Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-15; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: April 15, 2015 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Scully, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L’Heureux, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Van Lynch, Senior Planner Jason Goff, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Steve Bobbett, Associate Engineer Randy Metz, Fire Marshall APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. 1. COASTAL EROSION ACTION PLAN – Presentation of an action plan to stop or slow down coastal erosion along the beaches and lagoons prepared as a school project by Aviara Oaks Middle School students. Ms. Crawford, a teacher at Aviara Oaks Middle School, presented the recommendations of the students. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Seeing none, Chairperson Scully 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 April 15, 2015 Page 2 2. PS 14-158(A) – LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE – A request for approval of a Modified Sign Program to exceed the standards of the sign ordinance for a cumulative increase in letter height by up to 27% and a cumulative increase in sign area up to 30% for tenants greater than 10,000 square feet of floor area within the La Costa Town Square commercial buildings located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15311, “Accessory Structures, On-premise signs,” of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation. Mr. Lynch gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner L’Heureux asked for examples showing the proposed changes. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission’s attention to the slide on the screen depicting the proposed changes. Commissioner Segall asked about the building that will be constructed along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Lynch stated that building would have a sign allowance for the width of the building, and that allowance can be divided among the number of sides of the building at the applicant’s discretion. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the applicant’s reasoning is for wanting increased signage. Mr. Lynch deferred to the applicant. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Kalina Kunert, Terramar Retail Centers, 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road, Pleasanton, gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked if the proposed changes will be sufficient once they are made. Ms. Kunert stated she feels that proposed changes will be sufficient and commented that setbacks should be taken into consideration when determining the size of signs. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none, asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Scully opened and closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he can support the proposal. He commented that building setbacks from the street need to be considered when reviewing sign permits. Commissioner Montgomery stated he is a fan of the sign ordinance and likes how restrictive the city is with signage; however in this particular case, he feels that this proposal is reasonable, and he is in favor of doing anything to make the center successful. He stated he can support the project. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux commented that signs are always a touchy subject in the city. He stated he can support the changes to the signs. His comment to staff is that with larger centers such as this and when the buildings are setback from the road, those setbacks need to be taken into consideration when considering signs. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Anderson stated she can support the project. Chairperson Scully stated she can also support the project as the proposed changes are very well warranted and necessary. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7096 approving Modified Sign Program 14-158(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully 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. CT 13-04/PUD 13-10/CDP 13-33 – GOLDEN SURF – Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow for 1) the subdivision, grading and development of a 1.08 acre parcel currently developed with an existing single-family home and second dwelling unit into three (3) lots and four (4) airspace condominium units; and 2) construction of four (4) detached two-story single- family condominium units (ranging from 2,213 square feet to 2,256 square feet) with exclusive use areas and a common drive on proposed Lot 1; a 3,250 square foot two-story single-family home on proposed Lot 2; and an existing single-family home with second dwelling unit to remain on proposed Lot 3 on property located at 6798 Paseo Del Norte within the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203), Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Plan 20. The project qualifies as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 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. Chairperson Scully acknowledged that the Planning Commission received several letters from the community that will be entered into the record. Chairperson Sully asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the pad that is the farthest east and asked the distance to the closest existing home on Lands End Court. Mr. Goff stated the distance will be approximately 68 feet. Commissioner Segall asked why the applicant is proposing to raise the pad. Mr. Goff stated the pad needed to be elevated in order to create positive drainage out to Camino de Las Ondas. Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager, explained that the pad was raised just enough for the drainage to flow to a catch basin and then flow out to Camino de Las Ondas where there will be further improvements to an existing storm drain line which will minimize the amount of fill needed in order to achieve the drainage. Commissioner Segall commented that one of the letters submitted stated the pads were being elevated in order to achieve an ocean view but because of his site visit, he does not think that is possible. Mr. Goff stated that was correct. The pads are being elevated due to the drainage issues on the site. Commissioner Segall asked if there was another way to accomplish the drainage issue without raising the pad level. Mr. Geldert stated that Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 4 the applicant approached the adjacent property owners on Lands End Court; however those home owners would not grant the necessary drainage and utility easements. Commissioner Anderson asked if the maximum height of the proposed retaining wall is 4 feet. Mr. Goff stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson asked about Lot 2 and why that has the smaller setbacks. Mr. Goff stated that the lot does have a reduced front yard setback consistent with the Planned Development Ordinance that is in place, however the other setbacks comply with the R-1 standards. Commissioner Black asked how much higher the townhomes to the west would be if there was not any fill on the proposed lots. Mr. Goff stated the retaining wall would have to be at least 13 feet along the edge of the property facing Lands End Court. Commissioner Segall asked about the retaining wall on the east end of the property. Mr. Goff stated it is a 4 foot retaining wall. Commissioner Segall asked if a retaining wall would be necessary if the easements had been granted. Mr. Goff stated no. Commissioner Segall asked what it would take to have the project drain out to Lands End Court. Mr. Geldert stated an encumbrance on the property of an easement would be on the property title. There would also be temporary disruption during construction. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the grading for Lot 2. Mr. Goff stated deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Geldert added that what is proposed is a cleaner way to do it. Chairperson Scully asked if the Fire Department reviewed the project and if there will be adequate turn around. Mr. Goff stated the project was reviewed by the Fire Department and has been designed to meet all applicable Fire Standards. Randy Metz, city Fire Marshal, explained that when projects are reviewed for fire department access, the city has adopted codes for access width and turn around templates. When projects are evaluated and it is determined what is truly necessary on a case-by-case basis, those numbers can be adjusted down to the benefit of the project. In this particular case, it was determined that the Fire Department would accept the 20 foot minimum width standard that is found in the state model code as opposed to the 24 foot wide amended width that the city’s municipal code requires. That decision was made based on the fact that these structures are condominiums with CC&Rs that will regulate the parking on the drive access aisle. In regard to not requiring a turn-around, because the structures are only 2 story units, it was determined that Fire Department apparatus would be able to access the site and any necessary fire operations can be performed. Projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and as such access widths will vary because each project is unique. Mr. Metz added that all the homes in this project will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. Chairperson Scully asked where the closest fire hydrant is located. Mr. Metz stated he did not know the distance but that is something that is looked at during the project review. Commissioner Segall asked if all new homes are required to have fire sprinklers. Mr. Metz stated all new residential properties in California are required to have automatic fire sprinklers. Commissioner Anderson inquired about a previously approved project that was similar to this which was required to have a full turn around. Mr. Metz stated that that project was for single family homes not condominiums as is with this project. The homes in the other project had 3 stories as opposed to two. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the curb along the access driveway will be painted red. Mr. Metz stated no as it is not considered a fire lane. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if CC&Rs are reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Metz stated yes. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Farzan Dehmoubed, 6798 Paseo Del Norte, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Robert Richardson, Karnak Planning & Design, 614 Calle Vincente, San Clemente, also gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 5 Commissioner L’Heureux asked if any water efficient systems are proposed beyond those that are required. Mr. Dehmoubed stated that all the plants will be water wise, and the project will use a state of the art irrigation system with low flow heads and drip systems. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the proposed project will actually look like the renderings posted for the project. Mr. Dehmoubed commented that the renderings accurately reflect what is proposed. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she opened public testimony on Agenda Item 3. Robert Fila, 6749 Nepeta Way, Carlsbad, asked why the project is addressed as 6749 Paseo Del Norte. Mr. Fila also asked if the sewer will be linked into the existing sewer, and if so, will it require an easement or excavation. He also asked if there will be reclaimed water used on the site and if so, would the existing homes across the street be able to use it. Dirk Mathiasen, 1015 Lighthouse Road, Carlsbad, stated the negative declaration does not satisfy CEQA. He commented that with the retaining wall, the existing perimeter wall, a new retaining wall, a slope, and then the houses will be built, there are real impacts with this project. Mr. Mathiasen feels that the fire requirements do not make sense, and he feels there will not be an active HOA. He also stated that he believes an EIR is an appropriate action for this project. Greg Quiren, 929 Fuschia Lane, Carlsbad, stated he has concerns about the sewer laterals, and asked if the 40 year old infrastructure can accommodate these new homes. He stated his concern with the proposed landscaping as well as the proposed retaining wall, the property lines, fencing, setbacks, wildlife and rodents and insects. Mr. Quiren asked if the construction will impact the traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, to the school. He also stated he believes the increase in the pad elevations will create ocean views; Michael Cayaban, 1001 Lands End Court, Carlsbad, asked the Commission to preserve reasonable expectations. Rob Blough, 1004 Lands Ends Court, agreed with the previous speaker stating he is concerned with the fill being brought in to raise the pad elevations. He also commented on the traffic and parking for the site. Mr. Blough commented that he would like to see the project redesigned. Tom Beardslee, 6827 Carnation Drive, Carlsbad, stated that from a standpoint of beautification of the neighborhood, he can support the project. Dan Pena, Carlsbad, stated he is in support of the development. Lea Quiren, 929 Fuschia Lane, invited the Commission to view the project from the west side of Camino de Las Ondas. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address any of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Dehmoubed deferred any comments to staff to address. Mr. Goff deferred comments regarding drainage and easements, traffic and safety as well as construction to Mr. Geldert. Mr. Goff commented that the Fire Department and Building Department handle addressing and he was unsure as to why the project is referenced off of Paseo Del Norte. The applicant stated that he has filed paperwork to have the address as 1000 Camino de Las Ondas. Mr. Goff clarified that staff is not processing a negative declaration for this project. Instead the project qualifies as a categorical exemption with CEQA. Regarding the comments from Mr. Querin, Mr. Goff stated that the Alta Mira development is a 5 unit attached project, and those homes would have 20 feet of separation to this project. With respect to the lengths of the driveways, Planned Developments do not require a full length driveway. The only requirement is a two car garage. This project does meet that requirement. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 6 RECESS Chairperson Scully called for a 5 minute at 8:20 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 8:28 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Mr. Geldert commented that reclaimed water will service the common areas of the project. He added that this project will connect to an existing sewer line which is maintained by the city. The laterals coming from that sewer line will be maintained by this development. Mr. Geldert stated that during construction of the project, the right-of-way permit will be restricted and monitored depending on whether the school is in session or not. Regarding the issue of rodents, Mr. Geldert stated typically there will be some displacement during construction. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the City Planner found that this project fits within the categorical exemption for infill projects for CEQA and therefore no environmental review is required. There are exceptions to that rule. The guidelines state that an exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have significant impacts due to unusual circumstances. The California Supreme Court recently clarified that standard by stating it is a two prong test: first there has to be unusual circumstances involved with the project; and secondly, if there are unusual circumstances, there needs to be significant impacts due to those unusual circumstances. In this particular case, the City Planner applied the categorical exemption because he determined that there are no any unusual circumstances and there are no significant impacts associated with this infill project. Commissioner Segall asked for an example of an unusual circumstance. Ms. Mobaldi commented that one needs to look at the unique facts of any given project. Commissioner Anderson asked about the cut and the retaining wall on the portion of the project backing up to Alta Mira and if the fence will be 6 feet tall. Mr. Goff stated no fence is proposed. Commissioner Anderson asked about the higher density and growth management. Mr. Goff deferred the question to Mr. Neu. Mr. Neu stated that each city in the county gets a Regional Housing Needs Allocation from SANDAG for their housing elements. In order to get a housing element certified with the state, each city must show that there are enough sites at the various density ranges that correspond to various income levels. The City of Carlsbad housing element was structured to achieve the growth management control point on the vacant properties in the city. In this particular case, the project is actually under the growth control point and staff is asking the commission approve findings that it be less than that control point. The units that are not constructed on the project site are added to the city’s excess dwelling unit bank and then available for other properties. Mr. Geldert explained about damage to adjacent properties during construction. Staff, while reviewing the detailed construction plans, will ensure that whatever methods are used will not encroach onto adjacent properties. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any further questions of staff from the Commission. Commissioner Segall asked if there will be irrigation between the retaining wall and fence. Mr. Goff stated yes. Commissioner Segall inquired about the second dwelling unit on Fuchsia Lane and the impacts that building has on the adjacent home. Mr. Goff commented that the second dwelling unit is above an existing garage and it has a tower elevation to a roof deck. That projection is allowed per the municipal code. Commissioner Segall asked if reclaimed water is metered. Mr. Geldert stated yes. Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding sewer laterals. Mr. Geldert explained that a sewer lateral is a pipe coming off of a sewer main. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall commented that in-fill projects are always difficult to deal with; however, he believes this project will improve that area. He stated he can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Montgomery stated he generally is not in favor of changing land form to benefit a landowner, and if he felt this project was in fact doing this, he would not approve the project. He commented that this is a difficult site to work with, and that he would like to see more teeth in the landscaping plan to ensure the landscaping grows and is irrigated which would benefit the homeowners on Lands End Court. Commissioner Black commented that infill projects are always very difficult. He believes the best effort is here with this proposal. Commissioner Black also commented that there are impacts but they are not unusual. He feels all of his concerns have been met with staff’s explanations. Commissioner Black stated he can support the project. Commissioner Siekmann thanked staff for working so hard on this project. She feels this is an absolutely gorgeous project. She commented that she understands the neighbors’ concerns but the project follows all the city rules and regulations. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project. Commissioner L’Heureux stated infill projects are basically a compromise. While he does have a number of concerns, such as the length of the driveways as well as the possibility of an inactive HOA, he can support the project. Commissioner Anderson thanked the applicant for the presentation and commented that she can now understand why this project has taken so long to be developed. She stated she can support the project. Mr. Neu addressed the landscape requirements for the project. In Resolution No. 7095, Condition No. 13 deals with a final landscape and irrigation plan. Projects do have to go through a fairly rigorous landscape inspection process. Condition No. 16 deals with what is required in the CC&Rs, specifically subsection E and subsection C. Ms. Mobaldi added that Condition No. 13 does include language specifying that the landscaping be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition free from weed, trash and debris. Chairperson Scully stated that she can support the project, but as with infill, it is a horrible decision to make as she tends to side with the neighbors. She feels the issues will work themselves out as the project progresses. This is the best of the compromises that can be made. Chairperson Scully stated she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Siekmann that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7095 approving Tentative Tract Map (CT 13-04), Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-10), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 13-33), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black Commissioner L’Heureux, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairperson Scully thanked the Commission for hearing the presentation from Aviara Oaks Middle School. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. Planning Commission Minutes April15, 2015 Page 8 CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS Ms. Mobaldi reminded the Commission about the CEQA Update by Attorney Mike Hogan at 9:30 a.m. Thursday Apri116 at the Faraday Center in Room 173A. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of April 15, 2015 was adjourned at 9:17p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk