Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-17; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of: Time of Meetinq: Oat e or Hee ting: Place of Meet 1;,g: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. September 17, 1986 City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS The Regular Meetlnq was called lo order by Chairman Schlehuber at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE Of ALLlGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL: Present -Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Mcfadden, Hall, Marcus, McBane, Holmes and Schramm. Absent -None. Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Hike Howes, Senior Planner Nancy Rollman, Associate ~lanner PLANNING CCJ+IISSIOH PROCEDURES Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Comml~sion procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, 00 ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED Per staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission continued Item No. 4 -SP-199/ZC-332/CT 85-17 - COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK to the next regular meeting of the Planning C011111isslon (October 1, 1986) based upon the reasons 5et forth ln a memorandum from staff dated September 17, 1986. Chairman Schlehuber offered the publ !c an opportun1 ty to speak on Item No. 4. Ho one desired to speak. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 ) CUP-296 -BOY'S 4 GIRL'S CLUB Of CARLSBAD -Request for the construction of a Boy's and Girl's Club for thirty children. The site proposed ls approximately 1.5 acres in size, adjacent to and east of El Camino Real, approximately 1,000 feet south of the Intersec- tion of El Cdlllino Real and Cami no Vida Roble. Hike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this itet11 as contained in the staff report. Various wall and transparency 111aps were displayed depleting the site and its location which were described by Hr. Howes. He gave the teasons why staff ls rec~ndlng the denial of this project. The concerns of staff are 1) it ls iniposslble to prevent children frOIII walking or riding their bicycles to and frOIII the site. El Ca111ino Real ls a partially improved pri111e arterial with a designated design speerl of 60 miles per hour. There are no sidewalks available; 2) the site ls located adjacent to a vertlcle and horlLontal curve which creates site distance problems for people trying to enter and ,xit the slte: 3) southbound traffic on El C•lno Real will be ~ncouraged to make an illegal u-turn into the site ; and 4) the location I~ at the edge of the airport Influence area. Schlehuber "4cf adden Hall Marcus HcBane Hol,nes Schra11111 Ci> X X X X X X X X MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Schlehuber inquired on the kind of use that would be allowed when there ls a piece of land ln the inside of a curve as ln this case. Mr. Howes explained that this site ls part of an approximately 100-acre site. At some future date, Camino Vida Roble will be extended through and people will be able to get access to the site through coll~ctor streets. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 6:08 p.m. and issued the ln~ltatlon to speak. Joe Sandy, 2892 Jefferson, addressed the Commission on behalf the Club and stated the reasons that he believed that the project should be approved. He stated that he understood the two primary issues to be: ( 1) the acceleration/deceleration lanes for access to the site; and (2) the prnximlty to Palomar Airport. Mr. Sandy stated that he spoke to a SANOAG staff member who determined that this area is not anymore unsafe than any of the other areas which are outside of the airport influence zone. Further, the Club is willing to provide the acceleration and deceleration lanes to the extent possible on the site. He stated that he spoke to the traffic engineer who indicated that there was sufficient width on El Camino Real to acco111110date acceleration/ deceleration lanes on the site. Further, the fact that this site is to serve the children from La Costa should eliminate the problem of motorists coming from the north end of the City and making an llleg.31 u-turn across El Camino Real to the site. He urqed the COIIW'lission to approve the project for one year on a trial basis. Commissioner Marcus inquired whether other parcels er land were considered. Mr. Sandy responded that several other sites have been considered, but this if the first site that ls available for temporary use at this point and tl111e. The Club is presently working on two other sites. Chairman Schlehuber made reference to a letter from the La Costa Ranch Company indicating that they would trade the proposed Club site with another site if the Master Plan goes through, and suggested that the letter be filed as a matter of record. Chaln11c1n Schlehuber expressed his concern that the street system does not serve the proposed use due to the proble111 of the children on the street. Mr. Sandy pointed out that the children will bussed in, and the parents will be required to pick thetn up. ulana Halsey, 3042 Levante Street, addressed the Coaisslon and urged the C011111ission to approve the project for the children in La Costa. Dan Sherlock, 3741 Monroe Street, addressed the C011111lsslon and gave the reasons why the particular site was chosen. He stated that of the large acreage, there ls only one place where the acreage touches El Ca111ino Real. Tnat ls exactly the location of the property. © MINUTES Hr. Sherlock pointed out that there ls a tremendous drop at the present time at Camlnu Vida Roble, and If and when the street goes through, there will be heavy grading in the area, because there ls no flat land tu put an} facility on at