Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-08-10; Planning Commission; MinutesMEETING OF: DATE : TIME: PLACE: . r CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1971 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I ROLL CALL : City staff'members present: D. A. Agatep, E. J. Olinghouse, J. E. Spano. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of 7/27/71 were approved as submitted by unanimous voice vote. IWRITTEN COMMUN.ICATION: None IORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr.. Olinghouse informed the commission that regarding it (d) of the public hearings flchange of zone and adoption of a specific plan; applicants: Hall, Griswol.d, Nilsen: the staff was recommending the item to be continued unti September 14, 1971 so a survey study on service stations could be completed.. + After discussion and an explanation to the persons who were present to attend that particular public hearin , Commissioner Jose made a motion to continue item 5(d B until the September 14, 1971 meeting t.0 allow further information to be presented in reference to a question- naire survey study in order to arrive at a ;more valid decision. The commission asked that the public be informed of the new date of public hearing through the newspaper. Mr. Agatep answered some questions of the audience re the significance of the study on this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Continued - CHANGE OF ZONE AND ADOPTION OF A SPECIFI PLAN - Reclassification in zone from R-3 to RD-M and adoption of a specific plan for an apartment complex on Carlsbad Boulevard at Redwood Avenue; applicant: Donald MacDonald Yr. Agatep introduced the staff report of 7/27/71, which covered the particular situation re 'location, general plan densities, zoning of surrounding property, and increased parking requirements under RD-M. The Commissi.on clarified a point re arding the setback. Staff pointed out that c'ondition (B 3 of the staff re- 3ort had already been complied with. :ommissioner Jose asked if Mr. Beisswinger's letter had 3een reviewed. Mr. Moe, City Attorney, informed the :ommission that the City of Carlsbad is in compliance, with the code and law of California. c COMMl SSIONERS 'resent bbsent lotion !yes ,bsent I I)' otion Yes bsent r c " Cl TY OF -2- CARLSBAD 1R. DONALD MACDONALD, the applicant, was present and :oncurred with the explanation given by the staff and :he conditions of the staff report. 'he following person spoke in opposition to the propo; ;a1 : DOROTHY REED, 146 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad. 'he Public Hearing was closed at 7:48 P.M. luring discussion among the commission, Commissioner lermsen voiced his concern over a possible hazard :aused by landscaping because of the setback on the :orner. The commission felt that special precaution ,hou-ld be taken with respect to landscaping so as not 10 obstruct the view of those driving in that inter- ,ection. 'he commission felt that the plan was very good for ;hat area. I motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolutic ~o. 716, A RESOLUTION RECOMMEND.ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL HANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 TO RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY- IULTIPLE) ZONE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH EASTER- ,Y CORNER OF REDWOOD AVENUE AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, ubject to the reasons and conditions of approval noted. n the staff report of 7/27/71. b) CHANGE OF ZONE AND ADOPTI.ON OF A SPECIFIC PLAN - ,eclassification in zone from R-1-7,500 and R-1-10,000 o P-C (Planned Community) on the Southeast corner of lagnolia and Highland, and adoption of a specific plan 'or a 20-unit P.C.; applicant: Robert L. Means Ir. Agatep illustrated the location on the graphic, He klso introduced the staff report of 8/10/71. The tech- lical report discussed the overall concept and gave 'easons and conditions of approval. :ommissioner Jose, acting as secretary in Commissioner :orman's absence, read the correspondence re this pro- Iosal. :RED H. LANCE, Business Manager, Carlsbad Unified School listrict, 801 Pine Avenue, submitted a letter re Robert leans proposal. The Board of School Trustees, at a leeting on August 2, 1971, approved Mr. Mean's request 'or a sewer easement all subject to whether or not the Iroposed project is approved by Carlsbad City Council. lowever, Mr. Lance felt that in some time, the schools rould be overcrowded should this proposal be approved. 'he secretary read two letters of support from Mrs. iUNNEL VACHA, 3815 Highland Drive and LEO J. DYBEL, lwner of 3920, 3926, 3930 Highland Drive (4 vacant lots) ~nd waived reading of two more identical letters except lame and address [THOMAS 0. HAMMOND, 3234 Highland Drivc ~nd GERALD C. MCCLELLAN, 4079 Skyline Road]. Motion Ayes Noes Absent t I r L' CITY OF CWLSBAD -3- JANE BAYNARD presented a letter to the commissioners Dpposing Robert Means' proposal. She feels the develop' nent would,turn into a slum, and that the sewer arrange' nents'do not meet the needs of that community area. The applicant, ROBERT L. MEANS, 3955 Hollybrea, was present to discuss his proposal and answer any question: -le also presented arguments for his development. Mr. Yeans answered questions of the commission re the sewer 3nd its adequacy for the area. He also answered ques- tions regarding the trees in the area and possible stop signs on the driveway exits so there would be no danger to the school children walking past this development. 4r. Means also answered questions re the proposed James Street and said his proposal would not interfere with Iny .future street development, The following persons spoke in opposition: STEVE BILLATS, 3686 Highland DEive, Carlsbad. MARY CASTLER, 3843 Highland Drive, Carlsbad. W. J. PALENSCAR, who recently purchased property in that area of Carlsbad. MRS. JANE BAYNARD concurred with the other persons hgainst the proposa.1. ihe public hearing was closed at 8:37 P.M. liscussion ensued regarding the proposal. Commissioner Iewhurst felt that this type of development is good tnd that this particular application is one of the best 1s far as design goes. But since the neighborhood is io against it, he felt that it would be better at anotht Lime. Commissioner Palmateer feels it is an ideal design for the area since surrounding areas are rather sparsely populated. Sommissioner Dominguez felt the plan was excellent and supports the Planned Community concept. :ommissioner Hermsen felt the .plan was excellent and left a sufficient amount of green space. But, he feels that lot size should not be cut down from 7,500 and 10,000 square feet and he was also concerned with traff, regarding school children. lommissioner Jose feels this is the best of the 3 plans ceceived so far, but he feels this proposal would be letter in R-3 zoned property west of the freeway. liscussion ensued regarding maintenance of the green ireas and what arrangements had been made for common Iwnership. COMMISSIONERS h r 1' CITY OF -4- CARLSBAD Chairman Little sadd he was not convinced this area was. ready for that type of development. VIOLA-HAYS, who owns property across the street from tk area concerned spoke in favor of the proposal. MR. PETE MUNN, 3770 Yvette Way, spoke in opposition. 4fter further discussion, Commissioner Palmateer made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 72 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVALOF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1-7,500 9BD R-1-10,000 TO P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) ZONE, AND SPPRO\cu OF A SPECIFIC PLAN, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND MAGNOLIA .AVENUE, subj.ect to the conditfons listed in the staff report Df 8/10/71. The motion was denied. """""-""""""""""""~"""""""""- (c) CHANGE OF ZONE AND ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN - Reclassification in zone from R-3 to RD-M and adoption 3f a specific plan for a 6-unit apartment complex on :berry Street between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Street; Applicant: Charles P. Thompson ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ 4r. Agatep introduced the staff report of 8/10/71, and illustrated the location on a graphic. The technical report discussed location,'of-the proposal and the rea- sons and conditions of approval. The secretary read a letter from M. RADER, 3580 Carlsba 3oulevard, to the Planning Commission dated July 29, 19 vhich was in opposition to the proposed zone change on Iherry Street. 4RS. ELONA GUEST, 3670 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad submitted a letter dated August 7, 1971 opposing the :hange of zone from R-3 to RD-M, on the basis of the IO foot setback. :ommissioner Dominguez wanted to know the location of 4. Rader's and Mrs. Guest's pnoperty in reference to the proposed zone change. The applicant, MR. CHARLES P. THOMPSON, /:Box 338, Carls lad, explained his plan and the benefits it would add to that area, i,e. off-street parking. The following persons spoke in favor of the pro- Iosal : JOHN W. WILTERDING, an adjacent property owner, ioes not feel the setback would be detrimental. MR. LITTLE, 2475 Jefferson, feels that if we've lone to the trouble to get RD-M Zone, we should approve it. The following persons spoke in opposition: Motion Ayes Absent Noes 9 COMMl S SIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD . COMMISSIONERS - 5- CHARLES H. WEESE, 160 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, feels if this area is rezoned it would be spot zoning. His argument is that none of the properties in that area are closer than 20 feet except at 180 Cherry Avenue which appears to have an RD-M setback on Cherry; but , the structure fronts on Carlsbad Boulevard and has a 20-foot setback on that street. He said his Ocean view will be impaired if the 10-foot setback is allowed. The public hearing was closed at 8:17 P.M. Discussion ensued re setback, maximum densities allowed Motion X for that area, and parking requirements. After. further Absent X discussion among the commissioners, a motion was made Ayes xxxxx to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 722-, Noes A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 TO RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE) 0N.PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY AVENUE BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND GARFIELD STRLET, subject to the reasons and conditions listed in the staff report of 8/T0/71. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Resolution of Intention No. 80 - setting a public hearing date to recommend changing the title of Planned Community to P1anne.d Development. .. Mr. Agatep presented a memo to the Planning Commission from staff re proposed revisiDn of the planned com- munity (P-C) ordinance in title only. The memo proposed a change in title to "Planned Residential Development." The Planning Commission felt that this was a good idea to change the title to something more appropriate, so X Absent setting a date for public hearing, xxx xx Ayes a motion was made to prepare a Resolution of Intention X Motion Discussion ensued among the commissioners regarding the possibility of having a purely informative meeting for the public to educate them on the planned community concept. They suggested slides and handouts be availabl at the meeting, and also that the presslnotify the publi% of the meeting. Mr. Gil Davis of the Blade-Tribune suggested two reasons why news coverage might not be as great as expected, One was that in a purely informative session there might not be enough conflict to draw a story, and secondly, there is not enough viewpoS.nt in a purely informative meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 70.22 Nuisance Ordinance - The staff reported on the CitJ' Council hearing and decision to establish an ad-hoc committee to study items to be included within the ordinance. The commission discussed the ordinance. Staff informed the Planning Commission that City Council would decide the scope, and then the Planning Commission dould add their imputs. :OMMITTEE REPORTS: None """"""""""""""""""""""""""""~. i . I t' CI TV OF -6- CARLWAD ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P.M. with unanimous voice vote approval. Respectfully submitted, 1' I -9 zd-ha. G7 L. LUCK-Y, b . COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent