Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 1987/09/23Tape No.: 283 Side 1: 0-1115 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETItJG OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, September 23, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson,Commissioners Cannon, Casillas Fuller, Grasser COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Tugenberg and Shipe STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant Planner Schilling 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/Grasser) Casillas abstained, to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 12, 1987 as mailed. The Chair noted that the minutes of August 26 had been approved at the workshop meeting of September 16, 1987 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1, ZONING VARIANCE ZAV-87-35fd: REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED PARKING AND TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SEBACK AT 1181 BROADWAY - CREATIVE BLENDS Assistant Planner Schilling noted that the application has now been withdrawn as the property has fallen out of escrow and been sold to another party. MINUTES -2- September 23, 1987 2. MODIFICATION TO CEQA FINDINGS BONITA LONG CANYON ESTATES EIR-79-2-A Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that when the CEQA Findings were adopted in April, 1981, it was assumed that East "H" Street would not be widened to a full six lanes before the original Phase III of the project and a mitigation measure of widening Central Avenue to four lanes was proposed. These mitigation measures within the original CEQA Findings now need modification to reflect the current situation, h1r. Reid pointed out that the reference to Phase IV had been inadvertently crossed-out in the draft modification presented and that only the southerly side of Central Avenue would be widened to 36 feet not the entire road. In reply to a series of questions from Commissioner Cannon, Coordinator Reid explained that the anticipated Central Avenue road expansion had occasioned the proposed condemnation of the 18 homes prior to the development of the old Phase IV. The geographical locations and the land use changes of the origin seven phases has made the reference to the phases in the original EIR and CEQA Findings no longer valid. Commissioner Cannon expressed his concern that the original CEQA Findings had called for flood-control channelization on Central Avenue (which acts as a dam to Central Creek); however, no provision for that issue was indicated in the revised CEQA Findings. When the original CEQA findings had been submitted, flood channelization had been included to provide relief from the constant flooding. He questioned if the flood-control stabilization provision was being by-passed by the elimination of the original requirement for widening Central to four lanes; and asked for assurance that the alteration of the street width would not alter the requirement for construction of the drainage control facilities included in the original CEQA Findings. Staff replied that the section of the CEQA Findings proposed for modification involved only the traffic section; no plans had yet been submitted for any improvements along Central Avenue; the road is not being rnade smaller because the 36 feet of roadway to the south of the centerline is in addition to approximately 28 feet already located on the north side equating to the standard overall width of 64 feet; the length of the proposed drainage facility to accommodate a wider road would be affected but the capacity would remain the same; the Findings stated only that a drainage facility would be provided to handle the capacity with the final design subject to the approval of the City Engineer; and whatever drainage work was required to be modified because of the street improvements would be modified. I;i response to a request from the floor, Chairman Carson (with concurrence of the Commission members) invited P4r. Elliott to the podium, Ed Elliott, Vice President of Development Engineering, McMillin Development, Inc., 2727 Hoover Street, National City, representing Bonita Long Canyon Partnership, said that the Findings in the 1979 EIR (certified in 1981) addressed the basins on site for drainage but did not relate directly to the Central ,4venue drainage as mentioned by Commissioner Cannon, He pointed out MINUTES _ -3- _ September 23. 1987 that the design would be proceeding through the County of San Diego and not tfie City of Chula Vista; that his purpose is to address the 36-foot widening issue on Central Avenue, the signalization at Corral Canyon and Bonita Road and the Central Avenue improvements. To date, all discussions concerning the enlargement of the 28-foot wide road to 36 feet plus a 5-foot walk had been relative to traffic. The drainage issue has not been addressed yet by the County but maybe -the topic of another modification and can be looked into. P1 r. Elliott also pointed out that the connection of Corral Canyon to "H" Street (the reference to which had inadvertently been crossed out in the draft modification) had been completed and officially accepted and is now tied to Phase IV and not the previous (original) Phase III. Commissioner Fuller indicated that the letter received from Mr. Bankston indicated a substantial flood-control problem and that the action to complete the planned widening would most likely trigger the need of an EIR and inquired if this would necessitate a new EIR. Coordinator Reid replied that any focused report on one or two issues would be in the form of a supplement or addendum to the original document and, it was his opinion, that Mr. Bankston was referring to the problem of relocation of the residents and acquisition of the property. Mr. Reid then proposed that the drainage section of the Findings be reviewed by staff and returned to the Commission at the meeting of October 14th for consideration of any needed modifications. Commissioner Cannon remarked that he would not be present on October 14; however, there was no question in his mind that the road needed to be narrower to avoid unnecessary condemnation of the 18 homes and that the flood-control channelization issue needed to be addressed (although he was uncertain if this was or was not the proper time). MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 5-0 to continue this item to the meeting of October 14, 1y87. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-25M - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DISAPPROVING A NONCONFORMING SATELLITE DISH AT 1122 FIRST AVENUE - DAVID VEGA Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the case involved a 10-foot satellite dish located on the roof of a residence at 1122 First Avenue. Under provisions of the Satellite Dish Ordinance roof-mounted dishes are not permitted on residential structures. They must be ground-mounted, be outside of the front or exterior side yard setback and not visible from any public street. Since the dish was legally established prior to implementation of the Satellite Dish Ordinance, it can remain on the roof until January 1, 1989. At that time, it must be brought into conformance by being placed in the conforming area of the lot or removed entirely. Ms. Schilling displayed slides of the satellite dish and the house from different angles and h1INUTES 4- September 23, 1987 locations. The requirement to be brought into conformance or removed entirely by January 1, 1989 is true of all legally established roof-mounted satellite dishes within both Montgomery and the rest of Chula Vista. If they were legally established prior to the ordinance coming into effect, then they may remain until the end of the abatement period. If they were illegally established, they need to be abated immediately. The appellant's variance application to retain the roof-top position permanently is based on his affirmation that the dish will not receive proper reception if placed within his rear yard (the only place which would bring it into conformance). The Zoning Administrator denied the variance because staff was not in receipt of convincing evidence to substantiate that statement. The site was surveyed by a staff member from the Communications Division of the Department of Building and Housing and it was determined that the dish could be placed within the rear yard if an existing fruit tree were trimmed or removed to alleviate the blockage of reception. Based upon this, staff is recomrnending t cannot be made that a physical hardship exists. The removal of a fruit tree does substantial physical hardship. Personal with the removal also do not constitute the zoning ordinance. e appeal be denied because a finding not caused by any act of the owner not, in staff's opinion, constitute a or financial difficulties associated physical hardship as is outlined in The Montgomery Planning Committee voted to grant the variance with an expiration date of July 19, 1990, thereby giving the applicant approximately another 1-1/2 years in which to either move the dish or reapply for the variance. To overturn this recommendation, a 5/7 vote of the Planning Commission will be needed. Commissioner Cannon asked what findings were made by the Montgomery Planning Committee specifically as it was not in the staff report. Planner Schilling replied it was her belief that the hardship indicated was basically one of lack of notification and being treated differently from the group of satellite dish owners. Commissioner Cannon addressed the City Attorney saying it was his understanding that, "that is not a hardship to the particular property and could not be made as a proper finding." The Attorney concurred. Cannon continued by asking, "therefore do we have a valid finding of the Montgomery Planning Group when they don't have findings that are made that are legitimate and legal?" Deputy City Attorney Moore replied that the finding made by the Pontgomery Planning Committee basically was a recommendation to the Planning Commission whicYr basically can be taken into account in making its decision. Cannon said he was concerned because of the 5/7 majority requirement to overrule the voting of the Pontgomery Committee and was "equally concerned then if the Montgomery Planning Committee did a finding that is not valid under the law, do we still have to follow their recommendation when we look at our own findings?" Attorney Moore replied that she was somewhat hesitant at this time to say that the Montgomery Planning Committee made an invalid finding based on the evidence that was presented to them, that finding perhaps might be argued to be a peculiar hardship. MINUTES -`'- September 23, 1987 In response to questions from Commissioners Fuller, Grasser and Casillas, Planner Schilling responded that: (1) the applicant was notified in April (when he was cited for an illegal bedroom addition) that the dish was non-conforming, that legally-established dishes roof-mounted on a residence would be subject to the abatement period and it would need to be removed January 1, 1989. If illegally-established, it would need to be abated immediately; (2) residents had been notified of the abatement period through the press and the hearings which were part of the Satellite Dish Ordinance. (The notification period prior to abatement has not been started since 15 months remain before abatement takes place.) (3) the applicant would like the dish to remain on the roof permanently so the total time requested (3 years and 3 months) is not the applicant's; he is requesting an indefinite time period. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sylvia R. Metivier,Il22 First Avenue, co-owner of the property said he was a contractor and was aware the addition was built illegally, but the dish installation was not illegal; (1) City personnel consisting of Zoning Enforcement Officer Carole Stinnett, Assistant Planner Schilling and Electronics Technician French had on separate occasions verbally commented on the lack of space within rear yard for relocation of the dish; (2) when installed, the dish was not illegal and was located on a double-baring wall with braces each direction; (3) the dish i s painted the color of the house, i s behind a 4-foot parapet wall which he would be willing to increase by 3-4 feet and his neighbors, who were present, had no objection to the dish location; (4) Leo's TV had been out twice to take measurements and had submitted letters saying reception within the rear yard was not possible. Both letters had been submitted to the Planning Department. The first was refused as containing insufficient data, the second accepted; (5) he had appealed the Zoning Administrator decision on the basis that he had not been informed that written evidence regarding ground-mounted reception was needed; (6) the only ground location available would require removal of 14-year old fruit trees and would provide a safety hazard by partially blocking the entrance to the house in the rear yard. PIINUTES _ -6- September 23, 1987 Danny Bauer, Leo's TV, 317 Broadway, said his profession is to take site surveys and install satellite dishes. He took measurements at 1122 First. Avenue at the location recommended by the City Inspector, but reception is blocked by the corner of the house and in the other direction by a tree (which could be trimmed). In response to Commissioner Cannon he said that reception was possible in the present location of the dish, the roof of the building behind it but not on the ground anywhere. If all the trees were moved, the dish could be moved to the rear portion of the yard but it would be blocking the door to the house behind Mr. Metivier. He submitted copies of the FCC's Ruling and pointed out clauses on page 2 regarding preemption of State and local regulations by the FCC. Mr. Bauer asked why the variance was denied based on the FCC Ruling, and in case the reason was aesthetic, he submitted pictures for comparison with the present situation. In reply to a question if the structure could be brought down several feet, he replied when the dish is totally toward the east, there is about 8 inches of roof clearance. Commissioner Cannon said that when a variance is requested, the Commission must make specific findings according to the Ordinance. Director Krempl stated that when the Ordinance was framed, aesthetics was an important component but not the sole reason for the ordinance A. W. Edeeln, 1133 Alpine, 92011, 15-year resident, said that there have never been any complaints about the satellite. Phyllis Alamares, 1117 First Ave, 92011, a neighbor said the satellite was not an eyesore to the neighborhood. If the satellite were moved to the ground, Mr. Metivier's dog might be hazarded as well as the residents in the rear. Progress is supposed to be important; the satellite represents that; and the way it is mounted, it is a lot safer than many others in the neighborhood or in the region. Commissioner Cannon said he was convinced there was no other place to locate the satellite and to him, that is the hardship required in the finding. He was not certain that the findings by the Montgomery Planning Group were found in a way satisfactory to him, but in his opinion, the hardship requirement is satisfied and he sees no problem with the other three findings. With regard to preservation of enjoyment of substantial property rights - that exists. The fact that authorization of this variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners is evidenced by lack of people objecting. And, finally, it does not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) that based on those findings, the Commission grant a variance to this particular satellite installation. MINUTES -7- September 23, 1987 4. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR USE PERMIT PCC-87-39M - REQUEST TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING R.V. STORAGE LOT NOW OPERATING ILLEGALLY AT 1383 BROADWAY - BROADWAY EQUITIES, LTD. Assistant Planner Schilling indicated that the applicant, Robert Kolodny, had submitted a letter requesting continuation of this item until the meeting of November 4, 1987 to allow the matter to be heard before a full Conanission and unti 1 the Commission has had the opportunity to take action on the proposed Montgomery Specific Plan. Staff has no objections. h1SUC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-0, to continue the item to the meeting of November 4, 1987. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-46 - REQUEST TO ALLOW 24-HOUR OPERATION OF A PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST RIENSTRA STREET AND HILLTOP DRIVE - CIRCLE K MARKETS Associate Planner Griffin stated the request is for 24-hour operation of a proposed convenience store with self-serve gas to be located at the southeast corner of E. Rienstra Street and Hilltop Drive in the C-N zone. The property will be cleared for construction of a new 2,700 square foot mini-market and four self-service gas islands with a canopy. Adjoining land uses included Castle High school to the north; single and multi-family dwellings to the west; more multi-family dwellings adjoining the site to the east; and neighborhood commercial uses adjoining the site to the south. The restriction imposed by the Municipal Code as to hours is flexible and allows the Commission to grant an extension if no adverse impact is found. The adjoining apartment complex maintains a 30-foot setback from the common property line plus a driveway and parking areas as a separation from Circle Y. site. The orientation of the mini-mart and pump islands are oriented away from the apartments. A 6-foot zoning wall is a requirement. The single and multiple family dwellings to the west are located 80 ft. from the site across Hilltop Drive. The extended hours offer a service and convenience to adjacent residents. Staff recommends approval provided no significant opposition is expressed at the hearing and subject to the condition that problems or complaints regarding the operation will require the matter be reconsidered by the Commission This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question, Planner Griffin said the neighbors had been informed of the hearing and are aware of the request for the extended hours. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) to approve the request for 24-hour operation subject to the condition that if any problems arise and/or complaints are received, the matter shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of hours. MINUTES -8- September 23, 1987 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-D - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 0.10 ACRES LOCATED AT 145 WILLOW STREET FROM A-D TO C-C-D - CREASER PRICE INSURANCE AGENCY Associate Planner Griffin indicated that the project site is located to the north of Bonita Road on the east side of Willow Street with the existing Creaser-Price office building abutting the site. The proposed rezone from A-D (Agricultural/Design control) to C-C-D (Central Commercial/Design control) is to allow expansion of the parking area for an addition to that office building. Abutting the property is the golf course on the east and the Kaiser Medical facility across Willow Street to the west. Tfie proposal is consistent with the General Plan designation for this site (Retail Commercial) and with adjacent zoning to the south (C-C-D) and other adjacent land uses. Staff is recommending approval of the request. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) to find this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-7. MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone for 0.10 acres from A-D to C-C-D as shown on Exhibit A. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-12 - FIELDSTONE CLASSICS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-12 - THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY P-88-1 - CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR FIELDSTONE CLASSICS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-12 PCZ-88-B - CONSIDERATION TO REDESIGNATE 10.107 ACRES FROM RP-13 TO RP-8 IN EASTLAKE SHORES - FIELDSTONE CLASSIC Assistant Planner Schilling stated that the application was for a subdivision, a precise plan and a rezone to develop 60 single-family dwellings on 60 residential lots to be located on 10.1 acres identified as area R-10 on the SPA Plan for Eastlake Hilton Shores. Presently, the site is designated for attached development at a target density of 10 du/ac, a total of 101 units. The present RP-13 land use district allows either attached or detached units with the minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. The subdivision application proposes having a minimum lot size of 4,320 square feet with an average lot size of 5,098 square feet. The precise plan application proposes to carry-over the same type of development standards and product type which were used for Fieldstone Classics. The two issues that staff would like to discuss include: (1) the proposed development standards; and (2) proposed open space. MINUTES -9- September 23, 1987 (1) Development Standards. The applicant did not submit development standards as a single document but separately as to proposed setbacks, actual lot coverage and floor area ratios for each individual lot. The lot coverage proposed ranges between 11 percent and 38 percent because of the range in the lot areas in individual lots. The minimum lot size js 4,320 sq ft and the maximum lot size is around 11,000 sq ft. The floor area ratio has a similar wide range from 18,percent to 49 percent. Staff recommends that the development standards be submitted as a single document and recorded with the final map and that development standards be applied which limit lot coverage to 40 percent. This would exclude open-sided patios less than 300 square feet and also include a 50 percent floor area ratio with the same exclusion for open-sided patios; building height on the homes should be limited to 28 feet and any future additions limited to the first story only. The proposed restrictions would permit construction of the single-family home but would protect against excessive bulk and scale which could result from remodeling additions on the homes in the future, (2) Open Space. The band of slope area at the rear of the subdivision between Lots 42 and 60 was originally designated as open space Lot 4 in the SPA Plan, Off-site grading permission was obtained from United Enterprises but there is a portion of the top of the slope which is still on the property and is a 2:1 slope, Staff recommends that the OS4 designation be aligned with the top of that slope, and it be fenced (along with the theme-wall fencing proposed by the developer) with a single access point on the east side of Creekwood Way, adjacent to Lot 60, The slope area would be landscaped with one irrigation system and placed within an open space easement to be maintained by the P•1aster Homeowners' Association, In reply to the Chair's inquiry, Planner Schilling said the applicant disagreed with staff's recommendation regarding the open space designation, Tnis being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened, James W, Craig, 1688 Blackthorne Ct „ E1 Cajon, 92020, representing Fieldstone, noted that two other representatives were present; he was in agreement, generally, with staff's discussion of the open space issue but would like to review the issue in more detail, He requested inclusion in Item 14, page 4, of the statement, ",,.or other methods used to address the issue to the satisfaction of the Planning Director", Regarding Item 16 on page 5, (access for fire vehicles to serve Lot 30), Mr, Craig said the Fire Marshall had recommended increasing the width of the pavement of the Panhandle lot on the easterly side of Willowbrook Court to 20 feet (thus requiring a 26-foot wide panhandle) which might squeeze some of the other lots but it could be done, An alternative of putting in a sprinkler system in the building had been proposed also, Mr, Craig expressed uncertainty if the present wording in Item 16 would permit use of either alternative, He was assured that the statement, "subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall" covered the situation. -10- September 23, 1987 MINUTES Mike Stewart, 5465 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, stated his availability to answer questions. 92121, representing Fieldstone, No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) to certify EIR-81-3 and EIR-84-1 have been prepared in PlanndingcCommission Chas freviewedvthemm~forma~tion~to tained 1i9n0eachdEIRaprior to making a decision on the project. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) based on the findings contained in Sectio p-88 ~f and staff report, to.recommend that Council approve PCS-87-12, PCZ_gg_g, subject to the conditions outlined ovide hthatt any other methodtof exception that Condition 14 be modified to p satisfying the open space requirement or slope design requirement be allowed subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. DIRECTOR'S REVORT: None COh1h1ISSI0N COMMENTS: - Chairman Carson welcomed the new Commissioner Joe Casillas to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cannon expressed concern that ie rato beevalida,the Planning the Montgomery Planning Committee did not app Commission should not be bound by 5/7 vote to overrule the Committee's decision. He requested that Montgomery Planning Committee's findings be included in the Commission's packets. Commissioner Cannon said that he would be out of town fora~h thee drainage October 14 and requested the Commission to look closely problem on Central Avenue, which has beenreat aextentrobye previous McMillin long time, and which was caused to a g developments in that area. Commissioner Fuller referenced United Enterprises' advertising brochure being used to contact the public. She suggested that the Commissioners share knowledge of dates and times of meetings held by United Enterprises with the public so that the Commission will be aware of what United Enterprises is telling the public. ADJOURIl14ENT AT 8:26 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M, Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4474P