Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-17; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES PLANN ING COMMISSION 6:0ll p.m. December 1 7, 1986 Cit y Council Chambers - Chai rman Schlehuber calle~ the Meeting t o order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL: Present -Chairman Schlenuber, Collllllissioners McFadden, Hall, Schranun, and Marcus Abse~t -Commissioners Holmes and McBane Staff Members Present: Michael HJlzmiller, Planning Director Charles Crimm, Assistant Planning Directo!" Chris Salamone, Redevelopment Director Hike Howes, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Collllllission procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN TIIF AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: There were no agenda additions, deletions or items to be continued. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the following Consent Item: 1) ROI-178 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Request for a Planning Collllllission Determination r~garding a possible zone code amendment to permit more than one satellite dish on lots in the Han P-H zones. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 2) ZCA-194 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Hillside Development Regulations Hike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed th~ background of the Hillside Development regulations and stated that the current revision contained only minor text changes with the exception of subsection C to Section 21 .95.070 which deals with the detailed landscape and mitigation plan on grading in excess of 10,000 cubic feet per acre or on man-made slopes in excess of 30 feet in height. He further stat~d that it also requires the applicant to post a certificate of deposit or letter of credit for twice the amount with a financial institution for the proposed mitigation or landscaping of buffered grading or excessive s lopes. If the developer does I Schlehuber X Harcus X Hall X Schramn X McFadden X X (0 i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 2 not perform, the City has ready access to f -nds to assure the problem will be remedied. Mr. Howes directed the Commissioners attention to the handout and stated that all proposed revisions to the ordinance were underlined with heavy black pen. He further stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed regulation because, although the requirements are stringent, it allows flexibility when justified. He also stated that it places the burden of proof on the developer. Commissioner Marcus questioned the legality of the double bond amount and Attorney Ball responded by saying that although there has been a lot of legislation regarding bond requirements, it has mostly been in relation to large 1evelopments and subdivisions, and to his knowledge there are no statutory requirements regarding bonds not to exceed a certain amount when it relates to ensuring that developers fulfill their landscape requirements. Chairman Schlehuber requested Mr. Howes to review the wording of the proposed last-minute revisions for the benefit of those persons in the audience who did not have copies of the handout. Mr. Howes read t he proposed revision to 21.95.070 (C) with regard to the placement of a bond at a financial institution and said that this paragraph originally stated that the bond be placed at a local financial institution but that the City Attorney's office recommended the paragraph be changed to read " ... at a f inancial institution subject co regulation by the state or federal government ... ". 'Hr. Howes then read the proposed revision to 21.95.090 (B)(4) wliich allows for an exclusion of small isolated ravines " ... where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment ... " and stated that this wording clarification had also been recomc::ended by the City Attorney's office . Chairman Schlehuber then requested Mr. Howes to review the proposed revision to 21.95.060 (E). Mr. Howes read the new wording which was added to the section regarding view preservation and enhancement, i.e. "Except where units are stepped down the hillside, all parts of structures proposed for development on hilltops and on pads created on hillsides shall be sufficiently setback from the adjoining downhill slopes so that the visual impact on the surrounding area is el:iJDinated or significantly reduced by the slope." Commissioner McFadden inquired about the need for the stipulation regarding one single family dwelling unit per parcel as set forth in 21.95.050 (3). Attorney Ball explained that this stipulation had been added to the ordinance because of several cases now pending befoLc ·he Supreme Court regarding "reasonable use." Without this phrase, it would subject the ordinance to the argument that reasonable use had been precluded by the adoption of this ordinance. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Robert Galloway, Kaufman and Broad Development Group, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission and inquired as to how this ordinance would affect the !c..elly MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 3 Ranch development and the roadoed f or Cannon Road. He stated that they were experiencing a multitude of problems with settling and that the balance of the grading would not fit the new ordinance. Chairman Schlehuber responded by saying that questions regarding a particular project and not the ordinance itself should not be addressed in public forum but rather should be answered by staff and the Ci ty Attorney's office. Hr. Galloway further stated that his purpose of addressing the Commission was to go or, record that the developers of Kelly Ranch desired to complete the first phase under the old regulations and have the new ordinance apply to the second phase. Larry Clemmons, HPI Development Company, 7707 El Camino Real, Cdrlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he felt the master plan and the coastal plan a l ready address land use and that this additional laye r (the hillside ordinance) inhibits construction on flat land. He further stated that there are no findings to support the reduction of density. Chairman Schlehuber replied that he does not see density on hillsides as a problem. Hr. Clemmons then stated that by removing the planning tool of density transfer, this ordinance, in effect, eli.minates the open space provided for in the master plan. Doug Avis, Beiri-Avis, 11300 Sorrento Valley Boulevard, San Diego, ad.,ressed the Commission and stated that the hillside ordinance will lower the density throughout the City of Carlsbad. Specifically, he feels that RL property, because of its topography, receives double jeopardy under the hillside ordinance and Hr. Avis asked for consideration to exclude RL property from the density calculation. Kim Post, 5451 Avenida Encinas, a civil engineer for VTN in Carlsbad and an eight year resident of La Costa, addressed the Commission and stated that he has been watching the hillside development within the city and feels t hat the ordinance is to0 rigid and that interpretation, from a civil engineer standpoint, could be a problem. He does not feel that the ordinance allows flexibility for exceptional cases and he would like to seP an interim ordinance put through the process of use before the final hillside ordinance is adopted. Chairman Schlehuber referred to 21.95.070 which allows flexibility for exceptional geotechnical or soil conditions . There being no other person in the audience desiring t o address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the p~blic hearing closed. Commissioner McFadden inquired as to whether ~taff feels that our currPnt hillside street standards are flexible enough to proceed with the hillside ordinance as written. David Hauser, Asslstant City Engineer, responded by saying that Engineering is in the process of making revisions t o the City ~tandards to a~low for m~~e vAriance ability and stated that this project is approximately two-tn1,~= ~omplete. Commissioner McFadden then inquired regarding Finding U2 which specifies that t he proper design and grading techni ques will bb used for hillside development. She feels that this f indir.g is incomplete because it does not adaress the phasing of grading or exact placement of f i nal pad elevation. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Hauser stated that phased grading would normally be a consideration at the time of a tentative map. He added that there was no official policy setting forth plus or minus limits on pad elevation but that the policy reads " ... substantial conformance to the tentative map ... " which leaves the final interpretation to the discretion of the City Engineer. When a specific determination is required, it is brought before the Planning Coim!lission for review and approval. Coim!lissioner McFadden expressed particular concern to the infill areas and Mr. Hauser stated that around infill areas, smaller variations are allowed. The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2570 to establish hillside development regulations for the City of Carlsbad and, based on the public testimony and findings, the amendment of Finding 2) to read "will promote" in lieu of "will ensure that". The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2636 to require tentative maps to comply with the requirements of the City's hillside development regulations. The Planning Commission made a minute motion to recommend to the City Council that the Engineering Department study the issue of (1) what should be the plus or minus pad elevations on hillsides, and (2) whether there should or sh~·-ld not be phased grading. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3) SNC-25 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Request for a street name change of Elm Avenue from its eastern terminus to the ocean to Carlsbad Village Drive. Chris Salamone, Redevelopment Director, gave a brief history of the above item and stated that the Carlsbad Merchants Association has petitioned the Redevelopment Office to process a street name change in an effort to increase awareness of the Village area. The item was presented to the City Council on November 12, 1986 and, due to the several options available, Council referred the matter to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Salamone continued by stating that the project will affect approximately 120 businesses and that the do'WTltO'WTl merchants had conducted several polls which have strongly favored the name change. The Design Review Board has recommended that the name change apply to Elm Avenue in its ent irety, from the ocean to the eastern t e rminus, and that the change coincide with completion of the streetscape project which will occur in approximately 12-18 months. This 12-18 month period should eliminate any negative economic impact to local businesses caused by alterations to signage, letterheads, yellow page advertising, and other printed matter. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Bob Bixler , Bob's Clock Shop, 1055 Elm Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated t hat no business in the Big Bear Center Schlehuber X Marcus X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X X Schlehuber X Marcus X X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X Schlehuber X Marcus X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X X MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 5 had been polled regarding the name change and t:1eir first notification was by mail on December 13, 1986. He continued by saying that he is opposed to the change due to the costs involved and confusion to clientele in relation to Carlsbad Boulevard, especially senior citizens. He feels that the name change will only serve special interest groups. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Marcus stated that she is in favor of the change and feels the name change will be a plus to downtown redevelopment. She does not feel there will be confusion with Carlsbad Boulevard because Carlsbad Boulevard does not have an exit off the freeway. She inquired as to the validity of Big Bear merchants not being polled on the name change and was advised by Chris Salamone that some merchants of the Big Bear Center were definitely polled but he was not exactly sure who they were. Chairman Schlehuber mentioned the fact that there were Elm Street residents and merchants who attended the Design Review Board that objected to the name change. Commissioner Schramm stated she is also in favor of the name change to Carlsbad Village Drive and would ask consideration of the 18 month phase-in period. Commissioner Mcl.Jies Ball mentioned that at the recent Design Review Board meeting there was quite a large turnout in support of the name change and he was surprised that representatives of this contingent were not present at this Planning Commission meeting. He further stated that he also is in favor of the name change and giving the 18 month phase-in period. The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2635 to change the name of Elm Avenue from its eastern terminus to the ocean t o Carlsbad Village Drive and that the name change coincide with the completion of the City's street- scape program in approximately 12-18 months, and with the Pacific Bell telephone directory. The Planning Commission recessed at 6:58 and reconvened at 7:lC p.m. 4) SDP 86-12 -RISING GLEN -Request for elevation and site plan approval of a previously-approved subdivi sion for 73 single family dwellings at the southwest corner of Elm A.:mue and El Camino Real in t:1e R-A-10000-Q zone. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on thi s item as contained in the staff report and described the location of the subject property with the aid of a map. He stated that the major concerns are ensuring compatibili t y wi th existing single family homes i n the neighbor hood directly to the west of the project, height , vie~ blockage , and elevations of the proposed dwellings. Mr . Howes dis cussed the architecture of the proposed dwellings which feature wood s iding accented with brick or stone t o compliment the natural environment . He addressed the possible view blockage and s tated that t he gr ound Schlehuber X Marcus X X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 6 elevation of the existing homes are 13' to 15' above the peaks of the proposed homes, which will enable the existing homes to maintain their easterly views. Hr. Howes then stated that additional concerns expressed were regarding antennas, RV storage, and view blockage due to landscaping. He explained that the CC&R's prohibit antennas and also prohibit RV storage visitle from the street or another lot. Regarding landscaping, he stated that the conditions of approval of this family subdivision were that mature shrubs and trees would not obstruct views of existing homes. He concluded by saying that staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing residences and will not adversely impact their view. Co11DDissioner Harcus inquirec how the Planning CoIIU!lission can be assured that the homeowners association cannot change the CC&R's. Hr. Howes replied that a l though the homeowners association can vote to change the CC&R's, they would have to be approved by the City. He deferred legal clarification to Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, who stated that to ensure compliance to the CC&R's there should be a clause in t hem which contains wording that they cannot be revised, rescinded, or revoked without prior written consent of the City. Chairman Schlehuber inquired whether the City has the ability to enforce the CC&R's. Attorney Ball stated that enforcement of the CC&R's is up to the homeowners association but the City can enforce the conditions of it's Use Permit. Comm:ssioner Harcus inquireG about the RV storage not being visible from the street or another lot. Hr. Howes replied by saying that staff interprets this to include those lots above the subdivision. Commissioner Harcus feels that wording should he included to specifically prohibit RV storage visible from lots within or outside the subdivision. Commissioner McFadden expressed curiosity as to where the fence will go, how high it will be, and if it will be in addition to existing fences. Hr. Howes replied that the fence will be approximately S' in height, will be erected at the top of the slopes along the westerly edge of the project, and will be in addition to existing fences. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Helmut Kiffman, representing the developer Multitech Properties, Inc., 5820 Miramar Road, San Diego, addressed the Commission and advised that Multitech Properties is in the process of transferring the single family home component to HcMillin Development, a single family home builder. Hultitech Properties will continue to be the developer of the entire subdivision, doing the streets, landscaping, and t he apartment segment of the project. He continued by saying that approval of Rising Glen has been in the planning process for several years and he is unaware of any distortions, from the tentative to final maps, which have been approved. Throughou~ this process, there has been extensive input from neighbors as well as the approval sources within the City. Multitech is under a very stringent h~nding to complete all landscaping and other specific requirements before the bonds can be released. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Rick Scott, representing McMillin Development, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, addressed the Cormnission and advised that the single family homes being built will range in size from 1,800 to 2,830 square feet and in the price range of $240,000. They have received input from neighbors and are trying to deal with their concerns. With regards to the fencing, he stated that the CC&R's prohibit fencing in the common area and at the top of the slope, and directed attention to these areas with the aid of a map . He also stated that the CC&R's provide for maintenance of the common areas by a homeowner's associ3tion. McMillin has some concern about liability, should a person having access to the slope fall down the hill. He continued by saying that the landscaped plan specified certain plant species, some of which could block views. The landscape plan will be revised to eliminate species which, when mature, would block view. He went on to say that McMillin would not be opposed to prohibition of RV storage on the project and, in essence, McMillin agrees with the staff report presented to the CollD!lission. Commissioner Hall reviewed Condition llS which specifies that Lots 17-20 shall be single story and leaves Lot 16 as ar option and inquired whether it would cause a problem to l eave Lot 16 as single story. Mr. Scott replied that the plan calls for integration of single and two-story houses and that if Lot 16 contained a single story dwelling, there would be five single story dwellings in a row which is contrary to the approved plan. Commissioner McFadden inquired as to where the fences will be placed. Mr. Scott replied that McMillin will not build fences but that the homeowners may build fences in accordance with the CC&R's using specified materials. He reiterated that fences were prohibited along the top of the slopes and in the common areas. Commissioner McFadden inquired about chimneys . Mr. Scott replied that there will be chimneys and directed attention to the renderings on the board. Chairman Schlehuber iP-quired about the roof composition. Mr. Scott replied that the roofs would be concrete tile and that the CC&R's prohibit roofing materials other than mission tile, clay-fired flat tile, concrete flat tile, or wood shake. Kevin Kelso, 3350 Ridgecrest Drive, had requested to speak but indicatEd that Mr. Scott addressed his particular concerns and would, therefore, not need to address the Commission. Nick Banche, 3464 Ridgecrest, represenLing himself and Mr. and Mrs. Brenigar, addressed the Commission and stated that they reside at Lots 28 and 29 which he feels are the most adversely affected by the Rising Glen subdivision because they are the closest in elevation. He reiterated that he opposed the General Plan revision to allow multi-family but has always been in favor of the single family subdivision. He requested the Planning Commiss' ,m to consider single story dwellings on Lot 16-20 inclusive to ensure privacy and compatibility of the existing Seacrest neighborhood with Rising Glen. He also requested that the CC&R's be referred to the City Attorney for legal precedent and stated that, to his knowledge, the CC&R's must run with the land. His final concern was that action be taken to G) MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 8 COMMISSIONERS ensure that plant foliage be prohibited above the roof level of the dwellings. Jim Gaiser, 3340 Ridgecrest, addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned with the view on Ridgecrest and not the view on El Camino Real. He feels that the staff report does not address all concerns and made specific reference to "the Eucalyptus grove" statement and the approved landscape plan which staff tonight indicated is in the process of revision. He also inquired about the slopes designed to be maintained by a homeowner's association and asked what assurance the residents would have that this requirement would not change. Mr. Gaiser expressed concern about possible rain damage to the slopes and where the liability for injuries would rest. Chairman ~~hlehuber responded by saying that the language of the CC&R'ci would be such that any changes would require prior written City approval. Mr. Gaiser then referred to existing tree height problems on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Chestnut. He is concerned that mature tree heights may interfere with present views of existing homes and questioned whether this resolution will go to the City Council for further review. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, responded by ~aying that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council. Roberta Whitlock, 3560 Ridgecrest, addressed the C0Im11ission and stated that she lived at the intersection of Ridgecrest and Seacrest Drives. She is concerned about the possible view blockage and stated that she has seen extensive view encroachment over the years she has resided there. She feels that the existing neighborhood should have some say on proposed developments. Chairman Schlehuber requested staff to locate the Whitlock lot on the wall map and David Hauser indicated the Whitlock property to be behind the Sheffler property. Don Gellhorn, 3540 Ridgecrest, addressed the C0Im11ission and in4uired about the disposition of property abutting his property at the end of Zone 4. Mike Howes responded by saying that Zone 4 was designed to be a natural area. Mr. Gellhorn requested the Planning C0Im11ission to consider denying access to the common area at the end of Zone 4 due to the possibility that children will use the concrete drain as a skateboard area. Mr. Scott of McMillin responded by say ing that a fence cannot be built in that area and he again expressed his concern about liability for injuries. There being no other person in the audience desiring t o address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Marcus stated that she is in favor of prohibiting RV storage and would like to see Lot 16 as a single story dwelling. She wants to make sure that the CC&R's address all the concerns such as restrictions with the land, reworking the landscape to prohibit foliage higher than 25 feet, and maintaining the CC&R's in perpetuity. C0Im11issioner Hall questioned whether RV's can be parked on the street and Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that RV storage could possibly be completely prohibited. © MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 9 Chairman Schlehuber stated that he could see no problem as long as they were not visible. Some residents may want to store their RV in a garage which should be acceptable. Counnissioner M6Ui~s Ball inquired about the fencing and the location of the access to the counnon area. Chairman Schlehuber explained the setback and counnon area and stated that homeowners cannot fence or infringe on the counnon area. Mike Howes replied that a~cess to the cormnon area would be from Elm Avenue. Counnissioner Marcus stated that she has no problem accepting total prohibition of RV storage. She then inquired about fences and whether irregular fences would be constructed if they were not permitted at the lot line. Mr. Scott of McMillin responded that all fences west of Celinda must be located within the yard below the counnon area. On lots east of Ceiinda, homeowners are restricted to two types of fence. Commissioner Marcus then inquired whether the fence would be continuous. Chairman Schlehuber replied that the fence should be continuous at the botto~ of the slope. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, responded by saying that fences would only be visible to the occupant. Counnissioner McFadden expressed concern for the open area and stated that she cannot determine the amount of slope at the far end of Lot 28 and 29. Mr. Scott replied that the slope is 16%. Counnissioner McFadden then inquired whose view would be impacted with a fence and Mr. Scott stated that the brow ditch, which is designed to intercept water collection, could be impacted hy a fence. Counnissioner McFadden stated that she would be in favor of McMillin erecting some type of chain link or acceptable fer.ce to secure access to the ditch area. David Hauser stated that chain link would have the least impact on view. Chairman Schlehuber inquired where such a fence should be located and Mr. Hauser stated that t~e area from Lots 24-29 could be fenced with a vinyl chain link fence . Chairman Schlehuber stated that there could be a problem with weeds 1f a fence is permitted. Resident Gellhorn stated that he is concerned with the open end at the south end of the brow ditch. Chairman McFadden stated that she feels there should possibly be a fence from the south edge of Lot 29 to Celinda, to the other fence. Commissioner Schramm questioned the fences on the east side of Celinda. Mr. Scott replied that fences would be visible from El r.amino Real and that homeowners have two fence opt ions to ensure •risual excellence. Chairman Schlehuber expressed concern about the City Attorney's office drafting the CC&R's. Mr. Ball recommended that the developer draft the wording and submit it to the attorney for revision, if necessary. Commissioner McFadden asked if the resolution would be returned to the Planning Commission for approval. Director Holzmiller stated that he believes the intention of the Commission is clear. RV storage was again discussed. Conunissioner McFadden stated that she has seen RV's parked all over Seacrest. Commissioner Marcus would like to see RV's eliminated from MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1985 resident view. Commissioner K6U:iei Ball stated that an RV ordinance already exists and feels it should not be changed. Director Holzmiller stated that the alternative would be fer the developer to provide a storage lot. Commissioner Marcus inquired of Mr. Scott whether a place has been provided for off street RV storage and Mr. Scott replied that no place had been resarved for this contingent. The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No . 2629 for approval of the elevation and site plan of the Rising Glen subdivision subject to the following conditions: (a) that Lots 16-20 be designated single story, (b) that the CC&R's include RV storage not visible by other residents of the project, (c) that landscape foliage not exceed the height of the peak of the roofs for those lots west of Celi~da, (d) that any changes to the CC&R's will require prior written approval of the City, (e ) thac a fence be erected on the open acc2ss areas near the south side of Lot 29 from the existing fence to the street, and (f) that Finding #4 in the staff report be corrected to read Rl-10,000-Q zoning. 5) CUP-298 -HINKLEY -Request for a conditional use permit to construct a 226 square foot addition to an existing home for use as a "Granny Flat," located at 1315 Basswood Avenue. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the staff report and stated tha~ the ordinance requires that (a) the owner must occupy one of the units, (b) the lot where the unit is proposed must be in excess of 7,500 sq. ft., (c) the addition being proposed cannot exceed 350 sq. ft., (d) the addition must be attached to the existing unit, (e) one additional paved parking space must be provided, and (f) all setbacks must be met. Mr. Grimm used an overhead projecti on to further define the project and described the addition to be basically a kitc11en a"ld bathroom. The existing recreation room will serve as th~ living area. Staff recommends approval because it meets all requirements. Commission~r McFadden inquired about the add:tional parking space and the right of way on that street. She had visited the location and felt that the project was acceptable but that the improved street some distance away appeared to be in the line of the additional parking space. Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, replied that Basswood has a 10' foot setback which is sufficient for improvements. Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. There being no person in the audience desiring to address the Con:mission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed and opened it up to Commission discussion. I The Planning Con:mission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2628 for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a Granny Flat addition to the existing home located at 1315 Basswood Avenue subject to the findings of the staff report and the conditions contained therein. 6) SNC-24 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Request for a street name change from Hision Estancia to Calle Lomas Verde Schlehuber Marcus Hall Schramm McFadden Schlehuber Harcus Hall Schran:m McFadden @ X X X X X X J J J J J J MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 generally located east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and south of La Costa Avenue. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave the presentation on this item as contained in the 3Laff report and stated that the street name change is due to a conflict with an existing street named Estancia Street located in an estabiished nei ghbornood for Lacosta. Currently t here are no structures on Mision Estancia that will be affected by the name change. The change was recommended by the Police and Fire Departments, as well as a City Council member. Ctairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitatior. to speak. Mr. Grimm stated that it has been brought to the attention of staff by a Spanish-speaking person in attendance that the correct name should be Calle Lomas Verdes, rather than "Verde" and staff has no objection t o this correction. There being no person in the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed and opened it up to Commission discussion. The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2623 for approval of SNC-24 based on the findi ngs contained therein and that the street name should be Ca l le Lomas Verdes. MINlITES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of November 19, 1986 as presented. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Director Holzmiller asked Chairman Schlehuber to introduce and recognize the presence of Lloyd Hubbs, the new City Engineer. Chairman Schlehuber announced that th~re is an opening on the Design Review Board and recommended Commissioner McFadden for that one year term. The Planning Commission approved the nomination and acceptance of Commissioner McFadden to serve a one year term on the Design Review goard. Chairman Schlehuber opened the nominations for the election of officers of the Planning Commission and nominated Commissioner Marcus as Chairman and Commissioner McFadden as Vice -Chairman for the year 1987. The Planning Commission approved the nominat ~on of Commissioner Marcus to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission and Commissioner McFadden to serve as Vice-Chairman for the year 1987. Charles Grimm was recognized and expressed the thanks Schlehuber X Marcus X Hall X X Schramm X McFadden X Sch~ehuber X Marcus X X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X Schlehuber X X Marcus X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X Schlehuber X X Marcus X Hall X Schramm X McFadden X @ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1986 Page 12 COMMISSIONERS of all who at tended for the Christmas part y held at Chairman Schlehuber's home on December 12th. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of De:::ember 17 , 1986 was adjourned at 8:42 p .m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director ~\ /~~~ MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Minutes amended January 21, 1987 (cor r ections i n bold print on pages 5, 9 and 10). @