Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-14 PC MINS SCANNED MINUTES OF THE �J PLANNING COMMISSION ate OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue March 14,2012 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL/MOTION TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Spethman, Calvo,Anaya,Vinson, Felber, Livag Members Absent: Moctezuma MSC(Vinson/Felber)(6-0-0-1)to excuse Cmr. Moctezuma. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 11, 2012 MSC(Felber/Vinson)(6-0-0-1)to approve minutes of January 11,2012 as submitted. Motion carried. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Spethman ( 1 ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input CONSENT ITEMS: Director Halbert requested that Item 3 (PCC 09-06 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility) be continued to a date certain of March 28. The Planning Commission accepted the continuance. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Hearing: Consideration of: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 10-09); 2. Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM 10-29) 3. Amendments to the Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 Sectional Planning Area Plan (PCM 10-30) including the Planned Community District Regulations and Village Design Plan to reflect the increase of 197 residential units within Village 2. The project also includes a Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan;and 4. Tentative Map(PCS 11-01)for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road. Cmr. Calvo recused herself from the dais. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 14, 2012 Background: Stan Donn reported that Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC is proposing to add 197 i residential units within Villages 2, 3 and a portion of 4, which would require amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and associated regulatory documents and Tentative Map for Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. During 2006-07, a number of neighborhoods within Village 2 North were graded and partial utilities installed. Due to the economic downturn, the build-out of these parcels was not completed. Based on current market conditions, the product types originally anticipated for these neighborhoods are no longer economically viable, therefore, the applicant is proposing detached single-family homes on lots that are smaller in size and a higher density within the multi-family R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council: 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 10-09) 2. Approve amendments to the OR GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan and regulatory documents 3. Approve Ordinance for amendments to the PC District Regulations& Land Use District Map 4. Approve Resolution for Tentative Map (PCS 11-01)subject to conditions&findings therein Public hearing opened and closed. 6:23:51 PM Ranie Hunter gave an overview of the history what was originally envisioned and what it has evolved into under current .housing trends, new product-type and lending practices. Commission Comments: 6:32:58 PM Cmr. Livag stated he could appreciate the project's design and the developer's due diligence to serve a new home-buyer market, however, he is concerned with the growth management issues that comes with an increase in density. Director Halbert stated that the City's intent is to ensure that infrastructure is phased in a manner that supports upcoming development. He further stated that the City is committed to ensuring that infrastructure can support future increases in density, up to the full build-out of Otay Ranch. Furthermore, he stated that our Growth Management Ordinance provides a safety-net and the ability to impose a moratorium on development until the infrastructure is set in place. MSC (Felber/Vinson)(4-1-1-1)That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council: 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS.10-09) 2. Approve amendments to the OR GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan and regulatory documents 3. Approve Ordinance for amendments to the PC District Regulations&Land Use District Map 4. Approve Resolution for Tentative Map(PCS 11-01)subject to conditions&findings therein. Motion carried with Cmr. Livag voting against it and Cmr. Calvo abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 14, 2012 2. Public Hearing: PCZ 12-02; Consideration to rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west wide of Second Avenue, between I and J Streets,from Single Family Residential (111- 7)to Single-Family Residential (111-15) Background: Steve Power, reported that at the October 20, 2009 City Council meeting, residents from the subject area expressed concern with an application to subdivide a large lot in that area because of the effects that such infill projects could have on the character of the neighborhood. In November of 2009, at the directive of the City Council, staff mailed out a survey to the affected property owners to evaluate their interest in having their parcels down-zoned from R1-7 (1 S-F dwelling per 7,000 sf lot) to R1-15 ( 1 S-F dwelling per 15,000 sf lot). At the same time, the property owners circulated their own petition requesting that the City down-zone their parcels. The results of both the petition and the survey indicated that 12 out of 21 property owners indicated a willingness to down-zone their properties to R1-15. In 2011, concerned residents again surveyed property owners in the area and submitted to the City the signatures of the majority(14 out of 21) who are in favor of the rezone. On November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezone to change the existing 111-7 zone to R1-15 for the west side of the 600 block of Second Avenue. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ 12-02, recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Map Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single-family lots located in the 600 block and west side of Second Avenue, from an existing 111-7 to R1-15 Zone, � based on the findings contained therein. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Spethman stated that he did a visual assessment of the target area and noted that many of the lots already have more than one residence on them; he was curious to know how many of those owners, who signed the petition in favor of the down-zone, have already had the benefit of subdividing their lot. A discussion ensued regarding the breakdown of signatures on the petition; who were in support, who were against and who were non-responsive. They also discussed the practicality of excluding from the four who were against the rezone Public Hearing Opened: 7:03:52 PM Corinne McCall, 642 Second Avenue, gave a presentation consisting of information obtained from the property printouts containing lot sizes and accompanied by photographs of each parcel in the subject area. Ms. McCall stressed that this is one of the most historic neighborhoods in Chula Vista with large lots that are very lucrative for developers to buy and subdivide them to their fullest capacity. She urged the Commission to recommend approval of the rezone. The following individuals addressed the Commission and spoke in support of the rezone: Peter Watry, Glenda De Vaney, and Eric Fotiadi. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 14, 2012 y Commission Comments: Cmr. Felber stated he understood the concerns with preserving the character of the neighborhood; yet struggled with the property rights of the four who oppose the downzone, while three of them had already split their lot and the one remaining who hadn't yet subdivided his lot. Cmr. Felber asked staff if there was any other option that could be considered. Mr. Halbert stated that the other option would be to designate it a Historic District, however, in many ways that could be more onerous for a property owner within that district because it could affect such things as architecture design and even down to the color of paint you can use. Staff did consider a historic district and since this is Council-driven it's being done under the General Fund. Setting up a historic district would be far more expensive to process than a rezone, which is a fairly simple thing to do. Steve Power clarified that the original survey conducted by staff in 2009 has been superseded by the latest survey conducted by the proponents and is the basis by which the City Council then directed staff in 2011 to proceed with the rezone. Cmr. Anaya stated he is appreciative of the efforts to preserve the history of our City, yet the property rights issue weighed heavy on him. He would have liked to have seen a more complete and objective survey conducted by staff with disclosure as to the reasons why there was opposition. Cmr. Calvo stated she is an ardent supporter of preserving the historical element of this area and also served on the Historic Advisory Committee, however,she doesn't believe that rezoning is a vehicle to preserving the character of a neighborhood. She too shares some of the concerns previously stated with regard to infringing upon individual property rights. Cmr. Livag stated he understood the minority's rights, but the majority have rights as well and if the majority would rather downzone to 111-15,their rights should be equally weighed. He offered a compromise to split the block and have the parcels south of 626 be rezoned to R1-15 and that from parcel 626 and to the north remain 111-7. Cmr.Spethman stated this is a difficult dilemma because he doesn't want to take away property rights even of one individual who opposes the rezone. He indicated that perhaps he would be a bit more sanguine about this issue were it not for the fact that the majority of the proponents have already taken advantage of their ability to subdivide under current statutes and now want to downzone irrespective of a minority who oppose. Cmr.Vinson concurs with issues over property rights and would've liked to have staff walk the neighborhood and personally speak with as many property owners as possible. MSC(Vinson/Anaya) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny the rezone. Cmr. Livag offered an amendment to the motion recommending that the parcels starting with 626 to the north up to I Street remain 111-7 and the parcels south of 626 to J Street be rezoned to 131-15. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 14, 2012 Attorney Shirey clarified the proper order of action to consider Cmr. Livag's amendment and also asked for clarification from staff as to the legality of doing "spot-zoning". Director Halbert clarified that staff would not be concerned with Cmr. Livag's proposed amendment because it would be contiguous to R1-7,therefore, would not be considered "spot-zoning". Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Spethman called for the question. MSC(Vi nson/Anaya)(5-1-0-1)that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny the rezone. Motion carried with Cmr. Livag voting against it. Adjournment: To a regular Planning Commission.meeting on March 28, 2012. Submitted by: Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission '� i