HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-08; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES
MEETit«; OF:
DATE OF MEETit«;:
TIME OF MEETit«;:
PLACE OF HEE'l'It«.:
PLANNitl; OJf+IISSION
January 8, 1986
6:00 P.H.
City Courdl Chambers COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Schlehube~ at 6:00 p.m.
ROtL CALL
Present: Chairman SchJ~huber, Cannissioners
McFadden, 9ni th, Hall, Harcus , Hc:Bane and
Holmes
Absent· None.
Staff Hent>ers Present:
Gene Donovan, City Engineer
Charles Grimn, Principal Planner
Hike Howes, Associate Planner
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Ker.t Sears, Traffic Engineer
Brad 'lberrian, Principal Ci ty Engineer
~LEDGE OF ALI.EX:;IAOCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber.
PLANNit«; CCMUSSIOO PROCIDURES
Chainnan Schlehuber called attention to the Planning
Cannission Procedures being shown on the screen and asked
the audience to take a few minutes to read than.
mw PUBLIC HFARit«;
6) aJP-280 -CARia3AD UNIFIID OCHOOL DISTRICT -Request
for a conditional use permit for the developnent of
an elementary school on Villages "t-r• and "N" of the
Calaver.a Hills Master Plan in the P-C zone.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, informed the
Camlission that there were sane conditions included in
Itan 16 that would not apply to a public agency.
A motion was passed continuing Item 16 until January 22,
1986, subject to opening the public hearing for those
speakers who were planning to speak that evening and could
not return for the January 22, 1986 meeting.
Chairman Schlehuber opened the public hearlng at 6:10 p.m.
to those people who uanted to speak on the i ten and would
not be able to attend the January 22, 1986 hearing. Since
no one wished to speak at this titre, the public t9Stbrony
was concluded at that time.
Schlehuber
McFadden
Snith
Hall
Marcus
~
Holmes
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
MINUTES
\~ ~
PLANNI~ a:>P1'1I8SION January B, 1986 Page 2
\' \t\ ,o""' ~ ~ 'S!
COMMISSIOtlERS ~ \ \_ \
COOTINUFD PUBLIC HFARitrn
1) SOP 85-11 -ALICANTE VI&l APAR'IMENTS -Request for
awroval of a site developnent plan to develop 74
apartment units on 5.14 acres located west of Altisma
Way between Caringa Way and Alicante Road in the ~M
zone.
Charles Grimn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation ~
this i tern as contained in the staff report, using a
transparency t o show the site and a wall map to shc:,,1 the
pr ~ project. He described the project in detail and
discussed the traffic issue. Mr. Grimn stated that staff
coulc not recrmnend awroval of the project until the
Cl.lllllati ve traffic inpacts lriere looked at so sto ff was
recannending a continuance of the item.
01aionan Schlehuber requested that Mr . Grimn point out the
boundaries of the area in question.
Cannissioner McFadden wanted to know how long staff would
be reccmnending the continuance for, and Mr. Grirrm replied
that it would be 11ntil the traffic study W':IS coopleted and
accepted by Ci ty Counci 1.
When asked if this would include proposed solutions, Mr.
Grinm replied that it would.
Cannissior:er Smith aske:l the time factor involved, and
Gene Donovan , City Engineer, respon&rl that they
anticipated that the report would be received around t,,e
first of February, at which time his d~~rtment would
review i t and pass i t on to City Council. In response to
a query by Chairman Schlehuber, Mr. Donovan e1.plained that
the consultllnt was asked to cane up with different fund i ng
alt ernatives . Mr. Donovan also concurred that ni;1ety days
would be a reasonable zwoount of time to expect the report
to be conpleted and awroved by the City Counci 1.
Cannissioner Hc:Bane asked Mr. Donovan if he felt confident
that there was an economical solution to the problem, and
Hr. Donovan replied that it was probably so.
Cannissioner McBane pointed out the sensitivity of the
area along the l agoon banks, and Cannissioner Smi th wanted
to know if the inprovenwmts would have to go to the
voters. Mr. Donovan replied that it pr0bctbly would, and
Chairman Schlehuber explained tlmt there were exceptions
which might not requi re the vote.
Oulirman Schlehuber asked Hr . Donovan i f the survey would
indi011te if the plans or densi ties should also change to
~ndle future traffic, and Hr. Donovan irx.licated that if
the oonaultant found sanething unique, it wou ld cane out,
but generally they were to accept the zonl.ng or Genera l
Plan land use in the City. He added that if t her e was a
piyaical reetraint where a stroot -=oold not be widei,oo,
other areaa surrounding it would be looked at (or possible
chanrJ•·
Camisaioner McFadden asked staff for the nlmt>er of other
apartment• in the southeast quadrant, aoo Hr. Gri.mn
explained otaff'a problem with determining the specific
rUllber of apartments in the quadrant.
MINUTES
Pl.ANNI~ OJMotISSION January 8, 1986 Page 3 COMMISSIONERS
Camiissioner McFadden stated that she would 1 ike to have
that information.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, explained t~at it
would require doing a lan3 use inventory of La Costa, am
discussed why. He camiented that when the La Costa !'ester
Plan is reviewed, the information would be included ..
Cannissioner McFadden said that it WJS hard to vote on the
project when they did not know how mar.y apartments were
out there.
Cannissioner Snith reiterated staff's recomnemation to
continue all iterrs in La Costa until the situntion was
renedied and asked how the EIR 1i«>Uld be affected.
Cllairmari Schlehuber explained that each project had a
negative declaration furnished ard would have to be
determined on an irdividual basis.
Cannissioner Harcus asked for clarification of Mr. Grinm's
figures regarding 20 recently awroved apartments units,
and Mr • Gr imn confirmed that it ~,-as correct, a 1 though it
is iq>ossible to determine the mnber of cordominh.lllS that
were rented as ai:artments.
Cannissioner Harcus wanted to know if they would have more
accurate stock if they included cordaniniums in the
figure, and Mr. Grimn said he didn't know but discussed
why many developers build a project as a cordauiniun ard
then rent the units as ai:art:ments
Cllairman Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Nick Bandle, ~10 Mission Avenue, Oceanside,
represented the awliC!lllt ard talked about the history of
the project am cannented that there weren't any
traditional planning issues remaining. He described the
apartment units and discussed the traffic situation in the
area, ~ing that the project would not be built until
City Council decided what to do with the area. Mr. Bandle
added that the densities would always be for a n11ltifmnily
C0111)lex am discussed the moratoriln. He requested that
if the project couldn't be ar:,proved that the Camiission
aend it forw1trd with no action.
Oaah:n11n Schlehuber requested that Mr. Pringle discuss the
findings of his traffic report.
Mr. Mes Pringle, 2651 Eas~ Chapnan, Fullerton, described
the findings of his traffic report, aa outlined in his
letter dated October 31, 1985 addressed to Mr. Kuykerdall,
tfhich wu incll.ded with the staff report. Mr. Pringle
alao di11CW1s:ad an IClJ &mnary of La Costa's Ulrrent
Projects, which he displayed as a transparency am
6iatriwtad to members of the Cannission.
Owaiman Sc:hlehlber Hked Mr. P'.:ingle to explain the
diff1trencee in the d2ficient lew-ls, ard Mr. Pr.ingle
indicated that at the C level, it would 11&1n waiting for
one light, ancl at the F level, it wuuld probably mean
witing for more than one light.
0.irmn Schlehuber aaked about the road capacities at La
Calta at I-5 am El Canino Real, and Hr. Pringl diacuaaed
tilell.
MINUTES
PL.ANNI~ CXHUSSION January 8, 1986 Page 4
Chairman Schlehuber wanted to know how the 1 ist of
proposed projects noted on the IOJ SI.Jmlary was obtained,
an:'I Hr. Pringle explained it was obtained from previOU:,
studies an:'I information his firm had.
Camlissioner !:lnith expressed concern about La Costa Avenue
and the traffic flow an:'I stated that one of the most
critical areas was I-5 an:'I La Costa Avenue at peak hours.
He asked why this intersection was not included.
Hr. Pringle carmented that at the time the study was done,
they did not have the volume information for that
intersection. He added that he understood that mitigation
of the problE!llS at th;s intersection were being pursued.
Ms. Margaret Robison, 2340 F Caringa, Carlsbad,
represented the Casa Gra,.!de CORJominil.rns and talked about
two lawsuits involving properties adjacent to the site
regarding substar!dard soil. She expressed her concerns
abot•t erosion, transients and traffic and stated that the
project was not carpatible with the surrour!ding ure~. Ms.
Robison also wanted to know where there was going to be a
park in the area.
Mr. Banche reepor!ded to Ms. Robison's ccmnents and
indicated that the substar!dard soil would be cured in the
engineering function. He described hCM traffic was a
result of urbanization, and reiterated that if the
Cannission cculd not aE'.t)rove the project, that they send
it forward to Council with no action an:'I ask Council to
aE'.t)rove it.
Ms. Betty Mitchell, La Casa Grande, Carlsbad, said that
there would be no way to get to the apartments except fran
Alicante. She also asked where there was going to be a
park in the area.
ChaiDDan Schlehuber replied that the park issue was a
larger issue that was not beipg_gJ.ssussed that evening,
but Cannissioner McFack'SP.11, a,..~ of the Parks and
Recreation Cannission, answered the question.
Mr. Hal !Cuykendall, 401 West A Street, San Diego, pointed
out that they were agreeing with the condition that no
units would be built until they participated in an
aa•essment district.
Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public
testia>ny was concluded at 7:00 p.m.
Camissioner McFadden asked Kent Sears how he felt about
the traffic conaultant's report.
l{ent Sears, Traffic Engineer, camiented that Mr. Pringle's
report was accurate in items of runbers and methods used
but adcSed that it was possible that all the proposed
projects were not included in the figures. Mr. Sears
concurred with Mr. Pringle's figures for the intersections
af Alga am Alicante, am Alga and El <:am.ino Real, but
indicated that at La Costa Avenue they were now at
capacity an:! on the roadway at I-5. He eqlhasized that at
the present time there were no inproverients or fuming and
that they have to look at the existing systan.
MINUTES
PL.ANNIN:; CX>l+IISSION January 8, 1986 Page 5
Camdssioner Marcus r->d a question regarding figures used
in Mr. Pringle's study, and Mr. Pringle confirmed that
ttr,se figures were at buildout.
Cannissioner HcBane asked if the new Alga Hills project
was included in the ICU Slmnary, and Mr. Pringle respoooed
that it was included although it was not typed on the
S\Dlllary sheet.
Mr. Grir.~ ~lso pointed out that the Alicante Hills
Crossroods project was denied at the City Council the
evening before (494 units).
Cannissioner Hall asked about the soil comition, and Mr.
Donovan replied that it would be taken care of.
Chairman Schlehuber queried whether credit was given for
the steep hill when the density figures were conp.1ted, and
Mr. Grimn answered that he believed they were not in
excess of 401 so they were counted.
Cannissioner Hall asked for clarification r~garding the
options am condition U9, arx'l Mr. Grllml explained that
the options were developed before the Planning Carmission
had returned the i tern to staff for approval.
Cannissioner Marcus ccrrrnente1 that she felt it was an
excellent apartment project and was compatible with the
surroum i ng area. She addeJ that with com it ion 119 , she
had no problem moving it on to Council since she felt that
it should be stopped at the Council and not at the
Planning Camlission.
Camlissioner Holmes stated that he did not agxee with
Camtissioner Marcus, and that based on what he heard, he
could not approve anything in the La Costa area until t.he
traffic stud~ was coaplete1.
Cllah:man Schlehuber mentioned he had a problem with the
time, and was willing to put ninety days at the O;Jtside
limit. He talkad about the negative declaration and
explainoo that he could not approve it since there were
environnental inpacts which could not be resolved now. He
said that he felt it was a good project, and that under
normal ~irC\mlltanoes he would have no problem with it, wt
he was c:oncemed about the C\mllative i.qlact of the
traffic. He added that there was also a question of
rllether it could be solved financially.
Camiissioner &nith conc:urred wi th Chairman Schlehuber and
rtHll'l1)hasilll8d that the C\m1lative iapsct was iq:,ortant to
look at f r this project and other projects caning through
in future meetings. He noted that they should be
consistent, and that although he lilted the project, he
would agree that option 11 was a valid one.
Camliseioner McSm\e cannented that he was inl>ressed by
the project and wu also concerned by the C\mllative
effect. He stated that he felt leaving it open ende1
would be too lenient, wt would go along with a ninety day
limit.
Olah:mm Schlehuber confirmed that he was oot saying that
the project was a poor project wt that he wanted to see
the reports before making a decision.
MINUTES
PI.MN!~ Ol'NISSION January 8, 1986 Page 6
Ca!missioner Harcus askErl about the option to deny and
wondered what the applicant preferred.
Carmissioner Hall indicated that he felt the project was
done very well and that if staff was ccmfortable with
condition fl9, he could approve the project.
Ccmnissioner McFao3en stated that she thocght it was a
very good project but that it was necessary to be
consistent in the traffic area, and that it should be
continue:3. She indicated she would go along with a time
period of ninety days.
Mr. Banche made a request that if the Cannission denied
the project, they would include in the record that
everyone seemed to like the project but that was not the
issue. He added that he would rather they go forwa;-:d with
an approval of the prc::ect and that he was concerned that
in another ninety days they would have to wait again. Mr.
Banche said that if it was 'l matter of denial, he would
respectfully ask for a continuance.
A mtion was passed continuing this item for a period of
ninety days at the maxi.nun, or until the traffic study
has been caq,leted, whichever is sooner.
2) c·r 84-43/CP-302 -CASA LCMA CONDOS -Request for
approval of a tentative tract map and condanini1.1n
permit to develop 18 units along the north side of
Luciernaga Street, at the first un:ieveloped property
east of Cebu Street.
Charles Grinm, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on
this i tan as contained in the staff report, using a
transparency to show the site and wall map; to show the
propoeed project. He described the project in detail an:i
discussed the slope, and adde:3 that the traffic problem
waa a l'lllljor issue with this i tan an:i that t·he options were
basically the same as with Item '1.
Camtissioner McFadden aske:3 about cordition 135A on page 7
of tht! Resolution, and Brad Therrian, Principal City
l!ngineer, responded that this was a catchall cordi t.ion.
Chah:man Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
and isaued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Ronald Feenstra, 4550 Kerny Villa Road, San Diego,
architect, discussed the history of the project, an:i in
r•ponae to cannents made by the Carmissioners, he state:3
that the P'ire Department went throu¢1 the project at each
phue and found it acceptable for fire trucks and trash
trucka to tum around. He d-!!scribed the b.'o car garage
parking underneath the buildinc; and discussed other facets
of the design which he felt were compatible with the
neighborhood. Mr. Feenstra said that they were willing to
■olve any other objectims to the deeign that may have
ari■en. He addr•sad t.ht! traffic issue am explained how
thi• project was different from Itan fl.
Schlehuber X
McFadden X
9nith X X
Hall X
Marcus X
HcBane X
Holmes X
MINUTES
PLN.iNl!«i c:nNISSION January 8, 1986 Page 7
Hs. Marylynn Brown-Bellman, 2638 Luciernaga, Carlsbad,
represented the La Costa CCY.1tlllloity Awareness Group and
stated that t.hey would s1JrP0rt the position of continuing
the La Costa projects until the traffic studies were
coq>leted. 8le pointed out the amounts of condos in the
imnediate area, and stated that several had gone back to
the bank and were being used as rental properties.
Chairman Schlehuber asked Ms. Brown-BelL,r'ln' s opinirm as a
professional planner regarding the location of single
family and ll'A.llti-family dwellings, and Ms. Brown-Bellman
responded to his question.
Since no one else wished to speak on this itan, the public
testimony was concluded at 7:38 p.m.
Cannissioner &nith talked about the footage between
driveways, and Ca!missioner McFadden questioned the
density calculation since she felt that the design did not
justify the density.
Hr. Grimn responded that the slope was inckded in the
density calculation, and in response to a query by
Ccmnissioner Holmes, Mr. Grimn explained wiien the slope
would be included in the density calculation. Michael
Holzmiller, Planning Director, clarified that under the
present ordinance, this would be allowed to be calculated
since the slope was 33%.
Chairman Schlehuber carmented that he felt it was a very
dense project am that it would fit into the ninety day
review category without even considering the project.
A notion was passed denying the project because of its
design.
Mr. Grimn pointed out the differences between "denying
without prejudice" and "denying" the project.
A notion was passed to reconsider the itan.
Ocmniasioner Ma:L"CUI" asked staff how they felt about it
going ba...--ll for redesign, and Mr. Grimn respomed that
there were things that could be done to redesign the
project.
A motion was passed denying the project without prejudice.
Schlehuber X
McFadden X X
&nith X
Hall X
Marcus X
Mc:Bane X
Holmes X
Schleruber X
McFadden X
&nith X
Hall X
Harcus X X
McBane X
Holmes X
Schlehuber X
McFadden X X
&nith X
Hall X
Harcus X
HcBane X w,i-@) X
MINUTES
PLANK!ING <XfflISSION January 8, 1986 Page 8
COMMISSIONERS
Olairman Schlehuber declared a recess at 7:40 p.m. ard the
Cannission re-convened at 7:50 p.m.
3) CT 85-2 LCDP 8'~-3 -PARK VIEW EAST -Request for a
36 lot 35 unit Tentative Tract Map and a La Costa
Developnent Permit for Neighoorhood SE-10 of the La
Costa Master Plan, located along the west side of
Mision Estancia approximately 280 feet south of La
Costa Avenue.
Hike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation on
this item as contained in the staff report, using a
transparency to show the site. Mr. Howes gave an overview
of the general area and then described the project in
detail. He irdicated that staff was recannerding
continuance due to the traffic concerns in La Costa.
Cannisaioner Smith wanted to know if a noise analysis was
neC"eSsary as required in cordition 126, ard Mr. Howes
replied that since the road would be carrying traffic in
the future, it was necessary to determine what type of
wall would be needed to buffer the noise.
In response to a query by Cannissioner Snith regarding
cordition 127, Hr. Howes explained what was being done.
Cannissioner HcBane asked about the sewage drainage system
and the effect on the riparian habitat.
Mr. Howes clarified that this would be looked at when they
design the project and that saie things could be done.
Ccmnissioner Hc::Bane discussed the swimning pool amenity
and access, an:! Mr. Howes in:licat~ that the applicant
could respond to his question.
Cannissioner Smith pointed out that 24 feet wide streets
u outlined in con:lition 143 would be very tight and asked
about the possibility of widening the street. He
suggested having sidewalks on one side an:! enlarging the
streets.
Hr. HOIIN!8 canaented that it appeared that it could be done
and explained what the tradeoff would be.
Olairmn Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
ard issued the invitation to speak.
Hr. Mike Ryan, represented the applicant, ·~ard Kao, 3312
Verado, Carlabad, ard discusaed th.~ history of the
project. He 811>haaized that all the project issues had
t..r'I :-:•ol we! and that the density was at the low en:! of
the denaity range. Hr. Ryan discussed the traffic inpact
of the project and discussed other issues including
00111?liance with City Counci'. Policy 117, public utilities
fa ard oordition 161, ~~ comition 128. Although it was
• -11 project and did r.ot have to go to City C,:,mcil,
Hr. Ryan 9UIJ9ffted adding a con:lition requirhto.J th..•t !t go
to City Council. Hr. Ryan reapomed to Cannbsioner
ftcllline'• CJ199tion regarding the riparian habitat.
MINUTES
PLANNit,i:; CDtUSSION January 8, 1986 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS
Comnissioner ~ith asked Mr. Ryan to carment on the width
of the streets. Mr. Ryan replied that they met City
standards and that the project was constrained by its
size. He stated that one sidewalk did not work.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public testimony
was concluda:3 at 8:14 p.m.
Ccmnissioner Harcus said she thought this was an excellent
project and met City standards. ~e suggested sending it
back to City Council and letting then make the decision on
the moratori\111 since condition t28 was included.
Ccmnissioner Holmes expressa:3 his normal concern with
traffic in the area am stated he agreed with Ccmnissioner
~ th that 24' streets were not satisfactory.
Comnissioner McFadden stated that she felt this was a good
project and was well designed, but that she had to be
consistent and would have to go with cor.dnuing the
project for a ninety period.
Ccmnissioner ~ th also concurred that the project was a
fine project, but that he would have to be consistent.
Ca!missioner Hall asked if the applicant was willing to
agree to ninety days or would they want it voted on that
evening, and Mr. Ryan replied that given the choice, they
would prefer a denial but ~ith the wording included that
it was not due b any problE!IIS with the project itself but
merely because of sane perceived traffic problems.
Chairman Schlehuber indicated t-.hat he thought this was a
good project, and since there were potential problems with
24' streets, time should be taken to see if the streets
cc.uld be widened.
A l'll>tion was passed denying the projert based on traffic
circulation problems and 24' wide streets, even though
the project was a good project.
4) CT 84-ts77 -ALGA HILLS -Request for approval
of a 3l\mt tentative tract map and planned unit
developnent, located at the southeast corner of Alga
Road and Alicante Road.
Olarlea Grinm, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on
this itan as containa:i in the staff report, using a trans-
panncy to show the site. He discussed the history and
..nitiee of the project and talked about access in and
out of the project, and recarmended a through access on
Alicante.
Cllllirman Schlehuber openM the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
ad iumd the invitation to speak.
Hr. BClb c..ciwig, 3088 Pio Pico, Carlsbad, represented the
ai:plicant an1 diacuaaed what had transpired previously
with thia project. He eaphaaized that the applicant
ooai tte! to the reeidenta that they would support the
plan u preeents! to too City, and suggested that a
Schlehuber
McFadden
~ith
Hall
Harcus
McBane
Holmes
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
r,
MINUTES
PLANNil«i CXN-USS ION January 8, 1996 Page 10
traffic signal be installed on Alga at the northerly
entrance. He referred to the Circulation Element that was
approved by the Planning Carmission recently, and added
that the existing streets could handle the projects. Mr.
Ladwig addressed the concerns about the 24' streets and
pointed to an exhibit and explained how the streets could
be increased in width.
Cannissioner Marcus asked Mr. Ladwig if they were willing
to go along with not pulling any building permits until
the construction of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue
began, and Mr. Ladwig indicated that they would like a
decision so they could go forward.
Ms. Marlene Panerantz, 7035 Al icante Road, Carlsbad,
represented the La Costa Carmunity Awareness Group, and
discussed concerns regarding circulation, density,
carpatibility and quality of life in the area. She talke::l
about the i~rtance of having the main a~ss on Alga
Rood and ad:ied that this i;::oject was more consistent with
the existing neighborhood than the original one. Ms.
Panerantz requeste::l that if there w~ no change to the
circulation request that there sh01.·.ld be a change to a 0-4
dwelling uni tE range.
Ms. Marylynn Brown-Bellman, 2638 Luciernaga, Carlsbad,
explained that the gr0up was working with staff and the
applicant on the project and discusse::l what had
transpire::l. She listed some of the concerns they had
which include::l access on Alga, permanent ?irking,
and necessary zone changes, and mentioned that the public
notice received by residen'::s was not listed on the ageooa.
Ms. Brown-Bellman :::equested that the current project be
denied.
Mr. &:3 Rhodes, 7027 Alicante, Carlsbad, reiterate::l what
Ms. Brown-Bellman said and added that the project as it
stood met the desires of the property owners.
Mr. Ladwig approached the podhm, and requested that the
Planning Cannission move forward with the project.
Chairman Schlehuber asked about the lots that ~re 3100
square feet, and Mr. Ladwig pointed <'"':: that many of the
lots were well over 3000 square feet and that they were
not aware of auy standard of 3500 square feet.
('ftle public notice sent out to the residents was
distributed amng the ment>ere of the Planning Canniosion.
'ftle Minutm Clerk did not get a copy of it to include wit~
the minute.'3.)
Mr. Grinm rt.'8ponded to the questions regarding a standard
of 3500 a:JUIIY.e feet and indicated that it was a policy
that was eot.\blished five months ago, and that the project
designer w~s l1llde aware of it in July.
Canaissioner &nith asked for comnents regarding staff's
reoanerdationa on the access points, and Mr. Ladwig
annered that they net with the property owners and
prefernd the alternatives presented. He also added that
the aR)licant was willing to go to 3500 square feet.
Sinoe no one else wished to speak, the public tl!stimony
waa concluded at 8:49 p.m. ..
MINUTES
PLANNIOO O'.>i'l~ISSION January 8, 1986 Page 11 \\~ ~\ 0 ~ A ~ ,,..,_ :A -~
COMMISSIONERS g,_ ~ ~
camtissioner ~i th stated that he went to the location
several times aoo was concerned about the turn into Alga
Road since the curb made it dangerous. In addition, he
said that there was a problem with u-turns aoo that he
felt very strongly that A street should go through to
Alicante which could haoole the traffic.
Cornnissioner McFadden concurred with Catlnissioner ~ith.
She said that the road should go through aoo that the
project should go back aoo be redesigned so that the lots
were brought up to 3500 square feet.
Catlnissioner Hol.Ires also 3greed with the c ·':.her
ccmnissioners arrl ccmnented that he felt that safety
factors were being ignored; that a right in aoo right out
was the only way to do it.
Cannissioner Harcus sai d that the street circulation was
unbelievable, the lots were substaooard, aoo the streets
needed widening. She suggested that it should be sent
back to staff for further revision aoo come back to the
Planning Ccmnission in a couple of weeks.
Chairman Schlehuber cannented that it was a fairly good
project aoo he would like to see the 24' street9 changed
to 32' streets. He added that he thought the 3500 square
foot lots could be ~, ... rked out. Chairman Schlehuber
addressed the traffic inpact problems arrl stated that he
could not get by the ninety day problem. Therefore, he
said, he could not agree to continuing the project for two
more weeks.
Ccmnissioner Harcus asked if the applicant read coooition
138, aoo the response was affirmative.
Ccmnissi0112r ~ th mentioned he would not like to &ee the
project come back like this in ninety days.
Chairman Schlehuber asked Hr. Ladwig what the applicant's
preference was, aoo Hr. Ladwig wanted to know if it came
back in two weeks with changes, would they still be
looking at a denial?
Camlissioner ~ th replied that the ninety day limit would
probably still be in effect.
Cannisaioner f1c:Fadden pointed out that she would like the
redesign to come back in two weeks, arrl then decide at
that point ttlether or not to go on.
A motion was llllllde sending Itau U back to staff for a
redesign of the pi.-oject in two weeks to include the
auggeetiona made regarding widening the streets, bringing
lota up to standard size, changing street A eo that it
would go through from Alicante to Alga, changing the Alga
~ in and out so that it would be right tum only, and
eliminating the other right in only to the west on Alga.
'nlll motion waa BeC'Onded and opened for discussion.
Chairman Sdllehuber stated that he would vote against it
becauae in two weeka there would still be the ninety day
prcblem. He added that he would rather deny the project w have it go to Council, during which time the applicant
could make the appropriate changes.
@
MINUTES
PLANNit-X; ClJl'oMISSION January 8, 1986
COMMISSIONERS
Ccmnisaioner Harcus indicated she would 1ike to see what
the project lookerl like before she approved it.
Ccmnissicmer McFadden pointed out that Council members had
mentioned that the Planning Ccmnission should iron out
some of the details oofore the projects rear.bed Couocil.
A 1001.:ion was passed sending Item t4 back to staff for a
re:3esign of the project in two weeks to include the
suggestions made regarding widening the streets, bringing
lots up to standard size, changing street A so tha~ it
would go through frcm Alicante to Alga, changing the Alga
access in and out so that i t would be right only, and
eliminating the other right in only to the west on Alga.
8) GP.!\ILU 85-13/ZC-342 -CITY OF CARLSBAD (ALGA
HILLS -Request for a General Plan anerrlment fran
Residential HecEum High (RMH 8-15 du/ac) to
Residential Medlln (RH 4-8 du/ac) and a zone cha'1C]P.
fran RD-M to RD-~5 for a 64 acre site located at the
southeast corner of Alga Road 3frl Alicante Road.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, suggesterl that the
Camiission might want to continue Item t8 because it tied
directly with the project being considered that evening.
(Cannissioner McFadden left the meeting at ~:05 p.m.)
O:mnissioner McBane asked that the issue regarding the
public notice be clarified.
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained why the
public notice was worded in a specific manner.
A iootion was passed continuing Item t8 for two weeks.
Nl!W PUBLIC HEARit«.S
5) CT SS-16/PUD-85 -LAN:ASTER 'l'OOOfOfES -Request for
approval of a tentative subdivision map and planned
unit developnent to develop 14 units on the sooth
s ide of Alga Road between Alicante Road and
Luciernaga Snee>; in the R-2 zone.
Mike Howes , Associate Planner, gave the presentation on
this itan as contained in the staff report, using a
transparency to sh°'1 the site. He explained that this was
a r ough site to develop due to the water tower and
electric substation nearby, and described the project in
detail. Baaed upon the traffic concerns, he concluded
that staff was recontbl!laling continuance of the project.
Chainmn Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 9:ll p.m.
and iuuei5 the invitation to speak.
Nr. Bric Waite, 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Encinitas, stated
that the traffic impact in and out of this project would
be iaininl. He explai ned what had been taken into
oonaideration during the design of the project, and quoted
a neie#lbOr'• C011111Bnta aboot it. Hr . Waite requested the
Oalaiuion to go ahead with the project.
Schlehuber
l'tFadden
Smith
Hall
Marcus
1'4.cBane
Holmes
Schlehuber
Smith
Hall
Marcus
Mc:Bane
Holmes
@
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
MINUTES
PLANNING cntiti:SSION JanUdrj 8, 1986 Pa~ 13
Ccmnissioner Smith asked if the project met the
regulations for standards for proximity next to a water
tower ard electric facility, and Hr. HOW'Ees responded that
they never had any problens before, but that &taff would
look into it.
Ccmnissioner Harcus asked if the condition required of the
other projects would be included with this one, and Hr.
Howes resporded that the cordition requiring the applicant
to participate in the traffic solution for La Costa ~hould
be included.
Mr. Waite indicated that they agreed to cooperate on a
proratll basis.
Ms. Marylynn Brown-Bellman, 2638 Luciemaga, Carlsbad,
expressed concerns about the circulation and discussec1
problam with speed on Alga Road. She carmented that most
people would not be using the Rancho Sante Fe exits.
Since no one else wi3hed to speak on this i ten, the public
hearing was concluded at 9: 19 p.m.
Ccmnissioner Holmes stated that he had the usual traffic
study problem aoo that he had troo..Jble with the 25' wide
lots.
Connissioner HarC\,s said that she had the same feeling on
this project &S with the others, ard that the condition
regarding pa~ticipation in t.~e traffic solution should be
added to it and the project should be sent on to the City
C.ouncil.
camdssioner Hc£ane camiented that this project was a
fairly creative one considering it was on a difficult
site. Fran a consistency point, Conmissioner HcBane
explained that it needed to be made subject to the traffic
study.
O.inmn Schlehuber agreed that it was a creative project,
but that he had some problems with the streets since he
didn't know where guests would be able to park, and would
have to vote against the project for that reason. He
continued and said that there was also the ninety day
prabl•-
Brad Therrian, Principal City F.ngineer, pointed out a typo
on condition 143, correcting the radius fran 50' to 40'.
'!be applicant expressed his preference for a denial.
A .otion wu made denying CT 85-16/PUD-85 -Lancaster
'l'olmhcw, for the reason of the traffic concerns, and not
••-of arry of the shortcomings of the project. 'nie
aotion wa seoon!ed and opened for discuseion.
O.iman Schlehuber indicated that he would vote against
it became he felt that there was more to it than that.
OlaniNioner Holmes also stated he would vote against it
bec:aUN the 24' streets and 25' lots were too small.
MINUTES
January 8, 1986 Page 14
A motion denying CT 85-16/Prn>-85 -Lancaster Townhanes was
voted on. The motior\ failed due to lack of a majority.
A motion was passed continuing Itan ts for 90 days and
requesting that they work out the things discussed.
7) V-369 -SFA PINE PARTNERS -Request for approval of a
variance to &iild carports in a sideyard setback on
the north side of Chinquapin Avenue behleen Garfield
Street aril the AT&SF Railroad.
Mike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation on
this itan as contalned in the staff report and explained
why the requested variance was necessary.
Camrlssioner &ni th asked about the lighting and Mr. Howes
suggested that he ask the applicant about it.
Chainnan Schlehuber opened the public hearin-J ::.t 9:28 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Michael Straub, 2956 Roosevelt, stated that he had
nothing to add to staff's report, hut did indicate that
the lighting would be inside the carport.
Ccmnissioner McBane asked if the lighting would be
shielded fran other propertieG, and Mr. Straub responded
that they would be up inside the carport and that the
structure would shield it.
Camrlssioner Holmes questioned the height of the block
wall, and Mr. Strmm indicated it wouldn't be any higher
than 8' 6·.
Sinoe no one else wished to speak on the i ten, the public
testimony was concluded at 9~30 p.m.
A mtion was E,assed directing staff to include a
ooooition that the carports have adequate lighting.
9) ~LO 8S-7/ZCr337 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Request for a
ral Plan !lllf!rdaent fran lMf (Residential Medillll
High) to 11'1 (Reaidential Medi1m1) and a zone change
fran ~M (Reaidenti&~ Density ~ltiple) to Rl)..M-6.50
for a 1.58 acre property l ocated on the south side of
La Costa Avenue, west of La Coruna Plaoe.
OMlrl• Griai, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on
thi• it:an as contained in the staff report, using a
tranaparency to show the site. He discussed the back-
growd of thia requeat am indicated that staff was
re.:.w,.ding approval of the proposed change.
Schlehuber X
Snith X
Hall X
Marcus X X
McBane X
Holmes X
Schleniber X X
&nith X
Hall X
Marcus X
Ptt3ane X
Holmes X
Schlehuber X
faith X
Hall X
Marcus X
McBane X
Holmes X X
MINUTES
PLANNit«. CXHUSSION January 8, 1986 Page· 15
Oll!irman Schlewber opene1 the public heari ng at 9:35 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Jonathan Green, La Corona Place, Car.lebad, asked a
questic-r regarding stipulations for single family hanes
am stated that the neighbors would 1 ike to see the 0-4
designation.
Mr. Fred D'Altroy, 7617 La Coruna Place, Carlsbad,
discussed the designation and stated that t raffic should
be kept as low as possible. He also refe red to the
problen8 with getting on to La Costa AVL""O\le.
Hr . Frank Griswall, 2204 Garnett AvenJe, San Diego,
represented the owner am discussed the desi gnation. He
stated that the project was carpatible wi ':h the single
family desi gn in the surrouming area and that it would
serve as a buffer between ROH and single family hemes.
Since no one else wished to speak on this i ten, the public
testimony was concl uded at 9:49 p.m.
Cannissioner Harcus camiented that she was glad to E·t!e it
come in since it was a difficult piece of property.
Cannissioner Holmes mentioned that he had no problems with
it.
Camtissioner Snith concurred with Cannissioner ~cus, and
added that he would not want to see m:>re than four.
'lbe Planning Cannission reccmnemed approval of the
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
adopted the following Resolutions:
RESOLUTION t«>. 2525 ~It«; APPROITAL OF AN AMEND-
MBNT TO THE LN«> USE ELEH8NT OF THE GENEW.L PLAN FRCl1 RMi
(8-15 DU/AC) TO 114 (4-8 DO/AC) ON PR<PERTY GFN!'JW.',Y
LOCATED ON THE 9XJffl SIDE OF LA CX>STA AVmtJE, WEST OF LA
CDIIJNA PLACE.
RESOLUTION t«>. 2526 ~IN-J ._.,PlC\TAL OF A WNE ClfANGE
!Kl4 ~M TO ~M 6.!H) ON PR<PERTY GPNERAILY LOCATFD ON
THE 9XJ'nl SIDE OF LA COSTA AVIHJE, WEST OF LA CDRONA
PLACE.
10) Z0.-187 -CITY OF CAR[SW) -An amendment t o the ZOning Ordinance to m:>dify the City's parking
requiraaents and standards.
Oli!irman Schlewber suggested that there was additional
feedback that the Caanission may want befo~.e voting c.n
thi& itan.
Hike Howes, Auociate Planner, stated that the infoD!llltion
coold be included with the packet for the next meeting.
A motion was made continuing Item no for two ,:oeeks.
O:..iuioner K--3ane asked about ac.uresaing the issues
regarding street widths in projects, and Michael
Holailler, Planning Director, rep\ied that it would be
covered urder ~ different ordi "anoe.
Schlehuber X
&nith X
Hall X X
Harcus l[
HcBane X
Holmes X
MINUTES
PLANNIM:. CXM1ISSICII January 8, 1966 Page 16
A motion was pas&(!d continuing Item UO for two •.: .. ~ks.
Mr. Holmiiller added that if t.lie Ca:nnissioners had a ,v
other concerns, they should let the Planning Cepartment
know. Mr. Howes cumnitted to mailing out the requested
information the next day.
DI&:USSICII ITJIJ'I
11) PC»-85 -P'ITZGERAID-IRVINE -A request for a four
unit apartment building on property located on the
east side of Garfield Street between Chinguapin
Aveme and Sequoia Averue in the RD-M zone of the
Beach Area Overlay zone.
Mike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation on
this itan as contained in the staff report, using a
transparency to show the site. He explained that staff
was recanneming denial and disc.l.lse:I the reasons.
The Planninq Callnission adopted the following Resol.ution:
RESOLUTICII t«>. 2527 D~ffIM:. THE CX>NSTROCTION OF A FOOR
UNIT APARl'Ml!NT BOHDIM:. ON PROPERT'i ~LY LOCAT.:ID <II
THE &\.S'l' SIDE OF GARFIELD STREET BETWEEN CHHfJOAPIN AVENUE
All> SQJOIA AVJHJE.
INPOll'IATICII ITJIJ'IS
U) MHIAL RFADOP'J'ION OF PU\NNIM:. C(HUSSION BY-LAWS
'I.be Planning Coomission adopted the following Resolution:
RBSOUn'ICIJ t«>. 2521 ADCPTI!«'i PLA!tiI~ cnt-lISSION Pii>ciwR!S l!'OR 1986
With the following modifications:
Include the revisions outlined in the mem:> fran the City
Attorney to the Planning Cannission dated January 8, 1986.
13) RBVIJ!W OF PC.ANNI~ C(HUSSION AGF.ll>A F'Olf1AT
A motion was passed continuing It.en tl3.
'I.be Minutes of Deoerlt>er 11, 1986 were a9Proved as
presented.
Schlshuher
Snith
Hall
Marcus
Mc:Bane
Holmes
Schleoober
Snith
Hall
Marcus
McBane
Holmes
Schlehuber
Snith
Hall
Marcus
McBane
Holmes
Schlelu>er
Snith
Hall
Marcus
McBane
Holmes
Schlehuber
Snith
Hall
Marcus
Mc9ane
Holmes
X
X X
l[
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
l
MINUTES
PL.ANNI~ COf'NISSION January 8, 1986 Page 17
COMMISSIONERS
By proper motion, the meeting of January 8, 1986 was
adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully sut:mi tted,
Ruth Stark
Minutes Clerk
MEEl'I!G, ARE Mm TAPED Ml> KEPT ON FILE UNl'IL 'ffiE MINUTES
ARB APPROV!D.
@