Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-01; Planning Commission; Minutes City Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sept. 1, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: 3 p.m. ROLL CALL: Kamenjarin, Lafferty, Luna, Meenes, Merz, Sabellico, and Stine APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Kamenjarin, to approve the July 7, 2021 minutes as amended. Motion carried 7/0. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: None PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Meenes directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing. Commissioner Stine requested Item 3 be discussed first as he will need to recuse himself from Item 1 and Item 2. Motion by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Chair Meenes, to move the agenda order with Item number 3 going first, subsequently followed by Items 1 & 2. Motion carried, 7/0. 3. Planning Commission Meeting Time – Amend Planning Commission Procedures City Planner Neu introduced agenda item 3. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Stine asked for clarification as to why the city council adopted a 3 p.m. meeting time when virtual meetings became necessary again. City Planner Neu responded that work-from-home measures indicated to the city council that the public can still participate in virtual meetings held at 3 p.m. Additionally, the city council considered the length of time needed to properly discuss all scheduled items and decided an earlier start time was beneficial. Commissioner Stine asked if the public has provided feedback regarding a 3 p.m. start time for Planning Commission meetings. City Planner Neu stated there has not been any public comments submitted regarding a 3 p.m. start time. Commissioner Lafferty asked if public participation has increased due to virtual meetings. Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 1, 2021 Page 2 City Planner Neu stated that while data isn’t available to show whether public participation increased with virtual meetings, the public has been required to prepare and submit comments ahead of meeting start times which has resulted in a noticeable increase of public comments during the hearing. Chair Meenes, and Commissioner Sabellico commented that the Planning Commission should remain in line with City Council meeting hours. Commissioner Kamenjarin commented that a 3 p.m. start time has been beneficial and stated his support for a 3 p.m. start time. ACTION: Motion by Chair Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Sabellico, to adopt staff recommendation of retaining a 6 p.m. in-person start time, and continuing a 3 p.m. start time for virtual meetings. Motion carried, 5/2 (Commissioners Luna and Kamenjarin no). 1. CDP 2020-0043/MS 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0126) – ADAMS STREET HOMES - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the subdivision of an approximately .97-acre lot into four parcels to construct a two-story, 3,182 square-foot single-family residence on each parcel. The project is located at 3745 Adams Street, within the Mello II Segment of the city’s Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. 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 15332, “In-Fill Development Projects,” of the state CEQA Guidelines. City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Evans would make the staff presentation (on file in the Planning Division). DISCLOSURES: Commissioner Sabellico stated he visited the site and had a discussion with resident Steve Linke regarding ADU law in response to the public comment he submitted. Commissioners Merz, Luna, and Chair Meenes disclosed visiting the site. Commissioner Kamenjarin disclosed being familiar with the site. Commissioner Lafferty disclosed familiarity with the site and having received correspondence from a resident, John Maashoff stating opposition to the proposed development. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Sabellico asked why adjacent properties aren’t required to have elevated building pads if they are required for utility purposes. Engineering Manager Geldert clarified that elevated building pads are not a requirement and are proposed for this project for drainage and sewage flow. He explained that the drains that don’t have pumps are meant to flow with gravity. Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 1, 2021 Page 3 Commissioner Lafferty asked for further information regarding the 9 trees being removed at the front of the property. Associate Planner Evans responded that the 9 existing palm trees on Adams St. will need to be removed for widening the street and providing related improvements. She noted that Parks and Recreation has the trees listed as inventory only for maintenance rather than heritage or historic purposes. Additionally, the developer will need to apply for a removal permit from the Parks and Recreation department and replace the trees at a 2:1 ratio on the project site. Commissioner Merz asked for a summary of the response sent to John Maashoff who submitted a comment letter regarding the project. Applicant Tom St.Clair, Principal at Rincon Homes stated strong disagreement regarding the drainage calculations in Mr. Maashoff’s letter. He explained that the plan is consistent with the hydrology design manual in The City of Carlsbad design standards and has been approved by staff. He noted the BMP is designed to retain and drain water at the same rate which water is presently drained on the site, and so drainage quality will not be worse because of development. He added that they have worked with staff to design the site as low as possible to allow water to flow without pumping water and have done everything possible to appease neighbors. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Meenes asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project, he opened public testimony at 4:05 p.m. Resident, Steve Linke commented that the current project needs to mitigate traffic and parking impacts to the extent possible. He noted that Carlsbad’s traffic impact fee program will undergo review to potentially add projects intended to reduce vehicle usage and vehicle miles traveled in order to mitigate parking impacts. State regulations 65852.2F3A prevent traffic impact fees from being charged for ADU’s less than 750 square feet in the area. However, state regulation 65852.2A1A allows cities to designate areas where ADU’s may be permitted based on the adequacy of traffic flow and public safety. He encourages the Planning Commission and the City Council to explore the ability to restrict ADU’s in areas where added traffic will further congest street facilities. Resident Tony White stated opposition to the project as it artificially elevates building pads well above the existing and adjacent grades by importing soil. He noted that every residential building accessing Adams St. from the west between Tamarack and Palm Ave. is lower and the proposed project should be held to the same standard. Additionally, the project should not be allowed to exceed the building height restrictions of the municipal code based solely on a discretionary action. Resident Cindy Estes requested denial of the proposed project as it is incompatible with existing adjacent properties and does not take into consideration the natural site topography. She stated that the retaining wall will have a property line fence allowing an unobstructed view into her backyard and the southern bedrooms in her home. As a result, the developer should be required to lower the proposed building pads to make the project more consistent with surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed development will exceed building heights allowed in the R-1 zone. Residents Geoff Merzanis and Gina Severino requested denial of Agenda Item 1. They commented that the proposed elevated building pads are not compatible with the existing buildings within the neighborhood and will infringe on the privacy of adjacent properties. Approval of the project will create a situation where future occupants of the proposed project would have direct views into their backyard and bedrooms. Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 1, 2021 Page 4 Resident John Maashoff submitted comments asking the Planning Commission to deny Agenda Item 1. Or, apply a condition to the resolution to limit the height of the proposed buildings to 30 feet above existing grade. He stated that the site can easily be redesigned to be more consistent with adjacent properties. Additionally, utility and drainage constraints stated within the staff report are misleading. The developer should request a variance from the city to allow sewer laterals to have a one percent slope as permitted in the plumbing code. The staff report also states the project would require private sewer pumps in lieu of a gravity sewer. As gravity sewers will negatively impact adjacent properties, the project should be redesigned and the developer permitted to install pumps. Additionally, the project as proposed exceeds the allowable density of the general planed land use designation. Chair Meenes asked of there were any additional members of the public who would like to speak on the project. Seeing none, he closed public testimony 4:16 p.m. Applicant Tom St. Clair responded to public comments stating that sewer pumps are not recommended by city staff and building pad elevations are proposed as low as possible. He added that windows have been minimized on the North and South side of the buildings in order to maintain the privacy of existing neighbors. Parking has been made available for any ADU tenants should property owners choose to rent the spaces. Engineering Manager Geldert confirmed that the city does discourage the use of sewer pumps when possible. Pumps require a lot of maintenance, are more likely to break and will create great disturbance to property owners if broken. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Sabellico commented that based on the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the building pad elevations are understandable based on staff’s confirmation that sewer pumps are discouraged. Commissioner Lafferty stated concern for negative impacts on street traffic, minimal windows affecting natural heating and cooling opportunities, and potential destruction of natural habitats. She also asked if the property can include one central space designated for storing trash cans on site. City Planner Neu responded that a shared trash enclosure area isn’t required by the city however, the developer could voluntary agree to make such changes. He noted that some logistical issues will need to be assessed such as how to include space for trash trucks to access the property. He explained that the development site’s designation, according to the Habitat Management Plan, provides for the payment of an in-lieu fee to fund acquisition of additional habitat. The site is identified as habitat for the purpose of being subject to the habitat mitigation fee, not for identifying a CEQA impact. Regarding concerns surrounding noise, he stated the project is required to meet an interior noise level of forty-five decibels. Natural heating and cooling opportunities will not be affected by minimizing windows on the North and South facing walls of the proposed homes. Commissioners Merz, and Sabellico stated that the applicant has satisfied the concerns addressed by surrounding neighbors. They are satisfied with the project and the additional housing being added to Carlsbad. Commissioner Kamenjarin stated concerns over the proposed building heights and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 1, 2021 Page 5 Commissioner Luna stated the project meets the standards and while she sympathizes with neighbors’ concerns, the developers have adequately made effort to satisfy such concerns. She stated support for the project. Chair Meenes stated support for the ADU’s included in the proposed project as they help alleviate Carlsbad’s housing needs. The drainage, building pad elevation, and traffic issues have been satisfied and explained by staff. He stated support for the project. Commissioner Lafferty stated concern that the applicant has not been amenable to concerns and requests made in the meeting discussion ACTION: Motion by Chair Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Luna, to adopt Resolution No. 7422. Motion carried, 5/1/1 (Commissioner Stine, recused and Commissioner Lafferty, no) . 2. PUD 2021-0001/SDP 2021-0002/CDP 2021-0003/MS 2021-0001 (DEV2020-0212) – GARFIELD HOMES – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Minor Subdivision to demolish an existing duplex and construct a three-unit, residential air-space condominium project on a 0.14-acre infill site located at 4008 Garfield Street, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Harker would make the staff presentation (on file in the Planning Division). DISCLOSURES: Commissioners Lafferty, Merz, Kamenjarin, Sabellico, Luna and Chair Meenes have visited the site. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Lafferty asked why the site was not developed as a multi-family town home. Applicant Tom St. Claire, Principal at Rincon Homes responded that a buyer was already available for this property and the single-family home is proposed for that purpose. Additionally, the grade change of the site created an opportunity for the duplex unit. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Meenes asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony at 4:23 p.m. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Chair Merz, to adopt Resolution No. 7421. Motion carried, 6/0/1 (Commissioner Stine recused). Planning Commission Minutes Sept. 1, 2021 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS: Commissioner Luna suggested a commission workshop be added to next meeting agenda. CITY PLANNER REPORTS: City Planner Neu gave a brief update on the status of the Housing Element. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS: Assistant City Attorney Kemp commented that SB 9 and SB 10 have passed the legislature and are pending signature from the governor. SB 9 takes single family residential zoning and allows lots to be split for 2 units. Additionally, on-site parking requirements are reduced as a result of SB 9. SB 10 allows for high density projects, on sites identified by local governments, to forgo CEQA review. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Meenes adjourned the duly noticed meeting at 5:51 p.m. Corina Flores Corina Flores - Minutes Clerk