Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-18; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: November 18, 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 Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Black, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: Commissioner L’Heureux STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Christer Westman, Senior Planner Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Jason Goff, Associate Planner Corey Funk, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Mike Vasel spoke regarding contract issues with Construction Management and Inspection. Mr. Neu stated that the information will be forwarded to the manager of that division. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. CDP 15-35 – JAMES RESIDENCE 1 – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a 2,710 square foot single family residence with attached two-car garage within the Mello II Segment of the city’s Coastal Zone located at 4020 James Drive within 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 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 15303(a) construction of a single family residence of the state CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 2 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 2. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 2 Chairperson Anderson asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 2. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 2. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux 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. PUD 13-11(A) – LA COSTA VILLAS – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit amendment to revise the architectural style of an 8-unit multi-family residential condominium project to Contemporary with roof decks on a 0.39 acre infill site generally located on the south side of Gibraltar Street, west of Jerez Court, and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. 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 3 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 Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the cupola can be considered an architectural feature. Mr. Westman stated yes. Commissioner Montgomery stated that if the cupola is lowered to the height of the staircase it would change the architectural look. Mr. Westman stated yes, adding that there is an allowance for architectural protrusions so long as there is no habitable space. Commissioner Black asked about the framing of the building that is currently on the site versus what was previously approved. Mr. Westman stated the builder, during the building process, felt changes needed to be made without getting the proper approvals. The changes were not consistent with the building permit that was issued and not consistent with what the Planning Commission had approved. The builder was encouraged to process a request to amend the permits but it got to a point where the Building Official told them to stop and to not proceed any further. Commissioner Siekmann asked if roof deck must have a 42 inch high solid wall. Mr. Westman stated that based on the framing currently on the building, it will be a solid wall except for a partial opening on street view. Commissioner Segall asked what a stop construction order means. Mr. Westman stated it means to stop construction. Commissioner Segall stated that while visiting the site the other day he saw workers working on the site. Mr. Westman stated there should not be any construction going on at the site. Commissioner Segall asked if the applicant is aware of that. Mr. Westman stated that the Building Official personally spoke with the builder and told them to stop work. Commissioner Segall commented that the as-built drawings do not look like anything that is being constructed at the site. Commissioner Segall asked about the air handling equipment and where it was located in the previous approval. Mr. Westman stated it was located in the attic. The applicant is requesting to locate the air handling equipment on the roof deck because there is no longer an attic. Commissioner Segall asked if there are other roof decks in the Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 3 neighborhood. Mr. Westman stated that it is quite possible there are no other roof decks in this neighborhood. This style is more contemporary than what currently exists in the area. Mr. Westman added that there is nothing in the code that excludes roof decks. The code allows for buildings 35 feet in height with a flat roof. This building is 31 feet high. Commissioner Segall asked what is to prevent the applicant from adding a structure on the roof top at a later date and asked if there is anything the Commission can do to prevent that. Mr. Westman stated that assuming the standard process of building something permanent is followed, the building permit would be denied. For someone to build without a building permit, until the city becomes aware of it via a citizen complaint, it would then be enforced through code enforcement. The Planning Division position would be that if it is similar to what would require a building permit, it would not be allowed. Commissioner Segall asked if the project can be conditioned so that any roof top lighting is downward facing and if there are any conditions that can be added to deal with noise from the air handling unit. Mr. Westman stated there are standard conditions that can be applied related to lighting. With regard to any roof mounted equipment, there are conditions requiring any equipment to be screened which helps to attenuate any noise. Mr. Neu pointed out that a condition of original project approval, Condition No. 23 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7052, includes the requirement for an exterior lighting plan. If this amendment is approved, staff can request that a revised exterior lighting plan be submitted so that staff can make sure those issues are addressed. Commissioner Montgomery commented that it might be a Building Code requirement to have a standard light fixture on the stair well. He suggested that the condition be modified to add that the lighting be directed downward and “shrouded.” Commissioner Segall asked how the Commission would know that everything else that was supposed to have been done per the previous approval is being done. Mr. Westman stated that it is really on the city as an enforcer through the Building Division, through the inspection process and through the Building Official who need to ensure that they are referring to the approved set of plans. Commissioner Black asked if he can assume the building inspector overlooked the fact that the entire architecture changed. Mr. Westman stated that as he understood it, there was some dialog that the builder had intentions of making changes to the plans. The builder was made aware by not only the Planning Division but the Building Division that those changes needed to be approved. Mr. Westman added that there was some leniency in allowing construction to continue with the promise that those changes would get approved. The changes were never brought forward for approval and the stop work order was given. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the Building Official only had the original approved plans. If these revised plans are approved, the plans would need to go through review by the Building Division. He would like to see a recommendation that the design engineer, either the original designer or the current designer, make an inspection of the site and certify it. There is a gap because there is a project being constructed under plans that are for a different style and different structure. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the closet on the deck is still part of the plan. Mr. Westman stated yes, it is still part of the plan. Commissioner Siekmann asked if removing that closet, would it change the roof line. Mr. Westman stated yes it is possible. Chairperson Anderson asked if the pop-outs on the front of the building which were not part of the original plan change the footprint of the building. Mr. Westman stated yes. Chairperson Anderson asked if there is an allowance for storage areas on the roof deck. Mr. Westman stated there cannot be habitable space. A closet area could be considered habitable space because it is part of an interior space. Chairperson Anderson asked if a forced air unit would need to be enclosed. Mr. Westman stated that it is possible that it is a type of unit that needs to be inside and not exposed to the elements. Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Westman’s opinion on the changes being made to staff’s satisfaction. Mr. Westman stated that it is difficult to say definitively what the changes would be or ultimately look like but it would take some time to review what is proposed and what is necessary for the structure. There is the potential of changing the look of what has already been constructed. Chairperson Anderson asked for clarification regarding architectural elements. Mr. Westman stated that architectural elements are allowed if it does not create habitable space. In the district this project is located, buildings 35 feet in height, including flat roofs, are allowed, and 40 feet is allowed if there is a pitched roof. Above and beyond those requirements, architectural projections or mechanical equipment enclosures and staircases are allowed to go above 40 feet as long as no habitable floor space is created. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked if there is an option to have this project return to staff to review it for ways to mitigate the size of the structure and return to the Commission with a recommendation. Mr. Neu stated that staff would request to have the leeway to work with the applicant and the Building Official to work out those issues. Commissioner Segall commented that he is aware the city does not have a view ordinance and asked if these changes block any views of the neighbors. Mr. Westman stated he has not done a field assessment. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Majid Mortazavi, 1608 Lake Drive, Cardiff, stated the reason for the change was a 4½ foot cantilever on the third floor causing very small gaps between the buildings. He decided a flat roof would be a better design. He stated that previous plans were not desirable. Mr. Mortazavi stated there is no closet in the cupola, only space for the forced air unit. He has never heard about any complaints from any of the neighbors regarding the project. Mr. Mortazavi stated he never received any stop work orders from anyone. When he tried to change to the roof deck, he spoke with staff who indicated that a roof deck would be allowed and as long as the changes were limited to the roof deck, the project might not need to go before the Planning Commission. After speaking with the original architects, they felt the other changes would be desirable by the city as it is a much better project. He stated about a month ago he received a call from the Building Division. Building Division staff indicated that the changes were too much and the project needed to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mortazavi admitted to proceeding with electrical and mechanical work on the site because he was never told to or received any stop work notice on the project. Commissioner Montgomery asked if he has same architect and engineer. Mr. Mortazavi stated yes. Commissioner Montgomery commented that there are changes on every level of the building. Mr. Mortazavi stated none of the square footage of the decks have changed. He stated the only thing that changed is the shape of the windows but not the square footage. Commissioner Montgomery stated that in looking at original drawings and the new drawings there are numerous changes. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the architect built off a new set of plans that had not been approved. Mr. Mortazavi stated he is respectfully asking the Commission to approve these changes. Commissioner Black stated that no one would disagree that the new plans look better than the old plans. He commented that at some point the applicant decided he did not want to play by the rules. Because the applicant has been in construction for 30 years, he should know that any changes to the project would require approval from the city. Mr. Mortazavi stated it was a misunderstanding. He stated that through each stage of the construction he had city approval. It was not until constructing the third floor that he decided to make changes. Chairperson Anderson commented that when a job receives a stop work order, no work can be done including electrical and plumbing. He stated he did not know that. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she is very irritated. She commented that if Mr. Mortazavi has been in the building and contracting business for 37 years, he knows what the rules are. Commissioner Siekmann stated she is extremely irritated by how Mr. Mortazavi has treated the Commission and if he does not start speaking the truth she will not approve the project. She commented that the Commission cannot believe anything Mr. Mortazavi is saying because he continued to work on the project after receiving a stop work order. She further commented that she is not happy with the roof deck and suggested that it be enclosed all the way around so as to mitigate noise. Commissioner Siekmann also wants to ensure that there is no closet on the roof deck as she believes any closet space on the roof deck is in appropriate. Mr. Mortazavi promised that there is no closet on the roof deck. Commissioner Siekmann stated that the plans the Commission received indicate that there is in fact a closet on the roof deck. Mr. Mortazavi stated that it is a mistake. Commissioner Siekmann commented that there are a lot of mistakes on the plans. Chairperson Anderson added that the other thing that is troubling is that Mr. Mortazavi stated he was building the project according to plan until the third floor but clearly the plan that he was building from was not the plan that was approved. Mr. Mortazavi stated that the exhibits are an artist’s rendering. The grading and square footage was built according to the approved plans. Chairperson Anderson asked when the new plans were drawn. Mr. Mortazavi stated that it was two months ago. He stated that he believed the changes would be appreciated by the city because the project would be highly upgraded. He stated he submitted Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 5 those plans to the city. He was then told by staff that because the changes were considered to be major, the project would need to go before the Planning Commission. 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 3. Mark Witherall, 2912 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that while he understands the rights of the property owner he would like to create some CC&Rs with the adjacent properties to help achieve a quality of life that they each have control in. He was hoping staff would point out the obvious problems with the project and speak about all the violations the project has received. The project does not block any views. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the speaker. Commissioner Black asked about a complaint about noise. Mr. Witherall stated that the neighbors hate the building. He stated he is concerned about the quality of life for the neighborhood. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Witherall about the view. Mr. Witherall stated the issue is not the view, it is the stark boxes on the roof. He would like to see those boxes be as small as possible to meet the code. 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 Montgomery stated that if this is approved, conditions should be added and/or modified to protect the city. He would prefer to leave the redesign of the roof and roof decks at the hands of the City Planner. The mechanical enclosure should be the minimum space required to house the proposed forced air unit and that should be determined by the City Planner. Commissioner Montgomery commented that regarding the slope of roof, it should be a City Planner’s decision. He further added that it should be required that the architect of record and engineer of record certify that the building is designed and constructed per the new approved plans before any more construction starts again. He stated the construction should not proceed until there are approvals in place for the new plans and that the architect of record and engineer of record have inspected the site and approve what has been built to date per their design. Commissioner Black commented that he is horribly disappointed that a contractor with over 30 years’ experience would have the tenacity to make all these changes without proper approvals from the city. He would like to see the developer fined if that is possible. Mr. Neu stated that because there had been a building permit issued, staff did not feel there was not an appropriate fine. The penalty was the ability to get further inspections which basically put the job on hold. The stop work has delayed the project which would incur costs. Commissioner Black concurred with Commissioner Montgomery’s requests. Commissioner Siekmann stated she agrees with both Commissioner Black and Commissioner Montgomery. She would vote to have the project return to staff so the applicant can make the changes and then return to the Planning Commission. She feels this is a completely different project, and because of the substantial changes it needs to go through everything that all projects go through. She will not support this project. Commissioner Segall stated he agrees with his fellow Commissioners; however, he cannot support the project. He commented that last year the Commission approved a completely different project that he liked. Commissioner Segall stated that he does not feel the current project is compatible with the neighborhood and he does not like the design. He will support his fellow Commissioners but he will not support the project. Chairperson Anderson agrees with her fellow Commissioners. It is not the project that was approved and the changes are not minor. She stated she would like to see the project return to staff and to go through the proper channels so it can be reviewed and inspected. She further stated that she believes the developer should be held accountable for making major changes and basically building something that was not approved. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 6 Commissioner Black added that there is one condominium building with a roof deck and it is quite noisy. Commissioner Montgomery stated he does not want to see this again. The Planning issues need to be approved prior to any issuance of a building permit and before any inspections by an architect or an engineer. A motion was made by Commissioner Segall to deny the project. The motion was not seconded. A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann to send the item back to Planning to resolve the noted problems with the project. Chairperson Anderson asked if that was allowed. Mr. Neu commented that staff would need clarity on the issues. The Commission voted unanimously on the following changes: Lighting on the roof be downward and shrouded Project to be reviewed and certified by the architect of record and engineer of record Project to be reviewed by the Building Division Cupola to be made smaller The Commission voted 4-1 (Montgomery) to have the 4th floor openings on the roof deck be solid. Mr. Kemp asked for clarity regarding the changes the Commission is requesting be made. Commissioner Siekmann stated she would like to see all the changes again as it is a completely different project than what was previously project. Mr. Neu stated that the project would be continued so that staff can work with the applicant to address the issues and to return to the Commission with a revised set of plans. (4-1 to continue; Montgomery). Commissioner Siekmann stated the request for a solid wall is for noise attenuation. Commissioner Montgomery commented that those openings might look better as they have been presented as opposed to being closed. Mr. Neu stated the project would need to be continued to a date uncertain and the item will be re-noticed. Mr. Kemp added that the Building Official will allow construction on a stop work order in order to prepare for the upcoming El Nino. Commissioner Segall asked how an applicant knows what a stop order includes. Mr. Kemp stated it is in writing with the specifics as to why it is being issued and what needs to be done to get the order lifted. Chairperson Anderson asked if the Building Official could issue an official written stop work order. Mr. Westman stated that he can speak with the Building Official and if a work order has not already been formally issued, it can be done. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner Black that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain to send the item back to Planning to be reviewed and for the project to be revised based on the Commission’s requested changes. VOTE: 4-1 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Montgomery ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 7 RECESS Chairperson Anderson called for a 10-minute recess at 8:03 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:16 p.m. with all Commissioners present, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. 4. DRAFT VILLAGE & BARRIO MASTER PLAN – Staff presentation on the draft Village & Barrio Master Plan. The proposed planning document provides land use regulations and design guidelines for the city’s downtown Village and adjacent Barrio. The Village and Barrio are generally located west of Interstate 5 between Tamarack Avenue and Buena Vista Lagoon. The railroad corridor forms the west boundary of the Barrio. Parts of both neighborhoods are in the Coastal Zone. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would make the staff presentation. Mr. Donnell gave a brief presentation on the draft master plan and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Chairperson Anderson asked if Planning Commission will be able to attend the public meetings or if the comments will be documented. Mr. Donnell stated a time can be set aside for the Commission to meet with the consultants; however, it might have to be noticed as a public meeting. Mr. Neu stated the Commission’s comments would be received at the same time the publics’ comments are received. Commissioner Siekmann stated she would like to attend the consultant meetings. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Anderson opened public testimony. John Bailey, 790 Magnolia Avenue, stated he supports the concept of the master plan. He stated that his main concern is the parking. The parking reductions are 30 to 40 per cent, and the proposal is eliminating any visitor parking in the Barrio. Mr. Bailey stated the changes will do irreparable damage to the area if the parking reductions are enforced. 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 on Agenda Item 4, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. 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 1 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 questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 8 Commissioner Black asked how noise will be measured in an existing building if a shooting range is built next to it and what will happen if the noise level in the existing building then exceeds the allowable noise level. Mr. Funk stated that through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, staff would request a preliminary noise study to be provided by the applicant. That study may require some form of modeling that would show how the existing building is constructed and how the new building could be constructed to lessen the noise for the existing building. A secondary noise study could be required in order to confirm the noise levels are appropriate. Commissioner Siekmann asked who will pay for background checks. Mr. Funk stated it would be established through the business license process and the cost will be incurred by the applicant. Commissioner Montgomery asked how staff determined 2 parking stalls per firing lane was adequate and asked if that is on a comfortable side based on what other cities have done. Mr. Funk stated staff looked at other codes, many of which do not have a parking standard for shooting ranges. Many require 1 parking stall/firing lane while others require 2 parking stalls/firing lane; however, staff did not find any that require more than that. Staff feels that 2 parking stalls/firing lane is warranted. Commissioner Montgomery commented that 2 stalls is the upper range of what other cities require. Mr. Funk stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification on the errata sheet, under general requirements, regarding ballistic protection on all four sides. Mr. Funk stated the proposed changes would accomplish ballistic protection on all four sides. Staff’s intention is that the building should be designed to provide ballistic protection within the range portion of the building. Commissioner Segall stated it is confusing the way it is written. Mr. Neu stated that based on some of the feedback staff received with the original wording (front, back, floor, walls, ceiling), it was decided that it would be better to have flexibility and to indicate the range portion of the building as opposed to the entire building. Commissioner Segall stated it wasn’t clear how it is written. Commissioner Segall commented that when a use like this is shoehorned into existing buildings it does not work very well. He stated he is not sure that issue is completely addressed with the proposed revisions. It is not just noise; it is safety and compatibility. Mr. Neu stated that a challenge with the amendment, at least with noise, is that it is very site specific. The larger issue is that there are not many jurisdictions with codes addressing the issues so there was not a great deal of information to guide staff to address building separation issues. Commissioner Segall stated that he would like to see some additional language included that protects existing businesses and uses from compatibility issues. Mr. Kemp commented that in reviewing case law, there is nothing out there in the state of California as this is a fairly new area of the law. He stated that there have been federal cases out of Chicago. The second amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. The city of Chicago attempted to say someone could not have a gun unless there was training and they did not allow ranges. Some of the laws that came from that are that a city cannot require training without providing the opportunity to receive the training. The city of Chicago allowed ranges but made it so restrictive that the ranges were only allowed in about 10% of the city. The courts found that that was too much unless the city could articulate strong public health and safety reasons for why they were doing that with some hard evidence as to how that served the public purpose. In light of that, Mr. Kemp stated that he does not think the city can articulate strong public health and safety reasons to pick a buffer that would eliminate 90% of the sites in the city unless there was evidence as to why that was so. What the court did find was that if a city had a noise ordinance that was enforced equally against all uses in that zone, it would be allowed. It also found that if there are construction standards that allowed for ballistic protection, that would be acceptable; however, when buffers are incorporated without lack of evidence or support for that purpose, cities run into issues if all the areas are restricted. Mr. Kemp advised that if a buffer is set, there needs to articulable evidence and proof about how that advances a public purpose. Commissioner Segall asked if existing businesses/occupants have rights too such that if a shooting range would cause them to leave. Mr. Kemp stated that there is the concept of compatibility. It may be that the Commission can set a buffer similar to what the city of Poway has and as individual applications are received, staff can analyze compatibility with existing properties. At this point it is quite speculative to say what could happen in a particular location. Commissioner Segall commented that any compatibility issues should be articulated up front instead of waiting until it is before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kemp stated he understands the Commission is uncomfortable with it, but he does not see that enough evidence has been presented and where the city is infringing upon a second amendment right to pick a buffer. Commissioner Segall commented that as long as the acceptable decibel levels are achieved in each building, a 10 foot buffer between buildings would be allowed. Mr. Kemp stated no. The Commission can Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 9 select a reasonable buffer between buildings that would allow a certain amount of uses in the city regardless of what the noise was. The buffer cannot be so restrictive as to eliminate the majority of the potential sites. Mr. Kemp added that the stricter the ordinance, the higher level of scrutiny under the law there will be. Commissioner Segall asked what Mr. Kemp would advise for an appropriate buffer. Mr. Kemp stated that the Commission needs to review the exhibits prepared by staff depicting various buffers and existing uses. Commissioner Montgomery stated he is not in favor of a buffer of any kind. He stated that through construction methods and building design, those issues can be mitigated. The Commission cannot just arbitrarily assign a distance for a buffer. From the exhibits prepared by staff, in the P-M zone, 80%-90% of the sites would not be applicable to a gun range because they are too large. As soon as a buffer, of 20 feet for example, is applied all of the remaining smaller buildings are eliminated. He stated he is more in favor of construction methods and standards that eliminate the fear of noise moving the existing uses away. It might be more costly for an applicant but it would more defensible for the city. Chairperson Anderson stated her concern is property values for adjacent buildings will be affected. Commissioner Siekmann stated that property values are not something the commission should be deciding upon. Mr. Kemp stated that the problem with defending that is there is no evidence to point to that being true. Commissioner Siekmann added she agrees with Commissioner Montgomery regarding the noise attenuation. Chairperson Anderson opened public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Lisa Gunther, 2717 Loker Ave West, Carlsbad, introduced Chris Hart, shooting range expert and consultant with Action Target, 3411 S. Mountain Vista Parkway, Provo, Utah. Mr. Hart suggested that the Commission not set a distance between buildings because the decibel levels already set will provide the sound barrier. In the case of Gunther Guns, they will retrofit an existing building and construct walls for the range within the existing walls, basically a bunker within an existing building. He stated the range will be quieter than other ranges because of that construction. Commissioner Montgomery asked if it is possible to achieve decibel levels lower than the proposed decibel levels through construction methods. Mr. Hart stated yes, but there comes a point where the construction costs are too prohibitive to even open a shooting range. Mr. Hart stated that 70 dBA at the property line is a very common decibel level for an industrial building. Noise studies he has worked on indicate that passing traffic is louder than the noise from inside a shooting range. A 45 dBA is between the sound of a whisper and a low conversation. He stated he is concerned with the proposed 24 hour average noise study because you do not know what goes on during the night, particularly since Gunther Guns is directly below the flight path for Palomar Airport. A one hour peak is more accurate. Commissioner Montgomery asked if it is possible for a shooting range to mitigate the noise requirements with a one hour average reading. Mr. Hart stated yes although he has not seen it done. Chairperson Anderson asked about age limits and height restriction. Mr. Hart stated he has not seen any limits on age restrictions set forth by a city. Most ranges do have an age limit but those limits are set by the ranges not by the city. He added that he has not seen a height restriction either. Commissioner Black asked about parking. Mr. Hart stated 1.5 parking stalls per firing line is common as is 1 parking stall per firing lane, and additional parking is set per 1,000 feet of retail space. Commissioner Black asked if employee parking is included in that figure. Mr. Hart stated no, typically employees park offsite and that is something set by the range operator. Chairperson Anderson closed public testimony on Agenda Item 1. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery commented that having range locations in the P-M zone would cause an issue with employees parking offsite as there is shortage of parking now. He stated that because of that, the parking requirement should remain at 2 parking stalls per firing lane. He further stated that he likes the amendment as it is written. Commissioner Montgomery added that while the ordinance is highly regulated Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2015 Page 10 it still has flexibility for owners to set their own requirements. Regarding the noise requirements, he commented that he would prefer a peak decibel reading instead of an hourly average. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can approve the item. Commissioner Black commented that he concurs with Commissioner Montgomery. He agrees that the noise requirements should be a peak level instead of hourly. Commissioner Black also agreed to keep the parking requirement at 2 parking stalls per firing lane. He further stated that the 65 and 45 decibel range is appropriate for any spacing between buildings. He can support the item. Commissioner Siekmann thanked staff for the hard work on the item. She can support the changes and would like to add the peak for the noise requirement. Commissioner Segall stated he is concerned with adding a buffer because he believes there will be compatibility issues with existing uses being too close. He feels the existing buildings and businesses should be protected. He stated he can support the item but would like to include a buffer as he thinks it is wrong to shoehorn a use like this into an existing area. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the other recommendations. Chairperson Anderson stated she would like to see at least a minimum of a 20 foot buffer. She stated she is concerned with the potential impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Montgomery suggested placing a requirement for a secondary noise study with peak readings within the adjacent buildings. Commissioner Segall stated his concern is that it is not just the noise or safety, it is the constant noise. A buffer preserves that distance so the noise is lessened. He would also like to address compatibility issues. Chairperson Anderson asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in including a 20 foot buffer. Chairperson Anderson and Commissioner Segall expressed interest. A motion was made by Commissioner Siekmann and was duly seconded by Commissioner Montgomery that the Commission change the noise restriction to peak rather than hourly average of 65 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels in a neighboring building. The motion passed 5-0. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Black that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7133 recommending 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 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZCA 15-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 15-04), based on the findings contained therein including the errata sheet dated November 18, 2015 and including the amendment for the noise restriction. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None.