Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-05; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: June 5, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Black led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Pam Drew, Associate Planner Jason Goff, Associate Planner Greg Fisher, Assistant Planner Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Liz Ketabian, Park Planning Manager, Parks and Recreation APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from May 15, 2013. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated that because Commissioner Anderson had not yet been sworn in at the time of the meeting, the minutes were corrected to reflect that she was not absent. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of May 15, 2013 as corrected. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Anderson PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Diane Nygaard, representing Preserve Calavera, commented on McMillin’s statements regarding school funding from the Quarry Creek project. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Siekmann asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 1. CUP 12-12 – PINE AVENUE PARK TEMPORARY BUILDINGS – Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to: 1) allow the continued use of the temporary office and classroom building; 2) change the use of the temporary restroom building from restrooms to storage; and 3) install a temporary shade canopy, located at 801 Pine Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Siekmann asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann 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. CT 12-03/PUD 12-06/CDP 12-17 – 201 WALNUT TOWNHOMES – Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to demolish a two family dwelling and develop a fourteen unit multi-family residential air-space condominium project on a 0.783-acre infill site generally located on the south side of Walnut Avenue between Garfield Street and Lincoln Street, north of Chestnut Avenue within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Assistant Planner Greg Fisher would make the staff presentation. Mr. Fisher gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Scully asked Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director, to discuss the Inclusionary Housing program. Ms. Fountain explained the program to the Commission and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Scully asked what other projects have indicated interest in purchasing inclusionary housing credits in the Roosevelt Gardens project. Ms. Fountain responded. Commissioner Scully asked if the City prefers the units to be onsite. Ms. Fountain stated yes, but the ordinance is written such that there are options especially with smaller projects. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 3 Commissioner Schumacher asked if there are any plans to underground the utilities with this project. Mr. Fisher stated that he is not aware of the applicant undergrounding any of the utilities. He stated there is a requirement to underground utilities based on street frontage which is 600 feet. Glen Van Peski, Engineering Manager, stated the city does have programs for undergrounding utilities, but this project is not on a priority list. Commissioner Schumacher asked about funds available. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the 600 feet is established in the code. Mr. Van Peski stated yes. Commissioner L’Heureux asked what the cumulative frontage of the project is. Mr. Van Peski said he did not have the exact number with him but staff had checked it, and it was well under the 600 feet. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. David Hawkins, 1005 Rosecrans Street, San Diego, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Black asked about the use of metal for the roof design. Mr. Hawkins stated they wanted a very simple design so as not to take away from the architecture of the buildings. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 2. Bill Sonneman, 3342 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, stated he likes the project; however he feels the project is too large for the area. He stated he would like to see the large palm trees along Walnut remain. Martin McCarthy, 3360 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad, representing his mother who is the owner of 3360 Lincoln Street, stated he is concerned about the density, height and size of the project as well as the well-being of the residents along the street. Mr. McCarthy asked about the construction of the sidewalk, and stated he is concerned about the impact the project will have on off-street parking. Jim Watson, 3283 Lincoln Street, stated he is concerned about traffic. He also stated he would like to see curbs, gutters and sidewalks installed with the project. Robert Grubbs, 3257 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, stated he is concerned with parking, and he does not feel the 4 proposed visitor parking places will be sufficient. He would like to see the utilities undergrounded. Betty Grubbs, 3257 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, stated that she feels the overhead utilities are an eyesore. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the Agenda Item. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to address any of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Hawkins stated parking for the project will be provided onsite with each unit having 2 car garages on a common motorcourt. In regards to density, he stated the project complies with city standards. Commissioner Schumacher asked the applicant to speak about the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Hawkins stated curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be installed as part of the project ending at the property lines. Commissioner L’Heureux asked why the applicant was not pursuing the undergrounding of the utilities. Mr. Hawkins stated it is a budgetary issue. Commissioner L’Heureux strongly urged the applicant to consider undergrounding the utilities. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony. Chairperson Siekmann asked if Staff wished to respond to any issues raised during public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Fisher commented that the project complies with General Plan zoning and land use designations, and he stated that the city does not have a view ordinance. Mr. Fisher stated because the project is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the building height is restricted to a height limit of 30 feet. Commissioner Segall asked if there will still be parking along Walnut, Lincoln and Garfield. Mr. Fisher stated yes. Commissioner Scully asked about signage to public parking lots in the Village. Mr. Van Peski responded that while he did not know the details of the wayfinding signage program, it was his understanding that the signs were planned for the main entries in the Village, like Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Commissioner Scully asked if it could be incorporated into this area of the city. Mr. Van Peski stated he could present the information to the City’s Transportation Director. Commissioner Anderson asked if there has been any consideration for parking meters in the area. Mr. Neu stated the Council has mentioned it previously; however the current focus is on the wayfinding signs in the Village Area. Commissioner Schumacher asked about traffic and if there is a plan to widen the street. Mr. Van Peski stated the current traffic loads on the streets are well within the allowed limits. He further stated that the installation of sidewalks will actually create a wider street. Commissioner L’Heureux asked why the city cannot stripe parking on the street. Mr. Van Peski explained that because parking spots have to be striped using the largest size car, it actually reduces the amount of available parking. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher stated he likes the project and that it fits in with the community. He stated he does not like the fact that the utilities are not going to be undergrounded; however he realizes it is not within the purview of the Commission. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated it is a well-designed project architecturally. He is very concerned with the lack of undergrounding of the utilities. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully commented that she likes the design of the project and stated that she can support the project. Commissioner Anderson stated she is concerned about the parking but the project is well-laid out. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he is also concerned with the lack of the undergrounding of utilities. He stated he likes the design of the project. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Chairperson Siekmann stated this is a great project for a neighborhood in transition. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the undergrounding utility requirement of 600 feet of frontage is realistic and whether the Commission should use a minute motion to have the Council reconsider the requirements of the policy. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, discouraged the Commission from making minute motions to address policy considerations for the City Council since that is not the role of the Planning Commission. The Commission should focus on the individual projects on the agenda for its consideration. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Commissioner Schumacher can contact the City’s Underground Utilities Commission to discuss his concerns and recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 5 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6978, 6979 and 6980 approving a Tentative Tract Map (CT 12-03), Planned Development Permit (PUD 12-06), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 12-17), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item, and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. EIR 09-02/SP 09-01/SDP 09-04 – WESTFIELD CARLSBAD – Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation of approval of the Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan and a Site Development Plan for the demolition, reconfiguration, and/or reconstruction of approximately 225,631 square feet of existing gross leasable area of regional shopping center uses within the existing Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center generally located west of El Camino Real and bisected by Marron Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Jason Goff would make the staff presentation assisted by Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, and Kim Baranek, from Helix Environmental, the preparer of the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Goff gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Black asked if a survey regarding asbestos had already been prepared. Ms. Baranek stated yes and that there was a determination that based on the age of the building and existing materials that there was a potential for asbestos containing materials. Regulations are in place to abate the asbestos. Commissioner Segall asked about the static display on the signage. Mr. Goff deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Anderson asked if there are any provisions or plans to remove the existing movie theater sign. Mr. Goff stated it is on city property and there not have been any discussions regarding its removal. Commissioner Anderson asked if the new signage proposals will be applicable to the stores that are not impacted by the revitalization. Mr. Goff stated yes. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Jerry Engen, representing Westfield, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. He stated that in regard to asbestos, it will be abated as it is found. Mr. Engen stated the graphic panel will be on the main entrance along El Camino Real and it is intended to display the various services provided and the stores within the mall. He further stated that he will accept any condition by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 6 Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Black asked about security and public safety and if there will be security guards. Mr. Engen stated there are security guards and security cameras which will remain and potentially be enhanced. Commissioner Black asked about the basketball court on the third floor. Mr. Engen stated it will be fully enclosed with access provided by an elevator and stairs from the fitness center on the first floor. Commissioner Scully asked about the percentage of tenants that will remain through the improvements. Mr. Engen stated that there are a number of leases that expire between now and the next two years. As their leases expire, tenants will be required to improve their spaces according to the new guidelines. Commissioner Scully asked about the timeframe and length of time for construction. Mr. Engen stated construction will be commenced immediately upon project approval and issuance of building permits. It is anticipated that the mall will reopen in the fall of 2014. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there will be an exterior marquee sign on the movie theater. Mr. Engen stated there is not one planned. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are any provisions for electric car charging. Mr. Engen stated that they are looking into providing that option and will make provisions for charging stations. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are any plans for solar cells in the parking lot. Mr. Engen stated no. Commissioner L’Heureux asked what would trigger development on the other parts of the mall. Mr. Engen stated this is a first step in turning this site around. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is focused on Planning Area 5. Mr. Engen stated this will allow the property to increase its value and therefore they could reinvest in the property in the future. Commissioner Segall asked if the interior of this mall will be similar to the Westfield North County Fair mall. Mr. Engen stated it would be similar but it would have differences to reflect this community. Commissioner Segall asked about a potential grocery store. Mr. Engen stated that they are actively searching for a tenant for the site. Commissioner Segall inquired about the static display sign. Mr. Engen stated the intent is to keep the sign current and to reflect the stores and services that the mall will provide. Commissioner Anderson asked what will happen to the temporary uses that are allowed, such as the pumpkin sales and Christmas tree sales, in the eastern portion of the parking lot if and when the previously proposed out parcels are constructed. Mr. Engen stated those types of uses would be allowed only when the demand of the shopping center is very low and during off-peak times. Chairperson Siekmann asked what assurances the Commission has that the interior improvements will be done since those improvements are not part of the Site Development Plan. Mr. Engen stated that they really do not have a choice because they cannot spend the amount of money in just redeveloping the eastern retail space without redeveloping the mall. Without redeveloping the mall, the sales will continue to decline. Chairperson Siekmann stated that it is a promise. Mr. Engen stated it is nothing more than what happened at University Town Center and North County Fair. Chairperson Siekmann commented that the EIR states “…that the implementation of the Site Development Plan would represent the initial phase of shopping center improvements outlined in the Specific Plan although no future phases are reasonably foreseeable at this time.” Chairperson Siekmann asked how the Commission can accept a promise that the applicant will proceed with interior improvements if no future phases are foreseeable at this time. Mr. Engen stated that the amount of demolition and construction work that they are going to do was studied in the EIR so a full remodel was contemplated. The plans submitted will include the plans for the interior remodel. Mr. Neu stated that the language in the EIR is intended for CEQA purposes and to notify the reader that there are not additional project components that were ignored or not considered from a cumulative standpoint. If there are future phases, the project would have to go through amendments to the Site Development Plan as well as CEQA review. Chairperson Siekmann commented that based on the Site Development Plan, a letter from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce states that the revitalization will completely overhaul the facility; however Chairperson Siekman stated that that is not what the Site Development Plan is. Mr. Engen explained the previous ownership of the mall and stated that since 2007 when they took a majority ownership of the mall, they began a renovation plan. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she opened the public testimony. Chairperson Siekmann acknowledged receipt of 18 emails and a letter from the Chamber of Commerce. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 7 Carmen Rene, 3433 Moon Field Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated her support of the project. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, stated this project is not what the city needs, is not smart growth, and is not what the community wants. This project will add more traffic to an already congested El Camino Real. Robert Wilkinson, 2277 Cameo Road, Carlsbad, requested additional landscaping for the project. Emmett Durnan, 4900 Neblina Drive, Carlsbad, urged the Commission to approve the project. Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad, stated his support of the revitalization of the mall. He stated, however, the western portion of the mall is much more appropriate for smart growth housing than at the Quarry Creek site. Mr. Christiansen also commented that a trail linkage to Quarry Creek would be excellent. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to respond to any of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Engen stated that they worked very closely with staff to balance the amount of landscaping with the required amount of visibility, which is important from a public safety standpoint. Regarding the trail connectivity, it is not on their property and is not something they control. Chairperson Siekmann closed public testimony and asked if staff wished to respond to any of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Goff stated that while the Specific Plan and Site Development Plan do not include any housing at this time, they do not preclude affordable housing from being at that site. Mr. Goff stated the project does follow the City’s Landscape Manual. Ms. Baranek commented that while the project will increase greenhouse gas emissions; however the project that was analyzed was a much larger project. The improvements that the applicant will be making with respect to energy and water conservation will offset a majority of the increases. Mr. Neu stated in the current Housing Element identifies sites that could accommodate housing at various densities, and the Westfield site was one of those identified. In the Westfield Specific Plan, there is an allowance for residential as a use that is permitted through a Site Development Plan. At this time, there is not an applicant asking to use that property as a housing site. In regard to smart growth, it is a designation that allows the city to plan for certain uses, to take advantage of grant opportunities through SANDAG, and while it does not preclude it, it is not something that was included as part of the project. Chairperson Siekmann asked for Mr. Neu to respond to the comment regarding one parking stall for a tree. Mr. Neu indicated that with the periodic use of parking areas for community special events and the goal to improve safety with the new lighting as well as security cameras the proposed landscape design satisfies all of these objectives. The clustering of landscaping as proposed adequately screens and breaks up the expanse of the parking areas. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher stated he can make all the findings as presented with the project. With respect to the phasing of the project, the business plan as laid out by the applicant makes sense. Commissioner Schumacher stated he is in support of the project. Commissioner Segall stated he also supports the project as it is long overdue. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he has mixed feelings regarding this project as he is concerned that the city is creating a mall with a split personality. Commissioner L’Heureux also commented that the landscaping is an improvement yet there are still large seas of asphalt that do not have enough attention. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 8 He stated he is against any digital signs and is not supportive of the partnership marketing signs. He stated he could reluctantly support the project. Commissioner Scully commented that this project has been a long time coming; however, she cannot support any digital signs. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Commissioner Anderson commented that the proposed project looks great. She does not like the proposed partnership marketing signs nor does she support the reduction in parking. Commissioner Black stated his concurrence with his fellow Commissioners. In regards to the landscaping, he likes the idea of the trees being spaced farther apart for safety purposes. He stated he can support the project. Chairperson Siekmann stated she cannot support the project as she feels it does not meet the findings and the project does not support the General Plan for the land use element objectives. Commissioner Anderson proposed amendments to eliminate the partnership marketing signs and to the reduction in parking. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission amend the specific plan to eliminate the inclusion of partnership marketing signs. VOTE: 4-3 AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Black and Commissioner Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Anderson suggested leaving the parking as it currently exists at 5 spaces/1,000 GLA. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification regarding the parking. Mr. Neu stated the city’s current parking rate for a commercial shopping center is 5 spaces/1,000 GLA, and the Westfield Specific Plan is requesting a reduction to 4 spaces/1,000 GLA. Commissioner Anderson stated that her concern is that the site could end up with gridlock because the Specific Plan allows for 3 additional buildings, the proposed tenants for this revitalization will bring in more cars and people, and there are temporary uses that use parking spaces. She suggested amending the Specific Plan parking requirement to 5 spaces/1,000 GLA. Mr. Neu asked if the Commission received the additional parking information provided for other regional malls and suggested that the applicant have a change to respond to the proposal by Commissioner Anderson. The Commission indicated that they received the parking information. Mr. Engen stated that the proposed parking requirement is more than adequate for the site and described the peak demand time for various tenants as well as the company’s experience with several of their other properties. MOTION TO EXTEND MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. The Commission voted unanimously to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2013 Page 9 DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall agrees with keeping the parking at 4 spaces/1 ,000 GLA. Commissioner L'Heureux also agrees that the parking rate of 4 spaces/1 ,000 GLA is adequate. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson to amend the specific plan to change the parking standard to require 5 spaces per 1,000 GLA. Motion failed due to no second. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Black and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6981 recommending that the . City Council certify Environmental Impact Report 09-02, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6982 and 6983 recommending approval of Specific Plan 09-01 and Site Development Plan 09-04, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein as amended. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, and Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: Chairperson Siekmann ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of June 5, 2013, was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. (l/t DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk