Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2003/06/11 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 11, 2003 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Hall, Madrid, O'Neill, Cortes, Hom, Felber Absent: Castaneda Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III Dawn Van Boxtel, Associate Planner Michael Walker, Associate Planner MSC (Madrid/Cortes) (6-0) to excuse Commissioner Castaneda. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Hall APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 2003 MSC (Hail/O'Neill) (4-0-1-2) to approve minutes of May 14, 2003 as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioners Madrid and Horn abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 01-02; Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code (Title 19) to define and provide local provisions for surface mining operations within the City of Chula Vista. Background: Dawn Van Boxtel, Associate Planner stated that for the Commission's consideration is an ordinance revising the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which involves amending Section 19.04 (Definitions), and Section19.54 (Classified Uses). In addition, a ^ - - --- ".---....- -" "_._..".._.~-_.._-~--- Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 11, 2003 new chapter will be added (19.69), establishing a process for reviewing proposed surface mining operations and sets standards for reclamation of mine lands. The ordinance amendments will: · Add a chapter to Title 19 providing definitions for mining-related terminology and establishing a process for reviewing surface mining operations. · Set standards for Reclamation of mined lands to ensure the lands are restores to a suitable condition. · Establish a process for reviewing and approving financial assurances, which will ensure reclamation is completed in accordance with approved Reclamation Plans. · Establish a process for regular inspection of mined lands to ensure continuing compliance with the Conditional Use Permit and the Reclamation Plan. · Allow the City to become the lead agency for monitoring the existing surface mining operations within the City boundary. The adoption of this ordinance is required by the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, which requires all Cities that have surface mines within their jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance in accordance with State policy. The ordinance would establish procedures for the review and approval of a reclamation plans, financial assurance, and the issuance of permits to conduct surface mining operations. Ms. Van Boxtel further indicated that the State sent her a change to the language where the annual inspection is discussed, recommending that it be changed from "an annual inspection" to a "once per calendar year" inspection. Ms. Van Boxtel also reported that she was in receipt of a letter faxed on June 11 th from Mr. Marvin Howell, of Hanson Aggregates stating that in general, they are in supportive of the ordinance. Mr. Howell's raised the following points in his letter. Point #1 Mr. Howell pointed out that the operator should not have to go through the expense of a public hearing for modifications to the financial assurance. Response: Section 19.69.090 Item (e.) states that revision to financial assurances are to be submitted to the Director of Planning and Building thereby allowing administrative review Point #2 Estimated costs for completion of each phase of reclamation. Response: The language is the same as the model ordinance provided by the State. Staff is open if revisions need to be made to it. Point #3 land be reclaimed to a condition that is compatible with....natural environment, topography and other resources. Operator should be provided the opportunity to suggest other types of reclamation. -- ---- - - --_._._._----_.."....__._--_.._-,---,_.".,~-----_.._..------- Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - June 11, 2003 Response: Staff agrees that the language could probably be expanded to allow reclamation to not just be restoration to habitat, but to allow for future use development. Point #4 The ordinance does not allow for minor deviations that could be approved administratively. Adoption of an allowance for Director of Planning and Building approval of minor deviations to the Reclamation Plan will reduce redundant and costly governmental oversight, while also insuring that the reclamation plan is fully implemented. Response: It is staff's intend to handle this as an unclassified use, which require both Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Any modifications to the approved Conditional Use Permit would also have to come back to the reviewing bodies. Point #5 Payment of inspection fee. No fee amount is listed. Response: Currently an amendment to the fee schedule is being developed, which will include establishing an inspection fee. Typically, fees are not included in our ordinances. Point #6 Identifies an Interim Management Plan as an amendment to the reclamation, but does not say how it would be approved. An allowance for administrative approval of the IMP should be provided. Response: This Is similar to #4 in that an interim management plan is considered an amendment to the reclamation plan and would have to then go through whatever procedure is set up for the amendments. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 01-02 recommending City Council approve the proposed ordinance amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.04 and 19.54, and adding Chapter 19.69. Public Hearing Opened 6:35. Marvin Howell, Hanson Aggregates, P.O. Box 639069, San Diego, CA 92163 stated he was satisfied with staff's responses to his letter. He clarified that under Point #4 when he addresses the minor changes, it is his understanding that it is to the reclamation plan, not to a Conditional Use Permit. He further stated that other jurisdictions he's worked in have provisions for an administrative approval. Mr. Howell spoke of his experience where the reclamation plan called for hydroseeding a certain plant species, which to their surprise failed to thrive in the type of soil they ,'-,-_._- -- --------.----,.-.-..-. _.'_mm ._~..._ n.' ___._______,________ _. __ n_'___ ·'_·_·______,_"w____.__._.. _.___'__ _,. ._.~...__ ----....'-.-...'--,...-.-----------..,---- Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - June 11, 2003 were replanting. After successive failed attempts, they decided to have the soil tested and found that the plant species was inappropriate for that type of soi I. Under this scenario, a change to the reclamation plan is appropriately handled by an administrative decision. He pointed out that minor changes and/or deviations from the reclamation plan ought to be handled administratively and not have to go through a public hearing, both for expediency, saving of time and money for both the reviewing body and applicant. Public Hearing Closed 7:40. Elizabeth Hull reviewed the points raised in Mr. Howell's letter, clarifying that financial assurances must be approved by the City Council. She also clarified the difference between possible modifications to a reclamation plan and annual reviews. The ordinance requires an annual review, and modifications could be required based on the progress of the reclamation work done at the site. That annual review does not require a public hearing. Ms. Hull pointed out that during Mr. Howell's comments, he referenced that it was a reclamation plan and not a CUP; she clarified that under our ordinance, it would be handled as a Conditional Use Permit, with the vesting rights that go along with and the authority that the City has to enforce and modify CUPS. With regard to the change in plant species scenario presented by Mr. Howell, it would be possible to either include in the ordinance or in the actual CUP, substantial conformance language similar to what is used in Tentative Maps that would give the Director of Planning and Building the ability to make that short of a change. MSC (O'Neill/Hail) (6-0-0-1) adopt Resolution PCA 01-02 recommending City Council: · Approve the proposed ordinance amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.04 and 19.54, · Add Chapter 19.69. · Direct staff to include the substantial conformance language as a condition associated with the Conditional Use Permit, and · Include modification in language from "annual inspection" to, "once per calendar year." Motion carried. ...._ _ ...______ _.'_ u....__ --.- ....__.~...- Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - June 11, 2003 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-55; Conditional Use Permit to allow a second-story addition, which includes an attic, to a single-family dwelling that exceeds the allowed height limit in the R-1 Zone. The project site is located at 626 Second Avenue. Applicant: Joseph Bustamante. Commissioner O'Neill recused himself from the dais. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director informed the Commission that the City Attorney and he met with the applicant prior to the start of the meeting recommending to him that one possible course of action would be to facilitate mediation between the interested parties, and that the City would be willing to pay for the mediation. Unfortunately, Mr. Bustamante will be unavailable until after October, therefore, mediation won't be possible. Background: Michael Walker, Associate Planner stated that the department received four faxed letters requesting a continuance of this item because a number of neighbors would not be able to attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Walker reported that this item was continued from the May 28th Planning Commission meeting, at which time the Commission directed staff to take an inventory of the non-historic homes that could potentially exceed the height limit. Staff followed through with that directive and conducted a site visit as well as researched building records for homes in that vicinity. Staff did not find any homes that were non-historic that exceed the height limit. Mr. Walker corrected a statement in his memo that indicates that the house located at 611 Second Avenue is non-historic and exceeds the height limit; this is incorrect, the house is historic. Mr. Walker further stated that the applicant has revised the plans and is lowering the height from the requested 34 ft. to 32 ft. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 03-55 based on the findings and conditions contained therein. Discussion: Chair Hall stated he was is in receipt of a number of letters requesting a continuance of this item. He further clarified that at the previous meeting of May 28th, it was determine that this item would be continued to a date certain of June 11th. ~._--_..--. -. . - '~--------'-~"--"-~~----"-"-----'-"--'-- - -- --- -_._.._.._---_..,_._-_.._----_.-----~._- Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - June 11, 2003 Chair Hall queried the Commission on their desire to continue this item. The consensus was that this item was continued to a date certain, and most like no new testimony or information that has not already been heard would be disclosed, therefore, the Commission will hear the item and make a determination tonight. Public Hearing: Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, applicant's representative stated he grew up in this older area of Chula Vista, which was made up of groves with houses of different sizes and varying styles, and believes the proposed project would be in synch with the eclectic characteristic of this neighborhood. He further stated that, in his opinion, the crux of this debate, is whether the properties are large enough to accommodate a larger scale house. This proposal, in his opinion, fits the neighborhood and the lot size. It is Mr. Bustamante's desire to have a larger-scale house with an orchard in the back. Mr. O'Neill further stated that he worked with the applicant and his architect in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were raised and they were able to cut two feet from the height of the building. He urged the Commission to approve the proposal. Imozelle McVeigh, 644 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA stated that according to her understanding there are certain findings that need to be made in granting a Conditional Use Permit; one would be that the proposed site would contribute to the general well- being of the community, and the other finding would be that it does not adversely affect the General Plan. She pointed out that one of the goals of the City's General Plan is to protect and preserve the City's most important historic resources through a comprehensive approach to historic preservation. As noted earlier, this is a historic neighborhood and buildings impact upon each other. Ms. McVeigh further stated that the proposed site will neither contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood nor the community and urged the Commission to deny th is project. Chair Hall asked Ms. McVeigh if, in her opinion, the present condition of the property does not adversely affect the aesthetic value of the historic area. Ms. McVeigh responded that, in her opinion, it does affect it, but its "salvageable". Her concern is that a large, oversized project for that size of lot is not so salvageable. If Mr. Bustamante would reduce the height to what is allowed in the regulations (28 feet); they could live with that. Corrine McCall, 642 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA clarified that the reason for her request to continue this item was not just for the people who wouldn't be able to attend ~, .. ..~ ----~--,_._-_....._...._--_._,,_.._.- - ._~---- ..... - _._._._._..._.,.,..__....~-_.,-_.._--_._- Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - June 11, 2003 tonight's meeting, but also to allow her time to review the findings contained in staff's report. She pointed out that in doing her research she found that the 611 Second Avenue home was, in fact, a historic home, which staff's report indicates it was not. Furthermore, she stated that a precedence has been set in upholding the height limit, and that is the Russo home at 165 Murray, which the City required him to lower the height to 28 feet. Ms. McCall stated that designing a 4,000 sf house on a narrow 60 foot lot is neither desirable nor will it contribute to the well-being of the community. She expressed concern with the presentation made by the applicant's representative at the previous meeting. Chair Hall acknowledged her concerns and stated that according to the meeting protocol, with the City Attorney's concurrence, the presentation was appropriate. Eric Fotiadi, 3241 5th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92103, architect, discussed the roof-top architectural element described in staff's report. He suggested that perhaps a mansard roof (flat-top roof) instead of a peak roof could achieve the desired lower height. Public Hearing closed 7:25. Commissioner Madrid commended the applicant for his desire to upgrade his property. She also stated that currently the City is focused on updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is currently in a position of working toward creating a model for that neighborhood and hopefully creating the best balanced, well-planned community. Cmr. Madrid stated that, in her opinion, the proposal is over-sized, too close to the street, and she cannot, in good conscience, support granting the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Cortes, stated that there are many examples throughout the City, of neighborhoods whose very character is comprised precisely of diverse styles and are not cookie-cutter homes, therefore, he is in support of this project. Commissioner Horn stated that the project would be a great improvement over what is currently existing there and for this reason be believes this would be beneficial to the neighborhood, therefore, he is going to support the proposal. Commissioner Felber stated he was somewhat familiar with the building history of the Russo house because he lived in the area at the time when he was going through the building process. He asked if staff had any information on how it was that Mr. Russo was required to comply with the building height requirement. "--- ___ ____ _._om ._,._._~_.._._______.._ Planning Commission Minutes - 8 . June 11, 2003 Mr. Walker responded that there were other non-compliance issues involved in this case and the height limit was only one of them. His research found that there was a variance request to increase the lot coverage. With regards to the height, he found no information other than he originally requested to exceed the height limit and was required to be at the height limit of 28 feet. Elizabeth Hull clarified that Conditional Use Permits and Variances are heard on an individual basis. Each case is to be reviewed on its own merit based on the facts that are presented and a determination is made as to whether the findings can be made to grant the CUP. Prior actions on other applications are not relevant to the decision at hand. Cmr. Felber stated he is going to support the proposal because, in his opinion, four feet above the height limit would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Furthermore, he is disheartened that that part of Chula Vista has deteriorated from when he lived in the area, therefore, any improvements made to the property ought to be welcomed and would only help to bring up property values in the area. Chair Hall stated that he appreciated the applicant's desire to upgrade his property and his willingness to modify the design by lowering the height in order to address some of the concerns raised by the area residents, however, he reluctantly will not support the approval of this project because, in his opinion, there is a height compatibility issue. MSC (Cortes/Horn) (3-2-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-03-55 based on the finding and conditions contained therein. No action; Commissioners Madrid and Hall opposing the motion. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2003. ~~ - Diana Vargas, Secretary to PI~ Commission "__"M~' ,. ._.~,,_ ._.........._.._... ____.________~__._ -----"._-----,---._--",---+..,-----, __,_..,._._..,,'_.__,_..__.__..._~_,..,'__._._______._.____,____._·,__··___._"'_____,_,._._.m_'___._