Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-01; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes February 1, 2012 CORRECTED Page 1 Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. February 1, 2012 COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Schumacher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner L'Heureux led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioners Arnold, Black, L'Heureux, Nygaard, Scully, and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist Kevin Pointer, Associate Planner Gary T. Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from January 18, 2012. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 18, 2012. 7-0 VOTE AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Schumacher directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during the evening's Public Hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2012 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Schumacher asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. ZCA 11-06/LCPA 11-07 - LAND USE DECISION MAKING - A request for a recommendation of approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consisting of various amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to improve the city's development review process. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Kevin Pointer would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Schumacher opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Pointer gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Schumacher acknowledged that the Planning Commission received an errata sheet for the item as well as a letter of support from Mr. Mike Howes. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any questions of Staff. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 1, Diane Nygaard, 5021 Nighthawk, Oceanside, requested that the Planning Commission consider the following: 1) codifying a requirement that the City post public hearing notices to the City website; 2) that the City Planner's ability to approve a rearrangement of major land uses according to the Planning Division's consistency determination policy allows for too much vagueness; and 3) that the process to request to be notified of public hearings be revised, noting that she had requested to be notified about the public hearing for a project, but her name was not added to the notification list. Mario Monroy, 749 Magnolia Avenue, cited the high cost of constructing underground parking and suggested the Planning Commission conduct an economic analysis to study height increases in the Barrio. Commissioner Siekmann asked if Ms. Nygaard had a suggestion for the wording regarding the language she felt was too vague. Ms. Nygaard stated she had not given that much thought. Chairperson Schumacher closed the public testimony. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked Staff to respond to those issues raised during public testimony. In regards to the public noticing, Mr. Pointer stated there are mechanisms currently in place for public noticing for public hearings. The current practice is to post public hearing notices on the City's website. Additionally, the public can sign up on the City's website to receive email notifications each time a public notice is posted to the website. With regards to amendments, Mr. Pointer deferred to Mr. Neu. Mr. Neu stated the portion of the staff report that is being referenced refers to the administrative policy staff uses to determine whether a proposed action is considered consistent with what the Planning Commission or the City Council approved. It is basically administrative guidelines Staff uses to make that determination. Mr., Neu stated that policy is not before the Commission tonight for review. Staff is conservative in making those decisions. Mr. Pointer stated that in regards to the request for notification of announcements of decision Staff would be happy to work with Ms. Nygaard to ensure she receive future notifications of any projects she deems appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2012 Page 3 Mr. Neu commented that the provision in the Staff Report was referring to administrative permits such that if a member of the public requests an administrative hearing the code would then require Staff to provide written notice of the decision to that person. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated she understood Ms. Nygaard's concerns and for the most part her recommended procedures are already being followed by the city; however, she does not feel all of the detail of how things are procedurally handled necessarily needs to be included in the municipal code. Ms. Mobaldi stated that if recommendations are added to the code, a caveat should be added stating that if the procedure is not followed, it would not invalidate or nullify any action. The City already follows those procedures and requirements for public notices as mandated by the government code, and the city is required to follow those mandates whether or not they are in the municipal code. In regards to the economic impacts as it relates to building height and different types of parking such as underground parking, Mr. Neu stated this set of amendments does not change the building height requirement. Mr. Neu stated what changed is the decision making body that would approve projects with building heights over 35 feet. Chairperson Schumacher asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Scully stated page 111 of the Attachment 4, Section 21.54.060 contains regulations pertaining to notifications for public hearings. Commissioner Nygaard asked if Staff is in fact streamlining the process with these amendments. Mr. Pointer stated that the City is not adding more time to existing processes and that making permitting components consistent as well as pushing decision-making levels down will reduce the time period for processing permits. Commissioner Nygaard clarified that Staff is not amending any of the current standards. Mr. Pointer stated that was correct with the exception of those minor changes to the outdoor dining and building height. Commissioner Nygaard also commented that it might be useful for the public if Staff could prepare a document showing the decision-making authority on each decision. Mr. Pointer stated that could be prepared. Commissioner Black inquired about appeals. Mr. Pointer stated the process will remain as it is currently. Commissioner Scully asked about the removal of the public noticing on outdoor dining permits. While she does not have an issue with outdoor dining, Commissioner Scully feels that the public noticing requirement should remain as is even though there have not been any issues in the past regarding these types of permits. Mr. Neu stated the Staff's reasoning regarding the recommendation is that the way the code is currently structured there are a series of standards that have to be met in order to receive approval for an incidental outdoor dining permit. Mr. Neu stated the current structure does not allow Staff any discretion to deny the permit and there have not been any issues with any of these permits in the past. Staff feels, that in regards to streamlining, it is not a permit that justified keeping the process; however, if the majority of the Commission wished to retain that item. Staff could include it in the recommendation to City Council and then determine how best to standardize an administrative permit for that type of use without having a separate one for the incidental outdoor dining. Commissioner Siekmann stated that the permit is for such a small square footage of area and that the City is always so careful with effects on nearby residences, that if there was going to be any issues with this it would be addressed by the City. Mr. Neu explained that many of these permits that have been issued in the past have been for uses such as delis and smaller eating establishments. Commissioner Scully stated she is concerned because of the increasing number of infill projects as well as mixed-use projects. She feels the public needs to be made aware of these projects. Commissioner Schumacher asked if neighboring property owners will still be notified with these types of projects. Mr. Pointer stated that if the code was not modified the administrative permit notice would be mailed out to nearby property owners who would then have an opportunity to file a request for an administrative hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2012 Page 4 Commissioner L'Heureux asked if there is a fee if a member of the public does file a request for an administrative hearing. Mr. Neu stated there is not a fee for the administrative hearing; however if a decision is made and it is appealed there would be a fee. Gary T. Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director, stated the genesis of many of these changes came out of the Development Review Process (DRP) Working Group. One of the goals of the group was to streamline the permitting process. One of the main philosophies behind that was that the City tended to have processes in place for the possibility of something bad happening and an example of that is the incidental outdoor dining permit process. There has been a long history of administering this permit without any incident or issues. Mr. Barberio stated that a philosophy of the DRP was to first determine whether or not a process or permit was adding value and secondly to determine if there is a valid or historical reason for needing the process. If in the future there are issues and Staff feels there is a need to revisit the process, there will be the ability to do so. Commissioner Nygaard asked what the process is if there ever is a problem in the future. Mr. Barberio stated that there are provisions regarding noise, nuisance and disturbance in the municipal code for all land uses. If Staff starts to see a pattern regarding this incidental outdoor dining permit. Staff can process a code amendment to address the issues. Commissioner Black asked what provisions are available on a legal or administrative basis for the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding decisions made at an administrative level. Ms. Mobaldi stated the municipal code provides that a Council Member can appeal a Planning Commission decision. Commissioner Siekmann complimented Staff on their hard work as well as the DRP Working Group. Commissioner L'Heureux echoed the comments made by Commissioner Siekmann. DISCUSSION Commissioner Nygaard commented how impressed she is by how thorough Staff has been with this project. With regards to the outdoor dining, she feels confident with the changes. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner L'Heureux also stated he can support the project. Commissioner Arnold stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black also stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated that while the project is great, she is still concerned regarding the public noticing on the Incidental Outdoor Dining Area permit; however she can support the project. Chairperson Schumacher also thanked Staff for all the time and effort put into this project. He stated he can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 6858 and 6859 recommending approval of ZCA 11-06 and LCPA 11-07 based on the findings contained therein including the errata sheet dated February 1, 2012. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioner Arnold, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes February 1,2012 Page 5 Chairperson Schumacher closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and thanked Staff for their presentation. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner L'Heureux inquired about the story poles at the old Pat and Oscar's site at Costco. Mr. Neu stated the story poles were not something requested by Staff; however there is currently a preliminary review being reviewed by Staff which includes a remodel of the existing structure and adding additional structures. He stated he is not sure if the story poles are to help determine how much visibility the future project can have. The preliminary design did show a couple of tower elements. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the future project will come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neu stated it would come before the Commission as a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Siekmann reminded the Commission of the Envision Carlsbad Workshop tomorrow night at the Senior Center starting at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Black complimented Staff on the Envision Carlsbad Workshop which was held on Tuesday night. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of February 1, 2012, was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk