Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-05; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: February 5, 2014 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Black 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 Black, Commissioners Anderson, L’Heureux, Schumacher, Scully, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Chris DeCerbo, Principal Christer Westman, Senior Planner Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Jason Geldert, Senior Civil Engineer Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Black asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from January 15, 2014. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 15, 2014. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siekmann PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Black asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 2 1. AV 13-08 – ROSS RV PARKING – An appeal of the City Planner’s decision to approve Administrative Variance, AV 13-08, to allow a recreational vehicle (RV) to be parked in the required front yard setback of a lot located at 3024 Garboso Street. The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15305 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations for a setback variance, of the state CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Junior Planner Chris Garcia would make the staff presentation. Mr. Garcia gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Ms. Mobaldi provided the Commission with guidelines regarding review of the appeal. She stated that the Commission will make its own independent determination and will not look at whether there was substantial evidence for the finding of the City Planner at the administrative hearing. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Commission can only consider evidence provided to the City Planner at the administrative hearing and not any additional evidence. The Commission is limited in terms of issues as to what was included in the written appeal. Ms. Mobaldi added that in this particular case, the HOA has CC&Rs which prohibit the parking of RVs in the front yard, and the appellant challenged the City’s interpretation of the city’s municipal code (CMC). Section 21.44.060 of the CMC states the CC&Rs can be more restrictive than the city regulations and will not be superseded by the Municipal Code. The CC&Rs will not be enforced by the city. That is the interpretation that staff has taken and the city attorney’s office agrees with that interpretation. The city is not obligated to follow or to enforce private CC&Rs as their enforcement is the obligation of the HOA. Ms. Mobaldi stated that if the CC&Rs are more restrictive, it is up to the HOA to ensure those are abided by and the city’s obligation is to make sure the municipal code provisions are followed. If there is a provision in the code to allow for a variance to park in the front yard setback, staff is free to grant that variance if the findings can be made regardless of what is provided for in the CC&Rs. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked Ms. Mobaldi if the city is a party to the CC&R. Ms. Mobaldi stated no as the CC&Rs are a private contractual agreement between a homeowner and an HOA. Commissioner Anderson recused herself from the dais due to being friends with project applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Ross. Chairperson Black asked if the appellant wanted to make a presentation. Tom Erwin, the appellant, 7706 Garboso Place, Carlsbad, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of the appellant. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there is an active HOA. Mr. Erwin stated no. Commissioner L’Heureux asked why the homeowners in the neighborhood have allowed the HOA to become inactive. Mr. Erwin stated that they have never needed an HOA as the residents police themselves. Commissioner Scully inquired if the Ross’s have been approached with the issues at hand. Mr. Erwin stated no one has talked with the homeowners. Commissioner Segall asked if there is an RV storage facility for the HOA. Mr. Erwin stated no. Commissioner Siekmann asked if Mr. Erwin would be willing to contribute to the cost of removing the awning which would allow the homeowners to park the RV properly. Mr. Erwin stated this is not a case of working issues out with the Ross’s. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Erwin stated the Ross’s have been parking the RV on the driveway since at least September. He asked who authorized that and if they are in violation of city law. Ms. Mobaldi explained that there is an appeal right to the City Council from whatever decision the Planning Commission makes at this meeting. The code does not allow staff to take his appeal directly to the council. The provisions provide that if a City Planner decision is appealed, it is heard first by the Planning Commission and then the Council. Ms. Mobaldi stated that is why staff did not honor Mr. Erwin’s request to take the appeal directly to the city council. She further pointed out that the provisions of the CMC with regard to appeals. The appellant has 10 days to appeal the decision and the appellant must specify in writing the grounds for the appeal. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Mr. Erwin specified that there were CC&Rs and that he did not agree with the city’s code provision with regard to the CC&Rs not being superseded by the Code which he interprets to mean that the City must defer to the CC&Rs and could not grant a variance. The code states, “All matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the city planner and are supported by substantial evidence.” She reiterated that it is improper, at this point, for the Commission to consider any evidence that was not considered by the City Planner. Ms. Mobaldi added that she does not believe the photographs or evidence of code violations presented by the appellant to the Commission were considered by the City Planner and that evidence should therefore be disregarded. Otherwise the Commission is disregarding the municipal code provisions with regard to an appeal. Commissioner Segall asked if Mr. Erwin would pay another appeal fee if the Planning Commission decision appealed to the City Council. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes however the grounds for the original appeal would remain. Commissioner Segall also asked if it is standard procedures for an appellant to not receive copies of any requested documents. Mr. Garcia commented that he misinterpreted the request by Mr. Erwin, and once the issue was clarified, staff made the documents available for pick-up. Mr. Neu clarified that Mr. Erwin was not the project applicant but the appellant. Any member of public is able to view a file. There is a set fee schedule for copies of documents which are exclusive of the appeal fee. Chairperson Black asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Black opened public testimony. Shirley Hawley, 3022 Garboso Street, Carlsbad, urged the Commission to approve the appeal and deny the variance. Ken Hubbard, 3027 Garboso Street, Carlsbad, read a brief statement into the record regarding the Ross RV Variance. Carolyn Erwin, 7706 Garboso Street, Carlsbad, stated her main objection to this request is the safety of the neighborhood. Susan Ross, 3024 Garboso Street, stated their original plan was to park the RV in the side-yard between a gate; however because of the limited space, it is not feasible. She stated they do not intend to be a blight to the neighborhood by parking the RV in the driveway. 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 on the item and asked if Staff wished to respond to any of the issues or questions raised during public testimony. Mr. Garcia responded to Mr. Erwin’s question as to who authorized the parking of the RV in the driveway since September. Mr. Garcia stated that a code violation was issued as there was not a valid permit at the time but because it was not a life safety issue and a pending application was on file in the Planning Division, it was allowed to continue until a final decision was made. He further stated that the parking allowance for the front yard is 30% which, in this case, would allow the RV and up to two smaller vehicles to be parked in the driveway and still be in conformance with the existing city code. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for clarification regarding the appeal. Ms. Mobaldi responded stating the Commission is not allowed to look at the specifics that the City Planner reviewed as those items were not specified in the appeal. The Commission is limited to reviewing the interpretation of the Code with regard to the CC&Rs. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked what the ordinance says about living or occupying the RV. Mr. Neu responded stated it is strictly for parking. There is a provision in the municipal code that allows for living in an RV but it is primarily for the duration of construction of a home on the property. Mr. Neu added that in the conditions for this permit it was expressly stated that it was not for living in or occupying the RV. Commissioner Segall inquired about parking an RV in front of the third garage. Mr. Neu commented that the homeowner would still be able to use the third garage space and vehicles would have to be maneuvered around just as one would if another car was parked in that space. Commissioner Segall asked if safety was taken into consideration when the variance was granted. Mr. Neu stated the third finding for this permit addresses the visibility to or from the street. The Engineering staff determined there was adequate visibility from the driveway to see vehicles. Ms. Mobaldi reminded Commissioner Segall that these issues are not before the Commission for this appeal. Jason Geldert, Senior Engineer, stated that ingress and egress of the driveway was taken into consideration, and it was reviewed by the City’s traffic department. Staff did not see any issues with safety with having an RV parked in the driveway. Commissioner Segall further inquired about the sign on the front of the RV and if it is allowed with the city’s sign ordinance. Mr. Neu stated there are provisions for company vehicles to have the company name on them to not be counted in the square footage for the allowed signage. Commissioner Segall stated that Ms. Ross indicated that RVs are not allowed anywhere on the property. Mr. Neu stated that that was his understanding but it gets to the heart of the matter which is the city’s municipal code provisions versus the private CC&Rs, which are very different. Chairperson Black asked if the Commission can consider Finding No. 3 in making their decision tonight. Mr. Neu clarified that in order for the matter to be before the Commission’s for its consideration, it needed to be part of the appeal. In this case, the appeal focused on the municipal code and whether it required the city to enforce or observe a more restrictive provision in the private CC&Rs. Commissioner Segall asked if he can ignore a finding if he feels it is an unsafe condition which was made by the city to grant the variance in the first place. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes, in this particular case it was not specified as one of the challenges or reasons for the appeal. Section 21.54.140 very clearly specifies what the rules are for an appeal and it very clearly sets forth how the Commission or the Council is to approach an appeal. Mr. Erwin had a right to get into those issues when he filed the appeal but he did not and as such is precluded from doing so now according to the Municipal Code. Commissioner Segall inquired as to what the Commission is discussing as there seems to be no issue they can discuss. Ms. Mobaldi stated the Commission can look at the code provision that Mr. Erwin is challenging, which is that CC&Rs can supersede the municipal code if they are more restrictive. If the Commission does not feel that provision is being interpreted correctly by Staff, the Commission can address that. Commissioner Scully sked if Mr. Erwin can appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, if the appeal is denied by the Commission. Ms. Mobaldi stated yes. Commissioner Scully asked if the appeal can then be reworded at that time to include those issues such as safety. Ms. Mobaldi stated it would go to the City Council as it was originally appealed. Mr. Neu added that there is another option which is changing the code. The city can initiate changes as can the Council and even an applicant can. In any event, if none of those happen, staff is working on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update and this is a topic that will be discussed during that process. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the appeal can be withdrawn at this time and file a new appeal to set forth new grounds. Ms. Mobaldi stated that she would not interpret the code to mean that as it would undermine the intent of the rules. Commissioner Segall stated that he drove by the site and feels that the RV is being used for living. Ms. Mobaldi stated that that cannot be used in his determination tonight as it would be purely speculative, and it is an issue that was not before the City Planner in the original hearing. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support staff’s recommendation and cannot support the denial based on the fact that he believes the CC&Rs have an intent, and he does not think the city should be involved in CC&Rs. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 5 Commissioner Schumacher stated that his interpretation does not believe the City’s code is limited by the CC&Rs. He commented that the CC&Rs are toothless in this matter. He can agree with the denial of the appeal. Commissioner Siekmann stated that she agrees with the denial of the appeal. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the problem is that the CC&Rs are not being enforced which is not the fault of the city. It is not the duty of the city to enforce private CC&Rs. He stated there is no basis for overruling the action of the City Planner. Commissioner Scully commented that she can sympathize with the neighbors; however she suggested that they get together to form an HOA and enforce the CC&Rs. She stated she has to support the ordinance the way it is. Chairperson Black stated he can agree with his fellow Commissioners and deny the appeal. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7033 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the City Planner to approve AV 13-08, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-1-1 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commission Siekmann NOES: Commissioner Segall ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson ABSTAIN: None 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. Commissioner Anderson returned to the dais. 2. GPA 13-02/MP 02-03(E)/CT 13-03/PUD 13-06/HDP 13-01/SUP 13-02 – ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE – Request for a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to subdivide and grade a 201.37 acre site into 345 lots including 308 single-family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots for the future development of 364 dwelling units, one 12 acre commercial lot, 5 open space lots, 5 neighborhood recreation lots, 1 Community Facilities lot, 9 private street lots, and 14 lots to be owned by future Home Owners’ Associations on property generally located south of Tamarack Avenue, north and east of El Camino Real and north of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. The City Planner has determined that this project is within the scope of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan EIR 03-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 – Robertson Ranch West Village on October 17, 2012. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the staff presentation assisted by Associate Engineer Jeremy Riddle. Mr. Westman gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Black acknowledged receipt of the updated disclosure statement for the project. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 6 Commissioner Segall asked if the locations of the models have been determined yet. Mr. Westman stated that is determined when building permits are issued, which is typically much later in the process. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Paul Klukas, with Planning Systems and representing Rancho Costera, 1530 Faraday Ave, Suite 100, Carlsbad gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Greg Deacon, representing Toll Brothers, 11527 Punta Dulcina, San Diego, also gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he has a real problem with the keystone wall. He asked Mr. Klukas if they have any experience with this mix of plants being proposed for the keystone wall. Mr. Klukas stated that he is not aware of the particulars of the other keystone walls throughout the city; however his landscape architect feels these plants will be full grown within 6 to 12 months as long as there is adequate soil and adequate water. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there are any assurances Mr. Klukas can provide that this will work. Mr. Klukas confirmed that Toll Brothers will do everything as indicated by the landscape architect. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the slopes will be maintained by the HOA. Mr. Klukas stated yes and by the time that the HOA is formed, the slopes will be mature. Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. Neu about not accepting the slopes if they do not work. Mr. Neu stated that it depends on what has been bonded for. He added that the city has a contract landscape architect who thoroughly reviews landscape plans as well as inspects the projects at various stages of the installation and prior to the city releasing the project. Even in the event that the landscaping did not cover perfectly, the wall cells will be a colored wall or tan concrete with some texture. Commissioner Siekmann asked if they will be using potable water for the landscaping. Mr. Klukas stated it will be recycled water. Commissioner Anderson commented that in her observations coyote bush takes many years to fully grow. Mr. Klukas stated that those may have been a different variety of the plant. This version will be a ground cover variety which grows quicker and will not be as tall. 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. Chairperson Black opened public testimony on the item. Jill Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated her concern regarding the proposed retaining wall along El Camino Real. Knute Madden, 2705 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated his concern is the thru-fare on Glasgow Drive into his neighborhood. He is concerned with the number of homes currently proposed. Mr. Madden also asked if the gates will be open to allow access from both neighborhoods. Chairperson Black asked if the applicant wished to respond to the questions raised. Paul Klukas stated all of the planning areas are consistent with the number of units approved in the master plan. The gates are also consistent with the approved master plan. Commissioner L’Heureux stated the homeowners living within the gates are the only ones who will have access to use the gates. Mr. Klukas stated that was correct. Christy Fareis, 4640 La Portalada, Carlsbad, asked for staff contact information regarding the project timing. Mr. Westman stated he would provide his contact information. Patty Hall, 3448 Glen, Carlsbad, asked if the habitat preserve will remain and if any agriculture will be left. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 7 Graham Espie, 4717 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, asked if the city is going to allow Toll Brothers to take property from him through condemnation. 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 staff to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Westman commented that agriculture will no longer exist on the property once the project receives the final approvals and grading begins but the existing open space preserve will remain. Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, responded to the question regarding condemnation approach from Rancho Costera, LLC. Mr. Riddle stated that there are 5 locations where the developer has sought to secure the necessary right of way. Out of the five, there are 2 locations remaining that need acquisition in order to proceed with the development. Mr. Espie’s property is one of those locations. Mr. Riddle commented that back in 1980, there was a map created when the Colony neighborhood was formed and the lots for that subdivision were created. There was a one foot buffer strip created and reserved for future street purposes to the city. In consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and because so much time has passed, after 25 years had passed, the laws become grey, and the city is not comfortable in accepting the offer. In order to proceed cleanly, the city would like to acquire the one foot dedication and a small slope easement as well from Mr. Espie’s property in order to construct the roads at Edinburgh and at Glasgow. Mr. Riddle stated that the city has copies of all correspondence between Shapell Homes and Mr. Espie dating back to August 2011. The last letter was dated December 2013, sent certified mail, which included the last and final offer. The developer is required to attempt to acquire the property in a friendly fashion. If those negotiations are not successful, the developer can prepare the information and deliver it to the city in order to proceed with condemning the property. Mr. Riddle further stated it would not be Rancho Costera, LLC, a single entity, condemning the property. It would be the city condemning it for the necessary public use of a public road and public utility purposes to serve the community. Commissioner Scully asked if this would be a secondary entrance into this neighborhood. Mr. Riddle stated it would not be classified as a secondary as the project requires two points of ingress and egress. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that some of the statements during public testimony regarding open space and if they will be able to be used by the public in the future. Mr. Westman stated there is no active recreation areas being proposed with this development. There will be limited trails through the master plan. Those open space areas will be mainly preserve and habitat areas. Commissioner Siekmann asked how much land will be condemned from Mr. Espie’s property. Mr. Riddle stated it is 1 foot wide by approximately 60 feet in addition to a slope easement of approximately a few hundred square feet. Commissioner Anderson inquired if the title report indicated an easement on the property. Mr. Riddle stated the current title report does show the offer of dedication. Commissioner Anderson also asked about the water that will be used for the slope walls considering the state is currently in a drought. Mr. Westman stated the slopes will be eventually maintained by the HOA. The HOA will maintain those slopes to be in a healthy and thriving condition. Commissioner Segall commented that condemnation issues are handled by the Council. Mr. Neu added that the proposed wall design was thought to be more natural looking and to address some of the concerns the Planning Commission had when approving the previous permits. Staff feels that the proposed design is a superior solution to what was previously proposed. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the plan as submitted. He commented that he feels it is a nice design, and he is not concerned with the proposed slope wall. Commissioner Schumacher stated his concurrence with Commissioner Segall. He thanked the applicant for the redesign of the wall. He stated he can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014 Page 8 Commissioner L'Heureux thanked the applicant and staff for their work on the project. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Chairperson Black thanked staff and the applicant for their presentations as well as the public that spoke during public testimony. He stated he can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7034 and 7035 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 13-02), Master Plan Amendment (MP 02-03(E)), Vesting Tentative Tract Map (CT 13-03), Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-06), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 13-01 ), and Special Use Permit (SUP 13-02) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 ·AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 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 February 5, 2014, was adjourned at {tmJt DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk