Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-13; Planning Commission; Minutes,any:; CPt DUI CP NIBTIN3: TIMI CP M!BTING: Pt.AC! CP MB!'l'ING: MINUTES Pl.ANNl!«;cx:HilSSJ~ Hi!lrch 13, 1985 6:00 P.H. City Cbuncil <lwnher s CALL 'l'O OIOER: 1he meeting was called to order by dialman Parrov at 6:00 p.m. P:"~t: Chaitllllln Farrow, Cmmissioners !Onbotis, Harcus, Slli th, Schlehuber, ~P'adden and L'Heureux. Absent: !ale. Staff Mlnbera Preaent: walter Br~, Civil Engineer Olarles Gti.11111, Principal Planner Kilte Holmiller, Lam Oae Planning Manager Kike 8:M!s, Associate Planner Dan Hl!ntachke, Assistant City Attorney PL!DG& CP ALUX.lEH:£ 1ilQS led by O:mnissioner Snith. ll'lMINll«. CXJtUSSICJi PROCEnJRES: Cl\aiman Farrow called attention to the Planning Cmmiaaioo Procedures being cilOl«I on the screen and asked the aiz5ience to take a few minutes to read then. 1. CXlP2'7/V-365 -19.RTIN -Request for approval of a c00:Utloriaru.e perm.it to allow a residential care facility and a variance to reduce the mx>unt of required parking fna ab to four speces and to allov theae spaces within the fra:it yard aetback 0n property located on the eouth aide of Pala Avenue bet-.en Harding Street and the Interstate 5 P'reewy in the R-3 zone. Olul• Gr:1-, Principal Planner, stated that they were adding a conditico to this project vhich IIOUld indicate that puking ~ "°'1ld have to meet engineering ataacSuda (conditico Ill). 0:ladition 12 i«>uld then ~ c0aHtiCX1 13, etc. Another ~t ..S. .a that the applicant irdicated, c:antruy to .tat wa wittc ~ in the staff repo.rt, that the garage wa al~ a living c,arter lilbF.n he purchued the pa:opucy. Olarl• Gda, Principal Planner, gave the presentatico on tbia i ta • c:ootai~ in the staff report, using a loaaticn 111!1) ~ moving the site. He stated tbat at a pcwioaa -ting, it 1e11 ooted that a variance tmald be ~ Ind that staff wa inat:ruc:t.i by the O-f•icn to retam with a doc:ment and a reaolution of es11toval. PilllSinp wre llai5e previ~ly by the Planning 0-iwt<ID co tha c:caditi00lll uae pm:ait and D0W they -~ to ... fin!iaga on the variance. oa.iaaimar L'a.ur.m qoaatian.s ~ or not tbe ..-ta:llUl.d ccnfota if tbay reducm tha parking apeoea. OIHla Gld• wr«s that they "°'1ld not ccofom by taal~. 1 ! 1 ,l MINUTES Kuch 13, 1985 Page 2 c:amiiss 1oner 9111 th wanted to knO,,. 1 f ther e was any street parking aro Charles Gr um, ment 1004:d mat the street was a cul-de-sac which could occ-amlOdate sane parking. Ccmn1ss1oner 9nlw"l also questioned whether the ren1dents had C4tS and 0'4rles Grum, stated that as far as he knew they d 1d not . O'laicman Parrow opened the publ tc hear 1nq ,,t t : iO p.m. and issued the 1nv I t..,t 100 to speak. Since no one .. 1 shed to speak on thlS 1tan, the publ I C heM 1ng ..as close:!. O::m:111ss1oner Ranbot 1s s.,1d that he rev iewed t he proJec-t ard had no problan with i t s1~ most o f t he people do not drive. cami1ss1oner Marc-us .r,ked 1 f t he tac I i , t y was " 10-bed or 12-bed fac1 l I ty. Olar les Gr um, ans\olerf"d that he thou:jht 1t would be an 11-bed foc1l1ty and th.at the var iance was to reduce the parking tn:l a l l ow for parking 1n the set:back. C:am11ss1oner L'Heur elJJI expresscc! his desire to 1nclu:le " cooo1t1or ~hat the parking areas conform to eng i~r1r-., s:pec1!icat1on and Q).)rles Grum, ,l<jreed tha• >t should !x> r~rded to reflect the variance. Planning o:mn1ss1on adopted tl'le following resolution: RESa.lJTICti NO. 2421, ~lt,t; APP~ OF A a::H>lTI~ USE PERMIT ro 1'.f.L(J,,I A RESIDEm'l-'l.. CARE CARE Pl\C1LITY ~ P!a>ERT'Y (J?NERALLY t..CX:ATID ~ THE SOlml SIDE OF PAUi lW!24Uf: ·1E'!Wml HAROIIC STREE."I' ~ INTERSTATE 5 FREl'lMAY. Added cood1t1on: 'the appl 1cant shall provide four parking speces as show\ 1n Elth1bit A. Parking spaces shall be improved to Clty Encpneenng stardards prior to OCC'l.lpllnc-y. 2. CT 84-42 -VON PAOCARD -Request for approval of an eight lot subdivision on a l . 78 acre parcel located on the aouth aide of Tanwlrack Avenue between Adana Avenue and Kighl and Dr i ve. Mike Howes, Aaaoclate Plannet , gave the presentat 100 on this it.mi aa cont.al~ in the staff report, using " location 1111tp transpa.rency showing the site . He stated that a revised plan reduclrl:j the units frCIII eight to five _. r-ived by the Planning Oepart:nent bot that staff had inadequae. tiJDe to n,v1-the revised plan . He requested a oontinuance to allo,, staff tl..l'De to write I.JP conditions of approval and II resolut 100 rocoamero ing approval. OJD1uioner Schlehuber stated that he would favor a oont I.nuance 1! there -.. 11 def in I te t illle fr amr aet . Q\oiCMn P'artow suggested t.hat the I tm, could be cont in~ or the o..aiuion could look at the ne'-1 aut:mi ttal thaMlvu. ~er, Dan Heotachke, Aaslatant City Attorney, pointed out that It was not po-Ible to look at the !WV propoa:il th3t oven Ing. H1chale Hol zm1 l lor ~t-' that tho li:.n be conunued for one month. Or:miuioner SchlohUber tee.a.mended cont1nu1nq 1t for 11 1101'.lth IIUbj«:t to openl.ng it tonight for those who -re pre9Slt for the ~l 1c hear 1ng and cou.ldn' t attend at the later date. 0:-1.uioner M:l'lldden pointed out that it was Farrow X RanbotlS X Marcus X X 9111th X Schlehuber X ptF.',dden X l..'Heureux X MINUTES P~IN:, CCM1ISSION 1-brch l 3, l 98S Page 3 COMMISSIONERS possible they "'°uld be l 1sten1°'1 to scmeth1ng en· irely different at the later date arrl therefore could possibly be wasting tune by l 1sten1ng to anyone this even1rq. A mot i oo was passed cont: nu l ng I ten t 2 for one montt unt 1 1 April 10th. 3. OJP-l96(A) -OKUN -kequest for an .nendnent to an existing conditional use permit to al low a c hange of ownership at the Montessor I School on the e.:ist side of M!ld ison Street between Elm Avenue ard Oak Avenue 1:-, the VR zone. O\ar les Grllffll, Pnnc1pal Planner, 9<1ve tile staff r~port on this itan, using a t r ansparency showing the site. He St.!ted that the only change being proposa:l wzis a change in operator of the f i,c1 l 1 ty a m pointed out there were t 1oO options: 1mcnd1ng cond1t1on t 5 t o reflect ~he ~ operator Mrs. Burlte , or delete the corrl 1 t 100 a l together. He expressed staff's recam,e11da t 1 on t~t the cond 1 t ion be dele ted since there 1s no criteria to evaluate t he operator, arrl anphas1zed that everytl11rq e lse "'°uld reM1n the same. D:ln Hentschlte, Ass istant City Attorney, also recannended deleting the condition s ince them 1s no criteria t o evaluate the operator. Camiissioner ltf'l!ldden quest toned who would l 1cense th< operation of the school and Olar les Gr IJffll repl 1ed by stating that the St.ate licensed the school. He further irrlicated that the applicant brought a copy of the l 1cense to the Planning OepartJnent. Dan Hentachke pointed out that the 11cens1ng of the operator is not a Planning tunct100. In anan,ier to a query by O::r11111ss1oner 1'1arcus, Q\arles Grllffll stated that the prev 1ous cond 1 t ions ~re canpleted and were ju.st being t r anafet"red to the new owner. C>:lllllliaaioner 9nith expressed cooccrn aoout the facil 1t1es arrl wanted to know who I napect.s 1 t . He 1 nd 1 catfld that thi s may be a good t illle to look at the tac 1 ! It 1cs. Chaiman Parrow SU19ested tr.at the appl 1cant could answer that question. O\aiman Parrow opened the publ 1c hearing at 6:2' p.m. and iaued the i rrv it.At 1 on to speak . Kr. Jeff Okun, OIC\..i and Aaaoc1atea, P.O. Box 1874, San ttllrooa, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He Indicated that the 011ner WDa mt:1'I Ing her achoo! fra,, Oc-eanside to Carlabed. tte amntioned that he agreed t.hllt COR:lition 6 should be deleted and continued to l iat the agencies that are reapoa.aible for licensing the facility <ind chocking on 1 t. Ht further lrrl ica ted that the cond It i orui have been fulfHle:S, arrl in reapol'IN to atatmmnt.a raised earlier by OJlllliuioner !'t:Fadden regardi ng the alley, he sa1d that the previous condi tion WDa to enter Into contract for Farrow RonbotlS Karcus 9nith Schlehuber l'tf'ooden L'Heureu.x X X X X X X lt X MINUTES .March 13, 198S Paqe 4 alley improvements and that th 1 1-3 be-e<1 done urder ~ previous use permit. He emphasized the need to keep the land use matter in mind wher, cnns1der1ng the con,.,1 tional use permit. Kr. Jeff 01r1sman, 348S Valley Street, Car l sbad, distributed material for the Commission to read and proceeded to explain why he opp:>sed thP change of ovners.'1ip to the appl :cant. He stated that there have been complaints raised against the applicant's faci lity 1n Oceanside am that there 1s a problem w-1 th the lease. tie further indic.-,ted that there has been no legal transfor of tllli: business. Lastly, ht-s tated that a lavsutt was filed in San Marcos (sic) against the property. He therefore requested that the Commission deny the applicat 100 without prej1.xhce. Kr. Jim Bottomley, Legal Counsel, 630 Alta Vista Drive, Vista descr. ibed the events at the prel!m i n.ary hearing against the owners of UY proper ty. He also stated that Joan and Pam ~ke were named in the act 10n, which 1s presently scheduled to be heard on 1-prtl 10, 198S. He requested that the matt er be denied without prej~1ce while the Lawsuit was cont1nu1nq. Commissioner Ranbot is asked if ti¥' dispute was over two lots and Kr. Bottomley ven f 1ed they we·re over lots 3070 and 3062. Kr. Bottomley explained the purpose of a booo m answer to a query by Ccmnissioner S::hlehuber. Jeff Scott, Attorney, 751 Rancheros Dr 1ve, San Marcos, represented the applicant and insisted that the legal obl igationa were a matter of the court and not the Planning Ct:Jm:mias1on. He further explained the temporary restraining ordel: issue al though he felt that the Commiaaion should be concerned only with the facility for this property. He agreed with the suggestion that c:ur:Htion t6 be dropped. P1r. Bottcml.ey was al lowed to respond to the appl 1cant . Since no one else wished to speak on this Item, the public tnt.imony •a cone l uded II t 6 : , l p .m • 0:-iaaioner Schlehuber requesr-.ed that O!n Hentschlte, Aaaistant City Attorney, give h is comments regarding the lawsuit. Olan Hent.llc:hlte emph.uued that the O:lmmission should not get involved in the ,egal dispute which was irTitlevant to the iaaue ot lam use. He also rec'CllllJlletld that ccmitioo 16 be deleted since the concern of the 0:lmmiuioo is only with the physical operation of the land and not the peraonal operation of the facility. 0:-iaaioner Sc:blehuber asked .u:iout 3062 and 3070 and questioned vbether or not 3070 is essential for the land uae. Olar.lea Gtiac stated that it is since II certain laOUDt of -iuare footage ia ne::ided for recreation and cl&SSrOCII. 0:-iaaioner Schlehuber expre, sed that he had no problem with it aa lcxr;J aa it ia clear that parcels , and 5 (3062 and 3070) were being add eue:!. He stated that the lawaui ta bel<XrJ in the courts am not with the Commiuion and ther:atore he "0Uld support the resolution. ® MINUTES PLAMIING COt'!ISSION Kuch l3, 198"> Pa e 5 Cl:mnissioner L'Heureux questioned why this 1ss~ was being discussed if the cooo it ional use permit had not exp1red and OISn Hentachke replied by stat 1rq that the C1 ty 1s unable to amerd a corditiol'l31 use peon1t without presenting it to the O:mniss1on . Cmm1ss1oner l'tf'adderi stated that s he supported O:mnissioner &~.!ehuber ard that she felt the O:mn1ss100 should not get into atiy legal problans. She expressed 1->c, interest in having the alley paved . wal ter Bro,,,n, Cl vi 1 Ellg 1neer, expla 1ne:I that th 1 s was part of a lien contract, am that at soch tune .<hen the City Ellgir:eer decides the Improvements are requ1 red, the owne1 would have to do it. He further 1rd1cated that thesP lmprovaDents were usu.ally not required until a sufflc1ent amount !Mde 1t a worthwhi le proJect . caimiss1oner SChlehuber asked for c.~r1f1cat100 rec;iard1rq the QJP, whether It was a new one or an ilDlen:led one. Dan Hentschlte verified that it 1s a CUP amerdnent to the original cooo1t1onal use peon1t am s~ested that they include in the cKDerrlnent that 1t applies to all lots 10 the appl icat Ion. Q:mnissioner L'Heureu.x asked 1f :.here is ,Htanpt to convert the structure to sane-what res1dent1al use, would it be in violation of the anerdnent. r:nn Hentschke replied by stating that by amerd1ng the cooo1tiooal use to inclu:k bot.'l lots, they will cove r everything. It would have to be anended !or them to do anythirq else to lt . Q:mnissioner Harcus s>.r.mar I zed by saying that they were amending the existing pennlt aoo that they would delete the con:H tion that was In the orig rnal con::l it ion use pemi t for the other owner. Planning Q:mn1ssion c,dopted the followrng Resolution: RESOU.n'ION NO. 2416, APPROVlti:; AN AHllOiEN'I" 'ro A CXH>ITICNAL USE PE:RHIT 'ro AU.n,/ A OIANGE OF ~IP AT ffl! r«lNT!SSORl 9'.)fJO(. CM PK>PERTY GENERALLY c.a::A.Tm CM THE F>.ST SIDE OF ~ISO. STREET 8E'1WEni EUI Avm«JE A!iD OM AVEMJE. W1 th the fol lowing 11DeOOme! its : Adda:! coooition: CX>n1ition 1s such that instead of .t being o lien conttoct on the owner, that the <:Mler sno l i improve the full wi dth of the alley along the 100 foot frontage of this property to the satisfaction o! the Engineering Department. Mded condition: 'lhls peDIUt specifically appl 1es to the property know aa 3062 and 3070 Madison aa one contiguous piece of property. Delete condition 6. 4. CT 8'-40/CP-301 -HARDING ~ CXHXlS -A reques toe a 24 unit tentative tract 111a~ condODinun per-.m the ~t corner of Harding Street and Oak Avenu. 1n the RD-H zone. Mi-ke flolliN, Aaaoc:iate Pl41'10er, gave the presentation on thia i t1l!III u contaioed in the staff report, uaing a transparency to show the site . He explained that the applicant _. willing to sign a contract reeerving 25\ of Farrow X Ramxlt lS X Marcus It 9!1ith X Schlehuber I[ • l'tFadden It c.' Heureux X MINUTES PLA?,lilt«; CCM'11SS1~ l'erch 13, 1985 Page 6 the units sold for low to moderate 1ncane people. He INllll&rized by sayi ng that staff felt that the design arrl mnenities of the project did not Justify a~oval at the high density range aoo that condanin1t.J11 requlrenents -re met marginally. Staff felt that there ts a signt1c1ant difference bet:~ apartment aro condCJTllnllJll proJects. He further indicated that the project would contr 1bl.Jte to traffic circulation problens on Elm Avenue. camiaaioner Schlehuber asked If there would be any more traffic for the cordaninl\JIIS than apartments. wal ter Brown replied by saying that they anun p:,ted more vehicles in condan1ni1J11 units. Ctmlli ss1oner l't:f'lldden quest 1oned row many one and two bedroan un1t.s there would be an::l ltike HOweS 1ro1cated there would be an everi spl It , t-1 ve of each. Regard 1 ng the agreement for low and cnoderate housing, he stdted that this was bei ng d iscussed "'itll the City Attorney's office bl.it nothing has been approved yet. Dan Hentschke, MSistant CHy Attorney, c:onf 1cned that this agreenent -s different frCJTI others made 1n the past arrl that the agreanent has not been f lnal i zed. Carmissionex l't:Plldden ~ 1 f the aqreenent could be enforced and Dan Hentschlte answered that 1t 1s more difficult to enforce with sale units thll.n rental units. He further stated that th1 s k1 ro o f agreenent has bee:, done in other juriadictions of the state. He felt that an agi:eenent could probably be r~ched lolhich would be agi:eea.ble to City O:>uncil. O:mliiaaioner Rcmbot is pointed out that there would be the .-nl.Jllber of people rega.rdl ess of whether they are renting or selling the units. He continued on to say that he was not convirced that there would be additional tra_fHc a_s a result of the pro)ect being changed to sale uni t.s fran rental uni t.s. Mika lblzmiller, Land ose Planning Manager, st.oted that there is different traffic generation and amount of cars foi: renters and owners. 0:-iauone.r Piarcua camiented that the question of traffic generation tea brought up at an earl ier date and she -.s infomai that the redlx:ed parking for apa.rtments -s to ~ bui 1d ing of apartlllerlts. She further i nd ica ted that she did nrt -much difference be~ the two and IIOWd be cur ioua to -the at:u:Sy that ahcNs the differ~. *lt:et: Brawn, Civil ~ineer, resporded by stating that tha difference is about U\. 0\ai man Fanow opened the i:u,lic heario; at 7 : 1 o p .m. and luua'I tt» invitation to speak. * • Rick Stlaler, Ughtfoot , Aa8ociates, 702 Fourth Stnet, oc.-naide, diac:uam the bacltgroum of the initial appEOYal of the apart?!mlt proj ect -tllch _. located adjacsrt to tha rmr.,e!<>s-Jt area. tte 11111lh.ui zed that the oondcwinim project wu all of the aspect.a of the original propoa]., especially the affordability aapect. Ill atata5 that a current agi:eement t:»lng negot lated iDcludea tbe 1:9QUir-,t that the title pol icy caapany will be the •td'dog and the City "'111 be able to revi-a ~ ia:Uviduala 1110Ying into the unita. tte felt t:hia CIOUl.d be wrlca1 out to the City'• satisfaction, ~ially aince it baa bNn done elNllhere. He expreaaed bia belief that the change to condallinil.11111 vill upgrade MINUTES !'\'Srch 13, 1985 Page 7 the project and continued to explc>in why he felt this was the case. He adm i tte:l that the project was above the general plan but felt that It was only three or four uni ts too many an:! emphasized that anyt~ing less than 24 unit.s would be unecooom1cal for his cl 1ent. Commissioner SChlehuber stated that r>e considered providing affordable renul housing and affordable sales housing as t;,,o different concepts. l'\r. RIJsaler point.Ed out that when they re-analyzed the cost of urrlerground parking , they fourrl i t was not econan ica l . Commissioner L'Heureux commented that It was or1g1nal ly processed as an apartment complex even though at that time It ... as obvious that It would be con::iom1nHrns. Hr. Rosaler replied by saying that at that tune, there was a greater nee:, for apartments in the City of Cul~ and not for affordable sales. Olairman Farrow mention!!d that he was involved in the project at that t imP. an::i that It was agree:! to at that time because it was presented as an apartment proJect. He made it clear that he would not have supported the general plan lll!lendment otherwise. l):)n 1,gatep, President, lbrmandy Pacific COrporat1on, 2956 Roosevelt, carlsbad, stated that he was the property owner an:! seller to f'tr. Grisnik. He also mentioned that l'\r. Grisnik had done everything the City has requested with respect to a design project In the downtown are.-,. He explained the circunstances regarding the initial decision to buHd an apartment proJect on this property and stated that the project being presented this evening is for a condominium project, although it does not precltde anyone from renting on the property or a portion of it. He expressed his belief that there would be no impac· on traffic an::i he point.ed out that a Negative Declaration on the coroominium project was issued by the Land Use Planning !1anager for a 24 unit apartment c:anplex l l/2 j,'eatS ago and that it was no different than that being propoam tonight. Braylio 8. Lopez, 931 Qalt Avenue, car lsbad stated that he lived in the area for SO years and askoo that the masonary fence be at least seven feet high since he would l ilce to be protected from the project. In answer to a query by O:amiuioner 9111 th, he stated L'lat there was heavy traffic iu the are11. lt>bert SOnneborn, 3985 Stella liars Lane, car lsbad, indicate:! that the initial concept from the beginning was for c:on:Sominhas IX> be built and reserve six imi ts for rental ~!~::. Nhen examining the economics, it was determined that 2, units for rental would be WleCOOOlllical ard that the dovntx>wn aree would be better for heme ownera. 1-11 continued on to say that there is no difference bet_.. apart:menta and comomini~ sand that they would be offered at th.! same pr ice as µsyment of rental uni ta. Since no one elae viahod to speak on this item, the public teatilllony vu conclude:! at 7130 p.m. 0:mmliuicmer 9111th expreua, Ilia concern regarding tra.ffic circulation since thia vaa in a downtown area. Due to new City O>uncil policy, he indicate:! that Cbuncil will not (j) MINUTES l'\'lrch 13, 1985 e 8 approve this proJect 1f 1t 1s above density and impacts traffic. He further stated that he had no problem ._ith the cordomin1um concept. Just w1 th the density. Commissioner Schlehuber also 1rrl1cated that he felt there would be an impact ?O traffic. Prev 1ousl y t.hey were looking at rent.al housing when rent.al housing was nee:,e,ci in the area but now they are asking for a transfer. He felt he could not support a resolution for the units. ~irman Farrow commented that he supported the corrlani niums but he could not approve 2◄ units. Oxnm1ss1oner Karcus stated she does not m1rd whether or not there are condominiums or apartments. Her maJor corrern was w1 th the new Cbunc 11 pol icy am therefore she could only agree to twenty units. Oxnmissloner lbnbous expresse:l h1s concern about additional two bedroom units arrl said he would have no problems it It was t.'le same proJect. canmissiooer L'Heureux declared it 1s import.ant to have permanent residence downtown but felt that 1 t Is a l 1 t t le too dense for that Site ard what they were trying to !IChieve with regard to a:nen1 ties. As a resuJ t, he expl.iined that he had problems supporting the proJect on that ground. Comtniss1oner Schlehuber !!ltatec! that he was against condomin11ns with the density proposed and Comm1ss1oner ~F'l!ldden agreed WI th him. Planning Cbmm1ssion adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTIOO 00. 2417 DENYI!l:. A 24 UNIT TDll'ATIVE TRACT !"IAP AM> OHX>HINIUN P~IT 00 PROPERTY GDiERAU.Y LOCATFD 00 THE SOOTH!AST COONER OF KMDI!l:. Sl'REf:I' MO OAJ< AVENJE. 5. OJP-269 -FINNEY -Request for approval to allow a tenporary autcmobil~ sales office trailer on property locaa!d at 5445 Paaeo Del Norm in Car Country. Olarles Grimm, Principal Planner, gave the st.aft report on this item, using a tr ansparercy to show the s i te. He state:! that the intent of the ordinance is to make sure that the tenporary sales office has a pP.xmanent facility and that the temporary trailer CNVlOt extaid for more than one year. He pointed out that the applicant cannot provide a plan at this time because it is not lcnown what kioo of dealership is going in and therefore staff could not recommeni approval of a temporary automobile sales office trailer oo the property. O\llir:man Parrow opened the ?,lbl 1c he.lr 1ng at 7:40 pn. and iaued the invitation to speait. James Pinney, OWner, James Finney, Irx:., 5445 Paseo Del Nor te, Carlsbad, explained the reasons vhy pe.rmAnent plans for a cai: dealership could not be drawn up at this time. He ia fairly confident he vi 11 be getting this new GM dealership but not enough to begin building a facility. He bu already hired sales man.tgers and sales people for this facility and indicated hie intent to bridge between the preaent day am time that he could sutmit plana for the building of the actual facility. !"arrow I[ Ranbotis I[ l'larcus I 9nith I Schlehuber I I McF'adden I L' lteureux I ® MINUTES March 13 1985 Pace 9 In answe1 to a query raised by Comm1ss1oner Rcmbotls rega.rding approximate time fcame, Ki:. Finney explained that he believes 1t might be within thirty days. He also stated that if the dealership goes through, it could brifK1 approximately $60,00~75,000 in ircome to tlw ;'.:ity of carlabad. Since no one else wished to speak on tlus item, the publ 1c testiinony ~ concluded at 7:•6 p.m. Commissioner Schlehuber asked staff 1! the Comm1ss100 can lll4lte a short cooditional use pera,it for thtrty clays with a corditioo that a site plan be f led acceptable to msr.bers. Olair111an Farrow pointe:l out that t.'lere could be a conditional review in sixty days. Olarles Gr 1111111 answered that the cood It 1onal use per 1od 1 s for a period of one year and at that time, the facil 1ty 1o10uld have to be under construction. 1'le Commission could grant a con::Htion requiri!"K1 the site plan to be sul:rn1tted within a certain period of time. Commissioner lonbotls brought up the fact that there have been previous problems with trailers since some of them never get moved. He asked if the appl 1cant would post a bond for the removal of the trailer fo1 " certair, period of time and the applicant indicated that he 1o0u.ld. Callmissioner Schlehuber said that a temporary t railer 1s generally granted for a ~r but it coul.d be for any period of time and suggested that it be for sixty days. If the applicant does not provide information within that time re:;iarding the permanent facility, he 1o10uld be required to ranove the trailer. Dan Hentachke, Assistant City Attorney, agreed th.it sixty days would be satisfactory but may present a problem for the applicant am therefore recommenied that a motion be made to direct staff to prepare a docunent supporting the conditional uae permit for sixty days am that a site plan be auanitted. If presented, the condition will exterd for a one year period. O:lllmiuioner 911ith expressed his conoern about establishing a preadent since this could happen along PointNtta. O:lllmiaaioner lbnbotis felt that the bases have been 00Yend am that sixty days would be too tight. He auggffted a period of ninety days instead. O::alliuioner ttc:P'adden questioned whether there would be a ninety day n1viev and Camlliasioner Aombotis indicated there would be. He further stated that the appl ica.nt must aut:Dit a a1te plan and that there would still be a bond for the ta11oval of the trailer if at the ero of ninety days he hid not done anytr.ing. OXzmtissioner McFadden apreum her •uwcrt. O:lllmiuioneT 9::hlehuber said that there is a p:oblem vith not knowing vhat the trailer would look like am further atated that he is in favor of giving the applicant a cbanoa, but ti. should be able to provide a temporary site plan for review. MINUTES w..~h 11 lQQC:. Q:lmmissioner McFadden felt that 1f 1t looks like the picture on the back of the report, 1t would be agreeabl~ to her. o:immissiooer Schlehuber was concerned a1.10ut other types of businesses requirin;i temporary trailers aro indicated he would like to see a ro1J:3h sketch t n two weeks. Olarles Grimm said that they could come back in two weelts with docunents. A motion was pessed asking staff to brir,;i back conditions of approval for a t.empora.ry sales trailer at the Finney establisment, and that the conditions of approval will address subnission within ninety days of a permanent site plan, an:l that the a.JP be for a year with a ninety day review period and bond for removal of the trailer if applicant does not sutnit a site plan within ninety days, or at the end of the year has subnitted a site plan ard has not begun earnest construction. 6. GPA/C 84-l(A) -CIIOJLATICtl ELEMlln' -Reformatted edition of recently adopted Circulation El.anent . Jim Hagaman, Research Analysis Manager, gave the presentation on t.h1 s i tetn. He explained that the Cbmmission had requested staff to reformat the Circulation Element to make it more urrler standable for the publ ic without chang ir13 the content. He stated that the only chlSnge made wa.s to bring the docunent up to the current state guidelines on pctge 9 with regard to Pipelines and Otility Lines. He indicated that the next action, a fter O:,uncil approval, was to go back for new graphics and make it a presentable document for public distribution and understand irxJ. O\airman Farrow opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. and i88Ued the Invitation t o speak. Mr. GeI:ard Anear, l 728 calavo Court, car l sbad, spoke in connection with traffic flow on Tamarack. He indicated that more than the anticipeted flow wi 11 be on that road within twenty years from now. Since no one else wished to speak, Olairman farrow closed the publ 1c hear1~ at 8 :02 p.m. 0:lllmiaaioner L'tteureUJ: questioned whether the Onmiaaion vu ■imply awroviD:1 the reform.atirx.i of the docunent or "81:e they to diacusa the contents of the docuDent. Hr. Hagmaan replied by ■ayi[XJ that the Cmmlission vaa free to do aa they chooae aince this was a public heari~ on the matter. 0:lllmiuioner 8D1th mentioned that he was concerned about 1':aaraclt tram I-S to Carlsbad BoultWard aro said that 9CDething need• to oe done about it. He wished it stated for the r:ecotd that he felt they were maid~ a 111istalte about Tllalaraclt. Planni~ 0:lllmiaaion awrov«S the Negative Declaration i--S by the Land oae Punning Oommiaaion am adopted the following Aasolut.ion: RZS:ID'rICli l«). 2,20, .\PPtVvitil. AN AHDO'll!lff ro fflE CIICJIATICli ELDmn' ~ THE GENERAL PLAN ro REP'ORMAT AM> l!DI'l' 'tHB CUCOLATICli IIU.Ml!m' TEXT NI'ffi II'.) MOOil'ICATICli TO ffl! lll!'Dl1' OR saBSTMa a. ~S LOCAT!D CITYWIDE. Farrow Ranbotis Marcus 9nith 9:hlehuber McFadden L'Heureux Farrow faDbotia Mucus Sllith 9::hlehuber McFadden L'Haurun @ X X X X X X X X I[ X X II II II X II MINUTES Kuch 13, l98S Paqe 11 7. u::A-l67(A) -SERVICE STATI~ PRICE SIQlS -An amendment to the zoning ordinance regard·.ng pr ice signs for service stat ions. !1ilte HOlzm1ller, Laro USe Planning Manager, gave the report on this item, using transparencies, ·rdicatlng that the Q:mmission had directed staff to redo an amerdmeot to the ordinance basoo upcn what the applicant was proposing as a tradeoff to the vairana>,5. He suggested that the four con:Sitions outlined 1n the staff report be included. Commissioner Rcmbotls questioned how h1gh the sign can be of! the groun:I. !1ilte Holzmiller answered by stating t hat there is a maxirn1.1t1 of 9' in ~erqth aro 6 feet in height, an1 that they can add how high the sign can be of! the groun:l to the coro1t100. In answer to a query by Ccxnm1ss1oner Mc.Fadden, !11lte Holzmiller said that urner the present ordinance, they can have three signs whereas now they will only be allowed one large monument sign. In response to a question by O::rnm1ss1oner Rc:nbot1s regarding the location of the sign on the property, Mike Holzmiller irdicated that the present ordinance covered it . Olairman Farrow opened the p.lbl 1c heanr.g at 8:10 p.rn. aro is.sued the invitatioo to speak. Sm Blick, Attorney, AJCO, Fairbanlts Ranch Plaza, Rancho Santa ~. urged for the approval of the resolution. He iroicated this would be a step in the right direction to eliJninate big tall signs with lots of square foot.age. Since no one else wished to spe.,k on this Item, the po.bl ic testimony was concllX!ed at 8:15 p.m. Dan lientschlte, Assist.ant City Attorney, recomrnerrled that the CXnmission clarify that only one momnent sign is al lowed on the property. Plaming Camisaion adopted the follo....ing !esolution: RESOWTIOO t«>. 2,23 APPROVIN;:; 1.a.E OX>! AHFXlHENl', AK1ll>IKi Tl'IU! 21, OiAPt'ER 21.41 OF fflE CARISBAD HUNICPAL CXDE, BY THE AKEHlKENl' OF 508.Stx:'TIOI 2,.H.074(a) (2) 'TO Aro REQ(}lmmn'S REGMDIM; SERVICE srA'rlai PRlCE SIQiS. lidded com 1 ti on: Clarification that the total height is 6 feet ard that only one f r eestan:Sing sign is all~ on the property. can"IWED OIOCOSS IOO IT'Ot: 8. PC0-73 -BP.ST BUILDERS -Request for a Planning Cl:Jlllllli.uion Determination for a three-unit apartment project generally locata::I on Walnut Avenue between Lincoln Street and waahington Street in the R-3 zone. Kike Howes, Asaociate Planner, gave the staff report on thia it:811, using a transparency to show the site. Farrow X lbnbotis X X Harcus X 9111th X Schlehuber X l't::Fadden X L'Heurem r @ MINUTES Pt.ANNIN:. CCH'IISSION March 13, 198S Page 12 He explained that the proJect exceeds the mean density and will contribute to traffic congestion 1n the beach area and n~ca1meuded den i a 1 of the app I I cat ion . Henry Tubbs, 690 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that the project was submitted before the new City Council policy change. He further stated that It would mean the difference between bu1 lding two units instead of three which would result 1n a l/3 loss of the project arrl would have be devast.atrnq t o such a small proJect. Commissioner Farrow in:l!cated he felt that the difference between one unit was marg i M 1 s incc 1 t was only slightly over the density a:-rl therefore he would favor three uni ts. Canmissioner Rombotis agreed am said that this proJect basically meets the intent of what the Council inteoded and that the broad policy did not fit this situation. Canmissiooer Karcus also agreed, stating that she didn't think one more unit wi ll make a difference. Commissioner McFadden asked how wide Walnut is arrl whether Washington goes through or is It a dead end. Walter Brown, Civil Engineer, explained that there were sar.e errors on the applicant's map and that Washington is thirty feet wide and will have no parking. A mot ion was p.issed request in<;1 staff to bring back conditions of approval for the proJect. OFF-AGE!O Inl'i: Kilce Holzmiller, land Use Planning Manager, discussed the resolution of intention and location map on the Southwest comer of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, ZOne C-2 which vu not put on the master plan and is an extremely aensitlve piece of property. Planning Commission adopta3 the following Resolution of Intention: RPSX.ln'Ia.l Cl IN'!Dn'IC»I NO. 17 2 OED.ARIN:; I TS A'l"l'Em' I Oi 10 ci:iislD!R NI N1lHlM!BI' OF TI'n:.E 21 OF fflE CARLSBAD IOnCIPAL CXXE. Kilte Holzmiller, Land U&e Planning Kanager, discussed the thr• reoomendationa made at the City Council Keet ing the prl!'llioua evening: L Requiring out.door employee eating areas in the industrial and c,:amercial zones. 2. Staff looking at C0111ing up with special developnent •~ on grading. 3. Parking requirements for R3 and higher density zones. F'l>r row " Ra!i>otis X X Marcus X 9nith l( Schlehuber X l'tFadden L'Heureux X Farrow X Rallbotis X "'rcus X Snith X Sch.l&huber X l'tPadden X X L'Heureux X ® MINUTES PU!illIN:. CCHUSSION l'brch 13, 1985 Page 13 Cbuncil agreed to looking at all three items. Item no. l vaa moved forward at this time since it is eaay to do. 'ftle other two !tens will be held until after the Citizen 0:llllllittee ocmpletes the laoo use developDE!t"lt in July. By proper motion, the meeting of !'larch 13, 1985, was adjourned at 8: 31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Manager Ruth Stark Minutes Clerk HE!TI !CS ARE ALOO TAPED N<> KEP'l' CII FI U: Lim'! L ffl£ l'I INIJ'l'&S AR! APPA:'IYED.