Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-12; Planning Commission; MinutesCALL TO ORDER - 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL - Commissioner Jo Woodward arrived at 7:08 P.M. . c I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES A revised copy of the March 22, 1978, minutes was distributed to the Planning Commission. The March 22, 1978, minutes were APPROVED with the following corrections/ additions: On Page One, Item (1) - Resolution No. 1436, Commissioner Jose indicated.that if he would have been present at the March 8th meeting he would have voted 'NO' because he felt very strongly that we would be opening up 'Pandora's BOX'. On Page One show that Commissioner L'Heureux voted 'ABSTAIN' on Resolution No. 1436. Also, on Page One, Commissioner Yerkes voted 'NO' on Resolution No. 1438, and on Page Two, show that Commissioner Yerkes voted 'YES' on Case No. ZC-198 - 0 Overlay. RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1436, Barbara Colton, CUP-147. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Condominium Conversion Report was discussed as Item No. 4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (1) Case No. CUP-149, Brown Trucking - Request for approval to allow temporary use of a trailer as an office on property generally located on the south side of Haymar Dkkve, west of College Boulevard. Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner - indicated that the applicant withdrew his application on April 4, 1978, bv - letter and that staff had also received a letter from South Coast Asphalt stating their position. He recommended that the Commission DENY this application without predjudice and that the applicant be refunded any fees that would be forthcoming to him. Mr. Rose indicated that a letter was sent to the applicant explaining what we would propose as conditions of approval and also explaining some of the problems with the application in general and then stated that this was a public hearing. " - A motion was made to DENY CUP-149 without predjudice because the applicant withdrew his application. The motion containe a recommendation that the unused fees be refunded for his request as deemed appropriate by staff. - - " -7- I " I A i 1 ! Id PRESENT MOTION AYES ABSTAIN YOTION 4YES 9BSTAIN MOTION AYES ABSTAIN X E < 1 . 1 > . K X X i ! X - .- X X X X 1 L 7 X ! PAGE TWO (2) , .. . (2) ' Case No. SDP 77-1, Mola - Approval of a Site Develop- ment Plan for a commercial center. I Mr:'Don Rose;Associate Planner gave the staff'presentatiori. ,He explained that the subject property was within the "Q" Overlay Zone. The north and south extremities are . labeled for future building and it is expected that the south portion would hold a bank and the north would hold a large supermarket but that when plans for that come in it would come back to the Planning Commission for approval because of the Q Overlay Zone. He indicated that under the conditions of approval that all drives and access to this would be fully improved so that there would be convenient access for people using the restaurant and offices, and would not be tracking dirt onto the City streets. Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director in response to Commissioner Jose's question regarding a wall on the east side of the property line. Mr. Plender indicated that there is no condition for,a screening wall on the east property line. He indicated to the Commission that they should decide if a wall is necessary. The future residentia. units to the east will be looking up at the commercial development and in some portions the parking will be above Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner -indicated that there was only going to be one trash enclosure for this site because this was only 1/3 of the development and that there would probably be two other refuse areas. He indicated that the code does not indicate how many trash enclosures, or how much refuse will be provided for. Different uses require different amounts. Frank Mola, OW'ner', 422 Loma Drive, Huntington Beach, CA - Indicated that the center sits on the average of 3 to 6' above El Camin0 Real. He felt that requiring a block wall would harm the project and stated that landscaping would be Sufficient. All of the air conditioning and all other equipment will be enclosed in a shed roof. In response to Commissioner L'Heureux's question regarding the height of the tower, he indicated that the tower would be below the 35 feet. Regarding the mitigation measures taken since this was an archaeological area he indicated that the study was completed at a cost of $25,000.00. Commissioner L'Heureux, stated that he felt that any type of mechanical equipment on any kind of commercial building should be totally screened from any view. He indicated that he had a difficult time trying.to evaluate the traffic pattern and the traffic flow without seeing the entire proposal. He indicated that we have a real problem with the May Company, Reubens and Coco's with parking and that this could be too much traffic congestion. He felt he could not adequately consider this proposal without knowing how the full site was to be developed. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 12, 1978 PaGE THREE (3) \\ Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director indicated that staff felt there was some unique things about this site and that is why the "Q" Oyerlay Zone was placed on it. It r. was .felt that-if we could solve some of those unique problems with the site then phase development would be acceptable. One'reason the Q Overlay Zone was-placed on this .area was because it is a very unusual shaped area-with poor access to El Camino Real, there was going to be a need for internal access, especially through the property to Alga. He stated that this plan would require a street or driveway from Dove Lane through the site to Alga which is a major issue. With the Q Zone we have the flexibility, ability and discretion to request additional driveways and additional traffic control. Mr. Plender explained that Exhibit "B" shows additional parking to be deleted from this phase and to be redesigned for future plans. You will then have the ability to have enough of the property to redesign the parkin and interior driveways so that they do work with the major driveways and accesses. This will give you the flexibilitytc insure that future development will €it the plan you are adopting tonight and still give the applicant the opportunity to build out the portion that he is ready to build now. A motion was made to APPROVE SDP 77-1 based on the reasons outlined in the staff report subject to the conditions. The change of Condition No. 1 to read 'Exhibit "B"' and with the addition of Condition No. 18 to read as follows: 'On site lighting shall be designed and shielded so that light and glare will not be a nuisance to adjoining residential uses or vehicular circulation on adjoining streets.' (3) Information Report - Village Area Mr. Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator indicated to the Commission that this item be continued one week to permit the City Attorney and the Redevelopment Special Commission's opinion on conflict of interest provisions. A motion was made to hold a Special Meet.ing on the Village Area on April 19, 1978. (4) Condominium and Condominium Conversion . Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director gave the staff presentation. He explained that State Law requires the processing of condominiums by subdivision tract maps. However, there are no provisions in the code to provide for discretionary action by the City, therefore, the City Council wished to consider if special processing should be required. Staff had to ask some basic questions prior to responding such as: IS a condominium a unique form of residential development? Is there some reason to treat condominiums differently? Mr. Plender further explained that a condominiu is similar to a Planned Unit Development in some regards but ilOTION \YES 'JOES MOTION AYES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBEG APRIL 12, 1978 \ PAGE FOUR (4) ,I_. - - _II-.- ." , (Con't) . .~ . 1 ,4 differs in processing through the City. He explained that a Planned Unit Development is a process that is voluntary on the applicants part to get' flexibility of development standards. A condominium on the other hand is required by State Law with no flexibility to the code. Condominiums are similar to single family residential and multiple family residential but they differ in that they have a homeowners association. Mr. Plender indicated to the Commission that they took all of these differences and similarities and came up with what they felt were some standards that would promote a better condominium develop- ment, meeting some of the aspects of single family development and tried to mitigate some of the problems with multiple-family development. Also, tried to use some of the Planned Unit Development concepts. Mr. Bud Plender, in response to Commissioner Rombotis's question regarding C.C.&R'S, said that with Planned Unit Developments there was a need for C.C.&R'S to insure that all Planned Unit Development conditions will be met and maintained. However, C.C.&R's were not made a requirement of thecondominium requirements because of the time involved in administrating them-and because of changes that can occur in them in the future. He also indicated to the Commission that the City is ne;Jer part of the C.C.&R'S unless it specifically makes itself rart of them. The Commission discussed condominium/condominium conversion section by section. There was concern as to a correct definition for a private street. Mr. Plender indicated that this item would come back to the Commission's discussion at a later date. There was also some concern regarding parking, Mr. Plender indicated that the Carlsbad Zone Ordinance has no requirements for the construction of driveways or parking areas other than the acceptance of the City Engineer. We felt that in reducing the amount of maintenance that the parking areas and driveways should be built at the very beginning to accessible standards. Good condominiums have low upkeep parking areas with cement parking lots and cement driveways. They will last a long time and in the long run it is going to be a .lot less maintenance. Regarding storage space, Commissioner L'Heureux suggested that we include.jt in the draft that the homeowner: association has the flexibility to permit storage space or not and that some sort of RV storage should be considered. Mr. Bud Plender, explained that there should be some form of recreation outdoor area and suggested that 200' ratio per unit which is really quite small. He suggested patios, balconies, swimming pools, tennis courts, childrens play- grounds, picnic areas and indicated that these were suggestions, but the decision should be made by the developer who is to provide recreation for his market. Mr. Plender stated that landscaping was a very important aspect of keeping maintenance costs down. Commissioner L'Heureux explained that lighting and signs were needed for security and location. \ \ \\\\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 12, 1978 Commissioner Jose, felt some concern regarding walkways for 'the handicapped, and wheeher it was provided by code. Mr. A Plender was to check into this and return back to the Commission. Mr. Plender indicated that laundry facilities should be a requirement, but they.not be built on a common wall because of the noise problems. Comhissioner Rombotis noted an apparent conflict between the section dealing with storage and the section dealing with laundry rooms and suggested that staff work this out for clarification. Section 7, conversion of existing buildings to condominiums was to be clarified for better understanding of action to be taken and facts to be found. It was recommended by the Commission to hold a public hearing on this Matter on April 26, 1978. There being no further business to come before the Commission, at 9:45 P.M. Chairman Rombotis declared the meeting adjourned. lONTINUED .YES r=