HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-28; City Council; 13080; DENYING APPEAL AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL GPA 94-02 ZC 94-01 SDP 94-02 CAMINO VILLAGE?
L DENYING APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND
Adopt Resolution No. 95/77 denying the appeal and uy the Planning Commission's denial of GPA 94-02/ZC 94-01/SDE
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council, at its meeting of March 21, 1995 voted 3-:
Finnila) to direct the City Attorney to prepare documents
without prejudice General Plan Amendment GPA 94-02, Zone C1 94-01, and Site Development Plan SDP 94-02. The Council satisfy itself that the findings and conditions accurately your intentions in the matter. Specifically, the applicatic recommended for denial because:
rn a. Approval of the land use changes and implementatio
a a site plan would require the addition of a median break and
d signal midway between Hosp Way and Carlsbad Village Driv
Camino Real which would be
4 and in staff's opinion would further deteriorate the qua
-rl h traffic flow on El Camino Real. a
1CI b. The proposed change would be inconsistent with the
0 Plan Land Use Element Commercial Implementing policy and
M d program C.13 which states that strip commercial shc
.rl u discouraged south of Hosp Way.
s c. There are existing parcels within the Primary Trz
a, (PTA) established by the Development and Demographic Stud] 5 February 1994, which already have a Community Cor
u 0 designation that when developed will be more centrally lo(
a the community than the proposed site.
.rl d d. the subject site is the last remaining parcel r College on El Camino Real that has a designation of Resj Professional and eliminating that designation may precl
opportunity for a Residential Professional use in the futi
n contrary to City Engineering st e
4
a,
Q) 3
u d 0 u
m
(d 3 e. RP land uses are intended to be effective transition between residential and commercial development. U i
94 the site is an area that transitions from residential on tl
ClJ south and east to commercial on the north the RP design? 5 most appropriate.
1 0 If the Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolutior m
0-3
b c\I \ m
No. %s -37 * a d
EXHIBIT z 3 0 0 Resolution No. 95 - 7 7
1
t,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0 12
4% mu:
urn- YZl 13
uus <os
dUC3 ,QOSQ 14
E-> E=.E E3 ('02 8<i 15
2k%< $2:: 16 E:? aoJ >:z 17 60
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
. 27
28
w 0
RESOLUTION NO. 95-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING APPLICANT'S
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE
CNANGE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM/OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL
PROFESSIONAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APPLICANT: CAMINO VILLAGE CASE NO. : GPA 94-02/ZC 94-01/SDP 94-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for a tentative
certain property to wit:
Parcels 2, 3, and 4 as shown at page 13206 of parcels filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 14, 1984,
together with that portion of lot 5 in Section
32, Township 11 south, Range 4 West, San' Bernardino Meridian, according to official
plat thereof, being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
said application for General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-0
Change (ZC 94-01) and Site Development Plan (SDP 94-02);
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January
after hearing and considering all the evidence and testimo
people desiring to be heard adopted Resolutions No. 3719,
3721 denying the application for General Plan Amendment
02), Zone Change (ZC 94-01) and Site Development Plan (SDI
and
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decisior
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
1
4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 ZJj m> kEk 13 4c18 Ow$ iL, $055 14
Ed= E->= 9 " C, 8 15
g g $ x 16
'4- S&$pi
E:? p: l7 aoA
0 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w e
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1995 the City Council of
of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribe
to consider said appeal at which time the Council consid
arguments and evidence concerning the appeal; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing after consider
all the evidence, testimony, argument of those persons pre
desiring to be heard the City Council directed the City Att
prepare documents which would deny the appeal and without p
uphold the Planning Commission's decision,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counc!
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and cor
2. That the findings and conditions of
Commission in Resolutions No. 3719, 3720, and 3721 on fil
City Clerk's office and made a part hereof, constitute the
and decision of the City Council.
3. That the Planning Commission's denial of Gene
Amendment (GPA 94-02), Zone Change (ZC 94-01) and Site Dev
Plan (SDP 94-02) is hereby confirmed and the appeal
decision is denied based upon the facts set out in the
Department Staff Report dated January 18, 1995, the evidenc
the Planning Commission, the evidence as set forth in City
Agenda Bill No. 13,066, and the testimony before the City
all of which are incorporated herein by reference. Speci
a. Approval of the land use chan
implementation of the site plan would require the addit
median break and traffic signal midway between Hosp
Carlsbad Village Drive on El Camino Real which would be COI
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Om auJz
(I)> kZ& 13
dFg% a08
$044 14 212 k->=
0" o 2 15 $;ai zuoa $Z$x 16 E23 >c?z 17 60
18
aoJ
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w 0
City Engineering standards and in staff's opinion would
deteriorate the quality of traffic flow on El Camino Real
b. The proposed change would be inconsist
the General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Implementin
and action program C.13 which states that strip commercia
be discouraged south of Hosp Way.
c. There are existing parcels within the
Trade Area (PTA) established by the Development and Dem
study, dated February 1994, which already have a C
Commercial designation that when developed will be more c
located to the community than the proposed site.
d. The subject site is the last remainin
north.of College on El Camino Real that has a design;
Residential Professional and eliminating that designat
preclude the opportunity for a Residential Professional us
future.
e. RP land uses are intended to be effec
the transition between residential and commercial deve
Because the site is an area that transitions from reside
the west, south and east to commercial on the north
designation is most appropriate.
4. This action is final the date this resoll
adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.1
Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Revie
apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which
3
t.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
m>F &E& 13
u.08 Ow2 5UU 304s 14
I! OOLL mu- 15 U>m<
aazd 16
pz l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 sug
rcsg -rz
$:Yo
FS ao-r
O
I
e 0
has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth
day following the date on which this decision
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by
the required deposit in an amount sufficient
to cover the estimated cost of preparation of
such record, the time within which such
not later than the thirtieth day following the
date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008. 11
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meetin
become final; however, if within ten days
petition may be filed in court is extended to
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 4th
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
day of
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin
NOES : Council Members Finnila, Hall
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City CYerk
4
. w * u-
** . A a+ L!4% 9 Yfi e-,&+ @
\
March 26, 1995
Members of the Carlsbad City Council:
We are requesting that you vote in denial of the appeal put forth by the Planning Commission regarding the construction
of the Camino Village shopping center. made to change this land which is currently
Residential/Professional to General Commercial.
We are currently renters at Camino Pointe Village Apartments,
located off of Hosp Way. We choose to reside at this location
because although it is within walking distance of a commercial center, it is separate from this enterprise and still maintains its distinctive residential qualities. We do not wish our area to become a commercial zone, bringing with it more traffic, congestion, loitering, and the possibility of Hosp Way becoming a major thoroughfare for perspective shoppers.
Those residents who are proponents of this appeal, although well meaning in their intentions, are blinded by their overridin< zeal for convenience. They do not take into account that the construction of this shopping center will bring with it the
inconvenience of an added traffic light, inore traffic on their
residential streets, and further congestion of El Camino Real
south of Hosp Way. located closer to this residential area sounds convenient, but
in reality, it would make living here unpleasant and
inconvenient.
We oppose any attempt
In theory, the idea of a shopping center
We ask you to take this into consideration when this matter is brought to a vote.
Sincerely, hmol
Michelle J. Hubbard Glen E. Motil
2250 Avenida Magnifica, #B Carlsbad, CA 92008