Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-28; Planning Commission; Minutes. -.- . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF CARLSBAD May 28, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Schick. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Chairman Schick, Commissioners Rombotis, Marcus,, Friestedt, Larson and Leeds. Commissioner Jose arrived at 7:07 P.M. Ex-Officio members Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, and Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Staff present were Bill Hofman, Associate Planner; Richard Allen, Principal Engineer; and Les Evans, City Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Schick. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schick inquired if any items of communication, in addition to those reflected on the Agenda, were to be considered by the Commission. Bill Hofman indicated staff would like to have a special meeting on either June 18 or June 19, regarding general plan amendments for land use elements in connection with the Koll Center and Pea Soup Andersen projects. Following discussion, the Commission agreed the date of June 19, 1980 would be satisfactory for a special meeting. Mr. Hofman explained the subject items would appear on the regular meeting,Agenda of June' .. 11, 1980 with staff's recommendation to continue to the special meeting in accordance customary procedure and notice requirements. Chairman Schick enumerated those types of matters appearing before the Planning Commission, explaining those items with which the Planning Commission is charged for an advisory recommendation and those delegated for final decision. With regard to the latter, Chairman Schick indicated the Assistant City Attorney would advise of appeal procedures in the event of any denied application. Chairman Schick then set forth the public hearing procedure. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: - 1. V-307 Musil-Hughes - An introductory staff report was given by the Planning Director, indicating this item was a request for a Variance to delete the requirement of a 6' block wall on the south property line on property located on the southeast corner of El Camino real and Hosp Way, as discussed in the May 28, 1980 staff report. -l- Bill Hofman then detailed the staff report, explaining by way of /-- background information that the SP and CUP for this matter had been approved by the,Commission in March. With the aid of wall maps, Mr. Hofman explained that due to the topography of the area, the required 6' wall would not afford the visual screening and sound attenuation to be expected. With the aid of transparencies, Mr. Hofman explained the property line between the project and adjacent residences is located half-way on a 15' high slope; therefore, any wall would not effectively screen nor block sound from the proposed commercial center. Mr. Hofman stated staff viewed the topography as constituting an extreme or exceptional circumstance which meets the finding for a Variance. For the record, Commissioner Jose indicated had had not been present during the earlier Commission public hearings for this matter. However Commissioner Jose questioned whether the application for the Variance met all four requirements and expressed the opinion that the wall should not be deleted. Further, the matter of the topo- graphy and resulting request for a Variance should have been addressed by staff and considered by the Planning Commission at the time the matter originally appeared. Commissioner Schick responded the matter had been brought up, with Commissioner Rombotis adding the location of the property line was not discovered until the project had been approved. Further, the Commission was not technically able to delete the requirement for F the wall. / Jim Hagaman explained the applicant had explored the possibility of placing the wall at the top of the slope, off the property line. Following a determination that same was not viable, applicant had requested the subject Variance. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. and inquired if the applicant desired to address the Commission. The Commission recognized Larry Musil of Musil, Perkowitz and Ruth, Architects, Long Beach, CA, who expressed concurrence with staff recommendations. Chairman Schick inquired if any members of the audience desired to address the Commission, either in favor or opposition to the matter. There being no response, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 7:17 P.M. Commissioner Marcus inquired if landscaping or some other form of buffer would be utilized if the wall were deleted. Bill Hofman responded that landscaping was proposed along the property line, although landscaping was not considered an effective sound barrier. Psychologically it can be a factor, but in this case, because of the a-- topography, it is difficult to construct any sound attenuation measures. Mr. Hofman stated the height of the slope itself, height of residences and distanceabovethe commercial center will to some degree reduce the amount of sound. -2- Chairman Schick inquired what increased sound levels would occur ,F‘ and if same would exceed desirable decible rates. Bill Hofman responded that as a professional complex, it would not create the amount of traffic generated in a commercial development, and expressed the opinion that sound would be minimal given the distance and elevations involved. The Commission adopted Resolution 1641, approving Variance (V-307) to delete the requirement for a 6' high block wall along the southerly property line of property generally located on the south- east corner of El Camino Real and Hosp Way in the R-P-Q Zone. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: MARCUS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON AND LEEDS. NOES: None ABSTAIN: JOSE Commissioner Jose requested the record reflect his abstaining vote as due to his absence during prior Commission hearings on the matter. 2. CT 80-.15/PUD-17 Shaw, Talbot, Budge & Davis - An introductory staff report was given by the Planning Director, indicating this item was a phased, planned industrial development on Avenida Encinas between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road, as set forth in the r May 28, 1980 staff report. I . Bill Hofman then detailed the staff report, explaining the project was Phase I of two phases of a light manufacturing, storage and office- use complex located in the P-M Zone, situated along Avenida Encinas, adjacent to Interstate 5, just north of the Burroughs development and south of Cannon Road. As part of the project, the applicant would be improving Avenida Encinas to Cannon Road. Mr. Hofman then explained the modifications requested by the applicant through the PUD process: (1) reduction in lot size to allow for individual ownership; (2) reduction in set back requirements; and (3) encroachment of the parking area into the side yards. With the aid of wall maps, Mr. Hofman explained the amenities proposed over and above that which are required by the underlying zone: (1) increased landscaping along Avenida Encinas and increased landscaping to buffer Interstate 5; (2) central court areas with water courses and bridges; (3) increased number of parking spaces; and (4) on-site recreational facilities consisting of an exercise course. In terms of design, Mr. Hofman stated the relationship of the recreational area, circulation pattern for both vehicles and pedestrians and location of the buildings is well integrated and comprehensively designed. - Commissioner Rombotis requested clarification of the width of Avenida Encinas, commenting the measurement did not reflect the standard. -3- Richard Allen responded the width had been increased to accommodate _- a median in the street to control turn movements from the large number of driveways. Commissioner Jose questioned if the subject project represented the direction the City desired to follow in the future with regard to industrial-type developments, and expressed the opinion approval of the applicant would establish a precedent for same in the P-M Zone, by reducing what is required compared to the requirements for Planned Unit Development. Bill Hofman acknowledged Commissioner Jose expressing the opinion in this case the comprehensive design and additional amenities far exceed what could be built in the P-M zone, if normal zoning standards are met. Cormnissioner Jose then requested clarification on page 2 under Discussion regarding setbacks on eastern property line ver.sus the northern/western property lines, and inquired which was the rear lot line. Mr. Hofman referenced the wall maps explaining the propery lines from the perspective of the street which runs through the project in relation to the location of the buildings. Commissioner Jose expressed the opinion that heavy landscaping should rc, be required along I-5. Bill Hofman then related staff concerns regarding building elevation along I-5 and referred to the wall maps explaining the buildings were well designed to afford improved visual impacts of an industrial type project. Commissioner Jose inquired if parking would be permitted along the freeway on the eastern side. Bill Hofman responded negatively, indicating the area would be landscaped, consisting of the water courses and recreational areas, with approximately 20 to 25 foot separation between parking and the freeway right-of-way, and no parking facing the freeway. Commissioner Larson inquired if the 1 to 300 parking ration proposed by the applicant as an additional amenity would apply to Phase II as well as Phase I. Mr. Hofman responded affirmately. Commissioner Larson expressed the opinoin that the PUD should reflect the findings of additional on-site amenities to substantiate the reduced lot size and set backs in view of the precedent setting element of approving the project. ,- Commissioner Larson expressed the opinion the wording of Condition 7 of the PUD should be more specific and establish type of required screening to effectively screen the project from the freeway. Commissioner Leeds and Chairman Schick expressed the opinion the landscaping along the west side of the project should be heavier and compare with that proposed along the freeway to achieve greater balance. Mr. Hofman responded the railroad right-of-way and existing open space corridor along the western side adjacent to the R-l Zone was considered by staff to be sufficient buffer in terms of distance between living units to the west and the industrial project. Chairman Schick expressed concerns with the effects of total build- out of development on the traffic pattern and circulation at Cannon Road in relation to existing residences, and inquired of traffic projections in the area and mitigation measures. Richard Allen responded he was unaware of any traffic studies for that area and that Cannon Road was designated as a secondary arterial. However, if a traffic signal became warranted, it would be provided through the public facilities fee. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 7:41 P.M. and inquired if the applicant or a representative was present and desired to address the Commission. The Commission recognized Howard F. Thompson, of Howard F. Thompson & Associates, Inc., 16520 Askin Street, Irvine, CA. Mr. Thompson F- indicated he represented the owners and was responsible for the land planning and architecture of the project. With regard to the maximum height of the buildings, Mr. Thompson offered for correction the figure of 25 feet, rather than 20 feet as stated under Project Description of the staff report. Commission recognized Howard Clark, 5500 El Arbol, Carlsbad, CA, who indicated he resided adjacent to the west of the proposed development, and explained the proximity of his home to the existing development at Burroughs and the freeway. Mr. Clark expressed concern with the noise generated from additional development of this sort which might compound existing noise from the freeway. Additionally, Mr. Clark expressed concerns with visual effects of the project on his residential area. The Commission recognized Ethel Barosh, 5470 El Arbol, Carlsbad, CA, who questioned why the land east of the freeway which is still agriculture and not hear existing residences had not been utilized. Mrs. Barosh expressed the opinion that this type of project in the P-M Zone would create more activity, more roads and more noise. Further, the railroad would not serve to sufficiently buffer adjacent homes due to its lower elevation in relation to the residences. The Commission recognized Roger Williams, 5118 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, who indicated he represented the residents of Terramar, as the P President of that Association. -5- Mr. Williams explained his concerns in that Cannon Road, after completion and extension, would be utilized by the heavy traffic generated by the Palomar Airport Business Park employees during the times when school children were boarding and departing the public transportation buses. Further, such traffic would conflict with childrens' recreational activities in that there were few curbs and sidewalks in the area. Therefore, Mr. Williams requested Commission consideration of providing same. The Commission again recognized Howard Thompson, who responded to concerns. Mr. Thompson explained along the west property line there was a total of 14 feet of landscaping. Additionally, there is approximately 250 feet of permanently designated open space; therefore, the landscaping, open space and railroad provide a substantial buffer to those residences to the rear of the project. With regard to screening, Mr. Thompson indicated opaque, rather than perforated screening would be used to decrease noise concerns and any lighting at the rear end of the project would be "down lighting" as a security matter for anyone parking behind the facility and would not extend beyond the yard. Commissioner Larson requested information regarding the type of potential use of the buildings and the potential for noise emanating as a result. t Mr. Thompson responded that both Phase I and II will be research and development type facilities -- whether light assembly, etc., it is not meant to be any sort of heavy manufacturing -- being people oriented rather than machinery oriented. There being no further indication to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. As a matter of clarification for the audience, Commissioner Rombotis explained the Commission was not considering a rezone; the project is in the PM Zone. Cormnissioner Larson inquired if the project could be conditioned to require selection of landscaping material which would provide a solid buffer on the west side of the property. Bill Hofman suggested Commission add a sentence to Condition 6 of the PUD Resolution to state "said landscape plan shall include planting of the west property line to visually screen the project from the adjacent properties to the west, subject to the approval of the Planning Director." With regard to Condition 7, Mr. Hofman suggested wording to reflect "all roof top appurtenances shall be completely screened from adjacent properties, Interstate 5 and Avenida Encinas, and ,- integrated into the design of the building, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of building permits." -6- During discussion regarding noise concerns, Commissioner Jose ob- -- served that no amount of landscaping would exclude noise altogether. Commissioner Rombotis offered that the buildings themselves would provide some buffer. As a point of information, Mr. Hofman explained a requirement of the P-M Zone is that noise beyond the boundaries of the site cannot exceed a decible level of 45, as measured by the American Standard of Sound Level Meters. Therefore, sound attenuation measures on the site are required and sound attenuation would be enforced. Mr. Hofman suggested a condition be added to reiterate the sound requirements of the PM Zone. Commissioners Jose and Rombotis also requested the standard conditions regarding lighting and screening be included. Chairman Schick expressed concerns that the Commission needed to have a total analysis of traffic with regard to development in order to effectively deal with problems in the future. Specifically, he inquired into policies and provisions for curbs and sidewalks beyond the applicant's commitment to complete the street. In this regard, Chairman Schick requested that staff provide the necessary information. Richard Allen responsed there were no present plans for work west of the project. However, he believed agreements for future public improvements do exist. The Commission adopted Resolution 1638, recommending approval of a c Planned Industrial Development on property generally located on Avenida Encinas, between Cannon and Palomar Airport Roads, based on the findings and conditions outlined in the May 28, 1980 staff report. The Commission adopted Resolution 1639, recommending approval of a Planned Unit Development for a planned industrial development on property generally located OnAvenidaEncinas between Cannon and Palomar Airport Roads, based on the findings .and oonditions outlined in the staff report of May 28, 1980, subject to the changes to conditions and additional conditions, as expressed during discussion. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS AND JOSE. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECESS: The Commission recessed at 8:24 P.M. and reconvened at 8:36 P.M. with all Commissioners present. 3. CUP-85(A) Pilgrim Congregation Church - An introductory report was given by the Planning Director, explaining the item as a request for an amendment to the conditional use permit to replace an existing building at the church facility located at the northeast corner of Chestnut L Avenue and Monroe Street, as discussed in the May 28, 1980 staff report. -7- Bill Hofman detailed the staff report, utilizing wall maps to ,- illustrate location of the property and explaining applicant's request. With regard to improvement to auxillary parking lot off Chestnut, Commissioner Larson inquired if there would be sufficient room to allow vehicles to back up and turn around in order to exit forward. Mr. Hofman responded that all spaces allowed for vehicles to exit forward onto Chestnut. As a point of clarification Mr. Hofman explained this parking lot would be used by the administrative personnel and that another lot would be utilized by church members. Commissioner Jose expressed similar concerns in that this was a dangerous location. Chairman Schick stated that the Commission possessed in- sufficient information to make a recommendation at this time. Chairman Schick inquired whether the subject wall was a retaining wall and Bill Hofman responded affirmatively. Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. and inquired if the applicant desired to speak. The Commission recognized Gordon Baker, 2035 Charlene Circle, the Pastor of the church. Mr. Baker explained the day care center was a separate operation, referencing the history of the existing CUP. With regard to the parking, Pastor Baker indicated the lot has been used in its unimproved condition for some time and all personnel were fully aware of the hazards. The proposed improvements were expected to alleviate such hazards. The Commission recognized George Mann, 2031 Charlene Circle, who indicated the rear of his residence abutted the rear of the church. Mr, Mann expressed agreement with the proposed project; however, requested clarification of the height of the wall in that it was his understanding same would be 5 feet, rather than 4 feet as reflected in the staff report. Since no else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 8:46 P.M. As a point of clarification, Commissioner Rombotis explained the wall would be,approximately 4-l/5 feet. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 1640, approving a Conditional Use Permit to replace an existing building at the church facility generally located on the northeast corner of Chestnut Avenue and Monroe Street. MOTION: JOSE r SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS & JOSE. NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE -8- - 4. ZCA-126, Planning Moratorium (Encina Treatment Plant) James Hagaman, Planning Director, explained this item appeared before Planning Commission to accomplish recent direction of the City Council in processing an ordinance amendment which would removed the planning moratorium from the area known as the Encina service area, excluding the 2 industrial areas determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Palomar Airport basin. Mr. Hagaman explained the City Council determination to lift the planning moratorium in this area only was predicated on the findings that sufficient capacity to meet future demand would be available as a result of Encina re-rating, completion of Lake Calavera Hills plant and completion of Encina Phase III expansion. Further, upon completion of the LCH plant, the City would have the option of switching 600 existing units from Encina to LCH and thus free up a comparable additional capacity at Encina. Also, a proposal in the Master Water Reclamation Plan provides for capacity from a plant to be located in the area known as the Palomar Airport basin. With the aid of a color-coded wall map depicting the sewer service areas defined as Encina, LCH and Palomar, Mr. Hagaman explained the relationship of same to the areas established as the Lake Calavera Hills, Palomar Airport, San Marcos and c -. I Leucadia drainage basins. Chairman Schick expressed concern in officially recognizing and relying upon the proposed Palomar plant in advance and in the absence of the rigorous planning process to which the Lake Calavera Hills plant had been subjected. Specifically, Chairman Schick questioned the propriety of approval of the Waste Water Reclamation Master Plan sans Planning Commission consideration and recommendation, and the validity of accepting an established sewer service area (Palomar) which has emerged from the concepts of that Master Plan. In conclusion, Chairman Schick expressed the opinion the Planning Commission should participate more fully in the planning process and requested Commission response and comment in this regard. Commissioner Friestedt requested clarification of paragraph 2 on page 4 of the May 6, 1980 Memorandum in that it appeared to reflect a departure from established policy in permitting sewer use from another basin for an area that has no sewer capacity. Commissioner Rombotis offered that the lands presently surrounding the industrial park are presently sewered from the Encina system. Therefore, if a connection fee was charged determined upon the cost of the Palomar plant and the Palomar plant was not built, then the difference between the Encina charge and the Palomar charge would ,- necessarily be refunded. Chairman Schick acknowledged Commissioner Friestedt's comments stemming from similar concerns in recognizing something that does not exist. -9- Further Commission discussion reflected interest in participating ,- more fully in the planning process and establishing planning policies. Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:21 P.M. The Commission recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the Koll Company. Mr. Fipp assured the Commission that with regard to Commission involvement, the Commission would be required to act upon future applications with regard to actual development. Mr. Fipp requested Cormnission consideration of allowing his company to process development applications concurrently with the approvals required for the proposed Palomar plant. Commissioner Rombotis .responded that determination was a Council policy decision. The Commission recognized Roy Ward, 1207 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, who indicated he addressed Commission as both a member of the Housing & Redevelopment Advisory Committee and a local developer. Mr. Ward requested favorable Commission recommendation regarding removing the moratorium to allow the Housing & Redevelopment matters to move forward in the downtown area, and requested favorable Commission recommendation regarding removing the moratorium to allow undeterred planning throughout the City. There being no further response to the invitation to speak, Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 9:42 P.M. The Commission adopted Resolution 1642, recommending approval of a Zone Code Amendment, amending Title 21, Chapter 21.49 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the amendment of Section 21.49.020 to allow the processing of developmental approvals subject to certain conditions if the City Council finds that sewer service will be available concurrent with need. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: MARCUS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS AND JOSE NOES: None ABSTAIN: None NEW BUSINESS: 5. Master Drainage Plan - The staff report was given by Les Evans, City Engineer, who explained the matter was being presented to the Commission as an information item. Mr. Evans, with the aid of wall maps, outlined the scope of the study, and outlined the identified priorities, proposed projects cost and explained financing - alternatives. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Evans explained no action by Council had been taken. However, the City Attorney's office was preparing an ordinance to adopt the Master Plan and adopt financing methods. -lO- . . - 6. Beach Parking - Les Evans gave the staff report, explaining the City Council had adopted a goal to study beach parking problems and identify alternative solutions. Mr. Evans outlined the approach staff had taken and with the aid of wall maps and diagrams, explained the undeveloped areas considered as potential parking sites. Mr. Evans pointed out the cost of acquiring unimproved parcels was prohibitive in terms of an approximate cost of $12,000 per parking space. With regard to the property across from San Diego Gas & Electric, Mr. Evans suggested consideration be given to a lease arrangement with SDG&E. Mr. Evans further explained costs associated with certain parcels in that same required development of beach access if utilized as beach parking. CommissionerIRbmbotis suggested staff investigate an area along Garfield which was owned by the City. Les Evans acknowledged such recommendation and indicated it would be checked. Commissioner Larson inquired if the unimproved parking area north of the warm water jetty could be used more efficiently for parking; explaining that campers and recreational vehicles frequently utilize three or more parking spaces, r The Commission then discussed deletion of parking spaces along Carlsbad Boulevard as a result of the construction of bike lanes and possible effects decreased parking would have upon the residential streets in the area. Chairman Schick expressed the opinion that the beach parking study was an appropriate matter for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 14, 1980 meeting Commissioner Rombotis requested a change on page 9, last paragraph to reflect that the word economic be changed to uneconomic. Chairman Schick requested a change on page 1, to reflect the Resolution of Appreciation presented to Mike Zander was also as a result of 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. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, requested a change on page 5, paragraph 7, to read as follows: "Dan Hentschke 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 P Chairman Schick noted on page 4 that the Minutes do not reflect the hour the public hearing was opened. -ll- ‘, . - Commissioner Jose commented on page 5, paragraph 8 that he hoped the Bank of America would not maintain a temporary facility for 5 years. Commissioner Jose requested a change on page 7, paragraph (d) 1. to reflect that the developer agree to provide rather than restrict access. Bill Hofman indicated the correct wording was limit, stating the word restrict appliesto pedestrians. Commissioner Marcus questioned whether the conrments reflected on Page 12, last paragraph, were accurately attributable to her. Commissioner Jose requested a change on page 13, paragraph 7 in that he was absent on April 23, 1980 and therefore abstained. The Commission approved the Minutes of the May 14, 1980 Meeting, as amended. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, MARCUS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEES AND JOSE NOES: None ABSTAIN: None r ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Commission adjourned at lo:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to the Planning Commission -12-