Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/02/27 Tape #257 Side 1 - 0-806 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, February 27. 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL CO~IISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Tugenberg STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, and Senior Civil Engineer Daoust 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. ORAL COI~4UNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-85-2 - REQUESTS A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AT 630 "L" STREET - BOISE-CASCADE MATERIALS CENTER Principal Planner Lee explained that the Zoning Administrator granted a variance for a 16-foot high storage shed in September, 1984. The applicant then modified his plans to increase the height from 16 feet to 22 feet; however, he was not able to secure letters of consent from the adjacent residents. For that reason, the item was scheduled for the Planning Commission. Planner Lee noted that the City Ordinance requires a 50-foot setback between residential and industrial zones to reduce the impact from noise and building bulk. Only one single-family house is affected by the erection of this storage shed. The garage of the house is located about 5-1/2 feet from the property line and light and air are not affected by.the location of the proposed shed. Because of the location of the garage and the orientation of the house, the shed would act as a noise buffer between the house, the lumber yard and "L" Street. The area is in a transition phase from residential to industrial. Staff has recommended approval. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 27, 1985 The Commission questioned what the setback would be if the property to the south was zoned commercial; the allowed height of the wall without a permit; and if a 40-foot high building could be built on the property line. Principal Planner Lee replied that in a commercial/industrial area, no setback is required; the wall could be built up to 9 feet for security purposes; and the building could be constructed on the property line. Commissioner O'Neill referring to the statement about the orientation of the shed opening providing the greatest protection from the elements remarked that the prevailing winds are from the northwest on a year-round basis, and during a low, the winds rotate counter-clockwise; therefore, that argument did not hold water. Principal Planner Lee acknowledged that a better statement to have made would have been that the only other option was to locate the shed on the easterly property line abutting the commercial area thereby opening the storage shed to the west. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Charles W. Fish, 3250 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing Boise-Cascade stated that this is one of a series of actions Boise-Cascade is taking to remove some of the clutter of temporary protection of material in their lumber yards. In reply to questions from the Commission regarding the polling of the neighbors, the answer was that no response was received from 917 Madison Avenue by the firm and that P1 arming staff did notify the property owner. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Shipe/O'Neill) that based on the fact there is no evidence of opposition and on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, ZAV-85-2, to reduce the rear yard setback from 50 feet to "0" feet at 630 "L" Street. Commissioner Cannon stated he would vote against the motion as he was unable to make the findings required; namely; (1) there was no peculiar hardship existing on this property that did not affect other property in the area; (2) no essential property rights possessed by other properties are being preserved as the exemption to the setback is requested because the property abuts residential property; and (3) a 22-foot brick wall, which is half again the height of the neighboring house, is a substantial detriment whether the house occupants realize it or not; he considered it irrelevant to base a decision on the fact that no one came forward to protest, as the letter of consent was not signed, thereby indicating opposition to the project. Commissioner Green concurred with Commissioner Cannon. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 27, 1985 The motion to approve the request, ZAV-85-2, failed by the following vote: AYES: Shipe and O'Neill NOES: Green, Guiles, Cannon and Carson ABSENT: Tugenberg Chairman Green informed the applicant he had the right of appeal to Council wi thin lO days of receipt of a letter from the Planning Department informing him of the Commission's decision. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 stated that the applicant has requested a continuation of this item to the meeting of March 13, 1985. Chairman Green asked if anyone would like to speak to the matter of the continuance. No one wished to do so. MSUC (O'Neill/Cannon) to continue the matter to the meeting of March 13, 1985. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE VILLAGE AND BUSINESS CENTER SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAK£ I - CHULA VISTA TRACT 84-7 - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT Principal Planner Lee stated that the Commission had previously considered the tentative subdivision map for the residential area {Shores and Hills) and that this map was for the Village Center and business area east of SR 125. He explained that the map is divided into four phases; namely, Phase 1 would involve the eastern 15 lots of the industrial development, the construction and realignment of Otay Lakes Road {to be renamed Telegraph Canyon Road) and developments along Proctor Valley Road; Phase 2 would consist of 20 industrial lots plus development of the 7-acre private park and a second connection to Telegraph Canyon Road by EastLake Parkway; Phase 3 would provide for the completion of the remainder of the industrial tract across "H" Street, plus extension of EastLake Parkway to tie in with the residential area to the west allowing "H" Street to make that connection plus an additional extension {of "H" Street) to Proctor Valley Road; Phase 4 would include completion of 14 acres for office development on the east side of EastLake Parkway and approximately 60 acres for retail/commercial development on the west side allowing about 300,000 square feet of retail space plus the fire station, the store-front library, dedication of the 1-acre library site, the transit center and about 400 dwelling units for seniors and low-income homes on the northerly 18 acres. Principal Planner Lee stated that the requirement for ll9 low-income units to be located within the Village Center has been included, however, the requirement for manufactured housing has been eliminated as a condition. The Planning Commission previously recommended and the City Council agreed to not Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 27, 1985 require manufactured housing in the EastLake residential.development. It was also noted that the construction of SR 125 to 54 along with any necessary bridges was required of the tentative map. He added that approval was recom~nended wi th 66 conditions similar, in many cases, to those on the residential subdivision map. Mr. Lee then reviewed certain specific conditions as follows: 1.D. concerning Unit #4, under the off-site improvement column, the last item should read "#46 SR125 to #54 including the construction of bridges - not "buildings". 6 - the developer is not being required to pay any RCT or PAD fees for park construction. 7 - the stipulation re the low-income houses. lO.a. - should read "Stipulates all areas of open space maintenance required by the Master Property Owners Association." Senior Civil Engineer Daoust discussed the mitigation measures outlined in Condition 30, as modified earlier by mutual consent of the City and the applicant. These include the addition of subheadings "a" and "b", with Condition 30 to read: 30: "That the developer shall comply with the following mitigation measures, as listed in the environmental review document for this project prior to approval of any Final Subdivision Map: a. Bus turnouts should be incorporated in the street designs for major intersections and benches located subject to City approval. b. The developer shall be responsible for the preparation of an analysis to determine the need for funds to subsidize the line-haul transit operations in EastLake I." Senior Civil Engineer Daoust informed the Commission these items were both included in the EIR on the project and were the only mitigation measures not taken care of elsewhere. Commissioner Cannon stated that changing the wording from "all" to "the following" implied mitigation measures affected would be listed, and asked what measures had been omitted. Mr. Daoust replied only measures not appropriate for inclusion in the tentative map, such as street conditions requiring construction of SR 125 as a 6-lane freeway to Route 54; and several other measures which he could not recall; he informed the Commission the wording change had been the result of a conversation between Mr. Santos and staff regarding which mitigation measures were meant by the originally stated Condition 30. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 27, 1985 Principal Planner Lee interposed that the measures omitted were cases in which mitigation applied to documents other than the subdivision map and which were pertinent to the final map. In continuing the list of conditions, Mr. Lee stated that Conditions 15 and 66 are repetitive and refer to Condition l, however, staff would like them retained with the reference so noted. 31 Should include the addition of the word "program" and read: "An erosion and sedimentation control program shall be prepared as part of the grading plan." 64 The final period should be replaced with a comma and the phase "unless otherwise provided for to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" be added. Commissioner Guiles asked if the statement on page 10, paragraph 3, commits the developer to provide the 125 connection to SR 54 prior to construction of Unit #4. He was answered that it should be concurrent with Unit #4, not prior to. Unit #4 would trigger that construction program, however, the Financing Plan would indicate the exact timing. This being the time and the place as advertised the public hearing was opened. Dr. Wendy Longley-Cook, 1007 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing United Enterprises asked that in Condition 1.D, SR 125 (which consists of improvements both on and off-site) be shown in the on-site column also or a statement appended to indicate inclusion in both on and off-site improvements. Dr. Lon§ley-Cook referred to Condition 66 stating that it was United Enterprises' understanding that the drainage facilities {particularly, the drainage channel) were included in the improvements necessary for the ultimate configuration of Telegraph Canyon Road as a 6-lane primary arterial, partially based on infomation contained in Public Works Drawing CV 77-42D, regarding the sectional planning area for Charter Point. (This material was then submitted to the Planning Commission.) The City Engineer's position, however, is that the drainage channel is not part of the road improvements but will be exacted as a subdivision requirement presumably from United Enterprises. Clarification of the matter is requested as United Enterprises feels it is unfair they should have to pay for the entire channel, including the lining, but are willing to pay their fair share. Senior Civil Engineer stated that the drainage facilities referred to in the statement "included but not limited to -" are ordinary type of drainage devices like culverts, longitudinal storm drains and the like. The Telegraph Canyon Channel is a major drainage way, necessary whether the street existed or not, and because of its location and status as a major drainage way is considered neither a roadway drainage facility nor a roadway improvement. Mr. Daoust continued that the channel might be called out as a condition of improvement of a particular subdivision, or could be included in the benefit assessment district, however, it should not be entirely one or the other. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 27, 1985 In response to questions from the Commission on how this situation would be handled, Mr. Daoust said a drainage way channel of such magnitude is usually shown on the grading plans for the project as a separate drainage improvement plan; the grading plan would not be improved unless some provisions were contained, and, in this case, where it closely parallels Telegraph Canyon Road, it might be done in conjunction with a project for improving the street; however, it is identified on the drawing as a future drainage channel and that's all not as a roadway improvement or street improvement. It is not indicated, however, that it is going to be a concrete-lined channel but is indicated as a landscaped channel. Discussion among Commission, staff and Dr. Longley-Cook included the fact that the channel is entirely on United Enterprises' land; that in previous cases where the channel ran through a shopping center and several other areas to the east, the entire cost of the channel improvement was borne by the property owner; United Enterprises' contention was that when Charter Point and Telegraph Point subdivisions were considered, they had been told the channel would be part of the road improvements. Dr. Longley-Cook indicated the original EIR for EastLake reported the mitigation would be handled through the subdivision map act phase and the project applicant might be required to install drainage facilities or to pay a fair share of the necessary drainage improvements' cost in Telegraph Canyon downstream from the project site. She stated that they believe this is the intent; they have discussed the matter with EastLake who concurs with their position and they request clarification from the Commission. The Commission then discussed several ways in which to reword Condition 66 to satisfy United Enterprises' concerns. Planning Commissioner Cannon suggested the addition of another condition requiring the developer to pay his fair share allocation for regional drainage facilities as established by the City. Robert Santos, 701 "B" Street, Suite 730, San Diego, the developer, said it was his understanding that the regional drainage facilities should be handled on a fair share cost-sharing basis either through a drainage master plan which establishes the needs for the master gauge facilities and a proration of cost based on benefits received - not an assessment district, a misleading term. EastLake Development considers this similar to a sewer line or water line situation where, with an oversizing done on their property, they would expect reimbursement from those benfiting upstream as well as those downstream. They agree with a fair share allocation cost for a downstream improvement just as they would assume any improvements upstream of their property would also have a fair share allocation of their costs; and if the City has intent to establish some program to improve downstream drainage facilities, they are willing to go on record to say they will participate. Mr. Santos then stated the applicant is in agreement with the staff report and both he and Mr. Jeff Phair, Vice President of Industrial Developments, are willing to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 27, 1985 Commissioner Cannon suggested the addition of Condition 67 to read, "Developer shall pay his fair share allocation for regional drainage facilities as such facilities may be established by the City." No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon asked if EastLake would have any objection to the suggestion made by Dr. Longley-Cook to include in the terminology reference to SR 125 both off-site and on-site improvements. Mr. Santos replied they would have no problem as they feel the Public Facilities Financing Plan would be the guidelines as long as this caveat is included. Commissioner Cannon said that would remain in the Condition, however, he agreed with Dr. Longley-Cook that there had been no indication that on-site improvements would take place on SR 125. Mr. Santos pointed out that Condition 46 specified "from Telegraph Canyon on - however, it had not been carried over into the column. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Guiles/Shipe) based on the findings contained in this report to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the subdivision map for the EastLake Village Center and the EastLake Business Center subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the changes noted by staff as well as adding Condition 67 reading "Developer shall pay his fair share allocation for regional drainage facilities as such facilities may be established by the City" and clarifying the off-site and on-site point relative to SR 125. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: Director Krempl informed the Commission that Council had considered the daycare facility and on a 3-2 vote rejected the proposal, and on a 4-1 vote indicated if the applicant were willing to submit a precise plan for the entire area that Council would be willing to reconsider the proposal. In addition, Council acted to bring forward to them on an appeal, the South Bay Pioneer item. In response to questions, Director Krempl said that Councilman Scott appealed it himself. A tentative hearing date of March 27th has been set for the specific plan amendment on E1 Rancho del Rey; and the material will be distributed to the Commission a week early per their request. COMMISSION COMMENTS: - Commissioner Cannon apologized for missing the workshop meeting through forgetfulness. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 27, 1985 Commissioner Carson asked when input to the Safety Commission regarding marking of house numbers on the curb was wanted, and was informed at the next workshop. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:00 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 1770P