Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/05/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 28, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rudolph, Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Starr. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Rice. Also Pressent: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant City Attorney Beam, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1975 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of request for extension of conditional use permit PCC-71-7 to June 30, 1976 for the use of two mobile classroom units at 345 "F" Street Director of Planning Peterson reported that this use permit was originally approved in 1971 subject to annual review and has been extended for one year on each occasion. He noted that last year the Planning Commission expressed some concern over the nature of the use, particularly with regard to the body shop. He further pointed out that the construction of the new library across the street from this use eliminates parking space normally used by students of this school and will result in additional onstreet parking. This site will also be considered for inclusion in a Third Avenue redevelopment program. For these reasons the staff feels the use should not be continued for a full year and recommends approval of an extension to January 23, 1976, which is the end of the next fall semester. This will give the School District several months in which to relocate this facility. It is also suggested that the Commission recommend that the Council urge the School District to move the rest of the school facilities, including the nonconforming auto repair, from this site within the same time period. Commissioner Pressutti advised that due to his affiliation wi th the Sweetwater Union High School District he would abstain from discussion or voting on this item. Joseph Rindone, District Superintendent of the Sweetwater Union High School Dis- trict, reported that they have just recently obtained funds for expansion of - the facility at Del Rey High School to accommodate the adult school classes. The architect is presently working on the plans, but due to the numerous agencies -2- May 28, 1975 from whom approval of school structures must be obtained, it is felt it will not be possible to have the construction completed by January 23rd and the District is requesting an extension of the use at 345 "F" Street to the end of the next school year, or June 30, 1976. He reported there are presently 210 students enrolled at this facility and he acknowledged there is a parking problem; not all of those students are in attendance at the same time. In discussion with the Commission, Mr. Rindone expressed reasonable assurance that they would be able to move the facility by June 30, 1976. MSUC (Floto-Starr) Conditional use permit PCC-71-7 for the use of mobile class- rooms at 345 "F" Street be continued to June 30, 1976 to coincide with the end of the school year, subject to the correction of all discrepancies noted in the letter from the Chula Vista Fire Department no later than June 9, 1975. Commissioner Pressutti abstained from voting on the motion. MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) The Commission recommends that the City Council urge the School District to move all classroom facilities, including the automotive repair shop, from the site at 345 "F" Street no later than June 30, 1976. Commissioner Pressutti again abstained from voting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-75-D - Request for change of zone for property at the southeast corner of Palomar Avenue and Second Street~ from R-I to R-2-T-P~ Saburo Muraoka Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out the location of the 2~ acre vacant parcel, noting that the adjacent property on the north and west is zoned R-3, while to the east the property is zoned R-1 and developed with single family homes. The Castle Park Junior High School occupies the property to the south of this site which is also zoned R-1. He advised that the request for rezoning to R-2-T is to accommodate a proposed duplex project to be divided and sold as separate units. Attachment of the "P" Modifying District will permit the individual lots to be serviced by private drives rather than having frontage on a dedicated street. Due to the configuration of this parcel, it is the staff's opinion that the proposed R-2-T development provides for more efficient use of the land and gives the developer an opportunity of constructing housing at a moderate price range. The proposed project would also provide a logical transition between the R-1 neighborhood to the east and the R-3 development to the west. Attachment of the "P" District affords greater control in the design of the project, such as limiting the height of the structures on the east side to one-story. Mr. Lee called attention to the findings for approval of the zone change as contained in the written report to the Commission. Although approval of the Precise Plan is a separate item on the agenda, Mr. Lee briefly discussed the proposed project, which would consist of 24 attached units in 8 single story and 4 two-story structures. -3- May 28, 1975 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Takenore Muraoka, Attorney at Law representing his father, the applicant, dis- cussed the reasons why this property cannot be feasibly developed under R-1 zone regulations, since the property does not have sufficient depth for two rows of lots, and a single row of lots would be excessively deep, adding a sub- stantial amount to the cost of each home. He also pointed out that the drainage easement which was granted by the applicant to the City in 1971 further limits the use of the property. He contended that moderate priced housing can only be provided if the R-2-T zoning is granted. He pointed out there are only four points of access from the public streets for this development, whereas R-1 devel- opment would require 11 access points on Second and Palomar Streets. He noted the staff recommendation for a 6' masonry wall at the north property line adjacent to Palomar Street and asked for approval to use a more esthetic material than concrete masonry. William Tunstall, 1336 Elm Avenue, noted the location of his lot adjacent on the east of this property and objected to the location of building structures 10 feet from the property line. He also expressed concern that the 10 foot area might not be properly taken care of and could become a fire hazard. Cecil W. Johns, 1340 Elm Avenue, expressed the opinion that the various schools serving the area are filled to capacity and approval of this project would result in overcrowding of the schools. He objected to the construction of two- story st~mctures on the property, even though it was pointed out they would be 75 to 80 feet from his property line. He also expressed concern over fire safety with the buildings in such close proximity. Willard H. Howard, 105 Prospect Street, concurred with statements made by Mr. Johns regarding school enrollment being at or near the capacity for each of the three schools serving the area. He pointed out that their area is a small seg- ment of the city, mainly surrounded by county property. He called attention to nearby high density development and the lack of recreational facilities in the area. He contended they should not be boxed in by apartment buildings and that additional development would add to the social problems which already exist in the area. Norma Swank, 144 Paisley Court, spoke of the problem of crowding the schools and the need to change school boundaries. She raised a question about the structures being located 10 feet from the property line, pointing out that they were informed a few years ago that they must retain a 20 ft. rear yard setback for their building. Current Planning Supervisor Lee confirmed that the normal rear yard setback in the R-1 zone is 20 feet and in the R-2 zone it is 15 feet. However, a change in the zoning ordinance adopted about a year ago allows for the encroachment of single story structures to within 10 feet of the rear property line as long as such structure does not exceed 30 percent of the rear yard area. He pointed out that the encroachment in the proposed development is for single story garages only, with the living portion of the structures observing the 15 foot setback. Mr. Muraoka commented that there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the type of development proposed; this will not be apartment buildings, but will be single -4- May 28, 1975 family dwellings under private ownership, the same as the abutting property. He advised that this development will be aimed for occupancy by retired persons and should not generate an excessive number of students. Mr. Johns spoke again objecting to the possibility that trash containers might be placed in the area back of the garages adjacent to his rear yard. Helena Johns, 1340 Elm Avenue, expressed the opinion that carpentry work or similar activity performed in the garage results in more noise than activities in the living quarters of a house. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Rudolph, Mr. Lee advised that the school generation factor used for the elementary district is .8 per single family lot and slightly less for duplex units; this would figure to about 16 or 17 students from the proposed development. The high school district uses a factor of .5 per unit, which would mean 12 students for the high school and junior high. Commissioner Pressutti supported the proposed development as a good transition from the single family homes and the R-3 zoning to the west. Commissioner Rudolph questioned whether this is the proper area for the construc- tion of additional moderate income housing, although she felt this development plan is a good one. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with Negative Declaration on IS-74-27 and the findings therein, the rezoning of 2.5 acres of land at the southeast corner of Palomar Street and Second Avenue from R-1 to R-2-T-P will not have any possible significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA 1970, as amended. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The Commission recommends to the City Council the change of zone for 2.5 acres of property at the southeast corner of Palomar Street and Second Avenue from R-1 to R-2-T~P based on the findings as stated in the staff report. 3. Consideration of Precise Plan for development of 2.5 acres at the southeast corner of Palomar Avenue and Second Street~ Saburo Muraoka Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the plan for development was thoroughly discussed during the previous hearing. He called attention to the conditions recommended in approving the Precise Plan. These include maintenance of drives and landscaping, prohibition of garage conversions, and the instal- lation of landscaping, walls and fences. Commissioner Pressutti asked why the open drainage ditch cannot be covered. - Frank Phillips, Civil Engineer for the project, advised that the cost of covering the drainage ditch is prohibitive since it would add about $3,000 to the price of each unit. He pointed out that the treatment of the drainage channel here is similar to one recently approved for a project adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road with the chainlink fence and landscaping. -5- May 28, 1975 Mr. Muraoka commented that aside from the cost of covering the channel, this would be infeasible because due to the type of soil in the area it is neces- sary to clean the channel from time to time and this would be very difficult if it were covered. Mr. Phillips expressed concurrence with the conditions recommended, with the provision for some discretion in the selection of material for the wall ad- jacent to Palomar Street. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the Precise Plan for development of 2.5 acres at the southeast corner of Palomar Avenue and Second Street as submitted by Saburo Muraoka, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report as amended with regard to the 6 ft. wall. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amending Resolution PCM-73-25 relatinU to room additions and patio covers in Planned Unit Developments Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that the resolution adopted in 1973 established standards for room additions and patio covers in certain Planned Unit Developments which were named in the resolution. These included E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 2 which, with the exception of 8 units, has been resubdivided for development of single family Rots. Also, since adoption of the resolution, plans for Bonita Terrace West have been approved and the developer has asked that the standards established in the resolution be applied to that project. It is therefore recommended that E1 Rancho del Rey Unit #2 be deleted from the resolu- tion and that Encore Bonita Estates Single Family Attached Units and Bonita Terrace West (PUD-74-2) be added to the list of developments covered by the resolution. MSUC (Floto-Starr) Resolution PCM-73-25 be amended as recommended by the staff. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to Precise Plan procedures Director of Planning Peterson reported that this amendment started out several months ago as a simple housekeeping type of amendment to clarify the definitions of "precise plan" and "site plan." Through input from the Commission and from the City Attorney's office the amendment has become more explicit; it now indicates the conditions under which the "P" Modifying District can be applied and describes the plans that are required to be submitted. The amendment also indicates the extent to which the "P" Modifying District can modify the under- lying zone and includes the procedure for processing phased plans or sequential plans for a large property. Commissioner Smith questioned the meaning of the lengthy memorandum from the City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that the memo asserts that the basic con~ cept of this amendment is valid under the planning law and can be legally defended; however, it has the potential for illegal application and must be applied with some discretion. -6- May 28, 1975 The Commission discussed at some length the meaning of the Attorney's memo with -- regard to the extent of the modification of density of the underlying zone which can be afforded by application of the "P" District. Commissioner Smith noted the similarity between the conditions necessary for the application of the "P" District and those required for approval of a Planned Unit Development. He asked for the distinction between the two. Mr. Peterson advised that the PUD is usually applied to a larger property than the "P" District would be applied to, and also under the PUD Modifying District there is an opportunity for a density bonus, which is not possible under the District. Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing open, but as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti objected to the change enacted by this amendment which provides that the Planning Commission shall act in an advisory capacity with approval or denial delegated to the City Council. Mr. Peterson reported that he understands this concern but he is aware that Council is going to want to see a development plan whenever they consider a rezoning to the "P" Modifying District. He cited as an example, the rezoning and plan under items 2 and 3 of tonight's agenda. Commissioner Smith objected to condition 4 listed under "Application of the 'P' Modifying District," which provides that the "p" District may be applied to two or more properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, onsite circulation, site planning, building design and identification is neces- sary to enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare. He contended that this amounts to eminent domain without court proceedings. Mr. Peterson indicated that this condition would probably not be used often, but pointed out there are instances where public safety requires limiting the number of access points to a public street and this might necessitate the coordination of development plans for two properties to be served by joint access. He asserted this does not border on eminent domain. Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that 'each amendment to the Zoning Ordinance tends to make it more complex; he noted the various types of modifica- tions, such as variance, conditional use permit, planned unit development, "D" District, and now the "P" District, which all serve the purpose of deviating from the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peterson acknowledged that amending one section of the ordinance may affect other sections and attempting to bring all sections into agreement really becomes "a ball of string." He pointed out that this amendment does not add the Precise Plan Modifying District, since it already exists, but serves to clarify the application of that District. He indicated the aim of the department to eliminate the "D" Modifying District in future months, but that will require the rezoning of all properties which have that designation. Mr. Peterson also pointed out that application of the "P" Modifying District is usually considered in connection with a rezoning application for a more intense -7- May 28, 1975 use on a particular property, which can warrant the need for certain restric- tions. He affirmed that the "P" District can be applied to the commercial and industrial zones as well as to the residential zones. Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that there is a need for simplification and clarification, in order that the private citizen is not required to spend large amounts of money on professionals and specialists in order to submit a proposal for consideration by the City. MSC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on case number IS-75-1 and the findings therein that the proposed zoning text amendment to the Precise Plan Modifying District will not have any possible significant impact on the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA 1970, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti, Chandler, Floto and Start NOES: Commissioner Smi th ABSENT: Commissioner Rice MSC (Rudolph-Floto) Adopt Resolution PCZ-74-3 recommending to the City Council ,~qamendment of zoning ordinance provisions relating to the "P" Precise Plan ~Modifying District and the procedures for Precise Plan approval in accordance Exhibit "A" included in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AY~: Commissioners Rudolph, Floto, Starr, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ~NT: Commissioner Rice 6. Status report on shopping center parkin~ lot at Hilltop and Napleq Chairman Chandler acknowledged the written report in response to a request made by Commissioner Rice at a previous meeting. MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) Direct the staff to inform the owners of the Hilltop and Naples Shopping Center that the Commission expects the permanent repair work needed on the parking lot to be completed no later than July 31, 1975. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson indicated he had no report to submit at this meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Pressutti advised that he will be on vacation from June 25 through July 27, 1975 and requested that his absence from Commission meetings during that period be excused. -8- May 28, 1975 Commissioner Rudolph suggested that since the referendum vote on Plaza del Rey resulted in defeat of the proposed plan for a shopping center at 1-805 and H Street, the best plan would be for the South Bay cities and the County to get together and head a task force to determine the need for shopping facilities in the South Bay area, what would be the best location, whether it should be all in one place, or whether the present shopping centers should be enlarged, and that perhaps a tax sharing plan could be discussed. Mr. Peterson advised that the Council had appointed Councilman Hyde as a com- mittee of one to discuss this with National City, but apparently nothing came of his efforts. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission recommends to the City Council the formation of a task force composed of representatives of all South Bay cities, San Diego County and CPO to make a study of the need for regional shopping facilities in the South Bay area and make recommendations for meeting that need on a regional basis. Commissioner Rudolph recommended to the Commissioners the reading of "The Zoning Game," by Richard Babcock, which is available in the City Library and is shelved under the number 711.51. She also recommended the book on "Garden Cities," which she borrowed from the Senior Planner. Commissioner Rudolph also recommended that consideration be given to scheduling a field trip on a Saturday to cover the various R-3 areas of the City with a viev~ of determining development problems. Mr. Peterson reported that at the Council meeting last night, the City Council endorsed the Planning Commission recommendation that no change be made which would permit communal households to be located in the R-1 zone. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9;25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary