Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-18; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: March 18, 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 Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Anderson STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Farah Nisan, Senior Office Specialist Mike Peterson, Development Services Manager Corey Funk, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Scully asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of February 18, 2015. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she would be voting only on the portion of the minutes pertaining to Agenda Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 as she recused herself on Agenda Item 3. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 18, 2015. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. ZCA 12-01(A) – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT – A request for a recommendation of approval to amend Zoning Ordinance chapters 21.85 (Inclusionary Housing) and 21.90 (Growth Management) to make the deferral of development impact fees a permanent program and other minor program refinements. 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 L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson 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. SP 207(J)/LCPA 14-02 – CARLSBAD RANCH PLANNING AREA 5 – Request for a recommendation of approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to increase the allowed number of levels from three to four for the habitable portions of buildings within Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Planning Area 5 located north of Legoland California, south of Cannon Road, east of Legoland Drive, and west of the Crossings golf course in Local Facilities Management Zone 13. 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 Section 15305, Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations, of the State CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated he would make the staff presentation. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that while he does not represent or have any financial impact with the applicant, he has in the past represented as an attorney the applicant’s consultant, Hofman Planning & Engineering. Mr. Neu gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall stated the City Council currently has the discretion to allow the building height to go up to 45 feet and asked if that has been allowed before, specifically on this project. Mr. Neu stated there are a number of buildings within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan that reach the higher limit. The height of buildings in Planning Area 5 currently reaches 40 feet; however, with this project, the maximum height limit is not being proposed to change. The proposal is to increase the number of levels that can be accommodated. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Siekmann asked if the LCPA is just for Planning Area 5. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. He added that many of the other non-residential zoning areas, such as the commercial zone, industrial zone, have the same height maximums but there is nothing in the municipal code limiting the number of levels. At one point, the municipal code did have that language however it was removed with some amendments as the city was focused on the height of buildings not the number of stories or levels. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if this project is approved, if it will increase the number of occupants or the density. Mr. Neu stated no. The proposal is more about the building design rather than intensity. Commissioner L’Heureux asked staff to explain how the 45 feet is measured. Mr. Neu stated that building height is measured, particularly when a project involves grading, from the new pad elevation and is measured to the tallest point of the structure. There are exceptions as to what can protrude above that height limit, such as elevator shafts, parapet walls, architectural towers or other such features. Those features can be built to a maximum height of 55 feet. If the parking can qualify as basement parking, it is not included in the building height or the number of stories or levels. The building height measurement starts at grade level. Commissioner Siekmann stated that because the number of rooms would stay the same, there would not be an increase in traffic. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall asked if by allowing more floors this will result in more open space. Mr. Neu stated yes. Commissioner Segall commented that he is aware the city does not have a view ordinance and asked if this project would block any views. Mr. Neu stated no and there will be little impacts to the surrounding uses. Commissioner Segall inquired about the Park Hyatt and if it is 5 stories. Mr. Neu stated that in reviewing plans for that project, it does appear that some portions of the building are 5 stories. Mr. Neu added that it does appear that that project followed the city’s old method of measurement. If it was measured using the current method today, it would be 56 feet. Commissioner Montgomery asked about fire and fire safety and if the Fire Department had any issues with this project. Mr. Neu stated the Fire Department did review the project and did not have any issues. Mr. Neu added that the site development plan will go through the review process with the Building and Fire Divisions at which time issues can be discussed. Commissioner Black asked if there are other plans in the city for something similar to this project. Mr. Neu stated no. Commissioner Montgomery stated he is concerned about this project opening the door for future projects and for setting a precedent. He asked how staff views this and how this type of request can be isolated to this area. Mr. Neu commented that in reviewing the non-residential zones, he stated that those zones allow up to this requested height limit, with the exception of the C1 zone, without the limitation on the number of levels. The Commercial-Tourist zone, which is the underlying zone for this project, retained the restriction on the number of levels because areas in the northwest part of the city have older hotels right next to the residential zones. There is still the provision that the site development plan would still need to be approved and part of those findings to address compatibility. Chairperson Scully asked if any of the hotels or buildings in this planning area are over 3 levels. Mr. Neu stated that in this particular planning area no buildings contain more than 3 levels; however some architectural projections are just over 40 feet. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning & Engineering, 3156 Lionshead, Carlsbad, representing Grand Pacific Resorts, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked if the building will exceed the existing height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Hofman explained that they are just requesting to increase the number of allowed levels; they are not requesting an increase in the building height. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner L’Heureux asked how increasing the number of levels to 4 would create more dining facilities and more gym space. Mr. Hofman stated it still can be done now; however, they would like to retain the open space and keep the building layout as proposed with the same total building coverage. With keeping the 45 foot limit, the ceilings would be lower. They are requesting four levels for only a few buildings, not all of the buildings. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Madeleine Szabo, 5338 Forecastle Court, Carlsbad, stated her concerns regarding taller buildings ruining the scenic and panoramic views. Mike Kroopkin, 2322 Masters Road, Carlsbad, commented that 4 stories is simply not going to work and stated his concerns about this project setting a precedence. He also stated his concern regarding fire safety. Alex Szabo, 5338 Forecastle Court, Carlsbad, stated the citizens of Carlsbad should all be advocates for keeping the small town beach feel and not the advocates for the vice president of finance or sales for the hotel chains who will then charge more for premium rooms. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony and asked staff to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Neu stated the city does not have a view ordinance but the coastal plan maintains viewpoints from public locations or roadways. Staff felt this request is consistent with the policies of the General Plan Update in keeping a small town character. Mr. Neu did acknowledge a concern for setting a precedence; however many of the zones already allow for this number of levels or stories. He also added that the Fire Department does review projects and they will not support projects that do not meet the Fire Code. Chairperson Scully asked if the applicant wished to address any issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Hofman stated no. Commissioner Montgomery stated one of the speakers commented that the project would not even meet the standards right off the bat. Mr. Hofman stated that the project will work with this proposal. Commissioner Segall asked if a site development plan would need to the approved if this item is approved tonight. Mr. Neu stated yes the Commission would have discretion with the site development plan as well as a coastal development permit. There are additional findings that need to be met to grant the additional height over 35 feet. The Commission would review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that currently an applicant can build a structure that is 35 feet, and it can be up to 45 feet at the discretion of the City Council. Under this revised language, he asked if the rule remains the same or if it becomes automatic. Mr. Neu stated it is the same rule. The only change is the additional wording “…and/or four levels” being added to the Specific Plan. The maximum height number or the process by which that is considered is not changing. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project as Planning Area 5 is good area to allow this increase to the four levels. He is not worried about this project setting a precedence because it is an isolated area, and he is not worried about any fire safety issues. Commissioner Segall commented that he likes the idea that this project will reduce the overall footprint and allow more open space. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery stated he generally has concerns with projects asking for height increases but this project is not asking for that, however asking for an additional level could be precedent-setting. Commissioner Montgomery feels each project needs to be looked at on its own merit. He can approve the application for this particular site, but as future projects come forward, he believes the Commission will need to scrutinize each project. Planning Commission Minutes March 18,2015 Page 5 Commissioner Black stated he concurs with his fellow commissioners for all the reasons previously stated. He is concerned with setting a precedence but does not see an issue with this project as it only pertains to Planning Area 5. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann thanked the community for speaking on the item. She stated the applicant is not asking for a height change. They are only asking for an additional floor within the same building height. She stated she can approve the project. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that the "envelope" is not changing and it is not changing the intensity. And because the building height is not changing, it will not be noticeable. Staff and City Council will need to be vigilant in reviewing future projects so this will not set any precedence. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that one of the benefits to the city is that it is an excellent project with a great track record. He stated he can support the project. Chairperson Scully stated she cannot support the project as the findings do not support the consistency with the surrounding areas. All of the hotels in the area offer those same amenities within 3 levels with an assortment of uses. While the 4th floor will provide ocean views, she feels it is not a necessity for the project to be successful. The product will still be a quality product with 3 levels. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7090 and 7091 recommending approval of Specific Plan Amendment SP 207(J) and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-02 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann Chairperson Scully Commissioner Anderson ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and thanked staff for the presentation. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of March 18, 2015 was adjourned at ['~ DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk