Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1999/02/037:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 3, 1999 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Staff Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas, Tarantino, and O'Neill Bob Leiter, Director of Planning Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Rich Whipple, Assistant Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 13, 1999 MSC (Ray/O'Neill) (6-0-~-0) to approve minutes for January 13, 1999 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 99-06; Request to construct a gasoline fueling facility at Costco Warehouse Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of February 24, 1999. Public Hearing Opened 7:08. No public input. MSC (Ray/O'Neill) (6-0-0-0) to continue public hearing to February 24, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - February 3, 1999 o PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01B; amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan to expedite Olympic Parkway Construction. Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of February 24, 1999. Public Hearing Opened 7:12. No public input. MSC (Ray/Thomas) (6-0-0-0) to continue public hearing to February 24, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-25; Consideration of a 132 unit affordable senior housing complex located on the east side of Medical Center Drive between East Naples and Medical Center Court, and involving a 69% density bonus increase and special property development standards - Chelsea Investment Corporation. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 132 unit affordable senior housing project on 4.14 acres located on the east side of Medical Center Drive between Medical Center Ct. and Naples Ct. within the Sunbow II planned community. Surrounding land uses include existing apartments to the north, Medical Center Dr., new single family dwellings to the west, a proposed Veterans home to the east, and the medical center parking area to the south. The project is divided into 3 villages; Village One is located in the center and is connected with Village Three to the north, via a second floor walk-way between the two village; Villages Two and Three are designed around a courtyard. The request includes a reduction in parking and open space requirements, as well a 69% density bonus. The required parking for multi-family is 208 spaces. Based on a parking standard survey staff conducted for senior housing projects in other jurisdictions, as well as the availability of public transportation, staff agreed to a reduction of 146 spaces (132 tenant spaces plus 14 guest spaces). On January 24, 1999, the Design Review Committee conditionally approved the project and under a separate motion recommended that the City Council grant the applicant the flexibility to reduce parking space requirements further than what staff was recommending in order to accommodate pedestrian links between Village I and III and to the community garden in the center of the project. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - February 3, 1999 These pedestrian links have been added and has resulted in the loss of four parking spaces to the south and three in the center, thus the total number of parking spaces is now 139. Staff support this reduction and believes it creates a better cohesive project. The applicant is proposing approximately 350 sf per dwelling unit of open space, 50 sf below what is required in the code. The projects features 45,941 sf (350 sf p/du) of common usable open space including a recreational building, shuffle board, outdoor cooking and passive open space. Staff supports the reduction in square feet p/du, believing there are sufficient amenities provided to justify the reduction. The applicant is requesting a 69% density bonus from 78 to 132 units (54 additional units). The units will be restricted for occupancy by Iow income seniors and rents are determined by HUD. One letter of opposition was received requesting that the parking and open space not be reduced. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Neg Dec for IS-99-13 and adopt Reso. PCC-99-25 recommending City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed affordable senior housing project subject to conditions contained in the resolution. Commission Discussion: Commissioners Thomas and Ray expressed concern with the request to further reduce the number of parking spaces, that adequate disabled parking be provided, and the reduction in open space area per dwelling unit. Jeff Steichen responded that based on similar projects, one vehicle per unit is being projected, there will be seven disabled parking spaces, further reducing the number of regular parking spaces. Public Hearing Opened 7:20. Bill Hedenkamp, Architect, representing Chelsea Investment stated that this is a unique project because it is strictly Iow income and is for senior citizens. Other communities where he has done similar projects typically have parking ratios of .6 to .7 per unit, substantially below the 1 per unit that is being proposed. At the inception of this project, the parking ratio was .6, which staff did not support and subsequently, the project was redesigned to 1 parking space per dwelling unit plus 10% guest parking. Other similar projects reveal that at full occupancy, the parking lots at night are 40 to 50% full, primarily because seniors no longer drive and they prefer to use public transportation or are driven by family. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - February 3, 1999 The 350 sf open space area is strictly active, usable open space consisting of a community gardening area, rose garden area, and active play area and quiet use areas with trellises and built-in b-b-q areas. What is missing is the private balconies for each unit. This is a feature that Seniors prefer not to have because of security reasons. Chair Willett stated he visited a couple of senior complexes and he too agrees that parking is not a problem and that balconies are unwelcome. Public Hearing Closed 7:30. Commissioner O'Neill stated he was confident that because of the constitute of the tenants he did not anticipate there being problems with underparking and was please to hear that the applicant is not going to stenciling a unit number in a parking space whether its used or not, because the unassigned spaces may be used by guests. Commissioner Hall stated that his personal experience too, has been that parking is not a problem because a vast majority of seniors do not have vehicles. In addition, he believes a very positive aspect of the project is that it is located next to Sharp Community Hospital which makes it very accessible to seniors, therefore, he supports the project as proposed. Commission Taranlino stated that due to the small unit sizes, he believed that on those special occasions when families normally gather together, it would most likely be that the.extended family would pick up the senior member to take with them to another location or family member's home, therefore, he does not have a concern with underparking and fully supports the project as proposed. MSC (Thomas/Ray) (5-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-99-25 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed affordable housing project with the condition that a total of seven guest parking spaces be provided and not be reduced in order to comply with the 2% ADA requirement for disabled I~arking. Motion carried with Commissioner Hall voting against. Commissioner Hall wished to express that he fully supports the project as proposed, however, he does not concur with the motion as stated. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-11; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One for Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of the Village One Core and Village One West including the Planned Community District Regulations; Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Master Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Plan; and the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. Background: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner reported that this is a two-fold request to amend the existing SPA One Plan, amend the plan for Phase Seven in the Village Core and come up with the SPA Plan for Village One West. When the SPA One was approved, it was referred to Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 5 - February 3, 1999 as the area West of Paseo Ranchero and has multiple owners. The Commission requested that there be comprehensive planning of this area when it was ready to develop. The amendments being considered are consistent with General Plan Amendments that were approved by the Commission in October 1998 and City Council approved in November. Included with those approvals was EIR 97-03 and this project is consistent with that EIR. The proposed plan expands the development areas in Village One to areas that contain habitat in the area west of Paseo Ranchero and Village One West. In October there was a switch of land use where the Otay Ranch Company gave up development rights in Villages 13 and 15 to be able to take additional development area in SPA One West and Village One. Rich Whipple, Assistant Planner, reported that the Otay Ranch Company proposes to amend the SPA One Plan to allocate all of the multi-family units authorized in the GDP for Village One. The GDP was recently amended to provide flexibility in the number of multi-family dwelling units provided sufficient multi-family densities were approved to support the light rail transit line. Otay Ranch Company originally applied for 1,422 units in the core, but have amended their application to request 1,512 dwelling units, an increase of 90 units in Phase Seven of the Plam Neighborhood R-15 - Is a proposed multi-family project of up to 464 units with a 4.5 acre CPF site most likely designated for a church. A paseo with emergency access will connect R-15 with the Village Core. Neighborhood R-16 - Is proposed to be the second alley product design in SPA One and the SPA Conditions of Approval authorize a SPA amendment if you are adding an alley product design. Neighborhood R-17 - Expands the development area of Village One along Poggi Canyon as provided for in the recent GDP amendment and the proposal changes the land use from multi- family to single-family. Neighborhood R-18 - Proposes a single-family neighborhood, at a slightly higher density of 7.2 du/p/ac. Neighborhood R-19 - Remains as a multi-family site and as a target site for the affordable housing location for this Village and Telegraph Canyon Estates. Neighborhood R-47/CPF-1/C-1 - This is the heart of the Core and proposes a mixed-use center to provide for the day-to-day needs of the Village residents and includes a commercial ground floor along the frontage of East Palomar Street, in addition to second and third story uses, one of which is a medical office building with a first floor pharmacy. Neighb(~rhood R-48 - Proposes a single family development located outside of the 1/4 mile radius of the transit station. Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 6 - February 3, 1999 The changes to Phase Seven deal with two conditions; expansion of development areas allowed by the recent GDP amendment as well as reorienting the "Main Street" design for Village One. The applicant is proposing East Palomar Street being the "Main Street" design for this Village. The commercial is proposed to be a true mixed use with two to three stories of residential units located above ground floor commercial. Staff believes that under the previous plan, "Main Street" did not go to a particular destination, and there would be difficulty drawing residents down the street, while under the current plan, a significant amount of pedestrian activity will occur along East Palomar Street. The SPA Plan indicates one guarded entrance for Village One on the south side of East Palomar Street. Staff was concerned over the continued use of restricting access to these neighborhoods and took the issue to the Executive Committee. After review, it was decided to support the applicant's proposal for guarded entrances in Phase Seven to be consistent with the existing guarded entrances north of East Palomar. Staff believes the SPA One amendments for Phase Seven, proposed by the applicant are consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP policies and recommends approval of the amendments. Rick Rosaler reported that the SPA One West area encompasses the area west of Paseo Ranchero, south of Telegraph Canyon and north of Olympic Parkway. East Palomar Street is proposed to be extended through from Sunbow to the Village One Core. The GDP amendments that were approved in November 1998 allow for the expansion in to this area of approximately 237 acres and currently there is an issue with density between the applicant and staff. This area is suppose to be a transition area between the Sunbow project to the west and Village Core to the east. It includes a 5 acre park adjacent to the Sunbow school site and an additional third park for SPA One. At this time, the school district is not sure whether the third school site is going to be necessary, however, planning and reserving the site for the school will proceed. Staff is concern with the transfer of a large number of units, increase in density, compatibility to Sunbow and compliance with the General Plan landform grading policy in Village One West. The applicant submitted a Tentative Map which proposes 818 lots which does not include Neighborhoods R-54A &B which have 37 units for a total of 855 in Village One West. They decreased the unit count from 855 to 818 on the Tentative Map in an attempt to address staff's concerns on the landform grading policy associate with slopes adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, Paseo Rancher and Olympic Parkway. The current proposed tentative map does address the landform grading policy to staff's satisfaction and there will need to be further reduction in lots along Olympic Parkway and an additional 10 lots would need to be eliminated to conform to the policies. Therefore, staff supports 808 units on the Ranch's portion of Village One West. With the addition of 37 units in Neighborhood R-54A&B, staff supports total unit count for Village One West of 845 instead of 855 and staff's recommendation will require a transfer of 42 lots from Village One. Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 7 - February 3, 1999 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the net increase of dwelling units specifically in Village One. Rick Rosaler stated that 90 units are being added into Village One than what was originally authorized and transferred 45 units into Village One West. In the original GDP the multi-family density was fixed at 1566 to have the 18 du/p/ac.; the multi-family density that is being proposed now is 1512, a difference of 54 units. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the change in parking ratios, and also inquired if the five parks that are listed are private. Rick Rosaler responded that in the Village Planned Community District Regulations there was a parking ratio of 2.5 for 3 bedroom units and it was felt that when the Gateway project, a 420 unit multi-family project also done by Chelsea, was looked at, because of the transit-oriented nature of the Village, that amount of parking was not needed and 2.25 is being recommended for a 3 bedroom units. In addition, Park P12,P5,P4 and P3 are all private parks located behind the private entrances. Public Hearing Opened 8:15 Klm Kilkenny, The Otay Ranch Company, 350 W. Ash Street, San Diego, introduced Kent Aden, Exec. Vice President, and Raney Hunter, Project Manager, and expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts over the past several months in preparing the General Plan Amendment and this plan. Mr. Kilkenny stated that in light of the Commission and City Council recent tour of eastern Chula Vista, which included the Ranch, he will waive going into a discussion on that development, other than to say that they are very pleased and proud with the progress made thus far and the vision that was articulated nine years ago, is coming to fruition. Mr. Kilkenny stated that the main issue he wanted to convey is that The Otay Ranch Company endorses staff's recommendation, even in the one area that staff's report indicates there was a modest disagreement over ten units. The Ranch agrees with the number that staff has indicated; 845 units in Village One West, however, they ask that as they go through the Tentative Map, they be allowed the discretion to indicate where those ten units would be lost. Chair Willett asked for clarification on the term "net usable acres" with regard to school and park sites. Mr. Kilkenny responded affirmatively that contained in the Public Facilities Finance Plan, the contract with th~ District, and the Tentative Map conditions, the term "net usable acres" will be used. The school district will get 10 acres plus, which will be delivered in Village One. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - February 3, 1999 Public Hearing Closed 8:35 MSC (Thomas/Ray) (6-0-0-0) to adopt Resolution PCM 97-11 recommending the City Council approve the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Resolution PCM 98-02 recommending City Council approve the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations and to reduce the number of units to 845 in Village One West. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building, reviewed the upcoming schedule of meetings calendared for February; they are: a regular meeting on February 10 a joint GMOC workshop on February 17 with a presentation by Kent OIson from CTV on the status of SR-125, a presentation on the Olympic Parkway project, and a representative from MTDB will discuss light rail transit planning; and a regular meeting on the February 24. In addition, Mr. Leiter polled the Commission as to their availability to attend the joint GMOC/City Council/Planning Commission annual workshop scheduled for either Monday, March 22nd or Monday, March 29th. Mr. Leiter also reported that the Economic Development Commission has requested to have a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council to talk about the industrial land use policies that were discussed by the Commission a little over a year ago. The date has not been set, but will probably take place sometime in March or April. Lastly, Mr. Leiter, stated that we have not yet received the registration information on the Planners Institute in Monterrey on March 24-26, 1999, however, it would be good to start planning for it and solicited input from the Commission as to who would be interested in attending. Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas and O'Neill expressed interest in attending. COMMISSION ERS COMMENTS: Commissioner Tarantino wished to express his appreciation to Councilmember Davis for any input she may have had in having the padlock removed from the refrigerator in the lounge. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1999. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planr~g Commission