Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/04/10 Tape 259 Side 1 0 - 1300 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, April 10, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, O'Neill and Tu§enberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioners Guiles and Shipe STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant Planner Bazzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Green and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (O'Neill/Tugenberg) to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 13, 1985, with the following corrections: Pg 16, Commissioner O'Neill objected to the use of the word "exclaimed" and asked that "stated" be used; Pg 3, Commissioner Cannon did not recall seconding the motion to the cardroom. As no one el se acknowledged seconding, the Chairman directed that Cannon continue to be shown as the second. Pg 17, Commissioner Shipe seconded Commissioner Tugenberg's motion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Joseph Trevisani, 149 "D" Street, homeowner, requested to speak on Item 6 although it is not a public hearing. She was directed to speak at the time of consideration of Item 6. Planning Commission -2- April 10, 1985 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, RIO OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK, CHULA VISTA TRACT 82-11, 4826 OTAY VALLEY ROAD Principal Planner Lee noted that the tentative map has been continued twice with staff's recommendation for denial. The applicant has now revised the map to provide for six 1-acre lots and twelve 2-acre lots. He has also revised the map by increasing the right-of-way in the interior road system and has offered an additional 13 feet from the center line of Otay Valley Road for dedication. The map now conforms to the Otay Valley Redevelopment design guidelines and staff is therefore recommending {contrary to the written recommendation in the staff report) that the Commission approve the 3-year extension of this map. The map will be subject to all conditions previously imposed plus those on the revised map. 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 (Cannon/Tugenberg) adopt a motion to approve the extension of the revised tentative map for Rio Otay Industrial Park, Chula Vista Tract 82-11, for a period of 3 years {April 20, 1988). 2. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF DECISION ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, TPM-85-9 - OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK Principal Planner Lee said the applicant had filed an appeal from an administrative denial of TPM-85-9 to create three new parcels from the existing two parcels. After meeting with the Planning Department on April 3, 1985, it was agreed that the property will be divided into two major parcels with conditions to be specified by the Planning and Engineering Departments. The applicant has been given a letter outlining these conditions and staff recommends the item be filed with the concurrence of the applicant. He added that the tentative parcel map would normally be handled at staff level but was brought to the Commission by appeal. 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 {O'Neill/Cannon) that the request be filed. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-84-4, OTAY SMALL ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, OTAY LANDFILL Assistant Planner Bazzel outlined the chronology of this EIR as follows: The Draft EIR was considered by the Commission on April 25, 1984, and the Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit were presented for Council consideration on Planning Commission -3- April 10, 1985 June 13, 1984. The item was continued until the applicant obtained an "Authority to Construct" permit from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District or for a period of 60 days. On October 10, 1984, due to delays in testing, the hearing was again continued to a date to be specified. On March 18, 1985, the Air Pollution Control District issued a 1-year "Authority to Construct" permit subject to conditions contained in the staff report and including a requirement to obtain a permit to operate. In March 1985, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Redevelopment Design Guidelines for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment District in which the Otay Landfill area is included. The new process under these guidelines does not include the Planning Commission but involves the Project Area Committee, Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency. Also in March, Council adopted new noise standards which are more restrictive and which resulted in an Addendum to the EIR. The environmental review procedures of the City require that the Planning Commission certify that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines; therefore, al though the Planning Commission no longer exerts jurisdiction over the project, such an action is necessary. He requested that the Commission certify that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and that the Commission close and discontinue further action on CUP PCC-84-2, which is Item 4 on the agenda. Mr. Bazzel advised that Mr. Paul Weir, R&W Consultants, who performed the testing and the proponent, Mr. Richard Ontiveros, were present to answer any questions. Henry Kohlor, 1547-222 Sonora Drive, Chula Vista, President of the California Homeowners' Association, inquired if he would be able to speak to Item 4 on the agenda. He was informed by the Assistant City Attorney that Item 4 is being withdrawn because of the adoption by the City of the Redevelopment Design Guidelines for Otay Valley Road; that the permit itself will go through a public hearing process through the Redevelopment Agency but would not take ~lace at this meeting; Mr. Kohlor was entitled to speak to the matter of withdrawing" but not to the merits of the project. A. W. Hall, 1675 Pt. Reyes Court, Chula Vista, asked when the public hearing on the EIR had been closed and was informed April 25, 1984. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) to certify that EIR-84-4, Otay Small Electric Generating Plant, and the Addendum have been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the environmental guidelines of the City of Chula Vista. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-84-2 - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT WITHIN THE OTAY LANDFILL - CENlRAL PLANTS Assistant Planner Bazzel noted that the next action by the City will be before the Project Area Committee and their recommendation on the land issue will be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Cannon stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission no longer had any jurisdiction whatsoever over Item 4 (Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-2). He was answered in the affirmative. Planning Commission -4- April 10, 1985 Assistant City Attorney Gill, for the purpose of clarification, explained to those present in the Chambers that the Project Area Committee will review this project for conformance with the guidelines established for the Otay Redevelopment area and the recommendation will be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency who will issue a notice of public hearing at which everyone who wishes will have the opportunity to speak. Chairman Green noted that he was opening the public hearing only on the issue of whether or not the Planning Commission should discontinue their participation. Robert C. Maxwell, 473 Berland Way, Chula Vista, thanked the Commission and the Assistant City Attorney for the explanation and asked that a recommendation be taken to the Redevelopment Agency to schedule this item for a night meeting rather than in the afternoon so that workers are able to attend. MSUC {Tugenberg/Cannon) to close the public hearing on PCC-84-2 and discontinue action on the applicant's request. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-17 - REQUESTS PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT 36 SENIOR CIlIZEN APARTMENTS, 400 BLOCK CHURCH AVENUE - CONNOLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Principal Planner Lee stated that the property is a 3/4 acre site on the east side of Church Avenue, zoned R-3. The proposal is to remove the existing two single-family homes and construct a 3-story, 36-unit (1-bedroom) senior citizen apartment project. The project is subject to DRC review. Under the conditional use process the standard R-3 code section can be modified for a senior project to permit a proposed density of 36 units {versus 25); 27 parking spaces (versus 50); and a rear setback of 10 feet {versus 17 feet). The density would equate to about 48 units per acre. Based on a survey of the parking required for a number of existing senior projects in San Diego, it was determined that a parking ratio of one space for every two units occasioned few problems. The subject project provides a parking ratio of 0.75 space per unit on site. The City Council has requested that a study be made of parking needs for senior projects in Chula Vista, however, although several projects are nearing completion, they are not occupied and cannot be evaluated. The minor variation in the setback of the rear yard from 17 feet to l0 feet involves only one corner of the building and is not expected to have any impact on present or future uses of the adjoining single-family dwelling. There is a significant amount of drainage coming in through the northeast corner of the property, however, the applicant is working to resolve the problem by one of two methods: the sewer can be extended to "G" Street with Planning Commission -5- April 10, 1985 the site being raised approximately 2 feet, or a new 8-inch sewer line can be constructed into Church Avenue. The applicant is seriously considering the latter solution. Mr. Lee said the site is well suited for senior citizens with its close proximity to shopping and transportation facilities. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with seven conditions. Questions asked by the Commission included: {1) why was the curb-cut on "G" Street removed; (2) what will be the height of the building in comparison with others in the neighborhood; (3) will a specific number of visitor parking spaces be allocated; and (4) how many mature trees will be removed. Principal Planner Lee answered that (1) the area being only l0 feet wide is too narrow for a single one-way access and the applicant is proposing to provide a pedestrian linkage; {2) because the building is set back some 160 feet from the street the primary impact of height would be on the adjacent building; (3) if it is the wish of the Planning Commission, the nine spaces in excess of the 1/2 per unit ratio could be allocated for visitor parking and 18 retained for residential parking; (4) judging by the grading site, it is possible that all the existing trees would be removed and a new landscaping program proposed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Theodore Tornesella, 443 Del Mar Court, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the proposed project citing traffic congestion caused by lack of parking facilities in the neighborhood; such as, a waiting list of 46 people for parking at the Senior Towers; houses built without garages; l~o to four cars per family; 10 to 12 cars forced to park by a vacant market; Alvarado Street becoming a raceway; and the necessity to direct traffic in and out of the church grounds on Sunday. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's questions, Mr. Lee explained that there were approximately four senior projects presently under construction. Mrs. William A. Smith, 435 First Avenue, Chula Vista resident for 35 years, stated that it would be unfair to homeowners and people in the area if builders were released from off-street parking provisions; that developers should be required to provide for ample off-street parking and also should be required to prepare for the winter rains to prevent flooding. She declared that her back yard has become a holding pond during rainy weather as the soil for blocks around has been replaced with concrete over the years; tenants are forced to move their cars; garages are ~ooded; the Fire Department has had to pump water from the apartments to the west; and their fence has been knocked over by debris. She requested that the Planning Commission enforce more on-site parking and do something about the drainage problem. Planning Commission -6- April 10, 1985 Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied by saying that a number of drainage problems in the area have been investigated; one project has just been completed within a block of the proposed development and more drainage improvements will be recommended to Council. Robert L. Smith, AIA/Architect, 455 N. Hale Ave., Escondido, project architect, reviewed the drainage improvements being incorporated into the site (at a cost to the developer of $30,000 to $50,000) and which will relieve most of Mrs. Smith's problems. He said it is necessary to have an optimum number of units on the project because of the considerable site development costs in drainage and sewer. He pointed out that the parking ratio is three times that of the Towers; the development will improve the neighborhood; more parking space could only be achieved at the expense of removing more trees or landscaping; and as the development is partially in a depression (4 to 8 feet), it will appear as a two-story building in relationship to the buildings around it. Mr. Tornesella reiterated that the project sounds very nice but the traffic congestion is still the area of impact. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill remarked that the land was in need of development, that more senior housing was needed, and he agreed with Commissioner Cannon's remarks about the need for visitor parking. Commissioner Cannon stated that based on past experiences in other locations, staff has indicated that half a space per unit is adequate for senior housing, and has recommended 3/4 of a space on this development and he was ready to listen to them; however, he would like to have some projects completed so statistics are available for comparison. MSUC (Cannon/O'Neill) to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-35. The motion was made by Commissioner Cannon and seconded by Commissioner Carson that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve PCC-85-17 to construct a 36-unit senior citizen apartment project in the 400 block of Church Avenue subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Cannon then asked if a condition that visitor parking spaces be required could be included. He was answered affirmatively by Assistant City Attorney Gill, and upon discussion with Principal Planner Lee, added a condition stipulating that nine of the 27 on-site parking spaces shall be reserved and marked for "guests only." Planning Commission -7- April lO, 1985 6. RESOLUTION: CALLING UP VARIOUS DEFERRALS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ALONG LAS FLORES DRIVE AND "D" STREET BEl~EEN SECOND AVENUE AND MINOT Senior Civil Engineer Daoust stated that Council approved funds in the FY84-85 budget for the improvement of Las Flores Drive and the portion of "D" Street between Second and Minot Avenue by the construction of two lanes of pavement and storm drain facilities. The City will build 20 feet of pavement and as properties are fully developed they will be required to extend the pavements out to the curb lines and install curb, gutters and sidewalk. Seven of the properties in the project area were granted deferrals during the period of construction (1971 to 1973). Council named itself as the responsible entity to call up two of the deferrals, the Planning Commission to call up four and the Planning Director for one deferral. (Present procedure now indicates the Director of Public Works as the responsible entity for the calling up of deferrals.) Council called up two deferrals on April 2, 1985, and at the Council Meeting of April 9, 1985 appropriated $75,000 to assist the property owners with 10-year loans for the construction of the improvements. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust requested that the Planning Commission authorize the Chairman to give written notice to the owners of the parcels to install the public improvements. Mrs. Joseph Trevisani, 149 "D" Street, homeowner, spoke in opposition to the call-up of the deferrals noting that (1) it took 2 years before a building permit was granted; (2) they were informed at the last minute of their assessment responsibility towards the installation of a street light but nothing was said about any other improvements; (3) to borrow and pay back $10,000 was an impossibility as they are retired living on Social Security; (4) the public improvements are not needed as, at the most, only five people use the street: and asked (5) would the $75,000 be divided among the four homes between Minot and "D" and to Second Avenue. In response to questions from the Commission, Mrs. Trevisani stated that they: (1) had been informed the light in front of the house would cost approximately $1,000; (2) had not been informed that they would have to upgrade the street in the future: (3) had not discussed any of their problems with Planning or Engineering staff although they had attended most of the meetings; (4) any signature of theirs had been under great distress and duress; and (5) inquired if a deferral for senior citizens would be possible, settlement to be made after death. Upon questioning, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust noted that the deferral was evidenced by a signed, documented record which was approved by Council on October 1971; the document was signed by the Trevisanis~ and the specific improvements were called out in the document. Mr. Joseph Trevisani, 149 "D" Street, stated he had no means of employment and he doubted if he could secure a $10,000 loan. The Commission asked if there might be any legal remedy to assist the Trevisanis and if there would be more hearing on the matter. Plannin~ Commission -8- April 10, 1985 Assistant City Attorney Gill replied that the City did not want to force anyone out of their home, there was no other hearing process.and his suggestion would be that the Trevisanis contact the Engineering Department as to appropriate use of the $75,000 set aside for funding. The Commission discussed the possible continuance of the item until after the Trevisanis consulted with Engineering staff and also deferring the deferrals until staff can work out a realistic approach with the area people. Assistant City Attorney Gill noted that staff had already spoken with the people in the area and that the Planning Commission was not in a public hearing format but responding to a legal document filed in previous years and which is not up for negotiation at the present time. Commissioner Cannon stated that he was unwilling to ignore a contractual arrangement entered into by the City, therefore, he would make a motion. MSC(Cannon/Carson) O'Neill voted "no" - to authorize the Chairman of the Planning Commission to give written notice to owners of the parcels involved to install their deferred public improvements along Las Flores Drive and "D" Street between Second Avenue and Minot. Commissioner Cannon addressed the Trevisanis saying they may or may not have known what they were signing, however, the City extracts certain things out of people who are developing and the Trevisanis had signed the agreement; that if the Commission allowed the deferrals to extend past the time Council stipulated based on financial problems or change in circumstances, there would be major problems throughout the City. He emphasized that the City would be willing to assist inasmuch as practical, however contractual obligations entered into at an earlier date must be either fulfilled or totally ignored and the Commission was unwilling to ignore the matter. Commissioner O'Neill stated that this is an area that needs further discussion between the City and those affected. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Krempl gave a brief synopsis of the Council's action on last Tuesday saying that: 1. The Council did not support the South Bay Pioneers' request or the cardroom request. 2. An emergency ordinance was passed on the satellite dish antennae which, after study, will return through the Planning Commission. 3. The Casa del Rey modification was denied. Planning Commission -9- April 10, 1985 Director Krempl also noted that only one item is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of April 24 and suggested that the workshop on the l?th be cancelled and held on the 24th. The Commission agreed. As an additional update, he noted that: {1) The Safety Commission's "curbside house-number painting" letter is to be considered at the workshop. (2) ERDR has been appealed and is scheduled for the 16th. If approved conceptually by the Council, it will return to the Commission. COMMISSION CONMENTS: The following items were suggested for Safety Commission consideration: l) Red curbing of the bike lane on Bonita Road from Willow Street past the Credit Union. A letter will be drafted by staff. 2) Students have altered the sign saying "do not enter" to "enter" at the intersection of "K" and First Avenue. Staff will handle. 3) On 1-805 going south, "E" Street still shown as access to Southwest College. Should be shown on "H". Staff will handle as it is probably a CalTrans' item. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. to the Study Session of April 24, 1985 at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Rooms 2 and 3, Public Service Building. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 1953P