Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-05-27; Planning Commission; MinutesI I . ** M!NUTES OF: PLANNING COMMISSION D'ATE OF MEETING: MAY 27, 1969' . .. TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P-.H. . PLACE OF MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS. . . ROLL CALL: * " -. *__ . . - ." -1 .. .. .. .Also p.resent.were City Att.orney'Wilson, Pl-annihg Direc tor Olinghouse' and Assistant' _. - Planner .. Johnston, . - . - . . . . . - . and . . . . . . . . ' c ity 'Erig'ineek -Li'I'I . APPROVAL OF. MI NUTES.: .. . .. ... .. . . .. .. -. . .. -. I (a) Minutes of. the"regu1ai.mee.ting- of May' 13, were approved as presented. ' .. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: -, I The-re were no w'ritten'communidations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ,- There were no -oral communications. PUBLIC HEARINGS: .. (a) RECLASSIFI.CATION & SPECI.FIC PLAN - Continued To consider an Appli iation for a Zone Change from -R-1 to C-2 (General-Commercial), and an Ap.plication for Specific Plan, located at 1045 -Grand-Avenue, on the Southeasterly end of Grand dvenue, Westerly of Inter- state 5 Freeway - Applicant: John H. Grant. There was a memorandum from the Planning Department dated May 22, 1969, requesting this item be continued to June 10, 1969 meeting to allow tjme:for a meeting with adjacent property ow-ners which has .become necess- ary under the jncreased scope of the' Specific'Plan. (b) RECLASSIFICATI-ON & SPECIFIC PLAN-- To consider an Application for a Zone Change from R-1-7,500. to P-C (Planned Community) and a Specific Plan 1oc-ated on the North Side of Tamarack.Avenue between Highland Drive and Margaret Way - Applicant: Richard.E. Geyer. (b) RECLASSIFICATI-ON & SPECIFIC PLAN-- To consider an Application for a Zone Change from R-l-7,E;OO- tn P-C I There was a memoranduy dated. May 22, 1.969 from -the P lann'i ng Department requesting- this i tern be conf i nued to June 10, 1969 meeting because the applicant is sub" mitting a revised development plan which will require review and a revised technical report. (c) TENTATIVE MAP AND VARIANCES - To consider App.li- cat.ion' for Tentative Subdivision Map contein.ing 91 Lot; with four lots requiring front yard Varianc,es, en-titlel El Camino Mesa Units No. 5 and. 6, located E'asterly of El Camino Real and also Easterly of El Camino'-Mesa Units No. 2, 3 and 4 - Owner & Subdivider:. Kamar Con- st ruct-i on Company. The hearing was opened with the Chairmail call.ing -fo-r the Staff Rep.brt, which was -presented by-Assistant Planner Johnston, dated May 16, 1969; 'This report ex :plained the background of this revisad, resubmitted -af-dl-p.revio-usly ap.proved-Te-ntativ.e.:Map.(February 1967) which has expired;. the -property location, size and number of proposed lots. with.those four reqiiring .variances for substandard frsntages was also introduc .. The Secretary then introduced a petition with eight?- eight signatures and entitled "AdBFtional Access --El Camino Mesa Subdivision", with five major points, * Prese Absen .. .. COMMlSSlONERS -wherein -the El Camino Mesa property- owners .peti-tio-ned t.he Ci.ty for"at least one additional.. .access to'.said subdivision to be assured-before work on El Camino Me! .Sybdivisions.,N-o.. -. .. . . . '.5 . and -. ._ 6.is permitted to- . . begin.'" . . . -. . . . . - . . . The Chairman cal l&d for the'.deve~.o~e.f.,or.,h,is- represenl tive'and JERRY ROMBOTIS, 3505; Charter Qak Drive, ad- dressed the-Commission for Kamar Const-ruct'ion..'Com-pany He displayed the map--for prop-os.ed- dev-elopment wh.ich " showed -the planned arterial tie-ins of existing stree' which are proposed Chestnut Avenue, E1.m Avenue, Kelly Drive and Tamarack Avenue. He furth'er explained thef developer could not control the time .a'nd planning for adcA:itional acce'ss'to be completed, as these depended on availability of 'right-of-way, City planning a'nd- budget, etc. HAROLD TAYLOR, 3720 Trieste .Drive, spoke in fa\ior of this development, but expressed .conc;!r-n .o-v.er the con- struction equipment 'and trucks that .would be .u.sing Chestnutt Ave.nue in and out of the .construction area. He felt the City should plan a temporary by-pass road for construction use in the interest of safety in -the existing subdivision. -. There being no others 'speak'ing in favor of this appli. cation, the Chairman cajled for those speaking in op- position and MRS. DONNA TWIFORD, 3670 Catelina Drive, explained while she was not in oppos.ition to the new subdivision, she represented those in th-e existing El Camino Mesa homes who .were cQncerned with the lack of additional- access and the additional .cars for the 91 new homes, which would only add to the already bad traffic congestion on Chestnutt Avenue -- this being the only street in or out of the subd.ivision off El . Camino-Real. Mrs. Twiford cited four recent accident: and the fact that speeding within the t.ract was alway! a problem, with children waiting for .buses or playing in and near the streets. The residents felt-the- City and Kamar Construction Company sh0uF-d be .able to work. out some additional aqcess p.r.ior.to this new group of houses. MELVIN GRIFFIN, 3455 Cataline Drive, recalled this sal access problem being discussed two yea,rs ago between the City, the property owners and. Kamar, at.whTch timc a future additional access street was promised. JERRY CALDWELL, 3840 Skyline Dri,ve, questioned Mr. 4 Rombotis regarding the extensi.on of the-develppment's interior streets, one of which extended to his father property. Mr. Rombotis assured him the st'reet would be complet-ed in the proper manner to t.he property lint Members of the. . . . . .- Commission . . d i rected que-st ions .-to M-r. Rombotis, members of the' iu-d-ience,. the Planning St-aff and City Engineer Li11, in an effort to determrne wha, could be done to alleviate the access problem. Ap- parently negotiation's-with a- Mr. -Bait'lett (North Hol 1: .wood) had fallen through some two years ago,' when the City attempted to-obtai'n right-of-.way through his property to the East of exisging .t-ract -to extend Trie! Drive out to El Camino Real. The property- owner fejt the City's 5-year time period to be too rigid and it was suggested perhaps he would be open to negotiatTon .. .. .. .. , COMMISSIONERS -3- . ; .. .. .) ... at. this .tiqe, for a"1esse.r t.ime .period. Mr. Lill ex- plained the City's position at' th.at..fime'an'd advised nothin'g else had. been purs-ued with t,h,is pr.operty owner since that t'ime..-.Comrni5sion.er'Little stated there. was .an-- abv i..o'u's. nee-d. .far an updated report ,from Emg-i n-ee.r-imc and other City departments as to th-e. status of the streets proposed for extension to ..E1 Cami.'n'o.Re.al as there would-be oth'er developments i.n-t-h'is -area' requir- ing tie-ins with .the-.major.streets .in the .areH. Upon questioning, Mr. Rohbotis. stated his.f.irm had a!s contacted the Easterly property owner, with no success and Kamar Coristruction was .al.so very concerned with -ft limited access .available, and the psssible safety fac- tors.. He did feel, however, it was only a mat;ter of time before the tie-in streets would be extended. He added this was the- last property .in the area planned for development by 'Kamar, 'as it represents the extent of .their holdings there. -. Planning Director Ol'inghouse, when.asked'f0.r his opini of this deveiop,ment,' advised that generally speaking, it was good land use and a good development; howev.er, the access problem, and others in the future, would nc be eased without proposed Elm S-treet.oc Kelly Drive extension in conjuncti.on with this development. . - ." . .. .- Further discussion followed as to the City's and the developer's responsibilities regarding street exten- sion and access, and City Councilman Nei.swender being present, he was asked to comment from a Council"leve1. He felt this should be reso1ved:at the'planning Com- mission level and suggested the Comm.issi'on pursue the opening of the' temporary, unpaved road w'hich was now c-losed, until such.time as adjacent properties are . developed 'and additional access opened. The public hearing was-closed at 8:2O P-.M-, and Corn- mission discussion covered the right-of-way problem, .the pressnng housing shortage and future influx of families expected, as well as the choices open at thi's time .to alleviate thib additl'onal access problem. City Attorney was r.equested to clarify the st-alemate - on the Bartley property right-of-way action and what 1ega.l proceedings were involved .in obtaining this lane immediately. City At-torney Wilson stated that- immed- iate possession of this right-of-way could b.e ob.tained and the cost, etc.. be worked out at a later date,. if indeed this condemnation action was re.quired. However,, as he pointed out to Mr. Rombotis, an immediate condem nation might seem desirable to several of th0S.e involv but a cost evaluation and other time factors would hav to be presented to the ,Council for thei.r determ,ination of wheth-er this was a'good .use of City monies, affec- ting the general good of the whole popu)-ation. It was finally decided by formal motion- to- continue th public hearing for E-l Camino Mesa Units No.. 5 and 6, t the.m.eeting of June .lo, -19.69, at whi.ch time Planning and-Engineering Departments;- together -wit.h th'e- City At tor.ney would prese.nt a comprehensive report 'as to the c,ost and time involved in the action of obtaining t-he des i red access r i gh t-o-f -way. a .. " Mot ion Absent . Ayes -4- .. .. .. . . .c Co.mmissi'onLr Little'added he fe.lt'.th'is rn'igh't w-ell rep- . -.__ . resent'. a 'trial c'asel.' which could ref'lect what .the City must do to further 'it's. own .devel.opment, in a timely .ma.nne.r -and. -a:s -i's .ne.ce'ssary. . .. ._ . _, ._. . . .._.. . . .. . (d) .VARIANCE - To .consider --Application: $or..Rsduction in required. frontage from 6o't~ 20 -f-eet to.cr:e'ate a "Panhandle" Lot, .lo.cated at 1149 Mag.nol ia .Avenue, .on. Southerly side of Magnolia Ave .between Adams Street an Grecourt. Lane - Applicant: .Sa.m and El-iiabeth A. Gendu The Planning Director read 'the Staff .Report dated May 16, 1969, expla.in.ing this request for Variance, the phei.cal properties, dwellings, etc. involved; and.the reasons for recommending approval, subject to the con- ditions as itemized. The applicant and his representa'tive:were both present and FRED COLEMAN, CHRIS ARP CONSTRUC.TI.ON -COMPANY, .650 South Escondido Blvd'. , Escondido, Cal if0rni.a; repre- sented the appl,icant', stating .they .were in agreement with the conditions c0ntaine.d in Subject Staff Rep.ort, and offered to answer any questions regarding this lot split. He volunteered the reasgn for the building of the new dwelling was to accommodate the ownerbs wife who is physically handicapped and following surgery, will not be able ta.trawerse stai'rs or steps, as in th present house. The applicant, SAM GENDUSA, 1149 Magno-lia Avenue, clar ified the two dwellings a5 showh on'thk Planning.dia- gram, as bei-n.g the main house and a gues't house and th guest house is -.not' to be removed, subject to Condition No. 1 of the Staff Report regarding conformance to . minimum 1o.t requirements. The Planning Director state the proper setbacks would have to be complied with .for this guest house, which was determined to be an acces- sory building and it was later checked.and determined to conform with the ordinance requ?rements, as to rear ya.rd setback,under the proposed lot sp,ii,t.and n.ew lot' line.. . \ G.E'ORGE HANCOCK, 1144 Magnolia Avenue, owner of the pro erty directly across the street from subject property, spoke in favor of allowing this panhandle lot .s.plit and stated he had .walked over the'property to be. chang and could see no o.bjection to.it. He further did not feel this would be 'any deterioration of'the surroundc, ing property, citing the establishment of th.ese very deep lots some years ago which made this type'.of actio necessary to utilize the lots. EERNICE .and ANDREW-CHANNELL,, 2730 Adam; Street, next ddor to subject pro.perty, .spoke in favo'r of this re- quest-, but. sta-red- the .gues-t--hous-e had fo.rmerly 6een a- rental unit, for some 12 years and they dVd not know .the applicant's plans regarding the guest house. Mr. Channel 1 requested c-la-r.i.ficatic!n o-n .th.e new dri'veway . location and the drainage to the st-reet, which drainag was desirable and .affected h,ts property next' door, There being no.ne in the audid'hce .in oppbs-ition' to.the application and-no further'questions from the Commissi the public hearing was closed and general discussion followed. .. .. .. .. .. . .- COMMISSIONERS . ". c . Inasmuch- as* theiques-tion of adequate..rear setback. and - ~ t-he minimums regarding the guest house lot had been '..satisfied, a.rnoti.on'-*was ma-de to gran.t the .adoption of ..Resol ut.ion N'o ... 62.3. -. .: . .. .. ._~ RESOLUTION NO. 623, A RESOLU.T ION O'F. THE. CARLSBAD c ITY TWEEN GRECOURT .LANE.AND ADAM? STREET,. FOR THE PURPO.SE .. PLANNING CO.MMISSION.GRANTING..A VARIANCE. O'NcPRO'PERTY LOCATED ON THE S0UTHERL.Y. SIDE. 0.F MAGNOLIA AVENUE, BE-. OF REDU-CTI-ON IN REQUIRED. LOT FRONTAGE FROM 60.00 FEET TO 20.00.FEET, CREATING A "PANHANDLE" LOT, was identi- fied by title oniy and further reading. waived. The -8 grirnting of this'variance is-f.or the .reasons and subje to,$h.e conditions'as set forth in St.aff Report dated May .16, 1969. Mo Ay Ab OLD BUSINESS: (a). Continued - Memorandum' from Ci ti; Counci 1 re appea'ed decision of Applicat'ion for Specific"P.lan and Zone Change, Otis .E. Vanderburg, Owner - Planning Commissior Resolutions No: 608 and 609 denying and.Counci1 Resolu- tion No. 1602, granting. The Planning Director read the memorandum dated May 7, 1969 to the Commission adv'i-sing of appealed hearing and decision on this matter. There was no new techni- cal report and he suggested the original Staff Reports be referred to, if necessary. He did introduce a. report prepared by the City of Santa Rosa, enti.tled ''Preli.minary Report - Service Statian Study", December 1966, a copy of which was giverithe Commissioners to study at their.con.venience, indicating various guides and controls, as cqmpared with various other cities in California.. Mr. Olinghouse felt it was an excellent' report and should be considered in planning for serv- ice statio.ns in this City. It was further determined that Carlsbad has no oidinance, or prec'edent, defining controls or requirements for service stations, or any other drive.-in type facility. Some of the various . means of controlling kumber and 1ocati.on of ser'vice stations, such as Conditional. Use Permits, established regulations on distance between stations, or an estab- lished policy governing them, were briefed to the Com- mission, after which it was stated it would he of definite benefit to th-is City to establish s.ome'-contro for future requests for stations. The Chairman called for the applicant -or his counsel to present any new information-or a revised"Specific Plan inasmuch as the matter was continued from last meeting- for these reasons-. JAMES O'NEAL, of'the firm of Andreasen, Thompson,' Gore E Grosse,'-804 Third Stree -Ocean.side, as legal .counsel- fo-r the app.l.icant, stated two facts .had-qmerged from the appeal hearing-.before the 'Council Miy 6,1969, wh.ich were: (1) .the traffic pattern which the Commissi-on felt creafed a hazardous .traffic situa'tio'n had been proven to the contrary, and (2) .'it was felt .the Commission used 'ah arbitrary de.cis io-n in this matter, because they did not want a servic station at the proposed location. The Council had als agreed- that-this-was' a Commerg:ial.prope"rty and the ap- plicant had'agreed the Specific Plan and new sign ordi nance would be complied with. The Council had also I . tion es sent .. . -6- . .. ag.reed the ,grounds -for denying thi-s. use shoyld .no.t- .ke allowed to deny'the land owner us.e.o.,'f his property as he wis'hed. .Mr. 'O'Neal stated there were no ch,anges tc the Specific'.Plan.as. or-iginal ly presented, other. than. 'ag-ree'men'ts o.n -l.a'ndscaping, the new- si-gn- or.di"n~a-nce"diid a roof design, resolved in discussions w.ith the City departments i nvol v:ed. .. The appl icant, .OT.IS:E. VANDERBURG-, --2fiOO El. Cami.no .Real was present.also and stated ke 'had two additiona-l cor- ners on El Camino Real, none of which he planned for.. service stations, other than the one in question. There were no others in the audience to speak for or ag6-inst this application and the pub1 ic hearing was closed at 9:22 P.M., with Commission d.iscussion folloh ing regarding the number of stati.ons existing, in con- struction or planne'd (on Oceanside side of Hwy. 78 and Vista Way). It.was generally ag.reed-:the C.ity sho.uld establish criteria establishing cont.rols,' or an'ordi- nance governing number of or location minimums. for future station ,requests. Commissioner Palmateer was aware of a larger'shopping center'w'hich had fewer sta- tions at its major intersections than -already exist at El Camino Plaza, and he was personnally aware of situa tions whece service station owners were not able to make a living with one station, due to several competi tive stations in one location, wh.ich did not-concern the oil companies who are looking to future expansion in a given area. The Commissloners unanimously agreed to a.motion that a reply be directed to the City Council,.. stating they could not reverse their original decision to deny this application, as contained in Planning-Commission Reso- lutions No'. 608 and 609, for the reasons set forth in those resolutions, and additional reasons Vtemized be- low: -. . .. . 1. The decision to deny this applicatPon was a-good and Val id one; 2. 4 t. is recornmendeb the C'i..ty Counci'l delay any ac- tion which would permit a service station on this property until such time as the applicant . can establish this need and-, that this is the highest and best -use of the property; 3. It is requested'that the St.aff establish cr.it.eria or an ordinance, to regulate the number.and .loca- stations actually required.in the City';. . 4. The commercial value to the City ii a situation with four competit-ive service stations at this i.nter.section, is very dubious. A-.fifth automobil service facility with gas .pump.s is under construc tion within the shopping. center i.tself. 5.. While the"adjacent ar.ea. Is a Commircial zone, thi does not necessitate rezoning to allow a commerci use for service s,tations. only; ' -tion conditions, governing the number of ser-vice, 6.. .- Finally, it--is ,felt the purpose:.of and .respansi- . " .. bil ity-of a Planning Co-mmi.ss-ion is to help a Citj plan for 'its .growth and chang,e. The oiiginal decision made on this maaytter is-felt to have ful~ filled this obligation. COMMISSIONERS .. .. . .. Motion Ayes Absent .. . ."-.a The Chai rmqn wi 11 so di rect . th'is memora-ndum to -th-e-.-C-i t- Co.unc i 1. .regs rd i hg . t-6.i s appea 1 ed dec [.Si on. . ._ . (b) RES0LUT.lON NO."626- 7 'R.ESOLUTION OF THE CAR:LSBAD -CITY .PL.A-N.NIN-G -C-0-MMISS-ION OF COMME.NDATI0~~..r0..-EDW-ARD..-W. SN'EDEKER FOR. SERVJ CES RENDER'ED AS .SECRETARY OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANN.lNG COMM1.5SION,,.'was re&d .it-. full by the Secretary, and'..a voice vote pas'sed 'thi-s .co'mme.nda- tion to past-Secreta.ry Snedeker. . . .. .. . NEW-BUSINESS: : (a) The Secretary read in ful'l. the .letter from Presi- dent Fey of the League of Ca1.ifornia .C.ities in Sacra-; mento, regardin.g plans .for the 1969..Annual- Fal.1 Confer encs .and the 1970 .Spring Conference. ..In addition to information on locations, fees,.and pr.ogram plans, it wa.s suggested the Commission be- thinking.of those i,tem worthy of bei-n.g for'warded-to the Resolutions Committee Chairman Jose requested the- Commissiqner.~ to be think- ing of the type of t-hing that should.:r.ece-ive the Leagu attention, such as the Urban Renewal- Pr0.gra.m .presently facing the Ci'ty,. Th'is was agr.ee,d to by voice vote. (b) Chairman Jose asked for. a report of any who w-ere able to attend the recent Planning Congress Symposium in San Diego and it was aff.i rmed that no one had. been able to attend. (c) The matter of the last regular meetin.g being ad- journed to Wednesday, May 21., 1969 was d.iscussed by Chairman Jose, inasmuch as this meeting was can-celled due to lack .of a quorum. -,He rqquested'that the Com- missioners contact the Planning Depa.rtme'nt office in the event they'cou'ld not attend one of these meetings, so the matter of a -quorum could he determined before: hand. Another Ad-journed Meeti-ng was arrang.ed ,for Wednesday evening at 7:30 P.M., on dune 4, 1969,.in. the Staff Conference Room of the City Hall, wiJh the same Agenda items as attached to .the- previous notice,"as we.11 as ' two appl.ications for tbuse move. A-D'JOURNMENT: .. The regular meeting wa.s adjourned until June 4,. 1969, 7:30 P..M., by pr~per moti.on, -at 1O:OO P.M., .. Respectfully submitted, - . .. COMMISSIONERS . .. Mot ion Ayes Absent 'S Mot ion Ayes Absent .* '