Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-10; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES - ;. MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 1981 TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Marcus. ROLL CALL Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners L'Heureux, Jose, Rombotis, Friestedt, Schlehuber, and Farrow. Ex-Officio member James Hagaman, Planning Director, was also present. Staff members present were: Michael Holzmiller, Principal Planner Bill Hofman, Associate Planner Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer Joyce Crosthwaite, Assistant Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE Chairman Marcus explained Planning Commission procedures in.its capacity as an advisory commission to the City Council and identified those matters delegated to the Planning Commission for a final decision. Chairman Marcus further explained the procedure observed by the Commission during public hearing items. AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Marcus indicated she received a letter from Jeannie and Debora Neely, 2677 Garfield Street, Carlsbad; along with a petition signed by owners of property located within the project area of the proposed Village Area Redevelopment Plan; stating their opposition to the inclusion of the one-block area bounded by Garfield and Ocean Streets, and Cypress and Beech Streets. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CUP-200, RIX-TEX. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a coin-operated arcade in an existing building located on the south side of Oak Avenue, between Lincoln and Washington Streets and addressed as 325 Oak Avenue. Michael Holzmiller indicated the Planning Department had received a letter of opposition from James and Nina Chase; a letter of opposition from Evelyn E. McMorran, 6741 Oleander Way, Carlsbad, who is a member .of the Homeowners' Association for the Monterey Condominium Units at 3080 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad; and a petition in opposition, signed by owners of the Monterey Condominium Units, containing 55 signatures. With the aid of transparencies showing the location of the proposed project, Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the matter, essentially as contained in the written staff report. He pointed out the specific conditions of approval which Staff is recommending to insure the temporary nature of the use, and the restricted hours. ' MINUTES .- t-- ...-- PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 2 Mr. Holzmiller concluded that the City Engineer has indicated that since the CUP is only being requested for. six months, Condition No. 12, which requires an agreement for the future widening of Oak Avenue, can be deleted. This would then be picked up when the propert comes in for a more permanent type use. Commissioner Jose indicated that the 7-11 Store across the street has been the victim of several robberies, and stated his opinion that this is a real problem area Michael Holzmiller responded that the applicant in this application is the operator of the 7-11 Store in that area. Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 7:14 P.M., and extended the invitation to.speak. The Commission recognized Rick Ryberg, 3450.Donna Drive Carlsbad; the applicant. Mr. Ryberg stated he owns and operates two 7-11 Stores in North County: 201 Oak Ave., and 137 Lomas Santa Fe in Solana Beach. Mr. Ryberg stressed that this is a temporary use, and his ultimate goal is to start a pre-school. He explained that the purpose of the coin-operated arcade was to provide funding to start the pre-school. He stated his past experience includes 15 years in the retail business, and 5 years in the 7-11 system. He stated he is aware of the problems that relate to any type retail business and dealing with children. Mr. Ryberg addressed the robberies his store has been victim to, and stated that no one has any control over this type of thing. He concluded, indicating that he was in agreement with the conditions of approval, and that the arcade would consist only of video games; and briefly covered some of the rules to be observed in the arcade. He added that he has talked with members of the police department who indicated they would be happy to comply with the CUP, and he intends to have a tight-controlled operation. The Commission recognized Hal Zack, Box 422, Carlsbad. Mr. Zack referred to an application for a similar facility approximately two months ago, and stated he did not understand why the City was considering this type of use again so soon. He stated his opinion that this type of use is not compatible with the Redevelop- ment Area, and requested denial of the application. The Commission recognized Joel Cortison, 1318 Chuparosa Way, Carlsbad; who indicated he is a firefighter/ paramedic for the City of Vista. He stated that such a facility would provide a healthy recreational environment for people of all ages within the community, and stated he has not seen any other 7-11 Stores, or similar markets which meet the high stand- ards such as the one the applicant operates. He concluded by requesting approval of the application,. and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak The Commission recognized Gerald Bowers, 3761 Highland Drive, Carlsbad. Mr. Bowers stated he owns 341, 343, 345, and 347 Oak Street Apartments; and expressed concern over the loitering issue, should the appli- _.c-a~~ion:_Lbe_appr~ved~. _..... ..- -_. . COMMISSIONERS \ t MJNUTES .-- PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Bowers continued, speaking in opposition of the application, and submitted three petitions also in opposition of.the application for the record. The Commission recognized Bee Nelson, representing the Monterey Homeowners' Association, 3080 Lincoln Avenue, Carlsbad; which consists of 30 units directly across the street from the proposed amusement center. She stated that this commercial use is not compatible with future plans for the area, referring to the Village Area Land Use map. Ms. Nelson requested denial of the application, and submitted 19 signed petitions in opposition of same. The Commission recognized Fran Yarborough, who indicated she owns the building in question. She stated that video games have become a fad, and they are enjoyed by adults as well as children. She further stated that there is not that much for people to do in Carlsbad aside from the beach, and requested approval of the application. The Commission recognized James Phillip of Fullerton, who indicated he was past President of the Monterey Homeowners' Association. He expressed concern over the compatibility of this type use with the Redevelopment Plan, and spoke in opposition of same. The Commission recognized Beverly Ryberg, 3450 Donna Drive, Carlsbad; wife of the applicant. Mrs. Ryberg reiterated that this is a temporary use to provide revenue for their ultimate goal, the pre-school. She added that she has been taking classes and teaching, in order to obtain her directorship and be licensed by the State. She stressed the temporary use, and requested approval of same. Rick Ryberg addressed the Commission, and stated there would be firm control of the property, and no loitering, He also added that the area receives adequate police patrol. Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Chairman Marcus closed the public hearing at 7:41 P.M. Commissioner Jose stated his feeling that this type of activity is not compatible with the area. Commissioner Rombotis indicated that the applicant is a sincere, good businessman; however, there appears to be a conflict with the uses in the neighborhood. He also stated that in his opinion, this use would be a conflict with the existing residential character of that street. In response to Commission query, Michael Holzmiller explained that Staff had not received any type of in- put from the Community, or homeowners, or those addressing the petitions that were submitted. He also pointed out that the police department indicated they receive many complaints concerning noise in this area, and it is their feeling that if the use goes in, the number of complaints will increase. :OMMISSIONERS ' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 4 Discussion indicated the concensus of the Commission was that Carlsbad needs facilities where children can go to spend their time; however, this is not the ideal site for this type of'use. Y The Commission denied CUP-200, and directed Staff to prepare the necessary documents, based on the finding that the proposed use is not compatible with the existing residential character of the area. 2. CT 81-16/LCDP 81-1, LA COSTA/DAON. Request for approval of.a 562 unit tentative tract map and residential development plan on 172.9 acres of land located on the east side of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between the future Mision Estancia,. (east) and Olivenhain Road in the P-C zone. With the aid of transparencies to show the location of the project, Bill Hofman gave a brief introduction on the matter. He pointed out that the project had an extensive review at an early date, allowing major problems to be ironed out; therefore, Staff was able to move the item up to an earlier Planning Commission meeting. However, no formal DCC meeting took place prior to the completion of the Planning Commission staff report. The DCC meeting was held Monday, June 8, 1981; and as a result, a number of corrections and revisions were made to the staff report, and Resolution No. 1820; which were distributed to the Commissioners at the beginning of this meeting. The Commission recognized Terry Teeple, of the Meister Company; representing the Daon Corporation. He showed a slide presentation, depicting the location and design of Vista Santa Fe. Bill Hofman continued the staff report, pointing out the following corrections-to same: page 1, paragraph 1, sentences 3 and 5 should read, "Area "A" is comprised of 154 single family detached ('0' lot line) units, Area "B" consists of 204 single family detached unitsill on page 1, paragraph 2, sentence 2 should read, "The minimun lot size for this area is 4500 square feet;" and page 1, paragraph 2, sentence 2 should read, "The minimum lot size." Mr. Hofman continued, briefly summarizing the major revisions to Resolution No. 1820, as contained in the memo of June 10, 1981 to the Planning Commission. He then covered Staffs' concerns of grading, street design, lot design, and fire protection; with Michael Holzmiller using wall exhibits to reflect same. Commission discussion reflected maintenance, fire response, the irrigation plan, and parking. In response to Commission query regarding Condition No. 42, Richard Allen explained that a traffic study has been completed, which showed that at the entrance to this project, there will be a traffic signal warranted; and Condition No. 42 reflects same. / \ : :OMMISSIONERS Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 5 Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. Terry Teeble 'addressed the Commission, and indicated that they have reviewed the revised conditions of approval, and are in concurrence with all of them. Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Chairman Marcus closed the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Discussion reflected on the revisions to Resolution No. 1820, as contained in the memo of June 10, 1981 to the Planning Commission from the Planning Department. Commissioner L'Heureux expressed concern with regard to revised Condition No. 63, section c, dealing with the offer for sale to the City a site for a permanent fire station. Bill Hofman explaind that the intent of this section was that the offer would have to be made prior to the first phase. He added that after the offer is made, this would be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief and the City Council. If they do not opt to purchase the site, one of the other two mitigation measures would have to be incorporated. Commissioner Friestedt addressed Condition No. 63c, and suggested that if the applicant offers the site to the City, it should be prior to the recordation of the first legal unit of the subdivision. Commissioner L'Heureux indicated it would have to be prior to that, as it has to be prior to the recording of the final map. The concensus of the Commission was that it should be concurrent with the first unit. Staff suggested that prior to the first phase recording an agreement be reached. Following brief discussion, the Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopted the following Resolution, recommending approval of CT 81-16/LCDP 81-l to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; with the revisions contained in the memo of June 10, 1981 submitted by Staff at this meeting; and the addition of a condition on those lots requiring irrigation systems be placed in the CC&R's; and the modification of Condition No. 63 regarding the offer for sale of a site for a fire station: RESOLUTION NO. 1820, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 562 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD, BETWEEN OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND THE FUTURE MISTGN ESTANCIA (EAST) IN THE p-c ZONE. RECESS Chairman Marcus called a recess at 8:49 P.M. The Commission reconvened'at 9:00 P.M., with all members present. ~.. --_ _- ..~. \ . \ % . :OMMISSIONERS Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber - Farrow MINUTES -.- /. t- PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 6 The Commission agreed to hear Item No. 9 at this time: 9. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES. Joyce Crosthwaite gave a report on the matter, indicat- ing that it was first presented to the City Council in December, 1980; at which time Council reviewed same and requested that the Planning Commission comment on it as an information item, before it returned to Council fora public hearing, which is tentatively set for July 14, 1981. She also pointed out a correction to the Resolution, on page 4, section 3.3, in that it should read, "The maximum number of buildings should be oriented with their long axes within + 45 degrees of east-west." Additionally, the same change should be made to section 3.4 Commissioner L'Heureux referred to page 2 of the Resolution, paragraph 1, last sentence, and expressed concern over its.inclusion. Ms. Crosthwaite responded that there was an act passed by the California Legislature which makes it specifically illegal to have CC&R's or any kind of restriction that prohibits solar equipment. She further indicated she would take this back to the City Attorney before the matter goes before the City Council. Discussion then reflected same, and the individual Commissioners' feelings on the matter. Commissioner Farrow indicated he could not support the Ordinance or the Resolution, and stated he finds debate with all the provisions contained in same. Commissioner Friestedt stated his feeling that an Ordinance of this nature should be a recommendation to the Community, and we should not mandate specific engineering requirements of the housing to be developed in the future of Carlsbad. He added that the City should provide an Ordinance that allows the landowner or the developer/applicant the opportunity to follow a particular route. Commissioner Rombotis stated we need to talk with the contractors and get their input, before the adoption of these measures, and further suggested that Council go out and obtain first hand experience. He added that alot of the systems work: however, a lot of them do not, and we need to find out the effectiveness of same. 3. CT 80-46/PUD-27, SWAB. Request for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development to create five single-family lots on the east side of Highland Drive between Elm Avenue and Elmwood Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone. With the aid of the overhead projector, Bill Hofman gave a report on the matter, essentially as contained in the written staff report. During the staff report, Michael Holzmiller used wall exhibits to show the lot and project designs. CO!lMISSIONERS MLINUTES - -- , PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 7 Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 9:19 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. The Commission recognized James R. Swab, 2924 Highland Drive, Carlsbad; owner and occupant of the parcel in question. Mr. Swab referred to a display, and explained the project description and landscape plan. He stated his opinion that the Planning Department is imposing subjective requirements beyond that which is legally required. With the aid of a wall-exhibit, Mr. Swab referred to the common vehicle lot, and stated his opinion that it is an unnecessary financial burden on the total project He stated that the. Planning Department does not agree that the question of whether to have or not to have recreational vehicle parking can be up to each owner. He added that the only other alternative he was given by the Planning Department was to put in 200 square feet on each of the lots that already had homes. He continued that while he prefers that the City let this decision up to each lot owner, as would be the case in a normal subdivision, he is willing to incur the expense for the common lot for recreational vehicles, if the Commission does not agree with him. Mr. Swab continued, requesting the deletion of the proposed condition to increase the common-recreational lot to 3000 square feet. He inquired why, just because he is trying to preserve landscaping and do something a little more creative than a normal symmetrical sub- division, does he have to provide so many extra amenities. Mr. Swab referred to his letter of April 27, 1981 to the Planning Department; which he passed out to the Commission for their review, and stated that the use of the scenic natural features credit seems to be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Swab concluded that as he has met the legal requirement for a common lot, he requested that Condition No. 10 be deleted'from Resolution No. 1816, and that the project be recommended for approval as he proposed with only 1626' of common recreational space. He then referred to his letter of May 18, 1981, and passed out same to the Commission, indicating that further justification for the minimum amount of recreational vehicle space is outlined in the letter. He referred to Resolution No. 1815, Condition No. 14, as it relates to Resolution No. 1816, and requested that since it makes more sense to surface the drive after the heavy construction equipment is finished, he requested that both be amended to read, "prior to occupancy.n Since no one else wished to speak on the matter, Chairman Marcus closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. In response to query regarding the new PUD Ordinance,. Commissioner Friestedt, the Chairman of the Committee, explained that in order to cover the area adequately, completion of the Ordinance would most likely take another four to six weeks. f MXNUTES -- PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 8 Commission discussion reflected the credits for unusable open space, and the PUD Ordinance. Bill Hofman suggested‘keeping the condition as is, or use the credit; however, keep the recreational require,- ment in, and the condition would state that it would have to be installed prior to final occupancy of the last unit, with a provision in the condition that would allow the deletion of this requirement, if the PUD Ordinance is amended. The Commission concurred. Commissioner L'Heureux stated he would like to see more flexibility in the Ordinance. Following discussion, the Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopted the following Resolutions recommending approval of CT 80-46/PUD-27, with the following revisions: 1 - Allow credit for the landscaping and views to be applied to the recreational area, and approving the'map as submitted. 2 - Addition of a provision that if the question of recreation space is addressed by a revised PUD Ordinance, then the applicant will be permitted to modify or delete the recreational area without coming back to the Commission. 3- Addition of a specific finding indicating that this project has special features, such as the unique existing landscaping on the site, and are the reasons for the approval of this PUD. ._ RESOLUTION NO. 1815, RECOMMENDING-APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND THREE COMMON LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHLAND DRIVE BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND ELMWOOD DRIVE. RESOLUTION NO. 1816, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE COMMON LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHLAND DRIVE BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND ELMWOOD DRIVE. 4. CUP-198, CITY OF CARLSBAD. Request for a two-foil conditional use permit to allow construction of: 1) temporary modular office structures to be located in and replace the rear Carlsbad Civic Center parking lot, and 2) a paved parking facility located on a thru lot between Laguna Drive and Stratford Lane immediately to the north of the Carlsbad Civic Center. With the aid of the overhead projector showing the location of the project, Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the matter, .essentially as contained in the written staff report. :OMMISSIONERS y --.. Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow -- , \ PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 9 Mr. Holzmiller pointed out a correction to the staff report, referring to Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 1814, and indicated that it should be modified to read, "This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period not to exceed five years unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission." He explained that the temporary office structures being proposed are not trailers, but actually modular units, and will be constructed to meet all the requirements of the Building Code. He added that this condition, as currently written, applies to trailers; and as explained they will actually be modular units. There- fore, Staff is suggesting the modification of this condition. Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 9:53 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed. The Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopted the following Resolution, approving CUP-198 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: with the modification of Condition No. 3 changing one year to "not to exceed five years," and adding "or completion of the permanent facility:" RESOLUTION NO. 1814, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO 1) CONSTRUCT MODULAR OFFICE STRUCTURES, AND 2) CONSTRUCT A PAVED PARKING FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF LAGUNA DRIVE BETWEEN PI0 PICO DRIVE AND ELMWOOD STREET. The Commission agreed to hear Item No. 7 at this time: 7. LETTER FROM FRANK MALTER - CT 79-16/CP-19. The staff report was presented by Michael Holzmiller, who indicated that the Planning Department has received a complaint regarding the fence from one of the neighboring properties. The Commission recognized Frank J. Malter, 930 Broad- walk, Suite J, San Marcos. Mr. Malter stated he built the project according to the plans, and gave some background on same, with the aid of wall exhibits showing the original plans. Mr. Malter stated his opinion that Staff is nit-picking, and also that the staff report is in error as he did not offer to put redwood lath through the chain link: he was told to. Following completion of same, heastated the Planning Department did an inspection, and told him that the fence was six feet tall, and the slats were only five feet tall, and informed.him that he would have to use six foot slats. Therefore, the Planning Department did not approve the fence, and informed him he would have to construct a grapestake fence, or appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Malter continued, indicating that if the Commission wanted him to move the slats up one foot, he could move the existing slats up one foot in order to comply with the six feet. He stated he has already planted it in, and--in--the future there will be tea roses all along' the area in question. / \ . :OPlMISSIONERS Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow -- , NPNUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 10 Mr. Malter concluded by expressing the willingness to respond to any questions. . Michael Holzmiller explained that the plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council is the one that was submitted as a wall exhibit at this meeting. He indicated that they were the building plans, and called for a grapestake fence. Mr. Holz- miller continued that many times there are minor changes on plans; however, as long as it accomplishes the intent of the Ordinance, Staff is willing to approve those. Mr. Holzmiller continued that when they receive a complaint, and if What is being done does not meet the intent of the Ordinance, Staff does not want to approve it at a staff level. He stated this was the reason why the applicant was told he would be required to appeal this to the Commission. Further, the alternative to go with slats was recommended because Staff felt it would accomplish the intent of the Ordinance, in that there has to be some view obscuring fencing. Chairman Marcus stated her opinion that looking into the driveway is not too bad, her concern was driving up the other street and looking back where there is a grapestake fence, and something that is not quite as nice when you are looking the other way. She indicated that she was not aware of who the complainant was, but could see some problem with the appearance on the other side. Commission discussion reflected the projects' conformance with the Ordinance and the original plans. Mr. Malter again addressed the Commission, and stated he was not in violation of the Ordinance. He stated he has hired an engineer, and authorized a scientific report measuring the light. He indicated that he is willing for the Commission to set the guide- lines and go to a vote. If the Commission disagrees with him, he stated he would bring in the report from the engineer, and request the matter be set up for another meeting, at which time he would bring an authority on the subject. Michael Holmziller read the Ordinance requirement for the Commission. The concensus of the Commission was that the fence does not meet the intent of the Ordinance. Following discussion, the Commission found that the fence as it exists doesnot meet the intent of the Ordinance. OHMISSIONERS y Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow IMINUTES .^ PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 11 5. ZCA-135, CITY OF CARLSBAD. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to modify Section 21.04.145 . (Definitions) to redefine "Family." Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the matter, essentially as contained in the written staff report. Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at lo:23 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed. The Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopted the following Resolution recommending approval of ZCA-135, based on the findings contained therein: RESOLUTION NO. 1819, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.04, SECTION 21.04.145 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REDEFINE "FAMILY." 6. WA-136, CITY OF CARLSBAD. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow mobile homes to be located lots in single family residential zones. Michael Holzmiller gave a report on the matter, essentially as contained in the written staff report. He also gave a slide presentation, showing the different types of mobile homes, and the materials used on same. Commission discussion reflected requirements of the Code, and also how they relate to garages and carports. Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at lo:41 P.M., and extended the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on the matter , .the public hearing was closed. Discussion reflected the issue of garages and carports, and the requirements of same. Commissioner Farrow expressed concern over the emphasis of pitch roofs, as outlined in Condition No. 4 of the Ordinance, in that it would also apply to homes. Michael Holzmiller explained that it was evident.to Staff that pitch roofs made a significant difference on mobile homes. He pointed out that if the Commission feels they are needed for mobile homes, the new State law requires same be applied to single-family homes. Commissioner Farrow stated his opinion that it is a judgemental issue, and would not be functional, and he could not vote in favor of same. The Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopted the following Resolution, recommending approval of ZCA-136 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report: - .- ~. -.-- ~-- .-. _---~ ..-.- .-- - -. ~~~~ -. # \ . :OHMISSIONERS Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow WNUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 1817, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A-ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.07, SECTION 21.07.030(5) AND 21.07.120, CHAPTER 21.08, SECTION 21.08,010(8) AND 21.08.100, CHAPTER 21.09, SECTION 21.09, SECTION 21,09.010(5) AND 21.09.190, CHAPTER 21.10, SECTION 21.10.010(9) AND 21.10.100, TO ALLOW MOBILE HOMES TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS WITHIN THE E-A, R-l, R-A AND R-E ZONES AND TO ESTABLISH A SET OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL HOMES LOCATED ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7. LETTER FROM FRANK MALTER. This item was heard after Item No: 4. 8. RECONSIDERATION OF BOUNDARIES FOR VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Michael Holzmiller indicated this was an informational item only, and stated that no action was needed by the Planning Commission. He added that the Director of Redevelopment requested the Commission be made aware that if the Council, in their public hearing on the redevelopment boundaries, goes along with the request to delete a certain area, it does have to come back to the Planning Commission, and would have to be on the Commission agenda the following night, which would be the meeting of June 24, 1981, if there are any changes in the boundaries. 9. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES. This item was heard after the recess. 10. PCD-3(E), GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. The Commission found the projects consistent with the General Plan of Carlsbad, and adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 1813, FINDING GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR A PROGRAM OF PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. The Commission agreed to put Item No. 6, ZCA-136 - City of Carlsbad, back on the agenda for consideration. Commissioner Schlehuber requested.the Commission re- vote on the original motion, as he has concern with the pitch roofs in Condition No. 4. A motion was made to re-vote on the original motion; approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopting Resolution No. 1817, recommending approval 'of ZCA-136 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. :OMMISSIONERS Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis ' Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow K K K K K K K 3 K K !i 1( I( L MINU-TE S - . . 1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 Page 13 A motion was made to approve the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Resolution No. 1817, rec.ommending approval of ZCA-136 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; with the modification of Condition No. 4 relating to the pitch roofs, deleting the pitch requirement. A motion was made that the original motion stand. Commission discussion reflected the individual Commissioners feelings on the issue of pitch roofs, and the standards that apply to same. Bill Hofman suggested modifying Condition No. 4, requiring that all roofs have a pitch of at least 3 inches in 12 inches, unless another design is found by the Planning Director to be architecturally integra- ted with the structure and surrounding development. The Commission concurred. The Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopted Resolution No. 1817, recommending approval of ZCA-136.to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the c,onditions contained in the staff report; with the modification of Condition No. 4, requiring that all roofs have a pitch of at least 3 inches in 12 inches, unless another design is found by the Planning Director to be architecturally integrated with the structure and surrounding development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting, held April 22, 1981, were approved as submitted. Minutes of the Regular Meeting, held May 13, 198i, were approved as corrected by Commissioner Jose; on page 4, paragraph 11, changing "south of Hosp Grove," to "north of Hosp Way." Minutes of the Regular Meeting, held May 27, 1981, were approved as submitted. -5 :OHMISSIONERS ’ \ Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow Marcus L'Heureux Jose Rombotis Friestedt Schlehuber Farrow \ :, c -t i: ‘I X X X X X X X X I -- NUNUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 10, 1981 c Page 14 ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:lO P.M. Respectfully Submjtted, JAMES C. HAGAMAN Secretary to the Planning Commission Ann R. Alleman, Minutes Clerk