Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-10; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1979 Page One (1) NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman L'Heureux. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairman L'Heureux, Vice-chairman Schick, Commissioners Wrench, Larson, Rombotis Commissioners absent: Marcus, Jose. Staff present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director, Don Rose, Associate Planner, Brian Smith, Jr., Planner. - 111. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner, stated to the Commission that there was a memorandum from staff to the Commission regarding an appointment to the Underground Utilities Commission which would be discussed as a new item prior to the adjournment. In addition, Don Rose indicated to the Commission that the City Manager was supportive of sending two of the Commissioners to the League of California Cities Planning Commission Institute which will be held in Monterey, California, February 21-23. Tflrn: " ~d". ,_ IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING A, ZCA 102, Residential Care Facility, to delete authority Of the City to impose more restricti've zoning conditions On certain residential care facilities than on similar resi- dences in the same zone. - Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated to the Commission that this was a Zone Code Amendment to bring the Carlsbad Municipal Zone Code into line with the recent State legislation that took away local jurisdictions' authority to regulate residential care facilities that care for six or fewer persons. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 1979 F Page Two (2) THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:08 P.M. A Motion was made APPROVING ZCA-102, Residential Care Facility, under the terms and conditions contained in the staff report dated January 10, 1979. APPROVED Motion: Wrench Second : L' Heureux Ayes : Wrench, L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Rombotis Absent: Marcus, Jose V. NEW PUBLIC HEARING A. SDP 78-3, Burnett Shopping Center, site development plan for neighborhood shopping center. - Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated to the Commission that the applicant had submitted a revised plan which is labeled Exhibit "C". He indicated that there were some significant differences in the two plans, includ- ing changes in the building configuration. He pointed out that the revised plan reduces the square footage of the buildings and the number of parking spaces. He then raised certain problems: the number of parking spaces, environmental review of the steep slopes behind the shopping center, the slopes along the frong, the drives, traffic circula- tion both on and off the site, and a slight geologic problem. Staff recommended denial of this project based on the above points together with the fact that the general plan designation is Neighborhood-Commercial. Staff feels the project is a Community Commercial development. Also, drives are at 8.5% slope and the City Engineer has not yet accepted this slope. In addition, Staff would want to know the complexion of the corner lot (would it be service station, restaurant or what?) A point was raised by Commissioner Larson that the parking lot in the original plans seemed to be split in the center with an 8% drop from one parking lot to the other and he questioned whether or not this had been eliminated or changed in the revised plan. Staff responded that the building finished floor elevations indicate that the area is flat, Questions were also raised by Commissioners as to whether or not the fire marshal, or any inter-departmental agencies had reviewed the new plan. Staff responded they had not. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page Three (3) c January 10, 1979 When asked by the Commission whether or not the revised plan addressed itself to pedestrian access, staff replied that it felt one point of access was sufficient because they did not expect much pedestrian traffic along El Camino Real. William Burnett, Applicant, 523 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California, 90014, indicated to the Commission that there were some additional revisions to the original plan. He further stated that it had been approximately one and one-half years since he first came before the Commission with his amendment to the general plan and that it was very unfortunate that two members of the Commission were not present at that time to hear a lot of evidence that had been discussed. He stated to the Commission that the basis of staff's recommendation for denial of the project was because it was not consistent with the general plan. He stated that this simply was not true - he indicated that we had to look to the events that led up to the existing zoning and the general plan designation. He stated that the plot plan he presented to the Commission the very first time was very similar to the new plan and that the only difference was that the amount of building was reduced and the amount of park- ing had been increased. Mr. Burnett further indicated to the Commission that there was very little difference under the general plan designation of the definition of a Neighborhood Commercial shopping center which is 5 to 10 acres and a Community shopping center which is 6 to 12 acres. He then referred to page 4 of the staff report and indicated to the Commission that there would not be a restaurant, second major tenant, drugstore, movie theatre, nor builders' hardware, and that he had eliminated one of the banks and.an.office building from the original proposal. Mr. Burnett related to the Commission that not once in all of the previous reports by staff had there ever been a sentence expressing that the project was an over intense use for the development of the property nor that it was not in conformance with the general plan designation. He further stated that main- taining any kind of continuity had been rather difficult because personnel in the department had changed several times since his first appearance. Mr. Burnett further stated when he filed his first amendment to the general plan, he had submitted all of the additional backup material that they wanted, such as an independent traffic analysis, slope analysis, market analysis, and proposed develop- ment of the property. After these items were reviewed by the staff, a Negative Declaration was filed by the City along with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 1979 Page Four (4) - the mitigating measures which he agreed to, one of which measures being one median break in the median strip. He stated that this one~.break in the median strep was at the city's recommendation and not his. He stated that Staff was contradicting what had already been approved by the City and the recommendation of the traffic engineer. Mr. Burnett stated that he did not believe that the recommenda- tions of staff were supported by the facts or even by prior findings and recommendation; however, he felt that he and staff were in accord on the major items and that the few minor problems could be worked out satisfactorily. As to the issue of insufficient parking, he said that he would certainly meet Code requirements and that the Commission would not see him back asking for a variance for parking. Mr. Burnett then listed and declared as acceptable to him items 1 through 3 and items 5 through 18 of the staff's suggestions of conditions of approval. With reference to item 4 of these conditions, he stated that this condition was not physically possible. However, he stated that staff had previously advised him to put the entrance to La Costa as far east of El Camino Real as possible, which he did. Relative to staff's complaint about the non-inclusion of the corner property, Mr. Burnett stated that he had attempted to purchase the property from La Costs, but had been refused by them. When questioned by the Commission, the applicant stated that he felt he had been treated fairly, courteously and had received cooperation from the staff throughout the entire process. Commissioner Wrench questioned Tim Flanagan, City Engineer, as to whether or not the median break with the signalized inter- section was acceptable to the city. Tim Flanagan, City Enqineer, in response to Commissioner Wrench's suestion, stated that working with the applicant on a difficult piece of property has a lot of give and take, but that he remembered that the first plan had three median openings and that if all other problems could be vorked out then he could live with one median opening in a location as far away from the existin? intersection as is possible with a traffic signal control interconnected with the one on La Costa Avenue, but wished the Commission to be aware that this was a compromise. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 1979 Page Five (5) P c Commissioner L'Heureux expressed some concern for safety with regard to the parking spaces that front the market because of the natural tendency of people to go directly for those parking spaces. Commissioner Wrench indicated that he was in agreement with the applicant that the land use was a non-issue, and stated that the biggest issues were internal and external to the site and the very severe traffic ingress and egress problems. He felt that the internal considerations were the most severe and he found himself unwilling to vote in favor of approval of this site plan because of these problems coupled with the parking and slope problems. Commissioner L'Heureux was concerned as to whether or not the signal light intersection at the median was acceptable and indicated that this was an extremely important issue. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that he would like to see more attention paid to the intensity of the development as it relates to the site and felt that the Commission should see the final product before it was approved. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that he felt the ingress and egress on El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue needed to be improved. Commissioner Larson agreed with Commissioner Wrench's suggestions and added that he felt there was a problem with the 14 to 1 slopes, that the parking should be increased, and that something should be done to preclude traffic from backing into travel lanes. He also feels that the signalized intersection is a severe problem because it enters into an 8% driveway. Commissioner L'Heureux then reiterated his feeling about the signal light intersection and stated that he would like to see some cross sections, if nothing else, in the main enterance. It was the concensus of the Commission that one median opening at the proposed location was acceptable. A motion was made to continue SDP 78-3, Burnett Shopping Center so that concerns expressed by the Planning Commission could be addressed in'the subject plan. CONTINUED Motion: Rombotis Second : Wrench Ayes : Wrench, L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Rombotis Absent: Marcus, Jose PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 1979 Page Six (6) t- VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made APPROVING the minutes of December 13, 1978, as read. APPROVED Motion: Larson Second: Schick Ayes : Larson, L'Heureux, Schick Abstain : Rombotis, Wrench Absent: Marcus, Jose VII. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS 1) Resolution NO. 1486, ZCA-103, Planning Moratorium, City of Carlsbad. A motion was made APPROVING Resolution NO. 1486, ZCA-103, as read. APPROVED Motion: Larson c Second: L ' Heureux Ayes: Wrench, L'Heureux, Schick, Larson, Rombotis Absent: Marcus, Jose 2) Resolution No. 1488, SDP 77-1(A), Beverly Hills Savinqs and Loan, Mola Development. A motion was made to bring back Resolution No. 1488 for corrections as follows: Page 2, line 19, (SDP 77-1 (A) to read as "SDP 77-1" Page 3, Condition #5, change "alive" to read as "aCtiVe". Page 3, Condition #7, change "tying together" to read as "consolidated". CONTINUED Motion : L'Heureux Second : Larson Ayes : L'Heureux, Larson, Schick Abstain: Rombotis, Wrench Absent: Marcus, Jose 3) Resolution No. 1487, CUP-160, Circus Vargas PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 10, 1979 Page Seven (7) APPROVED Motion: Schick Second: Larson Ayes : Schick, Larson, L'Heureux Abstain: Rombotis, Wrench VIII. - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner L'Heureux indicated to the Commission that Commissioners L'Heureux and Schick were serving as representa- tives to the Underground Utilities Board and that Commissioner had been appointed as a member at large. He requested that an adjustment be made and proposed that Commissioner Schick be designated as the representative of the Commission and Commissioner L'Heureux serve as alternate; that the position of member at large be left vacant and the Council wouPd settle that issue at their request. APPROVED Motion: Rombotis Second : Larson Ayes : Rombotis, Larson, Wrench, Schick, L'Heureux Absent: Marcus, Jose In addition the Commission suggested that the two new Mary Marcus and Ed Schick, as well as Jerry Rombotis, nate, attend the California League of Cities Planning Institute in Monterey February 21-23. Commissioners, as alter- Commissioners This was to be returned to the Commissioners at the next meeting. IX. INFORMATION ITEM Commissioner L'Heureux stated to the Commission that he had spoken to the staff about possibly having some sort of workshop at night for some detail and information on commission procedure, legal problems, and to be brought current with legislative material. He suggested that if the Commissioners were interested, they contact Bud Plender or Don Rose so that a workshop of this type might possibly be established. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Joan Daubney, Recording Secretary ATTEST: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary