Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-01; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES MeetinQ of: PLANNit«; COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. Time of Meet l nq : Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: October 1 , 1986 City Council ~hambers CALL TO ORDER : The Regular Meetinq was called to order by Chairman Schlehuber at 6:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL: Present -Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners McFadden, Hall, Marcus, McBane and Schranwn . Absent -Commissioner Holmes. Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Mike Howes, Senior Planner Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Civil Engineer PLANNING Co+IISSION PROCEDURES Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Commission procedures followed in meetings which were displayed for the benefit of the audience. AGEtl>A Af)()ITIONS1 DELETIONS OR ITD4S TO BE CONTINUED Per staff's request, the Planning Commission CQntinued Item No. 10 -PCD-92 -South Coast Asphalt to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission (October 15, 1986). DISCUSSION ITD4S: In response to inquiry from C011111issioner McFadden, Charles Cri11111, Assistant Planning Director, explained that the foll~ing four itet11s were inadvertently listed as discussion ltetllS when in essence they are consent calendar ltP.115. The COftlllsslon can adopt the four !teas as consent !teas, or if a C01111issloner has a question regarding any of the !teas, request that it be pulled off the consent calendar. Iteas Nos. 1 and 2 were pulled off the consent calendar for further discussion. The Planning C01111lsslon accepted staff's reconiendatlons for the following consent !teas: 3) INFORMATION ITD4 -ClJ>-237 -RANCHO LA COSTA CABLE TV -Requeat for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a cable TV earth station 4!?proxi111c1tely 1,000 feet east of the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Luclernaga Avenue ln the P-C zone. Schlehuber " HcF adden ~ " Hall ~ Marcus " HcBane " Schraan " Schlehuber k Mcfadden ~ Hall ~ Marcus " ~ McBane ~ Schrc111a ~ MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING CQtof1ISSION Page 2 4) INFORMATION ITEM RlGARDINC SOP 82-3(A) -POINSETTIA VILLAGE -Construction of an office building within a previously-approved site development plan, Poinsettia Village, located at the southeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas. AGENOA ITEMS PULLED OFF CONSlNT CALENDAR 1) INfORHATION ITEM -PLANNING CCH1ISSION PROCEDURES Chairman Schlehuber moved to further amend the procedures by revisinq Rule No. 29(d) to read as follows: "The C011111issioners should ~ring issues or concerns during the course of a public hearinq so that the applicant or the public has an opportunity to address those issues. If a proposed condition is discussed for the first time after the public hearing ls closed, the Presiding Officer shall allow sufficient time to the applicant to address the change or addition." C011111issioner McBane suggested that the public also be allowed the opportunity to address a change or addition and that it not be limited to the applicant. Chairman Schlehuber agreed to add this to the motion. The nx>tion was seconded. C011111issioner McFadden expressed the reasons why she felt that the proposed revision was not necessary and would be sufficiently covered by Rules Nos. 32 and 33. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that those particular rules do not give the right to the public and the applicant. He felt that !t should be a matter of course and not up to the COllllllssion to allow s0111eone to speak to an Issue. The Pl.:nning Connisslon adopted the following Resolution, with the revision to Rule No. 29(d) as follows: "The C011111lssioners should bring issues or concerns during the course of a public hearing so that tk applicant or the public has an opportunity to address those issues. If a proposed condition is discussed for the first time after the public hearing is closed, the Presiding Officer shall allow sufficient time to the applicant or the public to address the change or addition." 2) Itf'ORMATION ITEMS -SOC&E ENCIHA POWER PLANT Ttttccl4MllltcATtoRs rAc!L!Ttts Charles Cri1111, Assistant Planning Director, ga~e the presentation on this itetn as contained in the staff report. Photos illustrating the appearance of the sev~n ■icrowave dishes and six Bogner rad io antennas as proposed to be J.nstalled were displayed. C«-!ssioner Mcfadden inquired whether the equipment would be for the sole use of San Diego Gas and Electric. Schlehuber ~ X Mcfadden X Hall X Marcus X McBane X Schramm X r l MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COHMISSI'>N Page David Sllno, San Diego Gas & Electric, P.O. Box 1831, San Diego, addressed the Commission and responded that It will be for the sole use of SOG&E. He stated that It serves a dual purpose: (1) all the improvements will assl~t SDG&E's ability to ensure viable conrnunicat!on for SDG&E's crews, customers, and c0111111Unications with governmental agencies and other utilities. It will not be used as a network for some other private organization. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Sllno stated that he did not know wh) the specific color was selected for the stack. He clarified that the customers he refers to are the people who call up the business offices asking about problems with their bills, etc. SDG&E will have its own phone S)Stem running through this. Further, It will also provide a more cost effective service for the compan}. The Planning Connlsslon accepted staff's recommendations on Item No. 2. C011111lssloner Marcus stated that perhaps the Arts Conwnlsslon could work with SDG&E to see whether they can get the stack and equipment a different color. Conwnissioner Mcfadden inquired whether the specific plan spoke to the color; It was her understanding that It ls supposed to be a light color. Mr. Grimm comiented that SDG&E will be working with staff for an cnendment to the specific plan, and the color could probably be addressed at that time. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5) ZC-331/SP-199/CT 85-17 -COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK - Request for approval of a Zone Change to PH (Planned Industrial), a Specific Plan and a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 26 lots on the north side of PalOllldr Airport at the intersection of future College Boulevard (Continued fr0111 the September 17, 1986 meeting) Charles Gri-, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation as contained in the staff report. Wall niaps were used depicting the site and its location. He referred to a tlle9IO fr011 staff requesting certain modifications to Resolution No. 2579, and stated that the applicant has been made aware of the proposed aodlfications. He stated that the project includes 23 industrial lots. It is providing for a 4-acre natural area consisting of coastal sage scrub. It also includes a 1/2 acre park area for use of the employees which interrelates with a par course, approximately one lllile long. He pointed out that the major features of the project includes 3 to 1 slopes all along PalOllldr Airport Road, and no driveways are being located on Paloaar Airport Road. Schlehuber IX McFadden iX Hall ~ Marcus IX IX McBane IX Schramm ~ MINUTES ' October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS The three access points Into the project are from Hidden Valley Road, Colleqe, and College to the north. Fifty- foot setbacks are being provided along all arterial streets _..,lch will be enhanced with landscaping. The only major lan~ use factor on the site ls a restricted land use category area Identified by the EIR. The Intent ls to minimize the number of employees located In the area because of Its proximlt> to the runway. The standards in the Specific Plan are fairly similar to the standards the Planning COlllll'lisslon reviewed during their last meeting for the Kaiser Project to the east. Chairman Schlehuber declared the continued public hearing open at 6:24 p.m. a~d issued the Invitation to speak. Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, addressed the CU11111isslon on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they agree with the modifications being proposed by staff. He pointed out various changes which he suggested should be maa~ to Resolution No. 2579 as follows: Condition. No. 9 should be deleted. This condition was inserted prior to the applicant submitting the ne,r PFF agreement fee and the other growth management fee fonns submitted as part of tne application. The things that are requested to be done by said condition are now the Cit>'s responsibilities. Further, he noted a mlsnumberinq of the conditions of Resolution No. 2579. No. 29 was omitted. He stated that this project ls the gatewa, to the industrial areas for Carlsbad. With the setbacks required and with the flat slopes adjacent to the project, this will be a good entrance for that portion of the City for the business COINa.lnlty. Mr. Ladwig lnfonned that there ls the possibility that when the Coastal C011111ission reviews the open space area of this project, that they 111ay do It differently. If this happens, they will brin<i this project back before the Planning Cowalssion for a minor amendment to the project. There being no other person In the audience desiring to address the C011111isslon, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 6:27 p.m. C011111issioner McFadden stated that she would like to see a condition added to the Resolution regarding hydroseeding any vacant lots that are graded and where no development ls t aking place. She also in,uired regarding the use of SOCIE easeaents to fulfull the parking requiretDents. Mr. Cri-stated that it has been the Planning Cowwission and Council policy to allow parking, landscaping and open space type uses to occur in the SDC&E easement areas. Further, SOCAE has indicated that when those types of uses are allowed in those corridors, It 111akes It easier for thea to obtain the corridors frOII land owners when they are needed. © MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page S CO!llllissloner Mcfadden stated that her ob.fection was not that the easement area be used for parking, but that the parking requirement not be met If it is taken awa). She further inquired regarding the qradlng adjacent to Macarfo Canyon Park, and the applicant's request for an abandonment of a road easement up there. She was concerned th~t the developers have gone right up to the edge of the propert} line, which ls a ridge line. She stated that she would like to see a condition where the> will pull back away from the top of that ridqe in their grading. She requested the City [nglneer's input on what would make that slope viable. Clyde Wickham, Associate Civil Engineer, pointed out that the proposed design could be altered to require that the> stay out of the 20-foot wide easement. Mr. Ladwig readdressed the C011111ission and spoke regarding the grading aspect. Since the project is quite a bit below the property line in that area, no one will see the slopes or the buildings from the park. With the nonnal setbacks and the grading slopes, there ~,111 be an adequate buffer between the park and the bulldl•~s. Staff felt that this was adequate. C0111111issloner McFadden inquired whe t her the Parks & Recreation Connlsslon saw this. Mr. Grimm stated that they did not. Mr. Ladwig inquired on the reason why C011111issloner McFadden felt it necessar> to hydroseed the v~cant lots. COIM!issioner McFadden replied that it ls a dust and erosion control. Mr. Ladwig pointed out that the City Engineer has very strict requirements on grading and erosion control. An erosion control plan has to be implemented as part of the grading and a cash deposit has to be put up for 10 percent of the grading bond to ensure that if there are any problems, the City has 110ney to resolve the proble■• Further, the way it ls designed with the flat pads. the sandbagging, the three siltation basins and the deslltation basins, this concern ls mitigated and the hydroseedlng is not necessary for erosion control. Hydroseeding ls very expensive, and if the project is designed properly and the erosion control measures are follmred, then there is no problem. Mr. Ladwig stated that C01111issloner McFadden's concern regarding the SOGaE easement ls a good concern which should be addressed. The project ls in the PM Zone; the specific plan is there, and the requirement for a planned industrial perait is required for every lot. That would be the best ti■e to address the specific details of the developaent of those lots which have the SOC&E easeaent in thet11. Mr. Wickhc111 stated that the hydroseedlng of the vacant flat pads is not necessarily an erosion control ■easure; it is 111>re of an aesthetic ■easure. It ls an 8 feet per second velocity of water which starts to erode the canyons. (l) MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNINC CCJo1MISSION Commissioner McFadden stated that she went out to visit the end of the runway at Palomar Airport in relation to looking at the project, and while there, spoke to several pilots regarding the takeoff pattern of planes. She was inforaed that the largest percentage of airpla!".e crashes are on take-off, not on landinq . She expressed her concern on the height of the project, and pointed out that the Commission had said that there would be a maximum height of 24 feet in that area. Mr. Grinwn stated that staff spoke to Rick Severson at the Airport, who explained the reason for the new policy regarding the fanning out in the take-off pattern of planes. He stated that this is a voluntary program only and there is no enforcement. A pilot, as soon as they are at t he end of the runway, can basically fan 0ut as qulckl) as they want to. Hr. Grimm stated that Mr. Severson felt that it was not necessary for the Commission to expand the area of land use restriction. Mr. Ladwig added that in the staff report there ls a letter from SANDAG stating that the project is more than 100 feet below the runway and that the 35-foot limit is not a problem to them. Commissioner McBane stated that he shared some of the concerns mentioned by Commissioner McFadden about the lots that border on the park. In addition, he stated that he would like to see a O-Overlay on those lots to see what kind of development will occur there in relation to the park. COl'llllissioner HcBane referred to Condition No. J of Resolution Ho. 2577, and pointed out that there are other conditions related to the problems the COIIY!llssion has had with sewer capacity in the past. He suggested that the Condition No. ) be expanded to include other public services; specifically, water delivery. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained that Condition No. 3 ls a standard condition with regard to the sewer study and the sewer cap~city. It ls an outgrowth of the sewer 110ratorlum that still exists In the Code. The Zoning Ordinance says you cannot get building permits unless there ls adequate sewer capacity. There has never been any other indication of water facility fai l ure. Because, there ls no ordinance that implements that and the ~e ls no evidence that there ls a shortfall, he rec01111ended that the COl!lllllsslon ask staff to come back with a report on it before it ls imposed as a condition. C~lssioner HcBane requested that staff conduct said study. Mr. c,111111 added out that building permits cannot be obtained for any project until the local facilities ■anageaent progra111 ls completed. October 1, 1986 -" I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner McBane stated that the local facilities management plan does not address the issue of sources of water: It addresses the distribution system, but not the water itself. Chairman Schlehuber stated that he felt that the Q-O~erlay over the ridge area was a way to solve some of the problems discussed. Further, the question of parking regarding the SDG&E easement will come up when the particular lot comes up for development. He added that he could not support the hydroseedlng of the vacant lots on the standpoint of aesthetics alone. In response to Coll'l'l'llssloner Marcus' lnquir}, Mr. Grl11111 stated that Conditions Nos. 9 and 28 of Resolution No. 2579 should be updated with the new standard conditions. Mr. Ladwig indicated his concurrence with the proposed changes. Michae1 Holzm iller, Planninq Direct or, po i nted out that this project will be re~iewed b} staff with the planned industrial permit. If the Q-Overla) zone ls placed, then the Planning Commission will review the project at a public hearing. If the C011111ission wants to be able to review whether the required parking ls put in the SDG&E easement , a Q-Overlay will ha~e to be placed on that portion also. Commissioner Mcfadden inquired whether the Commission was going to reconnend that the City not vacate that road easement. Chairman SchlP.huber stated that the Q-Overlay will allow the review of the area. Commissioner Mcfadden stated it would be too late because the land would be given up, and the developer could grade into the easement portion. Mr. Wickham clarified that the Commission could direct staff to prepare a grading concept on the subdivision to require the developer to not grade within the SDG&E easement . Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, added that the developers have not made a request for the vacation of the easement; this would have to go before the City Council for approval. The grading for this can actually be done before they get to the O-0verlay port ion. Approval of a tentative 111ap gives them approval to come in with a grading permit. If the C011111ission wants to keep them out of the area, a condition should be placed directing staff to have the grading pulled out of there and to COllle back with a request on the Q-Overlay to develop the area. 6) MINUTES Oct ober 1, 1900 PLANNING COHHISSlON Page 8 In response to an inquiry whether staff felt that there is an erosion problem in the area, Hr. Hause r stated that not in t his pa :·ticular one. All the slopes at the end of the property line are down into the site, and all the pads would be graded at 2 to 3 percent towards the street. In this case there are slopes that are four to ten feet high that fall away from the ridge line. oasicall~, bui ldings would be below the level of the ridge line. Hr. Grinwr, stated that Hr. DeCerbo discussed a number of issues with him on this project. However, the erosion problem was nut one of them. He was more concerned wlth the visual aspect in relatlor,ship to the park and the proj ect. He eliminated that, however, as a ma.for issue. The Planning Conwr,ission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and adopted the foilowing Resolutions recomnending approval of SP-199/ZC-331 and CT-85-17 based on the findings and sub,lect to the conditions contained therein, with the changes to Resolution No. 2579 as follows: (1) Replacement of Conditions Nos. 9 and 28; (2) Hodificatlons to Conditions Nos. 36, 37 and 74; (3) the deletion of Condition No. 75; (4) the addition of a further condition requiring the compliance wi th all FAA rule~; and (5) correction to the misnumbering of the con ,tlons: RESOLUTION NO. 2577 RECOMHENOING APPROVAL OF SPECIF IC PLAN 199, FOR A 110-ACRE Ilt)USTRIAL P.a.RK GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE MORTd SIDE OF PALc»4AR AIRPORT ROAD AT fHE INTERSECfION OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. RESOLUTION NO. 2578 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROH L-C, LIMITED CONTROL TO P-H, PLANNED Ilt)USTRIAL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATffi ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. RESOLUTION NO. 2579 APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION HAP TO CREATE 26 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE CJ' PAL<J4AR AIRPORT ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF FUT UR E COLLEGE BOULEVARD. Co111111issioner McFadden stated the reasons for her "no" vote "as because ( 1) the pro.feet was not moved back 20 feet away fr0111 Macario Canyon Park; and (2) it did not include the Q-Overlay; particularly regarding the parking in the SDG.tE ease.ents. Ca..issioner HcBane stated that his "no" vote were generally for the same reasons. Schlehuber Met adden Hall Marcus McBane Schran111 ® X X X X X X X MINUTES October 1 , 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION ,... ~ g COMMISSIONERS,~~\~\ 6) CT 85-32/PU0-93 -SERIES 10,000 -Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Non- Residential Planned Unit Development for the development of twelve one-story industrial buildings on a 12.2 acre site, located along Farnsworth Court within the Carlsbad Research Center (Continued from the July 23rd meeting). Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation as contained in the staff report. He gave the background of the item which was continced at the July 23rd meeting due to the Commissioners' feeling that the 24-foot wide service driveways were too narrow. Transparency and wall maps were displayed depleting the slte. He stated that the applicant, in response to the C011111isslon's concern, has widened the driveway to 30 feet. However, to acc0111pllsh this, the applicant has removed the landscaping. Staff cannot support the oodified project for the following reasons: ( 1) project is a plan11ed unit development and already has a number of reduced standards. The landscaping should be increased rather than decreased; (2) normally, when there is a PUD, there has to be a good reason for it. Either there are enviromental constraints, or gPttlng a super project with additional landscaplnq, more than you get under norffl<'!l circumstances. Staff feels that the line ls already pretty t ight regarding the applicants being allowed to reduce standards; and (3) although not vlsable from the exterior of the project, the landscaping is an integral part of the project and would impact the people who have offices within the project. Chairman Schlehuber declared the continued public hearing opened at 7:00 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Willia~ Porter, 7330 Engineer Road, San Die--~o, The Koll Company, addressed the C011111ission and highlighted a few points in relation to the project and how it related to an overall PUO. He pointed out that the building coverage in this project ls only 4~ of that which ls allowed under the PUO Ordinance. The overall project density ls 29.51 which ls specifically below what would have been developed if it had been developed under the current specific plan. The parking exceeds the City requirements by 102 spaces. Mr. Porter used the drawings of the site to point out what was modified to acc~ate the 30-foot driveway widths. Those areas are not visible to anyone standing outside of the project. In addition none of the buildings have windows facing onto this area. He pointed out that they did aeet with the Fire Department on the question of the 2~-feet width driveways related to Fire Safety. The Departaent indicated t hat they had no desire to seek anything greater than a 24-foot width driveway. He stated that in all their other projects, 24 feP.t ls the standard, and they have never experienced a problem with users complaining about the width of the driveway. There being no other persons in the audience ,lesiring to address the C~ission, Chairaan Schlehuber declared the public hearlnq closed at 7:04 p.m. -, MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION \~~ Pae 10 ~~.~1> g COMMISSIONERS \~ ~~ ~ Conwnissioner Marcus stated that she would have no problem with this or the previous project. However, she stated that she would prefer to see the 30-foot width driveways . Connlssloner Hall concurred, and stated that he would rather trade the width or the driveways for the landscapinQ if that ls what it comes down to. He stated that as long as there are buffers between them and the adjacent properties, he would support the project. Connlssloner McBane stated that he felt that the applicant ls being responsive to what the Commissioner previously requested. The Planning Connlsslon approved the Notice of Prior Compliance and adopted the following Resolution approving CT 85-32/PUD-93, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; subject to the new exhibit reflecting the 30-foot width driveways : RESOLUTION NO. 2565 REC<»t4ENOING APPROVAL OF A 16-LOT TENTATIVE TRACT HAP ANO A NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENEP.ALLY LOCATED ALONG FARNSWORTH COURT WITHIN THE CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7) CUP-215(A)/CUP-224(A)/CUP-226(A)/CUP-250(A) -CITY Of CARLSBAD -Request for approval of four conditional use permit c111endments to modify a condition regarding transfer of ownership at delicatessens in the P-M zone. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the presentation of this item as contained in the staff report. The proposed modification does not affect any of the other conditions of the original CUP's or the findings that were adopted. Staff ls reconnendlng approval. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearinQ opened at 7:11 p.m. and issued the invitation to speaK. There being no person in the audience desiring to address the Co11111lsslon, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 7:11 p.m. The Planning C011111isslon approved the Prior Compliance and adopted the following Resolutions approving CUP-215(A), CUP-224(A), CUP-226(A) and CUP-250(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: RESOLUTION NC.. 2610 AMENDING AN APPROVED CONOITIONAL USE PERHil To Al.LOW 4 TAKE CXJT ~NDWICH SHOP ~ PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATfO IN SUITE A AT 2382 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE (CHOI). RESOLUTION HO. 2611 AMENDING AN APPROVfO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SANDWICH SHOP ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SUITE BAT 2151 LAS PALMAS DRIVE (VAN VOORHIS/SHORffR). RESOLUTION NO. 2612 AMENDING AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to Ai.tow,; SANDw1cH SHOP ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SUITE BAT 5375 AVENIDA ENCINAS (PHILLIPY). RESOLUTION NO. 2613 AMENDING AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE ~~It.le ~~E~ I~K!iuWl r~~wl~o ~R~ ~rvERf hM). Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X Marcus X X McBane X Schra11111 X Schlehuber X McFadden X X Hall X Marcus X McBane X Schran111 X MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION 8) CUP-295 -CITY Of CARLSBAD -Request for approval to allow construction or five temporary modulars to be located at the Carlsbad Safety Center. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, noted an insertion to Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 2622 which was inadvertently omitted as follows: "Exhibits 2 and 5 , dated October 11 1986 •.• " Mr. Wayne gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report. C<>11111issioner McFadden inquired regarding the parking requirements. Mr. Wayne stated that the temporary units will occupy an area that ls slated for future parking; there ls more than enough parking for the uses that will be there in this ln~erim period. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearlng open~d at 7:20 p.m. and issued the invltatlun to speak. Bebe Grosse, 5850 Sunnycreek Road, addressed the C011111ission and requested that the Co11111isslon be sensitive to the neighborhood areas which are presently adjacent. In the future, the Mandana Project will have development of some 100+ homes overlooking the backyard of the safety center. She stated that she is not opposed to this request. However, there are certain things that can be done which will also benefit the view corridor of the Mandana pro,tect. Mrs. Grosse pointed out that there is the problem of litter which goes over the hillside; a berm would keep that from happening. Further, the landscaplna and the lighting should be addressed on the buildings which really front out into the canyon. There are six lights on the maintenance building that ls there now which are probably not aimed as they should be. They could be shielded on the top. Further, vans or vet,lcles of all types are s0111Cthlng that go along with a public safety center. Landscaping can certainly provide a buffer to the adjacent neighborhood property. Hrs. Grosse requested that she be on a list for any public notices dealing with the safety center. Mr. Grl11111 so noted the request. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the C011111isslon, Chair111an Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 7:24 p.m. COC1111issioner Harcus inquired regarding the lighting. A condition could be included that the lighting will be directed down. Joe Eggleston from Utilities and Maintenance Depart,nent was present and he indicated that he would take care of it. ® MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION \~ \~ \1<,~41.~~ Page 12-cOMMISSIONERS \~ ~~ ~\ Commissioner Schranwn noted that Condition No. 4 on the detailed landscape map would meet Mrs. Grosse's suggestion i n terms of the landscapinq around the pro.feet itself. Mr. Wayne added that when staff does review the landscape plans, the concerns rals~d by Mrs. Grosse would be taken Into consideration. The Planning Conwnlsslon approved the Negative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution approving CUP-295, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: RESOLUTION NO. 2622 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ~ FIVE TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE END ~ IMPALA DRIVE, EAST~ PALMER WAY. 9) ZCA-195 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -An a~endment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise Chapter 21 .45, the Planned Development Ordinance. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave a detailed presentation on this Item as contained In the staff report. He noted that the street width requirements have been revised substantially, and ln many instances, the minimum street width has been increased. Also, minimum lot size for small lot subdivisions were established. Conwnlssioner Marcus referred to Section 21.45.090(q) Recreation Space (10), and inquired why the landscaped areas within five feet of a dwelling unit section was deleted from that subsection. Mr. Ho~es pointed out that a number of small lot subdivisions have backyards as a common recreation area. The way it was previously written, it would have eliminated a good portion of the backyard from being counted as fulfilling recreation requirements. The intent of the exclusion was to stop developers frOIII counting the area between a sidewalk and a building as recreation space. However, with the proposed chanye, a developer can now count the area as part of a larger recreation area (10 feet is the minimum requirement). Each project would be handled ind! v !dually. C011111lssloner McFadden stated that it was her understanding fr0111 reading the Resolution that the six-foot balconies could not be counted as recreational open space. Mr. Howes stated that that was not staff's intent. It was the consensus of the C<>1111lssion that the balconies not be counted, and that the Resolution remain worded as it is regarding the balconies. Conalssioner Mcfadden inquired whether the Parks & Recreation Connlsslon or Department gave any input to the proposed revisions. Mr. Howes responded that they did ,lot. At this tiine a lengthy discussion ensued wherein the C0111111lssioners expressed their concern with the proposed 24-foot minlmuM width streets for private driveways. COllll!issloner Schrdlllll suggested that it be increased to 26 feet. Schlehuber X McFadden X Hall X X Marcus X McBane X Schranwn X @ MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COl-f4ISSION Chairman Schlehuber Inquired why the cut-off point for the minimum 24-foot width streets was at 19-units. Mr. Wickha111 explained that 19 units or less would generate 2,000 ADT generally, and that was the reason for the cut- off there. C011111issloner McBane stated that It was his understanding that the slopes over 151 were to be Included under Section 21.45.090(q)(10). Staff stated that it could be done. COlll!lissioner Schramm pointed out a correction to Section 21.45.090(b)(5) where some wordinq was left in which should have been deleted. Staff so noted the correction. Following further discussion, a motion was made and seconded to recOlllllend appro~al of the Neqative Declaration and to adopt Resolution No. 2568 reco11111ending approval of ZCA-195; and to increase the minimum street widths for private streets serving 19 units or less to 26 feet; to add the 151 slopes to Section 21.45.090(g)(10), and to correct the wording in Section 21.45.090(b)(5). Further discussion ensued regarding the street widths. Chairman Schlehuber stressed that the streets should be wide enough to allow parking on one side. People are parkinq on the narrow streets almost on a daily basis even though it is illegal. Mr. Grillll'I COlll!lented that by requiring parking on one side (32 feet width streets), the Commission ls basically giving people their guest parking on the streets. It ls less aesthetically pleasing. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, added that by making the streets wide enough to comfortably park on one side, the C011111!ssion would be encouraging motorist to violate th~ fire lanes. Discussion continued on the suggestion that the streets be widened to 30 feet; that the curbs be painted red; and that "no parking" signs be put up. It was the general consensus of the Ca.11lssion that all the curbs not be ?ainted red, and that signs not be put up on all the streets that are less than 32 feet width. The maker of the 1110tion and the second agreed to change the mini-.im street width from 26 feet to 30 feet. The Planning Ca.aission rec01aended approval of the Negative Declaration and adopted the following Resolution reco.-ending approval of ZCA-195; with the follvtring changes: (1) 30-foot width minimum streets for private streets; (2) add the 151 slopes to Section 21.~5.090(g)(10); and (3) correct the wording under Section 21.45.090(b)(5): RESOLUTION NO. 2568 REC<N4ENOING APPROVAL ~ A ZONE CHANGE ANE..-.ENT AMENOlt«: TITLE 21, CHAPTER 45, ~ THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TO READ AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A". Schlehuber X Hcf adden X Hali X Harcus X HcBane X Sehr.-.. X X @ MINUTES October 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORHA TION ITEM 10) PC0-92 -SOUTH COAST ASPHALT -Request for temporar) rock minlnq and processinq operation in the Carlsbad Research Center. (This item was continued to the October 15, 1986 meetinq.) ADDEO ITEMS ANO REPORTS Planning Connission Chairman Schlehuber referred to the previous motion made regarding the revision to Rule 29(d) of the Planning C~isslon procedures and expressed his concern that it may be abused by allowing the public the right to give input after the public hearing ls closed on issues raised by the C011111lssloners. Chairman Schlehu~er announced that this was Dan Hentschke's last meeting and expressed the Commission's appreciation for his guidance and asslstance at the meetings. He stated that a gavel ls being prepared on Mr . Hentschke's behalf. C011111isslon McFadden inquired whether the workshop previously requested by the Colllllission were being set up. Ms . Bobble Hoder replied that the} were set up. Staff Hr. Grl11111 announced that there were not any agenda items ready at this tl111e for the November 5, 1986 regular meeting and inquired whether the C011111isslon desired to cancel the meeting. The Commission agreed to cancel the Nove111ber 5, 1986 meeting. MINUTES The Planning Co-.lssion approved the minutes of the August 13th and August 27, 1986 meetings as presented. The Planning C~lsslon approved the minutes of the July 30, 1986 meeting as presented. The Planning Coinission approved the minutes of the Septelllber 3, 1986 meeting as presented. Schlehuber X Hcf adden X Hall X Harcus X X HcBane X Schra11111 X Schlehuber X Mcfadden X Hall X Marcus X X HcBane X SchriWII X Schlehuber X Hcf adden X Hall X Harcus X X HcBane X Schraa. X ® MINUTES October 1 , 1986 PLANNING COHHI5SION Page 15 COMMl$SIONERS AD JOURK'4 ENT By proper motion, the meeting of October 1, 1986 was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOUMILLER Planning Director Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk EC:tb MEETINGS ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. @