Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-12; Planning Commission; MinutesMEETING OF: CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION \ DATE : March 12, 1974 \p" cn\ TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE : CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Meeting of January 22, 1974 were approved,as presented Commissi.oner Jose stated he.did not attend the meeting but desired the Minutes to reflect he did cone to the Chambers and advise other Commi! he could not attend the meeting tha. night. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: ' None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chairwoman Casler explained .to the audience that the City Council, by law, was required on this date to Canvass the ballots from the City elections She further stated the Councilmen had. gune 'into executivc .session, and that the Planning Commission would commence . . w.i.th their regular meeting. When the.Counc.ilmen' return from executi.ve session,.the Commission would take a short recess to al'low the Mayor to-announce any actions '.taken i.n executive session.. When this was completed, thc Planning Comnission.wou1d resume their meeting: Chairwoman Casler explained, by way of a graphic, the procedure for Planninq Cornmission heari.rrgs , and Appeals * .: to the. City Council'. .. .. .. .. PUBLIC HEARINGS: .. , (a) continued: .Case.NoS. EIS 230, ZC-138'and MP-150 - R. L. FARROW , for FARROW REALTORS (CALAVERA PROPERTY). -' Request for approval of a'Firia1 Environmental Impact . : Report, Change of Zone from, L-C (1 imited control ) and .R-A-10.. (residenti.al-agricu1.tur.al) to P-C (Planned -.. Community), and adoption .of a Mastkr Plan to d.low a .3452 residentiql development on property.general1y -1ocat.c 'southerly of.the present southerly most extensi'on of Mil Monte Drive, at .the northerly most city 1 imit 1 ine of- , the City of Carlsbad. . Associate Planner, Paul- Williams; -gave a brief b.ackgroun4 report on this project, stating it had been continued. frc -'the meeting of .Feb. ,26; 1974. to allow Commissianer'Jose to review. tapes of' previous testimony taken when, he was .- absent, to allow him to become el.igible'to vote on this particular emphasis being placed on the phasing schedule to cover a 10 year period. Comissioner Jose questioned if'staff had received any kind of 'a firm commitment from Vista and Oceanside for use in the sewer lines for this 10 year projection. Plan Williams stated the area to be served by the Vista'trunk line is- viewed to be completed by 1976 and stated he felt the:trunkline could 'De projected .over a 3' year period and i.f an agreement could not .be reached.as condi,tions read, the development would. not be allowed to proceed in that area. At this point, Commissioner Dominguez stated he'would abstain from voting on this project, as he has done in the past, as he is an employee of San Diego County and works with the Board of Supervisors. Public Hearing was opened, and Mr. Jerry Farrow ' addressed the Commission. He proceeded to give a recap .. .. . . project. He also reviewed the staff report, with PRESENT: MOTION: \yes : Abstain oners 1. ' j. .. .. .. .. I r X X '\ I X G \ X X " Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 1974 - 2- of some of the major areas that had been covered in the six week span since the.project was presented to the City. He stated Farrow Bros. .now has an office in the downtown busi district of.Carlsbad; spoke to the issue of prematurity stating he felt the project was only premature. in terms o the area; addressed the fact of projects on all sides of . which make them contiguous to Car'lsbad. He also stated there had been tentativ-e maps filed with the City for uni that abutt thei'r propertyline and felt this gave them mor of a connecting link with Carlsbad instead of Oceanside. He feels timing is very important now with regard to thei Master Plan. He has reviewed the phasing as suggested by . Staff and felt it was logical and agreeable. to them;. feel deve1opin.g on the yest side of the. property closest to . Carlsbad is agreeable also. Commiss-ioner Little stated he had concern over the possib of not getting a second ingress to the property for-years . come. He stated he felt this is a dangerous si'tuation wi only one access. He' also stated he felt 2 accesses show1 be'provided now, even though it may cost a, little more ma -.safety should come.first.. Mr. farrow stated the Master P calls for five major accesses, and they must provide the . initial .access immediately, with the 2nd to'be determined by the Engineering Department , and wi 11 probably' be a conditi'on.of approval of their Tentative Map when it.is presented to the City. .. . 'MrI Ronald Fry of 4014 Vista' Ca'laveras: Street;.spoke .. in favor of the -project statjng he -had checked this - site out and .felt that eventually it would be developed . ' by someone, even if Mr.. Farrow was .not successful , .and wi that in mi'nd,.fel t .this was a good project. .. . . Ms:Flory Johnson stood in the aud.ience'and. stated she - lives on the'same street as Mr. Fry.and she also approved of this proposal. Mr. Roy Sanchez , 3842 Roosevel t Str. , stated he was oppos to the project b.ecau.se the. sewage problem.would be too.mu for the City to. handle. He. asked' i'f ttiey- were' building .a sewage disposal :plant on th.e property, .and was .-informed 'they were not.. . Mr. George Flanders, 3765.Yvette Way, Stated he had heard talk about the park situation in this .. development arrd requested .the..representative from the, County to speak to the audience: .. Mr. Jim Tennant, representatike of the- County of SAn D,ieg stated he could 'confirm 'that .the County and Far.row Bros. had, been in constant discu,ssions since last Fall; 'and did not anticipate any great trouble in reaching an agreement to the .park s'ite. He stated. he would hot ask the. City to delay. this project for the sake of the park. He also sajd the concerns for the park are real , but, not of a .permanent nature. He stated the Board of Supervisors would be meeting on March 1.4th at 2:OO to furt.her discuss Cal avera Park. Ms. Gloria Fry.of 4014 Vista Calaveras St., inquired of the Commission if the project is not approved, .where will the access to the regional park be placed. Commissioner Cas1 er advised the access then would be the problem of the County, not the City of CArlsbad. .. .. .. .. . .. .+. \ .. 4. .. .. '. I .. ' '._ \ \ i \ '\C i' \ I. I Planning Commission Meeting . .' March 12, 1974 "4- Motion was made that the Planning Commission recommend . to the City Council the 'change of zone request for ' subject property, with justifications as shown in staff report. Motion-was made that the Planning Gomission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council the Master Plan No. 150 for this project, subject to the 17 conditic of approval in the original staff report, condition no. 18 added regarding sewers, and condition no. 19 included in the.most recent staff report regarding phasing, as amended. Motion was. made that the Planning.Commission..grant a Resource Management Permit requiring this development to conform to the RM-2, RM-3 and RM-4 districts. . ., - .. ........................... .. 1 '.(b) continued: CASE NOS: EIS-,232, SF-147 'and CT 73-58 .. 1. K. TRACY; for OCCIDENTAL LAND AND DEVELOPMENT Cn. : .- .. Plan and consideration of a Tentative map to allow de- ,. . Request for approval. of a Final EIR, adopti.on of a Speci velopment of a 353"unit condominium. complex on pronerty generally loczted'at the northwest corner of the inter- section of Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane, presently '. zoned .-P-C. ' Planning Director read .a reauest by :the. applicant .for , . a continuance to allow more time to comply with Policy . this matter had been continued a number of times.previou: It was- the .feel inq of the CommissYon that.this ,matter should not be put on the Agenda agai.n until. all of the re-advert i sed. .. #1-7 re: Publ9c. Facili-ties. It was. pointed -out that' : . .problems are. resolved, .. and the matter should then be ' Motion' was made to Table €IS-232,. SP-1.47 .and CT.73-58, .- and all other related it.ms for this project, until -such '. : time as a1 1 of .'the problems are reS.olved., and --the. matter be completely re-noticed before being presented to the Commi ssi on -agai n. .. .. """""""""""""""-r"---"""""""--~------- ... .. . . .(c) CASE NO: V-238 - MARY E: ST,ONE: Request for a . . . 'Variance of- Section .21.-16.04.0 of, the M.unicipa1;Code to reduce the required. sideyard: setbkck from -ten (1.0) ft. . to four (4) ft. on property generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Interstate .No. 5, presently zoned R-3). P1anner;WjI 3-iarns:- gave a briefi.ng from the staff report, . and Commissioner Jose requested.staff to refer to the maps on the wall for all persons in the audi.ence who were interested in the Droject. There were letters, and signatures of persons opposing this project presente to the'Commission also. Mr, Williams also addressed the idea of staff to reverse the development on the lot, leaving the units further from the freeway. He mentione that it was felt the noise level would' be an,adverse condition for this wo.iect., He stated it was staff's . reasons contained in the staff report. 1 MOTION: Ayes : Noes : ,Abstain: MOT ION : Ayes : Noes: . Abstain: .MOT I ON : Ayes : Noes : -Abstain: .. .. . .. 4OTIL)N: AYES:- . . . ' .. . .. ,' .. .. .. .. .. .. - recommendation . that this project be denied for the i X X X X X X X' xxx X X X - I I X X j X X X x X i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 1974 -5- Public Hearing was ope.ned and there was no one in the audience to speak for the applicant, but the following persons spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Lillian' Stenson, 3482 Harding St. stated she did not want a .building to be built only .4 ft. from her property. Stated the Commission had set'10 ft. in the Code and felt they should not consider 4 ft.. Ms. Ida Dike, 3446 Harding St. opposed the. project for the same reasons as Ms. Stenson, and stated the noise factor -would be too much a1 so. Commissioner Wrench stated .he felt Staff had done the Commission a servic,e in ca'lling to light the -noise proble for theiP consider'ation. He said with only- 4 ft. sideyar next to the freeway, the noise would be severe, gnd even with 10 ft. from the freeway, there would not be enough a barrier, even with insulation, etc.., to.reduce the .noise level from the freeway. He said even reversing thc .bu-ilding on the lots would be a mis'tak, and he 4's opposc The Pub.1.ic Hearing. was closed, and'with'no .further dis- cussion from the Commissioners, a motion was-made. Motion was maie t~at the.Planning.Commission Deny .the request for a Variance No. 238 for the reasons stated in . to the pro.ject. .. . ' the staff report of March 12, 1979. . ' .. ............................ '. (d). 'CASE.'NOS:. ZC-141.and CT 74-2 - W. C. CHANDLER AND D. -B. ZIMMERMAH: Request- for a change of .zone from . C-2 to-R-3 md approval of a .tentativ.e map' to convert an existihg 30 unit. apartment. compTex to a condominium . . development, :on property generally located at .the northwl corner of the intersection of Lincoln Stree.t and Oak Ave Paul Will iams gave. the staff repopt 'and the reas.ons for recoinmendation of approval He pointed out that property adjacent' to' Lincoln-could be. used for additiona parking; as well as non-conforming setbacks (which'he . did not 'feel were a problem)..' He stated a factor that .. would have to. be considered in this conversion is'the- , age of the building. .. "the parking did not meet the Code requirSments,.but .. Public He.aring was opened and there was! no one' in. the , audience wishing to speak for or against the project. Mr. Donald Zimnerman, 424 Panorama Drive, Laguna.Beach, the applicant addressed..the Commission and stated he agreed with the staff report and conditions.. .. Public Hearing was closed, and Commissioner 'drench asked if anyone had looked into the impact an apartment under one ownership'as opposed ,to a condominium have a multip1e:of owners, would have on the City. The Planning Director stated staff could not respond at this time but suggested this may be a good topic of discussion for a workshop session. 10T I ON : \yes: T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 1974 -7- Motion was then made: That the Planning Commission report on this issue to tht City .Council as fol'lows: Denied -for ,the reason that the proposed development represents an excess abruptness in the transition from R-1-7500 to RD-M, and that RD-M at that location is not consistent' with the zoning on surrounding properties. 2. That the Commission feels it is possible . that interested parties , namely' surrounding property 1.. That we. feel the application should be that the City Council may'want to explore the possibilit: owners, were possibly not sufficient1.y notified. Chairwoman of the Commission make.an appearance before the City Council at the next hearing on this matter and explain-.the- thinking'.of the Commission on this project. 3. The Planning Commission would iike the " .. - .. . .. . .. .._ Motion was made that in. the event the City Council still -decides to approve this project, the tentative map will be subj-ect to the two conditions contained.-in the staff report. .. *. * .. .. . .. .. .. 6'(b) .CASE NO: ZCA-66 - ,Establishing an.Agriculture Resource Management. Overlay Zone District. . .. . . . It was stated that this .matter was. discussed in the. adjourned me-eting on.March 8, 1974, and was Tabled at that time. .. ..., . (c) CASE NO: ZCA-61 .-. Establishing 'Coastal and. Lagoon . " Management Overlay. zone Diitrict. .. .. .. .. .. Planning Director Agatep gave some background . information on this matter', stating it had been.discusse . at an adjourned meeting on .March 8,. 1974, at .which time . ..The City' Attorney .had presented t-he... Commissioners presen wjth'the wording as had. been. suggested. by the City Couricil . '. City Attorney Biondo expl dined to the.' Commissioners,what the Council wished.the Commission to' say. in the origina1,wordSng that was submitted, and this was their .version of what .they felt the Public Facilities Element should say. The previous Element . presented was an addition to textual portion of the developmental controls and. this'element would. be under the heading of Public Facilities Element. The Commission was advised that along'with the re- ' commendation to the City .Council on the Element , it be recommended that a capital ' improvements and budget program be included in any future Public Facilities Elements. .- Motion was made that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Couricil the adoption of the Public Facilitie Element for the City of Carlsbad as presented to,the Planning Comnission on March 12, 1974, with further wish that in a future expanded Publ'ic Facilities Element there be a Capital Improvement Program and Budget Program. included . # 2 Y r I ! I I d t !! p MOTION: Ayes Noes : Absent to vote: Abstain TITION: lyes: . Voes: lbstain lbsent to vote ' .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 6 MOTION: Ayes: ' Absent ._ -X X "\ 3 '\ 3 i-3 ' ~ - . . , . - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 1974 -8- NEW BUSINESS: (a) CASE NO: CT 74.-1 - L. J. SMART: Request for con- sideration .of a Tentative Map for a one-lot subdivision .to convert an existing apartment complex with eight dwel units, -to a condominium complex. ' Subject property is generally located northwesterly of the intersection of Grand avenue and Ocean Street, zoned R-3. , Planner Paul Williams presented the staff report and the recommendation from staff for approval, with the suggest conditions of approval. Commissioner Jose questioned th . requirement of this applicant to put steps down to.the beach. Planning Di.rectok .stated he had researched the . files and did not 'remember this being specifically state that there had to be public access or steps to t.he beach provided by the applicant. Commissioner -Li.ttle inquired . . of the City Attorney if the Ci.ty shou,ldmt be- requiring .a Homeowners Assn. .to cover maintenance, and.the Planni . . D.i'rector advised that'ttiis was a. condition .of approval as it has been required.that the C.C.&R's be submitted. .. .'" Commissioner Wrench told the Commissioners -and audience of his hesitation i.n approving .projects sudh .as.these ais he.fe1.t the City may be invitinq .the wholesale. . precedent of propertv being built. to one form .of .devela .. ment and then Changing over to another: He stated he wa - not completely surk this was a qood way for us to qo and felt- the Planninrl Commissi,on. whould .take.time to ,develot: - a Policy with respect to these types of applications. .. Vrl' Guy Wi"nton', representinq Dr .. Smart spoke.. He ' . . . complimented. Staff -in the assistance- of bringing -the . . Tentative Map to its present status. He .also stated he felt. maintenance,on a hiqh-value project like this :. -could be relied u-pon just from the pride.. of ownership .of condominium owners, more so than with anartment -.renter.s. Commissioner -Wench .stated he felt the matter '.. . should be continued,, sent bac.k to-, sta.ff-wi.th.the . . recomnendation .,that more research be gi.ven to the .. 'maintenance of. these: conveksiois and certain conditions that the City could. pds.sibly place 0.n. dwellings beinq . .Mr. !dinton again spoke and stated he felt the idea of .. continuing this matter wa.s. unfair just because of the . . . placement of this, item on the agenda (his. remarks were . ' . undoubtedly dimcted toward. the. approval of. item 5(d) tonight .of a condo conversion for Zimmerman and . . Chandler consisting .of a 30 unit apartment complex). converted. . The -Commissioner stated they were in sympathy with the representative b ut'they were hit with what they . felt was a precedent and' felt they needed more time. Motion was then made that this issue be continued to the meetinq of March 26, 1974, for submittal of a new report which would incorporate recommendations for cond-itiims which would mitigate any undesirable impacts that they discern would be with this condo- mini.um conversion request. ............................ LATE ITEMS: 9 MOTION: . X X (a) Planning Director Agatep ?resented a brief report to the Commissioners on the suqqested wording-from Cl-/"%r/ GF. S~AD ,- \L PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 1974 -9- ~~ the City .Attorney and Planning Director on the'proposed Public Facilities Element of the General Plan. City Attorney, Vince Biondo, explained what the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to say in the ori wording that was submitted to them, and this was their version of what they felt the Public Facilities Element -should say. The previous suggested element was presente as an addition to the textual portion of the development controls and this wording would be under .the headinq of Public Facilities Element. The Planning Director stated that the suggested language . change had been discussed at the previous special meetin of the Commission held on March €Rh, 1974 (no quorum, so meeting was used as a !dorkshop session). . , Motion was made that the Planning Commission recommend to the'City Council the adoption of the public facilitie element for the City of Carlsbad, as presented, to the Planning Commission on March 12, 1974, with the further .wording "in a future expanded Pub1 i-c Faci1ities:Element .there be a Capital Improvement .Program and .Budget Progra .. "i"""""""""""""""""""""""""- --'. (,b) Requ-est for approval by Pr: RICHARD V,. J. WHITE, to . . build. a tenniS court at the western portion of his property located at 4157 .Park Drive, with a 10 ft. Planner Paul Willi.amS iead ttie':request' to the .Coinmission from Mr..White, for a tennis court and 10 ft. '. high chain link fence. hi-gh fence, and with no further di-scussion from the' Commission the fol-l.owing .motion was made: Move that the Planning Commission grant the subject . .request, with the proviso that a 10 ft.. .high fence be erected. .. . . ,"""""""""""""""""","-~""~"""- .. .. . .. : (b) Resolution of. Cornendition for Dr.' Roy.H:.Pa.lmateer zr.etired Commissioner'. .. . The Planning Di'rector asked for recoinmendations as'to . wording, etc: for the Resolut.Son .to be .completed by the . Planning staff for retired Cominissioner Palmateer.. .. Suggestions such as words'ko use, .ie. , dedication, .i'ntegrity, visi.on, conc-ern, perceptive,, courageous, interest, w-isdom. Committees he prevjijirs1.y worked on '. I or .was associated with were:. Architectural Review Commit.tee, .Committee for Low-Income Housing,. Rejuvinatio of Downtown district, Study for unannexed lands for futu consideration bay the City. It was suggested that these items be mentioned as fittin as possible in the final Reso.lut.ion of Commendation. .. ........................... ADJOURNMENT: At 12:30 A,."., by proper motion, the meeting was adjourned. ............................ Res,pectfully submitted, Dotty Wi ngman, fl Recording Secretary \ a1 ?IOTION: A.Y e S Absent .. . MnTION: .. Ayes : Absent .. .. 4 .. .. .. .. .. MOTION: Ayes : Absent. xx Y X x: X X