The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1971-04-13; Planning Commission; MinutesCOMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF: DATE: TIME: PLACE: CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 ROLL CALL: tant .) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of regular meeting of 3/23/71, approved as corrected, by uoice vote approval. (b) Minutes of ad- journed meeting of 3/30/71, approved as corrected, by voice vote approval. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider A revised staff report dated 4/01/71 was read in full by Mr. Johnston, who also referred to a wall pro- jection showing the proposed shed location, adjacent ownerships, streets, etc. This application for a 30 by 90 ft. metal packing shed use is requested for an 8-yea period and is to be located in "M" zoned property. It Planning Department. There apparently is now a desire by certain of the property owners in the same block to rezone to RD-M, as evidenced by a petition circulated by Mr. B. G. Alvarado and these same owners also protes the packing shed use being allowed. The staff report but if the Commission wished to approve same, Condition of Approval were also itemized. MR. THOMAS L. LOPEZ, 3067 Roosevelt Street, and the to consider his request favorably and stating it was th proper zone for such use and his neighbors had indicate no objection to it. Upon questioning, Mr. Lopez stated he could make the operation pay (with consideration of the conditions of approval imposed), in about 4 years. ing. He pointed out other industrial uses in the same drea which had not been required to meet such .require- ments. He said that if his neighbors protested the shed uses, he would do what was asked. He also stated there has been talk about rezoning this area for some five years, but'nothing has come of it to date. Mr. Johnsto stated one of the reasons for the fence being required to screen the shed was the definite desire to rezone to zouraged. He added further in regard to rezoning the Problem Areas was discussed in Item 70.11 under "Old Business" continued items. There being no others to speak in favor or opposition of this request, the publi Present Bbs.ent Yotion 9 yes 4bsent Yotion 9 yes Pbsent lbstained X 3 8' * &, 0 1 L CITY OF CAREBAD -2- I hearing was closed at 7:48 P.M. The Chairman stated the future, insofar as planning for this particular area, was unclear, due to several, factors affectigg it which were not yet resolved and, k would recommend a permit for a 5-year use of the packir shed. Commissioner Forman pointed out that the term "owner" as referenced in Section IV - Conditions, Items 1 and 2, should be changed to "Applicant", and it was agreed this change should be made for clarification in the future. Following discussion on those items except by Mr. Lopez (items 6 and 9), it was decided he should be.allowed to park his shed vehicles outside in the parking area required by another condition and, that the solid fence requirement be for the North and East sides only. These two conditions are to be changed ac- cordingly. The item regarding years of use (Item 1 of Conditions) was then discussed and Mr. Spano asked to comment on Engineering budgeting or planning for the proposed Chestnut Avenue overpass which is expected to influence this particular area considerably. Mr. Spano stated this was a future planned improvement, but not one that would be considered within the next 4 to 5 yea per present planning. It was later agreed to leave the temporary permit at a 4-year time period. The motion was made to approve a request for Condit ional Use Permit for subject packing shed, for a 4-year time period, for the reasons given below and subject tc Conditions of Approval, Section IV of staff report of 4/01/71, as revised above. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.697, a Resolution ap- proving a Conditional Use Permit for Metal Packing and Storage Shed, on property located at 426 Chestnut Avenr; between A.T.6iS.F.Railroad and Tyler Street, with furthe reading waived, for reasons as follows: (1) The proper is presently zoned "M" and is proper for such use. (2) Prior owners to this request had erected a substandard dwelling at this location. (3) Use as proposed by this building will not be detrimental to surrounding propert or uses in.the general area. (b) CHANGE OF ZONE & SPECIFIC PLAN, with CONDITIONAL US PERMIT - To consider Zone Change from R-A-IO to C-2, wi Adopt,ion of Specific Plan and, Two(2) Freeway-Oriented Service Stations for Combination Freeway Service and Neighborhood Shopping Center, at NW Quadrant of I-5 and Cannon Road; Applicant: William D. Cannon. I Mr. Johnston read a staff report dated 4/01/71, pointing out subject property, adjoining uses, etc. as. shown on Exhibit "A" displayed, also detailing the two service stations, restaurant, commercial building and motel as proposed in this freeway-oriented development. The complete background and planning for this parcel was covered, and staff's recommehdation to approve thes applications, for appropriate reasons and subject to certain conditions was also introduced in this report. MR. DONALD SCHOELL, representative of the applicant and architect for this development, was present, and he discussed the new I-5 and Cannon Road interchange, this present proposal and the needs it would meet both for adjacent residential area and the freeway traffic. Mr. Schoell read a prepared statement offered in further . COMMISSIONERS rl Motion Ayes Absent t" " CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 -3- I support of this development. He added it was! felt this was one of the few areas within the City w ere such type facilities could b.e helpful to meet fr 1 eway needs and yet not detract from Carlsbad in any way. Mr. Schc answered Commis'sion questions re specifics of the devel opment, in particular the planning of two(2) service stations at this location. Mr. Schoell stated several oil companies have approached them about these station sites and they indicate there is no problem in the ecor or good business practices for two stations; also, it is felt two stations can be well supported with existir residential needs and the freeway traffic on 1-5. There were considerable objections to the inclusiol: of two service stations, although all other aspects of this development were considered reasonable and well- planned. Comments were made on the proximity of static at Poinsettia Lane interchange, as approved but not yet constructed, and existing stations at Palomar Airport Road. The probl-ems and poor planning of 4 stations on all freeway-interchange quadrants was discussed as relates to past Commission denials for service station 'permits, where it was felt these were becoming excessit and poor business enterprises. Mr. Schoell continued 'in his justification of two stations for this particulii development and stated these were an integral part of 'the economics 'of the overall plan. He did agree they :should be grouped in quadrants rather than strung out throughout a city. Commissioner Palmateer pointed out the approximate mileages from s8:me 10 approved stations ko the Cannon Road location and stated some 10 stations ,are now operating along I-5 within the City Limits. He also questioned the need of two stations within one !such facility. There were no others to speak in favor or opposition and the publichearing was closed. Further discussion was given the service station 01 position and one comment was made that perhaps two stat were warranted for the residential and freeway traffic, in that this was an isolated residential area as well. It was determined that SDGEE Company and Paul Ecke own€ the remaining Cannon Road intersection quadrants and future requests for at least two more station locations could be foreseen from these properties. Commissioner Dominguez summed the opposition to this portion of the applications in that the City need not further any esta interchange property use with more of the same and shou take a stand at some point regarding too many service stations within the City. The motion to deny application for Conditional Use permit was made and it was deemed necessary to deny the remaining Zone Change and Specific Plan resolutions as well, in that all are interrelated and the owner did nc wish to resubmit another revised Specific Plan deleting !one service station, but desired Commission action on c his applications as they are. Subsequently, the motion was revised to include recommendation to deny the other actions under consideration as part of this package. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 700 - A Resolution Denying a Conditional Use Permit for Two(2) Freeway- Oriented Service Stations as part of Combination Freewa Service and Neighborh-ood Commercial Facility, with further reading waived, and denial for reasons given below: COMMISSIONERS ~~ ~ 11 mi cs S 3ns lished 3 Yotion 9 yes Voes 4bsent - X 7 a*... / .. . 4 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS NO. 699 and 706 - Resolutions recommending to City Council denial of Chax of Zone from R-A-10,000 to C-2 and Adoption of a Specif Plan.for CombinFtion Freeway-Service and Neighborhood Commercial Facilities, and further reading waived, for reasons given below: (1) It is felt there are already an overabundance of service stations within the City of Carlsbad. (2) It is not felt that two(2) stations be planned for this development. (c) VARIANCE -. To consider allowing Increased Frontyard Fence Height from 42 Inches to Six(6) Feet, located at 2901 Ocean Street; Applicant: Oliver Morris. Mr. Agatep presented the staff report of 4/06/71, xtlining the situation that exists at 2901 Ocean Street involving request for a Variance to allow an existing 6 ft. chainlink fence. It was felt this fence height increase actually represents a safety precaution for the property' 0wn.e; and the public as well, with the sta recommendation being to approve same. This was substan ted with additional reasons. The Commission noted that this fence was ,already erected, apparently in violation of the fence height code, so that this item comes to the Commission "after the fact." Mr. Moe stated the Commission should act as though the fence were not in existence, in approaching this variance request. Mr. Johnston attempted to expla the unusual circumstances that had resulted in such re- quest, after the fence was erected, which he felt was a misunderstanding between the City, the applicant and two difference fence contractors who had been involved. MRS. OLIVER MORRIS, property owner and wife of the applicant was present, stating Mr. Morris was ill and could not be present. She proceeded to completely expl their activities in pursuit of fencing their property, which fronts on the ocean bluffs on Ocean Street. One fence contractor had obtained a City license and the building permit, but later another contractor had done the work and not obtained these requirements. Mrs. Morr stated the neighbors had indicated they were gPad the fence had been built 6 feet high and located where it w to avoid anyone falling and cars parking too close. She stated they had contacted their lawyer when someone had nearly fallen while climbing the bluff and he told them they were liable for any suit involved in such accident which had caused them to build such a fence to discoura public traffic on private access. There were no others to speak in favor of this request. MR. SOL FORMAN, owner of Ocean Manor Motel., direct1 East of this fence and property, stated they were the only owners facing this fence and it represented a con- siderable detriment to them and 'their motel patrons. He added no one had ever fallen from the bluffs in some 6 or 7 years he had been at his location and stated this lfence had been erected deliberately and entirely differ from the facts as presented by Mrs. Morris and, which h elt violated his property rights. There was additiona iscussion between Mr. Forman, the Commission and MSS. orris. The City Attorney was asked for an opinion as nd he stated the Commission could act as they saw fit, e to whether a Variance request was proper in this case P -l d € ia- 3 in i it 3 lt CITY OF -5- CARLSBAD but the fence should be treated as non-existant and on1 an original application. Commissioner Palmateer reviewed the 3 requirements of a.Variance agplication, which he felt were all invol in this matter, and added he had been a resident on Oce Street for many years and the fears and problems expres by Mrs. Morris were true and ones shared by many owners on that side of Ocean Street, as regards pedestrian traffic and violation of private property. He felt this fence was very desirable, both for the public safety an to protect the- property owner. Mr. Johnston explained where a 42" fence would be located if set back as normal, but added the precedent for fences to be located on the propekty. line had exist for many years on Ocean Street, so that all to be consi here was the actual height increase. The motion was made to approve a request for increa fence height'at 2901 Ocean Street, for the reasons give below, subject to one condition that: Only a 6-ft. chai link fence, as now exists, will be allowed at any time. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 701 - A resolution 0 n the West Side of Ocean Street, between Grand and Elm venues, with further reading waived: Reasons:(l) The opography along the ocean front of. Ocean Street is ex- remely steep (27 percent slope), and the chainlink fen erves as a safety barrier to pedestrian traffic. (2)Th ence was built to protect the landowner from liabiliti hat could possibly arise as result of an accidental fa rom the rim of the cliff. Therefore, the fence would ltimately insure the public safety. (3) The granting o fence Variance on subject property will not be materi d) TENTATIVE MAP - To consider recommending IO-Unit,ll (The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.'M. and reconve t 9:40 P.M.) Mr. Johnston pointed out subject property on a plot aP of the Bristol Cove area, also referring to Exhibit and B, being a tentative map detailing the various it ncluded in this development, and the applicant's rend€ f the finished development exterior. The staff report ated 4/02/71 was read in full by Mr. Johnston, present he technical background, staff recommendation to approv eaSOnS and conditions for same.' Upon questioning, Mr. ohnston explained the term "10-Unit, 11-Lot" condomini eferred to the final 10 units to be developed, but 11 ots including the common area. Mr. Johnston also state xhibits A and B were the final maps to be reviewed by he Commission and this present procedure represented a eparture from past tentative map approval procedures. e felt any changes or details to be resolved from this oint could be resolved at a staff level. COMMl SSIONERS ?d !d I ! !red !d lotion 1 yes ibsent ?d flS ing 19 7 I 0 L -6 f COMMISSIONERS . CITY OF CARLSBAD I The secretary read correspondence from d irector of Public Health in San Diego, stating their a proval of such development as long as certain utility ?! requirement:: were met. Mr. Johnston stated he also had correspondenc:c from' the Carlsbad School District, expressing approval of this development and one other for later hearing, bu': both referenced in one letter. MR. BARTON L. LEFFERDINK, 4659 Park Drive, Was pres ?1 and stated he had nothing to add except that he felt this development could nothing but help the City. He was not opposed to any of the conditions imposed by the staff report. There were no others to speak in favor or opposition of this application and public hearing Wac: closed at 9:51 P.M. Comments from the Commission indicate this developm ?I was proper and a good use of the area in question and there appeared general agreement to same by all members. It was further explained that a certain amount of flexil). had been built into the staff report in order to handle this with a tentative map rather than the Specific Plan procedure. The motion followed to approve a Tentative Map for 1 a 10-Unit, 11-Lot Condominium as proposed by this appli-. cation. i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 705, a Resolution approving and recommending to City Council a Tentative Map for a 10-Unit, 11-Lot Condominium Development, to be known as Carlsbad Tract No. 71-1, and further readinsl waived; Reasons: (1)The proposed condomimium-apartment project will help fill a void which existsin the Carls- bad housing market. (2) The proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (3)Sub:'t condominium is in conformance with the City of Carlsbad'r General Plan and The Housing Element. (e) CHANGE OF ZONE - To consider Change from R-1 to RD- M Zone at 306 Olive Avenue; Applicant: Dale M. Whittake>-, Mr. Agatep presented the staff report of 4/06/71, covering the circumstances in this request for Zone Cha1.c the staff's recommendation to approve same, and reasons and conditions of such approval. It was noted this property was deleted from the Planning Commission's original RD-M Zone action in late 1970, in that the fornc owner did not desire same, but since being seld to 'the applicant, this owner wishes to avail himself of such zoning and ultimately build duplex units on this propert5 Commissioner Jose commented he had driven .by subject property and it appeared remodeling was underway at this time. The applicant, MR. DALE M. WHITTAKER, was present and answered he was adding on to. the present R-1 house, but pl'anned to build duplex units in the future, and has a building permit for this present work. There were none to speak in favor or opposition of this request, and thepblic hearing was closed. Little Commission discussion was deemed necessary due to the fact this was a proper action and certainly in keeping with the general area: The motion was duly made to recommend this change of zone from R-1 to RD-M Zone for 3 rlt nt ility Yotion Ayes Pbsent 3Ct 5 c fi- CITY OF -7- CARLSBAD -~ property at 306 Olive Avenue, for reasons itemized belc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 698 - A Resolution recommending to City Council Change of Zone from R-1 tc RD-M.Zone on prqperty located on North side of Olive Avenue, between Garfield Street and the Railroad, with further reading waived; Reasons: (1)Inasmuch as this property lies within an area rezoned to RD-M by Plannil: Commission action action last year, this request is proper and in the best interests of the neighborhood, and the community. (2) The request for rezoning is in compliance with The General Plan density assignments fc this general area. Conditions of approval as set fortk in Staff Report of 4/06/71, are applicable. (f) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION N0.78 - To consider recomme Amendment of Ord.#9060, Article 14 - Conditional Use Permits, re addition of "Private Campgrounds", as initiated by the Planning Department staff. Mr. Agatep prisented the staff report dated 4/09/71 regarding the inclusion of private campgrounds under Conditional Uses within the City. Staff recommendatiox was to amend the ordinance only for overnight campgrour; when they are an integral part of a regional park syste The City Attorney questioned the staff on this suggeste amendment being for publicly-owned lands only, and not including private campgrounds. He also asked staff why such an application from a private owner could not be included at this time. Mr. Johnston stated this was the staff's recomrnenda only and it was felt such campgrounds could best be worked out within a regional park system. He added SUC campsites could possibly be a detriment to adjoining properties, in some locations, and this was a prime con Commission questioning and discussion followed and it was suggested that perhaps a Specific Plan for private campsite applications could be submitted the Commission €or review and approval. There was also discussion of the existing and future planned park systems, both City 2nd County.and how far away these might be actually. There was opinion given that private campgrounds serve 2 real need in this area, which it was not felt was met by existing State beach parks. Commissioner Dominguez recognized the problems envisioned by staff in viewing private campgrounds, but he also felt these could be aoverned by ordinance requirements prepared by staff an nonitored by the Commission and staff in such a way as to meet the obvious needs and be a real asset to the Ci lt was generally agreed staff should prepare the necess Pmendment guidelines for inclusion of private campgroun in the mdinance framework, perhaps much like was done €or governing service stations last year. Mr. Johnston asked this item be continued to the ne neeting (April 27, 1971) to allow staff to work up the Pbove referenced requirements, such as minimum acreage, kypes of facilities, utilities to be available, rate ?lan, etc. He did not feel a Specific Plan would be lecessary, as this type requirements can be worked into khe Conditional Uses application structure. A motion vas made, receiving voice vote approval, to continue to neeting of April 27, for additional staff action. ti COMMl SSIONERS Yotion 4 yes llbsent 3ing S ion Srn. I. -Y i lotion lyes lbsent . . .. c c z d CITY OF CARLSBAD -8- I NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: (a) 'Continued' Items Attachment: 70.11 Problem Area Zoning Study-Planning staff to report activity. Mr. Johnston commented on present department activities in working with the property owne in this general area, stating a letter explaining the RD-M Zone cond-ept had recently been mailed, in both Eng and Spanish. + I 70.8 Historic Corridor-Report as activity develops. Mr. Johnston commented another meeting had been held with Oceanside, but this is progressing slowly to date. I COMMITTEE REPORTS: (a) Commissioner- Jose reported on his recent visit with Board of Realtors from this City to Le sure World near Laguna Beach, which is a new low-income housing develop ment. He said this had been very enlightening of the condominium program, and showed what these can be and offered to the housing market. (b) Commissioner Jose asked the staff to relay informat to the Fire Department that he had observed what ap- peared to be 50-gallon oil drums in the open garages of Bristol Cove. He added this should .be checked out for possible fire hazard. Mr. Lefferdink in the audience, who is president of Bristol Cove Owner's Association, stated he knew one drum in a garage there was filled wi weed chemical for salting seasonal weeds in the Cove ar but if there were others he also wanted to know about this. ADJOURNMENT: The motion was duly made andunanimously received to adjourn at 10:28 P.M. [Respectfully submitted, COMMl SSIONERS S ish Yotion 9 yes 9bs en t