Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-14; Planning Commission; MinutesC PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD f- May 14, 1980 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, Jose, Leeds, Marcus, Friestedt, Larson. Commissioners absent: None Ex-Officio members present: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director; Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney. Staff present; Bill Hofman, Associate Planner; Brian Milich, Assistant Planner; Richard Allen, Principal Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. Chairman Schick presented a Resolution of Appriciation from the Planning Commission to Mike Zander for the fine work he had done ,-- for the City of Carlsbad from November 6, 1972 to December 1979 as a city employee, and for his continued efforts in city projects after terminating his employment as an Associate Planner for the city in a volunteer capacity to further the objectives of the city. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schick called for items to be addressed to the Commission which are not included in the docket. He stated that a workshop was held last night with the City Council at which a presentation was made relative to the development of an industrial area near Palomar Airport. He expressed concern over the sewer system pro- posed by the development since it is based on the Lake Calaveras project. Chairman Schick was concerned about the lack of infor- mation in the verbal.presentation of this big development. He asked the Commission for questions and its opinion on pursuing the matter. Commissioner Rombotis inquired as to what kind of documentation is needed. Chairman Schick said he was told developers were planning to break ground in one year. Commissioner Rombotis suggested that perhaps the staff could bring the Commission up to date on the sewerage project and its service area and suggested that staff should look at the groundwork on these questions. Chairman Schick encouraged the Commission to study the project and address it objectively. Commissioner Rombotis agreed and requested that some of the staff could bring in the latest information so that the Commission could study it and be ready for a vote before it has been decided by the City Council. Commissioner Jose stated that as a Planning Commission they have done very little planning. The Chairman then explained to the audience the procedure of the hearing and advised the applicants of their rights of appeal to the City Council. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CP-36, Shape11 Industires of San Diego, Inc., 243-unit con- dominium development on Piragua and Venado Streets, La Costa. Adoption of Resolution No. 1629. James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, introduced the Staff Report which was continued from the Planning CommissionMeeting of April 23, 1980 to allow applicant time to apply for a tentative map. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for a 243-unit condominium development of 40.8 acres in La Costa. Staff recommended approval of this development by the Planning Commission. Bill Hofman presented the Staff report. Mr. Hofman gave some background information on the project. The site consists of 170 detached single family units and 136 attached units arranged in clusters of 17 8-plexes throughout the site. Applicant has disbursed units and has provided a good housing mix throughout the site. The project will be built in six phases which Mr. Hofman pointed out on the map labeled Exhibit "A" on display. With respect to the Planning Commission's concerns at the last meeting, i.e. that the pro- ject presented the appearance of sub-standard single family subdivision and the lack of well dispersed recreational areas, staff now feels that with the new design and addition of the 8-plex units, the development has opened up additional common areas and has created a better visitor parking situation. The original design provided for all on-street visitor parking. The latest design provides for on-site parking for the multi- family units with some visitor parking on street for the single family dwellings. A second concern of the Planning Commission was distribution of the recreational areas throughout the site. The original design provided for two large recreational areas not easily accessible. The new design proposes 16 recreational areas to be disbursed throughout the development. Also, the applicant will provide a pedestrian path leading to La Costa Canyon Park through the SDG&E easement. -2- - Mr. Hofman concluded by saying that staff is satisfied with the project and therefore recommends that the Planning Com- mission adopt Resolution No. 1629 based on the findings and conditions contained therein with modification to condition #12 to add 'salt tolerant' plants as well as drought resist- ant plants. Commissioner Rombotis asked for an explanation of Condition #7. Mr. Hofman explained it was included to ensure that the developer would not sell separate lands that are intended to remain in common ownership, and was put in as a safeguard to keep entire development in tact. Mr. Hentschke added that it was necessary to contain this condition so that one of the parceled lands is not sold off, thereby making it an illegal condo. This condition ties it in with the whole development. Commissioner Rombotis also asked for an explanation of Finding #5-c. Mr. Hofman agreed better wording would be..."from the bottom of the canyon." Chairman Schick called for further questions. Commissioner Larson asked regarding Condition #2. (i.e. improvement of Lot 290) whether timing during Phase I would perhaps be premature. Brian Milich explained it was included to provide access to the canyon and also provide an over-look point. It would not be open for public use. Mr. Larson also asked if access would be provided to the park; Brian Milich said it would not be done by developer but later by the city. There will be some type of barrier to prevent public access until city is ready to develop it. Mr. Larson asked whether there was a physical barrier between Lot 290 and the lot to the west. Brian Milich stated that it is owned by the city. Mr. Larson stated that a condition should be placed requiring separation of Lot 290 from the adjacent lot to the west by some physical barrier. Staff concurred. Commissioner Larson stated that #14 appears to be putting the burden of improvement on the Homeowners' Association and asked whether or not it is the developer's responsibility. Brian Milich said it should be changed to read that "developer has the responsibility to install the improvement---". Commissioner Friestedt, in reference to Condition #12, is con- cerned about inadequate lighting of the pedestrian paths and recreation areas and requested that a condition be placed requiring a detailed lighting plan using low intensity lights for the recreational area and pedestrian paths. Mr. Hofman said staff has no objection. Chairman Schick then called for anyone who wished to speak on behalf of the project to come forward. -3- - Applicant Presentation: Mr. V. H. Beiqhts of Shape11 addressed members of the Commission. Basically, he said the company will try its very best to build and provide amenities of the highest quality. As far as lighting is concerned, they will want some low profile lighting to illuminate the subject areas. He said the applicant plans to satisfy all the requirements of the many conditions imposed, and assured the Commission this would be done. Chairman Schick asked for response from the audience, there being no response, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made to adopt Resolution 1629 approving CP-36 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein with modifications to Finding 5(c) and to Conditions 2, 7, 12 and 14 as expressed at the meeting. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: JOSE AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, JOSE, LEEDS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 2. CT 80-8/CP-58/V-302, IZBICKI Mr. Hagaman introduced the matter to the Commission and requested an indefinite continuance of the application pursuant to both the Staff Report of May 14, 1980 and a letter of request from the applicant. Chairman Schick requested an explanation for the continu- ance and was informed by Mr. Hofman that the applicant proposed to redesign the project in order to provide an acceptable product to the Commission. Mr. Hofman elaborated on some specific items of contention. Applicant Presentation: Leonard Izbicki, 6519 Onda Place, Carlsbad, California, spoke on behalf of the project. He stated that the project was started in 1977 and had seen increased parking requirements, recreational areas, and several moratoriums in this period of time. His reason for requesting a continuance was the negative attitude of the staff report: his desire is to redesign the project in an acceptable form to the staff and commission so that when it was brought to the commission problems raised by the staff would have been mitigated. -4- MOTION A motion was made to TABLE CT 80-8/CP-58/V-302. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, SCHICK, MARCUS, LEEDS, JOSE, LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 3. CUP-178, BANK OF AMERICA NTCSA - Conditional Use Permit for a banking facility. Mr. Hagaman introduced the subject and stated the issue of the project Mr. Hofman presented the Staff Report. The staff findings were all favorable as to the proposed use of the site, the adequacy in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, provision of yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping etc. Staff believes street system is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by proposed use. Mr. Hofman said staff is recommending approval, based on the findings and conditions contained in its Staff Report. Commissioner Rombotis commented on Condition #3. If the project comes back in again when the permanent facility is built will applicant have to pay fees again, or will he get credit for ones already paid: Commissioner Rombotis expressed concern that owner is duplicating his efforts; should not have to pay again or should get some kind of credit. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, stated, because the fee is imposed pursuant to the General Plan, the staff would have to review the project for consistency again at the time of the amendment, and if necessary, impose whatever fees or conditions needed to allow a finding of consistency. Commissioner Jose stated it is the applicant's decision to put up a temporary facility instead of a permanent structure; therefore, he must bear the consequence. He hoped the Bank of America would not maintain a temporary facility for five years. Commissioner Larson stated regarding Condition #2, are we not actually allowing the bank to put up a temporary building and leave it there? It would take a substantial effort to enforce completion of a permanent building. Mr. Hofman said this would be up to the Commission. Commissioner Larson expressed concern with the fact the city has no basis for removal of the temporary building after five years. Larson: Is not CUP required for a temporary structure? Mr. Hofman said the sturcture is temporary in -5- - terms of use! it is actually built as a modular unit which meets all building code requirements for a permanent facility. The bank is using a temporary modular unit on the basis of location of site. Commissioner Firestedt asked what require- ments are for waste system utilizing a septic tank or seepage pit system. Mr. Hofman referred him to Richard Allen, Prin- cipal City Engineer. Mr. Allen explained the system in detail and stated that the applicant will submit a letter to the City Engineer who will then determine the capacity of the system, and the city would then approve or deny the system. There was a further discussion by Commissioner Friested and Rombotis and Mr. Allen relative to "pert'" tests. Mr. Hagaman stated that the city has accepted a letter from county giving approval for the use of this system. Chairman Schick called for discussion and questions from the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Thomas Blaskiewicz, spokesman for Bank of America, reiterated that the temporary facility does meet the requirements of a permanent structure. Their goal is to complete the project and open the doors within 18 months from the time of approval. This particular site by Palomar Airport is very small, and the bank's goal is to grow with the area and to put up the perman- ent site within the stated time. Mr. Blaskiewicz stated perk tests had been done and the soil does pert. A motion was made that the Planning Commission adopt Reso- lution 1634, APPROVING CUP-178, based on the conditions and findings of the Staff Report. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: SCHICK, ROME!OIIS, JOSE,LEEDS,MAKXJS,FRIESTl!DT,LARSON NOES: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission resumed after a 10 minute recess. 4. PP-24(C) - MAY STORES - Request to amend the Precise Plan for Plaza Camino Real, located on the north side of Marron Road between El Camino Real and Jefferson Street. Mr. Hagaman presented the opening statement, describing the project description and background. The applicant is request- ing approval of an amendment to the Precise Plan, PP-24, for the Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center. -6- Bill Hofman gave the Staff Report and presented each request one (4 by one: Bullock's Department Store: Since it is built and the square footage and parking requirements are reduced, staff recommends approval. (b) Relocation of the bus zone; An agreement has been reached wrth North County Transit District, the appli- cant, and staff to relocate the bus zone as requested by the applicant, therefore, staff recommends approval. (c) Signing: Applicant is requesting consolidation of three signs previously approved into one 79 square feet in size at the main entrance, which would be located at the driveway immediately southwest of Bullock's. Staff has no problems with design or location, therefore, recommends approval. Id) Driveway Realignment: Applicant is proposing to shift the alignment to accommodate realignment of channel and to provide access into the City of Oceanside's sewer treatment plant. This adds 50 additional spaces and presents a better parking lot layout. Staff is con- cerned with only one access to the sewer treatment plant, from the shopping center parking lot and is recommending a condition requiring: 1. that developer agree to limit access to the sewage treatment plant to those vehicles necessary to operate and maintain the treatment plant, and 2. submittal of landscape and irrigation plans for the entire northwest parking lot. This was the only area not upgraded at time of the approval. (4 Deletion of Lot 29; Staff has two main concerns with this proposal: 1. Deletion of the lot and re-aligning of an,access road within the lot would delete 300 parking spaces from the plan. Staff feels that a minimum of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area should be maintained for the center. Elimination of the spaces would reduce the ratio to 4.93 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 2. Assuming all other requests are approved by the Commission, applicant's intent is to develop Lot 29 in conjunction with property to the west, however, at this time, he has not submitted any development plans. Staff feels a modification without a proposed plan is premature and therefore recommends denial. -7- In summary: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 1637, approving items a. through f. and denial of item e. (i.e. deletion of Lot 29). Chairman Schick called on Commission members for questions. Commissioner Friestedt asked if the re-aligning of the fourth phase of the location would enter the boundary of the City of Oceanside. Mr. Hofman replied that it would but will not really change the originally approved plan. Commissioner Jose asked if we would have a hassle with the City of Oceanside on this? Mr. Hofman said the applicant is in the process of obtaining an agreement with Oceanside to resolve this issue. Commissioner Rombotis: Regarding reduction of Bullock's square footage and picking up 50 parking spaces by re- aligning to the north --"Aren't you really talking about 125 parking spaces?" Mr. Hofman: If you approve the re-alignment and approve the deletion, the net reduction would be below 5.0 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. which has always been a basic staff policy. Commissioner Rombotis asked if this is consistent with what the Center feels are its needs? Mr. Hofman said that the real issue with Lot 29 is not parking but that no development should occur on Lot 29 until a plan is submitted for development to the west. Chairman Schick remarked that the bus stop plan seemed a bit ludicrous, considering all the discussion that has occurred. Chairman Schick also asked if there was any concern with sewerage? Did the developers turn EDU's back to the city because they have made Bullocks smaller? Mr. Hofman indicated 7.6 EDU's were given back to the city. -8- Applicant Presentation . John Mamaux in his presentation noted that the addition of the fifth store was the reason for the changing of the plan. Mr. Mamaux said he believes that the parking ratio of five is a myth. Department stores involved in some 120 shopping centers have concluded among themselves that 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. is the number that would be suitable for this center or 4.93 if Lot 29 were deleted making it the same plan that it was in 1973. In 1978, 4.9/1,000 sq.ft. was set, which it is now. In the whole period of time the center has experienced only one shortage which came about at the time construction was going on during the Christmas season. At the time of the disagreement with Oceanside, May Company was asked to delete Lot 29, but there was never any discus- sion about dedicating it for parking. May Company agreed to use it as parking until such time as it could be developed properly. They are concerned with discretionary rights for reviewing the project. A problem will exist when someone wants to develop a new project and the Commission applies 1980 landscape standards retroactive to the initial plan approved in 1969. John Mamaux next spoke on Condition #13 which deals with screening of roof top and mechanical equipment. He stated only someone in the Gemco parking lot can see the rooftop, and in these difficult business times, the small owners in the mall would have to bear the expense of screening. Mr. Mamaux requested deletion of Condition #13 and the deletion of that portion of Condition #2 which deals with the alteration or development of Lot 29 without approval of an additional amendment to the Precise Plan. Commissioner Jose asked about the road in Oceanside which is owned by Carlsbad. Is this satisfactory to both sides as far as sewer easements, etc., are concerned? Mr. Mamaux said it is all settled. Commissioner Rombotis replied that it seems to be anuneco- nomic way to re-align and suggested an interim use permit until the precise plan is submitted. He remarked that sometime in the future we will re-align that parking lot for smaller cars. He suggested that #2 be re-worded to reflect the interim use of the property. -9- Mr. Hofman remarked that we have given the applicant a false impression that Lot 29 must remain a parking lot. Staff simply is indicating that development of Lot 29 is not appropriate at this time since no specific site plans have been submitted by the applicant. Chairman Schick called for further questions from the audience. There were none. Mr. Hofman commented on #13, saying that the 294 unit Broadmoor development, recently approved, looks over the top of the center. Also, there was a similar condition contained in a previous approval which has not been complied with to date because it was not tied to a completion date. There was more discussion of the rooftop situation. A motion was made to adopt Resolution 1637 approving PP-24(C) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, but deleting Condition #13 in toto and modifying Condition #2 to read as follows: 2) Parking lot configuration and road alignment on Lot 29 shall remain as existing, as approved on PP-24(B), Exhibit "A", dated 2/7/79. Appli- cant shall not be required to convey Lot 29 to the parking authority, but pending develop- ment of Lot 29, agrees to operate Lot 29 as a parking lot under the same terms and conditions of the existing public parking lot operating agreement. No alteration or development shall occur on Lot 29 without approval of an additional amendment to the Precise Plan. Applicant shall not be required to make any alterations or modifications to any portion of the existing improvements located east of grid line W5000 or north of grid line N11600, as shown on Precise Plan PP-24(C), Exhibit A, dated 4/23/80, as condition of approval for development of Lot 29. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS, MARCUS, JOSE NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -lO- - 5. ZCA-121, Setbacks for Condominiums, a Zone Code Amendment, amending Title 21, Chapter 12.47 to provide for special setback considerations for condominiums. Adoption of Reso- lution No. 1630. Mr. Hagaman, in presenting the report, stated that this amendment was undertaken at the City Council's direction to the staff to review regulations to provide reduced standards or flexibility to the regulations. He said the Condominium Code now requires 10' setback for habitable buildings from a private driveway, and a minimum of 5' for parking areas. After reviewing past variances, the staff is recommending that the condominium regulations be amended to reduce the setback to 5' for all buildings from a driveway. Mr. Hagaman said staff does have one suggestion pertaining to (1) (D) on the first page of Exhibit "A". Staff is suggesting that the eaves be allowed to encroach up to the driveway along with balconies. A motion was made to adopt Resolution 1630 approving ZCA-121 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein with modification to (l)(D) on the first page of Exhibit "A" to allow eaves to encroach up to the driveway along with balconies. - MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, RCMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS, MARCUS, JOSE NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 6. ZCA-125, Signs R-P Zone, Planning Director Hagaman presented his department's analysis and recommendations for this proposed ordinance. The city's sign regulations have been interpreted in various ways by different staffs in the city of Carlsbad and in some cases consistency of interpretation has not been maintained. The present regulations state that the R-P Zone has a maximum sign area of 20 sq.ft. per lot and staff is proposing that this be changed to allow one square foot of sign over for every lineal foot of building frontage. The regulation would apply to office use, hotels and motels in the R-P Zone. A general discussion ensued ralative to scale and proportions of signs. Chairman Schick announced to the audience that this was a public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition. - -ll- Aoplicant Presentation Mr. M. Lawrence Musil, Vice President of Musil Perkowitz Ruth, In., came forward to speak. Their client, Wells Fargo Bank, who will be occupant of the complex, has expressed a desire for a monument sign. He thinks the way the Planning Commission staff has re-worded the ordinance is good and his firm supports the ordinance. There was no further discussion of the subject, and a motion was made that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commis- sion Resolution 1632, approving ZCA-125, based on the find- ings and subject to the conditions therein. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, RCMBOIIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS, MARCUS, JOSE NOES: None ABSTAIN: None INFORMATION ITEM: Pacific Palisades Mr. Hagaman brought this to the Commission as an information item - and asked whether it should be followed up, and whether the Com- mission wishes to have the Planning Department bring similar items to its attention. The original plans, given Commission approval, showed a retaining wall. The owner now feels this wall can cause leakage problems and is requesting that they be permitted to modify the setbacks to allow for a slope. If the Commission feels the change is minor, the Planning Department will insert a memo to the file indicating the revised plans, if the change is considered major, the Commission may require a full public hearing at a future date. Mr. Hofman gave a further report and said the maximum height would be 8' with a 1' -1%' slope which is allowable if approved by the City Engineer. The owner will obtain permits subject to the ordinance. If there are any problems the Planning Department will bring them to the attention of the Commission. Plans (a) in the projL:L' (c) were displayed as examples of typical locations . Plan (a) represents the worst case situation, (b) represents the best case situation and (c) represents the average condition, to show how will this change from what exists to what is proposed? Commissioner Marcus said she did not see justifica- tion for (b): Mr. Hofman explained it was meant to show contrast. -12- The PUD zero lot line concept has not changed, and applicant has maintainted and in some cases increased usable open space. Mr. Hofman feels it is in conformance to the original plan: however, if Commission feels it requires a hearing it can be brought back to the Commission. He said it was brought up as an information matter only, the Planning Department believes it to be a minor change. Commissioner Larson: It appears to be adequate open space between the buildings and will accept item as an information item. Mr. Hagaman said it was brought to the Commission to inform them of changes. This was accepted as an informational item by the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF April 23, 1980 ROLL CALL: Commissioners Marcus and Jose were not present at the April 23, 1980 meeting and this should be reflected in the minutes and her name should be stricken from the list of Com- missioners present. Commissioner Jose was absent from the meeting. Chairman Schick requested a change on page 5 of the minutes to - further clarify statement starting on line 20...There was a dif- ference in presentation to the Council vs. the Commission's. In essence, the Commission had a detailed presentation from which we made our decision, and the Council had a very short, quick presentation which did not cover all the essential items. Commissioner Rombotis voted for approval of minutes of 4/23/80 as corrected. Approved unanimously by voice vote. Chairman Schick reminded the Commission of the seminar on May 19, 1980. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN Secretary to the Planning Commission /ma -13-