Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/02/28 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, February 28, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Davis, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Acting Senior Planner Hernandez, Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, Contract Attorney Hradecky PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Ray, in the absence of Chair Tuchscher, led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a momem of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Davis) 6-0 (Tuchscher absent) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1996. Commissioners Salas and Tarantino noted they had not been present for the meeting, but believed the minutes to be accurate. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS At the request of Vice Chair Ray, Commissioner Willett reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- February 28, 1996 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE SEGMENT OF EAST ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND WUESTE ROAD - City of Chula Vista Acting Senior Planner Hernandez presented the staff report noting that staff recommended consideration of the street name change and the alternatives presented, and that the Planning Commission forward their recommendation to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned that in the future the residents who lived between Brandywine and 1-805 (the last segment to be developed) would refuse to go along with the name change. Mr. Hernandez noted that none of the properties front on East Orange Avenue, and there would be no problem. Mr. Lee noted that the residents could provide input; however, the Council would make the ultimate decision. Commissioner Willett supported staff's recommendation; based on the review of Village 1 and Village 5, Orange Avenue was designed to look like a parkway. It would be heavily wooded on both sides and was a parkway setting. He recommended approval of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Salas asked the rationale for not going ahead with the Orange Avenue between Brandywine and 1-805, or if that would make people think they could get to the Olympic Training Center from there. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained staff's rationale that it was a very circuitous route, and that signage would direct people a number of years along Telegraph Canyon Road. Wueste Road would be fairly temporary; when Hunte Parkway connects, the intent would be to direct traffic down Hunte back to Olympic Parkway, then east towards the Olympic Training Center. There was a possibility that Wueste Road would be closed north of the Olympic Center and made more of a pedestrian system. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened; no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Willett/Thomas) 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher absent) to accept staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the street name change in accordance with the attached draft resolution, with a change to the resolution to name the street "Olympic Parkway" instead of "Olympic Boulevard." Commissioner Willett stated that the City Council had approved the section blocking the Olympic Visitors Center and were supposed to have faxed something to Colorado to open the street. It was forcing them to use another parking lot. He asked if staff knew any way to get that open. Mr. Lee suggested that Commissioner Willett call Public Works Director Lippitt or Assistant Director Swanson the next morning. PC Minutes -3- February 28, 1996 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING; PCM-96-19: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT #14 TO THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN (LCP) MODIFYING SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE INLAND PARCEL, SUBAREA 4 OF THE CHULA VISTA COASTAL ZONE Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan indicated Subarea 4 of the Local Coastal Program and noted that Gatlin Development Company, who developed the WalMart property, had requested a 35' sign on their property at the entryway along Broadway. In the entire coastal zone, the allowed height is I0'. Looking at the ama surrounding the parcel, there were variable heights allowed, and it was felt WalMart was being penalized for being in the coastal area. By allowing a 35' sign, there was no impediment to visual access. Also, a 44' high building could be located in the coastal area, but there could only be a 10' sign. Ms. Buchan recommended amending the LCP so that particular site in the coastal zone could have 35' signs, which is actually lower than the surrounding signs. Commissioner Thomas asked how staff arrived at a height of 35' if the maximum building height was 44'. Ms. Buchan stated that she had considered the underlying zoning which allowed a 35' sign. Under the LCP the land was developed under C-C-P and Industrial General land uses. The only exception was the limitation to I0' signs. Commissioner Thomas asked if with the 35' signs there would be an aesthetically pleasing environment, or if there would be different heights in signs, which would be inconsistent. Ms. Buchan stated that up to a 35' sign would be allowed; it would be ruled by the underlying zoning. There could be variance in height, but the maximum would be 35'. Commissioner Thomas asked if the 35' should be higher to match the surrounding area. Ms. Buchan replied that it would not be her recommendation because in the City of Chula Vista and the property adjacent in the City of Chula Vista was also a maximum of 35'. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher absent) to accept staff's proposal. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the City Council had voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Comanission's recommendation that a gate not be installed between the Bristolwood and Masters Collection in EastLake. It would appear that Brehm Communities may go back and look at some other solution. He noted that the Planning Commission meeting of Mamh 13, 1996, had been cancelled; the following meeting which would normally be a workshop would not be held because a number of the Commissioners would be at a conference in Long Beach. The Otay Ranch EIR and SPA hearing would be on March 27. There were two other items scheduled for that meeting; one of them being the RV Park which Mr. Lee thought may bring approximately 100 people to the hearing. Staff was concerned about moving the Otay Ranch hearings since they were trying to PC Minutes -4- February 28, 1996 get to Council by a certain date. He asked the Planning Commission to consider whether they wished to shift the other two items to the following week on April 3. Commissioner Thomas preferred to leave March 27 just for the Otay Ranch. Commissioner Ray concurred. Commissioner Salas asked if it could be moved forward. Mr. Lee replied that moving it forward would be impossible because of notification. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 to keep the March 27, 1996 specifically for the Otay Ranch and move the other items to a special meeting on April 3, 1996. Mr. Lee gave the Commissioners copies of their present budget. He noted that all the departments and commissions in the City were being asked to review the upcoming budgets and offer a 10% budget cut. In terms of the Planning Commission, the total budget approved by the City Council was $12,450; therefore, the 10% budget cut would be $124.50. MSC (Tarantino/Davis) 6-0 to take the recommendation of staff that the reduction for the Planning Commission budget be from the Planning Commission/staff lunch and dinners. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 7:40 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 27, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rip~ey, Sec/~tary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc2-28.min)