Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/05/26 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, May 26, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot (7:07), Ray, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Bazzel, Senior Planner Crowley, Associate Planner Miller, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller, followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Martin/Carson) 5-0 (Commissioner Moot not yet arrived; Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to approve the minutes of April 28, 1993, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-25; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A DAYCARE CENTER AT 73 NORTH SECOND AVENUE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 250 CHILDREN, AND LIVE-IN SECURITY GUARD Ms. Elizabeth Stillwagon (Chula Vista Connection - Neighbors Helping Neighbors) PC Minutes -2- May 26, 1993 Associate Planner Miller said that as a result of new information, the applicant was preparing a revised site plan for the project; staff, therefore recommended continuance to June 23, 1993. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 5-0 (Moot not yet arrived; Tuchscher absent) to continue PCC-93-25 to the meeting of June 23, 1993. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING - PCA-93-01; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE LIEN SALE OF IMPOUNDED VEHICLES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE/SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE IP (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Dale Wineteer, A-Z Metro Towing Associate Planner Miller recommended continuance of this item to June 9, 1993, because the subject project was still under environmental review which overlapped this meeting. MSUC (Ray/Carson) 5-0 (Moot not yet arrived; Tuchscher absen0 to continue PCA-93-01 to the meeting of June 9, 1993. Commissioner Moot arrived (7:07 p.m.). ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING - PCM-88-08; HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY - City of Chula Vista Associate Planner Miller and Senior Planner Crowley (who was also the consultant who prepared the Study prior to being hired as Senior Planner) presented the staff report and highlighted the different alternatives and incentives. Associate Planner Miller noted that two letters had been received by the Planning Department; one asking questions about the historic district to which staff would make an appropriate response. The second was from Mr. Paul Oya, which stated that he understood that the homeowner no longer retained control of his/her property and any modifications had to have the approval of the Planning Commission and the Historical Society. Mr. Miller pointed out that the Historical Society was not involved and had declined to comment on the historical district study. He clarified, also, that there would be an agreement between the property owner and the City that the property owner's home would be retained in a historic designation only if the property owner wished that. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Historic District Study and its recommendation to prepare a Historic Modifying District Ordinance (Alternative No. 4) creating an overlay zone, and, as a separate action, create a Historic District Task Force as described in the Historic District Study. Commissioner Martin asked if there was a history of Chula Vista's designation process as to how long it took. Mr. Miller answered negatively; however, Senior Planner Crowley said he PC Minutes -3- May 26, 1993 had served on the Historic Site Board in San Diego for three years and during that period the routine procedure for application for designation would take approximately two months unless it was controversial. In that case, it could take several months. Chula Vista's procedure was not as elaborate. Commissioner Ray asked if Alternative 4 would be subject to concurrence of the homeowner to be put in the overlay zone. Mr. Crowley answered that the overlay zone would be applied, as any other overlay zone, through the public hearing process through the Commission and Council and would not require a unanimous approval of people in the particular area being zoned. In the case of individual sites, a site may be recommended to the RCC for designation but could be appealed by the property owner. Once the district boundaries were determined, individuals within those boundaries could not exempt themselves. Commissioner Tarantino said he understood that an overlay zone could be applied anywhere throughout the City. Sites that had merit of being classified as historical could qualify. If the property owner decided he did not want to participate, that would be okay. He asked if the overlay zone could be applied to individual residences throughout the City or an area in which everybody must participate. Mr. Miller said when the ordinance is crafted, it may specify a minimum acreage in order to apply, or individual lots could apply. That was the purpose of a historical task force--to study those questions. It would depend heavily on public input as to how the ordinance is crafted. Commissioner Moot asked for an explanation of the difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 3 which the Resource Conservation Commission recommended. Mr. Miller said with Alternative 3 the status quo remained, which was what the RCC recommended. Alternative 4 was the creation of the historic overlay zone, a modifying ordinance. Answering Commissioner Moot, Mr. Miller said Alternative 4 would give the City a mechanism allowing the property owners the option of applying for historic designation. Presently, the only benefit would be to have a plaque in front of the house showing it was historic. Commissioner Carson asked if a site was designated historic and it changed to new owners, would the new owners have to keep it a historic site or could it be negotiated with the City to have it removed. Mr. Crowley said the owner could return before the Committee and ask that they be undesignated; it was not an irrevocable act. Commissioner Tarantino asked the duration of the task force, and if staff was available to be assigned to it and budget for it. Principal Planner Griffin answered that, regarding the task force, if the Council decided to proceed in considering an overlay zone and the development of that, he thought the intent would be to have a consultant or a contract person hired to prepare PC Minutes -4- May 26, 1993 it. He did not feel there was sufficient permanent staff time available to craft that in a reasonable period of time. Part of the job of the person staffing that group would be to outline a work program for the project and also for the task force which would have a series of meetings and an end date. The details would have to be worked out during the process of the study. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chris Anderson, 654 Del Mar Avenue, CV, requested staff to get together with the community to discuss the issues, the pros and cons of having a historical district. She had no objection to the study, but would object to the overlay being applied to their neighborhood and the restrictions which might be applied. The residents wanted to make sure that, whatever ordinance was actually enacted, they were getting sufficient benefits that would outweigh any restrictions being placed on their property. Chair Fuller asked if the residents had access to the Historic District Study Report. Ms. Anderson said they had access over a year ago, and had brought many concerns about the study itself to staff at the time, many of which she said had not been answered for the residents. The report they had was dated February 1992, and they had not received anything since. Principal Planner Griffin said that following the RCC action, there had been a meeting with the neighborhood that was noticed to the entire ama shown on the exhibit, and approximately 30 or 40 of the neighbors came and about two hours were spent discussing what was and was not being proposed. He said that even though this was a study and an overlay zone they were being asked to consider, he felt that if an overlay zone was adopted, the neighborhood would have the opportunity to agree to its application to their neighborhood. Mr. Griffin said at the neighborhood meeting, they had discussed what might be some of the benefits to the neighborhood for accepting certain restrictions on their property. He did not feel staff was prepared at this time, when it is just a study and it might be an overlay zone, to invest much more time generating a long list of pros and cons. That would be something that would naturally flow from the overlay zone and the study of that. He explained that it still would not be applied to a neighborhood, but would include a list of incentives and possible restrictions which would become part and parcel of the overlay zone--still not being applied to any property, but available in the Code to be applied to property through the public hearing process. Mr. Griffin said it was unfortunate that it had been a year since they had that meeting with the neighborhood, but it was not top priority. The report which had been distributed to the neighborhood previously was basically the report that was before the Commission, except staff had included generically some of the incentives that were listed on the exhibit. Mr. Griffin explained that at the end of the neighborhood meeting, he had asked if any of the residents at the meeting would object to the study proceeding forward. A majority of the people at the meeting did not object to it going forward. He remembered stating that he did not feel City staff or the City, in terms of financing it, would be prepared to respond to a long list of PC Minutes -5- May 26, 1993 details before a concept was approved. If the concept was not approved by the Commission or the Council, the project would die and would be filed. Hector Diez de Bonilla, 621 Del Mar Ave., CV, asked if Mr. Crowley if he had talked with any of the community about this. Mr. Crowley said there was a forum held after the RCC meeting, set up by a resident of the community who had offered to organize people to come and sit down with staff and with him to discuss the study in more detail. Regarding contact with the community, Mr. Crowley said when he was retained by the City to do the study, it was not seen as a sales program to the community or a research project. His charge was to answer the questions and discuss the questions directed by the City Council, and that was why a study was created rather than a concrete proposal to incorporate a specific area in a historic district. Mr. Diez de Bonilla then asked Mr. Miller the same question. Mr. Miller said this was a Council referral to which staff was obliged to respond. This was the way they were responding. Staff was also obliged to adhere to California State law in notifying people for public hearings which was done. There was a public forum even before the RCC meeting. There had been several attempts to meet with the public. At the meeting of August 6, 22 residents had been present; of those 22 residents, 16 residents had no objection to allowing the study to continue forward; 4 were in opposition; and 2 had no opinion. The public had been notified; the study had been available. Mr. Diez de Bonilla said the residents wanted to work with the City in having an enjoyable home, hut was concerned that the RCC had recommended against the proposal. They wanted to preserve historical homes; however, some of their neighbors were restricted to having any more than a single-family dwelling or bringing "granny flats" on the lot for an older family member; another R-l-15 property was subdivided and two other houses were located there violating what they were trying to protect. He felt City staff was not being sensitive, cognizant of what the real desires of the community were; without their interest. He agreed with the previous speaker that the residents should be contacted first to find out what the community wants. With their support, something could be done well; without it, let it die. Chair Fuller commented that the RCC had made a recommendation, but it could not be acted on by staff at that point; the recommendation had to go to the Planning Commission; staff was following the procedure. Ralph Anderson, 654 Del Mar Avenue, C¥, confirmed that Mr. Griffin's characterization of what happened was correct. There was confusion in the neighborhood, but he understood that the Commission was being asked to recommend to the Council the creation of an enabling ordinance which would allow the Council after subsequent public hearings to overlay a historical district on certain properties within the city; the second recommendation in preparing that ordinance was to consider appointing a task force to work up the criteria for that ordinance. Chair Fuller concurred. Mr. Anderson did not feel the neighborhood was that concerned if that was all that was occurring. He understood staff's concern about committing time in doing an extensive study identifying the incentives or pros and cons which might be for any area that PC Minutes -6- May 26, 1993 might be designated without having some direction from the Council. They would have hoped that before it went back to the Commission or Council that the residents would have had some contact from staff to bring them up to date. That was the type of communication they were looking for. Corinne McCall, 642 Second Avenue, CV, a member of the Chula Vista Historical Society, said she lived in a historically designated house. She supported the recommendation for the adoption of the historic modifying district ordinance. She felt the design review process was needed. Ms. McCall said the Commission was dealing with larger issues than individual property rights; they were dealing with culture, community, the human impact on the land of future generations. Janet Griffin, 647 Del Mar Avenue, CV, had a "contributing building"; the overlay would restrict her and other residents; the original set-up on Second Avenue was limited to two homes, and other areas would be bought up between those. There were positive things the residents could do of their own choice without restrictions of an overlay zone. Ken Curtis (did not give address), a prospective purchaser of a home on Del Mar, having seen many places of historical interest demolished in the area, if nothing was done, there would be nothing left. He felt the City was taking a step in right direction. Dick Schuler, 640 Del Mar, CV, would like to preserve the historical value of the neighborhood but would like to have better input as to how it would be done. He was in favor of the study. Hector Diez de Bonilla returned to the podium to say the people had made improvements in the area without incentives and without a plan, without the supervision of the government. He asked if any building on Del Mar had been demolished except for the house on the corner of Second and 'T'. Mr. Griffin was not aware of any. Mr. Miller said he was sure the improvement of the area had resulted from private individuals investing their own money in their homes; however, with the incentives program it was possible that money spent in certain areas of rehabilitation could be reimbursed to the property owner. There were tax incentives--if the homeowner were to sign the Mills Act contract, the house would be assessed at its current use rather than its potential use which could result in significant tax breaks. As a community effort, staff was encouraging this--looking at the community effort because it benefited the entire community. The private homeowner would not have to spend that much money in order to bring the particular property up to the level where it is an aesthetically pleasing historic structure. Mr. Griffin commented that he had thought some neighborhoods would welcome this as something that would protect them from someone who would build something out of character with the neighborhood. Staff was not suggesting that the property owners in the Second Avenue and Del Mar were irresponsible with their properties. He had envisioned the overlay to possibly PC Minutes -7- May 26, 1993 develop in a generic way which would provide some general opportunities to craft something customized to a particular neighborhood. In working with the neighborhood at that point where it was being considered for application, the restrictions could be customized on a neighborhood basis and also the incentives could be customized. The overlay would have an opportunity to be customized to the area to respond to the neighborhood concerns and desires. Mr. Diez de Bonilla said he was proud of what had been done in the neighborhood, and if the neighborhood would want it as a group, he would go along with the group. He did not feel the group wanted it. Ann Paul, 680 Del Mar, CV, felt that with the overcrowding, it was time that each person be willing to yield a small amount of their desires and their personal residences so that which was beautiful, which has dignity, which may be falling apart from age could be preserved. She would be proud to see her home included in a historical district of Chula Vista. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller assured those in attendance that the Planning Commission was there to listen to their input. This was a process to try to wrap the issue up; it was a direction from a former Council that had to be considered. She thanked them for their input. Commissioner Moot said that part of the process was to all come together and learn from one another. He asked what a "contributing building" was and how it played into the historic overlay zone, and the relationship between the historic overlay zone conceived in the actual map given to the Commission. Mr. Crowley replied that when staff presented the overlay of the two areas of consideration, those predated the study and went back to the original proposal made by Mayor Cox when talking about three possibilities in that area of Chula ¥ista--a historic park, a historic row which included only eight properties, or expanding that to the west side of Second and including both sides of Del Mar because of the concentration of historic buildings and very high maintenance in that area. It was not a proposal for the boundaries of any future district; it was a carry-over from the initial investigation in the area. The overlay area might not be of that proportion at all. Regarding a "contributing structure", Mr. Crowley said that the National Register of Historic Places designated two categories of buildings for clarification purposes and income tax allocation. There were buildings that, on their own, even without being in a historic district, would be considered historic. They had to meet rather strict criteria qualifying them as historic. The historic district recognizes the fact that there would be buildings within the boundaries that were not unto themselves historic, but if existing side-by-side with those buildings and add to the general feeling of the area, they have value on their own. When it came to remodeling, demolition, etc. those buildings would be treated differently and under different criteria than a building that was historic on its own. They still had to be controlled so that something PC Minutes -8- May 26, 1993 inappropriate and out of scale for the neighborhood does not come in and destroy the overall character of the district. Chair Fuller stated that she felt a broadly based task force should be established to help determine the level of commitment to historic preservation, and to provide a broad-base forum to discussion. This should be recommended to Council first and, in light of some of the comments, the Council should consider if the City could afford funding for a consultant to serve the task force and also establish a timeline before getting into the question of an ordinance to establish anything. She asked for staff's comments. Associate Planner Miller said that staff had briefly considered this issue; they would be going into more detail in their report to Council on that particular issue. To date, staff had spent approximately 500+ cumulative hours since 1987 resulting in approximately $14,000 in cost. They intended to contact other cities to ascertain some of the budgetary requirements for creating such an ordinance and the time required by staff. If the Commission gave the go-ahead to create an ordinance, they would need to know the budget for that. Staff would be prepared to present that to the Council. Principal Planner Griffin added that he thought staff would have no problem with the idea of forming the task force to look at the overall issue before proceeding forward on an ordinance, if that was what the Commission desired. Commissioner Carson concurred that them should be a task fome. She was disappointed that staff had not updated the neighbors and that they had not ~een the May 1993 document. The Commission and staff knew the process, but many people in the community do not know the process of how the City gets information to the public and educating the public on what is taking place. She felt time could have been saved at the meeting if a neighborhood meeting had addressed some of their concerns before the current meeting. She recommended that they be given equal time as the developers. Commissioner Martin supported the study. MS (Martin/Ray) to recommend that the City Council establish a task force. Commissioner Ray asked what the Commission felt the make-up of the task fome should be. Chair Fuller replied that the recommendation in the historic study provided a suggestion for the make-up of the task force--members of the Council, Planning Commission, RCC, Historical Society, Chamber of Commerce, and residents in the area. Commissioner Ray felt it may be too large a task force to continue moving in a positive direction. He would support the motion as recommended in the study but would like to see an expansion of the powers of the RCC, for recommendation with some of the other members of the community involved, and then recommending to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. PC Minutes -9- May 26, 1993 Chair Fuller had no concerns about the make-up of the task force; it should be left up to the Council. Commissioner Tarantino felt some of the members of the neighborhood should be on the task force, but the times and dates of the task force meetings should be noticed, so there would be an opportunity for the public to give input. It had been his experience that at the end of a session, there was opportunity for public input. He did not see a problem with the make up. Commissioner Moot understood that among the things the task force would consider would be a historic modifying district ordinance and where that would be, what the significance of that might be, and if it would in fact affect a particular homeowner's ability to sell a house or make changes to a house. He saw the task force as being consistent with the recommendation to prepare a draft of what that might look like so it could be considered by the task force. If that was the direction the Commission was going, he could support that. Commissioner Tarantino agreed with Commissioner Moot, but in reading the recommendation he felt there was some confusion. By reading the study, he understood that a task force should prepare the ordinance. Chair Fuller concurred that it would be part of the assignment of the task force to craft and discuss a historical overlay zone ordinance, and through the discussion they would find out the input of the public, and bring their recommendation to Council. Commissioner Ray recommended to staff that the ad hoc members of the task force from the community be based within the district that was being discussed and that it be a rotating basis rather than a person from a certain street remaining on the task force and have a voting right for someone in another area. He thought the members of the community effected should be the ones involved. Chair Fuller clarified that Mr. Ray was asking that when specific areas of the community is being considered, that people from that area be able to contribute. Commissioner Ray felt there should be one or two open chairs for residents of the area being considered. Commissioner Martin believed the primary task of the task force was to provide a communications vehicle from all concerned. He felt the responsibility of setting up chairs or managing the committee should be on the chairman or the Council. The task fome itself should address the concerns of staff, the committee, and the desires of the community. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to recommend creation of a task force. Commissioner Carson suggested that if there was to be a district task force, that all meetings be noticed and that all the residents present at this meeting be noticed. At some determined time by the district task force, they would stop noticing the meetings, because after the first couple of meetings they would know whether or not they were interested. PC Minutes -10- May 26, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked if that was automatically covered by the creation of the task force. Principal Planner Griffin suggested that staff stand outside the door after the item was finished to get the names and addresses of those present, in case some were not property owners as provided by the County Assessor's roll, to make sure everyone was noticed. Answering Commissioner Ray's question, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that a task force is sometimes created without having to be in conformance with the Brown Act; however, the Council usually includes that in creating it. Chair Fuller noted that the Commission should include in their recommendation that the Council consider as part of their recommendation that the residents, particularly in the area of Del Mar and Second Avenue, be noticed of the meetings. Commissioner Moot stated that the language might be "potentially affected areas." MSUC (Ray/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to accept the Historic District Study. Chair Fuller said that because there were people present for Item 5, the application by EastLake Development, and there was no one present for Item 4, she would switch the last two agenda items with the Commission's concurrence. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING GPA-93-04; APPLICATION BY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 74 ACRES OF EASTLAKE GREENS, LOCATED IN TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, ONE SOUTH OF EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL, THE SECOND IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF EASTLAKE GREENS (Continued from the meeting of 5-18-93) Senior Planner Bazzel presented the staff report. The Commission was being asked to finalize their previous tentative recommendation to: 1) find that the Commission had read and considered EIR-86-04 for the EastLake Greens SPA and adopt the proposed addendum to the Environmental Impact Report; 2) adopt the recommending resolution for GPA-93-94 as reflected in Exhibits B and C. Chair Fuller opened the continued public hearing on GPA-93-04 to anyone who would like to address the Commission. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to find that the Commission has read and considered EIR-86-04, for the EastLake Greens project, and that the proposed project has no significant impacts which were not discussed in the EIR, and adopt the proposed Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR-86-04. PC Minutes -11- May 26, 1993 MSUC (Carson/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to adopt the Recommending Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-93-04) as reflected in Attachment B and C. The Commission then returned to Item 4. ITEM 4: PCA-92-03; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FACILITIES IN THE C-N ZONE - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, and noted that the City Council had adopted an emergency ordinance requiring the CUP with over-concentration findings to be applied to any changes to existing alcohol sales facilities. Council had directed staff to return within 90 days with a permanent amendment to reflect that. This amendment would cover any new facilities or any significant changes in the C-N zone and would apply the CUP over-concentration analysis to those facilities. Chair Fuller asked what was meant by significant increase in alcoholic content. Mr. Griffin used beer as an example-going from normal beer to a fortified beer. Commissioner Tarantino asked how the City would monitor the changes. Mr. Griffin said the City was notified by the ABC if a different type of license was required. Chair Fuller inquired if those types of sales required a different type of license. Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ray asked if previously approved or grandfathered alcohol sales facilities within the C-N zone could expand without the review. Mr. Griffin explained that with this amendment, any expansion or change would require local review. Commissioner Martin referred to a Time Magazine article revisiting the riot of Los Angeles and the abundance of liquor stores in the area. He felt that anything that could be done to halt this would be helpful. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened; no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to adopt Resolution PCA-93-03 recommending that the City Council enact the draft City Council ordinance to amend the requirements for alcoholic beverage sales facilities in the C-N zone. PC Minutes -12- May 26, 1993 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee discussed the agenda, noting that he was still trying to confirm with Barbara Bamberger, who was to be out of town until that day. She had tentatively agreed to attend the workshop on water. He brought the Commission's attention to the proposed Commission budget which would be considered by Council, and discussed some of the individual line items. Chair Fuller asked if the Commissioners felt she needed to go before Council. Commissioner Ray asked if Mr. Lee foresaw anything like the Otay Ranch project or a continuation of anything with the Otay Ranch with continuing meetings every week which should be figured into this. Mr. Lee did not anticipate it. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Fuller noted that there had been an article regarding the property on Main for the adult entertainment. She asked if the Commission would get that item to study. Mr. Griffin said the study was going forward and there would be an opportunity for the Commission to participate. MSUC (Ray/Carson) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher from the meeting because he was out of town on business. ADJOURNMENT at 9:05 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of Wednesday, June 9, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripley, Secretary Planning Commission (5 26-93. rain)