Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1998/03/257:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 25, 1998 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CH U LA VISTA, CALl FOR N IA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Davis, Commissioners Ray, Willett, Tarantino, and O'Neill Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Aguilar and Thomas Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Beverly Blessent, Associate Planner Patty Nevins, Acting Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney MSC (Willett/Ray) (5-0-0-2) to excuse Commissioners Aguilar and Thomas who called in to say they would not be able to attend the meeting. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Davis ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-25; Amendments to Chapters 19.04 (Definitions) and 19.48 (P-C Planned Community Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipa~ Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The Eastlake Company and the City of Chula Vista (to be continued to meeting of April 8, 1998). In order to provide time for additional analysis, staff recommends that this item be continued to the April 8, 1998 meeting. MSC (Ray/Willett) (5-0-02) to continue public hearing to a date certain of Apri~ 8, 1998. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-15; An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance (continued from the meeting of March 11, 1998). Background: Beverly Blessent reported that this afternoon staff received a request from the applicant requesting to continue this proposal to the meeting of April 22, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 25, 1998 Public Hearing opened 7:10 Klm Kilkenny, Otay Ranch Company, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego addressed the request for continuance, and gave a brief history of his concluding remarks at the last meeting of March 11. He stated they could support staff's recommendation; they could support the alternative advocated by Craig Fukuyama (McMillin Company) and Mr. Tuscher; what they could not support was delay. As the meeting of March 11 progressed, it appeared there was confusion and a need to further explore the issues, therefore, Mr. Kilkenny agreed to continue the item with the assertion that it could go before the City Council on the April 21st. Staff explored some of the issued raised at the meeting and subsequently informed Mr. Kilkenny that some procedural issues were raised which required further review. In response to that, the applicant agreed to this continuance, however, he would ask that the continuance be to the meeting of April 8, in light of the fact that this continuance to April 22 would cause a six week delay. Mr. Lee stated that staff's concern with continuing the hearing to April 8 is that an in-depth review of the issues will require more time; there is already a full agenda for April; and with there being so much public interest in this item, it would not serve in the best interest of everyone to require them to come to the April 8th meeting simply to have it be continued to April 22nd. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City stated that at the last meeting, he had requested that the Commission consider eliminating the conveyance schedule altogether, thereby allowing the POM greater flexibility to acquire properties, and stated he was at tonight's meeting to reaffirm that position. William Tuscher, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA stated that he would forego testimony tonight until the next meeting and asked that due to the time sensitivity, this hearing be continued to April 8. He further asked that the Commission direct staff to also apply whatever analysis or additional procedural issues, to the original RMP amendment that was filed, which is the position they are supporting, and not just the amended application that is before the Commission tonight, so that when a decision is rendered, that their position remain an option and not be excluded because of some technicality. Chair Davis asked staff why this item needs to be continued. Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner, stated that based on the issues that were raised at the last meeting, staff reviewed the EIR and Findings of Fact associated with the approval of SPA 1. Staff is now having a difficult time concluding that the proposed amendments could be supported based on recent review of the environmental documents. A finding could possibly be made that would require an environmental review on the proposal. There are two different portion in the Findings of Fact that may possibly be in conflict, which on one hand, it says that the conveyance plan is exempt, and then makes specific findings on what the plan will handle. The question that remains unanswered is; if the conveyance plan has something different than that, is it still exempt. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 25, 1998 The Environmental Coordinator has indicated that he needs more than two weeks to do the review, hence, staff's recommendation to continue the hearing to April 22. Chair Davis stated that she had read that the transfer of environmentally sensitive lands is exempt from CEQA review; its not like we're changing what we're conveying, just the order of conveyance. Rick Rosaler responded that the Findings of Fact specifically stated that the first conveyance would be in the Otay Valley parcel. The question remains, how do we go about modifying those findings in a short period of time. Mr. Tuscher stated he would speak on an issue he was reluctant on addressing, and offered clarification that the original application that was filed on October 17, 1997 was revised due to a City-initiated request to change the application on January 30. He stated they have tried to remain consistent to the original application thereby staying clear, relative to CEQA issues. Following one of staff's suggested options, to file another application that is identical to the one that was filed on October 17, and start a new process that will take another seven months, is unacceptable. Mr. Tuscher stated his understanding that when an application is filed, which is deemed to be completed, it starts a 45-day review process by ordinance; that should have been done. Staff took a position on that application on January 30th. If that initial review process was not complete, it is his understanding that you are clear to proceed with the project. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney clarified two issues that are before the Commission. The first, as previously stated will require further review of the environmental documents. Secondly, with respect to expanding the conveyance schedule as being proposed by both Mr. Tuscher and Mr. Fukuyama. An application has not been submitted for this proposal; the original application was amended, therefore, there was no CEQA analysis on this proposal. An Initial Study would need to be conducted to determine whether or not the current environmental document is adequate or whether there are other issues that need to be reviewed. Mr. Kilkenny stated that although he is anxious to move forward to Council, continuing this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 22 was acceptable. MSC (Tarantino/Willett) (5-0-2) to continue hearing to Al~ril 22, 1998. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-27; Amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan consisting of modification of the Planned Community District Regulations to modify the required sideyard setbacks and allowable floor area ratio in the RS Single Family land use districts - Fieldstone Communities Inc. Background: Patty Nevins, reported the proposal is for two amendments to the development standards of the Sunbow II planned community. The requests are: 1) to increase the allowed Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 25, 1998 floor area ratio from 50% to 55%, and 2) to change the required sideyard setbacks from 10 ft. on one side and 3 ft. on the other, to 5 ft. on each side. The G DP, SPA Plan, and the Tentative Map of the Sunbow project were all approved in 1990. The project was subsequently extended and in 1997 the current property owner filed for Final Maps for approximately 330 lots. Those lots have been purchased by Fieldstone Communities, the applicant for this project. Ayres Land Company, who is the owner of the remaining land in Sunbow II has provided a letter indicating their concurrence with the request. The applicant would like to be able to provide a project that is commensurate with what other developers are building. In reviewing other projects, staff found that comparable lots of this size are commonly allowed to be developed at 55% floor area ratios and sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance approving amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District Regulations to modify the sideyard setbacks and floor area ratio in the RS Single Family land use district. Public Hearing Opened 7:32 James Nagel, 1427 Laurel Avenue, Chula Vista, a 29 year resident of this area, stated he is concerned with the new development's compatibility with the neighborhood and opposes the increase in the floor area ratio, which his notice stated was an increase from 45% to 55%. Essentially the proposal is to build larger homes in smaller lots. He also stated that two-story homes are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. In addition, he has grave concern with the environmental impacts of this project with the removal of an open canyon that use to be behind his back yard, and is dismayed with the grading that has taken place in the last months and how the habitat of the canyon has been runned out. Patty Nevins stated that the figures of 45% to 55% in the notice is incorrect. The actual percentage is going from 50% to 55%, which is less of an increase. Secondly, with regard to two-story homes being built; the area where the Nagel's live is zoned R-l, allowing the conversion of single story to two-story homes, and speaks to the equity issue of where two-story homes can be built. Thirdly, there was an EIR done in 1990 and concluded that development could be placed there. Barbara Nagel, 1427 Laurel Avenue, Chula Vista, stated she opposes the proposal because their back yard will be abutted by three lots since the proposal is to build larger homes on smaller lots. The density is too high and the proposed product is incompatible with the neighborhood. Jim Hansen, Fieldstone Communities, 5465 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA stated they are currently talking to another developer with regards to building at the site that abuts the Nagel's property, and they have indicated that they plan to build half of their product as single-story homes. They will be building four floor plans, which will vary in size from 1500 to 2200 sf with 2 single-story and 2 two-story. Fieldstone will be building north of Palomar and will build all two-story homes in that area. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 25, 1998 Mr. Hansen stated that their proposal is in line with other master planned community developments and request that their application be approved. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the applicant is making any effort to blend in to the existing 29-year-old neighborhood. Mr. Hansen responded that he could only speak to the area he will be developing and not the development that abuts the Nagel's property. He further stated that there is a SPA plan that spell out the architectural styles that have been dictated and what is required to be built according to that SPA plan. Peter Bosley, 1451 Laurel Avenue, Chula Vista, CA stated he lives in the lower portion where the developer is proposing to build 1500 to 2200 sf homes and he does not oppose the proposal, however, he would like to see it in writing. Public Hearing Closed 8:08 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Ray stated he had concern with the impact of the lower portion which abuts the existing older neighborhood. He asked if there was a way to isolate that portion from the rest and maintain the present FAR. Mr. Lee stated he could not speak for the applicant, but would offer an option that may resolve the concerns raised by the area residents, that being; that the proposed 55% FAR amendment would apply to all of the lots except those that are abutting R-1 single family zoning which is developed with single family homes. Mr. Hansen stated Mr. Lee's recommendation was acceptable to him. MSC (Ray/Willett) (5-0-2) that the Planning Commission approve the amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District Regulations in the RS Single Family land use district to modify the sideyard setbacks to 5 ft. on each side, and to modify the floor area ratio to 55% except in those lots that are abutting R-1 single family zoning developed with single family homes. Motion carried. 4o Consideration of a Special Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 1998. MSC (Ray/Willett) (5-0-2) to have a Special Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 1998. Motion carried. 5. Update on Council Items. None Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - March 25, 1998 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT at 8:15 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Diana Vargas, Secretary Planning Commission