Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-15; Planning Commission; MinutesPlace of Meeting: Public Safety and Service Center 3 COMMISSIONERS \ I CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Marcus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairperson Marcus. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairp‘erson Marcus, Commissioners Hall, HcFaWen, Schlehuber and Schramm. Commissioner McBane arrived at 6:06 P.M. Absent - Commissioner Holmes. Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Dee Landers, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairperson Marcus summarized the Planning Commission procedures for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA : Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: April 15, 1987 There was no one in the audience desiring to speak on an item not listed on the agenda. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: Staff requested item number 1 be trailed to the end of the agenda. They felt a number of smaller items could be taken with the audience being able to give input before the longer discussion on item number 1. Planning Commission trailed item number 1 - Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 3 - to the end of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2) AV 86-12 - MORRISON - Request for a side yard variance to permit a six-foot wall in the front yard setback. Charles Grimm gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, adding new information as shown on a graphic displayed for the Commission, indicating the property line is dissimilar to the one in the packet. The staff received a note stating the graphic received by the City was measured wrong. There is an additional City right-of-way of nine feet from the property line. The fence is about four feet from the front property line. Mr. Grimm stated the thirteen feet shown should be labeled four feet. The thirteen feet is from the curb and not from the property line. Marcus Hall McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES April 15, 1987 Chairperson Marcus opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2632, DENYING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-FOOT CONCRETE FENCE IN FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3421 ANN DRIVE. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 3) AV 86-14 - BENDER - Request to allow a 65” high wooden fence in the front yard at 2955 Valley Street. Mike Howes gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, using overheads to show the site and the fence extending into the City right-of-way. He added that it was easy to make a mistake in that area as Valley Street is only partially improved with no sidewalks and an asphalt curb. However, staff could not make findings for the variance in this situation and recommended denial. Commissioner Schlehuber asked what the rule was on the other fences along that area. He pointed to places where there are fences adjacent to this property. Staff answered the ruling was to allow up to a 42” fence in the front yard set back. In the older part of town, people have built into the right-of-way. However, staff does not take action unless there is a complaint. A complaint was received regarding this fence. The fence is actually built in the right-of-way. Commissioner Schlehuber continued, stating the man next door is farther out into the right-of-way than this man with his fence, and the one to the right has a wire fence that must be in the right-of-way because it lines up with the wooden fence that is in the right-of-way. The properties on both sides have fences in the right-of-way. Staff stated the problem is the height of the fence rather than the location. Chairperson Marcus opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Michael Anderson presented a petition from the neighbors, stating they approved of the front yard fence located at 2955 Valley Street. He also presented four photographs showing the fence, the view from across the street, from the south from the neighbors house, from the north and the view from across the street. These were all made a part of the record. There was also a letter from Rod and Rebecca Windle, 2945 Valley Street, giving their approval of the fence. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm P MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Anderson stated the fence was erected because the laborers across the street were harassing his wife. He talked with police officers and in order to file a complaint, he had to prove what they were doing. He stated he is out of town for a week at a time and he did not want the field workers harassing his wife while he was absent. He stated they had inquired about erecting the fence and how high the fence could be, and understood as long as it was not over six feet high, it would be legal. This is a rural area, across the street from greenhouses where there is a six-foot chain link fence. Also, there is a fence at the end of the street that is even higher than six feet. He stated the fence is sixteen feet, six inches from the street. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed at 6:14 P.M. Commissioner Schlehuber stated it was unfortunate this fence was on this particular street, inasmuch as this street is completely different from Ann Drive. Ann Drive is urbanized, while this street is not. The picket fence is out farther than this fence. As to the height of the fence, he stated it gets to the height more on the side rather than on the front. He did not feel it was fair to single this man out, and if this man is to be reprimanded for building his fence, the entire street should then have to conform. Commissioner McBane commented on Buena Vista there are six-foot fences for the same reasons. He felt the number two finding was a property right enjoyed by a lot of the neighbors in that area. Commissioner Schlehuber stated the fact that the fence was % the public right-of-way was a concern. He asked if there was a conditional permit that could be granted for such a fence . Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated no private person can gain a right on property owned by a public agency by building on it. Work done in the public right-of -way encroachment can be with a permit saying improvements can be removed whenever needed by a public entity. Commissioner Schlehuber stated he would grant this applicant some rights here and sign an encroachment agreement stating it was just a temporary permission. The street is not a normal situation, and as long as he understood that the encroachment was just a temporary situation, some findings could be made to fit this situation. If this is anything but a temporary situation, he felt everyone should take down their fences in that area. Commissioner McBane concurred with Conmissioner Schlehuber. P 9 MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Schlehuber made a motion to send this request back for a resolution allowing the applicant some type of permit to allow him to keep the fence. A condition should be added to have him sign an agreement as Attorney Ball indicated making findings as follows: 1) extraordinary circumstances and agricultural across the street, with the fence providing some screening; and 2) there are a number of property owners all up and down the street with fences in the same location as this gentlman’s. This was no detriment to public welfare since the City would have the right to go in and remove the fence. It will not grossly affect the General Plan, because this is a temporary condition and will be changed as soon as the neighborhood develops. Commissioner McBane seconded the motion. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, stated this would be subject to City Council approval, as all above ground encroachments have to be approved by Council. This would be a permitting process and different from a simple right- of -way. You would be granting a variance for the height, and Council would have the ability to allow the applicant an encroachment in the right-of-way. Commissioner McBane stated he wanted to ask Commissioner Schlehuber about the first finding, namely A. He wanted to know the extraordinary circumstances. Commissioner Schlehuber stated he felt if this applicant had a particular fence that no one else in the same zone had, that would be different. In this case, everyone else has a fence either farther out into the right-of-way or equal to his. He felt that was extraordinary and this gentleman was the first one with a solid fence. Everyone has an illegal fence on that street, and that is why this is extraordinary. Commissioner McFadden stated she was having trouble with the fence being in the right-of -way. She stated a variance on the height of the fence could be given. Commissioner Schlehuber stated staff had measured and was talking about a forty-two inch fence in the front. He felt privacy was needed in this case because of the agriculture across the street. The agriculture across the street has presented a problem, inasmuch as the applicant has presented evidience of harassment going on from the workers in the fields. As long as this area remains agriculture, the fence should be allowed. Comissioner Schlehuber stated he would change his view, if and when the area becomes developed. Chairperson Marcus stated she could not see granting th request because of harassment. If that were done, everyone could put up a fence claiming harassment. iS Commissioner Hall stated he would like to cover the question that a variance could be granted for the height of the fence in this particular situation. He would like to make a condition that if this applicant goes to the City Council, and the encroachment is denied, then the variance would not be granted. Commissioner McBane stated he would like to know whether the applicant would be willing to move the fence out of the public right-of-way. ,c- T MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page At this point, Commissioner Schlehuber withdrew his original mot ion, with the consent of the second. Mr. Anderson returned to the podium and was asked whether he would move the fence out of the right-of -way, if he were granted a variance for the height. The applicant stated he would move the fence back onto his own property and out of the City right-of -way. Commissioner Schlehuber made a motion to allow the applicant the height of the fence as it is, with the applicant agreeing to move the fence out of the public right-of-way. Commissioner McBane seconded the motion. The motion was later withdrawn, with the consent of the second. Commissioner McFadden stated the ground steps down to the yard and that the fence is at the rise level now and would drop down if moved back. This would reduce the height of the fence, as it would be dropped down to the retaining wall. Staff was questioned how the height of fences is measured, whether it is the height to the base of the fence or as it appears at street level. It was determined by staff the fence would be measured forty two inches from the street level. Planning Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2631, DENYING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIFTY-NINE TO TO SIXTY-FOUR INCH HIGH DOG-EARED CEDAR FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2955 VALLEY STREET. This request was denied without prejudice. 4) CUP-301 - STARVIN’ MARVIN’S - Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a delicatessen and catering shop in a portion of an industrial building at 5431 Avenida Encinas in the Ocean Pointe Tech Center in the P-M zone. Mike Howes gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the site. He read the five conditions placed on other delicatessens in the area and staff recommended approval. Chairperson Marcus opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak. The applicant, Evelyn Costas, Oceanside, stated she was not certain what percentage of catering they would be doing, but there was no truck involved in the business. She stated this business would mainly consist of people calling for party platters, and they would either pick those up or make other arrangements for delivery. Primarily, the business would be take-out tray. 3im McCormick, 2404 Senora Court, representing Sea Pointe Developers, the owner of the project, addressed the Commission, stating they concurred with staff’s recommendation and felt a delicatessen would be of benefit to their project, which is 85 to 90% full. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm *. c P MINUTES ‘I April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed at 6:34 p.m. Planning Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2652, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DELICATESSEN AND CATERING SHOP ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT SUITE E, OCEAN POINTE TECH CENTER, 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball requested Item 15, page 2 of the Resolution be corrected to read: Section 15301. 5) PCD/GPC 87-1 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - General Plan Consistency Determination for La Costa Avenue Corridor Projects. Mike Howes gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the corridor area. Commissioner McFadden asked for a time on Project Number 3215, which is the improving of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Staff stated they estimated this would be within a year. Commissioner McFadden asked about Project Number 3233, the La Costa Avenue Mitigation, and asked if that were to be implemented concurrent with the intersection improvement, and, if so, when. Also, she asked how this mitigation interfaced with the lagoon restoration program. Mike Howes replied those programs are being coordinated. Dave Hauser added this would be out to bid within three months. Planning Commission found by Minute Motion that the La Costa Avenue Corridor Projects - Municipal Projects 3208, 3215, 3218, 3219 and 3233 are consistent with the General Plan. 6) PCD/GPC 87-2 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - General Plan Consistency Determination for Hosp Grove Land Acquisition. Chairperson Marcus announced although this was listed as a public hearing on the agenda, it was not a public hearing. Charles Grimm gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show Hosp Grove. He stated this general plan amendment would be scheduled on the next Council hearing date and would be on the next City schedule for amendments to the Land Use Element to reflect open space because at this point prior to purchase, some areas are still residential and commercial. Mr. Grimm asked the following change be made in the Resolution: In the title of the Resolution, change the word “park” to “open space”. In the body of the Resolution, line 12, delete the words “park and”. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schrannn Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm April 15, 1987 r‘ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner McBane commented the Land Use Map is not consistent and should be changed. Commissioner Schlehuber objected to considering anything other than just the resolution tonight. Planning Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2653, FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY FOR PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PURPOSES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. INFORMATION ITEMS: 7) SP-199 - CENTRE DEVELOPMENT Charles Grimm gave the staff presentation as contained in the staff memorandum. The applicant was requesting a Planning Commission Amendment to allow a twenty-one foot high crib wall on the north side of Palomar Airport Road several hundred feet west of Palomar Airport Road and Camino Vida Robles, in lieu of relocating the SDG&E tower. A transparency was used to show the proposed crib wall and the location of that wall. The applicant has stated there would be a number of benefits to the crib wall; 1) it would be heavily landscaped and attractive; 2) relocation of this crib wall would save time and the need for relocating the SDG&E tower. The applicant felt it would not interfere with the sight distance for traffic on Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Grimm stated the staff