Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-04; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes February 4, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: February 4, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scully 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 Scully, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, and Segall Absent: Commissioner Siekmann STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy, Park Planner David Rick, Associate Engineer Terry Smith, Senior Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Scully asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of January 21, 2015. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 21, 2015 as amended. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: Commissioner Segall PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2015 Page 2 1. CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) – CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY – Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment for the Phase III Expansion of the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility located at 6220 Avenida Encinas in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 22. The project is within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared for the Phase III Recycled Water Project and the MND adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. 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 Scully 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 Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully 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. CT 14-03/RP 14-16 – BEACHWALK AT MADISON – Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Major Review Permit to allow for the construction of six (6) multi-family residential air space condominiums on a 0.28-acre site on the east side of Madison Street in Land Use District 8 of the Village Review zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Sully asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Geoff McComic, Vesta Pacific Development, stated he was available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 2. Seeing none, Chairperson Scully opened and closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Black also stated he can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he cannot support the project. He feels that when a developer asks for modifications to the standards, which is part of this request, he looks for something in return. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that in his opinion the project is mediocre at best and he does not see any real benefit to the city. He feels this is a D+, C- type project. He further commented that the city is spending millions of dollars in the village, and he feels the city wants something better than this project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he does not want to encourage more projects like this because the city can do a lot better. Commissioner Anderson stated she is not thrilled with the architecture of the project, especially the street view as it is pretty industrial looking. She believes the building is more attractive from the rear. Commissioner Anderson commented that she would hate to see the city move away from the more traditional character of the village. Commissioner Anderson commented she is not sure about her opinion of the project. She stated that she likes the landscaping and the variety of plants that will be used. Chairperson Scully stated her concurrence with Commissioners Anderson and L’Heureux. She commented that the architecture is too industrial for the area and it does not look like a residential project. Commissioner Scully commented that she would like to see the architecture softened up. She further stated that she will support the project because she cannot find any legal findings not to. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the village area does not have architectural design guidelines and City Council Policy No. 44 does not apply. She stated that there is a finding with the Tentative Map that the project is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood uses. If the Commission felt the project was so modern as to be incompatible with the surrounding uses, then that could possibly be a basis for a finding. Ms. Mobaldi further added that in regard to the modification of the development standards, a requested setback modification must result in good project design. However, that does not seem to be the basis for the Commissioners’ objection. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7083 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map CT 14-06 and Major Review Permit RP 14-16 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall asked about “softening the architecture” and what that would look like. He also stated he is concerned because he believes this project meets the current design standards set forth for the village so he not sure what the Commission is asking this applicant or any future applicants to do if they are following the standards and yet there are Commissioners who do not like the project or will not support the project. Mr. Neu clarified that the Village Master Plan does have a chapter on design guidelines but it does not have is a required architectural theme. If the Commission has specific design ideas for certain areas of the village, staff can consider that with the new, amended plan. Commissioner Segall stated that until the Commission has something to refer to, there are still projects that the Commission needs to make decisions on. Ms. Mobaldi commented that because there is not a full commission tonight, if there is a tie vote, the item would be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Anderson commented that the street view needs more articulation to make it more inviting and that would make the resale value increase. Ms. Mobaldi advised that resale value is not something that the Commission can take into consideration as it is not a finding. The Commission needs to focus whether the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses if that is why they cannot support the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Anderson stated that she cannot support the project because it does not fit in with the neighborhood. VOTE VOTE: AYES: NOES: 4-2 Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Segall Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner L'Heureux ABSENT: Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu commented that the Commission should see within the next few months the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of February 4, 2015 was adjourned at 6:35p.m. DON NEU City Pl13nner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk