Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-15; Planning Commission; Minutes_". CITY 0 F' CARlSBAD : MEETING OF: CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : April 15, 1975 - Adjourned Meeting TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE Councilmanic Offices CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Commissioners Fikes, Jose, L'Heureux, Watson, Wrench Commissioner Domi nguez Appointed Commissioner Packard sat in. the workshop session. DISCUSSION OF FORTHCOMING ITEMS It was mentioned that the City Manager would like the Commissior to pick a night other than Tuesdays for their meetings. It was decided'to put the question of what evenings could be used for Commission meetings on the agenda for April 22, 1975 and let the Commissioners decide what evenings would be available to them. It was felt. that many of these projects would require additional workshop meetings.. Planned Unit Development they will try to get as much done on this tonight as is possible. Circulation Element will be presented as a pub1 ic hearing on April 22, 1975, Sign Ordinance - The first special meeting in May will be used for the sign ordinance. The second special meeting, in May will be used for the Flulti-Zone Ordinance Amendments. Rezone to Ope1 Space, Scenic Highway E.lement/Safety Element and Noise Element can be handled on regular meeting nights. It was decided not tc element involved to bring them to a point where the Commission could discuss them was not yet established. . discuss Section B projects at this time; inasmuch as the time PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender presented the history' and background of The condominium conversion and planned unit development study. There was considerable discussion during tht presentation, aud Dr. Packard was briefed on some of the reason! for needing this policy. Social factors, community. factors and some considerations of condominium factors were re1 ated to as far as condominium . . conversions are concerned. .. Under community factors, Commissioner Watson stated .that as far *as poorly designed or managed condominium conversions failing, there has never been a subdivision or housing project built in the City that was not a complete success up until the last year or so. He further stated that up until the last year or so 90% of the construction dbne in the City was done on a smaller scalt and by local developers. ' Mr. Plender stated that the Commission could consider adoption of the planned unit.development without the condominium con'- version policy, but that they should not consider condominium conversion without the planned unit development. The Commissiol decided they would 1 i ke to get into the planned unit developmen. .and the ordinance draft itself was explained by Mr. Plendq. Mr. P1 ender explained that the "guarantee of performance" section should not be talked about this evening; inasmuch as.thc City Attorney suggests there may be trouble with the wording as it is now and this section needs more input. . Mr. Plender explained that what should be understood with the condominium conversion section is that the requirement for separation walls and separate uti1 ities may preclude many *"? I-"" Present Absent . . is " . CITY 0 F' CARLS8AD Page 2 - Planning'Commission Adjourned Meeting April 15, 1975 ol.der apartments from converting. He added that if a strong conversion ordinance was adopted that'provisions be added that apartments constructed after adoetion of the ordinance could no be converted., or meet the new PUD requirements. , : ' It was noted there was no requirement for storage facil.ities in the convers'jon section. In answer t'p a question raised, Mr. PJender explained that the Planned Unit Development Process accommodates the P-C Zone in that the P-C is a zone for large acreage property and,can be established by the City, -whereas the PUD is a process that can be used-for all zones and any use. Only the developer can request PUD . ............................... A fifteen-minute recess was called at 9:00 P:M. After the explanation that this ordinance was a draft only and needed more staff input, particularly by the City Attorney and the City Engineer, it was decided to go over the ordinance page by page so that the Cotqnissioners might direct staff as to what they would like to se.e in the ordinance. ............................... 21.45.050 - Development Seandards - It was felt that perhaps a more definite explanation of where to find "General Provisions" should be spelled out. Height was talked. about at considerable length.. Some dis- cussion was centered around deleting the .last sentence of the height section - "However, in no instance, shall height exceed . the height requirements of the underlying zone.", and. whether this would open doors to developers who may not qualify as the ideal applicant. The general consensus was the deletion of thi sentence would give greater. flexibility to the ordinance, but . the matter needs -to be discussed further. Parking. - the proposal, requtres more barking than is requi,red i the present residential zones. Staff was directed to research the FHA distanck that parki.ng can be from the units. Storage Spaces - It was explained that the reason the. "within one mile distance from the boundary of the Planned Unit' Develop ment" was used is because many times it is not feasible to have storage on the same site. The Commission.in general agreed to 'this, but they felt that storage spaces should not be off-site ,unless there was at least some restriction against this "storage lot" being sold as a separate parcel sometime at a later date and should be as close to the development as possible. They felt the ow mile criteria should be deleted. Walls - It was suggested that walls could perhaps be extended to permit some type of hedge. It was felt that there should be . a restriction made as to maintenance of the hedge, wall, or whatever.was. accepted. The Commission decided the wo.rd . "screening" should Be used instead of walls. Open Space and Landscaping - The Commission took exception to the requirement that the plans be prepared by a licensed land- .scape architect. It was agreed this should be deleted and perhaps instead,of requiring a licensed landscape architect, the section should spell out what is a comprehensive .land- scaping plan. Also, the requirements between residential and non-residential should be similar. \ Signs - It was pointed out that this section was merely allow- ing one additional sign and this would be .a sign for the ._ -- """ "".""-.""*I" "".""""""I.""" .I .. .-. ""_. 9" COMMISSIONERS .. . . , CITY 0 F' Page 3 - Planning Commission Adjourned 'Meeting April 15, 1975 I L 8 1 " " development itself. -1 Placement of Buildings - A) - insert the word "otder" to read "and'any other building". Streets - insert the words "of pavement'' so as to read "con- struction of pavement shall comply". It was explained that the reference to a "qualified community organization" referred to a organization formed by the development itself. The Planning Commission requested clearer wording. It was felt that, perhaps staff could work with the attorney and find out if it was at all feasible to come up with some kind of a workable'maintenance agreement whereby if a private street'is let go or greenbelts were neglected, the City would have the right to go in and maintain, at least as far -as visual aspects. Minimum Acceptable Width of 'Private Streets - This was discusse at .length. It was suggested that if the absolute minimum width as set forth in this table was not really acceptable for all developments and in all situations then it should not be stated thfs way, because every developer could come up with a demandfo the absolute minimum- wi'thout reading the preamble that states acceptable by the Planning Comnission. It was decided that may be this table could be set up in a matrix format and footnote i regarding the minimum, since people will read a footnote on a chart where they may. not read the preamble. Building Construction- Requirements - Mr. Plendev said the Planninq .CommSssion should discuss the addition of soundproofir we have-no standard now with the exception of what is contained in the Noise standard. T.he Planning Commission agreed that something should be considered stating that reasonable efforts to mitigate noise should be made. Processing Planned Unit Development - Whether or not to require a tentative subdivision map at the same time a tentative planned unit development plan is submitted was discussed, and it was felt this should remain, since it will mot place undue strain financially or time -problem beeause this is not that much extra work after they have developed the one. However, after further discussion, it was generally conceded that the Commission does not want.developers to spend a lot of time and money only to find out their project will not be accep.table*. . The question was as ked if the' developer had any way of knowing -whether his project is going to be acceptable before he goes into it in any great detail. Mr. Plender explained.that all 'developers are encouraged to work with staff throughout the planning stages of the proposed development; and, in fact, a paragraph on the first page, of the proposed application states this request. It was noted the time was 1 l':20 and the City Council wanted to use the Councilmanic office for an executive session; so the ' Comnissign decided to add this workshop to the end of the agend for April 22, 1975.- ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. I I_ -7"- ," .-.- "- """"""-".."."~ "" -.""""..U"".~"" " .. u """ ^. c - . .. . . .