Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-05; Design Review Board; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: February 5, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers MEMBERS \ CALL TO ORDER: The Meeting was called to order by Chairman McCoy at 5:03 p.r ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman McCoy, Members Hall, Holmes and Schlehuber. Absent : None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McCoy. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. RP 85-18 - CARLSBAD INN TENNIS CLUB - Request for a Redevelopment Permit to build five tennis courts and club house in AT&SF Railroad right-of-way at Washington Street between Oak and Pine in Subareas 4 and 5 of the V-R Zone. Member Hall stated he would step down from the Board during the discussion and vote on this item, due to a conflict in interest. Chairmam McCoy stated he, too, could possibly have a conflici of interest. Member Schlehuber stated he was not asking for disqualifi- cation on this item, but if there is a question regarding the General Plan designation on this property, this could affect everyone at the meeting. Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated this was one of tl policy issues involved here from a land use standpoint. A transparency was used showing the boundary map of the Villagt Redevelopment area. Mr. Holzmiller said the railroad right-of-way was not to be used for development, and in the General Plan was treated similar to freeway land or major streets in the City. No land use has been designated, and no policy has been determined with regard to whether or not land use should be permitted in that area. He stated there was a possibility the General Plan would not permit this type of facility without an amendment to the General Plan. Mrs. Judy Carroll, the applicant, stated she felt it was remarkable this information had not been available until now. She stated they had inquired about use of the right-of- way in 1984, looking at the other uses permitted and in existence in the City. There are commercial uses such as the lumber yard, the City park and the parking lot. Mrs. Carroll inquired of the Assistant City Attorney just how these precedents were viewed. Assistant City Attorney Dan Hentschke replied he apologized for this coming up at this hour, but the applicant never talked with the City Attorney's office on this application. The staff report indicated the planning issue concerning the uses in the railroad right-of-way, and that applies to all railroad property throughout the City, not just this one. This planning concern articulates the City's concern in the planning sense, not the legal. The legal issue is quite clear--use is only approved if it is consistent with the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. Neither one establishe: permitted uses within the railroad right-of-way other than railroad uses. MINUTES February 5, 1986 Page 2 MEMBERS \1 Mr. Hentschke stated he did not feel this was a precedential problem; but, if so, the City made a mistake in the past and approved some uses. In this instance, it is a signifi- cantly different kind of use. A use that may have been approved in the past, or may not have been considered by thi body as being allowed there, does not prevent the City makin current uses consistent with the General Plan. The recommendation of the Planning Director and City Attorney's Office is a comprehensive plan should be approved through the City as a whole, or the Redevelopment Area first. At the present time, the only uses permitted in that area are those consistent with railroad uses. Parking is considered to be consistent with railroad uses. The statement made by staff that this area is designated as open space states the City's concern. Mrs. Carroll was told this issue came up when the staff report was reviewed. She stated they pursued this application on the uses established in that area and would not have gone this far with the application had it been made known to them that a General Plan Amendment might be necessary. Mrs. Carroll said they met with the Planning Department, as is normally done with an application, and did not meet with the City Attorney. She felt all issues had been addressed, with this being the first she had heard abou a General Plan Amendment. Mike Holzmiller stated he was convinced that issue was addressed in the staff report, and tonight a Board Member asked that question, as to whether it would require a Genera Plan Amendment. The issue has come up due to the applicatio coming before the Design Review Board tonight. The issue was raised several times in the staff report. Member Schlehuber stated in light of what had been discussed and the City Attorney's recommendation, he felt the Board had a choice of either following the City Attorney's advice which says a General Plan study is needed to determine what uses should be permitted on all railroad right-of-way, or the Board has the ability to abandon his advice. He added he would be cautious on abandoning the Attorney's advice. Mr. Schlehuber said other uses for that area should be examined. Design Review Board sent this item back for a General Plan review to allow a designation to be put on this land, and to determine whether or not this land can be used for development. Assistant City Attorney Dan Hentschke suggested the Board direct staff to do a study as to what uses would be appropriate in the railroad right-of-way, and continue the public hearing on this particular application until the General Plan designation is made. This won't result in a denial of the application and will allow the application to be processed concurrently without additional fees. Member Schlehuber made a motion to continue the public heari on this application to run concurrently with any General Plan studies and final report that is presented. Marty Orenyak, Building Director, stated the conflict of interest matter must be solved. He also recommended the Board recommend City Council direct staff to pursue a General Plan Amendment in the Redevelopment area on the railroad right-of-way. McCoy Hall Holmes Schlehuber MINUTES February 5, 1986 Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Hentschke stated he had not mentionec the conflict of interest, as in deciding the General Plan issue, there was no conflict of interest. He said this was a policy issue for the Board to decide. defer to the Building Official. However, he would Member Schlehuber stated he did not feel this study should apply only to the Redevelopment Area, but should be the railroad right-of-way all the way through Carlsbad. Mr. Orenyak replied this application was in the Redevelopment Area and dealt with the Design Review Board because of that. The City Council would have to provide the direction, and that may be in conflict with the present moratorium and would preclude any applications until July. Member Schlehuber stated this application is Redevelopment Area and before the Design Review Board, and he was willing to confine the study to the Redevelopment Area at this time . Design Review Board continued the public hearing on this application to run concurrently with any General Plan studies and a final report, with the study to be confined to railroad right-of-way uses in the Redevelopment Area. By Minute Motion, the Design Review Board recommended to City Council if a General Plan for the railroad right-of-way is considered for the Redevelopment Area, that a General Plan for the entire railroad track through Carlsbad be considered at the same time. Chairman McCoy announced there would be no public hearing tonight, as testimony taken would have to be re-heard on the General Plan Amendment, which would be a public hearii Member Schlehuber suggested that any individual questions from the audience be answered following the meeting. (Unidentified man from audience) asked whether this was a special use permit, and the Assistant City Attorney answered no land use permit in the City can be approved inconsistent with the General Plan, regardless of the nature of the permit. The Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan do not show a land use designation for the railroad right-of-way. Only railroad uses are designated for that area. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of February 5, 1986, was adjourned at 5:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, CHRIS SALOMONE Community Redevelopment Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk McCoy Hall Ho he s Schlehuber McCoy Hall Holmes Schlehuber X X X X X X X X