Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-16; Planning Commission; Minutes1 c . . & 9 ’ l - i MINUTES ‘“: Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: December 16, 1987 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS \ 7 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Marcus called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, McBane, McFadden, and Schlehuber Absent - Commissioner Schramm Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) SDP 87-5 GALLUCCI - Request for the approval of a Site Development Plan for two condominiums on the east side of Garfield Street, north of Chinquapin Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, directed attention to revised Condition 27 regarding drainage and stated that the developer has been advised of this revised condition. Mr. Grimm stated that the SDP was before the Commission at the last meeting and was continued because the revised PFF agreement had not been submitted. It has been submitted at this time. Mr. Grimm reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan for the construction of two airspace condominiums on the east side of Garfield Street, approximately 60 feet north of Chinquapin Avenue, located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The General Plan for this area is 15-23 du/ac. The density of the project is 14.3 du/ac which is lower than the minimum. The architecture is a two-story building in Spanish style. Staff had some concerns with the length of the building on the north side, however the applicant has broken the building up and provided relief on the north side by the use of bay windows and also breaking the roof line in several different areas. In addition, there are a number of balconies and patio areas for recreational use. One guest parking space has been provided between the two units and, as proposed, the project does meet all of the City's standards under the PD ordinance. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner McFadden inquired if our ordinance allows the patio to extend to the right-of-way and Mr. Grimm replied that it does if the patio is not covered. It is also permissible to have a stucco wall up to 42 inches. . .L , t * r” MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 Commissioner McFadden inquired if compatibility with the adjacent area was considered and Mr. Grimm replied that there is a mix of different architecture in the area, including some Spanish style. It was felt that there is no architectural theme in that area. Commissioner McFadden inquired if compatibility with setbacks was considered and Mr. Grimm replied that this was looked at and that there are some properties which are single family usage, but are designated RMH, and have a R3 zoning. Setbacks on this project are compatible with some larger projects which have a 10 ft. setback, but not directly adjacent, specifically the north. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. Sal Gallucci, 2621 Colibri Lane, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and described the condominium project. He stated that he will be constructing a quality project and hopes to live in one of the units. He confirmed that he was aware of the additional condition. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner McFadden stated that this project is a prime example of why she is in favor of all R3 in the beach area. She feels the project is too massive for the beach area and does not feel it is compatible with the existing Rl. When the sump pump is needed, she is fearful that there will be no electricity to operate it. She would like to see the project sent back without prejudice and scaled down. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that this is a quality project and can support it. He understands the drainage problem as well as Commissioner McFadden's comment about the sump pump but does not feel it will be a problem. Commissioner Holmes has no problems with the project. With regard to Commissioner McFadden's comments about a front yard, he feels the area is a transitional neighborhood and somebody must be first in making a change. He can support the project. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution 2702 approving SDP 87-5, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. d COMMISSIONERS ’ \ Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber PUBLIC HRARINGS: 2) V 87-l/HDP 87-l VON PACKARD - A variance from access requirements of the R-l zone, a request for a Hillside Development Permit for a proposed grading plan and house is requested for a lot east of Park Drive, south of Calavo Court, and west of proposed Sunnyhill Drive, within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the two requests and stated that the proposed variance is for lot access via a 16 ft. wide private driveway easement from Sunnyhill Drive. The second request is for a hillside development permit. X X f- /? MINUTES ’ December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 -d COMMISSIONERS \ The property is located on the east side of Park Drive and is highly visible from I-5, Park Drive, Agua Hedionda, and the south end of Highland Drive. This lot was created as part of a three lot parcel map which was approved in 1981. Although not a specific condition of approval, a Coastal Commission permit was required. At that time, the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan restricted development on slopes of 25% or more and required minimum disturbance of steep slopes. In July 1982, the owner finaled this map without obtaining a Coastal Commission permit. In August 1987, the Coastal Commission issued a development permit but required vacation of access from the panhandle going down to Park Drive and required open space easements over some of the steeper slopes involved. Approval of the proposed variance would permit access and development of this property from Sunnyhill Drive. As conditioned, it should not adversely impact any of the residents on Sunnyhill. Therefore, staff can support the requested variance to allow access from Sunnyhill Drive. However, staff cannot support the proposed grading for this project. Staff feels the proposed grading is in conflict with the Hillside Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to mass grade the site with crib walls up to 22 ft. in height and slopes up to 36 ft. in height. In some instances, slopes will be located on top of crib walls. The amount of grading proposed for this project is in conformance with the Hillside Ordinance; however, the style and type of grading with massive retaining walls and the large slopes is not in conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. In addition, there is no undulation of the slopes. Staff does not feel that a 2-l slope going into a crib wall would be an undulation of slopes. The applicant is proposing to massively alter existing topography to fit a flat pad type of home on a steep hillside. This is contrary to the Hillside Ordinance which stresses the importance of fitting the product to the topography rather than altering the topography to fit a particular product type. Staff feels that the site is developable but it will require some type of multi-level foundation which acknowledges the hillside topography. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested access variance and deny the requested hillside development permit. Chairman Marcus inquired about the wording in Resolution 2707 (Line 24) which states approval of HDP 87-l. Mr. Howes replied that this item needs to be corrected. Commissioner Schlehuber requested that the record show he and some other Commissioners had visited the site with Mr. Packard. Commissioner McBane visited the site by himself. Commissioner Holmes did not visit the site at all. Chairman Marcus requested that the record include 11 letters she had received in support of Mr. Packard. Commissioner Schlehuber requested that the record also include some other material which had been given to him by Mr. Packard. All commissioners had received an information packet from Mr. Packard. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. Von Packard, 4021 Crescent Pointe Road, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that his comments would focus primarily on integrity and fair dealing since there are many unanswered questions which were not addressed in the . I’ L 1 r‘ T MINUTES - December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 staff report: 1) How did this project ever get to this position in controversy; 2) Why did the Coastal Commission ever approve such an insensitive project; 3) Why did the City Engineering Department approve such an insensitive grading plan; 4) Where did the new design for the property come from which is significantly different from the plan which was approved in 1981; 5) Where did all the open space as provided by the new plan come from; 6) What happened to Parcel A of the original plan; 7) How did the applicant get access from Sunnyhill Drive; 8) What happened to the driveways in the original plan; and 9) Why wasn't this plan stopped sooner, if it was so insensitive. He stated that he had acquired the lot from Mr. Spangler in September 1986 and then referred to the information packet which was given to each commissioner with details of the original lot split and subsequent documentation on meetings with the Engineering and Planning staff. The only change to the unofficial grading plan referred to in a letter from Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, was the elimination of a crib wall across the western face of the property. He produced a map dated January 1987 which was drawn by an engineer after many meetings with staff on what would be acceptable. He stated that he was told by Mr. Holzmiller that any changes could be made by an adjustment plat but that no variance would be required as long as he retained a 30 ft. frontage on Park Drive. The map was later submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. He stated that he was given a preliminary copy of the Hillside Ordinance by Gary Wayne in January 1987 and was told that his lot and the one owned by Mr. Spangler would be subject to the Hillside Ordinance. He told Mr. Wayne at that time that his plan would not fully meet the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and he and staff proceeded to work out a mitigation plan which he was told would be better than the Hillside Ordinance. He was told that if he made some minor revisions that the plan could be excluded from the Hillside Ordinance. He then revised the crib wall along the west side of the property. At about that time he received word that the Coastal Commission would require more open space and the relocation of Parcel A which would necessitate waiving the 30 ft. frontage on Park Drive. When the requested changes were made, the revised plan received the cursory approval of Gary Wayne and was sent on April 1st to the Coastal Commission for approval. He directed attention to a signed approval of the plan dated March 30, 1987 which was after the City had adopted the Hillside Ordinance. The project was approved by the Coastal Commission on May 14, 1987. The grading plan was submitted on May 28, 1987. On July 8, 1987 he requested a modification to the Hillside Ordinance and processed the adjustment plat. The grading plan was accepted by Engineering in early September after which he was advised by the Planning staff that he would require an access variance because he had given up the 30 ft. frontage on Park Drive. The variance request was submitted on September 25, 1987. Six days later he received a letter dated September 21, 1987 indicating several "serious" problems with the variance request and, further, that the project needed to address the Hillside Ordinance. When he confronted Mr. Wayne about their previous agreement with regard to the Hillside Ordinance, the conversation was unpleasant. He contacted the Coastal Commission representative and was told that the City must approve all plans prior to being approved by the Coastal Commission and there was nothing in the file to indicate disapproval by the City. . ,’ , 1 ’ P -7 MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 . COMMISSIONERS \I Mr. Packard stated that he has again redesigned his home, moving the bulk of the multi-story house towards the rear slope. He has reviewed the Hillside Ordinance and feels that he substantially conforms to it. He stated that he stands to lose a considerable amount of money due to contractual obligations he has entered into as a result of the unwillingness by staff to follow through with representations made to him. He feels it is unfair and inequitable to require yet another redesign of his home, at considerable expense. He requested the Commission to approve the variance request and the hillside development plan to honor the representations made to him and Mr. Spangler. Chairman Marcus thanked Mr. Packard and stated that the Commission's purpose is not to referee, moderate, or arbitrate difficulties with the Planning Department. Their purpose is to make a decision on the variance and ascertain conformance to the Hillside Ordinance. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Chairman Marcus was correct in stating that the Commission's purpose is to exercise their sound discretion independent of previous discussion. Commissioner Holmes inquired why Mr. Packard felt he was subject to the Coastal Commission and not the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Packard replied that staff can recommend to the Planning Director approval of a hillside development permit. Staff led him to believe that if he could satisfy the constraints and conditions of the Coastal Commission and secure a Coastal permit, this would satisfy the City and he would be issued a hillside development permit. Commissioner Holmes feels the lots are buildable but not with slab flooring. Commissioner Schlehuber understands Mr. Packard's strong feelings and can understand how misunderstandings might have occurred. Girard Anear, 1728 Calavo Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has discussed Mr. Packard's project with 8 of his 10 neighbors and is representing them in support of Mr. Packard's request. He submitted a statement listing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the 8 neighbars he is representing. He requested approval of the project by the Commission. Ray Spangler, 3774 Skyline Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that there is a long history on the property. He has had extensive contact with staff and been to the Coastal Commission several times, and this is the closest he has ever come in being able to finish the project. He has an adjustment plat map which he has been unable to record because staff would not approve the grading plan. He inquired if he could record the adjustment plat map so that he can get on with the rest of the project. He also wanted to know, if approved, whether there would be additional delays due to the Local Facilities Management Plan. He requested Commissioners to approve both the variance request and the hillside development permit. Bob Wojcik, Engineering Department, replied to Mr. Spangler's question about the adjustment plat and stated that the City Engineer has stated that when and if the variance for the access to the property is approved, then the adjustment plat would be approved. Once the adjustment plat has been approved, then the City would be willing to sign the grading permit. In that order. . .’ I 1 P, 1 MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 , COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner McFadden inquired what grading permit he was talking about. Mr. Wojcik replied that he was referring to the grading permit mentioned by Mr. Packard. Commissioner McFadden further inquired if that meant only that the variance, and not the hillside development permit, needed to be approved in order to receive approval of the adjustment plat. Mr. Wojcik stated that was the statement of the City Engineer about two months ago. David Hauser responded by saying that the City Engineer would allow the adjustment plat to record but the grading permit would not be issued unless the Commission approves the hillside development permit. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, responded to Mr. Spangler's question regarding the Local Facilities Management Plan and stated that LFMP Zone 1 only needs striping on one of the freeway exits, which is a negligible cost, and may already have been done by now. This project should not be held up by lack of facilities in Zone 1. Ray Rody, 4620 Park Drive, addressed the Commission and stated that his property is adjacent to Mr. Spangler's property. He doesn't object to Mr. Packard building but there is grading being done on top of the hill above their home and he doesn't like all the mud washing down onto Park Drive. He thinks a retaining wall is needed along Park Drive and that the hill should be planted for at least six months before any more grading is done. He doesn't like all the mud in front of his home and it never seems to get cleaned up. Frank Ausman, 846 Williamson Street, Vista, addressed the Commission and stated that he has been associated with Mr. Spangler for about ten years. He feels there has been some prejudice about Mr. Spangler. He has attended many meetings involving this property and personally heard staff encourage Mr. Spangler to record the map because they would be taking over jurisdiction very soon from the Coastal Commission. He also personally heard staff state that the project was in conformance. He stated that Mr. Packard's remarks were truthful because he heard the same comments by staff which Mr. Packard heard. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Holmes feels the lots are buildable under the Hillside Ordinance. He thinks there was a misunderstanding on both sides of the counter and he feels bad that it had dragged on for such a long time. He feels that if a home is built to the contours of the hill, it would meet the ordinance requirements. He can support the variance but cannot support the hillside development permit. Commissioner Schlehuber can sympathize with the applicant because he knows the problems of being caught between two public agencies. He feels the Hillside Ordinance is important and that the project should conform to the ordinance. He supports the staff recommendation. Commissioner McBane does not feel the project is sensitive to the Hillside Ordinance and concurs with Commissioners Schlehuber and Holmes. Commissioner McFadden does not feel that enough information was given and cannot make a determination on the hillside development permit. P ? MINUTES 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution Nos. 2706 and 2707 approving Variance 87-l and denying Hillside Development Permit 87-1 subject to the correction pointed out by Chairman Marcus in Resolution No. 2707. Chairman Marcus reiterated to the gallery that decisions by the Planning Commission can be appealed. 3) CUP 87-8 GATEWAY DELI - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 2090 sq. ft. Deli within Building "B" of the Carlsbad Gateway Center (SDP 84-5) at 5670 El Camino Real north of Faraday Drive in the M-Q .Zone. The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the proposed Deli is located in Suite H of Building "B" of the Carlsbad Gateway Center off El Camino Real. This deli is similar to several other deli's which have been approved in the industrial area. Staff feels it will provide a needed service to the industrial area, that the area is adequate in size to handle the proposed use, the circulation to the project is more than adequate, and parking is adequate. The Fire Department has expressed some concerns about the appropriateness of non-industrial uses in an industrial area. However, the proposed use is acceptable as long as all the conditions are met. They have submitted a memo expressing their concerns about weekend hours. Their main concern is about inviting patronage from outside the industrial area and felt they could not support the proposed use with expansion of hours into the weekends. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. Logan Kock, 1821 Via Quinto, Apartment K, Oceanside, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they are basically comfortable with the findings of the staff report except for the days of operation which exclude Saturdays. The Gateway Deli intends to cater to the breakfast and luncheon needs of the immediate surrounding area. He stated that the Fire Department has expressed concern of hazardous exposure not to those working in an industrial area, but only to those who stop in to eat. He feels that the deli needs to be open on Saturday to serve the needs of the industrial area since many people do work on Saturdays. He feels that traffic and exposure to hazardous material would be less on Saturdays than on weekdays and there are other consumer- oriented businesses in the Gateway Center (a drapery store and a real estate office) which have approval to be open on Saturday. Also, the Hawkins Deli just 75 yards to the south has permission to be open on Saturday. He feels he should be granted the same privilege of being open on Saturday. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Holmes can see no bigger danger to the public on weekends than on weekdays. He feels there will be less people on Saturday. He finds it hard to support the Fire Departments condition. Also, the CUP can be reviewed annually. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber - . I 1 * f- -I MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page a , COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner Schlehuber concurs with Commissioner Holmes and feels that Saturday hours from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. are reasonable. Commissioner McFadden inquired if, in fact, there are other deli's in the area that are open on Saturday. Mr. Howes did not remember the restrictions placed on the Hawkins Deli which was approved recently. Commissioner McFadden would prefer that the deli were on the interior of this project since it will attract passerbys, however, she will support it with hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Chairman Marcus inquired if the Commissioner has any control on where these businesses are located. Mr. Howes replied that the Commission has discretionary action and can rule on the specific location. Chairman Marcus will support the CUP but she wishes to go on record that she does not like to go against the recommendations of the Fire Department. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney , commented that the date of April 22, 1986 on page 3, paragraph 3 of Resolution 2704 should correctly read July 28, 1986. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No, 2704 approving CUP 87-8, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and allowing Saturday operation from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. as well as the date correction on page 3, paragraph 3. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:47 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m. 4) ZCA 87-2 RECYCLING FACILITIES - An amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to require and to conditionally allow recycling facilities. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that ZCA 87-2 is a proposed zone code amendment to establish a recycling ordinance pursuant to the 1986 California Beverage Container Recycling and Liter Reduction Act. The act establishes redemption value for glass, aluminum, plastic, and metal beverage containers and also requires that a convenience zone within a one-half mile radius of any large supermarket be established. Recycling facilities are to be in place by January 1, 1988 within these convenience zones. The ordinance, as proposed, is divided into three parts. The first part amends the definition section of the ordinance and describes a number of different terms relative to recycling; the second section requires future land uses which sell recyclable materials or have the potential to create convenience zones to have reverse vending machine facilities to collect bottles and cans; the third section of the ordinance provides the criteria for locating the collection facilities and they are generally permitted in all zones except residential with a CUP. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner McFadden inquired about items (10) and (ll), page 8, Small Collection Facilities. Item (10) states that attended facilities located within 100 feet of residential shall operate only between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Item (11) states that containers for 24-hour collection shall be at least 30 ft. from residential. Mr. Grimm replied that the intent of the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. would be for "manned" hours although a machine could be operable for a Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 24-hour period without an operator. Staff feels that a manned redemption center would have much more traffic and be more noisy than a self-service machine. The Commission may modify the distances as they deem appropriate. Commissioner McFadden then inquired about items (7) and (8) on page 10, Large Collection Facilities. Item (7) states that a facility located within 500 feet of residential shall not operate between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Item (8) states that after-hour containers shall be at least 250 ft. from residential. Commissioner Hall felt that manned facilities deal in much larger quantities and felt that traffic is the problem rather than noise. Commissioner Schlehuber feels the distances need to be amended. Commissioner McBane inquired if the ordinance outlaws Coke machines located in residential areas unless a reverse vending machine is also provided; he specifically cited the possibility of Coke machines in the vicinity of swimming pools. Mr. Grimm replied that the ordinance is primarily for convenience areas and should not apply to a swimming pool located in a residential area. Commissioner McFadden inquired about item (4) on page 11, Processing Facilities, which states that noise from power-driven processing shall comply with City ordinances and standards. Mr. Grimm replied that the City currently has a noise policy of 65 ft. exterior and 35 ft. interior. Staff anticipates a noise ordinance in the future. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. There being none, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among Commission members. Commissioner Hall inquired how the ordinance would apply to the RVM containers located at the Safeway Store on Tamarack and it was decided that the containers in the Safeway parking lot did not qualify as recycling containers since they provided no redemption. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2705 recommending approval of ZCA 87-2 based on the findings contained therein with the following changes: page 1, section 21.04, Recycling Facility, to add schools and other charitable organizations as being exempt from the definition of a recycling facility; page 3, item (1) that an RVM facility need not be located next to every vending machine; page 8, item (6) requiring approval of mobile containers by the Planning Director, page 8, item (11) changing the distance to 50 ft. if the RVM is enclosed in a building and 100 ft. if the RVM is located in an unenclosed area; page 10, item (8) changing the distance to 500 ft. . COMMISSIONERS \; Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, inquired if the motion should include a reference to noise but it was decided not to include noise since a noise ordinance will be forthcoming. INFORMATION ITEMS: 5) SP-182 ELM PROPERTIES - Revisions to approved Specific Plan. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the item and stated that Specific Plan 182 for P ? MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 Elm Properties was approved in 1982. The original approval included 154,300 sq. ft. of office use in five buildings; 12,000 sq. ft. of that space has been constructed (San Diego Trust and Savings Bank). The requested revisions are: (1) a change in use on the northeasterly pad from a 18,400 sq. ft. office building to a 6,000 sq. ft. daycare center; (2) increased parking count from 432 to 476 spaces; (3) northerly access to property from El Camino Real enlarged and moved south approximately 45 ft.; and (4) a phasing change allowing the center of the property to be developed last. Because the revisions are minor in nature, staff supports the requested changes as being in substantial conformity with the original approval. Staff has requested, and the applicant has agreed, that if development occurs at the north end of the property prior to the central portion of the property, the driveway will be extended along the east side of the property up to the San Diego Trust and Savings parking area for access from Elm Avenue. Commissioner McFadden requested clarification of the phasing and Mr. Grimm replied that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the new plan include two office buildings to the north of the central area and the daycare center will be built in conjunction with one or the other. John Ebert, representing Krommenhoek-McKeown & Associates, Architects, 1515 Reina Boulevard, San Diego, addressed the Commission and reviewed the phasing using wall diagrams. Commissioner McBane inquired how much landscaping and site improvements would be done with Phase 1 and Mr. Ebert replied that site improvements and landscaping would be done in the vicinity of the Phase 1 area. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what the applicant's position would be if the daycare center was required to be included with Phase 2. Mr. Ebert replied that the applicant's position would depend on the economic climate at the time. David Botiak with Iliff, Thorn & Co., 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, representing the Boland Corporation, stated that the La Petite Academy daycare center will be built in conjunction with Phase 1. Commissioner Hall inquired if the last building in the corner is still on the drawing board and Mr. Ebert replied that a financial center had been approved but he did not know if it would be built with Phase 3 or Phase 4. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about staff's position on the drive-thru and Mr. Grimm replied that a drive-thru has not been approved and it would require an amendment to the Specific Plan. He also stated that phasing is specifically set forth in the plan. Commissioner Schlehuber admonished the architect to be careful when he says something has been approved, i.e. the drive-thru for the financial center. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Botiak desired to have the financial center included in Phase 1 or Phase 2 and he replied that since they do not yet have a tenant for the financial center, he would prefer it to be in Phase 2. He also requested the Commission to have the option of providing the daycare center in Phase 1 or Phase 2, at their MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS \; discretion, since they do not yet have a signed lease from the daycare operators. Commissioner Hall inquired about how the landscaping on El Camino Real will be phased in. Mr. Ebert replied that the landscaping will be phased in concurrent with the building being done. Commissioner McBane expressed concern about the drop-off area for the daycare center. Chairman Marcus replied that this would probably come before the Commission again as a Day Care Permit. Commissioner McBane inquired if the request for a Day Care Permit would enable the Commission to have a say in the drop-off area and Mr. Grimm replied that the Day Care Permit is fairly restrictive and not as open as a CUP. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Day Care Permit primarily deals with hours of operation. As far as the circulation is concerned, the motion could include a condition to review the elevations prior to the issuance of development permits. Mr. Ebert responded that the daycare center had to be built according to State requirements. Chairman Marcus advised him that it also had to comply with City of Carlsbad requirements which is why circulation was being discussed at this time. Mr. Grimm stated that he did not think the Specific Plan could be conditioned or it would open up the entire plan. Commissioner McFadden would like to see some language in the motion to have the drop-off area approved by the Commission. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant would agree to having the circulation and drop-off area reviewed when development permits are issued. Mr. Botiak agreed to this request. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the minor modifications to SP-182 with the provision that the applicant agrees in writing to make a paved connection between Elm Avenue and the daycare center as shown on Exhibit "A' and to return to the Commission to have the proposed drop-off area for the daycare center approved, that the proposed daycare center be Phase 2, and that the financial and center building be Phase 3, and that the landscaping along El Camino Real be put in with Phase 1. Mr. Ebert inquired if the bank drive-thru would require a CUP and Chairman Marcus replied that it would. Mr. Botiak inquired if the entire area had to be landscaped prior to the building construction and Commissioner Schlehuber replied that it had to be done by the time Phase 3 was completed. 6) CT 82-12/PUD-42 CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS - Substantial Conformance Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the item and stated that this project was originally approved in 1982 and is located along the eastern boundary of the City of Carlsbad where it abuts Oceanside. Since its approval, the tentative map has received two extensions in order to comply with the Hillside Ordinance and the density control point of the Growth Management Ordinance. The proposed revision eliminates all of the multi-family units and most of the Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber ’ ! h f- “7 MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 COMMISSIONERS v duplex units reducing the density from 893 to 740, has revised the street system from private to public streets, and complies with the PUD and Hillside ordinances. Staff believes the new project is a significant improvement over the original plan. Commissioner Hall inquired about the slopes which exceed 30 ft. height and Mr. Howes replied that staff preferred the higher slopes rather than expanding the graded area to reduce slopes. Commissioner Holmes inquired if it would be possible to terrace the hillside in excess of 30 ft. and Mr. Howes replied that something could probably be worked out. Commissioner McFadden inquired about placement of recreational lots in the duplex area and Mr. Howes felt the applicant would probably address this item. Mr. Bill Hofman, Planning Consultant, representing the applicant, the Buie Corporation, briefly reviewed the slope situation and stated that the applicant plans to heavily landscape the corner where the slope exceeds 30 ft. They would be willing to work with staff to create a pleasing look. He also stated that there is a flat area within the project which could be turned into a recreation area and would be willing to work with staff on this possibility. The applicant agrees to the conditions, including those mentioned by Commissioners tonight. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he can support the project as presented with the condition that staff work out something on a recreational area in the north central area, and the hillside treatment adjacent to Cannon Road be worked out acceptable to the Planning Director. Chairman Marcus feels that the revised project is much improved over the original project. She has some problem with the dropping of all multi-family units since she would prefer to see a mix. She is particularly happy that the streets are public. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the next step for the project and Mr. Howes replied that the final map would be next since the tentative map expires in February. The City Council will have to approve an extension of the tentative maP* Commissioner McFadden inquired what action the Commission would be taking and Mr. Howes replied that the Commission needs to agree that the revised project is in substantial conformance with the original project. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the need for a public hearing since so many changes were taking place. Mr. Howes replied that tentative map extensions do receive a public hearing. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney , stated that action by the Commission tonight would assist the City Council in determining substantial conformance and there would be a public hearing at that time. Commissioner Holmes would like to see any slope in excess of 25 ft. terraced. Chairman Marcus does not feel that is necessary. Commissioner Holmes referred to Condition #lo regarding CC&R's and would like to see a realistic amount of money P ? MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 COMMISSIO included as a monthly assessment. Mr. Howes does not know if that is legal. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that pricing is very complex and is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Chairman Marcus stated that she has lived in five different condominiums and most homeowner organizations don't realize the expense involved with upkeep. Bob Buie, 1303 Oneida Court, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the Department of Real Estate controls the amount of fees that the developer must originally charge. They have specific guidelines and the developer is prevented from assessing a dollar figure. When the homeowner association takes over it has the latitude to change this dollar figure. Commissioner McFadden inquired if there is a condition for resleeving reclaimed water. Mr. Howes replied that Condition #47 concerns resleeving. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to find that the proposed revisions are substantially in conformance with the previously approved project subject to the slope on the southwest corner and the recreation area being reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, which the applicant indicated he was in agreement with. 7) PHASING OF CT 85-6 (LA COSTA SODTHHEST) Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item was previously brought before the Planning Commission on August 5, 1987 at which time no action was taken and requested more information regarding noise. The project applicant, La Costa Ranch Company, has had a noise analysis prepared and has agreed to have the project designed to comply with the analysis. Basically the applicant is requesting modification to Carlsbad Tract 85-6 approved for 789 units. The project had five phases and included a number of different uses, including single family, apartments, and condominiums. The applicant now wishes to lower the density, and delete the multi-family aspect of the project to create all single family attached units. To do this the applicant will have to amend the tentative map for the multi-family areas but would like to final the approved single family attached units at this time. As a result, he is requesting a change in phasing to divide the project into two phases instead of five. The existing single family area would be Phase 1 and the revised single family area would be Phase 2. Numerical changes to phasing sequence is permitted under City policy as long as the changes do not affect public services. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner McFadden has the same question as before with regard to a noise standard. She feels an ordinance is needed quickly. Commissioner Hall has a problem with pulling out the multi-family. He feels that the multi-family originally approved was better designed than the single family. He would like to see it stand as is or returned for an entire review. He is also concerned about the narrow streets. Chairman Marcus is also concerned about removal of the multi-family since it is a significant change and the General Plan provides for a mix. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber -. MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 , COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner Schlehuber thinks it is a good plan because the Local Facilities Management Plan requires that densities be reduced and this is the only way it can be done. He feels that any density reduction is an improvement. Mr. Grimm replied that multi-family has been reduced in the City but multi-family can mean different things. Small-lot single-family is also considered multi-family but the density is higher than other single-family. Clustered attached units are being reduced. Commissioner McFadden agrees with Chairman Marcus and would like to see redesign. He would like to see some of the residential pulled back from Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. She inquired when the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 12 would be coming to the Planning Commission and Mr. Howes replied the end of January. Commissioner Schlehuber feels the plan is an improvement on the original plan and we cannot require redesign when the original plan with higher density has already been approved. Commissioner McBane feels the multi-family will provide more affordable rental units and that is one of the goals of the General Plan. He would like to see the multi-family retained. Chairman Marcus cannot make the finding that the revised plan agrees with the General Plan. Mr. Grimm replied that the applicant is requesting approval of the single family and the applicant would have to return with the revised plan changing the multi-family. The Commission would have the opportunity to deny the revision at that time. Commissioner McBane inquired if the original approval included a product mix in an earlier phase. Mr. Grimm replied that it did but the applicant is requesting a phasing change to allow the approved single family in Phase 1 and the multi-family in Phase 2. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that everyone is concluding that we will be short of multi-family units but that may not be the case. Chairman Marcus contends that the General Plan provides for a mix and the project was approved as being in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner McFadden is concerned about the noise and Commissioner Schlehuber replied that he would be willing to make a motion to request the City Council for a noise ordinance. It is his understanding that a building permit will not be issued unless the applicant can meet the 65/45 decibel noise standard. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that in order for a building permit to be issued the applicant must be in compliance with all laws. A building permit may not be denied except on the basis of other than an enactment. Doug Avis, P. 0. Box 9000-266, Carlsbad, President of La Costa Ranch Company, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that La Costa Ranch Company hired the City's sound consultant to do a sound study and they are prepared to accept the recommendations of the sound consultant as a condition of approval. He also stated that the project was extremely controversial to the residents of La Costa and the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods are adamantly requesting detached single family. They are trying to satisfy the desires of existing residents. Any revisions would be subject to public hearings. MINUTES December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 COMMISSIONERS ys Commissioner Hall inquired if the applicant would consider going to standard streets in Zone 1. Mr. Avis replied that the area has many cul-de-sacs and standard streets would require a total redesign. He feels it would be a difficult proposition since the smaller streets make the housing more affordable. Steve Tate, Hunsaker & Associates, 6122 Nancy Ridge Drive, Suite 101, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that one of the things which has happened with the previous approval is that those streets have already been redesigned and any change would require a total redesign at a considerable cost to the applicant. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the requested change in phasing as proposed, with the following conditions: 1) that applicant meets all of the standards in the noise report; 2) that Phase 2 is redesigned for public standard streets, and 3) that the portion of Phase 1 west of Calle Barcelona be made a part of Phase 2 and included in the redesign. MINUTES: Commissioner McFadden requested the minutes of November 12, 1987 (page 4) be changed to reflect the correct spelling of Locust Street. The Planning Commission approved the minutes of November 12, 1987 as corrected and November 18, 1987 as presented. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Mr. Grimm reported a workshop has been scheduled for January 29, 1988 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Beach View Lodge. Chairman Marcus opened the nominations for the election of officers of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the nomination of Commissioner McFadden to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1988. The Planning Commission approved the nomination of Commissioner Hall to serve as Vice-Chairman for the Planning Commission for the year 1988. Chairman Marcus announced that there are two openings on the General Plan Committee which need to be filled. Three commissioners (Schlehuber, Hall, and McBane) expressed a desire to be on the General Plan Committee. The Planning Commission approved the nomination of Commissioner Schlehuber to serve on the General Plan Committee. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber ,P MINUTES ? \ % , December 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 COMMISSIONERS The Planning Commission approved the nomination of Commissioner Hall to serve on the General Plan Committee. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of December 16, 1987 was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILL Planning Director BETTY BUCENER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber & F P K K K K K K K K K K .._ .-- .~. I .-. ..-. ._ . . ? _^ es.-.. __ ..a i . ..- \ Ld. ._ %t- NJ- _ . I , Jh 72 2% -. 72 W/r~qf 17 6hPf E'Tqc .._ -I -I wr. c1.0 (Ajkr ) rr _ _____ ..-_. -.___ ._. . . .._ __ _ .-_.-. ._-- - _._____. .- _. .” - .._. -- . - .-- --__-.-. .- _- ----.I-- -.. ___--_-__-.-.. ._. _x_ I. _.. _ ..* _. _.” _>., .I, _,_ . . . .) .r-::..,...a . c -. ._ _- -. -._ _ _ -- -. .“____ - _ ._ _ _ .--.. __ _,_-_ ^ _, I. -- . ._- __- _ . ._ _. .- _ _ -. - ‘w l l J \ / .-_.. / ./ F A I . - ., _ .___, _.._ ._ --. .- __.._ _._ -_- -.-. __._. __- -.----.-- .-._.-. ..-. _ . ._ _ 1z)/‘r &it& 5, bgJ&k+~ -... - ..-- -- ..-. _ . .-_.- __..-_-.__..,. _ __. _ -..- _.._ -- --.-.--._ . ..-... ----- --.-.-. _.. 4+- 24@ _ _ _. .__. ._ _. _. __- _-__..__-. . -_-“--...--I _ .- ___.____ -. _ -_.- ..^ .-- -___ --. --_--___-..“-.- . ..-._. _- _.. ------.-- . - _._... -_ --- . . . -- . . ---_ ..- ---- .-.. _.-- ---- ..- _--_-- - -- _--- - ..-- -- ___._.__. - ---- _ _...._ -__.-_- - --.- I ____.___ ^__. I&-x. ..,.+ ,I. *, I b&f1 b??hd J?@jL -/ 2 .wi ~.!G&? .I _ . ..Y ._ _ s--r .__. ___ __.._ 1 q ‘r,, ..vv h4, fib< h&w ?J@ c .___ - ._--_-. LlnJ&rl . 5 & J-h+?<... .- 10 I % P 1 -?!a ,la .Q '9. J$d&g+- i A/- .&@i/ -__--, ___ . &w 2 wi?r 1) _ ._ _ .--_- - s. &d&4 n, ii/q - ji il.. A.. gd- &y/l& ."_ _ s __. 9tJ f3v4? ./& &f 4; i.&:- /;1 f&& 1 / ~&uf f!.P __. __ /-- __._ 1! A*~ -. b & .._._.. &gi?& tiMi%- &iii ____ __ d7tRb siys fh _ &*rr _ J . - .._, _-_ . . _ _ _ ._- _.. - ..-..- .-. _.. . _ .._._ -- ._ --- .-- ..-- -___ .._-- .._ _ _ ___ -._-- -..--. .__.-- ), -1.. . _. ., ..Yzz ,. _._ - _. _ _ __ _ _ .,.- ._____ _ I _-.. -.__ ._ _- _. . ------ -‘.._ c.., ,. ,,... . ._ . - -_ ^.-. .--- . _. ..-- ._--- . . - -. -- . . - ..-._ --- “. -. __ .__..,. - _.__ - _--.-d : - --.. ._ .._ _-. . _. ___ , ------T , - -. . . _--..-- - . _ -. -.. ..-_ _ - _-_-_ -_- _ - ..__.. - _.__ -- . . - _ _ .._ . . -.- --- ---- -..-- . _ . _ . ___. _.. ,___ ____. ~. . ..- . -- ._ _ . ..- _ ._._ -------. ---.-.. ---.- ..__ -- _ _..._..._ --1 __... -- __... -_._-. -__-- _ , * . “, . . . . ..-a - -. 72 P- $3 778 72-Y-7003 72s.3Zet” “729p-Y/83 4.3 4 - s-2 0s VZP- 95dO , .’ December 12, 15~37 Attn: Mary Marcus Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Dear Ms. Marcus: We are writing this letter in reference to a requested variance and hillside development plan submitted by H. Von Packard. We see no need to deny such a request, as the home planned should be an improvement aesthetically over the large crib wall which we presently have in our view as we look up the hillside close to our home. We are acquainted with &II. Packard personally, and know that he will go to great lengths to make his home and any surrounding property pleasing to look at and an addition to the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sinceaely, , ~&!!!~Qr&J Richard F. Dickerson Merrilee Dickerson- 4600 Park Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Planning Commision City Of Carl&ad Attn: Hary Harcus Ve are one of the clos'est houses to the proposed house of Von and Nary Packard. Ve feel the city should approve this matter. As their proposed house would be a asset to the neighborhood, . Thank you A- Bay/Bevine Files 1721 Bruce Rd. Carl&ad, Ca. 92008 L--_-.- _.._ .___- ” ._-__ -__.-__ -.--- -- -- .- ~--- -__-_- - - _~ . -..-- B Lf : 7 L&?ufa. ._ _ _ . 9.q .bW.. . . F. G. Sanford, Jr. 1761 Bruce Road Carlsbad, California 92008 14 December 1987 . Ms. Mary Marcus Planning Commission . City of Carlsbad P. 0. Box 4517 Carlsbad, California 92008 I. w Dear Ms. Marcus: I write in regard to the request for variance and Hillside Development Permit submitted by H. Von and Ann Parkard. The Packards have provided me with maps, topographical drawings, and structure plans which my wife and I have reviewed thoroughly. I am impressed; the proposed construction appears well-planned, tasteful, and elegant. As a prospective neighbor of the Packards, I urge you to approve their request. cc: H Von Ann Packard - . a- - --.--.- .-.. ..-.. - .._______._ , . , . . . 4 : . 4 - !-------- - - -.-_--_c_ -- ---Ye-. ‘--. a.-...---_ - ------- -- j -. . - 4 _ . - .-.-.. . . . . . . . .