Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-25; Planning Commission; Minutest - CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 25, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:08 PM by Vice-Chairwoman Marcus. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chairwoman Marcus, Commissioners Jose, Leeds, Larson Friestedt and Rombotis Absent: Chairman Schick 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, Associate Civil Engineer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice-Chairwoman Marcus. P AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS In response to inquiry, staff indicated there no additional items beyond those reflected in the Agenda. Vice-Chairwoman Marcus summarized the Planning Commission Procedure, as contained in the Commission Agenda, and explained which matters are delegated to the Commission for an advisory recommendation to the City Council, and those with which the Commission is charged to render a final decision. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CT 80-17/CP-83, Saleen, and Condominium Permit to de Unicornio Street at Cacatua Street. An introductory staff report was presented by the Planning Director explaining the nature of the matter and setting forth the planning issues identified by staff. The staff report was continued by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of wall map exhibits depicting the locationand design of the project, detailed the June 25, 1980 staff report, explaining the traffic circulation pattern and access, location of recreational amenities in relation to the units and the extent and quality of same. r- Page 1 Mr. Hofman concluded the project meets or exceeds all basic 7 development standards and design criteria of the condo ordinance and approval of the project is recommended. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Larson, Mr. Hofman acknowledged that Condition No. 11 regarding submission by the applicant of a street name list should be deleted in that the streets were actually private driveways. Commissioner Rombotis inquired of the purpose of Condition No, 5 regarding retaining wall and grading to eliminate the slope. Richard Allen replied the slope does not have a bank; further, this would provide for installing sidewalks at a future date, rather than having the prospective homeowners construct same. Mr. Allen acknowledged the condition would be rewritten to reflect grading to accommodate a 10' right-of-way, Vice-Chairwoman Marcus opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and invited public testimony. Public Testimony Commission recognized Mike Coleman of CM Engineering, Vista, Ca, representing their client and the applicant: Mr, Saleen. Mr. rC Coleman expressed agreement with all conditions and expressed the opinion the applicant and staff had achieved optimal design for the project. Since no onelse wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:16 P.M. Based on the findings and conditions contained therein, the Cormnission adopted Resolution No. 1658, recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 80-17) and Condominium Permit (CP-83) to develop 16 units on property generally located on the south side of Unicornio Street at Cacatua Street, with the deletion of Condition No. 11, revision of Condition No. 5, as discussed, and addition of Condition No. 20, as furnished to the Commission by staff. (Deletion of Condition No. 11 would change numbering of additional Condition No. 20 to Condition No. 19). MOTION: JOSE SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: VICE-CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK Page 2 2. CT 80-14/PUD-16, Frey-Request for a 20 lot, 19 unit Planned - Unit Development and Tentative Map on property located on the north- west corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive in the R-l Zone. An introductory staff report was presented by the Planning Director, who explained the nature of the matter and staff issues identified in the written report. The staff report was continued by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of transparencies (location map) and wall map exhibits depicting design of the project, detailed the June 25, 1980 staff report! explaining a Planned Unit Development would allow maximum utillza- tion of the site, taking advantage of the steep topography to afford views of the lagoon. Mr, Hofman also described the recreational amenities and landscaping features of the project. Commissioner 'Josef expressed the desire to include the standard lighting condition. Mr. Hofman concurred. Cormnissioner Rombotis requested clarification of the coordination of Park Drive and Hillside in relation to the project and existing streets and development, expressing concern that a coordinated traffic pattern be achieved. Mr. Rombotis further inquired if this project was included in the recently-formed Bristol Cove Assessment District. F Mr. Allen explained the circulation element of the General Plan did not designate either Park or Hillside as a secondary arterial. Park Drive is designated as bike route and a 68 foot right-of-way was desired by staff. Hillside Street is a collector with 60 feet right-of-way. Commissioner Rombotis inquired into the absence of the standard condition re grading in the winter. Mr. Allen indicated same would be included. Commissioner Rombotis inquired into the purpose of Condition No. 9 requiring a Master Plan of the existing on-site trees, questioning whether any trees were involved. Mr. Hofman responded staff considered the planting of the slope to be critical based on the area terrain and fact that it is one of the more asethically attractive locations in the City. Mr. Hofman indicated it was staff's desire to preserve the natural vegetation -- therefore "vegetation" would accurately denote the Master Plan. Vice-Chairwoman Marcus opened the public hearing at 7:28 P.M. and invited public testimony. Public Testimony The Commission recognized Richard Williams of Surfland Development Corporation. Mr. Williams acknowledged the project to be in the Bristol Cove Assessment District and indicated the requested grading conditions were automatically contained in the Coastal Commission approval. Page 3 Commissioner Larson requested clarification of the type of land- ,- scaping and/or fencing to be used to screen the RV storage area, and when the grading is completed, inquired into the relation of the RV lot to Hillside. Mr. Williams explained landscaping would consist of trees to screen the storage area, along with a chain link fence and, when the grading is completed, the RV lot will.be at the same level as Hillside. The Commission then recognized C. K. Perry of Redondo Beach, CA, who indicated he represented the owners of the property located at 4269 Hillside Drive, Carlsbad, CA. Essentially, Mr. Perry expressed concern and opposition to any upstream development which would serve to increase the volume of water crossing their property which is located at the base of the hill and directly downstream from the proposed proje.ct. Additionally, Mr. Perry expressed concerns relative to the RV storage area, indicating Hillside is a very steep road which cannot accommodate massive vehicles. The Commission then recognized Norm Kellenoffer, residing on Grady Place near the proposed development site, Mr. Kellenoffer inquired as to the owner of the property, whether the project would obstruct his view, relation of the project to the level of _- Park Drive and objected to the inclusion of an RV storage area at the presently proposed site. The Commission recognized Edward Moore, who indicated he owned lot 20, just below the proposed development. Mr. Moore expressed concerns re drainage, indicating he had spent considerable amounts to stabilize his property. The Commission recognized Marion Lefferdink, representing the Bristol Cove Property Owners' Association, who expressed the opinion if the development was allowed to precede construction of the drainage district, there would be no lagoon for anyone to view. Mrs. Lefferdink expressed additional concerns relative to traffic on Hillside and Park. The Commission recognized Rick White, 4107 Park Drive, who indicated he shared a lineal boundary with the proposed subdivision. Mr. White reiterated concerns regarding the RV storage area, objecting on the basis that no one else has them and expres.sing the opinion if the developer were desirous of including same, that they be located in the middle of the project, rather than on the perimeter where neighbors must look out at it. Mr. Hofman then responded to concerns, explaining the RV parking is a requirement of the PUD ordinance. It was staff's opinion that while ,- Hillside is a steep street, the amount of traffic generated due to the RV storage would be minimal. Page 4 Mr. Hofman further reiterated the requirement for the applicant to submit a drainage plan prior to development to insure proper drainage of the site. If other property will be affected, then the drainage plan would not be approved. Commissioner Rombotis inquired if the assessment district was proposed to accommodate this project in its developed stage. Richard Allen responded affirmatively. Further, a condition of the proposed development is the widening and improvement to current City standards of both Hillside and Park adjacent to the project. Rebuttal by the Applicant The Commission again recognized Richard Williams who indicated the property is owned by Diversified Financial, and the property is assessed parcel 75-10 in the Assessment District. A general partern of Diversified is Coastal Equities, dba as Diversified Financial Systems. We are Surfland Development Corporation and do all development and construction for Diversified Financial. The Commission recognized Norm Arndt, 11495 Red Cedar Drive, San Diego, CA, who indicated he is the engineer of work, with a business in Escondidio. Mr. Arndt explained the project had been custom designed to fit the natural terrain, including the use of tri-levels, split levels and private drives to minimize the grading. He further explained the relationship of the units to surrounding area in terms of height and distance (referred to wall maps) and indicating the project optimized views while mini- mizing grading to preserve the slopes, Bill Hofman offered that an Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed and reviewed which found facts sufficient to issue a negative declaration reflecting the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Mr. Williams offered the applicant had retained an independent archaeologist to prepare a survey, which reflected no unusual plant life, Indian ruins, etc. The Commission again recognized Norm Kellenoffer who requested Commission consideration of the deleting the RV storage area, expressing the opinion same was inappropriate in a residential area. Mr. Williams responded the applicant would have no objection if the Commission deleted the requirement for the RV storage, indicating that approximately 80% of the homes would have 3-car garages, with 3-car driveways. Mr. Hofman responded that RV parking can be provided on the sideyards, ,providing there is a minimum of 10 feet. RV cannot be parked in the driveways, and must be behind the front setback line of 25 feet in this case and 10 feet must be allowed for the width of the space. Page 5 - _.. In response to inquiry by Commissioners Larson and Rombotis, Mr. Williams indicated there would be no objection on the part of the applicant to scheduling construction to follow completion of the drainage improvement construction, providing the drainage improvements were completed at the time now anticipated. Commissioner Larson expressed the opinion the storage area was necessary; further, it is a requirement of the PUD ordinance. However, the Commission must determine the RV storage site to be suitable and not detrimental to the surrounding properties. In this instance, the site currently proposed would be detrimental and suggested same be relocated to an area somewhere within the project. Commissioner Rombotis expressed approval of the project in concept and suggested staff and the applicant come back with a report addressing the impacts of traffic and RV storage area concerns. The Commission continued CT 80-14/PUD-16, Frey, A Request for a 20 lot, 19 Unit Planned Unit Development and Tentative Map on property located on the northwest corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive to July 23, 1980. MOTION: ROMBOTIS SECOND: JOSE AYES: - MARCUS, JOSE LEEDS, IARSON FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK In response to inquiry, Mr. Williams agreed to the continuance. 3. CT 80-13/CP-68, Mahin and Crisman, Request for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit for 5 units on the west side of Madison Street between Pine Avenue and Walnut. An introductory staff report was presented by Jim Hagaman! explaining the nature of the matter and stating the planning issues identified by staff. The staff presentation was continued by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of wall map exhibits depc'iting the location and design of the project, discussed the issues of general plan consistency and condominiumordinance requirements. With regard to the issue of development standards and design criteria, Mr. Hofman compared the ordinance requirements with the design features of the project, ex- pressing the concerns as set forth in the June 25, 1980 staff report. Mr. Hofman concluded for those reasons, staff could not recommend approvalof this project. Vice-Chairwoman Marcus opened the public hearing at 8:21 P.M. and r invited public testimony. Page 6 _- Public Testimony The Commission recognized Jeff Crisman, 3485 Valley Street, Carlsbad, who indicated he represented North Hills Development One, a limited partnership, located at 2879 Jefferson Street. Mr. Crisman stated one of the primary purposes of this company was to provide affordable housing in the area of Carlsbad known as "The Bario". Mr. Crisman commenced his presentation with distribution to the Commission of six(6) exhibits, consisting of (1) a letter from Kennith L. Chriss, dated June 23, 1980; (2) Page 1 of a June 25, 1980 staff report regarding the subject item; (3) a chart illustrating the location of the subject site in relation to surrounding streets and lot development; (4) a sheet entitled "Overall Goal SC Policy Statements", excerpted from the General Plan; (5) a sheet entitled "Housing Element" setting forth goals and policies re same; and (6) an excerpt from the Government Code highlighting sections 66473 and 66473.5 of same. Mr. Crisman stated many mistakes have been made by the City staff during the developmental process of the pro'ect. Because of these mistakes and subsequent cover-up experienc ,a' by the applicant, Mr. Crisman indicated he would present an overview of the events preceding this public hearing. Mr. Crisman then detailed the events occuring between August 6, 1979 when he initially contacted the planning department and June 24, 1980 when he received an altered staff report (Exhibit 2). Mr. Crisman stated these events reflected inconsistencies, innuendos, misunderstandings and misrepretations on the part of the City staff to Mr. Crisman and persons hired for this project. Mr. Crisman then elaborated on specific events which he believed established the intent of the City staff to move forward with the project until the density was found to be incompatible with the general plan. Further, on April 22, response to specific inquiry, Mr. Hofman indicated the only major problem to be resolved was that of the parking. Mr. Crisman then discussed a change in the staff report as presented to the Commission from that originally prepared in that the amended report described the surrounding area as single-family. Mr. Crisman then made a slide presentation of the area which he believed demonstrated the area was not single-famil and never would be; however, was a very appropriate site for K is p.ar.ticular project. Mr. Crisman expressed concern with the City planning department, expressing the opinion the unknowledgable people working there were responsible for the frustrations, misunderstandings, chaos -. and unnecessaryexpense to developers. Mr. Crisman did not have any constructive comments to remedy the situation. Page 7 Mr. Crisman indicated the staff report concludes the design and ,,-- development standards are not consistent with the condominium ordinance. However, his architect has assured him that the problems are solveable; the reason they are not is the City's refusal to work with the applicant. With regard to the design criteria, Mr. Crisman indicated they had not had enough time to formalize the design criteria. With regard to the density, Mr. Crisman referenced Exhibits No. 4 and 5 which demonstrate the General Plan calls for downgrading of zoning in the subject area and the City calls for it to be upgraded as far as density because of the redevelopment plan. For these reasons, Mr. Crisman expressed the opinion the underlying zoning density is compatible with the needs of the project and with the community. Mr. Crisman concluded his presentation by outlining the options available to the Commission and explaining the legal remedies through which the Commission could approve the project. Commissioner Friestedt inquired of Mr. Crisman if, prior to the offer to purchase or during the escrow period, was the purchase conditioned upon a review of the Carlsbad City Ordinance by the buyers to specifically determine the density of the property in relation to the proposed development. P Mr. Crisman responded the purchase was conditioned upon finding suitable answers to build a 5 or 6 unit condominium. The architect did receive a copy, although Mr. Crisman indicate he did not know when. At this point, Mr. Hagaman suggested the matter be held over to allow staff to prepare a report addressing the questions and issues raised because of communication problems between staff and the applicant. Commissioner Rombotis expressed the opinion the problem was with the General Plan density, and that he would prefer to direct Commission efforts toward the general plan, zoning and specific design problems in terms of the project before the Commission, rather than with the contentions voiced by the applicant with regard to Planning Department operations. Chairwoman Marcus inquired if anyone else in the audience desired to speak. There was no response. For the record, Mr. Hofman indicated Mr. Crisman's application was handled no differently than any other submitted to the City. The Planning Department has not receive any other complaints relating to application processing. Further Mr. Crisman's remakrs are riddled with inaccuracies, innuendoes and out-an-out lies which do not deserve a response at this time. However, it would be appropriate for the Planning Department to make a report to the Commission indicating the action events that occurred relating to Mr. Crisman's application. Page 8 - A motion was made by Commissioner Jose and seconded by Commissioner Rombotis to continue this matter to the regular meeting of July 9, 1980. Under discussion, Commissioner Rombotis expressed the opinion a continuance would not solve the problems -- Commission should make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Larson offered that opportunities for resolution of the density issue were narrow -- continuing will not alter that. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: COMMISSIONERS JOSE AND LEEDS NOES: CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS ABSTAIN None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY. Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion, based upon his considerable background as an industrial broker, that an applicant proposing to develop income property would have scrutinized on their own initiative the City's condominium ordinance and made an independent determination of the applicable density, prior to the closing of escrow for such property. As a point of information, the Assistant City Attorney indicated the public hearing was not yet closed. There being no further response to the invitation to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:00 P.M. Commissioner Rombotis inquired of staff as to what the density bonus would be. Mr. Hofman indicated it has not been established, although it is one of the goals of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Hagaman indicated one of the problems associated with low and moderate income housing density bonuses is that the City is in the process of considering the housing element. When adopted, this will provide the vehicle to accomplish these sorts of programs. The City staff must deal with what is currently on the books. Based on the findings contained therein, the Commission adopted Resolution 1662, recommending denial of CT 80-13/CP-68 , a 5 unit condominium development on property generally located on the west side of Madison Avenue, to the City Council. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: LARSON -c AYES: CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON,&FRIESTEDT NOES: COMMISSIONER'ROMBOTIS ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK Page 9 . RECESS r-- , The Commission recessed at 9:08 P.M. and reconvened at 9:16 P.M. with six Commissioners present. 4. SDP 80-l Beckman - A request for a Site Development Plan to expand the existing light industrial facility located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road. The staff report was commenced by Mr. Hofman, explaining the nature of the matter and planning issues identified by staff. With the aid of wall map exhibits, Mr. Hofman explained the location and design of existing structures in relation to the proposed expansion. Mr. Hofman discussed the issues set forth in the June 25, 1980 staff report, indicating in terms of screening there is currently a great deal of equipment and machinery which is visible; therefore, the fencing and landscaping conditions required by staff. Mr. Hofman then explained the relation of this item with the following item. With the aid of transparencies, Mr. Hofman explained the location of El Camino Real in connection with the proposed expansion, location of proposed street dedications on Palmer Way and ,- alignment of El Camino and Palmer Way in relation to Cablevision, Beckman and the existing Magnedyne facility. The alignment of the intersection is important because it aligns precisely with the main access road in the Koll property across El Camino Real. Mr. Hofman further illustrated the amount of dedication required of Beckman and Cablevision. In this regard, Mr. Hofman explained one of the the problems with the alignment is that Magnedyne is an existing building, with no application for expansion. Therefore, the City has no lever to require dedication from Magnedyne and all necessary dedications toechieve the necessary alignment must come from Beckman and Daniels. From an engineering and planning perspective, there are no other acceptable alternatives. Mr. Hofman further demonstrated the amount of improvements required by Daniels and Beckman, explaining the street construction and construction schedule. . The staff report was continued by Richard Allen who, with the aid of transparencies, explained in further detail the surrounding property in relation to existing development, proposed development and necessary traffic circulation. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Rombotis, Bill Hofman, with the aid of transparencies explained the "loop" system which could accommodate all of the development. Page 10 ,- With the aid of transparencies, Richard Allen then explained that Magnedyne had been contacted with regard to their making a contributory dedication. Mr. Allen indicated their response was the possibility of discussing the matter with Beckman and Cablevision. In the event Magnedyne did dedicate the currently proposed alignment could be adjusted along with the properties of Beckman and Cablevision, as illustrated by Mr. Allen with the transparencies. In response to Commissioner Larson, Mr. Allen indicated the signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palmer Way would be financed via 50% from Koll, with the remainder through the Public Facilities Fee. Vice-Chairwoman Marcus opened the public hearing at 9:32 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized Bob Keiss, an attorney representing the applicant, who explained the applicant's request that, in view of the dedications required in connection with the proposed expansion, the City quitclaim to Beckman a previously dedicated easement. Further concerns were expressed with regard to the inequity of requiring all the necessary dedications from Beckman and Cablevision and suggested the City could condemn any necessary Magnedyne property. ,- The Attorney then addressed specific conditions, indicating with regard to No. 26 the stored equipment was a temporary situation and requested Commissioner consideration of deleting same; Condition No. 5 should reflect the Agreement was just recently filed; Condition No. 29 ambiguous. Commission discussion with regard No. 29 reflected deletion of same would not preclude the City from including the applicant in an assessment district. Vice-Chairwoman Marcus requested staff response to the applicant's requested return of the prior dedication. Richard Allen indicated staff was agreeable -- the property is not desirable and cannot be used. Based on the conditions contained therein the Commission adopted Resolution No. 1660 approving a Site Development Plan (SDP 80-l) to expand an existing light industrial facility on property generally located on the east side of El Camino Real, North of Palomar Airport Road, with the deletion of Condition No. 29, modification of Condition No. 26 to reflect removal of all miscellaneous storage material to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits and inclusion of a condition reflecting requirement of dedication prior to issuance of building permit to allow applicant opportunity to negotiate with Magnedyne, as discussed. MOTION: ROMBOTIS r SECOND: LARSON AYES: VICE-CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON, FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK Page 11 - . 5. SDP 80-3, Daniels Cablevision - Request for a Site Development _- Plan to develop a business office and television studio fac'ility on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road. An introductory staff report was presented by the Planning Director explaining the nature of the matter and issues identified by staff. The staff report was continued by Bill Hofman detailing the June -25, 1980 staff report to the Commission and elaborating on the prior discussion with regard to the Beckman matter, With the aid of wall map exhibits, Mr. Hofman explained the required dedication and added condition requiring redesign of plans to remove encroachment, as well as,condition relative to inclusion of a satellite wastewater treatment facility, as distributed to the Commission. The Commission recognized Tony Acone; 2051 Alga Road, who gave a background report on efforts of staff and applicant to achieve a mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues, indicating the earth sign will have a positive effect. Mr. Acone additionally requested a similar return of a previously dedicated easement. The Commission recognized Victor Pickney, landscaping engineer, with offices located in Fallbrook. Mr. Pickney expressed concern with regard to Condition No. 10 requesting Commission consideration of allowing a more creative interpretation and approach. In response, Mr. Hofman indicated a sentence could be added "that unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director.' Mr. Hofman additionally indicated Condition No. 25 should be deleted. Based on the conditions contained therein, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 1661, approving a Site Development Plan (SDP 80-3) to develop a building office and television studio facility on property generally located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road, with the change to Condition No. 10, as discussed, deletion of Condition No. 23, renumbering of Condition No. 24 to Condition No. 23, deletion of Condition No. 25 and inclusion of new Condition No. 25, as per satellite wastewater treatment facility condition recommended by staff. MOTION: LARSON SECOND: ROMBOTIS AYES: VICE-CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON FRIESTEDT AND ROMBOTIS NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK /- , Page 12 r APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission approved the Minutes of June 11, 1980, as presented. MOTION: JOSE SECOND: FRIESTEDT AYES: VICE-CHAIRWOMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS JOSE, LEEDS, LARSON AND FRIESTEDT NOES: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER ROMBOTIS ABSENT: CHAIRMAN SCHICK ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Commission adjourned at 11:lO P.M. to Tuesday, July 8, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers for a joint meeting with the Carlsbad City Council, Respectfully submitted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN Secretary Page 13