Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/05/09 .~. . ..-' . . . Tape: 309 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 9, 1990 ROLL CALL Council Chambers Public Services Building COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe COt1MI SSI ONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Carson (with notification) and Commissioner Cannon STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planners Lee and Pass, Planning Consultant Tony Letti eri , Associ ate P1 anner Herrera-A, Associate P1 anner Griffin, Assistant Attorney Rudo 1f 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 Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. (a) PCZ-89-M: REQUEST TO PREZONE 11.7 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF L YNNDALE LANE, NORTHERLY OF EAST "H" STREET, AND EASTERLY OF THE I-80S FREEWAY, TO R-E-P - Cameo Development Company (b) PCS-90-06: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 11.7 ACRES KNOWN AS LYNNDALE HILLS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-6, INTO 17 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS AND ONE OPEN-SPACE LOT - Cameo Development Company Associate Planner Griffin stated staff had received a request from the applicant to continue the item to May 23, 1990, in order for him to meet with staff to discuss some of the conditions in the present staff report. Staff recommended that the item be continued. MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) 5-0 (Cannon and Carson absent) to continue this item to May 23, 1990. PC ~1I NUTES -2- May 9, 1990 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-K-M: CITY INITIATEO PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MAIN STREET, RIOS AVENUE, THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY, AND A LINE 310 FEET WEST OF DATE STREET FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ARE CONFINED TO THE BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES 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: BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES "". ji ""'-'" ~.., t; fit Planning Consultant Tony Lettieri gave a short presentation, stating the area under consideration was between Main Street to the north and the Otay River to the south. The proposed zone amendment was to change two zones: the C36 zone for the three most northwesterly lots would change to R-1-5-P, and the remaining area now zoned R-V-15 (County variable residential at 14.5 du's per acre) would be reclassified to R-1-5-P. Mr. Lettieri stated the following reasons for recommending the zone changes. 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in January 1988. These zoning reclassifications are intended to primarily implement that plan. 2. The rezonings proposed for all of the residential areas are intended to continue to allow the type of single-family and duplex development as exists in the area today. 3. The deferring of any zone reclassification in the Special Comprehensive Study Area will permit the necessary studies to be conducted within that area. ~ '~ , ~ ,. :t ~ >'- ~' 4. In all cases, the proposed zoning amendments are a best attempt to convert the City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Patrick Masi, 4001 Valley Avenue, Chu1a Vista 92011 spoke in favor of the rezoning. because of problems. Arthur R. Pino, 353 Date Street, Chula Vista 92011 spoke in favor of the proJ~ct, citing densification as one of the reasons for high traffic, crime, red~ction in property values, cost to the City, "disfranchised" citizens who coua~ care 1ess--who have nothing to work for. l,,; ~ ,~)~;~, "P" He stated they did not want non-owner dwell ings in the community the irresponsibility, the use of drugs, the added traffic and other ~ , .1# I f f .~.;r) ~ . PC t1INUTES -3- May 9, 1990 Bill Harter, 1104 Helix, Chula Vista 92012 spoke against the rezoning. He sta ted he owned property in Broderi ck 's Acres and 1 i ved a few blocks north, however, he was not an absentee landlord. If problems existed on his property, he took care of them. He said that at a Planning Commission meeting in 1987, Commissioner Casillas requested staff to come back with recommendations as to financial impact the new zoning would have on the property owners. In the mi nutes of the fo 11 owi ng meeti ng, it was stated that the Planning Department did not have the in-house capability to validly estimate or conduct a land value appraisal which would provide a dollar value compari son of the exi sti ng permitted resi denti al density versus the proposed residential density. Mr. Harter stated staff had repeatedly said that it was their intention to zone the area R2. He urged the Commi ss i on to reconsi der the rezoni nq. He went on to say that no development had occurred duri ng the peri od after the County had changed the zoning. T. David Eyres, 3427 Bonita Woods Drive, Bonita 92002, speaking on behalf of 1.1illie Chessman and himself, was in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Eyres spoke of property owner rights, and didn't believe multi-family duplexes would destroy the neighborhood. Mr. Eyres said he was at the meeting to "fight for" R-2-P. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposal to rezone. ~ No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller stated she was of the same opinion she had at the last meeting, that the Planning Commission should agree with the staff recommendation and stay with the single-family zoning. She said she didn't feel that duplexes and apartments in this area would incur overall problems of crime; but since it was a neighborhood which was confined with narrow streets, she didn't agree with adding density on the lots that are available--even with duplexes. She agreed with Mr. Pino that the area had been neglected by the County and the neighborhood is now trying to do something to return the area to some stability, which she thought it would have if the R-l was retained. Commi ss i oner Full er referred to one of the houses at the end of Date Street with \~hich she was impressed. That area, which is in the Special Study Area, coul d one day be part of the regi ona 1 park. She concl uded by sayi ng if the Commi ss i on wanted to do the nei ghborhood a servi ce, the resi dents shoul d be encouraged to continue to clean up the area, and it was what the City of Chula Vista promised the Montgomery area as a total when they were asked to join the City of Chula Vista -- that we would provide some good overall planning for them. ~ Commissioner Casillas concurred with Mr. Harter that he had asked what impact thi s woul d have on the property owners, because a downzoni ng is the "tak i ng of sorts" which means that someone takes and someone gives up. He thought that in thi sease, those property owners who had expectati ons of devel opi ng their property into something other than R-l are giving something up. Mr. Casillas said that crime, prostitution, and drugs are not restricted to one particular neighborhood; that it is everywhere; it is not proper to use that as an PC ~1INUTES -4- May 9, 1990 argument aga i nst granti ng peop1 e the ri ght to develop thei r property to the maximum. He also noted that the General Plan (Housing Element) of the City discusses provision of affordable housing to the residents. Downzoning would make it more impossible for people to develop property and provide affordable housing. He felt the proposal was against what the City Council had in mind in development of the Housi ng E1 ement of the General P1 an; and he was not prepared to support the downzoning. Chairman Tugenberg commented that Chu1a Vista is probably one of the outstanding communities in the County of San Diego as far as affordable housing is concerned. He also said the area under discussion was policed by two-officer cars because of the danger. ~1SC (Full er/Grasser) 4-1 (Casi 11 as voted no; Carson and Cannon absent) that based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-6SM for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSF (Fu11er/Tugenberg) 3-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". iI 0/ ~ MOTION FAILED - Commissioners Grasser and Casillas opposed; Commissioners Carson and Cannon were absent. Since the motion failed, Commissioner Fuller asked that the Chairman explain people present what had happened and what their next step would be. Principal Planner Pass explained that it would be taken to the City Council, but the Planning Commission vote would not be registered as an action of the Planning Commission. The City Council would have the final determination. Mr. Pass went on to explain that with a 7-person Commission, 4 votes were needed to deny or approve a motion. Since the motion did not get 4 votes, no action was taken--it wasn't approved or denied. Assi stant City Attorney Rudolf sai d to make it c1 ear, some member of the Commission could make it a positive motion to deny the request for rezone; if it passed by four votes, it wou1 d be an a ffi rmati ve deni a1 whi ch cou1 d be appealed to the Council. MSF (Cas ill as/Tugenberg-for di scuss i on purposes only) 2-3 that the P1 anning Commission deny the motion recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". MOTION FAILED Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg, and Shipe opposed; Commissioners Carson and Cannon absent. ITEM 3: t1 ~;, PCS-90-10 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TIARA AT RANCHO DEL REY, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-10 - Donald L. Bren Company AStociate Planner Steve Griffin stated the project site contained approximately 9.8 acres, located on the south side of Ridgeback Road just to f\ m. ,. ~, to . PC MINUTES -5- May 9, 1990 the west of Otay Lakes Road. He said the project area was bisected by the SDG&E easement, and showed the surrounding land uses. Mr. Griffin said there were a total of 138 units on both sites, made up of two-story townhouse units in three- and five-unit structures with two access points. He said each of the sites is served by a private street system. The project would be under the authority of a homeowners association. He went on to explain the parking, open space areas, project elevations, landscaping, and project monumentation. Mr. Griffin stated that staff was recommending approval of the tentative map. The project had already been approved by the Design Review Committee, and the approval of the map would allow the units to be sold. Commissioner Grasser asked why some of the condominiums had one covered parking space versus two. Principal Planner Lee said that in the Planned Community District Regulations for El Rancho del Rey there were specific parking requirements for the multiple-family area which include covered parking. He said they actually had more parking in the covered areas than were provided for in the P-C District Regulations. The Rancho del Rey standards are actually in excess of our typical City standards. Commissioner Casillas said all the street names start with the name "Callejon" which means "alley." He wanted to know if all the streets were going to be named "alley." He didn't feel that was very creative. . Associate Planner Griffin said the street names had been distributed to the various departments for comment regarding problems or conflict and didn't get any adverse reacti on on that basis. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee sa i d it mi ght relate to the fact these are private streets and are relatively narrow. The developers submit the names, and they are distributed to City departments. Chairman Tugenberg asked if it could be assumed that rolled curbs indicated private streets. Principal Planner Lee said that City standards called for traditional curbs which could not be driven over; private streets tend to utilize rolled curbs and give the developers flexibility if they have a series of parking coming off those areas where they would need curb breaks for each. Generally rolled curbs signify a private street development. Chai rman Tugenberg asked about recreati on areas for mothers and chil dren in the pool area. Associ ate Pl anner Gri ffi n answered there was a pass i ve area close by. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. . \Jilliam Moorhous, 9191 Towne Centre, SO 92122, representing the Donald Bren Company, introduced his company, and said they had reviewed all conditions requested by staff and were in accordance. He described the number of parking units for each type of unit, and agreed that they did exceed the parking requirements. With respect to the street names, he indicated they had looked very hard for street names that would be a little different. If the Commission desired, they would submit a different list of street names using something other than Callejon. PC MINUTES -6- May 9, 1990 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) 5-0 (Carson and Cannon absent) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10, subject to the conditions 1 through 24. ITE/.1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-05; CONSIOERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE REZONINGS, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, PRECISE PLANS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES TO BE PROCESSED WITHIN A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF DAYS _ City Initi ated Associ ate Pl anner Gri ffi n sai d the Code amendments were necessitated by a proposed pol icy regarding lead times and forwarding agenda information to the Planning Commission, and also recent State legislation lengthening the time period necessary to process environmental reviews. The pOlicy was first considered on February 14, at which time the Commission voted unanimously to amend the pol icy to be returned to the COI1111ission along with any necessary Code amendments. The policy provides that all agenda reports would be received by the Commission at least one week prior to Commission action and that any written communications from the applicant also would be received at least 24 hours before the meeting. The adoption of this new Commission policy woul d extend the present timeframes from approximately four weeks to fi ve weeks for a standard agenda item. State legislation has recently extended the time to process projects requiring environmental review from a minimum of three weeks to nine weeks or more. The new policy and the recent State legislation conflicts with the three- to six-week timeframes that are generally provided for in the Code for various types of zoning appl ications. Staff recommended that the timeframes located in the Code be deleted rather than changed to conform with the pol icy and the 1 egi sl ati on so amendments wouldn't be needed in the future in case the policy should change or new laws were adopted which would affect those timeframes. The department policy would continue to be to process applications as quickly as possible, generally a five-week timeframe excluding the environmental review processing time period. Thi s bei ng the time and the place adverti sed, the publ i c heari ng was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cas ill as/Full er) 5-0 (Carson and Cannon absent) to adopt Resol uti on PCM-90-l7 establishing a policy of minimum time frames for consideration of wri tten documents and correspondence consi dered for acti on by the Pl anni ng Commission. f1SUC (Casill as/Full er) 5-0 (Carson and Cannon absent) to recommend that the City Council enact the amendments to the Municipal Code contained in Exhibit A. . . . .. PC MIIJUTES -7- May 9, 1990 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commissioners that their workshop on May 16 would include the helicopter tour of Salt Creek Ranch and discussed the meeting time and place. Commissioners were to let the secretary know where they would meet for the tour. Mr. Lee briefly identified the items which would be included on the agenda for the next meeting to be held on May 23. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Shipe requested that staff apprise the Council of his and Commissioner Cannon's expiration date for serving on the Planning Commission, so the Council could start working on replacements. Commissioner Fuller suggested the Commissioners keep their copies of Item 1 so more copies would not need to be run, thereby saving paper. Commissioner Casillas discussed the topic of water availability. Commissioner Casillas Pub 1 i cLaw 10117 (?) . the meeting to discuss requested from Assistant Attorney Rudolf a copy of Commissioner Casillas was to contact Mr. Rudolf after thi smatter. ADJOURNf~ENT AT 8:25 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of '1ay 16, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. at Salt Creek Ranch. 'I tah AI '1 /. f ;'~ ancy R, J;i. ey, S cret y Planning Commission WPC 7823P