Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/07/12 Tape: 302 Side: Side 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, July 12, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon - with prior notification STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Associate Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Planner Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner Herrara, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Junior Civil Engineer Sepehri, Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY RE~RKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Shipe/Casillas) Grasser abstained, to approve Minutes of June 21, 1989 as amended by the correction of names on page 17 from Fuller to Carson. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-K CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NAPLES STREET ON THE NORTH. THIRD AVENUE ON THE WEST. PALOMAR STREET ON THE SOUTH. AND HILLTOP ON THE EAST. THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT BOUNDARY: SOUTH OF PALOMAR BETWEEN MINUTES -2- ,July 12, 1989 FIRST AND TOBIAS: SEVERAL PARCELS EAST OF HILLTOP AND SOUTH OF OXFORD. THE PROPOSAL IS TO REZONE THE TERRITORY FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED (COUNTY ZONING) CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA. THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC REZONINGS, AND THEIR PRECISE TERRITORIAL LIMITS ARE DEPICTED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONFINED TO A PORTION OF THE CASTLE PARK "B" SUBCOMMUNITY OF MONTGOMERY AND IS GOVERNED BY THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12, 1988. UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 13413, AND ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988, UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 13780. Consultant Lettieri noted that the proposal involves a reclassification of a portion of the Castle Park "B" Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by Naples Street on the north, Third Avenue on the west, Palomar on the south, and Hilltop on the east. This request will convert the existing County zoning to City zoning classifications. Mr. Lettieri said he would like to describe the existing land use designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan, the existing zoning, the existing County zoning and the proposed reclassifications. Staff is recommending zone classifications consistent with the land use designations as follows: 1. The areas designated Mercantile and Office Commercial along Third Avenue would be designated from C36 to C-C-P. 2. The areas designated High Density along Kennedy and along Palomar would be classified from RU29 to R-3. 3. The two areas designated "Other" -- the day care facility on Kennedy would be classified from RU29 to R-3: and the church site east of Tobias would be from RVl5 to R-2-P. 4. The predominant land use designation is Low/Medium Density Residential. For the area north of Oxford. staff recommends a reclassification to R-1-5-P to preserve the single-family quality of the neighborhood and permit construction of an additional unit. The (P) Modifying District is recommended to Permit the measurement of the lot area from the center-line of the adjacent dedicated street and to require a site plan and architectural approval. The depth of the lot makes the addition of a second unit feasible. A second unit, however, would not be permitted east of First Avenue and some dwellings will therefore become non-conforming uses. Section 19.64.160 of the Municipal Code will allow the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a nonconforming use could be reconstructed should major damage occur exceeding 60 percent. MINUTES -3- July 12, 1989 On the south side of Oxford, staff recommends two classifications, the R-2-P and the R-l-7 zones. For the areas with a mixture of land uses between duplexes and single family, the recommendation if is R-2-P. For the areas along Leoma Lane, Dixon Way, the area east of Hilltop and south of Oxford, and the area south of Palomar Street, the recommendation is R-l-7 which would prevent two-family development in these predominantly single-family neighborhoods. The last area which is located west of Second Avenue on either side of Kennedy is recommended for reclassification from the County's Low-Medium Density Residential to R-2-P to provide a transition from the apartment or multiple-family on the west and the single-family on the east. Mr. Lettieri concluded by saying that on June 7, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee held a public hearing and recommended that the properties be reclassified as designated on Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Commissioner Casillas asked if the reclassification north of Oxford to R-1-SP were approved, how many lots would be qualified for an additional unit? Mr. Lettieri replied that approximately 225 lots would qualify. Out of that area which is basically the area west of First Avenue, there are approximately 30 existing duplexes. Many of the Montgomery residents have indicated a desire to maintain the single-family neighborhood character, however, the recommendation is made because of the 187-foot depth of the lot. At Commissioner Grasser's request, Mr. Lettieri pointed out on the overhead projection the lots that would be non-conforming: namely, five duplex lots at the intersection of Oxford and First running along the north side; then in the center of First Avenue north of Oxford, two of the three lots are duplexes; a total of 15 lots that presently have duplexes on them would be non-conforming. Commissioner Grasser questioned if, because of the close proximity of the lots, there was not some way in which the lots could be zoned so they would not be non-conforming? Mr. Lettieri replied that the Committee's concern was that there is a very strong demarcation line at Oxford and if it were extended further to the north it might start a precedent to be taken advantage of sometime in the future. Commissioner Grasser said her concern was the hardship imposed on those owners. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tom Pocklington, 1160-1162 Dixon, CV 92002, said he had spoken before the Montgomery Planning Committee and his.concern is that he goes from a legal status in the County to a non-conforming status in the City. He asked what happens if as the result of an earthquake, 60 percent of the property MINUTES -4- July 12, 1989 were lost through fire, and he and the other 42 affected owners were obligated to get permits to rebuild the property. What will the non-conforming status mean at that time and how will it affect them? Mr. Pocklington said he understands the process, but now the burden falls on him as a property owner and he is concerned about the process 10 years down the line. In addition to the potential loss of income from the rental duplex property is the fact that lending institutions and insurance companies look at the situation in a different light when it comes to non-conforming status. If there is anyway to keep himself and the other 41 property owners legal, he would appreciate something being done. He requested that this be made a matter of record so, in case something happens in the future, the records will indicate the matter has been discussed. Javiar Hernandez, 1138 Del Mar, Chula Vista, said he lived in the Special Study Area and asked for a clarification regarding this area. Principal Planner Pass said that the Special Study Area afforded an opportunity for creating a "downtown" for Montgomery and is being studied for the potential of expanding the commercial in that area to provide a meaningful urban core. It is not known when the Study will be completed and it would need to be in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency, therefore, the area will keep its zoning until the very end of the Montgomery Rezoning Program. In the meantime, it is suggested that the RU-15 zone be retained and Mr. Hernandez would be entitled to develop his land in conformity wi th that zoning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson referred back to the non-conforming issue and asked if there was any way in which the homeowners could be protected from future complications arising from the rezoning? Mr. Pass replied that our Municipal Code allows a person to redevelop a non-conforming use unless more than 60 percent of the building is destroyed. If that occurs, then the party must come to the Planning Commission for a determination if the matter should go to Council. The issue becomes on of the few times the Commission acts on a matter of zoning without being in a conditional use or variance phase. In a situation like Mr. Pocklington's, the decision would probably be for Council consideration, however, if the non-conforming use was undesirable for the neighborhood Isuch as a laundry), the Commission would probably not send it on to Council. This feature permits the Commission to insert conditions to guarantee good land management and the rights of the people are protected. Commissioner Grasser spoke of the possibility of an owner experiencing difficulty in getting insurance for a new mortgage and Mr. Pass indicated that the City would back up the homeowner in explaining the situation to the lending agency. No difficulty has been experienced over the last 30 years once it has been explained to the lending agency. MINUTES -5- July 12, 1989 Mr. Lettieri added, as a point of further clarification, that only 15 buildings were involved, not 42. Also, since Mr. Pocklington's property is located in the center of Dixon Street and there are only three duplexes on the east side of Dixon, recommendation of an R-2-P zone in that area would be an intrusion into the single-family neighborhood. "Spot zoning" was also infeasible because it would literally have to be done on a case-by-case basis. The other option would be to recommend a revision of the Code and staff would not be doing that at this point. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 6-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 6-0, to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zones as described in Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-4M - PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER 3. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS EIR-89-4M - PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER 4. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM EIR-89-4M PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER Assistant Planner Barbara Reid stated that the Planning Commission, on June 14, 1989, had conducted a public hearing for the Draft environmental impact report for the Palomar Trolley Center. At the close of the public review period, comments had been received from two State agencies as well as from the City Engineer and observations made by the Commission during the public hearing. These concerns are addressed in the Final EIR. Ms. Reid stated there was a representative from the consultant present to answer any questions. Commissioner Casillas said that the problem expressed by the Department of Transportation regarding the potential impacts to I-5 interchange at Palomar Street has been in existence for 10 to 12 years. The Commissioner questioned whether it was a fair concern for the State to bring up at this time. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust stated that the fairness was arguable since the situation has existed for some time and would undoubtedly continue into the future. This situation has been brought about by the development both regionally and locally along Palomar Avenue and is much larger than this particular developer should be asked to face on his own. At one time it was thought the issue had been settled but now it is not known when it will be settled. The Commissioner asked if the list of roads to be financed by Proposition 8 included Palomar Street and received a negative answer. Commissioner Tugenberg said there had not been too much discussion in the EIR about a problem at Palomar and I-6 and asked for MINUTES -6- July 12, 1989 clarification. Mr. Daoust said that the interchange is nearing what CalTrans considers to be a proper capacity. In response to a question from Commissioner Carson if such a situation would delay the project by putting it "on hold", Mr. Daoust replied that he doesn't believe that was considered as a mitigation measure for this project as the City's position is to not delay the project Pending the completion of those interchange improvements. The improvements at the interchange are considered as a joint City/CalTrans project MSUC (Fuller/Shipe) 6-0 to certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and, furthermore, that the Planning Commission will consider the EIR as they reach a decision on the proposed project. Assistant Planner Reid stated that there was a slight error involved in that overriding considerations exist only when there were significant impacts that were not mitigated. In this case, there are no overriding considerations; however, staff would like the Commission to adopt the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program at this time. MSUC (Fuller/Shipe) 6-0 to adopt the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on Final EIR-89-4M, the Palomar Trolley Center. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 AND PCS-89-8 - CONSIDERATION OF A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP KNOWN AS WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-8, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN APACHE DRIVE AND BUENA VISTA WAY WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED) Principal Planner Lee indicated that the project involved a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern to subdivide 19.2 acres into 54 single family lots and one 5-1/2-acre open space lot. The site is located some 50 to 80 feet above Telegraph Canyon Road with an access from Apache Drive and Santa Cruz. The lot sizes and density comply with the R-1 standards. The applicant asks for relief from the 3-foot and 10-foot sideyard requirement to 5-feet and 5-feet allowed for dwellings with a 3-car garage. The 3-car garage arrangement will be for the entire subdivision and is similar to the request endorsed within the Woodcrest Terra Nova project. Mr. Lee continued that the project features a single-loaded street within the interior with lots backing up to the street. There is a minimum landscaping depth of lO feet in conjunction with a decorative wall. Approximately nine lots are affected and the maintenance would be through standard CC&Rs. Another option for the Commission would be to include those lots in an open space maintenance district. The Parks and Recreation Department, however, is attempting to limit the number of areas being placed in maintenance districts. MINUTES -7- July 12, 198'J The project has been delayed because of problems regarding future access with the adjoining owner. The owner has not granted off-site grading rights onto the property and it is felt that the slope banks may cause problems in the future involving the extension of the street, regrading and the retention walls. A condition has been added that the future development costs incurred should be borne by the adjoining property owner. Commissioner Tugenberg asked how many units must be built before the developer is required to provide low-income housing? Principal Planner Lee replied that staff generally addresses that question at 50 dwellings; however, this particular project is part of the E1 Rancho del Rey Area and the Plan was prepared with mixture of dwelling types and densities and staff is obliged to keep the overall Plan in mind in fitting this project into that density framework. In response to the Commissioner's request for indication of the units exceeding the percentage allowable for 5-foot and 5 foot setbacks, Mr. Lee replied that these particular lots would be chosen later. Commissioner Tugenberg then asked if the streets were private streets and expressed his concern about the parking of RVs in the project and the possibility of involvement by the City with the CC&Rs in addressing the problem. Mr. Lee replied that the streets were public and that although the City can be a partner in certain aspects of the CC&Rs, the Attorney's office discourages participation in most cases. Commissioner Fuller expressed concern about the water availability: the fact that although the Water District had indicated a possible shorta actual ~ e noobjection to the project had been voiced, and asked if staff is comfortable regarding the District's adherence to the threshold standards and if there would be an actual indication that no water is available when such indication is needed? Mr. Lee replied that the language of the Otay Water District indicates much more responsibility than in the past in that they are looking toward water storage. Mr. Griffin added that the District has instituted a monitoring program that keys into the final map and building permit processes to determine if water allocation can be made which indicates they are tracking the projects closely. Commissioner Casillas referenced condition "g" and asked why other fences were not included in the stipulation that private fence/wall standards be included in the CC&Rs for slopes and top of slopes? Mr. Lee replied that the typical sideyard fence requirements are covered in the development's complete fencing program; in these, the closer proximity of units to one another and the question of privacy is much more acute. Commissioner Casillas noted that in many subdivisions different heights and varieties of fences are installed and in his opinion there should be regulations that prohibit a 6-foot wall in the front yard. Mr. Lee said he had been referring to a sideyard requirement and that by Code only a 3-1/2 foot high fence was allowed in front. If the issue became a concern to the Commission. however, it could be made a matter of conditions and staff could work with the developer to develop standards for the future homeowners and include that as part of the CC&Rs. The Commissioner said he would like to see something of that nature and it would be important to the buyers. MINUTES -8- July 12, 1989 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was opened. Don Biggs, 2245 San Diego Ave., S.D. 92110, representing Biggs Engineering Corporation, asked to reserve time for questions and answers. Addressing Commissioner Casillas' concerns regarding fencing, he indicated that the developer would be glad to cooperate with staff on a plan for private fencing. Regarding condition "d", he noted that the staff report suggests that the open view fencing along lots 13 to 22 contain a 3-foot high solid barrier at its lower limit, however, the detail the developer has submitted indicates an open wrought iron fence with pilasters matching the decor throughout the project, is the same detail approved on Terra Nova and gives good view to the owners of the homes without compromising the open space. They are requesting that the slump stone base be eliminated and the developer be allowed to utilize the wrought iron fence indicated in their exhibit. Principal Planner Lee commented that the request had come from the Director of Parks and Recreation who is charged with managing the open space maintenance district program because there has been a problem in providing a clear demarcation between private property and those areas located in the district. Staff has met with a number of developers and determined that a permanent fence should be installed at such locations to prevent extension of decks and pools into those areas and the slump stone base would provide a better demarcation than wrought iron. Mr. Lee added that from the Planning perspective, it would work either way but the decision was Parks and Recreation's. Gordon C. Day, 1483 Telegraph Canyon Road. owner of the property located above 1461-1482 Telegraph Canyon Road, indicated that when the property went into escrow, a 60-foot wide easement was left out. They have requested only a few things; namely, that the street be brought in at the level of the grade on the property, stubbed all the way to the property line and provided with improvements such as utilities so that it would not have to be disturbed in the future. Mr. Day said they have no problems with the project, however, they have not received an explanation as to why they must allow someone to come on their property and grade. They would like to know why someone has to have that slope right and what is going to be done with it afterwards. Their future plans include keeping the property in the family. They have a problem with the proposal of the redesignation of the units from 4-6 to 2-4. The developer could very easily have bought the extra piece of land and not had to ask for a rezoning and why should they insist on the downgrading of the Day's property? Principal Planner Lee read the last portion of condition "m" that "prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall deposit with the City sufficient money to guarantee the construction of full street improvements for the future street between lots 2 and 3" explaining that the City can not physically put that in because the developer would have to have slope rights on the adjacent property. Mr. Lee added that the area is presently identified as 4-6 which is typical of single-family detached homes, but with the stubbing of the street out to the 5-acre parcel and the continuation of the open space concept along Telegraph Canyon Road, if the 5-acre parcel were developed at some 6 du/ac with an access going through the subdivision, it would be inconsistent and therefore the density change of 2-4 is recommended. MINUTES -9- July 12, 1989 Zacarias Chaw, 1040 Buena Vista Way, CV, 92010, voiced his annoyance at the delays caused by continuation of this item from other meetings. He expressed his concern about the density, the amount of traffic caused by the college and the new school and the construction traffic anticipated in front of his home. He asked who would be responsible if damage were sustained from this traffic? Why are the houses placed right against Sundance II? Why is there no separation there instead of between Santa Cruz and the second row of houses? Why wasn't a slope easement obtained to enable traffic to come in from Telegraph Canyon Road instead of Apache Drive or Santa Cruz Court? He stated that Buena Vista Drive is becoming a huge parking lot and the added traffic will increase the problem threefold. Mr. Chaw maintained that the CC&Rs are worthless unless there is an active association and that second owners completely disregard CC&Rs. The parking of RVs on the street is illegal, however, there are RVs Parked all over the streets. Mr. Chaw recommended a parking area for the RVs similar to the one in Charter Point; that an easement be obtained for the slope off Santa Cruz Court and fewer homes be permitted since 3-car garages only serve as storage for junk instead of cars and parking is still in the street. David Young, 1395 La Mancha Place, CV 92010, said he had 300 feet of property adjoining the development and it appeared that now he would be neighbors with six families thereby losing a great deal of privacy particularly as there is only a 20 foot setback from the homes. He would like to see a reinstatement of the 80 foot buffer zone proposed at the time of the condominium proposal. His second concern was with the discussion of raising all the lots to the same level. Currently he is 15 to 20 feet above the slope and if this occurs, the views from La Mancha Place will be lost and replaced with views of doors and windows. He requested that the dedicated open space be used to provide a buffer zone between the existing homes and the new development and if this can not be accomplished, perhaps the street next to the existing homes could be used as a buffer with the lots backed up against that street instead of against the existing homes. John Fleming, 1386 La Mancha Place, CV 92010, stated that in the past there had been a concentrated effort by all developers to maintain aesthetics throughout the entire area with cul-de-sacs arranged to preserve privacy. He feared that the raising of the lots would cause drainage problems. He noted that the project is portrayed stressing the existing greenbelt and the recreational facilities but in reality the project brings nothing to the neighborhood. There is no RV park; the greenbelt is there because of the Telegraph Canyon Road scenic route designation; as the development moves eastward to Paseo del Rey further stress will be placed on existing recreational facilities and the area will become more congested. He said that the project appears "to take more than give" to the general aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mr. Fleming noted that regarding the "variable density -- the nice density is in the middle of the development, the variable high density is right along Mr. Young's property and the La Mancha Place cul-de-sac." MINUTES -10- July 12, 1989 Robert J. Giangreco, 1391 La Mancha Place, 92010, spoke in support of the neighbor's previous statements. He said he had submitted for the previous Bonita Vista Townhouse proposal a petition of over 100 signatures opposing development of the area and requesting that if the property were to be developed, the developer work with the existing residents to minimize any damage to views, homes and property values. It is his understanding that the petition had not been presented to the Planning Commission because it concerned a previous development. The old plan called for an 84-unit development with an 80-foot setback to ensure Privacy in comparison to the present 54-unit development with a 20-foot setback. The present plan appears to have houses built up to the level of the existing homes thereby obstructing the view across Telegraph Canyon Road. The present developer needs to work with the neighbors in the area to make accommodations and the Planning Commission should consider these facts before giving approval. Mr. Giangreco said there is a question of safety raised by access to Santa Cruz which opens up more traffic on Buena Vista Way. Many RVs are parked on the streets and safety for school children is impaired. Input is needed from the Safety Commission which has researched the area and its problems and none is provided. CC&Rs are not effective but are totally ignored. Mr. Giangreco expressed pleasure with the single-family instead of condo designation and that the density has been lowered. He said he had not known that the developer could raise the grading on the canyons to obstruct the view from the existing homes and requested that the Commission look into the Safety Commission study and the petition regarding the previous development before making a decision. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Carson's inquiry regarding the petition, Mr. Lee said that there was no way of knowing if the persons in opposition to the previous attached condo project were also in opposition to the present single-family detached project so the petition referenced by Mr. Giangreco was not considered relevant. Mr. Lee continued that in response to the discussion about the construction traffic, if it is the desire of the Commission, access to such traffic could be limited to off Apache where there were no adjacent homes. Regarding temporary access of Telegraph Canyon Road, another break in the median to provide access and the possibility of a need for future signalization is considered undesirable by the Traffic Department. Also, such a break would have to go through the open space area and would need a median to provide a right turn. Regarding the connection with Santa Cruz and Apache, one of the original considerations when this area was being considered for condo development was limiting traffic from swinging back to Apache because of the density. When the development changed to a single-family detached product, staff looked hard at the connecting point as being desirable for general safety purposes including provision of a safer route for school children instead of the utilization of Telegraph Canyon Road. Commissioner Fuller asked if any consideration had been given to the proposal voiced about providing a buffer area between the existing homes and the new development. Mr. Lee said he did not believe that alternative had been considered. MINUTES -ll- July 12, 1989 Commissioner Tugenberg pointed out that the removal of one house from this project would obviate the necessity of exceeding the percentage quota of sideyard setbacks of 5 feet and 5 feet. He noted that since the project was in its inception the number of 3-car garage homes should have been calculated and the normal setbacks accommodated. He said he would not support the project. Commissioner Casillas said he shared the Commissioner's concern about the number of cars with 3-car garages, which were used mostly for storage and purpose, and that he was also concerned with the close proximity between the existing houses and those planned for the new development and that the privacy issue should be considered. Commissioner Tugenberg said that the 3-car garage was indeed a good market item; however, his opinion is that if the developer wants to offer such an inducement as a 3-car garage, he should make the pad wide enough to accommodate such a feature and not request an exception to the Municipal Code. Commissioner Shipe said he would not support the project because he is not comfortable with it. He does not like the lack of a buffer; has a concern about parking; and doesn't feel this is the highest and best use of the property. Commissioner Grasser said she would also vote against the project. She does not have a problem with density because it was well under what the developer could have had, but her concern is the privacy of that one area Commissioner Fuller said she felt that the property owner and the developer should sit down with their attorneys and attempt to solve their disagreements. It is a major problem that will impact the future. Commissioner Carson said the reason she would not support the project was the dispute between the developer and the property owner and she supported Commissioner Fuller's statement. Principal Planner Lee suggested that in light of what the Commission had said, the developer might wish to continue the item until after discussions with the property owner rather than receive a denial from the Commission and continue on to the Council. The Chair called a 5-minute break to enable the developer to discuss staff's proposal. The Commission reconvened at 8:58 p.m. Mr. Biggs requested a continuation of the item until the August 9, 1989 meeting. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 6-0 to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1989. Chairman Carson directed that all participants be notified. MINUTES -12- July 12, 1989 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-37 REQUEST TO EXPAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AT 741 MEDICAL CENTER COURT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF CHULA VISTA Associate Planner Griffin stated that the existing Community Hospital complex involved approximately 17 acres located south of Telegraph Canyon Road on Medical Center Drive. The complex is surrounded by vacant lands to the north, east and south, and by other medical facilities and offices to the west. The proposed expansion would occur directly to the west of the hospital building, would include a basement and four floors with 85 beds available upon construction and provisions were made for an additional 52 beds without any further expansion of the floor area. The only two issues involved are parking and the design. A parking platform constructed over the existing parking area would increase available parking from 410 to 514 spaces which exceeds the Code requirements by 50 spaces. The project design is subject to Design Review Committee approval before submittal to the Council. In response to Commissioner Casillas' question, Mr. Griffin said that if the developer were dissatisfied with the DRC decision, an appeal could be filed to the Commission. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. W. Donald Gardner, 1497 Jayken Way, CV, 92011, representing Sunbow, spoke in support of the hospital's request for expansion saying he and the hospital have been working for approximately 2 years on the circulation. future expansion, interface of Sunbow's recreational facilities with the hospital, the future needs for commercial office space around the hospital, and that Chula Vista would benefit by the expansion. Steven Ward, 9245 Skylark Ct., S.D. 92123, Stichler Design Group, Inc., noted that Doug Mayoras and Wayne Hunter were present to make either a presentation or to answer questions. Mr. Warren informed the Commission that the trees removed because of the expansion of the hospital would be replaced by adequately sized specimen trees. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC {Shipe/Fuller) 6-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-83. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) 6-0, that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCC-89-37 subject to conditions "a" and "b". MINUTES -13- July 12, 1989 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a) PCZ-89-G: CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 4.99 ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF "E" STREET AND BONITA ROAD FROM R-l-7 TO R-1-5-P - STAFFORD GARDNER b) PCS-89-11: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARK BONITA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-11, AT INTERSECTION OF "E" STREET AND BONITA ROAD c) P-89-2: CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN FOR PARK BONITA, CHULA VISTA TRACT 89-11 Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the proposal involved a rezoning, tentative subdivision map and precise plan for 4.99 acres known as Park Bonita. The site is located at the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road, is triangular in shape and depressed below the level of "E" Street. The northwesterly portion of the property contains a mature grove of Eucalyptus trees. The General Plan designates the property for low-medium residential at 3-6 du/ac, and "E" Street is a designated gateway into the City. The request is to rezone the property from R-l-7 (single-family/7,000 square foot lot size) to R-1-5-P (single-family/5,000 square foot lot size) and to develop the site with 21 single-family dwellings. The project would be served by two cul-de-sacs with access off Bonita Road. It includes an open-space easement on the northwesterly portion to retain the grove of trees and includes a perimeter landscape program and decorative fencing program. These perimeter areas are proposed at 4-1/2 to 5 feet wide with pockets of increased landscaping on "E" Street and Bonita Road and approximately 4,100 feet of landscaping directly adjacent to the intersection. The average lot size is 7,400 square feet and the minimum lot size is 5,040 square feet. The largest lot, which contains the easement and the grove of trees, is 23,000 square feet. Two floor plans are featured with three-car garages, mission tile roofs and stucco exteriors. The cul-de-sacs limit on-street parking to about 12 spaces within the project and an additional 9 spaces on Bonita Road. The use of the precise plan requirement is essentially to vary from the F.A.R.s. The basic F.A.R. standard which applies in either the R-l-5 or R-l-7 zone is .45. The proposal would also include enhanced paving interior to the project and the developer intends to install front yard landscaping on all lots. The recommendation is a sliding scale of floor area ratios from .50 to 60 depending on the size of the lot. This allowance is in recognition that the yard space contained with the project as reflected by lot coverages is significant and would not represent a reduction in private yard space. Also, the increased bulk would be mitigated to some degree by the fact that the dwellings back on the street rather than on the other dwellings so there would not be an adverse impact on directly adjacent units. MINUTES -14- July 12, 1989 The proposal represents a compromise between an attached product consistent with the constraints of the site and a desire on the part of the neighbors that the project contain detached dwellings compatible with developments to the west and south. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the findings contained in the staff report. A letter of objections by Mrs. Lassman received today had been furnished to the Commission prior to the meeting and was requested to be included as part of the record. Also, by the adoption of the Negative Declaration, the Commission would automatically adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring Program included at the end of the Initial Study and separate action would not be required. Commissioner Shipe asked what impact an additional 200 ADTs would have on Bonita Road and "E" Street. Mr. Griffin replied that the level of service on Bonita Road, which provides primary access to the project, would remain at "C". According to the Traffic Division, the level of service on "E" Street would not change. Commissioner Tugenber9 asked if there had been any noise studies or any mitigating measures proposed to protect from the "E" Street traffic. Mr. Griffin answered that the necessary mitigation measures have been included in the Negative Declaration. In reply to Commissioner Casillas' inquiry as to what the developer would give back to the community in terms of usable open space and an increase in the quality of life, Mr. Griffin mentioned the retention of the eucalyptus grove, the perimeter treatment, and that parks and recreation would be addressed by the payment of fees because of the size of the project. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fuller if there would be any access to the grove of trees, Mr. Griffin replied that it is mainly a visual element because of the steep topography. Commissioner Fuller asked if we are satisfied with the findings of the Health Department regarding the sewage leaking. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust said he had not seen the results from the sanitation report. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid pointed out that page 4 of the Negative Declaration, Section E, dealt with the hazardous waste issues and that materials have been removed and the project inspected thoroughly by the County Department of health. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chairman Carson noted that Ms. Lassman's letter should be made part of the record. Donald Gardner, 1497 Jayken Way, CV 92011, reviewed the history of the site from the original 96-unit apartment complex denied by the Commission to the present 21 single-family lot complex. He reviewed the various lot sizes, the landscaping, the interior size of the homes, exterior appearance and the possession of 3-car garages. The homes will start in MINUTES -15- July 12, 1989 the low $300,000 range. The neighbors have been contacted repeatedly and their concerns have been reflected in the present plans. The planning concept is to create a transition from the more urban Chula Vista to the more rural Bonita Area. They have visualized retaining and enhancing the Eucalyptus grove in tandem with their now maturing Eucalyptus grove on "E" Street. Mr. Gardner said the only item about which he has a strong feeling of opposition has to do with the sidewalk. He does not believe there is any appropriate place for pedestrian traffic on "E" Street. Provisions for a sidewalk could have been made years ago when the Morgan-Gardner Subdivision was first put through. It could easily have been constructed at the time of the Eucalyptus Grove Apartments or behind the 55 lots just to the west of Eucalyptus Grove on the outside curve of "E" Street; however, staff has taken the position that the sidewalk should be placed on the south side of "E" street. Mr. Gardner emphasized that the sidewalk from Flower Street connects very well to the neighborhood around Rosebank School and the area around Love's Barbecue. The persons living on First Avenue wishing to visit those same facilities can utilize Bonita Road. He is of the opinion that building a sidewalk from Bonita Road that ends right by the Eucalyptus grove would serve no purpose. Alternative routes exist for people residing in Chula Vista and Bonita to access that area. At the time the road was cut through in 1968 the amount of traffic now existing was certainly not visualized, otherwise staff would have required space for eventual sidewalk construction. Mr. Gardner contended that he did not believe the sidewalk requirement was right, it was not safe, and building a sidewalk that ends and then sends people up a hill to a 1,300 foot landscaped bank for which no completion plans are scheduled for two or three years was not suitable. He then indicated his willingness and that of his staff to answer any questions. Commissioner Tugenberg said he had walked down the hill and agreed that it was a case of "taking your life in your hands", however, there are people who do walk down the hill. Ron Bradley, 1615 Murray Canyon Rd, representing BHA Planning & Engineering, the land planners and civil engineers on the project, said he would address the conditions they oppose. He read an excerpt from the Subdivision Manual which stated that the Manual is to be considered a guide and that the standards and criteria will not address every situation to be encountered in the subdivision process. It is on that premise they have addressed this project. He noted the project site is bordered by three different streets, is triangular in shape, has slope criteria and an existing grove. Condition 1, page 1 - establishment of a landscape maintenance district to include the Eucalyptus grove. The City's property will then drain into the back of the developer's lot which creates a seemingly unsolvable design problem. MINUTES -16- July 12, 1989 The developer proposes that since the use of the grove is for visual emphasis only, that the grove be left in an open space easement and by a deed to restrict its use to maintenance and clearing for safety purposes only. Condition 17, page 3 perpetual maintenance of the brow ditch. Mr. Bradley requested a clarification from staff if the ditch can be in the landscape maintenance district since the developer is not proposing a homeowner's association? It will be on City property. He needs the clarification from staff before he knows whether or not he opposes the condition. Condition 23, page 3 - lot frontage not less than 35 feet. The site is being served by two cul-de-sacs which creates a parking problem. Alternate designs have been sought which allow more frontage. To meet the 35-foot requirement would result in an increase of 2,000 square feet of asphalt (a loss of 2,000 square feet of landscaping), and increase the F.A.R. Six lots would not meet that requirement. Even with a 35-foot frontage, parking can not be provided in front of the lot. Also, there would be no difference in providing utilities than would be provided with a 26-foot frontage. He passed an exhibit to staff and the Commission showing the type of problems encountered with parking and utilities. He displayed a parking exhibit delineating 20 on-street parking spaces within the two streets in the subdivision; the lots in the cul-de-sacs having extended setbacks of 80, 50 and 40 feet which provide for additional parking in the driveway area and a varied streetscape enhancing the design. Condition 24, page 3 - "E" Street sidewalk. A slide was shown depicting the traffic, its speed, the grade and the difficulty in providing a sidewalk plus 6-foot of additional landscaping and a wall on top of a slope. The job is very difficult and they would like to suggest alternative solutions; namely, to build a link from Hilltop Drive to First Street to their property along "E" Street and then have an alternate access (stairs or sidewalk) down to Bonita and down "E" to the commercial center. Condition 28, page 4 - floor area ratios. There are four lots with a .63 F.A.R. It is suggested that this is a PRD instead of a standard subdivision and request that the Commission approve the request for the extended F.A.R. At the Chairman's request, Mr. Bradley remained at the podium for Mr. Griffin's response regarding the brow ditch. Mr. Griffin noted that many of the conditions addressed by Mr. Bradley involved Engineering requirements. However regarding the open space maintenance district versus the open space easement for the Eucalyptus grove area, the open space easement is something that would be handled in the CC&Rs to remain part of the private lot and be subject to maintenance and retention by that homeowner. Since this is a Gateway Street and the MINUTES -17- July 12, 198,J General Plan calls for specific plans to enhance that corridor, it is staff's opinion that adding the Eucalyptus grove area along with the perimeter landscaping areas into an open space maintenance district would ensure that they were correctly maintained over the years. The Environmental Review Coordinator is also of the opinion that to meet that requirement environmentally, a district rather than a private approach would be necessitated. Commissioner Fuller asked about the design problem referenced by the applicant. Mr. Bradley pointed out that Chula Vista Standards will not a~low drainage from one owner's property to another's. The Eucalyptus grove slopes down into Lot 8. If it is dedicated to the City and the rest of the land remains in the developer's ownership the drainage between the two projects will be prohibited, and he does not have a solution to the problem. This could become a legal matter if it is not addressed. Commissioner Tugenberg suggested putting a walkway from "E" Street along Hilltop Drive over to Bonita Road as a way of access for foot traffic to get safely down the hill and also have the sidewalk in such a way to ensure no drainage between properties. Mr. Bradley responded that the slope drainage was the factor. Mr. Gardner said he believes the grove should belong to the homeowner to prevent having to seek City approval every time the trees are trimmed; to prevent dumping of unwanted material as happened previously on Lot 56 of Morgan-Gardner Subdivision, as well as eliminate loitering. Director Krempl offered a suggestion that the condition be modified to indicate that the Eucalyptus grove be maintained as permanent open space and that on-going maintenance be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney. Senior Civil Engineer discussed the 35-foot frontage saying that when the property line frontage is reduced as is proposed to a minimum of 23 feet, the point at which it intersects the curb line is actually only approximately 18.6 feet wide. This is further reduced by 6 feet to come to the actual driveway. Room must be left for utilities, such as sewer laterals and water services which are located out from under the concrete for repair/replacement possibilities. The minimum standard width for a single-car garage is a 10-foot bottom width driveway; for a 3-car garage a driveway width of 24 feet would be required. Condition 24 the owner shall be responsible for construction of the sidewalk along the entire frontage on "E" Street. Mr. Daoust said that as of the end of April, 1989, "E" Street had about 30,100 ADT. Under a General Plan condition, this should increase to about 31,000 ADT and it is felt necessary to provide some facilities for edestr' . ~ommissioner Tugenber's in uir P~ 1.ans I.~ r~ .ly to u ' . g q. y about staff consideration of the ~ill rve to .Bon~ a ca ex e ~lon me tioned Mr ' to yet cons~ere~ ~(~a~ s~lon. ~n res onse' ~o t ~a~d staff~ad ~ U~mm~ss~oner ~rasser s questio~ about ,~E~% expansion plans if the sidewalk is constructed to extend oown to said that there is apparently a sidewalk that goes MINUTES -18- July 12, 1989 around the corner at Flower Street which would join the more easterly portion of this project area. At the westerly end, there is a project in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program to remove the existing landscaping and replace it with new landscaping and a retaining wall. The Engineering Department proposes to include in the CIP the construction of a sidewalk along with that landscaping removal. The landscaping project is included in the current 5-year CIP. Principal Planner Lee said that the alternative of taking the sidewalk down Hilltop Drive was discussed several months ago with the Traffic Engineer and the applicant. After further discussion with other staff members, the Hilltop alternative was dropped as not favorable. Condition 17 - the brow ditch. Senior Civil Engineer reported that all staff has done is request that something be done to provide for the perpetual maintenance of this. Mr. Bradley stated they were not opposed to the curb and gutter or the pavement along Hilltop and that when they submitted the tentative map to the City, the City red-lined it and suggested the brow ditch; it is on City property; they don't have a homeowner's association and they would like to see it be in the landscape maintenance district. Mr. Daoust said there was no objection to that. Commissioner Fuller asked what objections staff had about the sidewalk on Hilltop. Principal Planner Lee said the concerns of the City Traffic Engineer included a search for a more direct route that would not involve a combination of a pedestrian walk system and directional signing which might be ignored in favor of a more dangerous route. Commissioner Fuller said in terms of safety, the Hill top alternative seemed better; it was much more scenic and anyone walking that distance would be doing it for the scenery and exercise purposes. Mr. Lee replied that some other issues included the fact that Hilltop Drive does not interface with "E" Street at the same level so grading and steps would be necessitated plus separate lighting of the area for the pedestrians. Raymond Prisbylla, 75 Bonita Road, CV confirmed that Mr. Gardner had met with the neighbors and that most of the persons present at the meeting were supportive of the project. He also was in support but thought that for a long-range planning the area would make a very nice park. Larry Pride, 16 Bonita Road, CV, said he lived directly across from the entry to the project and that his major concern was the fact that many of the neighbors do not have sewer facilities but are on septic systems. He asked if it was possible to tie into the sewer system which would be installed. Deputy City Attorney Fritsch intervened to say that the sewer issue had not been noticed for this meeting and could not be addressed. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~-- MINUTES -19- July 12, 1989 MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) 6-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-69. MSC {Tugenberg/Grasser) 5-1, Carson no, that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning, tentative map and precise plan for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, subject to conditions 1 through 35 with the change that with the approval of staff, an open space maintenance district be formed subject to approval of the Director of Planning. Commissioner Tugenberg said he was not happy with the F.A.R.s and felt they should be reviewed again. Commissioner Carson suggested looking at the sidewalk situation again and that maybe some compromise could be worked out. She said she had voted against the project because she would like to see the area retained as open space. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: JERRY OLSHER APPEAL FROM THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 1181 BROADWAY Principal Planner Lee stated that the changes made by the applicant during construction to the commercial building located at llS1 Broadway were considered at the Design Review Committee meeting on June 1, 1989. The DRC had approved the project originally on March 3, 1988 subject to certain conditions. Since the project interfaces with the structure to the north the intent had been to architecturally link the two projects by incorporating matching colors and materials as well as joint parking and circulation system. The applicant, however, painted the building in a snow-white finish, deleted a raised stucco band along the east elevation and changed the storefront aluminum mullions from dark bronze to red. In an effort at compromise, the DRC waived the installation of the stucco band and approved the change in color of the mullions. They also authorized a less extensive repainting area. The applicant's contention is that the project to the north is actually three different shades of white. Staff supports the Design Review Committee decision and recommends denial of the appeal because the applicant arbitrarily varied from what was agreed to with the DRC. Commissioner Fuller commented that there is no point in having the Design Review Committee unless it's decisions can be enforced. She spoke against the project saying that the structures look like different projects and she considered that the DRC had been too lenient. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. MINUTES -20- July 12, 1989 Jerry Olsher, ll81 Broadway, the applicant, said there was no intention of deceiving the City; the architecture for both buildings is the same; and the continuity of the joint parking remains. The building on the north is three tones of white as are many other adjoining buildings in the area such as the Price Bazaar and Price Club. The precedent has been set in the area and he would like the same consideration. The extensive repainting of the building would be of no benefit to the City and would create an economic hardship for him. In reply to a question of why he had changed the color after he had agreed to the DRC conditions, Mr. Olsher replied he thought the architect had taken care of matters with the City. Shellie Olsher, ll81 Broadway, stated that the tiles had been put on the building per the Design Review Committee's stipulations and remarked that pictures had been taken of neighboring structures showing the differing colors of adjacent buildings. Principal Planner Lee advised that the Price Club and Price Bazaar had been annexed to the City prior to the time of the Montgomery Area annexation; that a uniform policy does not exist in the area; and that it has been requested of Council that the entire area be placed under the review of the Design Review Committee. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg spoke strongly against the appearance of the buildings, particularly the red mullions and snow-white paint color. He was of the opinion that the Design Review Committee had made an error in permitting this. MSC (Tugenberg/Shipe) Grasser no, 5-1, to deny the request for appeal. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) 5-0 to recommend painting to staff's recommendation and not the DRC's compromise solution offered by the Design Review Committee. OTHER BUSINESS The Commission expressed a desire for workshop consideration of (a) the floor area ratio issue, (b) non-allowance of sideyard variance for 3-car garages in new subdivision construction, (c) CC&R's, and (d) landscaping maintenance enforcement. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl noted that Council had adopted the Updated General Plan with many conditions and that the Planning Commission would be furnished with a summary of them at the earliest opportunity. MINUTES -21- July 12, 1989 The Commission was reminded that on July 19, there would be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Montgomery Planning Committee and the Growth Management Oversight Committee at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3, followed by dinner for the Commission in Conference Room 1 and a Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tugenber9 noted that he would not be present at the meeting of July 26, 1989. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:55 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers / Secretary ' WPC 6825P