Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-22; Planning Commission; Minutes◄ MINUTES MEET IN:. OF: PI.ANNIN:. CCHUSSION January 22, 1986 6:00 P.M. DAT! OF MEETIY:.: TIME OF MEETIY:.: PUCE OF MEETIY:.: City Council Charrbers CALL TO Oll)ER: '1'le meeting was called to order by dialman Schlehuber at 6:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Schlehuber, Cam,issioners McFadden, Snith, Hall, Marcus, McBane and Holmes. Absent: None. Staff Mali>ers Present: Gene Donovan, City Fngineer Olarles Grinm, Principal Planner Mike Howes, Associate Planner Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Rent Sears, Traffic Engineer Clyde Wickhan, Associate Civil Engineer PLPDGE OF ALUX;IAN:E was led by Chairman Schlehuber. PI.ANNIN:. CCHUSSION PROCmURES Olair:man Schlehuber called attention to the Planning camrlssion Procedures J:x-•i ng shown on the screen and asked the audience to take a few minutes to read them. can'INOED PUBLIC HFARitCS 1) CUP-280 -CARLSBi-\0 UNIFIFD OCHOOL DISTRICT -Request for a caiiHtionai use J)P1'1Dit for the developnent of an elanentary school on Villages "M" and "N" of the Calavera Hills Master Plan in the P-C zone. Mike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation oo this itan as contained in the staff report, using a transparency to show the site and a wall map to show the proposed project. He describetl the surroun:Ung area am indicated that staff was able to make the four fiooings for a conditional use permit. Olair:man Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. and illllmd the invitatioo to speak. Mr. Willim Davis, 2031 East Cerritos, Anaheim, the School District's architect, dillCUSaed problems relating to condition ts and requested a change. Since no one elee wished to speak oo this item, the public t:Ntiaany .. concluded at 6:10 p.m. Cclllliuioner Harcus asked about the safety of the acc-ess, a Clyde Wickhan, Associate Civil s ,gineer, replied that at.ff felt it cauld be resolved since it was a minor iuue. Caaiuioner Mcl'adden asked how the parking would be affected if it 11111s redesigned , and l1r • w ickham stated that they would just be placing the driveway in another location, and that the widths for parking spaces would not change. 0 il ' ' MINUTES PLANNit«. CXH1ISSION January 22, 1986 Page 2 In reply to a query by Cannissioner Holmes, Mr. Wickham pointed to the location on the map where it would be better to have the access and E!!ffPla&ized that the first priority would be the intersection alignnent. Camdssioner HcBane asked what realignnent of the driveway did to the area, and Mr. Wickham replied that it would be the same as that designed camdssioner McFadden mentioned it was acceptable as conditioned to her. Olllirman Schlehuber cannented he would favor the school district solutioo and explained why. Coamissioner Marcus stated that since the Traffic Engineer reccmnemed the comii:ion, she would go ala,g with it. Gene Dalovan, Traffic Engineer, explained that a 3' grade differential was minor am could be cured in a gr.-ding plan. He stra,gly :.:Ecannerded making the exit at the intersection and discuslled why. Camtissioner Snith expressed concern about the safety factor of having buses exiting at the same point where children were crOBSing, am Mr. Donovan indicated that they try to create a normal situation am described why. Olaiillll!lll Schlehuber clarified that Camtissioner Snith was concerned about bringing the ~sat the contact point with the children, and that if they used the School District's reccmaemation, the a...."'Ce&s would not be at that crossing point. Hr. Donovan reiterated that they were recamiending having them exit where you wcu:'..d nonmlly expect them to go out. Olaia11m Schlehuber clarified that Cannissioner McBane was referring to buaes backing up am that there was a safety factor involved beca1..>11e there was a lot a, the north end without an exit point. Hr. Donovan explained that with a minor design change, they could poesibly bring in the driveway, and pointed to the area a, the map that he was talking about. Crmiuicner Mchdderl added that at the present time there wa no bus service fur the Carlsbad school district, and t:be cxaaiuioners agreed that it was necessary to plan for the future. ec.nissioner Smith asked Hr. Davis to cannent on the iuuee auggeeted by ■taff. Hr. Davis replied that the grade change was a ccinsiderable change to a project such u this ard e~lained why. He tllllllhuized that the proble111 could not be solved aa staff requested, and discussed the prcbl• of relocating the bull loading area to the north. Mr. Davis also a.ntioned that the conflict between pad•trian and Wlhicular traffic was a safety concern, am that bwles should not be allowed to back up on school cp:ounde without sc:aaooe walking behinl the bus. He also dillalllNd hardicap requiranents of the State. MINUTES PLANNING CXMIISSICl<I Janua 22, 1986 Page 3 A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 2529 approving a Conditional Uae Permit for an elementary school on property generally located on Villages M , N of the Calavera Hilla Master Plan. The motion was seconda:'t and opened for discuuion. ChaiDlllln Schlehuber COfflll!nted that he could not support the 1110tion, and Comiiuioner Smith stated he could not a~rt it becauae of the issues regarding the private vehicl• delivering children, and backing up of vehicles. Cc.niHioner Marcus stated that she felt that if they moved the driveway a little, it would make them remote. The Planning CallniHion adopted the following Resolution: RZSOU1l'ION t«>. 2529 APPROVING A COtl>ITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN tiW'Xfi §:ii5oc. ON PRa>ERTY ~ERALLY LOCATID ON VILLIIGP.S M , N OF 'fflE CAI.AVERA HILLS MASTER PUN. 2) ZCA-187 -CITY OF o.Rr..SBAD -An amel'dllent to the ZOning Ordinance to niiJITy the City's parking requirma,ts and atardarda. Mike Howes, Allaociate Planner, explained that it was h is iq>r ... ion that the Planning Conniaaion wanted to attend a workshop on this auLjec.:t bafore they heard this i tan. Dan Hentachke, Auiatant City Attorney, recamiended that they hear this item at a public hearing. A motion was passed continuing Item t2 until February 19, 1986. Chairman Schleoober suggested that staff put acme cxmnents in writing. 3) CT 114-4~ 77 -ALGA HILLS -Request for approval of a 3llunt tentative tract map and planne-o w,it developaent, located at the southeast corner of Alga Road and Alicante Road. Charl• Grimn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on thi■ it• a■ contained in the staff report, using a transparency to ■how the site and a wall map to show the pr~ project. He discua■ed the requeats made by the Planning ec-iuion at the January 8th meeting, and point.s out where the applicant nade changes. He added that the applicant did not make all the changes on the •P• Mr. Griai mentioned that ■taff was requiring three new can:Utions, and one was not incl~ with the packet which otated that the developer should locate driveways subject co the satisfaction of the Planninq Director and to axiaise on-atr•t parking. Hr. Grian also discuseed the effect of the City Council moratori\111 on this project. Schlehuber ~"adden Smith Hall MllrC'US l't::Bane Holmes Schlehuber Mcl"adden Smith Hall Marcus McBane Holmes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .. X MINUTES PLANIUNG cn,f,!ISS ION January 22, 1986 Page 4 Camtiaaioner Marcus asked if there wa.J a special condition concerning the traffic study, and Hr. Grinm replied that the applicant agreed to that con:Htion aro it would be included. Chairman Schlehuber ccmnented that he would like to aee the coroition in writing. Ccnniasioner McBane questioned what the net result would be with regard to guest parking, aro Hr. Gri.11111 responded that the applicant could probably answer that question. Chairman Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. and iaaued the invitation to speak. Mr. 80b Ladwig, 3088 Pio Pico, Carlsbad, stated that he received the new staff report aro would agree to have the con:Ution added regarding the traffic study aro pay a portion of the traffic mitigation. He also iroicated that he agrffd with the new coroitions in the staff report and wwld agree with the condition regarding driveways. Hr. Ladwig revieliUd the process since Septanber aro iroicated that he would ..gree with neighbors regarding their desires for the project. He urged the Ccmnission to make a deciaion that evening aro approve the project. Ccaliaaioner McFadden aaked what would happen if the right-in only was cloeed off, and Hr. Ladwig replied that if that vu the way it was approved, that piece would be deleted. Mr. Ladwig referred to the wall map to show which portion would be deleted. In r•ponee to Mr. Mc:Bane's question regarding parking, Mr. Ladwig pointed out that it would exceed the requir-nta by many n\ll'bers, but that he didn't have the preciae ruabers with him. Mr. Dlln IUeillllllll, 7019 Alicante Road, Carlsbad, spoke in 0A)Oaition of the project imd discuaaed his concerns at buildout. He expreued concern about the amount of traffic that wuld be on Alicante, and stated that he was apecifically oppoaed to conditions 053, 54 and 60. ChaiDlllln Schleoober annouooed that a letter in oWOSition -■ received fraa Mr. ICirdle. Ma. Marl-Pcaerantz, 7035 Alicante, Carlsbad, said that llhe agr-5 with Mr. IC.eiraan and hoped that the Planning Ccaliuion underatood their position. Since no one elae wiahed to ■peak on this i tan, the public t:eat'--iny waa concluded at 6:48 p.m. Qaiiuicner Mllrcua aaked for clarification regarding the sketch on the wall, and M?'. Grimn explained the diffmencee beb!Mn what ataff was recanending aro what the applicant wa ahowing on the map in terms of circulation. Cmaiuioner Marcua asked for more infomation regarding the traffic pattern, and Mr. Wickham uplain-1 why he did not think a stop light was inp>rtant. Ccaliuianer Mchdden askei, about the Negative O.Claration, and Michael Holailler, Planning Dirv ;l~r, naponded that the Negative Declaration was approved when the project previoualy caa before the ea.inion. He ~ that the ca..iaaion could not recamiend approval of the project to Council without RCalldll,.ding approval of the llagatiw Declaration. (!) MINUTES PI.MINI!'«; CDl1ISSION January 22, 1986 Page 5 Canniaaioner faith pointed out that traffic in the east would not necessarily have to cane into Alga Road and explained the other alternative. He added that Alicante ws a wide street, and that a traffic signal on Alga would be dangerous and explained why. Ccnlissioner Holmes wanted to know what would haR]en if the project was approved that evening and a couple of weeks later a traffic study showed that they should not have approved it. O\aiman Schlehuber indicated that was why if they approve the Nagative Declaration, there would be a problem, which is why he couldn't approve it. Ccatiuioner Harcus asked what the report would tell them, and whether or not it would recannend sane solutions, and Mr. Grimn indicated that the Traffic Engineer had a draft of the report and should answer that question. Dan Hentschlte, Assistant City Attorney, discuued the obligations of an environnental review and explained what kind of findings the Camlission would need to make since the Negative Declaration had already been approved. In reaponae to questions raised by Olairman Schlehuber, lfent Sears, Traffic &lgineer, confirmed that there were traffic prci>lems at the corner of El Camino Real and La Ccwta Avenoo that would be inpacted by this project, and that there were other problems at !.a Costa Avenue and I-5 that may also be i.Jrpacted by this project. Mr. Hentachke explained the cptions that the Planning Callllissiai had. Ccnliuioner McFadden asked if they would be receiving n-r'--mations for mitigation of the traffic impact and what they ware, and CanniHioner Marcus stated that she wauld have difficulty in approving the Negative Daclaration again when it was twice as dense. Mr. Sears confima! that they wauld be receiving information in the report canceming how to mitigate t:htt traffic, and ea.iuioner Harcua irdicated that she would not have any prcbl-since it could be conditioned. Calaiuianer McBru"lll' pointed out potential , ·"toblema in that the mitigation re-,!Uired might be unacceptable. Ccati•imer MchdcSerl cwnted that it was pouible they could ab rec:---rdations ca things such as lowering dmaiti•. Callli•icnar Marcua stated that the ai;plicant was willing to go alcng with the report, am that she hoped there was an ana.r fcrthcaaing. 0.iman Schlaiuber said the Planning Ccmnissic:a might approve acaethi!lq +-.hat wu not mi ti gable ard that they may fine! that there , -.· scae potential iaplcts. He ;tdded that he hat1 a prcbl• with being conaiatent and suggested that the Negative Declaratic:a be denied and the applicant could appeal it balled ~ the denial. {j) MINUTES PLANNill'.i cnt1ISSION January 22, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Holzmiller reviewed the process involved with this project and suggested that the Planning C<mnission should lllllke a recannemation. He discussed the alternatives and explained how this project was different fran the other La Costa projects. CmmiHioner Hall cannented that he felt the project •hould be denied based upon circulation problems and mini.nun size lots in most instances. Caru1ission€r ~ asked Mr. Holzmiller about the land use and Master Plan review, and suggested deferring deci•ions on the land use until they had input on the study in process. Hr. Hoh.miller responded that if the Cannission felt that way, they should make that recannendation to Council. Chairman Schlehuber suggested that saneone could make a motion that in light of the considerations that have risen, the Camiission could accept this particular plan, am move it to the Council with recanaendations that there were concerns on the motioo relevant to the potential it might have on the report caning out. He added that Council could address those concerns specifically before they puaed approval on the project. Camliuicner McFadden indicated she agreed with Cc:aliuioner Hall that they should defer the next i tan \D'ltil the r~valuation of the Southeastern quadrant was CQll)leted by staff. CcmniHioner Marcus canented that she did not go along with denial, am that it should be moved on with staff's conditiona. Hr. Holmiller stated that they did not need to do another Nagative Declaration. 'l'he Plaming CcBlission adopted the following Resolution: Rl80LU'l'ICII NO. 2,92 RJI.Dllml)Ill'.i APPRO'IAL OF A 311 UNIT ILIUM '1licT ~ All) PLANN!D tJNIT DP.V!Ull'MENT ~ ,..lllff GWIPALLY LOCATII> ~ 'ffl! 9XJ'lHEAS'l' C0RNBR OF l'u;A IIW> All> ALIOll'l'! KlAO. With the following four additions: Inclucie conditiona 1) am 2) as outlined in the 1'111!1110rand1a1 frca the Planning Depart:aant to the Planning Caimiuion dated January 22, 1986. Ml • condition with the wording: "Prior to building s-a!t apprOYal, a traffic study shall be prepared to detamine the extent of hipacte that this project will haw en •jor •tr•ta in the La C4lata area, including La Oaata Awnue and Bl C.ino Real to Interstate 5. The •tuiSy shall detendne a solution to theae impacta and the •wlicant shall agr• to perform or to participate in the solution u detendrad by the City Council • No \D'li ta shall be ooc:upied in this subdivisil~ i..ntil traffic iaFacta haft been mi tigat:et! to the satisfaction of the Cit;y Ccuncil. 'ftle •tudie• which are being conducted by the City MY be UNd to satisfy this condition if they are cmplet.s prior to the applicant requesting approval of the final •P•" Schlehuber X McFadden X Slnith l[ l[ Hall l[ Marcus l[ ~ X Holaa l[ MINUTES Pt.ANNIN:; CXHUSS ION January 22, 1986 Page 7 \~~~1' COMMISSIONERS 'Q,. ~~~ Add a condition requiring the driveways to be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to maximize on- street parking. 4) GPA/LU 85-13/ZC-342 -CITY OF CARLSBAD (ALGA HILLS) - Request for a General Plan amerdnent fran Residential Medi11n High (1'-IH 8-15 du/ac) to Residential Hedi1.n1 (111 4-8 du/ac) and a zone change fran RD-M to RD-M-5 for a 64 acre site located at the southeast corner of Alga Road and Alicante Road. Olarles Grinm, Principal Planner , q~ve the presentation on this item as contained in the stc1ff report, using a transparency to show the site. He explained that they were requesting a zone change, and Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, gave the background of an earlier discussion. Hr. Grinm pointed to the surrounding area and indicated that it would be CCJ!t)atible with the area. Cannissioner Marcus pointed out that condition 14 on page 3 was really not a~licable now. Olairman Schlehuber q,ened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and issued the invitai"i or. to speak. Hr. Boo Ladwig, 3088 Pio Pico, Carlsbad, stated that he supported staff's report. 'n'le Planr.ing Cannission recarmended a~roval of the Negath•e Declaration as isst.'Ed by the Planning Director and adopted the following Resolutions: RESOLOTION 00. 2518 RJDM1ENDIN3 APPROVAL OF AN~ TO THE I.ME USE ELD4ENI' OF THE GmERAL PU-.."1 !"ROI lNi (8-15 DO/AC) TO RM (4-8 DO/AC) ON PROPERTY GFM:RALLY LOCATED AT 'l'HE ~ CX>RNER OF ALGA ROAD AND ALICANTE R>AD. R.ESC£UTION 00. 2519 R!D:Mml)IN3 APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE 0P'I04 RD-M (RBSIDl!NTIAL Dl!NSITr l'IJLTIPLE) TO RD-M-5 (RBSID!lffIAL DDISITr P«JLTIPLE -5 DO/JIC) ON PROPERTY Gl!NERALLY LCQT!D AT THE SOO'.l'HF.AS'l' CORNER OF ALGA roAD AtE ALICANTE ROM:>. 5) f.CA-190/GP~ 86-¥sAMF.H:Mml' OF MASTER PIAN IIJIS. 1iio13~i9 ~o, 11, All> 175 -CITr OF ofi.§< -Applying new density ranges ,itl)1.01.Ld 'trj the City Ccuncil to existing, approved Master Plans and excluding nomevelopeble Open Space lands fran being uaed for residential density calculations. Michael Holmiller, Planning Director, gave the preNntation on this item as contained in the staff report. He explained that they were requesting two itf"!'et to apply the newly devised density ranges and to identify the typee of Open Space that could not be developed and use! in dami ty calculations. Hr. Holmiller discwsl!lled the becltground of both of these itaml and explained that it vu referred back to staff fran the City C'-:,u.1cil. He Schlehuber ~ Snith Hall Marcus l'tBane Holmes deacribed the three resolutions in detail and indicated /i,\ that etaff wu recamending approval • \JI ., X X X X X X X X MINUTES PLANNit«; CCM!ISSION January 22, 1986 Page 8 ea.iuioner Hall asked about taking out the word •residential", and Mr. Holzmiller talked about the intent of the ordinances: that when determining residential density, they could not use area in calculating density. ea-iuioner McFadden suggested removing residential frcm all the resolutions since they were talking about all projects. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained why the woiding •no residential develcpnent" was inr.looed and why it should be left in. Ccnlissianer McFadden brought up cannercial and irdustrial, and Hr. Holzmiller pointed out that the C011111ercial concerns could be handled with different woiding and explained what that could be. Hr. Hentschke discuasecl the Ccmnissioners' concerns and suggested adding another section to the code which conld state that all Open Space la!1:''.3 listed in this sectia, were also restricted fran camiercial and industrial use. Canissioner Mc:Bane suggested another possibility but Hr. Hentschke recamiended adding another section. ChaiDIIIUl Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. ard issued the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on this item, the public testimony was concluded at that tm. Hr. Holmiiller pointed out that there was c:. t}i,JO and that 178 should be changed to 175. He clarified that they would be amending Master Plans 1, 139, 149, 150, 174, and 175. Ccmmiasioner Mc:Bane referred to two i tens which were originally part of the Citizens Caanittee's rectaaerdationa and indicated he would like then included. He alao addreued cmdi tion no regarding existing rights- of-way and aaid that he did not think people should be alla.d to count the. Hr. Hol:mdller reapomed that there WM no probl• became it was an existing policy and eaplained where rights-of-way were inc:loood. Caaiuioner Mc:Bane diac:uued concerns he had with rights- of....,.y and •jor arterials that were non-existent. Chaiaen Schlehuber brought up Faraday as an e:,..mple. Hr. Holailler pointed out that the di fference WU that it wa irduatrial and explained what they were trying to do urder this Oidinanoe. He atat:ed that future ones are not rwa■rily undewlopable areas and talked about his concern in thia particular inatance. He added that they ahauld lddreu it through design. Calaiuioner Saith _,,__, if it would include future roads aud'I H College BoulfNTJrd, and Chaianan Schlehuber naponted that it IK'4l.d include any mjor streets. ca.ia•ianer Mcht~ atated that ahe understood wh1't Mr. Holailler wa saying but wu willing to Hait this to no aore tMI SOI denaity calculation on the rights-of-way. MINUTES PLANNIK: O:HUSS ION January 22, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Holzmiller inHcated that SO\ was better than not allowing than anything. ec.aissioner McBane ar.ked ho,, the railroad rights-of-way were dealt with, am Mr. Holzmiller replied that it was his understanding that if the railroad was the owner, they were not allowed to use it in density calculation and it would not be the policy at this tine to count it for future developDent. Cannissioner McBane expressed concern about the slopes in the 25\ to 401 range and suggested possibly dealing with it on SOI. Mr. Holzmiller explained that it was an item that was preeented to the Citizens Caimi ttee a.-Yl recalled it was previously discussed by the Planning Cannissioo. He said it did not becane put of the final approval. Mr. Hentachke recannerded incorporating all these items in the c'~t a.,d fo::tc!arding it on to the City. He !Ralllllrized by stating that with regard to the existing ordinance, they would add a provisiat for SO\ density reduction in slopes 251 to 401, 50% for major and prin-e arterials, am 1001 exclusion of the railroad bed. With regard to Open Space lands for non-residential purposes, they would exclude item& 1, 2, 3, 4, S, 6 ard 8 fran being developable becauae they were all significant. With regard to the major power transmission easements, when the site plan or developnent plan for the project was approved, certain types of use in a cannercial ard imustrial project may be allowed. He then asked the ec-iission what they wanted to do with 251 to 401 slopes. Mr. Holr.miller camiented that it was in the General Plan that they could not develop slop!& -:,ver 40\. In an area frcm 251 to 401, he explained it was handled on a project- by-prc.ject baai■ through staff am a Pbnning Callllissioo review. C)wwiulcmer Saith asked staff to provide the Caaaissioo with the revi..S copy before it went to City Co.mcil. Mr. Holmiller irl!icated that the Callllissioners would receive it in tiae. 'ftw Planning Ccllaiui00 adopted the following Aesolutioo: -CII II>. 2534 IIIDIM!ll)l)I; APPROVAL OF A ZONE a:DE I, WDiG TITLE 21, 08'P'l'BR 21.44, OF fflE cu•wo IUIICIPAL CDS, Bl 'ftlB AIX>ITI<li OF SEC"l'Iat ll .... 230 'l'O RIS'l'RICT DBYBWllMl!HT at CBR'l'AIN <PIN SPACE 11111 m.-ruuo IN THB GINIPU PLAN A~ -ro mE CDIIIImRATI<lf OF <PIN SPICE LAIi)$ not D!NSITf CNID,UT(a. With the following modifications: MS a conlition providing fcir 50t den■ity reduction in el.cipaa Z!SI to 401, 501 far •jor and prime arterials, and loot ucl.mim of the railrOld bed. Sc:hlet\Uber I: ~ I: Saith I: Hall I: MllrCUII I: i't::Balle I: I: Ht>laN I: © MINUTES PLANNING CXMUSSION January 22, 1986 Page 10 With regard to Open Space lands for non-residential purposes, exclude item; l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 fran being developeble. With regard to the major power transmission easements, when the site plan or developnent plan was approved for the project, include that certain types of use in a cannercial an:1 industrial project may be allowed. The Planning Cannission adopted the following Resolution: RESOLU'l'Ic»il t«>. 2535 RPD:JN!M)ING APPRCWAL OF AN~ TO THE TEXT OF THE I..AK> USE EIJ!J1ENI' OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE AOOITic»il OF ll«R:>ING TO RESTRICT DEVl!I..OPM!NT OF CERTAIN <PEN SPACE AREAS NI) TO EXa.uDE CXJNSIDERATION OF ~rll SPACE LAM:> Fl01 DENSITY CALCULATIONS. With the following modifications: Md a corxHtion prcviding for 50\ density reduction in slopes 25\ to 40\, 50\ for major an:1 prime arterials, and 100\ exclusion of the railroad bed. With regard to Open Space lands for non-residential purposes, exclude itans 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 fran being developable. With regard to the major power transmission easements, when the site plan or. developnent plan was approved for the project, include that certain types of use in a camercial an:1 in:1ustrial project may be allowed. A 1110tion was made adopting Resolution No. 2536 reccmnen:1ing awroval of an am!!lldnent to existing master plans to apply new revised density ranges. The motion was aecomad and q,ened for discussion. Camliasicner 91\ith asked why it wu 0-4 and not 1 1/2-4 an:1 Hr. Holzmiller explained tha t the actual density ranges were not being considered by the Caanission that evening but explained why the lowest density range started with O. 'lbe PlaMing C:C-ission adopted the following Resolution: RESOWTic»I t«>. 2536 RJDMmlDING APPROVAL OF AN NmDml'l' ffi EXISTING WWW l'LANS TO APPLY NEW REVISED D~ITY RMl2S. With the following mod if icdtiona: Add a condition providing for 50\ density reduction in alc,sa 251 to 40I, 501 for •jor and prime arterials, an:1 1001 excluaion of the railroad bed. With regard to Open Space land• for non-r•idential purpcae9, eJ1Clude item l, 2, 3 , ,, 5, 6 and 8 fran being developable. With regard to the major power trananission easements, '1lt.-. the site plan or develqaent plan was approved for the project, include that certain types of use in a cc.aercial and industrial project may be allONed. Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X Hall X Marcus X McBane X X Holmes X Schlehuber X Mchdden X 9aith X Hall X Marcus X McBane X X Hol.mea X MINUTES :C! ~ o.A ~~ ~ Pc.ANNI~ <DfoUSS ION January 22, 1986 Page 11 ~.-.!: ~. Q COMMISSIONERS ~ ~\~ ~\ Olairman Schlehuber declared a recess at 8:00 p.m. and the Cannission re-convened at 8:10 p.m. 6) SP-186iA) -EXXlt«l1Y INNS -An anendment to existing Specif c Plan 186 to allow a freeway-oriented, freestanding sign identifying tourist-oriented uses on property located at the northeast corner of Po insettia Lane and Avenida Encinas in the C-2 zone. A motion was passed continuing Item 16 until February 5, 1986. 7) aJP 275 -PACIFIC BELL -Request for approval of a Ca'ld1t1onal Use Pernut to allow the construction of an enclosure to acccmnodate electronic telephone equipnent on property generally located at the northeas~ corner of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida fncinas in the C-2 zone. Charles Gr inm, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on this itan as contained in the staff report. He discussed the project in detail, and explained that it would handle telephone service in the general area, and discussed the ~ition requiring a landscape plan and its iirportanoe. Canniss i oner l't::Bane guest i oned if it had been studied whether it could be built further back on the property, and Mr. Grm respoooed that this location was negotiated between Pac Bell and the owner. Cl\airman Schlehube1 opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and issued the invitaticn to speak. Mr . Alfred Cerroni, 7337 Trade Street, San Diego, expl ained how they cane up with the locaticn and why they could not move it further back on the property. He talked about the area that the equipnent would service. Ccaaiuioner NcBane asked about locating it on the service ■tation aite, and Mr. Cerroni responded that they wouldn't be able to work that out. 0-iuioner Mc:Bane mentiooed his coooern that it was in a prcainant l ocation and a major entrance to the City, and Mr. Ca'.roni indicated that the reason they chose the site wa becauae the vindCIW9 were facing south in the 1110tel. Ccaaiaaioner McBane asked if it faced directly against the naw •hoH>ing center, and Mr. Cer roni replied that t.here ,... a roof over the tras h enclosure, and it would look like one building. He aentioned that the landscaping and irrigation .-re in and queetiooed whether the landscape renSering had to be done by a landacape architect. Cl\aia.n Schlahuber pointed out that the decision was up to the Plarming Director. 81nm no one elae wiahed to speak, the public testimony -■ ccncludlld at 8:19 p.m. Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Harcus HcBane Holmes @ X X X X X X X X MINUTES Janur1ry 22, 1986 Page 12 The Planning Ca!lnission approved the Negative Declaration issued by the Pl anning Direr.-t:or, and adopted the following Resolution: RESOWTION NO. 2530 APPROVIK. A caIDITI~ IJSE PEBHIT TO ALIDi AN EfkTRcilIC TELEPHONE DJ{}Iff1ENI' ElO.OSURE ON PR<PERTY G!m'.RALLY LOCATID ON 'fflE FAST SIDE OF Avm.IDA JH::INAS, OORTH OF POI~IA LANE. 8) SOP 84-8fA) -~ -Request for an amerdnent to a previous y ar:proved site developnent plan for a 100 unit apsrtment project at the southwest cornei: of xana way "nd Corintia Street in the ~M(Q) zone. Mike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentatioo on this iten as ntained in the staff report, using a tranapsrency to show the site and a wall map to show the proposed prc-ject. He explained the differences between the previously approved site developnent plan and the new one, and added that two letters were received about the proposed project . Cannissioner Holmes asked him if they were adding the traffic study report requi ranent and Mr. Howes replied yes. Ccmnissioner Stu th queried about condition 119 since the site was already graded and cleared. Hr. Howes responded that this was for additional grading. Clyde Wickham, Associate Civil ~ineer, confirmed that Corintia Street was a collector street. c.c.tissioner McBane mentioned that it looked like the driveway slipped down in the redesign, and Hr. Wickam indicated that staff spoke to the applicant and the driYE:Way would be realigned. ca.iuioner McFadden pointed out that there was no pedestrian access in the developnent. Cl\airman Schlehuber q>ened the public hearing at 8 :25 p.m. and iHued the invitation to speak. Hr. Bill Hoover, 2835 c.dno Del Rio South, San Diego, distributed a handout to the Caanissioners and discussed the baclcground of the project. He stated that this was a better project than the previous one and discussed the cx11p1ri■011 ■beet he handed out which detailed the differences in 'he two projects. Since no one else wished to speak, the public testimony was concluded at 8:27 p.m. CClmaiHioner Marcu■ camented t.hat this project was much better than the old one. Ccmnia■ionar McFadden concurred, and added that she would like to the following included: tot lot, pedestrian accH8 to satisfaction of City &lgineer, and the drivway be realigned. Cc:am!HiOIWr &.. 1-J~ as ~ the applicant if he understood coaditicn U4 and ita inl>licationa, and Hr. Hoover r-..,cn!ed that he underatood conditioos 141, U and 45. Schlehuber X McFadden X Sltith X X Hall X Marcus X fltBane :r Holmes X MINUTES ~ ~ Pr.ANNI~ CXH4ISSION January 22, 1986 Page 13 0~ :-r~~ ~ COMMISSIONERS g,_ ~~ ~\ Mr. Howes stated that the following wording should be added to condition fl: "This awroval supersedes the previous awroval of the project." The awlicant indicated his agreement. A motion was passed directing staff to include the following modifications to Resolution No. 2533: Modify condition 11 by adding the wording "This awroval supersedes the previous awroval of the project." Add a condition that there be a tot lot included in the project subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Add a condition that the awlicant work with Engineering on the entrance at xana Way arrl Via Marinero arrl interior pedestrian access to the satisfaction of the City Dlgineer. 9) AV 85-8 -BEU.BEY -Request to allow a six foot high grapestake fence to encroach eleven feet within the twenty l oot frontyard setback on a lot located on the north side of Juniper Street between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad in the R-3 zone. Mike Howes, Associate Planner, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report, using a transpsrency to show the site. He explained that staff was unable to make the four findings necessary for variance and explained why. He~ that the Cannission received a couple of letters ag~inst the proposed variance. Camtlssioner Snith wmdered if the Cannissioo was within their rights to make a change or if the statute of limitations applied here since the fence existed for eight years. Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, replied that they were in their rights to make a change. ClMliman Sc:hleblber opened the public hearing at 8: 35 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak • Mr. John Loy, P.O. Bar 240, Oceanside, represented Mrs. Beilbey and explained that the fence was there for eight years. He diagreed with staff regarding not being able to make the four firrlings necessary, and described in detail how he felt each of theae findings could be mde. MX. Lay distributed pictures to the Camti&11ion showing prq,erti• with fencee in the area and pointed out that the fence waa neoeuary for privacy and security purposes. Mr. Loy al.ao distributed other letters frcm homeowners in the area who had no objection to the awroval. Mr. and Mrs. Malone, 254 Juniper, Carlsbad, concurred with Mr. Lay and cc:manted that the fence poaed no threat or danger to the pedeatrian■ or vehicular traffic. Ml. Gaorgiana Irvine, Vista, stated that she owned a ~nimi in that caaplex arrl had no objection to the fence. Mr. Rebert Nicklen, 254 Juniper, Carlsbad, said that he owned prcperty there and supported the fence because it -■ attractive and fitted in with the landscape. Schlehuber X McFadden X Snith X Hall X X Marcus X Pok::Bane X Holmes X @ MINUTES PLANNING CCHIISSION January 22, 1986 Page 14 \\~~ ~}~~~ COMMISSIONERS ~ \ ~ \ Ms. Becky Johnson, 254 Juniper, Carlsbad, indicated that she and her husband had no objection t~ the fence. Hr . Jcmaes O'Neill, 2741 Vista way, Carlsbad, represented Mr. and Mrs. Lord. He stated that there was litigation over the fence, and that they objected to the fence am explained why. Olair:man Schlehuber clarified what the Planning Cannission was determining that evening and what the court would decide. Cannissioner Harcus asked wtl'::!re the Lords lived, and Hr. O'Neill explained where it would be on the exhibit. He added that the fence interfered with the [,ord's view up am down the street. Cannissioner Hall asked when the client purchased the unit, am Mr. O'Neill replie.-3 that they bought it l 1/2 years ago, after the fence was erected and had been fighting it ever since. Cannissioner Holmes asked what the anticipated tir11e was between now am the court resolution of the case, and Hr. O'Neill indicated that it would take another l 1/2 months. Ms. Ethel Lord, 252 Juniper, pointed out that Mrs. Beilbey did not permanently reside at the location and only visited it occasicnally. She added that the letters sul:mi tted to the Cannission by Mr. Loy were fran absentee owners, am that she, Hrs. Lord, lived there and found the fence to be ugly as well as an illegal fence. Another comanini .m unit owner imicated that she was against the fence because she felt it was ugly, brought down the value of the units, am was recently treated for termites. She suggested that landscaping could resolve the pr ivacy problan. ~. Loy returned to the podil.111 and indicated that the property was the client• s eec.:nd hane am that she was there on weekends . He stated that the issue was whether or not to grant a variance for a aix foot fence arrl that the litigation should not be confused with this issue. Mr. Loy expl ai ned that Mrs. Beilbey awlied to the Board of Governors of the Association at the time the fence was built am receiva! awroval fran than. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public t.Mtillony wu concl uded at 9:00 p.m. Caaia■ioner Holmea mentioned he was at the prq>erty and CClUld not ... how the J;et i o wu used by the tenant since there wre l•ves all over the area. He sta t ed that it wa a violation of zoning and he would agree wi th staff to deny the variance. Caaia icner Marcus auggeated that the Association needed to get together am decide how to solve the privacy isaue and that the Planning Cannission could not resolve the probl•. Ccaainioner McBane mentioned he did not neoeaaarily ccncw: that looking out on the street waa neceuarily bad, and Mked if the awlicant wu a legal landowner. ,,. MINUTES Pl.ANNI!.«, C(fflISSION January 22, 1986 Paqf:' 15 Chairman Schlehuber explained that the Camiission had to accept Mrs. Beilbey as the landowner at this point. Camlissioner Snith coocurred with Ccmnissioner Harcus' remarks. Chairman Schlehuber asked staff about an alternative fence, arrl staff stated that a 42" fence was allowed. ChaiIJMn Schlehuber said that Cannissiooer Harcus made sane valid points arrl that he could make the four findings. 'Ibe Planning Cannission adopted the following Resolution: ~ION NO. 2531 DmYIN:i AN ADHINISfRATIVE VARIANCE TO N'..l'.a1 A SIX FOOT FENCE TO ~ACH ELE.Vlll FEET INTO THE '1WJ!NTY FOOT FRCN'IYARO SETB1ICIC ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LCX:ATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JUNIPER AVENUE 8E'IWF».I GARFIELD S1'REET AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD. INPOINATION IT™S 10) EXTDISION OF CUP-246 -WESTERN BANKERS -Request for an extension of Corrlitional Use Permit-246 to allow the develqlnent of a mini-warehouse i.nmediately adjacent and to the north of an already approved office project [SP-23(E)] on the northwest corner of Paseo Del Norte arrl camino Del Parque in the P-C Zale. Cllarles Grimn, Principal Planner, gave the presentatioo or. this item as contained in the staff report. He discussed the previously approved Conditiooal Use Permit arrl irrlicated that there wasn't any reason why the request should not be granted. Camlissiooer Snith asked about the conditioo mentioned on page 2 of the staff report pertaining to allowing occupancy of the mini-warehouse at the time that the office devel.opnent was 251 CCl!l)lete. Mr. Gcilllll explained what was covered in the original Planning Canniasion approval. The Planning Ccmnisaion adq>ted the following Resolution: R!SOU1TION NO. 2369 APPRCWI!«i A CON)ITiaw:.. USE PERMIT TO oivitoP A MINI-WAREIIXJSE PROJ&::T ON PROPERTY GENERALLY UlCAftD ON TH! WEST SIDE OF PASro IEL NORTE BE'lWEEN PAL<l1AR AIRPORT ROAD AND C.AHINO DEL PARQUE. 11) RBVU!W OP Pl.ANNI!.«, C:XHUSSION AGENDA P'ORO.T Can Hentachke, Auiatant City Attorney, suggested changing the title "Informational Item" to another title becauae action i taken at the meeting. 'ftle Caaiuian IIBllbera discussed sane possible changes in the order of the agenda, and Canniaaiooer McFadden auggesta! adding acme time where up to four peq>le could speak on land uae iaau for items that were not being diflC"•■Nd that evening. She augg ted that they try it for • period of thr montha and could vote again at that tia to ._ whether it should be continued. Schlehuber X ~en X Snith X Hall X X Marcus X l'tBane X Houies X Schlehuber X McFadden X X Snith X Hall X Marcus X J\tBane X Holmes X ' MINUTES PLANNING <XHUSSION January 22, 1986 Page 16 A motion was passm allowing t:.he public to speak on land use i tens for a total anount of twelve minutes on a trial basis for a period of three months, A motion was passed placing the rest of the i tens on the agenda in the following order : PLl!DGE OF ALLroIAOCE R<LL CALL CIHmn'S FlU1 THE AUDiflCE ON ITD1S 001' LISTED ON THE AGl!H)A AG!H)A ADOITIOtl>, DELE'l'IOtl>, OR ITEMS TO BE (X)NTINUID CONSENT CALl!H)AR PUBLIC HFAR~ APPROI/AL OF RmX.{]l'IONS MINUTES ADDED ITEMS Ati:> REJ>OR'l'S ADJOOIH1FBT 12) F'U'1URE M:>RK PROGIW1 FOR PLANNING <XH1ISSIONERS Ccmnissioner McFadden talked about breaking into sub- ccmni ttees and tackling more than one topic, such as PUD, Child care, Helicopter Ride, and Hillside Ordinance. Michael Holmliller, Planning Director, explained what was being done with regard to the Hillside Ordinance, and Ccmnissioner Holmes cannented that input fran both sides would be beneficial. A motion was passed to approve the i terns as presented ard ask staff to move forward. Chaiz:man Schlehuber suggested that the subccmnittees could be made I.I) of three peq>le and diSCWISed how it might be decidm who would be on which subccmnittee and what the proceduree would be. ca.ieaiaier McFadden pointed out that coosideration had to be given on the workload of the various members. APPROVAL OP MINUTES 'ffle Minutee of January 8, 1986 were approved with the following modifications: Page ,, 7th pu:agraph, third sentence should read " .. ,but Ccmniasioner McFadden, a foi:mer mad>er of the Parks ard ••• ". Page 7, next to last paragraph, should read "Ccmnissioner Marcua" instead of "camtissioner McFadda,". Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schl,iluber McFadden Snith Hall Harcus McBane Holmes Schlehuber McFadden Snith Hall Marcus McBane Holmes @ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MINUTES PLANNING aMUSSION January 22, 19fl6 Page 17 COMMISSIONERS OP'F-JIGF}l)A ITEMS Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, discussed the interim ordinance awroved at the City Council meeting the previous evening regarding the moratorilm and its r•ifications. He added that the Cannission should see the result of the Ordinance in a couple of months, By proper motion, the meeting of January 22, 1986 was adjournEd at 9:,s p.m. Respectfully sul:mi tted, MICHUL lf(X,ZMILLER Planning Director Ruth Stark Minutes Cl.erk .. MBETINGS ARE AL9J TAPED All) KEPT ON FILE lOO'IL THE MINUTF.5 ARE APPROVPD. @ 1 ~~~,~ \JJ~st r~ '1u '-l \ ~t{? Lr r 1~,r.J1 f-A~T e 0 ~v l\) \ ~tK 3 4- Sr, v-,-H ~ tl)i; Ot J" u ,-P~R -p.~ .,iT . , . • .3i I "" ~ i ~. ,0 , ;, e ~ @ 2H-'~ SA"< DIH i<l CAMINO DFI RIO srn ·n~ ( .. , IF<>RNI •\ IIJlllM '~M, SllfTF c::>0 B~EHM COMMLNITIES BREHM-MEADOWS APARTMENTS Comparison of Currently Approved Project and Proposed Amendment OLD NEW COMMENT UNITS 104 100 1 BR-lBA 40 (625 sf) 36 (658 sf) 2 BR-2BA 64 (09 3-908 sf) 64 (895 sf) ACREAGE 4.36 (100\) 4.36 (100\) Building/Coverage .91 (21\) .92 (21\) Landscaping 1. 83 (42\) 2.20 (50\) Up 8\ Paving 1. 62 (37%) 1.24 (29%) Down 8% Height, * Stories 36' 24' Lower Two and Three Two Parking Spaces 173 ( 1. 66/DU) 170 (1.70/DU) 1 s 2 Leo!,~ ~A~T iv --1u ~,9E.R 4- ~ . "r£.dt -~·•: ..........,.. -~L;._----=--- 5, Cl"t ~ -s, ... OS:: Jo,-'Pi« -~91t,T ~I •Yl ,lo,,K~ Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 1876 High Ridge Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 17, 1986 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I have received the Notice of Hearing on Mrs. Beilby's request for a variance for her patio fence and because I will be unable to be present, wish to submit this statement. My wife and I are the co-owners of 258 Juniper, Unit A-Q, and this letter is submitted on behalf of all of us. Our unit has six (6) foot high fences providing privacy to our patio since we purchased the unit in 1 9 .4 . We wish to state that we have no objection to Mrs. Beilby's six (6) foot high fence around her patio area and recommend that your Commission approve her request for a variance. Very truly yours, Planning Conunission City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 3848 Alonzo Avenue Encino, CA 91316 January 17, 1986 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I have received the Notice of the hearing on Mrs. Beilby's request for~ variance for her patio fence and wish to submit this statement: I am the owner of Unit B-7 at 258 Juniper, Carlsbad. There have been six (6) foot high fences providing privacy for my patio ever since I purchased the unit in 1975. I wish to state that I have no objection to Mrs. Beilby's six foot high fence around her patio area and reconunend that this Conunission approve her request for a variance . This letter is written because I was unable to person&ll~ attend your hearing. Very~, Richard Ting 1960 La Mesita Drive Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 17, 1986 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I have received Notice of the Hearing on Mrs. Beilby's request for a variance for her patio fence and wish to submit this statement because I will be unable to be present at the hearing. I own the condominium unit #A-7 at 258 Juniper, Carlsbad. My unit has had six (6) foot high fences providing privacy for the patio area since I purchased it in 1974. I wish to state that I have no objection to Mrs. Beilby's six (6 ) foot high fence around her patio area and recommend that your Commission approve her request for a variance. Very truly yours, ,-/(/4/a_,, Robert Crum @) Planning Commissiou City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Members of the Commission: P.O. Box 92517 256 Juniper Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 17, 1986 I have received the Notice of the Hearing on Mrs. Beilby's request for a variance for her patio fence and wish to make the following statement. I am the owner of Unit B-5. My unit has a six (6) foot fence which has enclosed the patio area of my unit since 1975. I have no objection to Mrs. Beilby's 6 foot fence around her patio area and recommend that the Planning Commiss- ion approve her request for a variance. I am unable to attend the January 22, 1986 hearing and hope that this letter will take the place of my presence. Very truly yours, ~\~ (l~v \.-\,1} -~~°''\,/ Betty\~rlch Halberg 6