Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2008/01/09MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue January 9, 2008 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: 18:07:07 ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman Read into the record by Chair Tripp MSC (Felber/Spethman) (6-0-0-1) to approve minutes of November 14, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried. MSC (Felber/Spethman) (5-0-1-1) to approve minutes of December 18, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. Public Hearing: PCC 07-46; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a permanent recycling center inside existing industrial buildings at 3630 Main Street, in the Limited Industrial (IL) Zone. 18:09:37Background: Maria Muett reported that the applicant, Mike's Recycling, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a recycling center where all business operations and processing would primarily occur inside two existing industrial buildings. The site contains a 7,000 sf prefabricated metal industrial building with a 1,000 sf office area, and a 3,240 sf metal storage shed. No additional buildings or any physical development is proposed and enhancements will be painting, parking lot repair and minor landscaping. The project would maintain 44 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirement of 13 spaces. The hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. The 1.49-acre project site is accessed off of Main Street by a private 32 foot wide easement, a portion of which runs across a parcel owned by MTS. The site is Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January 9, 2008 adjacent to residential land to the north, MTS vehicle storage and operations facility to the south and east, storage facility to the east and an elementary school to the west. A noise study was conducted recycling center, i.e., customer recycling operation and dumping, not identify noise impacts to playground, nor did it identify mitigation measures. analyzing all noise generated by the proposed vehicles, trucks, vendors, equipment operation, forklifts and auxiliary uses. The noise analysis did sensitive receptors i.e. residential and school any significant noise impacts that would require For the record, Ms. Muett reported that an opposition letter was received from the Metropolitan Transit System. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC 07-46 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. Commission Questions: 18:20:56 Cmr. Spethman inquired if staff or the applicant produced the trip generation figures. Staff responded that the applicant produced those figures based on past experience in their existing smaller recycling facility. Furthermore, staff made a comparison of those figures against the SANDAG trip generation table for asimilar-sized recycling center and found that SANDAG's figures were considerably more conservative, therefore, staff is comfortable with the numbers that the applicant provided. 18:22:10 Cmr. Vinson expressed concern with Condition #5 regarding an ADA compliant pedestrian pathway within the existing 32-foot wide access easement serving 3620 Main Street. Having visited the site, he is concerned with liability issues because of people ignoring pedestrian designated striping, mainly indigent people. who are pushing carts with materials to recycle. 18:29:50 Cmr. Clayton noted two conflicting statements; one in the staff report on page 3 and the other in Conditional of Approval #35 in the resolution with respect to activities such as maintenance, repairs, washing or detailing of vehicles or equipment as not being allowed. Ms. Muett clarified that those activities are not allowed on the premises. 18:32:09 Cmr. Tripp asked if this project had gone before the Design Review Committee and read into the record Section 19.14.582 where it states among other things, that the Design Review Committee, "...shall review...Major Use Permits and commercial or industrial projects or structures located within the 1985 Montgomery Annexation area." Mr. Power stated that unfortunately there are conflicting sections within the Zoning Ordinance. Paraphrasing Section 19.14 of the CVMC (DRC Responsibilities) he stated that when a commercial project comes forward and they are not proposing structural alterations and are just doing painting and minor repair, that does not warrant the Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - January 9, 2008 approval of a Design Review Permit. This project proposes no structural improvements and is proposing painting and minor landscaping, therefore, staff felt that the equitable way to handle this was to do an administrative site plan review. Cmr. Tripp clarified that there is consensus with the Commission, City staff and the City Attorney that design review is part of the Planning Commission's purview and as such the Design Review Committee is a resource and an advisory body to the Planning Commission, therefore, it is the Commission's expectation that these projects would have gone to the DRC first. 18:39:12 Public Hearing Opened. Charlie Balvaneda representing Mr. Zoura, the applicant, stated he was available to answer questions. 18:40:17 Cmr. Spethman stated that he visited the existing recycling site on a Saturday and witnessed a lot more vehicles than the trip generation fgures that are in the staff report; he is also concerned with queuing spilling over on to Main Street. Cmr. Spethman further noted that there is a lot of transient activities with people walking in, with or without shopping carts. Mr. Balvaneda stated that the figures are based on an average spread out over a month period, but recognized that, for obvious reasons, Saturdays are their busiest days where there may be queuing problems. With respect to transients and pedestrian traffic, they would prefer not to have them, but have no control over it, therefore, they will comply with whatever ADA requirements the City imposes. 18:43:18 Cmr. Vinson stated that he too did a site visit and saw the same thing that other commissioners mentioned with respect to on-site vehicle congestion, queuing and pedestrian traffic. Additionally, he is concerned about noise impacts to the adjacent elementary school because while he was there, he witnessed loud nuisance noise coming from a squeaking belt on a forklift. Mr. Balvaneda stated that that particular piece of equipment has been replaced with a new one and all of the operations at the new location will be conducted inside the building. 18:48:40 Alvin Gomez, Attorney representing the applicant stated that after reading the code section with regard to design review, he concurs with staffs interpretation that since his client's project does not propose any structural changes or enhancements, but is just painting and doing minor landscaping, the project would not warrant going through the Design Review Permit process. 18:57:25 Charles Terry, Helix Environmental Consultant, Acoustic Consultant, stated he prepared the noise study. Mr. Terry indicated that he visited the site very early in the morning in order to get the most accurate reading with the least external noises, such as traffic, and ran each equipment, i.e. a can and plastic bottle crusher, bottle sorter, etc., in order to get accurate readings on the various equipment. 19:05:23 Elliott Hurwitz, Contract Services Administrator and Bus Operations for Metropolitan Transit Systems stated that MTS is adjacent to the proposed project site at Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - January 9, 2008 3630 Main Street. As part of MTS's long range facility planning effort, they are looking to expand their facility and acquire parcels adjacent to them, one of which is the subject parcel at 3630 Main St. Mr. Hurwitz stated that MTS is moving forward with an appraisal of the 3630 Main St. parcel and would be looking to have discussions in the near future with the property owner about potentially purchasing the property, therefore, he urged the Planning Commission to postpone a final determination on the project in order to allow time for MTS to conduct the appraisal and speak with Mr. Zoura. 19:14:23 Teresa Goodman, stated that her father's backyard abuts the existing Mike's Recycling and her residence is up the hill a short distance. Ms. Goodman stated that she opposes the project because it is a bad fit with surrounding uses like the recreation center and elementary school where children are directly impacted by noise, traffc, and air quality. Ms. Goodman stated she is also concerned with safety issues because this type of business attracts a lot of homeless transients. 19:16:45 Public Hearing Closed. Cmr. Bensoussan left the meeting early. 19:17:13 Cmr. Vinson stated he has reservations about the project primarily because, in his opinion, the use is not a compatible one to the surrounding area, i.e. recreation center, elementary school and residences. Additionally, Cmr. Vinson stated that based on his visit to the site, he believes that the trip generation figures are significantly understated. 19:18:24 Cmr. Spethman echoed Ms. Goodman and Cmr. Vinson's concerns and stated that, in his opinion, this project is perhaps not the best use of that land or ft with the surrounding community. 19:19:54 Cmr. Felber asked the acoustic consultant to explain how he measures noise and how the decibel level figures for this project translate into layman's terms. Mr. Terry did the explanation on how he measures noise and concluded by saying that the noise level emanating from the project site are lower than the existing traffic noise for that area. Cmr. Felber stated that he recognizes that this is an allowed use in an Industrial Zone and the noise impacts are not a big concern to him because the noise study conducted by a professional indicated that they are well within what is acceptable. The other issues, like safety and a good fit with surrounding uses like the recreation center and school are more of a concern to him. 19:27:04 MSC (Tripp/Moctezuma) (6-0-0-1) to continue this item to allow time to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried with Cmr. Bensoussan absent. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 9, 2008 Director's Report: 19:32:08 Nancy Lytle gave an update on the progress being made with planning a field trip to other jurisdictions' mixed-use and downtown business districts. Various commissions have been polled and although there is no set date on what Saturday works best, so far there has been a positive response from approximately 23 commission members. Ms. Lytle also stated that staff is planning, in the immediate future, a Planning Commission workshop laying down the foundation, starting with the role of the Planning Commission as defined in the Charter, ethics rules, define what are legislative vs. quasi- judicial actions, how to craft findings that support an action taken by the Commission either approving or denying a project, etc. Cmr. Vinson stated he looked forward to the workshop and asked if staff could forward a copy of what will be covered in the workshop in order to give the Commission the benefit of preparing and formulating questions for a more productive discussion. Cmr. Tripp asked what is being done to correct the inconsistencies and conflicting statements in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lytle responded that staff recognizes that an update of the zoning ordinance is a high priority, right next to the General Plan Update. It was included in the budget as part of the department's work program, however, due to budget problems and reduction in staffing levels, we don't have the staff or resources to do a comprehensive zoning code update at this time. 19:49:55 Cmr. Felber stated that because of their volume, environmental documents take an enormous amount of time to read. He asked that whenever a draft EIR is released to the public for the 45 day review period, that the Planning Commission also be given a copy at that time. In the past the Planning Commission has received the document 2 or 3 weeks before their meeting and its very difficult to read through it in such a short time period. 19:54:04 Adjourned Prepared by: ~'~ Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission