Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-19; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes July 19, 2017 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 19, 2017 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Segall called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Black led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Anderson, Black, Goyarts and Montgomery Absent: Commissioners Rodman and Siekmann STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Farah Nisan, Administrative Secretary Chris Garcia, Associate Planner Corey Funk, Associate Planner Pam Drew, Associate Planner Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Lolly Sangster, Public Works Program Manager Craig Williams, Public Works Senior Engineer Brett Wood, Kimley-Horn & Associates PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Karen Hemmingway, P.O. Box 1425, stated her concerns with the possibilities of safety issues raised from a distillery located near a residential area and the boys and girls club. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and 3. 2. ZCA 2017-0002/LCPA 2017-0003/AMEND 2017-0006 (PUB 17Y-0015) – PROHIBITED USES CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT – Request for a recommendation of approval of amendments to the Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program and Village Master Plan and Design Manual to clarify that uses prohibited elsewhere in the Municipal Code are also prohibited by the Zoning Code and Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) (General Rule) and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070(A)(1)(c), in that minor Municipal Code and other similar amendments that refine or clarify existing land use standards are considered not to have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Items 2 and 3 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the projects appear 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 Items 2 and 3. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2017 Page 2 Chairperson Segall asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Items 2 and 3. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7252 recommending approval of a Zoning Code amendment ZCA 2017-0002, Local Coastal Program amendment LCPA 2017-0003 and Village Master Plan and Design Manual Amendment AMEND 2017-0006, based on the findings contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rodman and Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None 3. PUD 16-11/SDP 16-21/CDP 16-43/MS 16-09/AV 16-06 (DEV16050) – 167 CHERRY AVENUE DUPLEX – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Tentative Parcel Map and Minor Variance to demolish an existing single-family home and construct a two-family, residential air-space condominium project on a 0.16 acre infill site located at 167 Cherry Avenue, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7255 approving Planned Development Permit PUD 16-11, Site Development Plan 16-21, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-43, Tentative Parcel Map MS 16-09, and Minor Variance AV 16-06, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rodman and Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall closed public hearing on Agenda Items 2 and 3, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. ZCA 2016-0001/LCPA 2016-0001 (PUB16Y-0002) – SECOND DWELLING UNIT CODE AMENDMENT — A request for recommendation of approval of a Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to make the city’s regulation of second dwelling units (now known as accessory dwelling units) consistent with the changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 made by Assembly Bill 2299 (Bloom) and Senate Bill 1069 (Wieckowski). The City Planner has determined that this project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Corey Funk would make the staff presentation. Mr. Funk gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 120 day approval requirement for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is separate if the project is part of a larger project that goes before the Planning Commission or the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Funk stated the 120 day approval requirement would only apply for individual applications of an ADU. Commissioner Montgomery asked how the ADU conversions are implemented and the process of obtaining building permits. Mr. Funk stated that a building permit must be applied for and plans submitted showing the sectioned off area of the house with all the appropriate walls. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any further questions for staff. Seeing none, he asked if any person in the audience wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Segall opened and closed public testimony. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the impact of the 640 maximum square footage to be added to an ADU. Mr. Funk stated it would depend on the size of the property and if it could accommodate to a smaller or a larger ADU, and one implication to consider with larger two bedroom units would be the need for more off-street parking. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the approval of the amendment would also apply to the Homeowner’s Associations (HOA). Assistant City Attorney Ron Kemp clarified that it would be up to state law to decide and HOAs can traditionally restrict the rights with CC&Rs by contract. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7254 recommending approval of a Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 2016-0001 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 2016-0001, based on the findings contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Goyarts and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rodman and Commissioner Siekmann ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. 4. SS 16-01 – DRAFT VILLAGE, BARRIO AND BEACH AREA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – Presentation and discussion of the draft Village, Barrio and Beach Area Parking Management Plan. The Village, Barrio and beach study area is generally located west of Interstate 5 to the beach, between Tamarack Avenue and Buena Vista Lagoon. A portion of the area is in the Coastal Zone. A presentation on the draft Village, Barrio and Beach Area Parking Management Plan has been determined to be exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 – Planning Study. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Associate Planner Pam Drew assisted by Brett Wood, Kimley-Horn & Associates would make the staff presentation. Ms. Drew and Mr. Wood gave a presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2017 Page 4 Commissioner Black asked if handicap parking would be included in the parking study. Mr. Wood replied that ADA accessible parking spaces will be a part of the comprehensive curb management component of the parking study. Ms. Drew added that the city has a process for the public to request ADA accommodations and parking spaces. Commissioner Anderson stated that the 1,320 foot walking distance seems excessive and asked if that was based on a study or comparable studies. Mr. Wood replied stating 500 feet is typically used as a minimum walking distance, which is equivalent to one city block consistent with other communities. Mr. Wood added that it is consistent with the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan in terms of how far people are willing to walk based on different configurations. Commissioner Anderson asked how the parking in lieu fees work with shared businesses. Mr. Wood replied the fee would be applied for the leasing of the spaces, ongoing maintenance and liability. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the letter received from the North County Transit District (NCTD) stating the agency is not prepared to comment on some of the assumptions regarding parking on their property. Ms. Drew noted that city staff have met with NCTD’s real estate representative to consider additional leasing opportunities along the railroad corridor. Commissioner Goyarts asked if the areas within the study could address limiting trucks with camper trailers near the beach area. Mr. Wood replied that it would be evaluated as part of the comment period. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the parking management plan is flexible enough for the city to move forward in the future. Mr. Wood replied stating that a plan or a study is only as valid as the data that goes into it such as the modeling and projections that are based on a snapshot in time of how the Master Plan thinks the community will be developed. Mr. Wood stated that the plan and the data points that need to be evaluated on an ongoing basis give the city the tools to be able to react quickly and recommended that the city hire a parking program manager. Chairperson Segall asked if angled parking also contributes to traffic calming. Mr. Wood stated yes, there is ample right of way for the reconfiguration of parallel and angled parking spaces that would create smaller travel lanes and safer speed on the roads. Chairperson Segall asked if angled parking was analyzed in the Barrio area. Mr. Wood replied yes, the inclusion of on street parking on a residential street typically reduces the speed of the vehicle. Chairperson Segall asked if autonomous vehicles were considered and the impact on the need for parking spaces. Mr. Wood stated that the study does not have recommendations for the next five years considering autonomous vehicles as well as the continued adoption of ride shares and people who choose not to drive. Mr. Wood concluded that the community should not build structured parking without a demand for it now and the variation for what the demand might look like in 20 years made a nebulous recommendation. Commissioner Goyarts inquired about enforcement hours on Sunday. Ms. Drew stated that the Village area does not have parking enforcement hours on Sundays. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 4 and opened public testimony. Jim Boone, 3955 Skyline Road, commented on infill projects in the Village, stated his concerns with Park 101 on Carlsbad Boulevard and the increased traffic including parking spaces provided for 20 employees. Mr. Boone added that the delivery trucks block residential parking spaces on Lincoln Street and should be removed. Mr. Boone stated Park 101 does not have a proper onsite trash area that was part of the project. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, commented on smart growth in the Village and Barrio as parking is a key part and emphasized the importance of shared parking. Betsy Lieberman, 1326 Forest Avenue, shared her concerns with privately owned parking lots included in the study. Robert Wilkinson, Suite I, 2911 State Street, supports the valet service, shared parking, parking in lieu fees for everything that gets developed and angled parking in the barrio, however; it should not retard the safety of the cyclist. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2017 Page 5 Karen Hemmingway, P.O. Box 1425, shared her concerns for the need of metered parking along the beach and shuttle busses during events, large trailers parked on the Denny’s parking lot, recreational vehicles parked on the streets at night. Jim Powers, 3920 Park Drive, encouraged the Commission to consider the safety for cyclists. Lisa McKethan, 1343 Forrest Avenue, stated her concerns with cyclist safety, shared parking, and concluded that handicap parking should be clearly addressed and stated in the plan. Gil Alvarado, 3331 Tyler Street, stated that angled parking in the Village would interfere with the walkability in the Village. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and asked staff to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Neu clarified that Park 101 does not provide any parking as it was permitted under the Village rules for a deli and was able to convert from its previous use to the existing use without providing any additional parking. Ms. Drew responded stating that the Village and Barrio Master Plan should be out for public review towards the end of 2017. Mr. Wood stated that the parking requirements could be lower and the intent of the recommendations is for collected data to address one year. Ms. Drew clarified that the parking lots in the study are public and not private property. Mr. Wood added that the intent of the shared parking recommendations is to opt in where the business entities are able to work collaboratively. Ms. Drew stated NCTD have plans for high density condominiums or apartments on the northern lot near the train station and that the city is not looking for an opportunity of leasing the parking lot. She agreed that angled parking is unsafe for bicycle lanes and recommended backing into an angled parking space. Mr. Wood added if there is enough right of way to the configuration, the angled parking could be moved out and curb delineate the bike lane between the curb and the angled parking. Ms. Drew addressed the issues of adding time limits at the beach areas and stated that may hinder people’s access to the beach against the California Coastal Act. Mr. Wood stated that recommendations have been made to change the ordinances and limiting RV parking for multiple days on residential streets. Ms. Drew identified the need to add more information on ADA parking and the process that the city has in place. The data received translates to other strategies that could be implemented first before the expense of a parking structure which costs $19,000 per space and $800 to $1,000 a year to maintain. DISCUSSION Commissioner Goyarts asked if the study benchmarks with other surrounding coastal cities. Ms. Drew replied the City of Encinitas. Commissioner Black stated that parking in lieu fees should be expanded, he is enthusiastic about shared parking and thinks that shared parking is a consideration that should be continued to be included in the plan for the future. Commissioner Black stated that parking structures have an end use. Commissioner Anderson expressed that she would not be in favor of the 1,320 foot distance allowed between parking and buildings. She is reluctant to reduce parking requirements as higher density is fast approaching in the city and concerned with the unlimited RV parking surrounding the beach areas. She stated that the signage addressing the RV parking time limits are too busy for anyone to read and understand while traveling through an intersection. Commissioner Anderson concluded that she likes parking meters as it helps in other beach communities and loves the idea of shared parking if it is feasible. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he is concerned with the recommendation of leaving the parking in lieu fees as the same number and believes that the finding is based upon the fact that staff feels it is enough funds to maintain shared parking spaces. He thinks a need for a central parking structure would be part of an establishment or a project with multiple uses that could benefit a secondary use of added parking. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the city is turning in the right direction and concluded that he likes the flexibility of the parking management plan.