Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-11-10; Planning Commission; MinutesE" C ITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1970 TIME: 7:30 P.M. O'Clock PLACE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: City Staff representatives present: Stuart Wilson, R.A Johnston, J. E. Spano, R. S.Osbui-n APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 27, 1970 were approved as submitted, by a motion receiving voic vote approval. I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. I I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Chairman Jose advised of Commissioner Gullett's resignation in October and stated an appointment to replace him will be forthcoming from the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONE and APOPTXON OF SPECI'FI PLAN - Application for change from R-P to C-2 Zone for Apartment Units and Store/Office Units; Applicant/Owne Richard E. Geyer, located on SW Corner Beech and Roose Streets. The secretary read correspondence received from Mr. Tony Howard-Jones on Roosevelt Street and dated 11/6/70, stating his approval of the proposed developm and its addition to the whole area. Mr. Johnston presented the Staff Report dated 11 while referring to wall exhibits (2) showing- the parce location, present and adjacent zoning uses and, a map entitled "Exhibit A" showing details, elevations, and proposed layout of subject building. The staff's recommendation to approve this application was substan with 3 reasons and the conditions of approval were in- cluded, and read aloud. Mr. Johnston was then questio by the Commission regarding certain of these condition which he, in turn, referred to Mr. Spano as representa of the Engineering Department, from which these condit originated. Mr. Spano answered questions on Condition Item 4 and If). The ornamental street lights referred to a special type of pole designed for street lights only a no other use, and not mounted on the building. As to the requirement of a parcel map, it was stated such wa desired because the original surveys were so old for this area, and it would be helpful in establishing the corners for future work or development. Also, the zon change would change the land use and a parcel map woul be desirable for this reason also. Mr. Johnston state regarding Item 4(c) treewell and approved tree install, that it was normal in such cases to require these of t. developer, even though they would be in City right of MR. RICHARD E. GEYER, P. 0. Box 1216, was presen nd referred to his recent development of "The Jolly eahorse" on State and Beech and directly behind this lanned building. He felt it had been a definite asse o the area and to downtown renewel which he also felt ould continue as a result of recent developments in t. COMMISSIONERS - Present Motion A yes It - t ted d ve ns ion, CITY OF CARLSBAD -2- general area. He also commented on the Conditions of approval in the staff report (Item 4) regarding City Engineer requirements for this development. He Was OP- posed to 4(d) and 4(f), stating the City Cannot requirt a parcel map by law as this is not a division of land but simply a lot, and parcel maps apply under division of land requirements. He gave a brief history of the street lighting situation prior to his installation in the parking lot for The Jolly Seahorse thls year, and stated no lights had existed for an area from Beech to Laguna, nor had several efforts on his part to get the City to recognize this lack availed any lighting. He stated he would be willing to install the Beech Street light but if so, he wants to be exempted from the Roosevelt Street improvements. He also advised of a recent State program whereby the City and the school district could avail themselves of surplus street ligh, of a modern type at no cost and wheaeby SDG&E Company has been helpful in installing these lights where need( on weekends. Mr. Geyer, felt' the City should look intc such surplus lights since there is such an obvious nee( of them in the City. Further questions of Mr. Geyer from the Commissic referred to these two items under Condition #4 and Mr. Geyer offered additional facts supporting his statemen, that they were unfair or illegal requirements of any developer. He briefed the Commission, with the use of the wall exhibit, on the existing street lights in the area and what will be available with completion of the post office building on Roosevelt and his proposed building. MR.HARRY TRUAX,representative of E. Brian Smith Engineering Company (recently relocated in the City on State Street and near the proposed new building), was present to speak in favor of Mr. Geyer's application. He felt this building would be a definite asset to the general area and it's redevelopment within the downtowl business district. He also commented on the requiremen; of a parcel map and said the State law was explicit abc its requirement for divisions of land only. He felt tht was no justification for such on the property involved He referred to the figure of $248.00 which Mr. Geyer had quoted as the price of installing one street light, and stated it was considerably lower than actual cost considering the electrical installation required for $1 He also added he felt any street lighting should come to the area. through an improvement district for same. There were no more questions of the applicant, but Mr. Geyer did wish to ask the City Attorney about the quesl of the parcel map being a State law requirement for divisions of land only. Mr. Wilson stated based on the facts at hand, the requirement of a parcel map is not clear but the State law does apply to a division of dind, which is not in- volved in this case. He could see no requirement of st 3 map unless the Engineering Department sees the highe2 land use brought about by the zone change as a reason for desiring same. He could not say what thinking migl be involved as he had not conferred with the City EngiI 3n this prior to the hearing. There were additional guestions and discussion between the Commission and Mr, Spano regarding this particular condition of approval, 7Pon questioning by Mr. Geyer, Mr. Osburn of the Build1 COMMISSIONERS '\\ t e on h er 9 \ .- .. 7- E: " -3- Department confirmed that a building permit can be issu on the basis of an acceptable licensed surveyor placing the monuments and that these are in existance on this property. Mr. Spano stated the City had no records of a map being filed on such survey but if such was the case, the City could affirm this by their own field survey. Commissioner Palmateer commented on his experienc with older properties as to survey markings on street maps, which can amount to inches or perhaps many feet. He felt that with these streets being recently improved with curbs and gutters the City should have accepted th corners in existance at this street intersection. There was additional discussion on the matter as to ogkier recent developments in the area and what re- quirements had been made of them for parcel maps and th statement was made this would .be the first time in the City of Carlsbad such a requirement had been set for ot than a .division of land. The Chairman commented as a member of the CBPAC that he felt this was a fine asset to the downtown area towards redevelopment of same. It was generally agreed to act on this application at this time, excepting the two conditions of approval (Item 4id) and (f) which wou be forwarded to the City Council for their decision in the matter. The motion was duly made to recommend ap- proval of a zone change to C-2 and, to recommend adopti of a Specific Plan, for the reasons and subject to cond ions as shown below: (Note: Commissioner Dewhurst re- quested he be allowed to abstain from the voting, accou he is a property owner in the subject area.) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 682 - A RESOLUTION 0 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING TO CZTY COUNCI'L A CHA OF ZONE FROM R-P(Residentia1-Professional) ZONE TO C-2 (General-Commercial)ZONE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF ROOSEVELT STREET AND BEECH AYEN adopted by title only and further reading waived; Reaso for such recommendation are: (1)The proposed use is in conformance with The General Plan; (2) Subject use wl'll not be detrimental to adjacent properties and will aid the further redevelopment of the downtown area; (3) The proposed reclassification is in the best interest of th downtown area and the City of Carlsbad. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 683 - A RESOLUTION 0 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDIN ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A TWO-STORY BUILDING CONTAINING FOUR APARTMENT UNITS AND FOUR STORE OR OFFIC UNITS, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF ROOSEVELT STREET AND BEECH AVENUE, identified by title only and further reading waived; Reasons for such recommendation are same as those for Resolution No.682 above; Conditions of approval are as itemized in Staff Report dated 11/04/70, Items 1 through 4, with the exce tion that under Item 4, sub-items d and f are referred to the City Council for decision as to their inclusl'on. p I Yotion 1 Ayes Ibstalned 1 Motion 3bstai'ned k- Ayes L 1 , '\ 7. E"' COMMISSIOE ERS CITY OF CARLSAD -4- EW BUSINESS: a) CONTINUED - Memo, R. S. Osburn to Planning Commissi ated 10/22/70 re Storage Sheds near 4020 Park Drive; pplicant: Mr. Don Pfafflin - City Attorney to report. - Mr. Wilson stated that he had heard from the atto epresenting the owner of these storage sheds and that t now appears this can be solved without a hearing be- ore the Commission. He asked that this matter be con- inued to the 'next meeting (11/24/70) to allow him time o discuss with the staffs involved and Mr. Pfafflin. e will report at that time. b) Commissioner Palmateer wished to make a brief tatement re his thoughts about architectural controls r guidelines within the City, for consideration in the uture development of the City. Discussion then follow d, with the Chairman stating -this has also been discus y the CBDAC in the past. Commissioner Palmateer said e had in mind to pursue some long-range program to fol ome architectural motif or perhaps obtain the services f an archi tect/consul tant. Mr. Johnston commented on the department's feelin nd experience in such matters to date and stated he elt an "architectural review board" would be necessary o avoid the many problem areas. He said he could work p some ideas, alternatives, other city's activities in his regard, etc. and present to the Commission for urther discussion. He also pointed out some of the pportunities that have already presented themselves to ollow an "Early Californiaf1 motif as well as other in- tances that will come up in the future where' the City an exercise architectural controls.. Commissioner Palmateer stated these things should e kept in mind in viewing new buildings before the ommission for approval, in that controls can lend them elves to an individual city and a well-planned one. he Planning Department will follow up in this matter. C) 'Continued' Items attachment - Planning Director eports: All continued items remained as shown on the ttachment, with exception of Item 70.6 Public Utility one: Mr. Johnston reported on the results of City sta nd SDGCE meeting, in that a restructuring of the last raft presented will be worked on by himself and the Ci anager and.then brought back to the P-U Zone work com- ittee for discussion. 'OMMITTEE REPORTS: a) Chairman Jose stated a Xerox copy of the document eceived from League of Calif. Cities on 1970-71 High- ights in proposed legislation for the State will be ent to all Commissioners for their study of items whic tould affect the City and the County. I J I CITY OF -5- CARLSBAD ADJOURNMENT: The motion was properly made and approved by voic vote to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Recording Sucretary J I fo ti on lyes e *-- SSIONERS 3 I