Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-03-23; Planning Commission; Minutes'. I c CITY OF CARLSBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS . DATE OF MEETING: MARCH 23, 1971 ROLL CALL: .Pr 'City staff present: L. A. Moe, E. J. Olinghouse, R.A. Johnston, J. E. Spano, J. B. Arno'ld. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of 3/09/71 were approve Mo as submitted, by unanimous voice vote. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. I " I AY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None I PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CHANGE OF ZONE 6i SPECIFIC PLAN(with reduction in sideyard setback for parking facility) - to consider 33- unit Apartment Complex; Applicant: CHIP Development Corporation, located at the Southerly terminus of Marins Drive . Mr. Johnston referred to staff report of 3/18/71,ii well as wall exhibits identifying landmarks in the general area, adjacent ownerships and zoning, and the proposed specific plan's tandem parking for the apart- ment complex, a one-story structure and three-story structure(apartment units), re.creation facilities, and other features planned in the development. General, background information re this C-2 change to R-W zolle was covered in the report; staff recommendation to ap- prove same, reasons for .recommended approval and the normal conditions of approval were all read'in full: The applicant's representative was present; MR. D. DANIEL, A.I.A., of Tariq M. Shamma Associates, Anahein They had received the staff report and were agreeable with it, except for two(2) items which Mr. Daniel wish to discuss at this time. (1) Item 3 of Conditions re plans being reviewed and approved by the Planning Depa ment prior to submittal for building permits.: Mr. Dani felt an architect licensed by the State of California was the best judge of design elevations and this work should not be necessary to prior approval by.any City' planning depactment, which.necessitated an extra trip for him as well. (2) Item 5 of Conditions re requiring the applicant to-obtain the approval of the Eastearly property owner as to the reduction in sideyard setback from 4 to 0 feet. Mr. Olinghouse commented this was na a "standard" requirement, nor one contained in the ord nance, but where the plans of one owner might conflict with future planning of adjacent property owners, it was c.ertainly desirable, in that it was the desire of the department to foresee such possible conflicts and to attempt to integrate development of two properties two different zonings as in this case. The point was made by Mr. Daniels that the present C-2 zone allowed for a 0-ft. sideyard, but it was pointed out to him th the application under review would change that to R-W zone where such ,was not the case. Mr. .Johnston also clarified that a 45-ft..height limit was allowed in R.- zone, which is unusual in the City and was incorporate in this development plan. There was considerable dis- cussion given both these items, following the closing IS I J. 1. led rt- el S I 1 'i - and at W d Of 't e .. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -2- public hearing. MR. LOUIS CHASE, BeeCee Company, stated he did not wish to speak in favor or in opposition of this item, but d'id wish to comment on the requirement of arch.itec control by the City, as raised by Mr. Daniel. He felt the licensed, professional person was responsible for design controls and &e could not understand why such was not acceptable in this City. There was no one els to speak and public hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. There was general agreement that the change from C-2, as obtained under a former owner some years ago, to R-W was very desirable at this location. Also, that a large development at this intersection might well initiate additional development on the Lagoon. Mr. Olinghouse asked Mr. Danief what.his objection would be if the City had an Architectural Review Board to-ap- prove his elevations, to which- Mr. Daniel replied that if such were the case and known before hand, they woul plan accord'ingly to comply. He did not feel it fair t require such prior approval of this zone change when adjacent owners (P-C zone. property) had not been requi to obtain the same. Mr. Olinghouse said the review of the overall planning concepts to be inte.grated in this development, by the Planning Department, was a very necessary requirement and he continued to elaborafe on these views. Also, that it has been the policy of the department and the Commission.to require such review with specific plans and as set forth in several zones w-ithin the Code. There appeared general concurrence with the reques for prior department approval of architectu$-a1 elevati but there was opposition to the potential pioblems in requiring the applicant to seek written approval of hi planned setback reduction. It was decided to omit this condition of approval (Section IV-Conditions, Item 5.) and that 'the department establish some other means of notifying immediately-adjacent owners where some futur problem or property right was anticipated. Additional questions of the applicant regarding specifics of this development were'satisfied by Mr.' Daniel. In further discussion of the sideyard reduc- tion question, such reduction .would normally require a variance and it was not felt it would qualify for such variance, as the,property could be planned -in suc+h'way to avoid a.0-ft. setback. Mr. Johnston clarified this problem area in stating the property to the East was zoned Planned Community, which is a density zone and a such does not have sideyards spelled out and such p-C- developments are subject to overall review. There was no more discussion deemed necessary, and the motions were duly introduced to recommend a change of zone fro. C-2 to R-W Zone and approval of a specific plan for th development; for the reasons itemi'zed below and subjec to conditions of approval in Staff Report of 3/18/71, with the exception that Section IV, Item #5 is deleted PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.696 - A Resolution' recommending to City Council Change of Zone from C-2 to R-W(Residentia1-Waterway) Zone, on property located on the Southerly terminus of Marina Drive, and further reading waived: ,Reasons: (1) The proposed rezoning and , +,." ^,. ,, "... __-_ . ~~ . .. .~ .... -.. . I ..,I ., .. ,,_.. .. .. ?d 1s , Motion ' Ayes Motion Ayes X X CITY OF - 3- CARiLSBAD (1) Continued specific plan provide assurances of land use compatible with adjacent properties. (2) The proposed uses are in conformance with The General Plan. (3) The rezoning frc C-2 to R-W as requested, is in the best interesbsof the general neighborhood and the City. Conditions of Approval are as given in Section IV of Staff Report of 3/18/71, except that Item #5 is hereby deleted. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.702 - A Resolution recommending adoption of a Specific Plan for a 33-Unit Apartment Complex and Reduction in required Sideyard Setback for covered parking facility, on property locat at the Southerly terminus of Marina Drive, and further reading waived: Reasons: {as shown above) and Conditio1 6s shown above.) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TO consider Construction and Use of 30 x .90 ft. Metal Packing & Storage Shed; Applicant: Thomas L. Lopez, located at 426 Chestnut Ave between railroad and Tyler Street. Mr. Olinghouse introduced the staff report of 3/18/ commenting first on earlier activity within the depart- ment to assist property owners in the same general area in their desires to rezone “M“ property to RD-M. He add two petitions, one for the block in which this applica- tion is involved, and one farther South towards Oak Ave had been circulated last Fall, but no response had come back until the day before this hearing date. At the Sam time, Mr. B. G. Alvarado(who had circulated the petitio for RD-M rezoning) had written a formal protest to the packing shed application, stating it would not help the existing situation in that.area and also, that those signing the petition for rezoning were opposed to its being allowed. Mr. Olinghouse commented that had this evidence of continued residential use been available earlier, the staff report might well have been handled differently. Copies of subject petition and Mr. Alvara protest of a packing shed use had been handed out to th Commission at this meeting and this was questioned and discussed by them in lieu of opening the public hearing It was then decided this present hearing item shoul be continued for two(2) weeks, until April 13, 1971 mee to allow the Planning Department time to further invest gate the desires of property owners in the vicinity of this proposed use. It was also commented that inasmuch as any new residential zoning in the area would not be evident for some years,. the recommendation by staff tha only a 4-year permit be allowed might yet be considered A motion was made to continue as stated above, to allow for a more complete analysis of what is desired by what percentage of the property owners in the area. public hearing date for 4/13/71 to amend Article 14 of the zoning ordinance re addition of “Private Campsites. Mr. Olinghouse stated no staff report would be avai able until the public hearing date. Inasmuch as this item was quite thoroughly discussed at the prior meetin only brief comment was made as to its purpose at this time and the motion was duly made to set public hearing COMMISSIONERS d 4 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONER -4- ~\~~~ B~L44' %%RV for 4/13/71 as recommended in the Resolution of Intenti Motion from the Planning Department. >n (b) Memorandum City Manager to Commission, 3/19/71, re Review of Proposed Parks 6i Open Space Bond Issue; approral required as to conformance with The General Plan. Ayes xxxxx Mr. Arnold was present to brief the Commission on the thinking behind and planning to date for a bond issle proposed to go to the voters this Fall, establishing a parks and open space program for this City. A bound report had been mailed, presenting this program for parc acquisition, changes to existing park sites, the number of sites on hand, those locations for new sites, and th? open space corridor to be integrated into this program. The Commission had been asked to review this "Preliminary Proposal" and make comments for its improvement or ad- ditions thereto. Mr. Arnold also explained this had bee? reviewed in a like manner by the Parks & Recreation Com- mission and approyed and the same would be presented to the School Board at a meeting Monday next, at the high school, 7:30 P.M., by the City. He desired these three (3) groups to review and understand this City plan, pri>r to City Council presentation. Mr. Arnold referred to a large wall map, depicting by colored areas the items referred to in the report and presenting the City's complete park & open space planning under this $1 million dollar bond issue. The report, and Mr. Arnold, also explained how these funds would be allocated and what funds were available througl federal grants for such programs. Following his compleke explanation of all features of this issue, Commission comment for the report's final draft was requested. It was suggested that additional information be given as to what facilities can be provided in the neighborhood parks, to be located generally near the school sites. Mr. Arnold stated that it was the idea to seek ideas from those who will be using the parks as to what they desire in the way of recreational facilities, in that this could well differ from one location to another. It was therefore suggested this point be indicated in the report by way of explanation of that planning. It was suggested that whatever planning involving Lake Calavera should be included in such report, in that the public had reacted some time ago when the City had con- sidered selling this property and many would want to know if this has changed and to what extent the City in- tends to utilize this natural site. Mr. Arnold agreed this should be included in the text, as he personally considered the Lake a prime asset to the City in this program. There was comment that this was a very appropriate time for such a proposal in view of public concern with the environment and preserving lands for recreational uses. He felt this might well be the necessary incenti for approval of such a program in this City. He noted re recreation planning and this proposal can be related to The General Plan was quite conscious of open space and in the City would be very instrumental in gaining supp>rt ceived to date in this behalf, and added the young peop.!e that as well. Mr. Arnold commented on the support re- He also asked that this discussion in the minutes be from the voters and making the public aware of this neell. forwarded to the Chairman of Parks & Recreation Commiss.Ion, S C ITY OF CARLSBAD - 5- as soon as it is available. The motion was made to ap- prove this Preliminary Report in context and prior to submittal to the Council for their review and discussia OLD BUSINESS: (a) Minor Use Ordinance Review - Memorandum CIC to Com- mission. 3/19/71. Mr. Olinghouse discussed the memorandum/report re- ceived from CIC as a result of committee review in that group and as submitted by the department in February. CIC states they concur with the tentative draft of this proposed ordinance, but that enforcement should be ap- plied on a complaint basis only. It was decided to wait until the next meeting (4/13/71) to discuss what action is advisable on this draft now, and the depart- ment should forward copies of this draft to the Commiss as some time has lapsed since they last saw it. (b) Soto Variance Appeal - Memorandum/report, City Mana to Commission, 3/19/71 The secretary read subject memorandum re the Counci approval of this Variance appeal, formerly denied by the Commission in February. The appellant shall deposit $1,400 with the City and such sum is to be used by the City for proposed Parking Authority or such other gener parking purposes in downtown Carlsbad as may be deter- mined. The City Attorney commented on the appeal hearing before the Council, at which time he stated his comment to the Commission regarding Variance applications and what solution might be available to the application,had been reiterated to the Council. (Commissioner Jose thanked Mr. Moe for his very helpful and informative report on the question of the Commission's right to request continuance in Variance and Conditional Use Permit hearings, without approval of the applicant,should this become necessary.) (c) 'Continued' Items Attachment: Mr. Olinghouse stated a11 items remain as shown on the list, except as follow 70.8 Historic Corridor: Mr. Olinghouse commented he now has an employee working with a like member of the 3ceanside Planning staff and he will report as this de- velops. 70.11 Problem Area Zoning Study: Mr. Olinghouse will report on the results 0.f the apparent new activity in this area, for RD-M Zoning, and as discussed earlier this eveninu. 70.20 6i Revised General Plan/Architectural Controls/ 70.23 Review Board: Mr. Olinghouse asked that these be taken up, together with other items previously discussed, as they are quite related. He wished to dis- zuss these in an "informal" workshop meeting and adate vas presented for the 5th Tuesday, March 30 at 7:30 PM in the City Hall Conference Room. After polling to see vho could attend at this time, it was determined a Tuorum would be available and this meeting would be ad- journed to that date and time. Mr. Arnold asked the Commission be briefed on the status of 71-72 fiscal year application for 701 funds, COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes on er 1 I X rb .. C I TY OF -6- CARLSBAD re conservation and open space, which is very significa Ln line with the Parks' bond issue. Mr. Olinghouse sta she preliminary application forwarded to Sacramento was For $40,000 grant-in-aid, or 2/3's of a total, overall ;60,000 program. He added further information re State Funding for such programs, where it has been applied in :he past, our request for planning assistance for the treas of conservation and open space. He stated the iacramento agency has indicated this may pose a problem In whether we are funded or not. Also, that Carlsbad ras one of 24 .cities from some 95 applying last year an :his year, our request is one of very few to get in und :he 701 Program. Mr. Arnold briefed his correspondence and concern rith San Diego's CPO in their lack of planning for the lorth County area, which he felt was a lack of communic :ions between this agency of the County and the cities. 'his agency apparently has presented regional park and :ounty park proposals, as well as other planning projec rithout including the North County area in same. Mr. Lrnold stated he was waiting for reply to his corres- >ondence to CPO. !OMMITTEE REPORTS: None. [DJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:54P.M., by proper motion and voice vote approval, to ~~~~d~~, 3/30 t 7:30 P.M., in City Hall Conference Room. !espectfully submitted, er, Secretary c t zd I- ;, dotion lyes S. SIONERS