Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-06; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: June 6, 2012 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Schumacher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nygaard led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioners Arnold, L’Heureux, Nygaard, Scully and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Black STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Van Lynch, Senior Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Greg Fisher, Assistant Planner Dan Halverson, Assistant Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from May 16, 2012. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of May 16, 2012. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: Commissioner Nygaard Chairperson Schumacher directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during the evening's Public Hearing. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Mary Ann Viney, representing Preserve Calavera, spoke regarding the open space on the Quarry Creek site. Joyce Gammon, 270 Juniper, Carlsbad, representing Friends of the Buena Vista Creek, spoke regarding the Quarry Creek site. Mel Vernon, 1044 North Ivy, Escondido, representing the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, spoke regarding the Rancho Del Oro interchange and the Quarry Creek site. Susan Cratty, Rosemary Avenue, working with Preserve Calavera and representing Shelly Hayes-Caron, spoke about Quarry Creek. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Schumacher asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. CDP 11-20/SUP 11-05 – EUCALYPTUS LANE – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of two new single-family residences (3,388 SF and 3,068 SF in area) located on two existing residential lots, generally located on the north side of Eucalyptus Lane, west of the intersection of El Camino Real and Crestview Drive, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 2. SDP 12-03 – LA COSTA OAKS NORTH 3.2 DAYCARE - Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Villages of La Costa Program EIR (EIR 98-07) and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA, and approval of a Site Development Plan for the development of a 4.9 acre parcel with a 15,412 square foot child daycare center located on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and north of San Elijo Road in La Costa Oaks Neighborhood 3.2 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 11. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Items 1 and 2 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the projects appear to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull Agenda Item 1 and 2. Chairperson Schumacher asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Items 1 or 2. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Items 1 and 2. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Items 1 and 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 3 3. SDP 00-06(B)/CUP 00-06(B)/CDP 00-09(B) – DAYBREAK COMMUNITY CHURCH – A request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow for a 8,830 square foot expansion to an existing two-story administration and classroom building at Daybreak Community Church on property generally located on the southwest corner of Poinsettia Lane and Ambrosia Lane, within the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 19. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. Ms. Werneke gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if an amendment to the CUP would be required if the applicant proposes a school on the site at a later date. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked for clarification regarding the ADT for the project. Ms. Werneke stated the ADT is based on the number of seats for the sanctuary which sets the tone for traffic. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there have been any issues with the previous CUPs. Ms. Werneke stated that at one point there was a shed on the property that has been removed however other than that no. Chairperson Schumacher asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Gary Webb, executive pastor at Daybreak Church, stated no. Commissioner Scully asked Mr. Webb about average attendance at the church. Mr. Webb stated the average attendance over the three Sunday services is approximately 860 adults and 375 children. He stated that the average attendance for the 9:30 a.m. service is about 375. For the 11:00 a.m. service, there are roughly 275 people in attendance, and approximately 175 people attending the 5:00 p.m. service. Commissioner Scully inquired as to how much parking is utilized for the Sunday services. Mr. Webb stated that for the 2 morning services because of the transition time, they are near capacity. For the 5:00 p.m. service he estimated that only 50% of the parking is used. Mr. Webb stated that the proposed additions will be for expanded children’s programs and not for the adult members of the church. Commissioner Scully commented that the parking situation along Ambrosia Lane near the driveway to the church is currently a hazard. Mr. Webb commented that her observation was correct; however, he would differ in respect to where the traffic is coming from. He stated that when he arrives on Sunday mornings, well before the services begin, many of the cars are already parked along Ambrosia Lane. Mr. Webb stated he strongly discourages the congregates from parking on Ambrosia Lane. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the parking issue can be reviewed by the Traffic Commission. Mr. Neu stated the city’s Traffic Division could review the situation and see if there is a need to paint the curbs red some distance from the corner of Ambrosia and Poinsettia. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Neu if the Traffic Division could actually review the parking issue on a Sunday. Mr. Neu stated he would make that recommendation. Commissioner Siekmann asked the applicant if there are plans for a school on the site. Mr. Webb stated no. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 4 DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard stated the project meets the codes and regulations and stated her support of the project. She did comment that the parking issue should be reviewed by the City’s Traffic Division. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Arnold also stated he supports the project. Commissioner Scully stated that she would like to see the curbs painted red from the corner of Poinsettia Lane and Ambrosia Lane to the entrance of the church as she feels it is such a safety hazard. She stated if the project were conditioned as such she could support it. Commissioner Siekmann complimented staff on the project and stated she can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher also thanked staff and the applicant for the project and stated that he can support the project. Mr. Neu stated that the traffic issue can be a referral to the traffic engineer who can refer it to the traffic safety commission if appropriate. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the Commission could condition the project to paint the curbs red. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Commission cannot condition the project as it is not part of the project, and although the matter can be referred to the traffic engineer/commission, there is no guarantee of the outcome. Commissioner Nygaard inquired if the results could be shared with the Commission. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6884, 6885, and 6886 approving Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 00-06(B), Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 00-06(B), and Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 00-09(B) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and recommend that the City Traffic Engineer review the traffic situation occurring on Ambrosia in front of the church on Sundays and that the Planning Commission be informed of the results. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: Commissioner Scully Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. CUP 11-06/HMP 11-05 – FAIRFIELD INN CARLSBAD – Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to allow for the development of a 99 room business hotel on a 2.49 acre vacant lot on property generally located on the south side of Palomar Oaks Way, south of Palomar Airport Road and east of West Oaks Way, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Assistant Planner Dan Halverson would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Halverson gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Siekmann asked if semis could be parked at the facility. Mr. Halverson stated no. Chairperson Schumacher asked if parking is allowed on the street. Mr. Halverson stated not at this time and there are no parking signs posted. Chairperson Schumacher asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Paul Klukas, representing Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is concerned about the number of hotels in the business park area. Mr. Klukas stated that because the city is becoming more of both a tourist destination and a business destination, there is a demand for this type of business. Commissioner Scully stated she is concerned with the starkness of the architecture and stated that it looks too industrial. Mr. Klukas stated that Marriott provides a prototype of the hotel but modifications can be made to that prototype up to a certain limit. In regards to landscaping, Mr. Klukas stated that can be enhanced some. Bob Tuttle, 33533 Pebble Brook Court, Temecula, architect for the project, stated that Marriott’s vision is to become more modern and contemporary. Commissioner Scully asked where the new designs are located in the United States. Neil Patel, 10660 Scripps Ranch Boulevard, San Diego, stated there are two currently under construction: one in Texas and one in Colorado. Many of the upcoming Fairfield Inns will use this prototype. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Klukas about semis parking at the site. Mr. Patel stated it is not something that is anticipated. Commissioner Siekmann also asked about the pool hours. Mr. Patel stated there will be standard hours for the pool which are typically 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and those are hours are set by the brand. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the colors of the buildings. Mr. Tuttle stated the tiles are proposed to be dark brown and the balance of the building will be primarily stucco colors with brown, blue and off- white. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the trees on Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Halverson stated those trees will remain. DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard stated she likes the architecture of the building but is concerned with the number of the hotels in the area. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is concerned with the visibility of the project from Palomar Airport Road but can support the project. Commissioner Arnold stated he likes the proposed architecture of the project and stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann also stated she can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 6 Chairperson Schumacher stated he can support the project but is concerned regarding the slight variance for the parking. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6888 and 6889 approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 11-06 and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 11- 05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 4 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 5. SP 180(H) – CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN – Request for a recommendation of approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SP 180(H)) on 559 acres of land located westerly of El Camino Real and bisected by both College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 5 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 5. Mr. Lynch gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the existing delis will become nonconforming uses. Mr. Lynch stated the delis that are existing are allowed by Conditional Use Permit and they will remain as a conditionally permitted use. Commissioner Nygaard asked if a building could be converted into an indoor swimming pool and if it would be a permitted use. Mr. Lynch stated it would be a prohibited use. Commissioner Siekmann asked if training facilities already allowed in Area 2. Mr. Lynch stated they are not currently allowed. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the Farmers Building could ever be used for a higher education facility. Mr. Lynch stated that there has been an understanding in the past that Area 1 uses could be allowed in Area 2. Mr. Lynch stated that the Commission’s intent would be to add a caveat that Area 2 uses would allow Area 1 uses within the plan. Commissioner Siekmann inquired if that was already included in the plan. Mr. Lynch stated not to that specific degree. Commissioner Arnold asked if Staff is recommending that in the specific plan, under the Area 1 uses, that higher education be added as an allowed use. Mr. Lynch stated that the proposed plan amendment includes limitations on the types of educational facilities that would be permitted. If it is the Commission’s intent to allow higher education uses the proposed plan would need to be revised. Chairperson Schumacher asked if that use would be allowed under the current zoning. Mr. Lynch stated the specific plan is the zoning the document for the research center. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, Chairperson Schumacher asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 7 Colleen Blackmore, 1811 Aston Avenue, Carlsbad, president of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Research Center and Carlsbad Research Center Owner’s Association, gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Nygaard asked if she is in agreement with adding higher education as a permitted use to Area 1. Thomas Hageman, Planning Consultant for the proposal and business owner located at 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100, Carlsbad, stated their concerns to adding higher education uses to the Farmers Building is that there is a provision in the commercial areas that those areas are designed to serve the park because there is concern about bringing in traffic from outside the business park. Mr. Hageman stated higher education uses would not be of service to the park. He further commented that it is not consistent with the idea of commercial areas serving the park. Mr. Hageman suggested the idea be brought back to the owner’s association. Commissioner Arnold stated that the Commission is looking at adding higher education uses to Area 1. Mr. Hageman stated that it would be opposed by the Board because it would be generating traffic from outside area in almost a retail sort of context. Certainly there are occupational and specialty training facilities that are very specialized and not like an educational institute such as National University. Commissioner Siekmann commented that it would be great to have a re-educational facility in Carlsbad. Because there is so much research going on in the business park and in the City, the Farmers Building could be used as a re-education facility center that could be used in conjunction with Life Technologies, for example, to help prepare people for available jobs within the business park. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there is a way to evaluate a specific education facility coming into the park and it could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Hageman stated he did not feel there would be any objections to a broad category. Because the Farmers Building is on the edge of the park and along a prime arterial street, it would have to depend on the type of proposed use. Commissioner Nygaard asked Ms. Mobaldi if under the current plan, without the proposed changes, it is possible for the Commission to evaluate the issue when it comes forward. Mr. Neu stated that there are categories of uses, one being Conditional Uses. Typically, when a proposed project may or may not be compatible Staff puts it in the Conditional Use category where Staff and the Planning Commission have the ability to apply discretion to it. As far as the option as presented by Commissioner Siekmann, Mr. Neu stated the occupational category states “…related to allowed uses in the business park” and Staff would consider the option as consistent. Mr. Neu stated in order for the Commission to move forward with the proposed changes, the Commission would need to add something to the Conditional Uses section. The discussion with Mr. Hageman concentrated on the Farmers Building which is in Area 2A so a separate section of allowed uses for that particular area would need to be identified. Ms. Blackmore stated that the business owners in the park really tried to take off their “business owner hats” and to make decisions based on what is best for the park as a whole, for the city as a whole, and how to maintain all of the property values in the park. She asked the Commission to do the same thing and to not look at the Farmers Building site as a piece of property owned by the City and try to manipulate it to get what the City needs. Take the consideration of how it could benefit the whole park and how will it help all of the property owners retain their property values. Commissioner Siekmann stated that is the intention. If there is a large building that is available and a tenant that can work with Life Technologies, for example, it would be a total enhancement for the business park and for the City. Chairperson Schumacher asked about the medical office uses. Mr. Hageman stated that medical office uses is limited to medical research in Area 1; however, medical offices are allowed in Area 2. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 8 DISCUSSION Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. Neu which entity, the City or the Carlsbad Research Center Business Owners Association, has control if this plan is adopted and a proposal is brought forward in which the City recommends approval but the owner’s association does not. Mr. Neu stated that practically speaking the City ends up making an independent or separate determination as to whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted under the specific plan. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the specific plan is the zoning document for the research center. As with any other interpretation of what zoning allows, it ultimately rests with the City to make that final determination while taking into consideration what the viewpoint of the owners association. Their viewpoint would be persuasive but ultimately the City would decide what the correct interpretation is. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that in regards to the Farmers Building, at one point, the City wanted to make that City Hall. However it seems that the owners association would not think that is an appropriate use. Commissioner L’Heureux stated if that were in fact the case and the City was adamant about putting City Hall on that site and the owners association was against the proposal, then the City could prevail and allow City Hall on the site. Ms. Mobaldi stated it would depend on what the plan states and what the plan allows. If it is an allowed use under the existing plan, then yes, the City could then go ahead and do that. If it requires a specific plan amendment, then it would be a different issue and the Commission would then have to reconsider whether or not it is an appropriate use. Ultimately there could be, if there were vehement disagreement, litigation as to whether or not the decision that the city made is arbitrary and capricious or if it a reasonable interpretation based on the language of the plan. Ms. Mobaldi stated it is important for the Commission to think carefully about how the plan is worded to clarify the intention with regard to allowed uses. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he would like to see specific uses identified for the Farmers Building. He feels that educational facilities in the center of the park would not be desirable; however, for those sites along the perimeter of the park it would be nice. He also questioned wind generating as an allowed use. Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission that it is important to distinguish between the City acting as a regulator and the City acting as a property owner. In this case, the Commission is opining on the benefits of the specific plan, acting on behalf of the City as a regulator. Ms. Mobaldi stated it is not the Commission’s job to look at this proposal as a property owner and therefore regulate the proposal to the city’s benefit. If the Commission feels that educational facilities are beneficial, the Commission as a regulator needs to consider that what they do for one property owner they should probably, out of fairness, do for the other property owners who are similarly situated. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the item can be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting so that a solution can be reached. Commissioner Arnold stated that in looking at the document, it is clear that the clause allowing vocational and training activities in Area 1 requires a finding that they qualify as research facilities as well. He moved that the Commission strike the whole higher education aspect of it. The applicant has been working on the plan for 18 months with the City. Commissioner Arnold stated he can support the project as is. He stated the Commission should not table it and instead should just go ahead and approve the plan. Commissioner Scully commented that in order to ensure everything is worked out, the project should be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Siekmann commented that it would be a great benefit to the business park that there could be a possibility to include an educational facility. Chairperson Schumacher agreed that continuing the item would be the best. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification regarding as to which area of the specific plan the Commission is requesting that educational facilities be added as an allowed use. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the first issue discussed was whether the uses allowed in Area 1 be automatically incorporated into Area 2, and if so, the Commission should make it clear that whatever can be done in Area 1 can also be done CORRECTED Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2012 Page 9 in Area 2; secondly, there was a question regarding educational facilities and whether or not the language that currently exists, which specifically ties educational facilities to uses that are already in the business park, should remain or if the language should be broadened to allow general educational facilities for post high school education; and finally whether education facilities should be allowed in the entire business park or just in Area 2, and to which properties in Area 2. Mr. Lynch stated that as a point of clarification, historically the City has allowed Area 1 uses in Area 2. To clarify that, he stated it might be prudent to actually add that as specific text to the plan, if the Commission agrees. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date certain of June 20, 2012. VOTE: 5-1 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Arnold ABSENT: Commissioner Black ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 5 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of June 6, 2012, was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk