Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-09-22; Planning Commission; MinutesCOMMISSIONERS CITY OF CWLSBAD MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 22, 1970 TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL .CALL: City 'staff representatives present: Stuart Wilson, E. J. Olinghouse, R. A. Johnston, J. E. Spano. (Commissioner Gullett was present at 7:32 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) The minutes of the meeting of August 25, 1970 were approved as. submitted and minutes of the meeting of September 8, -1970 were also approved, as corrected. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) The League of California Cities Conference in San Diego on October 25th thru 28th was discussed and the Chai-rman stated it was his understanding no firm decis ion had yet been made on the number of Commissioners who would be authorized to at.&end, .but he understood that number was now for the chairman plus two others members. Upon polling the members, it was determined that Commissioners Hermsen, Forman, Jose and possibly Dewhurst would like to attend. These will be contacte by October 1st for confirming reservations with the City Clerk's office. (Commissioner Gullett was present at this time, 7:32P. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) The Chairman stated he wished to again request tha any member who was aware he would be unable to attend a meeting, should call either himself or the Planning Department to so advise prior to meeting time. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONTINUED - RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONE - To consider change of zone from R-1-15,000 to R-3 Zone, located on Easterly side of Park Drive between Cove and Marina Drives; Applicant/Owner: EARCO/Grace Harrison. A staff report dated 9/01/70 was read in .full by M Johnston, who- also referred to a wall projection depic ting subject property, the general area, adjacent zoni and adjacent property owners. The staff recommendatio to deny this application was covered, as well as the fact that if approved, a specific plan whould be 2equi of the developer, for consideration by the Commission. The secretary also read a letter to the Commission fro EARCO, dated 9/04/70, outlining those factors they fel supported their application for rezone to R-3 Zone. The chairman cailed for those in the audience to speak in favor of the request. MR. L. E. LIDDLE, 555 Grand Avenue, realtor and representative for subject application, referred to th staff report just read, particularly the three reasons recommending denial. He felt the General Plan of the Cit'y need not be a "bible" for future .development of the Cl'ty, but should be updated and condi'tions change in an area. He asked that the statements contained in the letter,from EARCO be considered closely, as it ap- plied to the situation existing very well. 7 - a M. t - r. - ng n re m t e Present Absent Motion Ayes Absent COMMISSIONERS CITY OF -2- .I . CARLSBAD ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ MR. ROBERT D. GARLAND, 1288 Knowles Avenue, stated the topography of this subject property supported the comments of Mr. Liddle, in that it was a prime locatio for apartments, but not at a density of seven(7) units per acre. He felt this density factor was economically impossible at this time. MR. DICK CAVALIER, Secretary of the Bristol Cove Property Owner's Association, stated he was not speaki in Qpositiop of this application, but wanted to know what type of ..architecture was planned by the developex because the Bristol Cove developer had considerable money and effort in that architectural concept and he hoped the City would protect the standards already sei as a future safeguard for standards of development fol the whole Lagoon area. There were none to speak in opposition to this re- quest and public hearing was closed at 7:47 P.M. . The Commission discussion followed, covering the .particular parcel in question, the natural land limiti tions and requirements of the general area for good planning. It was stated that the City's duty to pro- ject good planning for this unique area was considere( of prime iaportance, although the economic problems 01 developers was recognized. The P-C zoned development: in the same general area were commented on and it was felt these reflected a higher use for the land, with adequate controls by the City as to development. It also was generally agreed the density proposed was toc high for the area and the R-3 zoning was not compatib. to adjacent or future uses. The motion was duly made to deny this application for change of zone to R-3, for the reasons stipulated in staff report of 9/01/70. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTTON N0.677 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING" COMMISSION DENYING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1-15,000 TO R-3 (Residential- Multiple) ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE Oi PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN COVE AND MARINA DRIVES, for the following reasons, further reading being waived: (1) Subject application is not in conformance with thc City of Carlsbad's General Plan. (2) Requested reclas: tion is not in conformance with the Housing Element 0. the General Plan. (3) Densities permitted fn the R-3 Zone far exceed those prescribed in the General Plan. (b) RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONE - To- consider change of zone from R-1, R-2 and R-3 to RD-M Zone, for an area located and generally bounded by Tamarack Ave, Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, 2i.T.LS.F. Railroad, and Carlsbad Blv( as initiated by Planning Commission Resolution of In- tention No. 74. The staff report dated 9/14/70 was read in full b~ Mr. Johnston, who referred to a wall exhibit entitled "Ownership Map - Garfield Zone Change", which showed those properties desiring subject rezoning to RD-M ZOI outlined in RED. The staff's recommendatfon to appro1 subject change of zone was covered and appropriate reasons were presented. Further history and explana- tion of the situation which exists in this area were also covered in the report. 7 Motion Ayes Absent flca- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF -3- CARLSBAD The chairman called for a representative to speak for those in the audience who were in favor of this application. MR. JAMES E. O'NEAL, 804 Third Street, Oceanside, attorney/representative for the original applicants in this matter, stated he represented a majority of those present in favor of subject request. He outlined those factors which he felt justified a request for RD-M zon in this are,a, i.e., tax burden, inability to develop under present.. zoning, etc. Also, he felt the City"s continued control under this new density type zone was futther reason for approval of same. There being no others to speak in favor, the chair man called for those in opposition to speak. MR. MARSHALL ISLE, Carlsbad, stated he was opposed in that the manner used by petitioners to obtain. other who desired rezohing had exerted too much pressure and he stated not as many would have agreed to this if thi pressure had not been evident. The chairman called for a show of hands as to thos present in favor or in opposition of this zone change and the vote was obviously 'unanimous in favor, with on one dissenting. A brief discussion of the past effort by the department and the Commission regarding this zone change for the last year followed, with the motio then made to approve subject application and recommend same to the City Council for final hearing and amend- ment of the ordinance (No. 9060). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 665 - A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1, R-2 AND R-3 TO RD-MlRESIDENTIAL DENS MULTIPLE) ZONE, ON PROPERTY BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE,AGU HEDIONDA LAGOON, A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD AND CARLSBAD BOULE with further reading waived, and approved for the foil ing reasons: (1) The reclassification as proposed, is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad; (2) The RD-M Zone as proposed provides for the upgrading of public improvements to meet the needs of increased density; (3) The proposed zone change is in the best interests of the City of Carlsbad; (4) It is apparent good use of the land. (C) AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN - La Use Amendment No. 1 - to consider adoption and recomme tion to Council, for areas located West of A.T.&S.F. Railroad, between Buena Vista Lagoon and Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, and as initiated by Planning Commission Resolu of Intention No. 71. There was no written staff report on this item at this time, but the Planning Director discussed the lan use amendment map in question, the general plan limita for the area (which are not complete in that no densit exists in some cases), and the department"s reasoning in setting these zon'ing requirements were given. The future planning for"the development of this area is th primary consideration here. Mr. Olinghouse stated he would answer any questions from the Commission that might remain. 29 F Motion Ayes Absent PY- 1RD, Ir- I la - .on :oris CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 1970 OF -4- CARlLSBAD MR. JAMES O'NEAL, speaker in the previous public hearing matter, also spoke in favor of the Land Use Amendment for this area, as it generally will affect th area's orderly development in line with the General Plan recommendations for residential-multiple densities There were none in the audience to speak in opposition of this item, and the public hearing was closed at 8:15 IP"* Commission discussion followed and it was general1 agreed this Land Use Amendment tied in with the preceed rezoning application, both of which have been before th Commission for many months for study and resulted in th present action. Several Commissioners recommended ap- proval, in line with the department's density recommend tions and the motion was then made to recommend same to the City Council, for an amendment to the Land Use Ele- ment of the General Plan, for the reasons indicated bel PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.676 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF LAND USE AMEND MENT ND. 1, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, further reading being waived; the reasons for such recommendation are:. (1) This amendment is necessary to implement current City planning for future development of subject area; (2) This amendment is in line with the General Plan recommendations for subject area. (d) TENTATIVE MAP -*To consider Tentative Parcel Map for approval, at a location off Ponto Drive, East of Carlsbad Blvd., and West of A.T.