Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-23; Planning Commission; Minutes.- - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD /- April 23,198O CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by Chairman Schick. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairman Schick, Commissioners Rombotis, Leeds, Larson, Friested. Commissioners absent: Marcus, and Jose. Ex Officio members present: Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney; James C. Hagaman, Planning Director. Staff Present: Bud Plender, Principal Planner; Bill Hofman, Associate Planner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS - Chairman Schick called for items to be addressed to the Commission which are not included in the docket. A Resolution of Appreciation of Michael C. Zander who was employed by the City of Carlsbad from November 6, 1972 to December 1979 was suggested. Chairman Schick said the Commission would address itself to the item at the end of the meeting. He called attention to a note in the packet concerning a seminar to be conducted on May 19 in San Diego, and asked whether any mem- bers would like to attend. Chairman explained to the audience the procedure of the hearing and advised the applicants of their rights of appeal to the City Council. Chairman Schick asked those wishing to address the Commission to hold their remarks to approximately five minutes. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CP-36 Shape11 Industries of San Diego, Inc., 243 unit condo- minium development on Piragua and Vanado Streets, La Costa. Staff Report was presented by James Hagaman who listed the items which had previously been before the Commission in March of this year and on which discussion was postponed to this meeting to enable staff and planner to develop a better condominium plan. However, the staff recommends this hearing 7 - be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1980 to allow applicant time to apply for a tentative map. This map was not part of the original application, but is now considered required. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to continue CP-36 to May 14, 1980 MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: LARSON AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LEEDS, FRIESTED, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jose, Marcus NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SDP 77-l(C)/CUP-177, La Jolla Bank and Trust,drive-through banking facility. James Hagaman presented an opening statement relative to the staff report which had been given to the Planning Commission and identified two key issues: 1. Has the drive-through facility been designed to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation? 2. Is the general building and parking design consistent with the over-all development of the shopping center: Bud Plender presented the staff report. He said it is a dual application: The site development for the entire site includ- ing the location of a bank has been approved. A conditional use permit is required because of the drive-through facilities. The bank site, as approved, shows one drive-through lane with an "escape" lane. The applicant is requesting a modification to the site plan of the bank for a total of three drive-through lanes. However, after a thorough review of the plan, the staff finds that three drive-through lanes would not be feasible because of potential traffic problems and vehicles stacking at both the entrance and the exit. Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer, explained further that the drive-through as proposed with the three lanes, would not be workable. The primary concern of the staff is the effect the traffic would have on a public street. Commissioner Larson suggested that if the lanes were reduced to two, cars had to stack, they might go into the parking lot. Chairman Schick asked if any plans were being made to put in a traffic signal at Dove Street. Richard Allen noted that a signal has been installed. Chairman Schick called for discussion. Applicant Presentation Philip Markham of the architectural firm representing La Jolla Bank explained that La Jolla Bank, when originally -2- negotiating for the lease on the site that was laid out, tried to arrange for cars coming out to make a left turn. Among these, to put up signs indicating only left turns and no U-turns. These, he said, might satisfy the bank and the staff. (1) Adding an extra lane would reduce stacking. (2) The original building size might be decreased to enable the adding of a third lane. Mr. Markham then invited one of the bank members to speak. Mr. Louis Haak, Vice President and Cashier of La Jolla Bank, explained that the concept of three lanes was based on experience that drive-in banks with three lanes shorten lines. In arranging for these lanes the configuration has not been changed. In taking less square footage on the ground it was necessary to go to a second story, and while there was approval for some 5,500 sq. ft. of building, the bank will only have approximately 5,280 sq. ft. on the ground. There will be less space lost for the building if allowance were to be made for the third drive-in lane. Commissioner Friestedt asked whether it would be possible for three lanes to go directly to Dove Lane. Mr. Allen indicated that it would place more traffic movement in a public street. The reason he argued against three lanes is the fact that the lane closest to the entrance would make it physically impossible to make a U-turn into the shopping center. Chairman Schick called for further discussion. Commissioner Larson said that although he could under- stand the bank's point of view he believes the two lanes would work out. Commissioner Leeds asked if widening of the exit would solve the problem. Mr. Allen said he did not believe the extra width would help. Commissioner Rombotis expressed the opinion that three lanes might eliminate some stacking, but added he did not think there would be a problem getting out -- the problem is getting in. A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1627 and Resolution No. 1626 APPROVING SDP 77-1(C) and CUP-177 respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in both. MOTION: Friestedt SECOND: Larson AYES: SCHICK, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON NOES: ROMBOTIS ABSTAIN None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS Commissioner Rombotis indicated he supported the project and voted NO because of the reduction in drive lanes. - -3- 3. V-304, Coast Waste Management. Request to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10' to 0' on property generally located on the east side of Ponto Avenue, south of Palomar Airport Road in the RD-M Zone. James Hagaman presented an opening statement and indicated that there were 'four planning issues: a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property which do not apply to other properties in the vicinity? b. Do other properties in the vicinity share a similar property right which is denied to this property? C. Will this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general plan? d. Will this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity? Bill Hofman presented the staff report. A conditional use permit was approved for the expansion of a non-conforming use on the site for a maintenance building. A condition was placed requiring that the proposed structure be located approximately 75' to the north and set back 10' from the rear property line. The Commission based this condition on the finding that the structure, as proposed, would create a substantial adverse impact on the property to the east. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council and requested approval of the building as originally proposed, i.e. adjacent to the rear property line. The City Council approved the appeal with a revised condition allowing place- ment of the building on the rear property line only if a variance is approved by Planning Commission. The main issue with the project is whether the four man- datory findings can be made. The site location is approxi- mately one acre in size and there is sufficient room to relocate the building on the site and maintain adequate circulation on the site. Therefore, staff could not find extreme or extraordinary circumstances justifying a vari- ance. Surrounding land uses include single family residences and a kennel adjacent directly east of the proposed structure. One story accessory buildings are allowed to be placed adjacent to the rear property line in the RD-M Zone, how- ever, the proposed structure is not considered accessory because it serves as part of the primary use of the site. Staff could not find that this property is denied a property right shared by others in the vicinity. Also, staff stated that the variance would adversely affect the General Plan -4- r and the public welfare. Specifically, the proposed 21 foot structures would have an adverse visual effect on the adja- cent property to the east by blocking afternoon sunlight and air. In summary, the staff cannot find sufficient facts to make the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance, and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1628, denying V-304. Commissioner Schick called attention to the difference in scope and depth of the factual presentation of this item to the Planning Commission, comparing it with the superficial presentation to City Council upon which to base Council's decision. Applicant Presentation Morris Sims, of Coast Waste Management said, Coast Waste Management is requesting the variance because of the small area on site, and so the space can be used until the company can relocate. He pointed out in the aerial photos that adja- cent properties have built to the rear property line. He said they are not asking for anything the neighbors don't have Also, they are considered bad neighbors because of the nature of their business, however, they are a public utility and are trying to get their mechanics out of the rain just to repair trash trucks. Commissioner Rombotis noted that under the law the Commission must make the four mandatory findings in spite of the Council's decision to approve the CUP. Daniel S. Hentschke said he had received a complaint letter from a neighbor and there had been a request that it be included in the record. However, it cannot be included because it has not been viewed by the members of the Commission. Planning Commission Action A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1628, denying V-304. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: LARSON AYES: ROMBOTIS, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, SCHICK NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS 4. ZCA-123, Mobile Home Parks, Amendment to Tielt 21, by adding Chapter 21.37 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code, adding a Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. Adoption of Resolution No. 1624. Mr. Hagaman, in presenting the staff report, said a new plan is being proposed for a particular meeting of mobile home -5- residents, tenants and owners. The meeting was scheduled yesterday, Mr. Schick was there and talked to Council members as well as some owners and tenants. Based on these facts, Mr. Schick said he believes the matter should be tabled. Chairman Schick did, however, give the public an opportunity to speak at this time. The tabeling was concurred in by the mobile home owners present in the audience. There were no further comments. ZCA-123, Mobile Home Parks, tabled pending the City Council extablishing a committee to consider the Ordinance which will be brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: LARSON AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS Letters from Jack Robinson and Golden State Mobile Homeowners Association were exhibited to the Planning Commission suggesting some modifications and that the Commission review some of San Diego's ordinances. 5. ZCA-124, Amendment to Planning Moratorium James Hagaman, Planning Director, indicated that this amendment is one part of a three-part recommendation he made to the Council in February; wherein he suggested the moratorium be lifted to allow the processing of General Plan amendments and minor annexations necessary for revisions to approved master plans, per Exhibit "A" dated February 28, 1980. Chairman Schick called for questions from the audience. There were none Commissioner Larson offered a motion to APPROVE ZCA-124 and ADOPT Resolution No. 1625, Amendment Title 11. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: LEEDS AYES: FRESTEDT, SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LEEDS, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS Chairman Schick next called for a brief recess. -6- /- r- 6. SDP 80-2, McCoy. Request for professional office complex located on south side of Elm Avenue approxi- mately 110' west of Highland Ave. in the R-P-Q Zone. James Hagaman summarized the application, identifying the two key issues: 1. Is the project designed to provide for efficient traffic and pedestrian circulation? 2. Is the project compatible with surrounding development? Bill Hofman presented the Staff Report. The request is for a professional office complex arranged in three clusters. The total square footage is to be 42,800 on 2.2 acres of land. Cluster A is 2 buildings consisting of 18,000 sq. ft. in area; Complex B is 8,800 sq. ft. in area; and Cluster C is 2 buildings consisting of 16,000 sq. ft. in area. Access to the complex is from one driveway off of Elm Avenue. The driveway has been planned to provide a cir- cular flow throughout the site, and staff is satisfied with the way it works. A good design feature of the project is that applicant has moved buildings up to Elm Avenue and put the parking behind them to visually screen automobiles. He has also provided a 20'-30' landscape strip along the frontage Elm Avenue which will give a pleasing visual effect from Elm Avenue. Staff has added conditions to eliminate some undesirable parking spaces, widen the traffic aisles to provide more back-up space, and to locate trash enclosures. In terms of compatability with surrounding property, there are existing residential uses to the east and to the south. The applicant is proposing a 6' masonry block wall around the perimeter of the property, except within the front set- back, adjacent to the residential zone to minimize the impact on these residences. The applicant is also planning additional landscape strips between the wall and the parking area to increase the distance between the parking lot and residential zone. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Reso- lution NO. 1631, APPROVING SDP 80-2 based on the findings and subject to conditions contained therein. Commissioner Rombotis asked if parking is allowed all along Elm Avenue facing the complex. He felt it might cause a conflict with people leaving the parking lot who are trying to make a left turn. -7- /- Mr. Allen answered that the parking is not restricted on Elm Avenue, however, ultimately it will be. Commissioner Friestedt asked if landscaping will be completed at the same time buildings A, B & C are completed. Bill Hofman stated that the landscaping will be installed when the buildings are completed. After some further discussion a motion was made to ADOPT Resolution NO. 1631 APPROVING SDP 80-2 dubject to the find- ings and conditions contained therein. MOTION: FRIESTEDT SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 9 and March 26 Minutes of March 26, approved with change at top of page 9, insert words W . ..the housing element". MOTION: LARSON SECOND: LEEDS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS Minutes of April 9, 1980 approved as written. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: LEEDS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: JOSE, MARCUS INFORMATION ITEMS "Super Block Study" RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION for Mike Zander - Approved unanimously, by voice vote. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M., April 23, 1980. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN Secretary to the Planning Commission ma 5/15/80