Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/07/11 . . . .~ Tape: 311 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesdav. Julv 11. 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Planning Consultant Lettieri, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of all egi ance to the fl ag was 1 ed by Cha i rman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 9, 1990 MSC (Shipe/Fuller) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Carson and Cannon abstained) to approve the minutes of May 9, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCl-90-N: REQUEST TO RElONE APPROXIMATELY 4.92 ACRES LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY PORTION, NORTH OF "C" STREET BETWEEN THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED AND DEL MAR AVENUE TO R-I-P-6 - Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd. (b) PCS-90-11: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.67 ACRES KNOWN AS LAS BRISAS DEL MAR UNIT 2, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-11 - Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd. Pri nc i pa 1 PI anner Lee requested cont i nuance of th is item to the meet i ng of July 25, 1990, to coincide with the timing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He noted a corrected notice had been sent to the affected property owners. MINUTES -2- Ju 1 v 11. 1990 MSUC (Cas ill as/Carson) 7 -0 to continue the item to the meet i ng of July 25, 1990. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-39: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3D-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 1250 THIRD AVENUE Crandall-Williams (continued from 6-27-90) Ass i stant Pl anner Barbara Rei d bri efl y revi ewed the project. Ms. Rei d stated the Pl anni ng Department recommendations for approval were based on the fact that it was a panhandle lot with minimum frontage on Third and did not represent a good candidate for typical retail and office commercial uses; and the residential proposal was compatible with the surrounding area. Based on the Initial Study and comments on IS-90-44 and the Negative Declaration, staff recommended that the Planning Commission find the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44 and recommended approval of the CUP. Ms. Reid noted the appl icant was present and would show the sl ides and make their presentation if the Commissioners desired. Commissioner Shipe stated he was not present at the meet i ng of June 27, but, for the record, wanted to note that he had read all of the materi a 1 and 1 i stened to the tapes of the meet i ng and felt he was qualified to vote on the item. Commissioner Fuller stated that she had also listened to the tape and read the material, and would like to see the slides and presentation. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Hedenkamp, architect of the project, stated the Montgomery Planning Committee had failed to approve the Negative Declaration and did not act on the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Hedenkamp showed some slides of other projects wh i ch had been completed by the development team to be used on the project and then proceeded to show s 1 i des of the area to be developed. He noted the project had been approved by the Design Review Committee. The project consists of 19 garages under the buildings with the balance of the parking on the surface. Mr. Hedenkamp stated the appl icant had provided 9 additional parking spaces over the required number because of the distance from Third Avenue to the project--no on-street guest parking. He discussed the greenbelt (open space) area which looked out over the park, the elevation of the building, access to the basement garages, the oversized balconies, and the conformity with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Mr. Hedenkamp noted that a recent San Diego Apartment Association vacancy survey showed the vacancy rate in San Diego to generally be around 6.1%. In Chula Vista, it was 2.4%. The applicant was willing to listen to the suggestions of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission including the installation of a security gate. Commissioner Shipe asked Mr. Hedenkamp how they responded to the concerns regarding water and school. . . . MINUTES -3- July II. 1990 Mr. Hedenkamp said they were community-wide issues and he did not believe they were issues which could apply only to their project. The agencies responsible for monitoring those issues had indicated the project would not have a substant i a 1 impact on them. The developers had executed a Me 11 0- Roos 1 etter which had been required. Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson, Chula Vista 9201l, read a presentation she had previously made to the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commi ss i on request i ng that the Commi ss i on di sapprove the project. She noted several items not mentioned at the last Commission meeting: no play area; the fence which was City-owned; and the parcels had been downzoned to R-I-5 by the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Lawrence Crandall, a partner in the project, stated the site was a perfect example of how they would like to have all their apartment buildings built with an extremely 1 ow- impact project. He aga in noted the open area in the balconies and patios. He stated he was not a supporter of play areas because of the inability to insure them. He supported the General Plan. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Crandall if on-site parking of RVs would be allowed. Mr. Crandall answered negatively. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller stated she felt it was a good project. She did not agree with the Montgomery Pl anni ng Commi ttee in thi s instance or the debate at the last meeting. She had been impressed with the projects the builder had built elsewhere in Chula Vista, and didn't believe the issues of schools, water, and traffic would have an impact. She 1 iked the idea of a project designed to open up into a park, and didn't see a problem with children going into the park unattended. She supported the project, and thought it was probably an ideal situation for this piece of property. MSC (Fuller/Grasser) 6-1 (Casillas voting 'no') that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44. Commissioner Casillas asked if there had been any studies done which would indicate the percentage of multi-family units to single-family residences. Principal Planner Lee indicated it would have to be researched. MSC (Fuller/Grasser) 6-1 (Casillas voting 'no') that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve the request, PCC-90-44, to construct a 30-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue in the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista, subject to the condition that the developer shall satisfy the requirements of Chula Vista School District which has recommended annexation to a Mello-Roos, including a security gate as a condition. MINUTES -4- Julv 11. 1990 Commissioner Carson thanked staff for including the Montgomery Planning Committee minutes. She said she had raised the issue of crime, because she bordered a park and has an entryway that goes into the park granted by the City of Chula Vista and she thought it was an important aspect. ITEM 3. RV-90-01: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FROM DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING A FRONT YARD PARKING PERMIT AT 34 EAST OLYMPIA COURT - Leticia Romo (continued from 6-13-90) ZAV-90-12: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS TO OCCUpy MORE THAN 50% OF THE FRONT YARD AT 34 EAST OLYMPIA _ Leticia Romo (continued from 6-13-90) Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee stated the app 1 i cant had requested cont i nuance because of a medical problem. This application was a result of a denial by the Zoning Administrator and a violation in terms of the RV parking on the site. He suggested a continuance of two weeks and advising the appl icant the appeal would be heard at that time; or continue indefinitely and have the appl icant remove the RV during the period until they came back to the Commission. MS (Casillas/Fuller) to continue the matter until such time as the appl icant can make a presentation, but request that the vehicle be removed. Commissioner Cannon asked the City Attorney if there was any enforceability in that. Assistant applicant enforce. applicant take that Attorney Rudolf suggested that rather than a request for the to remove, he would feel more comfortable with direction to staff to Another alternative would be to consider the matter, even though the wasn't present, and either approve or deny. If denied, staff would as an indication to enforce; if approved, not to enforce. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION Commissioner Casillas withdrew his motion and Commissioner Fuller withdrew her second. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee offered an a lternat i ve opt ion woul d be to cont i nue for two weeks and direct staff to advise the applicant that this would be the final continuance to be considered by the Planning Commission, and they should be at the next meeting or have a representative present. MSUC (Cas ill as/Full er) 7 -0 to cont i nue the matter for two weeks, and adv i se the applicant that final action would be taken at that time. Chairman Tugenberg noted the Commission would consider items 4, 5, and 6 together. . . . MINUTES -5- Julv 11, 1990 ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-IM; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE AND TRAILER STORAGE AND AUTO AND TRUCK SALES INCLUDING CUSTODIAL AND SECURITY FACILITIES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND FAIVRE STREETS - H. G. Fenton Company ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-2M; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRUCK AND TRAILER STORAGE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FAIVRE STREET AT JACQUA STREET ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-3M; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRAILER STORAGE AT THE SOUTHWEST END OF MACE STREET Assistant Planner Barbara Reid noted there were some corrections to be made in the conditions listed in the recommendations for adoption of PCC-90-1M as fo 11 ows: 2.e. Applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting "prior to the issuance of the business license." g. Failure to comply with conditions of approval "or" complaints filed ... m. Applicant to provide paved access for fire apparatus and a knox box prior to the issuance of a business license. Under Findings, Section E.2. to be reworded to read "The proposed storage area will be landscaped to minimize any adverse visual impact of the project." PCC-90-2M: Under RECOMMENDATION: 2.c. The manifest of all materials stored is to be made available to the City of Chula Vista Planning Department and "a designated member of the Montgomery Planning Committee on 24-hour notice." g. The applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting programs "prior to the issuance of a business license." E. ANALYSIS: 2. The proposed storage area wi 11 be adequately fenced to mi n i mi ze any adverse visual impact of the property. PCC-90-3M: Under RECOMMENDATION: 2.e. Applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting programs "prior to the issuance of a business license." m. The Planning Department and "a designated member" of the Montgomery Planning Committee shall have the right to check the manifest 1 ist of stored materials on 24 hours notice. MINUTES -6- Jul V 11. 1990 Under ANALYSIS: The project site is designated "Whitelands and Research Unlimited Industrial" on the Montgomery Specific Plan... Under FINDINGS: The proposed storage area wi 11 be adequately fenced to mi n imi ze any adverse visual impact of the project. Assistant Planner Reid stated that the three sites and proposals were each on 3 acres or less land; all were located entirely within the special study of the "White 1 ands" of Montgomery except for the Mace Street site where the northern half was Research and Limited Industrial. All three sites were zoned M-54 General Impact Industrial. Ms. Reid said that the Planning Department wished to allow the applicant temporary use until a special study was comp 1 eted . All of the envi ronmenta 1 sens it i ve areas had been excl uded where development was proposed. Ms. Reid stated the applicant had met with the subcommittee of the Montgomery Planning Committee to discuss the conditions, and specific conditions which were made by the Montgomery Planning Committee were noted in the staff report. She said the City required the applicant to undertake a traffic study to answer all of the Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee's concerns. Ass i stant Pl anner Reid stated the recommendation of the Pl anning Department was that this be granted for two years up to a five-year maximum. The Montgomery Planning Committee also asked for monitoring by staff on a three-month basis. Ms. Reid said the Planning Department was recommending the project because it was re 1 at i ve 1 y close to commerci a 1 uses to the north, it was temporary for a two-year period, it was one of the temporary uses that was felt would fit on the site, and the proposed landscaping would buffer the view. Ms. Reid continued to explain the conditions which had been recommended for the project. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Linda Bartholomew, representing H. G. Fenton Company, introduced other members of the company and briefly noted the appl icant had compl ied with all the concerns of the Montgomery Planning Committee, who had voted unanimously in favor of the project. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there was going to be 24-hour security on the locations. Ms. Bartholomew answered they had agreed to 24-hour security at the location on Mace Street. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. (The following motion was made out of sequence--PCC-90-2M.) MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-9M. MINUTES -7- July II. 1990 . MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the request, PCC-90-2M, for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary truck trailer storage at the south side of Faivre Street at Jacqua Street subject to conditions 'a' through 'n' as attached. (The following discussion regarded PCC-90-I-M.) Cha i rman Tugenberg stated he was not aga i nst the storage fac i 1 ity, but was opposed to the property being used as a truck facility, since they were trying to clean up the area and had opposed prior requests. Commissioner Fuller explained this was an interim use of the property, and that was why she was in favor of the project. Chairman Tugenberg was concerned that it would be long-term. Commissioner Carson asked staff if the term would be limited to five years. Assistant Planner Reid answered affirmatively, and stated that any problems would be brought back to the Montgomery Planning Committee with the possibil ity of revocation. MSUC (Full er/Cas i 11 as) 7 -0 that the project wi 11 have no sign i fi cant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-8M. . MOTION by Commissioner Fuller that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the request, PCC-90-IM, for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary vehicle and trailer storage and used auto and truck sales at the southwest corner of 8roadway and Faivre Street subject to the conditions 'a' through 'n'. Commissioner Tugenberg stated he wished to amend the motion to delete the use of the retail truck and auto park at that location. There was no second. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CASILLAS. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Tugenberg voted against.) (The following motion was regarding PCC-90-3M.) MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-7M. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the request, PCC-90-3M, for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle and trailer storage and a mobile office trailer at the southwest end of Mace Street subject to conditions 'a' through 'n'. ITEM 7. PUBLIC HEARING: A) PCM-90-18: CONSIDERATION OF SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA I TO CONVERT PARCEL R-Ila FROM 154 DUPLEX UNITS TO 106 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS B) PCS-90-14: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR RANCHO DEL REY PHASE 5, UNIT I, LOT 77, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90- 14 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AT PASEO RANCHERO . MINUTES -8- Julv 11. 1990 Commi ss i oner Grasser stated she had a confl i ct of interest because of stock ownership in Home Federal. Planning Consultant Lettieri gave an overview of the two proposals. He stated the El Rancho del Rey Specific Pl an was approved by the City Council in 1985 and required the preparation and approval of subsequent SPA plans. The SPA I plan was approved by the Counc i 1 in December 1987. He cont i nued to exp 1 a i n the area proposed for the amendment. Using sl ides, Mr. Lettieri showed the open space areas, the school site, and the proposed fencing. Mr. Lettieri stated there were two conditions of approval on the SPA Amendment: 1) that the final lot and street design shown within the SPA for the remaining residential areas may be modified by the Planning Commission and City Council during Tentative Subdivision Map approval; and 2) that the Public Facilities Financing Plan, Transportation Phasing Plan, and the conditions contai ned in those documents wi 11 further govern the subsequent approval of any tentative maps or other projects within SPA 1. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich requested revision to Condition 20, eliminating Telegraph Canyon Road and EastLake Parkway, with the explanation that the trips generated by this project would not affect them. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf requested clarification of Condition 2 of the SPA Amendment Conditions of Approval addi ng the words "as amended" after reference to the Transportation Phasing Pl an and Publ i c Facil it i es Fi nanci ng Plan. The applicant had no objection. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, representing the Rancho del Rey Partnership, stated he was available for any questions the Commission might have, and asked their favorable decision on the project. He stated they did not object to any of the conditions set forth. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Shipe) 6-0 (Grasser - conflict of interest) to recommend that the Ci ty Counci 1 revi se the Rancho del Rey Sect i ona 1 Pl anni ng Area (SPA) I, as depicted in Exhibit 1 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions, as amended, contained in the report. MSUC (Carson/Fuller) 6-0 (Grasser - confl ict of interest) to direct staff to revise the Design Guidelines as included in the report as Attachment 3. MSUC (Carson/Shipe) 6-0 (Grasser - conflict of interest) to recommend that the City Council approve the subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Phase 5, Unit 1, Lot 77. The Commi ss i on cl arifi ed that the corrections: that is, Telegraph Canyon part of Condition No. 20. last motion did not include any Road and EastLake Parkway rema i ned as . . . MINUTES -9- Julv 11. 1990 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Lee asked the Commissioners to look at the list of highl ights of activities for the past year and make any comments they wished to pass on to the City Counci I . He a I so ment i oned that a memo had been sent to the City Attorney's office asking them to reconvene the Charter Review Committee to cons i der amend i ng the City Charter reI at i ng to vot i ng, as the Commission had previously requested. Commissioner Shipe suggested the Planning Commission be paid a stipend, since it takes a lot of time preparing for the meetings, visiting the sites, etc. and the City of Chula Vista is one of the only--if not the only--City in the entire County which does not pay their Planning Commissioners. He also noted it had been a pleasure to serve as a member of the Planning Commissioner for the last eight years. Commissioner Casillas concurred in Commissioner Shipe's comments regarding a stipend. Commissioner Casillas asked to what extent the Code prOV1Slon was being enforced regardi ng RV' sin front yards. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee answered that staff would check with Code Enforcement, or invite the Code Enforcement Officers to one of the Planning Commission meetings. Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission there would be a jOint Planning Commission/Agency meeting on August 16 at 7 p.m. regarding the Bayfront. There would be a presentation by the environmental consultant on the project to update the Agency and the Planning Commission as to the various alternatives that were looked at in the environmental document. Pri nc i pa 1 Pl anner Lee also stated that somet ime in earl y August, staff hoped to be ready to have a discussion with the Planning Commission regarding their concerns in advancing from the mid-point to the upper end of the General Plan range to talk about some of the criteria, and about the estate housing question--whether it needs to be addressed at the General Development Pl an stage or SPA level. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Tugenberg stated he would like to have scheduled towards the end of August or the beginning of September a workshop to bring the Planning Commission up to date on the Otay Ranch Project. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of July 18, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. 'lJ' , . -d It t <-I r<" r ~ { j . Nancy Ripley, Selcretary Planning Commission WPC 8230P