Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-16; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 16, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schumacher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Jason Geldert, Senior Engineer Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from October 2, 2013. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of October 2, 2013. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner L’Heureux and Commissioner Black PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Siekmann asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 2 1. CDP 13-20 – WALLACE RESIDENCE – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of an existing single-family home, detached garage and storage shed, and the construction of a new 2,565 square foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage on a .29 acre lot located at 3935 Syme Drive, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15301, demolition of a single family residence and other small structures, and 15303, construction of a single family residence, of the state CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears 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 comment on Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Siekmann asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item, and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. DI 13-01 – ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS – Discussion of the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee final report, dated February 23, 2000 and a determination by the Planning Commission of whether to request that the City Council consider changes to the policies and regulations effecting alternative design streets. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Engineer Jason Geldert would make the staff presentation. Mr. Geldert gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if there have been any designated Alternative Design Streets that have gone through the process of receiving approval of alternative street improvements. Mr. Geldert stated that he was not aware of any. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how a neighborhood or a block is defined. Mr. Geldert stated the report did not define either term; however for the purposes of noticing, a 600 foot radius was determined to be considered for notification. Typically though a block is defined as an area between two streets. A block is also used for initiation of the process. For instance, 50% of residents on a block can initiate the process. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 3 Commissioner Segall asked if Commissioner L’Heureux could explain his concerns regarding Alternative Design Streets so the Commission could have a better understanding of the issues. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that what triggered this item were a few recent projects that came before the Commission that were fronting along Alternative Design Streets. Back when the committee was established and the report was finalized, the concern was for the preservation of trees and the preservation of the rural character of a number of the roads. The majority of the roads were west of Highland Drive, were the lots were smaller and individual lots. However, the recent projects had larger lots that were denuded of any vegetation or any trees or any special character because the lots had previously been farmed or used for some sort of agriculture. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his concern is that while he understands the benefit of where it is appropriate to keep the small individual lots until a number of the owners get together to decide they want a change; however, maybe for some of the larger lots the City is really missing the boat by allowing them not to install full improvements at least on the property that fronts their project because he feels those improvements will never be installed as a practical matter. If that is what the City wants or the community wants, that is fine. Commissioner L’Heureux added that the process has been created to prevent any type of meaningful development. It will be very difficult to get 50% of the neighbors together, politically, would be very difficult. He stated his only question to the Commission, and perhaps the City Council, is where there are large parcels that go through potential development should the Commission re-look at the designation of some of those sections of the street as Alternative Streets. Chairperson Siekmann thanked Commissioner L’Heureux for his clarification and asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Scully stated she would like to know what is considered a large project. Mr. Neu stated that for the Commission to see a project, it would need to be 5 lots or more. With the densities in the northwest part of the city, it would be a lot approximately one acre in size. Commissioner Anderson stated she did quite a bit of driving around the areas where the Alternative Design Streets are designated and it does not appear that any of the recommended elements for alternative Streets were implemented. She stated she feels “alternative” looks like “open to interpretation of the owner.” She commented that if she is reading the report correctly, if a home is built, it should be built and within the given criteria with some attractive, tidy looking surface. Mr. Geldert stated the idea of the design approval process is that a project is supposed to go through the process before any construction. There have been issues with residents not abiding by the process; however that is an enforcement issue. Commissioner Anderson asked if a homeowner on an Alternative Design Street is then not required to install permeable surfaces as listed in the report. Mr. Geldert stated the list is if there is a trigger that would require a change. The list is suggestions on how to alleviate it. If one of the issues was unstable earth where the parking was supposed happen, then those are suggestions on how to make it better for parking without disrupting the character too much. The purpose of the policy was to keep the streets in their current state. Commissioner Black inquired about safety triggers and the criteria. Mr. Geldert stated it would be documented issues such as a high rate of accidents, and there have not been any issues that would pique awareness. Commissioner Segall stated that the Commission approved a project on Las Flores and while he did not make a comment at the time, he was concerned about the drainage culvert. He feels that something should have been done from a safety standpoint and that it was the most bizarre street situation in the city. He asked for Staff to comment. Mr. Geldert stated that he is aware of the project Commissioner Segall is referring to and it is a little unusual although other cities do have similar situations with open channels on each side. Mr. Geldert stated he contacted the city’s traffic division and a few other divisions to determine if there have been any issues, complaints, higher rates of reported accidents regarding the culverts and no complaints have been received. Typically if there are any issues, the citizens will let staff know. As for the design of the street the project is on, Mr. Geldert stated it is a narrow street which lends itself to slower speeds which makes the street safer. Staff did not feel having narrower travel lanes on this particular street was an issue. Commissioner Segall commented that some projects are creating more ADTs and more traffic for the smaller, narrower streets, and it does not seem the street has the capacity to handle the traffic. While there have not been issues in the past, Commissioner Segall commented that perhaps the city is creating future issues by adding more traffic. Mr. Geldert stated that Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 4 while there is potential for development, the streets can handle the additional capacity generated from the infill lots. If the Commission is concerned regarding the capacity of the streets, the streets would need to be widened to accommodate more than 1 lane of traffic in each direction. Commissioner L’Heureux directed the Commission’s attention to the slide on the screen and asked Staff if the street shown on the slide has room for parking. Mr. Geldert stated parking is allowed on both sides, as is with most streets in the city, which does narrow the travel lanes and slows down traffic. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that with the Alternative Design Streets then, there are no improvements, parking is allowed on both sides of the street so the streets become narrower for vehicles, and if there are infill projects, the potential for more cars and more traffic is increased. Pedestrians are then forced to walk in the travel lanes. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he is having a difficult time, as an individual, with the potential problem just waiting to happen. Commissioner Black commented that it seems like there are quite a number of code enforcement issues in the city and that the city does not have the time or inclination to review or approach each situation. He asked if there is an alternative that can be used. Mr. Geldert stated that while he does not have any suggestions, the issues raised by the Commission could be considered. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the city has a right to make a property owner change a modification if there is a situation where a property owner takes it upon themself to make modifications to the alternative design and it is effecting other property owners. Mr. Van Peski stated that Code Enforcement works on a complaint basis so unless a complaint is received, those modifications would remain. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that it appears that over the years, long before the Alternative Design Streets process was adopted, throughout town people have in fact reclaimed that area in front of their home, maybe by installing drainage pipes, filling it in, and paving over it to create parking in front of their house. He asked if that was something that is acceptable in the City or do residents need to get permission or a permit. Mr. Van Peski stated that if a resident asked, and the home was on an Alternative Design Street, the resident would be told of the process; however, residents don’t typically ask. Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney, commented that theoretically, if the process is working the way it is intended, if the improvements residents want to install are within the public right-of-way, the homeowner needs to apply for an encroachment permit and sign an encroachment agreement with the City that the improvements would be removed whenever the city asked them to do so at their cost with no need for the city to replace it. Chairperson Siekmann asked if anyone has come to the city with any complaints regarding the Alternative Design Streets. Mr. Geldert stated not that he was aware of. Chairperson Siekmann also asked if the Alternative Design Streets program actually slows down traffic. Mr. Geldert responded that generally narrower streets will reduce traffic speeds. Chairperson Siekmann further asked if Staff has any recommendations for changes in this program. Mr. Geldert stated not at this time. Commissioner Segall commented that the issue he had with this topic when it was brought up is that when there are larger infill developments, the City has the opportunity to have the developer install the street improvements. However, because of this ordinance, the developer is not required to do so. He feels that the city is losing the opportunity to make these half-street improvements that are contiguous with properties that are doing these larger subdivisions. Mr. Kemp stated that it is his understanding that any one of these developers would sign a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement, which is a promise to pay for the installation of those improvements later. Mr. Kemp stated that the developer would sell those properties but the agreement runs with the land so the future property owner would have the obligation but that obligation is not gone. The obligation is placed on the property owner, and if some time in the future, that street needs to be improved, the obligation would be on whoever owns the property at the time to install those improvements. Mr. Kemp further commented that there are Neighborhood Improvement Agreements throughout Olde Carlsbad as well as Future Improvement Agreements, where there are homeowners that do have an obligation to improve the street if it does become time to do that. Commissioner Segall asked if that wording is included in the resolutions of approval. Mr. Kemp stated that it is in the code as well as the process included in the Alternative Design Streets. Commissioner Segall stated that if that is the case, there does not appear to be any issue as long as at some point the Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 5 City can make these improvements, or require the improvements, with these large frontages and that the improvements will be paid for by someone other than the city. Mr. Kemp stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was her understanding that a developer for a recently approved project stated he would like to install the improvements however because of the lengthy process with the Alternative Design Streets, he stated it did not fit into his timetable and that it would become a lien on the title. It will only happen if 50% of the neighbors come together and petition, which has not happened in the last 12 years so why would it happen in the next 50 years. Commissioner Anderson stated why would any of these streets going to change or why would any of the Future Improvement Agreements going to come to fruition. It will just continue to be a patchwork of development. On that previous project, Commissioner Anderson commented that it was interesting that Oak Avenue to the north of the recent development, already has curb, gutter and sidewalks, and there will be the same improvements on the Valley end of the project, but the city is saying they want dirt on the south side of Oak Avenue and to her that does not make any sense. Mr. Kemp referred the Commission to page 11 of the Alternative Design Street Report. He stated he believes there is a misconception that the only thing that will initiate the process is a petition of 50% of the residents. Mr. Kemp stated that there is more than one way to initiate the process: the citizens can do it, a development project can do it, staff can identify safety issues, there could be drainage or utility issues, state or federal mandates, or any other means acceptable to the City Council. It could be that as staff reviews these projects on a case-by-case basis, they can identify that there is an issue and therefore it could be brought forward. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that there is a process for the citizens to initiate this process, but asked what the process is for the city to initiate it. Mr. Kemp stated that there is a bit of ambiguity built into the process, on purpose, because there is no “one size fits all.” Every street has an individual character and the committee wanted to build that into the process. Mr. Kemp commented that as he looks at the process as mentioned by Mr. Geldert earlier, it is clearly designed for an entire block. He stated that he is not sure if you can define a “block” or a “neighborhood.” It needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and what currently exists. For the committee to define what a block is may not be a hard and fast definition that would work in every case. There is ambiguity built into the process to allow for an individualized, case-by-case basis. Mr. Kemp further stated there is a code section within Chapter 18.40 of the CMC. That is the chapter that allows the city to require public improvements of projects that are not under a map, so to speak. In other words, it is triggered by redevelopment of the property. There is a dollar threshold, which is based on actual square footage, and that triggers the obligation to then install the street improvements. There are findings at the start of the chapter that talk about the necessity for the improvements, and that address the issues previously discussed by the Commission such as safety and drainage issues. The default position of the city is to require those improvements. Mr. Kemp stated the code chapter has been around since 1976. It was modified through this process to include the Alternative Design Streets in 2000. There is a section that talks about deferral of improvement requirements stating that the improvements would only be deferred under 6 specific conditions, including the Alternative Design Streets, to allow the deferral of those improvements to a later date. Mr. Kemp further stated that the code states the city manager may defer the improvement upon written application by the developer. If there is a project such as the previous project on Oak Avenue, the city manager has the authority to not defer the improvements in that case. He further commented that if there is a project that involves an entire block and a number of streets, then it would have to go through the Alternative Design Street process. Commissioner Segall stated that, taking the example of the previous project which was the catalyst for this item tonight, there are about 5 large lots that will be subdivided at some point, one that has already been approved and the other currently in the review process. He stated that he recalls no street improvements will be made, and may never be made unless as a Commission, when the projects are approved it is stated that all of the improvements are to be made. He feels the city will lose the opportunity to have those improvements installed however the Assistant City Attorney is now saying that it is not true. Commissioner Segall feels that when the Commission approves a project, it should be clear that the Commission wants those improvements installed or they do not want the improvements installed, and if the Commission wants those areas to remain in a rural, eclectic nature or not. He stated that was the issue the Commission was struggling with before. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Geldert reminded the Commission that the Alternative Design Streets came about because the neighborhoods wanted it that way. When staff reviewed the project along Buena Vista, the developer did do outreach to the neighborhood and found out that the neighborhood did not want the street to change. That was the intent of the Alternative Design Streets report which was to keep the character of the neighborhood as the residents wanted. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Erin McDannold, 122 Avalon Drive, Vista, asked if the Alternative Design Streets is related to the Livable Streets Initiative. Mr. Geldert stated those two are separate policies. Mr. Van Peski stated they are separate but they overlap in concept. Some residents in Olde Carlsbad like the rural nature of the tree lined, narrower streets and that is how the Alternative Design Streets process came about. The Livable Streets policy is a concept that shows that when streets are narrower, traffic is slower, pedestrians are safer, there is more room for sidewalks and alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Neu commented that the Livable Streets policy added back in the landscaped parkways with sidewalks separated from the curb. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher commented that he appreciated the presentation from staff. He stated he feels the current policy is working with no issues as of yet. Commissioner Schumacher stated he does not have any recommendations for any changes. Commissioner Segall stated his concurrence with Commissioner Schumacher. Commissioner L’Heureux thanked staff for the presentation. He commented that if staff is comfortable with how things are currently working, he does not want to recommend any changes. Commissioner Scully agrees with most of what her fellow Commissioners have stated and that she does not have any recommendations for changes. Commissioner Anderson stated she has a more proactive approach to the issue. She stated there should be a process whereby staff can recommend that improvements be made. She would like to see a provision where the city has some jurisdiction. Commissioner Anderson also stated that the process for modifying the Alternative Design Street program should be simplified. She further stated that the city should give incentives to homeowners who want to construct the improvements. Commissioner Anderson would also like to recommend that the council educate the community about choices on alternative streets, a simplified process for people who want to remain with the guidelines, a review of Oak Avenue and any other subdivisions as well as streets with culverts, and to review the larger thru streets on the current list. Commissioner Black also thanked staff for the presentation. He thinks the program has been designed by the people in those neighborhoods. He also stated that he feels the suggestions by Commissioner Anderson are good ones but essentially would not amount to anything. Chairperson Siekmann stated her concurrence with her fellow Commissioners and does not feel the issue needs to go to City Council. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that one of the things the Commission is struggling with is that when looking at the map of the Alternative Design Streets, the “green” lines are very broad, and it really is maybe that it should be applied to only one side of the street rather than both sides in certain areas. But yet, the line really hits both sides on the map. If the Commission wants anything to happen, maybe it is to Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 7 suggest to the council, they revisit whether a) the streets designated are still appropriate; and b) those streets that are appropriate, are both sides appropriate. Commissioner Anderson added that as she reads the report, it is her understanding that if someone is building a new property, the owner is supposed to install a more attractive, semi-permeable product in front of the home not just leave it dirt. She stated she is puzzled as to why that is not required. Mr. Van Peski referred Commissioner Anderson to page 3 of the report which states “Alternative Design Streets as listed in Table 2, Figure 1, are deemed to be of special character. These streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of the alternative street criteria trigger the need to explore the alternative design process.” Commissioner Anderson stated that seems to be in conflict with what is listed on page 14. Mr. Van Peski stated one needs to begin on page 13 which talks about where a decision being made that a trigger has been met and a homeowner/developer is going through the Alternative Design Street process. Commissioner Anderson stated that she thought the streets were Alternative Design Streets and the triggers are to make it not an Alternative Design Street. Mr. Van Peski stated the triggers are to make improvements to Alternative Design Streets, whether it be curb and gutter, turf block or gravel. If people decide improvements need to be made or they want improvements to be made, then there is a process as to what improvements can be made. Rather than curb, gutter and sidewalk, pages 13 and 14 of the report, list the items that should be considered to try and preserve some of the special character. Commissioner Anderson stated that the only way that is going to happen is if someone talks to 50% of the neighborhood, and there is a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Van Peski stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson commented that that is never going to happen. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council review all the streets included in the Alternative Design Streets program including whether or not both sides of the street should be included. Commissioner L’Heureux clarified that it has been 13 years since this program has been looked at and with the push towards infill development the Commission wants to make sure, collectively as a city, that everyone is on the same page and that the streets that have been designated are still appropriate and that perhaps the city should look at whether improvements or lack of improvements are appropriate on one side or both sides of the street. VOTE The Commission voted 4-3 (Siekmann, Segall, Schumacher) to approve the recommendation. MOTION Motion by Commission Anderson that the Planning Commission recommend that the council consider an education program for the community of people included on Alternative Design Streets about the program. Motion failed due to no second. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission recommend that the council review Section 18.40.070 of the CMC to clarify if the city manager has the ability to bypass the Alternative Design Streets process through that section. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Commission is asking the council to amend the Alternative Design Streets provision where there is an infill subdivision and the existing rules might exempt certain improvements unless a person goes through this very laborious process, and maybe what the Commission is suggesting is that there be flexibility built in to allow those improvements to be required without having to go through the huge separate noticing, separate hearing process since all of it will be part of the public process for that particular subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2013 Page 8 Chairperson Siekmann stated it is her understanding that that is already included in the code section. Mr. Kemp commented that is what Section 18.40.070 states. Commissioner Black asked if the Commission could recommend that the council clarify that section to make it easier to understand. Mr. Kemp stated that, along the lines as to what Commission L'Heureux stated, the city has 13 years now of this process being administered and when it was created, it was a unique process and they could not anticipate everything that has come along. The Commission has identified infill projects as an issue that may not have been considered at the time the process was developed. He suggested that the Commission recommend that the council review infill projects in particular and develop a process on how to handle them. Commissioner Segall commented that all of these are good points he could recommend sending a request to the council because it might be a good idea after 13 years to have a committee to review the program, understand the concerns that have been raised tonight by the Commission instead of doing it piece meal; however he is not saying that anything is currently broken with the program. Mr. Kemp commented that Commissioner Segall's ideas are captured in the first motion by Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Anderson asked that the City Attorney's Office make a determination and guide city staff accordingly. Commissioner Anderson withdrew her previous motion. Mr. Neu stated that the motion recommending that the council review the Alternative Design Streets program is adequate without having to get into additional detail. If the council decides there needs to be a panel or otherwise, they will direct staff. Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 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 October 16, 2013, was adjourned at 7:56p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk