Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-15; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COHMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 15, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting was called to order by Chairman Schlehuber at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL; Present - Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Hall, Marcus, McBane, Holmes and Schramm. Absent - McFadden. Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director David Mauser, Assistant City Engineer Michael Holzmlller, Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Commission procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED At the request of Chairman Schlehuber, Agenda Item No. 1 was taken off of the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR; The Planning Co Item: nlsston approved the following Consent 2) PCD 82 - ROOSEVELT »2 - Request to change from an approved decorative block wall to a proposed decorative block and wood fence along the north property line. AGENDA ITEM TAKEN OFF CONSENT CALENDAR; 1) ON SITE SIGNS FOR PUBLIC NOTICE Mike Howes, Senior Planner, Introduced Lance Schulte, Assistant Planner, who will address this Item. Mr. Schulte stated that they contacted three local sign firms to get an estimate on what certain signs would cost. He stated that the highest estimate was S575, the low estimate was S340, and the medium estimate was $360 (all signs Installed by the firm). Installation ran anywhere from $20 to S60. Mr. Howes stated that this could apply to any size project that would come before the Planning Commission for discretionary review. Mr. Howes stated that the Commission might consider the possibility of requiring smaller projects that are approved administratively, such as minor subdivisions, to post smaller signs. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS In response to a question by Chairman Schlehuber on what was meant by "discretionary" projects. Mr. Howes stated that It would be projects that come up for public hearing. He clarified that a project such as a minor setback variance, staff would not want to make them put up a S<tOO sign. This Is something that needs to be explored when the ordinance Is written up. Commissioner Holmes stated that he felt that a S500 sign Is unacceptable. Chairman Schlehuber added that a $500 sign on small projects Is too expensive and not a realistic figure. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff agreed with the Commission's feeling on this, and stated that one of the things that staff would have to do when It looks into the ordinance Is try to come up with a fair equitable program for posting. He added that a large sign would not be appropriate fur a smaller project. Chairman Schlehuber stated that he felt that the signs could be done on a poster board. Commissioner McBane suggested that reusable signs be used and that there be a place for a variable notice that could be attached to It. One of the problems with cardboard signs Is that they could be destroyed easily. Commissioner Marcus felt that the signs were a little big In size; however, a small disposable one would not last In bad weather. Commissioner Holmes stated that there are water proof materials which could be used. The Planning Commission sent the matter back to staff for further review, noting the comments made by the Commissioners, and that It be returned for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3) SOP 86-4. - PALOMAR AIRPORT PLAZA - Request approval of a site development plan to construct a three story 62,609 square foot general office building, on a three acre site located on the southwest terminus of La Place Court. The site Is directly north of Palomar Airport, approximately 1,000 feet west of El Camino Real, and surrounded on the east, north and west by the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation on this Item as contained In the staff report. Wall and transparency maps were used to depict the site and its location. Mr. Grimm described the amenities of the project. He pointed out that this project meets the standards of the Koll Specific Plan although not In that plan's boundaries. He further pointed out that the one major issue on the project was its relative distance to the airport. The plans were sent to SANOAC for review, and It meets the standards of SANOAC and FAA. Staff Is recommending approval. Commissioner Hall Inquired on the location of the dumps ters. Mr. Grimm stated that the applicant has beenwilling to relocate the trash dumpster In another area of the project which would allow for better circulation. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm X X X *sr *^ MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Paqe 3 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Hall Inquired whether a tractor-trailer unit could get Into the area. Mr. Grimm pointed out that It Is a general office-type building, and these type of vehicles are not anticipated coming In. David Mauser, Assistant City Engineer, stated that he did not believe that a tractor-trailer could make It through the parking lot tf one made the attempt. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 6:20 p.m. and Issued the Invitation to speak. Roy Collins, 5703 Oberlln Drive, Suite 208, San Olego, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they have worked »ith FAA and SANOAC who have given their approval of the project. Further, they worked closely with the Koll Company, and they have no concerns. Mr. Collins, with the aid of a wall map, pointed out the various features of the project, and the recreational amenities. He addressed the trash Issue and gave the reasons why It was located In Its original area. However, due to the concerns of the actual day to day operations of getting a trash truck In and out of there, the trash dumpster was relocated to a more convenient area which minimizes the formal concerns. Speaking to the loading/unloading Issue, he stated that an area 50 feet wide by 2* feet clear was designed specifically for loading/unloading. He felt that the 2* foot width streets were good, and the Fire Department has expressed their approval. Commissioner Hall expressed his concern that a tractor hauling a 20-25 foot trailer would not be able to circulate back to the loading area, and make a right turn on the 2<t foot driveway. Mr. Hauser stated that the truck would marginally be able to make It round the 2* foot driveway. In response to Commlssloner McBane, Mr. Collins stated that the central plant would not be relocated. He stated that the reason he wanted to keep It In Its present location was due to Its proximity to the SOGiE's entrance off of the cul-de-sac and because It Is the point of least Impact. The plant Is a low-noise unit. Chairman Schlehuber referred to the 5-foot height limit set In the area and wondered how this will be enforced. Mr. Collins explained the efforts they put forth so that a standard 5-foot car could park In the particular area and not breach the airport overlay zone. They will be posting signs stating "no vehicles In excess of 5 feet In height are permitted In this tone". Further, the property manager will be Instructed that If any vehicle Is In the particular zone. It will have to be removed. There being no other person In the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner McBane Inquired regarding a condition that Is being added to projects In the airport Influence area. Mr. Grimm stated that the condition Is requiring the project to conform to all FAA and airport land use plan regulations. There was no problem to add that condition. Mr. Collins stated that he had no problem with thatcondition. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Hall referred to Condition No. 22 and Inquired whether It Is a standard condition. Mr. Hauser replied In the affirmative. Commissioner Hall stated that he would like to see one of the driveways opened up to at least 28 feet. Mr. Collins stated that It could be done, but the ten-foot strip of landscaping between the parking area and the building would have to be cut Into four feet. He stressed that the chances of a big truck hauling a trailer coming Into the project are remote. Mr. Hauser stated that there might be a way that staff can work with the applicant to cut off a little In the planter areas on the corner to make sure there Is easy access for a semi-tractor trailer. Mr. Collins Indicated his agreement. Commissioner McBane Inquired whether the main driveway could be widened to 28 feet. Mr. Collins Indicated his preference not to do that and that the concerns about width within that area are fairly minimal. The Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution approving SOP 96-H based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; Including the following (1) that the applicant work out with staff the widening of at least one driveway to make the capability fur a larger truck to get to the loading area; (2) add the airport Influence standard condition; and (3) move the trash dumpster location from the north to the east side of the property line: RESOLUTION NO. 262* APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 8<-», TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY 62,609 SOOARE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDIMC ON A THREE ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST TERMINUS OF LA PLACE COURT, 1,000 FEET fESf OF EL CAMINO REAL AND DIRECTLY NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT. 4) CUP-205(A) - CRAZY BURRO - Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a dance floor at an existing restaurant on the east side of El Camtno Real between Alga Road and Oove Lane In the C-l-Q zone. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on the above Item, and described the site and Its location with the aid of a transparency map. He stated that when this was approved originally, a straight patio was Included in the site development plan. Staff has become aware that this area has been used for dancing as well as outdoordining. This Is an illegal use, and one of the conditions for approval of the CUP is that this use cease and desist In this area. Commissioner Hall Inquired why this Is a two-year conditional use permit rather than maybe five years. Mr. Howes stated that that can be done: staff was under the Impression that the Commission may want to review the permit sooner than five years. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm X — X X X X X X MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Marcus requested clarification on the number of dance floor areas. Mr. Howes deferred to the applicant. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 6:*5 p.m. and Issued the Invitation to speak. 31m Walsh, £996 El Camlno Real, addressed the Commission and In response to Commissioner Marcus' Inquiry, stated that there »ill only be one dance floor which will be located inside of the building. Commissioner Hall Inquired whether Mr. Walsh agreed with Condition No. *. Mr. Walsh Indicated that he had not reviewed the conditions of approval. He believed that the only condition that was of concern dealt with the parking, which staff has Indicated that they are satisfied for the one dance floor. A brief discussion ensued upon a request by Mr. Walsh for a continuance of the project to review the conditions. Commissioner Marcus Inquired as to what the effects were regarding Condition IH. Mr. Howes stated that It would probably require a very minimal fee, If any, and that this was a standard condition. The fee would be determined at the time of the Issuance of the building permit, If any permit Is required. He stated that the change Is so minor, that It may not even require a building permit. Mr. Walsh stated that he would not want a continuance since the condition Is a standard condition and Is of no concern to him. Robert R. Randolph, representing the Board of Directors of the Paseo De La Costa Homeowners Association, 6155 Sandpiper Place, addressed the Commission In opposition to the project. He expressed his concerns with various problems caused by the Crazy Burro on the days It holds special events. He stated that customers come over to their parking areas In the condominium project and park in their private street and parking places. They have spoken to the Police Department about the problem and they suggested that the residents put a gate across there, or put someone to stop people who are not residents frum coming in. This was discussed and it did not seem the practical thing to do. (A letter expressing the Board's opposition was filed with the Clerk.) Bill Hofman, 6994 El Camlno Real, Suite 308-C, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he has never seen a major parking problem. In response to a question regarding the special events held at the restaurant, Mr. Hofman stated that the fifth of every month a happy hour is held there, and an annual celebration on the 5th of May. There being no other person present desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 Commissioner Marcus stated that she agreed with Mr. Hofroan that there was generally no parking problem out there, and the situation where the cars park on the private street would be very rare. She stated that she wished that there was the adequate parking out there to approve an eating patio area outside as this would be a nice enhancement to the establishment. Chairman Schlehuber stated that In light of the complaint of the homeowners' association, he requested that the Commission review the permit In May 1988 If approved. Commissioner Hall stated that he did not feel It was fair to Judge a man's business by one day out of the year, May 5th, and Condition No. 9 sufficiently covers any concerns regarding reviewing the project. He recommended that the permit be reviewed within five years. Commissioner McBane referred to the map and stated there were references to the patio which should be deleted. Commissioner Hall pointed out that there was a nlsnumberlng of the conditions of approval. Mr. Howes Indicated that staff would make these corrections. The Planning Commission approved the Notice of Prior Compliance and adopted the following Resolution approving CUP-205(a), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: RESOLUTION NO. 2626 APPflOVINC AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTINGCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ro ALLOW A DANCE FLOOR AT THE CRAZY BURRO RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF a CAMINO REAL BETWEEN ALGA ROAD AND OOVE LANE. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:07 p.m. and reconvened at 7:17 p.m., with all members present with the exception of Commissioner McFadden. 5) ZCA-m - CITY OF CARLSBAD - An amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance to add the Hillside Development Regulations for the development on hillside areas. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the background of the Item. He thanked Commissioners Schramm, Hall and Holmes for the assistance as part of the Hillside Subcommittee In the formation of the Hillside Development Regulations. He stated that Ideas were taken also from other Jurisdictions who have these regulations In their ordinances. Most of the ordinances which were reviewed were directed towards large lot single-family development. Staff has created an ordinance which they feel can apply to both single-family and multi-family and to a certain extent to non-residential development. Further, the ordinance was submitted to other departments, professional engineers and landscape architects to obtain their review and comments. Constructive comments from the professionals were Incorporated Into the ordinance. The ordinance does provide the flexibility to allow modifications when they are warranted. However, with any modification, the burden of proof will be put on the developer to justify the request for modification. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm MINUTES October 15, 198«PLANNING COHMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Howes called attention to a memo from staff maklna & number of minor changes to the ordinance which clarified the xording of the ordinance. He Introduced Lance Schulte who • HI be giving the presentation In further detail. Chairman Schlehuber also called attention to a letter received from Rick Engineering on this matter. Lance Schulte, Assistant Planner, stated that the ordinance requires an applicant to map certain slope conditions on the project. The categories required to be mapped are 0 to 15%. slope; 15% to 25* slope; 25% up to W* slope; and greater than *0» slopes. They are also required to produce a minimum of three slope profiles to show what the ground will look like In profile. The ordinance would be applicable to property that has a slope of greater than 15$ and that slope Is higher than 15 feet In height. The ordinance also requires that four findings of approval be met before a development of a hillside could be made. Mr. Schulte continued stating that the ordinance calls out for no residential