Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-27; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COMMISSIO~-YINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD June 27, 1979 Page One (1) P" OFFICIAL UNTIL MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Ar2ROVED AT SUBSEQUENT I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairman L'Heureux, Commissioners Rombotis, Marcus, Larson, Schick, Jose Commissioner absent: Commissioner Wrench Staff present: Dave Abrams, Associate Planner; Bud Plender, Assistant to the Planning Director; Dave Hauser, Engineering; Les Evans, City Engineer; Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator. 111. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Abrams referenced a change to condition #6 of the O'Grady Resolution, CP-6, Resolution No. 1527. B. Jeff Crisman, the applicant for previously approved CUP-124 and CUP-l24(A) asked that he be allowed to address the Commission regarding a problem with his project. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Crisman be added to the end of the agenda. C. Mr. Abrams referenced recent Council action on items referred by the Planning Commission and indicated that due to an error in noticing, the Zipser appeal (V-290) had been continued to the July 3, 1979 meeting; CT 79-3/CP-3 Von Elten had been denied and the applicant indicated that he intended to file legal action; ZC-203 Lake Calavera Hills had been approved; and PDP-2 Lake Calavera Hills had been continued to allow staff rewriting of the conditions of approval. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP-163, Dean, Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto impound yard on two lots west of Tyler Street between Walnut Avenue and Pine Avenue. - Commissioner Rombotis indicated he would be abstaining from discussion and vote on this item, and left the podium. Chairman L;Heureux reminded the Commission that rules of procedure dictate that in order for an action to be taken on this item tonight, due to absence and abstention, there must be an affirmative vote of no less than four Commissioners. Planning Commissiox-Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Two (2) Mr. Dave Abrams presented the staff report, indicating that several changes had been proposed subsequent to the dis- tribution of the Planning Commission packet on Friday, June 22, 1979. He noted that the City Attorney's office had rendered an opinion that the Zone Code specifically prohibits any residential uses within an industrial zone, unless said residential use is a caretaker's residence in conjunction with a factory. In the past, staff has allowed a caretaker's residence associated with industrial uses not involving a factory, under a liberal interpretation of the section. Mr. Abrams further pointed out that off street parking has been identified as a potential problem, and for this reason staff is now suggesting a new condition of approval requiring three off street parking spaces. In addition, it is the contention of the City Attorney's office that a definite expiration period is required by a Conditional Use Permit, and the conditions must so state. Staff also indicated that there is some contention among staff in regards to the easement onto the property. The Engineering Department is satisfied with the submitted title insurance policy, guaranteeing easement rights to the property. The Redevelopment Coordinator, however, would raise a question as to the legality of that easement right. Don Agatep, 292 Roosevelt, representing the applicant, in- dicated assent with the staff report as submitted, dated June 27, 1979. He indicated that a title insurance policy had been obtained insuring legal right to ingress and egress to that 20' easement on the north side of lot #7 of the industrial tract. He referenced the applicant's Grant Deed, filed in 1923, accepting the 20' easement for that purpose. As to residential development within the M Zone, Mr. Agatep indicated that the Code section references any use permitted in the CM zone, except dwelling units used in connection with a factory shall have setbacks as provided in the R-3 zone. There is room for interpretation, but if you. trace the CM zone back to its origin, even the most restrictive commercial zones allow for a residence to occur on site. The Planning Commission does have the ability to interpret ambiguities regardless of legal interpretation on behalf of staff. They would appeal to the Commission to make that determination, No other problems with conditions as they exist. Chairman L'Heureux questioned Mr. Agatep as to whether or not the title company would insure access in writing and to which lot that pertains. Mr. Agatep responded that the third lot adjacent to the rail- road right-of-way has received verbal assurance from Trans- americal Title Company as to access. The title report seems to indicate that it does have access. There is some ambiguity as to whether that access exists or not, therefore, the Planning Commissi Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Three (3) - applicant requests the deletion of the third lot, pending a resolution of the access problem. He further indicated that the rights to that easement only affect the second lot, and not the first lot, and only with respect to proposed condition #8 which says that access to the two lots shall be from Tyler Street only, etc., until access rights can be proved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They are, in effect, opposing the condition of merging the two lots into one, so that access would only be off Tyler. Staff pointed out that there are two gates noted on the Exhibit, one that fronts off the easement (lot #1) and one that leads to the rear of lot 2. We were intending to allow the caretaker to park his personal vehicles in the rear yard of that house and this determination would affect that condition. There has been some question as to the possibility of this being a private access and the Code requires that a lot'have public easement if it is not fronting on a public street. The Code also states that if the easement is created prior to the incorporation of the City, that it would then be valid. Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator, indicated that the problem rests in whether or not that access meets the access requirements of the City. The Code specifically states that a lot shall have frontage that allows usable access on a dedicated public street or by public dedicated easement, accepted by the City. If this was in existence for road purposes prior to the incorporation of the City there is some possibility of a verified easement. However, we haven't seen anything that shows that it was dedicated prior to incorporation. There is also a problem regarding a 30' wide minimum access. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 7:30 WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Mr. Agatep responded that any property owner that buys a piece of property that has some sort of title policy would have to assume, under today's subdivision laws, that that piece of property was legally subdivided and has legal access or a title policy wouldn't have been issued. We disagree with the contention that that access has to be in existence prior to the date the City incorporated. Mr. Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that his office had not seen a valid title policy. Assuming there is access, there is a question as to whether ,or not,:the. second lot is a conforming lot in light of the definition contained in the Zone Code that a lot must have a 30' access. There are provisions for sub-standard lots. After cursory review it would appear that the lot is not a standard lot, but no detailed legal analysis has been accomplished. Planning Commissior linutes June 27, 1979 Page Four (4 1 I With regard to the residential dwelling, Mr. Hentschke informed the Commission of the City Attorney's position that the Zone Code is not ambiguous in this regard and that a residential use in an industrial zone is not a permitted use. The present residential structure is nonconforming pursuant to the Code and would have to be removed if the use or property is altered. If there is a residential use in the industrial zone, it is only allowable for factory uses. It is the intent of the ordinance not to allow residential uses within industrial zones as a general rule. After general debate among the Commission, a motion was made continuing CUP-163 to the meeting of July 25, 1979, for a report back from staff indicating the status of legal access to lot #2; the City attorney's position on the residential use on the property and the easement issue, as well as Planning Commission alternative actions regarding such residential uses (similar actions taken in the past); and a brief synopsis of recommended changes as proposed by staff and various solutions to the problems at hand. CONTINUED MOTION: Schick SECOND : Marcus AYES : L'Heureux, Marcus, Jose, Schick NOES : Larson ABSTAIN: Rombotis B. CT 79-4, Ayers, Revision to previously approved sub- division CT 76-7, (Rancho La Questa, Phase 5, The Seaport). Property located adjacent to the west of El Camino Real, north of the Batiquitos Lagoon. - Dave Abrams presented the staff report noting a typographical error in condition #4; deletion of the last four lines of con- dition #31, starting with the word "until" in the second sentence. He further indicated that as of the previous hearing the tentative map did not meet the requirements of the Map Act. A conforming map has now been submitted. Mr. Abrams pointed out that conditions of approval have been included which cover the referenced Commission concerns regarding dust control during grading, hydroseeding of slopes, slope ratio, drainage, desiltation basin and expiration date for filing of the final map. Staff recommends approval of the'project pursuant to the suggested conditions. Commissioner Rombotis indicated his belief that condition #21 was redundant, in that the Zoninq Ordinance covers setbacks and sideyards. Planning Commissioil Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Five (5) ,- Chairman L'Heureux asked at which point in time the irrigation systems were to be installed. Staff indicated that they are set to go in upon completion of the rough grading. Chairman L'Heureux questioned as to the implimentation of condition #2, regarding noise attenuation. Staff responded that this condition had been included merely because the project was located adjacent to El Camino Real, an identified Noise Corridor, and in order to conform with the General Plan requirements. It was noted that due to the location of the lots, only three lots may be affected by ambient noise, and then only slightly. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Mr. Don Agatep, representing the applicant, indicated the applicant's concurrence with the conditions as proposed by staff, and understanding of the questions posed. L A motion was made recommending approval of CT 79-4 as per the conditions contained in the staff report, dated June 27, 1979, with the deletion of condition #21, modification of condition #31 and #4, and inserting the word "rough" grading in condition #20. Commissioner Jose expressed his belief that, although he had been absent from the meeting whereat this item was previously discussed, he felt knowledgable on the subject and could vote on the matter. Chairman L'Heureux concurred with Commissioner Jose. APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Larson AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Lar son V. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS It was decided that due to the lateness of the hour, this item would be taken out of order. A. CUP-164, Kentucky Fried Chicken, to allow a "drive-thru" addition to an existing restaurant, located on the southeast corner of Elm Avenue between Madison and Jefferson Streets.- Planning Commission Lulinutes June 27, 1979 Page Six (6) Staff indicated that both staff and the applicant were in agreement that the matter should be continued for the purpose of redesign, with July 11th being the deadline for receipt of new, revised plans. Chairman L'Heureux indicated, for the public, that due to the fact that there was no actual staff report on this item, the matter would be continued. He stated that if there were those in the audience who wished to give public testimony, they were invited to do so, but, urged that if it would be possible, that said testimony be postponed until the actual hearing on the item. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:20 P.M. WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEING GIVEN. A motion was made continuing CUP-164 to the meeting of July 25, 1979. CONTINUED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson AT THIS POINT A RECESS WAS CALLED BY CHAIRMAN L'HEUREUX. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 P.M. by Chairman L'Heureux. VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) C. ZCA-105, City of Carlsbad, amending Title 21, Chapters 21.44 and 21.48 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the amendment of Sections 21.44.020 and 21.48.080 to ~~~~ ~ ~ provide for alteration and ex ansion of non-conforming uses and buildings. Commissioner Rombotis stated that although he had been absent from the May 23, 1979 meeting, he felt confident in voting on this item. Chairman L'Heureux indicated that he could vote. Bud Plender presented the staff report, referencing Exhibit B, dated May 30, 1979 and Exhibit A, dated June 13, 1979, which staff believes more fully incorporates the concerns of the Commission as referenced at the last hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 8:45 WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. - Planning Cornmissif Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Seven (7) A motion was made recommending approval of ZCA-105 as submitted, per Exhibit A, dated June 13, 1979, on file in the Planning Department. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, noted for the record that it was the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that any non-conforming uses should be removed. Staff suggested that, if the Planning Commission agrees, steps should be taken to abate non-conforming uses within the City. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. CUP-124, CUP-l24(A), Jeff Chrisman.- Mr. Chrisman, the applicant in the above entitled application, indicated that in the construction of said project some problems had arisen which should be'considered by the Planning Commission. He indicated that due to a draftsman's effor the foundation had been set incorrectly, thereby rendering a 5' setback instead of the 10' required. " Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, related that no action could be taken this evening, in that any revision to the approved CUP would require a public hearing. A motion was made setting CUP-l24(A) for public hearing on July 11, 1979. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES: L' Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson B. SDP 79-2, City of Carlsbad, 1800 square foot temporary modular office building within the City Hall complex, located directly east of the existing Council Chambers Building, south of the main administrakion building. Dave Abrams presented a short summary of the project. The Commission expressed displeasure in that this project had been furthered prior to any hearing or action by the Planning Commission. " Planning Commissioll Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Eight (8) A motion was made to approve SDP 79-2 as submitted. DENIED MOTION: Rombotis ' SECOND: Marcus AYES : Rombotis, Marcus, Larson NOES : L'Heureux, Schick, Jose A motion was made to deny SDP 79-2 as submitted. DENIED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Rombotis, Larson, Schick NOES : L'Heureux, Marcus, Jose A discussion was had wherein some of the Commissioners indicated that they had pressed the wrong voting button. A motion was made to approve SDP 79-2 as submitted. DENIED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Marcus AYES : Rombotis, Marcus, Larson NOES : L'Heureux, Schick, Jose Conunissioner Rombotis noted that if, in fact, this item is continued to the next meeting he will be unavailable. The Commission discussed forwarding the item with no Planning Commission action, recognizing that it is the perogative of the City Council to let contracts without Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Schick indicated that he would like to see a master plan, and not piecemeal development, by way of the modular development. He related the need for a full scale plan for the ultimate expansion of City offices, and a definite building plan. Commissioner Jose concurred with Commissioner Schick and asked as to the status of the property east of the Library. He indicated his preference for a permanent building rather than butchering of present landscaping. Planning Commissioll Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Nine (9) A motion was made to forward this item, with Commission's comments and concerns, to the City Council with no formal action. FORWARDED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Marcus AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose Lar son VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made approving the minutes of June 13, 1979 as amended. APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Marcus AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson IX. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution #1526, ZCA-111, Adult Entertainment A motion was made approving resolution #1526 as read, with the stipulation that Exhibit "A" be amended. APPROVED MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Rombotis AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson B. Resolution #1527, CP-6, O'Grady A motion was made approving resolutin #1527 as amended. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson C. Resolution #1528, SUP-3, Irv Roston A motion was made approving resolution #1528 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND : Lar son AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson Planning Commissioll Minutes June 27, 1979 Page Ten (10) D. Resolution #1529, PCF-18, Bruce A motion was made approving resolution #1529 as read. APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Jose AYES : L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson X. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully Submittpd, ' Marg%let Sack:rider Recor ing Secretary ATTEST : James C. Hagaman Secretary