Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-18; Planning Commission; Minutes, . Meeting of: Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. CORRECTED MINUTES Date of Meeting: February 18, 1987 *' Place of Meeting: Safety Center Conference Room \ 0 4 COMMISSIONERS ’ CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Vice-Chairman McFadden. ROLL CALL: Present - Vice-Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, McBane, Schramm, and Schlehuber Absent - Chairman Marcus Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Vice-Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: There were no agenda additions, deletions, or items to be continued. PUBLIC HEARING: la) SDP 86-3 - RANCH0 LA COSTA PLAZA - Request for a Site Development Plan for 4.52 acre commercial development at the southeast corner of La Costa Avenue and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road in the P-C Zone. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the project and stated that the project was submitted in April 1986. An issue letter was sent to the applicant the same month. The Engineering and Planning Departments have concerns with the proposed circulation, parking layout, and location of the driveways. The most significant problem, however, is that the application for Neighborhood SE-15 (La Costa Master Plan) is incomplete. The applicant's proposed plans only show development on one of two parcels and, in accordance with the La Costa Master Plan, development plans for entire neighborhoods must be processed concurrently and cannot be processed in stages. The one parcel being left out of the application is owned by an oil company and will probably be developed with a service station. The parcels are located at the intersection of a proposed prime arterial and a secondary arterial and staff is concerned about limited access since the smaller parcel must gain access through the larger parcel. The applicant was made aware of these problems in April 1986 but has made little effort to work with staff to resolve the issues. It has been several months MINUTES -- February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 ;: \ COMMISSIONERS since the applicant has made a serious attempt to process the project. On February 17, 1987 the applicant finally submitted plans that showed the entire site. Because considerable time and expense has been expended trying to resolve the issues, and in spite of the recent submission of plans, staff recommends that this project be denied without prejudice. Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Samuel Blick, Fairbanks Ranch Plaza, Ranch0 Santa Fe, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that when the application was originally submitted, they were under the impression that the other parcel was owned by La Costa Land Co. and, after being informed that it was actually owned by Union Oil, they have been attempting to reach an agreement so that a contiguous plan could be submitted to the Planning Department. After many months of negotiations, an agreement was reached and a complete site plan was submitted on February 17, 1987. The applicant was advised by staff that the landscape plan failed to include landscaping for the service station, a minor matter which can easily be remedied. Mr. Blick continued by saying that a denial of the project at this time would be significant since they had worked very arduously to meet the requirements and to begin again from scratch would be costly and time consuming. In addition, the applicants have agreed to dedicate a significant portion of the frontage to the City for use in the widening of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. He reiterated that the delays were normal delays, virtually out of their control since it required the agreement of an adjacent property owner, and asked the Planning Commission for consideration of this project at this time. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Blick if the present plans are complete enough to go to public hearing and he replied that they were, with the exception of plant placement on the landscape plan for the service station. There were no more inquiries of Mr. Blick. Jack Peek, 10180 Telesis Court, San Diego, representing Commonwealth Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that he has put a tremendous amount of time and energy over the past year into the project. He reviewed the significance of the improvements which would be included in the project to widen Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and asked for consideration for the project to go forward to public hearing. ' There were no inquiries of Mr. Peek. Marie Wilson of Leucadia, representing Union Oil, addressed the Commission and stated that the delay was caused by internal changes which had been taking place within the company during the past year. She stated that Union Oil was ready to go ahead with construction, if approved. There were no inquiries of Ms. Wilson. There being no others to address the Commission on this topic, Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. MINUTES February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 -2 COMMISSIONERS ’ \ Commissioner Hall inquired how the growth management ordinance would pertain to this project if the project is denied without prejudice. Mr. Howes replied that the applicant could not reapply until the public facilities plan for Zone 11 is approved. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired whether the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road widening needs this frontage dedication in order to be completed. Mr. Howes stated that he believed the frontage dedication of approximately 500 feet would be required in order to complete the construction to full width. Commissioner Schlehuber then asked if, without the widening, this could be compared to Palomar Road where the street is four lanes wide and narrows to two lanes. Mr. Howes replied that it would be a temporary situation and deferred answer to the Engineering Department. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, stated that Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would probably not narrow to two lanes but that there would be some narrowing, that the fully widened street would be designated as a Prime Arterial and would accommodate six lanes. He further stated that the Engineering Department would prefer to have the widening go forth. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired whether there would be sidewalks on the temporary widening and Mr. Hauser replied that he did not know. Vice-Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Hauser if he had seen the plans that were just submitted on this project. Mr. Hauser replied that, to his knowledge, Engineering had not seen the new plans. Commissioner Holmes stated that he can certainly understand the frustration of more than one owner on this project and he is in favor of denying the recommended denial on the basis that the project still must go to a full public hearing. Commissioner Schramm asked staff if they still recommend denial at this point. Mr. Howes replied that staff has spent considerable time and expense in trying to work with the applicant. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that if, in fact, the City would lose money on this project by having to complete the widening of the street at a later date, he could support getting it done right the first time. He then asked if the City Attorney could work out a way to collect additional fees on this project. Commissioner McBane stated that he has sympathy with the developer but questions whether it is a good idea to rescind staff's recommendation for denial. Commissioner Hall stated that he agrees with Commissioner McBane and feels that the project should be denied and reapplied for so that it goes through the entire growth management process. He further feels that 500 ft. of frontage is insignificant. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he feels the City should have some understanding in hearing the situation. He does not feel that this will give the applicant any advantage over others. He is concerned with a possible road hazard and feels that the project is located at a key intersection. MINUTES February 18, +’ \ 0. 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 < COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chairman McFadden asked if there is some way that the fees can be enlarged. Mr. Ball of the City Attorney's office stated that application fees are enacted by ordinance and imposed by resolution. He knows of no way to increase the application cost and that the fees are established to couer actual expenditures and not designed to make a profit. Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the developer could volunteer extra funds even though we may not have the legal right to require them. Mr. Ball replied that this would be possible if the developer would agree voluntarily. Vice-Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Blick if he would like to respond. He replied that he did not feel that the public facilities impact should be the prime consideration since this project would have virtually no impact on public facilities, but that the major consideration should be the street widening, and both applicants have agreed to contribute approximately 500 feet of frontage to the street widening. He went on to say that his clients would like to volunteer to pay additional fees in order to avoid the necessity of reapplying. Vice-Chairman McFadden asked Planning Director Holzmiller if staff would be comfortable with additional fees and he replied that he would attempt to determine how much would be necessary to cover actual costs. Commissioner Hall asked how a number could be determined for other growth management requirements. Planning Director Holzmiller agreed that there may be other cost considerations in the growth management plan once it is established, but that they are unknown at this time. Commissioner Hall asked if the applicant is volunteering to pay their fair share of other considerations once they have been determined. Mr. Peek addressed the Commission and stated that he has no problem committing to the city to pay his fair share of assessment fees which originate from the growth management plan for Zone 11. Vice-Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Ball if he was satisfied with the response of the applicant. Mr. Ball replied that it would be acceptable for the applicant to volunteer to sign an agreement to pay additional fees when the amount has been determined. Commissioner Hall stated that it is his understanding that the applicant will pay any fees necessary to bring this area into compliance and asked for verification. Planning Director Holzmiller replied that the applicant has agreed to participate with any improvements which may be required as a result of the growth management plan. Commissioner Hall commented that this sounds like a blank check and Commissioner Schlehuber answered by saying that this was an overstatement; that the applicant would pay the same fee as if tonight's project was denied and applicant had to reapply. Vice-Chairman McFadden agreed with Commissioner Schlehuber's assessment of the situation and stated that it was her understanding that the applicant had agreed to pay their fair share. Planning Director Holzmiller explained that "fair share" would be a cost that would be shared by all developers and gave the example of oversizing a sewer line. Commissioner McBane inquired if an increase of the right-of-way which came out of the growth management plan could be another fee situation. Planning Director Holzmiller MINUTES February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 -4 COMMISSIONERS \; felt this was a good point because some zone improvements are based upon a traffic analysis. Commissioner Schramm inquired about fees for libraries and Planning Director Holzmiller replied that library fees are applied to residential developments rather than commercial developments. Mr. Blick addressed the Commission and stated that he has been authorized by his client to volunteer payment of their fair share of the public facility fees, the fees for processing the application, their share of the fees for full street widening and construction, and their fair share of any additional fees which may be assessed for Zone 11. Motion was duly made and seconded to deny the staff recommendation to deny the project without prejudice. Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hall to approve the staff recommendation of denial without prejudice but the motion failed to receive a second. The Planning Commission denied the staff recommendation on SDP 86-3, Ranch0 La Costa Plaza, and voted to proceed with the project as presented. lb) V-374 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD - Request for a variance to erect service station signs at the northeast corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real in the C-2 Zone. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the project and stated that the project was submitted in May 1986. In June 1986 the applicant was sent a letter expressing concerns of the Planning and Engineering Departments. The sign ordinance permits a sign of 48 square feet and the proposed sign is 81 square feet. The sign is also higher than permitted by the ordinance and since it would be located at the intersection of a prime and secondary arterial, it could create a serious visual hazard to motorists. No efforts have been made by applicant to redesign the proposed sign and last contact with the applicant was in November 1986. Staff recommends the project be denied without prejudice. Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Frank Wells, representing Atlantic Richfield, addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant understands the problems with the sign in relation to the corner and impeding traffic. He stated that the applicant has been working with Ranch0 La Costa on a more extensive revision involving signage and other details which they expect to submit within 4-6 months. Mr. Wells recommended that the Commission accept the staff recommendation of denial without prejudice. Planning Director Holzmiller stated that the applicant would not have to wait until the growth management plan for Zone 11 has been approved. Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm -. MINUTES February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS There being no others to address the Commission on this topic, Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the staff recommendation on V-374, Atlantic Richfield, to deny the project without prejudice. lc) CT 85-12/SP-198 - FARADAY BUSINESS PARE - Request for a 31 lot tentative tract map and Specific Plan on a 203 acre parcel east of the Carlsbad Safety Center. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the project and stated that the project was submitted in February, 1985. Shortly after it was submitted, the applicant, the County of San Diego, was informed that the application was incomplete. As of this date the applicant has still not signed and submitted the necessary agreements or made a serious attempt to resolve the Planning and Engineering Department's concerns. Staff recommends the project be denied without prejudice. Commissioner Hall inquired if anyone representing the applicant was in attendance and Mr. Howes replied that there was not. He then inquired when was the last time there was contact with the applicant. Mr. Howes replied that it had been many months and he had not been personally involved. To his knowledge, the last contact had been a letter to the Director of Public Works, County of San Diego, which had not received a reply. Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. There being no persons to address the Commission on this topic, Vice-Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the staff recommendation on CT 85-12/SP-198, Faraday Business Park, to deny the project without prejudice. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of February 4, 1987 as presented. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Vice-Chairman McFadden inquired of staff if the first Zone plan will be ready for the meeting on March 4. Planning Director Holzmiller replied that it may not be ready in the advance packets in time for review and that if it is presented, action need not be taken at the March 4 meeting. Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 -5 \ COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if a time or date had been set for the Planning Breakfast which will include the Planning Commissioners of all North County cities. Planning Director Holzmiller stated that the breakfast would be held at Pea Soup Andersen's on April 2, 1987 from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, to clarify the legal position of Planning Commissioners going on private property to make an inspection in connection with the processing of an application. Mr. Ball replied that any Commissioner or City employee may only enter with the permission of the owner, written or implied, and that permission expires when an application has been acted upon. He further stated that permission can be revoked at any time and if you are so advised, you are obliged to leave. After discussion, motion was duly made and seconded to request staff to put this item on the agenda for March 4 so that it can be discussed in more detail. Commissioner Hdti& Hall inquired whether it would also be possible to add an economic study for parks and facilities maintenance to a future agenda. Commissioner McBane stated that he had just completed participation on a task force study of a one year operating budget and analysis which includes maintenance of parks and facilities and that the task force report would be submitted to City Council next week. After discussion, motion was duly made and seconded to add a request to the City Council to enact a study on how to finance the maintenance of parks and facilities, to the next agenda. Commissioner McBane inquired about a study which had been conducted by Mike Howes on acoustical barriers along the freeway. After discussion, motion was duly made and seconded to request staff to add this item to the next agenda as a discussion item so that the matter can be discussed in detail. Vice-Chairman McFadden reported that the Downtown Merchants would like to have their Croquet Tournament in late April and for the Commissioners to begin thinking about it. Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm February 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS ’ ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of February 18, 1987 was adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Minutes amended March 4, 1987 (correction in bold print on page 7). 4 \ : - & s P 3