The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-03-26; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 26, 1974 '. -2- northerly of and adjac.ent to Elm Avenue, approximately 160 ft. easterly of the intersection of Harding Street and Elm Avenue; presently zoned C-2. Planning Director advised he had received a letter requesti a continuance of this matter to the April- 9th meeting, as the applicant felt he needed more time to clarify certain'i before. i t was presented to the 'Commission. Ms. Annette Lundquist, 1225 Stratford St., representing the applicant, advised their Engineer was out of town and they had.to get in touch with him before commencing with this application. Public Hearing was opened, and no one in the.audience spokc for or aga'inst the project. MotioJ was made this public hearing be continued to the mec of. April 9, 1974. ",~,""",""""""""""""""""""""""'" . .. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: .(a) continued: .CASE NO: CT-74-1 - LOIS J. SMART: Reques for consideration of-a Tentative.Map. for a one-lot' sub- division to convert an existing apa.rtment complex with eight dwelling units, to a condominium complex, said .. property generally located at the northwest c'orner of the intersection of Grand Avenu.e and Ocean Street, presently zoned R-3. '. Planning Direc.tor Agatep. stated 'this matter was continued 'from- the last Commission meeting tq'permit staff evaluatic and consideration of co.ndo projects as. opposed to the conversion'of apartment complexes to condos. After the City .Manager and Attorney reviewed the report, the Plannin Department was instructed to make a report on all condo .conversions. Mr. Agatep stated. he felt a determination has- to be made as to what ,degree a .apar-tment is considered substandard in the first.pla.ce, and .to what degree can we expect approval ,to mitigate'those issues.' He stated the recommendation on, the arigi.na1 report,was that the Planning Department establish a policy for submi.ttaT to 'the City 'Council which would allow. no apartment complex 'to be converted to a condominium unless it met -al.l 'of .' . ,the etheP requirements of the Municipal Code, but he felt this was not good .because of all of 3he.other projects th had been a.pproved previously.. .. He stated- the major difference between apartments and Condominiums , with Id be,a 2-hour etc. as is what level ion required to reference to ordinance requirements, wou fire wall and ,common water, electricity, opposed to individual; and the issue now ,of a sub-standard project is the Comniss. look at. Attorney John Hecht, representing Dr. Smart spoke advisir he 'had ngt had 'adequate time to study the report, but stated he '.felt he could clarify some of the questions the Commission might have regarding conversions. He said he had spent his last 4 years practicing law on'the matter of real estate and condos, as well as Homeowner's Associations. He stated he believes the rules as to what conversions should be allowed should be considered very carefully but not as far back as this application. 4 te 2 ?ti !ms nq. MOTION Ayes : t lr 1g I la-: Kl I .. .. .. , .. .. . ... . X I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 26, 1974 -3- Commissioner Wrench stated he felt Mr. Hecht. had beeh very cogent, and feels that at some time in the future this Body wi 11 undoubtedly approve the conversion .of t . type of property; but , feels .that when, an approval is . granted it must have conditions tied to the conversior He stated he felt the Commission and Planning Staff .. needed to study the whole issue of developing a Policj on. these matters and get a.better understanding :of the conditions that should accompany this type of issue. Chairwoman Casler inquired if Planning Director felt he had enough information to set up a Policy, and the Director advised he did. She also stated she felt thc report should be prepared by the Ci'ty Attorney and . . presented to the Commiss.ion. ' ' - Mr. Robert Sonnkborn of 3985 Stelli 'Mari-s Lane, spokt to. the Commissioners and discussed the three' types. of Qwnerships (cooperative, condominium and apartment) , .. ... . . and stated important thinking should-be fo .remember' . you.are'assessed on the "common grou.nd" of your . . property, and- exp.la.ined, a "simking fund". : '. Mr.. Philip..Leuki,-. 