Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-21; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: January 21, 1987 CORRECTED MINUTES Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Marcus called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, McBane, McFadden, Schramm, and Schlehuber Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reported that he has received several inquiries from Commissioners on how the height ordinance is interpreted and stated that staff has prepared a brief presentation which is not on the agenda but could be made, if desired. It was agreed that the presentation could be made after the first item, if time permits. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission unanimously approved the reassign- ment of Consent Item 1) CT 80-14/PUD-16 - FREY/VINEDALE to discussion status. COMMISSIONERS Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) CT 80-14/PUD-16 - FRN/VINEDALE - Revision to the elevations of a previously approved 19 unit tentative tract map and planned unit development at the northwest corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the project which was originally approved by the Planning Commission in July 1980, with the final map being approved in 1984. The applicant, Vinedale Development Corporation, is proposing to change the elevations and interior floor plans of the units and add approximately 500 square feet of usable floor space to each unit by eliminating some "dead" space in MINUTES January 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 \ ? COMMISSIONERS the original floor plans. There will be no change to the previously approved site plan or grading plan and the average height of the units will also remain at 24 to 26 feet. The architecture will be contemporary Spanish similar in appearance to the Ocean View Estates project currently under construction near the Carlsbad High School. Staff believes the proposed revisions are a substantial improvement and recommends approval as submitted. Commissioner Marcus issued an invitation to the applicant to address the commission. Jim Vine, Vinedale Development Corporation, 280-A Chinquapin, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the proposed revisions are primarily intended to upgrade the units to conform to contemporary designs consistent with their other projects. He referred Commissioners to renderings on the wall and a color board which defines the color schemes. Commissioner Holmes inquired if the homes will be split level and Mr. Vine confirmed that they would be split level. He referred to the elevation/floor plan blueprints provided to the commissioners. Commissioner Holmes remarked that the elevations do not clearly indicate that the units are split level. Mr. Vine replied that the elevations provided are front elevations and the split level is in the rear of the structure. Ms. Lee Vine, the in-house designer for Vinedale Development Corporation, 280-A Chinquapin, Carlsbad, approached the podium and referred the commissioners to several of the floor plans and explained how the rear elevations, if available, would show the split level. Commissioner Holmes stated that it is difficult to make a judgement when the floor plans and/or elevation blueprints appear to be incomplete. Mr. Vine replied by saying that the working drawings will be much more complete and that the Vinedale did not want to go to the expense of creating working drawings until the proposed revisions were approved. Commissioner Hall stated that he would like to see more information before making judgement because the rear of the homes will be viewed from Hillside Drive and he does not feel that landscaping can camouflage the rear views. Mr. Vine replied that they have attempted to revise'the original plans to make the rear views more aesthetically pleasing and are willing to make other alterations if necessary. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the reason for using two car garages in the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Vine replied that lot size had a major impact; also, at the end of the cul-de-sac there is a sensitive environmental issue on the hillside slope. Chairman Marcus requested comments from the commissioners. Commissioner McFadden stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Hall regarding the need to see the elevations of those homes that back onto very steep slopes, and specifically referred to the visibility of the rear views from Hillside Drive. In addition, she would like the applicant to explore the possibility of three car garages on MINUTES January 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 \ 4 COMMISSIONERS the cul-de-sacs. She then inquired if the grading was final and was advised by Mr. Howes that the final map has been approved which includes the site grading. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he would like to hear from the designer as to how she will address the rear view issue so that the Commission can provide direction to the revision process. The commissioners agreed that time was available to hear from the designer. Ms. Vine stated that the biggest concern was to respect the rolling hillside building pads because they had already had been approved. To make the development look good from all sides, she integrated the design into the hillside with broken roof styles, split yards, stucco detail continuing around the entire structures (and not stopping at the sides), alternating 13 pastel stucco shades, clay and concrete composition, and seven roof colors. All of these enhancements were done to provide a soft, gracious look from all angles. Commissioner Schlehuber then stated that it seemed to be the consensus of the commissioners that special treatment should be given to the view from Hillside Drive. Chairman Marcus stated that she is satisfied with the intention of the designer and feels the development will be an improvement over the present view on Hillside Drive. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the development will improve the intersection of Hillside Drive and Park and Mr. Howes confirmed that the intersection will be widened. The Planning Commission continued CT 80-14/PUD-16 FREY/ VINEDALE to February 4, 1987 for more explicit renderings of the views from Park and Hillside Drives. The Planning Commission approved the addition of an agenda item to permit Mr. Grimm, Assistant Planning Director to make an eight minute presentation on the interpretation of the height ordinance. Commissioner Schlehuber requested permission to make a brief introductory explanation on the background of the height limitation to the students in the audience. Mr. Grimm showed a graphic and stated that there is a 35 foot height limitation and that on a flat grade, the 35 feet is calculated from the mid point of the roof (5 feet out) to the ground on a pitched roof building. However, when a slope is involved, the calculation becomes more complicated, and Mr. Grimm then paraphrased the ordinance for the benefit of the commissioners. He basically stated that if the grade difference of the building is less than 10 feet, the calculation is made from 5 feet out from the highest point where the building meets the pre-existing grade. In effect, the measurement is being made from the side of the building of the building with the least amount of height. A graphic was shown for clarification. Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . 4 MINUTES January 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 \ 4 COMMISSIONERS from the side of the building of the building with the least amount of height. A graphic was shown for clarification. Commissioner McBane inquired whether the slope treatment could, in fact, add up to 10 feet to the height of one side of a structure and Mr. Grimm verified that it could. Commissioner Holmes inquired whether "grade" refers to natural grade or finished grade. Mr. Grimm replied that preexisting grade is the determining factor and a cut-out would not give the developer an advantage. Mr. Grimm then stated that if the grade is more than 10 feet, the bottom calculation begins 10 feet above the point (five feet out) where the lowest point of the building meets grade. A graphic was shown for clarification. Commissioner Schlehuber referred to the beach side of Carlsbad Boulevard as a good example of more than a 10 foot grade. On the beach side, if a building started at the sand level, the builder could add 10 feet plus 35 feet up to the mid point of the roof, so the structure could actually be as high or higher than 45 feet from the sand. Mr. Grimm confirmed the calculation and stated that the structure from the street side would measure somewhat less than 35 feet. Mr. Grimm then paraphrased the grade definition and stated that grade means the ground level elevation which existed prior to any grading, unless a discretionary permit has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. This allows for some flexibility in unusual circumstances and irregular topography. The grading reference precludes alterations such as a retaining wall or a pad build-up. A graphic was shown for clarification. Mr. Grimm referred to a proposal by HP1 with regards to the height ordinance and stated that they have requested a zone code amendment to allow their hotel to run down a slope with the buildings attached. A graphic was shown for clarification. Under the current ordinance, the proposed hotel would exceed the height permitted by the ordinance. Commissioner McFadden stated that the existing ordinance may conflict with the hillside ordinance recently submitted to Council. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he would like to know what other towns allow with respect to hillside development and height. He sees the merit of looking at this situation and would like to know the pro's and con's of permitting buildings to step down. Commissioner Hall inquired whether the 35 foot height ordinance pertains to commercial projects. Mr. Howes, Senior Planner, replied that non-residential projects must meet both the height and the hillside ordinances and must provide written and graphic justification when grading amounts exceed the hillside ordinance or when there are slopes higher than 30 feet. MINUTES: Commissioner Holmes requested that the reference to himself on pages 5, 9, and 10 be amended, since he was absent from MINUTES January 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 Commissioner McFadden inquired whether the motion regarding Rising Glen on page 10, second paragraph, fifth line, was complete when it stated that RV storage should not be visible by other residents. After discussion, it was determined that this motion should be clarified and that "other residents of the project" should be added to the sentence. The Planning Commission approved the minutes of December 17, 1986 with the above stated corrections on pages 5, 9 and 10. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of January 21, 1987 was adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \ Planning Director Minut& Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Minutes amended February 4, 1987 (correction in bold print on page 5). Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm