Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-18; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 18, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Black called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Segall led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: Chairperson Siekmann and Commissioner L’Heureux STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Christer Westman, Senior Planner Jason Geldert, Senior Engineer Bryan Jones, Deputy Transportation Director PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from September 4, 2013. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of September 4, 2013. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Vice Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairperson Black asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 2 1. CT 12-07 – VALLEY 17 – Request for the approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide and grade a 3.76 acre site into seventeen (17) single-family residential lots on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Oak Avenue and Valley Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 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 1 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. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there will be any confusion for emergency personnel by having two James Drives. Mr. Westman stated the project was routed to the Fire Department for review and they did not have any concerns with James Drive being bisected. Commissioner Segall stated he received an email from Dee Ann Gee who commented that she was concerned about a proposed block wall along Valley Street which seems to be out of character for the area. Mr. Westman stated there are homes on Valley that will have block walls for the street side yard of the lot. He stated it is within the character of the neighborhood and it is common throughout the city. Commissioner Segall asked about the density increase. Mr. Westman explained that there is a section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan that refer to homes being in the Residential Low and Residential Low Medium General Plan designations. The section provides properties that have the lower general plan designations to allow an increase up to 25%, or in this case 5 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Westman further explained that the section takes into account infill development, allows the decision makers to grant up 25% if it is appropriate, that it is compatible and that findings can be made. Commissioner Segall asked if the increase in density would be in character for the neighborhood. Mr. Westman stated the proposed project’s lot sizes are consistent and compatible with the existing adjacent homes. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the changes in density is a determination by staff or by the city planner. Mr. Westman stated they are findings contained in the approving resolution for the project and ultimately would be determined by the Planning Commission through adoption of the resolution. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Joe Oftelie, representing City Ventures, 1900 Quail Street, Newport Beach, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Neu explained to the Commission the density provision that is included in the General Plan. Ms. Mobaldi added that it is an exception to the general rule that one cannot build above the density range in the General Plan designation. Commissioner Schumacher asked how many sites there are in the city similar to this. Mr. Neu stated that it is more common with smaller subdivisions of 4 lots or less and less common with subdivisions with more than 5 lots. Commissioner Segall asked if the traffic calming measures are in character with the community. Mr. Westman stated that it is a new concept being applied to an infill development of an existing neighborhood. Jason Geldert, Senior Engineer, stated the project was reviewed by the traffic division, land development engineering division and the Fire Department. The medians are common traffic calming measures used by the traffic division, and the medians do not pose any safety issues. Commissioner Scully asked if these traffic calming measures are similar to those being installed in Bressi Ranch. Mr. Geldert stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 3 Commissioner Anderson asked for information regarding the procedure for the Alternative Street Design. Mr. Geldert explained the Alternative Street Design concept and process to the Commission. Mr. Oftelie commented that they did review the process however it did not match up with the timeline for the proposed construction. He further stated that the future home owners would have to pay into a special financing district if street improvements are desired in the future. Mr. Geldert stated the property owners would enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement which creates a district that is paid into by those property owners who want those improvements; however, Mr. Geldert stated that the city could at any time make those improvements and not cause any one to pay for it. Commissioner Segall inquired about the height of the medians and stated he has concerns regarding the safety of the medians. Mr. Geldert stated the curbs will be the standard of 6 inches high. Bryan Jones, Deputy Transportation Director, stated the medians are standard traffic calming measures. He stated that these medians are intended to slow down the traffic through the subdivision. The Fire Department has approved the medians. Commissioner Segall asked if parking will be allowed at the entrances into the subdivision on James Drive. Mr. Jones stated that parking will not be allowed as the curbs will be painted red. Commissioner Segall asked how the medians will be marked. Mr. Jones stated the medians will be marked according to Public Works Standards. Commissioner Anderson commented that medians typically have landscaping in them making them more visible. Because these medians will only be 6 inches high, Commissioner Anderson stated they could be very difficult to see. Mr. Jones stated raised pavement markers can be installed on them so that the medians are more visible at night. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 1. Vice Chairperson Black opened the public testimony on Item 1. Bill Fait, 1650 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, spoke regarding the alternative design street and stated that there appears to be an opportunity for the city and the developer to install curbs and sidewalks on Oak Avenue. Craig Castillo, 1581 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, stated he shares the same concerns as the previous speaker. Mr. Castillo also inquired about any undergrounding of the utilities. He further asked who will maintain the proposed 20 ft. easement between his property and the project Mike O’Gara, 3200 James Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he finds the size of the proposed homes to be out of character with the existing homes. Christoph Berchtold, 3154 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding the future potential for subdividing his property where it connects to James Drive. Vice Chairperson Black 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 the applicant to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Oftelie stated that they are not opposed to installing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the Oak Avenue frontage; it is the process for the alternative design streets that is prohibitive to the development. Regarding the size of the homes, Mr. Oftelie feels the proposed homes are compatible with the existing homes as some of the existing homes are smaller and some are larger. Mr. Oftelie also commented that one of the project’s proposed conditions is to coordinate with Mr. Berchtold or his representative to allow frontage along this property to allow for the future access to James Drive. Mr. Geldert stated that the utility lines do not need to be undergrounded, and curbs and gutters do not need to be installed with the project. Mr. Geldert commented that the drainage for the site is adequate. Mr. Geldert aslo stated the easement is on the development property adjacent to Mr. Castillo’s property. With respect to the comment regarding proper frontage allowance for any future subdivision of Mr. Berchtold’s property, Mr. Geldert stated the developer and Mr. Berchtold are both aware that a lot line adjustment will need to be submitted. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding Mr. Berchtold’s property. Mr. Geldert directed the Commission’s attention to the slide on the screen and pointed out the area in question. Commissioner Schumacher asked Mr. Geldert about the requirements for undergrounding utilities. Mr. Geldert stated that the requirement is 600 hundred feet of frontage per street. Mr. Westman stated there is approximately 400 feet of frontage on both Valley Street and Oak Avenue Ms. Mobaldi commented that in regards to the size of the proposed homes, the homes are compliant with the guidelines contained in Council Policy No. 43. She further commented that size is not an issue with this project. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher stated the product is consistent with the neighborhood. In general, he feels the project is in character with the existing homes. Commissioner Schumacher stated he can support the item. Commissioner Segall stated he concurs with Commissioner Schumacher. He stated his appreciation regarding the architectural design of the homes and stated he can support the project. Commissioner Anderson stated she is pleased with the architectural design of the project. She commented that she does not like that it is an Alternative Design Street in front of a new project, however she can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Vice Chairperson Black also stated he can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7009 approving Tentative Tract Map (CT 12-07) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Vice Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Vice Chairperson Black 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. SDP 12-05 – FAITH COMMUNITY CHURCH – Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04 Rancho Carrillo) and for approval of a Site Development Plan for the development of a 34,308 square foot church building which includes a 500 seat sanctuary, child daycare center for 40 children, church classrooms, and administrative offices on a 3.44 acre site, Village “T” of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139), generally located at the northeast corner of El Fuerte and Rancho Pancho in Local Facilities Management Zone 18. 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. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 5 Vice Chairperson Black acknowledged receipt of several letters as well as an errata sheet for the project. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked if the proposal is for phase 1 only. Mr. Westman stated the application is for all three phases. Commissioner Segall asked about the parking ratio for the first 2 phases. Mr. Westman stated it is approximately 1:3. Commissioner Segall asked if the project can be conditioned so that parking is prohibited in the residential areas. Ms. Mobaldi stated this is a site development plan, and the code states that the Planning Commission can impose conditions “as deemed necessary to ensure conformity with the General Plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the city.” If the Commission feels it is an objective of the city to not have cars park on public streets in this instance, and that can be articulated, then a condition can be imposed. Mr. Neu added that the Commission should keep in mind the practicality of implementing such a condition. Commissioner Segall asked if it is a normal design standard for one point of ingress or egress for 100 vehicles. Mr. Westman stated it is not uncommon. Commissioner Anderson asked if more than 104 parking spaces can be made available on the site. Mr. Westman stated that staff has not done a thorough analysis of the site and the contours to determine how it can be expanded. Commissioner Anderson commented she is very concerned about the parking as well as the fact that the number of children are not even counted in the parking ratio. Commissioner Scully asked for clarification regarding the Average Daily Trips (ADT) for this project. Mr. Westman explained how Average Daily Trips are calculated and stated it is based on the largest buildout for the project. Commissioner Scully asked what the capacity is for the surrounding streets. Mr. Westman stated that each street type has specific design criteria with varying capacity levels. Rancho Pancho, for an example, is a collector street, versus Poinsettia Avenue, which is an arterial street. Mr. Jones stated a road like Rancho Pancho can handle approximately 10,000 cars. Commissioner Schumacher stated he is concerned with parking on Rancho Pancho and suggested that there be no parking along the south side of Rancho Pancho to the intersection at El Fuerte. Mr. Jones stated that the traffic division has reviewed the stopping site distance on Rancho Pancho and there is adequate site distance with cars parked on the roadway. Mr. Jones added that by having cars parked on the road will actually slow cars down. Rancho Pancho is 40 feet wide with more than adequate room for travel lanes and parking on each side of the street. Commissioner Schumacher asked if parking is allowed on El Fuerte. Mr. Jones stated no. He further clarified that no parking signs will be posted on Rancho Pancho instead of painting the curbs red. Commissioner Segall commented that he feels there is not enough room for passengers to exit vehicles on the south side of Rancho Pancho east of the RV parking site. Mr. Jones responded stating that the roadway is wide enough to provide ample parking along the roadway. Commissioner Segall asked about the process for including a three way stop sign or a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Pancho and El Fuerte. Mr. Jones commented that the need for a stop sign or signal was reviewed with this project and the project did not warrant it. Should this project get developed and something out the ordinary occur that was not anticipated, the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council have authority to install a three way stop sign or traffic signal. Commissioner Segall asked if there have been any issues with speeding in the area. Mr. Jones stated that El Fuerte is not a higher citation area than any other area in the city. Commissioner Anderson stated the speed limit sign in front of the site indicates 25 mph zone “ahead” and asked if it can be modified. Mr. Jones stated the sign can be modified to say 25 mph. Commissioner Segall inquired about parking for staff and special occasions and maximum occupancy. Mr. Westman stated that building occupancy, based on fire and building codes, is different than the seating capacity of the building. Mr. Westman further explained for the Planning Commission the parking standard and the parking ratio for churches. Commissioner Schumacher asked for clarification on the parking ratio applied to the project. Mr. Westman stated the city’s parking ordinance does not define a standard specifically for churches; however there is a standard for public assemblies, 1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of assembly area, whichever has the higher parking demand. Commissioner Schumacher asked why the Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 6 city does not use the average parking rate for the various churches in the city. Mr. Neu stated historically the parking standard is what is used; however with the upcoming zoning code update, staff anticipates analyzing the parking rate for churches and other public assemblies. Mr. Neu commented that churches have their peak time on the weekends when most other uses are not active. There has been an acceptance that as church attendance varies throughout the year there will be some parking on adjacent roadways. Because the excess parking is on public streets, it has not been prohibited. Commissioner Segall asked what the parking rate was for the previous approval for this site. Mr. Neu responded that the same parking rate was used, however the project was approved for 110 parking spaces for 440 seats. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the approval tonight versus any potential changes to the parking rate with the upcoming zoning update. Mr. Neu stated that the approval before the Commission tonight is for all three phases. If the project is approved, the project will be conditioned to comply with timing restrictions for the permit to remain valid. If the church complies with the conditions to keep the permit active, it would be required to comply with the parking rate that is being discussed tonight. Commissioner Segall asked if the Commission can modify the parking rate tonight. Mr. Neu stated yes. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he called for a 5 minute recess. RECESS Vice Chairperson Black called for a 5 minute recess at 8:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Black called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Vice Chairperson Black asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Don Mitchell, 478 Santa Cecelia, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Scully asked how many members are currently in the church. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are approximately 90 to 100 members at each service with one service at 10:15, and there are about 30 members who attend bible study. Commissioner Anderson asked about the signature on the project application. Mr. Mitchell responded stating that the signature is from the church that they purchased the land from. Commissioner Anderson inquired about the proposed classroom areas. Mr. Mitchell stated they have no plans to be a school, however there will be some weeknight activity. Commissioner Segall asked if the church has met with the neighbors. Mr. Mitchell stated no. Commissioner Segall suggested that Mr. Mitchell open the lines of communications with the neighbors. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Vice Chairperson Black opened public testimony on Item No. 2. Sharon Lightholder, 2382 Via Conquistador, Carlsbad, complimented city staff for their efforts with this project. She stated that the remaining issue regarding this project is the outdated parking standard that is being applied. Ms. Lightholder further commented that the project is overbuilt, underparked, and poorly detailed. Tim Held, 2803 Via Conquistador, Carlsbad, stated he is concerned with the potential noise from the proposed play area. He would like to see tall landscaping along the northern edge of the project. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 7 Additionally, he does not want any elevated parking on the site and he would like to see the no parking signs on Rancho Pancho to extend to El Fuerte. Maureen Shanahan, 2839 Via Conquistador, Carlsbad, stated her concerns regarding parking, noise, and occupancy of the church. Gwen Eagle, 2819 Via Conquistador, Carlsbad, commented that she feels this project is too large for the area. Craig Womack, 2802 Rancho Pancho, Carlsbad, stated the design of the building is awful and is not compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson Black 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 the applicant to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Mitchell commented that he feels the concerns regarding speeding and traffic on El Fuerte are existing concerns and not as a result of this proposal. He offered to meet with the neighbors regarding a potential plan for the payment of the installation of a traffic signal at Rancho Pancho and El Fuerte if it is warranted at a later date. Regarding the parking, Mr. Mitchell stated the project is providing more than double the requirement. Commissioner Scully asked Mr. Mitchell to address the lighting for the parking lot. Mr. Mitchell deferred the question to the project’s architect. Ken Smith, 500 Fesler Street, El Cajon, stated there will be four light poles with lighting shields in the parking lot. Commissioner Segall asked for a description of the roof. According to a site line study for the project, Mr. Smith stated there should not be any air conditioning units visible to any of the adjacent homes. Commissioner Anderson asked about the proposed flat roof. Mr. Smith stated it is an economic consideration. Commissioner Anderson commented on the tower element of the building. Mr. Smith stated that he can add to the tower to close it in on all four sides. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Mitchell to address any noise issues. Mr. Mitchell stated there are no plans for outside events, and because the facility is fairly removed from any homes, noise should not be an issue. Vice Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if there are design guidelines that churches need to meet similar to residential projects. Mr. Westman stated that generally speaking, no. There are some very generalized conceptual design guidelines within the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan with regards to certain architectural styles and references to compatibility. Mr. Neu commented that the Commission does have a certain amount of discretion when it comes to the architecture. The Carrillo Ranch guidelines refers to eight general types of architecture; however the guidelines state that interpretation should be generally traditional in nature and that experimental and overly contemporary architectural interpretations should be discouraged. Commissioner Segall asked if there are any sound restrictions that can be placed on the project. Mr. Neu stated that most of the restrictions in the municipal code deal with construction noise. The project was not conditioned with noise restrictions as there is no significant outdoor use proposed. Mr. Neu commented that if the Commission wished to add a condition regarding noise it should refer to restrictions on outdoor activities or events or amplified sound. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded that the Planning Commission approve only phases 1 and 2 and that the applicant reapply for phase 3. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 8 DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher stated he would like to approve all 3 phases but to enhance the condition regarding parking by having the applicant return to the Commission with parking information. Commissioner Segall stated he is struggling with this project. He does not feel he can support the motion as proposed by Commissioner Scully. Vice Chairperson Black stated that he feels the applicant and staff have struggled to make the best possible use of the land. He feels staff will make the best possible decision regarding the future phase as there is already a condition contained in the resolution dealing with a parking study. Vice Chairperson Black stated he cannot support Commissioner Scully’s motion. Commissioner Anderson stated the project does not accommodate the parking as there is not enough parking on site or off site. She stated that to approve this project even with a potential traffic study would be grossly irresponsible. Commissioner Scully commented that even with the potential for a future traffic study, it is possible that the church will not be compliant with other requirements and therefore the church could still not be approved for the additional sanctuary. Commissioner Segall asked how protected the city is with regarding Condition No. 21 as it is currently proposed with the errata sheet. Mr. Neu stated that with the modifications that have been discussed, the Commission is protected to the extent that it is a discretionary decision that the Planning Commission would make at that future time. The Commission would then be evaluating the experience of how the facility is working and issues there may be, evaluating the parking study, and then the Commission would be asked to decide whether to add the additional phase. Commissioner Segall asked if the church turns out to be a bad neighbor, the Commission could at that point make a decision based on what is occurring at that time, as opposed to what the Commission expects might happen in the future. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. The proposed change to the condition was trying to leave the door open to other options for the parking such as the off-site potential. If that is something the Commission is concerned with, then the Commission would not want to include the last change as proposed in the errata sheet. What staff was trying to do is that if the church is well attended there would be other areas the church can use for parking during the weekend such as in Bressi Ranch or at Pacific Ridge School with the church providing shuttles. Mr. Neu stated that if the Commission was uncomfortable with that, the Commission would want to leave in the provision for on-site parking. Ms. Mobaldi stated that this condition, Condition No. 21, deals strictly with parking and as such any other modifications dealing with other issues cannot be included. Commissioner Anderson commented that a traffic study paid for by the applicant could be skewed. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the condition can be modified such that the traffic study be commissioned by the city with the applicant paying for it and the city selecting the traffic engineer to achieve greater objectivity. VOTE (on motion previously stated) VOTE: 2-3 AYES: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Scully NOES: Vice Chairperson Black, Commissioner Schumacher, and Commissioner Segall ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Segall asked that the Commission consider amending Condition No. 21 to have the project come back before the Commission during a public hearing and to have a 3rd party traffic study completed. Mr. Neu stated that while he understands Commissioner Segall’s concerns, staff could accept the direction from the Commission and modify the condition for the final resolution if that is the majority vote. The Commission voted 5-0 to accept the modification as proposed by Commissioner Segall. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 9 Commissioner Schumacher proposed that the Commission consider there be no parking on the south side of Rancho Pancho all the way to El Fuerte Street. Commissioner Segall stated he can support that suggestion as long as the city can do it. Mr. Jones stated no parking signs can be placed near the driveways of the RV parking site. Ms. Mobaldi asked if Mr. Jones can refer the issue to the Traffic Safety Commission. Mr. Jones stated yes. Commissioner Schumacher stated that to bring this before the Traffic Safety Commission prior to a church being built is pointless. He suggested that after phases 1 and 2 are complete and operational, then as part of the parking study, the Traffic Safety Commission will evaluate the need for no parking signs be added to Commissioner Segall’s amendment. Mr. Jones stated he can have his staff visit the site to evaluate the site distance as it exists currently and once the church is constructed and operational, staff can then re-evaluate the site to determine if “no stopping anytime” signs need to be installed. Mr. Jones commented that if there is a true safety issue, staff will identify it and resolve it. Commissioner Anderson commented that she is concerned with the lack of traditional architectural features on the building. She asked the architect about the proposed architecture of the site. Mr. Smith stated they have made an effort to try and have the structure blend in with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson suggested that more details be added to the building to make it appear less industrial. Mr. Smith commented that there are significant details already on the building but stated that more cornices can be added. Vice Chairperson Black inquired about installing a mansard roof. Mr. Smith stated it would be very costly. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Commission would be agreeable to having more details added to the building. Commissioner Scully asked Mr. Neu if there is something in the municipal code that allows the Commission to require the applicant add more design elements and have it handled through staff. Mr. Neu stated that part of the Site Plan approval is for the Commission to exercise discretion for items such as architecture. If there is specific items or direction that the Commission would provide staff, a condition can be added so that the applicant work with staff to implement the modifications. An alternative would be if the Commission would like to see the project return to the Commission with the modified architecture. Commissioner Scully inquired if the Commission could request that the architecture be more conducive to the surrounding neighborhood or more conducive to the buildings of the master plan. Mr. Neu stated yes as there are other non-residential buildings in the master plan. Commissioner Anderson asked if the modifications could come back before the Commission or if it can be handled by staff. Mr. Neu stated that the modifications can be handled by staff; however, the Commission and the public would not be able to provide input. Vice Chairperson Black asked if the project would then need to be continued. Mr. Neu stated yes, that at that point, staff and the applicant would work together to achieve the goal of added details and would then re-notice the item to be heard before the Commission. Commissioner Segall commented that while he understands the concerns of his fellow Commissioners, he feels that by asking for these modifications the project becomes more costly and could make the project economically unfeasible as this is a church which is a non-profit entity. Commissioner Anderson stated that one modification that would not be too expensive is to enhance the tower element. Vice Chairperson Black stated that he feels these details can be worked out between staff and the applicant. He would be in favor of continuing the item. Mr. Smith stated that he would be more than willing to work with staff to add more details to the tower. The Commission voted 1-4 to continue the item to have the applicant and staff work together to propose additional architectural details on the building and to bring those modifications back to the Commission. The Commission voted 4-1 to require the applicant to revise the architecture to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Neu commented that the standard lighting condition should be added to the errata sheet as it was not included in the resolution. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7013 approving Site Development Plan SDP 12-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet with the addition of the lighting condition and Condition No. 21 as modified by the Assistant City Attorney and the architecture to be revised to the satisfaction of the City Planner. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall commented that this project was part of the original Master Plan. At that time, the Planning Commission made sure this site would be used for a community facilities use. He feels the church will be a good addition to the community. Commissioner Segall stated that while he understands the concerns of the neighborhood, he feels the Commission has taken the necessary steps to ensure the issues are mitigated. Commissioner Segall stated he can support the item. Commissioner Schumacher commented that he concurs with Commissioner Segall and stated he can support the project. Commissioner Anderson stated that she is happy to see a church at this location. She commented that she did have concerns with the parking but feels the issue has been adequately addressed. Commissioner Anderson stated she can support the item. Commissioner Scully cannot support the project with all 3 phases being approved at once, because of the parking issues, and because she has serious reservations with the future traffic study. Vice Chairperson Black stated he can see traffic bottlenecks occurring, parking is a real issue and there are safety issues; however, he feels it is good thing to have a church in your neighborhood. Vice Chairperson Black stated he can support the project. The motion by Commission Scully was withdrawn. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7013 approving Site Development Plan SDP 12-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet with the addition of the lighting condition and Condition No. 21 as modified by the Assistant City Attorney that requires preparation of a parking study by a third party for consideration by the Planning Commission prior to determining whether phase three of the project will be allowed to pull building permits and the architecture to be revised to the satisfaction of the City Planner. VOTE: 4-1 AYES: Vice Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Schumacher, and Commissioner Segall NOES: Commissioner Scully ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Vice Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and thanked staff for their presentations. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2013 Page 11 COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of September 18, 2013, was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Q~ DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk