Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/07/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, July 27, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Moot, Ray, Salas, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Martin (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Associate Planner Hernandez, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Wolfe, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Tuchscher, followed by silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin absent) to approve the Chula Vista Planning Commission minutes of July 13, 1994, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Martin because of a business conflict. Commissioner Ray asked that items 3 and 5 be considered out of order because of the possible length of discussion on items 1 and 2. The Commissioners concurred. PC Minutes -2- July 27, 1994 ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-94-46; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHILDREN'S AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISE (DISCOVERY ZONE) AT 510-520 BROADWAY - Blockbuster Children's Amusement Corporation Associate Planner Martin presented the staff report. He noted that other commercial uses surrounded the proposed Discovery Zone site, and because of the commercial nature of the use, it was considered compatible with the surrounding land uses in the center. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-46, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Commissioner Ray clarified that young people between the ages of 13 and 18, whether or not accompanied by an adult, would be precluded from the facility. Mr. Miller stated that if they were part of a group, they may enter but may or may not be allowed into the Zone area where children and parents can play. He referred the question to the representative of the Discovery Zone. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Debra Frischer, 5663 Balboa Ave., Suite 116, San Diego 92111, representing Blockbuster Children's Amusement, stated that Blockbuster was in agreement with staff's recommendation and report, and she was there to answer questions the Commissioners might have. Answering Commissioner Ray's earlier question, Ms. Frischer said that children between the ages of 13 and adulthood were allowed in the facility but not allowed to play in the play areas for safety reasons and the security of the younger children. They would be treated as adults and could sit in the food area or party rooms, but would not be in the areas where the children would be playing. Commissioner Fuller asked if the children's play was organized, and if the Discovery Zone made the schools in the area aware that this was an opportunity for children. Ms. Frischer stated there were activities that encouraged physical fitness, aimed more at children accomplishing something other than having a good time. Commissioner Fuller asked if the fun zone locations for token oriented games were also games of skill. Ms. Frischer concurred. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the meeting rooms could be rented for community functions, and if it would be for after hours. Marci Adler, 4805 Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego 92123, also representing Blockbuster, in answer to Commissioner Tarantino, said she felt the meeting rooms were more for church groups or parks and recreation who would bring groups of children rather than adults, similar to a day camp. PC Minutes -3- July 27, 1994 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Fuller/Salas) that the Planning Commission adopt PCC-94-46 approving the Conditional Use Permit PCC-94-46, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf noted that the staff report indicated that the parking requirements for this facility were not otherwise set forth in the Code, and, therefore, the Commission was required to make a finding as to the appropriate ones. He proposed that the motion be amended to include a sentence in condition no. 5 of page 3 of the resolution which dealt with parking and set up the process for the Zoning Administrator, as follows: The Commission hereby finds that the number of parMng spaces is not set forth in the Code, and that 61 spaces is the appropriate number of spaces for this use. The rest of the motion would remain the same. Commissioner Fuller accepted the amendment to the motion. The second concurred. Commissioner Ray asked that in Condition l(c), page 2 of the resolution, the hours of operation be amended to read 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The maker and the second of the motion agreed to the amendment. VOTE: 6-0 to approve. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-94-04: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.64 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CONDOMINIUMS WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO DENSITY - City Initiated Principal Plalmer Griffin presented the staff report noting that this issue arose when potential buyers of a condominium unit were unable to obtain financing because the condo project within which the unit was located exceeded the present density that would be allowed by the City zoning regulations. Staff recommended that condominiums be exempted from the provision in the Code which would prohibit reconstruction if the condominium project were destroyed, since the owners of the condominiums were individually owned with the structures attached rather than one owner of an entire complex. Commissioner Moot asked if a specific incident prompted this action. Mr. Griffin stated an owner of a condominium unit trying to sell approached staff when buyers were unable to obtain financing. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the proposal was very consistent with what other agencies in the County allowed, and also the present authority was given to the Planning PC Minutes -4- July 27, 1994 Commission as to whether a condominium could be rebuilt if destroyed. The proposed amendment would provide certainty that it could be rebuilt. Mr. Lee did not believe this type of issue would be frequent, but gave a comfort level to lending institutions. Commissioner Ray asked if it was in the norm within the state or nationally. Mr. Lee confirmed that it was for the County--staff had not checked further. Chair Tuchscher noted that insurance companies would most likely be reluctant to insure properties whereby if there was a fire the property could not be replaced. The building would have to be insured as to what it was entitled to rather than what it was built to. Mr. Lee stated that insurance companies were insuring the building, and the building itself could be rebuilt to that size, but not that many units. He did not feel that was an issue. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tarantino/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to approve resolution PC A-94-04 recommending that the City Council amend Section 19.64 of the Municipal Code in accordance with the draft City Council ordinance and the findings contained therein. Chair Tuchscher stated they would now take item 4 out of order. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCM-92-17; CONSIDERATION OF REVISED DESIGN MANUAL - City Initiated (b) PCA-95-01; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.14.582 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A BROADER RANGE OF PROJECTS SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffin gave the staff report, noting that the revised Design Manual and amendments to the Code were being proposed in order to assist in streamlining project review. He noted that both the Manual and the Code amendments had been unanimously endorsed by the Design Manual Advisory Committee, the Design Review Committee, and the Economic Development Conunission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission also endorse the two streamlining proposals. Commissioner Tuchscher asked what other groups and commissions had reviewed the changes and what had the result been in both input and approval/disapproval of the documents. Mr. Griffin replied that the Design Manual Advisory Committee had been specifically formed to develop the new manual. That Committee had representatives from the Planning PC Minutes -5- July 27, 1994 Commission, Economic Development Commission, Design Review Committee, American Institute of Amhitects, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and three at-large members who had experience in processing projects through the City. There were a total of seven working sessions, and there were many changes made to the staff draft. The proposals then went to the Design Review Committee who had very little comment and voted unanimously for approval; then to the Economic Development Commission who also voted unanimously to recommend approval. There were some comments from the EDC regarding some technical aspects of the documents and an encouragement that, although there was a feeling the manual and amendments would go a long way in streamlining the process and there was adequate flexibility contained there, that staff had to keep in their own minds that in implementing the manual that they remain flexible. Commissioner Moot asked if corporate signage had been revisited in the process. Commissioner Tarantino stated he had requested that of the subcommittee, but the restrictive policy in terms of signage remained the same. Conunissioner Ray asked what would take precedence--the sign ordinance or the Design Review Manual. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf answered that the ordinance would take precedence over the manual. The manual was only being adopted by resolution, so it did not rise to the level of an ordinance, which was the law. Mr. Griffin stated there was guidance in the manual on using building striping and graphics in a way which would suggest a sign and which directed people away from that. The language remained the same in the Code. Commissioner Moot stated he did not want to see Chula Vista being passed over when some of the national corporations chose to do business in the area and would not come to Chula Vista because of the sign ordinance--not being able to update their buildings or incorporate their signs into the national advertising image. Mr. Griffin replied that staff tried to direct corporate image architecture away from some of the more garish themes which may be used on a national basis, but tried to retain some of their color and logo identification so it clearly remained identifiable as associated with that particular corporation. Over the last several years, most of the corporations were used to adapting more to local requirements regarding design, and they have a variety of designs which they could work with. Staff tried to fit it in within the context of the City regulations. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested that the Planning Commission and staff take an affirmative action and revisit the issue of signage in a workshop session, and perhaps make some recommendation to Council; and that at the workshop, some type of action be taken. Commissioner Moot concurred. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -6- July 27, 1994 Commissioner Tarantino commended Principal Planner Griffin and Assistant Planner Wolfe for their diligence and patience in completing a difficult task with a diverse group. MSUC (Fuller/Moot) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to approve resolution PCM-92-17/PCA-95-01 recommending that the City Council approve the revised Design Manual and process streamlining Code amendment in accordance with the draft City Council resolution and ordinance and the findings contained therein. Chair Tuchscher then called for the presentation of the staff report for Item 1. ITEM 1: PCZ-94-D, PCM-94-24, PCM-94-27, PCM-93-6, PCS-88~3A: CONSIDERATION OF PREZONING AND INCORPORATING APPROXIMATELY 22.3 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN EASTLAKE GREENS AND AMENDING THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS SPA PLAN, EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, EASTLAKE GREENS AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, AND EASTLAKE GREENS MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-3) - EastLake Development Company Assistant Planner Wolfe presented the staff report, noting that 13 parcels would be affected by the transfer. Regarding the EastLake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision Map, Ms. Wolfe stated those parcels being excluded were R-9, Open Space 5, and a furore urban area. The new tentative map also made the adjustment as far as the proposed trail realignment and lot size adjustments on Parcel R-3. Staff recommended that the amendments be approved, based on the findings and conditions included in the draft City Council resolution and ordinances. Commissioner Moot asked if the elimination of R-9 and F-U was because it was now going into the Otay Ranch area. Assistant Planner Wolfe understood the elimination of the parcels was because those parcels were intended to be developed along with additional land that was proposed to be added onto EastLake Greens at some furore time. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that those sites were associated with what was referred to as the "land swap area" which was originally under Baldwin ownership adjacent to it. This piece would be tied to the area that EastLake swapped with the Baldwin Corporation, but not part of it. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC Minutes -7- July 27, 1994 Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100, Chula Vista, representing EastLake Development Company, thanked the staff for the diligence that had been afforded them. EastLake was very satisfied with the results and fully supported staff's recommendations. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that everyone within the existing EastLake development was notified of the public hearing. One letter of objection had been received regarding the trail system revision; however, after meeting with staff the letter had been withdrawn with the indication that they were satisfied with the proposed solution. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked if there was any resolution or further options in terms of liability on the trail system, whether the City or EastLake Development would be liable, or if it was a joint liability. Mr. Lee replied that staff had not gotten a specific ruling from the Attorney's office. The issue of liability was raised early in revisiting the location of the trail by EastLake; staff had reviewed it with the City's Risk Analyst who was very concerned about the potential liability. Staff had reseamhed the existing golf course which had a trail system; in discussion with the Parks & Recreation, there had been no recorded incidents of any magnitude. Mr. Lee felt it was not a very safe condition given the number of people frequenting the course and the jogging trail. After discussing some of the pros and cons of having the trail system in EastLake golf course, Mr. Lee stated he believed the alternatives being provided in terms of the viewpoints were logical from a practical standpoint, if not from a trail standpoint. EastLake was willing to widen the sidewalk along the loop road which was another trade-off. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Lee stated that the viewpoints had been observed by EastLake, the Planning Department, and the Parks & Recreation Director. They had been chosen because of their location in back of certain tee box areas and adjacent to excellent viewpoints in terms of water features and water falls. He felt it would give an opportunity to people to have a quiet area to sit in a safe fashion. Mr. Lee then showed slides of the viewpoint areas. MSUC (Moot/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to approve resolution PCZ-94-D/PCM-094-24/PCM-94-27/PCM-93-6/PCS-88-3A reconunending that the City Council approve the proposals in accordance with the draft City Council resolution and ordinances based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FILED BY SUNLAND RANCHO DEL REY AND RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P. FOR 16.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AND DEL REY BOULEVARD WITHIN THE RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY: PC Minutes -8- July 27, 1994 (a) PCM-94-26; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN RECLASSIFYING LOT 119 FROM SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (SFA) TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOMES (SFDT) AND AUTHORIZING A 20 UNIT DENSITY TRANSFER ONTO THE SITE. (b) PCS-94-02: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SUNLAND RANCHO DEL REY, CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS-94-02. The staff report was presented by Associate Planner Hernandez. He noted that the proposed tentative map consisted of 41 lots, including 12 lots dedicated to open space and loop road; 27 lots would contain the 200 units proposed for the development; each lot is approximately 1/2 acre except for the corner lots which range from .70 to 1 acre. Mr. Hernandez proceeded with an explanation of the project, concluding with a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a motion that it had reviewed and considered the addendum to FEIR-87-01, and approve resolution PCM-94-26/PCS-94-02 attached to the staff report. Commissioner Fuller, referring to page 7 of the resolution, item 9, questioned the maintenance of drainage, sewer facilities, and storm drains. Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich replied that some of the sewers may go up local driveways, which the City would not maintain. The City would maintain the major main within the loop street, but not any side ones. Regarding storm drains, the entire street is private, so the City requires the storm drain to be private as well. Commissioner Ray, referencing a further sentence on the same page, questioned "the City to enforce the terms and cortditions in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision." He asked if the City had the same right as the homeowners or homeowners association to enforce proper maintenance. Mr Ullrich answered that it was included so the City could participate in the homeowners association if desired. The City would have the right, but not the requirement, to do so. The City woul.:l have no more of a vote than a single resident. At Commissioner Ray's request, a slide was shown to point out the elevation of the project over the surrounding area. Mr. Hernandez stated that the lowest point was approximately 20 feet and the highest point about 40 feet, a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Tarantino, referring to page 2-52 of the staff report, questioned the adequacy of the site drainage facilities for the project, and the adjustment required by the Fire Department. Mr. Hernandez stated that a drainage channel was being installed and connected to the project. Commissioner Moot questioned the density transfer. Mr. Hernandez, using an overhead, showed the areas being affected. Answering Commissioner Moot, Mr. Hernandez stated that no specific area was less ~ense; each parcel had a target number of units. Other projects within the SPA had less units than the SPA allowed to be built; that became a credit to be used in another area. PC Minutes -9- July 27, 1994 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chair Tuchscher noted that Mr. Kretowicz had requested 15 minutes, and with the concurrence of the Planning Commission allowed that amount of time. Ute Kretowicz, 5095 Murphy Canyon Rd.//280, San Diego, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Sunland Communities and Cornerstone Communities, using slides, explained the product they were proposing. Commissioner Moot asked the market price of the homes. Mr. Kretowicz said they were hoping to enter the market at the mid $130's which they believed to be substantially less than any product around. They would be able to compete head-to-head with attached product. The marketing was to offer a young couple who could only afford attached product the opportunity to buy a detached home at almost head-to-head pricing. Commissioner Salas asked where the project in the Bay Area was located, since she would be in the area soon and would like to see it. Mr. Kretowicz stated that it was in Pleasanton, and would give her the address. Commissioner Ray asked if the project was comparable to the project just east of Briarwood. Mr. Hernandez stated that the development concept on Manzana Way was the same--a loop road which fed into individual motor courts. Each motor court had six to eight duplexes; however, the separation and arrangement was more single-family. It was basically the same concept regarding site planning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to approve resolution PCM-94-26/PCS-94-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Sectional Planning Area amendment, density transfer, and Tentative Subdivision Map for Sunland Rancho Del Rey Subdivision, Chula Vista Tract PCS-94-02, in accordance with the draft City Council Resolution and based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed therein, and including FE1R-87-01 Addendum. Commissioner Ray asked when the project would be on the market. Mr. Kretowicz stated they anticipated receiving a final map by November or December; hopefully, they would be grading in October and delivering the product during the first quarter of next year. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this was the last Planning Commission meeting with Assistant City Attorney Rudolf; he was going to Carlsbad. There had been a request from the City Attorney's office to consider whether or not the Planning Commission could exist for three or four months without a City attorney at the meetings. He had met with the Chair and Vice PC Minutes -10- July 27, 1994 Chair of the Planning Commission during the week, and they had asked that he carry a message to the City Attorney's office that it was not acceptable. The City Attorney indicated he would make every effort possible to make sure there was a representative from his office at the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Moot suggested that a recommendation from the Planning Commission be passed on to the City Attorney's office that someone from that office be present at the Commission meetings. He believed Rich had kept the Commission out of trouble several times. He felt it would be unwise for the Planning Commission to proceed, especially on some of the bigger projects, without representation of the attorney's office. Mr. Lee noted that he had also expressed a concern to the City Attorney that the Planning Commission considers projects that are time sensitive with large amounts of money involved in financing; if a legal question arose, it could mean a longer continuance due to research and a delay to projects. After further discussion, the Commissioners asked if a letter could be drafted by the Chair stating their unanimous concerns. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that an alternative also could be to take the item off agenda because the information with regard to the availability or lack of availability was not available until the presentation of the oral report, and it would be legitimate to find that the need to take action did not arise until after the agenda was formed. MS (Moot/Fuller) that after the agenda was printed and distributed, that a matter came to the attention of the Planning Commission and that good cause would appear to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Attorney that there be a member of the legal staff of the City Attorney's office present at the Planning Commission meetings. Assistant Planning Director Lee suggested it be directed to the City Council, since the City Attorney took direction from them. Commissioner Moot amended the motion; the second concurred. Commissioner Ray asked if the position had been budgeted for the full year; if this was a money-saving issue; timing of getting a candidate to fill the position. Mr. Lee believed it was a staffing issue in terms of personnel. One of the members in the City Attorney's office had been heavily involved in personnel issues; they just didn't have the bodies to cover. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf concurred that the position was fully funded for the full year; it was a matter of being short a person for the amount of time it would take to recruit and hire an additional person. PC Minutes -11- July 27, 1994 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to write a letter to the City Council. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked if a response had been received from the County regarding Hal Rosenberg's letter to them regarding the traffic signal control. Mr. Lee answered negatively, but stated he would check with Mr. Rosenberg and report back. Commissioner Ray thanked Mr. Rosenberg for getting the letter out rapidly. Commissioner Salas asked to be excused from the meeting of August 10, 1994, since she would be out of town. Commissioner Moot also asked to be excused from August 9 through August 19, 1994, on vacation. MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Martin excused) to excuse Members Moot and Salas from the meeting of August 10, 1994. CommissionerTuchscher thanked Assistant City Attorney Rudolf for his assistance. Mr. Rudolf also thanked the Commission for the recognition and gifts he had received at the workshop session the week before. ADJOURNMENT at 9:05 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 10, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rip{ey,' Sec/retar~ Planning Commission (7-27-94,min)