Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-16; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: November 16, 2016 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Segall led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Black, L’Heureux, Goyarts, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Farah Nisan, Senior Office Specialist Chris Garcia, Associate Planner Austin Silva, Associate Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kemp commented that there are three types of minutes that the clerks keep such as action minutes, summary minutes, and verbatim minutes. He noted that the summary minutes would capture the questions that the Commission asks of staff and the answers, questions the Commission may ask of the applicant and the answers and the decisions that were made afterwards. He stated that the verbatim minutes are not what we aspire to because there is a video tape taken of the meeting that can be watched. Mr. Kemp clarified that the City Council would like to see the summary format of the Planning Commission minutes and stated that they watch the video if they would like to hear any other discussions. Mr. Kemp stated that the minutes are prepared by the minutes clerk, presented to the Commission for approval, and then any changes that are made to the minutes should be voted on by the entire Commission. Chairperson Anderson asked for clarification if questions and responses would be summarized and not any comments from the Commission. Mr. Kemp stated that the comments would come at the end of the decision making process. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of September 7, 2016. Commissioner Montgomery referred to page 2, line 9 of his comments and stated that he would like to make a change from June to July. Commissioner Segall referred to page 10 and stated that he would like to clarify that he said if any future growth would necessitate bringing on a second hotel property. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 2 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 2016 as amended. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Black and Siekmann Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of October 19, 2016. Commissioner L’Heureux referred to the second paragraph on page 6 and stated that he would like to make a change from transit to transect. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L’Heureux and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 19, 2016 as amended. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Segall 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. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she would like to recuse herself. 1. CDP 16-40/NCP 16-03 – DOW ADDITION – Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Nonconforming Construction Permit to allow the remodel of an existing single family residence and replace the 253 square foot second story with a 1,583 square foot second story addition on a .15 acre lot within the R-1 Zone and the Mello II Segment of the city’s Coastal Zone located at 5080 Carlsbad Boulevard within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. 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 introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 3 Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Chairperson Anderson stated that there is currently a retaining wall within that easement that is made out of old railroad ties and asked if the timing would facilitate the future road improvements. Engineering Manager Jason Geldert stated that the issue would be addressed in time with Public Works, and stated that he anticipates the wall may be removed. Chairperson Anderson asked if there was a timeframe of when a decision might be made. Mr. Geldert stated at least 1 to 2 years. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Lars Gullberg, Suite 234, 2400 Kettner Boulevard, San Diego, stated that he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if it was the intent to leave the wall the way it is. Mr. Gullberg stated yes, it is as of now. 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 the public testimony on Agenda Item 1. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he can approve the non-conforming setback and can approve the project. Commissioner Black concurs with Commissioner Montgomery and stated that he can support the project. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he can also support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he can support the project. Commissioner Segall concurs with his fellow Commissioners and stated that he can support the project. Chairperson Anderson commented that she could also 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. 7208 approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-40 and Nonconforming Construction Permit NCP 16-03, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siekmann 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. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 4 2. RP 15-16/CDP 15-37 – 4 PLUS 1 LUXURY LIVING – Request for a recommendation of approval of a Major Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of a one-story, two-unit residential building and the construction of a mixed-use building consisting of 1,105 square feet of retail space and four apartment units located at 3050 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 of the Village Review zone, the Village Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that this 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 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the State CEQA guidelines. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Austin Silva would make the staff presentation. Mr. Silva gave a brief presentation and stated that an errata has been provided to the Commission to clarify that the Recommendation on page one of the staff report to also recommend approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 15-37) as well as to revise Planning Commission Resolution No. 7210, page 4, Finding 3C to add “2016” after May on the fifth line of the paragraph. Mr. Silva stated that staff is recommending to remove condition No. 41 as it is not applicable to the project and concluded that he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if the parking study from May 2016 is the parking study that is ongoing. Mr. Silva stated yes, it is the parking study that was recently completed. Mr. Neu clarified that it refers to the first phase of the data that was presented on the field data collection of parking availability. Chairperson Anderson stated that several comment letters have been submitted from the public and wondered if Mr. Neu would respond to the purpose of the parking in lieu. Mr. Neu stated that the Village Plan initially was approved as a redevelopment plan and when the state eliminated redevelopment, the city converted it into a Master Plan so that it could be used to regulate development in the Village. Mr. Neu stated that parking has always been a challenge and as part of the Village Plan years ago, the program was created to allow the option for some land uses to buy parking credits and the city would have common facilities that could be used by everyone. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Black asked where the drive thru at Taco Bell next to the property empties out into. Mr. Silva stated Carlsbad Village Drive. Commissioner Black asked if the drive thru goes around the back of the building. Mr. Silva stated yes. Commissioner Black asked if it is by the alley way. Mr. Silva replied that it is adjacent to the alley way. Commissioner Black asked if a traffic study has been done to see how many cars use the alley way. Mr. Silva stated no, a traffic study is not required of a project unless it meets a certain threshold of 500 average daily trips. Commissioner Siekmann asked if Mr. Silva would talk about the density and how the project meets the density. Mr. Silva stated that the Village Master Plan designates density for certain properties as the density requirements for districts one through four is 28 to 35 units per acre. Mr. Silva commented that the project meets the density requirements of 25 units per acre. Commissioner Segall asked if the project would fit within the design guidelines and what the public input has said. Mr. Silva stated that the draft Village and Barrio Master Plan meets the current standards. Mr. Silva added that the height requirement in the draft Village and Barrio Master Plan is 45 feet and the proposed project’s building height is also 45 feet. Commissioner Segall inquired about parking. Mr. Neu stated that staff does not know what the parking recommendations will be as of yet since the last phase of the parking study has not been completed. Commissioner L’Heureux inquired about the city’s requirements for the removal of above ground utility poles for projects. Mr. Geldert stated that the municipal code pertains to subdivisions that are developing with street frontage of 600 feet or more. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are not any requirements for projects such as this. Mr. Geldert replied stating no, the development of a single lot does not require Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 5 underground utilities. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are any requirements for any developers to participate in future improvement agreement for underground utilities. Mr. Geldert stated no. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the drive thru lane is adjacent to the alley. Mr. Geldert stated that there has not been any traffic issues in that area. Chairperson Anderson inquired about shrubbery and if there will be room for planting on Taco Bell’s side of the wall after development. Mr. Silva stated that there is a small strip for landscaping opportunities on the other property. Chairperson Anderson stated that the wall is attractive for tagging and if that is any concern of Mr. Silva’s. Mr. Silva stated no. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Tone Tonekaboni, 2652 Escala Circle, San Diego, made a brief presentation and stated that he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Chairperson Anderson asked if the landscaping is maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or the homeowner. Mr. Tonekaboni stated that there is not an HOA for an apartment building and that the property owner would maintain landscaping. Chairperson Anderson asked if the units are owned by one person. Mr. Tonekaboni stated yes. 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. Sheila McNulty, 3091 Jefferson Street, submitted a letter to the Commission, stated her concerns with parking overflow and the density in the alley. Barbara Boutelle, 3062 & 3070 Madison Street, stated her concerns with parking spaces. Deedee Trejo, 2442 Roosevelt Street, stated her concerns with parking and the project’s feel in the Village. Robert Wilkinson, 2911 State Street, Suite I, stated that the project is the representative model of mixed use projects and thanked the Commissioner’s for their comments regarding underground utilities. James Vitale, 3037 Jefferson Street, stated his concerns with density, the height of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Josh Hash, 946 Laguna Drive, stated that he would like the Commission to consider the project as a whole and stated his concerns with density and the building’s height. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she asked if applicant could respond to the issues raised. Mr. Tonekaboni submitted a photo of the driveway to the Commission clarifying issues regarding the driveway. Commissioner L’Heureux asked what type of commercial tenants would occupy the building. Mr. Tonekaboni stated small businesses that would attract one to two cars per day. Chairperson Anderson asked if staff would like to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Silva stated that the Village and Barrio Master plan allows for building height of 45 feet. He stated that the applicant has provided a proposal that includes stepping back of the upper floors and on the sides of the building and complies with the design guidelines. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the City Planner considers the core of the Village. Mr. Neu stated that staff is evaluating that issue against the approved Master Plan which consists of nine land use districts. He stated that district one, the Carlsbad Village Center, is considered the core for the purposes of the Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 6 current plan that includes the project site and goes as far south as Oak Avenue. Mr. Neu concluded that staff is reevaluating what the core should be with the new Village and Barrio Master Plan that will support a certain amount of residential that will help support the commercial uses in the Village and help make those uses successful. Chairperson Anderson asked if district one requires mixed use. Mr. Neu stated yes, the goal in the commercial areas is to have the ground floor designated for commercial land uses so that pedestrians are encouraged to park in the Village and walk around for a more viable district. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if staff has done any kind of analysis regarding the alley and the amount of traffic that can be tolerated and handled. Mr. Geldert stated that most purposes of the alleys is to access parking that will keep driveways and curb cuts off the main streets providing nice sidewalks and additional street parking. He stated that the traffic load for the project is low enough that it does not require a specific study however, the alley can handle the traffic from higher densities and that the proposed project would generate less traffic than a medical office building that has continuance of clients. Commissioner Goyarts asked if the city could require the restaurant property owner to extend the drive thru to the street. Mr. Neu stated that there was desire to not add additional driveway cuts when the project was considered since the alley is already connected to Carlsbad Village Drive. Commissioner Black asked if there could be arrangements in utilizing the bank parking lot by a shared parking agreement rather than paying the in lieu fee. Mr. Silva replied stating that there would have to be a night and day time use of the parking lot or if the bank had surplus parking. Mr. Silva stated that since the bank hours of operation are during day time use, the shared parking agreement would not suffice. Commissioner Black asked if the parking lot located at the bank were filled to capacity during the day time. Mr. Silva stated no. Chairperson Anderson asked if the alley is a two way street. Mr. Geldert stated yes. Chairperson Anderson asked if there would be room for two cars to pass with parked cars on the side. Mr. Geldert stated that there is no parking along the alley and that the vehicles parked on their property are outside the right of way of the alley. Chairperson Anderson asked if the properties currently parking off the alley were redeveloped would they be allowed to have parking accessed from the alley or if they would have to reorient their property to face the main street. Mr. Geldert stated that it would preferred to have parking accessed from the alley. Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission had the right to legally hold off on making a decision on this item knowing that there is a whole new plan coming forward. Mr. Neu stated that the mechanism by which the city could hold up on considering new projects until the Master Plan were adopted would be to adopt a moratorium, an area would be determined and specify some rationale as to why a moratorium was necessary. He stated that ultimately that would be a decision for the City Council to make whether they felt it was important enough to forgo any additional projects and post pone them until a new plan was developed. Mr. Neu concluded that at this time, there is not a moratorium in place and staff is in a position to evaluate the proposals against the current plan. Mr. Kemp stated that the City Council is the body that makes the laws and the Planning Commission has been appointed to carry out those laws and evaluate the project by the rules and ordinances that are on the books. He stated that the City Council has not thought that there needs to be a moratorium, otherwise there would be one. Chairperson Anderson asked if the apartment manager would have some say so about how many cars are allowed to residents. Mr. Silva stated yes, the residents should be designated two spaces per unit. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any other questions for staff. Seeing none, she closed public testimony. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated that he could approve the project based on the findings. Commissioner Black stated that he can approve the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Goyarts stated that he could also approve the project. Commissioner Siekmann agrees that the project meets the findings and stated that she could support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he has a problem with the architecture feeling too massive in the way that it is being portrayed and that he is having a difficult time in deciding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he does not think the design maximizes the use for the property owner is the best for the community. He stated that he cannot support the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he will have to support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated that she could support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7210 recommending approval of Major Review Permit RP 15-16 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 15-37 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet presented and deleting condition No. 41. VOTE: 6-1-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: Commissioner L’Heureux ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECESS Chairperson Anderson closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and called for a 6 minute recess at 8:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Anderson asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. MP 10-01(B)/CT 16-05/PUD 16-06 – QUARRY CREEK – PA R-4 (WEST) – Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Quarry Creek Master Plan EIR and that the EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and a request for approval of a Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit for 56 single-family homes within Planning Area R-4 of the Quarry Creek Master Plan, located on the north side of Marron Road and adjacent to the western terminus of Adobe Springs Road, in Local Facilities Management Zone 25. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall asked if there are requirements regulating what kinds of curtailments could be on the roof deck not specifying gas or coal burning and if there is an interest to restrict coal burning barbeques. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Werneke stated that she would defer the question to the applicant, stated that she does not think that there are any concerns and that there is a gas stub out on the roof plan for a gas barbeque. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Jack Robson, Suite 600, 4365 Executive Drive, San Diego, made the presentation and stated that he will be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Goyarts asked if the 56 single family homes will have access to the recreation center. Mr. Robson stated yes. Commissioner Goyarts asked why the pool would not be available for use while the recreation center is open. Mr. Robson stated that there were certain criteria as to what areas would be open by occupancy and added that the pool would be opened by the 75th or by the 100th occupancy. Mr. Robson stated that the rec center will need to be completed by the 55th occupancy. Commissioner Siekmann asked if flags were allowed on the roof decks. Mr. Robson stated that since umbrellas would be seen from the public street above the railing, there are private yard areas where residents could post flags however, flag poles may be restricted from the roof decks. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the roof decks are located towards the rear end of the houses. Mr. Robson stated yes. 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 Montgomery stated that he could support the project. Commissioner Black stated that he could approve the project. Commissioner Goyarts stated that he could also approve the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she could support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he could approve the project. Commissioner Segall stated that he could support the project. Chairperson Anderson stated that she could also 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. 7209 recommending approval of a Master Plan Amendment (MP 10-01(B)), Tentative Tract Map (CT 16-05) and Planned Development Permit (PUD 16-06) based on the findings and subject to the conditions therein including an errata sheet. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None