Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/03/11 Tape No : 279 Side: l: 0-951 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 11, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Grasser, Green and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Director of Community Development Desrochers 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 (Cannon/Carson) to approve the minutes of the meeting of February ll, 1987, as mailed. OPJ~L COMMUNICATIONS Richard Bridges, 615 Cedar Ave, CV 92010, asked why Commissioners Shipe and Green, even though they had potential conflicts of interest, could not offer the Commission the benefit of their opinions if they refrained from voting. Deputy City Attorney Moore replied that this would be incorrect procedurally. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-34M/P79-O13 - CONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO CONDITIONALLY REVOKE MAJOR USE PERMITS FOR OPERATION OF AN AUTO DISMANTLING FIRM AT 3513 AND 3517 MAIN STREET - JOHN AND CAROL MARQUEZ Principal Planner Lee noted that last November, the Planning Department initiated proceedings to conditionally revoke the major use permit for failure to fulfill the conditions of the permit; namely, installation and maintenance of landscaping and prohibition of dismantling or open storage within 400 feet of the front property line. He noted that the applicant had complied with dismantling operation some time ago and that the public hearing had been Planning Commission -2- March ll, 1987 postponed twice to allow the owners to install the landscaping which has now been completed. Therefore, staff is recommending that this item be filed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) to file the item. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-31 REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE ISLAND AT THE 7-ELEVEN STORE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND MELROSE AVENUE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION Principal Planner Lee stated that the proposal is to add a self-service gas island and freestanding canopy on the northerly portion of the site. Additional parking spaces would be removed to provide for the location of the pump island and canopy. Additional property has been purchased to the west to allow a 40-foot expansion. Landscaping is expanded and the circulation meets staff's satisfaction. The conditional use permit requirement of public convenience is met by the fact that no other gas facilities are within 1/4 mile of the site. The number of one-way trips per day is estimated at 750 and staff is of the opinion that no traffic congestion will be caused. Staff recommends approval based on the findings. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Stephen R. Ray, 4215 Spring Street, La Mesa, representing The Southland Corporation, expressed his willingness to answer any questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-39. MSUC {Cannon/Grasser) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the request, PCC-87-39, to construct a self-service pump island at the southwest corner of Otay Valley Road and Melrose Avenue subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. 3. WORKSHOP: TOWN CENTRE II CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER EXPANSION AND FIFTH AVENUE CLOSURE AND THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF FIG AVENUE Commissioners Green and Shipe declared potential conflicts of interest; Commissioner Green because he owns property at 535 "H" Street and Chairman Shipe because he is the manager of the Bank located at ~ Avenue and "H" Street. Chairman Shipe turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Carson and both Commissioners left the dais. ~/~ ~ Planning Commission -3- March ll, 1987 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that the Draft EIR distributed to the Commission was for a proposed amendment to the Town Centre 11 Redevelopment Plan to provide for the use tax increment revenues generated by the project to finance it and that the only major revisions concerned the project description section. Commissioner Cannon inquired whether or not the proposal included a guarantee by the City of a return to the developer for the monies the developer is placing into the project. Director of Community Development Desrochers stated that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved by the Agency in July, 1986 included provisions that the Agency would participate in the financing to the extent required and that Homart would have a return of 13 percent on their cash investment of $35 million. A Disposition and Development Agreement containing certain stipulations (including the closure of Fifth Avenue) would be entered into wi th Homart. The Agency wants security for its share of the cost and a guarantee that the center would be built as stated; that is, the City wants to receive the tax increments and sales tax to repay the investment. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's statement that if we are going to have to give Homart 13 percent, then obviously the center is not performing to satisfaction and the tax revenues will be less, Mr. Desrochers pointed out that the 13 percent is a one-time benchmark - not an annual payment - and is based on the initial $35 million cash investment. He noted that the City investment would be protected; the Redevelopment Agency would retain title to Fifth Avenue and enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement wherein the City would receive tax increment and sales tax. Director Desrochers outlined the agenda for the Workshop pointing out that representatives from Homart and PRC Engineering were present to answer any questions In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's questions as to how we can vacate Fifth Avenue and still retain the title; and if Homart would buy the vacated street property - Mr. Desrochers said that the Attorney's Office was looking into means by which the property would not revert to the adjoining property owners, or if it did, that it would be protected by covenants ensuring that if the expansion did not take place, the property would return to the City. Homart is purchasing the Boys' Club property, not the vacated street. Thomas Gourguechon, 55 W. Monroe, Chicago, IL, representing Homart Development~ said they had prepared a brief slide presentation concerning the approach to the design of the shopping center. He then introduced Perry Hall, Project Financial Director. Mr. Hall stated that Homart has a hurdle rate set as a threshold by the Board of Directors to make its investment decisions. The formula in the MOU calls for a pro-forma to be calculated in substantial detail on the cost of the project and a substantially detailed forecast in both revenues and sales; in particular,the developers' net operating income before taxes and before debt Planning Commission -4- March 11, 1987 service on the project. The MOU then indicates that there will be in one year, the third year, a calculation that there will be a 13 percent return. It says nothing about before or after the third Near. If the costs are under-forecast and Homart has to put up more money, ~t will do so. The third year is chosen because the center has stabilized by that time. Commissioner Cannon asked if in the third year, Homart did not make the 13 percent, was the City obligated to make up the difference. Mr. Hall replied that it was not. Homart is in the process of gathering final estimates and of providing new numbers based on a more recent analysis of the market since last fall and presenting them to the Redevelopment Agency. Once the Forecast is set, the amount of Redevelopment investment is set. Commissioner Cannon said he would like a copy of that agreement. Director Desrochers said it would be provided. In reply to further questioning, staff and Mr. Hall said that a stipulation of the agreement included that the center be comparable to University Towne Centre; that at least 75 percent of the tenants must be new as they did not wish to drain the rest of the City; that Homart and the City agreed to do their best to attract a fourth department store; that the Redevelopment Agency participation would include certificates of participation which would be paid up tax increments and a portion of the additional sales tax. In regard to the fourth department store, since department stores wish to see the performance of a center before becoming a participant, it might be 2 to 3 years before the fourth department store would be a reality. A slide presentation was given showing the project in a very conceptual fashion. It was based on the use of size, space and enlivened pedestrian activities; the object being to create a degree of interest and excitement through the use of curvilinear forms projecting to a terminus and pricking the curiosity of the visitor. The design reflects the new philosophy of spatial values with alternation of large public activity locations and then more refined and confined areas. Visually stimulating are the banners, different store fronts, and signage that becomes a visual communicator for a long distance and takes on an artlike character defining districts and zones. At the close of the presentation, Mr. Desrochers said that Mr. Frischer, traffic consultant, and Mr. Golmartin and Heal ty of Carter Hawley-Hale Inc. operators of the Broadway were available for any further questioning. In reply to Commissioner Cannon's query, he said Council suggested that the Commission might wish to give them a general statement regarding this project. Commissioner Cannon stated that, in his opinion, the present center will not be able to continue but will disintegrate and lose sales; he did not feel that Chula Vista should be the only city without a regional center; the proposal as presented makes sense to him as long as the economics make sense; the closing of Fifth Avenue is a hardship, but under the circumstances, with Quality major tenants (particularly with a fourth quality major tenant) and quality merchandising in the center, he would close Fifth Avenue and rebuild the Planning Commission -5- March ll, 1987 center. He added that he had major reservations that the three existing major tenants could make it in the center even if it were redeveloped; that if we didn't go forward with this developer at this time, we would lose Pennys (who is already located in Plaza Bonita) and several other quality stores. Commissioner Tugenberg said that Chula Vista needs the revenues to maintain the services desired by the citizenry; if the shopping center is not upgraded, it will continue downward drawing the residential neighborhood values with it; and that very reluctantly he would advise Council to close Fifth Avenue although he intuitively felt that the mitigation measures proposed would be ineffective in alleviating the traffic impacts in the vicinity. Commissioner Grasser said she concurred with both Commissioners. Commissioner Carson said she would ask City Council to take a strong look at seeing what could be done about rerouting, or the ring road, or something to help the neighbors because that was the one reason she had voted no on the EIR - and she had very cold feet about going forward. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Cannon inquired if approval of La Quinta was not conditioned on construction of a traffic island to prevent left-hand turns. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt replied that the project and the traffic signal have been awarded and work should commence soon. Commissioner Cannon then asked when the "Quik Korner" sign would be removed. Director of Planning Krempl replied that the owner had been given 30 days in which to remove the sign and that the time should be about up. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 p.m. to the Study Session of March 18, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3683P