Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-28 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 28, 2004 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Castañeda, Madrid, O'Neill, Hall, Cortes, Horn, Felber Absent: None Staff Present: Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III Raymond Pe, Senior Planner Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Castañeda APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2004 MSC (Felber/Horn) (5-0-0-2) to approve minutes of April 14, 2004 as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioners O'Neill and Castañeda abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-10; Auto Park East Specific Plan for the easterly expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park on Main Street. Background: Raymond Pe reported that the Auto Park East Specific Plan is located on 31 acres, east of the existing 24-acre auto park, and is located in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The project has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along Main Street. The Otay River and the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park are located to the south of the project. The Specific Plan allows the easterly expansion of the existing auto park and would result in the improvement of vacant, under-used land, as well as expand commerce and employment. The Plan also ensures the comprehensive development of the project site in relation to the existing auto park, improvements along Main Street and necessary infrastructure. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 28, 2004 At least 75% of the project site must be developed with new dealerships and no more than 25% can be developed with supporting uses, I.e. service stations, car washes, auto park stores and restaurants. New dealerships would be required to occupy at least 60% of the frontage along Main Street. The Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines such as, lot size and configuration, lot coverage, building height, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signage, walls and fences. Additionally, a trail easement is required and would be located within the southern project boundary for trail purposes related to the adjacent proposed Otay Valley Regional Park. The exact location is not specified because at the present time there is no specific development proposal. The trail easement is a fall- back measure if for some reason a trail cannot be located within the park itself. A major issue identified with this proposal is its proximity to the Otay River to the south. Although the underlying zone for this property is Industrial, and as such, does not require a rear setback, which would be along the river, the Specific Plan will supercede that and is requiring a 60 foot setback from the property line. In addition, a 30 foot setback would be required from the top of any slope, ensuring an adequate buffer along the future Regional Park boundary. Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager stated that based on the Initial Study that was conducted in accordance with CEQA, it was determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. As a result, the applicant agreed to revise the project in order to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a less than significant impact, therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 02-010). Due to the site's proximity to the Otay Valley Regional Park and the MSCP, the following issues were addressed: trails, human encroachment, invasive species, urban run-off, water quality, noise and lighting. On October 20, 2003, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the MND and Initial Study and determined that the IS was adequate and recommended that the MND be adopted. The RCC raise concern that the cumulative traffic mitigation measure does not indicate when the measure will be implemented. The mitigation measure states that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute to the Traffic Development Impact Fund toward the construction of a second westbound left-turn lane to be provided at the Main Street/l-805 southbound ramp intersection. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 020- 10 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 28, 2004 based on the findings and conditions contained therein and introduce an Ordinance to approve the Auto Park East Specific Plan. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Madrid inquired if there was going to be any soil testing before grading begins. Marilyn Ponseggi responded that the reports that are on the record, indicate that the soils are clean. However, there will be on-site monitoring when grading begins and should any unforeseen development take place, it will be properly addressed at such time. Cmr. Felber inquired if the 30-foot setback on the building pad was where construction of the building would begin or would that be where a roadway could be constructed. Mr. Pe responded that the 30-foot setback is a building setback and potentially you could have circulation around the building within the 30-foot buffer zone. Cmr. Castaneda stated that since the Tentative Subdivision Map has not yet been submitted, he urged staff to recommend that for security purposes, any road circulation around the property be designated a private road. Public Hearing Opened 6:25. John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chair of the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee stated that neither he nor any of the members of the OVRPCAC oppose the location of the auto park, however, they do object to locating the trail on the top of the building pad. Mr. Willett further stated that the concept plan, which extends from the Bay to the Otay Lakes calls for all trails to be located above the 100 year flood plain . Their strong recommendation is to have the trail located at the bottom of the slope and above the flood plain. Mr. Willett also stated that a big concern of the committee is lighting. The committee strongly recommends that the light standards have a shield to deflect glare and minimize lighting impacts. Mr. Guerrero pointed out that the MND addresses the lighting issue and includes a requirement stating that lighting will be oriented and shielded to reduce light intrusion. Public Hearing Closed 6:35. Cmr. Cortes stated he too shares the concerns raised by Mr. Willett and indicated that Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 28, 2004 the concept plan for the trail system is designed to co-exist in a natural setting away from any urbanization, therefore, he strongly recommends that the trail be located at the bottom of the slope, above the flood plain. Cmr. Cortes further stated that when the time comes to review landscaping plans, that staff ensure that it require native plant materials and adequate screening of the project site. MSC (Hail/O'Neill) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 02- 10 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the Auto Park East Specific Plan, and introduce an Ordinance to approve the Auto Park East Specific Plan. Motion carried. MSC (Madrid/Horn) (7-0) recommending that when the nature trail goes through the Otay River Valley Regional Park that the recòmmended location first be taken to that Advisory Commission for approval before coming to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Public hearing reopened for discussion of an amended motion. MSC (Hall/Madrid) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt resolution PCM 02- 10 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the Auto Park East Specific Plan, and introduce an Ordinance to approve the Auto Park East Specific Plan, with the following additional recommendation: . Amending Section 3 of the Development Standards, Subsection F. regarding Landscaping to require landscaping plans be consistent with the Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review Committee for design review and also to the OVRP CAC for consideration. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 03-16; Consideration of a Variance to allow a O-ft. side yard setback for a carport addition to an existing residence located at 520 Glover Avenue. Background: Jeff Steichen reported that the proposal is a request for a variance to allow a carport structure to encroach into the side-yard setback. The project setting consists of a 50 X 190 foot lot with a single-family dwelling on the front half of the lot, an existing single car garage and driveway with a proposed 325 sf carport, which will encroach into the side-yard setback along the northern property line. The variance request came as a result of a citation because the carport had been constructed without any building permits. Subsequently, the applicant was informed Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 28, 2004 that the structure encroached into the side yard setback. The existing carport will be torn down or otherwise modified in order to achieve architectural compatibility with the existing residence and will be conditioned to comply with all requirements and obtain all of the necessary permits from the Building Division. Presently, all new R3 properties are required to have a minimum 65 foot wide lot with a 5-foot building setback measured from the side property line. This property measures 50 feet, therefore, staff believes that there is a hardship created by this substandard lot width, which would necessitate the variance that is being requested. Based on field inspection and information provided by the residents in this area, there is congestion on the street caused by excessive on-street parking, therefore, the construction of the carport will encourage off-street parking and improve the appearance of the neighborhood. In order to compensate for the 5 foot reduction in building separation on the adjacent parcel, the property owner to the north has indicated their willingness to grant a 5 foot wide "no build" easement along their south side property line. The project would be condition to require the adjacent property owner to record the easement. Staff Recommendation: Thatthe Planning Commission adopt Resolution ZA V 03-16 approving the variance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Madrid inquired why the carport is so high and if they were using it to store a motor-home. Mr. Steichen responded that when they were cited by Code Enforcement, they were storing a motor-home. Staff believes that the height would be compatible with the existing residence, however, if it's the Commission's desires, the project could be conditioned to reduce the height of the carport. Cmr. Horn stated he had the opportunity to speak with Mrs. Pickrel, the adjacent property owner to the north where the "no-build" easement would be located, and she was under the impression that that area was not even part of her property. He questioned whether she is fully cognizant of the circumstances to be able to make an informed decision about her property. Cmr. Felber stated that the report indicated that one of the considerations that staff used in recommending approval is that this would help alleviate the on-street parking, and inquired if the single car garage is used to park a vehicle. Public Hearing Opened. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 28, 2004 Dr. Turullols gave an overview of the property's history as it relates to age of the house, substandard lot width, garage, landscaping. He indicated that the single-car garage to the rear of the property has a 5 foot side yard setback and as such it is very difficult to maneuver a vehicle into it, therefore, it is not used for parking a vehicle. Mr. Turullols further stated that the carport was intentionally built high in order to park the motor vehicle. Delia Diaz, tenant and applicant's sister-in-law, spoke in support of the proposal and urged the Commission to approve the variance. Fernando Cabral, tenant, spoke about the parking problem that exists on Glover St. and how difficult it is for him to find parking on the street in front of his house when he gets home from work. The carport allows them to tandemly park their motor home, plus two vehicles. He urged the Commission to approve the variance. Public Hearing Closed. Cmr. Horn inquired, should the Commission approve the variance, what would be the procedure to inform Mrs. Pickrel about having the necessary documents drawn up and recorded regarding the "no-build" easement. Mr. Hernandez responded that one of the conditions is that the applicant obtain a no- build easement, and the applicant will be asked to submit the recorded easement prior to issuance of building permits to construct the carport. Elizabeth Hull clarified that Condition #4 specifies "....shall record the granting of the "no-build" easement.....A copy of the executed and recorded deeds for both properties shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to approval of building permits." Cmr. O'Neill stated that, in his opinion, this is a "win ¡lose" situation with Mrs. Pickrel being on the losing side with the "no-build" easement recorded on her property because should this property be sold, it could potentially translate into a financial loss. Furthermore, there is no sense of proportion to the existing residence with the length and height of the proposed carport, which is clearly to be used for storage of the motor home. Cmr. Hall stated that Cmr. O'Neill's comments are valid, however, the sub-standard lot dimensions is what prompted the request for the variance, and although the proposal is not aesthetically pleasing, in his opinion, the applicant is entitled to the same property rights possessed by other people in the same zoning district, therefore, he is inclined to su pport the project. MSC (Hall ) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution ZAV 03-16 Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 28, 2004 approving Variance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Motion failed for lack of a second. The Commission directed staff to consult with Mrs. Pickrel to explain any miscommunication and clarify to her what the meaning is of recording a "no-build" easement on her property. MSC (Cortes/Hall) (7-0) that the Planning Commission continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on May 1 ih, in order to allow time for staff and the applicant to clarify the issues surrounding the "no-build" easement with Mrs. Pickrel. Motion carried. 3. REPORT: Code Enforcement Program Bob Vacchi, Code Enforcement Manager, gave an overview of the Code Enforcement Program. He indicated that part of the program enhancements has been to add two new Code Enforcement Officers who went into the Community Improvement Program Element to help with pro-active enforcement and one new Code Enforcement Technician has gone into the housing element to help with the Motel and Apartment Inspection Program and the future Mobilehome Inspection Program. Mr. Vacchi further stated that they have implement geographic beats, dividing the City into four areas, which assigns one Code Enforcement Officer to two beats, and whether they are doing pro-active or reactive enforcement, they're always in the same area. The Section has been reorganized into two program areas (community improvement and housing) and established pro-active enforcement in both housing and traditional code enforcement. There is now better interdepartmental coordination, with a Planner assigned as a liaison to assist in code enforcement cases and interpretation of the code and also established the Code Enforcement Advisory Group that includes members from most departments in the City that would have issues with Code Enforcement, i.e. Public Works, Police Department, Community Development. Enhancements to the program, the "to-do-list" is proactive business license enforcement to ensure that uses are in the proper areas. Additionally, inspecting conformance with Conditional Use Permits by doing a final inspection to ensure that CUP's are following all of the conditions and follow-up one year later to ensure that the conditions are being complied with. Another program enhancement is automation with hand-held units to be used by the CE Officers, which allows them to do note-taking and research in the field. Additionally, Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - April 28, 2004 a "soft uniform" policy has been implementing to help identify our staff in the field, which consists of the City Logo and Code Enforcement embroidered on the shirts. The overall program objective is to: 0 Build a positive neighborhood presence 0 Become a community resource 0 Establish long-term community partnerships with homeowners associations, business associations, neighborhood residents 0 Enhance interdepartmental coordination 0 Modify ordinances, policies and procedures to enable our continued success ADJOURNMENT at 7:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004. ~ - Diana Vargas, secret~ning Commission