Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/12/04 AGENDA SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING City Planning Co)nmission Chula Vista, California Wednesday~ December 4, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES for Meeting of November 13, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. Consideration of Chula Vista Auto Center Final EIR (EIR-91-01) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-12; Request to establish a used car sales facility at 1506 Broadway - Fernando Durazo INFORMATION ITEM: Proposed work program for contour grading review DIRECTOR'S REPORT Discussibn of proposed date in january for Planning Commission field trip to Kaiser Hospital Facility in Riverside COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of December 11, 1991 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of December 4, 199! Item 1. CONSIDERATION OF CHULA VISTA AUTO CENTER FINAL EIR (EIR-91-01 ) BACKGROUND: The Chula Vista Auto Center Draft EIR was circulated for public review from September 5 through October 23, 1991. The City's Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Draft EIR, October 23, concluded the public review period. Comments were received regarding the Draft EIR from a variety of sources, and include: · State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Waste Management Board · CalTrans · Sweetwater Union High School District, Division of Planning and Facilities $ Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee · Auto Park Ad Hoc Task Force · Resource Conservation Commission · Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee · Martin Schmidt, City of Chula Vista Landscape Architect · Jerry W. McNutt · Planning Commissioners Many of the comments related to traffic concerns on Otay Valley Road as well as on neighborhood streets from test driving, and to concerns regarding compatibility of the Auto Park uses with the future passive Otay Valley Regional Park. A number of other questions and comments regarding a variety of issues were also raised and the Final EIR includes all of the comments and associated responses, as well as text changes to the Draft EIR which occurred as part of the responses. Text changes are clearly indicated with ;tr:2.~c c'.:t and underline, indicating deletions and additions to the text, respectively. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Final EIR shall consist of: · The Draft EIR (or a revision of it) · Comments received on the Draft EIR · A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR · The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review process City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Item for Meeting of December 4, i991 · Any other information added by the Lead Agency. CEQA also requires that the Lead Agency shall certify that: · The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA · The decision-making body of the Lead Agency (in this case, the Redevelopment Agency) has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. The Chula Vista Auto Center Final EIR contains all of the elements required by CEQA. Completion of the environmental process includes certification by the Planning Commission that the Final EIR is adequate according to CEQA; certification by the Redevelopment Agency of its adequacy, and of their review and consideration of the information contained therein prior to their action on the project; and, adoption by the Redevelopment Agency of the Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Findings are required when a project results in significant impacts (mitigated or unmitigated) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required if a project results in one or more significant and unmitigated impacts. The proposed project would result in one significant and unmitigated impact to loss of agricultural land. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify that the Final EIR is adequate according to the requirements of the CEQA and send the Final EIR to the Redevelopment Agency with a recommendation for certification. [C:\WP51 ~RICHARDSON\AUTOPARK. 113 ] CHULA VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM FOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1991 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-12; request to establish a used car sales facility at 1506 Broadway - Fernando Durazo A. BACKGROUND The applicant wishes to establish a used car sales facility at 1506 Broadway in the C-T - Commercial Thoroughfare zone, wherein used car sales is a conditional use (Exhibit "A"). In order to grant a conditional use permit, it must be found that the use is necessary and desirable, that it is consistent with the General Plan (Montgomery Specific Plan), that it will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and uses, and that it will comply with the regulations specified in the Municipal Code for such use. At a meeting held on November 6, 1991, the Montgomery Planning Committee considered PCC-92-12 at a duly noticed hearing. There were two motions, the first a motion of denial which failed 2-3-2. The vote for the second motion for conditional approval was 3-2-2, but failed because a 4/7ths vote is required per Government Code, Paragraph 54952.6. Therefore, because neither motion passed, no recommendation goes forward to the Planning Commission. The proposed site plan (Exhibit "B") indicates that the used cars will be displayed on the north side of the lot. This area is currently utilized as parking for the restaurant which occupies the majority of the above address. The applicant has stated that the restaurant does not do enough business to require all the existing parking. The proposal calls for the associated used car sales office to be located in space immediately adjacent to the restaurant, approximately one hundred and fifty feet to the south of the used car display area. The applicant has been occupying this space without the benefit of either a conditional use permit or a city business license since early 1990, displaying his used cars in other parts of the lot and on the street, while preparing to submit his application for a Conditional Use Permit. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request, PCC-92-12, to establish a used car sales facility at 1506 Broadway. PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 2 December 4, 1991 C · DISCUBSION Zonina. SDecific Plan and Land Use Montgomery Zon_~ ~ Land Use Subject: C-T-P Merc. & Off. Comm. Restaurant, Auto Repair & Applicant' s Used Car Sales North: R-3 High Density Res. Apartments (18-27 Du/ac) South: C-T-P Merc. & Off. Co~m. Retail, Deli, offices East: C-T-P Merc.& Off. Comm. Motel R-3-P High Density Res. Condominiums (18-27 Du/Ac) West: R-3 High Density Res. Apartments (18-27 Du/Ac) Existina site characteristics The property i.n question is an older commercial site on the west side of Broadway, just north of Anita Street. The property measures .62 of an acre, with a 4,973 square foot brick building at the southwest corner of the property and a total of 43 parking spaces. Apartments adjoin the property to the north and west. The building presently contains a restaurant and an automotive repair shop, as well as the applicant's used car sales office. The site has a small landscaped buffer along the Broadway frontage, but the landscaping in this buffer is nonexistent, dead, dying or in an otherwise very poor condition. The layout of the parking area is dimensionally and functionally substandard. The parcel's dimensions are approximately 315' X 90' with the structure taking up about the southwestern one-fourth. In order to meet the requirements of the Montgomery Specific Plan, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance, the remainder of the PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 3 December 4, 1991 parcel would have to be landscaped and buffered from surrounding residential uses. There is a partial chain link fence on both the north and west sides of the property. Pro osed use The applicant proposes to display a maximum of ten used cars in the northern third (approximately) of the parking lot. This area would comprise approximately 5,250 square feet, and is directly adjoining apartments to the north. The applicant proposes to repair the existing badly- damaged chain link fence along the north edge of the property and provide a new wood fence along the west property line. A painted pole-and-chain fence is proposed to separate the vehicle display area from the balance of the parking lot and from the street. The applicant further plans to install two 20 foot high light poles and to provide two small planters. A new freestanding pole sign, of which no details are provided, completes the applicant's proposed site improvements. Staff discourages the establishment of the small used car lots which proliferate along Broadway and Main Street. On November 6, 1991 city Staff surveyed the Montgomery Community for other used car dealers. The following table lists what was found. Business Name Business Address 1. Motors GLZ 606 Crested Butte 2. Formiller Motors 1001 Broadway 3. Helmquist Auto Sales l131-A Broadway 4. Jacquot Motors 1169 Third 5. Numero Uno Motors 2744 Main 6. J.G. Auto Sales 1695 Broadway 7. E1 Paso Auto Sales 1545-B Third 8. Starjus Auto Sales 2910-B Main 9. D.S. Auto Sales 3328 Main 10. Cars For You 1714 Broadway 11. J. & R. Auto Sales 3211 Main 12. Salazar Motors 3275 Main 13. T & T Auto Brokers 150 Jacqua PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 4 December 4, 1991 In recent years, presumably because of the existence of a large wholesale auto auction in the area, the city has received almost daily inquiries regarding the establishment of small used car sales operations, either alone or in conjunction with other primary uses. The approval of an excessive number of such uses would represent an unfortunate condition, both in terms of aesthetics and the adverse functional impacts on companion and adjacent uses. The proposals which are supported by staff are on larger, single-user sites, which have a direct relationship to other automotive uses in the area, and are expected to provide high quality site improvements, including landscaping, signage, walls, fencing, and so on. In this instance: 1. The parking and circulation for the property in question is presently substandard, both in terms of the size of the parking spaces and their distribution on the site. The addition of the used car sales operation will further impede circulation, both by way of the permanent display area and the activities associated with the sales operation, such as the inspection and test driving of vehicles. Used car sales is not compatible with the function of a parking lot. The location of the used car sales office at the south end of the property will create further conflicts with the parking lot. 2. By separating the display area from the office, the applicant is likely to want to bring some of the vehicles closer to the office at certain times. Since a large portion of the lot would by then be unavailable for parking due to its use for display, the ensuing parking and circulation problems would adversely impact the other businesses at the site. It is further reasonable to assume that potential customers would park as close as possible to the display area, rather than adjacent to the office, thereby restricting even further the number of parking spaces available to restaurant patrons. 3. With respect to site development, one requirement of the Montgomery Specific Plan found on page $ of part 3, Section 3, subsection a-5-c, Setbacks, states: All buildings constructed along Main Street, Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain minimum 15 foot, landscaped setback, measured from the front and exterior side property lines abutting PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 5 Dec~her 4. 1991 upon the rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the required setback areas. In addition, on page 9 of Section 3, subsection 4-d, Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines, states: All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground- plane landscaped flooring, ornamental plant materials. The landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated with the landscape of the balance of the sites upon which they are located. The next subsection 4-e states: The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between residential and other land use categories shall be encouraged. Not only is the overall center deficient with respect to these standards, but the proposed new area for the display of used cars also does not provide the requisite landscaping. 4. The proposal would adversely impact the abutting residential uses by presenting a display of cars and signage, and the noise, light and activity impacts associated with the sales operations. 5. Foot and vehicular traffic would increase in the immediate vicinity of the residential uses. The presence of such foot traffic would be sustained, as potential customers viewed and discussed the cars in close proximity to the residences. 6. The applicant has stated his intent to repair the five foot high chain link fence which separates the selling area from the adjoining residential uses. The Municipal Code calls for a six foot high masonry wall to separate a used car lot from abutting residential property. Even if the applicant were to agree to install a six foot high masonry wall, it would adversely impact the narrow yard area of the apartments to the north of the subject property by presenting an oppressive appearance and severely limiting sunlight from the south. PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 6 December 4, 1991 7. The 20 'foot high pole lights would, while intended to spotlight the cars, introduce an annoying element. The illumination would certainly reflect into adjacent units and further reduce the residents' privacy. 8. Given the parcel dimensions, the city's requirements, the placement of the office within the existing structure and the proposed layout of the sales area, the proposed site plan will not work. Even if a site plan were developed which incorporates all city standards, the sales area would be reduced to such an extent that the establishment of an economically viable used car lot would be questionable. As of November 27, 1991, the City had received one letter of opposition to the proposal (please see attached copy of letter). E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. FINDING: The proposed use is neither necessary nor desirable, given both the proliferation of similar businesses in the area and the adverse impacts likely to be experienced by adjoining properties and tenants. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. FINDING: The reduction in circulation, parking and fire :~:~; is detrimental to th. convenience and of tenants and customers. The proposed use will be injurious to p~operty and improvements in the vicinity in that ~he proposal does not implement Part 3, Subsection a-5-c, 4-d end 4-e of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Without implementation of these requirements, the property will remain substandard. However, implementation of these : \PCC92-12.PCR PCC-91-12 - Durazo Page 7 December 4, 1991 requirements would further complicate circulation on t~is small site. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. FINDING= The standards specified in the Montgomer~ Specific Plan end Zoning Ordinance for such use call for · six-foot high masonr~ wall end landscaping to separate the area from abutting residential property, as well as a 15 foot wide landscaped setback along Broadway. The applicant has not indicated his willingness to comply with these standards and, as indicated above, if he were to comply, the results would be objectionable with respect to the functioning of the site. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. FINDING: The granting of this conditional use permit would not be in the best interests of the City, the other tenants and customers of the sit~, or the residents in .the im~.ediate viclnlty, and would not be consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan. While a used car lot is a conditional use in areas with a commercial land use designation in the General Plan, this used car lot is not consistent with City plans and policies for commercial development in general or used car lots in particular. : \P~:C92 - 12 . pI:R ..... IEXHIBIT" '" % O) Z i- l ! NOV 2 2 1991 : ~ovember 19~ 1991 Planning Conanis$ion CI?¥ O~ CH~hh VIS~h 276 ?ourth ~venue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: 1506 Broadway Chula Vista, California Chairperson: As an adjacent property owner, I am opposed to a used car lot being approved on the above property. ! think that Chula Vista needs to continue to upgrade the South portion of Broadway. Belling used oars is not an upgrade but becomes a detriment in the ability to attract clean retail/office type business. A case in point would be to drive down Main Street. ! don't think we need to permit more of this type of business on Broadway. ~illiam ~. Perkins WMP:MER 1880 Broed~y, · ~lmll lfl.~, CA ggOll · (819) 4g0-0343 · ' THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following i~ormation must be disclosed: L List the names of all persons having a financial interest in thc contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, m~ateria, l~upplicr. ! 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. ,,-,/tx- 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No v,/ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No v/ If yes, state which Councilmemher(s): Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, mtst, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and cotmto', cit); municipality, district or other political subdivision, or mty other group or combination acting as a unit." ./..~. ~, (NOTE: Attach addilional pages as necessary) Date: '~/"l Iq [ ', ,, Signature offcontractor/appncant Print or type name of contractor/applicant [.\-I 13.'~:DISCLOSE.TXT] [Revised: 11/30,U01 DATE: December 4, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Robert Leiter, Director of Planning SUBJECT,' L~NDFOR~ ~I~DING POLICY This memorandum and attached work program is in response to the Planning Commission workshop held on June 19,1991 on grading design and landform grading. As a result of the discussions and comments made by the commission, it was understood that a work program was needed to review and possibly ammend our existing grading design practices. It was also understood that a clearer and more substantial connection between grading policies and guidelines discussed in our general plan and ultimate subdivision grading design needed to occur. As a result, staff has developed a work program identifying associated tasks needing addressment and projected time-frames for each task identified. Since the June 19th workshop, several meetings have been held with departmental staff from both Engineering and Planning to strategize the development of this work program. This work program stands independent of any Engineering department work program, however, it is our intent to take the lead on all required amendments and changes as they affect subdivision grading design. Therefore any revisions to the City grading ordinance by the Engineering department will become an integral part of this work program. I~NDFORM GI~DING POLICY SCOPE OF WORK OBJECTIVE: To develop a city Policy that further defines and implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan, as it relates to the Land Development section and in particular "Landform Grading" interpretation. The goal is to eliminate potential "issue areas" that might exist during major development review processes. PI~SE ONE "POLICY" DEVELOPMENT TASK 1: COLLECTION OF DATA (DEC 91 - JAN 92) 1. Compile existing city grading design documents and related ordinances. List and review documents and capitalize contents of each. 2. Survey other municipalities. 3. Compile pipeline GDP'S and SPA's. 4. Compile relevant General Plan policies and guidelines. TASK 2: PRELIMINARY REPORT/PUBLIC INPUT (JAN 92 - FEB 92) 1. Meeting with Planning and Engineering staff. 2. Staff review/meetings. 3. Determine what programs have worked in other cities and how they might work in this City. 4. Prepare flow chart showing existing "process". 5. Prepare preliminary report. 6. Provide preliminary report to Development Community and receive comments. 7. Review comments from Development Community. TASK 3: FINAL POLICY PROPOSAL (MARCH 92) 1. Prepare final proposal. TASK 4: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY cOUNCIL HEARINGS (APRIL 92 - M~Y PHASE T~O ~IMPLEMENTATIONt~ TaSK 1: DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION WORK PROGRAM (JUNE 92) 1. Review existing City policies, ordinances, design manuals, etc. for consistency with new city policy. TaSK 2= PRELIMINARY REPORT/PUBLIC FORUM (JULY 92) 1. Prepare preliminary report. 2. Formulation of any changes to existing design documents. 3. Provide preliminary report to Development Community for review and comment. 4. Review comments from Development Community. TaSK 3= PLANNING COMMISSION NORKSHOP (AUG 92) 1. Discuss development community input. 2. "Revisit" grading issue. 3. Receive input from commission. TaSK 4= FORMULATE FINAL RECOMMENDATION (SEPT 92 ) TaSK 5: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPT 92 - NOV 92) 1. Preparation of initial study application. 2. Distribution of initial study notice. 3. Review of comments to initial study notice. 4. Environmental determination (neg. dec.). 5. Advertisement period. TASK 6= PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING (DEC 1. Legal Advertisement. 2. Preparation of Planning Commission Report. 3. Public Hearing. TASK ?: CITY COUNCIL HEARING (JAN 92) 1. Legal Advertisement. 2. Preparation of Council Report. 3. Public Hearing. TOTAL TIME 14 months