Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2013 Planning Commission MinutesCHULAVISIA Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION � rrufa April 24, 2013 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Bldg 100 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER At 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma Members Present: Anaya, Livag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma Members Absent: Vice -Chair Calvo MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Vice -Chair Calvo had contacted staff and requested an excuse from tonight's meeting MSC (SpethmanNinson) to excuse Vice -Chair Calvo. Motion carried PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27, 2013 MSC (Spethman /Vinson) 4 -0 -1 -0 Calvo absent March 27, 2013 MSC (Vinson /Spethman) 3 -0 -1 -1 Calvo absent / Moctezuma abstained PUBLIC COMMENTS: John Moot, representing Inland Industries (the largest land owner in the South Bay with 28 acres) gave a 10- minute presentation regarding the SDG &E substation that is going to be built in the South Bay. Their overall concerns revolve around the height of the towers and whether or not the wires would be undergrounded. Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Public Hearing: PCM -11 -23 Consideration of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) for the MU- 1 /MU -2 parcel located on the north and south sides of East Palomar Street, between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue in order to allow an increase from 158 to 206 allowable units to be constructed. Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation on the above topic. Slides included the project site map, aerial views of the project site, parking provided, the Central Plaza Corridor, open space distribution and composite elevations. Oakwood Development (the "Applicant ") is requesting an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Site Utilization Plan to increase the number of permitted multi - family units from 158 to 206 units (an increase of 48 units) on the 6.7 -acre MU- 1 /MU -2 mixed -use area (which consists of two separate parcels located on the north and south side of East Palomar Street). Because the northerly MU -2 site is already developed with 98 residential units ( "Marquis I "), these amendments are necessary to allow for the development of a proposed mixed - use project, consisting of 108 multi - family units, 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space and 14,435 square feet of Community Purpose Facility on the southerly 2.97 acre MU -1 site (the "Marquis II" project.). The project site is located on the south side of East Palomar Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue (see Attachment 1 — Locator Map). Design Review approval is also being requested for the Marquis II project. The project is subject to the consolidated permit processing provisions pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.050 (C). Under the consolidated review process, the City Council will be reviewing and acting on the GDP /SPA Plan Amendment and Design Review permit. The Planning Commission's action will be a recommendation to the City Council. The design of the project was presented at a community meeting on January 31, 2013 and also reviewed by a Design Review Board member as required by the CVMC. At the community meeting, only minor issues were raised (See Attachment 4 — Community Meeting Comments). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCM -11 -23 recommending that the City Council: a) consider the Addendum (IS 11 -04) to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 04 -035); and b) adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Otay Ranch GPD/ Village Six SPA Plan Amendment (PCM- 11 -23). Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -3- DISCUSSION: There were questions from the Board pertaining to whether the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board were now one in the same. Clarification was given by ACM Halbert, who stated that they are not the same yet, and that the Planning Commission is required by charter to make a recommendation. Otherwise it would be be a single hearing of the City Council. Vinson: Has been in the area and there is a problem with parking in the commercial areas. Is there a possibility of having meters in place — on both sides of the project. Streichen: It has been discussed that there should be a requirement for signing of the spaces for 1 -hour maximum parking during the day. Discussion continued regarding how to fix the problem so that businesses can have cars coming and going. ACM Halbert said that it would be possible to have parking meters if the signed 1 -hr limit did not work. Vinson: Is the child care facility no longer going to be a part of the project? Discussion ensued as to the prior approval of a child care facility — a Community Purpose facility designated. The Community Purpose Facility is now proposed as a Community Room, part of the corridor area. Q. What is the purpose of dropping the glazing (window frontage) from 70% to 50 %? A. The 70% is more conducive to the standard commercial type of retail establishment. In this case, they are trying to mimic a certain architectural style and they feel the 50% is more conducive to the style that is being proposed. It was asked if any comments were received from the Public Outreach. Staff indicated there had been no comments received. Q. What is the traffic impact to the area? A. It has been determined that there is less of an impact than the first project because of the reduction in commercial space. Public Hearing Opened The architect for the applicant, Oakwood Development, came to the podium to answer questions from the Board. Vinson: Has concern about the parking and the fact that businesses will not have parking available for their customers without parking meters. Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -4- Architect: We are not opposed to doing the additional parking restriction if that is what is necessary. The owner currently owns both sides of the street so if the 1 -hour parking currently proposed is not working, we could come back to ask for the meters. There was discussion as to how the parking meters would be requested and the process. The request would have to be made to the Traffic Safety Committee and then to the City Council. Commissioner Vinson wanted it noted in the record that we keep approving projects and he believes there is going to be a parking problem. Architect - Because the majority of parking is in open /shared parking or common garage, it is believed that it is a huge difference from existing neighborhoods with 2 car garages. We all know that most people don't park their 2 cars in their garages. We believe the fill rate per unit size will make this parking a success. Q. What about the 70% down to 50% glazing? Just trying to match the project. A. Trying to match the "French Provencial" style of the other parts of the community. Slides were shown to compare the architecture of the neighborhood. If you went to 70% glazing you'd lose 2 columns and, visually, it would not be as appealing as the 50 %. We're trying to reflect the old -world style. There was continued discussion between the board, architect and staff regarding matching the designs. It was determined that since the Board is not performing the design review function, it would be more appropriate to address this concern when it moves on to that level and that Commissioner Vinson's comments should be passed on. A slide of the view across the street was also shown as a comparison. Q. Daycare is still a concern. Why have we dropped it down to a 1,600 sf Community Room? A. Daycare was marketed to daycare providers and no one would accept the space because they didn't feel there was a demand in that location. The space would have been designated as daycare, but it would have remained vacant. We worked with city staff and came to the conclusion that a Community Purpose Facility, that potentially the adjacent community could rent out, would be more beneficial to the community. Commissioner's Comments Spethman: Shares Commissioner Vinson's concerns, but tonight is about the up -zone and not design review. Wants to make clear to staff, that at some time we're taking on the design review responsibility, that the elevations, glazing, a materials pallet and that everything needed is in the packet prior to having to make a design review decision. MSC (Spethman/Vinson) to support the project/item. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 -1 with Calvo absent and Anaya abstaining Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -5- Chairman Moctezuma specified that the glazing and design comments are put forward for the next step. Attorney David Miller advised the Board that prior to the project going to Council, it goes before one person on the Design Review Board and then it goes to Council with their recommendation Assistant City Manager Halbert assured the Board that, at the time they take over a larger design review function, all of the items that were mentioned as concerns would be available in the packets. OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Halbert spoke about the Port/City Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee (BCDC). He gave the background of how the committee would be formed of members (1 member from: Planning Commission, 1 -RCC and 1 Design Review Committee) appointed by the City Manager. The committee was created in a settlement agreement between the City, the Port and the Bayfront Coalition. The purpose of the committee is to provide recommendations to the Port on design guidelines and, in the future, on projects on the Port tidelands and the park design at the Bayfront. He will pass on names of additional people that are interested to the Port. 4. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Livag voiced that he still has an interest in the BCDC and would like his name passed on to the Port as a possible member -at- large. ADJOURNMENT at 6:51 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on May 8th, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Submittgd by: /1 Patricia Laughlin, Board Se etary Minutes Approved: 05/22/2013 Spethman /Vinson