The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1966-11-09; Planning Commission; Minutesr I i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I t i There were no written communications. ' .c, .* 1. I , I I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: r '. , I r " i There were no oral communications. I I I I I I I I * I I I PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I I I * (a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1 to R-3 (Multiple-Residential) Zone on the Westerly side of Roosevel t St., Northerly of Magnolia Avenue. Applicant: Miles T. Tolbert. I I I 1 (b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - To Consider adop- i tion of a precise plan on the above desc'ribed I property. Applicants: Planning Commission Resolution No. 448. 1 The above public hearings were continued in view i of the fact no further report was received from ; the AT&SF Railway Co.'concerning possible use of i 'the railway right of way for street purposes. I 1 The Planning Director reported that the' owners i are in contact with the Railway Co. and some pro-: gress has been made. (c) RECLASSIFICATION - 'R-A-10,000 to I'M" (Indus- ': trial Zone)-on property at the Southwesterly I 1 corner of Interstate 5 Freeway and Palomar Air- I I I I I port Road. Appl i-cants : Paul- and, Magdalena Ecke. i 1 I PRECISE PLAN TO cons i der adoption of a I ! precise plan on above described property. .Appli-i cants: Planning Commission Resolution,No. 469. ; I 1 I Notice of the hearings were read. ' Secretary Palmateer certified that publication-was given : i and property owners in the area were notified I 4 I I ! i of these hearings, and then read the. applications: I Letter from J. Dekema, District Engineer, Divisioi : of HSyhways, dated October 28, 1966, stating the i rights of-way for acquisition for the freeway in i : this area is complete and they find no conflict. I 'i Memorandum from the City Engineer, dated November: i 4, 1966, with recommendations for the precise : plan on this proposed.zone change. I i 'I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I J I I I 'I h :" ,4 -2- I I ', *', 8 ' I I 1 , \ \\', I I I 8,. '*8 'S ' I I I I 1 , . \\'\\'*\ I I 1 1 '\ \','.\ ' ',,'.* I I i N8 fiic 'Ye;, '\ : I ; of y+'p '. \/- : I' i +.*,,;J,;?*> : ~"""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""l"""""""~""""""~ Member $zG..pp*&,; Memorandum from the Planning Director giving I ; :. ; 1 ; :. L I;;;1' facts resulting from the staff investigation and f ::I::: recommending that the precise plan if approved be! ;;:::: I subject to certain conditions. I 1 1 l;::s' The Planni'ng Director explained this request came: 1:::;: ; before the Commission several weeks ago, plus the: Ill:; ,:1:;1* : request for zone changes and precise plans for : 9;: ;;1:21 1:: freeway service facilities at the Northwesterly :1:;14 t and Southeasterly corners of Interstate 5 Free- : .: 1:;::: 6 I way and Palomar Airport Road. The applicant has i ,/I::: : submitted a precise plan for the development of : ;::;:: i this property and wishes to develop a service I :;l;dd 1 ~1:~lI I1 ; station at the corner of Palomar Airport Road * ;;l:la i and Avenida Encinas as Phase 1. Phase.2 would be! ;1;;14 ;:11;: : developed later for industrial use. The Planning; I;;,* i::;:: i Director then proceeded to explain his written I 11 I1 ; reports, and pointed, out that there is a limited : i:;::: 1::::: i amount of industria1"'zoned land available along i ,; ; 1 Id : the railroad in, this area. The only portion of : 11:::: this land that could have access to Palomar Air- i i:::;; SI : port Road would be 'that portion where the ser- i vice station is proposed. He pointed out that I :;;; ;.: 1:;::: ': the City has not completed the study for an in- : :;;:i; I dustrial ordinance. The precise plan at this I ::::II, : stage may be anythfng the applicant desires to i ::;::: ;ll:ll l:'l;: 1,(111 1lIt)l I 1 I I ' . 2. '. I I I I 1 I ;,,;I* I IS a 1 i::::: 1% 18 14 11 11 I 4 Id ::::,I 'I' I 111 I :*I IS submit and then the Commission can add the res- i trictions or conditions they wish. Palomar Air- t port,Road will be a major road when improved to I :;::;: ::::it 1 1 ::I::: t I I :;;::: The Commission expressed the opinion that this ; ;l:;l' i was not a precise plan and should be more similar! . :::;:I i to th.e tentative m'ap of Carlsbad Industrial Park : :(I :::ii: 11 Subdivision which was approved, with t'he size of i ;:;::: !,the lots stipulated, streets; etc. This will be : ;;::,I 118 i visible .from the Freeway and sh.ould be a well 1 I ;::::: I ':i:::; I' : planned development. 4 I I 'I::':: I I :I I ;;::;i ; Chairman'McComas announced the Commission would I now hear from the applicant or his representative: 4. .. ;::Ill ;:;: : and any others wishing to speak in favor of this ; !:llll :::;:: i application. I 1 1 :;;::: I I :::;:: -J : MR. BILL RICK, Rick Engineering Firm, repres.ent- : :::;;; 1: ing Mr. Ecke, stated they would like to develop i this property in accordance with the General Plan: 'a1(14 I recently adopted.. He stated that he admitted I I ::;:;: :l,;ll : this is not a precise plan in certain ways, and :::::: a they wcjuld like to get together with the Comm- I :;;;i: : ission to know what the Commission desires in a ;'I I 1; ; precise plan. He asked the Commission what they : :I:::; 8'::;: ; felt would be the best use of this property. He i :;;I i stated that they agreed with some of the. restric-: ;Il;:; ; tions recommended by the Plann-ing Director, how- i ::::;; l"1:: 1 ever, they objected to Item 'IC" which stated I I :::::: : there shall be no vehicular access to Palomar i Airport Road. When they submitted a tentative ; ::;!I3. a:, 1: 4. : map and precise plans a month ago, the reco,m- I II;l :I,::; i mendation stated that Palomar Airport Road would i :i::11 i be'wfdened to 84' roadway and would have a center! :al,tl l;~l~l i island down Palomar Airpcrt'Road should condi- ; ; : : 1 :::I:: ; tions be hazardous .and explained the flow of the 1:::;: :;;:I' A:: 18 I I 1 I I :I 12:::: I I 1;v;n: I 1 :::::: 1 I I :;;:;: .: full standards. I I tl (11 '4 I 1 11 ;I1 1:;:;: 1 L'*. a I ::;;;: '1 I ' South bound and East bound traffic pattern. There: i 1 I' I 'I ~~ ~~~~ ~~ . P 'C 11 -3- . 1 L iwould be something like 40' of additional paving t :put in by Mr. ,Ecke. He objected to having a 50' i :front yard setback from the street or freeway and : ithen not permitting parking or loading areas be- i tween the street and the wsll of a building fac- ! Oing the fro'nt yard of a lot. He stated he felt i : landscaping is important but the restrictions should not accumulate setbacks to reduce effective 3 use of the property. In regards to Item Ilk" on : j signs, he stated he felt some arrangement on sign$ :shouid be worked out so they would not be restric! i ted to a point that there would be a mistake in . itheir identity. Most progressive companies, like i NCR, for example, do not want 'to make an eye sore: :of their companies. He also pointed out that the: adjoining property to the South is already zoned i : I'M" and has no restrictions for signs on it at thi 1 I -. . I i present time and felt the Commission should liberf .. i ize the restrictions.' I ! MR. NARREN BRANSCUM,Bruce Stallard Realty, 935 i "C" Street, San Diego, California, stated he did i \ not see the restrictions recommended until just i before the meeting and felt the Commission should: i be realistic regarding the equity of this properti. i He expalined that the 18' hole where the service : station is proposed cost $35,000.00 to have it i : filled and compaction tests made, and to move i electrical lines and underground cables. This i I all was done in conjunction with the City Engi- i i neer's office to have access to Palomar Airport i i Road. At the present time there is only a 24' I I service road to the industrial land and to the I I sewer site. All of the land to the South of Palo-i j mar Airport Road is already zoned I'M". Four ; moving lanes of traffic would be permitted on i Palomar Airport Road when it is widened. He . I stated the curb lines would be pulled back 50' + I I 5 1 : I 2 l a 1 L i I 1 r to go on to the on-ramp and they felt the wisest i :and best use of this land would be to have a 1 i i service station at this location to go.to the f industrial site. In order to avoid any mis- i understanding and to act in good faith,, they have I : only presented precise plans for the service 1 i station site at this time and would come in with i t precise plans for the rest of the development t which would depend on financing. The property to i ; the north of the Northwest quadrant.-is presently; I zoned R-A and the best use of this land will havej ; to be determined. The only access to the pro- ? i posed industrial land would be from the frontage i ; road which will be widened. This land is not 1 good residential property. He urged the approval I i of this rezoning for the property on the corner ; j for a service station at this time, stating that : i if the Commission wished they would be willing i : to wait until the "MI' zoning study is complete 1 i and then come in with a precise plan for the I I seven (7) acres of industrial land. He stated i i they would be willing to plant shrubbe.ry:a.nd 1 i flowers but would like to stay away from planting: ; lawns as shrubbery and flowers look good and are 1 i easier to maintain. t 4 I a 6 L 1 i I r- 'i 10 1 r _. ., i I I ', s', 8' 4 i ,. b'' 1 I , 8'8 \ \' 1 L 1 L I c b \\ ', %8 '\ '\ '. 6 1 x, ', 8, '\ '.\'X, I L -4- 1 Cf 8, '%, ', '8 b , \%?. 8 ' i ;>; 5. r;. e *, .c>, .. '.+, : , II .,>5, , '.e" 1 1 9 i I , ../' : 6. ,??$ q:+ x .,* I I i4exkIer ';d t&,?\<,V& z,;;;: ::;I2; if;::: I:;;:: i,11;: ;l;;lJ 4;;1,; :lL:li a;:::: ;id 1::::: ;,a;'$ ;;:::; ;;&.SI "5 1;;; :;:;'$ ;;$:[! *,'I!; b:;i; :;;*,a i&,J$J l;l;l' 3L:l '<G,,.Gb ' '?+: 3 ~""----"""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""~~""~ 3;. i 8' . :MR. PAUL ECKE stated he was away on business and i ;left this up to Mr. Rick and felt he was capable i of taking care of this. He reported having the i ;proper pad filled in at this corner and changing : ithe water 1,ines at a terrific expense which was ;more thar; h'e expected to spend since the first i I plans were not accepted. He asked approval of . i ;the zoning for this service station site since I i they prepared the site for the service station to I iget access to Palomar Airport Road. He stated I that he owns the property to the North and to the i f East and wants this corner to be an asset to the : i C-ity and campatible with the rest of his property.; j He voiced objection to the fact the City Engineer-; i ing Gepartment had approved building this pad and i :stated he would not have put in the improvements i and Qone to the expense if he had known he could f, ::i;;; i not be permitted to get access to Palomar Airport : i::;:: I Road as this was the'only objective in building i I::::: : the pad. 1 :*I :Ia I J:'A;: L i ;I41 ;MR. RICK pointed out that this is an odd shaped i :::I:: i piece of property and if a 50' band is taken off ;:';;; f for frontage setbacks and they are only permitted 4p1s i 50% coverage, only 50% of the property is left :::I:: ;;,:;E : for parking and landscaping, and he would like to ; ?p,I ;11:2g 'g:: !have more parking space, rather than too much L ,;;,;4 11 ; landscaping. He also referred to the uses and i ::;::'; 1 restrictions in the County Industrial Zone. 1 ::::,. .. 1 'I<,i! : I ;;;I1* &I&;:: i:;:;; ;i ;:;:;; .I $1 iI 2 :::;,: '3 ;;t:J! I'l:; '2 r :;I;;; 'I 2 I., No others spoke in favor of this reclassification.: I I :;a i The chairman announced the Commission wou'ld now i ;hear from those wi5hing to speak in opposition. ; ti::;: i ;14:t1 I I ;:;z:a 1: i No opposition was voiced. I ti:::: I t :::::: .:*s:;; ::;::: c:t8:! !A:;:; -: i. i::llI 4 ?;':I; a1:;;; ;;;;!' ;;;I;; I 3::;a it I ;;,$it I,]! r I ::::;; Points discussed were that the precise plan shouPd ,;&;;& i. hzve included streets and size of lots; that the f ::::;: CI1I I applicant wants a blanket coverage; because of i ;;3,11 :::;,i i the visibility it is important they specify the :*;; i types of industry; access from Avenida Encinas i:;::' $;I::: ! only; improvements of Palomar Airport Road, a :;i;pl 1:: : signal light at the intersection; Avenida Encinas: I::::: i crossing Palomar Airport Road to get to the upper! '.P::: *;;!e' 3'4 i acreage; an +18' divider strip so the traffic could .;;: i not C~OSS Palmar Airport Road; the traffic patteen; :?I .. ,.;:;: ; that this development would comprorrtise the de- 4;?:'' j ve1op.ment of .the north quadrant. !>;;:! ;!,,I* ;:I,l~ 1.; 4;; !::it' .I l.aa;; L i ,!l:l: I o;!L:; I i ;;;:a' : 1 ;;;1;: i 1 'Jl;ll I *I,*; l it:: > .la1It I 1 I When asked about the dedication of property for : the widening of Avenida Encinas on the Uesterly i side., Mr. Rick stated that property is owned by I : back the amount necessary for the widening of the 1 i street and they would be willing to dedicate pro- I perty for the widening of the street if it is made I the same width down to the sewer plant. : The public hearing was closed at 8:55 P. M. lz'l . 1 the State and they would contact them to buy .i !a iJ ,.*:a' I 1 b I I 1, 3 t::;:i ;I* I' 11 I** i' .. *t1 I' i.21 '11 ,I */.I > ;:::I; 'I;, r I ~~ ~__~ ! I ~~ . r r 7 .J 'i h I i' I 8, '\ ", 'b '\,-', 1 I '\\'.\ '\ '' 1 , , ', '\ ', 'b I 8, '\ '%. '\ '\ '\ ' i * 1 I 1 1 -5- ,\\\\% : I I:; ti '\ '+>, ~;~ '\ , '*A' <G;. 1 'd ' ,,~~ .v:.C, ;,, x \.+, >:+, i a 1 i. .-:$ \ /. . ,.. <., : :"""""""""""""""""""---"""""""""""""""""~"~~"""""~~~~~"."""~.~ I (bzr,bc,f "/ Q,?;.? \;c, i ;;l;,J !MR. ECKE stated he did not want the zone change i I.;&:; i;;;;l :if he would not be permitted access to Palomar ;;**a' ;;:::i !AirpGrt Road from this site and would withdraw I ,,:is* :his request. '1:; :;J~ 41;;;; b jll;:; a1 ijl;;> ;!'A;: *:;::I ;:i:;; t trance to Palomar Airport Road before voting on $,;is: ;;l::i ; i ',:;:: :;;I;: :::::: 'i :,;I:: :;l:;; It 2;:;: , ,. I ',4;+2 'k . > The Planning Director suggested that the Commissidn . i could take a concensus of their opinion ,for en- ; the zone change. . I i > :The majority of the Commission stated they felt f they should vote on the zone change as requested. j i Commfssioner Smith stated that, if there was a :divider in the road and signal light he would not t I object to access to Palomar Airport Road and moved i this hearing be continued for two weeks for furthGr I study. 1 tl,;lJ I 1 I : 1 1 I i 1 I I .! The motion died for lack of a second. I The Chairman stated that the access would prevent him -From going along with this and the Commission I shou:d a1 low the applicant to withdraw his re- fquest or submit a better plan for the area. !MR. ECKE asked to withdraw the application. i OLD EUSINESS: \ (a) Zoning Study - Committee report on R-T and I R-W study locations. There was no report made. ; (5) iiepairing of Automobiles in R-1 Zones. I I ;The Commission exprtessed the opinion that the 1 3 i rcdrzft of the proposed ordinance was very good. i :The Chairman inquired about e'ngines sitting'in E :front yards for six months. 1 :The City Attorney exp.lained that this ,comes under i : a different ordinance. ;The Building Inspector stated that if a permit ::;:;: !was issued, they would not be allowed to spend j ;r ';:;!a >' : Over thirty (30) days working on the motor vehicle. :I;;!; i The permits would be issued by him during the :i;;;; iweek but could be obtained from the Police Depart-! !> I,!; :ment on weekends. Commissioner Little thanked I ' ;'I :Mr. Eugene Wernigk for sending each of the Corn,- : *;,;ii :missioners a copy of his proposed ordinance and .,. :;:::I asked h:'m if he had received a copy of the draft : K:;; t prepared by the City Attorney. :Mr. Wernigk was presented a copy of the draft and I a8:'44 ! he asked to take it home to study it. He stated J 4; $4:; : he do2s not agree with getting a permit and felt i :;;:;; i the citizens of Carlsbad wouid object. People i ;>;;I$ AI:*' who want to violate ordinances would not get a !i ; perm$t and this wouid make useless work for the ;!(;I! ! City. He felt it is up to the neighbor to com- i;;;:; :p7ai~ so the City would put upon notice. ;;:,. E .:;: ~ 1; :t>;<f !.: f ; : I ?' :I!: I' *;;;;I i. I, 3: > I;:;;! ;;;&A' Li t;:;,: 5 it::;; 1 I & i 2 I i L I 9 ; I h 2 I 7; 4. I i;:;;l 9 '! b i ::i::r :;I::: *$;;:: I. :::;:: *i ?a L,. ..' .. .:*i *I I 1 ! 2 I:'',, I c 'i .. -6- I -7- :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". I I I 1 !a higher use. The Engineering Department recom- i :mended that all property proposed to be rezoned i :be improved to subdivision standards by means of : :current subdivision procedures requiring tentative: :maps ,' i,mpro,vement plans, final maps and related I :items. Any rezoning should not be effective until! :the final subdivision map for the property has ; been approved and accepted by the City Council. i :They also gave reasons for this recommendation. ; :The Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the :City Engineer's report and felt they should have f :been present at this meeting. . 1 [Commissioner Smith questioned going before the :Real Estate Board on this matter and stated he :believes it would be unjustifiable to require a I Iman to be a subdividq to deve.lop land. L I I I L J I I 1 4 1 I 1 I I I ;ADJOURNMENT: L r i !By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at ; 9:58 P.M. I Respectfully submitted, 1 1 I 1 I&+*#- I I DOROT.HY M. OSBURN '2 i Recording Secretary . I i. 1 I \ * I I I .. I i I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I