that location. Han} options havP been rev,ewed, and of all the ~iable options available, this ls the best one lo have the facility open, operating and serving thf' youn{j people of La Costa. Co11111lssioner Holmes inquired whether there was any way to make a contingency In the agreement with parents that the children do not ride bikes to and from the property. Hr. Sherlock stated that there ls an application form which the parents must fill out; it does have rules and regulations. It could become a policy to nut permit children to either walk or ride In or out of the particular site. Co11111lssloner Harcus stated that she believed that there must be a safer parcel of land in the property to locate the f acll ity on. Co11111lssloner Mcfadden inquired whether staff looked into public busslno to the site. She felt that perhaps It could work out for one year with the contlngenC) In the agreement that the chlldren only come by the busslng program available through the club and public transportation. Dave Hauser, Assistant Cit) Engineer, pointed out that the children would have to cross the street to ride their bikes or to ride a public bus back. This would be hazardous. Commissioner Holmes pointed out that the Club has been in. the children business for many years and are professionals at handling them. Chairman Schl~huber stated that although he understands the needs for the Club In the La Costa area, he felt that this proposed site ls an invitation to disaster In light of the potential safety hazards. Conmissloner Schramm inquired wheth~r the applicants could be offered a continuance of two weeks to go back to the La Costa Ranr,h Company and see whether another spot could be found within the property that opens at the two streets. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, advised that chanqing the site location would make this matter a whole new application. Mr. GriM pointed out that staff ls working right now with the La Costa Ranch C0111pany on the Master Plan revision. He offered staff 's assistance 1n coming up with another site on that property. The Planning Coaaission adopted the following Resolution denying CUP-296 based on the findings contained therein: RESOLUTION NO. 2601 DENYING A COt()ITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTROCf Ali> CJ>ERATE A TEMPORARY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ON PROPERTY CENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUT"t OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE. Schlehul>er X Hcf adden X Hall X Marcus X X Mc8ane X Hol111es X Sch r c111111 X (l) MINUTES \~~~ Page 4 COMMISSIONERS '<?,. ~ ~~\ -r----------------------------- 5eptember 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION 2) SOP 86-5/V-375 -OClAN STREET C0ND05 -T~o unlt condominium to be located at 2677 and 2679 Ocedn Street within the Bedch Ared Overlay Zone. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, qave the presentdtion on this Item as contained in the stdff report. Wdll and transparency 111dps were displayed depleting the site and Its location. Mr. Grl11111 pointed out that this project ls a little more site sensit!-.e than the Brodine project rec,mtl)' approved by the City Council. Staff ls recommending approval of the pro,lect. Chairman Sct,lehuber declared the publ le he aring opened at 6:31 p.m. and Issued the invitation to sp~ak. Bebe Grosse, 5850 5unnycreek Road, (applicant), addressed the Corrmlssion and stated their concurrence with staff's report including revised Condition Nos. 39 and 40. She pointed out that they have des ianed the pro.1ect so that at the stre~t the garage level ls actual!) only 14 feet high. This was done to try and keep the slLe of the elevation smaller at the street. She urged the Comml-sion's approval of this project. Anne Mau~h, 3710 Garfield, addressed the Commission in opposi tlon to the pro.feet. She informed that she was active last year ln getting the Beach Area Overlay Zone which resulted ln a recommendation from the Council to change the General Plan to deslgndte this area as a special treatment area. The concerns in asking for special tredtment had to do with the parkJ.ng problems. She requested that if the Corrmisslon approves this project that it specify that the basement may nut be used for residential purposes. Tom Hawthorne, 2681 Ocean Avenue, addressed the Corrmlssion and expressed his support of the project. He co1llllented that it ls a very nice deslqn and urged approval of the project. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the C011111ission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 6:35 p.m. C011111lssiuner Holmes inquired what the estimated nu~ber of units COIIIJ>arable to thi s project were within a two-block area of the property north and south. Hr. Grimm responded that it was approxi111c1tely 40-50 percent. C~issioner HcBane expressed his concern that there are several recent projects in the area which have managed to developed their properties without the variances which are being requested for this project and are better projects ror it. C011111issioner Holmes inquired regarding the open parking and requested that it be conditioned so that there ls no storage of RV's, boats, or trucks ln the two open parking spaces. C~issioner McFadden conwnented that this Aas a weil- deslgned project and does not have the bulky encroach111ent overhead of the 9ardge as the Brodine project. MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNINC COMMISSION The Planning Commission approved the Negatlv~ Declaration and adopted the following Resolutions appro,ing SDP 86-5/ V-375, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; including a conditlurt to not allow the parking of RV's, boats, or trucks in the two open parking spaces of the project; and to include the changes to Condition Nos. 39 and 40: RESOLUTION HO. 2599 APPROVING SITl DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO 86 - 5, TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-UN.' T CONDOMINIUM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2677 AND 2679 OCEAN STREET; a~d RESOLUTION HO. 2600 APPROVINC A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACI< TO ZERO AT 2677 AND 2679 OCEAN STRELT. 3) EIR 86-4/CT 85-23(A)/CP-320(A)/GPA/LU 86-10/ZC- 348/MP-1(C)/SDP 86-10/GPA/LU 86-11/ZC-350 -HOSP C~OVE -Request for approval of: A tentative map ~nd condominium permit for 1~8 units on Parcel D of Hosp Grove Master Plan; General Plan amendment and zone change from RMH to C, 0 and OS and a site development pl~n for a Commercial Center on Parcel E; General Plan amendment and zone change from HMH to OS on Parcel F; and, revisions to the Hosp Grove Master Plan. Also requested ls certification of an Environmental Impact Report on propert> located south of Marron Road and Jefferson Street, near Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center ~nd Buena Vista Lagoon. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, called attention to the memo sent by staff informing that the final EIR for Hc;sp Grove wll l not be ready unti 1 Thursda> or Friday. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, addressed t~e Conmnlsslon and described an additional condition being proposed by staff to close off one of the driveway access points in Parcel E Prime on the west side of Monroe Street. The applicant has been informed of the condition. He explained that the reason this ls being requested is that it will be difficult for motorists to see the signs which say "one-way" and the danaer exists that a motorist could 111ake a left turn out of the site and come head-on with motorists coming !nto the site. Hr. Gri11111 proceeded with the presentation on the above item. He reviewed the background of the project. He informed that representatives from the City Council and the City Manager's office have been negotiating with the property owners, the neighbors who testified at the earlier hearings, and the developers. The alternative that is being proposed tonight came out of those negotiations and has been analyzed as an alternative in the EIR. An ~ree111ent was also reached for this alternative, if acceptable, between the Cit> and the property owner. Mr . Gri11111 pointed out that the alternative is basically a back-up alternative. There ls a bond issue that will be put on the November ballot.. If that bond bsue passes which will allow the purchase of the Grove for park land, then the pro.feet before the Planning COllll!lisslon will becOIIIC null and void. Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X Marcus X HcBane X Holmes X X Schramm X MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Mr. Grimm stated that the City hired Recon, an independent consultant, to do the Environmental Impact Report and to look at the alternatives. There were a number of potential impacts identified !n the report which included traffic, visual aesthetics, archaelogical, hydrological, and soils impacts. Basically, the report lndicated thi'lt these impacts can be mitigated through either conditions of approval or some redesign which did take place during the project negotiations. Mr. Grll!WII pointed out that the EIR did indicate that there was the possibility of a Level "0" of service at the intersection of Jefferson and Marron. Staff had requested a traffic analysis which would give a worst case analysis. The case analyzed did not include shared trips (someone coming to the commercial center and goinq to two locations on the same trip). E,erything was looked on as a single incident. Obviously, some of the trips will be shared which will linprove the level of service. Further, the worst case an~lysis assumed that all entrances and exits from the Hughes property would use one entrance on Jefferson and Marron where the impact was supposed to be identified. In reality, there are two major accesses to the center and both uf them would be used which would also improve the level of service. Staff ls recommending certification of the EIR. Speaking tu the General Plan Amendments, Mr. Grimm stated that two of the parcels are affected. Parcel E -the change would be from RHH to C and OS. Parcel E Prime -the change would be fr0111 RMH to O on the area fur the north end of the property and OS for the remainder of the parcel. Parcel F -parcel adjacent to the existing duck area off of Jefferson Street ls a Cit)-lnltlated Gc-,ieral Plan Amendment with the developer's concurrence from RMH to OS. Parcel D -residential parcel -would have no General Plan Amendment. (Maps were shown depictinq the sites which Mr. Grimm described.) In tenns of the Zone Changes, Mr. Grimm continued, the zoning would correspond to the above General Plan A111end111ents proposed. Parcel E -Zoning from PC to C with a Q Overlay. The re111ainder of the parcel would be zoned to OS. Parcel E Pri111e -Zoning fr0111 PC to O with a Q Overlay and the remainder of the parcel would be OS. Parcel F -Zone change from R-1 to OS. Staff feels these General Plan Ainendments and Zone Changes can be justified in that c011111ercial ls being proposed on the south side of Marron Road which normally abut residential; however, the addition of the OS area between the residential to the south and the C011111ercial can mitigate l111pacts frOIII the comnerclal uses to the north. In conclusion, Hr. Grl-stated that the Master Plan Ai.endaents will be reflecting the General Plan Amend~~nts and Zone Changes. There ls no text ainendlllent because 1t ls an old Master Plan and there basically ls no text to amend. Wlth the aid of wall maps, Hr . Gri11111 pointed out the increase in the c11110Unt of open space that will be preserved by this alternative. @ September 17, 1986 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Nancy Rollman, Associate Planner, addressed the Conwnission and continued giving the presentation on this project. She described the locat ion and surrounding uses of Parcel D, with the aid of a site plan. She pointed out that the project has met all the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. The issues regardina this parcel ~as the preservation of trees in terms of a buffer. The goal was to achieve a desian which would incorporate a similar appearance to the grove. She stated that the direction aiven to the applicant was to retain the existing land form above Marron Road which Is hlahl y visible from Highway 78 and to keep a buffer of existing trees on the ridgetop. The developers were also advised to pull the buildings back as far as possible and to keep an adequate setback from the homes to the south. The plan before the C0111Bission has incoroor~ted these items t o tht' design. Hs. Rollman pointed out that b) tr) 1 "9 to presen,e as nuch open space and trees as possible, with 108 units, It has caused a few undesirable elements In the plan. The site plan ls somewhat crowded. Some large fill slopes were required on the western open space area. She pointed out that staff concluded that a residential project is appropriate on Parcel D ~ecause it is essential!) surrounded b) other residential uses. Speaking to Parcel[, Ms. Rollman pointed out that a Site Development Plan ls before the C011111lsslon for the coomercial center on 10 .8 acre~ .ocated at the corner of Monroe and Marron Streets. The Plan proposed three acres of office uses on the west side of Monroe and a six-acre commercial center on the east side. The maJorlty of the buildings are located against the slope banks •Ith parking and several freestanding buildings situated next to the streets. She desc~ibed the buildings the111Selves, with the aid of a wall map. Hs. Rollman pointed out that the issue surrounding this project included the preservation of the trees, the traffic that would be generated by a ~rclal project, and the change in land use from residential to ~rclal . However, this alternative will allow 15 acres of open space to re111ain on Parcel [ by clustering the C011111ercial develo~nt at the corner. This ls seven acres 1110re than the earlier residential project would have proposed. The undesirable trade-offs that would occur, however, ls that an existing 90-foot knoll and 40I slope would be cut down to accoaaodate the C0111M:rcial buildings. Retaining walls and 40 to 50-foot cut slopes behind the buildings are also necessary. Ms. Roll111an stated that the traffic generated by a coaaercial project would be more than that generated by a residential project. liowever, the increase would not significantly change the level of service at the intersections in the vicinity of the project. She enuaerated the ■itigation 111easures that have been conditioned to the project to acc~date the increase. In conclusion, Ms. Roll111an stated that the alternative of preserving the open space will provide overall benefits to the City, and staff rec011111ends approval of the project. She introduced Lee Sherwood fr0111 Recon, who will answer questions regarding the [IR. MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Con11lssloner McFadden lnqulred wh) Condition No. 38 was pulled regarding the park-in-lieu fees. Ms. Rollman responded that as part of the original Master Plan, park land ls going to be dedicated. Mr. Grirm, clarified that a pvrtlon of the park land has been dedicated. He explained that when the first part of a Master Plan ls developed, with each new development, a certain amount of park land ls dedicat ed. Ms. Rollman pointed out that the park land already dedicated ls located on the west side of Parcel E Prime. COl'Mllissloner McFadden noted that this dedication has nothing to do with the value of the project. The dedication was agreed to man) )ears ago. In response to a question by Co11111lssloner Hall regarding the difference from the prPvlous project to the project before the Co11111lsslon in the amount of cubic )arrls being exported and lnported, Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, pointed out on a wall map the areas which account for the difference. C011111issioner HcBane inquired why the traffic anal)sls was not extended to the areas concerned that were brought up in the earlier hearings on thts project. Hr. Grlrm, pointed out that the Cit} 's transportation expert, Marty B0U111an, felt that the impacts on that particular drea from t his project were negligible due to the distance from the project. It was also indicated that that area ls another problem in itself and has more to do with the Plaza Camino Real and regional traffic. C~issloner HcBane inquired whether the proposed Increase on the status of the Monroe and Hosp Way corridors to secondary arterials was due to the Increased traffic that i s expected. Hr. Ha~,er clarified that Monroe ar.d Marron Streets have always been secondary arterials. Staff ls proposing a widening of and a connection of Monroe Street, but it is not being reclassified. Hs. Rollman added that t he EIR recoiaends that Hosp Way be reclassified as a collector street and not as a secondary arterial. C011a1i ssloner Hall inquired what the Clty's options were for Parcel F. Hr. Grl11111 stated that the first option 15 that if the voters approve the bond, then the area becomes open space because the entire site ls purchased. The next option under the agreement between the Ci ty and the ~roperty owners is that should all these !~ems be approved by the Planning C~isslon and Ccuncll, then Parcel F woul d be allowed to be purchased by the City f or open space purposes. The City would then have one year t o try to use other funds such as grant monies to obtain the purchase 1110ney for that site. C«-lssioner McBane i nquired why other mixed uses were not considered for Parcel E, which could have eliminated having to cut do,i,n t he 90-foot knoll that exists there. Mr. Cri• pointed out that it ls his understanding that the neighbors in the area dio not want res idential and wanted as little ~rcial as wou ld 111c1ke the project viable. For this reason, the coaaerclal project was basically placed toward the north end of the site with a buffer between the ~rclal and residential dwellings to the south and to the west. MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9COMMISSIONERS Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. John Thelan, 535 "B" Street, San Diego, representing The Odmark Develop111ent Co., the applicant, addressed the COfllllission and ~tated that after the Planning Co"~lssion's action last spring, and after the City Council's action, it became very apparent from the property owner's point of view, that the City of Carlsb~d had two basic ~oals --(1) to have an op;:>ortunit) to buy the entire grove at a fixed price; and (2) to preserve as much as the grove as possible if it could not be acquired in total. He pointed out that they feel that the project does respond to those goals. There ls an agreement b) the Cit) and landowner whereby the City has the option of buying the property for a price. The other part of the agreement was to process approvals that would preserve as nuch of the grove as possible. He deferred to the Collins Development Cvmpany who will be addressing the corrmerclal aspect of the project. Bill Trlbolet, Vice President, Collins Development Co111pan), addressed the C011111ission and gave a brief background of their company and the recognition received for its projects. Slides were shown and described by Mr. Trlbolet of the proposed site, landscaping plans, and photographs of the Danville project, one of their projects that they are modeling the concept for the Hosp Grove project after. Mr. Tribolet gave a lengthy presentation of the proposed project giving a detai l ed description of the various aspects of the different parcels, and the efforts they have put forth in attempting to make the project appear as though it were placed down into the grove with no disturbance to the grove itself. He pointed out that greater setbacks were put in on Monroe and Marron than would normally be found in a neighborhood shopping center, which allowed interesting land$caping and a more sensitive entry into the residential neighborhood to the south. Pat O'Day, O'Day Consultants, 7750 El Camino Real, Engineer, csddressed the Connission and referred to a condition presented earlier by Mr. Hauser regarding the driveway access. He request~d more time to study this proposed condition. In response to various questions by the Connissioners, Mr. Trlbolet stated that the Danville project consists of 17 acres, which. ls divided by a road. Dellveries to the shops are front loaded which is one of the conditions of approval for the proposed project. Willa Fabian, 2708 Grove Avenue, addressed the COIIIIIJ~slon and pointed out that the parklnq lot of the residertlal project ls less than 20 feet frOIII her hOIIIC. She referred to two sections of the staff report and pointed out that staff 1s 111easurlng t.he buildings to the h0111es rather than any developaent to the homes. She urged that the saae consideration of a 50-foot tree buffer given to the casual passers-by on the north fac~ be glvP~ ~o the residents who live in the area to preserve the aesthetics there --one of the reasons that they purchased their h0111e. MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNINC COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS Jeff Piro, 1898 Forest, addressed the COllllllssion and spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He cautioned that the front load deliveries t o the proposed commercial development will cause 111ajor problems. He stressed that the commercial development and the hlqh density of Parcel D will be disturbing to the nearby residents. Further, he pointed out that the Master Plan for this area ls old and should be reviewed. Diane Lantz, 2844 Wilson Street, addressed the Corrmisslon regarding the soils portion of the draft EIR and expressed her concerns with the residential and commercial development. She rointed out that a larqe amount of fill will be required in the flat portion which will require a minimum of 90 days t ,1 settle. There will be a tremendous amount of dirt, and during any kind of wet season or bus} period, it will be unslghtl} and possibly dangerous. There ls also high ground water in the area which causes a hioh degree of llqulfactlon. During seismic actl~lt}, the ground can essentially llqulfy. She suggested that prior to final design that more testing be done on the site, so that it ls known exactly what ls there and what needs to be done to mitigate the potential proble~s to ensure that any future development will be safe for habitation and/or con,nerclal uses. In response to a question by Corrmissloner Holmes regarding the fill, Mr. Hauser advised that the fill will come up to a 90 p~rcent co111paction. As far as the time involved in settling, it would depend upon on how deep they went and how much pre-work ls done. Al Ellson, 2712 Grove, addressed the Coonlsslon and reiterated the concerns expressed earlier by Ms. Fabian as to preserving the aesthetics for the residents of the area. Anne Mauch, 3710 Garfield, addressed the C011111isslon and expressed her concern about the potentially prejudicial effect the City's purchase agreement with Grove Apartment Investllent CQtllPany will have on the Connlssion's decision tonight. She felt that the agreement seriously c0111pr011ises the integrity and independence of all subsequent public hearings on this 111c1tter, including this one. She urged the C~ission to postpone any 111c1jor land use decisions until after the election. Julie Fish, 1866 Forest, addressed the C011111isslon and suhlllitted docuaentatlon containing C011111Cnts on the Envlr- onaent I11pact Report. She spoke in opposition to the project and suggested that it be sent back to staff for further review to try to llldke it work on a Sllldller level. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the Coaaission, Chainiian Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 7:~0 p.m. COlaissioner ttcl!ane expressed his concern regarding the certification of the EnvirOflllental I11pact Report. He ?olnted out that it is based on an old Master Plan which needs to be reviewed and updated. It provides an inade- quate analysis of the alternatives to the proposal and is deficient in its analysis of the traffic, geological and aei•ic probletlS which 111c1y result in the area. MINUTES Septe~~er 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page RECESS The Planning COll'lllission recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:01 p.m., with all members present. Item No. 3 (Continued) Commissioner Marcus expressed her concern regarding the negative aspects of the project, I.e., a crowded site plan with little openness and three-story buildings. A lesser project ls being approved so that someone driving from the mall can look at trees as opposed to the residents who have invested their money Ofl the properttes there. She stated that she would not like trJ see the corrmerclal develop111ent over the residential. She felt that the residential at the intersection was a lll'JCh better design. She stated that she felt that the first plan had 111Gny superior points over this plan. Connissioner Mcfadden stated that overall she felt that Parcels E, E Prime and D were too tight. She further stated that she had no problem with the General Plan Alnend,nents, the Master Plan Amendments, and the Zone Changes, except that the density should be reduced. She added that she could not see how they could redesign this project and come back with tne same amount of usage. Co111Als ~ioner McFadden questioned the soils stability in the area; partlcularl>, Parcel E Prime. She added that it ls her understar.dlng that the development immediately to the south on the west side P.xperlenced such severe slippage of the slo~e that the developers have not built the buildings that they were permitted to build. She expressed concern about the siltation problems. Insofar as the construction Ofl Parcels D, E, and E Prime go, C01111lssloner Mcfadden pointed out, they have addressed that engineering-wise In every way possible; however, t here is also a condition that they w!l accept drainage over t heir land fr0111 ~p above. Yet, one of the problems mentioned was that the dirt that was in the water, c0111lng into the project fr011 up above, was not controlled. That s~ould be looked into. She pointed out that that she felt that Parcel D should look toward the future need fo~ a traffic light at Hosp and Monroe Streets. Co.nlssioner Hol111es expressed concern regarding the street width of the driveways on Parcel D, and the potential probletliS that can occur: especially if there ls a fire hazard. The streets should be widened to 30-feet plus. C01aissioner Hall concurred and added that he could not support the eo11111ercial development " He would prefer to see it stay residential. He C01M1ented that he felt that t he first project was a far better Ofle. Chainian Schlehuber agreed that the first project was a better one. However, he pointed out, as n.1ch as he does not like the idea of the C011111erclal situation, he realized that a lot of open space was gained out of this trade off. He atated that he would ~c cept the negotiation of the open space which offered the City a right to bJy Parr~! r. I ® MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Schlehuber suggested that Parcel D be reviewed to see what can be done to get a wider roadw.1y and a little more buffer zone for the ~esidents along Grove Avenue. He stated that althouqh he does not like the high density in Parcels E and E Prime, he is willing to accept that in order to get the open space. Co11111issioner McFadden inquired on the possibility of down zoning the area even though previous agreements have already been made. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, responded that it is always possible to down zone any property even when rights are vested. However, if you down zone, there is a possibility that the City will end up ln litigation ~er this. As to a projection of the success of a down zoning in a litigation, all the facts and issues would have to be analyzed and those possibilities would then be discussed in closed session with the Conwnisslon. Commi ssioner Schra"1111 stated that she realized that this alternative allows the opportunity to save more trees. However, she stated that she felt that there has been a lot of issues raised toniaht which need to be considered. Further, she felt that the safety issue in terms of circulation, especially becaus~ of potential fire hazards, needs to be looked at more closel). The areas in Parcel E that are low areas and collect water need to be reviewed a l so. She also expressed concern about the high density of Parcel D and stated that she would like to see that go back to staff to see if some other alternatives can be found for reducing the density. She stated that she does not object to the connercial development being in that corner if the developers can find some other way Jf doing it. Hr. Thelan, on behalf of the applicant, was given the opportunity to give a rebuttal. He pointed out that nuch of what ls seen in Parcel D ls similar to what the C011111isslon approves ln Parcel E. As to the street widths in Parcel D, he stated that it would not be a significant change to increase the road width from 26 feet to 30 feet. As to the setback for the property owners to the south, he pointed out that they are prepared to look at that issue In conjunction with the Planning Director. He stated that he felt that it ls a quest ion of a screen wall. Hr. Thelan concluded by stating that the primary mission heard ti!!'.<: and tl•e again has been tree preservation. They have atte11pted to address this point, and are willing to address the other concerns raised tonight. He stated that lt ls really important that it be sent back to the Cl~y Council. A consensus with everyone in terms of all tne site considerations will not be reached, but it ls laportant to 110ve the project along and keep Parcels D, E, and E Prlae together. The Planning C011111lssion adopted the following Resolution app~ovlng the certification of EIR 86-4: RESOLUTION HO. 2614 REC<M4EtCHNC CE:RTIFICATION ~ DIVIRON- MOOAL iRPAcf REPORT, EIR 86-4 ( HOSP ~OV[), f OR A PROJECT 1':ENERALL Y INCLOOINC GENERAL PLAN ~EtllHENTS, ZONE OtANCE, l'\'ASTER PLAN N4004EHT, TENTATIVE HAP/COrt>OUNit.14 PERMIT AM> A SITE DlV[LOPMDIT PLAN. Schlehuber I X X Hcf adden X Hall X Harcus X Hc8ane X Holaes X Schra.. X @ MINUTES Septe11ber 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION A motion was made to adopt Resolution Nos. 2615, 2617, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2621 reconnendlng approval of CT 8S- 23(A)/CP-320(A)/GPA/LU 86-10/ZC-348/SOP 86-10/GPA/LU 86- 11/ZC-350/HP-l(C) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contain~rl therein; subject to the following additional conditions: (1) all streets in Parcel D be a mlni111Um of 30 feet in width; (2) additional scr~enlng be provided to give either a setback ~r something to alleviate the problem of the residents on Grove Avenue; namely, the south side of the Parcel D project; (3) the entrance access driveway from the north parking lot area of Parcel E office project be deleted; (4) that the parking lot of Parcel Ebe redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director; and (S) that Parcel E Prime driveway off of Monroe be redesigned. The motion died due to the lack of a second. C011111issloner Marcus reco11111ended that there be some more room in the development proposed for Parcel D; further, that there be more room between the residences and Parcel D. The Planning Director will have to work it out so that there would be les~ than a SO-foot barrier along the north side of the project, and a greater barrier on the south side of the project. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Co1111isslon that this ls not one of those projects where the C~isslon has final discretionary approval, subject to an appeal. In those cases, a continuance ls almost always appropriate when the C011111lsslon needs more inforaation. In the particular application, the C~lsslon's Job under the ordinance ls to make a reconnendatlon to the City Council. He recommended that lf the C01111lssion is not going to make a motion to approve the project, that the C011111ission make a motion to recoaaend denial for the reasons stated by each individual C011111lssioner during the discussion which will be recorded in the minutes. The reasons for the denial could then go forward to the Council. Mr. Gri ... said that he thought the applicant may be requesting that the project go back to staff with an approval fr0111 the C~lssion with the requirement that the applicant fix the areas of concern presented by the C011U1issloners. Mr. Thelan stated that it ls his understanding that the conditions are: (1) street width -Parcel D; (2) screen wall -Parcel D; (3) driveway on the ~rcial site - Po ~·cel E; and (fl) the matter of the tightness of the site -Parcel D. He pointed out that there are a llUllber of different appro~ches to deal with the tightness of the site and suggested that this condition be sent back to staff to be reworked with the developers. He added that the final site plan could be returned to the Caa.ission if the Coa.lssion so desired. Coaissioner Mr.Fadden stated that she felt that Parcels E and [ Priae were too tight also. @} MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COHHISSION Following further discussion, a motion was made and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2615 rec011111ending approval of Parcel D with the following conditions (1) open up the project around 10 percent more; (2) 1110re street width; (3) a screen wall for the residents to the south be put up; and (4) increase the setback between the residents and the development. Upon a request frOIII Hr. Grimm for clarification, the mover and the seconder of the above motion agreed to add the additional conditions from staff and from the City Engineer that were given initially and that staff be permitted to go additionally into some more open space in order to open up the project further. Conrnissioner HcBane stated that he was not comfortable with the direction headed because he was not convinced that the site could cOfflfortably handle the amount of units proposed. Commissioner Hall suggested that the Connission vote on a motion for a straight denial of the project. Conaissioner Harcus stated that she would pre~er that the C<>Wlission approve tt.e project with the changes that they would like to see on it. Co-issioner Hall gave the .-easons why he felt that the Connission should vote on tte project as it has been presented tonight. He adde~ that he could not attempt to redesign the project at this point and make trade-offs from one parcel to the next. The Planning Coanission taoled the motion on the floor . The Planning C~ission denied Resolution Nos. 2615, 2617, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2621 and ~ecoanended denial of CT 85- 23(A)/CP-320(A)/CPA/LU 86-10/ZC-348/SOP 86-10/GPA/LU 86-11/ ZC-3SO/MP-1(C) based on the individual Ca.aissioner's various concerns as expressed in tonight's discussion. A letter from Hayutin, Rubinroit, Praw & Kupietzky, Attorneys at law, dated Septetllber 11, 1986 addressed to the City Attorney settfng forth their client's, owners of the reaaining undeveloped portions of Hosp Cro\'e, position in this aatter is on file with the Cierk . 4) SP-199/ZC-332/CT 85-17 -COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK - Request for ar,proval of a zone change frOIII PM (Planned Industrial), a specific plan and a tentative subdivision 111c1p to create 26 lots on the north side of PalOMc1r Airport Road at the inter-section of future College Boulevard. (This ite111 was continued to the regular meeting of October 1, 1986.) Schlehuber X McFadden X X Hall X Harcus X HcBane X Hollies X Schraa11 X Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X X Marcus X McBane X Hoines X Schr.u. X (jf) MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION S) SP-200 -CARLSBAD AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER -Request for approval of a specific plan for a 38-lot predousl) approved Industrial subdivision on 187 acres located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, a half mile east of El Camino Real ln the PH lone. Mike Howes, Senlnr Planner, gave the presentation on the above item as contained ln the staff report. Wall and transparency maps deplctlnq the site and its location were desc.lbed b) Mr. Howes. He pointed out that this tract was approved before the establishment of the airport overlay district. The district requires the preparation of a specific plan for the area. Stdff ls rec011111end i ng approval of this plan with the modification of two of the conditions and the addition of another condition. The applicant has indicated their concurrence with these 111odlf lcatlons. C~lssioner McFadden i nquired regarding the dr]inage on the western part if Loker Avenue ls not completed. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the storm drains ~re under construction and explained how it would be accomplished. He explained thdt sandbags will be placed around the basin areas and at certain intervals to prevent the siltation from getting into the storm drain system and onto the site. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearlnq opened at 8:45 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, addressed the C011111isslon and stated that the applicant agrees with the staff report and the proposed changes. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the C011111:lssion, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 9:47 p.m. A 1110tion was l'ldde and seconded to adopt the following Resolution, to include the proposed changes suggested by staff, that the sidewalks on both sides of El Fuerte and Loker be completed, that Loker Avenue be completed, and that the hydroseedlng of the vacant lots in Phases I and II take place as quickly after grading as possible. Coa.issioner Schra.i suggested that the developer also be required to confon1 to all FM rules. This was agreed to by the mover and the seconder of the above 1110tion. In the discussion that followed, Chairman Schlehuber stated that he felt that too ftJCh is being required at this tiae. C~issioncr Mcfadden stated that she did not feel that it would be a big expense to require the sidewalks, and expressed the reasons why she felt that they were necessary. Mr. Hauser stated that staff has not addressed the proposed condition of the sidewalks in tert11s of what would be required. Chairaan Schlehuber stated that he would not 5Upport the additional condition of the sidewalk require111ent based upan the lactt of inforlllcltion as to what it will involve. MINUTES September 17, 1986 PLANNINC COMMISSION Page 16 COMMISSIONERS The Planning C~ission adopted the follo•ing Rtsolution with (1) modifications proposed b) staff; (2) sidewalks be constructed on both sides of El Fuerte and Loker Avenues; (3) that Loker Avenue be completed; (4) that the hydroseeding of the vacant lots in Phases I and II take place as quickly after grading as possible; and (5) require that the project conform to the FAA Rules: RESOLUTION NO. 2609 RECOHHENOINC. APPROVAL()'° SPECIFIC Pl.AN 200, FOR A 187-ACRE 38-LCT INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE()'° PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BISECTINC THE FUTURE EL FUERTE STREET. MINUTES The Planning Co11111ission approved the minutes o·,' June 25, 1986 as presented. The Planning C011111lsslon approved the minutes of July 23, 1986 as presented. ADJOl.lUf4ENT By proper n1ntion, the Meetlnq of September 17, 1986 was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk HEETIHCS ARE ALSO TAPED Nf> KEPT ON FILE lJHIL THE HIHUTfC: AR£ APPROVED. Schlehuber Hcf adden Hall Harcus HcBane Holmes Schranwn Schlehuber Mcfadden Hall Harcus HcB,me Holll;es Schranwn Schlehuber Hcf adden Hall Harcus McBane Holmes Schran111 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X