Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-02-23; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: FEBRUARY' 23, 1971 TIME OF MEETING: . . 7:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: City staff members: R. A. Johnston, E. J. Olinghouse, Alfred Moe (Interim City Attorney), J. E. Spano# J- B= Arnold. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of regular meeting of February 9, 1971 were approved, as corrected, by unanimous voice vote approvc WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : None PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONTINUED - VARIANCE - To consider Reduction in number of offstreet parking spaces required for c'ertair uses within Commercia'l Building; Applicant/Owner: Danie C. Soto, Peter D. Aguilar, located at 2943 State Street Mr. Johnston read the staff report of 1/18/71, covering location of subject new commercial building, numbe-r of parking spaces proposed (9). by owner and plal: to relocate a beer bar operation from State Street, int the new building, with such use requiring some 23 off- street parking spaces, while only' 9 are planned for the entire building regardless of what is required for th-e remainder of the building when. rented or leased. The staff recommendation to deny such variance request, the reasons for such and, conditions of appr.ova1 if such' wa the case, were also read. The question of the validity of such aiplication a a Variance was questioned immediately by Commissioner Jose, in that the building permit had been issued; the building itself is nearly finished, and it appeared thi was coming to the Commission for decision "after the fact." The City Attorney stated the owner's legal couz had contacted him and he in turn, had given an opinion that based on State law requirements for what does con- stitute a legal Variance application and, the'City fs ordinance, it was improper for the Commission to act ox such variance application at this t'ime. He continued to explain what the term "Variance" shall mean accordir to law and further, that such is not the case in this- request. Also, the City's zoning ordinance clearly st6 the beer bar use shall have a certain number of parking spaces and in his opinion, if the Commission approves this variance, it would be in effect like "spot zoning, MR. NICK SAUER,attorneyfor Messrs. Soto and Aguils and representative in this matter, affirmed the convers tion and opinion referenced by Ci.ty Attorney above. He wished to note, however, that the former city attorney had suggested to himself and Mr. Harry Truax some time ago, that this petition be filed. Re also cited one cas in the past where offstreet parking. reduction was in- voled and subsequently approved by the Commission. He continued to outline what changes were proposed involvi the new commercial location, the beer bar's hours of og eration, peak hours of business, and other details. He also read his letter and 34 downtown business signers vho posed no opposition to subject reduction, including veryone on both sides of State Street in this block, ..__. ~ ".__.__ .",."._""_,".___..~___." .. ." " .,. " -- --..--.-" -. -.-.-"--.... / .. PTesent Pbsent Yo ti on . Ayes Pbs tained . .. X X X . " ,- . COMMl SSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -2- with one exception only. The taking of this matter to the c~.~AC.for review and report and their subsequent recommendation to approve said reduction with Mr. Aguil paying $100.00 for each space less than required by ordinance into a downtown parking district, upon demand for same. He stated Mr. Aguilar was agreeable to this request. He concluded by asking for affirmative actior; by the Commission in this matter. Commissioner Jose (who also serves on CBDAC and ha opposed this application by written record to this body stated another CBDAC commissioner had also opposed this approval. He also clarified his action on this commissi in this regard, for the information of the Planning Con mission. The secretary than introduced the requested report from CBDAC, affirming statements already made by Mr. Sauer, in a memorandum dated 2/18/71 and as a resul of their 2/11/71 monthly meeting'. Their reasons for SUC request for favorable consideration by the Commission were also noted. MR. HARRY TRUAX, 2656 State Street, wished to make a point regarding the CBDAC~S minutes which he stated were in error and he proceeded to clarify on this, as well as comment on the two(2) opposing members from CBDAC. He commented on that body's past efforts for a legal downtown parking district to be funded for the downtown area. He also felt favorable consideration of this request was warranted. \ MR. CLAUDE HELTON, 2829 State Street, also wishad to make the same correction to CBDAC'S 'minutes as men- tioned above and, he too cited many years' efforts to update the downtown business district and hip opinion this new commercial building would do just that.. There were none to speak in opposition and the public hearing was closed at 8:03 P.M. The City Attorney claz fied that he had no feelings in either case, but was mer-ely required to give the best opinion of the varianc matter and whether or not it should even apply in this case. He reiterated the matter of "hardship" was not being met here, although he did note considerable time and money being spent by the applicant for the new buil ing. He also advised the Commission that the setting of a precedent was involved here, unle'ss they wished to' amend the zoning ordiance to avoid further confrontatic such as now before them. '\ There was questioning of the staff from the Commis as to what the remainder of the building would be used for, how many.tota1 spaces were planned for the entire building, what offstreet parking, if any, was involved with the other beer bars located on this block of State street, etc. , and these were answered to the best of staff's knowledge of the matter. Individual opinions from the Commissioners regarding approval, disapproval, setting of a precedent for future'requests for reductio wEre heard, followed by a formal motion to deny subject application, for the reasons given .below. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 688, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of Ci.ty of Carlsbad; denying an application for Reduction in Number of Off-street Parki Spaces required at 2943 State Street, between Elm and Grand Avenues, with further reading waived; Reasons for Denial: (1) The granting of requested Variance is not i "."I" -." -._- "_._ ._"". -..".-.~"*-_ "" ~ _"._._" .~..". . -_"- .- "" "_- .t \ r n - - S ion f Motion A yes Na yes ? .. .. .. CI TV OF -3- CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS (1) Continued the best interests of the Central Business District or, I the City of Carlsbad. (2) There are no unusual Circumstance which would justify the granting of such Variance. (3) (b) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 77 - To consider house, as well as the reasons for such zone creation, The Chairman noted the work committee's activities in this regard and former discussion with the departmen as well, for the past year. He briefed the audience as to what. was involved with subject amendment and asked for a-ny either in favor or in opposition to same, as proposed. There were none and the public hearing close at 8:38 P.M. It was further stated there was no need for additional discussion by the Commission as this proposed amendment represented th'e latest draft and bes and it should be forwarded to the City Council, with a recommenda ti on : PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 690, A Resolution recommending to the City Council an Amendment to Ordi- nance No.9060, creating a P-U(Pub1ic Utility) Zone, wit further reading waived; Reasons: (1) This Public Utilit Zone will be directly applicable to implementing The Dlinghouse, who also referred to varous wall exhibits - depicting a Master Plan Developme.nt map and the specifi location of'uses involved in proposed development. The res5dential uses of both low and high density, total per acre, the cemetery use and the 52 acres designated un.lts €or open space were all covered, as well as adjacent us(3s and their affect by or on this proposed use, particuiarly Palomar Airport remaining a "general aviation" airport 2nd such affect on the proposed residential uses. The Df t'his property was subject to annexation, except for 1 thru 14) were read in full. It was noted that the maj priate reasons therefor, and Conditions of Approval (Ite 1- staff recommendation to approve these application, appr narrow belt along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport RO x .I h jl ;. COMMl SSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -4- ~ Chairman Little stated he had physically examined the property in question, and commented on the various uses for the varying elevations within this parcel. The secretary then read correspondence received as follows: (Two, in opposition: Two, in favor; One, Comment only.) (1) Planning Dept., County of San Diego dated 2/22/71, offering comments as to the proposed uses and noting planned expansion of Palomar Airport with subsequent future and potential .problems for the proposed resident uses on subject property. They also recommended denial of subject application for this reason. (2) Mr. Donald P. Loker, 1448 Avocado Road, Oceanside, dated 2/23/71 and handed out to Commissioners at this meeting time. Mr. Loker stated he owned some 600 acres immediately to the EAst of subject property and wished to go on .record asbeing vigorously opposed to this application, citing several reasons therefor. He had attached comments re- garding cemeteries and crematories from the "Principle and Practices of Good Planning", University of Illinois (3) Mr. Jack y. Kubota, general manager of CMWD, state CMWD had no opposition to the proposed development and/ uses. (4) D. K. Speer, Public Administrator and C. Barnett, Director of Airport Operations,County of San Diego, dated 2/19/71, stated there was no opposition tc proposed development and uses. (5) County Engineer, Sari Diego County, dated 2/15/71, made general comments and included attachments regarding planning for arterial highways in the general area; MR. JOHN J. MAMAUX, 1393 Basswood Street ,'I and one of the applicants in this item, was present and made comments re opposition from County Planning and his 'sub sequent discussion with. them, as well as Mr. Speer and Mr. Barnett. County Planning had said if th$y. had dis- cussed this with these gentlemen prior to writing their letter, their recommendation might well have- been diffe The proposed expansion of sometime ago for Palomar Air- port was discussed with Mr. Barnett and this was resear with a determination such would not be detrimental to the uses proposed in subject development. He also cited City and County General Plan recommendations for planni in this area and proposed uses being agreeable with the recommendations. As to opposing adjacent property owne he stated they planned to be "good neighbors" and consi their views and property values in 'preparing their spec plans for development. He felt the Planning Department' work on this application had been excellent and it. was to the City's benefit the conditions of approval were so strict. He fe1.t some would always be opposed to a' ' cemetery, but cited statistics for such need in the Nor County area both now and in the future as this area con tinues to grow. There was questioning from the Commiss on the proposed airport expansion, the residential uses out and around the runway addition, the flight pattern planned to not change this airport's use from "general aviation facility", etc. Also, there were additional questions of Mr. Mamaux re feasibility studies for such cemetery facility and he cited all types of living ac- commodations indicating a growth pattern for the whole North County area which had been researched to establis such need at this location. He added further re Mr. Loker's protest of a cemetery near his property, that he felt such use would offer a l'buffer" to the airport from Mr. Loker's property, and later specific plans wil show how the development can protect Mr. Loker's intere I a1 r ent. hed 9 e s, er fic h 3n ts . .. .__ - .. "._ ". .- -.. Y , r.. .. 7. CITY OF CARLSBAD -5- . .. S.peaking in favor of this application, MR. JERRY BELT, 2072 Truesdell Lane, compared whether property values were affected by a cemetery nearby and cited the case of "Eternal Hills" development near a new and lars Episcopal Church, an R-1 subdivision with 14 more acres to be built on, and a just completed large apartment complex, all of which had not seen such devalua'tion of properties by Eternal Hills locating within their gene1 area. He considered this whole area's development to be one of the best in Oceanside and added, he felt this would be the case in Carlsbad with the proposed cemetel at El Camino and Palomar Airport Road. (This completed those speaking in favor and those wishing to speak in opposition were called for.) MR. DONALD P.LOKER, 2373 Woodacre Drive, Oceanside stated he appreciated Mr. Mamaux's comments and agreed he was very sincere in them, but he felt this area was one of the prime areas left in the. whole County, with considerable taxes and planning for it's development ere involved as the owner of substantial acreage. He had opposed the previous planning for a "jet" airport at the Palomar location and had worked vigourously for its location elsewhere. Also, a proposed expansion of the CUP for Carlsbad Raceway sometime ago, had been opposed as his property suffered considerable damages from that adjacent use. He then 'questioned the uses aE shown on the map and commented how they would adverse15 affect his property. He had talked with otherqin like businesses and there was some opinion his property woul be adversely affected by a cemetery at.this location, i he therefore, asked the.Commission to deny this applice proposed development. 0 MR. JAMES O'NEAL, attorney and represenkative in this matter for Eternal Hills Cemetery, Oceanside, stat they were opposed to another cemetery use as proposed i cited several reasons, specifically that they did not feel a need existed in that some five(5) cemeteries al- ready were located throughout the whole area. The effe on the tax structure in the City of Carlsbad was notedr stating that for every acre developed as a cemetery, tL was taken off the County tax rolls, thereby eliminatins that amount of money for the City and, the remaining' land cannot be developed to the highest tax rate. Mr. D'Neal added that in 1963 in San MarcOS, a proposed cemetery had been denied because they had felt sufficie cemeteries already existed to meet the North County's needs. MR. DON WEEGAN, 6670 El Camino Real, stating he represented his mother-in-law, Mr. Bressi, of the Bress Ranch, who owned some 1500 plus acres immediately to tL South'of subjec't property. He stated this use was felt to be detrimental to all acreage adjacent to it and the Commission was urged to oppose this planned development yr. Mamaux then commented on various of the opposing statements just. made. The Commission. then discussed their individual Dpinions of this* use, the location of the cemetery and the residential areas., and whether this would be good planning at this intersection and near the airport. It was generally agreed no detriment to adjacent propoerti existed, in that the airport and raceway already exist€ .-~" -.-..- ___" ," - .__.e_. l___,_L__I "_". _.__. ." _-.--- .- . .. .- ..- - . z / .. . .. .. tl.'. .# COMMISSIONERS 1 d t 'S d d t S t S .- _" .... I....." . 1- .. L .J CITY OF CARLSBAD -6- .. Conditional Use Permit for the cemetery use and to Airport Road, with further reading waived; Reasons: (1) development in harmony with the natural environment, compatible land uses, and p-eservation of open space. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 694, recomme,nding to the City Council approval of a Pre-Annexational". Zone Change from City R-1-10,OOO and'County Zoning to P-c (Planned Community) Zone, and adopbion of a Master Plan was read by Mr. Olinghouse, who also referred to a slid? projection depicting adjacent ownerships, location of property, nearby roads and intersections, etc. The need €or this CUP was set forth as being in line with commit- nents for the State's present I-5 widening prograin and this company is under contract to provide the paving portion for two(2) 45-day periods in March and October 1971. It was the staff recommendation this CUP be ap- proved and appropriate reasons and conditions of approvsl #ere given in support of same. The secretary read correspondence received in op- position, from SOLAMAR MOBILE ESTATES, signed by Mr. L'arry Wright, who stated they were not adverse to this type use but felt this was not the location for such an3 Tave reasons for this opinion. They were also o'f the >pinion such temporary CUP was in fact a prelude to a permanent facility at this location. MR. GEORGE HODGES, Matich Corporation, 22636 Ardis )rive, Colton, Cd, was present and stated this CUP was ."""_ _.,". ".r" "_._._ __._ ._". ."..I _"I_C.---.".- _..-_""-_I-.- ..., . ,. .-I-_. .- .k / .. .. \ COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS Cl TY OF CARLSBAD -7- definitely for temporary use only and cited the State': estima.ted paving requirements in March and October of this year in connection with the widening program unde. way. He explained the type of concrete plant involved pieces of equipment necessary, to such operation, how they will obtain the necessary water from the main at Palomar Airport Road, and upon questioning, discussed the normal hours'of operation for such facility and vo. of traffic that will .be generated by this particular paving job. Insofar as the concern about a permanent facility, Mr. Hodges stated the portable batch plant w( common to this type contract and this type business ant was completely movable for sake of economy and relocat. to other jobs because of the particular nature of pavi] operations. He added he had no objection to another condition of approval being added limiting the hours 0: operation, so that very early or very late hours would be avoided which might affect nearby neighbors. He attempted to discuss the noise factor common to such oj erations, explaining the types of equipment which woulc contribute to such noise factor. He also affirmed the proper sanitary facilities are always provided for the use of personnel at these operations. He also confirmc a volume of some 50-60 trucks per hour would be going in an-d out from the Lowder Lane plant at the I-5 and Palomar Airport Road intersection. MR. JOHN S. CALLAHAN, 4559 Chicarillo, San Di'ego, president and general manager of Cal-Mill PlastiCs, yuj North of subject property, read a letter, stating they were opposed to location of such plant so near their facility and listed several reasons for .such 0pposit"iol Of these, Mr. Callahan stated upon questioning, the du: and noise factor was considered the biggest complaint, and the additional traffic generated at the'freeway in] section was cited as unsafe, even for a tempbrary peric of time. MR. M. P. MAURER, spoke as representative of Paul Ecke and Carltas Corporation, who were opposed to this permit and felt it would be detrimental to the City ant the area in general. MR. JAMES GIZER, 3784 Skyline Road, City, owns property at the end of Lowder Lane 'also, and stated he was opposed to the use proposed and he felt such might precipitate a permanent facility of this type at that location, which would be very detrimental to property values, the asthetics of the area, and lend a poor im- pression to- those entering the City of. CArlsbad from tl South. DR. ANDREW MC REYNOLDS, La.Jolla, and owner of prc immediately adjoining subject parcel to the East, state construction of- a mobile home park was planned for thir summ,er and the second time period planned for this batc plant in the Fall could very well. be detrimental to the opening of that facility as it is how planned. He- was opposed for the reasons previously cited by others and felt this would be a precedent for the permanent locati of such use at this location. The City Manager then commented that the exact nun of trucks proposed for this paving contract had not bet disoussed with staff and such a volume of traffic at tt. particular intersection was unsafe and too much to ~llc me mn r- erty n er S . ... .. -1 CITY OF CARLSBAD -8- He added the application should be denied for these his operation elsewhere. reason-s, but the applicant should be worked with to loc Commissioner Dewhurst stated he was in a like busi ness and had observed this company's previous paving operations during 1-5 building in the San Diego area do town. He stated they were very-clean and efficient abou their operation and s-uch plants were definitely tempora in nature, of necessity. He added the State's.schedulin for the widening program was very critical and this ver important construction already underway throughout the City should not be held up for the paving operations necessary to the overall construction program. The motion was made to deny this application for a H Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary construction A and use of a Concrete Batch Plant at referenced locatio , for the reasons given below. I PLANNING COMMISSkON RESOLUTION NO. 693, a Resolution-of Carlsbad City Planning Commission denying a Conditional Use Permit allowing Temporary Use of Concrete Mix Plant to be located between I-5 and Palomar Airport Road, So of Lowder Lane, with further reading waived; .Peasons: ( The traffic volume generated by such operation is consi ed potentially hazardous at the proposed location. (2) The area of such operation is. not suited to accommodate this facility at this time. NEW BUSINESS: None I OLD BUSINESS: (a) 'Continued' Items Attachment - Planning-Di.rector reports: (All as shown on list, except Item 70:.23 - Architectural Controls/Review Board: Mr. Johnston stated he will arrange a meeting date for this work committee, by telephone, to Commissioners Dominguez, Palmatteer and Dewhurst. Mr. Dominguez stated he would be out of town all of the next week. Item 70.22 - Nu'isance Ordinance - Mr. Olinghquse state this is now under consideration by an ad hoc committee of CIC and they will report at their next meetin in Mar which he will follow with a report to the Commission on their recommendations. ZOOMMITTEE REPORTS: None - "I ADJOURNMENT: The motion was duly made to adjourn at 10:51 P.M., and received unanimous voice vote approval. IRespectfully sub.mitted, I i .. 5" ' COMMISSIONERS :e I- lo ti on , yes Nay es :h !r- Yotion 9 yes