Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-04; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: February 4, 1987 4 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \ 9 COMMISSIONERS ’ 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 Mike Howes, Senior Planner Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst Lance Schulte, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THF, AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) SDP 86-6 - NAIMAN/SDP 86-7 - ELLIOT - Request for approval for the conversion of two existing duplexes into two, two-unit planned developments located at 2425-2435 and 2445-2455 Garfield Street in the R-3 zone. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the project and stated that the applicants are requesting approval of site development plans to convert two existing duplexes into two planned developments consisting of four units or less. The existing structures have a wood and stucco design compatible to the area. The existing structures are less than five years old. The projects conform with the Beach Area Overlay Zone requirements and meet the development standards of the R-3 zone. Staff recommends approval of Resolution Nos. 2630 an 2634 approving SDP 86-6 and SDP 86-7, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Chairman Marcus inquired whether the Commissioners had any questions regarding the staff report. Commissioner McFadden questioned whether the project is in conformance with the housing element, i.e. the number of rental units planned for conversion to private dwellings. MINUTES February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS \ Mr. Wayne replied that it does meet the guidelines established for the area. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Nick Banche, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, attorney for the applicant, a ddressed the Commission and stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report but was available to answer questions, if any. There being no other persons in the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Marcus opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the adoption of Resolution Nos. 2630 and 2634 approving SDP 86-6 and SDP 86-7 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 2) ZCA-199 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Amending Chapter 21.90 Growth Management - to bring it into conformance as a result of the passage of Proposition E on November 4, 1986. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, introduced Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst in the City Manager's office, and stated that Phil Carter and Bobbie Hoder were working together on the growth management guidelines and that Mr. Carter would make the presentation. Mr. Carter stated that the proposed resolution brings the Carlsbad Municipal Code into specific conformance with the requirements of Proposition E which was approved by the voters of Carlsbad on November 4, 1986. He distributed handouts to the Commissioners with the revisions highlighted. Mr. Carter reviewed the provisions of ZCA 199 which: (1) sets the maximum number of dwelling units that can be approved or constructed in each quadrant of the city; (2) assures that no reduction in public facilities can be made without a corresponding reduction in residential densities; and (3) assures that no ministerial building permit shall be issued unless it is consistent with the growth management section of the municipal code. Chairman Marcus inquired whether the Commissioners had any questions regarding the staff report. Commissioner McBane questioned the accuracy of the word "or" at the bottom of Page 1, Exhibit X, because "or" implies that earlier projects could receive a higher density allowance. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the wording in Proposition E does not specify "or" or "and" and he feels that the correct word should be "and." Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak. Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 There being no persons in the audience desiring to address the Commission, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Marcus opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the resolution is needed and that Commissioner McBane's comment was well taken. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2637 recommending approval of the Zone Code Amendment to bring Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code into specific conformance with Proposition E as presented on the amendment, with the addition that the last word 'or' on page 1 of Exhibit X be stricken and replaced with the word "and." COMMISSIONERS \ Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Mr. Ball questioned if the motion assumes that the resolution will be referred to the City Attorney's office for final revision and presentation to the City Council and was advised to the affirmative. DISCUSSION: 3) CT 80-14/PUD-16 - FREY/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. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this item had been discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting and, at that time, the Commission expressed concerns about the appearance of the rear elevations of the buildings that would face Hillside Drive and Park Drive. The matter was continued to the current meeting to allow the applicant time to prepare the rear elevations of the proposed project. Chairman Marcus issued an invitation to the applicant to address the Commission. Ms. Lee Vine, 280-A Chinquapin, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and presented the design features displayed on the west wall. She stated that the units have sunburst windows, with stucco detail continuing around the structure, and a variety of roof detail. All master bedrooms have balconies, and breakfast nooks lead to an outside deck, both of which add depth to the design. She further stated that there would be 3' to 6' fences of 6' vertical cedar strips on the sides and rear of the structures, with the exception of the restricted open area. There will be a crib wall of 6-l/2' to 7-l/2' on Lots 15 and 16. Of the 19 homes to be built, only four will have 2-car garages; six will have 3-car garages; nine will have an additional parking space for a third car; Lot 20 will contain two spaces to park RV's. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the fence at the site across from the high school is a cedar fence and was advised by Ms. Vine that the same type of fence is planned for the project being discussed. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired where the fence would be located and was advised by Ms. Vine that the fence would run partially along Park except for Lots 2, 3 and 4. MINUTES February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Schlehuber then stated that he feels the fence on the project across from the high school is not attractive and inquired about the possibility of a masonry or stucco fence for the proposed project. Ms. Vine replied that a masonry or stucco fence would be extremely expensive and had not been budgeted for. She feels the cedar fence will look much more attractive with the landscaping. Commissioner Hall questioned the feasibility of the RV parking near the entrance and stated that it was his impression that this area had been intended for a playground. Ms. Vine stated that the RV parking area had originally been intended for landscaping and not a playground. There have been no requests for RV storage in the current project across from the high school but Lot 20 in the proposed project is reserved for RV's, if needed. Commissioner McFadden inquired of staff whether the Commission is looking at the exterior of the homes or if they should be looking at other things as well. Chairman Marcus concurred that the home exterior is the item which should be under discussion and deferred the question to Mr. Holzmiller, Planning Director, who also concurred that the Commission should just be reviewing the elevations. Mr. Grimm addressed the Commission and stated that the project had been previously approved and that the developer is attempting to upgrade the original project but that the original project could still be built if the applicant wanted. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he felt the overall view from Hillside Drive and Park Drive was under consideration. Commissioner McFadden stated that she thought someone in the audience desired to address the Commission; Chairman Marcus stated that although this was not a Public Hearing, a citizen from the audience was welcome to address the Commission. David MacKenzie, 1725 Hillside Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he would recommend another type of fence not only for people who will view the fence but for occupants as well since cedar, when it weathers, is unsightly and would need replacement within a few short years. In addition, those areas that border on the easement, he feels, need something better than a cedar fence to block undesirable wildlife such as snakes, rats, and lizards. Chairman Marcus inquired if a Homeowner's Association would be responsible for the upkeep of the fence and was advised by Jim Vine to the affirmative. Mr. Vine then stated that although the fence has yet not been designed, the cedar material has been determined. He further feels that a stucco wall would make the development look like a fort. Commissioner Hall stated that he is interested in the entrance to the project and the recreational areas which were originally provided. Mr. Howes replied that the original plan approved in 1980 contained reserved space for recreational facilities on each side of the entrance, with RV storage proposed for another area on Hillside Drive. However, after Hillside Drive residents opposed the RV storage the Planning Commission directed that the RV storage be relocated to the north side of the entrance. The recreational area on the south side of the entrance remains. MINUTES February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Hall felt that RV storage had been approved only for special lots. Mr. Howes stated that the Commission later directed the applicant to provide a location for the storage of two RV's. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that perhaps the CC&R's should specify no RV's due to insufficient area. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, addressed Chairman Marcus and stated that since this is not a public hearing, the proposed project should not be discussed at this time. The Planning Commission approved the revision of elevations to CT 80-14/PUD-16 - FREY/VINEDALE, a previously approved 19 unit tentative tract map and planned unit development at the northwest corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive, as presented. Mr. Holzmiller stated that if the applicant wishes to eliminate the RV storage, they can propose same which the Commission would probably consider to be a minor amendment which does not require public input. Commissioner Schlehuber wished to go on record that it was his understanding that adequate screening would be provided around all fences and he will be looking at this situation very closely. He is strongly in favor of the fences being completely hidden by landscaping. 4) GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, reviewed the background of the growth management plan and gave a brief overview of the team presentation. He stated that the presentation is an informational item only and will basically be a progress report on the implementation status of local zones l-6. The actual plans for the various zones will begin being presented to the Planning Commission next month. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave a summary status report, with a handout, on all 25 zones. He stated that there was activity in all zones except 13, 14, 16, 17, and 23 and that the most activity is taking place with respect to zones 1 through 6 because these zones are fully developed and are primarily located in old Carlsbad and the developed portion of La Costa. He estimated that the plan for zones 3 and 4 might be completed and on the March 4 agenda. Only three draft plans have been received in zones 7 through 25 and they are Area 9 (Sammis), Area 12 (La Costa Ranch), and Area 19 (HPI/Hunt). He explained that these developers have not yet paid the fees and that the draft is only the beginning step in the plan process. The Sammis draft for Area 9 has already been returned to Sammis with comments. It was decided to hold questions until the entire presentation was completed. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that he would be sending out to each Commissioner a zone map which would help familiarize them with the different areas. Mr. Holzmiller gave the second portion of the presentation, with a handout and overhead projection, which centered on the Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm 8 MINUTES February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS \1 preparation of the growth management plan for each zone. He reviewed the steps to be followed which are: (1) buildout projection, (2) demand, (3) supply, (4) adequacy and conformance with standard, (5) mitigation, and (6) funding. Each step requires that information be collected on all three phases of the plan: existing, approved, and future projections. Once the data has been collected, the performance standard will be computed for existing, approved, and future growth. Lance Schulte, Associate Planner, reviewed the methodology and used Zone 6 for the example. The methodology for computing the growth standards require detailed base maps to determine boundaries, air photos to determine land use, researching unidentified areas by auto canvas and, in some cases, foot inspection. In addition, it is necessary to identify projects which have been applied for and consultation with research and analysis groups to determine where the projects are in the development process. After the available land remaining has been determined, an attempt is made to determine yield for buildout projections. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the public facilities which must be available concurrent with development. He explained how the demand was determined using the existing, approved, and buildout criteria. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, addressed the phasing for future demands and reviewed how the projected growth criteria is required in order to predict revenue. He stated that the phasing for Zones 1 through 6 will be based on the overall city growth rate that was in use in the city-wide Facilities Plan (1,250 dwelling units per year). The key to phasing is that it provides an advanced warning system for shortfalls and revenue projections. Mr. Holzmiller concluded the presentation by stating that most zones are at stage three or four in the supply, demand process and the department is now attempting to determine adequacy. He then stated that most background work has been completed. Chairman Marcus opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner McFadden inquired how much of the information which has been collected is now on a computer. Mr. Holzmiller replied that all information will ultimately be on the computer but is being phased-in in increments. She then inquired if it is necessary for City Administration facilities to be constructed or if they could be rented. Both Mr. Howes and Mr. Holzmiller felt that it did not matter, that either would suffice. Commissioner McFadden inquired how the 1,250 dwelling unit figure was determined. Mr. Wayne replied that the number was determined by calculating development over the last twelve years in addition to forecasts for the area and projects approved, pending, and under construction. Mr. Holzmiller stated that the 1,250 figure was based on patterns and projections from SANDAG and other historical and economic data. Commissioner McBane inquired whether staff was attempting to keep track of the costs to produce plans and was advised that this information is being collected to include consultant as MINUTES well as staff time for Zones 1 through 6. Costs for other zones will be borne by deposits from the applicants. He then inquired if the deposit can be exceeded and was advised to the affirmative. Commissioner McBane requested staff to provide the forthcoming material to the Commissioners as early as possible so that it can be studied. Chairman Marcus commended staff on the excellent presentation. MINUTES: Commissioner McBane requested that the minutes for January 21, 1987 be corrected to reflect his abstention on approval of the minutes for the December 17, 1986 meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously approved minutes of January 21, 1987 with the above stated correction on page 5. February 4, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Marcus Hall Holmes McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Mr. Grimm reminded Commissioners that future Planning Commission meetings would be at the Safety Center, beginning with the next meeting, while the Council Chambers are being remodeled. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about a matter of procedure and whether any item appearing on the agenda can be discussed. Mr. Ball replied that any item can be discussed, however, the Commission cannot necessarily take action unless it is legally acceptable. Commissioner McFadden reminded other Commissioners about the forthcoming Planning meeting to be held in Sacramento on March 11, 12, and 13. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of February 4, 1987 was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submit.ed, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTFS ARE APPROVED.