HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-06-09; Planning Commission; Minutes-, *.
CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMl SSIONERS
MEETING OF: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMtSSPON
DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 9, 1970
TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: C fTY COUNC fL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL:
City staff representatfves present: R. A. Johnston, E.
Pyesent x
3. Olinghouse, J. E. Spano, R. S.. Osburn.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 26, 1970 were Motion X
approved by voice vote, as corrected. Ayes X xxxxx
Commissioner Hermsen was present at 7:46 P.M.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
(a) Chairman Jose read from a California Roadside Council
document (San Francisco) dated 5/22/70, regarding bi 11-
boards, in which a executive of the oil E gas industry
moved for his company's products not to be advertized
in scenic or rural areas at all, but are probably not
harmful in established CO~merCial -and industrial areas.
In view of this City's recent sign and billboard
efforts this article was briefly discussed and consider-
ed a good approach to the problem of billboards in thls
State.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Absent X
Absent X
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(a) CONTINUED - CONDlTtONAL USE PERMI'T - To allow con-
struction of a Luthern Church, Church School.and Parsonage,
located at SE Corner of Elm Avenue and Valley Street;
Applicant: Henry Meyers Investments,. fnc.
Mr. Johnston read the Staff Report of June 3, 1970
in ful 1, presenting background information, staff recomien-
dations to approve this application, reasons for same,
and conditions of approval (Items 1 thru 15). He also
referred to Exhibit "All displayed on the wall, depictinlj
the general area, building layout, parking area.and acctss
and exit for this development. The City's proposed ex-
tension for Elm Avenue was also shown on this plot, as
it ties into this development site. The secretary read
correspondence from Kamar Constructfon Company, dated
5/12/70, who are owners and developers in thls area alsc.
They state this development is a logical and good plan
and would be of valuable service to the area, because
of the Elm Avenue extension and the unusual shape of th
.piece of property.
s
MR. TONY HOWARD-JONES, President of Henry Meyers
Investments, Inc, 3985 Park Drive, stated they were the
owners of this property, but all other phases of its
development for this use would be handled by the Lutherrl
Church. He briefed the history and reason for the unusuil
configuration of this property and stated it did not lerd
itself to standard subdivision development, but it woulc
be suitable for the church, school and parsonage as
1 anned.
-.
.. . -. b. I
.!. .... i
f
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-2-
- ~ ~~
The Chairman questioned the six-foot wall being
only on the South side of the property and whether the1
were any plans for future fences on the East or-West
boundaries. Mr. Johnston explain'ed the South wall was
to shield adjacent prdperty from auto light glare, but
the topography on the East and West sides did not appei
to warrant this consideration and fencing was not plan1
The extension of Canyon Drive in the future was dis-
cussed and Mr. Johnston pointed out the very hilly arei
to be considered insuch extension would pose problems.
Also, the Cha.irman questioned if there would ever be a
traffic light at the intersection of Elm Ave & Valley,
and Mr. Johnston referred to Condition #15 of the Staf.
Report regarding dedication to the City of access righ,
on Elm Avenue, which would ultimately close off this
access/exit location from the parking lot.
The safety factor was discussed, with the present
and future conditions on Elm Avenue in mind, and Mr.
Johnston pointed out there was no other exit location
available and this was some 200 ft. from the intersec-
tion in question. These questions being clarified, thc
Chairman asked for those in the audience who wished to
speak.
REV. HIND, San Diego representative of the Wisconsin
Evangelical Luthern Church Synold, was present and had quest ions regarding Condition #l5 of subjec
staff report (i.e., future access rights on Elm Avenue
This would require a new access/exit location be const
ted by the Church at the completion of Elm Avenue extel
ion, and Rev. Hind felt this was a difficult condition
to impose on a developer who owned some 750 ft. of fro1
age property. Mr. Johnston explatned that the General
Plan proposed Elm Avenue as a maJor, arterial highway
from Pi0 Pic0 to El Camino Real, and the future traffil
safety problems there necessitated this condition, due
to the drop off of the land to the East. Rev. Hind alsc
felt this presented an impossible situation for the
Church architect, where no access/exit was allowed on
such a lengthy property line, and just off the parking
lot. Mr. Johnston advised no other developer in this
area, i.e., Falcon Hills subdivision, Hosp Grove plannc
community, etc. (from Valley Street east), had been
given Elm Avenue access, in order to keep access limitc
to intersections only for the extension. It was also
felt this development, with only a 40-car parking'lot,
could be well planned without such access either. Be-
cause of the rolling land in this extension area, it
was felt certain "blind spots" could exist, which with
additional Elm Avenue accesses, would enhance a traffic
safety problem.
Rev. Hind was questioned by the Commission what,
if any, future expansion of the school and parking lot
might be planned, and he stated except for perhaps 2
more classrooms, there was no expansion planned. He
felt the Valley Street access, required after Elm Aven~
was closed to them, posed a difficulty for parsonage
and parking lot use, particularly on Sunday mornings.
He added there were no other problem conditions in the
staff report, and these were considered standard develc
COMMISSIONERS
t . ... .
'r ' .-
CI TV OF CARLSBAD
-3-
ment conditions.
Mr. Spano stated it had become the policy of the
City and City Engineering Department to limit access o
Elm Avenue, all the way to El Camino Real, for the rea
\
h Condition #15, requiring dedication of'access rights a
that location. The proper motion was then made to ap-
prove Resolution No. 663, granting this application Po
the following reasons, and subject to all Conditions o
pproval (Nos. 1 thru 15) set forth in Staff Report of
already given, particularly as regards potential traffi'
problems in this area. Questions arose as to extensic
of Elm through gas tax funds and Mr. Spano stated the
extension, either thru this means or with property owne
participation, was not yet clear and that such determir
tion was a matter of Council action. It is not budgete
under gas tax' funds this year as there are no such func
available. Mr. Spano spoke on Condition #14 regarding
storm drainage by improvement district, which he said
would be shared by property owners from Buena Vista to
approximately Oak Avenue. Further, there is no sewer
in this area a5 yet, with septic tanks all along Valle
Street. Mr. Spano explained the problems of sewing an
said one possibility was establishing a pump station or
installing an easterly flowin'g sewer with the construc-
tion of Elm Avenue extension. This again, is dependent
on the future development in the area. Mr. Spano hoped
the Commission would consider the effect of changing
access dedication off Elm for this development (Item #1
at this time, regarding future development near thls
street and the traffic situation that would develop.
MR. GEORGE D. REBAR, 448 Canyon Drive, referred to
Condition #15 and the possibility of future need by the
fire or police department to get into this property an
having to come in by way of Valley Street. It was poin
out that residents on cul-de-sac streets have a like
situation.
MR. MAX EWALD, 2729 Carlsbad Boulevard, discussed t
future extension of Elm Avenue, which he recalled had
been improved 4 times, by some 4 different Ctty Council
since its acceptance in 1956, along with Tamarack Avenu
He felt the precident had been set and the City must no
wait for the necessary action to complete Elm through t
El Camino Real, which action will be decided by the Cit
Council as previously.
MR. HARRY TRUAX, 4125 Harbor Drive, commented he kn
of now written, or otherwise established, City policy
regarding limited access for Elm Avenue in the future.
He felt however, this could be termed "restricted" acce
He agreed with the Luthern representative that an owner
ship of 750. feet of frontage had every right to demand
access. He also felt the Church, and adjacent property
owners, could no doubt propose a sewer for the area tha
would meet the County health department requirements,
MR. WILLIAM H. RAY, 3621 Trieste Drive, felt that
a consideration should be made of the fact that except
for Sunday morning hours, the traffic in and out of thi
parking lot would be quite light.
The public hearing was closed at 8:22 P.M. and Com-
mission discussion followed, covering the previous prob
of access to Elm Avenue for the Church and the stated
COMMISSIONERS
ment conditions.
Mr. Spano stated it had become the policy of the
City and City Engineering Department to limit access o
Elm Avenue, all the way to El Camino Real, for the rea
C
n
r
a
d
5
5
d
t
5
D
I
Dl
a
c
L
\
1'
Condition #15, requiring dedication of 'access rights at
that location. The proper motion was then made to ap-
prove Resolution No. 663, granting this application for
the following reasons, and subject to all Conditions of
pproval (Nos. 1 thru 15) set forth in Staff Report of h
ns
-
z
ed
e
11.1
s.
em
\
,
CITY OF CMLSBAD
-4-
COMMISSIONERS
June 3, 1970.
Conditions 1 through 15 of Staff Report dated June 3,
1970, for the following reasons:
1. That the.granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the surrounding proper-
ties;
and buffering between residential uses and a futur
major arterial highway;
2. That the proposed project will provide open space
OLD BUSINESS:
(a) 'Continued' Items Attachment - Planning Director
reports:
70.2 Garfield Area Reclassification - Polling of
property owners continuing; public hearing date to be set following this action. Polling about 50% complete
70.3 Buena Vista Lagoon Study - Planning Director to
follow-up.
70.4 Mobile Homes Study - Mr. 0linghouse.discussed
the preparation of this study, being offered as a
Supplement No. 1 to the Cityhs Hous.ing Element of the
ordinance. He added there was certain otfier appendtx
information he planned to include, in the form of ad-
ditional statistic charts and comparisons with other
cities. He asked that tonite's discussions be general
prior to any public hearing or recommendation to the
City Council. Items of discussion included in this
report were: (1) National statistics for mobile Rome
dwellers, as opposed to Southern California facts now
available; (2) The San Diego CPOts future study and
report which is forthcoming, probably in the Fall, and
which Mr. Olinghouse felt would be very helpful; (3)
Median incomes, low values, and residential patterns i
the North County community, as compared with Carlsbads
The lack of comparative data and CarlsbadEs present
lack of the newer mobile home parks; (5) The long term
meaning of "urban sprawl" and how it applies to these
parks.
Commissioner Palmateer volunteered certain appl c-
able information, as obtained from hi'~ recent attend-
ance at the League of California Cities Planning con-
ference in Anaheim, and he said mobile home park devel-
opment is apparently a problem of prl-me importance
,throughout this State, although most cities have varyirg
' conditions to report, making generalized planning diffi- i cult in many areas. Some common features brought out
were: Disadvantages - (1) The physical aspects -- where
to fit into City plans because of urban sprawl and beirg
difficult to use as part of a coordinated city, being
isolated communities within the community. (2) That they
/
..
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-5-
school district; (3) They could
some needs for low-cost housing
homes will be required by 1980,
physical impossibility for sing
provide.)
However, it was a genera
tended to have an image of non-permanence; (3) They dc
not fit into the goals o'r policies of the General Plal
for cities; (4) They do not add materially to the worl
force; (5) That incomes are generally below middle in.
come-s for a city.
Advantages were: (1) They do bring in outside
monies and residents tend to spend almost all of thei
total dollar in a given city, or area; (21 They do cu'
down on the number of school classrooms needed in a
provide an answer to
(.i.e., some 27 milliol
which is considered a
le dwellings alone to
1 opinion that as far
City services required fo; these mobile home parks, i
usually costs the city more for normal services becaus
of their 1ocation.from the central city. Commissione
Palmateer presented a few personal recommendations, a
a result of his review of this mobile home report and
these recent pertinent discussions at the conference:
(1) A time limitation should be placed on the conditic
use permit5 for these parks to develop; (2) A size
limitation should be imposed, as to square footage al'
lowed for units, in order to make them'comparable to
single .dwelling units; (3) Possibly specify by ordinal
that mobile home developments not comprise more than
a certain percentage of dwelling units within a city; (4) Generally, plan where they will be located in an
attempt to fit them into the existing community; (5)
Attempt to limit the size of the complete development
MR. HARRY TRUAX, 4125 Harbor Drive, wished to
comment on his review of this report, as it differed
with his working experience and knowledge of mobile
home developments in this area (Oceanside-Carlsbad.)
H.e commen.ted he thought it was a good report and the
figures were well compiled, with evidence of much re-
search being done. He did disagree with several com-
ments contained in the "Summary of Findings", dealing
with planning and engineering for these parks; he did
feel topography represented any real problem; he
questioned the "comparative low land valuest' and cite
an instance in Oceanside recently where this was enti
the reverse case; he felt the comments in the k'Summar,
of Findings'' were entirely too general. Mr. Truax fel
it was the-duty of the City itself to educate and
utilize its new residents, for an asset rather than
allow the'isolated community to exist, and this could
be applied to the issue of school bonds being voted
down by such retiree communities.
Mr. Truax felt the park developer stands many
taxes which benefit the city, and that he continues tc
maintain his own utilities, streets, improvements,'etc
He felt the recently added sewer plant in this area
has precipitated the many mobile home applications in
this city, and that this will no doubt conttnue, as
financing is more readily available than for subdivis,
ions at this time. He also felt these parks fulffll
a definite housing need rather than displacing the
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-6-
single family dwelling. He also compared financing a
attitudes towards adults only and family-type parks,
as well as regulations governing each. He concluded,
asking the Commlssion to exert g-reat care in approach
f'uture mobile home developments, if the Planning Depa
ments report and recommendations are followed.
Mr. Olinghouse stated he wished to present thi
report to the Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce,
and certain other interested groups, for discussion
of its' ramifications, after which he can summarize
these findings and report back to the Commission. He
suggested setting a tentative public hearing date, vi
Resolution of Intention, for July 14,1970. A motion
was then made to resubmit the report to the Commissio
by July 14th, before any hearing date is set, and thi
received unanimous voice vote approval.
I
70.5 Density Study - To be'incorporated with actton
in Garfield Area Reclassification.
70.6 Public Utility Zone - Mr. Richmond of SDGEE wa
present and said their was nothing to report as yet.
70.8 Scenic Corridor - To be continued, pending
completion of priority projects.
70.11 Problem Area Zoning Study - With CIC and curr
tly being studied as to federal programs available.
70.12 Revised General Plan - Land Use Element - Mr.
Olinghouse asked for any comments on the previously
transmitted map and department recommendations. The
densities involved were discussed and Mr. Johnston
commented that this area has never .been approved in
the General Plan, but the Planned Community Zone is
quite feasible here for its development. Also, a P-C
reclassification was recently approved for this area
and another is in the Planning Department at present.,
The present R-T Zone with its rather high densities
(as opposed to the 0 - 30 density proposed) does not
make good planning for the whole area possible. For
these reasons, a basis of planning should be resolved
The motion was made to approve the Land Use
Element recommendations as presented, and to set.a
public hearing date, via Resolution of Intention, for
the July 14, 1970 meeting. This received unanimous
voice vote approval.
70.13 South Carlsbad Community Plan - Target Date-J
70.14 Open Space Element - Target Date-June 23, 1970
70.15 Education Element - Mr. Olinghouse advised th
item may be deleted, pending research to be completed
by the Urban Planning Consultants (Duncan G Jones) un
the Federal assistance program,
(Note: The Chairman requested that Items 6 and 7 of t
Agenda Format (Old Business and New Business) be reve
to accommodate those present desiring to handle "New
Business" items, and not having to wait through our
Continued Items list. In the future, New Business it1
will be heard first.) I
COMMl SSIONERS
9 -
Motion
Ayes
Mot ion
Ayes
e
r
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-7-
NEW BUSINESS:
(a) CONTINUED - Memorandum dated 5/20/70 re Request for House Move approval for Danny Soto of 2615 Madison Street
to relocate to rear of lot at 2568 Roosevelt Street
Mr. Osburn was present to present the background on
this house move request and had forwarded a sketch show-
~ ing the present location and proposed location, all on the same lot. He stated the house was in good conditio1
and he could recommend approval of this request. Also,
Mr. Soto has already made the curb and gutter improve-
ments at the proposed location.
The motion was made to grant the request for house
move from 2615 Madison Street to 2678 Roosevelt Street,
by Mr. Danny Soto; this received unanimous voice vote
approval.
I I
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
(a) League of California Cities Conference, Anahetm, June 3-5 - Chairman Jose and Commissioner Palmateer
both commented on the excellence of this conference, as
to roundtable discussions, discussion topics, speakers,
and good communications between the professional repre-
sentatives and city commissioners. Chairman Jose advis
he had requested the League to make means of duplicatFn
speeches or background material for discussions, avail-
able to attendees, as much of this information was time
and applicable to problems in many cities.
ADJOURNMENT:
The motion was made and unanimously agreed by votce
vote to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 P.M.
Mot
Aye
:d
I
Y
Mot
Aye
COMMISSIONERS