Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-20; Planning Commission; Minutes. . > Meeting of: r MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 20, 1988 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \ %> COMMISSIONERS I CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Holmes, Schlehuber, and Schramm Absent - Commissioner Marcus Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden 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. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) AV 88-2 BERMAN - Appeal of Planning Director's denial to allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford Street in the R-1-7500 Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 2. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a request for an Administrative Variance to allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford Street. The applicant's house is oriented with its front door facing the side yard. The applicant informed staff that when he bought the house the developer informed him that the front yard setback ran along the property line adjacent to the street frontage. When the applicant came to the Planning Department, staff informed him that his proposed fence exceeded the 42 inch height maximum in the required front yard setback along Stanford Street and would require an Administrative Variance. During the construction of the fence, the applicant applied for the variance. It was felt that there were no unusual or extraordinary circumstances. Although the lot is an odd shape, the applicant has a back yard that is equal in size to the adjacent lots within this vicinity. Staff felt this variance was unnecessary for the preservation of substantial property rights enjoyed by other lots in the vicinity. The erection of a 6 ft. fence in this area would give this particular lot substantially more privacy than any of the surrounding lots. It was also felt that the approval of this variance would set an undesirable -! MINUTES July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 precedent for additional 6 ft. high fences in front yard setbacks. The required findings could not be made and the variance request was denied. The applicant is now appealing the Planning Director's denial of the Administrative Variance. Chairman McFadden inquired about the reference to the sewer cleanout and would like to know where it is located. Mike Howes replied that he believes it is behind the fence which was erected. Chairman McFadden inquired about the Utilities and Maintenance Department saying that the cleanout should not be fenced in. Mike Howes replied that the Utilities and Maintenance Department needs to have the ability to clean out the line if it becomes clogged with roots. In the newer subdivisions the cleanouts are supposed to be in front of the property line so that if a problem occurs it is not necessary to trespass. It appears that an error was made on this property and the cleanout was placed behind the property line. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. She1 Berman, 4375 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that in late September 1987 he visited the Planning Department on a work-related matter and inquired of two staff members what would be considered the front, side, and rear yards of the house he wanted to buy located at 4375 Stanford Street. He was told that because the side elevation was facing the street, that would be considered the side yard and the front yard would be that area facing north of Stanford, which is the front elevation of the house, and that a 6 ft. fence could be constructed along the side yard adjacent to Stanford. Because the property had a lengthy strip of land for a lap pool, cabaiia, and jacuzzi, as well as room for four dogs, and since he was told that a 6 ft. fence could be built along Stanford, he and his wife decided to buy the house. He drew up plans for the yard improvements and ordered fence materials. He submitted the plans to plan check on February 9, 1988. At that time, another member of the staff contradicted what he was originally told, that just because a house was turned to utilize the lot did not necessarily mean that it was different than any other house facing the street. He then inquired about what to do next, since materials had been ordered, and was told that he should apply for an Administrative Variance but that he (the staff member) did not foresee any problems based on the uniqueness of the lot. He did not suggest that we go ahead and build the fence; however, because the staff member made it sound as though there would be no problem, and since he only had two weeks of vacation to build the fence as well as make the move from Orange County, he proceeded with the project. Mr. Berman feels that special consideration should be given due to 1) the uniqueness of the lot; 2) the fact that his lot is no larger than any other; 3) the fence is not detrimental to the neighborhood and several of the neighbors have stated that it is an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Berman stated that to relocate the fence would 1) create a severe financial hardship; 2) jeopardize the animals which need the 6 ft. height of the fence; 3) limit the privacy they desire and feel entitled to; and 4) disallow the use of 1,700 sq. ft. of useable back and side yard space which the developer indicated could be fenced. July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the distance from the present fence to the side of the house. Mr. Berman replied that it is 20 ft. from the fence to the house. The fence is 5 ft. 8 inches from the sidewalk. Regarding the cleanout, it is located behind the property line and inside the fence. In his experience in other cities, he has never known the City to come out and perform emergency work on the line; he assumed it would be at his own expense. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the City does not normally service a line unless it is a potential City problem caused by the City. The City would have to take action to protect their own liability. Commissioner Schlehuber cited a recent City backup problem on the street where he personally resides. If the City cannot correct the problem, it would result in the need to pay damages to the property owners who were harmed. Chairman McFadden requested clarification on the location of the property line. Mike Howes replied that the property line is 5 ft. behind the sidewalk, or 10 ft. from the curb. Mr. Berman's fence is behind the property line. Commissioner Hall inquired about the difference in grade from the sidewalk to the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Berman replied the footing at one end of the wall is 17 inches and 30 inches at the other end. With the 6 ft. wall and the footing combined, the actual height is between 7 ft. and 9 ft. He did a lot of regrading in the process. Commissioner Hall inquired how the yard drains now. Mr. Berman indicated that the property drains towards the street. There are three drain lines penetrating the wall plus weep joints which enables the water to reach the street. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the applicant's work. Mr. Berman replied that he is a Project Superintendent for Koll Construction. He has been licensed for 13 years. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the type of dogs which the applicant has. Mr. Berman replied that the dogs are Siberian Husky. Commissioner Holmes could not imagine how the applicant received such erroneous information from staff since it is well known that the front yard is normally determined by the position of the street in relation to the lot. He is also concerned about the drainage of the rear yard. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff was aware of the erroneous information which Mr. Berman received. Mike Howes replied that it is probably correct that Mr. Berman received wrong information early on. However, this information was corrected before the variance application was made. He cannot verify for sure that misinformation was given but he believes the applicant is correct. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff records were noted. Mike Howes replied that no notation was made. George Smith, 4378 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he and his wife live immediately across the street from the Berman's and are very impressed with the wall. Although it is a high fence, it is more than offset by the construction and appearance as well as the new landscaping. He feels the wall is very attractive and by far . MINUTES ’ July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 more impressive than any other fence in the neighborhood. He feels the Berman's have a very small back yard because much of the space is taken up by slope--the only flat area is just inside the wall--and this fact should be taken into consideration. Most of the neighbors he has talked to are impressed with the wall and have no objection to it. He and his wife support the granting of a variance to the Berman's. William Schools, 4374 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he wrote a letter to the Commission giving his opinion of the wall. He has no argument about the view being blocked. He and his wife were considering an elevation similar to the one which the Berman's purchased and specifically questioned the developer about fencing. They received the same answer which the Berman's received, that a fence could be constructed around the side yard adjacent to the street. He does not feel the wall creates a larger yard for the Berman's. When considering a property purchase, it is normally considered that the property will be usable. He would like to see the variance granted. Ann Schobe, 4363 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that shortly after moving into their home, a young lady from the City of Carlsbad, presumably the Planning Department, visited her and asked to look at her back yard. She explained that the Berman's had requested a variance to build a fence along their property line. There were no fences in at that time which enabled her to view the entire length of the rear properties on either side. She remarked that she could see no reason why the variance should not be granted. Ms. Schobe also wrote a letter to the Commission. She feels the fence is beautiful and that the Berman's have a right to privacy since their kitchen window and door face on Stanford Street. She would like to see the variance granted. Terri Schools, 4374 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives directly across the street from the Berman's, She stated that the developer had told her and her husband that on a property facing the street, similar to the Berman's, the front yard would be near the front entrance. If a potential purchaser relies on information from the developer, it is unfair that they should be unable to use the property after the purchase is made. She would prefer to look at the Berman's wall than some of the other fences in the neighborhood. She would like to see the variance granted. Chairman McFadden inquired where the similar property is located in the development. Teri Schools replied that it is also on Stanford but in the next phase. Chairman McFadden inquired if the house has been sold and whether a fence has been constructed. Teri Schools replied that the purchaser has recently occupied the home but no fence has yet been erected. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the persons making the representations were sales personnel or officials of the City. Teri Schools replied that they were representatives of the developer and not the City. Chairman McFadden advised the applicant that he could respond to the comments, if desired. Mr. Berman stated that the three lots to the south, whose homes will be located on r ‘7 MINUTES July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS Toulumne Street, have back yards that come down the hill and abut his property where his fence ends. They will be permitted to construct a fence of their choosing, be it chain link, wood, or block. Commissioner Hall inquired about the three lots which would have homes on Toulumne; Mr. Berman pointed them out on the map and stated that he has verified this information. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commissioner members. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, requested permission to advise Commissioners the legalities of this case. He stated that the City is estopped to apply the law. Estoppel is a legal term. When there is existing law that a person can't apply it for fairness and equitable reasons. It does apply to the City if it does not defeat an important public policy. The cases have generally held that enforcement of a building permit or zoning ordinance is an important public policy so principles of estoppel, though they apply, do not stop the City in many situations where there are building and planning laws. It can be enforced by what has been stated by a staff person or a public employee. To be invoked, principles of estoppel require a false promise made by a person, knowing at the time that they made it that it was false, and knowing that the person who heard it would rely on it to their detriment. Chairman McFadden inquired if Mr. Ball was, in essence, saying that since there was no intent to harm, the City permits and zoning could be enforced. Mr. Ball replied that this is correct. Chairman McFadden commented that she drove around the area many times and that the Berman's fence is attractive. She stated that the Commission has received eight letters in favor of the wall and one letter halfway opposed stating that the writer would accept the fence if it were moved back 5 ft. She concurs with the one neighbor that the fence should be moved back 5 ft. and would like to see a little curve of the wall at the south end for aesthetic purposes. She is confused about the City's responsibilities regarding the sewer cleanout. Mike Howes replied that a representative from the Utilities Department has informed him that if roots entered the sewer system between the trunk line and the lateral going to the house, they need the ability to access the cleanout to remove the obstruction. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that although the fence looks nice now with this particular owner, he is concerned about how the fence would be maintained with a new owner S-10 years from now. It is a very long fence and is in violation of the ordinance. He is opposed to granting the variance but is concerned about a possible estoppel problem because of the erroneous information received from staff, which may have been the basis for the applicant purchasing the property. Chairman McFadden commented that she is also concerned about the erroneous information and thinks that the zoning ordinance should be very clear to obviate future occurrences. 9 MINUTES July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS \“z Commissioner Holmes commented that homes situated in a hillside area always have different problems than those homes located on flat land. He feels the lot is large and the fence seems very long. He feels that since the applicant is in the construction business, it should be no problem to relocate the fence. He feels the applicant should have questioned the original information which was given to him. Commissioner Schramm commented that she has visited the site =d, although the landscaping is very attractive, the fence is extremely long. She would like to see it moved back 5 ft. with the edges curved. She realizes that the fence height is needed to keep the animals confined. Other than moving the fence back, she sees no way to give the needed access to the sewer cleanout. She would like to see developments with unusual situations conditioned so there is no question which is the front yard and which is the side yard. Mike Howes replied that this development was built under a tract map and not a PDD, so the lots were approved without the units plotted on them. She could approve the variance with the condition that the wall be moved back at least 5 ft. Commissioner Hall is concerned about the wall height. With the footings, he sees it as an 8 ft. fence at one end. Despite the landscape, he feels it is too high and needs to be softened. He feels the wall will be well-maintained under this owner but is concerned about future owners. He doesn't feel the legalities enter into his decision. He understands that the cost will double if the applicant is required to move the wall. He feels the wall was built more for the animals than for privacy. Commissioner Erwin has mixed feelings about the erroneous information. He feels the wall is attractive but is also concerned about what it will look like S-10 years from now. He questioned how the 5 ft. was arrived at. Chairman McFadden replied that aesthetically she feels it would look better but, primarily, it would enable the City to have access to the sewer cleanout. Commissioner Schramm feels they should be permitted some use of the yard and 5 ft. would not be too severe. Commissioner Erwin can support moving the fence back 5 ft. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to know if the applicant is interested in a compromise. Chairman McFadden asked the applicant if he would consider a compromise. Mr. Berman replied that, although he is in construction, the cost to relocate the fence would be the same. He feels moving the fence would be a financial hardship and does not feel he can compromise if moving the fence would be necessary. Commissioner Schlehuber asked the applicant if he understands that without a compromise he will probably receive a denial. Mr. Berman doesn't want a denial but reiterated that it would be a financial hardship to relocate the fence. Mr. Berman repeated that he could not compromise if moving the fence would be necessary. . . c7 MINUTES July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to uphold the decision of the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 2760 denying AV 88-2 based on the findings contained therein. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened at 7:04 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM: 2) PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY 820 (Street Naming Policy) Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the 1,402 acre Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Planned Project will be located along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, which will serve as the major open space focal point of the project. Hillman Properties has submitted a request to amend City Council Policy #20 (Street Naming Policy) to allow street names for "plants and birds of Batiquitos Lagoon' within the southwest quadrant of the City located in Geographical Area 5. City Council Policy H20 currently allows street names of "flowers" "trees" and "nautical terms" only within Area 5. However, since street names for 'birds" are currently allowed within Area 6, a conflict would occur if Area 5 was also allowed to use street names for "birds." Both the police and fire departments have indicated support of the proposed amendment to City Council Policy 1120 provided that "bird" street names are excluded from Area 6. Staff recommends that: 1) street name categories for Area 6 be redesignated "minerals" and "gems;" 2) "bird" categories be removed from Area 6; and 3) City Council Policy #20 be amended to allow street names for "plants and birds of Batiquitos Lagoon" within Area 5. MINUTE MOTION Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to recommend approval of this amendment to City Council Policy #20 (Street Naming Policy) to allow street names for "plants and birds of Batiquitos Lagoon' within Geographic Area 5 and street names for "minerals" and "gems" within Geographic Area 6 of the City's Street Name Classification Map. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm COMMISSIONERS INFORMATION ITEM: 3) SDP 82-3(A) POINSETTIA VILLAGE - Construction of an additional retail building within a previously approved site development plan, Poinsettia Village, located at the southeast corner of Poinsettia Lane. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that in February 1986, CT 81-6(B)/PUD-94/ SDP 82-3(A) was approved by the Planning Commission to permit construction of a commercial shopping center at the above mentioned location. At that time, development was not approved on Lots 7 and 8; however, a condition was placed on the project requiring that future development be approved by K . . T MINUTES July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 planters but deferred comment to the applicant. Chairman McFadden is confused whether the project w located on Lots 7 and 8 yet the map shows an office on Lot 8. Mike Howes replied that the correct lots "H" and "I." ill be building should be the -Planning Director and presented to the Planning Commission as an information item. This condition required future building designs to be architecturally compatible with the shopping center and any other approved buildings on the site. Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission no longer wishes to review a project of this size as an information item; however, the applicant was allowed this prerogative through the adopting resolution of the original project. The applicant is proposing to build an additional 18,490 sq. ft. of retail space on Lots 7 and 8. The proposed structure has utilized the same "Spanish-Mediterranean" style of architecture designed in the original project, is consistent with the conditions imposed by the existing development, and staff therefore recommends approval. Chairman McFadden commented that she has concerns regarding landscaping since the map appears to have lawn everywhere with the only pedestrian entrance being on the south side. Mike Howes replied that this will be corrected to indicate concrete, similar to the rest of the project. Chairman McFadden inquired if there will be raised planters as there are in other areas which would allow some form of outside seating. Mike Howes is unsure about the raised Chairman McFadden requested the applicant to respond to her question about raised planters and seating areas. Fred Delaney, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, General Partner in Poinsettia Village, applicant, addressed the Commission and clarified that Lot 8 was previously approved for the office building. They are asking now for approval of Lot 7 and the two tied together through reciprocal parking and easements. Several benches are planned to be put in, consistent with the rest of the shopping center. There are now benches between Buildings D and E and also by Buildings A and B. They are not shown on the landscape plan. There will be two or three benches in the new area. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the ratio of parking for compact versus regular-sized vehicles. Mike Howes replied that the ordinance allows up to 25% of the required parking for compact cars. Mr. Delaney replied that the ratio for this project is 21%. Chairman McFadden commented that this project seems to blend well with the existing project. She can support it as long as there will be seating in the entry areas. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve staff recommendation on Information Item SDP 82-3(A), Poinsettia Village, with the addition of seating to be located in the entry area. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . ’ a . July 20, 1988 ,T MINUTES . PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 \ 9 COMMISSIONERS 4 \ , X 4 1 ) . K MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of July 6, 1988 with corrections on page 3, paragraph 3 ( . ..show a denial or approval of the two...) and page 15, paragraph 3 ( . ..why some of the trees which received a black dot designation and were healthy were not saved. Jim Borer replied that those trees in the black dot category were determined to be too difficult to box.) ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of July 20, 1988 was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLEMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X - X X X X X X X X X X X