Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-04; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: November 4, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson 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 Anderson, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Segall and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner Montgomery STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Heather Stroud, Deputy City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Jason Goff, Associate Planner Corey Funk, Associate Planner Greg Fisher, Associate Planner Chris Garcia, Assistant Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Officer Derek Harvey, Police Officer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of October 21, 2015. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 21, 2015. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Theresa Barnes, 7329 Gabbiano Lane, Carlsbad, spoke regarding hearing accessibility. Request to place on a future agenda, a discussion item regarding how the City of Carlsbad can become a model city for the hearing impaired. The Planning Commission supported having an item on a future agenda. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. PUD 15-12/SDP 15-12/CDP 15-24/MS 15-08 – CHERRY-FIELD BEACH HOMES – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to demolish an existing duplex and to allow for the development of a three-unit multiple-family residential air-space condominium project on a 0.21 acre infill site located at 187-191 Cherry Avenue, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Assistant Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Commissioner L’Heureux disclosed that he has previously handled the estate of the consultant’s late mother. He was not paid by Bill Hofman and therefore it does not constitute a qualifying conflict of interest. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning and Engineering, 3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1, Carlsbad, stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Black asked about the potential for noise leaving the units when the balcony doors are open. Mr. Hofman stated that the interior noise levels will be met and each unit will meet the exterior noise levels as well. Chairperson Anderson asked about the drainage particularly at the bottom of the slope for the driveway. Mr. Hofman stated water will drain into a slot drain into a biofilter. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if any members of the audience wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Anderson opened and closed public testimony. DISCUSSION Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated he can also support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated she can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 3 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7130 approving Planned Development Permit (PUD 15-12), Site Development Plan (SDP 15-12), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 15-24), and Tentative Parcel Map (MS 15-08), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next agenda item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. AV 15-01 – MAHON RESIDENCE – Request for an appeal of the City Planner’s decision to deny a Minor Variance for a decorative wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches (42”) in the front yard setback of a single family lot located at 4826 Kelly Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The Minor Variance (AV 15-01) for the Mahon Residence was denied and is, therefore, exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Greg Fisher would make the staff presentation assisted by Senior Program Manager Kerry Jezisek. Mr. Fisher clarified and explained the errata sheet for the project, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Black asked if something like evergreen trees would be allowed. Mr. Neu stated that the 42” maximum height limit applies to a hedge as well. Commissioner Siekmann asked about others in the neighborhood that might not be in compliance. Ms. Jezisek stated that since this case was brought forward, there are 4 homes in the neighborhood that have similar violations. In each instance, the respective homeowners are working with the city to rectify the violations. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the total fines that have accrued. Ms. Jezisek stated that there are administrative citations totaling $5,000 which have not been paid. Commissioner L’Heureux asked what the remedy is for the fines regardless of the outcome tonight. Ms. Jezisek stated that the account has been turned over to a collection agency in hopes that the fines will be paid. If not, staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office to determine the next legal steps. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the fines would be impacted if this appeal is granted. Ms. Jezisek replied that when staff began working with the property owner, an offer was made to lower the fines to a maximum of $500 if the fence was brought into compliance. The homeowner chose not to pursue that option. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the code enforcement process and how violations are brought to the city’s attention. Ms. Jezisek stated that the city has a reactive code compliance program, meaning that the city’s actions are driven by complaints. With this case, a complaint was received, staff went to the site to verify the complaint and the process was started to bring the violation into compliance. Now that the city’s program has grown and there are more staff members, when a complaint is received, officers visit the site and will do a visual inspection up and down the street to see if there are other homes that have the same or similar violations. If violations are found, the same enforcement process starts with those home owners. Ms. Jezisek further stated that the city has a blended enforcement program. In certain areas of the city, such as the Barrio or as it relates to the short-term vacation rentals, with Council direction, staff has taken a more proactive stance. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked about the citations not being received at this project site. Ms. Jezisek commented that staff does believe that the citations were being received because staff started receiving phone calls from the property owner. Commissioner Segall commented that he was confused because he was at the site yesterday and there is a mailbox to receive mail. Ms. Jezisek stated that that mailbox was not always there. Mr. Fisher added that the applicant told him he did not receive mail at that location. Chairperson Anderson asked about columns with wrought iron and if that type of structure would be allowed. Mr. Fisher stated that it would be treated the same and would be required to be less than 42 inches. Commissioner Segall asked how a homeowner would know the rules. Mr. Fisher stated that most people would know to call their local agency. Commissioner Segall asked if other home improvements have been made to the home. Mr. Fisher stated that other work has been done to the house. Ms. Jezisek stated the case originally came to the attention of the Code Enforcement Division because of a complaint of major building improvements without permits. The project was red-tagged by the city until the proper permits were pulled. Commissioner Segall commented that someone may not know that a permit is needed for a fence but they should know a permit is needed for improvements to a house. Ms. Jezisek stated yes particularly since the homeowner is a general contractor. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how a citation is delivered. Ms. Jezisek stated courtesy notices are sent out first class mail. With a citation, it is mailed first class as well as certified mail. If the citation is returned, a notice is then taped to the structure and the code enforcement officer takes pictures, which is what happened in this case. Staff was never able to reach this homeowner. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if building a block wall fence, such as the one on this property, would require a permit. Mr. Fisher stated that if the wall was lower than 6 feet, it would not require a permit. The Building Division will allow a freestanding wall less than 6 feet tall without a building permit. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the building permit for the home remodel included the fence or if it would be part of a separate permit. Ms. Jezisek stated that the wall was never shown on the plans for review. Commissioner Segall asked if someone who is a general contractor licensed by the state of California would know the basic process for construction and home improvements. Mr. Fisher stated yes. Commissioner Black asked if it appears to be an increase in the number of violations in the city. Ms. Jezisek stated there is an increase in the number of walls, hedges and fences being erected over the height limit. Commissioner Black suggested sending out notices or information regarding the various regulations in the water bills or other sorts of communications from the city. Commissioner Segall asked if at any point the applicant was notified that he was out of compliance but continued to build. Mr. Fisher stated that based on the photo taken by the code enforcement officer, the wall was almost fully constructed by the time code compliance was contacted; however finishing touches were added after that. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Ian Mahon, 4826 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the information on the Building Division webpage did not include any information regarding setbacks for a wall. He stated he did find out at a later date that the fence was in violation of the setback requirement. Mr. Mahon stated that there are hundreds of over-height fence violations in the city and he feels he is being discriminated against and singled out. Mr. Mahon stated that the reason he did not receive any of the certified mail is because he works every day and is not home to sign for it and he did not receive any regular mail until he installed a mail slot. Commissioner Segall asked about the information obtained on the website. Mr. Mahon commented that not everything constructed or worked on in a house requires a permit. Commissioner Segall commented that a general contractor would know to talk with someone in the Planning Division. Mr. Mahon stated that he works throughout the state of California and every municipality is different. Commissioner Segall stated that that would be why someone would talk with or visit the Planning Division to find out the requirements. Mr. Mahon stated there is a lot of information on the website. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 5 Chairperson Anderson asked if Mr. Mahon received any notices from the post office about the attempts to deliver certified mail. Mr. Mahon stated he believes he received one notice. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if any person in the audience wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Anderson opened public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Matthew Brent, 3607 Cheshire Avenue, Carlsbad, asked if the city really wants to have all the houses look exactly the same. He commented that while the homeowner did construct the wall without permits, it is unique. Ms. Jezisek stated the reason for the 42” requirement is for the safety and security for police as it allows for a line of sight as officers drive through neighborhoods. Commissioner Siekmann commented that with the General Plan the city is looking to create livable and friendly neighborhoods. Each house in this neighborhood can be unique as long as structures are not built within the setbacks. Mr. Neu stated there are development standards in terms of lot coverage and building height but there is quite a bit of discretion with single family homes in terms of styles, colors, floor plans and materials. Commissioner L’Heureux asked what happens to the structure if the appeal is denied. Mr. Fisher stated there are a few options. If the City Planner’s decision is upheld, the applicant can file an appeal to the City Council. Another option if the City Planner’s decision is upheld is that the applicant can lower the wall down to 42” or take the wall down completely. If the applicant chooses to do nothing, the item would return to Code Enforcement. If having a 6 foot wall is important to Mr. Mahon for safety reasons, the wall would have to be moved back at least 20 feet from the property line. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony. DISCUSSION Commissioner Black commented that the code is the code, and the applicant was made aware of the issue. He stated he feels the city and applicant can negotiate the burden of cost if the applicant agrees to lower the wall to 42”. Commissioner Black stated he cannot approve the variance and will uphold the City Planner’s decision. Commissioner Siekmann stated that based on the evidence, she can support the City Planner’s decision. Commissioner L’Heureux stated the applicant had considerable notice from the city’s Code Enforcement division, either by mail, by phone, or in person. He feels the applicant has not presented anything to meet the findings. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is very concerned about the wall as it has adverse impacts for the safety of the neighborhood. Commissioner Segall concurred with his fellow Commissioners as he feels six pages of code enforcement history is evidence enough to show that every single attempt was made to rectify the situation. He can support the City Planner’s denial. Chairperson Anderson also agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She stated it is an egregious disregard for the city. Chairperson Anderson stated she can support the City Planner’s denial. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 6 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7131 upholding the decision of the City Planner to deny AV 15-01, a Minor Variance for an over-height decorative wall, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. CT 14-04/PUD 14-06 – MILES BUENA VISTA – Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit to allow for the subdivision and grading of a developed 3.13 acre site into ten (10) single-family residential lots and one (1) private street/open space lot on property located at 1833 Buena Vista Way within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 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 Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall asked if the landscaping will be installed prior to the home site being constructed. Mr. Goff stated that the landscaping will be installed with the development of the project. Chairperson Anderson asked about reclaimed water. Mr. Geldert stated that reclaimed water is not available in the area at this time but the project will be designed for future availability. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if Valley Street is an alternative design street. Mr. Geldert stated yes. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Rod Bradley, with BHA, stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Siekmann asked why the applicant is not doing the mitigation on the soil for all the properties at one time. Mr. Bradley stated that the adjacent property is owned by other people. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 3. Seeing none, Chairperson Anderson opened and closed public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 7 DISCUSSION Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he has had a problem with a couple of projects in this area, particularly as it applies to the alternative design streets. He is concerned with the safety of the children in this development and the adjacent developments. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if, on previous projects needing council approval, the council was concerned that there were no sidewalks in that area. Mr. Neu stated that when the Commission expressed their concerns previously about the alternative design street program, the issue was brought forward to City Council for discussion. Staff asked Council if they wanted to revisit the program. At the time, it was Council’s direction to leave the program as is. Mr. Geldert added that staff has heard the Commission’s concerns about the alternative design street program. On this particular project, staff’s concern was connecting this development and the adjacent project and having a walkable safe route. Mr. Geldert stated this project is providing that as there will be a sidewalks along Buena Vista and Valley. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if street lights will be installed. Mr. Geldert stated the project was not conditioned specifically for street light but they can be included as part of the improvements. Mr. Bradley stated there are street lights at the intersection of Crest and Buena Vista. He added that he is not opposed to installing street lights for this project. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification on whether streetlights are not included in alternative design streets. Mr. Geldert stated that streetlights are not one of the improvements that are excluded. He added that streetlights are included in the conditions for the project. Mr. Goff stated that Condition No. 50 of Resolution No. 7128 includes streetlights. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated she too can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Black that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7127 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7128 approving Tentative Tract Map (CT 14-04) and Planned Development Permit (PUD 14-06), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: None RECESS Chairperson Anderson called for 5-minute recess at 7:40 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. with all Commissioners present, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item, and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 8 4. ZCA 15-03/LCPA 15-04 – INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE CODE AMENDMENT – A request to recommend adoption of findings to determine that the project is within the scope of the previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 13-02); and recommending approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to add “indoor shooting ranges” as a conditionally permitted use in the Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone and to establish development and operational standards for indoor shooting ranges. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Associate Planner Corey Funk would make the staff presentation. Mr. Funk gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 4. Chairperson Anderson opened public testimony on Agenda Item 4. Lisa Gunther, 2717 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, stated that she supports staff’s recommendation. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 4. Seeing none, Chairperson Anderson closed public testimony and asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Black stated his concerns are parking, noise and compatibility. He asked if the standards can be structured to define the compatibility within any part of the business park, space between buildings, etc. Mr. Funk stated a revision can be made to what has been proposed regarding space between buildings. Commissioner Black stated he could leave that up to the city planner. Commissioner Black asked about the sound requirement. Mr. Funk stated the conditional use permit (CUP) application would require a noise study. Based on the design of a building, a noise study would estimate the sound levels within a neighboring building. Commissioner Siekmann stated she was in receipt of an email asking that she recuse herself from the item because of her previous employment at Gunther’s Gifts. She previously recused herself from previous hearings regarding the specific project, Gunther’s Guns. However, because this item is an ordinance and not for a specific project, she can make a non-biased decision. Commissioner Siekmann suggested that children be at least 8 years of age and at least 42” in height in order to enter the shooting range. She also suggested changing the noise standards for hourly instead of what is proposed. Commissioner Siekmann stated she would like to add that single shooters are not allowed unless they carry their own gun. She added that the parking requirements should be based on a per stall basis since many people will use the same stall. She also suggested that staff look into the range master qualifications and how many range masters there should be. Commissioner Siekmann further suggested the following changes to the proposed ordinance: page 3, #5 and #6 need to be more clear; page 4, she feels that each time an employee changes or a principal changes, a background check must be completed. She stated that the ordinance does not include anything about recycling the lead and she feels that should be included. Commissioner Siekmann stated that #16 of the ordinance, regarding liability, gives the wrong idea as the city takes no liability for anything; page 8, #13, regarding failure to adequately implement or maintain the safety management plan, she would like to add “…or any requirement of this ordinance…” Finally, Commissioner Siekmann suggested that shooting ranges should be a stand-alone use, a free standing building. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that the Commission wants to ensure that the requirements of the ordinance result in a shooting range that is a good neighbor in the P-M zone and in the city. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about specific plans within the P-M Zone which have their own rules and if the ordinance would apply to those properties. Mr. Funk stated there are some specific plans that allow their own unique set of uses which will have to be amended because the plans do not reference the P-M zone list of uses. Mr. Neu commented that some specific plans that have been approved by the city have their own set of zoning requirements, unique from the municipal code. This proposal is just amending the municipal code. If there is interest in adding this use to one of the specific plan areas list of permitted uses, an amendment Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 9 would have to be applied for. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that a major concern of his is allowing this use in an existing multi-tenant building. He stated it should be in a stand-alone building. If that is the decision, the question then becomes what would be the bare minimum of space between buildings. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that shared parking agreements could be beneficial but he would like to work out any issues prior to the CUP process. He further stated that the number of lane safety officers should be tied to the number of lanes. He would also like to have a requirement for evacuation plans included in the ordinance. He stated that he is really concerned with the background checks and feels it should be similar to the requirements of the Alcohol and Beverage Control process. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he feels it is important to set the groundwork and the ordinance language needs to be tightened up and refined. Commissioner Segall stated that for compatibility issues there needs to be distance between any existing businesses and structures to create buffer zones. He commented that he is not sure what that distance should be. He agrees that it should be a free standing building and that it cannot be in buildings co-habitated with other businesses. Commissioner Segall commented that there should be a distance between the target end of range and the next building. He suggested that the following uses be added to the list of sensitive use areas: liquor stores, wineries, churches, breweries and distillers. If those are added to the ordinance, he further suggested that the reverse happen so that those uses cannot be located within 600 feet of a shooting range. Commissioner Segall stated the parking ratio should be 2:1 but added that any conference rooms and training centers, club rooms need to be included in the parking calculations. He added the special events at the ranges also need to be looked at and parked accordingly. Commissioner Segall commented that there are tactical ranges and other types of ranges and the differences should be identified in the ordinance as each type would have a different set of standards. Commissioner Segall asked about negligent discharge and what happens if that occurs. He further asked about the number of range masters per stall and stated that those standards need to be articulated. Commissioner Segall commented that many of the possible locations identified by staff are sites located along the approach to Palomar Airport and he asked if staff has checked with FAA for any regulations or restrictions on shooting ranges located near airports. Commissioner Segall commented that the operating hours, specified in the ordinance as 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., should be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. as is with other shooting ranges in the county. He further commented that regarding ammunition storage, it should be individual packages and not barrel stored. Commissioner Segall suggested hiring a consultant to help advise staff and the Commission on some of these issues brought up tonight. Regarding the 5 star rating, Commissioner Segall commented that it is a high rating, similar to that of a hotel’s 5 diamond rating, which is something the city should aspire to but not necessarily something that needs to be included in the ordinance. Chairperson Anderson commented that in her visits to local shooting ranges, one location has all of their employees as NRA range safety officer trained. She feels that the ordinance should specify that employees receive training through a specialized program such as the NRA. She commented that the ordinance should be more specific on the containment of the noise and soundproofing. Chairperson Anderson agreed that there should not be adjoining or shared walls for another business. She further commented that she feels very strongly that there should be 3 parking spaces per shooting lane. Chairperson Anderson stated that she feels this item should not be rushed through and that the city should be specific and proactive with the matter. She added that the ordinance should specify that a child needs to be with a parent or a legal guardian. Mr. Neu stated one approach would be to look at topical issues as there was quite a bit of overlap. He added that staff’s charge is to deal with land use issues and many of the issues that have come up with this item are operational issues. In terms of how the Commission moves forward, he suggested taking the issues that have been brought up and determining what the majority of the Commission would like to do. Staff can then return with the proposed changes at the next meeting on November 18. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if public testimony would be reopened if the item is returned to staff for revisions and refinement. Ms. Stroud recommended reopening public testimony at the next hearing because the recommended changes seem to be fairly substantial. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 10 The Planning Commission discussed and voted on the following topic areas: Parking standard Mr. Neu stated that in staff’s research, there were many different options including 3 spaces per shooting lane. Staff is suggesting a set number of spaces per shooting lane. Staff approached the parking this way because with any building in the city, particularly in the industrial park, each area of the building is parked based on its use. Chairperson Anderson commented that 1.5 spaces will not be adequate. Commissioner Siekmann stated her concurrence with Chairperson Anderson. The Commission voted to recommend a parking standard of 3 parking spaces per shooting lane. Building Separation Mr. Neu stated that staff would return with revised documents to indicate that multi-tenant buildings would not be permitted, and only stand-alone buildings would be permitted. He further stated that staff can further research and present the Commission with information regarding the appropriate space between buildings. Mr. Neu added that the details regarding construction of the buildings will be reviewed with a CUP application so that the standards included in the ordinance will be met. Noise Levels Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance is structured to provide a 24 hour average noise level. The Commission voted to recommend a 1 hour average for noise. Operational Plan Commissioner L’Heureux commented that in talking with the owners of local ranges, they indicated that the combination of age and height is very integrated. He added that by not knowing what a building would look like, it is appropriate for the ordinance to at least include a minimum for age and height. Mr. Neu stated that most of that falls to the discretion of the range operator and the safety officers and what they feel is safe. Commissioner Black asked if age and height restrictions would be details stipulated in a CUP application. Mr. Neu stated that an applicant, as part of the required management plan for the CUP, can propose that. The ordinance can require a minimum. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he views the ordinance as providing minimums. The more specific the Commission can be, the easier it will be for staff and applicants. Commissioners L’Heureux and Siekmann stated their agreement with a minimum of 8 years old and 42” tall. Chairperson Anderson and Commissioner Segall stated their preference for a minimum of 10 years old and 42” tall. The Commission voted to recommend that a parent or legal guardian must accompany a minor. The Commission also voted to recommend that a single shooter should bring his or her own gun. Range Master/Safety Officer Mr. Funk stated that the ordinance has a requirement for a range safety officer but it does not specify any type of necessary qualifications or a specific number per lane. Mr. Neu suggested leaving the number of officers per lane to the operator. The Commission agreed to have an applicant, as part of the application process, submit a management plan detailing how many range masters/safety officers will be onsite and how many officers per lane. The Commission voted to recommend that the range masters/safety officers have the training of the NRA, an equivalent or better. Background Check Requirement Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance would be revised to include that in the case of a change in ownership, background checks be required. The Commission agreed to recommend that any person with 10% ownership and all employees will be required to undergo background checks. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2015 Page 11 Transfer of Conditional Use Permit Mr. Neu stated that all CUPs run with the land. He stated that CUP applicants are required to notify the city of a change of owner or mailing address. Mr. Neu stated that staff can research the issue. Ms. Stroud commented that she can work with the Planning Division regarding the issue. Recycling of Lead The Commission voted to recommend that the ordinance be modified to include the recycling of lead. Liability Mr. Neu stated that staff will research and propose changes to the issue of liability as indicated in the ordinance on page 6, #16. Distance Requirements Staff will modify page 3, numbers 5 and 6, of the ordinance to make the items more straight-forward. Evacuation Plan The Commission agreed to have an evacuation plan added to the operational requirements. Buffer for Sensitive Use Areas Mr. Neu stated that the ordinance would be revised to include a requirement that ranges cannot be located within a 600 foot buffer for sensitive use areas and likewise once a shooting range is established, sensitive uses will not be allowed within 600 feet of an indoor shooting range. Distance Between End of Range and Distance to Next Buildings This issue should be addressed with the building separation. Special Events and Parking Staff will return with information for the Commission regarding parking for special events. Special Requirements or Standards for Tactical Ranges Staff will add wording for the design of tactical ranges. Airport When a project is submitted, staff will have to make sure the design of the range is compatible with the airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan. Staff will return with information regarding assembly requirements and influence areas and safety zones of the airport. Commissioner L’Heureux suggested including graphics with the ordinance. Barrel Stored Ammunition Mr. Neu commented that this would be considered an operational issue, and it would be reviewed by the Fire Department once an application was submitted. Hours of Operation The Commission agreed this would be an operational issue. Soundproofing of the Ceiling Mr. Neu stated the standards will refer back to the acoustical analysis. Motion ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission continue Agenda Item No. 4 to a date specific of November 18 to receive the revised ordinance per the modifications previously stated. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: None