Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/11/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 8, 1976 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, Smith, Starr,.Pressutti, R. Johnson, and G. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt and Secretary Mapes. A pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MS (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The minutes of the meetings of October 18, 1976 and October 25, 1976 be approved as written. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSTAIN: Commissioner Starr Commissioner Starr abstained due to his absence from both meetings. Commissioner Smith advised that he voted against the motion because he felt that a number of comments were left out of the minutes of the October 18 meeting. He suggested that the minutes be amended to include the following comments: With regard to the Town Centre Redevelopment Manual, Commissioner Smith asked how long it would take to rewrite the manual in a clear, concise language, and Chairman Chandler had commented that.he thought it was well done. With regard to the designation of Highway 125 on the General Plan, Commissioner Smith had commented that it was out in the back country and hardly pertinent to this jurisdiction; he had also asked how many juris- dictions were making plans for this specific area and the answer indicated that three were--the County, C.P.O. and the City of Chula Vista. Commissioner Smith had commented that the area on Halecrest Drive, which covered three lots which were developed with single family lots, was being changed on the General Plan but this was the recordation of history rather than a plan. None of the foregoing comments were included in the minutes of the meeting. Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the minutes are a summarization of comments made at the meeting, rather than a transcript of all comments and that the only legal obligation in the minutes is a statement of the motions. He noted that the minutes are more detailed than that in an effort to express the sense of the Commission, but he felt that including every comment made would be burdensome. Commissioner Smith moved that the ~omments which he had related be included in the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Pressutti, Chandler, G. Johnson NOES: Commissioner R. Johnson ABSTAIN: Commissioner Starr -2- -- November 8, 1976 Commissioner R. Johnson advised that he had voted no because he concurs that the minutes are not expected to be a transcript. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. (Cont.) Vacation of Industrial Boulevard between "K" and "L" Streets - Gerald N. Baker Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this item was continued from an earlier meeting to secure a title report to clarify the disposition of the property to be vacated. The Assistant Director of Public Works has indicated that such disposition can be determined judicially. As pointed out in the report, this unused right of way lies between I-L-P zoned property and the railroad right of way. Existing streets provide adequate traffic circulation and this right of way is no longer needed for street purposes, and it is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Counicl that it be vacated, and thus returned to the tax rolls. Commissioner Smith felt that the report still does not make it clear who the property would revert to, if vacated by the City. He pointed out that this comprises almost two acres of property and he could see no reason for vacating the property without determining who would get the property and whether or not the City should be paid for the land so transferred to private ownership. It was pointed out that the Commission action takes the form of a recommendation to Council and Council would surely consider that point. The main function of the Commission on this kind of item is to determine whether or not the right of way is required for existing or future street purposes. MSUC Smith-G. Johnson) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the vacation of this portion of Industrial Boulevard, and the Council be requested to investigate the ownership and determine if any compensation is due to the City for this vacation. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-10 for East Orange Plaza Phase II Director of Planning Peterson advised that this is a focused E.I.R. on the project in that it investigates a limited number of potential problems rather than every aspect of the project. The project includes the rezoning of approximately 7.5 acres from R-1 to R-3-P-17 on the north side of East Orange Avenue between the shopping center and a new apartment complex to the west. The E.I.R. also covers the development proposal for a 60 unit apartment complex to be located on the north half of the property. The three main concerns covered by the E.I.R. include the condition of the soil and possible existence of an earthquake fault; the noise from traffic on Orange Avenue; and third, the access to the property which will not be from Orange Avenue, but from a driveway on the existing multiple family develop- ment to the west and also via a joint use driveway serving the shopping center. The report included precautions to be taken with regard to the soil condition, mitigating measures with regard to noise, and the conclusion that the available access would be adequate to serve the proposed development. Mr. Peterson recommended that the public hearing be opened, and if testimony requiring response is offered, close the hearing and schedule a date for consideration of the -3- November 8, 1976 final E.I.R. If no testimony requiring response is offered, the report may be adopted with the inclusion of the revisions as stated in section E of the staff report on this item. The Chairman opened the public hearing, and as no one wished to speak, the hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The commission adopts the draft E.I.R. with the inclusion of the revisions contained in Section E of the staff report as the City's final Environmental Impact Report on the proposed rezoning and the development of East Orange Plaza Phase II. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ PCZ-76-M (East Orange Plaza) 7.45 acres north of East Orange Avenue, west of Melrose, from R-1 to R-3-P-17 - Celia Seli~son Director of Planning Peterson noted the recommendation that the public hearing in consideration of the rezoning be continued to November 22 in order that it may be heard at the same time as the precise plan for development of a portion of the property is considered. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. MSUC (Pressutti - G. Johnson) The public hearing in consideration of rezoning PCZ-76-M be continued to the meeting of November 22, 1976. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-20 - Request to expand church facilities at 267 East Oxford - Concordia Lutheran Church Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this church and school facility was originally approved in 1961. At this time approval is requested for an expansion program in two phases; the first phase to include the construction of a shower/locke~ room approximately 1,000 sq. ft. in area. The major expansion will occur in phase II and would include an increase in the seating capacity of the sanctuary from 223 seats to 323, construction of additional office and classroom facilities to permit an increase in the student enrollment to approximately double the existing 95 students. Mr. Lee pointed out the limited amount of parking in the front of the site which presently serves this facility with space for about 50 cars in unmarked parking spaces; this portion of the site is used as a play area during school hours. The rear half of the property is primarily in turf and used for play fields. The architecture of the proposed additions will match the existing buildings, using a composition roof with gravel surface, cement plaster walls, and vertical redwood siding on the sanctuary. Although most of the open area is now planted with lawn, some upgrading of the landscaping would be required, including landscaping the front area to screen the parking, along with a 3½ foot wall or earth mounding and the planting of trees around the property boundaries. Mr. Lee acknowledged the receipt of a letter of complaint, copies of which were sent to the Commission, with regard to annoyances to a resident adjacent to the school, which requested that a fence or landscaping barrier be installed on the church property. -4- November 8, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Reynolds, 128 Sierra Way, building committee chairman for the church, expressed concurrence with the conditions as recommended with the exception that they would like to have an alternative of screening the front parking area with earth mounding and landscaping in place of the strict requirement for a 3½ ft. high wall. In response to a question raised by Commissioner G. Johnson concerning the need for a solid wall around the rear portion of the site, Mr. Reynolds expressed the opinion that the topography of the site affords adequate separation from adjacent yards and that installing a fence all around the property would add considerable expense. He felt that landscape screening would be more effective, and they would not object to installing such landscaping but would not like to be inhibited in the use of the athletic field. Marise Corbin, 320 Nocturne Court, discussed the problems mentioned in the letter referred to, concerning rocks and dirt clods being thrown into her swimming pool. She indicated that her direct contacts with representatives of the church have not resulted in a solution to the problem caused by the school children. She felt that increasing the enrollment would increase the problem and that either land- scape screening or a fence should be installed before any construction is commenced. Elizabeth Polkinghorne, 310 Nocturne Court, related problems of clods being thrown into the pool, and in a recent instance, of a football coming into the yard. She felt it is the church's responsibility to provide the necessary fence or landscaping barrier. Mrs. Zoch, 315 Nocturne Court, reported that at the time they purchased their home they were told the school would put up a fence. This was not done so they constructed their own fence, which did not meet the need, and they were required to construct a second fence at the top of the slope. Kenneth Martin of 1466 Nolan Court, representing the church, expressed the opinion that the difference in elevation restricts the visibility to most of the pools adjacent to the school. He indicated they moved the location of their softball field to lessen the likelihood of balls going over the fences. He contended it would take an extremely high fence to completely hide the view of adjacent residences. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Martin affirmed that the athletic grounds are used after school hours on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that churches are going into educational services and community center activities so that they are beingused more than just Sunday morning services, and since they are often located in residential areas she felt extra care should be taken to alleviate conflicts. She recommended fencing the entire boundary of the school and replacing the existing chainlink fence with a solid fence. Commissioner Pressutti noted that to be effective a fence would have to be placed at the top of the slope and this would leave an area between the two fences that would be difficult to maintain. Mr. Lee pointed out that no enrollment increase would be anticipated in connection with the Phase I development, which is only for a shower and locker room. He further pointed out that no complaints have been received from residents adjacent to the -5- November 8, 1976 north end of the property so it is assumed there is no problem in that area and requiring a solid fence on that property line might be an unnecessary expense. With regard to the properties on the east, he felt more effective screening could be obtained with landscaping than with a fence placed on the property line. He suggested that the Commission might require that the area on the east side be landscaped to provide protective measures for the home owners to the east subject to approval by the staff. MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-52 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and certifies the Negative Declaration. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson that conditional use permit PCC-76-20 be approved, subject to the conditions suggested in the staff report and with the added condition that a fence be installed on the edge of the property including replacement of the chainlink fence at the northern boundary with a solid fence, 6 ft. in height. The motion died for lack of a second. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, conditional use permit PCC-76-20 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the report and the added condition that the applicant shall provide landscaping and/or fencing to protect the private property on the east side of the development to the satisfaction of the staff, s~d protection to be provided in connection with Phase I of the development. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler, Smith and Starr NOES: Commissioner G. Johnson ABSENT: None 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-21 - Request to operate motorcycle sales and repair and used car lot in C-T zone at 366 Broadwas - June Jensen Director of Planning Peterson reported that Holiday Honda has been operating at Broadway and Davidson for a number of years. Their business is outgrowing that site and they have filed this application on the site being vacated by Yoshi's Nursery. The site is just over one acre in area and it is proposed to construct a 9400 sq. ft. building for the motorcycle showroom sales, parts and service. Since the site is larger than is required for this operation, it is proposed to operate a used car lot on the northern portion of the property. Mr. Peterson pointed out the wide variety of commercial uses on Broadway and expressed the opinion that this use is an acceptable one in this area and recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions enumerated in the report. He acknowledged receipt of a letter from Gerald Fick, owner of the mobile home park adjacent to the west, which expressed support but requested modification of two of the conditions. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Cushman of Grubb and Ellis Real Estate Company, representing the buyer, noted ~- -6 November 8, 1976 that the applicant has been in business in this community for over l0 years and a survey of neighboring businesses and residents indicates there have been no -- complaints. He advised that this development will have a modern and attractive architectural appeal and be an asset to this area. June Jensen, owner of Holiday Honda, advised that testing is not done on the site, since a motorcycle must be ridden on the street to properly test it. She concurred with the conditions recommended by the staff. Gerald Fick discussed his letter and the proposed added conditions. He noted that conditions recommended by the staff encouraging, minimizing noise on the site, but felt it should be definitely spelled out that "there shall be no test driving, operating and/or riding of vehicles on this property." Russell Moore, 1065 Jefferson Street, spoke in favor of the proposed motorcycle expansion and urged approval of the request. Gayle Fick, resident of the adjacent trailer park, expressed support for the motorcycle facility. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings stated in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-95 this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the Negative Declaration. MS (Starr-R. Johnson) The Commission approved conditional use permit PCC-76-21 based on the findings as stated in the staff report, and subject to the conditions recommended in the report. MS (Pressutti-Smith) The motion be amended to include an additional condition that, "there shall be no test driving of motorcycles on the property." The motion for amendment carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Smith, G. Johnson, Chandler and Starr NOES: Commissioner R. Johnson The motion, as amended for approval of conditional use permit PCC-76-21 carried unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan, PCM-76-21, for 34 condominium units at 75-81 Third Avenue - B. I. Gentry Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that this 3½ acre site was rezoned earlier this year from 17 units to the acre to 12 units to the acres. This proposal for the construction of 34 units is closer to lO units to the acre. He discussed the site plan, which contains 15 separate buildings, served by a loop driveway. Each unit will have a 2-car garage and 26 additional parking spaces are provided on the site in bays; parking in front of garages or in the driveway will be prohibited. Each unit has adequate private open space and the common open space is distributed throughout the site in small areas. Mr. Lee called attention to the findings in support of approval and to the 18 condi- tions recommended. Commissioner Smith noted that condition 6 refers to access rights for vehicular travel or maintanance. He asked if this driveway is to be maintained by the City. -7- November 8, 1976 Mr. Lee advised the driveway is to be privately maintained and it would be proper to delete the works, "or maintenance" from that condition. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Howard Paine, 54 Del Mar, resident of the property adjacent to the west, noted that the Commission may, by ordinance, require a zoning fence along the northern boundary of the property. Mr. Lee advised that such a fence was shown on the plans as submitted and is required to separate R-3 and R-1 land use. Bob Nelson, 65 Third Avenue, suggested that the narrow strip of property leading from the east end of the property to Chula Vista Street be used for pedestrian or bicycle access. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner G. Johnson asked the staff to comment on the last suggestion. Mr. Lee pointed out that due to the difference in elevation, providing pedestrian access at that point would require the installation of steps. Such access would seriously detract from the privacy of the residents of the building at that corner of the site. He also felt this might encourage pedestrian traffic from outside the development to cut through the property and suggested that the developer's reaction be obtained. Mr. B. I. Gentry advised that he would prefer not in install steps, or provide access at that point. He expressed concurrence with the City Engineer's request that the narrow strip be fenced off from the development. MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for 34 condominium units at 75-81 Third Avenue, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with the deletion of the words "or maintenance" from condition 6. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning PCZ-76-J - 18.5 acres on the north and south sides of Park Way between Fourth and Fifth Avenues from R-3 to R-1 and R-3-L - City initiated Director of Planning Peterson noted that this is the fourth area to be considered by the Commission as a result of the neighborhoods-in-transition study which dealt with properties zoned R-3 but developed detached single family homes. Some of those areas have experienced small apartment development, or the addition of a unit on a lot with a single family home. The Council expressed concern over this type of development and directed that consideration be given to rezoning the areas to R-1. He reported that a study of this area reveals that is seems divided into two subareas inasmuch as the portion nearest to Fourth Avenue is quite far along in transition to multiple family use. For that reason it is recommended that it be rezoned to R-3-L to allow 14.4 units per acre, rather than the high density of 32 units per - acre as permitted by the current zoning. The ~emainder of the property has experienced fewer multiple family incursions and it is recommended that it be rezoned to R-1. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -8- November 8, 1976 Gerald L. Bendickson, attorney representing Nora E. Beasley owner of the property designated at 424-434 Park Way, objected to the inclusion of this property in the proposed rezoning. He pointed out the location of the property, which is included in the area proposed for rezoning to R-l, and advised that it is presently developed with four units, and plans have been prepared for two additional units at the rear of the property as well as a unit over each garage. If zoned R-3-L this property would be permitted only two additional units and to rezone to R-1 would create an extreme hardship on the owner. He asserted that the property is valued at $80,000 to $100,000 and the return from just four units is not adequate for the amount invested. Mrs. Peterson, Peterson Manor Rest Home, 361 Fifth Avenue, asked what effect the proposed rezoning would have on the operation of her facility which has been in effect for over 20 years. Mr. Peterson advised that such use may be allowed by the Planning Commission in the R-3 zone subject to a conditional use permit. It is not an allowed use in the R-1 zone but as a preexisting nonconforming use, it could be continued. Shirley Olson, resident on the cul-de-sac on Hedge Way, asked about the possibility of R-2 zoning. She presently has only a single family house, but contemplates the possible addition of one unit for income purposes at some time in the future. Harold Rader, resident on Park Way since 1947, expressed the opinion that the majority of the people in this district are opposed to this rezoning. Many of them purchased their property when it was originally subdivided. It has been zoned R-3 for some time and many of the people anticipate adding rental units later in their life. He urged that the zoning be left as it is. Gene Achberger, 338 Brightwood Avenue, commented that he thought it was a wonderful idea to change the zoning to R-1 but wondered why the area was not expanded to include the church. He is concerned that the property will be sold and may be developed with apartments which would completely block the light from the single family residences on Brightwood. Arthur Norris, 444 Park Way, asserted that this is not an R-1 area as over 50% of the lots have extra units. Mr. Maldonado, 409 Park Way, indicated the lots on his street are too small to have anything built since they are 50 feet deep and range from 35 feet to 50 feet in width. Paulina Foley, reported that her house is surrounded by apartments and hers is the only single family lot. Mr. Rogers, 486 Park Way, indicated he would not wish to add an apartment on his lot but he has paid taxes for the past 16 years on an R-3 lot and he would hate to see it changed to R-1. Shirley Olson, 358 Hedge Way, advised that due to the offstreet parking require- ments for apartments, she could add no more than one additional unit to her lot. Wallace Pressley, 351 Fifth Avenue, spoke against changing the zoning to R-1 as he purchased his place in 1960 as an R-3 lot which was a selling factor. Alfred Hlawat$ch, attorney, 905 East 13th St., National City, reported that he was asked by the California First Bank, which manages a portion of the property -9- November 8, 1976 under consideration, to speak for them. He indicated two large parcels adjoining Doctor's Park which the bank manages, and that rezoning the property to R-3-L would interfere with development plans which the owners have. He indicated they have been considering a combination of professional offices and apartments for the entire area between Doctor's Park and Park Way. He asserted that due to the number of properties which at this time would be nonconforming in R-1 zone, no change in zoning should be enacted. He felt instead that a number of the small lots should be consolidated and developed as R-3. Mr. Hlawatsch read a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from Mrs. Esta E. Carter, 368 Fourth Avenue, which indicated her property has been sold to Doctor's Park with the retention of a lifetime lease so that she may remain in her house. She is presently 82 years old and in good health. Mr. Hlawatsch urged that the property at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Park Way not be included in the rezoning and felt that the matter of rezoning the entire area may be in question. Patty Frisinger, 363 Guava, reported that she lives just back of the property the previous speaker talked about and she would not want tall buildings looking over her property, although she would not object to lower buildings similar to those in Doctor's Park. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that this property should not be rezoned to R-1 due to the development which has already occurred. He felt there may be a possibility of lower density than straight R-3 for portions of the area. He pointed out that with the Civic Center and the Third Avenue Redevelopment nearby there will probably be need for additional multiple family development. Since this is the center of the city he felt the R-1 zoning is not appropriate. Commissioners Smith and Starr concurred that the zoning should not be changed to R-1. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) In view of the desires of the residents of the community the Commission recommends that the area under consideration remain in the R-3 zone as it presently exists. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of zoning ordinance amendment PCA-76-9 to permit an increase in the percentage of kitchens allowed in motels in the C-T zone Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that following an earlier report from the Planning Commission concerning an increase in the number of motel units with kitchens, the Council directed that an amendment to the ordinance be submitted for consideration. Under present restrictions only 30% of the units in a motel complex may have kitchens; this restriction was designed to prevent apartment complexes from encroaching into the commercial area under the guise of being a motel. Under recent changes apartments are now allowed in the C-B and C-C districts as a conditional use, but they are not permitted in the C-T zone. The proposed amendment is in response - to a request from developers who wish to construct motels which would cater to patrons wishing to stay for a longer period of time and desire kitchen facilities. As a conditional use, the Planning Commission would consider each proposal for compatibility in a particular location. Under the proposed text of the amendment, such units could not beloca~ed within 200 feet of a thoroughfare street, but could be placed further ~ -10- ~ November 8, 1976 back on the property, It is also recommended that such development adhere to R-3 standards for parking, setback and open space. It is anticipated that there would be very limited use of this provision for constructing units with kitchens. Commissioner Smith questioned the restriction of being 200 feet back from a thorough- fare and of requiring a zoning wall for separation from the commercial use. Mr. Lee explained that it is not deemed advisable to encourage this use on shallower lots along Broadway, but in a few instances there are deeper lots which extend back into the residential area and this use would be compatible in such areas. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mitchell Angus reported that he has had numerous discussions with the Planning Department regarding this revision, based on his experience in building motels in the Chula Vista area. He felt the amendment as proposed would meet the need. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-74 this amendment will have no significant adverse effect on the environment, and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit and regulate R-3 residential uses in the C-T district. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that the study session for November 15 is scheduled for 5:00 p.m., followed by dinner. Included on the agenda will be a slide presentation on multiple family developments and on signs. Commissioner Starr asked that the meeting also include a discussion of the Planning Commission's role with regard to various proposals submitted to the City; i.e., which require a recommendation to the City Council and when does the Planning Commission take the final action. Commissioner G. Johnson asked for a review of parking for medical facilities. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Chandler at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary