Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-06-10; Planning Commission; Minutes. .. , .*. . ,/- A /- CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS -2- of. these departments that the Tentative Map be approve and the City could put Stop signs at Catalina Drive -an Chestnut Avenue, as well' as redesigning the barricade for emergency exits. The intersection of Chestnutt an El Camino Real was pointed out on .the City map and the various unsuccessful attempts to obtain City right-of- way for another access street were reiterated. Upon questioning by the Commission, Mr. Lill estimated the cost of City condemnation to obtain this right-of-way from the owner on the North boundary line at five to seven thousand dollars and it.was further clarified th I City had not contacted the owner in question in this present situation. I IIIIIII Commissioner Little stated, and it was later agreed by other commissioners, that the additional access was an absolute necessity and the City should pursue whatever laction was required to accomplish this, and the cost. I 1111111 I thereof. The Commission did not feel however, the development I IIIIIII s.hou1d be further delayed because of the access'probler which the developer could not solve himself, but rather , gested another contact with the out-of-town owner woulc this was a problem the City must resolve. It was sug- be timely. RICHARD TWIFERT, 3820 Catalina Drive, addressed the Commission in opposition of additional development in El Camino tract until another access was available and added that 88 residents (91 homes) had signed a petiticn in agreement with this opposition. KARK MULLEN, representative of the developer's engineer- I ing firm, and speaking in favor of the additional-sub- - division, stated the County survey an.d report for majo $1 1 inas for use. IIIIIII 1 access roads was a maximum of 700 dwt Since this would not be the case at the iGtersection o Catalina and Chestnutt Ave onto El Camino Real, it was IIIIIII not going to be overused; certainly not, in relation to other subdivisions in the North County area. The motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 616 and Motion x Irecommend aDDrova1 of the Tentative Map to the City I Ayes Ix I Ix Ix Ix I I Counci 1. A further motion was made that a letter be directed to Motion the City Council by the Planning Commission, requesttn Ayes that the problem of an additional access for El Camino Absen-t .. 1 -iPset\tine.lx 1 x :: x x IMesa subdivision be pursued by the City. lAbs ta ned llxlllll I RESOLUTION NO. 616, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CERTAtN IIIIIII I VARIANCES AND THE TENTATtVE MAP OF EL CAMINO MESA UNtT NO. 5 AND 6, identified by title only and further read I ing waived. The approval of certain Variances and the Tentative MaD is for the reasons and subiect to the I IIIIIII !conditions a; itemized in Staff ReDort dated Mav 16. I lllilll COMMl SSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -3- (b.) Continued - RECLASSIFICATION AND SPECIFIC PLAN -Tc consider an application for Zone Change from R-1-7,SOC to P-C (Planned Communit-y), and a Specific Plan locate on the North Side of Tamarack Avenue between Highland Drive and Margaret Way - Applicant-: Richard E. Geyer. The public hearing was opened and Staff Report dated May 27, 1969, was read in full by the Planning Directc outlining both the zone reclassification and the specific plan, as well as the staff's recommendation t approve same, subject to itemized conditions. Exhibit A (Site P1an)'was shown, with the landscaping and open green areas in Green and the proposed buildings in B row'n . The Secretary then read the Written Communications received on this application: 1) Letter from L. A, Olsen, Realtor, 2785 Roosevelt Street, dated May 27, 1969, presented .his opposition to the zone change in the R-1 zoning, as being R-3 in disguise. Other prob- lems Mr. Olsen predicted by the rezoning were transpor tation, shopping, non-use of presently zoned R-3 for this development, and general downgrading of R-1 prope 2) A letter dated June 1, 1969 from Maurice Brunache, 1101 Rene Drive, Santa Ana, California and an adjoinin property owner to subject property, in which the rezon was protested as degrading residential property such a exists in this area. The Chairman then called for the applicant or his repr sentative and DONALD L. SHAFFER, Architect, 233 "A" Street, San Diego, approached the Commission. Mr. Shaffer is the designer of this and other Planned Corn- munity developments in San Diego County, and he explai he would make about a 10 minute presentation to acquai the Commission with the project, util.izing his talk on a tape while he showed the graphics and flash cards on the blackboard. Before this, Mr. Shaffer stated that R-3 zoning (Multiple-Residential) would allow 122 unit for the property in question, while the P-C zoning ap- plication was for only 24 units. Mr. Shaffer's presentation covered all the aspects of the development as to density, traffic, noise, childre design features, parking facilities,open green areas, and recreation areas (no swimming pool is planned to alleviate a noise problem). He also presented statist justifying the need for an "adult community" in this City and discussed the age and income of the individua this type of project is geared for. In closing, Mr., Shaffer estimated the tax doila'r gain and school tax contribution from this development to the City. There being no others to speak in favor of the applica tion, the Chairman called for those in opposition, and HAROLD F. LARSEN, 1365 Tamarack Avenue, on property directly opposite of the proposed development, address the Commission. He took exception to many of the potr made in the previous presentation by the architect, ir particular the additional traffic on Tamarack, whi'ch has no sidewalks at this time, the density proposed, and the fact that this was strictly an adult comrnuntty with no children allowed. There were no others in opposition to the development, CITY OF CARLSBAC -4- COMMI: SIONERS and the public hearing was closed, opening the dis- cussion and questions from the Commission. These in- cluded the density ratio, number of two-bedroom units and parking facilities for each, the minimum -income and market this development would require, and the past problem of rezoning to R-2 or R-3, when R-3 zonin was undeveloped in the City. The architect clarified that all units would be two-bedroom units and 2-1/2 parking spaces had been allowed for each. Commissioner Palmateer felt the comparison of R-3 zoning, or mu-ltiple family apartment houses, with the Planned Community zoning was unfair and inaccurate. He s,tated he was familiar with this zoning in other California cities and it was a much-needed and welcome first in Carlsbad, and several differences in the two uses were given. He did question Item No. 7 of the Staff Report concerning maintenance of common areas and private onsite utilities, in the event the units were sold to individuals. The architect later explain the zoning provides that the maintenance cannot be don by the individual owners, but must be contracted to a company in that business. The architect was further questioned on the availability of private ownerships in this development, and it was explained this item ha been included because of the time factor and financing arrangements desired, but it was not known that this would ever be the case. Following clarification of this item, the motion was made to adopt Resolutions No. 621 and 622, recommendin to the City Council adoption of a change of zone and, adoption of a specific plan for the reasons and condit shown in Staff Report dated May 27, 1969. RESOLUTION NO. 621, A RESOLUTtON OF THE CARLSBAD CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDtNG TO CITY COUNCIL A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1-7,500 TO P-c (PLANNED COMMUNI'T ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY StDE OF TAMARACK AVENUE, BETWEEN HtGHLAND DRPVE AND MARGARET WAY, whi.cR was identified by title only and further readi-ng waive approval was for the three reasons listed in Staff Re- port dated May 27, 1969 and, RESOLUTION NO. 622, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A SPECtFIC PLAN FOR RICHARD E. GEYER, ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF'TAMARACK AVENUE, BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND MARGARET WAY, also identifi by title only and further reading waived; approval is for the reasons listed in Staff. Report dated May 27, 1969, and subject to Conditions No. 1 through No. 15, of the same report. (c) CONDlTlONAL USE PERMIT - To allow the development of a mobile home park - Rancho Hedionda Mobile Village located aDDroximatelv one mile Northerlv of El Camino Real, near and Southeasterly of Calavera Lake - Owner and Developer: Robert L. Clark et al. .. The Staff Report dated June 2, 1969 and City map dis- playing the proposed development were presented by the Planning Director, with the background information,. reasons for approval recommendation, and conditions of approval, being read in full. The Department's design CITY OF CARLSBAD -5- 1a.yout (Exh.ibit A) further showed the golf course and open spaces in Green and other recreational facilities were indicated in Red. ROBERT L. CLARK, 400 Newport Cente-r Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, addressed the Commission as representative and further advised the design firm for this mobile home project was George Roach of Virge - Roach Architects. Mr. George Roach was also present for this application. Mr. Clark stated, insofar as conditions of approval as read from Staff Report above, his firm was agreeable t dedication of College Boulevard as this was necessary, but regarding Cannon Road, inasmuch as this road serve no use as access to his property, the full improvement of this road was not deemed necessary. They would giv the requested right-of-way however. The remaining con- ditions as presented in the Staff Report were felt to be standard and were agreed to. Mr. Clark then turned his presentation over to Mr. George Roach and Mr. Roac d.escribed the terrain, homesites, golf course, and 0th recreational features of the park. It was shown that where homesite layouts were not contiguous with the hilly or rough terrain, "green belt clusters" would be used. The density pattern for this land, and the fact that it will be both an adults-only and family area park was presented. C c € t er There being no others desiring to speak in favor of, and none to speak in opposition to this project, there were some in the audience with questions on certain points of this development. ALLAN KELLY, 4675 El Camiro Rea1;questioned the alignment of Cannon Road as shown on Exhibit A, which appeared not to be in line with the County's proposed alignment for this-road. The appli- cant stated the County's proposal was unknown to him and the Planning Director explained Exhibit Ats locat on had been shown pending further study by the County. HOWARD HARMON, Superintendent of Carlsbad Union School District, questioned the applicant for estimate of how many families with school-age children would result from this development because of the possible need for a school in or near it. The applicant was unable to give an exact number until they see how familtes receiie the park, but could estimate a maximum of 200 families with children. Discussion followed from the Commission and the appli- cant regard'ing the access road, tie-in with El Camino Real, sewer, power and water'hookup with CTty lines, etc. The applicant offered that they have a 60 foot right-of-way to tie in with the sewer line existing to El Camino Real. The Cityss obligation for thls alread annexed area regarding the tie-in for this property wa referred to the City Engineer.for clarification, Mr. Lill pointed out the extent of City sewer lrne to the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and stated the devel- oper would be required to hook up to that 1 ?ne dn the East boundary of that development; The water line from El Camino Real to Calavera Lake could be tied into fro this development by bringing their water lines over to At one point, there appeared to be misunderstandings COMMlSSlONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD -6- by' the deve.loper as far as the City's obligations to extend the sewer and water lines nearer his property, but it was later made cl'ear to the Commission that the developer had understood there would be considerable costs incurred by him to'bring these services into the development. The developer further clarified th'e stre within the development would not be dedicated ones, as they were internal streets only. However, Cannon Road would be dedicated to the City as the prime access roa to the park. The motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 625, grant ing a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Rancho Hedio Mobi'le Village, for the reasons and subject to conditi outlined in Staff Report dated June 2, 1969. RESOLUTION NO. 625, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REAL, NEAR AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF CALAVERA LAKE, identi- fied by title only and further reading waived; approva uas granted for the reasons (No. 1 and 2) and subject to the condi tions (Nos. 1 thru 17) as shown in the Staff Report dated June 2, 1969. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTHERLY OF EL CAMINO (d) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT - To consider application for ten-year extension of the original Conditional Use Permit, and Amendment to perm sale of beer at all events except drag races - Carlsba Raceway Corporation, located approximately two miles East of Palomar Airport and North of Palomar Airport Road. The Staff Report dated May 27, 1969, was read in full by the Planning Director, which presented certain fact regarding the original Conditional Us.e Permit and prev requests to allow sale of beer; also, the recommenda- tion to deny this request and supportive data was read The Secretary introduced all the correspondence receiv on this application, as follows: (1) Letter with five attachments (location sketch and 4-page petition with 75 signers), dated May 1, 1969 from Larry Grismer, President of Carlsbad Raceway. Ten (10) items of "Dire Benefits to the residents and businessmen of the City of Carlsbad" and, three (3) "Reasons for requesting Permission to sell beer at motorcycle and events other than drag racing" were read; Petition with 75 signers was headed "We the undersigned, feel that the Carlsbad Raceway has been beneficial to the overall interests o the City and recommend that you'extend their Condition Use Permit for ten years". (2) Letter dated June 2, 1969 from Russell L. Thibodo, Margaret J. Thibodo, Roger Meisinger and Marilyn Meisinger was read, protesting the extension and the amendment. These individuals own approximately 1,600 acres of land, a portion of which immediately adjoins the Carlsbad Raceway. The inability to develop to a higher use and the serious detrimental effects on real property in this vicinity were given as reasons for protest. (3) Letter dated June 6, 1969 from Jack and Roberta Adams, 800 East Washington, Escondido, was read, prote ting extension of the Conditional Use Permit and out- ts Mot ion da Ayes IS Absent m X ., . .m CITY OF CARLSBAD -7- li‘ning terms of the original permit and the conditions that existed in that vicinity at the time. The fact that time has changed th-e potential of that area and they desire to offer their property to developers who are adverse to the drag strip exis.ting there, summariz their protest to this application. (4) Letter dated June 8, 1969 from Clarence H. Dawson and adjacent property owner, protested the application and requested it be denied. The dragstrip as a public nuisance, noise from the events, undesirable persons causing damage and trash to the countryside, and its ?eration hindering surrounding development, were cited as r’easons of this protest. Following this written correspondence, the Chairman called for the applicant or his representative. J. S. BELON D, 929 Goldenrod, Newport Beach, California, ad- dressed the Comm.ission as president of the Corporation and stated he felt the raceway had had much beneficial effect on the City and had also brought much revenue to the City, as well as considerable good publicity. DONALD C. DUNHAM, 2228 State Street, a local represent tive of the Corporation, spoke in favor of this appli- cation, and refuted an item of the Staff Report which stated beer would be sold by minors at events and note this was against the State Laws as well. There were no others present in favor of the applica- tion and those in opposition were called for. DON MARTINSON, 365 East Broadway, Vista, attorney represen ting the Thibido and Meisinger property, Lake San Marc Mr. and Mrs. Frank B. Delfy, and himself, offered many reasons his clients protested any extension of time fo the raceway; particularly, as it hindered further de- velopment of surrounding property. He requested this present application be denied and the permit be allowed to run through it’s original date of 1973. IRL R. ROBINSON, Attorney, First National Bank Buildin San Diego, a property owner in near vicinity and auth- orized to represent the Dressy Ranch, Howard Ranch, an La Costa, all of whom do not desire an extension of this permit that still has 4 years to run. He also cited some of the reasons he and his clients opposed the raceway in that particular area, particularly as it affected hlgher and better development of t.he area. Following completion of those opposed to this applica- tion, the public hearing was’cl’osed and Commission discussion centered around the prematurity of the re- quest for extension beyond the 1973 date. A motion was made to deny the Conditional Use Permit extension and, amendment to allow sale of beer. RESOLUTION NO. 624, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CIT’ PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Y EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWO MIL EAST OF PALOMAR AIRPORT AND NORTH OF PALOMAR ArRPORT ROAD, identified by title only and further reading waived, for the following reasons: COMMISSIONERS 1 1 Mot ion Ayes Ab.sent COMMISSIONERS F, CI TV OF -8- CARLSEAD B. That no evidence was presented indicating there is a demand for this request; C.. Not in the best interests of the surround propert owners; D. That the application is prema'ture at this time du to the original Conditional Use Permit not expir- ing until 1973. (e) RESOLUTION OF INTENTtON NO, 65 - To consider recommending to City Council the Amendments to Ordinqn No. 9060. under Section 1 and Section 2. concerni'na I areenhouses and Dackina and sortina sheds. .. The Chief Building Inspector briefed the background on this Resolution of Intention, as resulting from a requ on his department for a packing shed of excess.?ve db mensions, at which time he sought permission Prom the Commission to al.10~ that request, and future ones. It was explained the proposed amendments to the ordtnance would set down the requirements needed to make future d.ecisions of this type. There were no questions from the audience and none further from the Commission; a motion was therefore introduced to recommend these amendments to Ordinance No. 9060 to the City Council as contained in Resolution No. 627. RESOLUTION NO. 627, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMEND MENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 9060 BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5, SECT 500, SUBPARAGRAPH 3, AND ADDING SUBPARAGRAPHS 23 AND 2 TO ARTICLE 14, SECTION 1400, REGARDING GREENHOUSES AND PACKING AND SORTING SHEDS, identified by title only an further reading waived; this recommendation was for th following reasons: 4. Based on the past investigation,. this matter is felt to be in the best interests of the City of Carlsbad; B. These items are not detrimental to surrounding properties. 3LD BUS I NESS: (a) Conditional Use Permit to allow construction and use of a U.S. Post.Office Building and parking facilit Resolution No. 580, November 12, 1968. The Chairman introduced a motion regarding the orBenta tion of the' post office building and asked the Plannin Director to clarify this need for the Commission. It was explained the granting of original Conditional Use Permit for this building did not clearly control the location of the building and the public parking space. Further, the engineering firm for the post office but1 ing now proposes to shift the-parking facilities 180 degrees as opposed. to what was shown on the Exhibit A which was introduced for original Condttional Use Perm and which was acted upon. The Planning Director presented subject Exhibit A and showed how the building location and public parking wo be affected by these changes as proposed by the engi'ne firm. He also read the reasons and conditions for gra ing the original permit, as contained rn Resolution No -t Motion Ayes Absent N ? d ing 80. P I X c CITY OF CARLSBAD -9 - Following this background of the original permit and the explanation for this. present motion, it was agreed by the Commission they had indeed acted on this appli- cation, with Exhibit A an integral part of the applica tion as originally presented, and it should be complie with, as shown. The motion was made that the orientation of the propos post office building remain fixed, as designated on Exhibit A of Conditional Use Permit, Resolution No. 58 and that the -intent of said resolution include the relationship of the public entrance and loading areas to the respective streets, as per Exhibit A. (b) Continued - Two (2) Requests for House Move - Referred by Building Department for decision regarding issuance of permit; originally Jtems 1 and 2 of Agenda for Adjourned Meeting, June 4, 1969. Mr. Jack McCoy, applicant for the item of 4 house move t.o 985 Laguna Drive, was present and was desirous of a decision on the 4 dwellings in question, althought it was pointed out to him several Commissioners had not seen the houses in question, or the proposed location. Mr. Osburn presented his department's report and state the ordinance requires this request be heard by the Commission for a decision, before a permit can be issu Mr. McCoy had prepared a chart showing all the houses to be moved, which was passed to the Commission for viewing and presented his reasons for this request, an the intended use, following relocation and refurbishin Mr. Osburn stated his department could not recommend these house moves, in that the quality of the construc tion was certainly questionable as he was aware of the history of these buildings. ACso, they would have to pass inspections after beina moved and he did not thin the a bring these hoped being A mot moves plicant was aware of iow costly it would be to these particular buildings up to code. Primaril older buildings were opposed to the proposed and for development in this area, following the tren set by a recent project in this vicinity. on was made to continue the request for house until the next regular meeting of June 24, 1969, to allow time to study the buildings in question and the proposed location for them. It was clarified the applicant for the second item of request for house move, Mr. John Scanlon, was not present and this item will be continued as the item ab NEW BUSINESS: (a) Resolution of Intention No., 66 - To consider amen ing the Zoning Ordinance to cover veterinary hospitals with a Conditional Use Permit, and hold a public heari at a later meeting. The Planning Director read the proposed Resolution of Intention No. 66 and stated that the zoning ordinance is felt to be quite restrictive regarding this type of facility, in that veterinarians and small animal hospi COMMISSIONERS I Motion Ayes Absent 1. Motion Ayes Absent /e. 3 1 c c I 3 K , .. . .* CITY OF CARLSBAD -10- ta.ls have changed considerably. It was further felt that to limit these facilities to the C-M zone might )e an injustice to them;. therefore, a review is in ordl to study the complete situation. It was agreed this situation should be studied and up- iated, and a motion was made to adopt the resolution ts lold a prblic hearing on the matter July 8, 1969. 3ESQLUTlON OF INTENTION NO. 66, A RESOLUTtON OF THE 'LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DECLARING ITS INTENTION.TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3060, BY ADDING SUBPARAGRAPH 25 TO ARTICLE 14, SECTION 1400*, REGARDING VETERINARIANS AND SMALL ANIMAL HOSPITA these amendments will be considered at a public hearin 3n July 8, 1969, at 7:30 P.M., and notice of said pub1 Tearing shall be given according to law. 4DJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:18 '..M., and agreed unanimously by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Recordjhg Kecretary COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent Mot ion Absent