Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-01; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES -. MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: April 1, 1981 TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER was made by Chairman Marcus at 7:Ol P.M. ROLL CALL Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Larson, L'Heureux, Jose, and Rombotis. Commissioner Friestedt arrived at 7:lO P.M. Ex-Officio members Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney; and James Hagaman, Planning Director; were also present. Staff members present were: Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner Bill Hofman, Associate Planner Michael Howes, Assistant Planner Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. DISCUSSION ITEM: 5. V-302/CT 80-8/P-58, TZBICKI. Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner, at this time indicated Staff's wish to bring up another item in order to clarify previous action taken by the Commission on this matter. Staff's request was further explained by Bill Hofman, Associate Planner, referencing the minutes of the March 11, 1981 meeting of the Planning Commission, aswell as the Agenda Bill on the matter that had been prepared by Staff for presentation to the City Council. Mr. Hofman indicated that two discrepancies had surfaced, prompting Staff's request for the Commission's interpretation and guidance in the matter, as follows: 1. Mr. Hofman indicated that the Planning Commission minutes of March 11, 1981, on page 5, paragraph 1, the last sentence, should read: "The consensus of the Commission was that all mandatory findings for a variance could not be found." He expressed Staff's feeling that the error was simply a typographical one, and requested the Commission's permission to correct it. The Commission, by consensus, approved the correction to the minutes. 2. Mr. Hofman indicated that the second discrepancy involved the minute motion on the same matter, on page 5, of the minutes of March 11, 1981, which indicated that the Commission had requested that Staff relay the Commission's desire to provide some sort of mechanism for approval of projects which have special circumstances; however, which may not have necessary findings for a variance. Mr. Hofman continued, stating that Staff had instead decided to relay the Commission's concerns as part of the report contained on the Agenda Bill which had been prepared for the City Council (copies of which he distributed to the Commission,) and indicated that a separate letter had not been prepared. He then requested that the Commission review the Agenda Bill and give Staff direction on the matter. :Ot4r1ISSIONERS ‘i - April 1,1981 Commissioner L'Heureux, who had made the original motion on the matter at the previous meeting, indicated that his intent had been for the Commission to formally express to Council their concerns regarding the need for some flex- ibility in the ordinance to allow, either administratively, or through the Commission, some way to grant relief, in certain well defined situations, where the full findings for a variance could not be made. He expressed concern that the language in the Agenda Bill did not convey to Council the desired emphasis and importance of the matter. He also expressed the desire that a copy of the minute motion be attached to the Agenda Bill as an exhibit for presentation to the City Council. Commissoner Larsen expr.essed concurrence with the comments of Commissioner L'Heureux. He indicated that the minute- motion is the Commission's means of direct communication to the City Council, and should be included separately, and not merely as part of the staff report to the Council. Commissioner Friestedt expressed concurrence that the action taken by minute motion of the Commission should be referred to in the Agenda Bills, but should be emphasized asmuch more important than merely points of dicussion on the Agenda Bills. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff make the necessary correction to the minutes of March 11, 1981, that the Agenda Bill on the matter of V-302/CT 80-8/CP-58, reflect that the Commisson, by minute motion, had requested that a letter be sent to the Council expressing the Commissions concerns on the matter, said letter to be attached to and a part of the Agenda Bill. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1795, Approving and recommending certi- fication of EIR 80-4, Pointe San Malo. The Assistant City Attorney briefly explained that the Commission, in order to take any action on this matter, would need four affirmative votes cast. Commissioner Jose indicated that he had abstained from voting on the matter of the EIR previously because he did not feel that the mitigating measures were satisfactory and inquired how he could now vote to approve the EIR when he had initally abstained on the matter. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that the approval of the EIR, in Resolution No. 1795, was based on the mitigation measures contained in the report and subject to the cocdition that the mitigation of adverse effects would be included in the project, were the project to be approved. He added that the Resolution, in paragraph 5, discusses the mitigation measures. A motion was made to adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1795, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 80-4j FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. APPLICANT: POINTE SAN MALO-- NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP. The motion failed for lack of a majority. . :OMMISSIONERS \ w-1 rIarcus Larson L'Heureux Jose lombotis !riestedt J!!SJN EJ ‘#rl!i !!5 -3- -- April 1, 1981 A motion was made to continue the matter to the next meeting of the Commission. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that the whole matter would now be continued to the next meeting. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1779 - Denying ZC-226, Native Sun Investment Group. The matter was continuqd to the next meeting with Item No. 2. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1780 - Denying CT 80-24/CP-102, Native Sun Investment Group. The matter was continued to the next meeting with Items No. 2 and 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. ZCA-132, CITY OF CARLSBAD - An Amendment of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and Condominium Ordinance. Chairman Marcus briefly explained the matter and the fact that this was a public hearing, and then requested a -report from staff on the matter. Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner, presented an introduction of the matter, indicating that it was a continued public hearing involving very comprehensive . . revisions to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and was initiated by staff at the request of the Commission. He further explained that this item was originally initiated in order to address the use of PUD's in developing small, difficult to develop lots in the older areas of the City, and that the item had been expanded by staff to address several additional issues which had been suggested by developers, applicants, or other staff members. Mr. Holzmiller then outlined the issues of the proposed Ordinance as follows: 1. Allowing attached housing units to be considered in any zone if a PUD or condo permit is approved. (page 12, section 21.45.110, paragraph 12) 2. Revising the private street standards, inclu- ding such things as street widths, and when or * where a private street can be used versus using a public street. (page 11, section 21.45.110, para- graph 14) 3. Making the set-back requirements and the parking requirements the same as they presently are in the Condo Ordinance. (pages 6 & 7, section 21.45.110, paragraphs 2 & 5) 4. Emphasize that PUD's are to be characterized by "imaginative, comprehensive, and innovative design". (covered in numerous paragraphs of the proposed ordinance) COMMISSIONERS ’ 1 1 Tarcus Larson L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Jlvil~~‘k’kl;S - -4- -- 5. Re the issue of using the PUD process to develop the smaller, difficult to develop lots, staff re- commends that certain items not be required, or that the requirements be more flexible for the smaller lots; parcel maps required in lieu of sub- division maps, open areas to be allowed as yard areas, rather than common open space areas. (four or less units) (page 9, section 21.45.110, para- graph 9) (page 13, section 21.45.130, paragraphs b & c) He indicated that the other proposed changes are simply technical changes to bring the processing requirements up to date and inquired if there were any questions from the Commission on the proposals. Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 7:37 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized Paul Graham, representing Ranch0 La Costa, who indicated that the matter which he wished to address was not mentioned in the staff report, but was of much concern to his company, that being a 78 unit condo project that will be time-sharing. He then inquired what, if any, provisions staff will be proposing for time- sharing projects. Mr. Graham added that the requirements of the Condo Ordinance regarding storage and parking pre- sent problems for time-sharing projects, which he then outlined. Mr. Hagaman, the Planning Director, indicated that staff was studying the matter of time sharing, and that a sepa- rate report was being prepared by staff at this ti'me. The Commission recognized Bob Ladwig, of Rick Engineering; who distributed a letter to the commission regarding the proposed amendment. He then referenced said letter and stressed concern with paragraph 14-b, regarding street width, and outlined the suggestions and alternatives for the parking requirements contained on page 2 of his letter to the Commission, and inquired if there were any ques- tions. Commissioner L'Heureux inquired regarding the needs for recreational parking in such areas as La Costa. Mr. Ladwig responded that Mr. Goff, of the La Costa Land co., was in the process of completing a survey on the. matter of parking for recreational vehicles, and will pre- sent staff with written comments on the matter. The Commission then recognized Jim Swab, 2924 Highland Drive, Carlsbad. Mr. Swab inquired regarding paragraph 9, pages 8 & 9 of the proposed ordinance. He indicated his specific concern is the requirement of this ordinance for common recreational areas for.a develoment of more than four units. Mr. Swab stated that he flet this require- ment was restrictive, and that it does not allow flexibility for imaginative and innovative design, and requested definition of staff's reasoning for the re- quirement. He indicated that such requirement should only be required when circumstances warrant, and then distrib- uted to the Commission two alternate proposals for their consideration, and using wall exhibits, illustrated his own project, which would be affected by the proposed ordinance. April 1, 1981 .' COMMISSIONERS ' \ -- mllk.N..u ,tti s -5- - The Commission then recognized Joe Sandy, P.O. Box 590, Carlsbad, who expressed concern with the requirements for setbacks, on pages 6 & 7 of the proposed ordinance, and concurred with the comments of Mr. Swab re the restrict- tiveness of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Sandy indicated that there are usually two or three resasons for PUD provisions, such as to protect a unique land feature; to provide extra amenities, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.; or to provide more economical and efficient land use, which in the case of the in-fill area of the City, could reduce the case of housing considerably. Mr. Sandy further commented that one of the problems of the PUD ordinance is that itgenerally lends itself to develop- ment on a larger scale than the smaller developments of 4,5,6,7, or 8 units. However, he added, it does provide for certain things that are common to all, such as to facilitate development consistent with the General Plan, to relate the projects to the surrounding area, to provide de- velopment consistent with certain standards regarding safety and adequate access, and to provide certain design criteria. He then inquired as to staff's meaning in the use of the phrase "imaginative and innovative design", in- quired regarding the setback requirements on page 6, of the proposed ordinane, and inquired regarding the portion of the proposed ordinance dealing with custom lot sales that had been removed. Commissioner Rombotis commented that the proposed ordinance mentions several times, "imaginative and inno- vative design", and then sets forth the most restrictive set of standards of any zone of the City of Carlsbad, which he felt was totally contradictory to the intent and purpose for revising the ordinance. . . Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 8:lO P.M. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that the requirements for the street widths and setback requirements were much too restrictive, and that there was nothing in the ordinance which would make any one want to use the PUD process to develop property, adding that the ordinance needed much more work, to be acceptable to him. Commissioner Jose concurred with the comments of Commissioner Rombotis. He referenced various sections of the proposed ordinance, and discrepancies that he felt were contained therein, adding that he, too, felt that the ordi- nance needed much more work. He then suggested, if staff felt it would be beneficial, that the commission go through the ordinance page, by page, to indicate their intent on the maiter. Chairman Marcus indicated that it seemed that the Commission was not in accord with the ordinance as pro- posed by staff, and requested direction from the members of the Commission on the matter. Commissioner Rombotis added. that the ordinance should con- tain workable standards, not ones as rigid as those con- tained in the one proposed by staff. April 1, 1981 -- \ . \ 5 , COMMISSIONERS I- LQ.LJ.r&I u X&i S .-. - 6- - -- April 1, 1981 - - Commissioner Friestedt suggested that the Commission form some sort of a committee, or subcommittee, to study the matter and draft a new ordinance for the Commission to consider. He also volunteered to serve on such committee. Chairman Marcus concurred with the suggestion of Commission- er Friestedt re the formation of the committee. Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner, requested the oppor- tunity to explain staff's position on the matter. He indi- cated that staff had originally intended this amendment to address just one issue, that being some kind of special pro- cedure to handle remnant lots, not new developments, but that staff, while working on the matter, had received num- erous suggestions, which they had then worked into their revision of the ordinance. He then indicated staff's will- ingness, if the Commission so desired, to scrap the whole ordinance and start from scratch, providing the Commission understood the amount of time involved in .doing so. . A motion was made to table the matter of the proposed ordinance. A motion was made to form a committee to study revision of the PUD ordinance and present a draft of same to the Commission for their consideration. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS The Assistant City Attorney again addressed the Commission on the matter of Pointe San Malo. He indicated that the Commission had previously closed the public hearing on the matter of the zone change, and, therefore, has 15 days in which to make a decision on the matter. He also noted that in order for the Commission to take any affirmative action, four affirmative votes would be needed. He also indicated that the terms of two of the Commissioners that had heard the matter would be expiring shortly, and that if the matter does go to the next meeting, and there are not four affirmative votes,. we would have to go through a process to enable those who had abstained on the matter because of a conflict of interest, to vote on the matter, because their participation would be legally required for Commmis- sion to make a decision. The Assistant City Attorney added,*that, unfortunately, the Commission does not have the same situation that you can have certain times where an abstention can-be counted with the majority for purposes of reaching a quorum. Affirmative votes are required by the Code, and the matter cannot be continued forever. The next problem is that the Code requires a decision be made by .iformal resolution within 15 days afterf the close of the ' public hearing on the zone change. He noted that all of the Commissioners must be in attendance at the next meet- ing so that the matter can be acted upon by the Commission and go forward to the City Council. : :Of/iMISSIONERS ’ \ -... larcus ,arson .'Heureux lose tombotis Priestedt larcus .arson .'Heureux lose combotis Triestedt 1QU.N U -h’ititg _- - -7- -- April 1, 1981 Mr. Nicholas Banche, representing the applicant in the matter of Pointe San Malo, Native Sun Investment Group, requested that the Commission reconsider Items No. 2, 3, and 4 at this time,. and concurred with the comments of the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Holzmiller suggested that the Commission approve the resolutions proforma with the resolutions indicating the vote that was actually made the night of the public hearing. By consensus the Commission decided to reconsider the matter, and a motion was made to rescind the motion to continue the matters to the next meeting, and take action of the matters at this meeting. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1795, Approving and recommending certifi- cation of EIR.80-4, Pointe San Malo. . A motion was made to adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1795, RFCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 80-4) FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. APPLICANT: POINTE SAN MALO - NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1779 - Denying ZC-226, Native Sun Invest- ment Group. A motion was made to adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1779, DENYING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 AND R-A TO RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN. APPLICANT: ‘NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP/CASE NO. ZC-226. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1780, Denying CT 80-4/CP-102, Native Sun Investment Group. A motion was made to adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1780, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP 40 UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN. APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP/ CASE NO. CT 80-4/CP-102 'ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting'was adjourned at 8:45 P,M. Respectfully submitted, JAMESC.HAGAMAN Secretary to the Planning Commission Karen R. Stevens, Deputy City Clerk -5 Ot4llISSIOMERS ' \ -I arcus arson 'Heureux ose ombotis riestedt arcus arson 'Heureux ose ombotis riestedt arcus arson 'Heureux ose ombotis riestedt . arcus arson 'Heuruex ose ombotis riestedt