is opposing this request, because when the project was originally submitted, the tower was listed for relocation. Staff had a lot of concern about the slopes along Palomar Airport Road, as most of those slopes were a three to one ratio, with the taller slopes pulled up into the project. Staff felt a crib wall would not be complimentary to the three to one slopes. Also, south-facing crib walls do not hold their maintenance as well as north-facing walls, because of the intense sun exposure. Mr. Grimm stated Palomar Airport Road has been designated as a scenic corridor and a crib wall would be out of character in that area. Mr. Grimm stated one final point was the applicant had submitted a new proposal, which was recieved by staff yesterday afternoon. Staff had not had time to study the renderings and would need more detailed plans and could not comment on the revised plan from renderings. Based on the existing plans, staff would still recommend denial. Nick Banche, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, representing Centre Development, addressed the Commission stating he wished to outline what he thought was the problem. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramn April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Mr. Banche stated the staff report seemed to indicate there was a “deal cut” and the new pole was to be relocated. He referred to letters stating there was nothing in the contract about removal of the pole; no price break on the purchase of the property because of the pole, and if there was a contract, it has not been produced. Neither is there a map nor an approval with a condition to remove the pole. In October of 1985 revisions to the map were made, including a crib wall and a letter from Rick Engineering on behalf of the applicant that Brad Therrien had given tacit approval of a crib wall. Centre Development paid $55,000 to SDG&E to butress the pole in order to build the wall. Mr. Banche stated money and time are the issues. He stated there was no intent on the part of Centre Development to Welch on any agreement or any contract. If there is such an agreement to move the pole, they will move the pole. However, to date, no such agreement has been found. If this has to be removed, a new pole could cost $400,000 or $500,000 and a delay of eight months to a year in the project. Mr. Banche stated the pole was placed in the wrong place in the first place and the wrong radius was given, and the City of Carlsbad waived its right to ask SDGLE to move anything. Mr. Banche said if more money is wanted, make a condition of approval of the wall to resurrect the center median on Palomar Airport Road, plant it and maintain it. Frank Wagner, Project Manager, Centre Development, 2204 Garnet, San Diego, addressed the Commission stating he had submitted the new proposal this afternoon and all Members of the Commission had received copies of the new renderings. He stated that Mr. Umada would discuss the landscape issues. Mr. Wagner stated photographs were included and alignment showing the proposed crib wall location. The new renderings indicate instead of 21 feet high, it would be 18.2 feet. He referred to the letter they had sent, stating they had tried to work with everyone to come up with the most pleasing alternatives. He referred to the exhibits with the photographs. Mr. Wagner stated the crib wall could be maintained and would support growth. He further stated there was a second alternative and the second drawing showed a second alternative. Mr. Wagner stated he felt this was an attractive alternative and he would like to stress it was very important to the applicant to maintain the appearance of the park, and the high quality of the park, and keep the landscaping consistent with the rest of that park. The developer has spent a lot of money transplanting oak trees and doing special features in the park. It would certainly be in their best interest for their reputation to have this wall as attractive as it could be and not to be a detriment to the park. 3oe Umata, 516 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, Landscape Architect for the project, addressed the Commission stating the developer had made a real effort to save the more valuable trees in the entire area. There has been a great deal of money spent moving these trees and in the preservation of the oak trees. Every tree that could possibly be saved was saved. Care was taken in moving the trees and in taking care of them after they were moved. . L P r MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page gCOMMISSIONERS Mr. Umata stated he would like to address the question of south-facing and north-facing crib walls. This is a matter of opinion and he stated south-facing walls give more opportunity in the selection of plant materials. Crib walls on the northside have very few things that will flower, while on the southside crib walls you can plant things that are pretty tolerant to the water requirements. Many plants will do well on a south facing crib wall. The success of the crib wall depends upon the way it is irrigated and the soil preparation itself. North cr ib walls are more plush, but it is nothing but greenery and not much color. As far as the character and intent of the wall, Mr. lhnata stated the intent was to have the wall look as good as anything they have worked on. This is a difficult problem, and there is not room to do what they would really like to do in the area. The applicant would like to develop a concept to see how they can attempt to plant the crib wall. There would be a deeper pocket for the planting and they could plant trees rather than just ground cover. For example, flowering plum trees and oleanders could be used. He asked the Planning Commission to approve one of the two alternatives. Chairperson Marcus commented she thought the relocation of all the trees had been a condition, and the answer was the request had been made to save as many trees as possible, and the developer had done a good job. Chairperson Marcus stated she thought it had been a condition that the power pole would be relocated. Charlie Grimm stated there was no direct condition; it was just understood. The ownership has changed on the property since then. Commissioner Hall asked this item be continued for staff to research this, as staff was not prepared with the new plans presented tonight. If this were continued, he would like staff to pay special attention to what Mr. Banche had to say about the center median. There was a question about the realignment of the road in that area but staff indicated any realignment would just cut farther into the hill, with the curve already tighter than the radius on some others on Palomar Airport Road. Commissioner McFadden stated if the item is continued, she would like that to be included in the research. Commissioner Schlehuber stated he supported continuing this item. He did not feel it had to be something in writing, as an oral deal can be made. There should have been a declaration made and those present should know what was said between the City and the applicant. This item, !3P-199 - Centre Development request for a crib wall, was continued to the May 20, 1987 meeting. Staff and the applicant are to research the matter further. Drawings, dimensions, thickness of walls, footings, etc. are to be submitted to staff. Also, the type of landscaping should be more specifically outlined and included in this presentation, along with the type of irrigation proposed. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm L .P -? MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS y% RECESS : Chairperson Marcus declared a recess at 7:ll p.m. and the Planning Commission reconvened at 7:21 p.m., with six members present. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 3 - On property generally located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, north of and including the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant, east of the Pacific Ocean to point just east of Paseo de1 Norte. Dee Landers gave the staff presentation, stating this item was heard on March 18 and April 1. At that time, the item was referred back to staff for additional information. This information and minor revisions made are included in the packet. Primarily, these were text changes and also the Parks and Recreation inventory was expanded to include the type of parks, active or passive, and the owner. A glossary and a list of references were also added. Tonight there is another revision of page 3, and Phil Carter will explain that. Ms. Landers stated a number of policy issues were brought up by the Planning Commission, including whether certain adopted performance standards would stop only residential development, if not met, or did they preclude all development. Charles Grimm will address that issue. Other issues concerned parks and circulation. Phil Carter will address those issues. Charles Grimm stated at the last Planning Commission meeting the issue was brought up whether the Growth Management Plan was clear on the adopted performance standards when there was an inadequacy in city-wide or quadrant-wide facilities as to whether non-residential development would shut down as well as residential. Staff felt although there was some impact from non-residential development on libraries, parks, schools, fire and City administration, they were being measured against residential units in the ordinance and would only shut down residential developments if found to be inadequate. This issue was taken to Council last night for a policy decision. Council confirmed staff’s interpretation and made no changes to the existing policy. Council also pointed out other aspects of the Growth Management Plan that do apply to non-residential development, such as circulation and sewer standards. Phil Carter stated staff has taken the Parks inventory and expanded it to show the ownership of the acreage, whether it is owned by the City, school district, or, for example, one area in the northwest district that is leased by SDGtE . That has been included in the inventory, and also the type of park. Mr. Carter called attention to a typographical error on page 48, stating they had called the Harding Street Center a “commercialn center. This should be community center, and the two places where that appeared should be corrected. PL ? MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS Secondly, Mr. Carter stated he wanted to discuss whether or not the parks inventory presented for zone three was consistent with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. He stated the Planning Department had been provided this information for the zone three plan by the Parks and Recreation Department, based on their interpretation of what their Commission has done with the Parks Element. If the Planning Commission still had concerns with the inventory as presented in Zone 3, staff suggested the City Council take a look at that when it is presented to them to make a determination whether the inventory is correct and consistent with the Parks Element of the General Plan. Mr. Carter next spoke about circulation, stating the issue brought up at the last meeting concerned the three intersections identified that would fall below the adopted performance standards when the existing traffic and the committed traffic were added together. Mr. Carter stated the development for zone three had been phased out over a ten-year period but only to show the Planning Commission how the format would be on larger zones and how the evaluation was to be made. The actual amount of development in Zone 3 is minimal, and on page 3 of the revision handed to the Commissioners tonight, staff has indicated that all development would be minimal in this zone, not just residential. This would include the 21 units of residential, and all of the commercial and industrial land left for development. Staff felt this development in Zone 3 could occur within the next year or the following year, and that development of 39,000 more trips would not cause the intersections to fall below performance standards. For that reason, there is no specific timing when the improvements would be needed at those intersections. A description of what needs to take place to mitigate those intersections, and the cost to fix the intersections, was included for these intersections to conform with the adopted performance standards. Mr. Carter indicated when the zone plan for Zone 5 comes in, that will specifically indicate when those intersections will need to be improved. Mr. Carter stated circulation will be monitored at each intersection, to make certain they are conforming with the performance standards at all times. If, after Zone 3 is adopted, and individual projects come in; for example, if all of tourist service land use came in and generated another 32,000 trips, in that individual project analysis, staff would tell the Planning Commission those trips would not cause the intersections to fall below the adopted performance standards. If they did fall below those standards, all development would be stopped until they were brought up to the standards. A -7 MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page I2 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner McFadden stated on page 3 of the material distributed tonight where it states the specific timing of mitigation of these intersections will be included in the local plan for Zone 5, she wondered if this then would cause the Resolution to be changed. Commissioner McFadden stated finding number four in the Resolution states *‘The Local Facilities Management Plan will control the timing and locations of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements.“. She stated inasmuch as they do not know the timing, she felt they could not make this finding at this time. Mr. Grimm stated the Commission could alter that finding. Commissioner McFadden stated her other concern was with the park inventory. This was apparently approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and it makes it inconsistent with the Parks and Recreation Element. She agreed with adding a recommendation to the City Council that they consider this, because the finding cannot be made. She added the first finding, “that the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 is consistent with the Land Use Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other elements contained in Carlsbad’s General Plan.“, makes either the Public Facilities Element or the Parks and Recreation Element out, because they are not consistent with each other. Commissioner Schlehuber stated he had no problem with finding number four, and felt they were doing that, but asked for staff’s comments on Commissioner McFadden’s question. Staff stated they could make the number four finding because based on the performance standard and potential development in Zone 3, all of the public facilities needed were there, with the exception of the library They have made a recommendation how to mitigate the library issue by recommending that be added to the CIP. Commissioner McBane asked for a clarification on the policy as confirmed by Council last night. He understood the recommendation that those standards which are defined by residential growth should be considered as to adequacy in each zone, and whether industrial and commercial developments have any impact on fire and parks. Commissioner McBane repeated his question, stating was it not recommended by Council that the adequacy of the residential pre-defined standards be verified in each of the zone management plans with respect to the non- residential development. For example, is the defined fire protection standard adequate in a zone that is primarily industrial. Mike Holzmiller stated the Council discussion of the standards, as presently adopted, certain ones applied to residential development and certain ones applied to all types of development. In any particular zone in the City, the City does have the ability to require more than what the performance standard indicates. You cannot go below the service level, but the City can go above that level. The Council could say for some particular zone that even though it was residential, they might want the industrial and commerical development to do something about a certain facility, and fire might be one good example. P ,,‘--J MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page I3 COMMISSIONERS v There are two facilities that are residentially determined that the department has said in particular zones they want to look at making an increase in that standards, and those two are Parks and Fire. That is principally with respect to Zone 5, which is commercial. Mr. Holzmiller stated if Commissioner McBane’s question was, did Council decide that in specific zones, they may require something different from the residential performance standards as far as commerical and industrial development is concerned, yes, the City will be looking at that. Commissioner McBane commented that in a zone such as this one, where most of the development that remains to be done is non-residential, he felt it would be reasonable to verify the adequacy of the parks and fire standards which the Commission would be applying to the buildout of the zone. Mike Holzmiller answered, for this zone, staff did not feel they needed to address additional park and fire standards. There may be a different recommendation on Zone 5, but not on this one. The industrial and commercial development that is left in this zone does not require the City to go over and above the standard that is already there for parks and fire. Commissioner Schramm stated that on page 10, on the buildout projection, and page 19, the residential phasing, she wondered whether they should not indicate these zones where it was possible to rectify this overage, so it would refer back to those zones when they are brought forward. Staff indicated this would possibly be Zones 1, 8, 24 or 13. A motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber to adopt Resolution 2615, recommending approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3. He suggested a condition or finding be made to indicate since this zone is over its growth control, it will be rectified somewhere else in the first quadrant, possibly Zones 1, 8, 24 or 13. It should be noted to look at that when zone plans are submitted. Also, Zone 5 should be in this zone for traffic circulation is concerned. Commissioner Hall stated Commissioner Schramm’s condition should be a finding and/or a condition that Zone 3 is over the control point in residential building and condition that to be reduced in other zones. There was a discussion whether to include the park inventory question in the motion, and staff indicated they did not particularly need this in the motion. They just wanted to make certain they had the information. Commissioner McBane stated he did not see how they could make the first finding, when they did not even know what they were finding a consistency with. Commissioner McFadden stated the motion should be to accept the Resolution, except for the first finding, and Council should address that to achieve consistency with the Parks and Recreation Facility and the Public Facility Element, as one or the other is not correct. MINUTES April 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page I4 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner McFadden stated she could not vote for the resolution when she could not make the first finding. Planning Commission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2651, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL Marcus FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE THREE ON PROPERTY Hall GENEALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF McBane AND INCLUDING THE ENCINA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, EAST McFadden OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN TO A POINT 3UST EAST OF PASEO DEL Schlehuber NORTE. Schramm The condition/finding to be added since this zone is over its growth control limit, that this will be rectified somewhere else in the first quadrant, possibly in the zone plans for Zones 1, 8, 24 or 13. The traffic circulation should be tied in with the Zone 5 plan. Commissioner McFadden stated she voted %o” because she could not make the finding regarding the consistency with the Parks and Recreation Element and the Public Facility Fee of the parks portion of it. Commissioner McBane also voted “no” for the same reason. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting held April 1, 1987, were approved as presented. STAFF ITEMS TO BE ADDED: The next meeting will be held at the Council Chambers. The traffic workshop with the Planning Commission and Council in a joint meeting, will be held either May 12 or May 19. AD30URNMENT By proper motion, the Meeting of April 15, was adjourned at 7:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Planning Director Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk dP MEETINGS ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Marcus Hall McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm .--.. .=~__~~_ ~..... ..- ~= ~.~~. - . . .~. __~~ _.. ._...._. PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF FENCE AT 2955 VALLEY STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA THIS PETITION IS IN REGARDS TO THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF 2955 VALLEY STREET, CALIFORNIA. I APPROVE OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE LOCATED AT 2955 VALLEY STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. +h.QJn ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: L ROD WINOLE . 2885 HOPE ST. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 April 6, 1987 Carlsbad Planning Comission 2560 Orion \!ay Carslbad, CA 92008 Dear Sir or Xadam: This letter is in regard to Case File # AV 86-14, applicant Gender. The Benders live next door to us at 2955 Valley Street. Prior to beginning con- struction on their fence, they consulted us and asked our opinion. Ile gave our full approval, as we understood their need for privacy with farm workers and fields directly across the street, The fence was constructed so as not to limit our visibility going in or out of our driveway. It is no higher than an average fence. In fact, a similar fence is being constructed at this time on the corner of Highland and I=lm Street. It is our opinion that the fence the Benders have constructed is aesthetic, practical, and well within the bounds of normalcy for our neighborhood. We cannot understand on what grounds anyone would complain about it, unless they had a vested interest in what went on in,the Bender's front yard. It is our hope that the variance to allow the Benders to keep their fence will be approved. It would certainly not serve anyone's interest to ask them to remove or lower it. Rod and Reb&ca Windle 29165 Valley Street - EDUCAT IONAL PSYCHOLOGY/ MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD THERAPY- c 0 SDGf San Diego Gas & Electric NORTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE April 10, 1987 F.-E SC PLA 520 HOPAC 23486 Frank Wagner Centre Development 2204 Garnet San Diego, CA 92109 Subject: Mrport Business Center Transmission Pole Dear Frank: Thank you for meeting with us to diSCUS the transmission pole in conflict with Palomar Airport Road. The diSCUSSiOn centered around your option to build the retaining wall a6 originally designed, or to move the pole in a northwesterly direction. You indicated the City of Carlsbad has opposition to the retaining wall a6 you originally planned, and your new design of the retaining wall is not acceptable to SDGLE due to reduced area for maintenance around our pole. We diSCUSSed the option6 for moving the pole. These include: (1) a move northwesterly of approximately 80 feet, using the same pole, or (2) a relocation of more than 80 feet which would require a new pole. We have no way to determine the cost of either of the moves until further engineering is done, but we did mention that on a similar move, using the same pole, the cost was about $125,000.00. Please be aware that this was not including the 66.7% tax which you would now be required to pay, nor could we assure you that your cost wouldn’t run higher. A more realistic figure is $175,000.00 to $200,000.00. If the relocation would require a new pole, the cost would probably double, but the greatest effect would be the time required for this kind of move. At times, it can take as long as a year to purchase a new pole, plus your engineering and construction time. With either move, we lust remember that it take6 an outage on that circuit, and that can be difficult and time-consuming to arrange. AlSO, there are certain times of the year when an outage is not allowed, due to the loading on that circuit. CANNON INPdSTP:A; PAR6 . ::‘i “‘i: NIDE, ENCINCS* CC.cCLC3AD CALIFG9’,,L $:I:? v tEi3 EjL{::: April 10, 1987 Page 2 We understand how critical it is that this conflict be cleared. We will work with you and assist in any way we can. Please let us know if you want us to pursue the engineering on the relocation, or if you will be building the retaining wall. If we can be of further assistance, please phone me at our North Cast off ice. Sincerely, / C+-iW~(ygW~ Lois Higgins Phone: (619)438-6080 LH:kk cc: Dave Hauser City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 LahdmarkJnc. 17890 Skypark Circle hlne, Callfornla 92714 Tolephono: 17141 261-0360 ROBERT M. MolNTOSH Senior Vie President Land 6 Venture Management . . cl FLU April 14, 1987 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Frank Griswold, Esq. CENTRE DEVELOPMENT 2204 Garnet Avenue San Diego, CA 92109 RE: Carlsbad Airport Centre- S.D. G&E Power Pole at Palomar Airport Road SUBJECT: Relocation Demand Gentlemen: We have again conducted a thorough review of all' of the files in our possession pertaining to the referenced project and subsequent relocation demand. This in-house review in conjunction with our outside consultants at the time, reveals nothing to contradict the position taken by Centre Development wherein: a) No discussion on price concession was made by this company in the sales price of the land to offset the cost of relocating the power pole since it was not an issue. b) No documents or maps have been discovered that have a condition of approval stipulating that the pole would have to be relocated. Tentative Map CT 81-46 dated June 9, 1982 was approved with no comment on location nor any conditions pertaining to same. cl Some monies were paid to S.D.G.&E. to evaluate the grading design within their easements - not to evaluate the relocation of the pole as stated by others. This was a study of their entire transmission corridor within the property. SIgnal Landmalk, Inc. ’ . Mr. Frank Griswold RE: Power Pole at Palomar Airport Road Page 2 April 14, 1987 Our review indicates that there was no misrepresentation on our behalf concerning the status of the property. Very truly yours, . Sr. Vice President RMM: jm S/25 cc: Craig Boucher, Esq. Stu Sittig