Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/03/12 Planning Commission MinutesCJY OF CHUTA VISTA p la Vista Boards & Commissions Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION inu %s Date: March 12, 2014 Public Service Building C 6:00 p.m. H.R. Training Rooms B -112 & B -113 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Nava, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma Absent: Commissioner Fragomeno MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Commissioner Vinson moved to excuse Commissioner Fragomeno as requested. Commissioner Livag seconded the motion, and it carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Nava, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Notation: September 25, 2013 minutes approved February 12th _ date corrected on pgs 2 -10 from July 24th to September 25th February 12, 2014 Commissioner Calvo moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 2014, and to make sure the minutes of November 20, 2013 included that she recused herself from the vote on Items 4, 5a, 5b and 5c. Commissioner Livag seconded the motion and it carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 — Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Nava, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -2- PUBLIC COMMENTS: Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Board /Commission on any subject matter within the Board /Commission's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Board /Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the board /Commission may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Design Review (DRC- 13 -21) to construct 273 luxury rental apartments, 2,000 square feet of retail space, an on -site leasing office, and 513 parking spaces on 9.27 acres within the Millenia Master Planned Community. Applicant: Fairfield Realty, LLC Project Manager: Patricia Ferman, Landscape Architect Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice. Patricia Ferman, Landscape Architect and Project Manager provided a slide presentation which included photos of the site, elevations of the complex, floor plans and conceptual landscape plans. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Millenia /Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Fairfield Realty, LLC has submitted a Design Review application for approval to construct 273 luxury rental apartments, 2,000 square feet of retail space, a 7,000 square -feet leasing office /club house, 505 residential parking spaces, 8 retail parking spaces, recreation areas, and associated open space on SPA Lot 4 within the Millenia Neighborhood District 2. This is the first residential development to be constructed within Millenia. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution DRC -13 -21 for the development of 273 luxury rental apartments, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -3- PROJECT ANALYSIS The following Project Data Table shows the development regulations along with the applicant's proposal to meet said requirements: Assessor's Parcel Number: 643- 060 -29 Current Zoning: Planned Community General Plan Designation: EUC Lot Area: 9.27 acres PARKING REQUIRED: PARKING PROPOSED: Residential Residential 1.85 spaces per unit x 273 units = 170 one -car garages 505.05 107 carport spaces 228 uncovered spaces Total Residential: 505 parking spaces Commercial Commercial 3.76 spaces per 1,000 s.f. = 7.52 spaces 8 spaces Total: 512.57 parking spaces Total Spaces provided: 513 parking spaces OPEN SPACE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PROPOSED 200 s.f per unit x 273 = 54,600 s.f. Private Open Space: 10,014 s.f. Common Open Space: 51,054 s.f. Total Open Space required: 54,600 s.f. Total Open Space provided: 61,058 s.f. SETBACKS /HEIGHT REQUIRED: SETBACKS /HEIGHT PROPOSED: Building Setback: 0 -10 feet Setbacks provided are 10 feet average (with minor deviations consistent with SPA allowances, (see page 7 of the staff report). Building Height: Residential Building Height: MH3 -- minimum 3 stories 3 stories, approximately 36 feet Iconic tower features approximately 50 feet * Note: A total of 18,805 square feet of private open space (balconies) will be provided; however, only 10,014 square feet qualify as private open space square footage. Balconies located along Birch Road and Eastlake Parkway within the 65 decibel setback line, and balconies with square footages less than 60 square feet are not included in the qualifying private open space total. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -4- CONCLUSION The proposed 273 rental apartments are a permitted land use in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and are permitted in the Neighborhood District 2 of the Millenia SPA Plan. The proposal complies with the policies, guidelines and design standards for the Millenia SPA Plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review Permit, DRC- 13 -21, subject to the conditions listed in the Resolution. Commissioners Questions of Staff: Q. Where is the hotel site located? A. On lot 2, just west of the project area. Q. When do you expect construction to start? A. Will start construction sometime in 2015 Q. Will the commercial parking be marked as such? A. There will be signage for 8 commercial parking spots. Public Hearing Opened Shon Finch, of Fairfield Residential, answered Commissioners' questions. Q. What percentage is allowed for low- income housing? A. There is no low income housing in this project. Todd Galarneau, the Corky McMillin Companies, stated he was there in support of the project. Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments /Deliberations Commissioner Livag said the project is a welcomed addition and he supports the project. Commissioner Nava: Knows that the architects are following the guidelines, but this project has not gone "above and beyond" those guidelines. It does not have the urban feel that he was expecting and is disappointed from an architectural perspective in the esthetics. What was the concept behind the tower? Architect Jabbari: The corner needed something to distinguish it as residential, but has the presence enough to celebrate the corner of the project. Mixing the tower with the residential element has its challenges. They wanted to go create a vocabulary that was more the Art Deco style, blend it with the rest of the project and still have it feasible to build cost -wise. There was further discussion about the architecture styles to include examples of the clubhouse, the leasing office and awnings above several areas. There was a suggestion to use domed ornaments, possibly brushed metal to give an industrial, urban feel that would not Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -5- become outdated. The name Millenia was not popular with the Commission, but the architect said it was just a "place holder'. ACTION: Commissioner Vinson made a motion to approve DRC 13 -21 and to amend the resolution to include that the commercial parking spaces will be marked. Commissioner Anaya seconded the motion and it passed 6 -0 -1 -0 with Commissioner Fragomeno absent. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM- 13 -22; Consideration of a Precise Plan to allow a maximum building height of 120 feet (45 feet maximum currently allowed) to accommodate a proposed parking structure, to be located at the northern edge of the hospital campus. Applicant: Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice. INTRODUCTION Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center (the "Applicant, ") is requesting a Precise Plan (PCM) in order to increase the allowable building height from 45 feet to 120 feet within the existing campus. This increase in height would allow for the development of a new six -story (seven levels) parking structure (with associated new loop road) to be developed on the existing hospital campus (the "Project "). The project site is located at 751 Medical Center Court on the east side of Medical Center Drive north of Medical Center Court and south of Telegraph Canyon Road. In addition to a Precise Plan, a Design Review Permit (DRC) is also required for the new parking structure (see Attachment 2 -Site Plan and Elevations). 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 would be reviewing and acting on the PCM and the DRC. Therefore, the Planning Commission's required action on the project will be a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the requested Precise Plan. In addition, Planning Commission input is being sought regarding the requested DRC permit. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission 1) adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan; and 2) provide input to the City Council regarding the requested DRC permit required for the Project. PROJECT ANALYSIS Existing Site Characteristics The project site is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of Medical Center Drive and north of Medical Center Court. The site is atop a knoll above surrounding residential Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -6- development to the south and east. To the north is the Veterans Home and to the east are additional medical offices. The existing campus is developed with hospital towers, convalescent care, medical offices and parking. Project Description The project proposes a Precise Plan to increase the allowable building height for the medical center campus from 45 feet to 120 feet to allow the construction of a six -story (seven levels) parking garage. A new loop road would be constructed around the exterior boundaries of the campus to improve existing circulation patterns, as well as provide a vehicular connection to the proposed parking structure. A DRC is also required for the parking structure. CONCLUSION As discussed previously, the proposed Precise Plan is to provide for an increase in the allowable building height limit. The request is to accommodate a proposed six -story (seven levels) parking structure including elevator unit and architectural features. Upon completion, the proposed parking structure will provide a total of 718 new parking spaces and will displace an existing surface parking lot containing 117 spaces. However, during construction of the parking structure there will be sufficient parking maintained throughout the facility. Upon completion of the Project there will be 2,354 parking spaces available overall. A number of design features have been incorporated that attempt to minimize the bulk of the parking structure. The architectural design results in the visual appearance of two separate structures. In addition, the structure is designed to be 65% open to the surrounding environment. Landscaping will provide additional screening of the lower floors of the parking structure. Lighting along the loop road will consist primarily of up- lighting for the landscape vegetation being proposed. The landscaping will also provide screening from vehicle headlights. Lighting for the parking structure will be directed inward toward the structure. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan and provide input to the City Council regarding the requested DRC permit required for the project. Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission which included photos of the site, elevations of the new structure, architectural elements, the loop road and location maps. Questions — Commission to Staff Q. Is this height exemption for this project only, or for future buildings on this site? A. The height allowance would be for the "property' not just this project. Q. Please address the concerns from Dr. Markel's letter which refers to parking issues. A. The applicant did a parking study and made sure that, at every phase of the development, there would be adequate parking. At no time will the parking ever fall below the current code level for parking. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -7- Q. What is the construction timeframe? A. Deferred to the applicant. Q. Is the parking "pay for parking" or open parking? Q. How many Public Meetings were held, how many people attended and what was the general conversation? A. Concern was expressed by some of the neighbors regarding the potential visual impacts created by the height and bulk. Concern was also expressed about the lighting/glare spillage into the adjacent residential areas, as well as noise during the construction period and the hours of construction. Steichen is under the impression that all of these concerns have been addressed and that as a condition of DRC approval, a photometric study would be required to insure no light spillage from the parking structure or loop road would extend beyond the property line /to insure no light spillage onto residents below. This would be required and must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Q. Is the new parking structure at the same height as the medical building? A. Yes, it is. Q. Were there any requirements to have the architectural feature on the structure? A. No requirements, it was proposed by the applicants. Pat Nemeth, Vice President of Facilities for Sharp healthcare, introduced others at the meeting to include: Pablo Velez, Sharp Medical Center CEO, Ed Anderson from Barnhart - Reese Construction, and Architect Chris Veum. She gave an overview of the goals of Sharp and of what the parking structure will be like. Ed Anderson answered the question regarding the length of construction and advised the commission that it would be approximately 6 months, with possibly another month to provide the finishing touches. Livag: Questioned the architectural feature being on the parking structure. He likes the loop road, appreciates the quality of the building and is not opposed to the design or elements of the structure. He feels the architectural element would be put to better use on the main building instead of the parking structure. He thinks it puts an emphasis on the wrong space. Was it ever considered for the main building to help draw attention away from the parking structure? Nemeth: This is the P project in less than 5 years and it is not the last one. They feel this structure sets the standard for future development. The "Sharp experience" begins when you drive onto the campus and we didn't want the parking structure to be functional but look like a plain box. Nava: Why was the 120' height selected? Steichen: Since there are no other projects at this time, the extra 18 feet was added to give flexibility in the future. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -8- There was continued conversation regarding the 120' height to include other examples of where it was used in Chula Vista. Other medical campuses were also looked at. There was also discussion regarding current surface parking and whether it was currently used by medical office staff, whether there was a restriction on parking. Medical staff in the medical center building and the hospital use the parking; however, visitors to the hospital can, if they wish, also use the parking. Chair Moctezuma entered into the record a letter that the Commission received from Dr. Scott Markel who is opposing the project on the basis of parking. Public Hearing Opened Bill Miller, Chula Vista resident, spoke in opposition of the 120' building height. His main objections included: ■ Doesn't understand why the structure cannot be built under current zoning laws. The structure and future buildings at an additional 12 -20 feet will create a cluster of buildings and an environment that the current residents did not expect when they bought their property. Is also afraid that it will decrease their home values. ■ Doesn't think the 500' notification area is large enough. People two short blocks from where he lives did not get notices and it was not advertised in the paper. Note: a Public Hearing notice for this March 12th meeting was published in the Star news on February 28, 2014. ■ In the staff report it indicated: "...that the project qualifies for Class 32 categorical exemption... no further environmental review is necessary." Since there will be so much additional parking and a loop road just above the community, he's not sure how it will affect the environment. ■ Since it is a residential area with apartments and codos, it would be nice if they could make the project blend in more. Maria del Carmen Lopez Gallo, a Chula Vista resident, also spoke in opposition and gave her following concerns: ■ The parking lot being up above the homes and people will be able to look down into the houses. ■ Is concerned about the security with so many additional parking spaces. ■ Even now there are a lot of car alarms going off and is concerned about more cars and more alarm noises. ■ That the parking structure and any additional buildings will obstruct any view that they currently have. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -9- ■ Is concerned about the safety of the children that play in the playground only a block or two from the loop road. There was more discussion about the grade of the lot (30' -40'), where the loop road would go (above the community, not through or in it). The resident does not like the open side of the parking lot facing the community. Public Hearing Closed Commissioners Comments /Deliberations Vinson: Where do the children play in relation to the loop road? Steichen: All of the project is above on the knoll. There is nothing that will go in or through the community. There will be additional pedestrian enhancements so they can walk around, but they will be contained on the top of the knoll. Vinson: Thinks the project is long overdue and badly needed. He has no objections. Anaya: Has some initial concerns, but the need seems to outweigh them. His concerns include: ■ Is concerned that this approval of this action will open it up to other buildings in the area. Would prefer that every subsequent building be looked at because a blanket approval would not allow residents to voice future objections, even though the Commission will hear these types of things again and again. ■ Thinks that perhaps the current notification process needs to be reviewed. In general, the community is growing and needs this upgrade. If it's not mitigated today there may be people parking in the neighborhoods and it will be need to be mitigated tomorrow. He supports the project. Calvo: Has listened to the other comments and agrees it is better to build the structure now than later. As the hospital grows, hopefully it will become more of an icon than an eyesore. Nava: Also agrees with Anaya's comments, but is concerned about future projects. He would like to see them brought back individually for approval. Steichen: Each piece of the project will have to be submitted for design review. It will have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Nava: Project is long overdue and he generally likes the project and thinks the construction time is good. He supports the project. Calvo: We don't necessarily have to approve the 120 foot height for the whole campus, do we? It was agreed that the Commission does not need to approve Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -10- the 120 foot height for everything. A condition could be put in the resolution limiting approval to just this project. Livag: While he appreciates the need for an iconic point, his concern is about the lighting and the tower — which will bring even more light. He also is open to the 120 foot limit for this project, but doesn't want to give a blanket approval. He doesn't care for the location of the tower. If you need it, put it to the South & West corner — which would be away from the residents. We don't' have to approve the parking structure just to approve it. They could come back with another design. Because of those things and his concern for the residents, he can't support the project as it now stands. Moctezuma: Supports the project. She doesn't have the same problems with the tower. Suspects it is set as it is for the views and so that people are able to find a parking space, take a deep breath — which may not outweigh the imposition put on everybody else, but she does see the pressing need for the parking structure and for the vision of the campus. Livag: That "moment" for one person will be a lifetime for the residents and he doesn't know if it's the right thing to do. He's not saying we don't need the structure, just that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Moctezuma: Had to base her decision on her way of thinking and that is that it is almost certain that some of the residents have, or will, be on that campus. She does support it. ACTION: Commissioner Vinson made a motion to approve the project. Commissioner Calvo amended the motion to limit the 120 foot height to the parking structure only. Any future height changes are to return to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Vinson restated the motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Anaya. The amended motion passed 5 -1 -1 -0 with Livag voting nay and Fragomeno absent. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: 5. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Anaya stated at the last meeting the Commission talked about reviewing the Sign Ordinance and wanted to know the status — will it be updated? Director Broughton said he had agreed with the Chamber of Commerce to look into that and he's ready to look into getting a group of people together (design professionals who deal with signage matters) to see if there aren't some targeted things we can look at without opening the Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2014 Page -11- whole code. Would like to get a strategy together and involve the public (some of whom want unregulated codes, some of whom want it stringent). Will try to get this done in the next 30 days and involve the Chamber. Chair Moctezuma also suggested the Third Avenue Village Association. Commissioner Nava requested that, on the larger projects like the Sharp Parking Structure, that materials be delivered to the Commission more than just 3 days in advance of the meeting. Mr. Broughton will work with staff to accommodate an earlier delivery date, of at least some of the materials (plans; attachments), if not the staff report. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:31 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on March 26, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Submitted by: I A i /,j )Q411 r Patricia Laughlin, Board Secr ry Minutes approved 05 -14 -2014 Nava /Vinson 4 -0 -2 -1 (Fragomeno abstained)