Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - Draft Minutes 06-22-2016CITE' OF CHUTAMSLA Planniniz Commission June 22, 2016 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORE MEMBERS PI MEMBERS Al MOTION TO PLEDGE OF A OPENING ST, I. Apprc LVJ 0 1 PUBLIC COM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ?bfinufor Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA Iva and Persons speaking durfr g Public Comments may address the Board /Commission on any subject matter withrn 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 hearings) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 12 2. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ADDENDUM TO THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06 -01; DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT) DR15- 0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 616 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; AND TENTATIVE MAP PCS15 -0006 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO LEGAL LOTS INTO A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP A) RESOLUTION DR15 -0015 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA C URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAIN REPORT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM FEIR 06 -0k. AND (URBAN CORE DEVELOPM. REDEVELOP THE SITE,-,AT':, . RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT T 0 HEREIN B) U i ► 1 • II li. • • ' ONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MONITORING AND REPORTING APPROVING ,,,A. DESIGN REVIEW c: ENT) PERMIT DR15 -0015 TO 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE :.;THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED RESOLUTIOk PCS15 -0006 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION fHE CITY OFtCHU.LA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM TO SAN -'CORE SPEC €FIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OTT —'AND, `MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING ►GRAM FEIR 06 -01 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP PCS15- 'T.O CONSOLIDATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL, UNIT INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT rHE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission consider the Addendum to UCSP FEIR 06 -01, grant the requested exception on FAR and approve the Design Review /Urban Core Development Permit Resolution and the Tentative Map Resolution to develop the subject Site with the proposed Project, subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 page 13 Miguel Tapia gave a slide presentation which included, but not limited to: the location map, view of the property site, features of proposed project, project plans, and proposed LEED features. QUESTIONS TO STAFF INCLUDED CONCERNS OF: • Traffic impacts was there a traffic analysis? • What was the basis for not requiring a traffic study? • Area (sq. footage) of the plaza • Amount of current Commercial space • GOLD LEER certification requirements — how will it be • Ratio of retail to residential space — how does staff • What is the amount of current retail space (square l • Explanation of set -back requirements (the triangle) • Expanded description of balcony space and langua; • Height of trees on back side where balconies are • How trash will be handled? PUBLIC HEARING O Steve Danon, The San D presentation to the Conir the plans were revised to exceed the recommendat entrance to Third Avenu increase -back adj to 3 stories on Church A plans due to pub use "? Group - represehtzr g the applicant (Dr. Monti) - gave a )n. He. explained that there were two (2) public meetings and that ced the number of units by 10 %, add additional parking spaces to -educe balconies on Church Avenue by 50 %, relocate the nplete a traffic study, reduce floor area ratio from 2.3 to 2.0, to single family homes, reduce the building height from 5 stories and 4 stories on K Street resulting in a significant change in John Sheehan, Studio `EArchitects, continued the presentation with slides of before and after pictures of what was originally planned and the revisions including the items mentioned by Steve Danon. Sheehan focused on concerns of interfering with neighbors privacy and how they designed the terraces (balconies) and building to be set -back farther with landscaping to protect single family homeowners privacy. He presented slides on how the project could be built according to current guidelines and how the applicant revised the plans due to the public meetings. Questions from Commissioners to Applicant Team • What type of extra amenities are being provided to the building other than what is required by code? Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 14 • Due to opposition of neighbors, what are potential uses of balconies (privacy issues) • Are there windows facing the direction of Church Street where balconies were removed? Request to Speak forms were received by the following — although not everyone spoke In Support Of Opposed To Alex Epstein Evelyn Heidelberg Anne K. Pering Jesse Navarro George Tower Mme, Voigtritter Mitch Thompson f James Tingle . .Brenda Voigtritter Christine Moore Paul Palmer Everett Delano Ronda Rodriguez Vicki Palmer Earl Jentz Max Zuker Richard Mastaler, Davin Jentz Richard D'Ascoli Theresa ACerro Karen Jentz Randy Bellamy Jackie M. Lancaster Julie Andre Bill Hall Noem,.Sanchez ` William Richter Steve Danon Joan Berg Parks Pemberton Richard Shulman Rufus'Ethington Adam Montano John Sheehan l =' V. Judi Bounds Paula Perry Steve Macvey f Kathy Day Ana Melgoza John Hubler Glenda Devaney Gloria Gonzales Arnold Gonzales Gwen McCaughey Jerry Laffredo -; Martha Coulson Omar Firestone Bill Schleger Robert Sullivan Pam Keel John Mattick Applicant's land use attorney, Richard Schulman, addressed concerns of the public to include: Balconies Land between J & L should be commercial Mixed use Public right to comment interfered with Not being able to look at documents Deviation from the FAR ration Late "hits" — comment letters and e -mails Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 15 Traffic patterns The balance of projects in the UCSP PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TWO MINUTE BREAK TAKEN STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Steve Power, Principal Planner, gave rebuttal to the letter received from Everett Delano of Delano and Delano. Some of the comments addressed were: EIR Mitigation measures — comply with special requirements Reduce light and glare Historical determination Some areas were desigriatedTor change' Third Ave. and CI are included in those change areas. Preference of commercial vs addition of residential UCSP establishes how the plan *11 be administered during any transition. Residential"/ mixed use LEED certification,` Miguel Tapia, Project Manager, addressed incentive bonuses provided in the UCSP 'He referred to`Page 51 of the packet and the incentives as to a 10/10 /10 increase He<spoke aboui incentives for parking, outside space and LEED certification. Glenn Googins, City Attorney, provided comment from a legal standpoint on Connnents by Heidelberg — issues raised previously — legal issues are adequately addressed in the packet — also in respect to CEQA requirements Landscape requirements — how to be sure maintained ---- condition of project Standard indemnity provision should be added to resolutions Batchelder stated that the project would be a "for sale" project.... Ownership of condos not apartments Googins — because a project is processed as a condominium., it does not have to be maintained as one. It is not unusual to operate a condo project as an apartment project for a certain amount of time in the beginning. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 15 QUESTIONS TO STAFF — answered by Staff What are the open space requirements? What are the conditions that the LEED requirements will be met? DELIBERATIONS/COMMENTS Livag: Thanked the applicant — thinks it's a beautiful project, but is concerned that the site is not appropriate. There is not much commercial for a "mixed use" project — is concerned in cutting from 20,000 sf to 600 sf Five (5) stories is too high for the location, it seems more appropriate for the other side of the street. He is also concerned about traffic, schools and trash pick -up. Spoke of residential growth vs commercial. He believes we need more space for work and more jobs. He cannot support the project as it stands Anaya: Thanked the residents for staying so late. Everyone tshere for the betterment of the community,"" ommunity - :_both residents and Commissioners. He has mixed emotions about project, but has 6 "look at what he feels is the bigger picture and what is hest for ihe:entire,,city. Has concerns about not having enough commercial in the project Highly suggests a relook at the commercial space `Thinks the project is viable for the City and isnot concerned with the homeless population because the activation of areas will help disburse the population Is in support of the project and requests another lookat=the commercial space but asks that staff look at the commercial space going forward. Gutierrez He too thanked the community for their input and for attending the e community is going to continue to change we have to look n vrslon for the City and how we want to leave the or'our children. Has seen other quality LEED certified not in Chula Vista. He likes that the project is the first LEED ect coming before the Commission. In looking at the vacant buildings, he supports the project. Nava Thinks it is a great project and a good catalyst to the future and has seen projects like this reactivate an area. is concerned with the "mixed -use" area and would like to see more commercial — can we put a condition in the resolution? He addressed the concerns regarding the balconies. He supports the project. Fuentes Has listened to the community and thinks everyone has valid /real concerns. Agrees with Commissioner Gutierrez that this is the way the future is headed. Change is always difficult, not everyone will be happy, but this is the way cities are built and changed. As difficult as the decision is, he will support the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 17 Livag Doesn't think changes can be done through an amendment or resolution. Would rather see the project return to the Commission with changes the Commission would like and then approve it. This is part of the Urban Core Plan and it reinforces that office space will be on the east side of Third Avenue between J St. and L St. He doesn't agree with the theory that adding more people adds more jobs. Things happen where you get more j obs; not more people. Gutierrez Disagrees with Commissioner Livag. He has seen this type of thing work in different areas of San Diego i.e. North Park, South Paris, etc. New development like this will reactivate the community, increase the charm of the things that exist and the benefit of the neW things,:,; Anaya Haven't seen any of these type of projection the west side. He wants the things that other communities have and thinks the west side . has been ignored. Is happy to see this kind of project for the west side and is hopeful that the project will brink about good changed vil Calvo Appreciates the input from the public The purpose of the Commmission is really to make sure the standards and requirements are adhered to. We rely of staff because they do the analytical work and we have to trust that they do the job, �Slealso °wanted to address some of the concerns of the public. A She addressed the issue`of the balconies and suggested maybe we add conditions if toe applicant: rs`willing to support the changes. Thinks the project is needed ' the area and since it is part of a district, wants to make sure i residential and commercial is kept to the the project. approve DR16 -0015 with adding the standard indemnity clause some additional balcony screening and/or to modify the o aid in some additional privacy. discussion between the architect and the Commission as to modification to the balconies. They are willing to study alternative balcony designs with additional information as to what the intent of the Commission is. Additional conversation was pursued and included Director of Development Services, Kelly Broughton, regarding balconies and what is wanted in modification. City Attorney Glen Googins wanted some additional specificity as to what the conditions would be. Googins Suggested wording was: For the applicant to meet and confer with staff to develop and implement feasible and effective measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services to further mitigate overlook Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2036 Page I8 impacts from balconies overlooking adjacent residential properties on the third, fourth and fifth floors. MSC: Calvo made a motion to approve DR15 -0015 with added conditions of the Standard Indemnity Clause and the addition modifications of balconies in the direct sight -line of adjacent properties according to the wording provided by Attorney Googins. Second by Gutierrez Vote: 5 -1 -0 MSC: Ana) Seco Vote: 5 -14 Yeal. No: 3. PUBLI Staff Chair Calvo recused herself from Item 3 — DR15 -0024 R15 -0024} FOR :OMPRISED OF %R GARAGES, J SPACE ON OTAY RANCH iielopment, LLC ution nit multi - family based on the ained therein Vice -Chair Livag took over being the Chair of the Commission in Calvo's absence. Livag called for a staff presentation. Director of Development Services Broughton advised, due to the shortness of the hour and since this was a returning project, staff could do a presentation or we could go directly to Public Hearing. It was decided to go directly to the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED No speaker slips CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes .Tune 22, 2016 Page I9 COMMISSIONER DELIBERATIONS Livag Has previously supported these projects in Village II, but can no longer do so as he does not agree to having public parking be part of the parking requirement. Director Broughton advised that since the project has more than the usual number of bedrooms, additional parking requirements have been imposed on the applicant. There was discussion regarding what is required per the development agreement. Commissioner Livag still wants all parking to be on -site and not depend on any public parking. Commissioner Nava further questioned if the project would have 5/6 bedrooms and advised the Commission that he was not comfortable having that many bedroo 8'J. n a multi- family unit. Planning Manager Ed Batchelder clarified the bedroom situation and that with additional bedrooms, additional parking would be required. There was. fiarther discussion regarding potential addition bedrooms and parking spaces and whatis currently allowed of public parking. Mary Miller, Project Manager for Baldwin & Sons, clarified of units with additional optional bedrooms and the number, c reduces the optional additional bedrooms. In addition, resee that the optional bedrooms are only used by one -third of the additional parking required is being met; iut not, all of the of used. That means that additional parking would be pr6videc Further discussion regarding pa Director Broughton advised the complaint was filed, the Code 1 requirements. He also adviseA Planning Commission and City Municipal Code Batchelder.; st. because it was believed that it s that they have reduced the number buildings with 3- stories --- which ch was done and it was determined Buyers. In addition, all of the tiefial bedroom additions would be on -site. the use of garages and enforcement thereof continued. ssion that if garages were not being utilized and a lent Division would investigate and enforce the parking iris ion that they are working on bringing forth to the a modification to the parking standards for the originally street parking was allowed in Otay Ranch affic speeds and providing a buffer to pedestrians. MSC: Motion to approve project made by Fuentes Second by Gutierrez Vote: 3 -2 -1 Calvo recused (abstain) Yeah: Anaya, Fuentes, Gutierrez No: Livag, Nava Googins: The legal consequence of the action is no action taken. Broughton: Options are 1) Recommend denial --- applicant could then appeal to City Council 2) Make a motion to continue the item and have applicant return 3) Make a motion to approve with specified conditions Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page I10 MSC: Motion by Livag to support project with a condition that all parking is provided on -site Mary Miller advised that they could not possibly provide all parking on -site without using any public parking. Historically it has been allowed and especially since there are no commercial facilities in the neighborhood. They could work with staff to reduce the number of optional units to bring down the parking requirements, but that would also affect future projects. There was discussion among the Commission regarding impacts to the neighborhood and density. Brad Humphrey — all of the adjacent properties and parks are owned by their entity. This is currently undeveloped land and is furthest away from the high school at the top of Heritage Rd. This is a duplex "alley" product and was originally intended to have =guests park in front of the homes and additional parking would be provided within the complex for: guests. They would then have to walk around the complex to get to the front doors Have worked very closely with staff and have redesigned the site plan several times. Feels they have done everything they can except take out common space and parks to provide the additional parking requested. Commissioner Livag's concern is that we already haveinad`egtiate parking standards. We are now granting public street parking because of the higher density. Qne way to avoid that is to reduce the density to lower the parking requirements. ' More discussion ensued regarding alley projects, the­ 'increased number of optional bedrooms and the cost of revising the project each time it is,brought back to the Commission. The applicant stated that they have more than tht,_T_equired number of parking spaces required (229 spaces to the required 159) and, had there been''a presentation; it would have been explained more thoroughly. The parking,,,Ablem seems to be around the high school and not affected by this project. Broughton and Batchelder``explained the—parking requirements per unit and that the applicant had provided adequate, if not more'. than parking. The increased parking spaces due to the optional number of.bedrooms have all been positioned inside and do not use any additional public parking spaces Per the :development agreement, parking is above the levels required in the SPA plan. 1 ` There was no further decision on the 3 -2 -1 vote and it was declared an impasse. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS DSD Broughton advised the Commission that it was Planning Manager Batchelder's last meeting as he is retiring. Batchelder was praised for his long, diligent service to the City and has been recognized at the City Council for his service. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Pabe X1.1 S. COMMISSIONERS' /BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS There were none ADJOURNMENT at 11:10 P.M. to the regular meeting on July 13, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue in Chula Vista, California. Materials provided to the Planning Commission related to any open session item on this agenda are available for public review in the City Housing Office /Economic Development Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building 300, Chula Vista" during normal business hours. In compliance AMERICANS WITH D The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require, attend, and /or participate in a City meeting, activity, or s Department at (619) 691 -5041 (California Relay Service is CT it accommodations to access, ,,,contact the Human Resources able for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty -eight hours,in advdnce of the meeting.