Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-24; Planning Commission; MinutesI PLANNING COMMISSION MLNUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD October 24, 1979 Page One (1) 1, - NOT OFFILLAL UNTIL APPROVED AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:OO P.M. by Chairman Schick. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson Ex Officio Members present: Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney; James C. Hagaman, Planning Director. Staff present: Bud Plender, Principal Planner; Les Evans, City Engineer; Richard Allen, Principal City Engineer. The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. 111. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS A. A copy of the findings made on the Palomar Solid Waste Transfer Station was distributed. ' B. A letter from Nicholas La Forte to the Planning Commission; a letter from Socalso to Nicholas La Forte with a brochure on solar system was distributed. (V-294,CT 79-15/CP-18) - C. Chairman Schick reported that the committee on Public Facilities is still in the process of gathering information and hopes to report more definite progress in the near future. D. Commissioner Marcus reported that she and Commissioner Jose had recently attended a seminar in San Diego and that she had obtained packets for the two new Commissioners. E. A memorandum from the City Attorney's office on ZCA-117 was distributed. - F. Newly appointed Commissioner, Jonathan D. Friestedt, was introduced. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CT 79-12/CP-16, Malter, 19 unit condominium development located on the northwest corner of El Fuerte and Luciernaga Streets.- PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Two (2) - THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:07 P.M. Mr. Bud Plender presented the staff report recommending denial and citing various changes to the staff report, dated October 24, 1979, including: Finding #2 shall be changed to read: "The design of the project does not.meet the amenities necessary for the additional density proposed for the site. 'I Finding #3 shall be revised to read: "The project does not meet all of the requirements of Chapter 21.47 of the City's zone code since: a) The plan is not comprehensive, embracing land, build- ings, landscaping and thier interrelationships, since the proposed garages along Luciernaga Street interrupt the interrelationship between the buildings and the landscaping. b) The buildings are not designed to adequately create private areas since the private patios originally proposed are eliminated by the proposed garages along Luciernaga. c) Conveniently accessible visitor parking is not pro- vided since it is all located along the northern portion of the property. d) The necessary turnaround for on-site traffic is not provided. Commissioner Jose asked if staff had met with the applicant. Staff explained that there had not been sufficient time to review the project with the applicant, as well as prepare a staff report in time for this agenda. Commissioner Jose suggested that in the future staff request sufficient time to allow effective project consideration and review. Mr. Malter, the applicant, indicated that as of the last meeting, it was his understanding that parking was a problem, and he had done his best to comply with the projected wishes of the Commission in designing underground parking. It now appears that landscaping has become an issue. He noted that he had received no staff communication until this evening, but believes that any problems can be worked out if he is granted a continuation to meet with staff and resolve any differences. PLANNING COMMISSIC.. MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Three (3) Staff reiterated that the major problems deal with General Plan density, amenities and the driveway off Luciernaga. Commissioner Marcus suggested the possibility of more underground parking under the unit at the top of the project. A motion was made continuing CT 79-12/CP-16 to the meeting of November 28, 1979 to afford staff and the applicant time to meet and work out the problems of parking, landscaping, amenities and on-street parking. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson Commissioner Larson clarified for staff that the Commission had no difficulty with the recreation area or convenience of visitor parking but would appreciate the applicant's con- sideration of the deletion of one driveway and the submission of a revised landscaping plan. V. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CT 79-14, Birtcher Pacific, Resubdivision of parcels 2A and 2B of Palomar Airport Business Park into 11 lots. - THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:45 P.M. Bud Plender presented the staff report, recommending approval. Commissioner Larson asked if the lot with the private might possibly later be resubdivided giving total access onto Palomar Airport Road. Staff replied that such a resubdivision would be unlikely due to the fact that that particular lot has limited frontage onto the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Rombotis noted that a condition could be applied relinquishing the access rights of the original subdivision off of Palomar Airport Road. Hank Worley, representing the applicant, addressed the necessity of the private driveway. Originally the drive was for access to the corner of the parcel and lot 11 has been developed with that access in mind. He assurred the Commission that lot 11 would be maintained as one lot to be used as a planned- unit development when ultimately developed. He also reminded the Commission that the Fire Department desired the drive for emergency access to the property, and for the looped water line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Four (4) Bob Campbell, representing Birtcher Pacific, verified that lot 11 would be developed for an industrial use and is zoned P-M. Commissioner Rombotis voiced the concern of the Commission that the private drive would turn into a thoroughfare onto Palomar Airport Road. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:OO P.M. WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. The Commission discussed the maintenance of the private road and the possibility of placing a chain across it to ensure that it would only be used in emergency situations. Mr. Campbell assurred the Commission that the applicant would maintain the road as specified by the City and noted that the construction of the road would be quite expensive, and to place a chain across it would defeat the purpose. He suggested that a sign be posted, indicating that the road was private. Commissioner Marcus suggested that the chain be placed at the parking lot end of the private driveway. A motion was made recommending approval of CT 79-14 under the terms and conditions as outlined in the staff report, and with additional conditions 1) waiving access to lot 11 from Palomar Airport Road, with the exception of that portion of the private driveway terminating at the parking lot of lot 11, and 2) that major access to lot 11 will be provided off of the cul-de-sac rather than off of Palomar Airport Road. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Jose AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson B. CT 79-13/CP-17, Joseph, 13 unit condominium develop- ment on the southwest corner of Navarra Drive and Bud Plender presented the staff report, recommending denial and citing various changes to the staff report. Chairman Schick asked if the applicant had been versed as to the various problems with the project. PLANNING COMMISSIrMINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Five (5) I Staff responded that the staff decision was not concluded until late in the processing of the application and the applicant was not notified. The possibility of a Zone Code Amendment was suggested to solve the ambiguity of the Code regarding setbacks. Commissioner Rombotis questioned the intent of the code regarding these setbacks. Staff indicated that the 10' setback was provided to abate noise from the driveway area, for landscaping purposes, and for safety in placing walkways outside of the driveway. It was noted that without sufficient setbacks, driveways can become clogged, thus creating inadequate passageways for trash and emergency vehicles. Don Agatep, representing the applicant, noted that the project had received the Design Award recently in San Diego. He indicated that the provided amenities do meet the intent of the condominium ordinance. As to noise abatement, he indicated that noise is abated to less than 45 decibles inside the units. It is the contention of the applicant that the intent of the code was to allow for adequate passageway between the buildings, and to allow the second story to encroach into this setback in no way impedes vehicle passage. He urged the Commission to consider a code amendment to clarify the ambiguity. Ken Wyant, indicated that he had two similar projects and would appreciate the Planning Commission making a decision as to code interpretation of this matter. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M. WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY Staff related that it is the concensus of all departments that the 10' setback as indicated should be construed literally. They also pointed out that most of the minor issues in question could be resolved through appropriate conditions of approval if the Commission so desired. The Assistant City Attorney stated khat the Attorney's office supported staff's interpretation. In addition he stated that reference to Sections 21.46.020 and 21.46.030 concerning yards and setbacks are helpful in interpreting Section 21.47.130. Those sections indicate that setbacks are to be open from the ground to the sky with only minor encroachments allowed, or, if the setbacks for condominiums are to be different from the present requirements, a Zone Code Amendment would be necessary. Such amendment would also clarify any misunderstandings. Commissioner Jose indicated agreement with staff that the driveway is dominant and creates an unappealing visual concept. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Six (6) Commissioner Rombotis related that although the site may be suitable for 13 units, the design is not proper and therefore he is unable to make the necessary findings for approval. A motion was made recommending denial of CT 79-13/CP-17, without prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the staff report, with modifications to the findings as follows: Finding #2 shall be deleted. Finding #3 shall read: "3) The proposed project does not meet all of the requirements of Chapter 21.47 of the City's zone code since: a) The plan does not emphasize an interrelationship between the buildings, landscaping and recreation areas, since the driveway is a dominant feature which bisects the project into two separate areas. b) The buildings encroach 8 ft. into the required 10 ft. setbacks of the private driveway; c) Adequate open recreation area is not provided or sufficiently improved; d) Onsite visitor parking is not provided; e) The storage space interferes with vehicular parking within the garages. " MOTION APPROVED MOTION : Jose SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson A minute motion was made directing staff to review the condominium ordinance for possible revision regarding the required 10' setback for driveways, above the first floor, and to return to the Commission with a staff report and/or Resolution of Intention. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose NOES : Larson A TEN MINUTE BREAK WAS CALLED AT 9:55 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIOh MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Seven (7) C. Y-294, Courtyard Townhomes, variance from section 21.47.130(1) (B) and section 21.47.130(11) (B) for a seven unit condominium project located on the west side of Jerez Court, north of Gibralter. - THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED~AT 9:05 P..M. Bud Plender presented the staff report, recommending denial. Commissioner Jose asked if the applicant had been advised prior to the start of construction of the differences in the apartment/condominium requirements. Staff responded that the applicant was aware of the Code and chose to begin construction of apartments, to be converted to condominiums at a later date. He mentioned that the applicant had apparently worked with a planning staff member who is no longer with the City, who may have failed to stress the setback requirements. A question as to school fees was brought up. James C. Hagaman, explained that the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan requires that the Planning Commission find that public facilities, such as schools, are available concurrent with need. In the past a letter from the affected school district has sufficed as evidence of such availability. With the enaction of Assembly Bill 201 school fees were collected on all building permits taken out in the City. This project obtained building permits prior to the requirement of school fees, therefore such fees would now need to be paid prior to the recordation of the final map. Nick La Porte, the applicant, circulated a timetable of his project, which has been in process since July of 1977, and reiterated that he had worked closely with staff over the past two years and had been assurred that the only possible problem he may have was with the solar heating system. He noted that at no time in staff discussions was a difficulty with setbacks mentioned. He pointed out that he had a copy of a staff report recommending approval of the project, which now has been changed to recommend denial, and wondered what happened to those findings of approval for the project. He stressed his opinion that his lot is small and therefore unique and should be granted the variance for this reason. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:45 WITH NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PLANNING COMMISSICMINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Eight (8) Commissioner Jose mentioned that he had attended a seminar last year which stressed the promotion of solar systems for heating. He stated that personally he would prefer individual solar units, but could appreciate the economical considerations of a common solar unit. The Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission that as presently written, the condominium ordinance required a finding that the property was unique before a common water meter could be allowed by variance. However, the code does allow other types of common meters if unique circumstances exist. A code amendment to allow common water meters in similar unique circumstances could be considered by the Commission. The attorney also advised the Commission that there was nothing legally unique about the particular property in question which would allow a variance from the setback requirements. However, that determination would be up to the sole discretion of the Commission, based upon evidence presented at the hearing and their findings. Again a zone code amendment was suggested as a possible remedy if the Commission thought one necessary. Commissioner Rombotis asked why the first staff report called for approval, and now staff recommends denial. Staff indicated that the original report was a working paper for the Departmental Coordinating Committee, at which time various problems were pointed out by other departments, consequently resulting in the recommendation for denial. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that although the project appears to be of high quality, he cannot make the findings for a variance. Staff pointed out that if the applicant could prove extraordinary circumstances, warranting a common meter over separate meters, staff would have no problem with the solar system. However, the problem of setbacks remains. Commissioner Larson stated that a guaranteed density does not guarantee a lifestyle. He cannot agree with any project requesting a 1' setback. A motion was made denying V-294, without prejudice, for the reasons as set forth in the staff report. MOTION APPROVED MOTION : Lar son SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson commissioner Rombotis indicated his opinion that the Planning Commission should have discretionary power to grant such a variance under special circumstances or for projects with exceptionally good design. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Nine (9) A minute motion was made directing staff to initiate a Resolution of Intent for a Zone Code Amendment to Section 21.47.130 regarding the granting of common as opposed to separate water meters under special circumstances. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Larson SECOND: Rombotis AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson A minute motion was made direction staff to initiate a Resolution of Intent for a Zone Code Amendment to Section 21.47.130 to allow Planning Commission discretion for deviations from the required setbacks under extraordinary circumstances and for projects having exceptionally good design, unusual lot configuration, etc. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Marcus AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose NOES: Larson D, CT-79-15/CP-18, Courtyard Townhomes, tentative map and condominium permit for a seven unit condominium conversion on property generally located on the west side of Jerez Court, north of Gibralter. - THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:20 P.M. Bud Plender referenced the previous staff report, recommending denial. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:21 P.M. A motion was made recommending denial of CT 79-15/CP-18 without prejudice, for the reasons as set forth in the staff report, dated October 24, 1979. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Jose SECOND: Larson AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson E. ZCA-118, Amendment to Planning Moratorium, Ordinance amending Title 21, Chapter 21.49, Section 21.49.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the addition of subsection 12 to allow the processing of revisions to approved Master Plans. - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Ten (10) THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:25 P.M. Bud Plender presented the staff report, recommending approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:30 P.M. WITH NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY A motion was made recommending approval of ZCA-118 as recommended in the staff report, dated October 24, 1979. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Jose AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson V. NEW BUSINESS A. The Assistant City Attorney announced that the State legislature has recently taken action that will affect the 1980 filing of the Conflict of Interest statements. Planning Commissioners will now be treated in the same manner as City Managers and City Council members. His office will be supplying the Commissioners with the necessary information at a later date. B. The Assistant City Attorney related that there has been some changes in legislation regarding lo and moderate income housing, which will be provided to the Commission for their information. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made approving the minutes of October 10, 1979 as corrected. MOTION APPROVED MOTION : Jose SECOND: Rombotis AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson VII. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 1551, CT 79-8/CP-ll, Walton A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1551 as read. MOTION APPROWD MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Larson AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson PLANNING COMMISSIO 4INUTES October 24, 1979 Page Eleven (11) B. Resolution No. 1552. CT 79-10/CP-14. Hsiu A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1552 as read. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson C. Resolution No. 1553. CT 79-ll/CP-13. Hsiu A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1553 as read. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND : Larson AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson D. Resolution No. 1554, ZCA-114, City of Carlsbad A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1554 as read. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson E. Resolution No. 1555, ZCA-117, City of Carlsbad A motion was made approving Resolution No. 1555 as read. MOTION APPROVED MOTION: Rombotis SECOND: Larson AYES : Schick, Rombotis, Marcus, Jose, Larson F. A motion approving the Resolution of Appreciation for Stephen M. L'Heureux passed unanimously. G. Resolution of Appreciation - Gary Wrench A motion approving the Resolution of Appreciation for Gary Wrench passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1979 Page Twelve (12) VIII. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitt@, Marg+t Sackcider Recording Secretary ATTEST : James C. Hagaman Secretary