Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/11/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:03 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, November 13, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Thomas, Tuchscher, and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Salas STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Associate Planner Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/Davis) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Salas, who had a business conflict. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Ray/Tuchscher) 6-0 (Commissioner Salas absent) to approve the minutes for August 28, 1996 MSC (Ray/Davis) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Salas excused) to approve the minutes for September 11, September 25, and October 9, 1996. Commissioner Tuchscher abstained from voting since he had been absent from those meetings. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- November 13, 1996 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-97-12; REQUEST FOR A STORAGE LOT AT 38-44 THIRD AVENUE EXTENSION - Regina K. Hickey Trust (continued from the meeting of 9-25-96) Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the applicant had withdrawn their request. With the concurrence of the Planning Commission, Mr. Lee said it would be filed. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-06; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATING A TEMPORARY TRUCK TERMINAL/TRAILER STORAGE YARD AT 2400 FAIVRE STREET California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from the meeting of 9-25-96) Mr. Lee stated that the applicant had requested a continuance of this project to December 11, in accordance with a letter to the Planning Commission which had been placed on the dais. MSC (Ray/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Salas excused) to continue SUPS-96-06 to December 11, 1996. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-08; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN OPEN AIR MARKET AT 690 "L" STREET IN THE IL AND IL-P ZONES - Benjamin Hourani, George Ronis, Victor Joseph Applicants Commissioner Thomas stated that he had not read the staff report because George Ronis was an applicant on this project. Mr. Ronis is a business associate, so Commissioner Thomas felt he should abstain. He had just been informed that Mr. Ronis was no longer involved, but he could not vote because he had not read the material. Commissioner Willett abstained, since his daughter was the consultant on this project. Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report and gave an overview of the project. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that the Resource Conservation Commission on November 11, 1996, had reviewed the Negative Declaration and recommended that the project not be approved. Mr. Miller stated that staff felt the proposed one-year operational period was appropriate to defer improvements. If it was more than one year, improvements would be required. Mr. Miller showed slides of the area and adjacent uses. He stated that staff recommended denial, based on the following: 1) "L" Street is a gateway to the City pursuant to the General Plan; 2) the land use is not compatible to future land uses of the area; 3) the project does not comply with the long-term goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. PC Minutes -3- November 13, 1996 Mr. Miller reported that the applicants could request a deferral of improvements. If after a year they requested an extension, the applicant would need to install the improvements, pursuant to Condition 5(e), which had been placed on the dais prior to the start of the meeting. If the Planning Commission wished to approve the project, Mr. Miller suggested that they direct staff to come back with a draft of the recommendation of approval on November 20, 1996. Mr. Miller read into the record that staff had received a letter from Creaser and Warwick dated 11/13/96 opposing the project. Commissioner Davis, regarding the deferral, asked if it could be longer than one year. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said it depended on the results of a traffic study to determine the actual traffic impacts after the business had been in operation for a while. They would also want to see what impacts there would be on the ramps onto I-5 and on the whole area. If the impact was negligible, staff could waive all improvements. Commissioner Davis asked if the conditional use permit ran for 18 months, could the deferrals be extended to 18 months. Mr. Ullrich stated that there was no ordinance against that. Mr. Lee was concerned that it would then go into the holiday season for next year, and the applicant would probably want to come back for other days than Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Ray asked what guidelines were used to approve the delay in improvements. Mr. Ullrich said they would grant it because of the limited time use. One year would give staff time to evaluate the need for street improvements. They would not defer the sidewalk improvements, driveways, or pavement of the parking area. Commissioner Ray was concerned that by extending the hours to possibly Thursday and Friday may be a potential danger to children going to or coming from Harborside Elementary. Why include that as a condition if the extent of the impact was unknown. Mr. Lee stated that if the hours were extended, it would provide additional analysis as to whether or not support a time extension. Mr. Ullrich noted that analysis had only been done on Naples Street to the freeway ramps. Many people would go onto the freeway. Commissioner Ray, referring to Condition 10, was concerned about the potential bias by the operator as to consistency of actual operations with the operational parameters considered in the Initial Study and Special Use Permit. Mr. Miller replied that the condition could be modified to include a third party agreement that such a study be done. The applicant would contract through the City and the City would have the authority to let a contract to a third party. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that on the site there were some foundation footings that may be dangerous. Mr. Miller deferred to the applicant. PC Minutes -4- November 13, 1996 Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the parking surface would remain as is. Mr. Miller said it would need to be flattened in some areas. The standard City requirement that a project of one year or more had a "semi-permanent use" standard for parking areas. Commissioner Tuchscher, regarding paving of decomposed granite, asked if that included additional treatment such as oil. Mr. Miller, referring to condition 5c, stated it would be finished to a semi-permanent standard, which consisted of two inches of asphalt concrete pavement with a seal coat. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that applied to conditional use permits of over 12 months. Mr. Miller concurred. Commissioner Thomas commented that the concrete area would need to be ground down because of safety issues, and asked what would happen to the project after 12 to 18 months. Mr. Miller stated that if the Planning Commission wished to approve the project, staff would recommend only a 12-month conditional use permit. The applicant had indicated they would wish to extend the hours and the length of the conditional use permit. That request would have to come in prior to the holiday season of next year. It would give a maximum of 12 months. Prior to that date, the applicants would have to come in with a request for extension for hours of operation and staff would have to do a traffic study. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Cheryl Cox, Cox Associates, 647 Windsor Circle, CV, representing the applicants, stated that "L" Street was the boundary of Harborside School. Very few people would be crossing the street to go to Harborside. She showed slides of the area, indicating where the project would be located and the adjacent land uses, and also showed improvements that had already been made on the site by cleaning done by the applicants. Ms. Cox noted that the "Dillon Case" required that a one-year project cannot be required to install infrastructure. Regarding concrete being ground down, the concrete would likely have an office structure and would be ramped or ground down. The applicants were requesting Friday, Saturday and Sunday to be open. When it rained, there would be no visitors because the market would be closed. Therefore, there would be no problem with tracking water or mud onto the street. After the last rain, she and the applicants had visited the area to see whether it had flooded. The water had percolated and there was no water standing. The applicants planned to hire 10 people to do security patrol. They could work out parking so visitors came in a certain driveway. They would be directed to park in a stacked position. Regarding the land use and gateway, the applicant was recommending the use of 10' of wrought iron fencing with landscaping along the frontage. They would keep litter and debris cleaned out. Regarding the land use compatibility only being used as industrial, there were no objections from PC Minutes -5- November 13, 1996 neighboring business or the apartment across the street. Regarding not fitting into the long-term goals, the property had been vacant for eight years. Ms. Cox showed slides of other gateway entrances into the City, and stated that she felt their project would be as nice as any of them, with the landscaping and wrought iron fence. Regarding the Southwest Redevelopment Area Implementation Plan, as far as the project being an impediment to assembly of parcels, this project would not have an impact on it. Ms. Cox asked the Planning Commission to consider an appropriate land use and help with conditions of approval. The applicant would comply with all conditions but felt there were too many requirements. They felt they should not be responsible for the 10' landscape buffer along the entire parking lot, or installation of sidewalks and fencing. The entrance was not on "L" Street. Most shoppers would come by vehicle and would not be walking. In addition, they did not feel they should be required to remove the utility poles. Regarding landscaping prior to occupancy, they would post a surety bond to do the landscaping, but they would like to delay it in order to open the market to capture some of the Christmas shopping. They would install the landscaping after opening. Ms. Cox did not feel they should construct an 8' wide sidewalk along the "L" Street frontage easterly, the westerly driveway to commercial standards, or the parking area to a five-year standard. They were asking to go to a one-year standard. They also felt they should not be required to widen Industrial Boulevard. The applicant asked that they not be limited to the hours of 4:00 p.m., but to stay open until 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. This was not a major shopping center, and the property owner was in control of the livelihood of the project. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the project and asked for their help on the conditions. Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Ave., CV, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that he had not taken a position on the project, but was concerned about complaints about how hard it was to get approval through Chula Vista. Ninety days to get before the Planning Commission was inexcusable. "L" Street was not a gateway to the City. He asked the Planning Commission to take a close look at the Planning Department, and question the quality and the speed of the reports. Tim Towler, 162 "K" St., CV - was not present when called. Cesar Alcaraz, 556 Del Mar Ave., CV, said that he had a toy business on the side and needed a place to sell them. This would be affordable for him and would be good for business. He worked a regular job and would like to be able to do this on the weekend. Roger Rios, 1018 Oaklawn Ave., CV, said that Mr. Alvarez was an outstanding business person, and had helped various businesses in Chula Vista establish themselves. He would like to see the area paved, and saw nothing but improvement. The taxes would bring revenue to the City. The area had been unsightly; if this were a big business, there would be no problem PC Minutes -6- November 13, 1996 bringing it in; Chula Vista loses businesses to other areas; will help the small business; asked to give them the 12 months. Deborah Gonzalez, 393 Palm, CV; Lucille Garcia, 1018 Oaklawn Ave., CV, mother and daughter supported the project. Ms. Garcia said she sold at the swap meets in other areas, but would like to have a business closer to her house. Ms. Gonzalez said her mother had supported them by making items to sell, which kept them off welfare. She would like to be an asset to the community and not be on welfare. Elena Pelayo, 244 E. Naples, CV, representing the Peace and Dignity Project, said she had talked with Mr. Joseph about working with the risk children. She strongly supported the open air market. It would improve the looks of the area, and she supported it also because it could keep children of Chula Vista working and would help the revenue. Jim Davis, 1103 Fifth Ave., CV, felt the project would greatly improve Chula Vista and would create many jobs. Edgar D'mattus, 191 West "L" St., CV, said the project was creating a gateway and was not taking anything away. It would benefit and improve Chula Vista. Luis Romero, 950 Industrial Blvd., CV, representing Fun-4-All, would like to see the open air market in the area. The carnivals and other things that came in left trash. The open air market would not leave debris. He supported the project. Denise Mirabile, 1290 Nacion Ave., CV, owns a business on Broadway and "L" Street. She was in favor of the project. It would definitely improve the area, and she would like to be a vendor there. She made crafts and would like to be able to sell them there. Edward Rankin, 546 Twin Oaks, CV, said he was disabled and had been employed by Mr. Joseph. He would like to work rather than sit at home. He asked for approval of the project. John Manti, 1127 Dixon Dr., CV, stated that he sold at swap meets all over the County. He would like to sell new auto parts, and wondered why a swap meet was not allowed. He asked if he could call it a swap meet. Mr. Miller said he could call it what he wanted to, but it was listed as an open air market in the City's land use list. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray commented that he was looking at the conditions regarding litter abatement, recycling, etc. and asked how it was to be interpreted. Ms. Cox stated they interpreted it to mean they were to clean up after themselves and recycle what was recyclable. PC Minutes -7- November 13, 1996 Mr. Miller said the project was actually required to participate in a program mandated by the State of California requiring that the facility meet or exceed the 50% source reduction, reuse and recycling diversion goals, and provide an annual report, which was a standard condition. Regarding the review of consistency of actual operations, Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant would agree to a third party review if the two parties did not agree. Ms. Cox concurred. Commissioner Ray asked they would be conforming with all the requirements of the Building Code. Ms. Cox stated that any structure they built would have to meet the Building and Housing codes. Answering Commissioner Davis, Ms. Cox said they requested that they build the wrought iron fence only for the length of the vendor lot with returns. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be landscaped. Ms. Cox stated that Mr. Joseph intended to landscape, but would post a surety bond. Commissioner Tuchscher asked how much time they would need to install the landscaping. Ms. Cox replied they would need two to four weeks. They could get it in within 30 days of opening. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the requirement to install within 30 days or the conditional use permit be revoked would create a problem with staff. Staff indicated it would not. Regarding condition 15, Coinmissioner Ray asked if a reduction in the requirement for paving would impact the use for disabled persons. Ms. Cox stated there would be a designated place for the handicapped to enter the facility and any building would require handicapped access also. Commissioner Thomas stated he had now read the report and had heard the presentation and the public hearing, and felt comfortable in voting on the project. Commissioner Tuchscher said he was concerned about operating on Friday and the traffic flow issues. He would be in favor of seeing this operate on a Saturday and Sunday only basis. He noted that he ran his first business out of a swap meet and felt it was an incubator and creates a lot of jobs. He was sensitive to the gateway entrance, but felt this particular site would be better for this venture. He supported the project and looked forward to discussing some of the conditions and bringing it to a motion. Commissioner Davis questioned his concern about Fridays, since it was a short-term project. MS (Davis/Ray) to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to establish, operate and maintain an open air market at 690 "L" Street, with the following amendments to conditions: PC Minutes -8- November 13, 1996 2. Install a 10' buffer along the vendor's lot, not the entire parking lot. 3. Extend the wrought-iron-with-pilasters fence along the vendor's lot along "L" Street with returns. 4. Complete landscaping within 30 days. 5. Eliminate a and d. Change 5b from "all access" to "easterly-most", and 5c to pave all parking areas to a one-year standard. 8. Limit public hours of operation to between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 10. Third party review if two parties don't agree. 22. Conditional Use Permit to be approved for a length of 18 months. All other conditions would remain as stated. The Planning Commission directed staff to craft findings to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Davis commented that she felt this was an appropriate entrance to the City based on the project as outlined and that it would benefit the City. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned that it would set a precedent. Commissioner Ray asked that anything regarding the gateway be left out. VOTE: 5-0 to approve (Commissioner Salas excused; Commissioner Willett had left the dais) Commissioner Willett then returned to the dais for the remainder of the agenda. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-96-06; CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP KNOWN AS VISTA DEL MAR, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-06 IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE 3.46 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DEL MAR AVENUE AND "C" STREET - Dan Irwin Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the staff report, and noted that staff recommended approval in accordance with the conditions stated in the staff report. Commissioner Willett said he had observed the traffic. The project with only 15 homes would not contribute to the traffic. PC Minutes -9- November 13, 1996 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dan Irwin, 7449 Girard, CV, the applicant, stated that the project consisted of 15 homes, and they were providing a full City street. There would be no Mello-Roos. They would be bringing sewer into the area where there was only septic. He requested approval of the project. Theresa Grady, 6 N. Del Mar Ave., CV,read a letter which she had previously submitted and was not part of the package. The letter indicated that she and her husband were not opposed to the project, but were concerned about the view of Point Loma, the Bay, and the Bridge. They had applied for and received a variance for a patio, which was granted because of the view. She wanted to know if somehow the City could assure them that their view would not be obstructed. She was also concerned about the quality of the homes. She was hoping to keep the value of the homes in that area by building homes of comparable value. (A copy of the letter is in the project file.) Commissioner Willett asked when Ms. Grady had bought the home. She replied that it was June 3, 1993. Commissioner Willett asked if there were CC&Rs to stipulate the purchase of the view. Ms. Grady answered affirmatively. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that typically homes today would be two-story. All the views from this property would be impactive. There were no guarantees when buying that there would be a view over someone else's property. At this point, the City has no concern over the plans. They would try to minimize the impacts but everything was in accordance with City regulations. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if staff knew the finished floor elevation of her home. A discussion followed regarding the pad elevation between Ms. Grady's home and the various lots near her home. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Irwin to give an estimate of the price ranges. Mr. Irwin stated the range would be between $230,000 and $259,000, depending on the lot size. The value would be similar to existing homes in the area. Armida Martin Del Campo, 4064 Bonita Road, Suite 101, Bonita, stated that she was the realtor working with Mr. Irwin. She said the quality of the project was tremendous. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Willett/Thomas) 6-0 (Commissioner Salas excused) to adopt Resolution PCS-96-06 recommending approval in accordance with the draft City Council resolution, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. PC Minutes -10- November 13, 1996 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lee stated, with the concurrence of the Chair and Vice Chair, that there would be a meeting the following Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. to review the agenda of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the Otay Ranch tentative map would be considered by the City Council the next Tuesday night. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS The Planning Commission requested a table together at the banquet. Mr. Lee stated that staff would get in touch with the Mayor's office to see if it could be arranged. All of the Commissioners except Commissioner Ray indicated they would be in attendance. Commissioner Thomas stated that he was concerned about the time being taken for projects to get to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tuchscher suggested a workshop in the near future regarding the permitting process and streamlining. Mr. Lee stated that the open air project had been delayed by the applicant's traffic consultant who had identified impacts on the area. He felt if someone had a specific problem, that person should talk with the Director. He resented them coming before the Planning Commission and presenting their concerns as facts without giving staff a chance to respond. ADJOURNMENT at 9:50 p.m. to the Special Meeting of November 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~le~ry Planning Commission