Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/03/14 . . . Tape: 308 Si de: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 14, 1990 ROLL CALL Council Chambers Public Services Building COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon, and Commissioner Grasser (with prior notification) Carson, STAFF PRESENT: Principal Pl anners Lee and Pass, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Associate Planner Herrera-A, Environmental Coordinator Doug Reid, Contract Pl anner Bi 11 Hei ter, Pl anni ng Consultants Lettieri and Manganelli, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Pl anning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Shipe/Carson) 4-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) to approve the Minutes of January 24, 1990, with correction on page 7, last paragraph, ".. .paragraph 4 should 'stay' instead of 'staff'..."Commissioner Casillas abstained from voting. MSUC Shipe/Casillas) 6-0 (Cannon and Grasser.absent) to approve the Minutes of February 14, 1990, as mailed. ORAL Cm.1MUNICATIDtJS Paul Green, Sr., 141 Lotus protect him against slander. one slandering him. Drive, Chula Vista 92011, asked the Chair to Chairman Tugenberg assured him there would be no Planning Commission -2- March 14, 1990 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 90-05: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLA DEL REY CONDOMINIUMS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-05, John and Yolanda Po11erena (continued from 2/28/90) Assistant Planner Barbara Reid pointed out the location of the project and the surrounding land uses. The site in question was rezoned from the County RV15, which is approximately 14-1/2 dwelling units per acre, to R-1-5-P, City single-family zoning for approximately 6 to 7 dwelling units per acre, in August 1989. Upon filing of an Initial Study by the applicant, and subsequent meetings with Planning staff, it was concluded that the project was in the pipeline and could proceed with a 10-unit development. The plan was approved by the Design Review Committee in August 1989. Ms. Reid stated the decision before the Commission was whether to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map whi ch allow the app 1i cant to sell the uni ts or rent the uni ts or rent the units if it was not approved. Ms. Reid commented that the Montgomery Planning Committee had some concerns regarding the Addendum to the Negative Declaration because one of the schools 1 i sted on the data sheet was incorrect and the reasoni ng of the School District in continuing to take students when they are over capacity was not known. Assistant Planner Reid recommended that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration IS-89-81M, and based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, adopt a motion recommending that Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Villa del Rey Condos, Chu1a Vista Tract 90-05, subject to the conditions 1 isted in the staff report. Ms. Reid asked that condition 10 be changed to read "If full street improvements are required, the owner may request that the City establish a reimbursement district to provide for reimbursement from the benefitting property." After discussion as to whether the units should be for rent or for sale, Principal Planner Lee explained that the approval of the tentative map would allow the applicant to sell units if he desired; the project could proceed as a development of rental project if the tentative map was not approved. By approval of the tentative map, the design would satisfy the requirements of either an apartment or a condominium. Commissioner Fuller asked for clarification regarding the change to condition no. 10. Ms. Reid explained there was only one property which would benefit, and the other properties surrounding the area would not be polled. Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich explained that the traffic signal fees assessed benefitted all properties in the City and that it was deposited into a fund for improving traffic signals. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. James McMurren, 474 Emerson Street, Chula Vista, spoke against the apartment units; the petitioners wanted single-family homes. He said there were already too many apartment buildings in that area. . Ted Goldberg, P. O. Box 9545, Rancho Santa Fe, 92067, stated he owned the property at 516 Oxford Street, asked if the app1 icant could add units on the property later, and if he would lose the pipeline benefit he had at this point. Principal Planner Dan Pass answered that he would lose the benefit. The only thing the applicant had a pipeline to was the 10 proposed units he had at the time. Mr. Pass explained further that the only reason the pipeline was honored was the 1 and had not been rezoned at that time and it was in accord wi th the Montgomery Specifi c P1 an. He a1 so added that the project wou1 d be si ng1 e-fami 1y dwell i ngs, whether they were rented or not, so it di d 1 ive within the spirit and the letter of the R-1-5-P Mr. Goldberg continued to say he would like to see single-family homes go up in that area instead of the anticipated project. He believed if the tentative map were denied, the app1 icant would not be able to build the complex, and instead, single-family homes would be built there. John E. Po11erena, 1222 Tobias Drive, Chu1a Vista, owner of the property, gave the background of the project and spoke in favor of the project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller said she had some misgivings about the project at first because of previous discussions held regarding other projects and the fact that the residents in the area wanted single-family residences in that area. She would like to see the area remain single-family but the way the property is cut up, there sti 11 wou1 d be vacant 1 and on the corner that wou1 d be developed some other way. She said she would support the tentative subdivision map. Planning Commission -3- March 14, 1990 . Commissioner Casillas stated he would support it as well, but had a question regarding density bonus. ~'r. Pass said the Montgomery area had two bonuses: one for superb design, which can only tak~ place in the low-medium category of the General Plan, and the other for affordable housing under the Housing Element of the General Plan. There was no density bonus on this property, but this was a pipeline project which had been started nearly two years prior to application. Commissioner Casillas concluded at this point that the density bonus was invalid. Mr. Pass concurred. Chairman Tugenberg queried if this was in the pipeline while it County and under County specifications, the project wou1 d acceptable. Mr. Pass answered in the affirmative. was in the have been MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-89-81M. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FULLER that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report that the Commission recommend that the Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Villa del Rey Condos, Chu1a Vista Tract 90-05, sUbject to the conditions 1 through 17 with the amended condition 10 to read "If full street improvements are required, the owner may request that the City establish a reimbursement district to provide for reimbursement from the benefitting property," and the Code requirements. Planning Commission -4- March 14, 1990 Assistant Attorney Rudolf interjected that the Planning Commission would have the final authority in this case unless appealed to the Council, so the motion should be reworded to reflect that. AMENDED MOTION MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, the Planning Commission approve the tentative subdivision map for Villa del Rey Condos, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, subject to the conditions 1 through 17 with the amended condition 10 to read "If full street improvements are required, the owner may request that the City establ ish a reimbursement district to provide for reimbursement from the benefitti ng property," and the Code requi rements. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-1-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WALNUT DRIVE, MAIN STREET, PALM DRIVE AND THE AUTUMN HILLS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ARE CONFINED TO THE "WOODLAWN PARK/EAST WOODLAWN PARK" SUBCOMMUNITY OF MONTGOMERY AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12, 1988 AND ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. SHORT FORM OF TITLE OF PROPOSAL: WOODLAWN PARK/EAST WOODLAWN PARK Consul tant Lettieri, using overhead projection, pointed out the area to be rezoned which represented 60 acres and was improved with 138 lots, 94 of which were developed with single-family residential uses. Adjacent zoning to the north and a portion to the west and east are developed single-family R-1; adjacent to main street is l-L; Industrial, Commercial, and Residential south of Main Street; and R-3-P zoning just to the east, and again single-family. The Montgomery Pl anni ng Committee in February 1990 recommended approval of this project. Staff recommended approval' since the zone classifications were intended to implement the Specific Plan. . This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. Paul Green, Sr., 141 Lotus Drive, Chu1a Vista, 29011, said he had been living in Woodl awn Park over 20 years. He referred to a map di stri buted to the Commission prior to the meeting, which he thought was a fairer designation. Mr. Green said at one time the area had been designated Residential-Commercial in the County. He spoke in opposition to the rezoning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there was ever a time when this was zoned commercial. Consultant Lettieri answered there was no commercial or RC zoning on the property, according to their research. . Planning Commission -5- March 14, 1990 Chairman Tugenberg asked for verification that the Montgomery Committee had supported the rezoning. Mr. Lettieri answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Casillas asked about the study referred to under "Analysis" regardi ng the mi xed-use concept. He wanted to know what the study woul d accomplish. Mr. Lettieri answered that the Montgomery Planning Committee had discussed the idea of a mixture of uses in the residentially designated properties for a planned concept of residential, possible commercial, uses together. He emphasized "planned concept" so that on larger pieces of property, particul arly those subject to noi se or other exi sti ng 1 and use conflicts, the residential concept which is in the Montgomery Specific Plan can be implemented but also certain uses which would more relate to traffic hazards on Main Street or noise could also be implemented through a permit process. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) that based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies and Negative Declarations, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declarations issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) to recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". . ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-11 , OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER . Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated the Olympic Training Center covered a l50-acre site located east of Hunte Parkway, south of Orange Avenue and immediately west of Wueste Road and lower Otay Reservoir. The SPA plan i ncl udes athl eti c fiel ds, a gymnasi urn, soccer, fiel d hockey, archery, track and field, tennis facilities as well as a cycling criterion course, housing, visitor center and parking. She said two previous EIRs had already been done on the site, and the supplemental EIR before the Commission was to provide accurate and concise information which analyzed the environmental consequences of the adoption of the OTC SPA plan. She said the Draft EIR had been subject to a 45-day review from the Clearinghouse and no comments had been received from member agencies. In the staff report, it was requested that the Final EIR be revised to address the impacts of th~ proposed grading, but subsequent to the writing of the staff report, there have been ongoing meetings and at least two revisions have been made to the grading plan. She said there was to be another meeting on Friday for the purpose of having the grading plan meet the General Plan land form contour guidelines and to substantially reduce the land form impacts to a level below significance. Staff was asking the consultants to include the final proposed grading plan in the Final EIR as a response to staff comments regarding grading, and to address any additional impacts which had not already been addressed in an addendum. Ms. Reid stated the Final ErR would go back to the Commission on April 11. The Resource Conservati on Committee had recommended certifi cati on of the EI R. There had been two responses to the Draft EIR: one from the Pl anni ng Department of the City of San Diego; and one from Katy Wright, Project Manager at EastLake. Planning Commission -6- March 14, 1990 This being the time and the place advertised, the publ ic hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Tugenberg said it was hard to picture landforms from topographic maps. He said most people were unhappy with the grading on Telegraph Canyon Road. He woul d like to see in April when the project comes back a computer graphic so the Commission could see the contours of the slopes. No motion was required on this item. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-27: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL DISTRIBUTION CENTER FOR OFFICE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES IN AN EXISTING BUILDING ON 1.4 ACRES AT 630 "L" STREET IN THE l-L LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONE - Offi ce Cl ub, Inc. Consultant Paul Manganelli said the property consisted of 1.4 acres of a 2-1/2 acre site. He used overhead projection to show the surrounding land uses, and pointed out the project site. Staff recommended approval in accordance with findings, subject to conditions in the staff report. The applicant had remodeled the interior, which the applicant realized was at their own risk, and had supplied staff with a letter to acknowledge that fact. In addition, they had stocked the store, again at their own risk. They had also painted a 5-ft. wide stripe along the top of the building in a royal blue, again subject to staff review. Commissioner Casillas asked if the area to the east would have a high fence with landscaping. Mr. Manganelli replied there was already a fence around it with barbed wire, but it would not be landscaped. One of the conditions of approval was that no use be made of that in conjunction with the use they are proposing, and that no use be made until such time that a map is filed. Chairman Tugenberg asked if both of the lots were owned by the same person and who the owner was. Mr. Manganelli said the applicant could clarify that. Commissioner Fuller asked why the Chula Vista Elementary School District charged a developer fee of 12t per' sq. ft. and the Sweetwater High School District did not charge a developer fee. Principal Planner Lee said the State Law requires fees for new construction and that there may be some confusion on thi s parti cul ar project on the part of the El ementary Di stri ct, and the applicant may want to pursue it. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sam Borgese, 1635 Challenge Drive, Concord, CA 94520, Director of Real Estate for Office Club, Inc., said they had originally miscalculated when they would be in front of the Commission and had started some procedures of remodeling. In the process of doing that, they had some inventory shifted and moved into the store. He said they were aware and confi rm wi th staff that it was at their risk. He said the owner of the property was Broadway Associates, a General Partnership, that purchased the land from the previous owner. . . . Planning Commission -7- March 14, 1990 Chainnan Tugenberg pointed out to Mr. Borgese that he shou1 d contact the School District to be sure they aren't charged the fee. Mr. Borgese concurred. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Shipe) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that the project wi 11 have no si gnifi cant envi ronmenta1 impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-37. MSUC (Carson/Shipe) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCC-90-27 subject to the conditi ons 1 i sted in' a . through 'g'. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-04: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS ABATEMENT AND APPEAL OF SIGN DESIGN DECISIONS OF THE ZONING Aor~INISTRATOR - City Initiated Pri nci pal P1 anner Lee stated there were two ordi nance amendments, whi ch had been proposed and presented to the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Chamber, without comment. He sai d there was attached for thei r i nfonnati on the noncodified section of the Code which was going on to the City Council for consi derati on, whi ch wou1 d extend the 15-year abatement peri od whi ch terminated in December 1989, extending it to December 1990. He said there was also a provision that if an applicant files a planned sign program with the City by August 1990, they were eligible for a one-year extension which would put them into 1992. Both proposals were set up by the City Council, and that was why it was a noncodified section because it will sunset after that point. In addition, the ordinance amendment before the Commission would involve the establishment of the City's Design Review Committee to have the first line of appeal on sign design issues, before goin~ on to the Commission and Council. Commissioner Fuller, referring to Exhibit A, #F, asked if the Design Review Committee currently submitted annual reports. Principal Planner Lee said it was being done currently, but staff should make sure the Planning Commission receives copies of those reports. Commissioner Carson asked for clarification as to whether it was understood that the sign design issues could be appealed to the Planning Commission or if it should be placed in the revision. Mr. Lee said it presen~y goes to the Planning Commission, and that they just added the Design Review Committee into the present procedures. Assistant Attorney Rudolf clarified that it was included in Section 19.14.583 which was not being revised. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. " Planning Commission -8- March 14, 1990 MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) 5-0 (Cannon aM Grasser absent) to find the proposed changes to the Municipal Code are categorically exempt [Class 11 (a)] from environmental review. MSUC (Shipe/Casi" as) 5-0 (Cannon and Grasser absent) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Lee stated the next regular meeting of March 28 originally had two items schedul ed. The SPA Plan for the Olympi c Center, based on the chan~es to the grading plan, would not be ready for that meeting and the app 1, cants have asked their heari ng be moved to Apri 1 11. Si nee there wou1 d only be one item left, staff has decided to move that item to April 11, also, rather than have a meeting with one item. He asked that the Commission cancel the meeting of March 28, with ,the next regular meeting being April 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chai rman Tugenberg commented on the steepness of the gradi ng on Tel egraph Canyon Road along EastLake Greens and North LakeShore Drive on the left side. He said he was really disappointed and thought the Planning Department should require on large grading projects a computer readout. Principal Pl anner Lee concurred, and said that some of the projects between the time they go through all of the processes and are actually constructed involves three to four years, so some of the projects that were in place and some of the grading concepts that were in place a number of years ago are now being caught up in the next phases of the project, but construction is taking place on items that were approved sometime back. He said staff is trying to make sure there is some good attempt at contour gradi ng, and wou1 d have to provide for much greater variety, in the slope variation itself. He agreed that the computer graphi c techni que was a' good one on 1 arge proj ects to bri ng forward to the Commission so they would have a better understanding of exactly what is being proposed. Chairman Tugenberg felt it should be required. He said E1 Rancho del Rey had done an outstanding job on Otay Lakes Road, and that other developers should be able to do that. ADJOURNr1ENT at 8:25 p.m. to the Regular Meeting to be held April ", 1990. I. ,7 , -7"- /' " '..,''......--. ~ -',,_.._~ (/,-... ....../-..7.-___?_~.:_ r.--~--LI'J-- /~__ Nancy Ripley, Secretary ~. - Planning Commission , WPC 7391P