Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-17; Planning Commission; MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: June 17, 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 Black, Montgomery, Segall and Siekmann Absent: Commissioners Anderson and L’Heureux STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Paul Edmondson, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner Carl Stiehl, Associate Planner Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Gary Barberio, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Scully asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting of June 3, 2015. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2015. VOTE: 4-0-3 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: Commissioner Black 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. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 2 1. ZC 15-01/LCPA 15-01 – HENKINS ZONE CHANGE – A request for a determination, per CEQA Section 15183, that the project is consistent with the General Plan, for which an EIR was previously certified, and no further environmental review is necessary and a recommendation of approval of a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the Zoning Map to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation on property located at 438 Tamarack Ave. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to comment on Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Scully asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner Black that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Scully asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. PUD 14-05/CDP 14-18/MS 14-08 – OCEAN BREEZE – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the demolition of an existing single-family home and the construction of three (3) detached, two-story, single-family, air space condominium units (ranging from 5,234 to 5,522 square feet) and an accessory recreation building on property located at 608 Chinquapin Avenue, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 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 2 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Weston Harmer, 1020 Santa Cueta, Solana Beach, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Scully asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Commissioner Siekmann asked why the applicant believes this project fits in with the neighborhood and if they considered a smaller massing of the building. Mr. Harmer stated that if the buildings were smaller, it would reduce the quality of life for the residents of the facility. He explained that the living space were not Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 3 designed to be large with any excess space. Mr. Harmer stated that they have tried to put as much as possible on the first floor without the buildings becoming too large. Commissioner Siekmann asked if six bedrooms are needed in each building in order for the facility to work. Mr. Harmer stated yes and commented that the proposed bedroom sizes are an average size. Commissioner Siekmann asked for an explanation of the proposed gate at the driveway. Mr. Harmer commented that the areas surrounding the gate will be landscaped. Commissioner Siekmann asked Mr. Harmer if he held a meeting with the neighbors. He stated no; however, he did speak with some of them but because many of them provided last minute correspondence, Mr. Harmer did not have enough time to respond. Commissioner Montgomery stated the Planning Commission is somewhat limited as far as their purview with this project. The Commission needs to review the project as three single family homes even though it is being presented as a residential care facility for the elderly. Commissioner Montgomery commented that the project provides the minimum amount of parking but because of the proposed use, he believes there is not enough parking to meet the demands of the project. Mr. Harmer commented that the residents who will live at the facility will not have vehicles and staff will live on-site. The only vehicles needed will be a transportation van and maybe a vehicle for deliveries. Mr. Harmer further commented that typically visitors, especially families, do not come in multiple cars, the garages will most likely stay empty, and there will be quite a bit of extra space. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Mr. Harmer would want to plan for the worst case scenario. Commissioner Montgomery commented that it would seem like everything should be provided onsite to minimize any impacts and to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Mr. Harmer would “self-restrict” the project so that residents are not allowed to have a car. Mr. Harmer stated that was a great suggestion. Commissioner Montgomery further suggested removing the clubhouse as it takes up space that could be used for onsite parking. Commissioner Black asked about noise as it relates to trash collection. Mr. Harmer stated the trash bins will be standard residential bins that will be placed on Chinquapin. Commissioner Black asked why Mr. Harmer believes the property values of the existing homes will increase. Mr. Harmer stated that he believes the property values will increase because the proposed project consists of larger homes with nice landscaping that could be converted to single family homes at a later date. Mr. Harmer also stated that he believes the project is a great example of smart growth. Commissioner Black asked about the proposed clubhouse. Mr. Harmer stated it will be a great place for a group lunch for the residents. It is envisioned as a gathering spot and will not be used for large events. Commissioner Segall asked about the trash collection. Mr. Harmer stated he does not know where the location of the trash pick-up will be. Stephanie Laylon, architect for the project, stated there are several different ways to handle trash collection. She commented that she has talked with Waste Management regarding the issue, and the trash collection can be neighborhood style or commercial style with one large bin onsite. Commissioner Segall asked about the safety of having the facility staff upstairs with the residents downstairs. Mr. Harmer stated a staff member will be listening to and watching residents at all times. Commissioner Segall asked about the proposed plans for the future. Mr. Harmer stated that the project provides parking as if the project were three single family homes therefore there would be enough parking. Chairperson Scully asked about the proposed kitchens and who will be responsible for preparing the meals. Mr. Harmer stated staff will prepare the meals or the meals will be prepared offsite and staff will heat the meals onsite. The residents will not be allowed in the kitchens. Chairperson Scully asked where the residents will have their meals. Mr. Harmer stated the living room, as indicated on the proposed plans, is really a great room and there will be a dining area located in that area. Chairperson Scully asked about the food deliveries. Mr. Harmer commented that the deliveries will be about once every three days. Chairperson Scully inquired about the day-to-day needs of the residents. Mr. Harmer stated staff will be able to run errands for the residents as there will be one van for staff onsite. Commissioner Black asked if Mr. Harmer has experience with building establishments similar to this in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Harmer stated that he has built infill homes in areas very similar to this however this is his first residential care facility project. Commissioner Black asked Mr. Harmer, in speaking with experts in the field of residential care facilities, if an establishment such as this fits in to a neighborhood like this. Mr. Harmer stated that in their experience there is always going to be resistance to change in a neighborhood; however, he has not heard many complaints from other similar facilities. Chairperson Scully inquired about how much of the landscaping is drought tolerant and if recycled water will be used. David McCullough, 703 6th Street, San Diego, stated there is a state-wide ordinance for water Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 4 efficient landscaping and the project proposes to install drought tolerant plants. Chairperson Scully asked about recycled water. Mr. McCullough commented that recycled water is currently not available in the area but the project will have recycled water pipelines installed so that it can be used once it becomes available. Commissioner Siekmann asked Assistant City Attorney Paul Edmonson to explain what the Planning Commission can and cannot rule on. Mr. Edmonson stated the city is pre-empted by the state in regard to the residential care facility. The Commission needs to look at the requirements for a single family home as well as compatibility issues. Mr. Neu added that staff spent a great deal of time and research when reviewing the project. Residential care facilities for the elderly with 6 or fewer residents, the city is required to treat project as a single family residence and the city is pre-empted from regulating the facility in any manner different than a single family residence. If the applicant follows through with this proposed use, he will need to apply for additional licensing for a residential care facility through the state. Chairperson Scully opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Barbara Laskey, 3966 Linmar Lane, Carlsbad, stated her concern about the proximity to Jefferson Elementary School and the safety of the children. She stated her concern about the increase in traffic. She further stated that the project is not a good fit for the neighborhood. Larry Brown, 3965 Linmar Lane, Carlsbad, stated that he knew the vacant lot was zoned as R-1 which is residential. He stated he sent an email and a letter regarding his concerns about the proposed commercial business. Mr. Brown stated he is concerned about traffic and safety. Linmar Lane will be the major access point to this project. He requested that a traffic study be prepared for this project. Mr. Brown commented that he is also concerned about the privacy of the neighborhood as well as the compatibility of this project. Mr. Brown added that there should be consideration given to requiring CC&Rs to ensure this facility is enforced in the future. Elizabeth Banks, 418 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, stated she is against a commercial property in a residential neighborhood. She commented that there is heavy pedestrian usage in this neighborhood especially with young children who walk to the nearby school. She requested a continuance of the project. Ms. Banks stated she is concerned about the developers’ plans for the area and the potential sale of the site in the future. The project will cause wear and tear on the old street and there will be impacts on the sewer line. Ms. Banks added that there are plenty of similar facilities already in the city. Elizabeth Brown, 3965 Linmar Lane, Carlsbad, commented that what troubles her the most is the number of bedrooms, and she believes this facility will be harmful to the community as it will impact the neighborhood’s density, safety and character. She is would like the property to remain under one owner serving elderly residents and to remain as a residential care facility. Ms. Brown requested that the Commission review these concerns and review the environmental issues the project impacts. Commissioner Montgomery asked what their assumption was with R-1 zoning. Ms. Brown commented that she knew up to three houses could be built on the lot; however she assumed any homes would have the same code requirements as the other homes in the neighborhood. She is opposed to the large size and large footprint of the homes. John Laskey, 3966 Linmar Lane, Carlsbad, stated this project will not increase the value of the houses in the area. History has shown the opposite. He stated that he is concerned with the safety in the neighborhood, emergency vehicle access, and the increased traffic. Mr. Laskey stated there are no sidewalks in the area and he is concerned with the safety of kids in the neighborhood. He added that there is only one way in for emergency vehicles. Mr. Laskey stated he does not want the monstrosity of the proposed homes. He expects the noise of kids and skateboards and compatible size homes on that lot. Mr. Laskey commented that he believes they are at a disadvantage because of the timing of the hearing and he feels neglected as a citizen. Pauline Dimond, 519 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, stated there is a right way to build a new home on the lot. The proposed project is too much for the neighborhood, and she would like to see the project downsized. Traffic will be an issue, and trash pickup will be even more difficult. Ms. Dimond asked about a study for the exemption and how it was achieved. Ms. Dimond stated that emergency vehicles already have to do a three point turn. She added that busses use the street during the summer for the YMCA. She stated that three single family homes with adequate parking should be built on this site instead of this project. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 5 Denisa Mault, 3996 Linmar Lane, Carlsbad, stated her main concern is the zoning of the project and asked if the proposed facility can be converted to another type of facility. She stated that she agrees with all of the comments from the neighbors. Deborah Bodine, 525 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, commented that the proposed homes do not have the same setback requirements. She added that there will be a great deal of waste including medical waste and asked how that will be handled. Ms. Bodine commented that typical shifts for caregivers usually require more than 2 people. She stated that there is no bus line in the area. Ms. Bodine asked who will run the facilities and who has oversight. Ms. Bodine further stated that she does not oppose 3 single family homes on the site. Daniel DeRose, 3985 Linmar Lane, stated he is concerned about privacy and noise with this proposed project. He stated he is also concerned with the size of the homes and the declining quality of life for the surrounding neighbors. He commented that the project could be a smaller project. Mr. DeRose stated that it is a commercial business that will have delivery trucks, maintenance, and landscaping businesses coming and going constantly, and there will be health issues regarding the trash pickup. Carol French, 521 Chinquapin, Carlsbad agreed with her fellow speakers. Cheryl Freeman, 560 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, commented that her home is right next door to this project. She stated she is concerned about this being a business in a residential neighborhood. She would like 3 single family homes instead of a business. She is also concerned about the potential sale as single family homes in the future. Ms. Freeman added that she is concerned with compatibility, parking, trash, and traffic. Susan Stewart, 3975 Linmar Lane, stated she is concerned about the future use as single family homes. She commented that parking is always an issue in the neighborhood. She stated the proposed structures should be similar in size to homes in the neighborhood and then use it as a facility. Chato Aganza, 523 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, stated the project is directly in the center of their neighborhood. This is a business in a residential area. The city needs to look at the needs of the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood should remain as neighborhood of single family homes. Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, asked staff to clarify the use as a senior facility with a commercial component. She asked what the limit is for the number of such facilities that can be built in residential areas. If there is a conversion from commercial units to residential units and how it impacts the number of units in the growth management plan. 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 on Agenda Item 2. Chairperson Scully asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues. Mr. Harmer stated the City Engineer and Fire Department urged and encouraged the air space condo concept. He commented that the project was the Fire Department’s true and best design. The residential care facility is a residential use. He commented that the project has been planned slowly and uniformly, and a public notice was on the site for months. This project fits the model where he is helping people, people who need homes. RECESS Chairperson Scully called for a 5 minute recess at 8:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Scully called the meeting to order at 8:07 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Scully asked for staff to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 6 Jason Geldert, City Engineer, addressed the issues regarding traffic impacts stating the proposed project does not meet the threshold for requiring a traffic study. He further stated that in regard to any potential sewer impacts, staff from the Utilities Division reviewed the project and commented that the existing sewer lines have plenty of capacity with the existing 6 and 12 inch pipelines. Mr. Geldert added that the Fire Department did review the project and did not have any concerns. Ms. Werneke stated no variances are proposed with this project and the project meets the density at the growth management control point. Staff was limited to considering the project as three single family homes. Ms. Werneke stated that the clubhouse cannot be converted to another unit as it proposed as a recreational facility. Regarding the comment about the project remaining under one owner, Ms. Werneke stated the city cannot control ownership. Ms. Werneke further added that the project does meet the setback requirements and it also meets the parking requirements of the Planned Development ordinance. She also stated the project does not require a noise study. Ms. Werneke added that the residential units will be included in the growth cap for the quadrant. Mr. Neu stated there are similar provisions for other similar types of uses, such as sober living facilities or rehabilitation facilities, where the state requires municipalities to review the proposals as single family residences. Commissioner Segall stated there are 29 bathrooms in the proposed facility. Mr. Geldert stated the Utilities Division did review this project and the existing capacity was determined to be adequate. Commissioner Segall stated that many of the letters submitted by the neighbors suggested there are sewer problems in the area. Mr. Geldert stated staff from the Utilities Division did not express any concerns at this time. Commissioner Segall asked who maintains the facility if there are any issues in the future. Mr. Geldert stated the sewer facilities are publicly maintained. Commissioner Segall asked about lighting for the site. Ms. Werneke commented that it is a covered standard residential light over each of the doors and the applicant is not proposing anything out of the ordinary. Mr. Neu stated there is a lighting condition included with the project which requires a lighting plan be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Segall asked about the proposed 6 foot wall. Ms. Werneke commented that there is an existing 6 foot wall along the project’s eastern edge and the neighbor is requesting that the wall be extended to 8 feet. Staff does not feel there is a need or a nexus to require that. Because staff is not anticipating that the project will create a lot of noise, Ms. Werneke believes the existing wall and the landscaping will provide adequate screening. Commissioner Segall asked about parking along the drive aisle. Ms. Werneke stated that it will be used as a fire lane however she is not sure on the markings that the Fire Department will require. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the statements regarding the citizens being neglected and asked about the noticing requirements. Ms. Werneke stated there was an early public notice that was sent out as well as a notice posted at the site. That sign still remains posted at this time. Ms. Werneke further stated that a 10 day public hearing notice was also mailed to the surrounding residents. The applicant also spoke to the neighbors as well as staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked when the early public notice was sent out. Ms. Werneke stated that those notices are typically sent out within the first 30 days of the project review. Commissioner Black asked if anything can be done to limit the parking in front of the project site so that the trash cans be placed in that area. Mr. Geldert stated that typically parking is not limited for trash can placement. Commissioner Black commented that if parking cannot be limited, the only choice would be to have commercial trash pickup and asked about the noise from the trash trucks. Mr. Geldert stated there would be noise when the trucks would lift the bins; however comparing that to the noise of a truck going up and down the street lifting trash cans at each house, he is not sure if there is a big difference. Commissioner Montgomery asked staff to address Ms. Nygaard’s comments regarding a cumulative effect of the number of care facilities in an area. Mr. Neu stated there is not a limit to the number of facilities. The concern is about the large commercial facilities and if the units are counted against the dwelling unit cap. However, this project is being considered as single family residences and therefore the units are counted towards the dwelling unit cap. Commissioner Black asked what the Commission can review. Mr. Neu stated compatibility as well as the findings pertaining to the Planned Development ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Segall asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition regarding trash pickup. Mr. Neu stated the concern would be if the need arises for additional trash service it may cause issues with the trash company. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall commented that in-fill projects are very difficult. While he appreciates the design and the architectural integrity, he cannot support the project because the size of the homes do not fit the character of the community. This massive size of the project is not consistent with the existing homes and it does not blend in with the community. Commissioner Segall believes the applicant could have done a lot more to help mitigate the issues with the neighbors. Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support the project. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he has wavered off and on with this project. He stated that the project meets all the requirements set forth for each required permit. However, he has to look at this as a planned development community under these guidelines. Commissioner Montgomery stated he does not believe the project fits with compatibility and size. In its cumulative nature, it is not compatible. He stated he cannot support the project. Commissioner Black agreed with his fellow Commissioners. The project is just not a good fit and it is not compatible with the neighborhood. He stated he cannot support the project. Commissioner Siekmann commented that residential care facilities are important and there are many in the city. She likes the idea of this project, but these homes are just too massive and do not fit the neighborhood. The project does not meet the findings required to approve a planned development permit as she sees it as being detrimental to existing uses due to its mass as compared to the existing uses in the neighborhood. The mass will diminish the continuity of the community. Commissioner Siekmann stated she cannot support the project. Chairperson Scully stated she was in agreement with her fellow commissioners. The homes are completely out of scale with the existing neighborhood. Chairperson Scully believes the project will be detrimental to the neighborhood and she cannot support the project. Mr. Neu proposed that the Commission make a motion to deny the project and staff would fashion the findings to reflect those comments provided during the discussion period. The applicant would then have 10 days to appeal the decision to City Council. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Siekmann and duly seconded by Commissioner Black that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice Planning Commission Resolution No. 7108 denying Planned Development Permit (PUD 14-05), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 14-18), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-08) due to the inability to meet Finding No. 1 of PUD 14-05. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: Chairperson Scully, Commissioner Black, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Segall and Commissioner Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Scully closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. PRESENTATION ON THE INITIATIVE PROCESS – An informational presentation by staff regarding the initiative process. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2015 Page 8 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Assistant City Manager Gary Barberio would make the presentation. Mr. Barberio gave a detailed presentation regarding the initiative process and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Siekmann asked if anything would come to the Planning Commission regarding the initiative. Mr. Barberio stated the elections code dictates most of the process. He added that the initiative is not subject to CEQA and will not come before the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Black asked if council can approve it outright or if it can go to a vote. Mr. Barberio stated that if it gets a no vote by the people, it fails and it cannot be appealed; however, the project could go through the formal application process after that. Commissioner Segall asked about the area the current strawberry fields occupy. Mr. Barberio directed the Commission's attention to the slide and pointed out the strawberry fields. The amount of acreage dedicated to agriculture as indicated in the initiative is greater than what currently is available. Commissioner Montgomery asked if 85% would be required if the project was processed in a normal fashion. Mr. Barberio stated probably not. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the amount of open space. Mr. Barberio commented that the amount of open space does not increase. Chairperson Scully opened public testimony on Agenda Item 3. Diane Nygaard, representing Preserve Calavera, stated that the initiative process is of major concern as it creates its own zoning ordinance and its own regulatory process. She stated this will set a dangerous precedence. Chairperson Scully thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Segall commented on the Planning Commissioners Institute for the League of California Cities and asked the Commissioners to provide input qn the types of sessions they would like to see included in the upcoming conference. The deadline to submit comments is July 15. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated that Senior Planner Van Lynch has been promoted to Principal Planner for the current planning and development services group. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of June 17, 2015 was adjourned at [m:>t DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk