Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/12/02 Tape No.: 285 Si de 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, December 2, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Associate Planner Griffin 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 REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Fuller/Cannon) to approve the minutes of the meeting of i~ovember 18, 1987, as mailed. Approval of the minutes of the October 14, 1957, to be added to the next agenda ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-F AND P-88-5 - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 11.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST 'H' STREET AND RUTGERS AVENUE FROM R-1-H TO R-1-H-P AND PRECISE PLAN FOR 40 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS - KELTON TITLE COMPANY (continued) MINUTES -2- December 2, 1987 Associate Planner Griffin noted that the site consists of ll.4 acres of moderate to steeply sloping terrain bisected by Rutgers Avenue. Single-family homes are on the east, west and south sides. The northwest portion of the property abuts Tiffany Park and single-family homes plus a proposed child day-care center are located to the north. The project consists of terraced sites for 40 single-family attached units which will be served by a private cul-de-sac streets with access off Rutgers. The structures are generally elevated above Rutgers and East "H" Street and below the surrounding single-family homes. There are view lines drawn from the single-family homes above the property showing that in most cases the new structures would be well below the view line. One adjustment was made to Section C which represented some potential for a view obstruction and the applicant has lowered those units a few feet to minimize that problem. The project also incorporates several features that are suggested alternatives in the hillside development policy and design criteria. They include the narrow streets, parking bays to minimize grading, split-level construction to conform with topography and enhanced views and the clustering of the attached units in order to provide variety, and larger open space interspersed with structures. The requested rezone is from R-1-H to R-1-H-P. The "H" Hillside Modifying District establishes a maximum gross density and percentage of allowable grading based on the average natural slope of the site and the plan is generally consistent with the Hillside policy and standards. The project is well suited to the site and setting despite several essential but relatively minor issues yet to be resolved. It is consistent with the density and grading standards and the structures have been designed to mitigate the impression of mass and to provide interest and variety in the relationship with open spaces. It is recommended that the following issues be returned for Commission and Council review and approval along with the tentative subdivision map for the project: (1) Common vs. private open space; (2) Walls and fences; (3) Streets, walks and drives; (4) Storage and trash; and (5) Development standards. Questions from the Commission included (1) a request for an explanation of the term, "enriched paving"; does it mean better quality? (2) Will the width of the private streets be the same as dedicated streets? (3) What type of trash enclosure would be provided - private or common enclosure? Staff replied that (1) enhanced paving refers to some type of stamped concrete or an aggregate material placed near the entries to both enhance the appearance and to identify the change from a public street to a private one; it does not, however, mean better quality per se. (2) Private streets will have a 25-foot wide travelway, the lanes will be comparable to those found on a public dedicated street however, because of the lack of on-street parking and provision of parking bays. (3) The type of trash enclosures has not yet been determined. MINUTES -3- December 2, 1987 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Those speaking in support of the project were: Paul A. Manganelli, 9903-B Business Park Ave., S.D., 92131, representing the developer; Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, S.O. 92101, representing Hedenkamp and Associates Architects; Mark Kelton, 5109 Waring Road, S.D., Kelton Title Corporation; and Ben Patton, 843 Cornell Avenue, Chula Vista, 92013, representing self. Mr. Manganelli noted that Jim Hutchison, the project engineer, was also avail able for questioning and stated that the attached dwelling units represented the best method to accomplish a sound design by providing wider building separations between units as opposed to a solid mass appearance presented by a standard subdivision with standard setbacks. He added that to have some flexibility in the design, the "P" Modifier was needed. He requested the Commission recommend approval based on (1) the sensitivity of the design to the site and its location at the entrance to the EastLake Community and to the neighboring properties; (2) it's conformity with the General Plan, the R-1 zone and the "H" Modifier plus the density being less then the surrounding area; (3) it will be an asset to the neighborhood; (4) has been designed so that views from the neighboring property will be retained; and (5) the property will be landscaped and will improve that intersection. Mr. Manganelli indicated there were no objections to the staff recommendations. Bill Hedenkamp commented that prior work had been planned featuring a higher density housing. One of the reasons this attached single-family home style had been selected was because of the prominence of this corner and the "H" Street eastbound approach to EastLake. The slope banks and landscape will benefit the community; and the difference between single-family detached and the attached units allows more space between the homes. The undulating form and lack of a consistent setback from Rutgers Avenue plus the varying landscape treatments and grading will beautify this area which is appropriate for a higher-quality house. He noted that three plans are provided: Two plans on the downhill level featuring (a) a three-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath and family room occupying 25,019 square feet; (b) a four-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath and family room occupying 23,064 square feet; and on the uphill level a three-bedroom, and family room occupying 19,049 square feet. Mr. Hedenkamp spoke of the variation in the roof lines and of the meeting held with the adjacent property owners on November 3, 1987. The three concerns expressed at that meeting included (1) the view - not only that affected by the dwelling units but that impacted by the landscaping on the upper slope banks; the neighbors prefer low-growing shrubs and trees (if any) on those slopes; (2) a boundary adjustment at the southerly portion of the westerly site; which was accomplished by moving three units 10 feet to the north and 4 feet down the hill to mitigate the impact on the view; (3) moving a unit on the easterly site into what formerly was an open space area with the open space area subsequently relocated near the center of the project. MINUTES -4- December 2, 1987 Mr. Hedenkamp noted that the client wanted to provide a quality project at this location; will continue to meet the concerns of both staff and the neighbors; and is concerned with the impact of the project in terms of the final physical appearance. Mark Kelton indicated that the project is an "in-fill" of an area surrounded by existing communities; the 40 homes have been revised five to six times and everyone has worked hard to be sensitive to everything in the surrounding area and to the concerns of the neighbors. The homes, in almost every way other than the fact that they share a common wall, are approached like detached homes with large private yard areas and large units. Ben Patton, a neighboring homeowner, spoke appreciatively of the meeting between the neighbors and the developer; stated he still has concerns about (1) the exact distance between the floor level and the highest roof in the project interfering with the tremendous view now enjoyed; (2) the landscaping around the outside perimeter which will be on a higher level than the homes and would soon have trees which could grow to great heights. He suggested that a bond be placed by Kelton and Company to correct such a situation if it occurs. Mr. Patton said the project was very nice, he is in favor of what he has seen, and as long as his view and the trees are not beyond his height, he is in favor of the project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-25. MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) to recommend that City Council approve PCZ-88-5 to change the zone on 11.4 acres from R-1-H to R-1-H-P as shown on Exhibit A attached to the staff report. Remarks by Commissioner Cannon included the fact that he liked the expanded open space between the houses which certainly provides for a more open air view and more landscaping between the units; his desire to compliment the developer that these units are not cracker-box units, but good-sized units; and that the project makes a great deal of sense. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked that the attached off-the-private-street gives a new texture to that quadrant of East "H" and Elmhurst and is a great improvement over the brush that has been there the last l0 years. He commented that considering the view of traffic on East "H" Street and Elmhurst, Mr. Patton might, in time, come to appreciate something higher than low shrubs. MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) that based on the findings that the precise plan generally conforms to the provisions of the Hillside Modifying District, Development Policy and Design Criteria, to recommend that the City Council approve P-88-5 subject to conditions "a" through "e." MINUTES -5- December 2, 1987 Commissioner Cannon suggested that Mr. Patton and the developer discuss his concerns further. The Chair commended the developer for the excellent presentation and for meeting with the neighbors. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that there are tumbleweeds in front of the Kelton property on East "H" Street across from Bonita Vista High School that make it necessary for a pedestrian to step off into the street to pass the property. Mr. Kelton said he would look into the situation. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Principal Planner Lee announced that this public hearing has been cancelled. The proposed amendments will be incorporated into the revised Local Coastal Program that is currently being prepared. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-39M - REQUEST TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING RV STORAGE LOT NOW OPERATING ILLEGALLY AT 1483 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES LTD. (Continued) Principal Planner Lee remarked that the storage lot located on SDG&E utility property on the east side of Broadway, south of Palomar Street (consisting of 4.5 acres containing 373 storage spaces and 35 customer parking spaces) was established 2 years ago without obtaining a major use permit from the County. Citizen complaints about the unsightliness of the lot brought this illegality to the attention of the City and the owners were notified that a major use must be obtained. The major use permit is required under the S-94 zone assigned to all property currently in use for utility transmission lines under ownership by the SDG&E. The application was finally submitted for filing on April 27, 1987. However, work on the Montgomery Specific Plan had proceeded to the point where the goals of the specific plan would discourage the continuation of open land uses in the Montgomery Area as well as encouraging the preservation of the SDG&E right-of-way for either open space or park usage. The requested RV storage use conflicts with this goal. Also, the existing zones surrounding this lot do not permit open storage with the exception of a small area owned by Orange Tree Mobilehome Park as an accessory use. Due to the numerous conditions of approval not proposed by the applicant and which would need to be fulfilled before the lot met City Standards, staff reco~ends denial of the application with an abatement period for the owners to vacate the property effective March 31, 1988. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended denial at their meeting of August 5, 1987. Principal Planner Lee pointed out that both the Commission and the Montgomery Planning Committee have endorsed this entire area for parks and open space as shown in the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Plan will be reviewed by the Council in January, 1988 and if open storage is determined as an appropriate long-term land use at this lo~tion in the Montgomery area, the applicant can refile the major use permit. MINUTES -6- December 2, 1987 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Kolodny, 2470 Union Street, San Diego, representing Broadway Equities and Beaty Development Company, requested the item be continued until after the January hearing on the Montgomery Specific Plan. He noted that the lot has been in existence for some time and would have been approved by the County at the time of initial development; and a continuance until after the final decision on the Mont§omery Specific Plan would not jeopardize anyone's position. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cannon said that it was possible for the Council to change what the Commission has suggested regarding the land use involved and for that reason he would support the applicant's request. MSC (Cannon/Grasser) Tugenberg, no to continue this hearing to the meeting of February 6, 1988. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-6 - PROVISION FOR COMMENTS ON THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AND FINANCING ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA I Commissioner Cannon stated that it was his understanding of the motion made at the last meeting that the Commission would discuss their comments, not necessarily open up the item for a new public hearing. He questioned the need for a public hearing based on the denial of the project by the Commission. He was, however, prepared to make comments on the various documents. Director Krempl replied that upon the suggestion of the Attorney's office the hearing was advertised with the intent to allow provision for comments by the Commission and no extensive public hearing was envisioned. Consultant Tony Lettieri said that at the November 4th meeting, the Commission had denied approval of the Rancho del Rey General Development Plan and subsequently took no action on the additional four items. Under consideration, therefore, are comments on the Sectional Planning Area Plan; the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis; the Development Agreement and the Design Guidelines in draft form. Using the overhead projector, Mr. Lettieri showed the Rancho del Rey Spa I Plan which involves 2,201 units, the employment park, the library, fire station and the elementary school site and on which a detailed presentation had been made at the meetings of October 28, and November 4, 1987. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ken Baumgartner, representing McMillin Development, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, stated his availability to answer questions from the Commission. MINUTES -7- December 2, 1987 Commissioner Cannon said he would not repeat his previous comments, however, his other main concern was the park area. He considered the lighted ballfields objectionable to the existing neighborhood (one of the few in the area already established) This neighborhood will be also impacted by the shopping center recently approved and by Bonita Vista Junior High School and he would like to see some consideration given to moving the park and/or not lighting the ballfields. Lighted ballfields generate a great deal of noise. The employment park should be called by its right name -- an industrial park, and is his main objection to the particular project. Long-range impacts including subsequent traffic generation are being caused by placing an industrial park in the center of a residential area and on a residential street. Some consideration to the use of additional housing and/or additional open space would be more sensible. The Financing Plan makes sense and has been proven valuable in EastLake. He would have liked to have seen consideration for some larger homes on a broader scale in this area rather than small homes prevalent throughout. The proposed estate area is relatively small. The South Bay Area continues to be inundated with very small housing and lots. Commissioner Tugenber§ said there was definitely a market for larger homes as proven by the sales within the Bonita Long Canyon project. He expressed concern that Chula Vista is becoming two different cities - east of 1-805 and west of 1-805, with East "H" Street as "the alimentary canal of Chula Vista" and the proposed location of the employment park will result in "a strangulated bowel" with people unable to move from east side of 1-805 past the employment park. This will also enforce the two Chula Vistas' concept. - Community Park - the people moving into Rancho del Rey will be buying into the park; but the residents did not; they bought into what they understood to be open space. - He would like to see a provision for either the complete elimination of motor home parking within the development or a "for-fee-storage" accommodation. This would prevent a cluttered appearance. Commissioner Casillas stated his agreement with Commissioner Cannon on the relocation of the recreational facility particularly regarding the lighting. - Employment Park - He considers this a good idea which provides employment for local residents and resultant minimization of traffic congestion. Employment opportunities need to be developed. Commissioner Fuller said she considered the total program including the development agreement and the monitoring aspects to be very well thought out and congratulated the developer on an excellent Job. MINUTES -8- December 2, 1987 Community Park - It appears that the developer has already commenced meeting with neighbors and the City; however, the burden appears to be with the City because of its request for the present park location. The Commission has never been informed why the park could not have been located in the area of the industrial park; and she expressed the hope that the Parks and Recreation Department would be sensitive to the needs of the present homeowners. Commissioner Carson said she had originally voted for the plan, is still in support of it, and is extremely impressed by the development agreement which includes tight thresholds that will enable both the developer and the City to meet their respective needs. Community Park She expressed concern for the homeowners who purchased property and are faced with the nearby construction of a ball park and the imposition of loudspeaker announcements and traffic noises into their homes; the lack of enforcement of the leash-law for dogs in park areas; and that a better location for the park could be found. She would like to see consideration manifested for persons who already own their homes and would not like these situations forced upon them. Water - She would like to see something about reclaiming water be included in the project. Commissioner Shipe said that with regard to the employment/industrial park that, in actuality, people working in the employment park are not necessarily nearby residents, but people who are qualified regardless of their home location. Traffic impacts are thereby caused and he has a great deal of concern about the situation. Commissioner Grasser said that basically she agreed with Commissioner Cannon but did not have a problem with the employment park. Community Park She has a problem with the ballfield behind the Eucalyptus Ridge property, lighted or unlighted. The location of this type of park would be more appropriate next to the industrial facility. This is a prime piece of property for upper and executive-type homes which are greatly needed in Chula Vista and the South County; which she would urge Council to consider. The topography with the views would also be conducive to this type of development. The Commission complimented Mr. Baumgartner, the other members of the McMillin Group and Mr. Lettieri for the excellent professional presentations made. No other comments being offered, the public hearing was closed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PCA-88-4 - TO AMEND TITLE 19 (ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE RECYCLING FACILITIES MANDATED BY AB 2020 (THE BOTTLE BILL) MINUTES -9- December 2, 1987 Principal Planner Lee outlined the requirements of the 1986 California Beverage and Recycling Litter Reduction Act to promote the recycling of beverage containers including glass, aluminum and plastic. Part of the mandated system requires a recycling facility be located within a 1/2 mile radius of the City's 13 major markets which do a gross income of $2-million/year or more. Since the penalty phase of the Act will be in effect on January l, 1988, the Council enacted an urgency ordinance about 2 months ago. The recycling facilities fall into three categories: (1) reverse vending machines proposed as accessory to stores which would require administrative review (site plan) and be limited to three facilities and 150 square feet; (b) collection bins or bulk reverse vending machines which would require Zoning Administrator conditional use permits and a more in-depth review as far as site design and aesthetics; (c) larger collection facilities over 300 square feet in area which would, most likely, be located in an industrial area, involve a permanent building and would require a conditional use permit through the Planning Commission. Staff proposes all owing the uses in the commercial and industrial areas by conditional use permits and an amendment to the Land Use Chart to provide the reverse vending machines as accessory to the primary use. The Act reads that the facilities must accept all types of beverage containers and a minimum redemption value be paid, must operate at least 30 hours/week (of which 5 hours/week must be outside of standard hours on a Monday thru Friday basis). Most of the major supermarkets have contracted with recycling firms but the City has had no applications to date. The penalty is a fine of $100/day which is applicable to any facility dealing with beverages within that 1/2 mile radius. The State Recycling Act prohibits municipalities from denying permits unless the facility is specifically found to be detrimental to public health, safety, and well being. The City however, may limit the number of facilities within the zone and adopt reasonable rules consistent with the Act. Staff recommends that the Municipal Code be amended and the proposed design standards (Exhibit C) be adopted. Staff also requests that the Commission authorize the staff to proceed with an amendment to the adopted Land Use Chart to show reverse vending machines as an accessory use in the commercial and industrial areas as subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.345. Commissioner Carson expressed concern about possible vandalism if the reverse vending machines were placed outside the buildings based on the rampant vandalism of vending machines on the Junior High and High School campuses. Commissioner Fuller expressed concern regarding use of a large collection center based on the appearance of the one located on the south side of Moss and Industrial, and another located directly across the street (on the north side), which do not appear to be affected by any aesthetic considerations. MINUTES -10- December 2, 1987 Mr. Lee replied that unless the property is in violation of the Municipal Code, it will be necessary to wait until the end of the 60-day period wherein all facilities must come into compliance with City regulations to cite the property. He remarked that the south side of Moss is being redeveloped with a series of limited industrial buildings which will encompass about 2/3 of that block and that construction should commence soon. Commissioner Tugenberg pointed that although the Kelton Property located on Otay Lakes Road, which has three of the "bomb type shelters" plus a large box type container for collection, is maintained in a neat, clean manner, it might involve a possible violation. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) to recommend City Council amend Title 19 of the Municipal Code to regulate recycling collection centers as shown in Exhibit A attached to the staff report and made a part thereto. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to recommend Council pass a resolution to adopt the proposed Design Standards for Recycling Collection Centers. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to authorize staff to amend the Land Use Chart to provide reverse vending machines as an accessory use in the commercial and industrial zones. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Krempl reminded the Commission that the next meeting would be a joint study session/dinner meeting with the Resource Conservation Commission regarding their respective roles and possible assistance to the Planning Commission. Engineering Science, one of the sub-consultants on the General Plan, will make a presentation on water, sewer, drainage, hazardous and solid waste. The meeting will adjourn to the Briar Patch for dinner. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tugenberg spoke of the traffic impact caused by the closure of Fifth Avenue despite the assurances offered in the traffic study that a "C"-level traffic flow in the neighborhood of the development complex could be expected. He noted that the back-up of traffic southbound on Fourth at "H" Street is exacerbated by persons in the northbound traffic flow who wish to make a left-hand turn into businesses stopping and waiting for an opening in the opposite traffic flow. This results in not only the intersection of Fourth and "H" being blocked but also all right-hand turns from East "H" Street going onto Fourth Avenue. Commissioner Cannon referenced the "promised" signal coordination at Bonita Road/ "E" Street/I-805 intersection which "guaranteed" a smooth flow of traffic. He commented that it had taken five turns of the signal for him to get through the intersection this week and the situation also occurs in the opposite direction. His main concern, however, is the four-lane change occurring in front of the La Quinta Hotel and its extreme danger for MINUTES -ll- December 2, 1987 bicyclists. He contended that there was absolutely no room for a bicycle; there are four lanes of traffic where two used to be; he is unable to get by the rear-view mirrors on cars; the situation is incredibly dangerous and should be changed before someone is killed. The Commissioner expressed hope that the median intersection would be planted since it is a scenic gateway to the City. He requested that the entire matter of the intersection be referred to the Safety Commission. Commissioner Cannon said he would like to refer the two buildings recently approved by the Design Review Committee for reconsideration. The buildings were described as the gargantuan, three-story, pink building on "F" Street and the one on Third Avenue between "G" Street and Park Way. He expressed concern over the appearance of the buildings and that they had been approved by the Design Review Committee. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:35 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of December 9, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4744P