Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-11; Planning Commission; Minutes~NG m': CATI a, MIZTING: Til'I! m' ,_,.ING: PLACII a, MBMING: MINUTES PLANNIM:; cnfitISSION Oeol!lnber 11 , 198 5 6 :00 P.H. City Council Chmt>ere CALL TO Oll>IR: The meeting was called to order by aialran Bchleoober at 6 :00 p.m. Pre11ent: ChaiDMn Schlehuber, Camdssioners flt::Padden, 9llith, Hall, Holmes, M!lrcus am L'tteureux. Abaent: None. Staff Ment>ers Preeent: Jeff Bumell, Project Manager O\arlee Grillln, Principal Planner Hike HoNes, Aaaociate Planner MichMl ttol rmiller, Lam Uee Planning Manager Cl~ Wic kham, Aaaociate Civil &,gineer PLllQ r1 ALUX;IMCE was led by Chaitman Schlehuber. OV.ii:aan Schleoober called attention to the Planning 0..iNion Procedures being shown on the screen am asked the audience to take a few minutes to read than. Nllf PUBLIC HEARi~ OV.inun Schlehuber e xplained that staff had special rec<IIWll8rmtiona for the f i rat three i tafts. As a reault, would open ead'l of the itane and give staff and the dev opera (or their rapreeentativee) n chMce to cannent only on continuance of the i tans. ., ll 85-11 -ALICMft'I VIIN APAR'IMPJffS -Afqueet for approval of a site developnent plan to &velop 1, apartllant uni ta on 5. U acres located wat of Al tiaa Nay betw.11 C..ringa Nay and Al icante Road in the RO-M 2) 3) .... CT H-•¥, 302 -CASI. LCltA cnl)()S -Allqueat for tow. of a tentatlw tract •P a~ co~caini\111 1111 t to dewlop 18 mi ta along the north aide of LuC'ierNIIJa Str•t, at the fint urmveloped property • t Of 0lbu StrNt. CT 2~ 15-3 -PAM Vl9f BAST -Request. for a lr lot/7.mt fiintatlve Tract Mip •~ a c.a eo.ta opaant ,_.it for Neighborhood sg..10 of the La Nut.et Plan, located along the 111Nt aide of ion llltancia all)roxt.tely 280 feet south of La I AYaUe. Planner, reocaaa.ded that It.an 11 affic study for the La Coeta arN (.. l MINUTES PUNNING ~ISSION DecErnber 11, 1985 Page 2 Cl\ainnan Schlehuber asked if the traffic report filed was sufficient, and Mr. Gr 1nm replied that it was necessary to take a look 11, the overall situation in La COsta. Hr. Marty Boloman, i, representi,tive of the Barton Mtrnan consulting firm, discussed in detail the traffic study that his firm was conducting covering the La Costa a r"!a . O\aiOMn Schlehuber requested Mr . BoLll\al1 1 s opinion concerning i, -'leveloper's willingness to pay fees and Pt'.)E!r or not the developnent should be held up if the traffic in'ps-.t of the developnent was minimal. Mr. Bounan indicated that there was no such thing as no impect. Michael Hol zmi 11 er, Land Use Planning Manager, discussed what was con idered when staff preptred their report, arrl stated that t he funding was not the only factor being taken into conside1 'ltion -that they h8d not even reached a point to det rmine if i~ct fees were the answer. He oanented that they were still determining what the problems were . Cl\aiman Schlehuber askf'd if they were looking at the C\al\Ulative eff t, a rrl Mr. Holmiller resporded that this study would look at the CUTiulative effect but staff felt that they llll t get to .. he point of knowing the possible aolutions and whether the solutions wt:!te acceptable. <llait1Mn Schlehuber wanted to know when the report would be call)leted, and Mr, Bololnan repl led that it wouldn't be befor the errl of Pebruary or mid-March. Conaiaaioner HcFadden said that it was unclear as to just ..t\at vaa mant by the La Costa ar a, and Hr. Bo.lnan indicated that it was also in the scope of the consultant to detenaine the boundary ar a. CO.iaaioner L' tteureux aaked l f the atu.ly would al o focus on traffic eourcee fran outaide the City, auch as San Marcoe ard Encinitaa, and Hr. Bololnan nswered that they would be uaing fi9',Ltft for regional projecta determined by SAmMl baaed on traffic generation in Lhe region, etc. 1 • ioner L' Ha.lrllUJI expr Nd hi a concern that di ion• alweY9 ~lt ,red arouro bui ldout and was in weeta'I in .. tng qut.ntifiable aolutiona to the probl-during he time period before buildout. • ..__ inSicat:ed that the moat difficult ptrt of the study ..auld to deteonine the logical phasing. 1Nlonar L'tteureua alao added that he -• concerned t thoN project.a prevtoualy 1'pproved but not built ,-t, •n:1 Nr . Nl)Oncled that if the traffic wu not • , it IIU oing to be, but that he did not know they would be hardlad by the dollan. that La Ooeta A ue waa an to know 1 f eaph&ata would be l to 1-5 . Hr. Bolnan be pr1orttlee and that La He at 1-5 becau• . l MINUTES PLANNING CXH1ISSION December 11 , 198 5 Page 3 Co!llliss ioner Mcf'aojen asked about the area involved, and Mr. Gritml anl!IWE!red that the area affected was basically east of Kl camino RIN!l, south of Pale.mar Airport Road, and the eastern and southern City boumaries. OCJ'llllissioner McFadden wanted to know why staff was recomnending the continuance of projects in just one area lllhen there were also problems in other areas. Mr. Bounan c larified that the instructions to the consultant were to take that area, study it, make sure the proper area was being included, and if necessary, make minor correct ions to the area. O\ah:man Schlehuber expressed concern about their relying on SN«>M:j's statistics am outlined several instances .. re their statistics were incorrec-t. Clclmli u ioner L' Heureux womered what would happen once the report was C'Clll)leted, am Hr. Bol.lnan explained that the City Col.l'lcil would make tlw decision. Cam,issioner L' Heureux pointed out that it would be a nl.lllber of months before they knew how the problems would be resolved. O\aionan Schlehuber wanted to know if they would just be asaeesing a , am Hr. 8o\Jl\8n replied t hat it wasn't quit that si.q>le aoo explained why. O\ailllllln Schlehuber gave the developers an opportunity to apeelt on the qu st ion of continuance for the three items. Mr. Hal k\Jylt rdal l, t0l West I\. Street, San Diego, stated hi• 0pl;)Ot,l1tion to the continuance, explained what he had b!en going through to g t the property developed, aoo ~ that a continuan would be financially hannful. He Mid he-• willing to particip!!te in any mitigation of the traffic probl that might be set up. 0-iuioner L' Heureux poi nt:ed out a procedural problem and • llted that they should h r tran the other devel u •• well ■ince they may bring up additional po1nta relative to Itani 11. 1 .. 1oner Mcrlld1 n ■aid that the cannissionere did not haWI oondition• H part of their pack t aoo ahe would not wnt to hear an a51>1icant unleaa ah had thoee conditions. all~ the v o r■ of the other ~ about the continu ~n, Oaon O>q,or■tion, 5150 l\.venida l!nclnaa, , diecuaaed It:all 13 and -~~ted that h would llk t.ard. added that he fal t the I tall Bhoul.d not be ai tlw"• wer a lc-t of people pr Nnt who fo or againat he project. Mr . Ryan "-hiato of the project aoo r rred to the 11'• -iOQ the night before. aua, 45 0 KN ny Villa Road, Sall Diego, I 12 and eiq,lairwd that hi■ main n .ould not be able to p with tte 1 to di8a.lll■ the hiatx>ry of the r■ ala hl.lided out a letter f the n of the PlanniOQ iuion. MINUTES PLANNING <:l:H1ISS ION December 11, 1985 Page 4 Ms, Marylynn Brown-Bellman, 2638 Luciernaga, carlsbad, represented the La Costa Ccmnunity Awareness Group aoo asked the O:mnission to support staff's recrnmeooations. She erll)hasized that the group was asking for proper planned growth and also referred to the City Council meeting the previous evening. A motion was made continuing Item tl s ubject to the r eport. The motion was secr,.rled aoo opened for discussion. Mr. Grinm read the City Attorney's recanneooation to include a fiooing in sane cases where there was a problem regardi ng time limit. They would nee:3 to fioo that the project should be denied without prejudice but because they needed additional traffic infonnation, they were willing to continue the project. 'rtlis was added to the mo t ion. A motion was pas sed stating that normally the Cannission would deny the project without prejudice but because t hey needed additional traffic information, Item 11 °;a,:; being continued subject to the fiooings of the Trafdc Report. A motion was passed stating that normally the Cam,ission would deny the project wit hout prejudice but because t hey needed additional traffic information, Item 12 was being conti nued subject to the fiooings of t he Traff ic Report . A motion was l1llllde stating t hat normally t he O:mnission would d ny the project wi thout pre judi<:t:! but because they needed additional tra ffic information, It em 13 was being continued subject t o t he fioo i ngs of t he Traff ic Rllp>rt. Motion failed du to lack of major i t y. Cmmiuioner HcFlld:1en stat ed t hat she vo ted no on I t en 13 becau• of the traff 1c study done by the applicant. Chairman Sehl huber aaked cannissioner McFadden i f she t-..d reoei ved the traff 1c atudy for I ten 11 , a m CQaiHioner l'tcl"adden replied that she thought it was t he ._ one aa It 13 am therefore hadn't read i t. Mr. Bill Hofman xplained that it was delivered to her hama am that Mr. Pringle could present the report to the CmllliHiOO, Chaianan Schlehuber stated that 1n all fairness, they ahould t..r the infocnation on the traffic study. He aid that I tl may be heard. However , Michael Holaailler pointed out that people left already and that there iaight be a legal probl in reopening i t. Cl\ai n 9chl~r aaid that they c ould make a motion to bl'ing it b k to the first ting in J u ry, am if public notice hed to be given, it could be noticed again. Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X Hall X Holmes X X Marcus X L'Heureux X Schlehuber X ~adden X Snith X Hall X Holmes X X Marcus X Hall X Schlehuber X l'tFadden X 8nith X Hall I Holmes X X Harcus I Hall X r ' MINUTES ~It«; OJMUSSION December 11, 1985 Page 'ftle cannissioners discussed possible ways of han:Hing the situation. Ocmniasioner McFadden said that she was interested in making a motion continuing ard renoticing Item 13 until the first meeting in January, including the proposed con:H t ions be attached to the project. Mr. Grinm camiented that Item 12 only had 18 ard that if they con ti rued I tan tl , they may want to do it for I tern 12, Olairman Schlehuber pointed out that Item 12 didn't have an indeperdent traffic study as did the other items. Comlissioner McFadden confirmed that she did not wish to include Itan 12. A motion was passed directing staff to prepare potential conditions of approval, to renotice the public hearing IU1d bring baclc I tan I 3 to the January meeting. A mtion was passed directing staff to prepare potential con:'litions of aR)roval, to renotice the public hearing and bring baclc Itan tl to the January meeting. Comliaaion r L'Heureux explained that he felt that Item 12 ahould cane back even though it didn't have a traffic study aince he thought 1 t was illogical to reconsider 1 tema fl and 3 because they had independent studies but I 2 didn't when they were all in the same area, ard 12 was equal to or leas than others in terms of units. A motion waa made directing staff to prepare potential conclitions of aR)roval to renotice the public hearing and bring back It.ml 12 to the January meeting. 'ftle motion was NCOnded and opened for discussion. O..iaaioner Mchddel'\ cannented that fran the maps and dM!gn, the project aR)eared to be inadequate and didn't hav. a traffic "tudy, and Comliaaioner L' Heureux pointed out that they en't diacuaaing the design. O\aiman Schletu>er aaid that if they brought it back, he hoped that ataff would cover everything that c«ne urder the Council policy puaed the previous evening such aa open apace and certain denaitiee. A a>tion wu paaNd directing staff to prepare potential oonditiooa of approval to renoti the public hearing ard bring back Ital f 2 t:x> the January ting. O\aiman Schlehuber aaked if anyon waa preaent ~ intaded to apa.k on ny of the three it ard could not a tend the Jamary ting. Since there waa 11<11190ne who viahed to ~k , Ola i ma,, Sehl uber opened the pub.I ic tM iaoqy at 7100 p •• ard iaaued the invitation t:x> speak. Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Holmes Harcus L'Heureux Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Holmes Harcus L'Heureux Schlehuber l1chdd8n Snith Hall Holme• Hllrcua L' tteureux X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X l r ' MINUTES PLANNn«;cnMISSION OecEmber 11, 1985 Page Mr. Dan Kleim1an, 7019 1..l icante, carlsbad, discussed Counci 1 's vote to review the La Costa Mas ter Plan. He talked about the traffic problem and stated that traffic fees may not be economically feasi ble. Since no one else wished to speak on t his i tem, the public testimony was concluded at 7 :05 p.m . Ocnnissioner L'Heureux suggested t hat Mr. Kleimian's st~tement be transcribed am attached to the staff report. OXl'rnissioner L'Heureux asked staff how many other projects had gone this far in the p ipel i ne, am Charles Grimn, Principal Planner, replied that there were three, amounting to about 150 units. Camlissinner L'Heure ux mentioned that the Cm'rnission might want to give suggestions to staff as to how t hese three project s should be dealt with, but Cm'rnissioner Snith pointed out that it would be difficult to give direction to sta ff until they kn-what was going to happen i n Januar y. CClmlissioner L' Heureux respomed that if t he Cannission felt imependent traffic studies were irrportant, they might sugg st to staff that they get that information to the applicanta of those projects. O\airman Schlehuber expr ssed that he felt it was a good suggestion. iuioner Marcus c:amnented that she felt that these few projects were not that significant. 4) !IR 8'-2 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -SEAW.\LL -Certification of final Bnviromiental Inplct Repor t for approxi- mately 4,500 linear feet of s hor line protecdon facilitie■ bebMen oak Avenue on the nor th and the entrance to Aqua Had ionda Lagoon oo the sout h. ,Teff Bunnel 1 , Project Manager introduced Mr . Dav id Cl•~ of NHtec Servicea, 3211 P'ifth Ave nue, San Diego, ..tic diecuued the EIR for this proj t as contained i n the at.aft r41P>rt. He atat that the purpoae of hearing the i ta .. a tx> review the contents of th EI R and pass it on o the City Council for actual rtification. iuionar i th aaked if ther would be a permanent phyaicel iJ111Pact on carlllbad Boul vam, and Mr. Cla~ replied that the periaanent viaibl ilrplct would be the ret:en ion Carl.t>ad Boulevam. 1th "°'1d ad if there would be any on beach, and Hr. Cla}'Calt> r ponded they IIOrk clONly with various agenci a to arrive at an -.bl• arr~t. OJnftiuioner 911ith nted that lbould hllvw the information ~ front, am Hr. abated that it wa rot included in the draft th queationed about the perking lot on the the ject, and Hr . Claycomb an11W&red r•xa-w:i«I that the perking lot should be uaed • ion equipant and would rot be availabl l9nqth of the conat r uct 1 on r i od. tie edded could tact the lot 01 eliminate it. rn about o rall the BIR, and Mr. Louia Lee Auociat•, 3467 l\lrta St., San Diego, thia would be• oved in the final deaign. © ' ) MINUTES PI.AlfiING CXM1ISSION December: 11, 1985 Page 7 O:mnissioner McFadden wanted to know where there was a seawall bui 1 t in any of those ways that has lasted for fifty years, and Hr. Lee stated that along there the California Coast, there weren't any identical seawalls. He deecribed sane of the seawalls and indicated that the oldest one in the area was probably the one at Scripps. CClllllissioner McFadden asked if it had sand protection, and Hr . Lee replied that it did. Cmmissione.r Snith asked whether there would be phasing, and Mr. Lee said that there had to be sane type of phasing for beach use in sane areas since they didn't want to call)letely lose use of the beach. Cmmissioner L' Heureux wanted to know how long it would talce to build the seawall, and Hr. Lee answered that it would take about six months. Chairman Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Hr. Bob watson, Ch!!rrber of Qmnerce, P.O. Box 1306, Carlsbad, stated that he served as Chairman of the Beach Erosion cannittee and described what had been done. He discussed how merchants were suffering because of the bridge being repaired and indicated that it was iiqx>rtant that the job be Ca'l'l)leted in the best way possible. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public testimony was concluded at 7 :34 p.m. The Plaooing Comlission adopted the following Resolution: RBSCU1TION NO. 2520 RmJ1Hl!H>ING CKRTIFICATION OF l!INIIOICNTAL IMPACT REPORT, !IR 84-2, FOR A PROJICT GIIIBRALLY INCLll>ING: OOtel'ROCTION OF APPROXIMA'MLY 4500 Fl'BT OF SEANM.L ADJN:l!NT ro CARLllW> BOULEVARD BET'WE1!N OAK AVDIOB Ml> MJJA H!DIC>tl)A [.A(IX)N. O\aix:mn Schlehuber declared a recess at 7:35 p.m. and the <laliuion re-convmed at 7 :45 p.m. U9CX.DTIC..( S) POR ADOPTION 5) ICA-185 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -A ZOOe Code ~t reijulatlng the sin of garages i n residential zones an! pxohibiting the rental of residential parking •i-a-Jgaragea. Ocaaiaaianer L' Hllureux requ ted an explanation fran staff revardl09 the new language. He stated that he r 11 ed that • n\albel-of projects with RV parking areaa allowed rent.al to non-reaidents if there were not enough people in tba unit that needed it. He also asked if ther were loceticna in ~rcial zones. O.rl• Grila, Princi l Planner, ted that the OaUnanae cauld be fixed by adding language to the reeolution. Schlehuber X l't::Fadden X 9nith X X Hall X 11:>lmes X Marcus X L'Heureux X MINUTES PLANNit«; CXH1ISSION December 11, 1985 Page 8 O\airman Schlehuber clarified that they could take out the words •ard RV parking spaces" urder i ten (d) of the ordinance. Camlissioner L' Heureux suggested talking a.bout RV' s in a designated RV lot. camiissioner McFadden suggested excluding designated I~ parking lot ard she pointed out that the last sentence of fl should be amenjed to include the words "staroards forn after the word "minimlJn• in the last line. The Planning cannission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2496 Rrol1MDIDit«; APPROV1\L OF THE NEGATIVE D!a.ARATION AND A ZONE C(X)E ~, AHEK>ING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21. 44, CF THE CARLSBAD l'IJNICI PAL COOE, BY THE AOOITION Of SUB.S&:TION 21.44 .220 ro ESTABLISH GARAGE STAll)All)S IN ~IDEm'IAL roNfS. With the following changes: MaHfy the last sentence under Firding l) to read "minimun standards for garage sizes". Modify the second sentence of (d) in the Ordinance to read •parking stalls, carports, ard RV pirking spaces excluding those in RV parking lots, shall be for the". DIIDJSSION ITFM.5 6) PCD-86 -B. A. WORTtlit«; -Request for approva l of a Planning cnnnlsslon Determination for a hie> uni t apartment project in addition to one exi sting s ingle fs.ily residence on a .229 acre pircel located at 2614 Jeffersa, Street in the R-3 zooe. Hike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the s taff presentation on this i tan as contained in the staff report, usi ng a tranaparency to show the site. He discussed the project in detail ard irdicated that it was ccqiatible wi th the surrounding units. Ccaniuioner Hcl'adden asked if the Fire Depar tment r~t:ed a condition regarding parki ng i n the driveway, ard Mr. Howes responded that they hadn't. O.Uu ionei: Sla.i th CCIIIDeflted on the canps ti bil i ty of i ts dnign and stated that he would like to see the s.-.ne •teriala used on the outside. Mr , WIOrthing, the aw!icant, pointed out areas where they wculd be using the materials. Oc•liaaioner L' tteureux expreased concern about the small lota with driwawaya and the CClll)OUnding ti: ffic pi:obl on the street, and said that he c<>uld not vote for the project, OcalliHioner Holme• diacu88ed his concerns with the out- aide elevation ard explained "1hat could have been done. SChlehuber X Hc:Pid~ X Snith X Hall X Holmes X Marcus X L'Heurewc X X © MINUTES PLANNING cx»ttISSION December 11, 1985 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Olalnissioner Marcus addressed cmmissioner L' Heureux' s concern and recognized the problen raised by him but stated that there wasn't really a solution since it would be difficult to allow aR)licants to develop at what the property was zoned. Chairman Schlehuber indicated he was concerned about the anulative effect. Camlissioner 91\i th said that he had concerns about the street but felt that the property owners had a right to develop their property Chainnan Schlehuber pointed out that a solution should be foum. Comiissioner 91\i th agreed that sanething should be done an:1 asked how they should initiate the action. Cllairman Schlehuber replied that they could defer to indicatP whether future studies would include circulation problems on Jefferson Street. Michael Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, confirmed that future studies would include this area. Chairman Schlehuber asked if it was possible that the study would give than sane potential solution to the problans, am Hr. Holzmiller responded that it would be a ccabination lan:1 use/traffic study. Chaii:man Schlehuber pointed out that the CaTmission was addressing a traffic problm in the area am was not really talking about the particular project, but rather the C\allative effect of the project. Mr . Brooks worthing, 247 Juniper Street, Carlsbad, in:1ioat:ed that they were working with staff for more than a year on the project. He explained that the architecture of the project vu a result of staff requests. He added that 1 f they took one unit off the project, it would not be -=oncnically feuible to build. Chlliman Schlehuber clarified that if the project was dmied, the applicant would have additional fees to pay, but i f the it:811 wu continued unlil the traffic study was aaiiplet ed, then there would be no additional fees. Olllaiuioner NcPadden in:1 icated she was haR)Y to see t:w oovse.1 parking apecee tor all thr of the uni ta an:1 wwld lilt• to continue to k p the d r iveways clear of parnd vehicl .. at all tilnea. She added that she th0l¥Jht the project IIU all r ight and would support i t. A aotion wa pu~ directing ■ta.ff to prep1re the •llPl'GPri•te d \llel\ta adopting Reeolution No. 2522 , inol~il'll!I the following lllOdific:etion: AdlS a ooniUtion requiring that driv ya be kept cl ear of parked vehicl• at all tine■• 1•1 i: L' Hl!ureux IMda a galeral camient to ataff t wt.a they do the traffic atudy, they ahould identify ueu adl u Jeffienon an:1 try an:1 attack the probl -.bile it wa ■till in ita infancy. Schlehuber Mchdd9l Slid th Hall 1«>1-9 Hllrcua L'Heurewc • • ll ll ll • ll • MINUTES PLANNING CD-t1ISSION Decenber 11, 1985 7) RESOLUTION OF nrrmrioo NO. 173 -for staff to prepare a specific plan for the La Costa Downs subdivision located on Ponto Drive between Carlsbad Boulevard and the AT&SF Railroad tracks. Mik Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation on this i tern as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the site, He referred to an exhibit and stated that many of the lots were substandard lots. O:mniss ioner Snith asked if this would reduce the ninber of lots if it prepared a specific plan, and would the lot sizes be in confoanance. Hr. Howes resporoed that they were legal e xisting lots an:1 that the applicants would have a right to build on it. He added that it would be easier for merged lots to conform to setback requirements. 'lbe Planning Qmnission adopted the following Resolution of Intention: RBSOUrl'ION OF INTENTION 00. 173 DEOARI~ ITS INTENTIOO TO PREPARE A SPll:IFIC PLAN. 8) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO, 174 -for staff to prepare a zone code amerdment regarding hotel an:1 1110tel developnent standards for all applicable zones within the City of Carlsbad. a:maiaaioner L'Heureux iooicated that he would be abstaining on this item due to a conflict of interest. O\arles Grimm, Principal PlaMer, gave the presentation on thia item as contained in the staff report, and discussed how the Ae90lution of Intention cane about. He stated, in reaponae to a query by Connissioner &ni th, that they would look at all zones. Cc:mniaaioner McP'adden questioned whether the a.JP was the way tx> go, and that they should look at other things like al te developnent plan a. Hr. Gr imn explained why this was beirw:J u•. 'ftle Planning Ca:mliaaion adopted the following Resolution of Intention: IBlLCl'l'Itli C. IN'l'BN'l'Itli 00, 174 DECLARI.«. ITS INT!N!'ION 'l'O cxiisma AN AMl!ID1IINT OF TITU: 21 OP' THE CARLSBAD tUIICIPAL CD>B. With the following addi tiona: Include all aA)liceble aonea and make note of the 0-iuioner'a ~ta regardirw:J aite plans. 9) <Jwliman Sc:tu«d>er at.tad that the City At tx>rney needed to be ~ aa\t f~ thia it to anawer questions t hat the a..iuionera had. A aotion 111111 1Mde continuing It 19 until January 8th. •tion WII acondad ard opened for diacuaaion. Sehl ehuber McFadden &nith Hall Holmes Marcus L'Heureux Schlehuber Hc!'adden Snith Hall Holmes PllrCWl L'Heureux X X X X X X X X I I I I l( I l( l( . ' MINUTES PtANNit«. ~SSION Decarber 11, 1985 O\aicnan Schlehuber discussed the wording for Iten 19 on page 4, am page 15 regarding a l't>tion for Previous Question am camiented that a footnote should be added explaining what the l't>tion for Previous Question was. A m:>tion -s passed continuing Iten 19 until January 8th. O\airman Schlehuber passed aroum a list for attendance of cannissioners at the CXX: am staff meetings. In response to a query by C<Jnnissioner Snith, Olarles Grinm, Principal Plamer, explained what those meetings entailed and when they would take place. OllliDDlln Schlehuber irrlicated that they were working with staff to get a greater ootice of hearings and that ccmnissioners should subni t any ideas to Bobbie Hoder, Administrative Assistant. O\airman Schlehuber introduced Kip Mc:Bane who will replace CUIDiaaioner L'Heureux on the Planning Cmmission. 10) A.O<Pl'IOO OF CALEtllAR OF PLANNit«; CCffUSSIOO HEETit,l;S roR 1986 It wu suggested by Cllaicnan Schlehuber that the Omniuion add February 5, 1986 to the list of meetings. A motion wu passed ~ing February 5, 1986 to the agenda am that other meetings be adopted as scheduled. 11) -..:.'TIC. OF Ol'PICSRS A mtion wa paued e l ecting officers as follows: Clarance Schlehuber -Chairman Mary Marcua -Vice-0\airman The Kinutea of Noveot>er 13, 1985 were approved as preeent.i. Schlehuber X McFadden X X Snith X Hall X Holmes X Marcus X L'Heureu11 X Schlehuber X l't:Padden X Snith X X Hall X Holmes X Pllrcus X L'Heureux X Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X X Hall X t«>lmes X Harcus X L'Heurewc X Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X Kall X Holmes I( Marcus I( • L'Heurewr I( ® ' ) MINUTES PLANNING cn+IISSION December 11, 1985 Page Orrmissioner L' Heureux cmmented to staff that the oeps and graphics they were using were extrenely helpful. He discusaed traffic voh.me11 and made sane suggestions in that COIYleCtion. Coanissioner 9nith extended the Cmmission's thanks to CbmliBSioner L'Heureux for the work he put in while serving on the Planning Cmmiss ion. By proper motion, the meeting of December 11, 1985 was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Reepectful 1 y suhni t ted, Ruth Stark Minutes Clerk ' M!B'l'Il«iS ARE ALSO TAPID AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTF.S ARB APPROV!D. ® Planning Comm ission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dece mber 10, 1985 Subject: CT84-43 /CP -302 CASA LOMA CONDOS preliminary staff report Gentle men : We respectfully reque st that you approve the above referenced project as noted in Note 2 , unJer "traffic", for the following reasons : 1. We met with your planner, Ms. Catherine Nicholas on July 16, 1984 to determine the requirements for this project. 2. The preliminary plans were reviewed and accepted, after several submittals and approved in concept on August 3, 1984 . No objection was raised at that time to the l~:l elope county inspec t e d ewankment . 3. On January 4, 1985, Ms. Catherine Nicholas said the traffic study was d e laying approval. She said that if we c ut to midrange, 22 units we could get immediate approval. 4 . On Ma rch 9, 1985 , we went to the city and were told by Mr. Walter Brown of the e ngineering jepartment, that the project was not acceptable due to the embankment whic h although approve d by county inspec tors was not acceptabl e to the City of Car lsbad . 5 . After several e xte nsive architectural revisions which redu ced the proi ect size t o the pre sent 18 units a nd after proviJing an e ngineering report to establish the stability of the e mba nkme nt, we are fi nally having a h aring on o u r project. We feel our project has me t with all requirements and a further delay until February with t h e possibility of even more delays wil l jeopardi ze t h e feasibility of our project. Our project bas been in processing for over 10 months and w request approva l a t this time. Thank you for your tim and consideration to review o ur project. (jjJ ,J-..J-J ,,, Y.-(j JS Ka ng Sincer ly, ~~ Gre~r,f K aai - JANOARY 8, 1986 TOI FROM1 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSCRIPTION OF STATEMENT P@r a request from the Commission, attach e d i s a transcr iption o f the etatement made by Mr. Dan ~lei nma n duri ng the Public Bearing on December 11, 1985, concerning Alicante View Apartments , Casa Loma Condos and Pa r k View Rast. Attachment ' \ Thie is a statement made by Mr. Dan Rleinman, 7019 Alicante, Carlsbad, at t h e Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1985 regarding SOP 85-11, Ali c ante View Apart ments , CT 84-43/CP-302, Casa Lo ma Co ndos , and CT 8 5-21 /LCDP 85-3, Park View East. •First, I would like t o ca ll to the attention of the representative of DAON, t hat the Co uncil last night did vote for a review of the La Costa Ma ster Plan. We understand full • ell that, no, there was no moratorium put on construction. ,e understand t h at . But t h ere were votes that they took and l here is a message being sent, nonetheless, we still talk about traffic and I can recite it time and time again, it's still the same traffic. We talk about La Costa Avenue, we tal k about ecologically you can't widen on one side because of the lagoon, on the other side and I 'm not saying this is not a quarry, I'm not saying its county land. There are all kinds of problems and t hese problems must be addressed somehow . Th ey, in their review that they hope to get a report on for La Costa a rea will tell them where we are going from here. As far as we are concerned its not over tuilt, U 's far from over built, but ce rtainly the facilities are not there. That message is comi ng across. We were talking something about traff i c fees, to access so much per developer. We don't kn ow wh ether or not if its economically feasible to ask a developer to pay two dollars for every dollar in sales if he's building condos would make sense either, So, again we are i n c\ ne bulous area. So far as the approvals having come through Planning Commission, if you will in the past , it's very easy to loo k back and say these were mistakes that were mad e and we are sorry but it's there, it 'e a fact of life. Th e traffic i s there and there is no way we 're getti ng around it. If we continue to approve projects, per ee, put them i nto p i peline so to s peak, people a t e spendi ng mo ney, we understand that . Only to be shut down later is not fair, i t's t he farthest thing from being fair. So if it were s toppeu rr ior to it ever getting to the point 0f <lra~ing of all o f the p lans, looking for approvals when in fact t h P facilities aren 't thLr' tn ac-r-ommu,~ate these plans, it just doeen 't add up and I say it only as an individual. True, there 's an ad hoc g r o up and they're nothing more than that, they're not e leme ntal ly sanctione d in any way, but yes we had discussions with ce rtain develope rs wh o have had plans approved and we have been ab l e to, fr ankly, negot iate, and we can see eye to eye i n some cases , not in all cases at all. T~1at being the cftse in t hi s on e project, f rankly, on the board right now did me e t wi t h t hem, saw what they had and I aak done question only, wh at could t h ey live with denslty wis and still make it economi c ally feasibl e. There was ~o answer forth coming. So in other words, somebody is goi~q to eit on what t hey are presenting, looking fo r approval and hoping tog t th m. There are n ighbors involved, there is citizenry involved, we have conce rns also, and the point was, t hat w had hoped to Ge heard .R