Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-10; Planning Commission; MinutesH!Xl'IN:; OF: DATE OF HEETIIC: TfME OP l'IEE"l'IIC: PU.CE OF HEETIIC: MINUTES PLANNII.G cx:l't1ISSION Apr 1 l 10, 1985 6:00 P.M . CI ty 0:>Unc 1 l O\anbers 0u.L TO ORDER: 1'-.e meet Ing was C<l l l eel to order by Chai= F'arrow at 6:00 p.m, ROLL Ou.L: Present: O'la1nnan Farrow, Com1ssto."lers Ranbot1s , Marcus, 9n1th, Schlehuber, PotFadden am L' Heureu,c. Absent : None . Staff Menbers Pr~sent: Marty BoU'llan, City Traff ic Etxpneer Dan Clark, Oeveloµnent El1g1neer Ouirles Gr llllD, Pr 1nc1pal Pl tinner Klko Howes, Asso<:-1ate Planner Oen HPntschke. /\sSISt<lnt Cl ty Attorney Brad 1'lerr1an, Pr1nc1pc1l C1v1l El1g :neer PUDGE OF ALUX; I DCE was I eel by Old i tn1un far row. PLANNIIC cn+llSSION PRCX:IDJRES: Olaionan Farrow called ,Htenuon to the Plann ing Catmission Pr<X:Edurcs being shown on the scree, an::l asked the audience to t.ake a fe-.i minutes to re<ld than . l. C 84-42 -VON PACKARD -Request for approval of a five lot sulxlivision on a 1. 78 acre pc1rcel locate:! on tJie south side of Tanarack Avenue betl.Een Adans Street and Highlaro Drive in the R-1-7500 zone. Kike lbwes, Associate Planner, gave the presenution on thia iten, as contained in the staff report, using a location map transparency showing the site. SiOC1:.> the revised application sul::mitted by the applicant met all req,1ir8Dellts of City Council Pl icy 7872, he 1rd1cated that staff was recaimen:ling approval. He further st<lted that cordition t28 was to be eliminated s1~ it did not apply to this project. Catmiss1oner Snith aslte:I for an explanation regarding lot fl for density purposes. He questioned whether or not this would be developed at a later date, aro if so, then the density could be different. Hike Howes replie:1 that they could divide the lot into thr~ lots at a later date. Owlicman Farrow clarified by stating that there was no other plan for that lot before the COmission at this time. Q:nmissioner IODbotis also pointed out that the CX>unci l policy regarding density was an interim policy am that the applicant may get approval for three lots at a later date. MINUTES ~It«; CXHiISSION April 10, 1985 Page 2 0:mnissioner ltFadden asked w!'ly the cul~e-sac was tEmporary. Brad Therrian, Principal Civil Engineer, i::esporoe.J by stating that they did not wish to preclooe any future deve10?Deflt. In answer to II query by Camlissioner Ra!t>otis, Brad Therrian discusSEd another possible option regarding a permanent turnarourrl. O\aicnan Farrow opened the p.iblic hearing at 6:10 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Paul Southers, 3138 Roosevelt Avenue, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He ment1one:i that if they p.it in a cul~sac at this time, it would not allow the lot to meet depth requirenents. If this was the case, he stated that the applicant would request a waiver of the lot depth. He further indicated that other than the aforEml!fltioned problen regarding depth, the plan met the requirm>ents of the City and that he 5.!lw no problem with it. CCJmissioner SChlehuber asked l'!r. SOuthers for clarification regarding the lot that he was talking about, and Hr. Souther~ responded by stating that he was referred to lot 4. Hr. SOuthers also ment ione:i that this would =t down other lots and pointed to the map on the board for clarification. Staff responded to questions regarding acceptable radii for cul~e-sacs, indicating that a 50' radius was accept.able. O:mniasioner 9nith asked if it was possible that they :night run into sane land lodted lots if that road did not go through. Hr. Southers pointed out that there was an easement all the way baclt to the existing land locked lots. Chaicnan Farrow st.'lted that there potentially may be acx:ess to the =l~sac fran the residences that may not have to go through to -r-ar ack. Olarles Glynn, 1319 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, pointed out where he lives (on the IIIAP on the board) and discussed his concern about the tmp>rary cul~sac and the possibility of future extension of S}'lle Drive. He indicated his villin;inesa to cooperate and expressed his desire to see a peDllllnent situation enabling access for his street. In addition to providiD:3 services, he explaine:i that he 1110Uld lilre to aee II pexmanent cul~sac since it would relleve Taalatadt of ingreu an:! egress. lie ended by aakil'l:3 where ~ Drive would end if it vas a ~rary =l~sac, and CXIUld they have access to that property. Goidon Johnston, 39C5 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he was in opposition to this project because he could not support it as a ta!p>rary cul~sac as opposed to 11 pemanent =l~sac, and pointed to the map on the board. Mt. Jobnaton paned out minutes fran the City Planning 0:lllaiuion meeting of July 14, 1976 and made reference to the ccntenta in the minutes. He indicated that the street -already long ~ and that three of the adjacent property owners were in the p .. ocess of getting lot splits. MINUTES ~I~ CXH1ISSION April 10, 1985 Pi,ge 3 He suggested that the Carmission w1 thhold approval unt 1 l the neighbors could meet with staff to detean1ne the proper placenent of the cu1~sac. Q:mnissioner Farrow asked aoout carments made requir 1ng a ~fora full cul..<Je-sac and Mr. Johnston indiC4ted It 'IC>uld rel !eve traffic fran Tamarack. Hr. Johnston also clarifioo which lots were being discussed 111'1:1 requestoo that they try to gain access to ~ instead of Highland. Debbie K.tto, 2004 SUbida Terrace, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf oi.: her parents aid expressed her opposition to the proposed project. She stated 1t \oQuld require ranoving an existing residence because there weren't adequate setbacks. She expressed her desire to have owners meet vith staff to discuss a canpranise. O:mnissioner Farrow asked if the engineering staff met with the four lot owners previously, and 115. Kato replied that there had been fanily ireetings. She also stated that she had been actively involved "lith the issue during the last three weeks but that she be! ieved that the other property owners had discussed the issues before an:! had not been able to cane up with a viable solution. She .ent on to say that it was only in the last week that they found out how intent the Engineering Department was to achieve a=ess to S}me Drive. John l't:Coy, 390 oak, carlsbad, discussed the County policy regarding parcels an:i subdivisions and stated that there w::>uld be at least eight lots there eventually. He stated that Hr. Packard advertised lots with signs facing Mr. l't:Coy' s property am that these signs were taken d= at Hr. Pol:::Cby' s request. He ment iooed that downpa~ts were made prior to approval on the subdivision lots. He expressed his belief that the subcHvision \olOuld eventually be approved am that the O:mnission :ieeds to look at eight lots being there. Hr. von Packard, 4021 Crescent Pl::unt Road, carlsbad, expressed the need to clarify statements made by Mr. lt::.'Coy and continued on to state that the signs were taken off the property vi thin a matter of days after Hr. Pol:::Cby' s request. He also referred to Hr. ltO::>y' s statmient regarding dowlpa~ts on the lots an:! said that they were creating an investor pool to w::>rlt the property and were not acting fralziulentl y. N[. Packard mentioned that they :'l!lve been working with the eQJineers t:o make the project a viable one for the neighborhood. He further stated that they had \olOrked with a full cul~sac but that it created a." illeg~l depth for the upper lot and pointed out that after they presented it to the eQJineering and plaming staffs, they redesigned the project to alleviate the problems brought up by staff. He aaphaaized that the project o:Jll)l ied with all the ~irementa of City staff to produce the de,1elOfJDel'lt and that it wu not in conflict with any of the surrouming area in any form. Hr. Pllclcard mentioned that he had not received any inpit except fran the t1IIO i.Jrmediate neighbors vith w,an he talked. He sumarized by saying that they llhould proceed along the lines of continuing ~ a.a it lea being proposej, an:! that it shouldn't be delayed any longer. MINUTES 1\pri l 10, 1985 Paqe 4 \~~~~ COMMISSIONERS,~®''\ ~\ Since no one else wished to speak on tlus i ten, the puhl ic testimony was concllde:i at 6: 35 p..m. O:mnissioner Schlehuber aske:i staff how far ~ distance would be fra:n the inte.rsection i ! Syme went up to the property. f'\i ke Howes respoooe:i by stating it would be 230 feet. Q:mnissioner Schlehuber also stated that if Syme Drive was extended to H.ighland, it would not be realistic. He further clar If led that he too no problan with the subdivision as such, but that he had a problEm with 1oBiving the cul-de-sac pol icy and felt that It should not be -ived ~ less than staniard. He also Indicated that he felt it was not a good plan to put a street there. o:mn .. ssioner L'Heu:-eux concurre:i with Q::mnissioner Sct>lehuber am stated that 1t was a practical matter of not putting a street through to Highlan::! Drive and that 1t should be designed for a permanent cul-de-sac. He said that the focus should be on taking people off of both ttighl.and and Tamarack Avenues and also mentioned his concern that the caanission should require improvements along the front of Tamarack Avenue since it was such a mess. Cl::mnissioner L'Heureux also wanted to know w'hat ...,uld happen to lot 5 during the interim period -whether it vould be maintained, cultivate:', etc. He polnte:i out that he felt the project had not been thorough! y thought out sufficiently in a n\Elber o! areas mentioned am therefore he could not support developnent of this subdivision, although he recognized that it would be developed at 60lle point in time. Camissioner Farrow aske:i if lot five 1oOuld fall umer the sane requirenents as any ot.her vacant lot in carlsbc,d, and Mike Howes respome:i by sayin:J it would. Cami.ssione.r ltFadden referred to one of the speakers di8CUS8ing that staff encourage:i thBn to go with ~ Drive all the way thr01.J3h and give up the panhandle lot to Highland Drive. Both Mike Howes and Brad 'Iberrtan state:i that it 'WISS not so as fa.r they recollected, and Brad Iberrian further stated that ba ,ed on the nature of this type of lot, it was logical that it would develop sanetime d°"1ll the road. He pointecl out that this was the reason why they were not recamending a permanent cul-de-sac. Caalliasioner Farrow expressed his concern that sanetime in the future ~ could be extenda:i to Highland and becaDe paral.lel to Tamarack Avenue. He stated he would like to eee a permanent cul-de-sac and not have a t:aJtx>rary one due to the uneasinesa of the property owne.rs. He also mentioned that he felt a peananent cul-de-sac would infringe on the depth of lot 4, but only a certain port 1 on. He expressed his des i re f o.r a var i ance and ccnHtion on it. Kike Hows answered that it would be a variance of the sut:diviaion onUnanee and that it cOuld not be done. Caalllaioner Farrow asked if there were pemanent cul--de- sacs that were t:aJtx>rary and that lf they could oot get a variance, then a t:.aaporary/pezmanent cul--de-sac could MINUTES Pl.ANN IN:; a::H1ISSI ON Aotil 10 198S furction and give access to lots 20 and 21. He could SUtl)Ort it then. Ctlmissioner Raltlot1s asked s taff lo/hat would be the snallest cul-de-sac that they could live with, and Brad 'lberrian replied that it would be a 38' radius. Cl:mnissioner lanbotis pointed out that this vas a 12' difference fran a standard ooe. Cl:mnissioner L'Heureux a~ed abou· lots ll-lS taki~ i,c;:,cess to the cul-de-sac, an::l would that cha~e the m1nuinm radius or size they would want. Harty Bolman, City Traffic Dlgineet, ccmnented that the radius of the cul-de-sai.: was not related to the n\l?t>et of properties that it served but depended .instead on access for the firanen and trash trucks to IIIOYe around without havi~ to back up and cause damage to other property. He stated that staff could live with sanethi~ less, although it would not function as efficiently as described. O:mnissioner Parrow asked if the 38' would not interfere with lot 4 and requirenents. He stated that if it requires two less feet, he would SUtl)Ort it if it vas a permanent cul-de-sac . a:mnissioner L'Heureux enphasized that 1t was not up to the C'.amlission to design cul-de-sacs an::l where they should be located, but that the cairnisslon should give direction. He pointed out that if the consensus was that there should be a pennanent cul-de-sac, then the developer should redesign it. Canllissioner Rallbotis suggested sendi~ It back to staff to work out a pecna.nent minilr.dl size cul-de-sac to aoca,modate the adjacent property owners. camussioner SChlehuber camented that he does not want the City to lower its standards, but that it could be minimal. A motion was passed for staff to work with the developers am the adjacent neighbors and bri~ back a minimal cul- de-aac radius that 'IIOuld lllCC<J11uOdate access to lots 20 and 21 an:! the propoaed subdivision, and bri~ it back on ~il 24th, NPM POBLIC HIWUNGS: 2. CT 85-8/PtD-82 -~ -Request for a 70 unit taitative tract map an3 plaiiid unit deYelopnent located at the eouthletst corner of Alga Read and Melrose Avenue in the~ Zl0Cl8. Kilte Hr:Nea, As8ociat.e Planner, gave the presentation on thia itm u ccnt.ained in the staff report, usirw;i a tranapareo:::y tx> show ~ site and a 11811 map to show the prq,oaed project. He mentioned that they '110\lld like to eliminate ccndition t52 since it was inadvertently put in. Farrow JI lollbotia JI JI Pllrc:us JI 9111th II Schlehuber JI L'tteurewi X It~ ll (j} MINUTES April 10, 1985 Pacie 6 A question was raised regarding noise frcm '1elrose and .\lga am ~rqency access to the project. Hike Howes resporoed by stating that a souoowall was being built to buffer the noise fr(II) Lraffic. He also stated that the project was discussed with the Fire Depart:l'lent am that no mention was made of access being a problen. Q:amissioner McFadden mentioned that it was unclear as to hov they were meeting parldng requirEments, and Hike Howes explained it to her. Ci:m:aissioner McP'adden questioned a.bout conchtion t45 regarding all private driveways being clear of vehicles. Hilte Howes clarified that they should be changed frat private driveways to private streets. Olaimian Farrow opened the ~l ic hearing a~ 7 :04 p.m. and is.sued the invitation to speak. Bill Hofman, representing Oaon Corporation, 5150 Avenida Qrina.s, Carlsbad, stated that he reviewed the staff report and conditions and agreed with the recatmendations IMtie by staff. He asked that corxHtion t38J reflect a credit since 1t would be furded by PFF fees. He also indicated that there was no problmi with the one entrance since the Fire Departlllent had seen the proposal. Ci:m:aiasioner McP'adden asked if the phasing of grading would be done at once, and Mr. Hofman indicated that it would, Omn1ssioner McP'adden also asked about grading requirmients, and Hike Howes explained than. Since no one else wished to speak on this i ten, the ~l ic testimony was concluded at 7: 12 p.m. Ccamiasioner Schlehuber said that this is a good project. Planning CCmnission approved the Negative Declaration is.sued by the Lam Use PlaMing Manager and adopted the following Aesolution: RISCU1rlON Ml. 2428, APPRO'IIN:; A 70 UNIT T!lll'ATIVE Hi\P AM> PLNtim C..IT ~ 0N PR>P~ CDERALLY u:x:ATID 0N 'l'ffB ~ CORNER OP ~ ROi\D AK> HELRlSE DRIVE. With the fol loving changes: Delete condition tS2. l(Qdify condition HS to change loOrding fran "private driveways• to •private streets•. M:ldify condition t38J to reflect a credit. 3. aJP-268 -CITY Cl CARLSBAD -Request for approval of a conditional use permit for construction of a fire •tatiaa at the southwest corner of Blltiquitos Lane and Buttercup ~ in the PC zone. Farrow X Rmbotis X Marcus X Snith I Schlehuber I I L'Heurewc X l'tl"adden X © MINUTES l\pri l 10, 1985 Paqe 7 O'larles Gri.nm, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on this itall as contained in the staff repu1t, using a transparency to show the site and a wal 1 map to show the proposed project. He emphasize:! that a fire sc.ation was needed now and that too architect did a good jab in blen:Hng the station with the sw:roun:hng area, aro that staff recarmeroed approval of the project. O::mnissioner L'Heureux asked what the experience was wi.th having fire stations located in close proximity to residential neighbors. Fire Olief W,tson responded by suiting that the Fire ~tment was not aware of any problems with the st.at ion on Olestnut. 1'ley have found that as long as the buildiD;i fits in with the sw:rounding neighborhood, there was no proble:n. Olaicman Farrow opened the public he.lring at 7:14 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Kike Werner, 2352 Hospital Way, Carlsbad, stated that a new fire station was needed. Since no one else wished to speak on this i tEln, the public testimony was conclwed at 7:15 p.m. Planning CO!lnission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning cx:rcmission aro adopted the following Resolution: RESOWTICII NO. 2430, RE0:11'm«>IN; APPRO.?.L OF A CCN>ITIONAL USE PF»!IT TO AUD,i a::NSTROC"l'IO. OF A B1WO! l"IRE STATIO. Qol PR:>PERTY GiNERALLY LOCATED Qol fflE SOO'nMFSr c:auml OF Bl1I'TER:tJP ROAD AN> BATIOOITOS LANE. DIS:USS ICII lnM> 4. SDP 84-10 -KOLL CXJ'IPANY -Request for approval of a site developnent plan to allow construction of two, h«>- story office buildings an a 5.S acre site located on the oort!Nest corner of El Olmino Real and Faraday Avenl.c!. Olllrles Gtimn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report, vi th a transparenc-· to show the site. He indicated that the project exceaded most of the requiranenta aoo that a major amenity of the project was a pedestrian plaza area designed for the 1110118Dent of pedestrians through the site. He diecusaed the applicant's agreement to provide a shared oonnection vhidl would eliminate one of the driveways on the adjacent property. He expressed staff's belief that the project 111a11 a good one am reo eMed approval • 0:mmiuioner McFadden asked where the elevators were located. Mr. Willilllll Lewis, DeEIDs Levis, Partners, 320 Laurel Street, Slln Diego, pointed to the map am answered 0:laiuioner tt:::Padden'a question. Farrow X lbnbotis I X Harcus X Snith X Schlehuber X L'Heuruex X Mc:Padden X (j) MINUTES ~It«; CXMUSS!Oi Apnl 10, 1985 Page 8 camissioner Farr""' stated that since the project was ..enaitive to E.l Camino Roal, the site dcvelopncnt plnn h~s to be approved even though a specific plan was previously agreed to. O::mnissioner L'Heurel.lll pointed out that corrlltion 130 should make ceferenoe to a private drive\olay instead of a private street. Hr. David Stellar. Deems CANis" Partner!;, 320 Laurel Street, San Diego, described coo::!ition t22 arrl stated that the drainage fees were al ready pa id arrl therefore the condi tio." should be scratched. Brad "nlerrian, Principal Civil Engineer, s.:iid that the condition did not need to be scratched but rather the condition had ~n met. 0:nmissioner l't:::Fadden asked about the findings regarding condition t3 since she 6idn't think that the surrounding areaa -re designated for residential developnent on the general plan, am O\arles Gri.mn coocurred that it should be infastr ial. Cnm11ssiooer l't:::P'adden discussed condi tion t34 and the j oint driveway vitll the property to the West. She stated that it seemed they do have sane other way to get out to the Nest an:! asked if the noo-revocable eaaenent to pass -• the ._ as public access. Cnn Hentl:IChlce, As.&iatant City Attorney, clarified the issue ard indicated that sane people on the West lofi 11 get to use the dr 1 ve\olay. PlamiD3 COmmJ.uioo approved the Negative Declaration iaued by the Land Use PlamiD3 Manager and adopted the following Ae9olution: R!SOLl7J'IQi I«). 2429, APPRJ\flll; A SITE DEVELOPHllNT PLAN N:>. 8'-10, TO ALI.CW CDISl'RD:TIQi OF '!WO OFFICE BOitDilCS ON PK>PIRn GP.NEIW.LY LOC'AT!!D Qi fflE tl'.>R'l'tfliEST CX>RNER OF El. CMIIO RZAL AY'.> FARADAY Avm.JE. Witll the folloving changes: ltldify ccn.iition t30 to change 1110rdiD3 frcn •private d:riv...ya• to •private street.a•. ltldify firding f3 to change i,ordiD3 frcm •residential• to •illduatrial•. 5. D> BJ-~ PALt'J'IM AK> <n1PANY -Rl!quest to incree.a the of driVtMSya on an 11pproved caame.rcial •1 w daYelopmit plan locatad on the northwest corner of I-5 --, Palmar Airport Aced. Olarles Gl'iaD, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on thia ital aa c:ontained in the staff report, with A t:ranaparenc:y to show the site. He d iscuaaed the blidD;rouD:S of this project regarding the omber of d:ri-.-ya and indlcatad that the applicant was reautaitting a requut for four driveways again. He aplained that staff reCL +dl'ld denial due to unsafe cimastano .. by aotorista an:! that City C0uncil has Parrow l[ lbllbotia l[ Harcus l( 9D1tll l( 9.:hlehuber l( I( L'Heureuz l( l't:::Padden l( MINUTES PLMWI!«i COf1ISSI~ April lO, 1985 Page 9 t~~~~ COMMISSIONERS q,_~\\_ ~\ -..------------·------------------------~-+---+"""""11""'-'1 reaffiooed the circulation element. ne also indicated that a new proposal had been fn.11:rni tted by the applicant that afternoon. Each of the menticr s of the Cmm 1 ss ion l nd 1 ca ted that they had spent time with the City Engineers an:1/or Grosse discuasing this project. Marty Bounan, City Traffic Engineer, indicated that be did not see the change of the physic11l l.1)'0\Jt for the median on Avenida Ercinas until 3 c 'clock that afternoon. He explained the di!fe::ences behleen the earlier sut:mittal "rvl the latest one, using transparencies to point out the sites. He eq>ressed difficulty in correldting the figures that 1were provided, and stated that the new sutmi ttal only eliminated a slight conn ict that would have contributed to the applicant's proposal. 1-t:! further stated that he did not feel that My'thing has been changed very much, and that the appl leant was recannen:ling four drive,,ays alcn:: a street that under City starrlards should only h!Sve one driveway. tie explained that there would be a series of intersections which were decision points for traffic and therefore he could not recaimend approval. 0::mnissioner Farrow sa1d that in looking at the lesser driveways, he was not persuaded that lesser driv-ys could han:!le the trl'lffic better than the four driveways. Harty BoulWl proceeded on to explain that it could handle traffic before because movenents in and out of the project on the east and on the west side coocentrated on a single lnterMCtion. 0:amiaaioner Parrow questioned whet.her there was an interaectioa on the north in the previous proposal and Harty BouDan aiun.ered that they hz,d an inten1ection there. He oontinued on to aay that the street was now going to the ,,..t a.a a aecoroary acx:esa to the property and that the primary one was the IIOUthm: 1 y one. He al 1!10 mentioned that they never professed that there would be a substantial IIIIOUnt of traffic going fran one to another, ~t that the issue 11188 one of safety. Qaaiaaioner Farrow all!IO referred to other testimony made previcxaly by the traffic engineer which imicated that if you go awy fraa conoeotrated mnbera at one point and substitute them at another, you could achieve greater circulation. a.aiaaioner Rr::ld)otia imicated that by moving the drivaay further dcMI an::! a-y from the high traffic generators, the developer• a proposal lll0Uld probably worJt bet tm:, Oac.iNiooer Schlehuber requested that t:lM! applicant' a engineer: apau, even though it waa not a public hearing, and ec-iuiooer &Di th concurred with him. 0:aaiaaioner "8rcua etated that whal this was comitioned on the wet, they are rmiu in not malting ~ main drivway furthar to the north am that it lll0Uld be better if t.ha priaary driW1ey was further a121y fram the interaction. ® MINUTES April 10, 1985 Page 10 Cmmiasiooer Parrow stated this was discussed at the same time am felt that four driveways should be addressed at this tilPe. Russell W. Grosse, 5850 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, disc:ussej the history of the project. He expressed his feeling that another driveway Is needed to make it functioo better. He passed out a copy of the traffic analysis report prepared by f'ederha rt , Associates . Jim Federhart, Federhart , Associates, 5252 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, explained, using a transparency to show the site, where most of the traffic will bP.. He canpa,:ed the new EXOposal to the older proposal a.rd pointed out how it cleared up certain problens. He iro ic4ted that he £el t the C'Clr{>ranise would solve the main problan aro still provide primary acces.aes needed. He also referred t.o other driveways where there were higher volunes a.rd were not OCJq)arable to the vol\JIIE!'S in the <'lrea being discussed. C'amliasioner Schlehuber asked about t.~.e statist :cs 1n the report an::i Hr. Feder hart ans1o<et:ed his questions. C'amliasioner HcPadden asked for clarification of what ws being discussed, an::i wanood to know If they were formally changing their request. In arun,er to her query, Olarles Grimn explained that the applicant originally sul:mitted a proposal for four driveways, and that a few changes were su.t:mi tted so staff was aaauning that the appl icant was ameoo ing the request. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the C'aDiaaion could approve it even if there was not a ?Jblic hearing. He continusd to state that noz:mally if there was a la.t minute sutmittal, the reasoo it was often sent back wa to enable staff and the people to have the opportunity to review the changes. He explained that in sane caaea it 1ll!IIS necessary t:> sem 1 t b&clt for rev iev, but that this vu not one of thoee caJSeS. Qmniaaioner ftl"adden ~ted to know lh!re t-.hey ~e in the procedures an::i Qmniaaioner Parrow responded by atating that they iere deliberating an application of the applicant that change:S the original request to that which ha• beet ahown on the overhead. Since Marty 80\IDan bad atudied the isaue for a long period of time, o:a.iaaioner Saith felt that he wuld like to beer vhat "9.rly Bolaan bad to say about the SDeuded request. Marty Boman ■aid that in view of lffl!lt bad transpired, he d .id not bel ieYe he needed aore tiJE tiJE to •t:udy 1 t. Re c:ontinu.2 on to uy that City Olurril had adopbed the circulation e1-nt and expected the a-isaion to apply st.andarda to go vi th it. o.:-iuicoer 9chlehuber ■aid he understood 1 t, but felt it ,.. alao i.llp)rtant for the C'aDiuioo to liaten to evidaace of apecific areas. MINUTES Apr i l 10, 1985 Page 11 Comisa ioner Rallbot i s aslted Hr • f'edcrhar t 1 f this -.s truly J aecon:1ary uterial and Hr. Federhart responded by saying that it "'88 working on Balbo!I Avenue 1n Sa.. Dieqo, a high vol1n1e street an:! that they were doing eanething cimilar in Ck-eanside on K1as1on Avenue. Ocnmisaioner p,t:Fadden mentioned she did not feel that the left tu.mJI were the issue and that the issue was the n\Jllber of dr i ve11111ya. She expressed agreement with the staff en;ioeers that add1t1onal driveways would not sol ve the problem. Cmmiasioner Farrow made II motion recaimending adoption of the Reaoll.Jl ion approving appl 1cant' a proposal basei upon e!'olid nee presented that evening. 'Ille motion was seconded and opened for further d iacussion. Comiaslon Karcus said she had a problErD with approving It based on wh!it Marty 80\man stated earlier that evening and that she also appreciated what the traffic en;lneez had done oc, iq:,rove the situation. ;he felt this was a very diffic-:t issue with professionals wc-rlting on ooth sides and was not really sure. caaniuion...: L' Heurewt stated he did not think he c -..11d support four entrances. Comioaloner Snith iroicated he could appreciate the probla11 of the awl leant but that he felt it waa an internal circulation problem. He soid that the turn fran All<JD&I Airport A0«I to the restaurants was ll'IIOOth, but there -,uld be a problem getting cars out of there. He aentionod that on the othm aide, he ,::orcurre! with what the Cit} was all~ to do and for st.aft to follow. He furthex mentioned it was difficult to predict traffic 5-10 year• from now ll!'ld that he had to go along with the city aig ineer • Cmlliuioner Farrow reiterated thllt the issue of four dri~ya 8hould be addreued. Om.iuicne. SChlehubel stated that he IIIX!dered after U■tening to the applicant'• revised proposal and what tlu:ty Boumil said about it, that he wraa not aure that Nlrty 8cuMn IIOlld vant the pil[ticu' u divider in becauae it oould cauae -,re probla1111. lllrty 8ouDan r .. pl ! ed and ■aid that he wraa not prepared to ~ iu · ot:lv· thVI the one of voll.me. He pointed out that lo -ebicJ.e■ malting that tuffl "°'1ld mean one car ...y four ainotell and that it w.a hardly a canfl ict wrthllbile con■ider iog. Me did not feel that it aolved any prohlmi. a:-.1.uiooer Karcu■ ukld about Harty Boulian's c:xiimenu that QQK:11 adhere to the engtr.ering atardarda of the City and wait.81 to know to, other IIIBd)ers felt abo\;t that. a:-.iuionar Fanow stated that the atandama didn't alwy■ apply. ® MINUTES Pt.ANNI tr. cx»-NlSSlON April 10, 1985 Paqe 12 O::amissioner Schlehuber reminded the Connission about the GateWay project and Q:mnit...ioner Rcmbotis referred to the fact that the C-ounci 1 had no problan giving access to El Camino Real which was tllUCh worse thiln the case beir,:_i discussed. A motion was passed recarmeuding adoption of the Resolution awrov ing awl leant• s proposal based upon evidence presented that evening. COmi..sioner SChlehuber :iaid he could go along with the four driveways but did not 11ke the islard based upon Harty llout..ln • s C011111ent.s arrl wanted to change his vote or move to reconsider. A motion was passed to reconsider the motion recarmeming adoption of the Resolution awrovir,:_i applicant's proposal based upon evidence present-ed that evening. ttie previous motion was voted on recamierding adoption of the Resolution awroving applicant's proposal based upon evidence presented that evening. Hotion failed. ex-iaaioner lilclllbotia made a motion to approve four dri,,_ys aa sulnitbed vit.hout a median. "nll! motion was eeconded and d iac:uaaion followed . ('ftli s motion was ~t.ly vitlz!r4'1«1.) caniaaioner SChlehuber imicated he '8\t along with the four driveways. He cpestioncd whether there 11188 a problEm "1th the eecord dri-y frcm the aouth and whether or not it wuld be better of! across fraa the other dri-y. Narty BDmlan pointed to the ma.p to verify llhat o-iaaioner Sc:hletu>er said end agreed that it would be better. 0:Jaiuiooer lilclllbotia amenc1ed the motion on the floor to chmlJe it to_,.,. the drivwray opposite the other d:rivway. ('lhla motion -a subeequently vitbdrawn.) '!be applicant atated tha. there wuld be a problsa with aoney and iaSic:ated that there -a a tranafomer that StQ,£ CIU.ld aove for $23,000. 0:aaiaaicaez Sc:hlebuber menti~ they llltte trying to look at overall ..t•ty ~. both in~ aaS exte.nal. '!be IFPlicant raiaSed the Cclllaiaion that Plll'ty BoQnan 1:-5 imicat-5 that it vu an inaignificant C'Caflict, am t:barefore the applicant felt there vu no reaaon to line the r,-.:t. up. Farrow Acnbotis Mateus SDJth Schlehuber L'Heureux l'tf'adden Farrow flali>otis Harcus Sni th Schlehuber L'lleureux l'tfadden FarrO\I Ralt>otis Harcus 9ni th Schlehuber L'tteureux l't::Faddffl ® X 11 X X 11 11 11 X 11 11 X X 11 X 11 X 11 11 X X X X X I MINUTES ~It«; CC .. ,USSION April 10, 1985 Paqe 13 C'aamissioner Farrow stated that they al ready discussed the left turn conflict. COmm iss1oner Sc-'"-lehuber made a mot Ion for four driveways aa lined up. (This motion was later withdrawn.) All motions were withdrawn from the floor at this time. A motion waa made to approve :he project with tour driveways and a realigt'lllent of the seconi driveway from the south to coircide with the driveway across the street. Motion failed. A mot ion was passed to adopt staff • s • ec.:aatle{Ua ti on of three driveways. INPORt9.TIQi ITD4: 6. CT 82~ -ICAKAR -Minor revision to change Nebl ina Drive from a public street to a private street north of Park Drive and south of Hillside Drive. Commiaaioner Rambotis excused himself from discussion of this i t82I ~ to a conn ict of interest. Brad 'l'benian, Principal Civil rnJinee.r, gave the report on this item, using a transparency to show the site. Commiuioner SChlehuber requested a disclosure statement and Collmiasioner P'arrov indicated that Native Sun was the party involved. Ccaaiuioner ~en asked about the vertical curve and Brad 'ftlerrian explained it. 0-iaioner ~en stated that it vaa a poot precedent to eupport cloeing off streets vi th gates and wordered what would happen to the rest of the circulation in the ar• if the street was shut off. She wanted to know why it oouldn't be left the way it was sinoe the standard exiat:ad at the tiae it was approved. Brad '"-rrian provided clarification of the stardardA and stat.ad that the up did not reflect the physical stardardA of the aite. 0-iuioner ~ aalted why it vu approved then, anc\ Din lllntac:bu nipli.S by uying that there were NYeral thin;a strange and that he auggest:ad this matter be conaidanlS and no action be tuen for tvo week.a which would allow h1a t1ae to review the situation and find out aactl.y ... trampire:S. 0-iuioacx PlcPldcSeo said that llhe would also l ik.e to look at tbe pnceiSent on it. Farrow I Rombotis I I Harcus I 9nith I SChlehuber X L'Heureux I l'tFadden I Farrow I Rait>otis I Mucus I 9nith I Schlel'U>er I L'Heureux I I l't:Fadden X @ ' ,. MINUTES PLAltflt«. CONlSSIQi April 10, 1985 Page 14 Commissioner Schlehuber agreed that this should be continued, but in:Hcated that it should remain a public- street unless they really convince him it should be closed off. Commissioner Marcus stated she vas in favor of closing it off. Dan !tentschlte indicated that if they need to follov procedures for amendi,,g the ter,tative map, they in.-,y need to renotice the project. Bob SWrup, Ni!ltive ~ Oevelopnent C.orp., 2350 Ocean, Cllrlabad, stated that the project was previously rec<moetded by the city engineer and planning staff. A motion was passed continuing item 16 for two weeks April 24th at which time it would be reviewed as an infOimlltion I t:811. to Farrov Rcmbotis Marcus Snith Schlehuber L'Heureux l'tl'adderl 1'l8 Minutes of the March l), 1985 meeting were approved as Farrov amended. Rcntx>t is MArcus Snith Schlehuber L'Heureux Pl:Padden By proper motion, the aieeting of April 10, 1985, was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectful! y aubni t ted , ~ MID nuoLoU"uioi.uc Land ON Planning Hanager Rl·th Stark Ki l'llt:el Cl t:'.!"k MEITI-.S ARI Al8) TAPl!D ME 1tEPr elf PILE UNTIL TffE Hllilt1!'ES ARIAPPIIJY!D. ® ll X X X X X ll I[ I[ X I[ X X X X X