&S.F. Railroad; Applica Paul Ivi cevi c Mr. Johnston read the staff report dated 9/17/70 and referred to a wall slide of subject parcel, which also showed the parcel size, adjacent ownerships, zonin etc. The technical report pres,ented the background for this request and the recommendatzon was to deny subject equsst and ask the Council for an interim ordinance of 0 days to allow no further development plans in the po rea, until the staff could study the problem situation hat exist there and make further recommendations, perh o the extent of utilizing certain HUD program applicat or this area's planning and development. Non-conforma ith City building standards and requirements of future evelopment were cited and it was felt to allow this resent application, would only add to an already sub- tandard situation there. Conditions of approval, if his were the case, were itemized, as required by City tandards and the City Engineer. There was no correspo ence received and the chairman called for those in the udience who were there to speak in favor or in opposit MR. HARRY TRUAX, engineer and representative of th pplicant, of E. Brian Smith Engineers, 2656 State Strg tated he was very much in conflict with the staff re- ort's presentatiion of the facts, the reasons for staf ecommendation to deny, and several of the conditions 0 pproval. He approached these individually, as follows COMMISSIONERS w: Yo tion 9 yes absent t: 8 to PS on ce -. 3n. t, , 4 C t .. c 1 C ITY OF CWLSBAD -5- Reason #1 of the staff report was incorrect and Mr. Tru cited Ordinance No. 9050, Section 209 regarding newly crea,ted parcels fronting on dedicated streets, which he said was not specifically that restrictive. Reason #2 which states subject lot split should not be allowed as it would add to an already blighted condition for this area, was cited as unfair, in that fencing and construc tion of a building on land that is now unused and weed overed, should not be considered detrimental. Reason 3 states depial of subject application would not deprij he use of subject property, but Mr. Truax states this s not so because a building permit cannot be obtained ithout the lot split which is being sought in this ap- lication. The conditions of approval as required by City sta; ards or the City Engineer, were discussed as to the im ossibility or legality of same being imposed on one roperty owner, i.e., dedication of 60-ft. private road asement to the public for street purposes, providing 0. master plan for streets for the Ponto area, construct. f me-half width subdivision improvements in front of ubdivided property, construction of 8-inch waterline fl he entire length of the new street, providing of a aster plan for sewerage for the Ponto area. Mr. Truax tated these conditions were'not possible for his clien s in some cases, he did not have the right to effect hese improv.ements. for the entire area. Mr. Truax stat he City needs to consider the servicing of the Ponto rea and help the property owners there work out their evelopment problems as they do have the right to devel( ithin the City, as cited under Section 209 of the sub- ivision Prdinance. 61e felt the staff report's recommen deny this application and request for a moritorium c velopment in Ponto was unfair and was an attempt to evade the question of City services to the area. MR. BARTON, property owner in the Ponto area, stat e felt the on1 y thing wrong with the "Zoning this are nnexed to the City under, was those parcels with poor esidential uses on this type zoning. He cited certail; uses in the area which he felt were unsightly and added o deteriorating the whole area. He stated he also had lans to build on his 'property and he felt he should be llowed to do SO under the current industrial zoning, a e had been paying taxes to the City since annexation a rior to that, to the County, for the past twenty years here weee no others in the audience to speak in favor r opposition and the public hearing was closed at 8:4C The Commission discussion followed and Commission Dewhurst asked Mr. Truax about the 'masonry constructio stated the owner 'had obtained a building permit for a fence- Inasmuch as several questions had been raised as to the providing of water, sewers, electricity, and Provide Same and by whom was not clear, it was decided this application should be, continued and further repor going On at subject property and Mr. Truax COMMISSIONERS n tion I '.M. R* c- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CWLSBAD -6- was requested from the Engineering and Planning Depart. rnents on ,the matter. Mr. Truax stated that an applicai hearing could not be legally continued without the per. nission of the owner/applicant, and he felt this shoulc be carried over for only two (2) weeks, to the next regular meeting on October 13, 1970. Mr. Olinghouse stated he would coordinate the necessary staff discuss. in order to bring a report back at the next meeting. The motion was subsequently made to continue this public hearing to October 13, 1970, for further report from the staff. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Discussion of proposed ordinance amendment re Park. of Vehicles in Residential Zones - per request of City Attorney. Mr. Wilson briefed the Commission on the reasons fo. such proposed amendment and stated at this time he was asking for suggestions as to the restrictions to be worked into this amendment. Considerable discussion was given and Mr. Wilson was asked to obtain whatever previous data or like ardinances might be available frl other cities who had been faced with a like problem. stated such ordinances were not common and this would . somewhat of. a "pioneering" effort for the City. He al, recognized the difficulty in forming requirements, but asked that the Commissioners study the draft form he had worked up as to additional vehicle parking, sideya parking of campers, boa6 etc. The Chairman stated a "roundtable" discussion, or work committee, was warranted at this time, 'and they could either adjourn to a date prior to the October 1 meeting, or set a date for a 3-man work committe to meet in the. evening and get .started on this item. Mr. Wilson was asked to make available any helpful data on this matter, and the following members will comprise a work committee to draft recommendations to the Council on a proposed vehicle parking amendment: Commissioner Hermsen, Forman and Jose, with Commissioner Little as an alternate. The afternoon of Wednesday, October 7th at 4:OO P.M. at the City Hall Conference Room was agre upon and theae will be contacted as a reminder prior t this meeting. (b) Resdlulion of Intention No.75 - To consider settin public hearing date of October 13, 1970 to consider a Specific Plan regulating land uses on Thunderbird Ranc 4539 El Camino Real. Mr. Johnston briefed the intended purpose and reas for requiring a specific plan in this instance, in tha there is an application in the department for rezoning to R-T(Residentia1-Tourist) with a Conditional Use Per for a guest ranch at the subject location. The depart desires to assure development for the proposed use and a specific plan-requirement would. do this,. at the same tJme the appIfcak$on is set for public he'ari'ng at CcZe next meeting on October 13th. 'S n otion Ayes Absent 9 1 :h I !S t bn t is COMMISSIONERS CITY OF -7- CARrLSBAD The parcel in question, its proximity to P-C uses recently approved by the City, the open space involvec the type of development proposed, etc., were discussec There were no more questions regarding this resolutior of intention and the motion was duly made to set publi hearing for a specific plan, together with applicatior for rezoning to R-T and Conditional Use Permit, for tl meeting of October 13, 1970. Mr. Johnston stated thes would be advertized together as required by law. OLD BUSINESS:. (a) 'Continued' Items Attachment - Planning Direc reports: Mr. Olinghouse stated there were no changes to the continued items list, unless the Commission hac any questions: Chairman Jose commented that item 70.; for the Garrield Area Change of Zone and Land Use Element amendment could be removed after tonite's heal Item 70.22 to be added, is a result of Mr. Wilsonfs proposed Vehicle Parking amendment, which will go to i work commi t tee. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (a) Mr. Olinghouse commented on the last meeting of tI Environmental Pollution Commission , which was formed in mid-summer. He stated they hope to function very closely with Planning Commission related activities ir the future, as there are naturally many items of commc interest. He added this Commission will serve as "advisory" to the C-ity Council. (b) Chairman Jose asked the Commission to consider a joint City Council/Planning Commission discussion ses: which would be an informal meeting to discuss City goals and business items of mutual interest. He knew of this type meeting in other cities, which it was fei had hen of mutual benefit to both groups. After dis- cussion of the purpose and goals of such a meeting, ii was asked that the Commission"'keep this in mind and consider items for such an agenda. ADJOURNMENT: The motion was properly made and seconded, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M., by voice vote ap- proval. RespectfulJy submitted, W V Secretary ~o ti on A yes Absent 32: n9 On , Motion Ayes Absent