HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-20; City Council; 6978; PAPAGAYO - RESPONSE TO CITIZEN PETITION.rl 6' [I)
5;
gg
ciTlOaF CAR~SBAD - AGEND~LL
*4J t
4 -1 er.4 !
ua, MTG. 4/20/82
as wc, rd
0 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the following:
1. Traffic signal at Jefferson and Tamarack shall be bonded an
*hi?
8s - 338
a$$ $2: and allow their completion. All other buildings to be 2 Lo constructed shall meet the building height requirements oE
?5! gI.0 the existing code.
I-lW r= -7iw 0
be installed when warranted by traffic conditions.
construction (i.e.r framed) meet the original city approval
2. The Council find that the buildings currently under
ITEM EXPLANATION @J
u 04 -I+ In February a petition was sent to the city by residents living
$85 residents questioned:
.r( Q) %5l4 1. Street improvements along Chinquapin Avenue,
me 2. Approved traffic signal at the intersection of Tamarack 6.5 'G [I) Avenue and Jefferson Street.
3, Building heights for the buildings presently under con-
struction.
rdrd adjacent to the Papagayo project. In this petition the
Sr.4
89 E
?u$ O[I)&4
pa) 85
%.A bo Staff has made an extensive search of all of the available
records and consulted with a number of people who were involved
Engineering Department and Planning Department detail the staff
q-la
4J mc [I)w$ in the original approval. The attached reports from the O%
M[I) a.4 rd
%a 2
4.5 rd
u g2G rn-r.4
On April 5th approximately a dozen of the residents who signed the petition attended an informal meeting held by staEf at the Council Chambers. At that time staff presented the information contained in the reports attached to this agenda bill and
answered questions frDm the audience. The people in attendance
appeared to be satisfied with staff's responsep but informed
project to the Council.
*rl 0%$
hl staff that they desired to express their concern about this
4- In summary, given all of the available evidence it appears to
co 1 0 a
staff that the buildings have been constructed and are being
constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the city.
3, Report from Acting City Engineer to Assistant City Manager/
5, Exhibits "A" - "C"
6. Memo dated March 26, 1982 from Building Department to
Planning Department
a 1) ..
.-
ti , s.
'7% '
4.'
February 9, 1982
filayor Packard and City Council. via Frank Aleshire, City Manager
Carlsbad City Hall
Re: File Eo. 3U Papagayo Jkvelopxent
Dezr Sirs:
This Correspondence is in regads to the Papagay0 D&velopment adjacent to
Chinquzpin P-ve. in Carlskd. Infonation contained in this letter was
I' obtained fmrn files cn record at Carl.sbad City Hall in particuliar File Kl 31~ e
The original file date of this project dates back to June 1972, This pro
was approved in 1974 over the Objections of the City Planning degsrtment,
Some of tr~e Objections were: 1, Traffic congestion on the street which
serve it (ljocuiient #3l34 July 16, 1974 Kesolution 1G740) 2, According t
Resolution $786, a developnent sbotdd reflect a intent of the General PLa
in -this ae2 and the proposed project should 'not be a detriment. to the
surxounding properties, Tnis project was also approved over the objectic
protest of well over one hundred local residents as shown in the file CT
According to the Phzse Kzp on fife, (see zttached) this is the re-approvc:
one ad not the originpi Phasing which the City Cour.cil approved back in
the project was broken down into five developentd phases, Phase 1 ad
;ire now complete and Phase I11 is under construction at present, Gr-cldin!
ha-ve ?xen submitted for Phase I'J, &ase V or1 the lagon has not been st;
as of yet. According .e0 Document Tiurnher 9401 (dzted July 1974) :1;1 (3)$ I
Signals at Jefferson Street ayd Tmaraclc Ave. are required as part of 1%;
This signal is not presently in existace. If there is io be a si3.1dy dol
traffic flow in regards -tm the traffic signal we xould like to rquest a
study on the traffic congestion we feel 1mulr3. result on Chinquapin Ave. '
to the proposed developent, Also required under 9401 $4 (C) -- Fu3.1 stree
' improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks) over southerly 32 ' of Ch i3oc-pifi
between 1-5 mcl. Iiailroad are to be completed prior Lo occupany of haue
$'e wuld.idso. :like toG;.lquection;,how. a...developer.czn .get approval to build
raikd grade .and tbqn:;~.~tc2-=.,~,.:~ue~tionabt,e ;,height . . lirilit': -. According to c
latest' city 'building code, Section 21 .Oi,065 (l+diIding ~{eights) in the c
where retaining walls or fill grading 'are utilized to create fini.slied &Y
higher in elevation than preexising grade, then .preexisting grade shall
used in the detemination of buildk?z or structure height, Preexisting
means the ground level elevation which existed prior to ,my site prepar;
. related t~ or tx, be incorporated into, the poposed new ilcvclopmcnt, 01' :
ation (Ord, (j490), Cornpliance with thi6 ~>rdi.~ance is hi&hly su:;pect.
This letter should raise the queution as to vhether certain verSal or u1
docurnentcd specid considerations have been crmtcd 'b Nr. IJ;irry liun ts the past v \:e rrould 1 ike to krow IIOV such a development could be :i])pl-ov
City CounciZ. mci since years have psseci and our city ha3 ehnrlgcd, cere
conditions r;?ioultl I)? bl-ouEht 111) to Gate. ',&le still feel oUtra[,cd ))OW ii
of tot;n cjcvel.opc-r c;?n cone into our city aytl our single family tlo:rtc n.i
hood xd {;ain :tppi.uv:?l of i~ hich rise con3e project.
. .. .
"ES(1IIBIT 1 " -_____.-. ----
(111 a* 9.
2 Page 2
It is certainly' psoible that, the rcquirernents ard stipulations for this
project could have been axursed in a sea of paperwork at the Building
Deyatment 2nd possibly overlooked or forgotten, but we feel it is the
mora3 obligation of -the developer to abide by the conditions that he
agreed "io,
As long time residents and taxpayers of the City of Carlsbad, your respon
to OW inquiry wuld be zpprcciated. cc: Plznning Dept, cc: Engineering Dupt. cc: Coxjtal Corrmission
BY OUR SIGKATU'HZS:
N AKE
%c: City Attorney
f FDDRESS c -
/f (2
@{2@u!Y.-- 5-30 &AJ-T - tf &AQf-J
fl#pGtL---
&mb J$J)J$2 $U&jZd+JW? p3-7 I
I( f< 5/3*
&L&9/
CdLLd-Sl
l?.dwz4
* -0 --- yo-'" /4aJJud- oR &7uJ&& W7d I( 7Y&-d3cn,. *c
(f
oy 4130 /Awx!o~O~ @~~~m~
IP r'O /f/.I?6 bwJ$ GW, e4 9 8"d,-wd *q, QG&\> df- od&.fu~~u~r&~JiL- ' 'C ~11371 d{cUh-f~~ & CQ,
b 0 e' \
f'
' Continued siflatures of the ~spzgayo Development/in protest to. . . D o. *.. .
r&J v/)(lDE 4125- UORQ1JW4, fil\.,\rL &b)b5 l30u B kp'
q(-J>FJ (-j(y k2C.r- GI-.& 2(;yL
k\.s+yboim by b yir
* - . r ),&-& bl&&&.i-- ;-I I 5; (3 11% -Lpp- Ai.%, io 3
L \ flwffl v/l - 1118 4hk3awicS fit F-taY1QS +-IGb5
. I/ t fJ* y-
" (t- - %-4 Mt20 %dy
yldll 132,IS. %c LJu4 \cv--. L1.1 G c Lydi-&- aiw"
if&+[<. /-& . ,44$/ I &a y &z+ @ /jvJ=- /$$f47~!,9j%N &/Jc 38 o/ f
/ .li A:; & 2f 3L @./L '--'ALL- /L ._ j '.! . Ji.%i $22 V
[/* / L 5 4.12 < 42 z &>,fl L2y:- 3 3p2. c" & A Td3
L CL&-. 17 1'4 5% I\!W J\&-
$ 1' J -_ p, 2f: ,!'t i (LA ; A- (2 i c/ / .* L, ,/+p * fi/ rl/
=-x, - /L e: [ L -
- .J,.
z
~,~JL&hi Q /"TL, - f-
~
zb
L
\
G.,s*3 i.
\.. p?!.(- \ -*-J2,; JJ , - &2,YJ c r,m c\L""-!;uL ';" i 3\& I
'3
.-
la j. ',
r' 3 "3 7 3 * * i- '- ..<,.J-"/c- \* i2rA \)k& J 2,.\ (/+.?Jl---, . . . * (& e .. .m;?4 A+!
, I-- - *, I f. -
,. .. , . m, 0 b.
* 4'- I<
ME MORAN D U - PI
DATE : March 25, 1982
TO : Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM :
SUBJECT : Papagayo Building Height Determination
This memo is in response to the petition sent to the city on Feb- ruary 9, 1982, by residents living adjacent to the Papagayo pro- ject. The petition questioned street improvements along Chinqua- pin Avenue, a proposed traffic signal at Jefferson and Tamarack and building heights (see attached petition). The attached memo
from the Engineering Department discusses the first of two con-
cerns. This inerno will discuss the building height issue. Speci-
fically, the petition asked:
Jaws C. Hagarnan, Planning Director &/
"how a developer can get approval to build on
raised grade and then go to questionable height
1 im i t ? 'I
In an attempt to answer this question, staff has made an exten-
sive search of the city's files dealing wit11 the Papagayo project
.and talked to a numbcr of people who were involved with the orig- inal app.'roval. This research revealed that there are no written
records or officially approved exhibits discussing or illustrat- ing the heights or' the buildings. Staff. has received conflicting information froin people who were present at the time of approval
regarding the allowable height of the buildings.
