HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-03-22; Planning Commission; Minutes,- __
9 I I I' . ,..
I 1 . \8 I I I I I
I 1 ',8 '8, '8, ', '8 '* ;CITY OF CARLSBAD :Wi nutes of: PLRRTfIRG COI4;dISSIOM I ', 8, '\ ' 's
!Date of 3eeting: Piarch 22, 1966 N a me '88,:'$k, '8, \,, '\\.d
:Time of ileeting: 7:30 F'.:,!. : of \*a' + $!+ : i PI ace of Fleeti ng: Counci 1 Chambers : Member \$$p\.p\p8,dI! I""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"~""""-""--"- "",""J
I I ;:;I I(
#N.L CALL was answered by Comntissioners Sutherland, ::: ::i
;Atlt?n, Palrnateer, AcComas, Lamb and Freistadt. I :Co:nmissioner 4cCarthy was absent. Also present ! :rifere City Attorney \<ilson, Planning Oirector I :Schcell, Building Inspector Osburn, and Ass't !City Engineer Thornton.
I 't8 '8\,'88 8, 8, '8
8*8
',h'.O'% -pJ,+, p\
I I I 4 I I 9 I
:wwwaL OF MPIUTES:
:(a) dinutes of the regular meeting of March 8,
I I
j1966, were approved as corrected.
1 I I I I I I I I iURITTEi4 COi~I'.U~~ICATIOi.IS:
!(a) Council Action on Planning Hatters was noted;
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ' 4
ORAL COISFiUN I CAT IONS :
I I
ii.5RS. RUSSELL ti'. GWOSSE, 2684 Highland Dr. stated!
jthat she represented a group of citizens (no
:official organization) who are interested in I :preserving and acquiring a portion of the Hosp i :Grove for a park site as they feel the grove is ; !in jeopardy. They are circulating petitions and i :are asking that the City allocate funds out of :
!Park and Recreation Funds or General fund to jobtain the services of a real estate appraiser i :for the purpose of determining the cost of ac- :qui ring 1 and and they svould work toward the devet: :opment of titis as a park site. I I
ii4R. HAROLD Ei.!GLEMAN~!, 2435 Highland Drive, spoke i
Iregarding commercial zoning on the property off : :the freeway at Las Flores Place and asked the :Commission to consider the use of that land for a! :hotel-motel, restaurant type zone since the :Senera1 Plan has not been adopted yet. He stated! :it vas his understanding the exits off the free- i
?jay would have this type of use.
Chairman ilcComas explained the Master Plan is in I i the hands of the Counci 1 a5 the Planning Commissi4n :has already adopted it. If the Council makes anyi :changes in the rvlaster Plan it will be brought I I
:back to the Commission, howeuer, Hr. Englemann
jcould apply for a zone change. I I
I I
-1
I
I I
1 I
I I I
I I
I I
I * I 8 I I
I I I I
I I t
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
: tion Co.
j(b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - Applicants: :Planning Commission Resolution Ho. 426.
:TENTATIb'E SUBDIVISION HAP, continued - LAGUNA iRIVlERW - 329 Lots. Owners and Subdividers: i Kamar Construction Co. * &
!The Secretary read a letter dated ;:larch 22, 1966, ! :from Mr. Jerry L. Rombotis, President of Kamar i ::;::: :Construction Co., Inc. requesting that the above: I:::;:
;three items be continued so that studies which i ;:;I::
*(II(
:effect matters outside of thi; iubdivision may : ::::;: :be brought to a conclusion. ;*1:1; * * :::;:;
I 4:;l;I
I ::I:::
I I :;:::;
I :;;:;:
I j:::::
b l 1:::;:
I I I 1 * * I I
I I + I
* * *
I I
I I
I I I I * I I I I I
*
I
I
I
8
:!*:*!
iny common consent of the Commission after discuss;
:ion the request was granted to continue these itenis :to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cornmi$- ision. 1 I
: -. '. l,~j 2ECLRSSIFICATION - R-1 and R-3 tcnes to C-2 1
i(CZnera1 Commercial) on property between Laguna I :Dr. and Elm Ave., contiguous to the Westerly side: jof U.S. Freeway XI S.D. -28. Applicants: LPR and I
:?lorton and Dorothea E. Nielsen. I I
!The Chairman announced the public hearing open. :
:Notice of thc hearing was read. Secretary Palma- I itcer certified that notice of public hearing was
!published and sent to property owners in the areai :and then read the application. I I
:There were no written communications
:The Planning Director gave a staff report and ex-
!planation of his findings, explaining that there i :are approximately 2 1/2 acres of land requested : :to be re-zoned and showed the area the State pro- i ;poses to purchase for the widening of the freeway,: :which would leave approximately 1 3/4 acres. He : jexplained the use of the land as proposed in the : $laster Plan with R-1 zoning on the north portion i
:of the property at Laguna and medium density on I :the portion North of Grand with Commercial zoning ; !extending from Elm to Grand. He stated he felt :the City should initiate feasibility studies and : :an inmediate need should be proven for the need 05 :ths zcne change requested before granting it. I I
:The Chairman announced the Commission would now !hear fron the applicant or his representative and i ;any others desiring to speak. 1 I
I I I I
I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I 1
1 I
I I
#
I .- j19R. JOE PARISI, 3344 Seacrest Dr., stated he I I
:represented the owners and they are requesting ithis change of zone in order to use the property i :to its best use. They felt the highest and best : :use would be for a i'ilotel and Inn, with possibly i :a bar and a gift shop. He presented a sketch of : :a proposed entrance to this property from the fre6- jway exit and stated that the Standard Oil Co. is : :in agreement to a "panhandle'' entrance to this I :property from Elm Avenue with the possibllf ty of i :a new off ramp being built, and they would also i
jhave access from Grand. There would also be a i
:private road from Grand to Laguna, contiguous to ; !the freeway. He pointed out that he has lived in :
:this area for 20 years and has been in business in! jthe City of Carlsbad for many years. He stated he! :felt this development would enhance the entrance ;
:into Carlsbad, nod that parents visiting the I I
:Army and Navy Academy drive around looking for i :accommodations and generally have to go to Ocean- i :side. Mr. Parisi stated they have been workin2 : $ith the State Division of Highways Department i knci that the Southerly portion of the property ;
:is in escrow. Standard Oil Co. would participate i
kith the development of the restaurant in conjunc-:
Ition with the station thzmselves if this planned i !development does not go through. Yr. Parisi re- : :ported working with several diffcrent motel chai nsi jand stated they plan to have 60 units on approx- i
:imately one acre, tfle restdGrant would be on the ;
I I * # I l l I
I I 1 1 1 e I
!
I I I I I 1 I I I I
-3-
I
I 1
I I t I I
I I I
I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I .
I
1 I , 1 I 1 I I
I I I I 1 I I I
I Standard Oil property which they lease between ! G;.and and Elm Atfenues. Standard Oil has roori for!
3 complex now, however by working together this i ;:rotIld make a n?ore desirable deveio~.ment.
C;~mfssioner Lanb questioned a buffer between I
access.
bir. Parisi stated they would possibly have a 6' i high concrete block wall between the residential : area and motel and pointed out this development represents a good size investment. He stated the4 could get by tli th the access from, Grand and the ; "panhandle" but felt the ingress from the freeway: with a 30' one-way roadway would be better.
When asked if the Engineering Department approved i
of this proposed access, Mr. Thornton stated the I City Ertginecr did not like this as a dedicated : road, however he himself had not had time to study it.
I B I
j- -1.- n 2-1 zone and the motel and questioned the I I
I I I I I
* I I I
I I I I I I I
The setbacks in the R-3 and C-2 zones were discussed and the Building Inspector stated the R-3 zone is more stringent and pointed out that Cceanside has a R-C (Residential Commercial) Zone
E4r. Thornton asked the Chairman if Mr. Parisi would be willing to dedicate the property for a cul-de-sac on Grand and also on Laguna.
Yr. Parisi stated they would be willing to cooper ate and go along with the dedication on Grand 2nd Laguna.
WR. ROBERT BAYLAFJD, 1012 Home Ave., stated he is not opposed to the area between Grand and Elm baing C-2 but would be opposed to Commercial zoning north of Grand. He stated he has no objections EO R-3 zoning but felt that commercial zoning north of Grand would be setting a preceden and the adjacent property owner, i4r. Smith, might
ask for commercial zoning and put in a garage.
He s tzted that Village Homes ;lo. 1 is approximate ly 5 yc.c?:'s old and he purchased his home with the ausumpticn this would be a residential area, and
they sti 11 have 10 years to go before the full depreciation is taken.
I :;dR. R. 14. Si+lITH, 1085 Laguna Dr., stated he owns i ithe large parcel next to Parcel B and is not lopposed to the zone change but would like a solidi
:block wall aloflg the westerly side of their :property similar to the one the Gas Company has i i in Terramar as he would have 330' up against it, i
;if his property has to remain R-1 and this pro- ; :perty is R-3. If granted C-1 or C-2 without a :precise plan, they could put many things in that ; iwould not be desirable. He stated that he was a i !member of the first Planning Commission and help-: :ed write the first zoning ordinance. He travelleg jthrough the East recently and where there is a i :good interchange you find lizautiful hotels. He ; i felt if there were enough restrictions, pcrhaps ! :this might serve as a mcdel for other hotel units; i sl ong this freeway.
B I
8 B
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I
I I t I !The Building Inspector pointed out that the zonind !ordinance requires a light barrier between :commercial and residential zones.
ii42S. JANE BAYLA?JD, 1012 Home Ave., stated that : :she goes along with the R-3 but did not want I IC-2 on the north portion. She approved of the ! IC-2 zoning on the portion southerly of Grand. I I
!i..lR. JOSEPH I?IUSCOLO, 14500 Bledsoe St. San Fernandd, :stated he agreed with his neighbors and would :rather it remain an R zone than to become a C zond.
:JR. PARISI pointed out this is a strategic locat-! !ion and the value of the land should be considere4 :in zoning this to C-2. The upper northerly Parcel !is the first portion that will be seen on entering :the City from the North and the off-ramp will be : :extended to a point near Laguna. The State I !indicated this could be done but the City would i :have to go the State to request this. I I
:The public hearing was closed at 9:17 P. 14.
:Commissioner Palmateer questioned idr. Thornton !if the State Freeway 5 is precise planned so the :amount of land that would be taken is accurate, ; !and if the freeway landscaping signs would inter- I jfere. He asked if the applicants were aware of. t :these ordinances. I
ii4r. Thornton stated the precise planning of the i jfrecway is accurate.
!The City Attorney stated that even if the ordin- Ianccs prohibits freeway signs installed, they I !would be able to put up a sign on their own :property.
:loner portion is contiguous to C-2 area; that the i :northerly boundary for C-2 zoning in this area :should be Grand Avenue; zoning the south portion ; iC-2 and the portion between Grand and Laguna I I :to R-3; recommending: to Council that access :be made from Elm; and the tine period involved. !
iCowaissioner Palmateer questioned the City :Attorney regarding splitting up the appliettion ! :and zoning the Mortherly portion R-3 to Laguna. i :He stated that he had no objection to the South- ; ierly portion being C-2 but felt it would be a jsmall parcel for what is contemplated.
:The City Attorney stated the Commission could :grant less than is requested, but felt it would i :be better in this case to zone the lower portion : :C-2 and leave the upper portion as is at this I !time if that is the Commission's desire,
:The following resolution was presented:
!A motion was made to adopt Resolution Ne 431 irecommending to Council a change of zone trom 1R-1 to C-2 on Parcel ''A" referred to as the INielsen property between Grand Avenue, and Elm i :Avenue, contiguous to the ;terly side of U.S. :Freeway Xf 5.0.-23 and denying t$e application t
1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I l I I I I I
I I
I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1
.-" :Points discussed by the Commission were that the
I I
I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I & I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I 1 I t I I I
I I I I I I 8 I I I
I !
I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I
I I
1 I I
I -5-
I
I I I I I I :The following are facts and reasons regarding the { irecommended change: I I
:close to the major freeway interchange in Carlsbaq.
!posed General Plan.
Iests of the City of Carlsbad. I I
!The following are facts and reasons regarding the I !denied change: I 1
jof the fact this would be an unwarranted exten- : :sion of commercia7 zoning into residentially I !zoned areas of the City.
ithe boundary for commercial zoning terminated at I :Grand Avenue.
I I 1. That this property is ideally situated
I 2. That it is in conformance with the pro- : I
I I
I 1 3. That this appears to be in the best inter-!
I I I I
I I 1. That the denia? for Parcel "B" is because I
I I I
I I 2. That is it logical and natural to have
/- I
!Planning Commission Resolution !do. 431. A jT-RE~OCOi.?T./lEFdDI~~G TO COUNCIL CHAWGE OF ZONE FROE.1 :ilunn :R-1 TO C-2 OiJ PROPERTY BETllEEM GRAND AVEKUE AND IPalmateer iELW AVEI3UE, COiJTIGUOUS TO THE NESTERLY SIDE OF :McComas
;FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROI.1 R-7 AND R-3 TO C-2 ON PROjFreistadt :U.S. FREEkJAY X'I -S.D.-2B AND DENYING APPLICATION :Lamb
IPERTY BET?IEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND GRAFjD AVENUE, CON- ; :TIGUOUS TO THE 1,IESTERLY SIDE OF U.S. FREEWAY XI- i is. D.-2B, was adopted by title only and further : :reading waived. I I
:OLD OUSINESS:
!(a) Designation of Lake Calaveras as a proposed I :park site.
:The City Attorney reported that their investiga+ . jtion indicates this area was part of the property i !of the Water Company which was purchased by the i ;City with bond money and therefore comes under : :the control of provisions made regarding disposind !of Hater Co. property. This Covenant in effect 1 :means that Lake Calaveras could not be permanent- i ;ly dedicated as a public park in such a way that ; jit would not be available as security in repay- I :ment of the bonds. I-lowever, there does not ap- i pear to be any objection to a1 lowing its use as a i :park on a revokable basis as long as a permanent I jdedication is not involved. I I
I 1
I I I I I I I
I -. I
I
1 I I I I ,- : .
I
:A motion was made that the City Attorney :letter to the Council for the Chairman's
:site.
j (b) R-T l'Recl'. Commissioner Lamb asked the City :Attorney to give a report on R-T "2ec" regarding ithe bar ar Carlsbad Landing on the lagoon. I I
I The City Attorney reported this use is permitted !in an R-T zone where you have no area designated i ; "Rec" on the zoning map. Notices of intent to ; :sell alcoholic beverages are sent to the Chief of: +*I 01 i POI i ce from AI coho1 i c Beveragr ~7rttr-01.
i ture how Lake ralaveras can be used as a
I I
I I
I I
I I I: ;:;: tII
I ::!:;I
I I I ;II:;;
I I ::::I;
I I I I ;:;:j:
I , I I ;:;:I: .*,':e
I I I
I
I
I
I
I 481
I ~1)lI I
I
I
I' I I I I I I \\ 8, .\ ', " .\,
I I , ', 'x, ', '\ '\ I
I I t %, '\,',,, '\, '8, ', I
I -6- i Na me ", '*@, *. '3'
I I : of \$ \O'\ ,\,'?+.\ ;
I Member 9d@\ 89 @,$-O 9'4 ,/L
I '\. '\' I
I I I 1
I
I '\ \ \ " ', '\ I
:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~""""""""""""'""
The Building Inspector stated he felt it was the :;;;::
Intent that if an R-T zone is adjacent to a recre-i '1::
ll:ll@
btional area on the water it was considered to be i :;I;@l
181:b@ 11 a "Rec" area. I I ::;:::
I 1:::
the Chairman stated he felt a letter should be ::::;;
ivritten to the Council on this matter. I I I::::;
I I I ;:::I;
! I ::;::a
t$Pter discussion by the Commission a motion was Sutherland i ll~l:: ix;~; : ; hade for the City Attorney to write a letter to Munn ; i :xi : : the Council regarding the"on-sale" liquor on the Palmateer : : :X; : 11 ;
+gua Hedionda Lagoon as there are certain uses McComas : I : :xi : : of the R-T property which require a designation Lamb :x: ;xi I1 : OD the zoning map as "Rec". Although the PropertySreistadt ; ; ;X, ;
1s properly zoned R-T, the "Rec" designation has ! :11:;;
bot been placed on the map for these properties : :;I:;:
gnd the Planning Commission would like a direction:
1111 :;4;;;
from the Council as to whether or not it is desired ::: ::: ::;I;: :that hearings be instituted to determine whether I :or not the "Rec" designation should be applied. i :;I:;:
I I ::!:::
~NEN BUS IMESS: I ::l:l~ I*
I I I :;::;: !I::
IC !(a) Tamarack Ave. alignment and width adjacent to ::I 1:::
:Interstate 5 overcrossing. Plr. Thornton stated i 1::::: $he Council requested the Engineering Department : llt;l@ :::;::
:to work with the Planning Commission and Park 1 ::&I:: !and iiecreation Commission on the proposed Tamarack; ;;:::;
iAve. alignment and width adjacent to Interstate 5 : 11:::;
:::all
:over-crossing, in order to have the Division of : :::;:I ::; I'
:Highways construct a 4-lane structure over Inter- I :lhI& ::: :state 5 in the proposed widening of Interstate 5. i :;;;I; 11; !He expalined that in order to get 4 moving lanes : ::::;I
:over the bridge it would be necessary to have an ::::;i i84' right of way with a 64' to 68' travelled road-: :;*Ill :way\between Pi0 Pic0 Drive and Adams St. West- ! ;1:;1;
a::::1
ierly from Pi0 Pic0 Drive it would be 102' right : I::;::
:of way. The alignment is proposed to acquire the I )Il(l) ;:;;:;
:majority of the right of way on one side in order : ;:;::; I:(
:ed out that time is of an essensc on this as the : ::I::: l;;;:
:State will soon begin design of the overpass. I :: 11;:
I I I ;:::I:
I I 11 I(b) Re-Alignment of Trieste Drive in El Camino I :::;;:
:;;:I: 1) :Mesa Subdivision. Mr. Thornton explained that : jwhen the tentative map was approved the street - :;::I;
1:4:: kept out to the easterly boundary, however, an ex-: :L 1;:;
jtension of this street east would create a 16% : :::I::
:grade with a unacceptable intersection .I 1:;::;
:at the next north south street. The Engineering : J, ::;:::
:Department asked that Trieste Dr. be religned to i 11 11
ithe south with a acceptable grade and that align- : ::;:I:
jrncnt would aid the develgpment of the property to i :1:::i ;::;:;
:the south. The developers of El Camino Mesa would 1:::;: 1'
jhave to acquire offsite slope and drainage ease- : ::;::: :merits. 9 I ;;:;::
I I Ill 11:1
I I :;::;: :The City Attorney stated that the subdividers I ::I:::
:are ready to have final approval of this subdivisjon :;;:a; :map with this street re-alighment, and ast<:.-!d the i i::::: ,;:;i; :Commission's approval of this re-alignment. I I :;::::
I e :#I:;:
!BY common consent the Commission agreed to this I $8 I:;: ;: ire-alignment. I I ;;::;:
I I I 1::;:;
iADJOURNrbIENT: Ey proper motion the meeting was isutherland; I !xi i : I:
jadjourned at ,. 10:18 P.M. :M u n n ; :xi ; :
I '11'11 I I
I*
le
I I
4 I I
I
I
,,- :to take the least amount of structures. He point-j ;::
I1
. .*
11 I
I
I
I I
iPaImateer ; i !x; :
,; 8' .@ c 2.d-44 A/ , 4&L" :Mecomas i : ;x: : :
)'. >DOROTHY r*r.~o~cu~~ iLamb : /qx! ; i 1)
; 2ecordinq Sbcrztary jFreistadt :xi :xi : i
I ;!;;;: I