Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-20; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: August 20, 2014 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Black called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner L’Heureux led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Scully, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Christer Westman, Senior Planner Jason Goff, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Black asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the workshop held July 9, 2014. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann to approve the minutes of the workshop held July 9, 2014. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Black asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from August 6, 2014. CORRECTEDD Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 2 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 6, 2014. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Black asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. SP 09-01(A)/SP 09-01(B) – WESTFIELD CARLSBAD – Request for a recommendation of approval of two Specific Plan Amendments to the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan that 1) removes all provisions from the Specific Plan allowing for digital signs; and 2) amends the Use Classifications: Table 4 of the Specific Plan to include as a permitted use Automobile Dealerships for electric cars only and Automobile Service and Repair of electric automobiles when ancillary to an existing automobile dealership within the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan on property generally located west of El Camino Real and bisecting Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that the proposed amendments are exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.04.070(A)(1)(c), general rule exemption where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Jason Goff would make the staff presentation. Mr. Goff gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the proposed location of sales inventory on the site. Mr. Goff stated there are no provisions or proposals at this time. Commissioner L’Heureux asked staff to explain the rationale for including the mall as a location for auto sales especially since there were will be more dealers selling electronic vehicles in the future. Mr. Neu stated that in discussions with the applicant, they felt this was a unique type of sales that will attract a different customer base. The city is very cognizant of the fact there is no additional space in Car Country Carlsbad; and by limiting this site to the sales of electric vehicles only, the number of dealers would be limited. Commissioner L’Heureux also asked about any provisions for electric charging stations at the mall. Mr. Goff deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the proposal before the Commission tonight. Mr. Neu stated the action tonight is for the allowance of electric vehicle sales and maintenance at the mall. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 3 Commissioner Montgomery asked if this proposal is specific to the eastern portion of the mall currently being redeveloped or if it is for the entire mall. Mr. Goff stated it is for the entire specific plan boundary. Commissioner Anderson asked if an unlimited number of car dealers could be located at the mall if no other restrictions are placed on this amendment. Mr. Goff stated yes. Chairperson Black inquired about the service bays for the vehicles. Mr. Goff stated that this proposal is for the use of car sales to be allowed at the mall. Ms. Mobaldi stated that because the city is the owner of the parking lot and the grant deed of the parking lot property to the City only allows its use for parking purposes, an agreement between the city and the applicant would need to be worked out in order for the parking lot to be used as something other than a parking lot. Commissioner Anderson commented that currently cars would not be allowed to be stored for inventory purposes in the parking lot. Ms. Mobaldi stated that was correct for two reasons: first, because of the ownership by the city; and secondly because the specific plan does not allow for it. Commissioner Scully asked if the city, as the owner of the parking lot, would have a say in how the cars would be stored. Ms. Mobaldi stated that is something that could be worked out between the mall owners, who maintain the lot, and the city. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Stephen Fluhr, representing Westfield, 1632 Dale Street, San Diego, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Regarding the questions about charging stations, Mr. Fluhr commented that they are actively seeking companies that provide such a service; however, many companies have recently gone out of business. Mr. Fluhr also stated that they intend to have the 45 parking spaces identified for inventory to be located in an area of the parking lot that is underutilized. The remaining 10 spaces for vehicle test drives will be located closer and adjacent to the storefront without adversely impacting business. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. Fluhr if there is a specific number of dealerships that they are targeting. Mr. Fluhr stated two dealerships would be more than adequate. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how many phases are in this project as a whole. Mr. Fluhr stated there are two phases planned: the phase currently under construction and the second phase which will come before the Commission in the near future. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if Sears and Penney’s would be included in phase two. Mr. Fluhr stated those locations would be considered in the future as those sites are owned independently. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired if the electric charging stations would be seen in phase 2. Mr. Fluhr commented that they are hoping to take care of that during this current phase as soon as they can find an operator. Mr. Fluhr stated that the proposed dealership would be located on the lower level right next to 24 Hour Fitness. Commissioner Scully asked about where any potential service bays will be located. Mr. Fluhr stated the storefront would take up approximately 20,000 square feet, service access is already provided with roll up doors which are on the approved elevations. The service bays would be located towards the rear of the storefront. The approximately 18,000 square feet remaining will open out to the mall as a traditional retailer. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Fluhr if they would move forward with just the retail portion of the dealership if an agreement is not reached regarding using some of the parking lot for the storage of inventory. Mr. Fluhr stated that it would be up to the proposed tenant. Commissioner Anderson inquired how many cars would be allowed for service at one time. Mr. Fluhr stated there are 10 service bays but the proposed dealer does not anticipate having more than 2 vehicles at a time. Commissioner Anderson asked how the 10 cars for test driving would be separated from the regular parking. Mr. Fluhr stated those 10 parking spots would be fairly adjacent to the storefront. The inventory location would be located in a more underutilized location. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked if Westfield UTC has charging stations. Mr. Fluhr stated the stations are defunct and they are currently looking for a service provider. Commissioner Segall asked if there are service bays located at the UTC location. Mr. Fluhr stated no. Commissioner Segall asked staff to display an image depicting Westfield Carlsbad and to indicate the location of the proposed service bays. Mr. Fluhr directed the Commission’s attention to the slide and pointed out where the proposed service bays would be located. Commissioner Segall asked if that location was the same location as the previously proposed grocery store. Mr. Fluhr stated yes. Commissioner Segall asked if there is a grocery store proposed in the second phase. Mr. Fluhr commented that if there is a potential location in the mall in the future they would certainly look at that option; however based on feedback from several different grocery stores, the location and layout was not conducive to the business. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that it seems as if there will not be direct access to the proposed dealership from the interior of the mall. He stated his concerns with the potential noise from the proposed service bays that would be located internally on the site. Mr. Fluhr stated that with the service bays located at the back of the building, noise will not be outside the space. From tenant space to tenant space, there are requirements that you cannot hear from one space to another. The movie theater is a great example where you cannot hear sound from one theater to another. Mr. Fluhr commented that it is very important to them that there is quiet enjoyment between all of the retail spaces. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Black opened and closed public testimony. Commissioner L’Heureux asked Ms. Mobaldi if it was appropriate or permissible for the commission to add a condition limiting the number of auto dealers allowed at the site. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes as the Commission would not be precluding a particular dealer. Commissioner Scully asked about the chances of another applicant requesting a variance to amend the number of allowed car dealers. Ms. Mobaldi stated it would be a specific plan amendment as this change would pertain to a particular use being allowed on a site, not a variation in a development standard. It is a possibility but not likely as there are not many electric vehicle only dealerships. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the interpretation of the term “automobile dealerships for electric cars only.” Mr. Goff stated it is staff’s interpretation that it is a dealership that only sells electric cars. Commissioner Segall inquired about the term “dealership” and asked if that includes a storefront, service bays and a place to park or if a dealership by definition is only a storefront with the other uses off-site. Mr. Neu stated the way the proposal is drafted an applicant could get more than just a storefront and that is the intent. The concern staff has is limiting the dealership to a manufacturer that only sells electric vehicles as well as allowing for the service and repair of the vehicles. Mr. Neu commented that if an applicant proposed storefront sales only, it would not be required to provide the service and repair aspect. Part of the reasons staff was trying to limit this are some of the same reasons the Commission has already expressed. However, knowing that this is a new way of doing business, staff felt that the product could be provided for in some limited fashion to see how it works. Commissioner Segall inquired about service bays and the exhaust systems for the site. Mr. Neu stated that between the Building Division and Fire Prevention reviews of the plans, staff will confirm that the site can meet all the applicable building and fire codes. Commissioner Siekmann commented that the Commission should look at all of the positives of this proposal and she feels the city is lucky that there is such a tenant that wants to locate at the mall. When there are so many restrictions on a site, it tends to turn tenants away. Chairperson Black commented that the proposed dealership should sell electric cars only and not any other type of car. Mr. Neu stated that is staff’s intention. Chairperson Black offered a change to the proposed wording. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the wording currently states “….limited to dealerships that exclusively sell electric cars.” As he understands, Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the dealership would be dedicated to selling electric cars exclusively. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 5 Chairperson Black asked if the wording implies that. Mr. Neu stated that staff felt it was clear but if the Commission feels that the wording needs to be clarified, the Commission can modify the language. Commissioner Anderson stated that she tends to agree with Chairperson Black’s comments regarding changing the wording and suggested the word “exclusive” be added to the wording. Ms. Mobaldi referred the Commission to Table 4 – Use classifications – automobile dealerships and suggested that “at this location” can be inserted after “electric cars only.” Commissioner Anderson stated that if the intention is to have a dealer that only sells electric cars, and not, for example Toyota that sells an electric car at this location, then the wording needs to be modified to add the word “exclusive.” Commissioner Siekmann asked how the applicant understood the proposed wording. Mr. Fluhr commented that the Commission was reading further into the language than he ever did. The intent is for electric cars only to be sold at this location. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if his fellow Commissioners were concerned about limiting the number of dealerships allowed at the mall. He commented that he feels like the Commission only wants electric vehicles to be sold at this location, not hybrids, not combustion engine vehicles or fuel cells. If there is a proposal for anything other than electric vehicle the specific plan would then need to be modified to allow for it. Commissioner Anderson commented that her first impression was that the proposal was for a dealer that sold electric vehicles only, not a Nissan dealership that sells an electric vehicle and has brochures in the storefront for their other vehicles, which could open up the possibility for a regular dealership in the future. Chairperson Black asked if the other Commissioners were in agreement with keeping the wording as proposed by staff. Commissioner L’Heureux suggested that the Commission follow the recommendation made by Ms. Mobaldi to clarify the language included in Table 4 – Use Classifications to add “at this location only.” Mr. Neu commented that the proposed change only effects this one property and not any other properties zoned as Regional Commercial. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Commission would like to limit the number of allowed dealerships for this specific plan. MOTION Commissioner L’Heureux made a motion, duly seconded by Commissioner Scully, to limit the number of electric car dealerships to two within this specific plan for the mall. DISCUSSION Commissioner Siekmann stated that it would be a very poor decision to place restrictions on something like this after hearing from the applicant that it has been so difficult for malls of this type to attract tenants. Commissioner Segall stated his agreement with Commissioner Siekmann. He commented that he is concerned with having service bays for this site and he does not want to see the available space taken up with service bays. Commissioner Segall stated he would not support a motion to restrict the number of dealerships as he feels it will be a market-driven issue. Commissioner Anderson commented that she agrees with restricting the number of dealerships and the applicant stated he would be agreeable to restricting the dealerships to two. Commissioner Scully stated she likes the idea of limiting the dealerships to two as it will makes it special and unique. The intent is to create an upscale mall not an upscale car dealership mall. Chairperson Black stated that competition is good and malls are in the habit of limiting uses. He stated he would be in favor of the motion limiting the number of dealerships. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 6 VOTE The Commission voted 5-2 (Segall and Siekmann) to limit the number of electric car dealerships to two. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the use table, Table 4 – Use Classifications, the line item for automobile dealerships will be amended to include “maximum of two.” Chairperson Black asked if the Commission was agreeable with the issue of electric vehicles only. Commissioner Siekmann stated that if, for example, a Nissan dealership were to open at that location and only sell their electric vehicle, they should be allowed to do so. She asked for clarification from Ms. Mobaldi if that is the intent with wording as it was proposed. Ms. Mobaldi stated that adding “at this location” after “electric vehicles only” would provide clarity. MOTION Commissioner Siekmann made a motion, duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to add the wording “at this location” as suggested by Ms. Mobaldi. VOTE The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project; however he is not thrilled with having the service bays at the mall. He commented that he would like to see a grocery store at the mall. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann also stated her support of the project. Commissioner Anderson commented that she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he too can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Chairperson Black stated he can also support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7068 and 7069 recommending approval of Specific Plan Amendment SP 09-01(A) and Specific Plan Amendment SP 09-01(B) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein as amended. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Black 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. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 7 2. MP 02-03(F) – ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT – Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Robertson Ranch Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Robertson Ranch West Village [MP 02- 03(C)] and a request for a Minor Amendment to the previously adopted Robertson Ranch Master Plan to modify development standards for Planning Areas 3, 5, 6, 9/10, and 13 on property located north of Cannon Road and northeast of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Mr. Westman gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall asked the reason for different standards among the various planning areas. Mr. Westman stated when a master plan is created, the Master Plan becomes the zoning document and zoning and general plan designations are identified in that document. Planning Areas 3, 6, 9 and 13 all have lots that are less than 7,500 square feet. The lots in PA5 are 8,500 square feet, which is similar to and or exceeding the minimum standard R-1 lot throughout the city, staff felt that the R-1 standard could be applied to those planning areas. Commissioner Segall inquired as to the increase in height to only 32 feet for PA 5 and not 35 feet as it is in the other planning areas. Mr. Westman stated there was an intent to keep the master plan as intact as possible from its original approval. Commissioner Segall asked how many incidences there are of two properties being back-to-back that have the same reduced setback. Mr. Westman stated there are a very few examples of that occurring. Commissioner Montgomery stated he is hesitant to grant any type of relief as no changes were proposed or granted to the east village and asked what arguments there are and what the impacts are to leaving the plan as is. Mr. Westman stated that because of the involvement of and scrutiny from the community in the creation of the master plan, the land use patterns were established and the transportation connections and limitations were established, and those remain intact. Mr. Westman commented that he believes the homeowners in the existing adjacent neighborhoods will not be directly impacted by the proposed modifications to the setbacks. Commissioner Siekmann asked if changing the setbacks will set a precedence. Mr. Westman stated it could. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there was consideration to limiting the changes to lots that are not back-to-back. Mr. Westman stated that staff did discuss that and based on review of the plans, the potential for it actually happening is very limited. Commissioner Anderson asked if the slope area is HOA maintained and exclusive of the lot. Mr. Westman stated only some of the lots are HOA maintained and there are restrictions regarding building into a slope. Commissioner Anderson stated her concern regarding homes that are back-to-back with these modifications. Mr. Westman commented that the way the language is crafted, anything that would encroach into the 5 foot setback would be limited to a single story portion of the home and it could be enclosed. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Greg Deacon, representing Toll Brothers, 11527 Dolcena, San Diego, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Commissioner L’Heureux stated his concern regarding the potential elimination of all single story homes with the proposed language for modified single story homes. He asked the applicant to explain the reasoning for potentially eliminating all the single story homes. Mr. Deacon stated that through their market research, specifically in Robertson Ranch’s east village, there have been challenges in selling the true single story homes. In contrast, the modified single story homes are the first to sell. With the current restrictions with the Master Plan, the single story homes would be extremely difficult to sell. CORRECTEDD Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 8 Commissioner Anderson asked what a modified single story is. Mr. Deacon stated that it is a first floor livable house with a bonus/guest room upstairs. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the proposed increase in floor ratio for the modified single story will essentially make the homes appear as two story homes from the front elevation. Mr. Deacon stated there will be a difference as there will be restrictions in place requiring three edges of the homes to have a single story feel. A true two story home will have more massing throughout the entire house. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Black opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Madeleine Szabo, 5338 Forecastle Court, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf of the Friends of the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor, and asked that the Robertson Ranch Master Plan adhere to the general plan. The proposed modifications will equate to less property for open space. Ms. Szabo also commented that the scenic views will be preserved if the Robertson Ranch Master Plan remains as is. Ken Miller, 4753 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, asked if the 40% single story includes modified single story for PA 5. Tiffany David, 5353 Forecastle Court, Carlsbad, also with Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor, asked that consideration be placed on what the community requested with the original approval of the master plan. Patty Hall, 3458 Glen Avenue, Carlsbad, stated her concurrence with the previous speakers and stated she would like to see more space between the proposed homes. She would also like to see more single story homes in the planning areas. Chairperson Black asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and asked staff to respond to the issues raised by the speakers. Mr. Westman replied to Mr. Miller’s question regarding lot coverage for the modified single story in PA5 and stated that PA5 does not have a provision for the modified single story homes. The homes in PA5 will either be single story or two story homes. Mr. Westman deferred the other questions to the applicant. Chairperson Black asked Mr. Deacon to respond to the other questions raised during public testimony. Mr. Deacon commented that PA5 originally did not have parameters for the types of homes to be included. They plan to build many single story homes in that Planning Area because of the lot sizes. They are however requesting an increase in lot coverage for that Planning Area. Mr. Deacon further commented about the modification to Council Policy 44 is to allow greater flexibility with the intent of the policy. Mr. Westman added that in reviewing Council Policy 44 – Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, there is a formula for creating massing as well as a specific requirement for single story. To be fully compliant with that policy there needs to be single story homes just as it is required by the master plan. The intent and request on the part of the applicant was to eliminate the mandate for single story homes. Commissioner Siekmann asked Ms. Mobaldi about the intent of Council Policy 44. Ms. Mobaldi commented that policies are guidelines and are meant to be followed to the greatest extent practicable but it is not a hard and fast rule. Commissioner Siekmann asked the applicant to explain why the request to modify the rear yard setbacks is being made. Mr. Deacon explained that it was a desire to create a more useable indoor/outdoor place. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated that there needs to be diversity in housing but he is concerned with striking all the single story plans. He commented that the other requested changes are acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 9 Commissioner Montgomery stated his concerns started with how the east village was created without any modifications. He feels the applicant can provide a great product with or without the changes. Commissioner Montgomery stated he does not agree with increasing the height in PA 5 and he does not want the single story homes stricken from any of the planning areas. Commissioner Siekmann stated she respects the comments from Commissioner Montgomery and supports not increasing the height and would like to keep the single story elevations. She would like to add that properties that are back –to- back should not have the modified setbacks. Commissioner Anderson stated she has concerns with changing something that was a very long process and had significant community involvement. She stated she can see the justification on the height increase. Commissioner Anderson further stated she is agreeable to the setback changes to the backyards. She also commented that she would like to see master bedrooms on the first floor. Commissioner L’Heureux thanked staff and the applicant for the work involved in this project. He believes most of the changes will produce a better product, and for that reason, he is willing to take a risk. He is concerned with the elimination of single story homes. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the request to increase the height to 32 feet in PA5 is acceptable and modifications to the rear yard setbacks make sense. The small lot sizes are a concern of his. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he would like to see a condition included regarding lots that are back-to-back not having more than a 3 or 5 foot grade separation as there needs be a vertical separation between the two lots. Mr. Westman stated the pad elevations and grading have already been approved by the Commission and City Council. There is some modest flexibility allowed through the plancheck process. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the applicant could respond to the concerns. Mr. Deacon stated that through their review of the lot topography, the majority of the lots have an elevation change. To dictate an elevation change that is required to address the Commission’s concerns could be very difficult. Mr. Deacon commented that there may be just 2 lots that have this vertical elevation issue. Mr. Neu stated that staff would prefer to handle the issue with a requirement for a horizontal separation. Commissioner Segall asked if there will be discretion with the plotting and siting of the homes at a future date. Mr. Westman stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Neu if it would be appropriate for the Commission to add a condition that requires it not to happen on two horizontal lots. Mr. Neu stated yes. Ms. Mobaldi suggested the following language, “Reduced rear yard setbacks shall be allowed only if there is a minimum horizontal separation of 20 feet between homes.” Commissioner Scully stated she agrees with most of the comments. She stated her concern is that by allowing the changes at what point is the master plan still the master plan. She asked why have standards if the standards are going to change. Commissioner Scully commented that she feels single story homes are needed in the community. Chairperson Black stated his agreement with his fellow commissioners. MOTION Commissioner Montgomery made a motion, which was duly seconded by Commissioner Segall to reinstate the original master plan language as it pertains to the single story requirements. Commissioner Anderson commented that she can appreciate the desire to have a modified single story especially on those lots that are smaller. Commissioner Siekmann clarified that the motion will reinstate the approved master plan requirement for single story. The motion passed 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 10 MOTION Commissioner Montgomery made a motion, which was duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann, to have PA5 retain the 30 foot height requirement. The Commission voted 2-5 (Black, Anderson, L’Heureux, Scully and Segall) and the motion failed. MOTION Commissioner Siekmann made a motion, which was duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson that a minimum 20 foot separation is maintained between rear home elevations on back-to-back lots. The Commission voted 7-0. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Commission wanted to remove the request for the modified single story homes from 25% to 40% of the home. Chairperson Black asked for the Commissioners to raise their hand if interested in this motion and there was no response. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7070 approving a Minor Master Plan Amendment to modify the development standards for Planning Areas 3, 5, 6, 9/10, and 13 within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan MP 02-03(F) as amended. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Montgomery ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and called for a 5-minute recess. RECESS Chairperson Black called for a 5-minute recess at 9:05 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Black called the meeting to order at 9:16 p.m. with Commissioner Montgomery absent. Chairperson Black asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN UPDATE – The commission will be provided with an overview of the process to develop the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the opportunities for public participation. The proposed plan would replace the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and encompass both the Village and Barrio areas. Consultant Dover, Kohl and Partners will lead the planning effort. Public outreach for the plan began this month, and hearings are expected next spring. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would make the staff presentation. The Commission received an overview of the upcoming Village and Barrio Master Plan update. Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2014 Page 11 Ms. Mobaldi clarified that in terms of the Commission attending the workshops, they will all need to attend only one workshop so that they all hear the same information, and the workshop will be noticed as a special meeting for Brown Act compliance. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of August 20, 2014, was adjourned at 9:43p.m. QL~ DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk