Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/06/26 Tape: 320 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, June 26, 1991 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, Martin, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-5 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CAMBRIDGE AT EASTLAKE GREENS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 91-5 - Odmark & Thelan Senior Planner Griffin gave the location of the property and described the proposed project. He noted the project had been approved by the Design Review Committee on March 25, 1991, and could be constructed as apartment units. The sole purpose of filing of the tentative map was to sell the individual units. Mr. Griffin said the proposed project complied with both the EastLake II General Development Plan and the EastLake Greens SPA, and was a Class I Exemption from Planning Commission -2- June 26, 1991 environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act because of a previously prepared EIR and the fact that the map only involved the issue of ownership. Based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff report, staff recommended approval of the map subject to an amendment to Condition No. 26. He suggested the last paragraph of Condition No. 26, third line, second word which read "plan" should be changed to "condition." Chair Grasser Horton asked if the City had an adopted water use offset program. Mr. Griffin relied negatively. Answering Chair Grasser Horton, he also replied that the County Water Authority or Otay Water District had none. Commissioner Carson asked how close the levels of service on traffic were coming to the City adopted standards on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, and EastLake Parkway. Commissioner Tugenberg also asked why East "H" Street east of 1-805 wasn't included. Assistant Planning Director I~e answered that the traffic count had not changed significantly since 1989. Commissioner Fuller responded on behalf of the Growth Oversight Commission, noting that their report was in the process of being finalized and stated the City is still in compliance with the levels of service on those streets. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich also stated that East "H" Street had been left out because the impact from traffic generated by this project on East "H" Street was considered to be very limited, since the majority of the trips would go down Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. Answering Commissioner Carson's question, Assistant Planning Director Lee reported staff could have the exact numbers by the July 10 meeting. Commissioner Tugenberg questioned Condition No. 19, asking if the private roads would be covered under the CC&Rs of EastLake regarding the parking of RVs on the street. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied that they would. Commissioner Decker asked if consideration had been given to the developer using xeriscape whenever possible. Senior Planner Lee answered that there was not a specific condition regarding xeriscape; however, the condition regarding water offset policy would address that. Chair Grasser Horton asked for a comparison to another project near EastLake Greens regarding density and housing type. Mr. Lee replied that there was nothing comparable in terms of housing type. The density would be a little higher than the typical attached units there. Chair Grasser Horton questioned if they were stacked units, or more like townhomes. Mr. Lee answered it was more of a townhouse development. Planning Commission -3- June 26, 1991 Assistant Planning Director Lee stated staff had visited a similar project in San Diego, and were very impressed with the project, the architecture, and the appearance from the street. It had a much lower density appearance from the street because of the design. Chair Grasser Horton asked if this would be the highest density project they had approved in EastLake Greens. Senior Planner Griffin answered there were other areas in EastI.ake Greens designated for a higher density, but this would be the highest the Commission had seen. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson asked why 11 wasn't selected for development instead of 12.5. Mr. Griffin answered that when the EastLake Greens SPA Plan was adopted, the target yield was exactly at 146 units. Although the target yield could be reduced, the DRC felt the density worked well with that type of project. MS (Casillas/Martin) that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the report, recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Cambridge at EastLake Greens, Chula Vista Tract 91-5, subject to conditions 1 through 26, with the change suggested by staff to condition 26. Commissioner Tugenberg stated he was voting against the project because he felt there were too many units. Commissioner Carson commented she felt there should be more open space; too dense. Commissioner Grasser Horton said she would vote for the project since it targeted the lower end of the range of the medium residential density. The higher density projects in EastLake Greens were selling very well compared to the overall San Diego market. VOTE ON MOTION: 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voting against). DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted the Growth Management Oversight Commission was ready for the submittal of their annual report and had requested a joint meeting between Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. The meeting in process would adjourn to a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on July 10; then the regular Planning Commission meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m. The Commissioners concurred. COMMISSION COMMENTS ~ None Planning Commission -4- June 26, 1991 ADJOURNMENT AT 5:35 p.m. to the Special Joint Meeting of July 10, 1991, at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3, to be followed by the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Commission (PC6-26-91 .mia)