Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-27; Planning Commission; Minutes? ." .- .. CITY 0 F' ,ARLSBAD . ~j~~~lS.SfONERS MEETING, OF: CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING 'COMMISS.ION DATE: August27, 1975 TIME: 7: 30 .p..m. .- 2 PLACE: . COUNCIL CHAMBERS .., '.. . sr CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Absent: Commissioner Fi kes. APPROVAL OF 'MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS It was recommended that 'the approval of the .minutes of June 24, .1975 be placed at the end of the agenda; inasmuch as there'was not a quorum present yet who ,< were also. at that meeting. . .. -. .. .. .. WRITTEN COMMUN-ICATIONS" .. .. P,lanning Director Dan Agatep mentioned that written communications ,pertained to .items on the agenda and would be d.isc.ussed. at .that tim.e. ORAL COMMUNICAT.ION . Non-e .. .Chairman -Jose introduced the newly appointed. ; P1.anni-ng Commissione-r, .Eric Larson, who was'seated in the audience. Mar. Larson is p.resently a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, w-ill be .seated., with the Planning Commission September 10, 1915. . .- a .. .. PUBLIC HEARIONGS '. .. .. Continued 1. Case No. SP-170 - Sommers-De3elopmen.t Corporati.01 (E%;) -kssistarrt---Planning Director Bud Plender gave staff presentation'., expla.i.ned graphics .and S.taff-: recomme.ndation.-ef approval.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . Commissioner D0mingue.z. expresse'd concern 'over 'whose responsibility it. would be to maintain.the very . steep benches. Mr. Plender explained .that this would be the responsibility of the property .owne.rs. I Amos Simmers, President, Sommers Development Corpora. tion, asked for clarification of Condition .#1 requiring an appli'cation to. be on file with 'LAFCO to annex Lot A to .the Ci,ty o.f Carlsbad and annexa- . tl'on to be completed prYor to approva.1 of the final .. subdivision map for the second phase of the project and further that- the Open'Space easement thereon will be dedicated to the City. After clarification, Mr. Sommers felt he should be given credit against Par,k-In-Li,eu fees. Mr. Sommers also asked permissiol to construct a ma.s'ter television tpwer for the purpo! of eliminating individual television .a,ntennas on the .. ---.-. roofs of the homes. Mr. Sijmmers a1-d .. . - "" ."""" . . " _._ -. - ..- 'RESENT \BSENT .. .- 3 . ". . .. &."" A. . , - I' CITY OF uARLSBAD condition' #12, requiring a 30 -ft. minimum distance between face of curb and building. Mr. Sommers between the back of the sidewalk and the door to .. the garage and his company feels that 'furnishing each home with automatic garage door openers would preclude most parking in drives and therefore would eliminate 'the need for such a. great distance requirement. . Several questions were 'asked of the applicant by the Commissionersr concerning price range of his , homes, un.derground antenna vs. the tower, the distan requirement in condition #12 and. placement of as a model. .. .. . explained his most desirab1.e model has 20 ft-. .homes and garages according to the scale presented Sarah Hernandez, 38-80 Sier'ra Morena .Drive,, asked' . . if the rest of t.he.conditions wo.uld be accepted by the' developer-and. who woul-d be .responsi.ble' for seeing that the television tower,. if permitted, would be taken.down at .such time as cable television was approved for. Carl.sbad:. .The pu,bl ic heayi.ng Gas closed. Cornmfssioners dj.squssed the television tower and.it. was agreed- there was no ob.jection to the 'to.wer itsel only in making sure there.'was some condition placed on Mr.- Sommers or respectiv.e owners to'remove the tower at-the proper time. If they approve the tower it w-ould be up t'o the homeowner's associati-on to preclude television antennas on top of roofs. By request of .the Commission.a.nd a unanim0u.s. vote th public hearing- was reopened for the, purpose of allowing Sarah. Hernand.ez to ask a'question as the . responsibility for.enforeement of the'homeowners' association. C.C.& R's, after the:C~glaaatibn that the City probably could not enforce.C.C.& R's, public hearing was cl.osed. ,- T.im Flanagan, City engineer,. explained tha.t..because' some people will not use their gar.age d.o-o.r openers .-. eve,n if they were furn.iShed and because the minimum - standard for, sidewalks, 2.8 ft.. was theninimum. ... acceptable to*Engi-neeri:ng -for. the space between.. ... ' curb. face and .building. Commissioner L'Heureuy expressed concern ov.er-- : .. .. -. circulation. He ,felt Sierra Morena was. a. very ' . poorly designed .street. Mr.. FlandganCanswered questions regarding traPfic signal's .proposed- for that area.' Mr,. L'Heureux .asked if this developer . had posted a, bond for a signal,--and, Mr. Flanagan - explained -this develbper .ha.d.posted a bond for a signal when he developed Woodbine to the west. Commissioner L'.Heureux expressed his concern regardi the slopes and also Condition #8 -which requires landscaping, will'not work without irriga,tion. The motion was made and seconded but not carried to approve SP-170 with the fo1lo.wing changes: Condition #8 a sentence' be added which states that a sprinkler water 'system be .instailed ... within.:. th-irty .. -. -. COMMISS .. .. .. ... Yotion \yes . . Noes 4b.stain 4bsen-t- ... ... 10.N E RS \ \ 1 " - " .. ...... " . ..... .. PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING August- 27, 1975 Page 3 '+ '. , , manner that 'either by bond or.some other means of enforcement the City can be assured the tower will come down. It was suggested that this word5-ng be discussed with the City Attorney. In furt.her discussion, the question was. raised as- . to how much grading would be done. Mr. Sommers The Commission' felt perhaps this pl'an did not meet the requirements of the.Op'en Space Element of -the General Plan; however, Don Agate.p, Planning Director exp-lained that-th.e Commission had an obligation to look at other Elements'of the General Plan, not just one. The motion was made,. seconded and passed that this .item be tabled. to allow staff and ap,plicant time to reeval'uate the development so that it retains more of the natural .terrain, if at all possible. . I't was exp'lained .that there is a tentative..map for this project before the Commlssion also and it must be processed within a set time frame. . Therefore, the motion should be to either deny without'pre.judic1 - the tentat$ve ma-p and have it resubmitted. back with the Specific Plan or continue both it.ems to a date, certain with the concu-rrence af the. appl ica-nt. Chairman Jose asked Mr.. Sommers if he would 'agree to continuing the tentative map; 9nd Mr. Sommers said he would, if he could be,certain of .a definite time when this c.ould be brought .for-ward. The motion was made and carried to 'rescind the previous motion -and ,a subsequent motiqn to Gontinue.. SP-170 to the September.24, 1975 meeting. Thi! . motion to continue. carried by- a 6-0 -vote. .. .- -said- it would be approximately 150,000 yards. .. .. - Thz motion. wa5- then made .and carried to.'contin.ue. ' 1975 meeting, al.so. the tentative .map-- CT 75-2 -- to .t.he September -24, .. . .. .. .. ' 3. Scenic Highwiys Element of the General Plan (etc Before starti.ng this hearing-, ChaSrman Jose asked that since this is a continued hearing people in th6 . audience wishing to, speak shoul'd try to 1-imi.t . their 'testimoney to'new comments- only, and perhaps if there was a group of people- from the same area with the same views that 'one cou-ld speak for the group. .- Planning Director Don Agat-ep explained this was the last of none elemeqts required by State law. This draft spells out the goals and intent of the Scenic Highways Element; however, 'it .eliminates recommended eligible routes from the Element itself. Mr.. Ag-atep explained the process whereby certain streets or. roads in the City can be included in' the Scenic Highways. He explained that the staff 't " -" .. ~- b. .. . """_ *- - - -=-. - ,. - ... , -- "":&""" .. .", ~.. . " " . ". a Motion Ayes Absent .. otion Yes bse.nt otion. yes bsent -. CITY OF' LARI-SBAD PLANNING COMMISSION, MEETI.NG August'27, 1975 ', '. . , Page 4. concurs with the Citizen's- Committee as to the . el-igible routes listed in the memorandum dated August 27, 1975 to the Planning Commission. The . . Commission's proposal to- the Council would be a recommendation that they accept, add to, change or delete any routes listed. Commissioners- Dominguez .and Watson complemented the . staff for the amount of.wo,rk done on the redrafting of this Element. L. W. Rash, 4156 Highland Drive, was concerned that the draft as presented tonight had not been .back.to the Citizens' Committee. Mr. Rash was assured that there wer.e no .changes in the .concept-' and the Citizens' Committee input was still there. All that was chan.ged from the workshop session' o'f the Commission was the manner.of presentation. .. Byron White, Attorney, 'Flrst Natjpnal Bank Building, San Diego, reprqsenting. certain property owners inc1.u ding Carrillo Ranch, Bressi Ranch, Thibido and - Robertson's Ranch, st.ated- these owners do oppose the Element. When their property can be .seen from- - a Scenic Highway, or is included in the S'cenic . Highway overlay ,zone-, their feeling is that this could be a -severe.cloud over title to their;p.roperty. Mr. White suggested that- since the General -Plan can be amended three times a year that perhaps a.t the outset of. this 'particular Element should not. be.so fa 'reaching. Mr. White- suggested limiting the'Route to I-.5 and adding a statement that no.-cost be borne. by the -property owners. Mike Zander,, City Staff Planner,. handed Mr. White a CQPY of the revised Element submitted as of. this date. The. Commission ' felt Mr. White-would agree with, the revised Element at least in concept. -. . .. It was moved' and -approved to recommend adoption .of the 8/21/75 revision of the Scenic Highways. Element. This motion inc1uded.Commission's recommendation that City Council could change, delete or add to the - . recommended routes .without reburning the Element to -minutes of .thi-s- meeting are to-be inc?u.ded as an . . . . the Commission for further consideration, The attachme:nt to forward to Council.. " .. .. .. . There was a 10-minute ;ecess called at 9:15- P.M: and the meeting wa's called to order. . the five Planning Commissioners wer.e present when .. 4. Case N. #IR-295 - May Company Stores- (etc.) Planning Director Don Agat'ep gave staff presentation, explained graphics andJBOaff's recommendation of -approval. Mr. Agatep.explained this was a quitie . lengthy Report, prepared initially by Westec, Inc. and changed or added to as necessary by the varioys departments of.the City. Sandra Gaffey, Project Manager, Westec, Inc., was present in'the audience. Mr. Agatep outlined ttie'major considerations of the Environmental Impact Report.. One 0-f the consideratic - "" """"" . . . . . . .. - s .. Motion Ayes Absent .. .. .. - ... . .. A. ... - .- . CITY PLANNING 0 F' UARLSBAD COMMISSION MEETING August I 27 , .,1..97! Page 5 is the Central Business District; however,. the enlargement of Plaza Camino Real should not affect . the sales of these stores which are mostly specialt) stores. The report includes mitigating measures whi . . should be taken for drainage, siltatio'n, pedestrian safety, traffic circulation, etc. An addition aspect of,the report is the saving of energy by suggesting the stores could be constructed in such a way to make use of natural breeze-s instead of usir air conditioning. Comments from various agencies including Air Quality Control Board, Department of Fjsh and'Game,.as.well as comments from various City staf.f departments have been incorporated. A memorandum to the Commission this date mentianed .a surcharge which may become necessary. If this is not accomplished, t-he. stores may have to be bdtlt on pilings. This memo concerning: the surcharge- and pedestrians. should be added to the Report as Exhibit D. John Mamaux, 1393 Bas.swo.od Driv.e,. representing May Company Stores, stated he agreed with all the conditions or mitigating mea.sures. pointed' out in the r-eport. Mr. Mamaux also stated that the time .necessary for th.e surcharge i-s not wasted time,. inasmuch as soil from the road wi.11 be used to . start the sur-cha-rge. .. Henry Thom.pson,- 330 Chestnut Avenue,. asked what is the Ci.ty's responsibility t.o prepare an Environment3 Impact Report.. Planning Director Don Agatep- e-xplair *th-at- i.f there is's project within the City consider5 to be s,ignificant, the .City Counci.1 can instruct staff to prepare a rep0r.t. Mr.. Thompson then asked about various letters and whether they were .in the report; also, if the pre1,iminary report was . prepared for the, developer, not the City. Mr. Thorn! attempted to point.out-fhat this report is presentec as an-independent report, w.hen;i.n fact, approxi- mately six days from..the receipt of:the report,. the City purported to have analyzed this.repor.t, includi the different agenci.es .and depar-tment comment-s-. In answer to Commissioner. Watson's questioning regar-dip report content,' Mr. Thompson 'observed t.he.re- was nothing objectionable iii the document.. . ... .... . . -. .... .... .. .. .- Public .. Hear.ing was clos-ed. .... ~. . In response to qu,estiohs from .the Commissioners', - . Mr. Agatep expla'ined that a portion of' this report. TS dated Septemb'er, 1974 and-that this was when the tnitial economic analysis was prepared by the Ci'ty o rnodtfi-ed or expaaded'as th.e project develops. The use of the "Q" Zone on the property or a sp,eci fic plan for the de.ve1opment wa.s also discussed: It was felt that this report wa,s inadequate and should Be expanded; the .expanstion to include. vehicular .. traffb. from El Cami:no Real-, Highway 78, Marron Road artd SePfersan St-reet, and. additional. comments on SF1 tati'an sKou.ld Fe included. The motion was made to return this. report to Staff to consolidate Exhibits- B thro-ugh D and also expand on circulation, pedestrian safety,' siltation and information -received fr-om the Department of-Fish . thts expansi'on. Baqical ly, . th.e. report cah' be .. -. - "_" """"" .. - ....... - -. - ." .. n a .. .. .. Motion Ayes Absen.t . .. .. .. .. 'IONERS *I C PL ITY ANNING .. 'I .... and Game and have a more complete pack'age to the motion was amended to have these minutes included . Planning Commission on September 10, 1975. The . . as Exhibit E. A second mot.ion was made to reopen the public - hearing. .. The Commissioners would -also like to see as-a further exhibit a general area 'map for tr.affic flow use. .. .. -5. 6; & 7. - Case No. ZC-161, ZC-162 and ZC-1'63- City initiated. (etc.) ..... Planning Director Don Agatep exp'lained the purpose of defining and. rezoning area which woul.d.fulfil1 a requirement of the National Flood Insurance Act of '1968.- Mr. Agatep expl'a-ined that .the. areas ,to .. be .rezoned are only th0s.e withi-n .the City of Carlsbad. Unincorporated are'as within the sph,ere . of influence would be considered for rezdning at the time of annexati.on. .He also explained the difference between floo'dplain-.and floodway as the - floodway being the area which actually carries the water. What this means is that there would be no ' development allowed in the floodway and. d.eve1.0~- ment would be allowed in t-he floodplain only so long as mitigating measures. would-be taken.. Mr. Agate-p explained that City Planner Mike Bedaux, . "who has worked on th-is project, could identi-fy any ., piece of property the audience may have i.n question. if it fel1,in ei.ther zone. .. 'In answe'r to questions ,from t-he Commission, . Mike Bedaux explained that a fl,oodpl.ain is considered to be a total area which may be subject. to inu.ndation during a 100-yr. flood. He, furth,er explained that the City no..longer has any choice in complying with the Federal Insurance Adm..inistration .(FIA) of 1968 inasmuch as-the. Council has determined thpt -. we will participate in -the program provided the . program was approved by the Federal Government. The . . con$ro-1s must be in acco'rdance wit.h the flood. control . ma.pS whdch: haPe been presented. to the City. ..... Mr.. Bedaux exp2ained t.hat-. the-Ci-ty..has sent-back' . . -* to the Fe'deral Government a' map showi.ng more realisti up to date boundaries. If the City does not comp.ly, . - the Federal Government,would not p.articipate in-. . , insurance in the pvent of a major flood.and the . City may be subject to lawsuits. The Ci.ty would not be able to benefit from-VA, FHA 'or any Federal ... fl'nancing. Barton 'Lefferdink, 4'576 Cove -Drive, wanted to know who decided Bri-stol .Cove should be in a .floodplain area. Mr. Bedaux explaine'd this .w.as determihed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Le.fferdink .. I felt this was unre.asonable because of the.100 ft.. :'ditch there that runs right into 'the ocean. Bruce Stallard, 2620 Second -Avenue,- San. D-iego, sta.ted he owned property which came under .this and he did : not understand how .the. Corps .could- say w.ater could stack up Over 10 ft. high when -it has proper,access .to the ocean. ... .... .... .- Motion Ayes Absent, -. '; .- I. ' .. 9 -. . .' .. .I. ..... ... , .. ,. . .a CITY 0 F' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August- 27, 1975 Page '3 ... .. ,I Chairman Jose'asked if this was adopted this evening, is there any recourse to people owning homes in . these areas to take action to get the Corps of Engineers to change their designated boundaries. . Tim Flaiagan, City Engineer-, stated that maps are being sent.to the Federal Government tomorrow showin: what the City feels is a-more.reaJistic floodway and floodplain zQne and asking their consideration im changing their- boundaries. Anyone interested in seeing what is to be submitted is welcome to come to the City 'offices., Ray Winter, Fullerton, felt that the lines drawn .on the maps as they stand now were possibly 25 to 30 ft. above the.flood 1,ines. - .. John Newel1 , 51.80 A-dams Street, Los .Angeles, objects to land along El- Camino Real bei.ng. in a floodplain zo me. Paul Voegel, 2930 .Bel Cerro, 'Olivenhain, .felt there was no way the lagoons'could back up and not flaw out to the ocean. ' . 'Pub1 ic. hearing' was closed. Commissioner L'heureux stated he -would make.- no comments nor wou1.d -he.vote on this item because of a p.oteritia1 conflict o.f .interest. '-It was:mentioned that the County will have Very precise maps avai'la6-le; but they may.not 6e. availa6le .for another STX months to.a year: .Chairman JQse- asked -4-f this could- 6e confinued to I e September 10, 1975 and.perhaps have a Corps of Engineers spokesman present. fir. Flanagan stated he did not think it possible to have a' representative of the Corps of Engineers present- but that- perhaps the City Council will hve heard somkthing from the Federal Government by the .meeting date. The motion was .made to continue th.is he-aring .to - - SeRtember 10, 1975 with 'the staff. being directed . to ."come up. with mo.re speci.fic maps and-a' rep0r.t .on. puntitive .. meabures- of .not -regulating flood -areas. .* -. .. . \ .. There was a 10-minute recess-caf1ed.at 12:OO and all five Commissioners were present when the meeting- . was again called to,order. . .. . 8. Case .No. ZCA-69 - 'Pipeline (etc.) Planning Director Don;qgatep explained that the ,* Commission had approved a Resolution of Int-ention to change the P-U Zone $0. include energy transmission facilities and delete m1nimum.lot size in the L-C zone for greater flexibility. Representatives . . of San Diego Pipeline are in the a-udience and it is their request .for a Speci:fi.c Plan which leads to this. .. - .. - "" """ ......... " "A. .. tr COMMISSIONERS * .. ... MQ t i'on Ayes. Absent .. .. CITY 0 F' UARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Augus.t- 27, 1975 Page 8 \ :, .. , -Mr. White1aw;San Diego Pipeli-ne, stated .ha was perfectly satisfied with the way the zbne code amendment is set forth. . Public hearing was closed. It was moved to recommend a-pproval of ZCA-69 and staff was -di.rected to prepare the necessary dotument UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Block Study. When asked if this could be 'continued to anotheymeeting, Assistant Planning . Director Bud P.lender exp.lained t-here is not that much urgency. There is only one application for lot split in any ..of the areas at present and since this does-not af'fect any.future .street system, -. -. staff will recommend appro.va1. --Commission L'Heureux asked if the Commissi.on -could not be noti-fied if any applications are presented which would fall w-?thin the block' stu.dy and they could perhaps pull. that 'particular -bloc& for stu,dy. It was decided that this item-would be put on a .light agenda or possibly be sent to a workshop session. . . ,: : .. NEW B-USINESS 10. Street vacation of Osuna Drive.. The'motion was made to approve gene.ra1 plan conformity. of a proposal to vacate Osuna Drive. .. .- -. e DISCUSSION ITEMS 11. Sign Or'dinarice Workshop. It. w-a.s decided that one more workshop rev'ie.w should bring this ordinance to a point where it -woul.d be presented for pu-blic hearing. The worksh.op review will be held F'riday, - September 12, 1975-at 7;30 A..M. in' the back-room -of Sandy's Restaurant. . 12. .. Presentation -of plaque for.Gary. Wrench-.was. ' . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . talked about; howeve.r, no decision was reached definitely. He will ,be contacted. to see what . Saturday would be'best. and Commissioner Fikes had offered his home- *for the presentation.. . 1NFORMATIO.N ITEMS 13. League of Ca1.ifornia.Cities Bul.letin (.etc.) It was discussed whether or not there was money budgeted for meetings sych as these. The deciyion get a ruling on 'this. 4 .. - was made to contact staff if anyone wanted ' to attend. and planning Director Don Agatep is to .. a Motion Ayes Absent .. Motion Ayes Absent .. " .. .. I. - x "