Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-05-11; Planning Commission; Minutes4 " .I .I * c , a CITY OF CWLSBAD MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 11, 1971 TIME: - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: City staff members present: J. E. Spano, L. A. Moe, R.A Johnston, D. A. Agatep, R. S. Osburn. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of regular meeting of April 27, 1971 were approved as submitted, by proper motion and voice vote approval. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Mr. Osburn was present to present a request to mot a building by San Diego Gas 6i Electric Company at Encir: Plant facility, being a metal structure in the area of proposed Unit' #4,soon to be under construction. They wish to maintain this building as a warehouse for stori materials used during the construction period of the ne Unit #4, qfter w-hich time this will.be torn down. Mr. Osburn affirmed the building permit would be issued to this effect and represents an on-site move only. He als estimated the time period involved in such temporary locatio? as. 18 to 36 months, depending upon completion of construction and installation of the new generator. Mr. Osburn answered additional questions re this buildi move and the construction of Unit #4. Commission dis- cussion indicated this represented a normal and necessa request for the utility company and as such, was agreea to the Planning Commission. A motion was introduced to approve the on-site temporary relocation of such metal building as requeste by the Bu-ilding Department for the applicant, SDG&E Con PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONTINUED - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION N0.78 - To consider recommending Amendment of Article 14 - Conditi Uses, re addition of "Private Campgrounds.'' Mr. Agatep referred to new and revised draft of th resolution of intention, which has beep continued twice to- allow further revision and review of items to be con tained in the proposed amendment. He proceeded to read the full text, involving all criteria governing overnig zampsites, as last revised by the City Attorney and planning staff. -These criteria represent those items leemed necessary for City control and guidance of such npplications in the future, within the framework of the :UP ordinance section. Appropriate reasons for such we slso read. Commission discussion followed, as to: What the staff opinioned .the term "camping" to mean and what lses are encompassed therein? The fact that overflow :amping traffic was not able to be accommodated in the 2tate or County beaches and campgrounds now available. rhe Chairman determined there were none in the audience to speak in favor or opposition of this proposed amend- nent and public hearing was closed at 7:47 P.M. There being no further discussion necessary after lontinuing questions and revision of subject proposal, notion was made to recommend approval to City Council, For the reasons noted below and subject to conditions a Zontained within the resolution draft amendment form: COMMISSIONERS Present llbsent Yotion A yes Absent g 3 P le Yotion 9 yes sny. Absent nal 3 t 3 n X X X :* . *. b i- * t: COMMISSIONERS CITY OF -2- CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 701. A Resolution recommending Amendment of Ordinance No.9060, Article 14 Conditional Uses, Sec'tion 1400, Subsection 2, Item h., regarding Overnight Campsites, with further reading waived; Reasons: (1) The adoption of subject amendment would establish the flexibility desired in the existing ordinance by allowing privately-owned land and private1 owned and cperated recreational campground facilities t be developed. (2) The development of privately-owned and operated recreational campground facilities will augment any recreational program set forth by the City of Carlsbad and its adopted General Plan. (b) RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONE and ADOPTION OF MASTER PL To consider Zone Change from R-1-7,500 to Planned Commu (P-C) Zone and. Adoption of Master Plan for 17-Unit Sing1 Family Residential Development; Applicant/Owner: BeeCee Company/H. L. Anderson, located on North side of Tamara Avenue, West of Highland Drive 135 Feet. Mr. Agatep introduced the staff"report dated 5/6/7 and refered to wall exhibits prepared by staff and the applicant, showing location of subject pcoperty, adjace zoning and streets, and- Exhbitis A, B and C, showing proposed development layout, elevations, typical struct etc. The report presented the history on this parcel, stating a previous P-C Zone Change application had been approved for subject property in August 1969, but subse quently denied by City Council. Specific statistics covering staff's kecommendation to approve such develop ment were given, concerning amount of school-age childr involved in such development vs. standard subdivision development under the current R-1-7,500 zoning; total number of single-family dwellings to be built vs. sub- division total number; amount of common open space vs. standard sideyards and subdivision street footages. The zonditions of approval requii-ed development within the framework of the City's P-C ordinance, No. 9218, and 2thers as itemized in the report. Commission discussion followed and asked Mr. Johnst to clarify the proposed property line, which he stated involved a IO-ft. dedication for future street widening The secretary 'read correspondence as follows: (1) a Mrs G. Vachua, who owns property adjoining subject property and stated she was not opposed to such P-C development. (2) a M. Brunache of Santa Ana, who also owns property adjoining, referEed to the previous 1969 application fo P-C use, stating she had been strongly opposed to such at that time and still was, citing various reasons for opposition to multiple dwellings in a residential vicin She further stated such zoning would constitute "spot" zoning and kished tb go on record as stron.gly opposed to this application. She asked the Planning Commission to explain why such rezoning was even entertained by them. MR. HOWARD BAUMGARTNER, 3437 Highland Drive, and representative for BeeCee Company, the developers, stat he would not attempt to answer all the points brought u by the M. Brunache correspondence. He referred to the Exhibits A, B, and C and stated this P-C development wa different from the previous denied one in 1969, in that all one-level dwellings were planned now. Also, that their architect had just indicated that a change might dotion 1 yes lbsent IT- rt y : res, 1 2 ky . I .. .- CITY OF -3- CARLSBAD be made to one structure, breaking it up into two(2) structures instead. He also cited*many parcels in this City which, like this' one, do not lend themselves to th standard R-1 subdivision and he felt the P-C zone does lend itself to utilization of such parcels, as in this case. He further felt this development would be an attz bute to the general neighborhood, rather than a liabili There were no others to speak in favor, and those who wished to speak in opposition followed. MR. GEORGE FLANDERS, 3765 Yvette Way, stated he did not quite understand the P-C zone and referred to the last such application here, stating he and several othe had been referred to P-C developments to visit in othez cities. He stated these had been visibly different froa the present proposal, primarily in the area of planned recreation. He felt this development would actually loc and be just like a subdivision development, such as the one it would adjoin.?- He questioned this as being "spot zoning and felt 'this was not a good use for such a resi dential area of the City. MR. JACK CASTLER, 3843 Highland Drive, stated he wa pposed .to this development because it was actually ingle-story apantments and he agreed with the previous ppositions, as well as the Brunache letter previously ntroduced. MRS. C. MUNN, 3770 Yvette Way, stated this property acked onto her hbme and at the end of her property ould be the storage area for cars, boats, etc., and sh esired to view a residential area, not a storage area. MR. BOB MORRISON, 3881 Highland Drive, felt this roposal was stretching the P-C use considerably. He Is0 envisioned traffic problems onto Tamarack Avenue nd questioned the ability to sell such dwellings at th 30 thousand dollar proported price. This completed th pposing views and public hearing was closed at 8:lOP.M The City Attorney requested clarification of the lanning staff re the number of units involved in this arcel, and Mr. Johnston stated the normal method is to tru-cture the lots according to the existing, total arcel of land, with the maximum here being 11 standard ,500 sq.ft. lots. He also pointed out the number of . edrooms proposed for a subdivision is something that c e determined, but under the P-C zone, the 4-bedroom units proposed must be built and indicates one of the "controllable" items under P-C and Specific Plan approv e also added there is a direct relation to the number. f bedrooms and number of cars or school-age children enerated within a given development. Mr. Moe stated h ad attended a League of California Cities meeting rece nd the subject of P-C zones and importance of formulat roper legal means to assure perpetual maintenance of pen space, landscaping, etc., within such projects, ha een covered. The obligations of the homeowners for the air share of such maintenance was important, to avoid ity-obligation of 'such at anytime in the future. Commissioner Palmateer commented on the P-C Zone oncepts and the advantages as opposed to single-family oning. He cited the problems of cities in meeting the ver-increasing needs of more homes and felt the P-C us COMMISSIONERS \ mot 1. "1 y 19 P COMMISSIONERS CI TV OF -4- CARlLSBAD was a means of meeting some of these needs. He pointed out private dwelling footage is given up and the dwelli clustered in exchange for a common area which is main- tained by the ogerall ownership. He felt this use is well-attributed to such parcels which are difficult to standardize for typical subdivision lots. Commissioner Dewhurst commented on the reference earlier to the narrowness of the streets, i.e., appr0x.i. wide, which would prohibit parking on the street and he felt, a defini.te advantage which forced owners to park in driveways or garages. Commissioner Jose commented on the recent use of tl P-C zone throughout the State and the country, in ap- proaching such problems as "urban sprawl" and to meet housing market needs. He commented on certain improveme over the standard subdivision-type development, such as he lives in and also referred to difference in this frc the prior P-C ap.plication for the same parcel. He did not'feel this development represented the true meaning of the P-C Zone, but felt the subject parcel's develop- ment was difficult under R-1 zoning. Commissio'ner Dominguez stated he would go on reco1 as being in fav0.r. of this development, but asked if ad- ditional screening could be made available at such plac as the storage area Mrs. Munn referred to previously. Mr. Johnston advised Specific Pl.ans will be forthcoming at a later date, 'giving complete and final details of such development. Additional discussion was given the am0un.t. of open space available in this P-C use as oppos to standard subdivision, with front, rear and sideyards as requi.red and the standard 52 ft. subdivision street, all of which use up considerable footage thrown into a common area of open space under the P-C. Also, in R-1 zoning, with the 35 ft. height maximum, 2 or 3 story houses could be built, while this proposed oneilevel dwellings on1 y.. The motion followed, recommending approval of Zone Change from R-1-7'500 to P-.C and adoption of a Master Plan for 17-unit residential development, for the reasc given below and subject to conditions of approval as stipulat-ed in staff report dated 5/6/71: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 708 - A resolution of the Carlsbad City Planning Commission recommending approval of Change of Zone from R-1-7,500 to Planned Community(P-C)Zone and, Adoption of Master Plan for 17- Unit, Single-Family, Residential Development, with further reading waived; Reasons: (1) The land under dis cussion could be developed into a traditional 11-lot su division, but satisfactory development under existing R-1-7,500 zone would be difficult to achieve because of the anfiguration of the parcel involved. (2) The propc for 17.single-family residential dwellings does not exc the General Plan density assignment of 7 family units per acre. (3)The proposed Planned Community development will offer a change in neighborhood design by allowing larger amounts of usable land to be devoted to open spe and landscaping techniques. (4)Proposed plan constitute a unique type of living environment that is not availat in the community at the present time. I ts S d S Yotion 9 yes absent - 31 Pd 9 9 1 CI TV OF -5- CAF?LSBAD NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: (a) Commissioner Dominguez referred to the telegram read at last Commission meeting re Ford Foundation announcement of interest to the whole County., which he had attended as representative for the Commission. He said a check has been received covering a Ford Foundatit Grant for some $725 thousand dollards to initiate and integrate an environmental management project. (b) Memorandum from City Manager re Appeal Hearing of Cannon Zone Change and Master Plan for freeway facilitit as denied by the Planning Commission. The memorandum itemized certain reasons given by Council .for approval of said appeal and requested further review and report by the Commission. These reasons were discussed, partit Item #1 referring to certain 1970 criteria for service station development. Mr. Johnston wa.s adked and advised under what conditions service station's could be develop( wh.ich include freeway oriented facilities, as is involvl in this case. Additional discussion of the Commission', reason for denial followed, it being pointed out that t. overall development plan was considered quite good and an excellent use.for this location, but opposition had centered on two(2) service stations at the one quadrant in view of the number of existing and approved stations for freeway quadrant locations. .It was agreed that no change existed in'the former recommendation of denial for the whole project, in view of the CUP request for 2 stations and certain views were made as to the purpose of Planning Commission review and service station proli. tion not-being considered good planning. It was later requested that these be incorporated in the report bac. to the Council, as substantiation of their unchanged recommendation. This was accomplished by motion and ap- proved by voice vote. (c) 'Continued' Items attachment: Planning Dept. repor; 0.3 Buena Vista Lagoon: Mr. Johnston stated this wou. e brought up later in discussion of these items. i 0.8 Historic Corridor: Mr. Johnston felt preliminaric ould be available by the next meeting. 0.11 Problem Area Zoning Study: Communications atteml 'n this area are continuing. 70.20 Revised General Plan: Pending other projects. 70.22 Nuis2nce Ord'inance: Mr. Moe stated 'copies of lil ordinances from other cities are now available and the: can be reviewed by staff. I 70.23 Architectural Controls/Review Board: The Plann; Dept. recommendation will be to include this item with; I the "Community Living Element" as proposed by Mr. Olinc house. 70.24 Off-street Parking in R-Zones Amendment: Mr. Johnston's memorandum of the last meeting was discussec referring to the statistics contained therein to increi off-street parking to that ratio within the RD-M Zone. I4 COMMISSIONERS 1 zlarly 1 1 ? ?ra - lotion 1 yes Lbsent I. b. I :S e 5 COMMISSIONERS IC 7 H t t a a a H U i L; n i t t V a t C C t 7 r n P a f P t n h L t t H t c - a 0 - C - t 1 j 1 < i CITY OF -6- CARLSBAD '0.24 (Continued) 'e noted this had been sent to the Board of Realtors an :he CIC, but no comme'nt had been received as yet from ,hese. The perqentaee of parking increases was questio nd Mr. Johnston stated basically the increase is some reas would be to that in the RD-M Zone, or 1-1-#4-1+1/ nd 2 spaces, depending on number of bedroom units invo 'e added all we are concerned with here is "residential !ses, not office spaces, etc. , as they are already cove n the offstreet code. The city of San Diego's recent broposal for a-n even higher offstreet requirement was loted , but Mr. Johnston stated every city seems to have Parying requirements, with this City's problems existin n the multiple zone areas with too many cars parked on :he streets, ensuing complaints between neighbors and t :he Police Department. These increases are considered dequate to meet the problems involved, but larger in- Oreases might only create an excessive blacktopping sit :ion for such properties. He asked for Commission dis- fussion or comment at a later meeting, when report fron ,he agencies mentioned above becomes"avai1able. 0.25 Interim Grading Ordinance(New Item): Mr. Johnstc ,eferred to- the just-completed draft of a proposed ordi :ance requesting a 90-day moratorium on all grading lermits without Specific Plan approval by the Commissio nd Council; this was later revised to exclude such per 'or swimming pool excavation. The reasoning behind thi lroposal was given by Mr. Johnston as a means to study he existing gradling ordinance to update same and provi leans of controlling excavation of undeveloped areas ar rithin bodies of water, such as our Lagoon areas. The Ise of the Interim Ordinance procedure as allowed undez :he g.overnment code and previously utilized in the mobi lome park development, was explained as only being for- rarded to the Council with the Commission's recommendat After additional discussion of the need to update :he grading ordinance, it was agreed the proposed amenc rhould be recommended to th.e Council, in a memorandum Iccompanying same. This was done via a motion and voic rote approval. !OMMITTEE REPORTS:.;; (a) Commissioner Dominguez referred to previous discu of the I-5 landscaping plan and asked the staff to che on all commitments from the State during the initial h ings in order to assure what these are and to see what type landscaping could be proposed by the City, what scheduling is involved, etc. Mr. Johnston stated this could be researched. and returned to the 'Continued' It list as it was previously. (b) The CHairman the department to keep the Commissio, advised re future or proposed developments involving existing agricul&ural lands. He referred to recent ac- tivities in San Luis Rey Valley as examples of what ca. happen when the farmer is forced to sell to developers who break up the land, sometimes indiscrimiaently. He 2dded San Diego County is one of the greatest potentia. €or urban development due to the large amounts of unde7 lands remaining, and felt we should keep abreast of al. planning for agricultural lands in the general area. ~~~~ ~ ?d red. ?d I- : ts , 3 >n . ?n t Yotion 3 yes lbsent ion r- S 1 oped * .. -. C. CITY OF CARLSBAD -7- DJOURNMENT: BY proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:l '.M. , by voice vate approval. espectfully submitted, ANCY JO DER , Secreta . COMMISSIONERS lotion j yes ibsent