Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-27; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES K!!ETING OF: PLAHNING COMMISSION January 27, 1982 7:00 P.H. DATE OF K!!ETING: TIKI! OP MEETING: PLAC! OF MEETING: City Council Chambere CALL TO ORD!R w■1 -de by Chair.an Farr.ow at 7:01 P.H. Pre1ent -Chair.an Farrow, Coaai11ioner1 L'Reureux, Jo■e, R011boti1, Marcu1, Schlehuber, and Frieatedt, Ex-Offi~io Mci■bera J-• Rag■-n, Planning Director; and Daniel Hentachke, A11iatant City Attorney, were ~!eo pre1ent. Staff Member, pre1ent were: Michael Rolniller, Principal Planner Bill Homan, A1aociate Planner Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer PL!DG! OP ALLEGIAJfC! ., .. led l;,v Chairman Farr~. PLAJll'!ING C<ltMISSIOR PltOC!DOR!S Qiai~~ Farrow explained Planning Co-ia1ion procedure, ~~ it, capacity a, un adviaory Caa.i1rion to the City Cr.uncil, and identified tho1e -tter1 delegated to the Planning C011n1ia1ion tor a iinal deci■ion. ChainM.n P•rrOI'. farther explained thn procedure ob1erved by the eo..i11ion during public nearing ite111. PUBLIC R!AIIIIGS: 1. V-331 1 AP!LIA!f. Reque1t for a Variance to allow tand-par1ung°to Met the parking requireaenta for u apart-nt project on p~operty located oG the ve~t aide of Harina Drive in the R-W Zone. With the aid of a tran■parency 1hoving the location of the ?roject, Michael Rolr■ill~r gave a 1taff raport on the •tter. Chairun Parr0t1• OJH!ned Che public hearing at 7:~S P.H. ':ha co■■h■ion r,-copiaed Mr. Rob,ut Barne■, i!\41 w. Elwford dtMet, La Habra. Mr. Ber4e1 gave ■«­ ucqrouad on the -tter, and en update with reaard to tb• cur~ent 1tatu• o! thr project, !II• ca.d11icn Nt~opiaed Nr. lay Montanu, or Cor011a, Qaaerat C.ntrccto~. Mr. Nont■n ·I> indicated that Mr. lame■ edequ..iely covered all ••p•ct■ of the project, ad upn11ad wf.llia1H1■ to raapond to liny qu<11P :.on■• '!ti• co■■ia■ion recoaniaet\ M~. \'haodorJ c. Kimb~ll, 1010 !nd Aft&~•• San Diezn, Attorney rapr«aeatirJ tha applicCII.CI, Mr, liahall gav .. ac.e additionAl b•ckground oath• project. eusantiMlly as conta;naJ in the letter frlMI hr, Van J. Apelian to ~II• Planning DepartMnt of October 7, 1981, &C&d Hpb.ined the poaition of the applicant• with reaard to Staff'• raco-■ndation for 4,raial of the Variance. fie added that the applicnta would not have begun the project, had they not bean led to believe t hat they could accoapli~h ■-. Nr, 1iaball concluded that to deny the Variance would create an unneca11ary hardebip on the property, and ,cated hi• r inion thMt a denial i■ not juetifiabla. l (j) MINUTES \ ~ 1,..\ o~,:,:~~ ~ COMMISSIONERS ~i~ \\ -------------------------------·-January 27, 1~81 Since no one else wished to epeak on t h e matter, Chairman Farrow closed t~e public hearing at 7:25 P.H. Hicnael Holzmiller reaponded lo Co'.!lllliaoion questions regarding tande~ parking. Hr. Holzmiller else pcint~~ out a correction to the staff report, page 1, paral!rap~ :!, firat aentP.n<;e to reac!, "In Decemb~r 1980, the aprlicent applied for a huilding permit. " R-e added that the buildr,,g perll'it vu actually issued on April 22, 1981. Diecuseian reflected !he curr9nt Or~ .. ance vith regard to parking requirement,, a,,d the revisions mad!! to sar..e. Michael P.olzmiller expla;,1;ed that vhen the Ordinance was _e,1,ied, the quea :i c,n of rlane that had 11lready been submitted wa~ diecuas!!d, and the Planning Co-iasion and City Council worded the Ordi.nanc~ to 1•,ovid2 that plane 4~omitted for building peroit~ prior t 0 March 3, 1981, would go by the old reqairements, and would not be aubject to the new requirement"· Co..aiaaion di 11cuuio·n related to the lot conaol idat ion which led to the parking situution, and co-ia1ion corcenaul" ceflected their inability to mAke the four finding• for c. Var:' ance. In reaponae to Co-iaai.on query regarding vhethl'r Che ei deyard v.iriee by the aize o! t.he lot, Hr. RohmiHer explair.tod that there ia one sideyard requirement, and for interioi lot, it ia four f~ct regardless of the ,i~e ~f the lot in the R-W Zone. Re added that the R-W Zor.e hPs different require-nl e than otner multi-family zones, incbding heigM. which allow!! 111(\re fieitibility in r.he building ue111ii;n. In re11ponae to co-iaaion quer y ~r. Honta~o indicated that •• far r.a a re-deai3n for th~ee ur.its, parking is noc fe4aible. R~ ad~ed that wir.h the exiating huilding, th~ tuniinx r~diua ia li•ited for under~round parking, and de,ign of the property ia very li~ited. Pollov;;.ng dh,·uuion, the Ccn.iuit>n adopted the following Raaolution, deGyio1 V-331 baaed on t be finding• contained thenb: 2. itlS.JLUTIO" lfO. ~915, O!NYING A VAllIMC'Z TO ALLOV till>~ PAUIWG ~ FllOPIJRTY G!nRALLY l.OICI.T!I> Oil Th& W!ST SID! or MARllfA lllIV!. APtL!CANT: AP!LIA!f. ZC-15S/~T 8t-19/CP-1991 EHBP'l'L!k. Request for app~ov~i cl• tone Chaaae of a portion of the prcperty f~O!I i-A-10,000 to PJ>-M, a Tentative SubJivi~ioa Map to create 49 ainsle-f•ily lota and l coadoainiua lot, and a Condoainiua Perait to develop 33 uaita on the northweat corner of !l Canino R•al and Cheatnut Avenue in the R-A-10,000 Zone. With th• aid of a tranaparency ahowing the location of the project , Bill Hofaan aave a ata!f report on t he -tter. Ra retarenced a__, fro■ the fire Depart■ent reaarding ace••• and reapoaae ti■ea, and indicated that the project would provide a aecond ace••• to the propo~ed aubdiviaion, which they feel ia i■portant for aaorgency vehicle•. ----- Fcrrow ][ L 'Re111·e1u: l[ .Toaa X ROllbocia ][ ][ M'<l'CUII I Dchlehuber I ?rieatedt 1. . , '. , ' i 1 ; i ·,: ' i l I I ~ 'i : : MINUTES January 27 , 1982 Page 3 In responee to the c1t1zen1 concern, regarding the exte~1ion of Janie Way1 Mr. Hofman ind1c~ted that the applicant ha, prepared an alternative de.~ign to hi1 project, which would delete the Janie Way connection. Re indicated, however, that Staff'• reco11111endation is to provide the connection. In conclueion, Mr. Rofuan outlfr.ed the following revi1ion1 to the Reeolution1: 1) Re1olution No. 1916, deletion of Condition No. 4, a, i t ie not applicable to the Zone Change. 2) Ruolution No. 1917, Condition No. 18, adding the following eentence, 11A note indicating thi1 condition 1hall be placed on the Final Map." 3) Re1olution No. 1917, Condition No. 21, adding the following 1entence, 11An Exh1b1t indicating thoee area, where thi1 deed re1triction ehall apply 1hall be 1ub■itted to and approv~d by the Planning Director, prior to Final Map approval. 4) Re1olution Mo. 19}71 Conditicn No. 23, adding the following 1entence, "An !xh1b1t 1nd1cating tho1e area, to ~e -intainod by the Romeovner1 A11ociation 1hall be 1ub■itted to and approved by the Planning Directoc, prior to Final Map approv41. Comieeioner Ro■boti1 expre11ed concern with regard to Condition No. 18, relating to the re110val and future of tree,, 1tating hi, opinion th4t 1ame i• 1o■ewhat re1trictive. The Aeei~tant City Attorney re1ponded that the re1triction doe, not prohibit the re■oval of dead tree,, or keeping the t r~ee in a thriving condition. Re added that Staff ha1 identified an environ-ntal re1ource on 1ite, and through Condition No. 18 ha1 attel!lpted to prohibit the gradin3 and develop■ent of the portion of the lot where the tree, are located through the creation of building envelope,, in coapliance with the environ-ntal require■ent1 to pr41erve the area. eoa■i11ioner Joie inquired with regard to Jani, Way co■ing out to Che1nut Avenue on the ve1tern portion of the property, a, the exhibit 1how1 it to co■e clo1er to !l C•ino Real, and eapre11ed concern for the 1afety of the children in the Che1tnut Avenue area goini to and froa the achoo 11. r.-Rof■an explained that t he dietauce i, 500 feet froa the intaraection, which ■eet1 City 1tandard1. eoa■i11ioner Schlahuber referenced f.ire reapooee ti■ea frOII Pir• Station No. 3 on r.he1tnut Avenue, and reported that in hia conve~1ation with !rian Wat1on fro■ the Fire Depart■ent, h• indicated it wuld only take a ■inute to a ainut4 and a half fro■ the No. 3 atation, going down to Monroe up to Gail and around. Re added that Mr. Wat3on ad indicated 1oae concern with taki ng Lhe truck, throuah tha ra1idential 1treet1. Bill eot■an atate~ that Mr. Wat1on never indicat ed a ... to Staff, and it wa1 hi1 u~der1tandin1 that Mr. Wat1or. would like to••• the connection. MINUTES January 27, 1982 Page 4 Chairman Farrow ~pen~d the public hearing at 8:01 P.H., and extended the invita,ion to speak. The Co-ission recognized Hr. Ronald Null, 2124 !l Camino Real, Oceanside, Attorney representing the applicant. Hr. Null gave 1ome backtround on the project, indicating that the applicant i, al10 :he property owner. Re indicated that a meeting wH hel d with apprndiu:-:ely 40 hoaeovners and property owners in the area, to addre•• any concerns thPy had with the prc;ect. The Co-iseion recognized Hr. Bob Ladwig, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, of Rick Engineering. Hr. Ladwig ~tated the project i1 con,istent with the General Plan, and briefly outlined the building envelope areas. Hr. Ladwig continued to indicate that the applicant ha, some concern with the following coudition1: Condition Noe. 30 and 31 appear to be in conflict with each other; Ro. 31 call• for 1idewalk1 on all public 1treets and No. 30 require• the 1treet1 to be built according to the 1ectione on the u9. With regard to Condition No. 18 regarding the trees, Hr. Ladwig indicated that they feel 2" i• coo reetrictive, and reque•ted that the ainimm c• ize be increa•ed to 4". Hr. Ladwig al•o reported on the -eting the applicant h~ld with the hoaeovner• in the area, addre11ing their concern• for the left turn aov-nte on weetbound Cheetnut Avenue into c-o Place, and eaetbound Cneetnut Avenue into the project. Re indicated that he di1c~a1ed •-with the City Engineer, and they are reco-nding that left turn lane• be painted in thoee tvo location,. Re added that the widening that will occur a, a reault of the project v"ll help the aituatioo; h-ever, the painted left turn pocket, will al•o alleviate eoae of the concern• of the hoeeovnere in the area. With the aid of a wall ellhibit •h-ing the Jania Way connection, Mr. Ladwig outlined the alternate propoaal to cul~e-eac Jania Way, Re added that Staff haa not had a chance to revi-th' propoaal; h-•ver, indicated that the alternate deaign would be reapooaive to the hoeeovnera' raqueata. Mr . Ladwig added that the concerna of the Fire D~partMnt ahould be alleviated when Donna Drive goea through, u it would provide ready accaag frow Chaatnut to J~nia Way. In conclu1ion, Mr, Ladwia uraed approval of the zone chana• and tentative Mp, and eapraaaed willingneae to ra1pood to any que1tioo1. fll• coaai11ioo racopiaad Mr. Georae Sheffler, 2300 Cba1tnut Avenue, Carlabad, the applicant. Mr. Sheffler iudicated that hie faaily haa ownad the hou•~ for 34 yaara, and 1tated that it ia a unique opportunity to be abl• to de1lp the aaiahbor~ood you will be living in. Th• coaiaaioo ~•copiaad Nr. Vince Lacorte, 2295 Caaeo oriva, Carllbad, lfr. Lacorte atatad h~ ia in favor of the propoial; however, eapn11ad concern with regard to the traffic huar4 for people c011in1 out of the project turnina left, 1tatin• hi• opinion that the 1tr11t cennot co• thro"lh to Che1tnut Avenue. I' '---.. ~ ---MINUTES January 27 , 1982 Page 5 ~i COMMISSIONERS i~I.~ The Co-ia1ion recognized Mr. A. J. Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carl1bad. Mr. Skotnicki reque■ted Coaii■1ion con1ideration for mitigation of the impact■ on the neighborhood, and indicated that the den,ity i■ going to have a direct iapact on the 1urrounding neighborhood, particularly with regard to traffic circulation. He indicated he i1 not in oppo■ition to the propo1ed condominium development, but ie ~oncerned with r.he total impact on the exi1ting neighborhood. In conclu1ior., Mr. Skotnicki urged a redeaign of the project without hurting the developer, to take the potential burden off of Jani, Way. The Co-i11ion recognized Mr. Thoma• Wood, 2130 Jania Way, Carl1bad. Mr. Wood 1ubP.itt~~ a petition containing 30 1ignature1 of re1ident1 in tht, area in oppo1it ion to any de1ign which would allow direct acce1■ from Jania Way through to Cbe1tnut Avenue, ftlr. Wood aho expreued concern with regard to the fire re1ponse tiae if the propoaed developaent i1 approved. Mr. Wood continuei that he ha, no objection to Jani, Way 1erving part of the project, and 1uggeated that 1ame be redeaigned 10 that Janie Way doe, go into the project, but ia cul.-de-aac'd in 1oaa faahion 10 there ii no through accea,. In concl~~ion, Mr. Wood 1tated that he i, in favor of .the project, hi• only objection being to the throu8h traffic, and requeated • rede1ign of the•-· The co-i11ion recognised Mr. J ae, L. Clauaon, 2120 Jani, Way, Carlabad, Mr, Clauaon expre,aed concern with regard to the "S" curve on Cheatnut Avenue, and 1ugge1ted that the c-i,,ion continue the -tter to allow for additional diacuaaion and atudy. He added that he would have no concern if Jania Way extended into the d~velupaent, u long aa it will not be a through 1treec. The Coi.ia1ion recognised M1. Ruth Levi■, 2267 Caaeo Road, Carlabad, Ma. Levi, inquired if the only entrance would be on Cbeatnut Avenue, and if•-would be 1afe. The co-inion recogniae,t M1. Peg11.., Sarko, 2276 c-o Road, Carlabad. Ma, Sarko ezpresaed concern with regard to the aafety of the children coming and going to the achool1, with the additional traffic that would be created through approval of the propoaed developaent. Th• Coi.i11ion recognised Mr, Jrank D. Piaaaa, 3295 Donna Drive, Carl1bad, He 1tated hi, opinion that if Jania Way ia opened up, it will iapact on Donna Drive. He indicated he ia in favor of the propo,~d developaent; h-ever, inquired if there are any plane to relieve the only outlet to the Seacreat area over to l!l• Avenue, rather than coain1 down onto Donna Dri ve, In conclu1ion, Mr. Piazza requeeted c~nt fr<'a Staff on the -tter. since no one el•• wi1hed to apeak on the -tter, Chairmen Plilrrow clo11ed the public teatiaoPJy at 8:44 P.H. In reaponae to Coi.i,aion query, Richard Allen explained that th• City baa no propo1ed developaen~ that would extend "C" Street at thia ti-to l!l• Avenue; however, aoaat iM in the future develJpaent -y take place, ~ich -,uld be a aecond ace••• or •1re11 froa thi a developaent, other than on Cbeatnut Avenue if Janl1 Way i1 cloaed off, - ' 1 i I I ; I ' ' ; ' \ '. ' : 1 . l MINUTES January 27, 1982 Page 6 Chair,un Farrov expre11ed concern if Janis Way i1 opened a, propoeed and developaent progre11e1, Cheetnut Avenue -y be difficult to egre11 onto from the subdivision, and people will uee the a:,re difficult route through Janis Way. Further, if Donna Drive i1 ever connected it would create additional traffic on Janie Way. Coaai11ioner Frieetedt auggeeted that the co-~11ion conaider continuing the item, to allow for furLher Staff review, vith the Ca-i11ion1' reco-ndation regarding the Janis Way alternative propoaed by the applicant. Co.ai11ioner Rollbotia 1tated he would like Staff to 1tudy the feaaibility of a cul-de-1ac for Janis Way, with an emergency vehicle accea1 between the tvo point,, and come back vith an evaluation of 1aae, and the alternative, 1ugge1ted. Re al10 atated his opinion that the project i1 well deaigned, and indicated he 1upport1 the balance of the project. c.,..i,1ioner L'Reureux expre11ed concern vith regard to the adequacy of the environ-ntal analy1i1, particularly with regard to traffic. Re also queetioned the validity of the traffic analy~i• if there i1 no connect:on to Janie Way, a, he interp~et1 it to be entirely predicated upon provi1ion1 for through circulation. Ca..iaaioner L1Reureux continued that vith only one acceaa out of the project, he can foreaee difficulty in turning left. Re 1tated hi1 opinion that an additional fev feet of paveaent along the frontage of the property i1 not going to ■itigate the 1ub1tantial traffic and circulation probleu th&t ~xiat between El Camino Real and Monroe Street on Cheatnut Avenue. In concluaion, Ca..i11ioner L'Reureux 1tated he could not 1upport the project a, originally deaigned with the through 1treet to Jania Way. Re added that even if the through 1treet wa1 eli■inated there would only be one acce11, and•-would put all traffic onto Cheatnut. eo■aiaaioner Prieatedt 1usge1ted that it would be Appropriate for the applicant to do a traffic analy1i1, md .. ke rec~ndationa with regard to ■itigating the proble• addre11ad by the co-nity. eo-i11ion di1cu11ion related to the concern, of the nei1hborin1 re1ident1, ant alternative• for cul-de-1ac1. aichard Allan explainad that Cheatnut Avenue i1 a highly daficient atreet and i1 not deaigned aa a collector atreet, but i1 opecatini at the capacity of a 1econdary arterial. Re added that with thia developaent the de•eloper wuld be adding 1pproxi .. tely 24 feet of additional p .. -nt, and the curve will be aignificantly flattened out by the develoi-nt, which vill dramatically fapron the 1i1ht riiatance and -k• the i~teraecti:m •iaiblc fraa the top of the hill. Mr, Allen concluded that the other half oc the 1treet to coaplet• tha width .. y have to be a Capital I■prov-nt Project, aa a1>1t of the ar ea i1 exiating developaent. fll• A11i1tant City Attorney addre11ed the environ•ntal an4ly1i1 of the project, and 1tated hia opinion that 1aae la not adequate. \ I ~' I . . MINUTES January 27, 1982 Page 7 Following diecusaion, the co-ieaion continued the matter to the meeting o: February 24, 1982, to allow for preparation of a traffic an,llveil" and circulation etudy in reference to Janie Way and. the Cheetnut Avenue exit, unleee earne can be eatiefactorily reeolved between the Planning Staff, applicant, and reeidente in the area. 'nle C01Bieeion aleo requeeted additional graphic• from the applicant to ehov the widening of Cheetnut Avenue, and how traffic proble .. will be mitigated on Cheetnut. Chairman Farrow called• recess at 9:21 P.M., and the C01Bi11ion reconvened at 9:28 P.M., with eeven members pre1ent. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. PI.ARNING COMMISSION PllOC!DUR!S. The A11i1tant City Attorney gave a report on the matter. Di1cu11ion related to Coaaieeioner abetentione, due to conflict of intereet probleu. F~lloving di1cu11ion on the matter, the Co-ieeion adlpted the Planning Coaaieeion Procedure• ae preeented by the City Attorney with the following revi1io,u: 11 Amending Section 21 to read, "Every C01Bi11ion member de1iring to que1tion the City Steff ehall, after recognition by the pre1iding officer, addre11 hie que1tion to the appropriate Staff member or to the Planning Director or City Attorney. Oue1tion1 ehall be li■ited to inquirie1 relevant to the item.•• 2) Ti■e li■it1 for te1ti■ony be amended to cive (5) ■inute1, rather than ten (10) ■inutee; to include applicantl. 3) Aaending Section 42 to 1tate that a Coaai11ioner 1hall re■ove hiuelf fro■ the platfor■ if he i1 diequalified due to a conflict of intere1t. APPROVAL OP MllfflTIS Ninute1 of the Regular Meeting, held January 13, 1982, were approved a, corrected; Page 4, revi1ing paragraph 5 to re'ad, ''With reaard to the llV park, he indicated that they are prepared to eat Hide end pat·celiae a 1ite, at euch ti• H it ie agreed upon by all psrties:'' ly proper 1110tion the Meting vu adjourned at 9:48 P.M. Reepe=tfully Sub■i 0 __,,.,~~~r:...,-,,. Ann R, Alle■an, Minute, Clerk Farrow X L'Heureux X Jose l{ X flo■botie X Marcu■ X Schlehuber X Frieetedt X Farr.:.v X L'Heureux X Joie X Ro■both X Marcu1 X 8chlehuber X X 7rie1tedt X Farrow I L'Reureux l Joie I Rl>llbotie X I Marcu• I Scl\l,ahuber I FriHtedt I (j)