HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/12/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, December 18, 1985 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson,
Grasser, Green, Guiles and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Shipe
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Assistant City
Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust,
City Transit Coordinator Gustafson, and ERDR
Consultant Manganelli
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-9 - REQUEST FOR
PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A TROLLEY STATION AT THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF 'E' STREET AND INTERSTATE 1-5 -
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Director of Planning Krempl said that as the application is for a conditional
use permit, the basic questions is on the land use and whether a trolley
station is appropriate at this site. The City has been pursuing a request for
this third trolley station since 1982. Staff considers the location to be
outstanding for this purpose as the station will be located on a major
throughfare which is a gateway to the City; carries a high volume of traffic;
a number of commercial establishments in the area will be served by the
Planning Commission -2- December 18, 1985
station; the area has good boundaries; is the appropriate size (+ 4 acres);
and is tied to the bus service of the City. The EIR was c~rtified on
November 14, 1985 and the Design Review Committee will consider the
architectural and site layout on December 19, 1984 with a more detailed
evaluation to occur later. Director Krempl introduced Bill Gustafson, City
Transit Coordinator, to answer any questions with regard to the interphasing
with the County and MTDB.
The Commission inquired into the security precautions that will be taken to
protect travelers waiting for the trolley. They were informed by Mr.
Gustafson that not only the Police Department of the City but also security
agents from MTDB will check these sites on a regular basis. Also, the
station's design intentionally facilitates easy observation from Patrol Cars.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of
the staff report, to approve request PCC-85-9 to establish a trolley station
at the southeast quadrant of "E" Street and Interstate 5 subject to the
condition that the design of the site and facilities shall comply with the
plan approved by the Design Review Committee.
The item under OTHER BUSINESS was considered at this time because of the
delayed arrival of one of the owners of the ERDR out-parcels.
OTHER BUSINESS: DRAFT REPORT ON FEE REBATES RELATING TO APPEALS BY
DEVELOPERS/RESIDENTS THAT ARE UPHELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND/OR PLANNING COMMISSION
Director of Planning Krempl stated the issue surfaced following a request by
the Minot Avenue residents for a refund of the parcel map appeal fee and the
establishment of a moritorium on lot splits until the area zoning study is
completed. Council refunded the appeal fee but did not grant the moritorium.
The issue was raised, however, regarding the philosophy of appeal fees;
namely, should the appeal fee be refunded and under what circumstances. Staff
is operating on a full-cost recovery basis so appeal deposits are applied to
the cost of advertising and processing the appeal and any unused monies are
refunded. If appeal fees were to be refunded, the full-cost recovery process
would not be served. Staff's recommendation is to retain the status quo as
the appeal fee is justified and any applicant feeling the fee should be
refunded can present that request to Council. Staff would welcome any
comments from the Commission so they can be forwarded to the Council.
Commissioner Cannon stated he would support staff's recommendation as the fee
rebate system should not be considered the same as a Court procedure with a
win/lose situation; and as staff operates on a cost-recovery basis, it would
be necessary to delineate precisely when refunds should be made.
Planning Commission -3- December 18, 1985
Commissioners Tugenberg, Green and Guiles supported Commissioner Cannon's
opinion and it was remarked that if the decision benefits the community as a
whole, the fee should be waived; however, the refund should not be dependent
on whether the applicant wins or loses a case.
Director Krempl said it was not necessary for the Commission to make a motion
as their opinions and comments would be forwarded to Council via the Minutes.
Item 2 was now considered.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-86-11 - CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ~MENDMENTS TO
NINE OUTPARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE EL RANCHO
DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN
Commissioner Cannon asked why this item had been returned to the Planning
Commission. Director of Planning Krempl replied that although Council took
final action on November 5, 1985 on both Gersten's land and the out-parcels,
Council considered that the out-parcel owners needed an opportunity to present
their particular requests on their particular parcels. The owners had been
notified by letter and asked to indicate the density requested if different
from that recommended by staff. Commissioner Cannon questioned how an
already-in-place specific plan could be changed and was informed by Assistant
City Attorney Gill that the Commission's recommendations would be forwarded to
Council who would take the final action. Director Krempl suggested that
parcels #l, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 be considered as one group as no density changes
have been requested. Parcels #4, ? and 8 should be considered individually as
they have requests at variance with what is shown on the specific plan.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened
on parcels #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing
on those parcels was closed.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Guiles) that based on the information contained in the staff
report, the Commission recommends that Council retain the designation
indicated on the Specific Plan be retained for out-parcels #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9.
The Chairman announced that out-parcel #4 would now be considered.
Paul Manganelli, Consultant for E1 Rancho del Rey, stated this parcel is l0
acres in size. The topography varies and the land will need a considerable
amount of fill to develop. In a letter received and distributed to the
Commission, the applicant has requested a density designation of 6-8 du/ac
since he must participate in the extension of East "J" Street (which will run
through the southwest corner of the property), the major water and sewer
facilities to the property and about lO0,O00 cubic yards of fill dirt will be
needed to make the property suitable for development.
Planning Commission -4- December 18, 1985
The Commission inquired into the previous zoning and if the density balance
had been considered at the time ERDR was originally planned. Mr. Manganelli
replied affirmatively and that the density on the original plan was 2-3 du/ac
except for the small corner of the parcel which was designated 3-5 du/ac.
The public hearing on out-parcel #4 was declared open.
Robert Valentino, 409 Loma Larga Drive, Solana Beach, CA 92075, owner of
out-parcel #4, noted that this is the only parcel bisected by East "J" Street;
a portion south of East "J" is already designated 6-8 du/ac; they are affected
physically by East "J" Street; this parcel is comparable to out-parcel #5
which is designated 8-12 du/ac; they are confident arrangements can be made
with the adjacent owner and with the proper grading and fill 6-8 du/ac (in the
northern portion) would be appropriate. He continued that some of the
out-parcels had taken a downzoning as a result of negotiations with Gersten
and they are trying to achieve the maximum beneficial use of the whole
parcel. He noted that the Master Grading Plan had designated the parcel as
6-8 du/ac and that with the loss of property because of the right-of-way
requirements for East "J" Street, plus the cost of lO0,O00 cubic yards of fill
dirt to make the property suitable for development, it would be financially
difficult to develop the property at the density recommended by staff.
In response to Commissioner Guiles' question, Director Krempl indicated that
the square footage involved in a 6-8 du/ac designation would be 4-5,000 square
feet (after taking out 25 percent for streets). Commissioner Guiles then
noted that the neighboring subdivision (currently under construction) contains
single-family units of approximately 7,000 square feet.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing on out-parcel #4 was closed.
MS (Tugenberg/Carson) to recommend to Council that the land designation of
out-parcel #4 on the Specific Plan be retained at 2-4 du/ac.
Commissioner Cannon said he would not support the motion and stated his
concern that development at 2-4 du/ac was not economically feasible with the
need for 100,000 cubic yards of fill; that the out-parcels have suffered in
the planning and development of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey development;
density increases had been granted to Gersten and the out-parcels should
receive the same consideration.
Commissioner Tugenberg drew the Commission's attention to the need for
balancing the entire development and said that if the density were increased,
an imbalance would be created.
Commissioner Green said he would support the motion but thought the owner
would be forced to work out something with the adjacent property owners
because of the property's location.
Planning Commission -5- December 18, 1985
Commissioner Grasser said she would support the motion because of the
open-space on the north side which would make it a good location for large
lots and single-family homes.
The motion carried (5-1) wi th Commissioner Cannon voting "no".
The Chairman declared that out-parcel # 7 would now be considered.
ERDR Consultant Manganelli advised the Commission that out-parcel #5 carried a
higher density because a map estimated for 102 units had already been approved
on that lO-acre parcel.
He noted that out-parcel #7 (currently designated as 2-4 du/ac) is also l0
acres, is bounded on the north and east by schools, on the south by the
Telegraph Canyon open-space corridor and on the west by a single-family
subdivision already partially constructed. The property has varying
topography with elevation differing about 150 feet from north to south; the
owners are requesting a change to either 8-12 or 12-20 du/ac because of the
adjacent schools, the 4-lane collector road on the east, its location near
Telegraph Canyon Road and the topography. He agreed that the topography will
make the property difficult to develop; that there had been a single-family
subdivision for 26 units approved previously for this location; staff believes
the 2-4 du/ac category is compatible with the land to the west; would be
consistent with the neighboring subdivision under construction; and the
previous plan indicated 3-5 du/ac on 70 percent of the property and open space
on the remainder. He concluded by saying staff recommends retention of the
2-4 du/ac based on the topography and the surrounding land use.
In reply to Commissioner Green, Mr. Mangenelli noted that with a designation
of 4-6 du/ac, there would have to be open space on the south portion and the
development would have to be clustered at the northern and easterly ends.
Chairman Cannon opened the public hearing on out-parcel #?.
George Ronis, 492 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 92010, representing the owners,
Mssrs. LeLande and Bordi, spoke in favor of the density increase based on
financial necessity caused by participation in the collector-road
constructions and the extensive land fill needed. He remarked that the amount
of land-fill could be substantially mitigated as the architect's drawings
would illustrate.
Bruce Steingraber, 7867 Convoy Court, Suite 303, San Diego, the architect,
presented the Commission with a map showing the extensive cuts and fills
involved on this property. He then displayed two preliminary drawings
utilizing the higher density requested. These featured 120-units developed in
either a townhouse style of four clusters or in eight clusters featuring a
unit on each floor (fewer buildings but larger mass). In both cases the
parking requirements would be met with some parking underneath the buildings;
the canyon would remain open and feature hiking trails; and the amount of open
space would be increased to 4.5 acres by this arrangement.
Planning Commission -6- December 18, 1985
When asked for comments, Director Krempl replied that staff had not seen these
drawings before, however, the Commission should concentrate on the density and
not the design; and that no matter what density was designated, staff would
still be encouraging environmental sensitivity in the development concept and
a cluster arrangement.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's question if an economic feasibility study
regarding the 6-8 du/ac category had been made, Mr. Steingraber stated that
the owner had done so.
In response to Commission's discussion, Mr. Ronis returned to the podium and
emphasized that without the higher density and with the estimated cost of the
proposed assessments for construction involving three roadways, the
development of the parcel becomes an economic nightmare; a density of 12 could
be accepted but was not the optimum; the property had been owned for a long
time and conditions were not the same as when the 26-unit tentative map had
been approved. In response to a question, he said he would be glad to submit
an economic analysis of the property development within 30 days.
Director Krempl reminded the Commission that both EastLake and E1 Rancho del
Rey have responsibility regarding the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road and
the City's intent is to form a facilities assessment district.
In reply to Commissioner Grasser's question regarding the designation of
out-parcel #6 when the tentative map had been filed, Mr. Manganelli replied
that out-parcel #6 had been designated as a school site at that time; however,
the configuration of the Junior High School had run east to west and only part
of it had been across from out-parcel #7.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing on out-parcel #7 was closed.
MS (Tugenberg/Guiles} to recommend to Council that the land designation of 2-4
du/ac as indicated for out-parcel #7 on the Specific Plan be retained.
Commissioner Cannon said he would vote against the motion for the same reason
he voted against the previous motion.
Commissioner Glasser spoke against the motion saying this parcel is less
desirable because of the proximity of the schools and the roadway construction
requirements, however, she could live with 4-6 du/ac but not 8-12 du/ac.
Commissioner Green spoke against the motion saying he would like to see the
developer given enough density to make a better use of the site; that because
of the proximity of the schools and the size of the parcel it is not suitable
for 2-4 du/ac; that all the developers in that area were involved in the road
construction costs; the parcel was also not suitable for 12-20 du/ac, but he
could consider the 6-8 du/ac category.
Planning Commission -7- December 18, 1985
Commissioner Cannon said he could support the 6-8 du/ac (although the
developer might not) but he would still vote against the motion as he had
previously stated.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson
NOES: Commissioners Cannon, Grasser, Green and Guiles
ABSENT: Commissioner Shipe
MS {Tugenberg/Glasser) to recommend to Council that the land designation as
indicated for out-parcel #7 on the Specific Plan be changed to 4-6 du/ac.
Commissioner Green stated that a density of 6-8 du/ac would be more
appropriate. The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tugenberg, Glasser and Carson
NOES: Commissioners Cannon, Guiles and Green
ABSENT: Commissioner Shipe
MS (Green/Cannon) to recommend to Council that the land designation as
indicated for out-parcel #7 on the Specific Plan be increased to 6-8 du/ac.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Green, Cannon, Glasser and Guiles
NOES: Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson
ABSENT: Commissioner Shipe
Commissioner Guiles left the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Chairman Cannon declared that out-parcel #8 would now be considered.
ERDR Consultant Manganelli noted that the property owner had requested a
density change from 4-6 du/ac to 6-8 du/ac based on similar treatment to the
Gersten property on the west and because of the extension of East "J" Street
along the entire 660 feet of the property. Staff's recommendation was based
exclusively on the surrounding land use designation of 4-6 du/ac and was,
therefore, the 4-6 du/ac category.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on out-parcel #8. No one wishing to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Green/Carson) (4-0) to recommend to Council that the land designation as
indicated for out-parcel #8 on the Specific Plan be retained at 4-6 du/ac.
Planning Commission -8- December 18, 1985
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Director of Planning Krempl noted that:
the workshop meeting of January 15 would be a joint session with the City
Council and the Montgomery Planning Committee to provide a briefing on the
County Zoning Ordinances.
- on Saturday, 1/25/86, there would be a joint meeting with the City Council
and the Design Review Committee to tour and discuss some of the projects
recently approved by the DRC. The Secretary will be asked to contact each
member regarding any potential conflict on those dates.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Cannon remarked that to see the actual construction of the
projects that have been reviewed and compare the appearance on paper with
the actuality is fascinating.
Commissioner Tugenberg stated he would like to have the Commission give
serious consideration to changing the parking requirements for RVs, mobile
homes and trucks which park too close to intersections. Assistant City
Attorney Gill commented that the Safety Commission had recommended, last
week, prohibition of vehicles in excess of 6 feet in height from parking
within 100 feet of a controlled intersection and the ordinance would be
considered by the Council at the meeting of January 7, 1986.
Chairman Cannon, with a MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL GOOD NIGHT,
adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of
January 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary
WPC 2428P