Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-26; Planning Commission; Minutes•-MINUTES MEETIOO OF: PLANNIOO CX>N"IISSION fBbnary 26, 1986 6:00 P.M. DATE MEBTIOO: TIME OF i11EETIOO : PLACE OF r!Lr.""l'It'3: City Counc i l Chambers CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Olairman Schlehuber at 6:00 p.m. Present: Chainnan Schlehuber, Cam,issioners McFadden, H2ll, McBan~, 1'4arcus and Holmes. Absent: Camtissioner Harcus. Staff Hanbers Present: Marty Bouna11, Transportation Planne: Olarles Gri.nrn, Assistant Planning Director David Hauser, Act,ng Assistanl City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Nancy Rollman, Assistant Planner PLFDGE OF AI.LlX.IA!CE was led by Ql.drman SChlehuber. .:.~~"WI'S FRCl1 'ffiE AUDIE!CE ON I'l'EMS NOl' LISTID IN THE ~1..\ Ms. Cindy Piro, 1898 Forest Avenue, Car-lsbad, discussed t he Hoap Grove project. (Al though the i trni was on the ~a, the Cannission allowed her to speak.) She expressed her concern that there were to be an additional 88 units in the project than was previously discussed. PLANNIOO CXMUSSION PROCIDURE.S Chainnan Schlehuber called attention to the PlannirxJ Ccmnission Procedures heing shown on the screen aoo asked the audience to take a fP.'>li minutes to read them. 1) CT 81-36(A)/CP-l831A) -WINDSOR C01PANY -Minor revision to two un ts in a previously approved 17 unit comaniniun project locatoo behleen Unicornio Street and Alga Road, east of Corinti a Street in the RD-M zone. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, advised the Ocmaiuio."'I that they received several requests frcn, the audience to speak on this i ten. A a.>t ion was paaaed to ranove Item il fran the Consent Calendar. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this itm u contained in the staff report, using a tr-puency to ahow the aite. He explained why it was being p eMnted before the Planning Callllission. Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall l'tBane Holmes X X X X X X X 'I MINUTES PLANNit«. CX>l'f1ISSION February 26, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Ken Chriss, 2979 State Street, Carlsbad, represented the Windsor Carpany, and stated that he concurnrl with the staff report. He referred to a petition signed by a majority of the existing owners of the project and distributed it to the C',amtission. Camlissioner Holmes asked if additional public parking was gained, and Mr. Chriss responded that the nl.lnber of parking places ranained the $arne. C<Jrmissioner Snith asked about the m.lllber of members of the association, and Mr. Chriss resporded tha • there were seventeer. members, of which eight had signed the petition and wer~ present at the hearing. At the request of Cllairman Schlehuber, thnse members raised their hands. Dr. Bart Billings, 2767 Vista del Oro, Carlsbad, represented three residents who resided at the project-, and two residents who lived in an adjoining project, and spoke in OR)OSit:ion of the proposed changes. He referred to a pero ing lawsuit against the owner and discussed problems that he and other residents were having, which included drainage problems, deviation frc:rn original plans, inadequate perking spaces, and safety. Cannissioner McFadden asked if there was any change in the plan regarding setback, and Mr. HO\i,'es pointed out that any changes carplied with the requirements. He stated that the units were moved approxi.nately 5-7' closer to the road. Cannissioner Holmes wanted to know how the lawsuit would affect the Ccmnission's ruling, and Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, respon:'led that the Cannissior>'s finding was independent of the lawsuit. Cllainnan Schlehuber coofirmed that the Ccmnissioo had taken the position in the past not to get involved in any lawsuit. Chairman Schlehuber asked about Dr. Billings' reference to a public hearing, and Mr. Howes said that a public hearing would have been necessary only for a major revision. Cllairman Schlehuber asked about the sight distance with a 5' setback, ard Hr. HCMeS explained that they wouldn't get high speed traffic within the developnent. A motion was passed appraving the minor revision to CT 81-36 (A) /CP-183 (A) • PUBLIC HEARIOOS New Public Hearings 2) CT 8l-6l(B)/PUD--94~SDP 82-3(~ -POINSE'l"l'IA vtLLAGB -Requeet or approva of an amended t:entati ve tract map, a non-residential planned unit developaent, am an mnended site developnent plan for the construction of a ccmnercial shopping center at the ■outheut corner of Poinsettia Lane am Avenida Encinas in the C-2-Q zooe. Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X Hall X X ~ X Holmes X © MINtJTES PL.ANNI~ CDPfoUSSION February 26, 1986 Page 3 COMMISSIONERS Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the pre:qentation on this item as contained in the staff report, using a transrarency to show the site arrl a wall map to show the proposed project. He described the project in detail, discussed further developnent on the adjacent 10~.s, arrl irrlicated that the project was consistent with the local Coastal Plan. Mr. Howes pointed out that the major issues were the third driveway arrl the size of carpact parking spaces. He aa3ed that Exhibit S sho..11d be deleted arrl there were three minor changes to c orrlitions of approval which were passed out at the beginning of the meeting. (The Minutes Clerk did not receive a copy.) Olaianan Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 6: 30 p.m. arrl issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Rusty Coanbs, Architect, 6595 Riverdale Street, San Diego, discussed the history of the project alYl irrlicated that they differed on the three items raic;ed by staff, arrl explained them in detail. He express-,a concern about conditions 121, 23, arrl 25, arrl discussed the reason~. Mr. Len Shatzmann, Traffic Engineer, 1010 Lirrla Vista, San Marcos, discussed adequate sight distance at the location arrl talked about safety factors at the intersection, h.:iw the sight distance could be mitigated, arrl how the degradation at Avenida Encinas could be addressed. camrls11ioner McFadden aslted if the drawing on the wail was the eame as the informatioo they received, arrl Messrs. Coanbs arrl Shatzmann confirmed what the Carmissioners were looking at. Cannissioner Snith iooicated that the curve was a problem an:! asked if it was p0513ible to dedicate sane property arrl straighten out the road. Mr. Shatzmann respooded that it would infringe quite a bit oo the property arrl described what would happen in that case. He a,\le:1 that the Engineering Dept. took the position that there could not be an i ntersectioo 011 that curve. Olairman Schleruber asked Mr. Shatzmann to discuss his qualifications as a traffic engineer, arrl Mr. Shatzmann provided him with the information. C<11111issioner Hc8iJrle asked if studies were done as to lane capacity of the e:listi:lg shopping center, arrl Mr. Shatzmann referred to several reports arrl in:Hcated that there was no significant change to Avenida Encinas, only to the dri~ay itself. Mr. Coad:>S irrlicated that the only topic of discussion was the places of opening in the street. Mr. Jim Gaube, P.O. Box 3399, Terminal A11nex, Los Angeles, repr nted Safeway and explained that the board of directon approved the project with the assuq,t:ioo that the third driveway would be inclooed. He mentioned that ateway conatructed 100-12, stores per year, arrl pointed out that 1r the drivaway wna not approved, it was possible that Safeway might decide not to participate in the proje::t. MINUTES \ PLANNitia:; COM'1ISSION February 26, 1986 Page 4 COMMISSIONERS I Hr. Bill Whitworth, 7114 Santa Barbara Street, Carlsbad, referred to a letter sent by the Lakeshore Gardens Haneowners Association. He descri~ the location of the mobile llane park, the surroun:Hng area, the need for an intersection opposite the mobile hane entrance, aoo ~hasized the need for a signalized entrance way on to Avenida Encinas. Chairman Schlehuber confirnied that the Cannissioners were at the site aoo recognized the safety problems with the other exits . Hr. Bill McLean, 7108 Santa Cruz, Carlsbad, represented the Lakeshore Garde!ls Management, aoo explained ':hat he was instructed to advise the Cannission that the property managers were opposed to the d1.!letion of the third driveway aoo the t raffic signal. He talked about the average age of the residents aoo the safety factors with the other exits. Since no one else wished to speak, the public testimony was conclooed at 7:02 p.m. Cannissioner Holmes explained that h,;! fouoo the layout unacceptable aoo discussed his experience with getting in aoo out of the mobile hane park. He stated that because of the shape of the property aoo the location of the surrouooing property, he thought the main entrance should be directly opposite aoo signalized aoo suggested a right tum in or right tum out. Cannissioner McBane asked for a discussion on whether or not they could realign the street. Karty Bounan, Transportation Planner, cacmented that the developer felt a realignnent would infringe too much on the property aoo create problems with the other property. Comlissioner Snith mentione:3 that he wanted to hear fran the developer on the same point since they had a situation where they agreed that the main entrance should be where it was suggested but had a problen with the possibility of serious acx:ldents on that curve. He sugg<!Sted if mitigatioo could not be resolved that evening that staff abQild work with the developer. CCllllliHioner Hcl"ackien brought up a few other items that ahe was concerned about. She said that if there were only two dri vewaya there, they should be signalized. She asked about pedMtrian access ard ftddold that she was worried about parking requirements and the proposed 46 ' tower. She requ•ted that Mr. Bounan resporo to her concerns about ~trian acoeu. . • Bounan talked about the issue of safety aoo explained why ataff wu taking their particular stand on the issue. Regarding pedestrians, Mr. Bcunan indicated that he did not liew the raport aaid there should not be a traffic •i~l there and that he would conoe1e that i t could be plaoad there at such time when the w.'ltranta were met. He dillC\lNfld hi• concern about the City's liabil 1 ty, and explained why traffic signale were put in. © MINUTES Pr.ANNIN::; COl'f1ISSION February 26, 1986 Page 5 COMMISSIONERS camtlssioner McFaa'len asked when the traffic lights oo the two driveways woul,., go in, and Mr. Bex.man replied that they would be put in at the time the shopping plaza was built. Chairman Schlehuber mentioned that he thought it should go back to staff for further ri~view. He explained that his initial belief was that sane type of signalized intersection should be where the park existed. Chairman Schlehuber said that he would like staff to examine possibilities of a right turn only into the north exit, ar.rl asked what the possibilities were for closing the south exit. In ad:3ition, Chairman Schlehuber expresse:l interest in two different alternatives. He said that if they lE-ft the exit across fran it, he wanted staff to show the effect of a yellow flashing light down fran the south am wanten more infonnation about i~roving the sight distance and Betting things back. lie suggested possibly having a de..-eleration lane on that si.de but added that he didn't lc:1ow the am,.iers. Olairman Schlehuber indicated he would like staff to make ccmnents regarding what effect it would have on the residents if they closed the !IP.in entrance ard the movements involved, and that it was int>ortant not to make a hasty decision that evening. He said that he would like staff to look at all of these various possibilities and pointed out that except for tJ1e curve situation, it would be a good spot for the intersection. Olairman Schlehuber also referred to spccing !')rd>lems, and said that he was concerned about the res:.dents and the traffic proolems, and sugg·ested possibly having a later meeting at the site. He added that medians could be a possible solution and that it needed to be looked at in greater detail. He also mentioned utilities in the center ,ind r eferred to Pale.mar Airport Road. CCIIIDissioner &ni th discussed speed control, ard expressErl concern that proper lighting be installed, particularly at the entrance. He raised concerns about the restaurant and asked for clarification. Hr. Howe& explained that pads 4 or 5 may be used for a restaurant but not both becauae restaurants required increased perking va. retail use. He diacussed how condition 121 referred to this. Caanis■ioner &nith al:l.ked about condition 125 regan'4trn bus looation and asked if it conflicted with condition llli. Mr. fiowee explained how condition 125 was modified to take out any reference to bus l Oflding, so there is no confl tct. Comliuioner McBane i m ica ted he concurred with Chairman Schlebmer, and that he was concerned about staff's te« 1 ".S•tion to del et e one of the ,Jd veways. He ~ that parcel s 4 ard 5 might bP. better located el--.lwre if they deleted the ent ry Wl/J CJtPlained why . oai..i•ioner MdBane encouraged staff to report on the approach of realigning th street. oai..iuioner Hall also concurred with the other CCIIDiHionen and diacuaaed extremes in the nearby r•ident a agee fraa the mobile home park and the college. He adda:I that he felt that a signal at the entriince of the r.k llhould be stooied furth r. (i) MINUTES PLANNir«i ~ISSION February 26 , 1986 Page 6 \~ ~ ~ ~~..«,:A~ COMMISSIONERS ~fi. 'l}, Olairman Schlehuber referred to 123 and indicated that he would prefer 8' • Cannissioner Holmes conf inned that they established the 8' wide parking and saw no reason to change it now. Carmissioner McFadden agreed with Cannissioner McBane and mentioned that the project might need to be redesigned if they closed the driveway. She agreed that the size of the parking for co,pact cars should be 8' , and stated that the awlicant needed to look at fulfilling all the p:irking requirements. Chairman Schlehuber sunnarized that the majority would favor a signalized intersection at th€ main entrance of the p:irk and an entrance across the way if possible, although he indicated there was sane diversity of the Cannission. He ad3ed that they required more inforITliltion fran staff. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, pointed out that the Connission needed to be more specific, and that if they wanted to allow the third driveway and signal there, staff would go back and mitigate it. A Minute Motict1 was made that there be a main entrance to the park which was the middle entrance of the park, there be an entrance for the shq,ping C(::nter across fran the main entrance to the park, and that staff would cane back with a design that would show what would be the safest way to desigr, a signali:i:ed intersection with an entrance to the shq,ping plaza directly acroes. Cannissioner Hcl'adden asked Olairman Schlehuber, the motion maker, if he would consider the option of it being closed, not signalized. Chairman Schlehuber respa-Ded that staff wanted specific direction. He iooicated that his fh:st direction was that this be the nuii:>er one priority, and that the second priority might be this other. The origillal motioo was secon:led. A Minute Motion was passed that there be a main entrance to the park which was the mic.dle entrance of the park, there be an entrance for t:h<..1 show1ng center across fran the min entrance to the park, am that staff would cane back with a design that would show what would be the aafeat way to design a signalized intersection with an entrance to the shopping plaza directly across. A 1110tion was l'llllde accepting staff'-; ceport on everything else, including Itaa 121 and 23 which dealt with use on the pada am relative to the parking spaces oo the width of B' on the staff report, am also il'\r.luding the reviaiana that ataff auggNted. 'ftle motion was aecoooed am opened for discuuion. CC8liuioner 81.ith asked about lighting, and was informed that proviaiona wre already made. Schlehuber X X Pt=Fadden X Sni th X Hall X HcBane X Holmes X © MINUTES Februar 26 1986 Pa 7 COMMISSIONERS cannissioner McFadden asked if they would caie back showing how the parking requirements were being fulfille:1, am ChainMn Schlehuber replied that it needed to be addressed more particularly arrl thc.t if necessary, a comition needed to be added. He included thi.s as part of his motion. Ccmnissioner HcFad1en requested a corrlition that they do scxnething with the vacant lam, and Chairman Schlehuber accepted the corrl it ion • Ccmnissioner Hall questioned the one vacant loc: to the south ol.: the project am wanted to know what that use could be arrl what its parking requirements were. i'lr. H<Mes pointed out that staff did not know what the use of that lot wo1Jld be, but that it would be any use allCMed in the C-2 zone as lalg as it could pro•,ide adequate cnsite parking arrl carply with the setback requirements • ..::hairman Schlehuber asked if they could put it with a Q overlay by conditioning it that they could look at it very carefully. Mr. Hentschke pointed out that they shoc:1cn' t rezone it since it would be part of the Site Develoµnent Plan. Chairman Schlehuber stated that one of the problal\S he noticed fran a traffic standpoint was the turn fron Poinsettia