Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-08 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 8, 2006 Public Services Building Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: Present: Absent: Felber, Bensoussan, Horn, Tripp Nordstrom, Madrid Staff Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Lynette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner Gerald Moorer, RBF Consultant John Mullen, Deputy City Attorney III ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: MSC (FelberlTripp) (4-0-2-0) to excuse Commissioners Madrid and Nordstrom. Motion carried. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Horn ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 04-53; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit filed by the St. Pius X Church for a Master Plan to renovate and expand the existing buildings at the St. Pius X Church and parochial school. The proposed project includes the expansion of the sanctuary to accommodate a seating capacity of 853 (402 seats added). Applicant: Catholic Diocese of San Diego. Background: Gerald Moorer reported that the Catholic Diocese submitted an application for a CUP for the demolition, expansion, and modification of the existing St. Pius Church facilities and school located at 1120 Cuyamaca Avenue. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residences to the north, east, south and west with the Castle Park Elementary School located southwest. The existing church complex consists of a 3,000 sf sanctuary, a 3,200 sf parish office, an approximately 15,000 sf parochial school, a 4,700 sf rectory, a 4,700 sf hall, and 176 on-site parking spaces. The proposal includes the expansion of the sanctuary from 450 seats to 852 seats and its re- orientation toward the interior parking lot with access from the parking lot. The sanctuary exp3nsion will enable them to reduce the number of weekend services from nine to five. The project includes the renovation of the school and the addition of a 6,500 sf multi-purpose room. The existing parish hall will be demolished and a new 12,150 sf will be constructed. Plannina Commission Minutes -2- Februarv 8. 2006 Issues that were brought up and reviewed: · Historical and cultural significance · ParkinQ; currently 176 parking spaces are available at a ratio of 1 space per 2.55 seats. The Municipal Code requires a parking ratio of 1 space per 3.5 seats. To accommodate 852 seats, the project is required to provide 243 parking spaces. · Traffic impacts; the traffic analysis determined that the project would generate 57 new average daily trips and the streets and nearby intersections would continue to operate at Levels Of Service B or better. · The noise study found that short-term construction, student and parking noise would result with development of the project. Mitigation measures are to include a 6 foot high masonry wall along the western property line and restricting construction activities to strict hours of operation will reduce the noise levels to below a level of significance. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 04-28 and Resolution PCC 04-53 approving Conditional Use Permit PCC 04-53 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Questions I Comments: Cmr. Bensoussan disclosed that she did a site visit and discussed the project with the applicant and architect. She asked if any efforts, beyond what is minimally required for parking, were being made to accommodate additional parking, and inquired what, if any, recommendations or concerns did the RCC have. Mr. Moorer, responded that they are meeting the Code requirements for parking and the City is not requiring any more beyond that. Mr. Moore stated that the RCC's comments were mostly of a historical context and were overall supportive of the project. Cmr. Tripp stated that the City cannot regulate how many services a church may have and inquired if the traffic analysis considered the reduction of services from 9 to 5, as a mitigation measure to maintain a Level Of Service B. Cmr. Tripp also asked how the ratio of compact car to regular car parking spaces is determined. Mr. Hernandez responded that typically for projects such as this, the ratio is 10% of the total parking spaces. In other instances, i.e. a shopping center, the ratio may be as much as 25%. Cmr. Horn stated he appreciated emr. Bensoussan's comments regarding the RCC's input on the project and encouraged staff to include in their staff report, as often as possible, any comments or recommendations made by other commissions, which are very helpful to the Planning Commission. He also asked if the church uses parishioners to help direct traffic during peak hours on Sundays. 6:38:19 PM Public Hearing Opened. 6:38:47 PM Daniel White, Architect; 1290 E. Center Court Dr., Covina, CA stated that to his knowledge the church does not typically have traffic controllers unless they're having a special event and expecting large crowds. Of the 9 masses taking place on Sunday, two of them occur concurrently, which causes some of the traffic congestion. By increasing the sanctuary capacity and reducing the number of masses from 9 to 5, this will resolve the congestion problem. Plannina Commission Minutes -3- Februarv 8. 2006 6:40:15 PM Charles San Felipe, 1184 Cuyamaca Street stated his concern is with traffic and parking congestion, specifically during school drop-off and pick-up hours. Mr. San Felipe also stated that there are no traffic control devices such as a stop sign or light signals at the corner where the church is located. Furthermore, there is an unsafe conditions with overgrown vegetation blocking visibility of cross traffic at the corner of Cuyamaca St. and the church. Children drop-off signage is inadequate and not visible and he is concerned with the safety of the children; he and his neighbors would support the installation of speed bumps. 6:48: 11 PMMr. White responded that they will make every effort to ensure that the landscaping requirements are adhered to and that the vegetation is kept at a height that does not impede visibility. Mr. White also stated that the parish and the Police Dept. have a collaborative effort to adhere to a an on- site traffic plan for drop-off and pick-up of children. 6:50:49 PM Public hearing closed. MSC (Tripp/Felber) (4-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 04-28 and Resolution PCC 04-53 approving Conditional Use Permit PCC 04- 53 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and with the following recommendation: That the applicant work through the Traffic Engineer and Safety Commission, and/or Police Department to do a site visit to see what improvements can be made to traffic circulation plan. Motion carried. 3:45 PM 2. Public hearing: ZAV 06-05; A variance request to waive the one (1) off- street parking space that is required for an accessory second dwelling unit located at 97 "0" Street. Applicant: Carl and Leticia Zinno Background: Lynette Lopez reported that on April 26 2005 a building permit was issued for the construction of an accessory unit at this site. A one car parking space along the eastern portion of the lot satisfies the parking requirement. In an effort to avoid removal of an established landscaping hedge, a planting area and decorative ma~onry wall, the owner has requested a variance from the off-street parking requirement and the approval of the variance would help to preserve the character of this established neighborhood. If the variance is denied, the property owner will have to remove the hedge and erect a 5 ft. fence to screen the parking within the sideyard to the east. Though the applicants have met the requirements for their ADU, they would like to preserve landscaping features that are significant to both the subject property and the early 1900 Craftsman home, as well as provide~; privacy for both properties. The home is not currently listed in the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites, however, it does appear to retain characteristics and integrity that would be considered for historic designation. Staff has encouraged the applicant to continue negotiation of the access easement to the rear of their property where the ADU is being constructed in order to accommodate the parking next to the unit. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve ZAV 06-05 based on the findings contained in the Resolution. Plannina Commission Minutes -4- February 8. 2006 Commission Discusssion I Comments. Cmr. Tripp inquired who owns the property that the applicant would need to negotiate with to acquire an easement to enter from the rear of his property. Luis Hernandez responded that neither the City nor the applicant has been able to acquire the necessary right-of-way to complete the First Avenue alignment, which would then give access to the applicant's rear property. Cmr. Tripp inquired if a historic study had been done on the Craftsman home. Ms. Lopez responded that it is listed on the 1985 Historic Resources Inventory, but is not officially designated as historic. Crm. Tripp asked if the inventory identified the hedge as adding to or benefiting the historicity of the home. Ms. Lopez stated that the inventory reads that there are associated features, which could include landscaping, but does not specifically identify that particular hedge. Cmr. Felber made the observation that perhaps a parking space could be accommodated if the masonry wall was relocated closer to the larger hedge. Mr. Hernandez stated that parking is not allowed in the front yard, however, if the Planning Commission feels that the parking must be accommodated, then that could be an alternative. Cmr. Bensoussan clarified that whenever a historic structure is listed in the Inventory as a resource, although it may not have yet been designated as historic, once its on the inventory it can be fast-tracked to be designated if it meets the requirements. With respect to the landscaping, since it was mentioned on the inventory as a feature, its important to take that into c'Jnsideration because when a house is designated as historic, its not exclusively based on the house, but rather, the whole parcel is considered and landscaping is in context to the overall property. Cmr. Hom stated that he was contacted by Allison Rolfe in the Mayor and Council Office and stated that she had worked diligently with the Zinns and the decision to move forward with the variance was done as a compromise. Cmr. Tripp stated that as much as he'd like to support the variance he is compelled to make specific findings to grant it. Without citing privacy issues and compromises, in his opinion, neither the testimony nor the report adequately raised issues, nor mentioned the landscaping as a significant component in its relation to the historicity of the craftsman home, therefore, he cannot in good conscience make the necessary findings to grant the variance. Furthermore, we are in the process of an ADU ordinance amendment and parking is a hot topic that has been discussed at length; he's concerned with precedence-setting if this variance is granted as presented tonight. Public Hearing Opened. Paula Sieberlich, 89 First ;\VC:lllC, stated that she owns the lot to the north of the Zinn property and is disheartened that their project has been held up for months due to neighbor disputes. Ms. Sieberlich stated she is willing to do whatever it takes to help move along the completion of the Plannina Commission Minutes -5- Februarv 8. 2006 Zinns ADU in as much as she would be willing to share a portion of her driveway to allow the Zinlls to place a driveway of their own to give them access to their rear property. Additionally, she has a gate that opens to the dirt lot that crosses an easement to which she has permanent encroachment rights and she is willing to give the Zinns a key to this gate to give him access. Ms. Sieberlich urged the Commissicn to gran~ the variance. Public Hearing Closed. MSC (Bensoussan/Hom) (3-1-0-1) that the Planning Commission approve ZAV 06-05 based on the findings contained in the Resolution. Motion failed with a nay vote from Cmr. Tripp. John Mullen, Assistant City Attorney road into the record the applicant's due process under Section 19.14.110 of the Municipal Code, which reads, "Where an application is denied by the Planning Commission by less than four votes, the applicant shall have the right of either a rehearing at the next Planning Commission meeting or an appeal to the City Council without payment of additional fees... .n. DIRECTOR'S REPO RT: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director gave an updated on: . The upcoming move from the PSB into the former Police Department and the close-down schedule. · The City Council Housing Workshop COMMISSION COMMENTS: · Cmr. Felber stated he'd like to pass along a recommendation to whomever is responsible for scheduling Council workshops on a night when there is a regular City Council meeting, that they be done at the beginning, rather than at the end of the Council meeting so that those who are interested in the workshop topic don't have to wait around for a substantial amount of time until the workshop begins. Meeting adjourned: To the next rcgl:lar Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2006. Submitted by: Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission