Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2007/12/12 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. December 12, 2007 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Member Absent: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Spethman Clayton 6:07:24 PM INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. CONSENT ITEMS: 6:09:51 PM MSC (Vinson/Spethman) to place item No.1 (Concordia Luther Church) on the consent agenda. Cmr. Tripp stated that, in his opinion, it would be productive to have the discussion of item NO.2 (Role of DRC) in advance of item NO.1 (Concordia Church). Cmr. Bensoussan asked for clarification if Chair Tripp's intent was not to place the Concordia Church item on consent agenda, but rather to just take it out of order, and stated that she feels it would be beneficial to hear the item. Cmr. Tripp responded affirmatively and asked if the maker of the motion would consider withdrawing it. Motion withdrawn. 2. Discussion: Role and responsibility of Design Review Committee. Background: Jim Hare gave a presentation on the roles and responsibilities of the Design Review Committee as defined in the Municipal Code and the Planning and Building Department's internal procedural policies for taking projects through the entitlement process. Commission Discussion: 6:39:28 PM Cmr. Bensoussan pointed out that the handout that was given to the Commission tonight, is a download of the DRC's web page, which states under Role and Function of the DRC, "... this committee serves as an advisory board to the Planning Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - December 12,2007 Commission, City Council and Redevelopment Agency...". Additionally, during the presentation, staff stated that "... the DRC recommendation is forwarded to the Planning Commission... ". In her opinion, these two statements imply and reinforce the point that the Commission has been making all along; that there is a benefit to following a process which leads to the Planning Commission receiving a recommendation or decision from the DRC to assist is their deliberation of a project. A Planning Commission review of a project ought not to precede the DRC's review of the same project. David Miller stated that he understands where the ambiguity may come from, i.e. what is posted on the web site contradicting what the Code says, but the reality is that even if the web site states something, which is inconsistent with what the Code says, the Code trumps the web site. 6:43:52 PM Jim Hare stated that staff considers information or the outcome of a DRC decision to be valuable and at all times will share that information in the staff report to the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission is acting on something that is independent from a design review approval, i.e. a CUP with findings, even though there may be a relationship in terms of the appearance of a building, the Code does not see it as essential advice such that it would be an obligation that it go to DRC first. Cmr. Bensoussan stated that one could make the same case with the recommendation from the RCC, which always accompanies environmental documents that come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hare responded that the code is very clear on the role of the RCC in that it acts on the completion of environmental documents, which by law must be completed prior to the Planning Commission certifying the document's completion and recommending to the City Council its adoption. 6:46:08 PM Cmr. Felber clarified for his own understanding that even though a procedural document contradicts the Municipal Code, the Code would ultimately be the governing document. Mr. Hare reaffirmed that the Municipal Code is the governing document and it exists for the fair treatment of all individuals who approach government for a decision and has protections built into it for the neighborhood, environment and the applicant. Mr. Miller added that in the absence of a process, cities generally, through their Municipal Code, often give direction for processes to be created outside of the Municipal Code. Not having done the research, this is something that he could look into to determine whether or not our Code would grant the ability to create such processes. Cmr. Felber stated that he would like to see codified or a procedural policy document that states that projects first go to DRC, with a caveat stating that if there is a unique circumstance or hardship, at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building, an exception to that sequence in process could be made. A good example would be the case of the Concordia Lutheran Church, being a non-profit and not wanting to go through the expense of design review only to receive a non-approval vote from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - December 12, 2007 6:57:51 PM Cmr. Vinson stated that the Commission consensus has been that they want to have as much information about a project, including the DRC's comments, to make an informed decision and to have answers at hand when approached with questions. 6:59:41 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that she concurs with her fellow commissioners and asked, from a procedural standpoint, what recourse does the applicant have should they not want to go to ORC. Mr. Hare responded that formally, they would ask for a denial, stating that they do not wish to submit a DRC application, that way they can move forward with the appeal process to the City Council. Furthermore, Mr. Hare stated that staff is in complete agreement with the Commission that having the ORC's expertise adds value to the decision that the Commission will render. When there are projects that have an obligation to the DRC approval, staff makes every effort that they go there first. However, it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to make a determination to send something to the DRC to get the benefit of their expertise, when a DRC approval is not required. Mr. Hare further stated that if after review of the code there is latitude to set up those procedural policies and processes, it would be appropriate at that time to set up a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and DRC to establish what those processes will entail. It would certainly also be appropriate to ask for the DRC's opinion on this lead process. The way the code reads right now, it isn't clear that one commission is subordinate to the other and it would also be fair to state that the DRC might just as well like to know first if a CUP is approved before they spend too much time evaluating, such things as the curvature of arches, roof pitches, landscape plans, and the like. 7:03:53 PM Cmr. Spethman concurs that it's tremendously helpful and gives them reassurance when projects have gone through DRC. Understanding that the Planning Commission looks at land use issues, in his opinion, part of land use is circulation, siting, and to a certain extent architecture. His recommendation would be that the Municipal Code be changed to reflect the duties and responsibilities that are stated in the City's web site for the DRC. 7:08:59 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she believes she speaks for everyone on the Commission in saying that they all highly value and respect the expertise and opinions of the DRC. Having said that, she is also concerned that delays have occurred because the DRC has problems with meeting a quorum, so the meetings end up being cancelled. Perhaps this is due to the DRC being comprised of only five members as opposed to most other Commissions that are comprised of seven or more members. Ms. Bensoussan remembers a time when the Planning Commission had a number of vacancies, and they too were experiencing problems in meeting a quorum. Perhaps this is something that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the higher powers to look into expanding the membership of the DRC from five to seven. Mr. Miller stated that there is merit to Cmr. Bensoussan's recommendation however as a point of clarification, if there are delays due to lack of a quorum of the ORe, the applicant has the right to request that their item be reviewed by another body in order to move it forward in the process and not delay it any further. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - December 12, 2007 7:21 :54 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that the Commission has been clear with their message of wanting DRC comments before items go before the Planning Commission. Having said that, he directed staff to move forward in researching and scheduling a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and DRC at their earliest convenience. 7:22:06 PM Mr. Hare stated that the Planning and Building Department is undergoing evaluating process improvements as a result of the department's assumption of the Planning duties because of the reorganization of the Development Services Departments, including processes involving CVRC. To summarize, the four key threads of discussion tonight have been: . There is consensus that the Commission wishes to see DRC consideration come first . A request that the City Attorney and/or staff look at provisions in the code to modify or create processes . The possibility of amending the code to include specific processes, and . The possibility of increasing the number of members on the DRC Mr. Hare indicated that he would be passing these recommendations along to the Director of Planning and Building, and the Assistant Planning. Most likely there would be updates on the progress being made and once the information is finalized, there would be a joint workshop of the DRC and Planning Commission. 1. Public Hearing: Consideration of the applications filed by Brookfield-Shea Otay, LLC, to develop 3.9 acre Concordia Lutheran Church site, located at 267 East Oxford Street: . PCZ 07-08; a rezone from the R-1-7 Single Family Residential Zone to the R-1-5-P Single Family Residential Zone, with a Precise Plan Modifying District; . PCM 08-02; a Precise Plan to establish Precise Plan development standards, architectural and landscape design guidelines; . PCS 07-07; a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 3.9 acres into 24 residential and 2 open space lots, served by a new public residential street. Chair Tripp thanked the applicant for their indulgence and patience in taking the items out of order. The Chair asked if it was still the Commission's pleasure to place this item on the Consent Agenda. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - December 12, 2007 MSC (Vinson/Spethman) (6-0-0-1) that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda and that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ 07-08; PCM 08-02; and PCS 07- 07; recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS 07-31; and adopt the Draft City Council Resolution and Draft Ordinance, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Motion carried. 7:33:50 PM Adjourned to a Special Planning Commission meeting on December 18, 2007. Submitted by Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission