Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2008/05/28MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. May 28, 2008 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: 6:05:10 PM ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Clayton, Spethman Member Absent: Bensoussan Chair Tripp stated for the record that Cmr. Bensoussan called and spoke with the Commission Secretary stating she would not be attending the meeting tonight and asked that she be excused. MSC (Moctezuma/Felber) (3-3-0-1) to excuse Cmr. Bensoussan. Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote with Cmrs. Felber, Moctezuma and Vinson voting in favor of the motion and Cmrs. Tripp, Clayton and Spethman voting against it. Discussion: Cmr. Clayton expressed concern when a commissioner has other commitments that result in two consecutive absences and could potentially result in the Commission not having a quorum, in addition to the Commission not receiving the full benefit of hearing each of the commissioners' valuable input on a project. Cmr. Spethman stated he was disappointed that Cmr. Bensoussan was not present for the discussion of the Minutes of April 9, which she had concerns with. MSC (Clayton/Spethman) (6-0-0-1) to reconsider the motion to excuse Cmr. Bensoussan. Motion carried. MSC (Felber/Clayton) (1-5-0-1) to excuse Cmr. Bensoussan. Motion failed with Cmr. Felber voting in favor of the motion and Cmrs. Moctezuma, Vinson, Tripp, Clayton and Spethman voting against it. Cmr. Tripp admonished the Commission to provide the reason for their absence when calling in to say they won't be able to attend a meeting. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 9, 2008, April 23, 2008, May 14, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 28, 2008 The Commission expressed a collective appreciation for the effort that staff made in making arrangements to have a transcript prepared of the dialogue that took place at the hearing on the evening when Proposition E was discussed. MSC (FelberlClayton)(5-0-1-1) to approve minutes of April 9, 2008 as submitted including the transcript on Proposition E. Motion carried with Cmr. Moctezuma abstaining and Cmr. Bensoussan absent. MSC (Spethman/Felber) (5-0-1-1) to approve minutes of April 23, 2008 as submitted. Motion carried with Cmr. Moctezuma abstaining and Cmr. Bensoussan absent. MSC (Vinson/Felber) (6-0-0-1) to approve minutes of May 14, 2008 as submitted with Cmr. Bensoussan absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. CONSENT AGENDA: None PUBLIC HEARING: 6:24:49 PM 1. Public Hearing: PCS 06-03; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 1.12 acres into twenty-eight (28) condominium units for individual ownership at 615 Moss Street. Applicant: Moss 28 LLC. Caroline Young reported that on September 9, 2005 the applicant submitted applications for Design Review and a Tentative Subdivision Map to convert the existing 28-unit apartment complex to condominiums. In May 2006 the owner hired a new company to assist in processing the application, which the Design Review Committee approved on May 19, 2008. The Tentative Subdivision Map will be considered by the City Council on July 8, 2008. The applicant has completed the tenant noticing requirement up to this point prior to the Tentative Subdivision Map consideration; once all of the necessary approvals are obtaihed, the owners will notify the tenants with the remaining notices required by the State and Municipal Code. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 06-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commission Comments/Questions: Cmr. Spethman stated that the fence serves for security purposes and inquired why it is being removed and not replaced. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 28, 2008 Ms. Young stated that under previous review of the proposal, staff did request that the fence be removed because fences taller than 3.5 feet cannot be located in the front yard setback. Ms. Lytle further clarified that where there is apre-existing non-compliance issue, at this time that a condo conversion is proposed, everything must be brought up to code. Cmr. Tripp asked if the fence were to remain, would that require a Variance application. Ms. Lytle stated that at first response she would agree that a Variance would be required, however, staff would need to research the Condominium Ordinance to see if there is some provision on pre-existing non-conforming conditions that might apply in this situation. Cmr. Felber asked for further clarification on the monetary incentive and immediate/short term repairs. The Commission questioned why there was no reference in the staff report regarding any comments from the Fire Department and asked for clarification if the project meets all of the standards from Fire and Police in terms of adequate ingress and egress, width and turn- around space for emergency vehicles. Ms. Young stated that the project went through all of the required review by various departments, including Fire and Police. No concerns were raised by either departments and referred to language in the draft Council Resolution under VI.A. where it states that "...the project shall comply with the California Fire Code...". Public Hearing Opened. 6:48:40 PM Will Kreagan, 1501 Vivaldi St., managing member of the proposed project stated they are agreeable to comply with staff's recommendations on the conditions of approval, including the removal of the fence, although they agree that the fence serves for security purposes. Mr. Kreagan further stated that they have an aggressive renovation program with immediate repairs that will maintain the structural integrity of the building and remodel that will bring the units up to today's marketing standards with upgrades and will comply with all of the storage, usable open space and parking requirements. All repairs will be completed prior to occupancy and the Final Map 7:01:25 PM Cmr. Spethman commended the applicant for the quality product he is developing and his commitment to the community. Cmr. Spethman asked if Mr. Kreagan was aware of any incidences requiring a call for service from the Police Department. Mr. Kreagan responded that in the two years that they've owned the property, he is aware of a couple minor incidences like car break-in, however no car-theft or break-ins into the apartments. Cmr. Spethman stated that perhaps the security fencing acts as a deterrent to other major break-ins. 7:09:26 PM Cmr. Spethman pointed out that projects like this are rare in that they meet the community's needs in providing much-needed affordable housing, coupled with the applicant's desire to provide a quality product with incentives to attract as many of the Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 28, 2008 existing tenants to purchase their unit. Cmr. Spethman stated that his hope is that whenever there is a developer that wants to produce and deliver a project such as this, that the project moves forward in an expeditious manner through the entitlement process. 7:11:26 PM Cmr. Clayton stated that today's loan market is very stringent and the occupying tenant might have a difficult time finding a loan produce, therefore, commended the applicant for providing a generous tenant relocation bonus to assist them in finding some place elsewhere to live. Mr. Kreagan stated that they are going to design the project to be as compliant with FHA and VHA financing as possible and will be bringing in loan consultants to speak with the tenants to see what their options are. Public Hearing Closed. 7:18:17 PM MSC (Spethman/Clayton) (ti-0-0-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 06-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision. Map based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein with a recommendation that the applicant work with staff to include a security fence that is complimentary to the architecture and design of the buildings. Motion carried. Director's Report. No report was presented. Commission Comments. 7:25:00 PMCmr. Felber asked for clarification on abstaining from voting on the approval of minutes when a Commissioner recuses him/herself from one or more items on the agenda. Nancy Lytle, in consultation with the Deputy City Attorney, stated that it would be appropriate to participate in the vote with a clarification note from the Commissioner or Chair that their vote pertained only to the items that they were present for. 7:26:35 PMCmr. Spethman stated for the record that it was he who asked the Planning Commission Chair to agendize Prop. E for discussion at a Planning Commission meeting. His request was based on the fact that Prop E. was an issue of significant community interest and thought it would be within the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss the item in a public forum. Chair Tripp stated he would consult with staff and legal counsel. At the advice of the City Attorney he was told that the item could be agendized and discussed, however, recommended against the Commission taking a vote on the matter. Cmr. Spethman also wished to clarify that at no time did the Mayor or City Manager's Office ask him to pursue the matter and have it agendized for discussion at a Planning Commission meeting. 7:30:07 PMCmr. Tripp also stated that he received a couple of requests from members of the community asking that the Planning Commission take a look at the matter and schedule Prop. E for discussion at a future meeting. Based on his understanding of the role and responsibility of the Planning Commission, he believed it was within the purview of the Commission to do so and pursued further guidance from staff. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 28, 2008 Ms. Lytle admonished the Commission to refrain from each member speaking on this topic because it is not an item on the agenda. 7:42:03 PM Adjourned to a regular Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2008. Submitted by, ~~~~ Diana Vargas Secretary to the Planning Commission