Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-25; Planning Commission; Minutesa I -. . + CITY OF'. CARLSBAD MEETING OF: CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : June 25, 1975 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The ,Pl.anning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975 was called to order by the Vice-chairman E. H. Jose at .7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND RESOLUTION .The minutes of.the adjourned meeting of June 3 we're approved as submitted. Resolution No. 1158 (V-251 - Sequoia Pacific Realco) was approved as submltted. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planni'ng' Director Bud Plender pointed o.ut three items which would be taken up'under New Business. ORA'L COMMUNICATION . None .. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued.. 1. Case No. CUP-106 - 'John D. ,Lusk & Son - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow con- I struction of a 414-unit mobile home park on property located on thb. north si.de of Poinsettia Lane between 1-5 and the AT&SF Railroad. .. As.s.istant Planning Director Bud Plender 'explained .thai this was a contin.ued hear.Zng in. order to allow. the * applicant sufficient time'for submission of a new project design.. Staff did not receive the new plans until last Friday, which was not time to have them in the packets or work with the applicant on the redesigr Mr. Plender explained staff was recommend+ng this iten be continued for two weeks to allow redesign review and also to allow .the applicant to negotiate for . school facilities. Prese Absen M.0.t i o Absta Ryes ., '. sugg this from they woul ested that perhaps the Commission could continue item for one month. In answer to a qvestio'n the Commission, Mr. Steffenson indicated that would either be ready by the July 23 meeting or d agree to withdraw their application. Motio A'bsta Ayes ,Don Steffenson of John D. Lusk & Son, indicated the question .relating to their participation in the program -had' been-re.so1ved .and the Commission would have written confirmation shortly. Becabse of the di.fficulties the.v have experienced, Mr:' Steff.enson I n n. i n i .. CITY OF' CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS After detepiihtng tkre ws no one e1s.e 'fn t.he 'audience wTshing to speak on th.is item, the Commtssior moved and approved unan.imously to continue this item . to July 23, 1975. 2a. Case No. SP-169 - La Costa' Land Company - Requesi for approval of a .Specific Plan to allow development of 115-single-family lots on praperty located on the east side of -Alga Road, between Alfil Way and Babilon. Street. Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender gave staff presentation, explained graphics and staff recommen- dation of approval. Mr. Plender explained that becau! of such unusual topography public facilities were rather atypical and since open space was unusable it should be.deleted and absorbed in the surrounding lot! Mr. Plender stated that staff was recommending a couple of change,s in the conditions which he would explain later. Rober't Ladwig, Rick Erigineering, representing La. Cost! Land Company, said he had worked with staff in review of the conditions,.of approval and complimented the sta'ff on .th-e. work done. He wanted to know what the changes in conditinns would be so tha.t he might com- ment if he..so chose, stating that he did agree so far with the .conditions as.shown in the staff's report. ' . One of the conditions Mr. Ladwig wanted clarification on was condition relating to the open s.pace;inasmuch as La Costa.Land Company wanted to fence some propert: that staff felt should r,emain open for .traffic to San Marcos Canyon. .Mr. Ladwig indiqated his desire to have this looked into f.u.rther with the Parks and Recreation .Director and the Planning Director. He did not feel their fence would restrict access to San Marcos Canyon. .. .. Mr. .. Plender indicated'one of the changes wou3.d 'be deletion of Condition .ll .referring to street secti'ons Acting Chairman. Jose asked Mr. Ladwig if approval was given and the condition regarding the fence*was word- ed in such a manner as to indicate that this decision would be at' the approval of the Parks and R,ecreation Director and the Planning Director would this bel . acceptable. Mr. Ladwig stated it would. The question of 18 pan.handle lots was talked about, . but it was agreed that because of the rough terrain, 'difficulfy ob grading in this rocky area and .the low : density of the subdivision. panhandle lots are accep-. table. .. George Flanders, 3765 Yvette Way; stated he was not obiectina to this aPPlication; however .he-h'ad worked with the"Citizens' Commit.tee .on Parks and Recreation Element and was aware of the need for bike paths, equestrian trails, hiking paths, etc. and knew that the San Marcos Canyon Area.was to have been left a wilderness area. He felt it would be setting a bad precedent to let a developer fe'nce off any' of these easements. -~"" klotion 9ye s .. + CITY 0 F' CARLSBAD - -. Planning Commission Meeting June 25,. 1975 Page 3 . Publ'ic hearing was. closed. It was moved and unanimously approved to adopt SP-169 as outlined in the staff report with the exception of deletion of Condition .No. 11 and the change in.wordin! to indicate that the location of any fencing would be at the approval of the Parks and Recreation Director and Planning Director. ?- """""_""""""""""""""""""""". 2b. Case No. ..CT 75-4 - La Costa Land Company - Reque! for approval of a Tentative Map to allow development 115- single-family lots on property located on the eas. side of Alga Road, between Alfil Way and Babilonia Street. Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender had explainel the staff presentation and suggested changes as follows: . Deletion of Condition No. 10. Condition No..27 .- period after Exhibit B and .Condition No. 250should refer to 50-year Condition No. 18 shall be reworded to state - merely refer to letter. frequency. "The proposed location of the securi.ty fencl ' adjacent to Lots 112 and 113 0.f Exhibit A, dated Mdy '19, 1975 shall be resolved betwee! . 'the applicant, the Planning Director and th! . Parks and .. Recreation Director." There was no one in the audience wishing to speak on this, and the'public hearing was closed. It was moved and unanimously approved to approve CT 75-4 as per -staff recommendation, with hhe excep- tion of deletion of Condition #10 referring to street sections; del.etion of the letter itself from Conditio .#27 and.use as reference only. This condition will now have a period after "Exhibit B". Condit.ion 25 indicating drainage f.acilities should read 50-ye.ar frequency instead of 100-year. . .It was moved and unanimously approved to .rescind the original Specifi.c Plan application - SP-112. . .. 3a. Case No. SP-l04(a} - Larwin-San Diego, Inc, . A request for a Specific Plan Amendment to allow mod- ification of street alignment on property located on the east side of El' Camino Real between Elm Avenue . . and Marron Road. ' City Engineer Tib'Flanagan explained that the first,. consideration on this'item. is the Elm Street alignmen. He e'xplained th.e reason this matter was befo're the Commission was at the direction of the City Council. original approval; one is that a millign plus yards of di:rt Rave 6een moved In the Larwin project,. the other being Larwi:n has purchased a 5-acre parcel , known as the Avedian parcel, which is added to the development. Consequently, it is recommended that this parcel be included in the specific plan area. *Two significant changes have been made.since the 'Motion Ayes .. lotion \yes .' Ition Ses * ". "... ".". ."..".".L -.., . I . . _.. I h .. CITY OF' CARLSBAD Planning Commission Meeting June 25,. 1975 Page 4 "J """._ .._." . .- The proposed change is to shift the alignment of Elm Avenue -totally onto the Larwin pr'op.erty. The question nbw 7s which is the best alignment of Elm Avenue:. The adopted alignment that.sp1 Tts the property line. and is shared with tho'se other properties, or the proposed alignment. Both al.ignments.have been studied and cost estimates drawn up. After all studies were comp.l.eted, Alternate #1, which is the alternate selected 2% yrs. ago, still makes sense. Larry Tracy, 1.800 Centtlsy Park East, Los Angeles, speaking for Larwin, stated that the applicant opposes. any changes in the Specific Plan. John McCoy, 390 Oak Avenue, wanted some questions answered. How many years is a grading'permit issued to Larwin, since there has been no-work done for the last 2 or 2% years? T.im Flanagan, City Engineer, answered that the grading permi't expired after completion of the grading and he thought the work was done in January, . February and March of 1973. Does the City have an obligation to Larwip? Commissioner Jose., in answer to questions directed. by the Commission, explained that any time you allow a developer to expend a considerable amount of money on something authorized by the Ci'ty, - there is a potential c0mmittmen.t. However, Mr. Biondo- stated that there..ar.e any number of conditions.which would limit'legality or liability should .the Commission decide the E.lm Avenue alignment should be shifted. T.he question was asked .if there was. no' bond required, . . and it was stated 'that this should have been 'done 2% yrs. ago; there is no offer of dedication of Elm Avenue and no bond for half street improvements: Chairman Jose asked i.f the City Engineer felt there.w.ii1 be an' agreement reached between the Gity and the developer and Mr. Flanagan stated only as far as Phase TI is con- cerned. Monies disbursed by Larwin-San.Diego was. discussed andewhat will be needed now, including water reducing valves, etc. The cuts required on Appian Way will be the same in Alternate #1 as they were. required ~ originally. .. I I After questioning Mr. McCoy, it- was d.etermined 'that fie was aware that this alignment might 'be a p.ossibility b'efbre he closed escrow on this property; however, a.fter learning Larwin's tentative map expired December 19 he felt this alignment could go either way. At that time there were no recorded easements, 'merely an agreement with Larwin and the previous owner to let them go into the property to develop slopes. John Frazee, 3304 El'Camino Real, stated he was one of. .the property owners referred 30, had. never .been notified, and had no intention of giving up any portio :of his property wtt'hout condemnation. The barn locate at the very edge of the proposed reatignm'ent is.a sub- stantlal building with over 1,000 sq. ft: and'not some thing tha't can be easily moved. .He reiterated that he had never been approached. In answer to questio.ns, Mr Frazee stated that so far.they had only graded Up to his property line. It was determined that if Larwin .. and Mr.'Frazee could not agree, the applicant would be required to pursue somethin.9 else. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Flanagan pointed out on the map th location of the barn in relation to the needed right o way and explained that either a substantial retaining l-n I .. I I.. . . CITY CARLSBAD Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 1975 Page 5 I wall would.be necessary or the present.alignment would require moving the barn. After discussing various levels and what constitutes a safe grade for a 4-.1ane roadway, Mr. Flanagan stated there were .a few modifica tions the.-City could study without moving the barn; Horace Felkins, 1909 Buena Ventura, Oceanside, stated he felt what was relevant to this discussion was that in Alternate #1, 41,000 cubic yards of dirt are needed in Alternate #2, 26,,000 cubic yards. He also objected to what he felt a 12 to 14 ft. retaining wall would look li'ke. In answer to questions raised, Mr. Felkins a admitted he had been notified and had been made aware in writing and in detail, but understanding what he ha been notified of was something else. He was not aware that the edge of his property would end up in the center of Elm Avenue. He stated he had signed a lette of .agreement with the.applicant. Public ,hearing .was closed. Commissioner Watson'wanted to know what.the, general atmosphere was at 'the time of the hearing on the orig- inal application. Chai-rman Jose explained there was some dissention .regarding Elm Avenue; however, this wa resolved at the Pl'anning Commission meeting and approv ed by City ,Counci-l or it would never have come. into being . Chairman .Jose explained that there 'were some objection but that.they were resolved to everyone's satisfaction Commfssioner L'Heure'ux felt that the consideration at this time should be towards the Engineering Department recommendation'. Chairman Jose stated that as far as MP.' Frazee was con cerned, no one was going .to abscond with any of his property an.d that he was in agreement w.ith Mr. L'Heureux in acceptance,of the Engineering Department recommendation. Commissioner Packard felt that either alignment would affect Mr. Frazee's property; so that sh-ould not be a concern. .. .. . .. Assist'ant Planning Director Bud Plender explained ther ihould be some -changes in the conditions. Condition #12 of the tentative map should be deleted from CT 74-25 and be made a condition of the specific plan. Condition #2 - the last sentence should be deleted. It was explained that the separate bicycle pat'h'on ,the northerly side of Elm Avenue was in lieu of the prev- ious condition calling for a sidewalk; the sidewalk now being on the other side.' The main con.sideration 1 . is chi1dren:walking to school. De'Vere Anderson,' VicelP.resident, La.rwin-San. Di.ego, 'In 7801 'Mission Center Court. aareed with Dlacins Condi- . ~-~ ..~~ tion #12'from the tentative iap in the specific pllan instead; hbwever, asked that Condition .#l read !'con- current with" recordation- ins'tead of "prior to!" .He ,; also objected to Condition #6 in the'wording of "reasonable efforts'' to obtain contributions if they were required to put up the money for a traffic signal Mr. Flanagan explained that the language used in the original specific plan regarding the traffic signal could be looked into further. It was pointed out that .. I.. . , CITY 0 F' CARLSBAD Planning Commission Meeting June 25,. 1975 Page 6 * Participation was required, but with the*exception thi ' .at t-hat time it was 1/8 participation, not 1/4. .The motion was,made anrl approved unanimously recom- mending adoption of SP-l04(A) specificajly approving the alignment of Elm Avenue.for reasons shown in the staff report and subject to those conditions, with thc following exceptions: Condit.ion #1 be reworded'to shc dedication to the .City of Carlsbad "concurrent with record.ation" instead of '.'prior to". Condition #2, delete the last sentence. Condition #6 will be reworl ed to indicate the developer be required to install a traffic signal but that the developer should .be en- titled to a reimbursement. Condition #8 will be Con- dition #12 from the CT 74-25 conditions. There was a 10-minute recess called at 9:45 P.M., all Commissioners again present when the meetin.g was call1 to order.. Before proceeding, it was.moved and approved to add a condition to Sp-.104(A).that in the event a retaining wall should become'a nec'essity, that adequate land- scapt'ng be required to alleviate the unsightliness; this should be at.the approval of the Parks and Rec- reation Director and/or Planning Dhrector. """"""""""""""""'-"'-""".""""""~ .. 3b. C.ase.N.0. CT 74-25 - Larwin-San'Diego, .Inc. Reque For aPProval of a.211-.lot tentative subdivisi.on map over.hi.acres located on the east side of El' Camino Real between Elm Avenue and Marron Road. Assistant' Planning Director Bud Plender expl-ained tha the only recommended staff changes in the conditions would be the de-letion of .Condition #12 which was al- ready ap roved as a part of the specific'pTan . (SP-104a ! and. Condition, #13 should read 4.999 acres. D'Vere Anderson, Vice-president, Larwin-San Diego, Inc stated that he agreed, with the conditions of 'the. ten- tative map. He .asked that Condition #10 be changed $( read "concurrent with" .instead bf "pr.ior to". 'Mr. .. Flanagan explained to Mr. Anderson 'that he was oppos- ed to a change:. . He also suggested that Condition #14 could be changed to "concurrent with". He objected to the 28 ft; alleys in Condition #16. This means .they would probably have to decrease the number.of units to meet the alley widths. Condition #18 he. asked for clarification of what was meant by comple- tion of grading. This condition was talked about and suggestions of changes needed in wording were talked. . about. ' Bob Leger, '2604 via Astuta, Vice-president of the' ,. Homeowner's Association, stated that the. people who had purchased in the first phase were never notified of this 'public hearing, and felt he could have had .many more of them here if he had had time. to let them know. He emphasized the-parking problem, 'stat'ing the Association had tried all types of things including sending out flyers, attaching notices to improperly parked auto, etc., and nothing works. The hammer- heads are a problem also; inasmuch as they are also used for parking. Mr. Leger commented regarding slopes and streets and who is maintaining them. They """" have co~~~~~"~~~~~~-~~-~~-~"i~-t~~-~~treets"_He~wo~~. """ -.--.--- -.A".-..-..- ...I. . . "" ."." .- .."_ ....._. "__.,."_.~_.~~..,""___,~~~~ .-,_,CI__ L.." Motion Ayes .. .. ".. .".".".. -. .. - -... "..". .. ..._ .. JERS ,- P ClTY OF CRRLSBAD 'lanning Commission Meeting June 25,' 197 5 COMMISSIONERS like to see'some.thing in the Conditions about mainten- ance of the streets, drainage problems; etc. George Flanders, 3765 Yvette Way, objected to what he felt were the steep slopes -to be dedicated to the City They would be unuse,able and .would merely be something for the City to maintain. Mr. Flander said steep slop8 seem to be what we get as open space. Chairman Jose indicated at this point that he.felt the hearing should be continwed for two weeks to allow timl for notification of those homeowners. Assistant Plan- ning Director Bud Plender felt the Commission should gi ahead with a decision because if it has to be'reheard it. has to be renoticed and a continuation is therefore not proper. Mr. Anderson sp0k.e again saying this was referred back to the Commission'and they were of the opinion that people were properly notified. .. Commissioner L'Heureux felt this application should bc denied and made a motion .to this effect stating th,is does not meet the planned unit development concept for this area because of slopesl off-street parking, .etc. . This was seconded by Commissioner Watson; however Mr. Plender reminded the Commission. that they had just adopted the-specific- plan for this project, and the only reason for denia.1 would be if this a'pplication dic not conform.to the specific plan. The Commission has every right to change some of the conditions; but not. so far as they aff.ect the specific 'plan. The:motion ' and second were withdrawn. The motion was 'made and seconded to approve the.tenta-. tive map subject to the following change of Condi- tions: Deletion of Condition #lo; Condition #13 ehangc to 4.999 acres; %ondition.#15 delete last. se.ntence; Condition #18 should read 'completion of grading with the exception of points .of access not to be required tc be landscaped until after construction of the building, There were three negative votes. After considerable discussion Commissioner L'Heureu'x - and Jose changed their'votes and this' item was recom- mended for approval. .. -. .. 4.. Case No. GPA-32 - Noise Element - Consideration of the Noise Element of the- General Plan City Planner Dana Hield presented this Element and ex- plained that this Element inc-ludes items in addition tt those required by law. 'Chairman Jose .want'ed to. personally commend the staff -. and the committee for a Pine report. In discus'sing the Element; i.e. boat noise control ra.ilroads, etc., it was determined that.the.re were many items that local government cannot rcontrol. Future industry is another concern. The question was raised as to things that might develop in the future and was this Element enough to cover situations like this. Ms. Hield explained that a survey of. other cities was incorporated in part in this Element and there is a "measuring stick" in the guideline section, """-"----""~"".u."-,~."~.""~."""".~"~.~~". """_ -......".. _.. L.".L... .. ... . . ..-I". .."."_ _... -. .LA __.-.._. """ ._... Motion Second 4yes Noes .. Yotlon Voes . 4Y e S' "" ".C".. - ..^ --...-....-.. * ... .*., . CITY 0 F' GARLSBAD Planning Commission Meeting June 25,. 1975 Page 8 ,_ .. Page' 19. Capt. L. W. Rash;4156 Highland Drive,.said it giv.es him a lot of pleasure to support this and felt they had adequately.covered. such problem area.s as the lagoor, etc. .. Public hearing was closed. It was moved and u.nani-mously approved to recommend Motion. X adoption of this Elementas submitted, with one typo- Ayes xxxxx graphical err-or to be corrected deleting the word State where the Element refers to California State - Government Code. ........................... 5. Case No, V-250 - Michael Straub - Request for approval of a Variance to allow two 20-ft. .driveways leading to a double panhandle lot instead of the re- quired 60 ft. of street frontage on 1.05 acres located. a.t 1200 Chinquap Avenue. Mr. Straub asked if he c.ou1d continue this'item for Motion X two weeks, due to the-lateness of the hour. The Com- Ayes x xxxx mission unanimous1.y agreed to this. """"""""""""""""""""""""""" 6. Case'No. SP-l42(A) - David A. Ellsworth 2 Request for approval of extension of SP-142 which allowed development of a financial and professiondl complex on. property. generally located on the south side-of Elm Avenue between Highfand Drive and Pi0 ,Pica. Assistant. Planning Director Bud Plender explai'ned that this was a request to extend the original ,Specific Pla~. David Ellsworth; applicant, stated that with all the new rules and regulations of State-mandated' regula- tions, he did. not get h.is zone change until July. The property is presently in escrow with the one condi- tion that the sale .be only if the property 4s to be used as this specific. plan spells out. Public hearing was closed. It was moved and approved to recommend Case No. Motion X SP-l42(A) be approved, as per conditions outlined in Abstain X the staff report. Ayes xxxx ... .. a. 0. . . UNFINISHED BUSINESS. .' ' None NEW BUSINESS .. 'R.esolution - St. Patrick's Church Property. Tim Flanagan, City Engineer, -explained that this resolu- mission that the purchase of this property by the City tion is merely a determination by the Planning.Com- , ' would be in conformance to' the General Plan. In order with the General Plan. Mr. Flanagan explained several public use, they must make a finding as to conformity to proceed with the purchase of any proper,ty for .- ~~.ings-~_e~C~~-YR-,i.L!.~~~_f_q~~_~..s-_e_~f__.t~e_e__.. -8 , ...- ,.____.. __._C _.._ CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 1975 Page 9 property and indicated that if they should agree to purchase,there would be a 60-day.option. It was move and-unanimously approved to pass this Resolution. """""""""""""""""""".""""""- Panhandle Lot Policy. Assistant Planning Director Bul Plender explained. the memorandum as to what policv exists now' for.panhand.le lots. The Commission dii- cussed whether it would be appropriate to apprise the Council that the Commission does have a problem and a updated Ordin'ance is needed. Also, some sort of guidl line as to when the Council feels a panhandle lot is desirable. It was moved and approved to direct staff to send a recommendation to City Council indicating that it is the feeling of the Planning Commission that present policy govern5ng panhandle lots are not ade'quate for the fol towing reasons: 1) the approval process, 2) i-nconsistency between zones, 3) applicable procedure for variance req.uest and 4) under what conditions are panhandle lots destrable. as they relate'to .super-. blocks5 etc. Sign Ordtnan'ce - 'It. was discussed whether workshops are still necessary and it was asreed that the siqn ordinance does need a workshop ihasmuch as there ?s a loot 0.f work yet to be .accomplished. INFORMATION. ITEMS .. 7. Zone Ordinance Amendments.. ,Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender expl'ained that this.co.py of ,the Ordinance was included in their packets as an informa tion item so 'that they .would have the "Q" Zone Ordin- ance to refer to. .. """"""""""""""""""""""""""- -. 8. University of California Extensjon - course Entitled "Current Planning Practice: The' New Sub- division Map Act. Chairman Jose strongly recommended attendance at one 'of these courses for anyone who had not previously: taken advantage of, one. ' ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjour-ned at 12:15 to a workshop meeting on July 2, 1975'at'6:00 PYM. Motion . Ayes Motion Ayes .. otion '\ X