density to be granted to areas within a project that are greater than »0* slopes. It defines that only 50* of potential density credit be allowed on slopes between 25ft - 40% consistent with the recently adopted growth management program. It provides consistency with the subdivision ordinance to make sure that unbulldable sites are not developed. Mr. Schulte itemized the ten development standards established by the ordinance. He stated that of the ten standards, staff feels that the standard regarding the volume of grading, cut and fill, Is probably the most Important because It establishes the acceptability of hillside landfom change - the degree that the natural hillside would be changed. Mr. Schulte concluded by stating that recognizing that all slopes and development are not the same, Section 070 of the ordinance allows for the modification of the development standards If three standards are met: (1) unusual geotechnlcal or soils condition that would require sensitive grading; (2) circulation on the roadways, such as major arterlals, that would require extensive grading to meet all City design standards; and (3) significantly more open space would be provided with the modification of standards then would be a strict Interpretation of the ordinance. To receive a modification, the applicant must show and justify such a modification. Chairman Schlehuber stated that the presentation was very detailed, and noted that It was not all contained In the staff report and requested that It be submitted to the Commission In writing. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 7:27 p.m. and Issued the Invitation to speak. Don Woodward, 5100 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission and stated his preference to have a flat pad that has a grade that would naturally drain, with balance on site so that there be no necessity to do any grading. A grading ordinance is a necessary evil and a function of communities who have a varying topography such as Carlsbad. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Woodward stated that he felt that the proposed ordinance does not give the required flexibility that should be adhered to In any kind of a governmental requirement. The criteria Is here, but when you become overly restrictive, you preclude what might really be beneficial In terms of land use concepts, etc. He felt that the ordinance should be written differently, with more flexibility. Bob Ladwlg, Rick Engineering, addressed the Commission and reviewed a letter he submitted to the Commission outlining minor changes that could be made in the language of the ordinance to make It a positive ordinance rather than a negative ordinance. He pointed out that Paragraph (E) on Page * of the ordinance refers to setbacks on top of slopes. He stated that there are conditions where one wants to build a project and may have a unit that may be over the edge of the slope. There may be a 10-foot break at the top of the slope, and he felt that maybe that would be allowed by the ordinance; however, It Is not clear whether this can be done the way the ordinance presently reads. Mr. Howes stated that that portion was put In basically to address projects that are built on top of a slope that do not step down a slope. This portion, however, does not prohibit a project from stepping down the side of a slope. Mr. Ladwlg felt that that detail should show up in one of the cross sections that would be drawn through the project, showing the existing and future grades and the units on the slope. Commissioner Hail felt that there needs to be some language in the ordinance that spells this out more clearly. Mr. Howes stated that staff could accomplish some wording to the fact that projects that are built on top of the slope and do not step down the slide of a slope be setback from the edge of the slope. Chairman Schlehuber requested that the drawings attached to the ordinance be Included as part of the ordinance Itself and that a drawing be Included on this particular portion. Staff indicated that this could be done. Mr. Ladwlg pointed out that he did not have a chance to review the ten standards, and other data presented by Mr. Schulte tonight. He continued reviewing the letter he submitted to the Commission. He pointed out ways that the wording could be changed to make It a positive ordinance rather than a negative ordinance. Mr. Ladwlg referred to Page 6, Line 15 1/2, that the phrase "one or more of the following" be added to the sentence. He explained that the only way one could qualify for any of the modifications, Is that the person have a circulation element road in the property. The way it Is written, It Is very specific that a person has to have all three of them. Yet one happens to be a major circulation element. Mr. Howes stated that there was no problem with putting in that wording. Mr. Ladwig pointed out a correction to Page 6, Line 21, the word "accomplished" should be "accompanied". Staffindicated that would DC corrected. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Chairman Schlehuber Indicated his preference to continue ^qenda Item No. 5 at this time to later on In the meeting to give the public an opportunity to review additional documents submitted on this matter and be able to comment on them. Mr. Ladwlg made one further comment on the concern that staff has regarding the quantity of yardage removal of slopes. He stated that the damage done to native land Is done when one removes the first si* Inches. Whether one goes 10 ur 20 feet further down In some cases does not make much difference. Staff needs to focus more on landscaping, drainage away from slopes, and slope protection as a positive thing, rather than concentrating on the number of yards. He thought that more concern should be placed on wnat you do to replace what was there as far as protection to the surface than the amount of yardage that you are moving. The Planning Commission continued Agenda Item No. 5 to the last agenda Item on the calendar of this meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6) PCD-88 - LA COSTA VILLAGE APARTMENTS Charles Crlim, Assistant Planning Director, gave the background of the Item as contained In the staff report. Transparency and wall maps were shown depleting the site and Its location. He stated that the only real Issue Is the density of 12.3 dwelling units per acre In the medium high density range and how It relates to the growth control points. The growth control points for this particular general plan designation Is 11.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated that staff feels that the Commission does not have to hold to the growth control points on this project for the following reasons (1) this project was before the Commission months ago before the growth control points were adopted; and (2) a similar project, In a similar situation, Casa Loma Condos was above the growth control points and was recently approved by the Commission and the Council. Bill Hofman, 6994 El Camlno Real, Suite 208-C, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff recommendations on all aspects. He stated that they agree with the conditions of approval with the exception of Condition No. 6. He stated that with the moratorium going on, a one-year time limit may not be sufficient. He requested that either the condition be eliminated, or that the Commission extend the time to a more reasonable time. In a discussion on the wording that should be Included as far as extending the time, Michael Holimlller, Planning Director, stated that normally what Is allowed under a subdivision map would be two years, and the applicant could come back and request two one-year extensions. Commissioner Holmes commented that the applicant did a very good Job In addressing the Commission's concerns on the project. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS The Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution approving PCD-S9:, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; with the modification of Condition No. 6 as described: RESOLUTION NO. 25*7 APPROVING A TEN-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A .91 ACRE PARCEL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER Of THE LUCIERNACA STREET/URU8U STREET INTERSECTION. Commissioner Holmes requested that there be no TV antennas, RV or boat outside storage In the project. Mr. Hofman Indicated that that would be fine with the applicant. The Planning Commission made a minute motion that there be no visible tv antennas, RV or boats stored outside the project. 7) PCO-92 - SOUTH COAST ASPHALT - Request for temporary rock mining and processing operation In the Carlsbad Research Center. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation on this Item as contained In the staff report. A transparency map and a wall map depicted theactual site and Its location. In response to Commissioner Holmes, Mr. Grimm stated that the applicant Is requesting 18 months to complete this project. However, If everything goes well, It should be accomplished within 12 months. In response to Commissioner Hall regarding whether the applicant could use the material off -site, such as In San Marcos, Mr. Grimm stated that a prohibitive conditioncould be placed on the Resolution. Another thing that could be done Is for staff to bring back conditions before the Planning Commission before actually going through the project. Commissioner Marcus referred to the applicant's letter and Inquired what was being referred to regarding material being disposed of In canyons. Mr. Hauser stated that ItIs cummin for an earth work operation, If they do have large unsuitable material, to dispose of It In fill areas and canyons. Mr. Holzmlller further clarified that the canyon area must be approved for a fill. They cannot take the rocks and put them In canyons somewhere without having that canyon area actually being filled as part of the approved project. Commissioner McBane Inquired whether there was an ordinance that would regulate the hours of operation or whether that would be conditioned also. Mr. Hauser responded that the grading permit process gives quite a bit of leeway to put these type of conditions. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane HolmesSchramm X X — X X X X X X X X X X X X MINUTES r October 15, I98fi PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS Don Hlckethler, 3701 Haymar Drive, representing South Coast Asphalt, addressed the Commission, and stated that there Is no problem *lth the condition regulating the time of operation as stated In the grading permit. He stated that he submitted 12 conditions to staff for their consideration. One of the conditions was any processed rock product produced on site will not be transported on any dedicated city street. That mould limit them to the project. Mr. Hlckethler briefly described the process that will be followed for the benefit of the College Boulevard project, as well as for the streets on Phases 3 and <* of the Koll's CRC project. Mr. Hauser stated that the condition mentioned by Mr. Hlckethler could be Incorporated by staff with the change that the streets be publicly dedicated streets. Mr. Hlckethler Indicated his agreement. Commissioner Schramm Inquired whether there would be enough crushed rock to complete the project. Mr. Hlckethler responded that Koll Company would have enough material of other type on site If needed. Tony German, 2715 York Road, Construction Project Manager for the Koll Company, stated that they have no objections to the recommendations by staff. Also, regarding noise and dust pollution created by the plant, Mr. German stated that they would make every effort to mitigate those problem areas that might be associated with the crusher plant. The Planning Commission accepted the proposed grading operation, as a test case, and adopted ROI-176 directing staff to draft a possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow the rock crushing operations In similar Instances. 5) ZCA-19* - CITY Of CARLSBAD (Continued) Chairman Schlenuber reopened the hearing on Agenda Item No. 5 at this time. Sob Ladwlg addressed the Commission and referred to Section 21.95.060 (d) the last sentence which states: "all man-nude slopes shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to occupancy of any structures". He pointed out that this Is a design guideline, and this section Is more of an Implementation problem rather than a design guideline. He wondered If It was appropriate for that section. Mr. Howes stated that requirement was put In at the suggestion of the Hillside Subcommittee. Mr. Ladwlg added that the developer does have a landscape plan approved by the City before his construction begins. He puts up a bond to guarantee the Improvements, so the mechanism Is there to enforce that. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm MINUTES October 15, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION Page COMMISSIONERS Mr. Ladwig referred to Section 21.95.070 and stated that the following findings could be added to that section: (a) sites that are affected by Nos. 1 and 2 above; and (b) that the resulting end product Is aesthetically pleasing landform. Don Woodward addressed the Commission and stated that the developers do have an approved landscape plan which they have to bond for. Further, problems with the weather, with access, etc., might affect when the developer may be able to plant banks, etc. Mr. Howes pointed out that even though the developers do have a bond, It has not proved very effective. The City has had a lot of problems getting good landscaping on projects. Michael Holimlller, Planning Director, stated that the problem has been that the developer gets an approved landscaped plan, It Is bonded for, and yet does not turn out the way It was planned. The project Is starting to be occupied. The concern was that there be some mechanism to ensure that the landscaping Is there per the plan before the units get occupied, and City staff does not have to go and call the bond. Mr. Woodward stated that there are some incredibly bad soils conditions here, and anybody In this business and going through the effort in developing on the land, would be very concerned with the appearance of the project and will do everything they can. The bond should be sufficient to cover this problem. Larry Clemens, HP I Development, 7707 El Camlno Real, addressed the Commission and stated that the development Is a big part of this Industry and should be a part of major decisions like this as they come along. He thought that there were quite a few things that could have been helped significantly had everyone been a part of a team working together to try to put together regulations that the developers as a Industry would have to Implement. Mr. Clemens expressed his concern that the proposed regulations was overly restrictive and does not allow for solutions. Although variances are allowed, they are difficult. He felt that the ordinance Is not a formula that addresses sensitive grading. He quoted from a letter sent by HP I to the Planning Department dated July 3, 1986 relative to this subject. Mr. Clemens expressed his concern that no where In the Intents and purposes and findings in the ordinance does It speak to the Justification for reducing by 50% the density transfer. The growth management plan recently adopted Includes this already. He pointed out that HP I has probably one of the most Impacted pieces of land affected by this ordinance In the entire city. Mr. Clemens also questioned the reason the City continues doing Master Plans. The Master Plan contains the most restrictive language there Is on every subject, including slopes. He stressed that the purpose for a Master Plan Is to allow for creatlveness and to take density transfers and to do cluster housing and put It in certain fashions to allow for the overall planning of a site. This ordinance, however, Is a non-creative solution. — MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1) COMMISSIONERS rim Roberts, La Costa Ranch Company, 699* El Camlno Real, addressed the Commission and expressed his concern »lth the ordinance. Each development area Is unique and there Is a creative artistic process In creating Master Plans. One establishes guidelines and purposes In the Master Plan. The ordinance restricts the artistic ability of the Planning Staff and the professionals that can help create a Master Plan that means something. He expressed his concern regarding the over-regulation In Carlsbad and consequently, loosing the ability to be creative. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that a number of cities have hillside ordinances. Mr. Roberts stated that the nay the ordinance reads needs to be amended to be a morepositive ordinance. The language has been drafted In a negative fashion. There being no other person In the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. Commissioner Marcus stated that she felt that the developers have raised very valid points as to how the ordinance has been worded. Chairman Schlehuber suggested that the wording "all general restrictions shall be met unless they can meet the provisions of Section 21.95.070" should be Inserted in the ordinance. Mr. Howes stressed that staff felt that there should be strong language In the ordinance to put the burden on the developer to justify the exception and not to put the burden on staff to Justify why they should not be allowed to exceed the amount. In the discussion that ensued, Commissioner McBane stated that his biggest problem dealt with Section 21.95.080. He stated that It seems to him that there are different kinds of non-residential development ranging from office and retail to private schools to Industrial. He Inquired whether the section could be modified to be more sensitive to other kinds of commercial uses rather than exempting all non-residential uses. Mr. Schulte stated that that was a good point, and It Is something that could be looked Into by staff. Commissioner McBane clarified that he was not only speaking to the size or Intensity of the project, but to some extent the actual use of the project. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that although the non- residential projects would be exempted under the section, the applicants would still have to justify the proposed grading. Commissioner McBane Inquired of staff whether they would be willing to Include the additional finding to Section 21.95.070 as proposed earlier by Mr. Ladwlg regarding the sites that are substantially affected by Findings Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Howes stated that In the Instance of a site that Is Immediately adjacent to a prime arterial It would be justified. MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 COMMISSIONERS The Commissioners agreed »lth Commissioner McBane's suggestion regarding adding the additional finding to Section 21.95.070 under the modifications. It was the general consensus of the Commission that Section 21.95.080 should remain as It presently reads. In reference to Chairman Schlehuber's suggestion to Incorporate a certain drawing as an exhibit to the ordinance relative to projects which are one step down of a slope, Mr. Howes Indicated that It could be done. Chairman Schlehuber referred to his earlier suggestion regarding Including the following language In the ordinance "the developer can justify some exemptions under 21.95.070 hereinafter stated". It could be Included towards the front of the ordinance. The Commissioners concurred with this. Mr. Howes Indicated that staff could do this. On a suggestion by Commissioner HcBane to change the words "acceptable" and "unacceptable" In the ordinance to "desirable" and "undesirable", Mr. Howes stated that that change would make It harder for staff to Implement the ordinance as to the mass grading amounts. It was the general consensus of the Commissioners to go along with staff on this matter. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that when the Commission gets a document like this (hillside ordinance) that It beconsidered as an EIR where written comments are solicited from the people who are Involved. Staff Indicated this could be done. Chairman Schlehuber recommended that staff solicit written comments on this from the developers for the Commission's review prior to approval of the regulations. mded approval of theThe Planning Commission reci Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission sent Resolution No. 2570 - ZCA-194 back to staff for additional language to meet some of the suggestions which were discussed today and that It be brought back to the Commission for review, along with any comments submitted by Mr. Don Woodward, La Costa Ranch Company, Rick Engineering, and HPI, Inc. That they be allow a 10-day response time. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS Planning Commission A Resolution of Appreciation was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission and read by Commissioner Schramm, on behalf of the Commission and staff, which was given to Elizabeth Caraballo, Minutes Clerk, for her time and effort In serving the Planning Commission. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm MINUTES October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 COMMISSIONERS Chairman Schlehuber referred to an Item which was considered at the October 1st meeting regarding the Planning Commission Procedures. He stated that he wanted to amend the Procedures, Rule 29(d) that the general public be only Included where any member of the Commission feels that the Individual will be directly Impacted by the proposed condition. The Planning Commission approved the amendment to Rule 29(d), Planning Commission Procedures as described above. Commissioner McBane referred to the Commission's concern regarding the driveway width of commercial projects. He recommended that staff look Into this problem to see what other cities are doing. In particular, when there Is only one parking lot served by one fairly narrow driveway. Staff Indicated that they could look Into this. Commissioner Hall Inquired whether the Planning Commission will have a City Attorney present at the Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Holzmlller stated he would look Into this. There Is a new person coming on board soon, and Mr. Hoizmiller stated that he believed that there would be someone at the next meeting. MINUTES The Planning Commission approved the minutes of September 17, 1986 as presented. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting of October 15, 1986 was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOUMILLER Planning Director Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk MEETINGS ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm Schlehuber Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schramm