The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDraft Minutes 01-28-2015; 02-25-2015C ITY dF CHULA VISTA Planning Commission bra ff ?Minutes REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHU PLANNING COMMISSION Date: January 28, 2015 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Fuentes, Gutierrez, Livag, Nava Absent: Commissioners A _,,,Fragomeno and Chair Calvo Council Chambers Service Building A 76 Fourth Avenue MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Vice -Chair Livag made a ffibfi n to excuse Commissioners Anaya, Fragomeno and Chan Calvo as"' 0". Commissioner Gutierrez seconded the motion' ad it passed 4f0 -3 -0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SI OPENING STAT EMENT: Read by Vice -Chair Livag PUBLIC COMM Persons speaking durid' '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. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2015 Page -2- CONSENT ITEMS: The Planning Commission will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Planning Commissioner, a member of the public, or staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting. An item pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 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. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC- 14 -11; Design Review consideration of a 41 -unit multi - family attached alley condominium polectwith two (2) car garages, and associated open space on apprd mate"ly 1:85 acres located in the Otay Ranch Village Two, Neighborhood R - 10A, Planned Community District (RM2) Residential Multi - Family 2 `z ""one. Applicant: Pacific Coast Communities Projects Manager: Caroline Young Project Manager Caroline Young gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the location map, site plans, elevations,iiiid . This project is an extenuation of a project on Santa Diana ti.. presented in July of 201 he alsoarovided a materials board to the Commission Will " Z911i14i 101>;1 The Applicant has submitted a Design Rewiew application for approval of a 41 -unit multi - family attached alley condominium prof. The project includes three to five bedroom condominiums, two -car garages, and associated open space on approximately 1.5 acres. The site is vacant and located within the Otay Ranch Village Two, Neighborhood R -10A DISCUSSION Project Site Characteristics: The 1.5 -acre project site is located in the eastern portion of Village Two within the Village Core, on a vacant parcel north of Santa Diana Road and west of Santa Ivy Avenue. Neighborhood R -10A is bordered on the north and west by a single - family attached alley product, multi - family to the east, and a future park and multi - family units across Santa Diana Road to the south. All of the surrounding parcels are currently vacant. Onsite amenities include several open space areas throughout the project site consisting of a passive open space area in between buildings and at street corner intersections. A pedestrian Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2015 Page -3- light and two benches have been placed within the open space area along Santa Christina Avenue. There are several vehicle and pedestrian accesses on and off the site. Vehicles can access the alleyway through two driveways, one along Santa Ivy Avenue and one along Santa Christina Avenue. The main front entrance to the homes is off Santa Diana Road. Pedestrian paths are located along Santa Diana Road and along the perimeter of the site. Parking Village 2 SPA regulations require 2.25 spaces for three or more bedroom units. Therefore, the required parking is 93 spaces. All the units within the project provide a two -car garage with a total of 82 parking spaces. On- street parking consists of 28 spaces along Santa Diana Road pursuant to Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA, Section VIII (3) Parking Regulations. The project exceeds the required parking by seventeen parking spaces and,,Aoes not propose any compact parking. CONCLUSION The proposed 41 multi - family attached alley condom %tam p1rx:'�c# are a permitted land use in the Otay Ranch GDP and are permitted in the Residential Multi- Family Two (RM2) district of the Village Two SPA Plan. The proposal complies with the polici4t guidelines and design standards for the Village Two Design Plan as well as the Village Core MPP, Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review Permit, DRC 14=`, to construct a 41 -unit multi - family attached alley condominium project with two (2) car garages, and associated open space on approximately 1.5 acres, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION That Planning Commis§ on the findings and sub Questictts to Staff: There were one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED There were no spears PUBLIC HEARING opts'Rbsolution DRC 14 -11 approving the proposed project, based ,theco6di!tons contained therein. Commissioner Deliberations /Questions There were none MSC ACTION: Motion by Gutierrez; second by Livag Vote: 4 -0 -3 -0 with Anaya, Fragomeno and Chair Calvo absent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2015 Page -4- OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Manager Ed Batchelder gave the Commission an idea of what would be forthcoming in February and March. He also expounded on several projects that are in the works and will be coming forward in the next few months. Pat Laughlin, Secretary CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning Commission 91114 ff ?�nuies REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: February 25, 2015 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Anaya, Fragom Council Chambers Public Service Building A 276 Fourth Avenue and Chair Calvo Absent: Commissioners Fuentes, Gutierrez and -41yag aa.R MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Chair Calvo made a motion to excuse Commissioners Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag as requested. Commissioner Fragomeno ��conded the motion and it passed 4 -0 -3 -0 PLEDGE OF A OPENING STATEMENT: ND MOMENT OF SILENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2014 Motion by Fragomeno Second by Nava Motion passed 4 -0 -3 -0 with Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag absent 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. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -2- CONSENT ITEMS: The Planning Commission will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Planning Commissioner, a member of the public, or staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting. An item pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s), s squired by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak orm (apvlable in the lobby) and submit it to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC- 14- 06 /PCC -14 -055 Consideration of a Design Review Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction f` an 114,760 square foot self- storage facility on a 1.55 -acre site located at 2380 Fenton Street. Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner, gave a PowerPoi project area along with the following inform�tiot the Commission that the Draft Resolutions had;.:k'1 which were on the dais. In addition, Mr. Steich copies of which were provided. He asked the agreement to the condition. Ms. Carey Alg microphone andagpeed to the condition. N Applicant: Pacifica Companies. Project Manager: Jeff Steichen tation which included photos of the At t e eia 'of his presentation, he advised n revised "by the Attorney's Office copies of said that Condition 1.29 had been added — Aicant (Pacifica Companies) to affirm their �, representing Pacifica, approached the The'Appif nt submitted a, 'Design Review Permit and a Conditional Use Permit application to allow for a'114,760 square foist self- storage facility on a 1.55 -acre parcel zoned Business Center Manufacturin %6 (BC -1) within the Eastlake Business Park ( "Business Park "). The Applicant is also requesting a l'i*ction o the number of parking spaces required for this use as well as an increase in the maximum height limit for certain architectural features. The 1.55 -acre parcel is located at the southwest corner of Fenton Street and Hale Place. The project site is comprised of one parcel within the Eastlake Business Park. DISCUSSION Proiect Site Characteristics The project site is comprised of a 1.55 -acre parcel located within the Eastlake Business Center 1 planning area of the Business Park at the southwest corner of Fenton Street and Hale Place Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -3- (Attachment 1- Locator Map). The rectangularly shaped project site was previously graded with the rest of the business park, and is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by both industrial uses and offices. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The project site has an Office commercial (CO) General Plan Land Use Designation and is zoned as Business Center I (BC -1). The following table specifies the General Plan Land Use Designations, zoning and current land uses that surround the site: Land Use Compatibility The establishment of a self- storagacility in the BC -1 zone requires the approval of a Conditional Use Perrnit:Wensure i use is compatible with surrounding uses. The self- storage facility is appropriate at t prop 4, Jocation and is compatible with surrounding existing development in that it is locafe in close " �m ty to residential uses and will provide a service which meets the needs of the co munity by providing additional capacity for self- storage. The proposed use would be similar to oilier uses in the vicinity in that it will be designed with features which complement the arc h Lecture of the existing surrounding development. General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site Office Commercial (CO) Business Center 1 (B -1) Vacant North Limited Industrial (IL) Business Centel, (BC -2) Business Services/ Industrial South Office Commercial (CO) Business Center Y(BC 1) Business Services/ Industrial East Office Commercial (CO) Business Center 1 (BC 1) ; , , Offices West Office Commercial (CO) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Vices". Land Use Compatibility The establishment of a self- storagacility in the BC -1 zone requires the approval of a Conditional Use Perrnit:Wensure i use is compatible with surrounding uses. The self- storage facility is appropriate at t prop 4, Jocation and is compatible with surrounding existing development in that it is locafe in close " �m ty to residential uses and will provide a service which meets the needs of the co munity by providing additional capacity for self- storage. The proposed use would be similar to oilier uses in the vicinity in that it will be designed with features which complement the arc h Lecture of the existing surrounding development. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -4- Compliance with Development Standards: BC -1 Development Standards Required for project Proposed for project Building Height: 35 feet or 2 stories 35 feet and 3 stories * (with exception of arch features un to 44 ft.) Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet Front Yard 20 feet Side Yard (Interior) 10 feet Side Yard (Int.) 10 feet Diagonal Corner 50 feet �iagonal Corner 50 feet Public Streets 20 feet Puljlic Streets 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Maximum Lot Coverage: 60% Parking: Storage* 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. for 1" 20 K sq. ft. = 20 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. for 2 °d 20K sq. ft. = 10 1 space per 4,000 sq.ft. over 40 K= 18 Office Component: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. y 5 Total parking spaces required ** 53 5% Total parking spaces provided = 26 * Due to the low traffic generation and parking r4g6tfi%ents for such facilities, staff has recommended that an additional story be allowed subject to the same 35 ft. height restriction. The project complies with 35 ft. height limit with certain exceptions for architectural features described more fully in body of this report. * *The parking requirements noted apply to storage facilities in general and present the closest nominal standards in policy regulations to what is being proposed. However, as has been used with other mini - warehouse facilities in the past, a provision contained within the General Provisions of the Off- Street Parking Requirements (Section VII.1 (G) of PC District Regulations) indicates that for those uses which do not contain specific parking standards, such standards can be development by the approving body, subject to supporting information provided. This will be described in further detail in the "parking" section below. Materials /Colors Colors and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. Sensitive alteration of colors and materials can produce diversity and enhance architectural form (CVDM p. IV -52). Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -5- For materials, the project primarily utilizes stucco, metal awnings, metal panels, glass storefront, and split face block. Metal awnings have been utilized for visual interest at the buildings entry ways to assist in guiding visitors to the office and main access points. The metal awnings also appear at additional locations on the exterior of the structure at varying heights to provide horizontal and vertical articulation to the structure and to prevent a monotony of long uninterrupted walls. Metal panels are also featured on the building at varying locations "to help break -up the building's size while also introducing a durable, aesthetically appeWing material to the project. In an effort to further break -up the facade as well as complimQin# the neighboring office buildings, glass storefronts are proposed at several locations n the i adding. The use of glass not only offers relief from the solid building components, it'also serves,as a viewport to the business at hand by displaying the storage rental units. To further articulate the structure and provide variation in materials, a split faced block was chosen for its durability and resistance to the elements (including graffiti). The block will be comprised of two different colors that will create "banding" around the base of the building and assist in unifying the different elem�ejhts of the building. These horizontal "bands" will also compliment the horizontal runs of the rn p ra land display units located behind the glass. 11 Landscaping /Screening For industrial uses, landscaping should be used .to define areas by helping to focus on entrances to buildings, parking lots, loading areas, defini the edges of various land uses, providing transition between neighboring properties (buffer►g) and providing screening for parking, outdoor storage,. 9ading, and equipment areas(CVIDM p. IV -55). Screening has been provided along Fenton Street and Hale Place through the use of a proposed rhythm arad spacing of bath`tolumnar and standard spreading trees. This pattern of trees both complimenls.the arch itectural,style and massing while providing screening and softening of the building eleVitibn. By balancing the openness needed for the display units and signage in front, with the framing d massing of trees and shrubs to blend the front facades into the rest of the landscape, a curb[eal ,h'as been created without the starkness of an urban plantless landscape. This approi , to screening was utilized in order to provide a more human scale for pedestrians along theidewalks, as well as visual relief from the multi -story elevation when viewed from afar. With the simple repetition of a loose pattern of foundation shrub plantings mixed with repeated similar groupings of trees, the architectural style has been enhanced while also screening and softening the expanse of the building elevation. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -6- CONCLUSION The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Eastlake II PC District Regulations with exceptions noted. Staff recommends the requested increase in height limit in order to provide for additional vertical articulation and roof equipment screening, and that the twenty -six parking spaces provided be considered adequate per the analysis provided in this staff report. Based on the preceding information in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolutions approving the proposed self- storage facility. RECOMMENDATION That Planning Commission adopts Resolution DRC 14 -11 approving the proposed project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Questions to Staff: Q. Why were there no further efforts to enhancee_ east wa11 as the other 3 sides? A. Focus is usually on "public view areas" and sta felt � � tlhe landscaping would provide a F sufficient screen. Carey Algaze representing the applicant, Pacifica Companies, stated that she, along with Bryan Grissinger, Project Manager (Pacifica , Companies) and Bruce Jordan, Architect for Pacifica Companies were available for questions: Bruce Jordan spoke and thanked staff for working with them so well. He recognized that the adjacent property owners had sent a letter. He continued in describing their background and the basis for which they are developing the project, including studies they had done on storage units nationwide, the number of them in the immediate area, land use, traffic patterns, security, design of office spaces, parking, and the trends in self- storage buildings. Mr. Jordon advised the Commission that they had been working with the adjacent property owner, Matthew Dolan, Investcal Realty Corporation, and had agreed to 1) remove the east wall metal panel and use stucco with faux shift in color in the recesses and 2) to provide additional trees as a screening mechanism. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -7- Mr. Jordan completed his presentation by saying that they have done other facilities in residential neighborhoods and that they have gotten letters saying how quiet the neighborhood is. Also, none of the loading activity is visible from the public right -of -way. Mr. James Stevens, Attorney for Investcal Realty Corporation ( Investcal)— the adjacent property owner — acknowledged the letter that was sent to the Commission and Chair Calvo confirmed that the Commission did receive and review the letter. Mr. Stevens stated that Investcal was in agreement with the amendment to the eastern wall to eliminate the metal and has no problem with the alternating shades of stucco to be used. They do, however, have concerns about the landscaping element. They would like to achieve a complete screen, or one as nearly complete as possible. They feel that it is a very tall structure and that 100 feet is not far for such a large project. "may would suggest tall trees (Cyprus mentioned) or a hedge to completely block the blank wall. Absent agreement with the applicant, they do not waive any of the items thatg tave been put forth. If an agreement can be reached on the type and size of vegetation, ho vii long will take,to achieve the screen and how long it will be maintained, he feels they can commit for arc.. - Matt Dolan, Investcal, reiterated what Mr. Stevens had said'and that he is concerned with the esthetics and hopes to achieve the blockage of the wall. ., Applicant (Mr. Jordan) stated that they were in agreement with' Investcal and proposed they meet to achieve an accepA# elandscape plan and then bring it back to staff for approval. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Deliberati Anaya: Thanked the'pplicant "for bringing the project forward. Impressed with the pro Jordan: If it is something the property owner wants, they could do it. However, he does not then see why landscaping element would be needed. If it is desired, they could do it. Fragomeno: Feels that the applicant did the minimum requirements (in neglecting the east wall). Even with the box trees, part of the east wall will be seen. It's a nice area and other office buildings look fantastic; many contain glass and he feels that the 36 -foot wall of concrete is distracting. Doesn't look like the east wall is Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -8- following what the rest of the neighborhood has incorporated into their designs. There was additional discussion about the lowered pad (4 feet) and the 10 -foot set -back. The applicant reiterated that the landscaping would be added. Mr. Stevens: Thinks Commission comments and concerns are appropriate and feels that if the windows could be incorporated, it would soften the visual impact until the landscaping grows sufficiently to buffer it. Anaya: Partially agrees with Fragomeno, but does not t,,W17 I he windows are necessary. Thinks the same look can be achieved 6W yeals that mimic the windows on the other side. If you have the hedge and windows, he thinks it will be made worse. His suggestion would be'to use they~ posed landscape and include the reveals to mimic the windows. Calvo: Does not agree with going to stucco; the difference in materials is betwr and it looks for more articulation. If staff and the applicant are in agreement with the windows, she feels that's ok, but she �J,isagrees with the all stucco look — which is also more prone to graffiti. She feels the�tion of materials will add to the architecture. Calvo then asked for a confirmation on the" nini was a Planned Community and BC -1 zone (usir about the proposed changes. Staff replied thl to either leave it the way it is, or use the st0c wanted. The way it is now definitely provides th what works best for everyone. Calvo agrees an( maybe in thejq a re, a hedge, but feels that 1 elevation difl"ik ' itoject Manager Steichen confirmed that it ss Cen*",va -She asked staff how they felt ey were! mfortable with either proposal — with colors that distinguish the elements articulation in materials, but staff is open to gels that more trees should be added and, J feet is substantial along with the 4 foot Calva Mst made a mots ofito approve DRC 14 -06 /PC 14 -055 with the architectural addition of windows� ,rtd the addition 6 'Condition 1.29. Commissioner Nava asked about clarification of the addition of�he windows ' Calvo clarified her motion which was to leave the materials as they are and add*ndows toathe elevation. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Stevens wanted to know if they were adding a landscaping element to buffer the east wall in addition to the windows, or windows in -lieu of the landscape? They had suggested both or at least faux windows. The applicant is agreeable to adding the windows /faux windows and augmenting the screen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -9- MSC ACTION: Motion by Calvo — To approve DRC 14- 06 /PCC 14 -055 with Condition 1.29 added, as well as adding additional faux windows on the east elevation and the addition of the landscaping enhancement to the east elevation. Second by Fragomeno Vote: 4 -0 -3 -0 with Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag absent OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Scott Donaghe reminded the Commission that the 11, 2015. Next meeting is scheduled for March 25 S. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: There were none ADJOURNMENT: At 7:04 p.m. to the next Regular Planni March 25, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in Council uld not be a meeting on February mmission Meeting on