Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-24; Planning Commission; Minutes. . .- r CITY OF CARLSBAD Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: September 24, 1980 Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M. Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER was made by Chairman Schick at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK, COMMISSIONERS LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER MARCUS COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS and FRIESTEDT arrived at 7:03 P.M. Ex-Officio Members Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, and James Hagaman, Director of Planning, were also present. Staff members present were Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner, Bill Hofman, Associate Planner, and Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer, and Charles Grimm, Associate Planner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Jose noted that the Carlsbad Journal had printed the beginning time of the Commission meeting as 6:00 P.M., rather than 7:00 P.M. and extended apologies for those persons in the audience who had been waiting. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE Chairman Schick explained the purview of the Planning Commission in its capacity as an advisory commission to the City Council and identified those matters delegated to the Planning Commission for a final decision. Referencing the overhead projector displaying the outline, Chairman Schick explained the procedure observed by the Commission during public hearing items. Page 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-309. RUNXO - Request for a Variance to eliminate the re- quired 10' rear yard setback in order to allow construction of a storage building on the rear property line on property located on the south side of Elm Avenue, between Washington Street and Carlsbad Boulevard, in the C-2 zone. Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter, referencing the two prior continuances and summarizing the background with regard to citizen opposition. Mr. Holzmiller indicated in addition to objections expressed at the two prior hearings, a letter from Edwin Trent opposing the Variance had been received and distributed to the Commission. Bill Hofman reviewed the staff report and,, with the aid of wall exhibits, explained the location of the project site and described the proposed building in relation to the abutting residential and commercial zones. Mr. Hofman additionally utilized a graph illustrating the elevations of the existing apartment building and garage and compared the same to the elevation of the proposed building. Public Testimony For the record, Commissioner Rombotis expressed a potential conflict of interest, and declined to participate in the pro- ceedings. Chairman Schick extended the invitation to speak at 7:lO P.M. The Commission recognized Jim Runzo, 355 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, who expressed his willingness to respond to any questions. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Larson, Mr. Runzo indicated the graphics presented by staff accurately depicted the respective elevations and distances between the existing and proposed structures. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Jose, Mr. Runzo concurred that the alignment of the apartment building and existing garage were not contiguous; therefore, the elevation of the proposed building would not obstruct the view from the apartments, there being only one apartment from which the proposed building cald be viewed from the apartment house. . The Commission then recognized Patricia Joyce, 1754 E. Eldorado, Fallbrook, CA, who indicated she owned the apartment with the window which would overlook the proposed building. Mrs. Joyce t added to her previously-expressed concerns the opinion that if the Variance were granted, it would set a precedent and provide the potential for surrounding property owners to also construct two-story buildings which would result in blocked views for the north side of the apartment building. Mrs. Joyce indicated she was not as concerned for the view from her apartment as she was that eventually the entire building would be blocked. Page 2 As a point of information, Bill Hofman offered that the Variance for the proposed building is required because a portion of Mr. Runzo's lot abuts the R-3 zone. Therefore, if Mr. Runzo reduced the size or altered the design of his building, he could construct the same without a Variance. If there were two R-3 properties abutting each other, rather than an R-3 and a C-2, as is the case here, an accessory structure such as Mr. Runzo is proposing could be constructed, also without a Variance. Mr. Hofman further indicated this set of circumstances contributed to the exceptional circumstances finding necessary to approve a Variance. The Commission then recognized Bea Nelson, Post Office Box 1121, the property manager for the Monterey Homeowners' Association. Mrs. Nelson expressed the opinion that the fact that people were living in the adjacent condominiums was being overlooked. *Mrs. Nelson requested Commission consideration of the effects of a building in such close proximity upon those persons. Mrs. Nelson expressed confusion as to the need for the proposed buildi] and what the applicant proposed to store. Mrs. Nelson then reiterated the concerns expressed by Mrs. Joyce regarding the precedent setting effects of granting this Variance and the anticipated deterioration of surrounding residential property. Rebuttal The Commission again recognized Mr. Runzo who responded that the proposed building would be used to store non-deteriorating material such as boxes, paper goods, store fixtures, displays, etc. Mr. Runzo acknowledged that the candy store was small, but for that reason could not accommodate the sundry materials necessary for the business operations. Mr. Runzo indicated no candy storage in the additional building was considered. In response to inquiries and comments relative to shifting the proposed building, Mr. Runzo indicated the building in the desired size required the location on the lot as designed in his application. The building could not be located on the parking lot in that it would reduce the required parking space. Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:28 P.M. As a point of information to supplement the staff report, Mike Holzmiller referenced earlier Commission review of possibly applying a condition to the Variance, if granted, that the building be accessory only. Mr. Holzmiller indicated the Commission may desire to consider this condition again at this time. Chairman Schick then requested staff to again explain what kind of a building the applicant would be permitted to construct, without the requirement for a Variance. r‘ a- Mr. Holzmiller referenced exhibits depicting the configuration of the applicant's property abutting the R-3 zoned property at the southwest corner and indicated that the portion of the building along the south boundary of the applicant's property which abuted C-2 property could be constructed on the property line, without Page 3 - a Variance. Therefore, the applicant could build a "L" shaped building, observing the 10' setback for that portion of the building which abuted the R-3 property at the southwest corner. Mr. Holzmiller indicated existing City ordinances would allow the applicant to construct the major portion of his building on the property line. Additionally, if the 10' setback along the entire south boundary were observed, it would not increase the view from the apartment buildings. Commissioner Larson expressed concern that the ordinance require- ments for separation between commercial and residential properties be observed. Mr. Larson acknowledged the applicant's need for storage space, but indicated he could not base his support of the Variance on the applicant's intended use as a storage building. A C-2 building having the potential for other commercial uses in the future would also have the potential to be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the vicinity. Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion the applicant was exercising his rights as a property owner and expressed his support of granting the Variance. - / Based on the finding that the granting of a Variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent residential property in the vicinity, the Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1687, DENYING A VARIANCE (V-309) TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED 10' SETBACK IN THE REAR YARD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELM AVENUE BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: LEEDS AYES: SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS AND JOSE NOES: FRIESTEDT ABSTAIN: ROMBOTIS For the record, Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion that objections of property owners based on concerns that a Variance would be precedent setting and potentially deleterious were not valid, in that the applicant and other property owners could construct two-story buildings, without a Variance. Commissioner Jose noted for the record that his vote was predicated on the fact that the applicant could construct the proposed building, without a Variance, in the manner described by Mike Holzmiller. Chairman Schick noted for the record that the applicant could avail himself of the appeal process. Page 4 Dan Hentschke indicated the denial of the /- final for 10 days. If prior to that time request for an appeal, the final decision the City Council. 2. PUD-21/CT 80-36, O'DAY - Request for map and a 4 unit planned unit development side of Chestnut Avenue, between Highland in the R-l Zone. Variance would not be the applicant filed his would then rest with a 4 lot tentative tract located on the south Drive and Valley Street Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter explaining the recommendation for a continuance, as contained in the September 24, 1980 Memorandum, In response to Chairman Schick, Mr. Holzmiller indicated if the matter were continued, subsequent staff reports would address the question of alignments. Chairman Schick noted this matter was a public hearing and inquired if there were any persons present in the audience who desired to address the Commission regarding the matter. There was no response. The Commission continued PUD-21/CT 80-36, O'DAY to October 8, 1980. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: JOSE FRIESTEDT SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT and ROMBOTIS 3. CT 80-12, O'GARA - Request for 8 lot single family tentative subdivision map located on the west side of Valley Street between Oak Avenue and Basswood Avenue in the R-l Zone. Mike Holzmiller presented a background statement of the matter, indicating, however, that the applicant's design revisions still did not meet concerns, specifically with regard to lot depth. Mr. Holzmiller noted with respect to the subdivision ordinance requirements, there currently exist no legal procedure to waive such requirements, or consider a Variance for such requirements. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the project, as submitted. The staff report was presented by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of exhibits, explained the location of the property and configuration of the lots, pointing out the 3 lots at the end of the cul-de-sac with insufficient rear yard depth. Mr. Hofman noted that if the applicant were to reduce the size of his project by one lot, all requirements could be met. ,- ,L-- In response to inquiry by Chairman Schick, Mike Holzmiller explained the applicant could not make any reduction in the project size due to economic concerns. Page 5 ,- Public Testimony Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:46 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized the applicant, Joe Sandy, Post Office Box 590, Carlsbad, who indicated he represented Mr. O'Gara. Mr. Sandy explained that Mr. O'Gara would be providing a number of public improvements in connection with this project ( 600' of street, extension of sewer and water services and 600' of storm drains). Therefore, in order to make the project economically viable, he must develop no less than the proposed 8 lots. Mr. Sandy acknowledged that the 3 radial lots did not meet lot depth requirements; however, the radial lots compensated for reduced rear yards with increased side yards. Mr. Sandy stated that despite many revisions, no design had been formulated which met the ordinance requirements. In response to Commissioner Rombotis, Mr. Sandy indicated he understood that the project ,.basically as it is currently designed, could meet the requirements for a Planned Unit Development, which provides for private streets in a reduced size. The 3 lots around the cul-de-sac then would pick up the necessary additional depth. ,- _- The Commission recognized Dave Petersen, 1531 Basswood, Carlsbad. Mr. Petersen referenced wall exhibits and demonstrated the location of his property in relation to the project site. In this regard he explained there were serious drainage problems in the area and described the path of the overflow directly onto his property. The development of this particular project would further aggrevate the problems he experienced every year. Mr. Petersen additionally requested clarification as to why he would be required to furnish more than one half of the street as it passed by his property, indicating an equal portion of property from owners on both sides of the street alignment would be more equitable, obviously. Richard Allen acknowledged drainage problems indicating this project would be raised in order to provide for drainage from the immediate site. However, the only real solution for drainage concerns in the area bounded by Oak, Highland, Basswood and Valley Street would be to raise it as each portion eventually develops. The area is a low land and the only way to get water out of it is to fill it in. In response to concerns relative to rights-of-way to extend James Street, Mr. Allen explained the irregular lot shapes of the individual parcels through which extension of James is proposed would mean that if equal portions on both sides were taken, the road would "zig zag." PAge 6 Mr. Allen indicated Mr. Petersen's concerns in this regard had been considered; however, the proposed alignment is the most equitable in view of the circumstances. Chairman Schick and Commissioner Rombotis inquired as to what effect, if any, the approval or disapproval, respectively, of the project would have upon the drainage problems. Richard Allen indicated the project itself would do nothing for the overall problem, alleviating only the drainage problems for the site. Conceivably, it could make the problem worse, unle-s mitigation measures were included to handle the water problems. Mr. Petersen additionally requested clarification with regard to the relocation of his septic line necessitated by the installa- tion of James Drive extension. Mr. Allen indicated there would be a charge to connect to the City sewer system as a result of the public street improvement and the resulting effect on Mr. Petersen's septic line. In that the applicant would be required to secure the necessary rights-of-way to put the public street in, Mr. Allen suggested that the cost of sewer system connection be considered in the negotiations with the applicant for the necessary rights-of-way. /-- rc During discussion, Mr. Sandy indicated that development of this project as a PUD would, as earlier indicated, satisfy the economic objectives of the applicant. All PUD requirements could be met by the project as currently designed, with the exception of the common open space and recreation area requirements. Mr. Sandy cited portions of the Code in support of his contention. Bill Hofman responded to Commission inquiry, indicating that staff did not share the applicant's interpretation of the Code with regard to the provisions for useable open space, and Mr. Hofman cited additional portions of the Code applicable to the matter. Subsequent discussion revealed the difficulty in resolving the matter revolved around the definition of common. Mr. Sandy expressed the opinion that while there is a minimum requirement in the provisions of a PUD development for recreation space, there would be 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of open area for each individual home, and questioned the intent of the requirements to force people to recreate together at a common area, if adequate recreation space is provided on each lot. Commission discussion reflected the feeling that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development ordinance was to provide a vehicle for imaginative design solutions for "problem properties," and was necessarily flexible. _- *- Staff responded to Commission discussion indicating that customarily flexibility was based on trade-offs in terms of amenities provided. Therefore, an interpretation of the requirements for a Planned Unit Development or creation of a mechanism to waive such requirements through a Variance should be accomplished. Other- Page 7 wise, the project as designed, if designated a Planned Unit Development without any additional amenities, merely attempted to circumvent the standard subdivision requirements. Commission discussion reflected the feeling the projeclt as proposed did not provide sufficient trade offs as a PUD. However, the Commission felt the site could be designed as a PUD, having sufficient amenities, while maintaining 8 lots and felt the project should be continued to allow for redesign. Based on the public testimony, staff report and Commission discussion, the Commission continued CT 80-12, O'GARA to an indefinite date for the purpose of initiating any necessary procedures to deal with the issues raised, including addressing the drainage problems. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT and ROMBOTIS Joe Sandy acknowledged the purpose and intent of the continuance. RECESS Commission recessed at 8:17 P.M. and reconvened at 8:27 P.M. - NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mike Holzmiller indicated the following companion matters would be presented concurrently: 4. CT 80-33, WORLEY - Request for a nine lot tentative tract map on the south side of Camino Vida Roble in the Palomar Airport Industrial Park in the P-M Zone. 5. CT 80-34, WORLEY - Request for a 12 lot tentative tract map on the south side of Palomar Airport Road in the R-M Zone. Satements of the matter were presented by Mike Holzmiller, indicating the applications involved adjoining parcels of land, The staff report was presented by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of wall exhibits depicting location of the property, and configuration of the project, described the relation to the surrounding area. Mr. Hofman explained staff concerns with access from the project onto Camino Vida Roble were due to the high volume of traffic there onto Palomar Airport Road when Camino Vida Roble was fully developed. In this regard, Mr. Hofman detailed the recommended conditions to prevent, restrict and limit size of access driveways. With regard to equestrian trail and riparian woodlands, Mr. Hofman referenced the additional recommended condition distributed to the Commission at the meeting, and explained the relationship to the equestrian trail in connection with CT 73-49. - Page 8 Chairman Schick inquired if in connection with the processing of these projects staff had considered the element of the use of reclaimed water from the satellite plant proposed for the Palomar Airport Business Park. Mike Holzmiller referenced the September 24, 1980 Memo distributed to Commission and the inclusion of two additional conditions recommended by staff to each map. He further referenced Council direction to staff to initiate formal standards relating to wastewater reclamation. While these have not been finalized, conditions have been included reflecting that if the City does adopt a policy and standards, the same would be considered in the project. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized Hank Worley, engineer and applicant for the project, 7875 Convoy Court, Suite A-2, San Diego, CA 92111. Mr. Worley expressed agreement with staff recommendations. The Commission then recognized Bernie Gilmore, 6361 Yarrow Drive, Carlsbad, who indicated he was the development manager for Palomar Airport Business Park. _- In response to Commission inquiry relative to this applicant participating in the traffic study for Palomar Airport Road over I-5 which was required of the Pea Soup Andersen project. Mr. Gilmore expressed the willingness to so participate. Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 8:44 P.M Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including additional conditions recommended and furnished by the staff, with the applicant to participate in the referenced traffic study, the Commission adopted the follow- ing Resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 1697, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A 9 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 80-33) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE. RESOLUTION NO. 1700, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A 12 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 80-34) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, with the deletion of Condition MOTION: SECOND: AYES: JOSE ROMBOTIS SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT and ROMBOTIS Page 9 - 6. ZC-216, MALOY, Request for a zone change from R-1-7500 to R-P on property generally located on the northeast corner of Madison Street and Arbuckle Place. The staff report was presented by Mike Holzmiller, who articulated and discussed the planning issues identified in the September 24, 1980 staff report. Commissioner Rombotis noted a potential conflict of interest and declined to participate in these proceedings. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 8:51 P.M, and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized Roy Maloy, 2967 Carlsbad Boulevard, who expressed concurrence with staff recommendations. The Commission recognized Frank Morrow, 2715 Madison Street, Carlsbad, who inquired what the future held for the two existing old houses located on the project site. Mike Holzmiller indicated it was the applicant's intention to con- vert to office use which would require staff to approve a plan to bring the property up to all code requirements. Mr. Maloy responded it was intended that these structures be immediately upgraded and remodeled. Mr. Morrow acknowledged satisfaction of his concerns. Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:54 P.M. Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1696, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE (ZC-216) FROM R-1-7500 TO R-P ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND ARBUCKLE PLACE MOTION: JOSE SECOND: LARSON AYES: JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, SCHICK and FRIESTEDT ABSTAIN: ROMBOTIS The Commission then directed staff to set to public hearing the consideration of rezoning other lots along Arbuckle Place to R-P. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, SCHICK and FRIESTEDT ABSTAIN: ROMBOTIS Page 10 7. ZC-208/CPU-172, PALOMAR AIRPORT - Request for a change of zone from L-C to M and for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of the existing Palomar Airport Facility on the northwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. A statement of the matter was presented by Mike Holzmiller, who emphasized the point that this application does not apply to any future expansion of the airport facility. In this regard, Mr. Holzmiller referenced the August 5, 1980 action by the City Council in adopting the ordinance requiring voter authorization prior to any airport expansion in the City. Therefore, any expansion would first require voter approval and then an amendment to the application. In response to Commission inquiry relative to Table I, Mr. Holzmiller clarified that the uses provided in Section II, subparagraph (b) of Table 1 would require prior discretionary review (Planning Commission Determination) to implementation. Other uses were automatically conferred in the CUP. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak, The Commission recognized Phil Safford, Airport &nager, mlomar Airport. Mr. Safford expressed concurrence with the conditions of the permits and indicated he would recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they accept the same. As a point of information, Mr. Safford explained that while this application did not involve any expansion, the airport owned additional surrounding land which land was not included in the current application. Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:ll P.M. Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 1698, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO M (ZC-208) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL. RESOLUTION NO. 1699, APPROVTNG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY (CUP-172) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS Page 11 C 8. PCD-25, WILSON - Request for a Planning Commission Determination for a 15% reduction in required parking for a previously-approved "joint use" parking facility on the north side of Grand Avenue, between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street in the C-2 Zone. For the record, Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, noted a potential conflict of interest and declined to participate in the proceedings. A statement of the matter was presented by Mike Holzmiller, who additionally detailed the contents of the September 24, 1980 staff report. With the aid of wall exhibits, Bill Hofman demonstrated the location of the building proposed to house the Jazzercise classes and explained its relation in and to the Wilson/Murphy retail center (Carlsbad Bazaar and Old World Center). Mr. Hofman also explained the location of existing parking and described improvements to parking required in connection with Mr. Wilson's request. ,- In response to Commission inquiry, staff explained the method of computing necessary parking spaces ( 3 to 1) in that the number of persons in each class, days of classes, types of existing businesses and when they would be patronized had been considered. .- Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:22 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized Robert Wilson, applicant. Mr. Wilson explained the Jazzercise program did not reflect an additional use at the center, since the building to be used was his former furniture store. Additionally, classes have been scheduled in a manner so as to provide adequate parking for the classes, but not disrupt parking facilities for existing businesses. Mr. Wilson explained he was very con- cerned that the Jazzercise business did not detract from the quality of the center as far as parking. In response to Commission inquiry and discussion relative to the number of persons occupying the subject premises in relation to the size of the premises, Mr. Wilson explained that only half of his former furniture store would be leased to the Jazzercise program. Of that, only a portion would be available for exercising. The amount of room necessary for each individual to exercise determined the maximum number of participants in any class. Therefore, he was assured that parking as proposed would be sufficient. Page 12 . , _- Mr. Wilson then expressed concern relative to the condition requiring parking lot improvements. In this regard, he explained that earlier processing and approvals by the City had required him to enter into a joint parking agreement. Mr. Wilson stated the terms of the agreement which the City required him to enter into with Dr. Murphy provided that in exchange for Mr. Wilson entering into this Agreement, Dr. Murphy would improve his property by constructing a parking lot. The reason Dr. Murphy entered into the agreement ,is because without the joint parking facilities, Dr. Murphy could not meet the required parking spaces to approve his portion of the Carlsbad Bazaar and Old World Center). In response to Commissioner Rombotis, Mr. Wilson indicated it was his understanding that he would not be required to make any further parking improvements until he proceeded with expansion of his center. However, he did not consider the change of use from a furniture store to Jazzercise to be expansion. ,- - The Commission then recognized Don Agatep, Carlsbad. On behalf of Dr. Murphy, Mr. Agatep indicated support of Mr. Wilson's request, stating an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Wilson, to the extent that both parties would support a joint parking facility. Mr. Agatep identified the issue as being the change from the furniture store to the Jazzercise business, a use ,for which there is no Code definition. Mr. Agatep indicated Dr. Murphy has every intention of improving the parking lot per the agreement with Mr. Wilson, at such time as the Mayfair Shopping Center itself is improved to something other than what it is now. In conclusion, Mr. Agatep expressed the opinion that the City should honor the existing agreement and acknowledged the intent of same as represented here by Mr. Wilson and himself. The Commission then recognized Harold Clarke, 824 Caminito de1 Reposa, Carlsbad, who spoke in favor of Mr. Wilson's request. Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:43 P.M. Commissioner Rombotis inquired of staff it they had reviewed the Agreement and if they were assured the agreement would provide the necessary parking. In response to Commission discussion, Commissioner Rombotis expressed the opinion that if the terms of the Agreement were as represented in the public testimony, then the Agreement should be honored. It is pertinent to the issue. ,- ,- The Commission directed staff to obtain the Agreement from City records, review the same, and then deferred this item to the end of the meeting, pending a response from staff. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: JOSE AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE Page 13 In accordance with earlier consensus, the Commission exchanged the order of Items No. 9 under Public Hearings and Item No. 10 under New Information. NEW INFORMATION: 10. MINOR REVISIONS TO CT 77-8(A)/CP-45 (MOLA) Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter. Bill Hofman detailed the contents of the September 24, 1980 staff report explaining the changes at the wall exhibits. The Commission found that the proposed revisions were minor in nature and directed staff to make the necessary corrections to the file. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: ROMBOTIS LARSON SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS, and JOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS (Completion) 9. GPA-54, HOUSING ELEMENT - NEW HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Charles Grimm made the staff presentation on this matter, stating the changes made, including changes reflecting revised policy of the City and State, as set forth in the September 24, 1980 Memorandum to the Planning Commission from James Hagaman, Planning Director, regarding the subject matter. Additionally, Mr. Grimm referenced a Council Meeting on September 23, 1980 were Council agreed to look at many::different kinds of housing programs for future development to provide low and moderate income housing. Mr. Grimm explained staff believed it important to provide measures to ensure that the original purchaser of low and moderate income housing is required to pass that opportunity on to any subsequent purchaser. Mr. Grimm additionally related recent Council action directing staff to prepare documents to implement rent control, although no action to establish rent control had been taken. With regard to rent control and resale programs wording in the Housing Element, same had been discussed by the Housing Element Citizens' Committee, which had adamantly opposed the inclusion of such provisions. ,- In conclusion, Mr. Grimm related that some Master Plans currently being processed by staff were being considered in terms of providing low and moderate income housing. In this regard, Mr. Grimm requested Commission consideration and discussion relative to including in the Housing Element incentives to developers to provide low and moderate income housing through allowing the maximum densities shown in the General Plan to be exceeded for such purpose. Page 14 rc Page 24 - Commissioner Jose requested clarification of the intent of Policy IX. /- Mr. Grimm explained this referred to legislation prohibiting discrimination. Pages 27, 28 and 29 - Commissioner Jose requested clarification of the definite figure of $50,000 as opposed to the "undetermined amount." Margaret Goldstein, consultant retained by the City to assist in the preparation of the Housing Element, explained the funds were for tasks which could not be simultaneously performed. Page 29 - Commissioner Jose took exception to the phrase indicating Carlsbad was the major industrial center in North County. He expressed the opinion while Carlsbad may become that, it is not now. Staff responded that Carlsbad was referred to there as 'a" major industrial center, not "the" major. Page 9 - Chairman Schick requested a change to reflect the responsibility for Item No. 4 be charged to the Planning Department, rather than the Planning Commission. - -. Page 20 - Co-missioner Friestedt expressed concern with Policy V, Action V-9, which incorporated the use of rent regulations in condo conversions and applied to the entire development program of apartments. In context, it appears to endorse a rental control regulation for the entire housing element -which would affect all of the apartments in Carlsbad. In effect, this places rent controls on future development. Mr. Grimm responded that that was not the intent and referred to the September 24, 1980 memo explaining the inclusion in case Council determined resale programs or rent control were necessary. Page 21 - In response to concerns expressed by Chairman Schick, Mr. Grimm indicated staff would be revising the last paragraph of VI-4 to reflect that citizens "in exiting mobilehome parks from" unreasonable rent increases, . . . . Mr. Grimm then elaborated his earlier request for guidance re bonus, citing as an example, if a site is identified in the La Costa Master Plan area that is shown as 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre and we try to get some rental units there, perhaps the only way to pursuade the developer would be to offer a bonus, allowing him to exceed to double the maximum shown. ,- In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Hentschke explained that the density for a property would be set by the Zone Code when the Code is amended to comply with the new requirements. Page 15 . . i In response to lengthy Commission discussion, Mr. Hentschke suggested that the Commission not address specific wording, but only agree to the concept. Mr. Grimm added that wording in the Housing Element of the General Plan providing for this concept would negate the need to amend the General Plan for each instance when the City desired to encourage low and moderate income housing by a development. Commission discussion reflected reluctance to provide any increase in density which doubled that shown on the General Plan. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at lo:25 P.M. The Commission recognized Jim Goff representing La Costa Land Company, 7682 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. With the aid of wall exhibits, Mr. Goff explained a hypothetical problem relating to zoning of property as it would affect the construction of low and moderate income housing on a particular site. Staff acknowledged Mr. Gaff's concerns, indicating appropriate language would be included in the Housing Element. - The Commission then recognized Harold Clarke, who hoped low and moderate income hosuing would be evenly distributed. Chairman Schick reponded that location of same would be determined to a large extent on State and Federal regulations which addressed the needs of the persons who would occupy the same. Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at lo:40 P.M. The Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1595(A), RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-54) ADOPTING A NEW HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, with the change 05:: inclusion and approval of the first two modifications addressed in thestaff report re condo conversions and inclusionary zoning; secondly, approval of the concept of potential increase in density, but recommending any figure as to what the increase should be, and alleviation of the rent control verbate in Policy 5. .- MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: CHAIRMAN SCHICK, COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE Page 16 RECESS: P Chairman Schick announced a recess at lo:41 P.M. The Commission reconvened at lo:49 P.M., with six (6) members present. CONSIDERATION OF TRAILED PUBLIC HEARING (Item No. 8) Mike Holzmiller indicated there was extensive background information on this matter which was reviewed. City records do not reflect that a time period has ever been set for the improvements to the parking lot. The joint use parking agreement merely grants each party an easement to the parking lot and does not indicate who will construct the improvements. Those details are contained in the private agreement between Dr. Murphy and Mr. Wilson, which was not required by nor approved by the City. Mr. Holzmiller expressed the opinion that the provisions in the private agreement were open to interpretation in that "improvements shall be commenced promptly upon notice from Wilson to Murphy that Wilson has obtained building permits for his expansion and shall proceed and be completed as rapidly as possible, such period not to exceed 6 months." The question here being what is meant by "expansion - entire facility or any expansion whatsoever on the property." Mr. Holzmiller concluded that the Commission should make a determination as to whether the improvements should be required now or deferred. Staff recommended the posting of a bond for the improvements of the parking lot within a six month period, He indicated that Mr. Wilson had concurred in this regard. Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1701, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION FORA 15% REDUCTION OF THE APPROVED "JOINT USE" PARKING FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE, BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET, with the change to condition #4 to reflect the posting of an appropriate bond, #5 to reflect the figure of 90, and a condition providing minimum of 15 minutes between each class. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: LARSON ROMBOTIS SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE For the record, Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion the ratio of 3 to 1 employed by staff in this matter not be considered a precedent. Page l? REQUEST TO SPEAK Chairman Schick then announced the Request to Speak filed by Mr. Lambert. There was no response. Chairman Schick requested the record to reflect that Mr. Lambert had been called to speak regarding drainage on Chestnut Street, however no one came forward. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 13, 1980 Page 2 - Commissioner Jose indicated notion should be motion. Page 3 - A meeting was closed where it should not have been, as it was a continued item. Page 5 - I believe I used the word increase or intent, rather than the word shown of "exacerbate" Page 9 - The Commission voted on Mary Marcus as Chair, following Chairman Schick's departure The Minutes of the Meeting of August 13, 1980, were approved as corrected. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: SCHICK AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LEEDS and JOSE ABSTAIN: LARSON August 2?, 1980 Page 7 - Commissioner Jose indicated there is no motion, second or vote with regard to Resolution 1682 Page 9 - There is no talley in reference to the same type item Minutes of the Meeting of August 27, 1980, were approved as corrected. MOTION: SECOND: AYES: ABSTAIN: JOSE SCHICK, FRIESTEDT, LARSON and JOSE ROMBOTIS, LEEDS Page 18 September 10, 1980 Page 11 - Commissioner Friestedt requested the record to show the intent of discussion with Richard Allen relative to the traffic study should be reflected as "the study would provide information necessary to manage traffic problems." Page 2 - Chairman Schick indicated he did not close the public hearing on the Runzo matter. The Minutes of the Meeting of September 10, 1980, were approved as corrected. MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: LEEDS AYES: SCHICK, FRIESTEDT, LARSON and LEEDS ABSTAIN: ROMBOTIS, JOSE ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Chairman Schick referenced a meeting with a representative of the Intergovernmental Training Center to address the issues raised in a League of Women Voters questionnaire regarding the attitudes, impressions, suggestions for improvement, etc., of persons appointed and serving on City Commissions, Boards and Committees. Mike Holzmiller referenced the public meeting on October 1, 1980 in honor of resigning Chairman Schick. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission Page 19