Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/06/11 A G E N D A City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 11, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 28, 1980 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Request for conditional use permit PCC-80-16 to construct 12 condominium units at the southeast corner of East Rienstra Street and Hilltop Drive in C-N zone, Wayne Clark 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-H - Consideration of rezoning 3 mobile home parks-- 701 "D" Street, 708 "H" Street and 100 Woodlawn--from R-3 to MHP - City initiated 3. Request for one year extension of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, PCS-77-5 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of June ll, 1980 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont.) Request for conditional use permit PCC-80-16 to construct 12 condominium units at this southeast corner of East Rienstra Street and Hilltop Drive in C-N zone, Wayne Clark A. BACKGROUND 1. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1980 to allow the applicant time to contact owners adjacent to the common access easement and develop a viable landscaping program to screen this development from the rear of the commercial activities. (See attached staff report of previous meeting.) 2. The Conditioned Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1980. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Since the time of the April 23 Planning Commission meeting the applicant has attempted without success to secure agreements from adjacent property owners who are parties to the easement to get permission to install landscape screening. Because the common acess drive would serve as the primary entry to the proposed residential development and because of the significant blighting influence of the rear of the commercial area, staff believes the subject property is unsuitable for residential use unless a substantial landscape buffer can be provided and main- tained to screen the proposed residential area from the rear of the commercial area. The applicant has not been able to get this permission on the service station site. The owner of the retail commercial building to the south of the service station objects to landscape screening because of security reasons. Further, the parking area to the rear of the building is part of the required parking so that it cannot be readily screened in any case, as it would then be unaccessible and unavailable for use as a parking area. 2. Approval of a residential development within a C-N zone must be carefully reviewed to assume that such development is either integrated with or effectively screened from the commercial activities. Unfortunately, the existing layout of commercial land uses has made it virtually impossible to integrate or effectively screen the residential area. It should be pointed out that the previous owner of this parcel also owns the retail commercial site directly to the west and south of the service station. Therefore, the separate creation of this parcel as well as the decision to visually isolate the area from Hilltop Drive were a direct result of that owner's actions. City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1980 3. The inability to properly screen the proposed residential development from the rear of the commercial buildings is compounded by the fact that this entire center appears poorly maintained. Trash, broken bottles, poorly kept landscaping, and graffiti-covered walls do n~t provide a good residential setting. On the positive side the introduction of residents into the area could reduce the vandalism. Steps are being~initiated by staff to resolve the landscaping maintenance problem. ! ' D. CONCLUSION Staff cannot support residential developr~ent of the subject parcel without the assurance that a substantial landscape bLffer will be provided and main- tained. Should the Planning Commission deci<e to approve the project, staff would offer the following conditions of appr(val: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that he has the right to install and maintain a buffer planting area (minimum 5' in width) on or near the westerly line of the community easement. The landscaping area may include freaks to allow for vehicular move- ment from the adjoining commercial activitie~ b. The driveway portion of the easement area shall be developed with some combination of textured surface such as (1) turf block, (2) epoxy colored surface over the existing A.C. paving, (3) oiher textured treatment. The exact material and design shall be subject to the pproval of the City's Landscape Architect. c. Small lawn areas shall be integrated with shrub planting areas along the west wall of the residential buildings. d. Tall deciduous broad leaf and small leaf wisping trees shall be used at the westerly building line and at the wesierly easement line. E. FINDINGS Approval of the request would require affirmative findings of the following statements: l. That the proposed use at the part~cu~r location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which w~ll contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. No evidence has been presented which/would indicate that the proposed use is necessary or desirable at this location. 2. That such use wi~ not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, s~fety .or 9~neral welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or snjur~ous to property or improvements in the vicinity. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1980 The proposed use would further isolate the existing office building and disrupt the commercial continuity. It would establish 12 housing units in an area having a poor residential atmosphere and would inhibit the proper re- development of the area as a commercial center. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use has not provided for guest parking or a zoning wall to separate the activities from the adjoining commercial land uses. 4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The area of the neighborhood center is less than the desired 5 acres. Approval of this request would further reduce the area available for commercial use. ® CASTLE PARK HIGH I I TDF .... .J I MFD I I MFD PRO,../EC'T' MFD PRO~JECT AREA E. RIENSTRA ST Landscape Landscape Lcnd~c~e Trash .) h PARKING __ e.closure City Planning Commission Page 13 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1980 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for conditional use permit PCC-80-16 to construct 12 condominium units at the southeast corner of East Rie,,stra Street and Hilltop Drive in C-N zone, Wayne Clar~ A. BACKGROUND i 1. This item involves a request to develop a 12 unit condominium on a 32,500 sq. ft. parcel located in an existing C-N neighborhood shopping center zone at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and East Rienstra Street. 2. An Initial Study, IS-80-53, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on March 27, 1980. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Conditioned Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Conditioned Negative Declaration on IS-80-53 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Castle Park High School South C-N Office building East R-1 Single family dwellings West C-N Service station and retail commercial 2. Existing site characteristics. a. The subject property is a vacant 32,500 sq. ft. (0.75 acres) parcel located near the northeast corner of an existing 2 1/2 acre neighborhood shopping center at Hilltop and Rienstra. The center is comprised of five separate parcels. Three of the parcels front on Hilltop Drive and are developed with a service station, retail commercial building, and a vacant store (formerly occupied by 7-11). The fourth parcel located at the southeast corner, is a landlocked lot developed with an office building receiving its access via easements from both streets across the adjoining properties. b. The project site has 130' of frontage along Rienstra Street extending southerly to a depth of 250'. A 2:1 slope bank along the north property line precludes access from Rienstra Street except for the existing driveway and 25' wide easement paralleling the westerly property line. City Planning Con~nission Page 14 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1980 3. History of development. The subject property was annexed in 1964 and zoned R-1. It was subsequently zoned C-I-D (Limited Commercial with Architectural Control) in 1965 and in 1966 rezoned to C-N. The entire 2 1/2 acres remained vacant until 1968 when a proposal was submitted to divide the property into 3 parcels for the development of a service station at the northwest corner and a convenience store (7-11) at the southwest corner. An overall plan was submitted for the remaining parcel to be developed at a later date. Although both the Planning Commission and the Planning Department expressed concern over the piecemeal development of the center, the two uses were approved. Since that initial approval the site has been further divided and an office building and a retail structure built on separate parcels. The subject property is the only parcel left undeveloped. In May of 1978, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the site to build a racquetball facility, which was never used and has since expired. 4. Proposed development. The applicant wishes to develop the subject property with a 12 unit condominium project for which a conditional use permit is required. The residential development must adhere to the R-3-G regulations including the maximum density allowed (17.4 units per acre). The 12 units will be housed in 3 structures of 4 units each. The most northerly structure will be a 34' high split level building of two and three stories. The other two structures will be two story and approxtn~tely 28 feet high. Twenty four parking spaces will be located in garages under the units. No open parking is proposed. Based on the gross area of the lot, the proposed density is 16 units per acre. However, the usable area of the lot is encumbered by the easement and 2:1 slopes on the property resulting in a density of approximately 20 units per acre on the developable area. D. ANALYSIS 1. The subject property is not well located for retail commercial development which requires a certain amount of street exposure. While the site fronts on East Rienstra, it is below the level of the street which carries approximately half the volume of traffic of Hilltop Drive (6000 daily trips). Uses which could conceivably do well are office uses or specialized service/recreation commercial activities similar to the once proposed racquetball facility. Those uses are not so dependent on street exposure. 2. Since the buildings were erected in the center, there has been concern over the piecemeal building approach which has made the rear parcels near the easterly property line undesirable for retail commercial uses. This could have been avoided if the center had been developed in accordance with the original overall plan. However, parcels were split off, sold, and developed independently leaving the less desirable parcels vacant. City Planning Commission Page 15 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1980 3. Approval of this request would serve to further isolate the existing office building in the center which could be enhanced by other office construction. The lack of development on the site tends to indicate little or no demand for additional office space in this area. 4. This item has some characteristics which are similar to item 4 on this agenda. However there are two important factors which, in staff's judgment, justifies a different recommendation. On the subject property there is no opportunity to screen the proposed residential development from the rear of the commercial development because the intervening area must be kept open for access to the adjacent commercial uses. Thus, a satisfactory residential environment cannot be created. Further, the construction of a residential complex, as proposed, would tend to make very difficult the ultimate redevelopment of this poorly planned commercial complex into a small shopping center to serve the neighborhood. 5. While staff feels the application should be denied, a few comments about the applicant's plan are appropriate in the event the Commission wishes to approve the use permit. The density on the usable portion is approximately 20 units per acre. In addition all of the parking is located in garages with no provision for guest parking. The usable open space complies with the ordinance requirements, however, the project is extremely small making it difficult to achieve a self contained residential atmosphere in the rear of several commercial buildings. If this project is contemplated for approval the number of units should be reduced to achieve proper guest parking and separation from the commercial activities. E. FINDINGS Approval of the request would require affirmative findings of the following statements: 1. ~hat the propoeed ~se at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility ~ich will contribute to the general w~ll being of the neighborhood or the community. No evidence has been presented which would indicate that the proposed use is necessary or desirable at this location. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular ca~e, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of pe~son~ residing or workin~ in the vicinity, or injurious to proper~ or improvement~ in the ~icinit~. The proposed use would further isolate the existing office building and disrupt the commercial continuity. It would establish 12 housing units in an area having a poor residential atmosphere and would inhibit the proper redevelop- ment of the area as a commercial center. City Planning Commission Page 16 Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1980 3. That the propceed use will c~.p~ with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use has not provided for guest parking or a zoning wall to separate the activities from the adjoining commercial land uses. 4. That the g~anting of this conditional use will not adver~e~ affeot the general pZan of the ci~ or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The area of the neighborhood center is less than the desired 5 acres. Approval of this request would further reduce the area available for commercial use. City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1980 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-H - Consideration of rezoning 3 mobile home parks-- 701 "D" Street, 708 "H" Street and 100 Woodlawn--from R-3 to MHP - Cits initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. In November 1978 the City Council established the MHP (Mobile Home Park) zone to provide appropriate locations for mobile home parks and to insure that the properties zoned MHP could not be used for any other land use unless the City Council deems it desirable to rezone the land. 2. Since the establishment of the MHP zone, six existing mobile home park sites have been rezoned to MHP as part of the implementation of the program. As a continuation of this program, three additional mobile home parks located at 701 "D" Street, 100 Woodlawn Avenue and 708 "H" Street are being proposed for rezoning from R-3 to MHP. 3. The proposed zone changes are not considered "projects" under CEQA since they will not result in any physical change and, therefore, are not subject to environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the change of zone for the following mobile home parks: l. Jade Bay Mobile Lodge located at 701 "D" Street from R-3 to MHP. 2. Baywood Trailer Park located at 100 Woodlawn Avenue from R-3 to MHP. 3. Bison Mobilehome Park located at 708 "H" Street from R-3 to MHP. C. DISCUSSION 1. Two of the mobile home parks under consideration (Jade Bay and Baywood) are adjacent to one another, being located on the west side of Woodlawn Avenue and on the north and south sides of "D" Street. Both sites are bounded by SDA&E railway on the west. The third mobile home park site is a panhandle lot with 40 feet of frontage on the south side of "H" Street and is bounded by commercial uses to the north, apartments to the east, Mueller Elementary School to the south and the SDA&E railway to the west. City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1980 2. The following is a brief description of each park: Units Per Existing Year Name/Location Acres Acre Spaces Zonin9 Built Amenities Jade Bay Mobile Lodge 4.35 17 75 R-3 1960 Recreation bldg. 701 "D" Street and pool Baywood Trailer Park 7.81 16 126 R-3 Pre 1958 Recreation bldg. 100 Woodlawn Avenue and pool Bison Mobilehome Park 4.37 17.6 77 R-3 1953 & Recreation bldg. 708 "H" Street 1959 and pool 3. The mobile home parks proposed for rezoning are similar in size, density and character with each having a recreation building and pool. All (3) parks are well maintained and each has demonstrated stability by operating for 20 years or more. 4. Two of the three parks being recommended for rezonin9 are just over four acres in size, whereas the MHP zone specifies the minimum acreage (for a park) at five acres. The staff is in the process of offering an amendment to the code which would allow for more flexibility as to acreage. Both of the existing smaller parks in this instance provide for a greater number of spaces than could be accom- modated by a new five acre park constructed to comply with the City's Mobile Home Park Policy (maximum 8 dwelling units per acre). The end result is that even though the parks are less than five acres in size, they offer sufficient space to provide a very manageable park with the number of units corresponding to a nine- ten acre park developed in conformance with the adopted policy. I ~3 I I I SFD I SFD I I ~ I ' ILA VISTA ,¢ , ! I I ! L .... I TFD I I t PR~ MFD / "rFD HOME CAR~ "D" STREET SF"D SFD SFD Z MO~IILE HOME PARK -H-P PROPOSED SFD i SFD , ,, ,, , TRAILER SALES// , ,FEASTER' , ELEMENTAR -- SERV STA. !/ I -- -1-- REZONING ~PROPOSED MO~ILE HOME P~ ~Z~ ~UELLER , ELEMENTARY /PCZ eo H /~OPOSEDMOBILE HOME I~K RE'ZONING,,: FROM R-3 TO M-H4) ~708 #H" STREET. City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1980 3. Request for one year extension of tentative subdivision ma~ for Chula Vista Woods, PCS-7~'-5 A. BACKGROUND 1. In January 1978 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods to divide 20 acres into 54 single family residential lots and one open space lot. The proposed development is located 400 feet west of Brandywine Avenue and 1300 feet south of Telegraph Canyon Road in the R-1-H zone. 2. In September 1979 an extension of the tentative map was granted and is due to expire on July 17, 1980. The applicant is again requesting a one year extension of the map. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to approve the request for a one year extension (until July 17, 1981) of the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods subject to the added condition as follows: 1. The developer shall provide 10 percent of the total number of units (5 units) for low and moderate income housing, either on or off site, or pay an in lieu fee in the amount to be determined by the City Council to be used for the development of low and moderate income housing at a suitable alternate location. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant physical changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original conditions of approval. However, since the original approval, the City Council has determined that consistency with the Housing Element of the General Plan requires each developer of more than 50 residential units to provide 10 percent of the proposed units for low and moderate income housing or pay an in lieu fee. At the time of approval and the granting of the previous one year extension, this was not required. E. NAPLES ST. ,, F:CGERS ELEM I , N SCHOCL ,, (R-~) W~N]: COUNTY ,' FUTURE SITE , C.V, C~MUNi .......... HOSPITAL / [ W~ SU~VISI~ ~ ~ o, ,oo, ~,