.
Absent - Chairman Marcus, and Commissioner Rombotis.
Ex-Of ficio memberj James Hagaman, Planning Director: and
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, were also present.
Staff members present were:
Michael Holzmiller, Principal Planner
Bill Hofman, Associate Planner
Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGlANCE was led by Co-Chairman Friestedt.
- PLANNING CO~ISSION PP,OCP;DURE
Co-Chairman Friestedt explained Planning Comaission
procedures in its capacity as an advisory conmission to the '
.-
f
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Co-Chairman Friestedt indicated there piere two additions to
1 action on CUP-200, Resolution No. 1818.
'
i
on approximately 194 acres of land, and a 11.5 lot
industrial subdivision on 559.4 acres located west of
El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Koad.
With the aid of the overhead projector showing the iocation
of the project, Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the
matt:er, essentially as contained in the written sl;aff report.
He indicated that there are still two issues remaining; the
condition regarding noise, and the condition regarding access
to the adjoining Hieatt property. With regard to the mini-
parks, he stated that it is Staffs' understanding that the
appI.icant does not wish, to take issue at this time with the
requireixent for mini-parks.
With regard to the noise'issue, after meeting with the
nppli.cant, Staff has revised Conditi-on No. 12 of Resolution
No. 183.0, which requircs a covenant to be placed in the CCGR'S
and a note to be placed on the final map.
.
I
,
1
that the applicant still. objects to this condition, even as
revised.
Regarding the issue of access to the Hieatt property, he
believes that better access can be provided to this property
through the Signal Landmark property located to the south.
revised at this time to show access to that property.
Commissioner Jose inquired if the issue regarding‘ the
relocation of the commercial area off Los Monos was resolved
between Staff and the applic,ant . Mr. Kolzmiller responded
that it is Staff‘,s understanding that the app1ican.t has
agreed to go along with the Condition as proposed by Staff.
explained that it is Staffs’ understanding that the applicant
Therefore, the applicant does not feel that the map should be
.- Co-Chairman Friestedt opened the public hearing at: 7:08 P.M,
and exteilded the invitation to speak.
The Comniission recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the Koll
Center. Mr. Fipp indicated that the applicant is in agreement
.. Company, and a partner in the proposed Carlsbad Research
i!
i
Mr. Holzrniller continued that it is Staffs’ understanding j/
Mr. Fipp indicated they are opposed to provi.ding the Hieatt
property access, unless Signal Landmark goes forward. Other-
wise, the applicant would be required to provide access.
The Commission recognized Bob Ladwig, of Rick Engineering,
3088 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Carlsbad. Mr. Ladwig passed around an
aerial photograph which outlined the Hieatt and surrounding
properties, and explained same. Ee explained thar by not
providing access through the Koll Company, they are not
landlocking that piece of land.
Michael Holzmiller indicated that from an access standpoint,
Staff feels it is better to go through the Signal Landmark
..
,.
’ .j
Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Co-Chairman
Friestedt closed the public hearing at 7:16 P.M.
Discussion reflected the responsibility of the City in providing access, and an easement by necessity. The
Comxission indicated their desire to delete Condition No. 14
of Resolution No. 1810. ,
Mr. Holzniil.ler pointed out that the Commission’s direction
to Staff at the last meeting was to take a look at access to
the Iiieatt property, whlch is why same was addressed. !le
expl-ained that Staff feels the thing the applicant is
objecting to is the map being revised at this tiiire to show
the access. However, the applicant does agree that from a
planning perspective, some access should be provided to the
Hicatt property.
1
1-
-.---- - --III-- -.-.:,- I
With regard to the issue of Vernal Pools, Co-Chairman
Friestedt knquired as to the disposition of the request for
a biologist to review the issue, or a recornmendation address-
ing the signif icauce of Vernal Pools. Michael Holzmiller
explained that due to the lack of knowledge, information,
and policy direction in the area of Vernal Pool protection,
even if a biologist does a study of the issue, they will not
indicate in writing that there would be no sign.ificant
impacts created by the development.
In response to Commission query regarding Condition No. 12 of
Resolution No. 1810, the Assistant City Attorney indicated
that his office is in concurrence with the modified condition,
and supports Staff's positio_n.
1
The Commission then discussed the noise issue, and the
alternatives to same. Commissioner L'Heureux indicated his I
opinion that the easement would be the appropriaEe yehicle to
address the situation. The Commission concurred.
Following discussion, the Commission approved the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopted
the following Resolutions, recommending approval of SP-l80(A),
ZC-236 and CT 81-10, based on the
the conditions contained therein; wjth the modification of
..
findings and subject to
Fr iestedt li
L ' Heureux X>
Jose :I
Farrow 1
Schlehuber 1
___________
LOCATED WEST OF EL C"KIS0 REAL A3D NORTH OF PALOYIR AIRPORT
ROAD. AF'PLICMQT: KOLL COMPANY
* OFF AGERDA I.TE:~I - REDEVELCPXEKT PLAN - BOUN~ARY CHANGE.
Jack Henthorn, Director of housing and Redevelopment, gave
Housing and Redeveiopnent Comnission conducted a joint Public
Hearing to consj-der the proposed Village Redevelopment Pl.an
on Tuesday, June 23, 1981. As a result of public testimony
offered by property owner? and residents along Ocean Blvd.,
it was determined that consideration should be given to the
removal. of this area from the Redevelopment Project Area.
Mr. Henthorn referred to his memo of June 24, 1981 to the
Planning Director, and suggested that i.n addition to the Staif
recommendation, the Commission also entertain a motion
indicating that the removal. of this area does not affect the
overall. project areas' conformity with the General Pian.
Mr. Kenthorn added that the Council has continued the public
hearing until the meeting,of July 7, 1981, in order to
a report on the matter; indicating that the City Council/
-.----
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed boundary Friestedt X
change and recommended approval of the alteration of the L' Heureux X
Village Redevelopment Project Area Boundary as S?LOVTI in . Jose xx . Exhibit B; and further, entertained a minute motion indicat- Farrow
ing that the removal of this area does not affect the overall Schlehuber
conformity of the area with the General Plan.
X
X
The Assistant City Attorney indicated that Exhibit B shows
the line on Garfield on the east side of the street, and the
recommendation was to have the line dram on the west side
of the street. Jack Henthorn responded that it was an error
on the map.
The motion was amended to reflect the correction in
Exhibit B.
.
Friestedt X
L'Reureux X
Jose xx
Farrow X
Schlehuber X
2. . ZC-231, MOLA. Request for a preannexational ::one
change from 5-93-10 (County) to RD-M and C-2-Q on the
northwest corner of El Camico Ileal and Alga Road.
With the aid of the overhead projector showing the location
of the project, the staff report was presented by Nichael
Holzmiller, essentially as contained in the written staff
report. -
In response to Commission query, Mr. Holzmiller indicaved
. that the applicant is in concurrence with the requirement
. for the Q-overlay.
Co-Chairman Friestedt opened the publlc hearing at 7:48 P.M.,
and extended the invitation .to speak. .
The Commission recognized Jim Hicks, 7316 El Fuerte, Carlsbad;
who indicated that the appl.icant is in concurrence with the
staff report, and expressed the willingness to respond to
any questions.
Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Co-Chairman
Friestedt closed the pfiblic hearicg at 7:49 P.M.
I
I '1
1
Commjs::ioner L'Heureux expressed concern over the adequacy
of the parking requirements in commercial developments, and
stated his opinion that the standards are inadequate.
Michael Holzmiller respon6ed that the Commission will have
the opportunity to review the parking under the Site
Developmcnt Plan; however, suggested that if the Coc-nission
feels there is a problem with the Ordinance requirements,
they may wish to direct Staff to take a look at same.
Following brief discussion on the parking requirements, the Priestedt 1,'Iieureux
issued by the Planning Director, and adopted the fol.loi-?ing Jose
.: .
Commission approved the Conditional Nezative Dedlaration
Resolution, recommending approval of ZC-231, based on the Farrow
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: Schlehuber
RESOLUTION NO. 1.822, RECOXMENDING AI'PIIOVAL OF A PKE-
ANNEXATION ZONING FROX S-90-1.0 (COUK'SY) TO RD-14. AND C-2-Q ON
PROPEIITY GEN'EIULLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EL
CAMINO REAL AND NCA ROAD. APPLICANT: MOLA.
-_-___---
i
i
x/ x
xx
X
I i
i
iI
-. I- - --
Commissioner Jose requested that the record reflect that his
negative vote was due to the facts he has stated in the past
in reference to the General Plan Ainendment; and the first
-ll__l ---..-
action on this property, of changing it from residential to
commercial.
Co-Chairman Friestedt directed Staff to initiate a revi.ew of
foot, and report back to the Commission in the course of
two or three meetings, identifying the findings, and submit
recommendations.
3. 2C-237, NEVILLE. Request for a Zone Chadge from K-1
to DM-Q on approximately 1/2 acre of land located
With the aid of the overhead projector showing the location
of the project, the staff report was presented by Bill Hofman,
essentially as contained in the written staff report.
between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue, 1 lot east of Pi0
Pic0 Avenue.
...- I x
The Commission recognized Randy Twombly, 1264 Pine, Carlsbad.
He indicat’ed he was in favor of the rezoning for the
applicants’ property; however, expressed concern that one of
the primary reasons for the zone change was the buffer zone,
and stated his opinion that this is not the proper reason
for the zone change.
The Commission recognized Gene Hargett, 1301 Pine Avenue,
Carlsbad; owner of lot #4. Mr. Hargett explained that in
determined at. that-time that nothing would be done, as they
were going to rezone the area at a future time.
that he is in favor of rezoning, but requested it go to where
1976 the Planning Corimission held a hearing, and it was
He added
-._.. <-. ~,.
the original Master Plan to3k it.
from the City to the property o-vmers, dated September 10,
1976, for the record, along with a map showing the affected
areas.
Co-Chairman Friestedt explained that the application process
for rezoning cones forward fro= the property owners, either
singularly or jointly. He also directed Staff to check
on the matter, and report back to the Commission, but
indicated that same would not affect this application.
Me submitted a notice
’
.
proposals to place larger volumes of people into the area,
without a current upgrading of the major public facilities.
The Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director, ar,< adopted the following Resclution,
on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in
the staff report:
recommending approval of ZC-237 to the City Council based
RESOLUTION NO. 1823, APPROVING A ZONE CHAKGE FROM R-1-7500
TO RUM-Q FOR Ir LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETXEEN OAK AVENUE --.____
ANI) PINE AVEKUE, OXE LOT EAST OF PI0 PIC0 AVENUE.
NEVILLE.
4. =81-15/CP-161, RUSSELL. Request for a.9 unit
AFPLICANT:
Friestedt ,
L’Heureux
Jose .x
Farrow
Schlehuber
Jefferson Street and Hope Avenue in the R-3 zone.
With the aid of the overhead projector showing the location
of the project, Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the
matter, essentially as contained in the writ.ten staff report.
Mr. Holzmiller pointed out that even if the project- could be
!
brought up to meet the minimum standards, Staff does not
feel that the project is one that would justify the maximum
end of the density range.
Co-Chairman Friestedt opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M., ,
and extended the invitation to speak.
-
i
I
The Comiiission recognized Ken Chriss, 2979 State Street,
Carlsbad; representing the applicant. Mr. Chriss indicated
that they exceed the required minimum, and addressed the
issue of the higher density. He stated that because of the location in the City, they would like to capitalize on the
saxe type of usage.
requirements, aild the design of the project; and requ-sted I
He explained some of the recreational
on the density issue, and the recreational requirements.
Co-Chairman Friestcdt suggested;for the benefit of tlie
applicant, that the Comnission consider continuing the item,
rather than denying it; to allow the applicant the opportunit
to go back with Staff, in attempt to work out something more .. desireable. The Commission concurred.
The Commission continued the item to the Planning
meeting of July 22, 1981.
Schlehuber
5. ,CT 81-18/C?-164, G. ??. CAPIT'AL, INC. Request for a
1 I
Xi
~
28 unit Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit on property located on the north side of Unicornio Street ,I
The .Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopted the following
recommending approval of CT 81-18/CP-164, to .the
based on the findings and subject to the conditio
sewer permits:
RESOLUTION NO. 1.826, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 28 UNIT
TENTA'CI.VE TRACT MAP AND CONUOXIKICX PERNIT OK PROPERTY
GENERA1,LY LOCATED OX THE NORTH SlDE OF UNICOKNI.0 STREET
BETWEEN CACATUA STKEET AND 1iL FUERTE STREET. APPLICANT:
G. R. CAPITAL, INC.
.therein; with the revision to Condition No. 3 regarding Schlehuber
___._I-__
1 i
6. CUP-202, liOYE SAVINGS & LOAN, Request for approval of a Condit.iona1 Use Permit LO construct a savings and
loan office with a drive-thru facility on the northeast
corner of Elm Avenue and Madison Street in the C-2 Zone.
off the two existing driveways on Elm Avenue, and redirecting
the traffic back onto Madison, would be helpful to the area,
and the situation. i
1 1 .I. i
’. I I i I F i,
Mr. Seigel responded that the banking hours will be froin
approxinlately 9 A.M. to 3 P.P!., and indicated that in his
experience, the customer flow consisted of approximately
four at the most per day. He continued that in his opi-nion,
the site is excessive for this use, and they have contributed
quite a bit of it to landscaping, because of the Redevelopment
area. In a sense, he explained that the building is a
temporary building. ‘
Co-Chairman Fri.estedt indi.cated his opinion that he did not
feel the Commission could come up with a workable .solution
at this meeting, and suggested continuing the item, allowing
the applicant to iiieet with Staf; in attempt ty re-address the
access question, with some very specific guidance from the
Commission.
Commissioner Farrow expressed concern over the use of only
a 20 foot alley for ingress and egress into the bank and the drive-thru facility. 0.
Discussion reflected alternatives for moving the drive-thru
facility to alleviate problems with stacking, and access .to
the site.
Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Co-Chaiiman
Friestedt closed the public hearing at 9:15 P.M.
--- -_.-
I
Richard Allen explained that when the Engineering Department
first reviewed the project, their recommendation to the
Housing and Redevelopment agency was that they adopt a
policy to have no drive-thru facilities.at all along Elm
Avenue. However, they rejected the recornendation, and after
the Task Force looked at the project, the net result was that
1 . ,: ~~.~
they felt the traffic problems associated with this
particular project were not serious enough to warrant being
strongly against it.
1.
shou'i DC: incorporated, and feels that the. applicant should
pay a major portion of same.
suggested installing a concrete strip, referring to D similar
drivi.ng in the alley; therefore, narrowing the alley at the '
entrance, and leaving it wide enough for people to exit.
The Assistant City Attorney indicated that whenever you
close off public streets and redirect traffic, you have to
fo1l.o~ specific procedures outlined in the Streets and High-
ways Code; and this jurisdiction is given to the City
Council. Re also pointed out that t.he alley serves the
public, and not just this applicant.
Michael. Holzmiller stated lie felt Commissioner L'IIeureux's
and fcels that Staff .could support same.
Foll.owing discussion, the concensus of the Comnission was .
that thc nppl-icant should be required to appropriately fund
8 portion of the median, and that spi.iied access control to the
alley access be required of the applicant.
With regard to the alley, he
.I
I .set up in Sail Diego, in the all.ey, prohibiting.cars from
..
suggestion for spikeJ acce.ss control. was .the most workable,
i
.
..
the Planning Director, B
approving CUP-202, based
conditions contained therein; and accepted the site as
proposed, subject to the conditions of the median as
discussed earlier, the spiked control exits, and that it be
With the aid of the overhead projector showing the location
I He pointed out that at any one time, between the four
attorneys and two or three clerical. personnel., al.ong with
two or three clients, you have ten people driving vehicles,
and only four parkicg spaces.
Bill Hofman responded that it is a potential problem;
however, they do meet the parking requirements.
The Pl.anning Director explained that for the last three or
four years, one of the Departments' requests at budget time
has been the revision of the Zcning Ordinance., incl.uding the
parki-xig. However, it is still a Council goal, but ,is not
funded.
The Assistant City Attorney indicated that the .purpose of
the Q-overlay is to deal w!.th specific projects that have
particular problems, and parking is one of the items listed
in the Q-overlay. Therefore, he explained that the Commission
-_ -I -
A motion was made to adopt Resol.ution No. 1821, approving SDP 81-12 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
___I--_ -~...
> Friestedt
L'Heureux
contained therein. The motion failed due to lack of a
majority .
A motion was made to deny SDP 81-12 for the reason that the
parking in inadequate. The motion failed due to lack of a
majority.
The Commission continued SDP 81-12 to the Planning Commission
meeting of July 8, 1981, to allow for the presence of a full
Commission.
>
X:,
~X >
i
Jose
Farrow
Schlehuber
Friestedt
L ' Heureux
Farrow
Schlehuber
Friestedt -
L'Heureux
Jose X:
Jose
* Farrow
, SchlehubGr
ACTION ON CUP-200 - RESOLUTION NO. 1818
The Commission adopted the following Resolution: Friestedt
L'Heureux
RESOLUTION NO, 1818, DEhYYING A CGNDITIORTAL USE PETMIT TO Jose - ALLOW A COIK OPERATED ARCADE ON YROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED Farrow
..
.x
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OAK BE'I'WEEN LINCOLN AND I)JASHINGTON.
APPLICANT: RIX-TEX INC. CASE NO. CUP-200
Schlehuber
APPROVAL OF MINUTE
Minutes of the Regular Yeeting, held June 10, 1981, were
approved as submitted.
Friestedt
L 'Heureux
Jose
Farrow
Schlehuber . IX
@ e
CITY CLERK MEMORAN DUM
DATE: June 24, 1981
FROM:
TO: Carlsbad Planning Commission $&+ Jack E. Henthorn, Housing and Redevelopment Directo ,,? / f c,
SUBJECT : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY CHANGE.
The City CounciIlH~using and Redevelopment CQmmiSSiOn conducted a Joint
Public Hearing to consider the proposed Village Redevelopment Plan last night. residents along Ocean Boulevard it was determined that consideration should be given to the removal of this area from the Redevelopment Project Area.
This was the result of public testimony indicating that while the residents and owners recognize the lack of public improvements, lack of parking and small lot subdivision patterns, they simply do not want to be included within the Project Area.
The specific City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission request was for the Planning Commission to review a potentjal boundary amendment which made changes in the boundary from that shown in Exhibit A to that shown on
Exhibit B.
As you were advised in a memo to the Planning Director dated June 5, 1981,
Redevelopment Commission is required to refer the matter to the Planning
Commission for a report and recommendation. Due to the newspaper’s improper noticing of the Public Hearing this process must be undertaken expeditiously if we are to avoid loss of the project‘s first year revenue. would be appropriate to consider this item, with the consent of the Commissior due to the financial impact associated with further delay,
The analysis of the impact of removal of the Ocean Boulevard area offered
in the memo of June 5, 1981, is still valid. However, the City Council/ Housing and Redevelopment Commission indicated that in order to meet the
requests of the property owners along Ocean Boulevard, all of subarea six north of Elm Avenue should be removed and the remainder added to subarea five.
This does not materially alter the conclusion reached in the original analysis since the area between Elm and Grand Avenues in subarea six is totally devel oped.
As a result of public testimony offered by property owners and
(Exhibit C) prior to taking such action the City CounciIlHousing and
Therefore, it
0 a
2
Memo/Planning Commission
3EH/6-24-81
RECOMMENDATION :
Therefore, based upon my initial analysis and public testimony it appears appropriate to entertain a minute motion reporting to the City Cauncil
that' the Planning Commirsisrt has reviewed the propos@d b~undarjf cha~~e and recommends approval of the a1 teration of the Vi K 1 age Redevelopment Project
Area Boundary as shown in Exhibit B.
CC: City Attorney City Manager
AssistanC City Manager/Dwelopment Planning Director City Clerk /
JEH: a1
0 @ EXHIBIT "A"
ZW%AWEP. MA?
m EXHTBLT ip8kp
-0 P
0 -
-n
I
0
0
0
m
3- z
SUB-AREA MAP
0 8 t,KHL15L1 "L" .
1\.IEMQRANT)UM
DATE : June 5, 19SI
TO : Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
FROJI : Jack E. Henthorn, Housing and ReOevelopment Direct0
SUBJECT : POSSIBLE PLAIWING CQBMISSIOX CONSIDEMTION OF REDEVELOPblENT
AREA BOUNDARY. - JUNE 24, 1951
As you are aware the Public Hearing €or the Redevelopment Plan had to be
rescheduled as a result of an error in noticing the originsf hearing.
Public Hearing is scheduled for June 23, 1981. This puts us on a rather tigh
time frame if we are to avoid loosing one year's tax increment financing. Tt.
is due to the fact that the ordinance adopting the Plan must have an effectit
date prior to the County's Equalization of the property tax rolls around
than the Council's first meeting in July.
This is complicated by the fact that several property owners along the wests the Redevelopment Project Area boundary {Ocean Boulevard) have requested to 1
removed from the area. If the Council should elect to change the boundary
state law necessitates that the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Cornmi:
refer any proposed boundary change to the Planning Commission for a report ar
recemmendation prior to the adoption o€ the ordinance adopting the Plan.
Since the Public Hearing won't be held until the ZSrd(the night before the
Planning Commission)it will be impossible until. that time to know whether or
not it will be necessary to consider amending the boundaries. However, in 0:
to avoid loosing up to $50,000 in funding it could be necessary for the Comm
to consider this item on the 24th of June.
I have undertaken a quick analysis of the area in question.
and Garfield Street to the east (see attached map-sub-area six) D
The concern being expressed is on the part of the property owners to the nor
of Beech Avenue.
it would appear appropriate to exclude the area from Cypress Avenue on the nl
to the northern boundary of Grand Avenue on the south. This is based on the
that north of Grand Avenue the area is relatively well developed with the ma
problcm being lack of public improvements and sinall lot subdivision.
The
Aqust 20th. This means that the plan must be adopted by ordinance not late1
The area is bou
by Ocean Boulevard on the west, Cypress to the north, Elm Avenue to the sout
If the Council desires to reconsider the boundary in this
These
*
a Planning Director 0 m
b 6/5/51
page 2
problems could probably be resolved over i? longer period ~f xime vitk 1;cnls
available to the City. South of Grand Avenue, however, Trfe have some compound
factors in the lack of public improvements and beach access points at the enc
both Grand and Elm Avenues, The lack of public improvements, parking, and tk
circulation conditions in the area definitely have an adverse effect OG the
ultimate development of the adjacent properties.
The boundary of the subarea actually extends scrzth of Elm Avenue onto "che prc currently occupied by the Royal Palms,
several development proposals which have never come into existence, This is
to those issues (parking and circulation) which originally indicated that. t1.r
should be included within the project area.
Therefore, I think that there is justification to continue this southern par
of subarea six (6) as a part of the redevelopment project unless the Council,
directs otherwise. Inclusion of the area would allow us to bring additional
financial resources and more flexible land use control into the area in or&
resolve the underdeveloped character of the land area as well as the parkin$
circulation problems being felt by the adjacent residential properties,
Although these comments do not offer a comprehensive analysis of the situatj
additional data will be generated prior to the Public Hearing on June X, 15
in anticipation that the boundaries will be referred to the Planning Commis:
If you could advise the Commission of the potential for the referral of thir
item I would appreciate it. Every attempt will br: made to provide the Comm:
with more detailed information as it becomes available prior to the Public I In this manner, the Commission will be prepared as must as possible in the I
that the Council does refer this item to them following the Public Hearing
June 23, 1981.
This site has been the subject: of
JEN : a1
w il 1,
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALtFORNIA 92008
NrnCF, OF EI-xm
My Of sElX2 e>kjQ
220 Wesk Brdq ,
Sara Diego, @A 92101
This is to &~S@ that the city o€ earls-- on Jme 23, 1981, qpmw %he fallaT* psaject:
Project Desaiptim: plart far tTE3 viuqe &ea weveaw Pmjeck n
Project MC~C~SS/-~~O~: ~arls~ ~eiievex- ~xrea.
Tt.12 City macle t'he foPlmirq determinations rqarcliq tb envirmental.
impact of the above desaiked project:
H e
2.
pursumk to tl-e pdsims of C2QAo
Tk? project will have a significasrt., ef%eck 012 the emi.mnment.
2% Envircx-mmtaZ Impact repost wss prepare5 for thjs projeck