Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/08/22 ~ ~ , Tape: 312 Side: 2 . MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday. AUQust 22. 1990 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Council Chambers Public Services BuildinQ Cha i r Grasser, Commi ss i oners Cas ill as. Decker, Fuller, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Carson and Cartmill (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Pl anni ng Di rector Lei ter. Pri nc i pa 1 Planner Lee, Senior Planner Bazzel, Consultant John Sullard, and Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. . INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 27, 1990 MSC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 4-0-1 (Decker abstained) to approve the minutes of June 27, 1990. (Commissioner Fuller had listened to the tape of the meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REZONE 2.5 ACRES LOCATED AT 647 EAST NAPLES STREET TO R-I-7 - George Merziotis B) PCS-90-04: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR ELKS RIDGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-04 - George Merziotis Principal Planner Lee stated the appl icant had requested a continuance to the meeting of September 12, 1990. He recommended the item be continued. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fu11 er) 5-0 to cont i nue PCZ-90-G and PCS-90-04 to the meet i ng of September 12, 1990. . ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-27: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OFFICE CLUB AT 630 L' STREET - Office Club MINUTES - 2 - AUQust 22. 1990 Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee revi ewed the background of the project and stated the heari ng was pri marily called request i ng that the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on cons i der revocat i on of the use permit for non-comp 1 i ance of 1 andscapi ng. However, upon visiting the site, staff found there were other conditions which had been included in the use permit which had not been completeduthe trash enclosure area, prohibited storage in the rear, the requirement to double-stripe the parking lot, dedication of additional street frontage along "L" Street. There had been a verbal release for occupancy to assist the business. This was done because it was a tenant improvement situation with an existing building, and a bond had not been required. Mr. Lee noted the Office Club was proceeding with the improvements and had indicated a willingness to provide a written commitment to fully comply with all of the stated issues within a 30-day period. He told the Commissioners another option would be to proceed with the revocation making it effective in 30 days if the issues were not resolved. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if the Commission went ahead with this and it wasn't completed in 30 days, the revocation would take place? Principal Pl anner Lee answered that they coul d actually revoke the use permit and make it effective in 30 days, if the issues were not completed to the satisfaction of the City. Another option would be to continue the matter for a specific period with a report back from staff. Principal Planner Lee noted the Commissioners had been given a letter from an adjoining owner indicating a concern over the lack of commitment in terms of installing the landscaping. The letter also suggested a landscape maintenance contract. Mr. Lee then explained the procedures the City used to ensure maintenance. Commi ss i oner Full er asked if there was any 1 ega 1 reason why the condit ions could not require that the applicant present to the City a landscape maintenance contract with a company that would follow through. Principal Planner Lee answered that at this point the only question would be whether the Attorney might advise staff as far as any additional conditions bei ng placed on th i s property. There has to be a reasonable assurance that the landscaping will be maintained. Normally, the appl icant provides the City with a letter as to who is maintaining the property so the City has a contact. Commissioner Decker queried if it was reasonable to assume that other bus i nesses ins i mi 1 ar ci rcumstances have in fact sat i sfi ed requi rements such as this within a reasonable length of time. Principal Planner Lee answered this was not usual--that normally they would be involved in new construction as opposed to retrofitting an existing building. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Holgate, Corporate Offi ces of the Offi ce Cl ub, 1635 Challenge Dri ve, Concord, CA stated the negot i at ions with the 1 andl ord had extended the time, and thei r company had to absorb the costs. He noted the 1 andscapi ng had . . . -. MINUTES - 3 - AUGust 22. 1990 been finished in the front of the store and had scheduled the slurry seal and striping of the parking lot. He said a letter would be given to staff stating they woul d have the issues taken care of with i n 30 days. It was thei r intention to comply with the requirements under the conditional use permit. He asked for an additional 30 days, and stated the appl icant would have to consult with the owner for the additional 7' grant for any future widening of "L" Street. Commi ss i oner Full er asked if they normally had a maintenance contract. Mr. Holgate said they did, and the irrigation is on a timer system. Commissioner Casillas asked if the appl icant would have the issue regarding dedication of the 7' easement resolved with the landlord. Mr. Holgate stated the landlord owned the adjacent parcel, and there may be some legal reasons which would be out of their control. Other than that, there should be no problem. Commissioner Casillas asked for clarification as to the condition. Principal Planner Lee answered it was a dedication with no specific improvement requirement for widening at this point. It is to comply with the City standards in keeping with the General Plan designation of "L" Street. Mr. Holgate said he believed the landlord would agree to the dedication. Commissioner Tugenberg clarified that if the Commission made a motion to revoke the permit in 30 days if it is not taken care of, it would not go back to the Commission. Principal Planner concurred. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Tugenberg that the Commission find that the appl icant has failed to comply with the implementation of conditions for the Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-27, and that if not complied with within 30 days, the permit wi 11 be revoked. Commi ss i oner Tugenberg quest i oned the Ass i stant City Attorney as to whether that was an adequate motion, to which Assistant City Attorney Rudolf repl ied that the specific conditions 2, 4, and 5 had not been complied with and should be included. RESTATED MOTION: MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 5-0 to find that the applicant has failed to with the implementation of conditions for the Conditional Use PCC-90-27, and that if Conditions 2, 4, 5, and 7d are not taken care of 30 days, then PCC-90-27 will be revoked. comply Permit with i n ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-1: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 19.22 PERTAINING TO ROAD AND EASEMENT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS THAT SERVE PANHANDLE OR FLAG LOTS _ City Initiated MINUTES - 4 - Auqust 22. 1990 Principal Planner Lee gave the history of the establ ishment of development standards for road sect ions to serve panhandl e or flag lots. The proposed amendment clarifies the limits that the 20' wide road is used for serving lots up to four, whereas the 24' width is appropriate for five lots or more. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Municipal Code. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Tugenberg) 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A. ITEM 4: REFERRAL: LOW DENSITY AND ESTATE HOUSING Commi ssi oner Tugenberg asked that thi s item be cont i nued, since Commi ss i oner Carson had served on the Committee that had worked out the definitions in the General Plan. He felt the item should wait until Commissioner Carson returned from vacation and could attend the meeting. He also suggested it be held as a workshop instead of a regular meeting. The item was trailed until the Director's Report portion of the meeting. ITEM 5: DISCUSSION: BRIEFING ON SALT CREEK RANCH ISSUES Seni or Pl anner Bazze 1 updated the Commi ssi on stating staff had recei ved the response to comments on the EIR and the General Development Plan and distribution should be made to the Planning Commission by the end of the week to be heard at the meeting of September 5. Commissioner Tugenberg stated he would like to have the workshop on the density issue precede any deliberations the Planning Commission would take on Salt Creek. After di scuss ion, the Commi ss i oners tentat i ve ly schedul ed a workshop to be he 1 d on August 29th at 5 p. m. to di scuss low dens ity and estate hous i ng (contingent upon Commissioner Carson's ability to attend). OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Leiter noted the Commission had been given a new schedule of meetings. Commissioner Grasser requested that a meeting not be held on December 26. Commissioner Fuller stated she would be out of town on vacation during the meetings of October 17 and October 24. MINUTES ~ COMMISSION COMMENTS - 5 - AUQust 22. 1990 Commissioner Tugenberg requested that Mr. Larsen (Building & Housing) be advised that a vehicle was parked on the lawn on the corner of the lot which he believed was against the Municipal Code (it was a corner lot). ADJOURNMENT at 7:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission Workshop to be held August 29, 1990, at 5 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2&3. GzJ ~ /1 ^' - t1. f); hJ f ( ~ancy Rip,ey, Sec~etary! Planning Commission WPC 8266P ~ ~