4040 Skyli.ne Drive, inquired as to :,-. .'the parking .requirements .. .for .apartments .as opposed to condo mini urn projects. ' .. .. After.disc$ssio'n' by:the/Comnission,-.the followi'ng.moti .. ... ... .. .. ,. . ,' .. .. .. ... was .made:. . .. 1. .. The' PTanning Commi-ssion-. recommends Denial' of CT. 74-1 . pending-.a., Planning Department Pol-icy on- conversions, .. , . and a further staff re.port incorporat'ing recommendatic ' -and 'conditions .whereby th.i.s ,proj.ect could be .recoinmen( .... for. approva.1 be presented again .to the Commiss1'on and City- Council'. . T.his.Motion.is made by the Coinmission .- . without prejudice.to this pa+ticular appl.ication. .- , .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... """""""""""""""""""""""""- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ._ -. :- (a) CASE ff0: CT 74-3.- .'C. M; WiTERS,.for. LA:i.IDA LA ' COSTA: Request for c.onsideration .of.. 'a Ten,tat,ive . Map .for an- 18 unit condomi-nium development, on .property generally 1 ocat-ed..'no.r.therl,y of and adjacent . . to La Costa Avenue, easterly of the' intersection of. Gi bra1 ter Street and La' Costa Avenue, presently 'Don Agatep presented the' staff report for. this provisions of the Public Facilities Policy and all the requirements of ttie General Plan, and was subject . to two conditions of approval. He briefly explained the elevations as shown on. a .wall map. . .' .. zoned RD-M. . , ., .. ... .. . . request and stated the applicant had met.the There were no questions of the applicant or .staff. from the Commission, and the' following motion was madc The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of CT 74-3, subject to the conditions in ttie staff report, and for justification shown therein, .. , ..MOTION:-.,' Ayes : ... ... ... ..... ... .. .. .. ... __ .. .. ... .. I' .. .... .. MOTION: Ayes : X X PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 26, 1974 -4- - At this point in the meeting, there was a 10.minute recess. The Meeting was reconvened at 9:45, with a1 1 Commissioners present. """"""""""""i-""""""."""""""""~ (b) ~ Comprehensive Planning 0rgani.zation preliminary Palomar Airport. Land Use Plan.. .. Planning Director Don .Agatep addressed the.Commission. He stated he had attended a meeting in San Diego, and introduced George Franck from C.P.O. Don stated a publ ic hearing had been held- on the Airport Plan on March 18th and at the .request of the City of Carlsbad, had been postponed -for further Study.. He .stated, he . felt ' the.development pressures around this- airport among the greatest of .any ai.rp0r.t in the San D.ieg.0 arc - .. . . . George .Fr.anck of C.P..O. .addressed the:Cokission.*and '. . audience and answered -questions regarding the'vlan, . .- . . discussed noise Teve-lS around- 'the a+rport,desc%ibed :_ -projected. controls, ,a.ir safety, second runway, .. . once. the Airport Plan .i.s..'adop.ted, ta .-take. the. Ajrport .I .Plan and. iook at..all 'developmental. propos'als that fall .wi.fhi ri'.fhe.%phere ai: Jnf Tu-ence oT. the. Airport .and . conform to 'C P. 0. PTan, ' to . b.e reborted to C ;P-..O ", and ; . ..all,. those .proposals .that will: -be Don-conforming, shoul ' . be referred' to the. Airport :Land. User-Committee f.W a publ'ic h.earing. He a1sa:said the county-.has absol.utel3 .. .. ' no plans f.or this Airport to become a.'commercial airpc cra.sh hazard s.oned. Said C.P.0.. would.-ask the City, .. .. -anywhere .in.. the foreseeable .future;- .. . . .Cot&isiianer Ure.nc.h:said: he und.erstodd .the County is' - favoring'$ :ru,way that' is less :than J8dO'., .and.felt the- effect would ,impact the area'cind -impinge on some' c : ' ..the other :projects ,that wil.1 soon be coming-before thc -.Commission. Feels if the County is-going to give .,.,: . guida.nce-,- than. we 'need ,alternate. impact areas,- otherwi .-. . the County has.'vi~'st@ $tieir. time.. 1. . ... . .. ' -. , . Don- stated that Isorrie.df .".the .questions:,raised.''a~$- to tht .. . by the Ad-Hoc. Coinmi~ttee and. at staff.. level. in. thei.r .. .. - .. . .. .. -. . impacts of. .the ai:rport' dre .those -ttiat. were discussed discussions with C.P.O. .he stated he.'felt -some of -the concerns expressed 'were .not ref.lected in the repor by Wilsey & Ham. Commissioner Dorninguez .inqh'ired o'f Mr. Franck if .this .. Airport P1.a.n is adopted,. how hard would - it be.. to . , 'have it revised. Mr. Fu.nck stated that.C.P.0. is the adopting agency acting as Airport Land Use Cqmmittee, and would .probably be agreeable to revisions if requested by a City, ..when their General Plan is adoptt Chairwoman'Casler said 'if C.P.O. adopts this plan,ahd the City of Carlsbad wanted to amend, then .we would have to have a publ ic hearing before C.P.O. and .a 4/5 over-ride vote by the Ci.ty Council in order to do this. She stated t.his would mean that C.P.O. would-be dictating our Land Use around the Airport. Mr. Franck agreed. .. .. . .. .. .. .. I .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. I .. I. .. .e .. .. . i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 26, 1974 - 5- There was a lengthy discussion following the presentat by Mr. George Fra.nc'k,. and when completed the following Planning Commission recommends that the City Council .. instruct the City's C.P.O. delegate to request that .. C.P.O. withhold the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar Airport until some of'the on-goi ng proposals are consumated and final recommen- dations can be made by the City. The.above Motion was amended to-include that the adoption of the Land Use Plan. not ,be completed until the fol.1 owing. studies were completed: . . motion was made: .. . . 1. Report of S.D.G.&E. for adjoining areas. . 2. Pierra & Associates Report for the Master Plan of the Airport ... f .. .. .. .. :3. . City of -. -Ca,rlsbad. General- Plan 'is. adopted, .. """_""""_"_"""""""""""""""" ... ...... .-. Planning Director gave .a brief. report .on the .' . . Calrlsbad Parking Au'thority"s action, with regard to Siege1 Brqthers (Plaza Camino .Real Theatre). . The. mat-ter was approved for the:'addi'ti mal parking. -by. . the-Authority. '. ... ... .. .. .. """".""""""""""""""""""""~- : . .I -. .. .. ... -.Planni$g- Director advi-sed that. the Flood Plain/ - . - .Scenic Preservatibn. Overlay 'Zones -report. submitted .by -the Planning Commission' had brien .adopted by the - . City- Counci 1-, .with. minor 3mendi ng . . He a1 so 'advised .. that the new Ordimance for Agricultural .Zones .wa,s . .: not adopted because -the .'Counc.il' wanted to .'know the . rationale of~ttik'Jirni.t+it-io.ns placed on anirna1.s. in. . . an agrictiltural. zone:' ..: . . .. .. .. _. ... .. e. .. .. .. .. ,""""""-."i"-~"""""i-"-""""""- .. .. .. .. .. . ._. .- .. ... .. -. Chai.rwoman Casler stat.ed $.he. had represented the. . .' Planning Cmissi-on .at the C-ity Council meeting - __ the public -hearing for. the .Justus Gilfillan request. .- She stated it was the decision of the City Council to re-advertise thi,s request. and bring- .it back. b,efore the .Cbunci'l as a completely new public hearing. She stated the Councilmen agreed every route would be'followed to be sure the 300 ft.'radius property owners were.al1 contacted. . ' ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned, by proper motion, at 11 :00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, . . ""_""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""~"_""""""""""""""""" " Recording Secretary .. '( \ MOTION: Ayes.: MOT I ON : A.yes : : . .. .- .. .... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... . I. . .' .- .. ..... .. , .. ... -_. .. .. I .... ..... .. .. .. . : -T X X I I