Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-06; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: January 6, 2016 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Siekmann led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Siekmann, and Segall Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Farah Nisan, Senior Office Specialist Christer Westman, Senior Planner Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Austin Silva, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Will Foss, Building Official PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. 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 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 from traditional to contemporary with roof decks, and to include elements pursuant to Planning Commission direction 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 2 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation. Mr. Westman gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Mr. Westman acknowledged receipt of correspondence from neighbors near the project. He added that the neighbor immediately adjacent to the project indicated he was appreciative of the proposed changes to the project based on the comments from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 2 Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Chairperson Anderson asked if the glass on the deck will be tempered glass. Mr. Westman stated yes. Chairperson Anderson asked if there have been any further inspections on the property since the last meeting. Mr. Westman stated no. Chairperson Anderson stated she observed people working at the project site and stated her concern about work occurring without the proper permits. Mr. Westman stated once the building plans for the revisions have been completed, inspections would continue on the site. Some work was still being done on the property but it was not related to the building itself. Mr. Westman stated that there has been more interaction and communication between the Building Official and the applicant for a few weeks now. Chairperson Anderson stated she was concerned about work being done when it should not be happening. Mr. Westman stated that when all is said and done, the Building Inspectors will review the project and make sure the project is moving forward as intended. Chairperson Anderson asked how long it will take to complete the plancheck process. Mr. Westman stated it would depend on the complexity of the plans. 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, with MBM Development, gave a presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how someone will clean the glass panels from the front of the roof deck. Mr. Mortazavi stated a homeowner would be able to use water and a squeegee for cleaning. Chairperson Anderson asked how much space there will be between the glass and the wire railing. Mr. Mortazavi stated it has not been determined yet. Chairperson Anderson asked how the hillside is holding up with all the recent rain. Mr. Mortazavi stated the hillside is fine. 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 the public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Daniel Fahey, 7533 Jerez Court, Carlsbad stated his concerns with potential noise from the roof deck and homeowners or renters not cleaning the glass surrounding the roof decks. He further stated he is opposed to the rooftop decks as he feels it would set a precedence in the area. Carol Corasco, 7527 Jerez Court, Carlsbad, stated that she is very aware that there has been construction going on at the site. She stated there were workers working on the fence along the hillside that afternoon. Ms. Corasco stated her concerns regarding noise pollution and commented that the proposed architecture and roof decks are a big change from what currently exists in the neighborhood. She added that she believes the project will have adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as the roof decks will cause safety issues, impacts on the community, and there are no safe areas around the building for children to play. Ms. Corasco added that she feels the project does not fit the existing neighborhood. She urged the Commissioners to consider denying the project. Gary Alberson 7525 Jerez Court, Carlsbad, commented that this is not a 3 story building with a deck; it is a 4 story structure. He stated there is now issue with parking on Jerez Court as the city has recently red- curbed approximately 40 feet so on-street parking is even more reduced. Chairperson Anderson asked if there any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on Agenda Item 1 and asked Will Foss, Building Official, to address some of the comments raised during public testimony. Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Foss about the recent construction activity on the project site. Mr. Foss stated a stop work order was issued for the project so there should not be any work going on until plans have been approved. The only work that should be occurring is to protect the structure from the elements. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 3 Chairperson Anderson asked if there any fines associated with a stop work order. Mr. Foss stated it could happen with an active permit although he would defer to the City Attorney. Commissioner Montgomery asked about insuring the project proceeds according to approved plans and specifications. He is concerned because the applicant had an approved set of plans he was building off of but then started constructing off another set of unapproved plans. Mr. Foss stated the plans are not consistent with the approved plans. He stated the applicant will have to go through the inspection process as if the structure has not been built yet. Once those plans are approved, there will be a field verification to make sure it is consistent with those approved plans. He does have discretion to require structural verification by the design engineer, to which he will exercise that right. Commissioner Siekmann commented that she has concerns with the roof deck because there was not a roof deck on the previous approval. She asked how many people the deck will hold, if it is safe and how the city would enforce that issue. Mr. Foss stated the building code anticipates and requires that a roof deck can support a certain amount of weight. The code is very conservative. Numbers have to be entered into the structural calculations that have been submitted. This structure has an advantage in that the roof deck will be supported by the lower levels and it will not be hanging out over the building. Commissioner Segall asked if it is normal to put tar paper down prior to inspection. Mr. Foss stated that whatever type of paper that the applicant has put down will be removed and replaced with approved building materials. Commissioner Segall asked about drywall being delivered to a building that is not protected. Mr. Foss stated it is fairly standard and it will not be an issue. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that several of the neighbors have spoken about possible noise issues with the roof deck and asked if the city has any criteria for noise controls or for how much noise is allowed from a roof deck. Mr. Westman stated there are no regulations for normal, private use of outdoor space, whether it is a roof deck, front yard, rear yard, or patio. If there are issues with loud noise, nuisance noise, the Police Department will then be involved. Commissioner L’Heureux asked staff to comment on whether the roof deck constitutes a 4th floor. Mr. Westman stated the definitions used in the code have to do with enclosed space. A floor is a habitable enclosed space. The municipal code states that a roof being used as a floor does not qualify as a 4th floor. Chairperson Anderson asked if there was a recreational space requirement on the prior version of the plans. Mr. Westman stated yes there is and that space is provided near the rear of the property. It is a relatively small project so the space is not significant. The Planned Development Ordinance focuses on private space and each unit has private outdoor space in the form of balconies and patios. Chairperson Anderson asked if roof decks are allowed throughout the city. Mr. Westman stated yes, however there are provisions for limitations in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. Chairperson Anderson asked if the applicant wished to respond to any of the comments or questions. Mr. Mortazavi stated that the CC&Rs will include a 10:00 p.m. curfew for the roof decks. Commissioner Siekmann asked if a condition can be added to state that the CC&Rs include no use of the roof deck after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Neu stated yes. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery commented that he can support the design of the project. He stated he is in agreement with the Building Official’s process. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can approve the project as submitted. Commissioner Black commented that he has been spying on the project with binoculars from his backyard. He commented that noise becomes part of the neighborhood. He added that he does have a concern with safety with the walls around the roof deck as well as access to those decks. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann thanked Mr. Westman, Mr. Foss and staff for all the work put into the project. She asked that a condition be added that the CC&Rs include a 10:00 p.m. curfew for the roof decks. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 4 Chairperson Anderson made a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Black, that a condition be added that the CC&Rs include a 10:00 p.m. curfew for the roof decks. The motion passed 5-1 (Montgomery). Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated again he is concerned that the project is so radically different from the neighborhood was expecting. He commented that the addition of the condition for a 10:00 p.m. curfew will help mitigate some of the noise concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he will support the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he will not support the project because it is not consistent with the existing neighborhood with the addition of the roof deck. He asked to add another condition to the CC&Rs about the light on the roof deck. Mr. Neu stated that it can be a condition on the project or it can be included in the CC&Rs so that the condition lives beyond the approval of the project. Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Condition No. 23 states that all lighting should be designed to reflect downward and avoid impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Segall made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Siekmann, that a condition be added to the CC&Rs that the lighting will always be shrouded and directed downward. The motion passed 6-0. Chairperson Anderson commented that she is not a real fan of the modern design but there are no restrictions on the architecture. She is also concerned with the proliferation of roof decks and would like to see some sort of review on the issue. Chairperson Anderson stated she will support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7134 approving a Planned Development Permit amendment [PUD 13-11(A)], based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein to include the two added conditions to the CC&Rs. VOTE: 5-1 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Anderson 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. PUD 15-17/SDP 15-16/CDP 15-34/MS 15-11 – GARFIELD CUSTOM BEACH HOMES – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of a single-family home and the construction of a two-unit, detached single-family residential air-space condominium development on a .15 acre lot located at 3806 Garfield Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and in the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. This project is not located 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 2 and stated Associate Planner Austin Silva would make the staff presentation. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Silva 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. Kevin Dunn, 1245 Goldflower Road, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Siekmann commented that the proposed front doors do not look very appealing and asked if they will look different once constructed. Mr. Dunn stated that the doors will be 8 feet tall and there will be landscaping to help enhance the entryways. Chairperson Anderson asked if the doors will be made of glass. Mr. Dunn stated the proposed front doors call for a thick tempered glass and there are options available for different styles. Chairperson Anderson stated her concurrence with Commissioner Siekmann in that the front doors do not look inviting. Mr. Dunn stated that once the pavers and landscaping is installed, the doors will be more inviting. Chairperson Anderson asked about the accent colors for House 2. Mr. Dunn stated that the renderings do show the colors a little darker than how they will appear on the actual building. Chairperson Anderson further asked about the smaller windows on the east side of the homes. Mr. Dunn stated that because the homes will be built using reverse plans, the master bedrooms will be on the second floor. They are trying to create privacy with the window placements for those master bedrooms. 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. Seeing none, Chairperson Anderson opened and closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery commented that the project meets all the applicable guidelines and he can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann commented that she likes the project and stated she can support it. 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. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7144 approving Planned Development Permit (PUD 15-17), Site Development Plan (SDP 15-16), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 15-34), and Minor Subdivision (MS 15-11), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Siekmann and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None 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. Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 6 3. PUD 13-06(D) – ROBERTSON RANCH PLANNING AREA 5 – A request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Robertson Ranch Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and a request for approval of single-family home floor plans, architectural elevations, and plotting for the 36 single-family lots located south of Tamarack Avenue, east of El Camino Real and north of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. 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. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Greg Deacon, representing Toll Brothers, 4980 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Black asked about the entry monument sign. Mr. Deacon stated that the sign will be enhanced design from what is allowed in the master plan, and it was requested from Shapell Properties as they will be developing the commercial portion of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. John Gephardt, representing Shapell Properties, stated the proposed monument signage is strictly for the commercial portion of the site. He stated that the signage at the north and south entrances off El Camino Real will be the most important for the commercial site. Commissioner Segall asked about a separate monument sign. Mr. Gephardt stated they are proposing a sign at the southern entrance, which will have a right in/right out access. This particular sign is meant to capture the southbound El Camino Real traffic and is a trade-off for the sign at the entrance into the residential portion of the site. Chairperson Anderson asked if the signage on the monument sign will reduce the allowed signage for the buildings. Mr. Gephardt stated no, only what is allowed for entry signage. Commissioner L’Heureux asked how many signs will be on the monument sign. Mr. Gephardt stated that number of sign allowed is based on square feet and they would apply for a sign permit. Chairperson Anderson asked if the shopping center would be referred to as Robertson Ranch. Mr. Gephardt stated that that has not been determined yet but they would like to incorporate the name. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the colors for the proposed signs. Mr. Gephardt stated that it is a constant struggle with the retailers wanting their own identity but developers wanting some sort of uniformity. They want to have the sign be attractive and upscale looking. Commissioner Montgomery asked about lighting for the proposed signs. Mr. Gephardt stated those details will be looked when they submit a sign permit application. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the sign will be the entry sign for Robertson Ranch and he would like to see that that portion be lit day and night. Mr. Deacon added that the Robertson Ranch entry monument sign will be up-lit and will have wrought iron lettering. Commissioner Segall asked about the proposed rear elevations and why there is not as much detail on the rear elevations compared to the front and side elevations. Mr. Deacon stated that they looked at the different elevations and tried to determine where it made sense to add specific architectural features to the rear elevations. Mr. Deacon stated the architectural details for the various styles is enhanced with the window designs. These are larger homes and as such have larger windows. Adding architectural details such as shutters does not look right on many of the plans. Commissioner Segall stated that he is not excited about the plans. He commented that he believes the applicant could have done a lot better on the window treatments, especially on the upper floors, to make them have the integrity of the design. Commissioner Segall further commented that people will be spending over $1 million for houses that look the same in the back, at least from what was presented to the Commission. He stated that past projects Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 7 from this applicant have been far better at articulating the design elements. Mr. Deacon commented that when they looked at adding shutters to the design, they felt that design feature just looked like it was added on to be added on as opposed to being part of the design. Commissioner Siekmann commented that she understands the applicant’s decision and she like the proposed plans and architecture. Commissioner Montgomery commented on the view on southbound El Camino Real of the new retaining wall and suggested that Toll Brothers look at the landscaping for that area so that it can be softened. Mr. Deacon stated the project is conditioned so that the wall is a plantable wall and the specific plant that will be planted later. Commissioner Black asked how the slope and the wall are holding up with the current weather conditions. Mr. Deacon stated it has been a very challenging few days but the slopes have held up. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if they anticipate having to revise any of the existing landscape plans due to the current water restrictions. Mr. Deacon stated no. Commissioner L’Heureux asked when they anticipate the improvement to El Camino Real to be complete. Mr. Deacon stated it will be less than one year. 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. Seeing none, Chairperson Anderson opened and closed public testimony on Agenda Item 3. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he likes the proposed architecture. While he understands Commissioner Segall’s comments regarding the rear elevations, he believes the people who will be purchasing these homes will spend money on patio covers and landscaping. Commissioner Montgomery stated he can support the commercial signage on the entry monument signage. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black commented that he initially had some concerns about having commercial signs on the entry monument sign; however after hearing from the applicant he can understand the business aspect of the decision. He can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can also support the project. He commented that he shares the same concern as his fellow Commissioners regarding the commercial signage on the entry sign, but he feels that the applicant will work with the developers for the commercial portion of the project to create a nice sign. Commissioner Segall stated he too can support the project. He commented that he is concerned about the commercial signage being adequate enough for the project. Chairperson Anderson stated she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7145 approving Planned Development Permit Amendment PUD 13-06(D) based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Siekmann and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 8 Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and called for a 10-minute recess. RECESS Chairperson Anderson called for a 10-minute recess at 8:20 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. 4. DRAFT VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN – Staff presentation on the Draft Village & Barrio Master Plan for the purpose of receiving Planning Commission comments on the draft document. The proposed planning document provides a vision, 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. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if any member of the audience wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Anderson opened public testimony on Agenda Item 4. Scott White, 2920 Camino Serbal, Carlsbad, stated his support for the plan. He stated his comments are from his role as Chairman of the Board for the New Village Arts Theatre in the Village. Mr. White stated he is concerned that something will happen with the current building and wants to make sure that they are able to work with staff and city consultants so that live theater remains in the Village. Robert Wilkinson, 2277 Cameo Road, Carlsbad, commented that traffic calming is a considerable issue in the Barrio. He stated that the livability on the main north-south roads, particularly Madison, is diminished because of the length of the roads as well as the lack of stop signs. Mr. Wilkinson added that they have provided solutions to these issues to the consultants. He proposed adding 4 way stops at four of the existing intersections as well as adding crosswalks to every intersection in the Barrio. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification as to who Mr. Wilkinson is representing. Mr. Wilkinson stated Imagine Carlsbad is made up of himself and Gary Nessim. Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, thanked staff for their work on this project. He commented that many of the proposed changes can be done quickly and temporarily instead of waiting several years. The Grand Promenade, for example, can be created on temporary basis to see how it works out. Mr. Nessim also suggested that a parking garage should be constructed in the Village. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other members of the audience wished to speak on Agenda Item 4. Seeing none, she closed public testimony. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he loves the initial layout of the Village and Barrio Plan. He commented that starting with the Village Corridor, the city needs to implement smart growth ideas. The Village needs to have walkable streets, alleys, courtyards, promenades, and perhaps even a central village walking area devoid of traffic. If the train tracks were to be trenched, he commented that it would allow for a great area for public use. Commissioner Montgomery stated he likes the idea of the commercial areas and Village area to be devoid of parking requirements. He stated that a parking structure needs to be built immediately to help implement the plan. He stated he is in favor of height increases in some areas of the Village to allow for more pitched roofs which would create more character. He stated that he worries about implementation of capital improvement projects with this plan as there are dozens included in the plan that Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 9 each cost over one million dollars. He added that it is important to keep the density as high as possible for the Village. Regarding the Barrio area, Commissioner Montgomery stated that there needs to be traffic calming measures in place in order to restore the area as an “old” neighborhood. He suggested that the Barrio area provide their own parking and that it not be included in the in-lieu fee program. He also commented that he would like to see access to the beach at major access points in the Barrio. Commissioner Black commented that the most important item is a parking garage, maybe on Roosevelt since it is a central point in the Village. He stated that he feels State Street should be a walkable street all the way past the New Village Arts Theatre. Regarding residential density, the most important age group is the younger people. In order to draw that group in is to provide housing that is within their price range, such as something with a high density. Commissioner Siekmann stated one of the biggest issues in the Village is parking. She would love to see parking meters downtown and use the money generated from those to build a parking garage. She further suggested that the Commission should make a request to the City Council that a parking garage be included in the Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she does have issues with diminishing the parking regulations and eliminating the covered parking in the Barrio. She also stated that having a Downtown Mobility Commission is an excellent and feels that the Planning Commission should be that Commission. Regarding the suggestions made by Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Nessim, she agrees with most of the ideas. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that in order for the plan to succeed, it needs to include a set of realistic goals and deadlines for projects. He believes two major projects need to be fast-tracked: a parking structure and trenching of the railroad tracks. Those projects have the potential to spur positive investment and development in the Village. He further commented that the concept of a Downtown Mobility Commission is a great idea. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he does not agree with installing parking meters and suggested establishing time limits and enforcing those limits. He stated he likes the idea of creating a separate identity for the entire Barrio area, with distinct signage, lighting, and public gathering areas. He also suggested relocating the offices of City Hall and Council Chambers to the downtown area which would then open up the existing building for reuse, such as a theater or other cultural options. Commissioner L’Heureux added that in order to promote the Village as a walkable area the streets need to be more pedestrian friendly with wider sidewalks and inviting streetscapes. Commissioner Segall commented that the plan needs to have a set of have recommendations for implementation. He stated that the city needs to build a parking structure first. He stated that he is glad to see that there is no one specific design required for the Village but a variety of designs to choose but he wonders if the guidelines are comprehensive and clear enough. He added that buildings have to have character regardless of the design concept. Commissioner Segall recommended special street naming signs to mark the Barrio and the Village and suggested “character” signs for Village and Barrio streets. He further suggested making some streets one-way thereby removing the second travel lane as well as keeping parking off the street and only for service vehicles and emergency vehicles in some areas. Commissioner Segall would also like to see that train tracks trenching. He also likes the “Walkable Community” concepts included in the plan as well as moving City Hall into the Village area. Commissioner Segall further suggested making State Street and Grand Avenue pedestrian only streets and creating gathering places along with a permanent place for the Farmers Market. He further suggested a better parking plan for the Barrio. Commissioner Segall also stated that the city needs to ensure that electric vehicle charging stations are required for new developments. Chairperson Anderson stated that Carlsbad Village Drive should be 4 lanes as it is an arterial connection and an important route to the beach, downtown as well as a necessary alternative to the freeway. She commented that sharrows are confusing and create a conflict between bikes and cars. She added that bike lanes should be promoted on less congested streets and not on Carlsbad Village Drive. She also stated that bike lanes with painted barriers should be preferred. Chairperson Anderson feels that wide medians are a waste of real estate that could be used for sidewalks or bike lanes. She stated she is not a fan of roundabouts. She also thinks that a parking structure should be a priority for the downtown before land gets more scarce and expensive. Chairperson Anderson commented that in-lieu parking fees should be higher to reflect the real costs of public parking, and properties should only be allowed in-lieu fees instead of parking when there is public parking, or a shared parking agreement within the block or a short walkable distance. The more incentives the city gives to development the higher the price of land becomes. She also commented that parking meters should be considered on commercial streets to ensure street parking Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2016 Page 10 , is available for costumers of downtown businesses. She added that residential projects should not be able to purchase in-lieu parking spaces as those projects should include their own parking, guest parking and service/delivery vehicle parking. Chairperson Anderson does not agree with reducing the parking requirements, eliminating the covered parking requirements, or allowing undersized garages in the Barrio area. She commented that a parking study should be done at night when residents are home. She supports the idea of an additional railroad crossing. Chairperson Anderson suggested phasing out the designation of "Barrio" as it has divisive connotations to some people. Regarding architecture styles, she does not feel modern architecture fits the village atmosphere. The only way to maintain the Village's quaint and charming atmosphere is through architectural requirements that are more than suggestions. Chairperson Anderson also agrees that closing a street in the downtown commercial area to create a parkway or plaza should be considered. She stated her concurrence with her fellow Commissioners about raising the limit on the voter requirement for capital improvements and about establishing priorities for future projects. She also stated that it should be made clear in the Village Plan rendering that the original Twin Inns/Land and Mineral Water building should be preserved as the picture makes it look as though something new would replace it. Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agend~ Item 5 and thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu commented that the January 20, 2016 meeting has been cancelled. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of January 6, 2016 was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ~Yl DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk