Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-15; City Council; 17986; Deny Appeal Loker Business Center12 4B# 17,986 JITG. 2/15/05 IEPT. ENG CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL TITLE: DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE CITY ENGINEER’S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MS 04-04 DEPT. HD. LOKER BUSINESS CENTER RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to City Attorney to return with documents denying the appeal and upholding the City Engineer’s denial of the Tentative Parcel Map, MS 04-04, Loker Business Center. ITEM EXPLANATION: Denial of the tentative parcel map (TPM) and the appeal center on the proposed inclusion of a traffic signal at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue West. An application for a TPM was submitted on February 19, 2004. It was concurrently processed with applications for Site Development Plan (SDP) 04-01 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-01. The design of the project in all three applications was consistent. None of them showed a proposed traffic signal. After four separate reviews of the TPM by staff, and two weeks prior to the SDP and CUP hearing by the Planning Commission, the project was modified by the applicant to include a traffic signal at the Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue West intersection. During the December 15, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the SDP and CUP, the commission questioned the applicant about any future proposal for a traffic signal. The applicant responded that a traffic signal was not a part of the project. The reasons for denial are as follows: 0 TPM is not in conformance with Title 21 because it is not consistent with SDP 04-01 and CUP 04-01 as approved by Planning Commission. The proposed traffic signal is not consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The proposed traffic signal would cause a disruption of traffic flow on Palomar Airport Road and a resultant increase in air pollution. 0 The proposed traffic signal was not a part of the project Environmental impact Assessment and was not included in the Negative Declaration issued. The Engineering Department issued a preliminary letter of denial for the TPM, citing the inclusion of the traffic signal as the sole reason. Pursuant to the existing policy, engineering staff met with the applicant to discuss the denial. At the meeting, the applicant informed staff that they wanted a final decision on the TPM as submitted, including the traffic signal. The City Engineer subsequently issued the formal letter of denial for the TPM and the applicant is appealing this decision to City Council. 0 0 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts are anticipated. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map. 2. 3. 4. 5. Appeal Form received January 19,2005. Preliminary denial letter dated December 23, 2004. Final denial letter dated January 12, 2005. Page 9 of Planning Commission Minutes for December 15, 2004. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert J. Wojcik, (760) 602-2733, bwoic@ci.carisbad.ca.us LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER MS04-04 LOKER BUSINESS CENTER NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT SI Date of Oecdlsion you are appealing: Jaaaary 12, 2005 4 8E SPEC1FIQ Exampbs: if the action is 8 City Engifleer's D~!slm, please say so. tf a praject has rnuSfiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Deelamtion, Specific Plan, etc,) please tist %em &I. If you unty want to appeal a part 00 the whale a&m, plesm state that hem. AppaaL e% CEty Eaaaineer's ddsagpravsl of minor subdivision MS 04-06; hkcr Business Ccntex. - Retagdon fsf fur Arm eal: Please Nu& e Faiturn te sPa-t;ify a cea8on may result in denial of &e appear, and you wlfl be tirnlted to the grounds stated here when presenting your app BE SP- How did the decision maker etfl Mat about the decision is inconsistent with state or local !aw, plans, or policy? IC' Please see atraclmcd Exhtbic "A" Carlsbad, CA '32008 City, State, zip Code 3 _.___. ---.-.. ,--. “.. _. ... ...... ~ __... _. .. ....... .... . ... ._. . ..... . .” ...., ESribi f “A” \?\re arc the applicant for the proposed project. it is OW opinion that the findiPtgs for dispprosal are not t;upprted try the facts of the situation, including but not limited to the ~~~1~~~~~~ reasons: City of Carlsbad December 23,2004 John Tworoger FRANZ LOKER LLC 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 270 San Diego, CA 92123 MS 04-04: LOKER BUSINESS CENTER As this tentative parcel map (TPM) was concurrently processed with applications for Site Development Plan (SDP) 04-01 and Conditional Use I Permit (CUP) 04-01, the design of the project in all three applications was consistent. After four separate reviews of the TPM by staff, and two weeks prior to the SDP and CUP hearing by the Planning Commission, the project was modified to include a traffic signal at the Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue West intersection. No explanation for this change was provided to City staff, nor was it brought to staffs attention. In a discussion with Mr. Pat O’Day, it is clear that the late modification of the signal was purposeful and deliberate. Mr. O’Day requested that the application, as proposed, be acted on by the City Engineer. Therefore, the City Engineer has made a preliminary decision pursuant to Section 20 24.130 (4), (6b), (6e) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and Section 66473.5, 66474.(b) & (e) of the Subdivision Map Act, to deny the application for the tentative parcel map of the proposed minor subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The TPM is not in conformance with the approved SDP 04-01 and is, therefore, not consistent with Title 21, Zoning, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). 2. The TPM is not in conformance with the approved CUP 04-01 and is, therefore, not consistent with Title 21 , Zoning, of the CMC. 3. The proposed traffic signal, which necessitates a new intersection, is not consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Section LA. In that, the proposed traffic signal and intersection would have a negative impact on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the City, would be in conflict with policies and action plans to implement the California Clean Air Act, and would be in conflict with the street classification of a Prime Arterial which prohibits access to adjacent properties unless no other alternatives exist. 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-2720 - FAX (760) 602-8562 @ 5 December 23,2004 Page 2 MS 04-04: LOKER BUSINESS CENTER 4. The proposed traffic signal would likely cause significant environmental impact in the form of disruption of traffic flow on Palomar Airport Road and increased air pollution. 5. The proposed intersection and traffic signal was not included in the project description, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Part I or Part II and was, therefore, not analyzed and is not a part of the Negative Declaration issued for the project. You may request a review of this preliminary decision with the City Engineer in writing within ten (IO) days of the date of this letter. Upon such written request the City Engineer shall arrange a time and place with you or your representatives for such review. Since rely, ROBERT J. WOJCIK Deputy City Engineer - Development Services RJW:jd c: Glenn Pruim, City Engineer Ron Ball, City Attorney Glen Van Peski, Consultant Project Engineer Christer Westman, Project Planner John Maashoff, Acting Senior Civil Engineer, Development.Services Tim Carroll, O’Day Consultants File January 12,2005 MS 04-04: LOKER BUSiNESS CENTER The subdivider or any interested person adversely aflwsd acision, may appeal the City Engineer decision to the City Council as d in Sectian 66452.5 of the SuMivldon Map Act. The a a1 shell be fit& in writing with the City Clerk within ten (IO) days of the date Oa this letter. Upon such witten appeal, the Ci!y Council shall set the matter far hean'ng. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 9 Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Neu if it would make more sense to have individual CUPS Instead of a blanket CUP so that the city and staff has more management of site. Mr. Neu commented that staff felt that the City would have enough management whether there is a CUP or a tenant improvement plan, the same items would be reviewed such as parking. The benefit for the owner and future businesses is not having to go through the planning review process and public hearing for each individual use. Chairperson Whitton asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100, Carlsbad, representing the Franz Loker LLC, owner and applicant of the property, commented that this project is essentially a retail project. It caters specifically to the businesses of the industrial corridor in Carlsbad. The zoning ordinance does allow for this type of projects in the industrial zones upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff is recommending a limited list of uses allowed in the project. The applicant has reviewed the list, they concur by the list and the project will abide by the list. He stated there is a strong need for this type of project in the area. Commissioner Baker asked if there have been any design considerations in regards to limiting the noise impacts from the airport. Mr. Klukas stated that Non-Residential Planned Unit Developments are exempt per the Land Use Manual from those requirements. He further stated that they have a letter from the Airport Commission stating that in terms of assemblances of people and noise, this project is acceptable to them. Commissioner Baker commented that in terms of attracting business and for those people that will be working inside the buildings, some design considerations should be taken. Mr. Klukas stated that they will definitely make sure future tenants are aware of the fact that the buildings are in the flight path. Cornmissioner Dominguez commented that applicant is correct in saying that this project is needed in the area of the City. He did state that there seems to be a lack of symbiosis between this project and the project across the street. He further stated that because of this, there could be a problem in the future. asked if there is any future proposal for traffic control in the area. Mr. Klukas stated that staff will no support a traffic signal in that location. He further stated that a signal is not a part of this project. Commissioner Dominguez asked if he had any plans to bring the signal back in the future. Mr. Klukas Commissioner Segall asked if at a later date it is deemed a signal is needed, is the project bonded to do that. Mr. Wojcik stated that a condition is not being placed on the project right now because if a signal is proposed, staff would be against placing it at that location. Mr. Wojcik further stated that staff did not want to give any indication that we would support a future traffic signal at that location. If in the future City Council determined that a signal should be placed at that location, typically the City would then pay for it. Commissioner Segall asked when construction would begin if the project is approved tonight. Mr. Klukas stated the fall of 2005. Commissioner Segall further asked if the applicant could disclose who the tenant of Building A is. Mr. Klukas stated they are in very serious negotiations with Staples. Commissioner Montgomery asked why the traffic is listed to not have any impacts in the information packet that was handed out. Mr. Wojcik stated that because the traffic impacts fall within the range identified in the Specific Plan, it is stated that there is no significant traffic impacts with this project than what was already identified for the property. Commissioner Segall inquired if there will be any traffic impacts to El Fuerte. Mr. Wojcik stated that because of the future extension of Faraday Avenue, staff feels that much of the traffic on Palomar Airport Road will be diverted to Faraday Avenue so staff does not believe there will be a need for additional space in the eastbound left turn lane on Palomar Airport Road would not be necessary. Commissioner Segall asked if in the future, there are traffic issues, the City would then need to mitigate that. Mr. Wojcik stated that if there were a traffic accident history that would call for additional improvements in that area, it would then be paid for by the City. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff or of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item. c stated not with this project. 3 January 21,2005 Bob Wojcik PW - Construction Management & Inspections RE: Loker Business Center, MS 04-04. THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, most appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If the notice requires a public hearing, the item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by the City Manager and the City Attorney). Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk, 760-434-291 7 Copies To: Glenn Pruim, Engineering City Manager City Attorney Enclosed: Copy of appeal Copy of receipt The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of PkdRL"flY 45' ads 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008- 1989 (760) 434-2808 Palomar Crest, LLC 11925 Camin0 Real, &de 203 San Diego, CaIifomia 92130 TJ: (858) 350-4001 Fax: (858) 3504002 February 14,2005 Mayor and Councilmem& CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Crulsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MS 04-04 - hker Business Center Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am an active partner in the ownership of the Palomar Crest Offioe Building, located at 2701 Loker Avenue West in Carlsbad. I am stroqly in hvor of the installation of a full intersection and traffic signal at the intersection of Loker Avenue West and Palomar Airport Road. This signal would be of great benefd in improving access to our building, and to surrounding businesses and properties. Peak bur traEic congestion in the business park is high due to the limited number of access routes in and out of the area, 'The Fwrte Drive intersection is a real problem spot, and an additional signalized entrylexit route would help to resolve the problems there. I ask that you approve the instabtion of the traffic signal at Loker Avenue West and Palomar Airport Road, to enable our tenants, employees and guests at the Palomar Crest Oae Building to enjoy more convenient access to the building. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Palomar Crest, LLC Member Far &e Infbrmatim of the From: Bob Wojcik To: Cindee Hollingsworth Date: Subject: Council Item Tonight Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:OO:OO PM During briefings with Ann on the Loker project, she asked if there was anything more in the PC minutes (attached as exhibit 5 to AB) about the signal. I told her that the attached page was all there was. I double checked and found I erred in my statement. On page 10 of PC minutes for 12\15\04, I found one more statement by M. Montgomery between the motion and the vote. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M. Date of Meeting: December 15,2004 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chairperson Whitton called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Cardosa led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Staff Present: Montgomery and Segall Don Neu. Assistant Planning Director Susanne Parsons, Deputy City Attorney Michele Masterson. Management Analyst Christer Westman, Senior Planner Saima Qureshy, Associate Planner Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Services APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dominguez requested the following statement be added to page 3, paragraph 6: “Commissioner Dominguez stated he feels very strongly that the citizens of Carlsbad are ill-sewed by not having this component added to the CUP.” MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1,2004 as amended. Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None Chairperson Whitton directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, to introduce the first item. I. CDP 03-36 - NASSAR RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family residence within the Mello II segment of the City’s Coastal Zone located on the west side of Garfield Street, south of Pine Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 2 Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 and stated Assistant Planner Jessica Galloway would make the staff presentation. Ms. Galloway stated the project is located on the west side of Garfield Street just south of Pine Avenue. The project was continued on October 6, 2004, due to concerns that the single family home could be converted into a two-family dwelling. The applicant has modified the entry and the second story as well as the wet bar to alleviate these concerns. Ms. Galloway stated there are a number of conditions placed on the project in regards to 220 voltage and a gas line being allowed in the wet bar area. She stated that the applicant has agreed to these conditions. Ms. Galloway concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton stated the Commission has received letters in regards to the project. He then asked Ms. Galloway to clarify the issue regarding the 220 voltage and gas line. Ms. Galloway stated that there is a condition within the resolution prohibiting a gas line or 220 voltage in the wet bar area. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery inquired if a note would be placed on the first page of the plans stating that a gas line and 220 line are prohibited in the wet bar area. Ms. Galloway asked Commissioner Montgomery if the note should be placed on the first page of the plans or on the floor plan details. Cornmissioner Montgomery commented that it needed to be obvious as long as it was not buried in the plans. Commissioner Dominguez stated that the previous conversation centered on the fact that there should be a noted restriction on the first page of the plans. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Eduardo Olivo, 8255 Firestone Blvd, Downey, the attorney representing the applicant, stated they agreed with the conditions placed on the project, and reiterated that the applicant does not intend to ever illegally transform the project into a two-unit dwelling. Mr. Olivo stated he would be available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Whitton opened and closed public testimony. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery stated his concern regarding the project was that double doors could be placed between the first and second floors and then create two units. He commented that he had encouraged the applicant to increase that opening to allow that entry to be part of the house instead of looking like a second entry. Commissioner Montgomery stated he feels the applicant has done that now. Commissioner Dominguez commented that he feels the applicant has done everything that was asked for by the Commission, and he is ready to support the project. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5746 approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 03-36 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall thanked the applicant for making the changes. He stated that he would like to ensure that if the property is sold in the future, the notes regarding the restriction of the 220-volt and gas lines remain in place and in effect so that it is not converted to two dwelling units. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 3 Commissioner Montgomery stated the note regarding the restriction should be placed on the first page of the plans. Commissioner Cardosa stated he appreciates the effort the applicant has gone through; however, he is still not pleased with the project. He feels the architecture is not appropriate for the location and for the unit. Commissioner Heineman stated he supports the project. Commissioner Baker commented that she appreciates the perseverance of the applicant and supports the project. Chairperson Whitton also supports the project and thanked the applicant for making the requested modifications. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall NOES: Commissioner Cardosa Chairperson Whitton closed the Public Hearing on Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. PUD 0399/A) - BRESSI RANCH-PLANNING AREA 11 - A determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Bressi Ranch Master Plan Final Program EIR (EIR 98-04) and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and a request for approval of an amendment to Planned Development Permit PUD 03-09 for architecture and plotting for the development of 25 single-family detached homes located within Planning Area 11 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The project site is generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of the future extension of Poinsettia Lane, and west of the future extension of El Fuerte Street within Planning Area 11 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan in Local Facilities Management Zone 17. Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Saima Qureshy would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 2. The project is for the approval of architecture and plotting for 25 single-family dwelling units located in Planning Area 11 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The lots for this neighborhood were created through the approval of Tentative Map CT 02-19 and Planned Development Permit PUD 03-09, which was approved by the Commission in November of 2003. The lots range in size from 15,626 to 53,315 square feet. Architecture for the units was not proposed at that time, and the applicant is now proposing architecture and plotting for Planning Commission’s approval. There are four floor plans proposed. Plan I is a single story with about 4,900 square feet and is plotted on 5 lots. Plan 2 is two stories with about 5,200 square feet and is plotted on 6 lots. Plan 3 is 5,500 square feet and is plotted on 7 lots. Plan 4, which is the biggest floor plan, is about 6,200 square feet and is plotted on 7 lots. Each floor plan has three different elevation styles and there are a total of 9 color schemes proposed for the project. Ms. Qureshy stated four letters have been received from Pilot Associations and other airport users which have expressed concerns regarding impacts of the airport on the new proposed homes. Planning Area I1 is located outside the flight activity zone and airport influence area as well as the 60 CNEL noise contours. Ms. Qureshy concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Baker asked what type of noticing is required by the City regarding project within the airport influence area and how does it relate to the letters that have been received for this project. Ms. Qureshy stated there are two conditions which are associated with notification related to the airport. One condition requires notices to be posted in the sales offices stating there is airport in the vicinity. The other condition requires that a notice be recorded with each property, which was done with the tentative map, Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 4 stating there could be impacts regarding sight, sound and aircraff due to proximity to the airport. Commissioner Baker inquired if those notices are included with the title report. Ms. Qureshy stated that the notice for overflight is with the title report. Commissioner Baker further inquired about comments included in one of the letters in which it is suggested that the City failed to take into account suggestions from the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee concerning notice. Ms. Qureshy stated the project is conditioned to comply with the two noticing requirements. Commissioner Segall asked who creates the noticing requirements. Ms. Qureshy stated the City has an adopted Airport Land Use Plan which requires properties within 3 miles of the airport have to record a notice stating that there could be impacts associated with the airport. Commissioner Segall inquired if the airport commented on the noticing at the time the project was approved. Ms. Qureshy stated that all of the residential areas of Bressi Ranch are outside of the boundaries of the Airport Land Use Authority; however, some portions of Bressi Ranch are within the boundaries and therefore the Airport Authority had an opportunity to review the EIR and the Master Plan as part of that approval. Commissioner Dominguez asked how the current notification requirements compare to the noticing requirements under AB920. Ms. Qureshy stated she was not familiar with AB920. Commissioner Dominguez stated AB920 goes into effect January 1, 2005 and notifies owners that an airport is in the vicinity of a housing development. Susanne Parsons, Deputy City Attorney, stated that A8920 indicates that if the City were to adopt notice requirements different than that which the State requires, the City would need to address airport impacts as of January I. 2005; however, the City does address notice requirements required under the Civil Code currently with our notice of restriction. Commissioner Segall asked what the size of the garage opening is and what the turning radius is for the driveways. Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, stated the garage is slightly under 8 feet wide, and the turning radius used is the standard car turning radius that SANDAG uses. The driveways are certainly large enough that if the vehicle could not make it on the first turn, there is enough room to maneuver the vehicle. Commissioner Segall stated that he is very concerned over a garage opening which is less than 8 feet wide and the size of most vehicles today. Chairperson Whitton inquired as to when the Airport Advisory Committee was formulated. Ms. Qureshy stated she did not have any information as to when it was formed. Someone from the audience stated 3 years. Chairperson Whitton asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Mike Howes, Hoffman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Mr. Howes did comment that with some minor modifications, the openings of the garage doors could be 8 feet; however, to have the openings any larger than that might mean major structural changes. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the proximity of homes on Lots 1 and 2 to each other. He asked if there is a necessity as to why those homes are so close together compared to the other homes in Planning Area 11. Mr. Howes stated they are trying to maximize the usable lot area. Marina Wurst, Project Design Consultants, stated that because of the constraints with the driveway access on these two lots and other requirements that needed to be met, the homes had to be placed where they currently are shown. Commissioner Baker asked if the lots have been graded. Mr. Howes stated that the lots have been graded. Commissioner Baker inquired if the pads would be flat pads. Ms. Wurst stated that the pads have been graded at 1 % so that they drain to the street. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Rick Baker, 7789 Paseo La Jolla, Carlsbad, is a local aircraft owner and the local pilots association representative for Palomar Airport. .He stated that if the Commission has ever been asked why there was not any opposition to the Bressi Ranch development a few years ago, it is because most airport users do not live in Carlsbad. He also commented that those people who were notified about the project were told Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 5 that it would be mostly industrial. Mr. Baker asked the Commission to go beyond the bare minimum rules with regards to notification. Chairperson Whitton asked if the FAA controls the take off and landing of the light aircraft. Mr. Baker stated the tower is operated between 7:OO AM and 1O:OO PM during which time it is called a controlled airspace. Every plane that is in that airspace is under the control of the air traffic control tower. Outside of those hours, the airport is a 24 hours a day, all weather airport, it reverts to "see and avoid" airspace. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Baker to explain what an avigation easement is. Mr. Baker comments that an avigation easement is a waiver that the owner understands that someone else owns the airspace over the home and the owner does not have the right to use that airspace. It is a legal instrument that protects everyone involved. Commissioner Baker commented that the hearing tonight involves the plotting and elevations of the project, not anything above and beyond. She stated she does not feel it is appropriate time to discuss these issues. Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the Bressi Ranch project was found to be compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan in terms of what uses are located in the different areas of the property. This particular residential planning area is not in an area which the Airport Land Use Plan considers conditionally compatible. The Airport Land Use Plan requires an avigation easement when a use is conditionally compatible. In this case, an avigation easement is not required because the use has been deemed compatible. There is a standard form, which has been approved by the County, which is used when a use falls into the conditionally compatible classification and it is required under those circumstances. Commissioner Baker inquires if the Commission could require an avigation easement under the hearing that is before them tonight. Mr. Neu stated that he did not believe so because the regulatory plan which is being implemented, the Airport Land Use Plan, does not give authority to do; therefore, the Commission would be going above and beyond the plan and it would be a bad precedent to set. Chairperson Whitton stated he feels the speaker's comments are not within the context of the project before the Commission tonight. Mr. Neu commented that General Plan and Bressi Ranch Master Plan have established the land use as residential for the site, and it was found to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Commission's action tonight is not to determine the appropriateness of the land use but rather the physical constraints and compatibility of the architecture with the requirements of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Commissioner Segall inquired as to what individuals could do if they have any issues regarding the land use. Mr. Neu stated that the San Diego Regional Airport Authority recently updated the Airport Land Use Plan and the City is waiting to receive the updates. Staff did inquire if the changes affected anything relative to this project. The Regional Airport Authority is the governing body which controls the content of the Airport Land Use Plan, and the City does work with them on it. By law, the General Plan has to be compatible with Airport Land Use Plan so if the Airport Land Use Plan were to change in undeveloped areas of the City, the City would need to make amendments to the City's General Plan to retain that compatibility. Mr. Neu stated that City staff is currently working with the County Airport staff with the various Airport Master Plan improvements, and those avenues would be the way to approach the compatibility issues. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification as to what the Commission could act upon tonight. Mr. Neu stated that the item before the Commission is not whether the land use is appropriate. The part which is pertinent is the noticing and disclosure being provided to the future homeowners. He further stated that the approval of the Tentative Map required the notice of overflight which gets recorded and becomes part of the deed information for the perspective owner. The City also has a requirement about the noticing in the sales office which is a sign that emphasizes the proximity of the airport and the potential noise from it. Mr. Neu stated he feels that the City is making every effort to notice the public. One other advantage is that Bressi Ranch is located near the airport so the physical presence of the airport will make potential buyers more aware of the potential impacts. Chairperson Whitton stated that the rest of the speakers are welcome to address the Commission; however, it is beyond the scope of what the Commission is acting upon tonight. Tom Harnish, 6743 Montia Court, Carlsbad, commented that he works at the airport and stated he is not happy with the new development near the airport. Mr. Hamish stated that Palomar Airport is an extremely important component to what makes Carlsbad valuable. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he agrees that Palomar Airport is a vital component. He feels that all sides have some degree of culpable responsibility in the entire problem. He feels there is a problem with early participation by aircraft owners and operators in becoming involved with projects in the City on time. He stated that the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee was an attempt to regenerate that activity. Commissioner Dominguez feels that Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 6 everyone, the sellers, the developers, the aircraft owners, will have to cooperate to make this noticing and public awareness work. He stated that if any adjustments need to be made, those individuals need to go before City Council. Rockwell Swanson, 4346 Manchester Avenue, Encinitas, commented that he feels that everything that can be done should be done to notify the potential buyers of the situation with the airport, Rexford Wait, 2416 Cades Way, Vista, stated that Bressi Ranch is directly under the flight path of Palomar Airport and he does not approve of the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Segall commented that he would like to have his question regarding the garage door sizes addressed. Joe Barbano, with Barratt American, stated the garage door openings are 8 feet. Architecturally, the &foot garage doors allow for a center post which breaks up the look of the garage doors as opposed to one large garage door. Structurally, on either side of the garage door, there is essentially a sheer wall that cannot be reduced in size. The only area that can potentially be reduced is the center post; however, if that post gets too small the center post would look just like a post. Mr. Barbano stated that with the placement of the homes on the lots, the homes really work best with the 8 foot garage openings. Commissioner Segall stated that he has brought up this issue several times, and that many of the vehicles being purchased these days do not fit into these garages. Mr. Barbano stated he can work with the architect to see what options are available. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the architectural style will be successful and marketable, and if it fits in with the other areas of Bressi Ranch. Mr. Barbano stated the architectural style is something which is not typically found in the San Diego County area. He further stated that in regards to fitting in with the rest of Bressi Ranch, this architecture is very compatible and will fit in nicely. Commissioner Heineman commented that the architectural style for this neighborhood is the best he has seen in 10 years. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5804 approving Planned Unit Development Amendment PUD 03-09(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated that he supports the project and feels that the architectural style is appropriate to have some mixture. He stated he does not like the &foot garage doors, and he is concerned with the tight turning radius on the Plan 3 model. Commissioner Baker commented that Commissioner Segall has a valid concern and she does not want to see large vehicles parked on the street in the neighborhood. commissioner Baker asked if Commissioner Segall would be agreeable to pursue the issue further and to have the Plan 3 garage fixed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Mr. Neu responded that the City does have a garage standard which is for the interior of the garage, not the opening. He commented that the applicant did point out that there is an industry standard on size of the garage doors, either double or single. Mr. Neu feels there are several other issues, such as structural issues, whether or not it would be considered a custom order to have a garage door which is larger than the standard. He further stated that if the Commission were inclined to pursue the issue, staff would need comments to decide if there is a point at which between the applicant and staff it is deemed either feasible or infeasible to widen the opening beyond eight feet. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he likes the project and feels that Commissioner Segall has a point regarding the turning radius into the Plan 3 garages. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 7 Commissioner Cardosa concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He stated the architecture will fit in nicely with the surrounding areas and it is a nice change of pace. He further stated that he does not like the garage door openings but he realizes that it is the industry standards. He recommended that the garage doors be changed to double garage door size even though it will change the look quite a bit. Commissioner Dominguez likes the Colonial style architecture. He concurred with his fellow Commissioners regarding the garage door sizes. Commissioner Heineman stated he agrees with everything that has been said. Commissioner Baker supports the project but would like to see the garage door issue resolved. She feels this problem can be fixed. Chairperson Whitton also supports the project and also has concerns regarding the garages. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to amend to the original motion to correct the garage doors on Plan 2 and Plan 3 to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to allow larger vehicles to negotiate the turn. Mr. Neu commented that Plan 2 is designed with 2 single garage doors with a center post. He commented the condition should be applied to both Plan 2 and Plan 3. Commissioner Segall stated he would like feedback from the applicant prior to any vote on the amendment. Mr. Neu stated that the motion that was made would provide the flexibility for staff and the applicant to either work out a way to keep the single garage doors and have the turning radius and size of the vehicle fit or switch to a two car garage door. The applicant stated he was in agreement with the proposed changes. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall Commissioner Montgomery stated that knowing that the entire Bressi Ranch development is under the direct flight path from Palomar Airport, it should be obvious to everyone that there will be impacts. The applicant stated that every residential lot in Bressi Ranch has been conditioned to have a notice recorded with the deed stating the lot is subject to impacts from the Airport. The Master Plan was developed in strict accordance with the Airport CLUP with numerous meetings held prior to the start of the EIR process and the airport was part of the process. Chairperson Whitton stated he wants the notice posted in the sales office. Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing on Item 2. RECESS Chairperson Whitton called for a 5-minute recess at 7:31 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Whitton called the meeting back to order at 7:40 p.m. with all Commissioners present and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item on the agenda. CUP 04-01ISDP 0441 - LOKER BUSINESS CENTER - Request for adoption of a Negative Declaration, and approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan for the development of a 34,500 square foot retail center including a drive-thru bank on a 4.27 acre property generally located at the northwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue West in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. 3. Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing on Item 2. Page 8 Mr. Westman stated the project is located at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue West. The General Plan designation and zoning on the property is Industrial. This project does require a Conditional Use Permit. The Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan identifies this site as industriallretail related uses, which is one of four lots within this specific plan. The property is approximately 4.3 acres. The project is proposing 3 buildings. Building A is 20,000 square feet and a single tenant. Building B is a 9,500 square foot multi tenant building with retail services and possibly a restaurant. Building C is a 5,000 square foot financial building with a drive-thnr. Access to the property is off Loker Avenue in two locations, and there will not be any access onto Palomar Airport Road from the project. The proposed architecture is a modem style. If the Planning Commission does approve the project, it would be a "blanket" Conditional Use Permit for a list of uses. If any uses should be proposed by the future tenants that are not listed, it would require an amendment to the CUP. Also, there are attendant applications that are administrative along with this project, which are a Minor Subdivision, a Non Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit. Should the Planning Commission approve this project, one of the conditions is that the applicant follow up and gain approvals of those 3 administrative applications. Mr. Westman concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton stated that the Commission had not received any letters or comments concerning this project. Commissioner Segall commented that there are 2 restaurants proposed already. He asked if a third restaurant is proposed, would the parking arrangements need to be reconfigured. Mr. Westman stated that 3,200 square feet was identified as restaurant in the Site Plan. The parking is what would dictate whether or not additional restaurant space could be provided. There are six additional parking spaces onsite so as a matter of tenant improvement review through the Building Permit process, if there was additional restaurant space being requested it would be incumbent upon the Planning Department to make sure there is sufficient parking based on the restaurant parking requirement. Commissioner Segall asked if that is true for any proposed use. Mr. Westman stated yes. Commissioner Dominguez inquired if the time period for the Conditional Use Permit is the same for the entire project. Mr. Westman stated that is correct and it will be for 10 years. Commissioner Dominguez commented that he is concerned with Building C and that typically there is costly tenant improvements needed with financial institutions. He suggested that instead of being combined with the blanket CUP, it should have its own expiration. Mr. Westman commented that gas stations, for example also require a large initial investment, are also subject to a Conditional Use Permit; and are typically granted for 10 years with extension allowed after that. Commissioner Segall commented that during briefings it was mentioned that there was concern over the overall building height and it may have to come down some because of the airport. Mr. Westman stated that there has been an initial analysis of the height of Building A with regards to requirements by the FAA. There is an approach angle relative to the runway. The initial analysis prepared by the applicant and reviewed by staff shows there may be the potential for issue of approximately 4% feet; however, the final determination will be made by the FAA when the information is submitted to them. If the determination is made that the building height needs to be reduced in order for the airport and the FAA to be satisfied, it can be done. Staff does not feel at this point there will be any negative aesthetic impacts in reducing the building height; however, staff is leaving it up to the determination by FAA. Commissioner Montgomery asked with the different uses of the different buildings, how is lot 4 going to be developed in order to share the use. Mr. Wojcik stated typically, Lot 4 would be for parking and access, the lot is jointly owned by the other 3 property owners who will share the responsibility for maintenance and liability as co-owners. Commissioner Montgomery asked what happens if one of the property owners attracts a business which significantly impacts the parking arrangements. Mr. Wojcik stated that any business that goes into those buildings is subject to staff review and would have to comply with the parking requirements for the site. However, if a business becomes very successful after that and the parking is impacted, because it is private property, that type of parking problems would have to be dealt with amongst the property owners. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 9 Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Neu if it would make more sense to have individual CUPS instead of a blanket CUP so that the city and staff has more management of site. Mr. Neu commented that staff felt that the City would have enough management whether there is a CUP or a tenant improvement plan, the same items would be reviewed such as parking. The benefit for the owner and future businesses is not having to go through the planning review process and public hearing for each individual use. Chairperson Whitton asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100, Carlsbad, representing the Franz Loker LLC, owner and applicant of the property, commented that this project is essentially a retail project. It caters specifically to the businesses of the industrial corridor in Carlsbad. The zoning ordinance does allow for this type of projects in the industrial zones upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff is recommending a limited list of uses allowed in the project. The applicant has reviewed the Ibt, they concur by the list and the project will abide by the list. He stated there is a strong need for this type of project in the area. Commissioner Baker asked if there have been any design considerations in regards to limiting the noise impacts from the airport. Mr. Klukas stated that Non-Residential Planned Unit Developments are exempt per the Land Use Manual from those requirements. He further stated that they have a letter from the Airport Commission stating that in terms of assemblances of people and noise, this project is acceptable to them. Commissioner Baker commented that in terms of attracting business and for those people that will be working inside the buildings, some design considerations should be taken. Mr. Klukas stated that they will definitely make sure future tenants are aware of the fact that the buildings are in the flight path. Commissioner Dominguez commented that applicant is correct in saying that this project is needed in the area of the City. He did state that there seems to be a lack of symbiosis between this project and the project across the street. He further stated that because of this, there could be a problem in th(? future. He asked if there is any future proposal for traffic control in the area. Mr. Klukas stated that staff will not support a traffic signal in that location. He further stated that a signal is not a part of this project. Commissioner Dominguez asked if he had any plans to bring the signal back in the future. Mr. Klukas stated not with this project. Commissioner Segall asked if at a later date it is deemed a signal is needed, is the project bonded to do that. Mr. Wojcik stated that a condition is not being placed on the project right now because if a signal is proposed, staff would be against placing it at that location. Mr. Wojcik further stated that staff did not want to give any indication that we would support a future traffic signal at that location. If in the future City Council determined that a signal should be placed at that location, typically the City would then pay for it. Commissioner Segall asked when construction would begin if the project is approved tonight. Mr. Klukas stated the fall of 2005. Commissioner Segall further asked if the applicant could disclose who the tenant of Building A is. Mr. Klukas stated they are in very serious negotiations with Staples. Commissioner Montgomery asked why the traffic is listed to not have any impacts in the information packet that was handed out. Mr. Wojcik stated that because the traffic impacts fall within the range identified in the Specific Plan, it is stated that there is no significant traffic impacts with this project than what was already identified for the property. Commissioner Segall inquired if there will be any traffic impacts to El Fuerte. Mr. Wojcik stated that because of the future extension of Faraday Avenue, staff feels that much of the traffic on Palornar Airport Road will be diverted to Faraday Avenue so staff does not believe there will be a need for additional space in the eastbound left turn lane on Palomar Airport Road would not be necessary. Comrnissioner Segall asked if in the future, there are traffic issues, the City would then need to mitigate that. Mr. Wojcik stated that if there were a traffic accident history that would call for additional improvements in that area, it would then be paid for by the City. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff or of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item. Planning Commission Minutes MOTION December 15,2004 .. Page 10 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5801 adopting a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5802 and 5803 approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 04-01 and Site Development Plan SDP 04-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project and feels this type of use is really needed in the industrial park. He commented he also likes the design of the project. Commissioner Montgomery supports the project, but feels that it lacks a traffic control device at the Palomar Airport intersection. Commissioner Cardosa also supports the project and feels not only is this type of project needed in the business park area but feels it will be very successful. Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Baker support the project. ', VOTE: 7-0 * AYES: NOES: None . Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dorninguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing on Item 3 and thanked staff for their presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Baker thanked Chairperson Whitton for arranging the Staff Appreciation Party and also for serving as Chairperson. Commissioner Segall commented that staff needs to look at the issue regarding garage door sizes. Commissioner Baker stated that-she and Chairperson Whitton attended the City Council workshop today at which they discussed the Architectural Design Guidelines. The item was tabled until January or February. She commented that Council is not sure if single-family, infill homes and remodels should have to comply with the guidelines. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there was any indication as to when City Council would revisit the big box retail issue. Mr. Neu stated he believes it will be in January. Chairperson Whitton thanked his fellow Commissioners for the opportunity to be Chairperson. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY AlTORNEY COMMENTS None. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,2004 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT MOTION By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of December 15, 2004 was adjourned at 836 p.m. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Appeal of Denial of Tentative Parcel Map MS 04-04LokerBusiness Center „JANUARY 14, 2004CUP 04-01 AND SDP 04-01 SUBMITTED WITHOUT SIGNAL PROPOSAL„ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR THE PROJECT (CUP 04-01, SDP 04-01, MS 04-04) WAS SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE SIGNAL PROPOSAL „FEBRUARY 19, 2004MS 04-04 SUBMITTED WITHOUT PROPOSAL FOR SIGNAL AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (PAR) AND LOKER AVENUE WEST (LOKER) „DECEMBER 1, 2004FIFTH SUBMITTAL OF MS 04-04 SHOWED SIGNAL PROPOSAL FOR FIRST TIME „DECEMBER 15, 2004PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CUP 04-01 AND SDP 04-01 AND ADOPTED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT WITH NO SIGNAL „DECEMBER 23, 2004CITY ENGINEER ISSUED PRELININARY DENIAL OF MS 04-04 „JANUARY 11, 2005CITY ENGINEER MET WITH APPLICANT TO DISCUSS DENIAL. APPLICANT DECLINED TO REMOVE PROPOSED SIGNAL AND REQUESTED THE FINAL DENIAL LETTER IN ORDER TO GET THE MATTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL „JANUARY 12, 2005CITY ENGINEER ISSUED FINAL DENIAL LETTER„JANUARY 19, 2005APPLICANT SUBMITTED APPEAL OF DENIAL FOR COUNCIL ACTION REASONS FOR DENIAL OF MS 04-04 „TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MS 04-04 (TPM) IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH SDP 04-01 AND IS THEREFORE NOT CONSISTANT WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TITLE 21 „TPM IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH CUP 04-01 AND IS THEREFORE NOT CONSISTANT WITH TITLE 21 „PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL WOULD CAUSE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND IS THEREFORE NOT CONSISTANT WITH CITY CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN „PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE EIA APPLICATION AND REVIEW AND IS THEREFORE NOT CONSISTANT WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CITY ENVIRONMENT ORDINANCE, TITLE 19 TRAFFIC STUDIES „APPLICANTS TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED 1\14\04 SHOWED NO FAILURES OF INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED FOR THE YEAR 2020 TO JUSTIFY NEED FOR PROPOSED SIGNAL AT PAR AND LOKER (STUDY BASED ON SERIES 9 TRAFFIC MODEL FOR 2020) „APPLICANTS TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED 2\11\05 SHOWED FAILURE AT PAR AND EL FUERTE FOR THE YEAR 2030 WITHOUT SIGNAL AT PAR AND LOKER (STUDY BASED ON SERIES 10 TRAFFIC MODEL FOR 2030) „COMPARISON OF THE 2020 MODEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES TO THE 2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES SHOWS A DECREASE ON ALL FOUR APPROACHING LEGS OF THE PAR AND EL FUERTE INTERSECTION „FEBRUARY 11, 2005TRAFFIC STUDY STATES, ”IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE YEAR 2030 CARLSBAD TRAFFIC MODEL CURRENTLY INCLUDES A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT THE PAR/LOKER AVE. WEST LOCATION” „CITY’S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT FOR THE CARLSBAD 2030 MODEL REVIEWED THE MODEL ON 2\14\05 AND FOUND NO SIGNAL IN THE MODEL AT THAT INTERSECTION