at 5:45 p.m. when the sun was ~~tting. cannissioner ~ith asked if they were covering all three items, arrl Chairman Schlehuber clarified that they weren't since they were asking staff to bring it back. A motion Wl!."3 passed accepting staff's report in concept only, on everything else, including It:eim 121 arrl 23 dealt with use on the pads am relative to the parking spaces on the width of 8' on the staff report, incloo- ing Ute revisions that staff suggested arrl includil'l3 a comition addressing parking requirements. "nlEl motion also included a new conHtion requiring the hydroseedil'l3 of vacant parcels. A motion was passed continuing Item 12 until March 26th am opening the public hearing for additional cCJ11Dents. Mr. Hollllliller a\lllll!lrized that when staff looked at the first motion, they would look at the possibility, work with the applicant, and see what they could do in temB of an alternative design so that there could be a signalized in~eection there with an entrance to the shopping center directly acroaa fran the mobile heme park. Olah:111an 8<:hlehuber declared a reoesa at 7 :40 p.m. The Ocaaiui.m re-com1•led at 7 :50 p.m. Schlehuber HcFadoen Snith Hall HcBane Holmes sct,~.!huber Hc:FaMen Snith Hall McBane Holmes X X · X X X X X X X X X X X X NIINUTES 1a " ~ PI.ANNIN:. (l)llto!ISS ION February 26, 1986 Page 8 ~ :-r..._ ~ Q COMMISSIONERS ~ ~~ ~\ 3) CT 85-36 -OCF.ANVI~ ESTATES -Request for approval of a 24-lot tentative map located on Hooroe Street across fran Carlsbad High School north of Olestnut. Mike Howes , Seni or Planner, gave the staff presentation on this i t em as contained i n the staff report, using a transpe1:ency to show the site. He described the project, indicated it was CClll?!tible with the surrounding area, and confiam!d that i t was a stand,rd infill sutrlivision. Hr. Jim Vi ne, 280-A Olinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, concurred with all the requirenents of staff as put in the conditions !Uld stated that the project would be an asset to the area. Hr. Reger Burke 3535 Avondale Circle, Carlsbad, pointed to the location of his heme on the map and expressed concern that a two story hane as planned would block th~ ocean view fran his hane. He discussed the lay of the land and indicat ed that hanes in his area were built to take advl'lI'ltage of the view. Hr. A.J . Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad, discussed his concern that staff was nc..t considering lots that were already in existence. He added that the report did not refer to elevatio.1 nor was there consideration for the future. He reccmnended that the OC&R's should ensure that trees in the subdivision would not block ot her haneowner's views. Hr. Gordon Baker, 2035 Olarleen Circle, Carlsbad, addressed concerns about trai'fic on Chestnut, and asked if there was sanething that could be done about the plantings which WQ.lld make i t a better view to go out on to Olestnut. David Hauser, Acting Assistant Ci ty Engineer, suggested that saneone fran the Traffic Division could go out and arrange for the plant ings t o be cut if they blocked the view. Hr. Michael Shea, 2010 O\arleen Circle, Carlsbad, agreed with the first tvo gentlemen and expressed his concern that the developnent woold block his view. He also diacuaaed traffic concerns, i ncludi ng openi D,;J up Donna Drive, am indicated that they did not have enough information. MIi. Ruth Brown, 2031 Cllarleen Circle, Carlsbad, re ferred to Mint:aining the integrity of the existir¥] neighborhood and conoerna about extending Dama Drive. She made sane alternate r~tions which she asked the Planning ca.i■■ion to conaider. Since no one el■e wished to speak on this i ten, the public t•tiaony vu concluded at 8 :05 p.m. Mr. H«-confimad that the utilities would be under- grourd, ■nd ea.■iuioner McPadden indicated that the s,«tion including other alternativee in the coooition .sisr ... 1ng utilitie■ ■hould be de.l tad. She asked about the ti• ■chedule of 1n1>rovir¥J Chaetnut and asked what the acioeea wea frca the gricultural property inuladiately to the eut. MINUTES PLNINING CXMIISSION February 26, 1986 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Howes stated that the public street was being cul-de- saced am would be constructed at that time. He discussed the plans for the inmediate area. Ccmnissioner HcFao::len asked if there was any ordinance addressing view corridors, am she was advised that none existed. Ccmnissioner Slni th askec for staff to respood to the suggestion regarding a cul-<le-sac, and Hr. Ho.ies replied that staff would have to look at it. Mr. Hauser explained what proolems would occur i f they cut off the connectioo at Donna Drive. Ocmnissinner Holmes requested that the word "Director" be replaced with "Cannission" urrler con:Htion f21, am Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained why that couldn't be done. Ccmnissioner Hall irrlicated that the only cannent he had was that it was possible that one story hanes would also block the views. Hr. Howes concurred with his observation. Chairman Schlehuber said that he could also synpathize with the haneowners but that this was such a huge proole-; without a solutioo. He suggested restricting trees in t.."lat particular subdivision. Hr. Hentschke confirmed that fran the stampoint of planned developnent, thPy .::ould regulate a lot of vegetation arrl landscape, but that when dealing with subdi visioos in the R-1 zone, they could not treat it any different fran other 11\ltrlivisions in the area. Chairman Schlehuber said that despite the fact it would be inappropriate, he would like to see if the developer had any problem with trying to limit the height of the trees. The applicant irrlicated that there would be a problen enforcing it with subM.quent owners, but they would be willing to start in the right directioo. In anawer to Chairman Schlehuber's query regarding initial vegetation plans, Mr. Howes said they could add a conSition requiring a preliminary larmcape plan with the grading plan, and would put a note in the file to that effect. Comlia■ioner Plc9ane asked if the builder could be Nnaitiw to building a one story house on the two lots which would be blocked. Ccmliuioner Mc:Padden uked about lowering the lots but wa adviMd by the applicant that it would iq>act Dama. The Planning C iaaion recaanended awroval of the llltgative Declaration isauad by the Planning Director and ldopt.i the following Reaolutioo: I(Je NO. 25'3 APPRO/It«. A 24-LOT WH>IVISIOO 00 Y LOCATJ!D 00 THB lWrl' SIDE OF l'DmOE 8ftlft, IDl'ftl OP Clll8'l'IIJT STRBl'l'. Schlehuber l'U'addat Snith Hall HcBane Holmee X X X X X X X Ii MINUTES Pt.ANNI~ CXM1ISSION February 26, 1986 Page 10 COMMISSIONERS With the following modification: Add a condition requiring that the initial trees would not be above eave level at maturity. Delete the words "unless an alternate design is awroved by the City Engineer." urder cordition 37) b). 4) SJP 85-7 -l:.EVANTE PROPERTIES -Request for awroval of a cannercial center at the southwest corner of La Costa Avenue ard Rancho Santa Fe Road. Charles Grinm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the site. He discussed the prior history of the project ard reccmnerded denial for the reasons stated in the staff report. Chairman Schlehuber opened the p.Jblic hearing at 8:24 p.m. Since no one wished to speak on this item, Chairman Schlehuber closed the p.Jbl ic hearing ard asked for Planning CCJm1ission discussion. There was none. The Planning Ccmnission adopted the following Resolution: RE8>LUTION NO. 2540 DE.NY!~ SITE DEI/ELCPMmr PLAN NO. 85-7, TO ALLOW DE.VELOPMENT OP A ~R:IAL CENTER ON PRCPERTY GENERALLY LOCATID ON THE OCO'ffiWEST 01RNER OF LA CX>STA AvmJE AND RANOfC) Sl\NTA FE ROAD. RESOLUT100S 5) CT 85-23/CP-320 -HOSP GROVE Chairman SchlP.huber discussed a previous cordition that s taff was to revise ard stated that it was done. Olarles Griinn, Assistant Planning Director, discussed a change in the firding ard a cordition regarding parks baaed on sane information. He referred to Firding 4) c) which addressed park-in-lieu fees ard said that staff felt it should be changed to the firding that parklard has been dedicated per the existing Hosp Grove Parks agreement. He mentioned that condition t4 required payment of park-in- lieu fees ard it should irdicate that parklard shall be dedicated by the developer pursuant to the parks map, titled Exhibit A ai"rl dated 4/24/80 on file in the Planning Department. Mr. Gri.nm gave the staff presentation on this i tern as containod in the staff report, using a transpare ncy to show the site. He talked about the new ad3ed conditions and irdicated that the Planning C<J1111ission wanted to add the tirding that the project was consistent with the General Plan and Milster Plan. Hr. Griinn stated that staff ws able to make this firding ard outlined a numer of reaaona. He added that staff did not recannerd reviewing the Muter Plan, and di8CUSsed why it was not necessary. Mr. Griimi aaid that staff checked with the Fire Hl!lrshal as per the Planning Cannis11ion's request, ard were advised that no offaite inlprovwnente were needed since the grove waa not conaidered a fire hazard. He added that the Fire Marshal indicated that barbecues would be acceptable in the grc:we area. Schlehuber lltFadden 9nith Hall lltBane Holmes @ X X X X X X X MINUTES PLMNIOO CDl't1ISSION February 26, 1986 Page 11 Nancy Rollman, Assistant Planner, discussed ha.i garages would affect the Site Plan, aoo pointed to three transparencies. She explained that staff believed there was a significant d i fference in the removal of trees and grading, aoo addres~ed the issue of aesthetics. CCJll'llissioner Hc:Bane asked for more specifics on the garage analysis, and staff responded to his query. Ccmnissioner Snith referred to Ms. Piro's cooments about an additional tltlllber of units, and Hr. Grimn replied that the uni ts she was talking about included parcel D which was not pert of this project. Chairman Schlehuber stated that it aweared that the revised Resolutioo met the requests made but he did not think that storage units were needed aoo regarding barbecues, he thought it was covered under the fire con:Htions that they were originally given. He irrlicated that tot lots were added as well, and that staff rec-annended that they add barbecues since the Fire Marshal had no problem with it. Chairman Schlehuber irrlicated he still had a pr< blen on whether it should be a pitched roof on the carports or a flat roof am expressed preference for a pitched roof. Cannissioner McBane agreed with Olairman Schlehuber based upoo his visits to other projects am felt that the carports should be consistent with the architecture of the projects. Cannissioner Holmes pointed out that there would be a fairly long row of carports which would make the pitched roofs look very bulky. CC11111issioner Snith addressed the issue of lighting, anc asked what type of lighting was required. Mr. Grinm pointed out that con:li tion t29 addressed lighting in the carports and explained ~t it said. The Planning Cannissioo recanaerrled approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and approved the following Revised Resolution: RBVISJ!D RISCx.tJTIOO NO. 2538 RI!XDH!ll>lOO APPROVAL OF A 2-fm Tl!lft'ATIVE MlP Ml> 216-UNIT CDN:>a1INIUM PERHIT ON PRCPBR'l'I' GJ!NBRALLY LOCATl!D ON "nfE ~ SIDE OF ~ ROAD 00 BO'l'H SID!S OF l'Dal>E STREET. With the additional condition relative to the the park-in- lieu fees in light of the new informatioo brought to the ca...iuion. CClaiHiantir McFadden requested the opportunity to ■tate for the record why she voted against the Resolution. Her e<ml8lt■ were as follOWB: •uni:Ser Finding■ 2) , I do not firrl thi project is corwi■tent with the ..,_l MIister Plan for Hosp Grove. I don't wder■tand what the Master Plan ■aya, and I do not know how it hu bear\ affected by previous snen:mients with earlier project.a. Schlehu.ber l( X McFadden X Snith X Hall X HcBane Holmes X @ MINUTES Pl.ANNI!!«; CX>l"NISSION February 26, 1986 PagP. 12 I cannot make Finding 3). I do not think the site is physically suitable for the density of the developnent when ooe has to bring in over 177,000 cubi~ yards of ifft:>orted fill. I do not think I can make that finding. On Finding 5), that the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines Manual, I cannot make that finding either. It certain!~· is not in conformance with preserving the topography as stressed in that dOC\mE!llt . On Finding 6), I do not feel that it is correct to say that the surrouming properties are designated for residential developnent and therefore c:mq:etible with the General Plan. The property imnediately to the north is cam1ercial, I believe. On Finding 7), I cannot agree with the Ccn::.litional Negative Declaration. I do not believe, insofar as I have been able to fim out, if there has ever been an EIP. done on this very unique and sensitive and highly visible site am therefore I am unsure if tree replanting alone is adequate mitigation.w Ccmnissioner McBane had the following ccmnents regarding his negative vote: w1 would like the minutes to show that I am ewosed to this action for all of the reasons stated by Connissioner McFadden·, am furthermore, I cannot make the necessary finding with respect Finding fl, that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that this project does not conform with the stated goals of the Mast& Plan numers a, e, f, g, hand policy nunbers a,d,g,i,j,k and 1 of the City's General Plan. I also cannot concur, in addition to the reason given by Commissioner McFadden, cannot make Firiding 14) because of the lack of adequate evidence for me to make the fiming that traffic problems particularly at El Camino Real am 78 will be mitigated. And I furthermore cannot make the fiming that this project addresses the etmJlati ve i.r.pct of ether p .. ojects in the Master Plan area. w A 1110tion was made reccamending that City Council review and upgrade the Hosp Grove Master Plan as a policy decisioo. The motion was seccn:181 and cpelled for dillCUflsion. Chairman Schlehuber indicated that Mr. Gri.11111 said he believed that the Master Plan was infill and that he was not really recanending that the Cannission make such a firding. Mr. Grimn reapoa:led that staff felt that the project was conaiatent with the Master Plan and that it did not need to be reviewm because the majority of the Master Plan area baa caapletad developnent. ec.iiasioner Mc:Padden caanenteu that the Council had voted to review the Master Plan along with others and was pusaleci why the C,miasion wruld not find it a useful thing to do. @ MINUTES February 26, 1986 Page 13 COMMISSIONERS Michael Hol2J11iller, Planning Director, advised that there was no specific direction frCJTI City Council to review this Master Plan am discussed what was being done. Catmissioner HcBane asked Mr. Holzmiller if he felt that the Master Plan was adequate, am Hr. Holzmiller replied that he was t~ one who made the recaimendation not to review the Master Plan and explained why. Olllirman Schlehuber questioned if this was t~ scne motion that was made preYiously, am Dan He11tschke , Assistant City Attorney, clarified that a new motion was appropriate at a subsequent meeting. A Minute Motioo was passed reccmneming that City Council review the Hosp Grove Master Plan as a policy decision. Callni~sioner Sllith asked how that would affect the project voted on that evening, and 0'lairman Schlehuber indicated that the project would go through with an additional Minute Motion recannending that the Master Plan be reviewed. APProllL OF MINUTES The Minutes of January 22, 1986 were approved as presented. By proper motion, the meeting of February 26, 1986 was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully sutmittoo, Ruth Stnrk Minuta Clerk MBITIHGS AkE Mm TAPPD Ml) KEPT ON FILE um'IL THE HINUTF..S ARB Ar.>IIOlllD. Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall HcBane Holmes Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall HcBane Holmes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X February 19, 1986 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carl ■bad, California 9 2 JS Res Patio Hills, CT-81 )/CP-183 Application for Ml )r Ariendment Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned, on b eh l f of Patio Hills Homeowners' Aesoci- action and as the o wne1 0f the living unite indicated below opposite their respecti , ~ names which constitute Phases I and II of Patio Hille, join in ~he above-application. We have examined the p l . .-1 and drawings fur revisions to Ph~se III of the planned developmr7t plan submitted to your Commission . We hereby approve such 1evisions and req uest that the minor amendment be approved b · your Commission without public hearing. Respectfully submitted, P3ti0 Hills Homeowners' \s sociation By: Jf? t .us:l, S < <.,,i,,P,\f½o ~Title ------V , • I ____,,_~ ~... ~ J ·y' I) ' , I! Unit No . L Unit ~o . ~;.a..'"'2~,&.,U::a:::.IC~~.J&il~, ~~-Un~t ~o. ~o. Unit No Unit No. Unit No. No. Unit No. Unit No . L _ff_ __L ----~ 1L _fj_ \0 . _1_ 3- Date: -,2. -"2..l... 1986 Date: z,L7,-z-, 1986 / Date: ;L ;r-V, 1986 Date: z-2..2._ , 1986 Date : ~ -;;.:; , 1986 Date: ,;J -d-d-, 1986 Oat':': :l •_.j~ ~ , 1986 Date: 2'-C:..4-1986 Date : t?-2 L/ I 1986 Da te: , 1986