Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/03/25 Tape No.: 277 Side l: 0-663 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, March 25, 1987 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Fuller, Green, and Tugenberg COr~MISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser with notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Griffin, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Green/Carson) (6-0) to approve the minutes of the meetings of January 28, February 25, and March ll, 1987, as mailed with corrections to those of February 25 and March 22 to show bank location, of which Commissioner Shipe is the Manager, to be at "H" and Fifth, not "H" and Fig. ORAL CO~IMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-34 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE ISLAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND "F" STREET - CIRCLE K CORPORATION Associate Planner Griffin stated that this is a proposal to construct a single self-service gasoline island consisting of three pumps covered by a 24-foot x Planning Commission -2- March 25, 1987 40-foot canopy at the southwest corner of Broadway and "F" Street in the C-T zone into a small commercial center containing a single 12,300 square foot building along the southerly property line and 58 on-site parking spaces. The site will be served by three driveways, two off "F" street and one off Broadway. The Circle K Store (2,680 square feet) will be at the east end of the building with the pump island and canopy located directly to the north adjacent to the intersection. A single-family dwelling and apartment units abut the property to the west, and retail commercial uses are located to the south. This facility would offer the only gas available on "F" Street and within 1/4 mile in either direction on Broadway. The site has been designed to allow three or four automobiles to stack for the pumps without disturbing the circulation. No traffic congestion or other adverse impacts on adjacent areas are anticipated. The site plan and elevations are subject to review by the Zoning Administrator rather than the Design Review Committee. The Zoning Administrator advocates reduction of the bulk of the canopy and further integration of the Circle K logo sign with the lines of the building. A recommended condition for approval of the site plan is that any decision of the Zoning Administrator which is appealed to the Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Design Review Committee for recommendation. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Howard J. Schuss, 9636 Tierra Grande, San Diego, 92126, representing Circle K Corporation, stated that there were only two pumps not three; they have no objection to review of any design problems by the Zoning Administrator or the Design Review Committee and indicated his willingness to answer any questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (6-0) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-34. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) {6-0) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-87-34, to construct a self-service pump island at the southwest corner of Broadway and "F" Street subject to the following condition: Any appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator in regard to site regard to site plan and architectural approval of the project shall first be referred to the Design Review Committee for recommendation. Chairman Shipe stated that he had a potential conflict of interest on the Town Centre II item as he was the Manager of a Bank located on the corner of Fifth and "H" Street. He then turned the Chairmanship over to Vice Chairman Carson, and he and Commissioner Green left the dias and the Chambers at 7:10 p.m. Planning Commission -3- March 25, 1987 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT EIR-86-3(A) - TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that a previous EIR on this project was certified by the Planning Conmnission and City Council and that the purpose of this document is to expand the discussion of the fiscal aspects so that potential taxing agencies can provide input. None of the 13 potential taxing agencies responded to the Draft EIR and only the Sweetwater Authority responded to the Notice of Preparation circulated prior to the DEIR. He then introduced June Collins, PRC, Project Manager for preparation of the EIR. June Collins indicated that the EIR before the Commission was identical with the EIR previously reviewed and certified with the following exceptions: Reference was made in paragraph 3, page S-1 of the Summary, and page 6a of the Text, to the tax increment finances associated with the Redevelopment Plan Amendment stating that the amendment to the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan is to provide for financing by use of tax increment revenues generated by the project and includes sales tax and any use tax revenues sources that might be transferred from the City to the Redevelopment Agency. The intent is to: (1) stipulate the maximum amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may receive; and (2) stipulate the maximum amount of bond indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time. She concluded that the City's Redevelopment Consultant was present and could answer any questions on the details of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Commissioner Cannon reminded staff that Mr. Desrochers, Director of Community Development, had, at the March ll meeting, indicated he would provide the Commissioner with a copy of the agreement between Homart and the Agency and that he would still like to receive it. 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 (Tugenberg/Fuller) to certify that EIR-83-3(A) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR. 3. REPORT: ON TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY AND TRANSMITTING DOCUMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPmeNT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman noted that Marshall Krupp, Community Systems Associates, who was instrumental in preparing the report, was present and available for questioning. Mr. Kassman stated that the Community Redevelopment Law requires that within 30 days of receipt of the Redevelopment Planning Commission -4- March 25, 1987 Plan, the Planning Commission must: (1) make the finding that the Amended Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinances; (2) recommend that the Council and Agency concur with the above findings and then recommend that the Council and Agency approve and adopt the amended plan; and (3) approve and transmit to the Council and the Agency a report on the amended Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan and project area for their approval and adoption. The Draft Report has been submitted to the Commission at this meeting for their approval. Marshall Krupp said that the existing Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan contained no provisions for tax increment financing. The Amendment is for the purpose of supplying the provisions necessary to allow the Agency to collect tax increments. Also, certain other legal provisions are required which are associated with the revised Redevelopment Law. He requested that the phrase "subject to responsible agency comments" be struck from paragraphs {a) and (c) at the bottom of page 6 of the Draft Report. In the Redevelopment Plan itself, on page 30, Section 751, which discusses the financial limits of the plan and reads that "the limit is $100 million plus the amount described within or resulting from the entering into reimbursement for other agreements with affected taxing agencies or private parties," should read, "with affected public agencies or private entities." That provides the ability to enter into tbe private agreements that are being discussed with Homart. He expressed his willingness to answer any questions on this or the Homart plans in conjunction with the Redevelopment Plan. MSUC {Cannon/Fuller) (4-0) to pass Resolution PCM-87-18 with the changes as suggested. 7:10 p.m., Commissioners Shipe and Green returned to the Chambers and the dias. Commissioner Shipe resumed the Chairmanship. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None OTHER BUSINESS was taken out of sequence at this time, Principal Planner Lee indicated that there were three items which the Planning Commission had requested a staff response, a) Height of Industrial Walls Adjacent to Residential Areas - Mr, Lee noted that while the Commission's inquiry was not site specific, a business on "L" Street requested a zone variance to increase a building wall adjacent to a residence approximately 1-1/2 years ago and that variance had various issues which affected the Zoning Administrator's decision, He stated that if the Commission wished, such variances granted by the Zoning Administrator could be brought forward on an informational basis to the Commission. Planning Commission -5- March 25, 1987 MS (Green/Cannon) that the Zoning Administrator be authorized to approve wall heights up to 9 feet; and the Planning Commission consider requests for construction of any wall over 9 feet in height. Discussion involved whether provisions should be considered with respect to building heights of over 12 feet in addition to the 9-foot free-standing wall height limitation. A~ENDED MOTION: MSUC (Green/Cannon) (6-0) that the construction of free-standing walls over 9 feet in height, or structures over 12 feet in height located in close proximity to the lot line between commercial and residential buildings be subject to approval of the Planning Commission instead of the Zoning Administrator b) Height and setbacks for RV's Commissioner Green stated that his interest was in cases involving commercial storage of RVs parked next to private residences. He stated he was of the opinion that there should be a general policy that staff could quote to commercial storage lot owners that would prohibit RV parking within l0 to 15 feet of a private residence thereby blocking the resident's view. He said he was not discussing lot lines but proximity to the residence itself; i.e., a 13-foot RV located 3 feet away from a private residence. Discussion included the erection of an opaque wall for trailer parks utilizing SDG&E easements with no camper exceeding the height of the wall to be allowed in close proximity; a suggestion that staff return to the Commission with potential alternatives; the need to review each incident on an individual basis, to extend the policy to include private RVs parked close to neighbor's windows; would create excessive work for staff; need to just make a general statement that proximity of RVs close to residences would not be permitted. It was decided that a general statement would be made that the Planning Commission is greatly concerned about any situation that might place a Recreation Vehicle (in a commercial storage yard) in close proximity to an adjacent residence. c) Setbacks for Buildings of Three Stories and Up Principal Planner Lee pointed out that efforts are made to ensure that the design of a building fits in the neighborhood; he reviewed the present setback regulations involving new construction versus construction in older parts of town; he proposed that as the height of the building is increased, the minimum front yard setback of 15-feet be increased proportionally; the side and rear setbacks also need to be addressed; many areas are in transition which presents quite a problem for the DRC; Planning Commission -6- March 25, 1987 particularly if the adjacent zoning is single-family. He suggested that staff be directed to include in their active work schedule the review of front, rear and side setbacks including open space requirements. Commissioner Green agreed and also that a statement should be transmitted to the DRC that the Planning Committee is not happy with some of the setbacks of some of the three-story buildings recently approved; particularly, the one on "E" Street and the one at Third and "K". CO~MISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Green said he would like placed on the Agenda for future discussion consideration of a resolution in which the Planning Commission would express their strong concern about the development in Otay Mesa and inquire what legal means can be used to alleviate the situation. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like placed on the Agenda a review of the ordinances governing parking for multi-family units and also for Senior Citizens. He referred specifically to the fact that the parking on East "H" Street adjoining Beacon Cove is completely filled, yet parking is available within the project. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:50 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3744P