HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-17; Planning Commission; MinutesI-'
I
MlZTl:NG OF:
llATl OP MEETING:
TIM! OF MEETING:
~ ~
MINUTES
PLA■•1■c co11111ss10• VOUHOP
February 17, 1982
6:00 P.M.
PLACE OF HEF.TING: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER vaa made by Vice-Chairman Schlehuber at
6:06 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present -Farrow, Rombotis, Jose. Marcus, and Schlehuber.
Absent -Friestedt, and L'Heureux.
Also present were:
Frank Aleshire, City Manager
James HaRaman, Planning Director
Council Member Girard Anear
Jim Goff, Daon Corporation
Bob Ladwig, Rick EngineerinR
Staff vembers present were:
Michael Holzmiller, Principal Planner
Bill Hofman, Associate Planner
Michael Roves, Assistant Planner
Richard Allen, Principal Civil Engineer
PLEDGF. OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Farrow.
DRAFT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
The Planning Director gave an introduction on the matter.
Hr. Jim Goff, Co-<hainnan of the PUD Comnittee, continued
the report, indicatinR that the role of the Comnittee was
to provide inout for Staff, a, s cesult of some iseues
raised over the PUD Ordinance. Mr. Goff further ir.dicated
that their objective vaa to provide an Ordinance that had
the maximum flexibility to the project designer,
comen9urate with reLaining minimum safety type
development standards.
Hr. Goff continued that the Co11111ittee is 1n total
agreement with the basic principl~• of the ordinance, and
explained the findings of the Comnittee with regard to
development standards for new projects.
Mr. Goff indicated that the Intent and Purpoee eection of
the Ordinance has been eignificantly re-written to
eli■inate terminology that created confueion. Re added
that the Co-ittee has .:>dified the Per111itted Uses under
t~e new Ordinance to penait attached houeing in eingle
f-ily area,, if the Planning co-iasion or City Council
can ■ake appropriate findings, which i~ not currently
per■itted.
Mr. Goff indi cated that they have attempted to clarify the
language in the "Findings" aect ion of the exilt ing
Ordinance, as it did not clear ly define the intent.
Mr. Goff explained that the .. jor change va, with the
i,eeiar. Criteria section of the Ordinance. Re indicated
that tne Deaian Guidelines Manual is important 1n
addraeeing design proble■a that are surfacing in the City,
althOUlh it ie not part of the Ordinance. It would be a
p0li cy that would provide guidance to the project
daeipar, but is not .. ndatory. Re added that the De-ign
Guideline• Manual relates to all the different issue, that
a project deeianer will be faced with in a project under
thi• PUD Ordinance.
--
'
'
',
'
j
i
G) ' "':
'
!
1 • I
I
p,
I►
&
MINUTES
February 17 , 1982 Page 2
Mr. Goff continued to outline other features in the PUD
Ordinance they are reco-nding be clarified and/or
modified in order to allow flexibility, such•• ataggere '.
•etbacka, off-atreet parking requirements•• they pertain
to atudio apart■enta, viaitor parking, the difference
between active and paaaive recreation areas, standards
for private etreeta, RV atorage, and storage areaa.
In conclu1ion, Mr. Goff explained that the objective waa
to provide, co-naurate with addre1eing the major
proble .. •he City of Carlabad mu1t contend with, an
Ordinance that ia •• flexible a, it ie reaaonable through
creative deaign, ••well•• providing a Design Manual to
help project de1igner1.
Mr. Goff reque1ted that the Co-i1eion reco-nd to the
City Council that the Ordinance be set for public hearing I
at the earlieat opportunity, to obtain public input
toward••-• and that aufficient funds be set aaide to
provide the viaual guidance to project deaignera for
project, in the City.
Bill Hofman referenced the cover letter sent to the
Co-i1aion which indicate• that Staff had certain
di1agreement1 with aoae of the development standard•
propo1ed by the PUD Coaaittee, and indicated that the
diaagree-nt1 were ■inor in nature. He added that they
were di1cuaaed in detail at a joint PUD co-ittee and
Staff meeting held earlier in the week, and all
diaagree■enta have been re1olved to both the 1ati1faction
of the PUD Coaaittee and Staff, and•• a result they are
reco-ndinR the following modification, to the
Ordinance:
Section 21 .45.090(0)1 Viaitor Parkinf -Due to the recent
concern expreaaed by both the City Council and
Planning Coaaia1ion with regard to provi1iona for
vi1itor parking, the Coaaittee and Staff feel that
the pre1ent require■ent of the Condo■iniu■ Ordinance
be retained in the new Ordinance.
Section 21.45.090(G)(l). Uaable Recreational Soace -
Staff and the Co.a1ttee are rec~nd1ng that a
graduated acale be developed to deter■ine the amount
of recreation required for project•, which chooae
the reduced recreation option. flte acale would be
adju1ted ao that the ... 11er project, would provide
a higher ratio of active recreation area than would
the larger project•.
Mr. Rofaan indicated that the acale ha, not been
developed; however, Staff would like to bring e·me
back to the Ca.aiaaion at the public hearing.
Section 21.45.090(G)(3), Balconie1 -Staff and the
eo-ittee fNl that the extra credit given to
balconiea i1 not warranted, and reco-nd that ti~
aection be deleted.
With regard to 1ection 21 .45.090(G)(3), Co-ia1ioner
Schlehuber auggeated that the entire aection not be
deleted. but the word• "a• 1 1/2 ti■e1," and "to a ••iaua of 100 aquare feet," be deleted.
_...._
' ;
.
'.
~
;
.:
.
t' ;.
'
;
;'
-.,
~
~ )i
i!
"
MINUTES
February 17, 1982 Page 3
Bill Hofman explained that Staff and the Co11111ittee feel
that balconiea ehould be able to count for the full
credit if the developer propoeee same, and indicated that
Staff would be agreeable to eame.
The Planning nirector indicated that Staff would be
prepared to go to public hearing in the near future on the
Ordinance.
On behalf of the Co11111ieeion, Chairman Farrow co11111ended
the PUD Co11111ittee and Staff members who worked on the
Ordinance.
Co11111ieeion diecueeion related to Section 21.45.090(8),
with regard to eetbacke, and concern wae expreeeed with
regard to eubeection B-1 dealing with frontyard 1etbacke,
in that unleae there ie eome mean• of control, the
developer would go for the 5' minimum inetead of the
20 I•
Kr . Goff reeponded that the eection deals with new
projecte, in which the Co11111ission will decide where the
eetbacke per lot are. If someone requeeta a variation,
they will have to juetify it to the Co11111i1aion.
Comieeioner Joee expreaeed concern with subeection (8)(2)
dealing with corner lote, in regard to fence• creating
traffic hazards due to eight obetruct1on.
Bill Hofman indicated that the Engineer;ng Department
preeently ha• etandarde that are in affecc for eight
clearance diatance 0 11 corner•. Commieeoner Romboti1 added
that there ie an excellent etandard in the FRA site
planning manual on corner lots.
In re1pon1e to Co11111i11ion concern regarding 1ub1ection
(B)(4), intru1ion1 into the 10' eeparation up to 2', Staff
indicated they would reviee •-for clarification.
caa.i11ioner Schlehuber referenced 1ub1ection (D)(2),
with regard to vi1itor parking provided a, co11pact
apace,, and 1ugge1ted that a •topping point be included
in the fonmla to allow for large care.
With regard to 1ub1ection (G)(3) regarding balconiee,
coaiuioner Schlehuber reiterated hie 1ugge1tion to
reviee ,aae to read, "Balconie, ehall count toward ■eeting
the u1able recreation area requireaent." Kr. Goff and
Staff indicated they had no objection to the reviaion.
coaieeioner Joie referenced 1ub1ection (1)(2) with
reaard to ~rivate drive~ay1, a~d inquired i! the intent
wa• epecif1cally the driveway 1t1elf, or adjacent to the
driveway.
cc,aieii oner Ro■boti• explained that the Code delineate•
th• difference between private driveway, and private
,treete, and Staff wa, inetructed t o reviae the eection
for clarification.
•
MINUTES
Pebruary 17, JQR2 Page 4
C~issioner Schlehuber referred to Section 21 .45.210(R),
and stated his opinion that six percent per year is not
practica l . ~e requested that ,a~e be clarified vith
r~gard to the rate, 1ugge1ting that it be i ndexed to a
higher rate and changed yearly, or tied into an
aecertainable standard to avoid having to change it on a
yearly basis. The co-iseion concurred.
C~i11ioner Jose expressed concern vith regard to
1kateboardera in drainage areas, and inquired as to
varioua materials used for construction of drainage
ditches, •• conteined in the Design Guideline, Manual.
Discu11ion related to the intent of the Manual vith regard
to drainage swells , and pedestrian and bike systems, to
appear a, natural landscape features.
C~isaioner Jose referred to page 15 of the Design
Manual, paragraph 3, vith reg~rd to the use of patios and
large vindov areas, and inquired as to energy conservation
measures.
The Planning Director explained that energy requirements
and light and air requirements must be met, and the
intent is to encourage a certain design feature.
The Planning nirector indicated that the PUD Ordinance
could be on the Planning Co11111iss ion agenda at the March
24, IQR2 meeting for public hearing, if the Co11111ission 10
de1ired. With regard to the graphics on the Design
M«nual, he added that Staff vill attempt to have as much
accomplished as possible by the public hearing.
The Co11111is1ion reco11111ended that the City Council fund a
nominal amount to prepare the graphics that vould be
1upportive of the nev Ptm Ordinance.
ADJOURNM!NT
By proper motion the aeeting vas adjourned at 7:33 P.H.
Re1pectfully Sub■itted,
Ann R. Alle-n, Minute, Clerk
Farrow X
Rombotis X X
Jose X
Harcu, X
Schlehuber X