Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-22 PC MinutesCtTy of CHULA VIVA Planning Commission ;nflpa� REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA June 22, 2016 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenge, Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER 6:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Anaya, Fuentes, Gutierrez, Livag, Nava and Chair Calve MEMBERS ABSENT: Fragomeno MOTION TO EXCUSE: Calvo /Livag Motion passed 6 -0 -1 -0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. Approval of Minutes April 13, 2016 April 27, 2016 May 11, 2016 Motion: Nava /Livag , Motion passed 6 -0 -1 -0 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 items) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required bylaw. 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 Z. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06 -01 AND APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW (URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT) PERMIT DR15 -0015 TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 795 THIRD AVENUE WITH 71 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN B) 'RESOLUTION PCS15 -0006 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM TO URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FEIR 06 -01 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP PCS15- 006 TOXONSOLI DATE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE CONDOMINIUM LOT FOR 71 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COMMERCIAL UNIT FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP ON 795 THIRD AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE 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. 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 LEER features. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2015 Page �3 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 LEED certification requirements — how will it be monitored • Ratio of retail to residential space — how does staff determine "mixed- use "? • What is the amount of current retail space (square footage) • Explanation of set -back requirements (the triangle) • Expanded description of balcony space and language • Height of trees on back side where balconies are + How trash will be handled? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Steve Danon, The San Diego Group - representing the applicant (Dr. Monti) - gave a presentation to the Commission. He explained that there were two (2) public meetings and that the plans were revised to reduced the number of units by 10 %, add additional parking spaces to exceed the recommendation, reduce balconies on Church Avenue by 50 %, relocate the entrance to Third Avenue, complete a traffic study, reduce floor area ratio from 2.3 to 2.0, increase the set -back adjacent to single family homes, reduce the building height from 5 stories to 3 stories on Church Avenue and 4 stories on K Street resulting in a significant change in plans due to public input. John Sheehan, Studio E Architects;Wntinued 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? • 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 14 In Support Of Oppo sed To Alex Epstein Evelyn Heidelberg Anne K. Pering Jesse Navarro George Tower Max Voigtritter Mitch Thompson James Tingle Brenda Voigtritter Christine Moore Paul Palmer . Everett Delano Ronda Rodriguez Vicki Palmer Earl Jentz Max Zaker Richard Mastaler David Jentz Richard D'Ascoli Theresa Acerro Karen Jentz Randy Bellamy Jackie M. Lancaster Julie Andre Bill Hall Noemi Sanchez William Richter Steve Danon Joan Berg Parks Pemberton Richard Shulman Rufus Ethington Adam Montano John. Sheehan Judi Bounds Paula Perry Steve Macvey Kathy Day Ana Melgoza John Rubler Glenda Devaney Gloria Gonzales Arnold Gonzales Gwen McCaughey Jerry Laffredo Martha Coulson Omar Firestone Bill Schleger Robert Sullivan Pam Keel John Mattiek 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 Traffic patterns The balance of projects in the UCSP PUBLIC NEARING CLOSED TWO MINUTE BREAK TAKEN Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 15 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: E1R Mitigation measures — comply with special requirements Reduce light and glare Historical detennination Traffic assessment was done Alternative modes — bus stop, pedestrian features, etc. Noise elements noise study was done Project to be LEED certified Police Services Construction noise No air quality impact on project Ed Batchelder, Planning Manager, addressed the comments from the public as to: The General Plan and the process Some areas were designated for change — Third Ave. and C1 are included in those change areas. Preference of commercial vs addition of residential UCSP establishes how the plan will 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 about incentives for parking, outside space and LEED certification. Glenn Googins, City Attorney_ , provided comment from a legal standpoint on Balconies Comments 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. 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 16 Lauag: 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 is here for the betterment of the community — both residents and Commissioners. He has mixed emotions about project, but has to look at what he feels is the bigger picture and what is best for the 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 is not concerned with the homeless population because the activation of areas will help disburse the population. Is in support of the project and requests another look at 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 meeting. The community is going to continue to change we have to look at a long -term vision for the City and how we want to leave the community for our children. Has seen other quality LEED certified projects, but not in Chula Vista. He likes that the project is the first LEED certified project coming before the Commission. In looking at the vacant commercial 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. 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 r St. and L St. He doesn't agree with the theory that adding more people adds more jobs. Things happen where you get more jobs; not more people. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 17 Gutierrez Disagrees with Commissioner Livag. He has seen this type of thing work in different areas of San Diego i.e. North Park, South Park, 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 projects on 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 bring about good changes. Calvo Appreciates the input from the public. The purpose of the Commission 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 j ob. She also wanted to address some of the concerns of the public. She addressed the issue of the balconies and suggested maybe we add conditions if the applicant is willing to support the changes. Thinks the project is needed in the area and since it is part of a district, wants to make sure the balance between residential and commercial is kept to the standards. She supports the project. Calvo Motion to approve DR16 -0015 with adding the standard indemnity clause and to add some additional balcony screening and/or to modify the balconies to aid in some additional privacy. There was 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 Devefopment 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page j$ MSC: Anaya made a motion to approve PCS 15 -0006 Second by Gutierrez Vote: 5 -1 -0 Yeah: Anaya, Fuentes, Gutierrez, Nava, Calvo No: Livag 3. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DR15 -0024) FOR A 78 -UNIT MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT COMPRISED OF 39 DUPLEX BUILDINGS WITH TWO (2) CAR GARAGES, RECREATION AREA, AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE ON APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES LOCATED IN THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO, NEIGHBORHOOD R- 17B(B). Applicant: Heritage Building & Development, LLC Project Manager: Stan Donn Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution DR15 -0024 to allow construction of a 78 -unit multi - family residential project Neighborhood R- 1713(b), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein Chair Calvo recused herself from Item 3 — DR15 -0024 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 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 unposed 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 516 bedrooms and advised the Commission that he was not comfortable having that many bedrooms in a multi- family unit. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page I9 Planning Manager Ed Batchelder clarified the bedroom situation and that with additional bedrooms, additional parking would be required. There was further discussion regarding potential addition bedrooms and parking spaces and what is currently allowed of public parking. Mary Miller, Project Manager for Baldwin & Sons, clarified that they have reduced the number of units with additional optional bedrooms and the number of buildings with 3- stories — which reduces the optional additional bedrooms. In addition, research was done and it was determined that the optional bedrooms are only used by one -third of the buyers. In addition, all of the additional parking required is being met, but not all of the optional bedroom additions would be used. That means that additional parking would be provided on -site. Further discussion regarding parking and the use of garages and enforcement thereof continued. Director Broughton advised the Commission that if garages were not being utilized and a complaint was filed, the Code Enforcement Division would investigate and enforce the parking requirements. He also advised the Commission that they are working on bringing forth to the Planning Commission and City Council, a modification to the parking standards for the Municipal Code. Batchelder stated that originally street parking was allowed in Otay Ranch because it was believed that it slowed traffic 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Page X10 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 have inadequate parking standards. We are now granting public street parking because of the higher density. One 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 the required 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 problem seems to be around the high school and not affected by this prof ect. Broughton and Batchelder explained the parking requirements per unit and that the applicant had provided .adequate, if not more than required, 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. 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. 5. 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. Mjgutes submitted by: [ J 4 Patricia Laughlin W.fy Board Secretary Minutes approved August 10,2016 MSC: Fuentes /Gutierrez Vote: 5 -0 -2 (Nava and Calvo absent)