Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-05; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: November 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 Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Scully, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Greg Fisher, Assistant Planner Jason Goff, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Black asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from October 15, 2014. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 15, 2014. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. 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 November 5, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Assistant Planner Greg Fisher would make the staff presentation. 1. RP 14-15 – QUONSET ADDITION – Request for approval of a Minor Review Permit to allow the adaptive reuse of two existing commercial buildings currently occupied by an auto repair garage and office/retail space and the addition of 720 square feet to the building along State Street to accommodate future permitted retail uses located at 2727 State Street, in Land Use District 1 of the Village Review (V-R) Zone, and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. Mr. Fisher gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there will be fencing at the back of the property along the alley. Mr Fisher stated yes there will be fencing. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the courtyard will be open to the public. Mr. Fisher stated the use will be open to the public. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Brett Farrow, architect and owner of the project, clarified that the courtyard will be closed at night but accessible to the public during the day. He stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Siekmann asked what materials the fence would be constructed of. Mr. Farrow stated the fence would be constructed of wood and metal and will run along the alley at the back of the property. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the type of uses proposed for this site. Mr. Farrow commented that while there are no tenants signed at this time, he has had interest from an art gallery, a stationary store, brewery tasting rooms, and furnishing stores. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Black opened public testimony. Lucinda Vigne, 3087 State Street, Carlsbad, asked about the second story and if the applicant owned the adjacent property. She also asked about the design of the adjacent building. Mr. Farrow stated the upper level is intended to be an extension of the lower level retail use. Both buildings depicted in the project renderings are under single ownership. The building adjacent to this project is depicted in the renderings is a single story with loft space. 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 during public testimony. Mr. Fisher clarified that the adjacent building has been previously approved with the depicted style and architecture. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there any remediation requirements for the site because of the former use. Mr. Fisher stated all applicants or owners are required to fill out and submit a hazardous waste and substance statement, and it is the applicant’s responsibility to research to see if the project has been included on any of the various websites. This project’s applicant declared the site to be free of hazardous materials. The site’s previous owner had a site analysis completed and that analysis indicated no remedial work is necessary. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if there is a requirement that the site analysis be filed with the city. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he is concerned with this project because of its former use as an auto repair shop. Mr. Neu stated staff can request a copy of the report and ensure no remedial work is necessary. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that it would be a good step for the city. Commissioner L’Heureux further asked about the parking for the project as the potential uses will be more intensive than what is currently there. Mr. Fisher stated that it has been almost a year since the changes were made to the Village Master Plan. Those changes included exempting projects which convert uses Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 3 from having to provide onsite parking if it cannot be accommodated onsite. This project is also in an area that participates in the Parking In-Lieu program. Commissioner Segall stated this project is required to purchase 2 parking spaces in-lieu. Mr. Fisher stated that was correct because of the additional square footage being added to the building. Commissioner Segall commented that the purpose of the program is to allow developers and applicants to build projects, and asked what the strategy is for constructing a site for parking. Mr. Fisher commented that while projects have been approved using the parking in-lieu parking; however in 4 years only one agreement has been processed. Mr. Fisher further commented that through the currently on-going Village and Barrio Master Plan Update, issues related to parking in the Village should be addressed and recommendations provided for potential changes. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project but is concerned with the parking. He commented that the concept of encouraging “adaptive reuse” is a positive one for the Village. Commissioner Montgomery commented he likes the eclectic nature of the design of the project. He feels that the projects should continue to be approved even with the parking issues in the village. Commissioner Montgomery suggested a minute motion be forwarded to the Council regarding a parking structure or parking areas be strongly included and accelerated within the general plan update. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, commented that at the last Planning Commission workshop, City Council strongly suggested that minute motions not be pursued. Instead the Commissioners should use their comment periods to stress their concerns as the Council members will read the minutes. Commissioner Siekmann stated her concurrence with Commissioner Montgomery. She further pointed out that the update to the city’s General Plan is urging pedestrian friendly areas and uses in the Village. She stated she can support the project. Commissioner Anderson commented that she likes the courtyard; however, she is concerned with the parking. She stated she can approve the project. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the architecture is good yet different. He commented that the courtyard could be a good area for those commuters of the coaster. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he can support the project. Commissioner Scully commented that the buildings are interesting and will be a good fit in the Village. She stated she would like to see the businesses stay open later than 5:00 p.m. She also stated her agreement with her fellow Commissioners regarding the parking issues. Chairperson Black stated he likes the influence towards pedestrian traffic as opposed to automotive traffic. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7074 approving Minor Review Permit RP 14-15, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None 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. Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 4 2. CT 14-01/RP 14-01 – STATE MIXED USE 30 – Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Major Review Permit to allow for 1) the demolition of all structures onsite located at 3068 State Street, 3080 State Street and 542 Oak Avenue (APNs 203-297-06, 203-297-08 and 203-297-09); and 2) construction of a four-story mixed-use building consisting of 14 residential units, 13 timeshare units, 4,529 square feet of commercial and an enclosed at-grade parking garage situated on a 0.413-acre project site comprised of three properties addressed as 3068 State Street, 3080 State Street and 542 Oak Avenue, and located within District 1-Carlsbad Village Center of the Village Review (VR) Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Jason Goff would make the staff presentation. Mr. Goff gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the commercial spaces on the first floor and if it is possible for a restaurant to be located there. Mr. Goff stated that the building design would not accommodate a restaurant but the applicant could provide more information. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the commercial uses and the subdivision of the space. Mr. Goff stated the applicant would like to keep one ownership with multiple tenants leasing space. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the units will be air conditioned and if they will they be able to circulate fresh air. Mr. Goff stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the parking lots within 600’ feet of the project are overnight lots. Mr. Goff stated the parking lot across the street allows overnight parking. Commissioner Anderson inquired about handicap parking. Mr. Goff stated the handicap parking will be for the residential uses not for the commercial as there is on-street parking as well as the parking lot across the street. Commissioner Anderson commented about the parking lot across the train tracks being included in the radius for the project as she feels it would not be very accessible. Mr. Goff stated that the radius was provided to illustrate that this project is within proximity of 5 parking lots. Commissioner Anderson commented that she is concerned with the in-lieu parking program and suggested a review of the parking study completed a few years ago as well as the parking lots in the Village. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification regarding the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Mr. Goff replied that there are no unit allocations assigned to the properties in the Village. Any mixed use or residential project that comes forward for development has a unit allocation through the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Commissioner Anderson inquired as to how many units are in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Mr. Neu stated he was not sure of the exact number but believes that 700 to 800 units have been set aside in the Housing Element for the Village area. Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Ed McArdle, 2173 Salk Avenue, Carlsbad, the architect representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Segall asked about the three bedroom units being offered as affordable housing. Steve Cox, 10946 Madrona Drive, Sydney, BC, Canada, project applicant, stated he believes the 3 bedroom affordable units will be perfect for families. Commissioner L’Heureux asked about the owner units and timeshare units being on the same floor. Mr. Cox stated the timeshare units will not be for weekly rentals. The timeshare units are intended to be for monthly rentals. Commissioner L’Heureux stated that he is concerned with the compatibility of those units being on the same floor. Mr. Cox stated it will not be marketed for weekly rentals but instead for first time buyers and a younger crowd. Commissioner L’Heureux stated he is still concerned and is not convinced that these uses are compatible. He asked if there will be CC&Rs or an HOA established. Mr. Cox stated that there will be CC&Rs and an HOA will be established. Mr. Cox does not foresee any issues regarding compatibility. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that the renderings show uplighting on the trees however those are not depicted on the drawings. Mr. McArdle stated those are details that will be Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 5 determined at a later date. Mr. Cox stated that he will do whatever is needed to make the retail space inviting so that it rents out. Commissioner Scully asked about parking and the number of spaces allocated per unit. Mr. McArdle commented that the two bedroom units have 2 parking spaces. Commissioner Scully asked if both spaces will be covered or if there will be one covered space and one open space. Mr. McArdle stated it is a good possibility that there will be one covered space and one open space. Commissioner Scully asked how many spaces the 3 bedroom units will have. Mr. McArdle stated 2 parking spaces. Commissioner Scully further asked how the parking area will be secured. Mr. McArdle stated there will be automated gates in the parking area. Commissioner Siekmann inquired about rentals and the minimum number of days required. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Condition No. 19 of Resolution No. 7073 states that rentals have to be for a minimum of 31 days. Ms. Mobaldi added that if Commissioners object to the type of set-up with regard to condominium units and time-shares they should relate their concerns to one of the necessary findings. In regard to issues such as lighting the Commission needs to focus on whether the proposed development meet the City standards. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant intended to maintain the rental spaces. Mr. Cox stated yes and there will be a property manager onsite. Commissioner Anderson asked about the 11 parking spaces for timeshares. Mr. Cox stated there will be one parking spot per timeshare unit. 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 Agenda Item 2. Laurie Boone, 3955 Skyline Road, Carlsbad, spoke of her concerns of infill projects. She commented that recent developments are creating more traffic and changing the character of the place she loves. Lucinda Vigne, 3087 State Street, Carlsbad, stated the project is a beautiful addition to the Village; however her initial concern was parking but feels that it has been resolved. She asked about the lighting on the lower level of the structure, and if there will be trees along the sidewalk. Mr. McArdle stated the intent of the lighting is to have architectural downlighting. Mr. Neu commented on the lighting and requested that the Commission condition the project for a lighting plan if that is their concern. 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. Mr. Goff commented that the project complies with all the applicable requirements. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if Condition No. 18 and if the CC&Rs will cover both owner occupied units and the timeshare units. Mr. Neu stated it will cover everything on the property and the CC&Rs will need to address all of the components in a single document. As part of the CC&Rs, there should be the establishment of a governing body to enforce the CC&Rs for the benefit of all the owners. Commissioner L’Heureux further asked if there have been other projects that have for sale units and timeshare units on the same floor. Mr. Neu stated that he could not recall any. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he likes the project as it adds a tremendous amount of beauty to the Village. He commented that the project is definitely raising the bar and hopes it will stimulate development in the Village. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he absolutely loves the project. This project will be an anchor in the south part of the Village. He commented that he can support the project. In regard to parking, the Commission is conducting a grand experiment with what was approved about 12-18 months ago with these types of projects with reduced parking. He feels that the experiment should continue. It will be hard if the Commission “knee jerks” on every single project even though it will be hard because of past feelings. Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 6 Commissioner Montgomery further commented that the commission should continue the experiment, to see it through and to see what happens. With that said, he feels the city has a history of growth management and facilities being built concurrent with development. Instead of building up parking credits for the future, he stated why not build the structure and reimburse the city with the parking in-lieu fees going forward. Commissioner Siekmann also stated she loves the project and is thrilled the applicant chose Carlsbad to build their project. She thanked staff and the applicant for all the hard work on this project. Commissioner Anderson stated that she likes a great deal of the project, however she is concerned with the parking in lieu fee program and the density of the project. She would like to see an additional condition for a lighting plan. Commissioner L’Heureux complimented staff and the applicant on the amount of work put into this project. He stated his concern as it relates to timeshares and offsite parking for timeshares. He stated that parking for timeshares should be marked as “reserved” and should be located in a parking lot adjacent to the project. He is also concerned with the concept of condos and timeshares being on the same floor. However, Commissioner L’Heureux commented that he feels the project will be a great anchor for the south end of State Street. He further agrees that there should be an added condition regarding a lighting plan. Commissioner Scully stated her concurrence with her fellow Commissioners regarding a lighting plan for this project. She commented that City Council as well as Dover Kohl need to really start looking at what can be done for parking structures in the Village. Commissioner Scully stated she can support the project. Chairperson Black commented that as timeshare owner, the one thing that bothers him the most is lack of parking at resorts. In this case, however, with the numbers that have been allotted and the extra parking spaces around the site, he does not believe there will be any issues. He stated he agrees with an additional condition for a lighting plan, and he can support the project. Commissioner Anderson proposed that a condition be added that there be a lighting plan that is reviewed by the Planning Division to match the renderings. Mr. Neu proposed the condition read “Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the City Planner that includes lighting at the first floor of the building exterior along the street frontage, exterior tree lighting, and lighting consistent with the rendering presented for the project.” Commissioner L’Heureux commented the concerns for the lighting are with the pedestrian areas and the uplighting of the trees. Commissioner Segall asked if other projects have conditions added such as this one. He feels like this project is being singled out even though the applicant stated that he would do whatever it takes to help attract customers to the site. Mr. Neu stated that there typically is not a requirement for lighting except for the lighting of a parking area. The Village is a little different, and if pedestrian activity is being encouraged after daylight hours, it would be appropriate to add a requirement, particularly along the street frontages. Commissioner Segall suggested that this issue be brought to the attention of Dover Kohl so that perhaps it can be addressed with the update to the Village and Barrio Master Plan. He would like consistency with the projects instead of one project being singled out. Mr. Neu commented that staff would pass along those comments. Staff has been sharing some of the projects in the Village with the Dover Kohl staff to get input and feedback as well as to make them aware of any issues such as parking. Mr. Neu further commented that the changes to the Master Plan were approved about a year ago and it was a goal of the Council to provide incentives for development in the Village, and it certainly seems to be having that effect. Parking will be re-evaluated as part of the new Master Plan. Commissioner Scully stated that she would like to see the condition for a lighting plan be added to this project as the Commission is considering approving the project based on the design and renderings as presented. Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 7 MOTION Commissioner Anderson made a motion that the project be conditioned to provide a lighting plan with wording to be provided by Mr. Neu. Mr. Neu stated the condition would read "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the City Planner that includes (a) lighting at the first floor of the building exterior along the street frontage; {b) exterior tree lighting; and (c) lighting consistent with the rendering presented for the project." The motion was seconded by Commissioner L'Heureux. Commissioner Segall commented that he can support the motion but he stated he feels this is another example of a market-driven issue the Commission keeps getting involved in. If the developer wants business, he will do whatever he can including lighting. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded by Commissioner Segall that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7073 recommending approval ofTentative Tract Map CT 14-01 and Major Village Review Permit RP 14-01 to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the added condition regarding a lighting plan. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Segall and 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 November 5, 2014 was adjourned [~ DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk