Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-12; Planning Commission; Minutes- , z - - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED CITY OF CARLSBAD AT SUBSEQUENT -MF,ETING OF THE March 12, 1980 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I. 'CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. b .,Chairman Schick. "f, ROLL CALL \ \ Commissioners present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Leeds, Marcus, Larson, Jose Commissioners absent: Rombotis, Friestedt Ex Officio members present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Staff present: Bud Plender, P&&z&pal Planner; Bill Hofman, Associate Planner; Richard Allen, Principal City Engineer; Brian Milich, Assistant Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. II. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schick stated that he received a call last Friday regarding the site plan and sign for Weseloh Chevrolet and they had a general conversation. Commissioners Marcus and Jose said they also received calls on this subject. Commissioner Schick explained to the audience the procedure of the hearing and advised the applicants of their right of appeal to the City Council. III. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CT 80-2/CP-48 - NOORT STOJIC - Request for an 18 unit condo- minium development on the north side of Luciernaga Street, La Costa. Staff report: Presented by Bud Plender recommending APPROVAL based on reduction of one unit to improve overall design and provide a better located trash area. Anplicant has changed the design to comply with the elimination of one unit. In response to a question received from the Planning Commission, / - the garage doors would not present a problem, as they would not affect pedestrians. Staff suggested an additional Condition for the park in lieu fees. Chairman Schick stated that the patio space was required in Condition 2, page 6 and that Condition should be modified if not required; Staff replied they should keep the Condi- tions as stated and consider the Exhibit, submitted tonight, as evidence that applicant is working for the solution. Asst. City Attorney, Dan Hentschke, stated this can be taken care of when the documents are being prepared. Applicant Presentation: Ken Wyatt, 154 West Aberdine Dr., Cardiff. Mr. Wyatt explained they had eliminated one unit and moved the building over 10 feet. There is now 35 feet between buildings, with a large picnic area and distance from the trash enclosure. Larger trees can be planted with this new design. The one patio is only 7 feet deep and applicant would like to leave that as is. This is not needed for open space. This area would simply be used as a buffer. Other features in the project include the staggering of the buildings to shorten the long perspective of the driveway and applicant has worked with the Fire Department in coordin- ation of an island with a tree or two to break up the driveway. There is a pedestrian walkway around the entire perimeter. Commissioner Jose asked applicant if this approval would be for 17 units: Applicant replied affirmative. The public hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Planning Commission Action: A motion was made for APPROVAL of CT 80-2/CP-48 based on the findings and subject to the conditions- outlined in the Staff Rep&t, with a change of condition 2 by deleting the second sentence in that condi- tion which refers to the patio length; and the addition of condition 14 in regard to payment of park in lieu fees. MOTION: Larson SECOND: Jose AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson 2. CT 80-l/PUD-14 - ROMBOTIS - Request for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development for 15 single family homes located on the west side of Hillside and Valencia, north of Park Drive. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 2 Staff report: Presented by Bud Plender who reviewed the PC zone. Originally, this only required specific plans for development. This was later amended. Tonight the approval is not only for a subdivision, but also use and development regulations since the P-C zone itself has no restrictions. Normally a PUD is distinct from a single family subdivision. In this case, the form of the standard single family sub- division meets the surrounding development. It is compatible with the surrounding developments and land, so staff is not looking for a unique PUD design. The entire property is approximately 30 acres, but the application is for the subdivision of only 3.3 acres of the site. Staff suggests a condition that requires a revision to the tentative map that would include the entire property to indicate the configuration of the remaining lot. Bud Plender also stated that the engineering conditions were left out of the staff report. These are conditions 8 through 11, which were handed out. Staff also recommended modification of condition 3 on page 5. This condition should indicate that the development and use of the land shall be all the regulations and requirements of the Rl zone, and then continue to state, "The minimum yards.......etc." Staff recommends APPROVAL with those modifications. Applicant Presentation: Don Agatep, 2921 Roosevelt, Carlsbad, representing Mr. Rombotis. Mr. Agatep stated that applicant had read the staff report and the conditions the engineers had submitted and is in concurrence. Applicant said he would like to have a more specific reason why the'entire parcel needs to be on subdivision map. This was judged to be complete at filing and now it is suggested he include the whole 30 acres. Commissioner Larson asked if the map originally submitted was exactly like the one on the wall; applicant replied affirmative. Bud Plender explained that the entire 30 acres needs to be shown because you are creating a new lot that has no legal bearing by itself. Mr. Agatep asked regarding the inclusion of the 30 acres on the map, is this a requirement to be placed on the map prior to filing a final map or does it have to be done right now; Bud Plender replied it is a condition of approval and need be done only before final map. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 3 .--. The public hearing closed at 7:45 p.m. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Larson questioned condition 3, by mentioning the standards of Rl - would that change the map; staff replied negative, and also that the balance of condition 3 on page 5 should remain as stated. Planning Commission Action Motion was made to APPROVE CT 80-l/PUD-14 as submitted in accordance with the staff report with revisions to the tentative map and with the revision of condition 3, page 5, to be reworded by staff indicating regulations and require- ments of the Rl zone, and continuing as written. Also to be added is the date of February 29, 1980 on condition 7, page 5 and the same date to be added on page 7, condition 6. In addition are the conditions submitted by staff regarding engineering status, Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, to be added. MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson - 3. CT 79'27/CP-4.4,; SF-:33(A) - BROADMOOR HOMES - 294 unit condo- minium development, west of El Camino Real and on the north and south sides of Hosp Way, including the amendment of a specific plan. James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, stated that the applicant, Mr. Unger, requested the matter be trailed. Mr. Unger should arrive by 8:15 p.m.; Chairman Schick modified the agenda. 4. PROPOSED ORDINANCE -RF, WATER RECLAmTION, ZCA-122. James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, recommended CONTINUANCE of ZCA-122 to March 26, 1980. Motion was made to CONTINUE ZCA-122 to March 26, 1980. MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson 5. PCD-21 - GROSSE - Approval of site plan and sign for Weseloh Chevrolet as required by SP-19. Staff report: Bill Hofman presented the staff report. The main problem with the project is access to Cannon Road. Staff is recommending no access on to Cannon Road. An 18 feet high sign was proposed. It does not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. The specific plan for P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 4 r .- Car Country intended to prevent freeway-oriented signs. Staff recommended limiting the sign height to 6 feet. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the project with the conditions as found in the staff report. Commissioner Larson asked if the sign would be acceptable if it was on Paseo de1 Norte; Staff replied that it would if it met the area requirement. Richard Allen, Principal City Engineer, explained that Cannon Road is a major arterial and there is a possibility that parking would be restricted ultimately. Bill Hofman said this devel- opment does not need two accesses to function properly. Applicant Presentation. Rusty Grosse, 5850 Sunny Creek Road, Carlsbad, representing his wife. Mr. Grosse said that the storage area is primarily for storing new cars. The paving cost would be $17,000 to $18,000 and applicant does not feel that is necessary. He feels Mr. Weseloh would keep this area clean, as he does his others. Applicant agrees to reduce the sign to the proper size in accordance with the code. He does not feel they should be penalized because of being so near to the freeway. They feel that more than one access off Cannon is essential. This is a corner piece of ground and it is restrictive as to access. Mr. Grosse stated this is a very acceptable distance from the offramp to the right turn lane and feels there should be a right turn entrance into the two areas. Since applicant does have a corner lot, which costs more, he does not feel they should be denied the use of that frontage. Applicant Presentation. Jim Federhart, Traffic Consultant, Federhart and Associates, 5252 Balboa Ave., San Diego, Ca. 92117. He pointed out that the kind of traffic being discussed is in and out of a used car lot, surely less than a service station. Cannon is a major street and Paseo de1 Norte is a secondary arterial. Contrast that with what is along Palomar Airport Road and the existing accesses along that in the same equiv- alent position as the one we're discussing. Across the freeway on Cannon Road is the SDG&E which has lots of driveways, gates, etc. Then also on El Camino Real with much more traffic, just north of Alga there is a new shopping center with drive- ways and median cuts. Mr. Federhart does not feel there is any problem, especially with right turns in and out. He said it would be most irrational and unfair to deny a right turn in and out access to this lot. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 5 F r Chairman Schick asked the applicant what the basic safety considerations for traffic would be with a right turn cut on Cannon in close proximity to the freeway; Applicant replied there is no problem because the offramp either stops or yields. Chairman Schick inquired whether the architects at Car Country had looked at this plan; Applicant replied no. Commissioner Jose noted that on the diagram submitted to the Commission there was 260.84 feet from the I-5 turnoff to the proposed intersection or entrance to the used car lot. Traffic is not heavy right now, but in watching mechanics when they take cars out for a test run it appears many of them have a heavy foot and a lot of people do not stop at a stop sign. This could be somewhat hazardous. He asked Mr. Federhart what those calculations might be; Mr. Federhart said he did a site distance calculation today. He said the stopping site for 30 miles per hour is about 300 feet. If we have almost 300 feet, that means that there is ample time for reaction and stopping. Commissioner Jose voiced concern with the offramp traffic from the freeway; Applicant said that if he's coming fast around the curve, he's swinging out away from the median. Staff responded to Mr. Federhart by stating that Cannon Road is a major arterial, permitting no access to land under the General Plan. It is only for through traffic. Cannon Road is designed for relatively long distances. Ultimately when there is a signal at Cannon Road and Paseo de1 Norte, people coming off the freeway ramp will be looking ahead at the signal to see if it's red or green. This drive- way being so close is a potential hazard. If there's a left turn pocket on Cannon Road that someone coming out and turning right on Cannon Road would try to make, the distance of about 150 feet there is extremely inadequate and would be a hazard. Staff feels any curb cut on Cannon Road would not be acceptable. Commissioner Larson asked if there are any exceptions to this rule; Richard Allen, Principal City Engineer,replied that unfortunately there are some exceptions because many streets were in existence for a long time and sometimes there is no other access. But where we have the opportunity to restrict the access, we would like to do so. Commissioner Marcus said she saw no reason to grant this request. Ic The Planning Commission members concurred with the staff on the placement of the sign. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 6 - - Commissioner Larson stated that a properly maintained DG ,c .- storage yard would be acceptable. Bill Hofman stated the reason the condition on paving was put in was for dust control, but staff has no problem with DG storage. Planning Commission Action Commissioner Larson made a motion for APPROVAL of PCD-21 based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the staff report, which a change to Condition 4 that the storage area shall be covered with decomposed granite, as opposed to paved, and a change to Condition 5 from a solid wall to a wroght iron fence. Commissioner Schick suggested rewording of Condition 3 to deny right turn on Cannon, but approve of right turn on Paseo de1 No&e. Commissioner Larson stated Condition 3 should say a "right in and right out only" on Paseo de1 Norte. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, requested the Commis- sion to make a Finding relative to the traffic problems that would arise if an access cut were made on Cannon Road. There is presently no finding. He feels that Condition 3 as stated is necessary because of traffic considerations and public safety. Commissioner Larson stated he would add an additional finding, Finding 4, stating that an access opening on Cannon Road shall not be allowed because it is a major arterial with no allowable access and that it would be an unsafe situation due to the proximity to Paseo de1 Norte and the north bound off-ramp of-Interstate City Engineer. MOTION: Larson SECOND: Jose AYES: Marcus, Leeds, Larson, Jose NOES: Schick 3. CT 79-27/CP-44, SP-33(A), BROADMOOR HOMES. development, west of El Camino Real and on sides of Hosp Way, including the amendment 5, as per the 294 unit condominium the north and south of a specific plan. Staff Report: Applicant is proposing a 3 story structure, with 3 units on each floor. A model of the development was shown. One of the issues with the design is the visitor parking. Originally, visitor parking was proposed along Hosp Way. A memo was written by the Traffic Engineer, who feels that the future traffic volume on Hosp Way would be enough to create conflict with visitor parking. Applicant P.C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 7 has submitted a revised plan with visitor parking located on site. Staff also recommends adopting a condition that would require the enclosing of the carports into single garage units and applicant has agreed to this. One additional condition was a stairway down to Marron Road. This would be subject to Engineering approval. Staff recommends APPROVAL, with the conditions in the staff report and the revised conditions submitted tonight. Commissioner Jose asked where the stairway would come out; Staff replied it would be across from May Co., but exact site has not been determined. Commissioner Jose voiced concern on the stairway, due to traffic. Commissioner Larson stated concern with condition 10 on cut and fill slopes - could this be a problem; Staff replied there has been a significant improvement in the soils report. Applic'arit Pres'entation. Nick Banche, 3464 Ridgecrest, Carlsbad. Mr. Banche gave a summary and history involving the project. He said that the 160 acres was acquired by Los Angeles interests in the late 1950's and intensive land use studies were started in the 1960's. In 1964, the easement was granted. The plan was processed and was approved in 1970. As part of that master plan, the 160 acre grove parcel was divided into 5 areas, parcels A, B, C, D and E. Tonight we are concerned with parcels B and C. In 1972 a tentative map and plan was processed. The Grove was built. Then construction slowed down in 1974. Then the moratorium of 1977 occurred and that's when that 1964 easement became important. It was impossible for the City and the property owners to agree as to the meaning of that easement, so litigation followed. The Court indicated that the easement said that the grantor of the easement was entitled to capacity on demand and that judgment was made final and entered in August of 1979. Broadmoor purchased the property on Feb. 29, 1980. They had nothing to do with the original purchase of the land, the original processing of the plan, or with the litigation. They simply came along and bought zoned property, subject to that plan that was approved in 1972. They could have drawn plans to build 360 apartment units on parcels B and C. That would not have been in their best interests, nor in the City's best interests. Applicant Presentation. Mr. Tim Unger, 3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd., San Diego, Ca., VP of Development for Broadmoor. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 8 Mr. Unger stated that when Broadmoor purchased the property and began the planning effort, it was centered around some constraints. The first was a marketinganstraint. They prepared a detailed analysis which suggested there was a void for middle priced attached housing in this area. The second constraint was the existing topography. Broadmoor is trying to keep from altering land form significantly. The third constraint is the condominium ordinance itself. They took that ordinance as the guiding light in developing this plan. The existing topo is stair-stepped down and they were trying to have a differential in grade between building masses of 35 feet, allowing each unit to have views. After trying to satisfy engineering constraints, some grading configura- tions had to be changed. The entrance occurs at the middle of the three story building. The architecture has a Spanish motif. The parking structures do not reflect the doors. There is additional storage in the garage roof area. Applicant stated he has reviewed the staff report in detail and is comfortable with the recommendations. He is aware of the fact that the City is undertaking a new Housing Element and feels this plan was developed in the spirit of that Element. Planning Commission Discus,sion. Commissioner Jose stated that on the handout received tonight, the stairway portion says, "with existing sidewalk to the north." This should be east and west. Staff will reword this (condi- tion 31.) The public hearing closed at 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission Action. A motion was made for APPROVAL of CT 79-27/CP-44, SP-33(A) as submitted, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions of the staff report, and also with rewording of Condition 31 on March 26, 1980 memo (with existing sidewalk to the east and west). MOTION: Jose SECOND: Leeds AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson r P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 9 ,- 6. SDP 80-l - BECKMAN. Request for a Site Development Plan to l expand the existing light industrial facility located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE this item indefinitely. To be re-noticed. Notion was made to CONTINUE SDP 80-l - BECKPlAN indefinitely. MOTION: Jose SECOND: Leeds AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson 7. MS-402; MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING PANHANDLE. Staff recommends this be taken off agenda, as it will take some time to resolve the design. Motion was made to REflOVE this item from the agenda and re-notice it later. MOTION: Jose SECOND.: Leeds AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson I 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Jose noted misspelling of street name on page 10, which should be Blenkarne. Motion was made to APPROVE the minutes of February 6, 1980, with the correction of street name on page 10 from "Glencarn" to "Blenkarne". MOTION: Jose SECOND: Marcus AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson Planning Commission Discussion. Minutes of February 13, 1980 contained errors. A line or more was left out on page 17 right above "Public Input". Under D, page 19, it was noted Commissioner Rombotis abstained on Items 8 and 21 - correct Minutes accordingly. Commissioner Jose stated a change on page 6 at the end of the second paragraph, to add "I have read the Minutes of January 9th, which I felt could permit me to vote on this particular item." P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 10 Motion was made to APPROVE the minutes of February 13, 1980, with the above changes and corrections. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Jose AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Jose, Larson NOES: None 9. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1600, Coast Waste Management A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1600 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson, Jose NOES: None Resolution No. 1601, Kupfer A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1601 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jose Resolution No. 1602, La Costa Land Company A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1602 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson ABSTAIN: Jose NOES: None Resolution No. 1603, La Costa Land Company A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1603 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jose F P.C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 11 . . Resol'utio:n NO.' 1:6:0'4:,; 'La> %as:t:a' L&a company A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1604 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jose Resolution No.' 16'0‘6,,: Hugh:e,s' '1'nves~tmen:t.s A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1606 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jose Resol'ution No. ,160,7,- H,ughe's- Investments A motion was made ADOPTING Resolution No. 1607 as submitted. MOTION: Marcus SECOND: Larson AYES: Schick, Marcus, Leeds, Larson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jose Chairman Schick brought to the attention of the Commission the poor traffic conditions downtown. Also the messy car shop at Elm and State. James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, stated that the Council is going to adopt goals and objectives for the community every year. The staff, while developing the budget, addresses these goals and objectives in terms of programs and costs. This will be going on a regular basis. People, Council and staff will have input. Mr. Hagaman stated the Planning Commission will in the future be getting into major issues. Chairman Schick expressed a need for the Commission to meet with the Council and Commissioner Jose said Council and Commission should get together each quarter. P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 12 . . Mr. Hagaman suggested the Commission as a group could have an agenda as to where they want to go to deal with broader issues. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at lo:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James C. Hagaman Secretary to the Planning Commission lr P. C. Minutes 3/12/80 Page 13