When the Specific Plan and Tentative Map for this project were
first approved in 1972, the P-C zone, in which it was located had
no heiqht limit. Building heights for projects within the P-C
. zone were deternined on a project by project basis. After exami-
ning all of the available evidence, staff feels that no specific
building height was cstabli.shed for this project at the time of
approval e
The applicant has submitted a rendcring of the site which shows
four-story buildings and claims that the city approved that Pro-
. ject. The applicant also submitted an article from the June 18, 1972 edition of the San Diego Union which showed this rendering as the approved PilpaqalTo project (see Exhibit A). Staff has received a Tentative tdap for the project from planning Corninis-
sioner Jose, which showed elevations in one corner of the plan (see Exhibit "13"). One of these elevations showed a four story building constructed adjacent to a ixound, the saine as I.. * is
' "EXHIBIT 2" ---,.-._1-
e e
existing today. Commissioner Jose also gave staff a cross section of the site which showed mounding and four-story buildings (See Exhibit C). Both of these plans lacked any offi- cial approval stamp from the city of Carlsbad.
The mounds upon which the buildings are placed seemed to have
been an original part of the plan because the project descriptio
portion of the Environmental Impact Report for CT -72-13 states:
"Additional earthwork will. create east-west
longitudinal mounds upon which dwelling units are to be built. The mounds will have a maxi-
mum elevation difference of 20' above the existing
terrain. The maximum height of the units con- structed on the mounds will be 15'-18' above finished grade."
The existing buildings and the buildings under construction on
the mound appear to conform to the exhibits staff has found, but are substantially higher than the 15'-18' height stated in the
Environmental Impact Report. Staff has no explanation for this discrepancy, other than the Environmental Impact Report was not
an approval document.
The buildings that have been constructed on the mound have a height of approximately 40.5' as measured using today's Zoning Ordinance. All of the buildings on the flat portion of the site are less than 35' in height per Builidng Department memorandum
dated idarch 26, 1982. Again it appears these buildings were
constructed according to the originally approved plans. In summary, given all of the available evidence it appears to staff
that the buildings have been constructed and are being constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the citye
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Mr. Hunts be allowed to continue the con- struction of all buildings that have already been framed.
The Building Department should closely monitor the construction
of the remaining buildings on the flat portion of the site to
make sure that none of them exceed a height of 35' as defined by
our existing ordinance. This may require some minor modifica-
tions in the roof pitch for several buildings.
-2-
m 0
Staff realizes that this is probably not the answer the people who signed the petition were hoping for. We realize that this project was approved years ago and our city has changed. However, the construction of this project has been delayed by
events that Mr. Hunts has had no control over.
JCH :MH: rh
Attachments
1- Petition dated February 9, 1982 2, Memo from Engineering Depdrtment dated February 23, 1982
3. Exhibits A-C
..
-3-
8. i,
.. _--
L JCh.UU,LIk 7 i
f: E r; r.2 ri < ,? ,. : & ,, ;I i'" ....
a PI EM 0 RAND U M 'e . - -;! .
GATE : February 23, I982 CITY OF CP2.S
Developmental Sa TO : ASS; sts~t City Managei-/Developmcntal Services
FROM : Act i ng C i ty Eng i neer o,+?
SUBJECT: LETTER OF COMPLAINT FRON F~ES I DENTS ADJACENT TO THE PAPAGAYO
DEVELOPMENT (CT71f-22, SP-3lA)
Summ ry
1.
--
Construction of the traffic signal was deferred by the City Engineer and
currently does not yet: meet traffic signal warrants.
Construction of half street improvements on Chinquapin Avenue have been
.. bonded for and will be constructed concurrent with Phase IV of t!:c pro-
ject (which bas not yet started).
2.
Background
On February 17, 1982 the Engineering Department'received a COPY of a letter
of complaint, dated February 9, 1982, concerning the Papagayo Development
(CT7b-22, SP-31A). There were two points of concern to the Engineering De-
partment raised in the letter.
..
.I. Construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Jefferson Stree
and Tanna rack Avenue.
2. Construction of half street improvements o.n Chinquapin Avenue between 1-5 and the AT&SF tracks.
Discussion
The revised Specific Plan 3lA covering the overall Papagayo Developnient
states per Conc1it:ion 43 of Ordinance ?!o. 9401, dated August 20, 197't, that
the traffic signal at Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue shall be reyui re.'
as part of Phase I. Additionally, Condition b!o. 8 of Resolution No. 3602
approving Carlsbsd Tract 74-22, dated btarch It, 197'1, requires that the
develop?r sl-la1 I instal 1 a traffic signal at the above mentioned intersect io
(neglecting any reference to phase).
Prior to the approval of the Final Map for CT7h-22, the developer did enter
into a scc~ii-ctl agreement For the cor?iplction of the traffic siqnsl within ~7 36 r:ionth time limit. Sincc the signal ha:; not yet been con:;triictcd, the
agrcment is currently in ticfault. It wouId appear that thc previous City
Engineer aclriiinir;trat ivcly iIcfcrrod the construct.ion of tIic signal to a )at(
pfisse duo to ;3 lack of sigii<-11 w;Irr-ants for t.1~ iritcrscction, al tliouqh there
is no support in!) docuiner1t;it ion for this conclusioti in the 1'rojcc.t fi IC-
-
#*- P
- "EXI-1 J 13 IT 3"
. 8. * -2- a P -* '
Engineering staff has re-examined this inversection for signal warrants and
determined that the signal is still not warranted at this tine. It is there-
fore reconirnendecl that the following be done concerning the traffic signal :
1. Have City Council change the specific plan condition to read that the
signal shsll be installed i3rhen warranted by traffic conditions.
2. Update the bond and extend the time 1 init for another 3 years.
3. Have the developer design the signal now and submit approved plans prior
to occupancy of Phase IV of the development.
implementation of these recommendations wi 11 provide for the safe and effi-
,cient flow of traffic and ensure that the signal will be installed as soon
as possible after the warrants have been met.
The other Engineering concern noted in the letter was the installation of
pub1 ic street improvements along the south half of Chinquapin Avenue. Condi-
tion No. 4C of the SP-3111 approval states that the full half street irnprove-
ment of Chinquapin Avenue between 1-5 and the AFGSF Railroad tracks shall be
installed prior to occupancy of Pfisse IV. In addition., the condition states
that the improvements in front of the Phase 111 area shall be installed prior
to occupancy of Phase 1. This latter condition has been satisfied with the
exception of the sidewalk improvements which are to be installed after the
Phase 11 units to avoid damaging the sidewalk during construction.
Plans for the construction of the remaining required improvements hhve already
been approved by the City and updated bonds and agreements received. The
plans provide for the construction of all curb and gutter along the southern
half of Chinquspin Avenue including the portions of missing curb not immediate
adjacent to the project site. Although the plans do include sidewalks adjacer
to the project site, they do not show them along the remaining street frontage
adjacent to existing residences. It can be assumed that the previous City
Engineer did nut interpret the condition to mean the instal lation of sidewalks
in front of' the existing residences. In any case, the installation of the
sidewalk in this portion \,,auld necessitate the removal of some trees and othe
landscaping which may not be desired by the adjacent homeowners. It is there,
. fore suggested that the previous interpretarion be upheld unless the adjacent
residents rake a specific request that the sidewalk be installed. Previous
discussions with the developer indicate a t./illingness to comply with the City
on this request should we ask for it.
..
..
RHA: DAH : 1 s
Attachment: Pspngayo Phase Plan
$.*. ':.
,.
I I' r <,a IT .. v ... n 8
..{.. '. -. ?.'
. ...
/\ ,
8 3.36 ?
'. , E '12. 1-1 1 WlT
- ..
.. . *,. ,
.. .
,. , . ..
x, , ' '.
/ _, I
~- &---.
.. , .*
.. *. a -*
-. MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 26, 1982
TO: JAMES tiAGAf4AN 3 PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Ruilrting Official
SUBJECT: BurmrjG tiEICtii-/PAI'P,GAYO DCVELOPHENT/
JEFFCRSON AND CtIINQUAPIN
On Eclarch 25, a physical building height measurement was taken at the above referenced project .
Results of txis measurement are as follows:
, BIIILDSNG NUI4RER _- I__ .HEI'GHl - TO GRADE
13 33'3" 15 33'9
58 34'6'' 19 34'9"
Buildings 21-21/2-22 and 22A were not measured since they are exactly as high as previously approved adjacent structures.
Exterior grade elevations were establ ishcd by the Engineering department usirg top of curb on Chinquapin as the reference point.
t-Ieighi. elevation measurcmeiits were taken from the average height
of the highest gable of the pitched roof.
Our conclusion is that none of the buildings rncasurcd exceed 35' above grade. This conclusion is valid whether we establish grade based on past or current ordinance criteria.
__I_ &@&T-- - - - . ---- 1-
!LxDCElVED I4ARTlii ORENYAh a
Building Off ic-inl
I VIAL 2 11 :x?
* ~cvc~opincrii;:~ Services t
MO/ CJ 1
c c ; A C N/ 1) c v e 1 (7 pi11 (: n t
CI TY OF CP$l-S!3/\D
I
-- -
7nq8 a Y/w%=-L
y/J Q/FA