Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/07/25 . . . . . Tape: 312 Side: I MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 25, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Carson, Casillas and Fuller Cannon, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Grasser STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Principal Planner Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Planning Intern McEachern, Sr. Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pl edge of all egi ance to the fl ag was 1 ed 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 13, 1990 MSC (Carson/Fuller) 4-0-1 (Cannon abstained) to approve the minutes of June 13, 1990. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR GRETCHEN ESTATES, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-12 - Don Goss (continued from 6/27/90) Principal Planner Lee gave a brief overview of the project and stated that at the meet i ng of June 27, the Commi ss i on had asked the app 1 i cant to meet with MINUTES -2- Julv 25. 1990 area residents and that staff review the area's lot sizes and study the proposal of three lots rather than the four lots as presented, and additional environmental follow-up on the effects of the project as it would relate to any significant wildl ife habitat in the area. The appl icant had presented a letter to the Commission stating a meeting had been held with at least three of the owners in the area; 11 i nvi tat ions had been sent out, six with no responses, and two indicated they had no opposition to the project. The neighbors in attendance were still concerned over the impacts of the development relating to traffic and lot size. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that in the environmental document which had been reviewed for the project, it indicated the traffic flow on "F" Street was 5,080 and the project would increase to 5,120, or just under a 1% increase. Principal Planner Lee reviewed staff's study of the lot sizes in the area, which indicated that approximately 75% of the lots in the immediate neighborhood were under 10,000 sq. ft. in area. It was staff's conclusion, after studying the proposal of three lots, the configuration of the property and the access point coming into the center of the project, that the four lot subdivision was a better design. Mr. Lee stated the City's Environmental Review Coordinator had reviewed the project regarding the impact on the wildlife habitat and determined that there was no significant biological impact; and the area did not contain any endangered native vegetation or wildlife. Mr. Lee indicated the trees on the site, and showed the trees to be moved. Mr. Lee said staff was recommending approval of the project, with the retention of the two lots located closest to "F" Street which have single-family houses existing, subject to the 12 conditions listed in the staff report. He noted a change to condition '1' which related to the new franchise language. This was read into the record: "1. The developer shall permit all franchise cable television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot within the subdivision. However, the developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchise cable television companies who are, and remain, in compliance with all of the terms and condit ions of the franchi se and wh i ch are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances, and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as they may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chul a Vi sta. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the cable company to ensure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval." Mr. Lee showed slides of the subdivision pointing out the trees to be removed and the driveway location. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there questions of staff. Commissioner Casillas asked if the City woul d be made a party to the CC&R' s so they coul d be . . . MINUTES -3- Julv 25. 1990 enforced. Mr. Lee answered the City was a party to the CC&R's as they relate to any standards set forth in the panhandle lot provisions, which are part of the City Code. This would relate to road and landscaping maintenance. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John F. Smith, 87 "F" Street, Chul a Vi sta 92010, gave his impress i on of the meeting which had been held with the residents. He said his basic argument was that they were sent to the meet i ng to seek some sort of compromi se but they left the meeting indicating it was their hopes that whatever development took place there was more in keepi ng with what they cons i dered to be the "tone" and "nature" of their neighborhood. Commissioner Cannon queried Mr. Smith as to what they wanted. His conception was that they wanted to leave the land open space. Mr. Smith answered that it was a matter of aesthet i cs; they did not want a development, a mini-subdivision in the area. Commi ss i oner Cannon noted that the Des i gn Revi ew Committee is des i gnated to try to keep conformity in neighborhoods in design, and that this development, if approved, would go to the Design Review Committee prior to having any approval of the architecture on the building itself. Chairman Tugenberg stated it was his suggestion that they meet with the developer and that the purpose of that was to see what the developer's pl ans were. Principal Planner Lee clarified that the design review as set forth in the condition and in the panhandle lot provision relates to staff architectural review, but the Commission could require that the Design Review Committee review the package rather than staff. Patricia Kelly, 60 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010 was concerned she had not been invited to a meeting to discuss the matter; and if only II people were invited, there were more than II neighbors on "F" Street that would be affected by the project. She was concerned about the aesthetics of having two-story homes built, and that the light to her home would be greatly affected. Commissioner Carson queried Principal Planner Lee regarding the noticing for the meeting with the residents. He answered it was up to the developer to do the noticing. Commi ss i oner Cannon asked if there weren't two - story homes on "F" St reet immediately across the street from that location. Mr. Lee answered he thought there was one further to the east, and that the ordinance would allow for 2-1/2 stories in an R-I zone and he felt there would be more building "up and out" in the future to stay in their existing lots. Commissioner Tugenberg added that the project being discussed was not on "F" Street but back within the confines of the block. MINUTES -4- Julv 25. 1990 James Algert, Civil Engineer, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista 92010, representing the developer, noted that the developer plans to either move the eight trees or replace them in kind with new trees. There would be no net loss of trees on the property. Daryl Skorepa, 60 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, said he was also not invited to the called meet i ng. He was opposed to the project and saw no changes in the pl ans from the last meet i ng. He questioned the amount of setback and overhang. He was concerned about the distance of the houses from his property and the affect it woul d have on hi s 1 i vi ng situation. He wanted a speci a 1 setback provision on the development to allow the people currently living there to have a lesser impact from what would be going on in the new development. Michael A. Green, 535 "H" Street, Chula Vista 92011, representing the developer, stated Mr. Skorepa had been mailed a letter notifying him of the meeting and he hoped Mr. Skorepa had received the letter but he couldn't be sure. It was mailed to 60 "F" Street. The reason Ms. Kelly apparently did not receive a letter was that she also lived at 60 "F" Street and they did not have any provision for notifying two people at the same address. He noted the planned setback was 24 feet from the westerly property line. He didn't bel ieve the vi sual impact would be as serious as some of the opponents had characterized it; it would be set back, vegetation would be in the driveway, and he felt the development would be unobtrusive. The traffic impact would be negligible and would not be backing onto "F" Street but turning around in the easement. There were already three pan hand 1 e lot developments in the area. He said he believed the project was in character with the neighborhood, meets all the requirements of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, and he asked that it be approved. Diana Davis, 65 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Lucille Poulter, 59 "F" Street, directly across the street from where the private drive of the project would come out to "F" Street. Ms. Davis read a letter from Mrs. Poulter who was concerned with the change in the character of the neighborhood, the glare of headl ights coming from the driveway into her picture window, and the right to the enjoyment of her property. James D. Brown, 54 "F" Street, Chula Vista 92010, lived on the property to be developed. He stated if he didn't have the property divided up and developed, the house he currently resided in would be purchased by someone else, including the large property to the back and on both sides, with the house he 1 ived in being torn down to have access to the rear area. He bel ieved the proposed project was the closest to what his ancestors had wanted to do, and what was good for the neighborhood. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commi ss i oner Carson asked if the developer coul d extend the s i dewa 1 k down to Hilltop Drive; if the project was approved, could the developer be required to install the sidewalk in order to have sidewalk on both sides of the street. MINUTES -5- July 25. 1990 . Assistant Attorney Rudolf stated that could be negotiated with the developer. If it was unacceptable, if there is a sufficient nexus, it could be required. Principal Planner Lee added that with some additional extension, it was poss i b 1 e there woul d be 50% or more of the block between Hi lltop and Fi rst Avenue, in which case the City could invoke the 1911 Act and require the remaining portion of the sidewalk to be installed. That could be studied by the Engineering Department. . Commissioner Cannon commented that this was one of the nicer neighborhoods in Chul a Vi sta, but the nei ghborhood had changed a great deal from its ori g i na 1 design of the older houses with curved driveways. He didn't feel the project under cons iderat i on woul d make any difference to the neighborhood from the standpoint of aesthetics. The developer was going to build around trees, which is a rare thing for developers to do, rather than bulldoze them down. The vast majority of the lot sizes in the ent i re western end of Chul a Vi sta are smaller, and the lots in the neighborhood are of the same size or lesser than the property being developed. Mr. Cannon stated he saw it as being an exce 11 ent development wi th excellent p 1 anni ng and very 1 i ttl e impact on "F" Street with traffic or on the birds. He felt it would benefit the neighborhood to have a well developed project put into that lot. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 5-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-43. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 5-0 that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the staff report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-]2, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and the correction of item '1' which had been read into the minutes. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) PCZ-90-N: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REZONE 4.92 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF "c" STREET, BETWEEN THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED AND DEL MAR AVENUE, FROM R-]-7, M-H-P AND ]-L TO R-]-P-6 - LAS BRISAS DEL MAR LIMITED (B) PCS-90-11: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LAS BRISAS DEL MAR (UNIT NO.2), LAS BRISAS DEL MAR LIMITED . Pri nc i pa 1 Pl anner Lee stated the app 1 i cant was propos i ng to subdi vi de an area of just under 7 acres into 3] single-family lots, including a substantial amount of open space, with a rezoni ng to R-]-P-6. The property is located north of "c" Street, abutting the mobilehome park to the west, industrial to the north, apartments to the south, and single-family homes to the east. Mr. Lee indicated the final message which had come forth from the residents in the area and the City Council previously was to leave the area R-] single-family homes. He went on to explain the number of dwelling units per acres, lot sizes, streets, open space, existing and proposed tree planting, and elevation. MINUTES -6- Julv 25. 1990 Mr. Lee noted the City had conducted a meeting with the property owners in the area and the applicant to seek input from the residents to determine if there was concern on the part of the residents. By the result of that meeting, staff was led to believe the area residents were satisfied with the project. Mr. Lee stated the staff recommend at i on was to approve the project with 36 conditions. He pointed out the Commissioners had the replacement for condition 'b' relating to a combination of both concrete and asphalt streets involving the entryway as well as the project itself. Condition 'm' would be modifi ed to clari fy the 1 anguage, whi ch refers to the fact that the property owner is to provide a minimum of lon-street parking space per residential lot, locations to be approved by the City Engineer. Condition 'y' would read that "a deed restriction shall be placed on lots 26 and 27 concurrent with the final map which would prohibit any construction activity on these lots below el evat ion 60 without des i gn revi ew and approval of the Di rector of Pl anni ng and City Engineer. The intent of this condition is to control the removal of trees or alteration of topography so as to preserve scenic qual ities and reta ins lope cons i stency." Condi t ion ' gg' re 1 at i ng to the envi ronmenta 1 revi ew process and the monitoring program would include a statement referencing the fact that the acoust i ca 1 report shows that the project comp 1 i es with the City's noise ordinance, and, therefore, the suggested increase in the wall height along the north property line is not necessary. The date on the document should be June 11, not July, since it was filed with the County Clerk on June 11. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee asked that addi t ions be made to the "Fi nd i ngs" port i on of the staff report relating to the actual rezoning, that "rezoning this property to the R-I-6-P represents good zoning practice and is in substantial conformance with the City's General Plan." Two letters of protest had been received requesting that the area be left R-I. Commissioner Fuller asked if the four homes currently under construction was part of this project. Principal Planner Lee answered there had been an earlier subdivision map providing for those four lots exiting from Del Mar. The area was subject to a rezoning hearing, and they were attempting to pull the area together. Commissioner Fuller asked if the street off "CO Street now exists as a dirt easement road. Mr. Lee answered it was a dirt easement road and would require a substant i a 1 amount of reta in i ng walls on both sides, wi th a tot a 1 of 24' driving lane and a 5' sidewalk. Additional width had been required by the applicant to accomplish this. Commi ss i oner Full er noted she had gone to the site that afternoon and there was considerable noise coming from the industrial area. She asked if the quest i on of noi se, wh i ch had been brought up at a prey i ous meet i ng, was from the development or from the industrial area. . . . MINUTES -7- Julv 25. 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid said the basic issue was the placement of additional residences in the area adjacent to the industrial development and whether that under existing conditions complied with the performance standards. The industrial development would have continued monitoring and would have to be brought into compliance with the noise level. Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Reid answered the noise was in compliance with the noise ordinance. Commissioner Carson asked how many people were noticed of the meeting and how many attended. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee answered that everyone in the DelMar area extending over on the east side had been noticed including the mobilehome park ownership to the west. The meeting was fairly well attended. Commi ssioner Carson asked if there was some reason there was not a response from Sweetwater Union High School District. Mr. Lee answered the appl icant would have to reach agreement with both districts and would have to meet with them. Generally, if the development is 50 lots or less, the Sweetwater District has a standard requirement. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Reg T. Miller, 330 Trousdale Drive, Chula Vista 92010, said he had presented a map and correspondence to the Commissioners regarding the north wall, which the applicant had planned to raise and which would block the view of the slope for all the people in the i ndustri a 1 park. He also wanted to preserve the trails, and gave some alternatives. Chairman Tugenberg asked what the slope and nature of the recreation was for the open space area. Mr. Lee sa i d it was agent 1 e slope and no spec ifi c elements had been i dent i fi ed. They were 1 ooki ng for an area wh i ch coul d be used more actively, keeping in mind the fact that there were relatively small lots with adequate rear yards. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there would be any special treatment to the ridge 1 ine with landscaping. Principal Planner Lee answered it would be basically tree form, taking into consideration the drought tolerant plant species that would hopefully be utilized. Ron McEll i ott, one of the developers and a partner in the Las Bri sas DelMar Ltd. partnership, speaking on behalf of Las Brisas asked if he could reserve some of his time to speak at the end of the pub 1 i c heari ng if there were questions. He noted he was al so a partner in the Income Property Group who, with the help of the City of Chula Vista through the use of industrial development bonds, developed and built the Chula Vista Marina, the Chula Vista RV Park; and since that time had built the Jake's South Bay Restaurant; participants in the Chamber and South Bay Family YMCA, numerous waterfront activities including Harbor Days and the Fourth of July Fireworks. He said they believed in the Chula Vista Community and thought they had a product which fitted very well into the community. Mr. McEll iott stated they had met MINUTES -8- July 25. 1990 with the Sweetwater Uni on High School Di stri ct and had an agreement with them. He also stated the Las Brisas Del Mar Limited, the developer, accepted the conditions as presented by staff, and asked for approval. Chairman Tugenberg questioned whether the fire engines would have to go through a foot of water in the case of a 100-year flood. Principal Planner Lee answered that to the best of his knowledge that was before the channel was constructed. Engineering had gone through this particular plan, and there was no proposed or threat of inundation on this property at this time. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 5-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration, find that this project will have significant but mitigable environmental impacts, and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-42. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 5-0 that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, and as amended in the recommendations, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they enact an ordinance to change the zone on 4.92 acres from R-1-7, M-H-P and I-L to R-1-P-6, as shown in Exhibit A to the report. MSC (Cannon/Fuller) 4-1 (Carson voting against) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the report, and as amended by staff, recommend to the City Council that they approve the tent at i ve subd i vi s i on map for Las Brisas Del Mar (Unit No.2) Chula Vista Tract 90-12, subject to the conditions in the report, and subject to any additional conditions listed by staff. Commissioner Carson said she would vote against the project because it was too dense. ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-A; CONSIDERATION TO PREZONE 68.30 ACRES SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CANYON/OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN PASED LADERA AND RUTGERS AVENUE TO A-8 AGRICULTURE ZONE - CITY INITIATED Planning Intern Lee McEachern stated that the proposal was to prezone two irregular shaped parcels of land consisting of a total of 68.3 acres from County A-70 Limited Agriculture to City A-8 Agriculture zone. He indicated by overhead projection the area to be rezoned. Mr. Lee said the proposal came about as a result of the Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road widening project currently under construction. The prezoning and subsequent annexation would allow the City to administer construction authorizations and ultimately maintain the facilities without cumbersome agreements with the County. This being the time and the place as advertised, the publ ic hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Carson) 5-0 that based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies, Negative Declaration and Addendum, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration and attached addendum issued on 15-88-19, IS-88-76, and IS-88-79. '. MINUTES -9- Julv 25. 1990 . MSUC (Cas ill as/Carson) 5-0 to recommend that the City Counc il prezone 68.30 acres to A-S as shown on Exhibit A. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-01: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FROM DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING A FRONT YARD PARKING PERMIT AT 34 EAST OLYMPIA COURT - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-11-90) ZAV-90-I2: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS TO OCCUPY MORE THAN 50% OF THE FRONT YARD AT 34 EAST OLYMPIA COURT - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-11-90) Principal Planner Lee noted this item had been continued several times. Mr. Lee pointed out the lot was a standard single-family lot located on a cul-de-sac, and the request was initiated through a neighborhood complaint with the City Zoning Administration Division. The applicant's lot has a 27-foot wide paved area in front of the existing garage which accommodates parking for approximately three vehicles, in addition to parking an II' wide 35' long RV trailer toward the westerly property 1 ine. The Zoning Administrator concluded that the location of the 35' long RV located adjacent to the sidewalk and adjacent to the driveway serving residents to the west was not a safe condition and the permit was denied. Mr. Lee noted the Plannin9 Department had recei ved numerous object ions to the grant i ng of the vari ance and the RV parki ng permit. Staff recommended the Pl anni ng Commi ss i on uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny the application. ~ This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mark Roth, speaking on behalf of Betty Crothaway, 28 East Olympia Street, Chula Vista nOll, asked that the rights of the neighbors be considered, and stated that if the RV was parked on the street, it was a safety hazard because of the i nabil ity to see around it. He noted there were 15 comp 1 a i nts fi 1 ed with the City. Lloyd Mitchell, 34 East Olympia Ct., Chula Vista 920ll, fiance of Leticia Romo, noted they had recei ved comp 1 a i nts because of parki ng on the st reet, even though the vehicle was driven to work at times. They had parked it onto their yard; the mobilehome is large, and does block Mrs. Crothaway's V1Slon. He noted they had a neighbor on the other side of them who had a large hedge which also blocked their vision, but they had not complained. He stated there were other places in Chula Vista which had vehicles parked in the front yards which had been paved with no yard left. They didn't feel the RV hampered the neighbor's vision to an unsafe extent. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Carson) 5-0 to deny RV-90-01 and ZAV-90-12. ~ Chairman Tugenberg suggested that the Zoning Administrator could probably cite almost every house on Olympia Court because of many infractions for too many cars or general debris. One house had a front lawn which was almost completely paved over with broken up asphalt. Mr. Tugenberg stated the Romos probably had the nicest front lawn of anyone on the cul-de-sac. MINUTES -10- Julv 25, 1990 ELECTION OF OFFICERS MSUC (Carson/Tugenberg) 5-0 to elect Shi rl ey Grasser as Chairman and Susan Fuller as Vice Chairman. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Leiter stated there were no scheduled items for the meeting of August 8, 1990, and recommended cance11 ing the meeting. The Commissioners concurred. The August 15, 1990, meeting would be a workshop meeting regarding low density and estate housing, and further briefing on the Salt Creek Ranch Project. The meeting would begin at 5 p.m. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee suggested referral to staff of written communi cat ion regarding amendment of C-N zone. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commi ss i oner Carson asked if app 1 i cants were not ifi ed by ma i 1 of the act i on taken by the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Lee answered affirmatively. Commi ssi oner Cas ill as was concerned about enough help for Code Enforcement. Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner Lee suggested that poss i bly someone from Code Enforcement could attend one of the Planning Commission workshops to let the Commission know what their priorities were and whether they could be redirected. Commi ss i oner Tugenberg asked that staff contact Code Enforcement regardi ng enforcement, particularly on Olympia Street, and attendance at a workshop session. Principal Planner Lee noted that 160 "K" Street plans had been modified with a less than 50% addition; therefore, they can retain their single-car garage and are proceeding with a proposed addition to the rear of the house which had been permitted. Commissioner Tugenberg welcomed Jim Cartmill as a new Commissioner. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 p.m. to the Workshop on August 15, 1990 at 5 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. ~71 "<,,, l~ nlc, , Nancy Riprey, Secretary( Planning Commission WPC 8237P