Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/05/27 Tape No. :280 Side 1 0-2316 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, May 27, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Grasser, Green and Tu§enberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, City Traffic Engineer Glass, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Griffin, Director of Parks & Recreation Mollinedo and Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Garibay PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Chairman Shipe stated that Item 3 would be taken at this time because it involved a withdrawal of the item. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 27, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) GPA-86-6 CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 14-12 DU/AC) TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FOR 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST "H" STREET - KELTON TITLE CORPORATION (B) PCZ-86-E CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST "H" STREET FROM R-1 TO C-C-P KELTON TITLE CORPORATION Principal Planner Lee noted that a written communication from Mr. Paul Man§anelli, acting as the agent's consultant for Mark Kelton, indicated they had withdrawn their application for the General Plan Amendment and the Rezoning of the property at Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street. Staff recommends that Item 3 be filed and the withdrawal be noted. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to file Item 3 and accept the withdrawal of the application by the applicant. 1. REOUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR BEL AIR RIDGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-7 - LOUIS L. COHEN & ASSOC. Principal Planner Lee stated that the tentative subdivision map for Bel Air Ridge was denied by the Planning Commission at the meeting of April 22, 1987, based on concerns that the lot sizes as proposed were too small and the exceptions requested from R-1 development standards would result in overcrowding standard size homes on inadequate sized lots. The applicant has submitted a revised map and development standards more in conformance with R-1 standards and is requesting that the Commission take an action to reconsider the map based on the noted changes. MSUC ITugenberg/Cannon) to reconsider the Tentative Subdivision Map for Bel Air Ridge. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-7 - RECONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR BEL AIR RIDGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-7, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF EAST 'J' STREET AND PASEO LADERA - LOUIS S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant proposes to divide the 12+ acre site into 46 single family units and lopenspace lot. The area is presently zoned for 2-4 dwellings/acre (du/ac), is adjacent to East "J" Street and is part of the E1 Rancho del Rey (ER DR) Specific Plan - being one of the out-parcels owned by someone other than ERDR. The property abuts open space to the north, single-family dwellings to the west and south, and proposed single-family units to the east plus a large, undeveloped parcel earmarked for a density range of 6-8 du/ac. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 27, 1987 Since the map was denied on May 22, the applicant has revised it to eliminate one of the lots in the southeast cul-de-sac. Certain adjustments were made to other streets to reduce lot sizes and increase widths, thus expanding the lot sizes in the cul-de-sac. The basic premise was to have no lots less than 6,000 square feet. The result is a combination of lots in excess of 7,000 square feet in the development. One acre, located in the extreme northeast corner of the site, will be dedicated as Open Space. The gross density currently proposed by the applicant is 3.77 du/ac which is less than the typical single-family dwelling subdivision of 4 to 4-1/2 du/ac. Mr. Lee displayed slides of some of the elevations and street scenes submitted by the applicant. Principal Planner Lee continued that present access to the site is through the terminus of Paseo Ladera. Grading would involve 320,000 cubic yards of cut and fill resulting in a maximum cut of 25 feet and a fill of 40 feet. Approximately 18 percent of the excavation is necessary to extend East "J" Street. Two residential through-streets are proposed as extensions of the street network outlined in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The site design and the development standards conform to existing and proposed developments in the surrounding area with the following exceptions: a 33-foot instead of 35-foot building setback from East "J" Street because of the dedicated right-of-way for utilities; a 5-foot side yard setback on each side or lO feet for both sides in locations involving 3-car garage construction (instead of 10 feet on one side and 13 on both sides), all lots to be 7,000 to 8,000 square feet, and a reduction made from 90 percent to 70 percent in the number of lots with a 60-foot width, with the remaining 30 percent permitted a minimum width, of 52 feet {excluding cul-de-sacs). Mr. Lee noted further that the lot count is in keeping with ERDR standards and the lay-out design and grading correspond to the ERDR Specific Plan. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dick Brown, 2140 Caminito Terviso, San Diego, 92122, representing the applicant requested a speaking time of l0 minutes. He pointed out that one lot has been deleted and that the majority of the lots and been redrawn with changed dimensions. Slides were displayed of an area outside the subdivision where, through an agreement with the adjacent owner, the fill will be located thereby negating the need for the dirt trucks to enter and exit the site. Mr. Brown commented that the grading is based on three fixed points: (1) the intersection of Paseo Ladera and "J" Street; (2) further to the east where "J" Street is also constructed; and {3) at the eastern end of Street "A". At points (1) and (2), the natural terrain is considerably above the existing construction of "J" Street and requires much excavation. Point (3) is the "daylight" point and is also consistent with the adjacent development. Mr. Brown concluded by saying that all the houses had been designed specifically for the lots sizes of this subdivision; the only deviation is proposed for the side yard setback where 3-car garages are planned. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions in the staff report including the withdrawal of condition %." Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 27, 1987 Allen Olson, 970 East "J" Street, CV, expressed concern over the traffic at Paseo Ladera and "J" Street; three-car garages indicate more cars; the atmosphere in the area will be changed; the lots seem small in comparison with his and many people who had invested a great deal of money and had thought they would be in the country will find themselves crowded by traffic and by condominiums. He stated that the deed restrictions in his tract prohibit RVs, boats and trailersl his corner lot measures 17,050 square feet, and there is a greater distance between the homes in his lot than in the proposed project. Mr. Brown returned to the podium and replied that the road sizes in the two developments were compatible and the setbacks the same; the proposed lots are in the $135,000 to $165,000 price range. He pointed out that the densities had been reviewed and approved previously and have been in existence since 1970 without change. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Green/Grasser) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-33. MS {Green/Grasser) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Bel Air Ridge, Chula Vista Tract 87-7, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the deletion of Condition "o." AMENDMENT TO MOTION MS {Cannon/Tugenberg) that Condition "r" be amended to specifically require in the CC&R's that no recreational vehicle, including motor homes, mobile homes or boats be parked on the streets in excess of 24 hours at one time. The amendmen~ and main motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: {A) GPA-86-6 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL {4-12 DU/AC) TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FOR 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST "H" STREET - KELTON TITLE CORPORATION {B) PCZ-86-E - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND EAST "H" STREET FROM R-1 TO C-C-P - KELTON TITLE CORPORATION This item taken out of sequence. See first page. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 27, 1987 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-17 - APPEAL FROM CONDITIONAL REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR HANDYMAN SERVICE AT 467 SECOND AVENUE - CARL R. DAVIDSON (CONTINUED) Associate Planner Griffin noted the appeal from the Zoning Administrator's conditional revocation of the home occupation permit was continued from the meeting of May 13th at the applicant's request. The Zoning Administrator's action was initiated by a neighboring property owner's complaint. Zoning Enforcement Officer Fox contacted the applicant eight times during the period December 2 through March 4, 1987 and noted violations involving vehicle parking, access by employees, business conducted on the premise, potential noise, location of a commercial trash dumpster on site and various assembly and actual contractor-type work occurring on the premise. These violations had not been corrected at initiation of the revocation hearing. The Zoning Administrator indicated that the enterprise is commercial and has expanded beyond the parameters of the original conditions and the bounds of what is traditionally acceptable in an R-1 single-family residential neighborhood. The exterior of the property has been significantly altered in terms of the numerous non-resident vehicles onsite; that outside employees load and unload materials; return to the site to complete paper work; accept phone calls and make new deliveries. Also, the commercial trash dumpster is excessive for a family residential area. Staff, therefore, was requesting that the appeal be denied and the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld. At the hearing, Mr. Davidson claimed that the lot was not a typical R-1 lot, but substantially larger and deeper; that the prior owner conducted a business on the premise for many years; and presented a supporting petition signed by six neighbors. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Davidson, 467 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, stated that he had purchased the property in February, 1985 and had been in business working for realtors and property managers for 2 years. The shop is used for the construction of window screens, storage of glass, etc., prior to being taken out to the sites. He noted that the property, which is 75 x 125 feet in depth and half of which is vacant land, had been used for a plumbing business by the previous owner for approximately 10 years. The existing driveway is 20x172 feet long and can accommodate eight cars within the proper setback from the street. Neither the garage nor the dumpster can be seen from the street. He claimed that two of his four employees ride bicycles to work; the trash dumpster is used for dry wall material and residential trash and eliminates frequent trips to the dump; he cited the job hours as 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 6 days/week; there is no advertising or walk-in traffic; he has no plans for enlarging his operation; and the only piece of machinery used is a circular saw to cut screening. He made direct contact with his neighbors in a 300 foot radius and the only objection was one received from a house two doors away. Mr. Davidson commented that he had purchased the property because it was ideal for his business. He was willing to comply with any monitoring provisions suggested by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 27, 1987 In response to questions, Mr. Davidson replied that normally there are nine vehicles on the property, seven of which are personal property; that the rack with the signs on it did not constitute an external display of products because it could not be seen from the street. Bob Holmes, 1564 Malta Avenue, stated that he was the previous owner of the property; had a business license and a special use permit which entitled him to operate a plumbing business at that location for 10 years; had built the shed and the driveway; there had always been five to seven vehicles in that driveway; and expressed concern that Mr. Davidson was being "penalized." In response to the Commission's questions regarding the referenced special use permit, staff replied they had been unable to locate any permit issued by the City to Mr. Holmes at that location. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Cannon) to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to revoke the home occupation permit for a handyman service at 467 Second Avenue subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. 5. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-87-3 - RANCHO DEL SUR Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that the hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report was held on May 13, 1987, and the CALTRANS letter of comment forwarded by the State Clearinghouse had been included in the Final EIR. Also included was a letter from Parks and Recreation Department noting acceptance of the Park plan for the project. He said that staff's recommendation is to certify the EIR and introduced Betty Dehony of WESTEC Services to review the various revisions to the EIR. Betty Dehony, WESTEC Services, 5510 Moorehouse Drive, S.D. 92121, commented that various sections of the Final EIR had been revised or updated and an additional alternative of lower density development resulted in a total of 433 single-family residential dwellings units instead of the multi-family units. Ms. Dehony noted that the principal concerns expressed at the May 13th hearing involved traffic and public services; however, the reduced density would lower the ADT to 4,330 vehicles; the traffic impact would contribute to the significant adverse traffic impact and improvement funds would be needed. No substantial difference between the proposed traffic impact in accordance with the proposed ADT and the reduced density is anticipated. The proposed action would generate 314 students while the reduced density would provide 260 students, a decrease of 54. There would be incremental decreases in the generation of police services, water and sewer. Most of the other issues addressed result in similar or identical impacts. Regarding the concern over noise generated by ambulances at the hospital, analysis indicates the relative infrequency of ambulance trips per day (four to five) would be insignificant in its noise impact. The proposed noise wall along that area would further reduce the impact. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 27, 1987 Ms. Dehony reviewed the updated elementary school figures, school capacities and current enrollment including an update just received from the Kellogg School indicating a capacity of 465 and a current enrollment of 283. CalTrans expressed concern that only the interim mitigation measures would be incorporated. The long-term improvements required include two left-turns and two through lanes; however, the interim change in lane assignments are anticipated to alleviate short-term impacts. Another concern was the southbound 1-805/West Telegraph Canyon Road impact. Because the project is located east of the 1-805 interchange, the southbound to west exchange is not substantially affected. Future signalization may be required but this project does not contribute to those impacts. Ms. Dehony concluded her report and expressed her willingness to answer any questions. In the discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Green asked why Castle Park was not shown on the list of schools in close proximity to, and liable to be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Reid replied that the schools shown on the chart were named by the School District as having the highest potential for serving the project. Commissioner Tugenberg commented on a sentence on page 4-60 referring to the insignificance of the ambulance-operation noise impact, "...according to the previous table, this noise level would disturb only 50 percent of the residents". Commissioner Cannon commented on the EIR's expressed ability to mitigate traffic impacts by "putting an extra line in the road" and declared that "Short-term mitigation measures for projects that are going to be built prior to the long-term mitigation measures don't make any sense." He sees traffic impacts created by this project as being significant and non-mitigable. He sees the school impact on this EIR as being significant and non-mitigable. "Looking at the capacity vs current enrollment in the schools shows that 20 to 30 more students would make all the schools over-capacity and it doesn't make sense to add children to schools that are already at capacity; Bonita Vista Junior and Senior High Schools are already at capacity or within some 40 students of capacity, and no consideration has been given to EastLake's contributing all their students of junior and senior high school age into those two schools. If they are at capacity now, what will they be at when EastLake's Phase I is completed and progresses to Phase II. The time factor involved is this year and next. The EastLake project and EIR have already been approved and now we are considering another project affecting the same schools. That is a significant impact and non-mitigable." Commissioner Cannon declared that no real change is noticeable in the Final EIR by either reducing the significance or proposing more plausible mitigation measures; the statement that, "Community park land dedication is not met by this project" is because the project is building more units than necessary. In-lieu-of-park fees add money to the City coffers but do not add parks. The developers should conform to the City requirements for park land. He continued saying that he would not certify an EIR with significant impacts and Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 27, 1987 unrealistic mitigation measures; that, at the meeting of May 13, he had asked for, and expects to receive before certification, mitigation measures that are practical, detailed, specific and not "iffy". He declared that it is incomprehensible to put an extra line in the road and expect it to reduce a LOS F to E, or to believe that two free-flow lanes onto the freeway will bring about a reduction to LOS C, particularly when two signals will be stopping those "free-flow" lanes. This EIR does not live up to the CEQA standards and he will vote against it. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid replied that (1) the EIR points out that bond money has been floated and plans are being put together for three elementary schools and one senior high school; therefore, the overall enrollment factor will be improved; (2) the developer is required by the school district to pay impact fees, part of which money will be going to the design and construction of new schools; the State Law that allows the school district to impose those fees also restricts the City's ability to reject the EIR or the project when the developer is paying the required fees. The City can no longer make that a basis for denying a permit for a subdivision map. (3) Insofar as the road capacity is concerned, what is being proposed as a condition of approval is that the ultimate facility with two through-lanes and two left-hand turn lanes be provided at this time up front. (4) The park meets the standards insofar as neighborhood parks are concerned and the Parks and Recreation Director will address that subject later. Commissioner Tugenberg said that he wonders how much a vote on an EIR matters since EIRs "are conceived in the land of unreality and dreams" and mean nothing. He does not know if their unrealism can be blamed on CEOA or not - but every EIR that comes through is the same. Commissioner Cannon gave notice to staff and the rest of the Commission that when he sees an EIR, it had better mean something. Commissioner Green commented that the type of small lot being proposed means a greater need for coordination of landscaping and architectural control and the problem is not alleviated by creating a buffer from other family developments in the area. This was not done and he will not support it. MSC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (4-2) Cannon and Green voting no - to certify that EIR-87-3 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEOA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in the EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. The motion carried. The Commission took a break from 8:32 to 8:39 p.m. and then resumed the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 27, 1987 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-87-1 CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 108.3 ACRES FROM R-l-P-4 TO R-l-P-6 AND R-3-P-12 IN RANCHO DEL SUR PHASE 1 - GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (b) PCS-87-8 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR RANCHO DEL SUR PHASE 1, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-8, LOCATED 1/2 MILE EAST OF THE I-805 FREEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF EAST NAPLES STREET GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY {c) P-87-9 CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING PLANS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF LOTS AND COMMON AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT - RANCHO DEL SUR PHASE 1 Principal Planner Lee noted that the property was annexed in January, 1987 with a prezoning of R-l-P-4 and included all the property except a 10-acre parcel already located in the City and zoned R-1-H which abuts the prezoned property to the south. An additional l0 acres parcel, prezoned R-l-lO is not included in this rezoning request. The General Plan designation calls for 4-12 dwelling units per acre {du/ac) on a gross basis, or 432 to 1300 du/ac. The planned project will total closer to 486 units which is very close to the low end of the General Plan range. The staff recommendation is to retain the R-l-P-4 for the area west of the SDG&E easement (4 du/ac); the area between Medical Center Drive and the easement to be designated R-l-P-5; the area east of Medical Center Drive and north of Naples Street extension to be R-3-P-12, and the 2-1/2 acre future development area east of Medical Center Drive and south of the Naples Street extension to remain R-1-H. As noted in the staff report, the recommendation allows for 485 units in total. He stated that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the development standards and open space requirements. The proposed Subdivision divides the property into four developments: {1) The multi-family area consists of 12 acres which has a development pattern similar to the R-3-G zoning which the City feels provides ample private and public open space. The 2-1/2 acre site to the south is earmarked for future development. The applicant wishes to combine this parcel with property to the east which is presently under separate ownership. Staff considers its retention in the R-1-H zone as appropriate at this time. (2) North of Naples and west of Medical Center - features the smallest lots and abuts the easement (3,750 square foot, 50-foot width with minimum 70-foot deep lots). The area calls for 70 lots; the setbacks allow for one- and two-story dwellings. A public street system is proposed. (3) The area to the south is similar to those north of Naples, and a 50x95-foot lot is typical. -~ Plannin~ Commission Minutes -10- May 27, 1987 (4 & 5) The remaining areas lying west of the easement are zoned for 162 single-family lots, the minimum size of which is 6,000 square feet and 60-75 percent are in the 7,000 square-foot range. Park lands the features of this project include the creation of a public park area of about 4 acres. The plan has been approved by the Parks Commission. The open space area along Telegraph Canyon Road is natural and retaining walls will be needed. The side of the perimeter walls along the project boundary will be placed in an open space maintenance district. Parkway The development standards include sufficient parkway if Naples Street were to be widened. Staff has recommended approval subject to certain conditions; namely, the deletion of lot 33 at the end of the cul-de-sac in the east corner in order to pull the slope back; dedication and construction of a park; and the adoption of the development standards. Development Standards Unit I is subject to review by the Design Review Committee; Units 2 and 3 are subject to review by the City Zoning Administrator; the more traditional lots west of the easement IUnits 4 and 5) are subject to review by the Planning staff in accordance with the Rancho del Sur standards. Staff recommends the approval of the tentative map and the adoption of development standards and guidelines. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Oschner, Great American Development Co., 600 B Street, Ste 700, San Diego, 92101, stated that the representatives of Tierra Planning and Design and Gillespie de Lorenzo were available for questioning. He noted that the plan was unlike the original submitted and represented many compromises between City staff, his staff, the neighboring residents and the hospital. Three items in the staff report needed some clarification, in conditions #5 and #17, the developer is required to provide improvements on Telegraph Canyon Road and on 1-805 turn-lanes but only one of those conditions addresses reimbursement by the Facilities Benefit District. Engineering condition #3, requires undergrounding of existing utilities, however, the applicant will be requesting a deferral when SDG&E decides what to do with the intermission line. Thomas Davis, Tierra Planning and Design, 31882 Camino Capistrano, Ste 108, San Juan Capistrano, 92675 stated they have been working to incorporate the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the established policies of the City into the internal design of the project which consists of five enclaves separated by two arterial roads. The park is near the single-family home area, while the multi-family area plan contains on-site recreation facilities. Thirty percent (23 acres) of the project site is in natural open space. Greenbelts are used to provide buffers and connect each enclave. Planning Commission Minutes -ll- May 27, 1987 Bill Cumming, 608 Nantucket, CV, a resident of Foxhill expressed concern over possible impairment of the view lots in his development; asked if the canyon will be leveled off; if there would be private streets or public in Rancho del Sur and would there be an access road cut through to Foxhill. Mr. Oschner replied that a diminished canyon would remain; Rancho del Sur streets are public; and the connection is being made for emergency access into Foxhill and was required by the City Engineer. Mr. Cumming pointed out that Foxhill'$ roads are private and concrete; asked if Foxhill had the option to not connect the subdivisions; and inquired about the view lots again and the drainage behind the houses. Principal Planner Lee explained that Foxhill had been required to stub the cul-de-sac street out so that when the adjoining area was developed the street could be extended. The City's intent is to connect those streets to provide that access; however, entrance to the project by the public could be controlled by the Foxhill residents, but anything like a barrier would have to be reviewed by Fire, Police, etc. He added that regarding the view lots, the pad areas were relatively the same. Mr. Oschner stated that he ~ould be happy to work with the Foxhill residents. Mr. Cumming acquiesced. Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., CV, expressed general concern that the pace of private development is outrunning that of government; that this project is before its time and approval would exacerbate existing problems. He reminded the Commission of their obligation to regard the cumulative effect. Mr. Watry recommended that approval of the project should be prohibited until a later time and should feature density consistent with the General Plan and City Standards. Crossroads supported the annexation of the property because the development would be controlled by Chula Vista instead of another city. He requested denial of the zoning and postponement of the development until some of the mitigation mea.sures are realistically on the horizon. Principal Planner Lee introduced Tom Garibay to speak on 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road Interchange and traffic pattern and Manuel Mollinedo on the park development. Tom Garibay, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, noted that a consultant had been hired to make a study of all interchanges within the City of Chula Vista. The City recommends a signal or separate right-hand turn lane be provided at the Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 interchange, and other measures proposed are those of the applicant. The applicant wanted conditions #5 and #17 combined to indicate repayment for the improvements for 1-125, Telegraph Canyon Road, Bonita Road, etc. The City is including this project within the Facilities Benefit District in order for the developer to be reimbursed. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's questioning, Mr. Garibay answered that certain improvements will be performed when a certain number of permits are issued; however, it is necessary to coordinate with CalTrans on this development as it is not known if CalTrans will contribute to the cost. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 27, 1987 Director of Parks and Recreation Mollinedo commented that the first reaction when Great American proposed a park was the proximity of Greg Rogers which might preclude necessity for a park by the developer. The solution included a walkway to connect the parks and since the easement property contains the jogging trail and Greg Rogers has a lot of sloping land, the enlargement will provide needed flat land. Actual park improvements are limited to the area around Naples Street, the rest would remain in natural open space. In reply to Commissioner Green's question, Director Mollinedo remarked that most neighborhood parks serve a community area and have no need for parking spaces since it is used by local residents. Some parking, however, was available at Greg Rogers. Dale Gould, 602 Nantucket Drive, resident of Foxhill, referred to the connection between the two subdivisions and asked who would be responsible for maintenance payment if the streets were open to the public. No answer was immediately available. Members of the Commission then expressed concern that the City might be asked to take over these private streets. Director Krempl commented that when Foxhill was constructed, City staff had recommended the streets be public, however, private streets were authorized at time of approval. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) to deny the application. Further Discussion Commissioner Tugenberg said he was against the change in zoning because of the approximately 12 percent increase (50 dwellings) required by the change. He declared that each additional development incrementally degrades by a certain percent, and although this was only an ll percent degradation, the quality of squeezing more lots in is exponential. Commissioner Cannon stated he supported the motion for reasons given previously. Commissioner Green said he supported the motion because it is his belief that the small-lot idea is appropriate only under special conditions like EastLake where there is a strong and strict Association to maintain the compatibility of the architectural design. His objection is to the single-family area and does not include the multi-family area on the east side. Commissioner Grasser said she would support the motion. She was not of the opinion that the project was ahead of its time; however, the density is higher than the general standards of Chula Vista. Commissioner Carson stated that she had strong feelings that she would like to see this project return in 2 years when the impacts have been resolved. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 27, 1987 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-M - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST "H" STREET AND CORRAL CANYON ROAD FROM R-1-H TO P-C - LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the request is to rezone 1.36 acres located at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Corral Canyon Road in order to construct a child daycare facility. The facility would consist of a 7,500 square foot building with playgrounds, on-site parking for 28 vehicles and considerable landscaping along the street frontage. The Design Review Committee (DRC) approved the project subject to the driveway being moved to the north to avoid the intersection. The daycare use appears to be an excellent use for the site since it is well buffered from the residential area but convenient to it. Staff recommends approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Martin Watry, Edward Cass and Associates, Architects, 521 Greg Street, San Diego, commented that La Petite is a national firm. Another La Petite facility is located at East "J" Street and Paseo del Rey. The representative from La Petite and the owner are both available to answer any questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-51. MSUC ITugenberg/Grasser) (6-0) to recommend City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone for 1.26 acres located at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Corral Canyon Road from R-1-H to P-C (Bonita Long Canyon SPA Commercial Recreational land use designation) as shown on Exhibit A in the staff report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-N - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 0.33 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH SECOND AVENUE AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF 'C' STREET FROM 'A' TO 'R-1' - WAYNE CLARK Commissioner Cannon stated he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Associate Planner Griffin stated that the site is vacant and is located on the east side of North Second Avenue at the easterly terminus of "C" Street. The purpose of the rezoning is to create two 7,000 square foot lots, 60 feet in width; the balance of the larger parcel would be merged with a 10.35 acre site on the east and an application has been filed for vacation of a 14-foot strip of Second Avenue to expand the parcels to the west. The Engineering Department has said it will support ll or 12 feet but not 14. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 27, 1987 At present, the property has only a moderate amount of usable area since it slopes down steeply from Second Avenue, to a 30-55-foot wide ledge approximately 8-12 feet below street level, and then continues a steep slops toward the valley floor. The severe developmental constraints of the topography are further restricted by a mature grove of eucalyptus trees. The rezoning is consistent with the General Plan designation. There may need to be an establishment of the zone boundary itself somewhere along the bottom of the slope to protect that area. Since it will be approximately a month before the request for vacation is considered by Council, staff suggests the applicant submit more detailed plans indicating the topography and accommodation of the dwellings. Staff also recommends that the item be continued to June 24 in hope that the vacation issue will have been resolved and the requested plans provided. An additional continuance may be requested if the vacation issue or receipt of plans has not been accomplished. In reply to questions from the Commission, Associate Planner Griffin stated that if the vacation request were granted and Council approved the requested R-l-7 zoning, there would be sufficient acreage for the two single-family dwellings. However, with the severe (over 50%) natural slope, staff is proceeding cautiously with regard to the type of lots, dwelling accommodations and need for sensitivity to the topography and the trees. He added that the dwellings would front on Second Avenue. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Wayne Clark, P.O. Box 1092, Bonita, 92002, stated he and the other owner, Mascot Realty, Inc., were present to oppose the continuation for the following reasons: Staff has enough information to make a decision with regard to the rezone application; the issues regarding the house locations are building, not zoning matters and there is a basic consent that the frontage along Second Avenue is appropriate for R-1 zoning. He provided the Commission with copies of a letter sent to the City Engineer on the vacation request which indicated (on page 3) that the existing public right-of-way (ROW) in the area extending down to "D" Street and along Section Avenue varied from 24 feet to (in one small area) 30 feet. He noted that the Hudson Valley Estates located directly south had a 28 foot ROW; that the standard street section is 30 feet; however by extending the ROW north from the existing Hudson Valley Estates ROW, 28 feet should be sufficient particularly as no provisions need to be made for utilities on that side of the property. On another exhibit given to the Commission, Mr. Clark indicated that the initial application for the .33 acres included only parcels 1 & 2 and did not include the proposed ROW vacation nor the area (57-foot wide strip) to the north. He addressed staff's concerns about the following: lot depth the western boundary line is approximate to the line approved for the subdivision map approved on Hudson Valley Estates Lot #1. Planning Commission Minutes -15o May 27, 1987 grading - grading on the base of the slope should not be a major concern because there is approved grading on the Hudson Valley Estates and the approved fill and cut area to be located on the back of the property is contingent upon Hudson Valley receiving a letter of permission to grade on the subject property street and site elevation differences - Las Flores Drive's elevation at its terminus is about 12 to 14 feet above the existing grade and City staff had informed him in the past that a subdivision map for the remainder of the property into an R-1 zone accessing to Las Flores Drive would be supported. Considerable cut and fill at the base of the slope would be required to create the access and in order to eliminate the need to return and request slope rights from owners of parcels 1 and 2 (if they are sold prior to tentative parcel map approval for bottom portion of property), the developer has set the property line in its present location based on a precedent set for the property just to the south. He continued that with respect to the City's request for further development plans, the parcel size is consistent with the zoning and lot sizes approved and existing in the area; they do not anticipate terracing down as did Hudson Valley Estates but in building up; the trees do not exist on the referenced bench but are located on the slope and will not be affected by development; it is unknown if there will be any construction on the northernmost site as it is the most difficult topographically. Mr. Clark objected to the need for paying an architect to indicate their building intentions and referenced the beautiful hillside homes in La Jolla. He expressed concern with staff's "predisposition" that only two houses should be built on this property. He requested that the Commission make a decision and not continue the item, stating they are prepared to proceed to Council if the decision were not favorable. Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., Chula Vista, said that prior to this request, Council had voted against a proposed nursery home on the site; he supported the R-1 zoning; and that the intersection was very bad. He pointed out on the overhead projection the location of the old Second Avenue railroad right-of-way and suggested that the City might wish to sponsor someone to excavate in search of relics. Director Krempl commented that Mr. Clark had indicated that denial of the application was preferable to continuation of the item; however, the vacation is not a foregone conclusion and staff would prefer waiting until it was resolved, also staff prefers advance knowledge re the number of units to be constructed prior to establishment of the zoning; Mr. Clark had presented really new information at the meeting which staff had not had the benefit or opportunity to review and, therefore, staff would support a continuance on the basis of reviewing such information in order to present their objective analysis and recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 27, 1987 Mr. Clark returned to the podium to state that no major fill is anticipated in the area; it must be cut and pared down a little to perhaps the bench and that he was unaware that it might have been there for a previous railroad although the ROW ran along that area. He commented that with regard to the intimation that staff did not have the information presented tonight, he respectfully disagreed since staff was very much aware of the plans for the Hudson Valley Estates which is a matter of record within the Department. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tugenberg and seconded for purpose of discussion by Commissioner Carson to continue item PCZ-87-N to the meeting of June 24, 1987. Commissioner Green said in his opinion there was too much concern being given to the item which was not a 200-unit development; that R-1 is the least developed zone for residential; nothing can be built without Building Department inspection, and for that reason he did not see why a decision should be delayed for a month. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tugenberg NOES: Commissioners Carson, Grasser, Green and Shipe ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cannon ABSENT: Commissioner Fuller MSUC {Green/Carson) to recommend Council enact an ordinance to rezone the 0.33 acres from A {Agriculture) to R-1 {Single-Family Residential) Mr. Clark requested clarification that the request would extend to the northern boundary line. Commissioner Green replied that the Commission did not have that authority. Commissioner Cannon Returned to the Chambers and the dais. 9. DRC-87-24 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING THE HEIGHT AND TYPE OF FENCING APPROVED FOR THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF A PROPOSED FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 579 CASSELMAN STREET IN THE R-3 ZONE Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project site is located on the north si de of Casselman Street just east of Broadway. The appellant's property is located directly to the east of the project site. The entire neighborhood is zoned R-3 with land uses consisting of both apartments and single-family dwellings, and duplexes. A four-unit apartment project was approved for the site by the Design Review Committee on April 16, 1987. With the overhead projector, Mr. Griffin reviewed the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed addition of the three units, parking for eight vehicles in the rear Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 27, 1987 and a driveway along the easterly property to provide access to that parking area. The appellant attended the DRC meeting and requested that a block wall be required rather than a wood fence along the common boundary because of the noise. The project proponent offered to use a concrete fence rather than wood and the Committee approved that. The appellant has appealed the Committee's decision to the Commission requesting that an 8-foot high, masonry-block wall be installed along the entire easterly line. Mr. Griffin stated the Zoning Ordinance requires only a 6-foot solid wooden fence to separate residential uses, unless an apartment project is particularly large or the property line represents the zone boundaries. In this case it is an R-3 area ~n transition from single- to multiple-family use and staff believes that a great deal of traffic and noise would not be generated, also the concrete fencing would attenuate more noise than a standard wood fence. In order to provide for continuity of fencing, the project proponent agreed to continue it around the rear of the site and along the westerly boundaries adjacent to the parking area. The establishment of a masonry wall on the easterly property line would be subject to that same continuity requirement. Staff considers this to be an expensive and unnecessary option and recommends that the appeal be denied. With regard to the request for an 8-foot wall, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a 6-foot maximum and a variance would be required for an 8-foot height. Gloria Butler Hansen, 575 Casselman, Chula Vista, the adjacent neighbor and the appellant, showed several pictures of the existing fencing pointing out the different kinds of fence material used, the weeds and the state of the boundary fencing. She has been a resident/owner for ll years and has no plans to move. She claimed she had requested a cement block wall but the Design Review Committee (DRC) stipulated a masonry wall, al so the DRC Chairman had suggested she and the proponent leave the meeting room and reach an agreement about the type of wall. She expressed concern regarding the woodcrete wall system on the basis of its thinness, the number of children in the neighborhood, and the possibility of the woodcrete fence being easily broken and not being repaired. She also requested that the dividing fence extend from the front side walk to the rear property line. In reply to Commissioner Green's inquiry if the existing block wall was on her property, she replied that it was 1-foot in on her property and that she would like a variance to raise its height by 2 feet. Ms. Butler Hansen was informed a separate action would be required for a variance. Roger Pierce, 4228 Acacia Avenue, builder for the project, said the woodcrete wall had been suggested in the interest of immediate action and that his preference was for a wood fence all around the property since everything else was wood and such would be more in keeping with the area. Ms. Butler Hansen then protested that the wooden fences referenced were in poor repair and looked bad. Associate Planner Griffin noted that the requirement for a concrete fence was made by the DRC and it had not been appealed so the suggestion to return to the wood fence was not relevant at the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 27, 1987 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) to deny the appeal. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Resolution of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission adopting a statement of concern with respect to development on the Otay Mesa. Director Krempl suggested the continuance of this item in order to provide additional information as to what is taking place on the Mesa and specifically the steps taken by the City Council in that regard. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) to continue to the meeting of 6/24/87 at the request of the Director of Planning DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Krempl stated that the Council Conference on May 28 at 4:00 would feature PRC's presentation on alternative scenarios for the Eastern Territories; discussion of formation of an Oversight Committee once the General Plan is adopted; and also an RFP for a Growth Management Committee for the General Plan. The Commission will be apprised of any discussion from that meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 10, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4131P