Planning Commission Meeting

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ESCONDIDO PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 The meeting of the Escondido Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Weber in the City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, California. Commissioners present: Jeffery Weber, Chairman; Bob McQuead, Vice- chairman; Ed Hale, Commissioner; Gregory Johns, Commissioner; James Spann, Commissioner and Guy Winton, Commissioner. Commissioners absent: One position vacant. Staff present: Jay Petrek, Assistant Planning Director; Owen Tunnel!, Principal Engineer; Jay Paul, Associate Planner; Gary McCarthy, Deputy City Attorney; and Ty Paulson, Minutes Clerk. MINUTES: Moved by Commissioner Spann, seconded by Commissioner Winton, to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2015, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — Received. FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS — None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ANNEXATION; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP; MASTER AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; PRE-ZONE; GRADING EXEMPTIONS; AND FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — SUB 13-0007 AND PHG 13-0034: REQUEST: The proposed project includes a Tentative Subdivision Map, along with a Master and Precise Development Plan for 21 single-family residential clustered lots on approximately 11.2-acres of land. Grading Exemptions for cut slopes in excess of 20 feet in height and fill slopes in excess of 10 feet in height, and retaining walls also are requested. Residential lot sizes range from approximately 10,025 SF to 20,404 SF. The existing home on the site would be removed. The project includes annexation/reorganization of the subject site to the City of Escondido, along with three adjacent developed parcels and a portion of a private road easement connecting Amanda Lane to Gamble Lane. Reorganization includes detachment from CSA No. 135 (Regional Communication/Fire Protection and EMS) and exclusion from Improvement District "E" of the Rincon Del Diablo Fire Protection District. The project includes pre-zoning of the subject site to City Planned Development-Residential (PD-R 1.9) and the three adjacent developed residential parcels to RE-20 (Residential Estate, 20,000 SF min. lot size). Off-site roadway and drainage improvements are proposed along Amanda Lane and Gamble Lane from Eucalyptus Avenue on the east to the gated terminus on the west. In compliance with SB 244, "Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community" eight additional properties would be included in the pre-zoning process to define a future City zoning designation for these parcels, but would not be included in this annexation. A separate annexation application would be submitted to LAFCO for these parcels. The proposal also includes the adoption of the environmental determination prepared for the project. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed "Amanda Estates" project is located in an unincorporated area of Escondido in San Diego County, west of Interstate 15, north of Gamble Lane, addressed as 2115 Amanda Lane (APN 235-202- 35). Three contiguous developed residential properties located to the south of the project site, addressed as 2153, 2151 and 2149 Amanda Lane (APNs 235- 202-56, -57 and -58) and a private road easement that is a portion of APN 235- 202-20 (1660 Gamble Lane) are proposed to be included in the annexation/reorganization. In compliance with SB 244, "Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community" eight additional properties would be included in the pre-zoning process to define a future City zoning designation of PZ-RE-40 for six of the parcels (APNs 235-202-37, -38, -79, -80, -81 and -82) and PZ-RE- 20 for two of the parcels (APNs 235-202-20 and -55). Jay Paul, Assistant Planner, referenced the staff report and noted staff issues were the appropriateness of the proposed annexation boundaries and prezone designations, the appropriateness of the proposed residential clustering design and open space for the planned development, and the appropriateness of the grading design and grading exemptions. Staff recommended approval based on the following: 1) Staff felt the proposed Prezone/Zone Change designation of Planned Development Residential (PD-R 1.9) for the project site would be consistent with 2 of 7 the underlying Estate ll General Plan land-use density and yield provisions, which allow a maximum density of 2.0 du/ac in the Estate ll designation. The proposed range of lot sizes would be in substantial conformance with the general pattern of development throughout the area, and consistent with clustering provisions. The proposed Prezone to RE-20 for the three adjacent lots on the south also would be consistent with the Estate ll land-use designation. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which oversees all annexation activity, has reviewed the proposed annexation boundary, and indicated support for the proposed annexation area. The proposed annexation area is contiguous with the City boundary on the north and west and all services can be provided to the site. The proposed annexation/reorganization would allow for the orderly development of the City without adversely affecting adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted a planned development proposal that was consistent with both the County and City General Plan designations for the site, and annexation is required because the development proposal requires sewer service because the City does not extend sewer service outside of its boundary. Although the annexation would result in the creation of a small county island, the remaining county area would not adversely impact the ability to provide continued public and other services to the two remaining county parcels. The two remaining parcels only are separated from adjacent county parcels to the east by a narrow access and utility easement and the property owners do not want to be included in the annexation; 2) Staff feels the proposed subdivision design, density, lots sizes and configurations, and combination of one- and two-story units are appropriate for the area and compatible with the existing development pattern throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed clustering of lots would be consistent with General Plan policies because the proposed uses and clustering design would be in conformance with General Plan density requirements, that allow for reduced lot sizes, larger open space lots, and preservation of the on-site drainage course and limited natural habitat areas. The proposed lot sizes and widths would be compatible with the planned residential development to the north and the project provides for the orderly transition between surrounding county and city land-uses and development. The project proposed off-site improvements to Amanda Lane and Gamble Lane, including traffic calming design features along Gamble Lane, to reduce current roadway and drainage deficiencies within the area, which would be a public benefit to existing city and county residents; 3) Although Grading Exemptions are proposed for combination retaining walls/fill slopes up to 38 feet in height and cut slopes up to 28 feet in height, staff feels the grading design would not result in any significant adverse visual or compatibility impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, limiting certain lots to single-story in height, in combination with the orientation of the homes, proposed pad 3 of 7 elevations, perimeter open space buffers, perimeter setbacks, and conceptual landscape design would minimize visual impacts from surrounding properties and to the intermediate ridgeline. Commissioner Johns and Mr. Tunnel! discussed Citracado Parkway improvements with emphasis on left turn movements. Jason Han, New Urban West, referenced the background history for New Urban West, noting they were committed to providing the highest quality neighborhoods in Escondido. He asked the audience members in favor of the subject project to stand (whereupon the majority of the audience stood). He then submitted 58 support cards along with a support letter with 30 signatures. He stated that two sides of the subject property were contiguous to the City. He noted that the Postler and Ewing families were in favor of the annexing into the City. Mr. Han stated that New Urban West went door-to-door on three separate occasions and held over 25 meetings in order to receive input. The input received included helping the existing neighbors annex to the City, providing access to City services, creating road improvements to better accommodate everyday driving and emergency access, creating traffic calming measures for the Gamble Lane, sticking to the General Plan, and designing homes that would be an asset to the community. He stated three existing families would be able to join the annexation with Amanda Estates carrying the financial burden. He stated that as part of the project Amanda Estates would improve 1,500 linear feet along Gamble Lane, install traffic calming measures along Gamble Lane, fully comply with the General Plan and provide 3.3 acres of open space. He noted that the project would plant more than 130 new trees, along with hundreds of new drought tolerant and native plants, repurpose the property's boulders, and provide infrastructure improvements. He then asked that the Commission recommend approval to City Council. Andrea Stout, Escondido, stated she was in support of the project. She indicated that the project would bring needed infrastructure and improvements to the subject area as well as be a natural extension to Escondido. She expressed her enthusiasm with the outreach conducted by New Urban West. She asked that the Commission approve the project. Kathy Daniels, Escondido, stated that she lived close to the subject project. She asked that the Commission approve the project. She felt the project would enhance the property. She also felt the project would blend in with the existing residences. Larry Postler, Escondido, expressed his enthusiasm with the representatives of New Urban West listening to the neighbors. He was in favor of the project that 4 of 7 included annexing his property into the City. He asked that the Commission approve staff's recommendation. Mona Durney, Escondido, stated that she was impressed with the integrity and quality of New Urban West. She felt the project would enhance the area and increase property values. Ernie Cowan, Escondido, member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the subject project would bring additional high-quality housing stock to the area, which was greatly needed. He expressed his enthusiasm with New Urban West's reputation. He then read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce into the record, which recognized the significance of a healthy housing market to a region's wellbeing as well as supporting well- planned projects. He asked that the Commission approve the project. Carl Skaja, Escondido, felt the subject project would provide high-end homes in the City that was greatly needed. He asked that the Commission approve staff's recommendation. Ken Sanford, Escondido, stated that he was not opposed to the project. He expressed his concern with the entry near Gable Lane having poor sight distance and asked that this be further evaluated. Chairman Weber read the following names into the record who were in favor of the project: David Svekski, Aubrey Smith, Robert Crisman, Navil Duong, Scott Culver, Keith Crabtree, Diane Postler, Kati Cowan, Susan Crisman, Paula Sanchez, Jose Gutierrez, Cierra Kessell, Alexander Duchon, Steven Henderson, Hannah Gbeh, Tyson Cook, Oyn Bailey, Nancy Howard, David Shibley, Marybeth Murray, Jenni Cook, Linda Bailey, Dennis Snyder, Diane Snyder, Michael Crews, Elena Buckley, and Jenni Kraft. Bonnie KauII, Escondido, stated that she was not opposed to the project. She expressed concern with the entry at Gable Lane being dangerous to drivers due to the poor sight distance. Commissioner McQuead asked Mr. Tunnell to comment on the concerns raised about sight distance issues. Mr. Tunnell stated that the project was not conditioned to alter the profile of the roadway or vertical curve. But he also noted that the street would be widened to 24 feet and traffic calming measures would be provided that would be further evaluated during the final engineering stage. Commissioner Winton stated that he was impressed with New Urban West working with the neighbors. 5 of 7 Commissioner Hale stated that he had counted over 50 individuals who stood in favor of the project. He felt that traffic calming measures would help traffic conditions in the area. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Spann, to approve staffs recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT — PHG 14-0014: REQUEST: A request for a General Plan Amendment from GC (General Commercial) to LI (Light Industrial), for a parcel 2.11-acre in size, with access off of W. Mission Avenue and Nordahl Road. There is no development proposal associated with the General Plan Amendment. The existing development on-site includes two multi-tenant buildings, parking and landscaping. The proposal also includes the adoption of the environmental determination prepared for the project. PROPERTY SIZE AND LOCATION: Approximately 2.11-acres, located on the northwest corner of Mission Road and Nordahl Road, addressed as 2120-2122 West Mission Road (APN 226-112-49). Jay Petrek, Assistant Planning Director, referenced the staff report and noted staffs main issue was whether the proposed General Plan Amendment from GC (General Commercial) to LI (Light Industrial) was appropriate. Staff recommended approval based on the following: 1) Staff felt that the General Plan Amendment, which would change the designation back to the original LI (Light Industrial) designation, would make the subject site consistent with the current zoning designation of M-1 zone (Light Industrial), and with the surrounding properties and existing pattern of development in the area. There would be no proposed development associated with the General Plan Amendment because the site was already built-out; and 2) Staff felt the LI (Light Industrial) General Plan designation, would be consistent with the adjacent LI (Light Industrial) designations to the west, south and east and reflect the existing development on-site and on adjacent properties to the west. 6 of 7 Chairman Weber and Mr. Petrek discussed Page 10 of the staff report regarding parking requirements for the site. Commissioner Winton asked if the proposed use would allow for commercial on the portion that fronted on Mission Avenue. Mr. Petrek replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Hale and staff discussed the landscape requirements for parking lots for light industrial and general commercial. Mr. Petrek noted that no requirements were triggered for this request due to it only being for façade improvements. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Spann, seconded by Commissioner Hale, to approve staffs recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) CURRENT BUSINESS: None. ORAL COMMUNATIONS: None. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Weber adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m. The next meeting was scheduled for March 24, 2015, at 7:59 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, California. e,tirea 7v Pautdoo Jay Petrek, Acting Secretary to the Ty Paulson, Minutes Clerk Escondido Planning Commission 7 of 7