Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/09/27MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING - OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 27, 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, Pressutti, Starr, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Engineer Harshman, 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 (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of September 13, 1976 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No oral communications were offered. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Chandler advised that the consent calendar items would be approved by one motion without discussion unless a request for such discussion was made prior to action by the Commission. 1. Consideration of final EIR-76-5 for Brentwood Arms Apartments 2. Consideration of request for vacation of Industrial Boulevard between "L" and "K" Streets, PCM-76-19 - Gerald N. Baker 3. Consideration of formation of Open Space District No. 7 in Zenith Subdivision Commissioner Smith requested that item No. 2 be removed from the consent calendar to allow discussion prior to Commission action. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) Items 1 and 3 on the agenda be approved in accordance with the recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Smith pointed out that in the event of vacation of public right-of-way, depending on the form of dedication for public use, the vacated land may become City owned property or may revert to the adjacent land owner. He felt the report did not make clear what type of ownership the City has on this land. Current Planning Supervisor Lee expressed the opinion this land would revert to the owner of the adjacent property to the west. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that it would depend on how the land was acquired; if it was held in fee by the City, the City would be obliged to dispose of it as they would any excess property. He indicated it would require a title report to determine the legal disposition of the property. -2- September 27, 1976 Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion that the main issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not this right of way is needed for public street purposes, now or in the future, and if it is not and vacation approved, then dis- position of the property is handled by law based on the previous dedication instruments. Commissioner Smith felt that since this right of way consists of 30,000 or 40,000 sq. ft. of land, it is a matter of some importance as to whether the adjacent owner to the west is entitled to the land without paying for it. MSUC (Smith-R.Johnson) Consideration of the vacation of Industrial Boulevard be continued to the meeting of October 25, 1976 in order that a title report may be obtained. REGULAR CALENDAR 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): PCZ-76-B - Rezonin~ property at 720, 740, 751 Dora Lane from R-l-H to C-O-P - Community Hospital of Chula Vista Director of Planning Peterson reported that the development plans for this property were not received in time for staff evaluation and report to the Commission. It is recommended that the hearing be continued to the meeting of October 4, 1976. Chairman Chandler noted that a similar continuance would be necessary for agenda item 5. MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) The public hearings for consideration of rezoning the property at 720, 740, 751 Dora Lane and a precise plan for convalescent hospital, medical offices and related facilities on the property be continued to the meeting of October 4, 1976. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-7 - Construction of apartment complex (Brentwood Arms) in Flood Plain at the end of Edgemere Avenue - V & V Development Company Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the conditional use permit is required for this 106 unit apartment complex due to the fact that the northwest corner of the 3~ acre site lies within the flood plain zone. Construction of Route 54 freeway and the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel is not assured at this time and therefore approval of the proposed project must be based on existing conditions. Approval of the request must be based on meeting conditions necessary for flood plain construction and not the actual plan, which is in compliance with the underlying zoning of the property. Mr. Lee reviewed the four conditions recommended in approval of the project for construction in the flood plain. Chairman Chandler reopened the continued public hearing. Walter Schwerin, representing the applicant, advised that a larger portion of their property , than would normally be expected, lies in the Flood Plain due to fill placed by the Highway Department for Route 54 in anticipation of the flood control channel being installed. In normal conditions water would not flow over the property but in time of high flood it could be inundated in a swirling pool condition.~ -3- September 27, 1976 The fill to be placed on the apartment site is for a safety precaution and .that fill would not alter or create a more dangerous condition for any other property than presently exists. Dean Dunphy, president of Dunphy Construction Company and owner of the industrial park to the west of the subject property, reported that discussion of this project during consideration of the EIR revealed that all of the drainage from the proposed project will flow from the northwest corner of the site onto the industrial park site. He questioned whether the property owner has an easement to carry the water to the natural inlet for drainage from this area. In response to Mr. Dunphy's concern, Senior Engineer Harshman, confirmed that prior to issuance of a grading permit the Engineering Division reviews the plans to verify that the grading will not create downstream problems or divert in a manner harmful to downstream properties. At this time detailed plans have not been submitted which provide information related to the drainage. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, indicated his desire to discuss the merits of the proposed plan and the suitability of the density. It was again pointed out that the development plans are in conformance with the regulations of the R-3 zone and the conditional use permit relates only to the location of a portion of the property within the flood plain. It was noted that the only way consideration could be given to limiting the density of development would be through a rezoning of the property. Carol Smith, 275 Seavale, urged the Commission not to approve any building in the flood plain. She asked that further time for study of the appropriateness of the zoning be afforded through a denial of this request. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, the Commission approved conditional use permit PCC-76-7 for construction in the flood plain area to the west of Edgemere Avenue, subject to the four conditions enumerated in the staff report. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed concern about the R-3 zoning and asked that a study be initiated to consider the appropriateness of the zoning. Commissioner Pressutti voiced the opinion that a directive for such study should come from the City Council and that a request could be initiated through the Council by an interested citizen. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-17 - Request to add 100 sq. ft. of sign area to shopping center pole sign at 475 "H" Street - California Properties, Inc. Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the rendering on display of the proposed sign for Chula Vista Plaza to replace the existing 47 ft. high, 200 sq. ft. Home Fair sign and to add directory signs for 8 tenants, thus increasing the total sign area to 300 sq. ft. The existing sign was approved by variance in March, 1971 and under the City's first comprehensive sign ordinance, adopted in December, 1971, that sign was in conformance with the height and size limitations for the C-C zone. The ordinance was later modified to establish a maximum height for free- standing signs at 35 feet and maximum area, 150 sq. ft. The ordinance also provided that in the event of a change of land use, any nonconforming sign would be required -4- September 27, 1976 to be modified to conform with the sign regulations. The land use at this site was changed from a discount department store to a furniture store, and the major portion of the building has since been vacant for ~he last few years. A proposal to use the rear portion of the building for a roller skating rink was recently approved by the Commission. The request now under consideration is for a change of name on the main part of the sign and the addition of directory signs for 8 tenants of the site. The ordinance permits an identification sign for the center, plus 4 tenants. Mr. Lee pointed out that the granting of a variance, as applied for in this case, requires findings of fact relating to a hardship on the property. The staff feels that no hardship exists in this instance since the property has large frontage on both "H" Street and Fifth Avenue. The property is deve~oped with smaller buildings nearer to the street frontage, which partially obscure the main building. The existing freestanding sign is located 100 feet from "H" Street and the staff is of the opinion that if it were located closer to "FI" Street it could be lowered to meet the ordinance restrictions and still be visible. While denial of this request has been recommended, the applicant has been advised of ordinance provision for a planned sign program which would allow for some variation in the normal restrictions. If there are unique problems at a site, it is recommended that a planned sign program be pursued. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Magot, owner of the Chula Vista Farrell's ice cream parlour, and acting as the agent for California Properties, spoke in support of the variance request. He pointed out the advantage to both the City and the property owner to improve this property and have it fully occupied. He advised that the cost of removing and duplicating the existing sign would be approximately $20,000. He submitted that lowering the sign to the same height as the Clancy's sign and the bank sign would add to visual clutter of the site. He also stressed the need for tenant signs to meet the problem of identification for the businesses located in the main building. Fran Burger, Pacific Sign Company, pointed out that when the existing sign was approved it was set back from the street to compensate for the height. He also contended the size of the sign is in good proportion to the height and would be too large if it were lowered to 35 feet. Jerry Woollets, operator of Fiesta Twin Cinema at this center, voiced the need for additional sign exposure and requested that approval be given for 8 tenant signs on the freestanding identification sign. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Lee discussed the allowance for wall signs in addition to the freestanding sign; also the availability of the planned sign program provisions which would not require a variance. Mr. Lee also noted that the 100 sq. ft. tenant sign would not be visable to east bound traffic until a vehicle was well past the U.C.B. Bank. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed the opinion that the application should be approved. -5- September 27, 1976 Commissioner Pressutti felt the findings in support of a variance could not be made. MS (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission denies variance application PCV-76-17 for increased sign area on the pole sign at 475 "H" Street. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Starr and Chandler NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson and Smith ABSENT: None Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within ten days. 8. Report to City Council on consideration of rezoning PCZ-76-I, property at westerly terminus of Seavale, north of Third Avenue Extension, from R-3 to R-1 Director of Planning Peterson reported that following the Commission recommendation against this city initiated rezoning of property, it was appealed to the City Council by a resident who was not the owner of the property. He pointed out that this area was the third in a series of rezonings dealing with areas zoned R-3 and developed with single family homes. On August 9th the Council granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of rezoning to R-1 as required by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Peterson reiterated the previous staff recommendation to rezone the property from R-3 to R-l, pointing out that the difference in elevation between this site and the commercial zoning to the south serves as an effective buffer between the two zones. Commissioner Starr advised that he had voted against the rezoning previously because, based on the topography of the property, he did not feel that enough multiple family units could be built there that would have an effect on the adjoining R-1 neighborhood. Carol Smith, who filed the appeal, reported that Mrs. Davis, owner of the larger parcel, had indicated at the Council hearing that she did not especially want the R-1 zoning and thatherheirs might be interested in building two or three additional homes on ~he site. Mr. Peterson confirmed that Mrs. Davis had expressed a desire to retain the R-3 zoning, but then qualified it by saying it may be the wish of her heirs to build additional single family homes; the staff addressed this matter in a letter to Mrs. Davis explaining how under the group dwelling provision of the code additional homes could be built on the site. MS (Smith-Starr) The Commission reaffirms their previous recommendation that the zoning not be changed and the property remain R-3. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Starr and Chandler NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Pressutti *See insert back of this page *MS (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the zoning be changed to R-1. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Co~issioners Pressutti, G. Johnson and R. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Smith, Starr and Chandler Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that the owners of the property should petition for the zone they want. -6- September 27, 1976 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment PCA-76-8 - Utilization of commercial · coaches as temporary building space in Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that at the present time the ordinance allows the use of coaches in commercial and industrial zones on a permanent basis for up to 25% of the floor area of a facility. There is a demonstrated need to provide for the temporary use of trailers in connection with other kinds of uses, such as classroom space for churches, which in the past have been processed under the variance provisions of the ordinance. Since that procedure requires the finding of a hardship related to the property, it is felt the conditional use permit procedure to allow the review of each use and assessment of necessary conditions. The proposed amendment would allow such temporary use for one year with an extension for one year if necessary. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wi~shed to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the findings in the Negative Declaration on IS-76-48, the proposed zoning text amendment will not have any significant impact upon the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of an amendment to Sections 19.54.020 and 19.58.330 relating to the temporary use of trailers, as stated in the report to the Commission. 10. Consideration of request for waiver of public improvements on property at 3956 Otay Lakes Road - Carl and Lillian Berg Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that one of the conditions in the approval of a conditional use permit for a feed store and hay sales facility was the installation of public improvements as required by ordinance. Mr. Berg has requested a waiver of those requirements, contending that the cost of those improvements, estimated at $70,000 is a disproportionate share for this property, which is shallow with large frontage on Otay Lakes Road. It is the staff's position that the findings which are required to be made for approval of a waiver cannot be supported in this instance, therefore, denial of the request is recommended. Senior Engineer Harshman pointed out that Otay Lakes Road is the sole public access to this property and development of the property must necessarily be accompanied by development of adequate safe access. He reported that the existing improvements in Otay Lakes Road have been installed primarily through public funding, including a fairly recent widening of that road to improve the safety. He pointed out that the greatest impact on traffic of the proposed development would be the turning movements to enter or leave the site. It is felt that additional width of street will be required to accommodate such movements on an already heavily travelled street. Mr. Harshman noted that there is a proposal for commercial development directly north of this site and he feels there is a distinct likelihood that this site will be put to a more intense use in the future which would generate an even larger traffic load. He contended that the existing improvements in the roadway are inadequate for safe and proper access to this site, since there is no shoulder for emergency -7- September 27, 1976 or customer parking, there is insufficient room for turning movements or the maneuvering of vehicles to pass an automobile waiting to turn into the site, or for vehicles leaving the site to safely enter the stream of traffic. Mr. Harshman advised that the requirement for installing public improvements has been imposed upon countless properties. It is difficult to ascertain the benefit which a property gains from public improvements, but it is definitely beneficial to have safe and adequate access to the site. Mr. Harshman discussed each of the five findings required for approval of a waiver pointing out the conditions which do not support a waiver. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Harshman enumerated the items and estimated cost of each which make up the $70,000 total. Carl Berg, applicant, advised that it would be a real hardship to be required to install that amount of public improvements in connection with the construction of a feed store. He expressed a willingness to dedicate 20 feet along the front of the property for the required street and drainage improvements, but not to install the improvements. A question was raised as to whether Glen Abbey Road which provides access to this property is a public street. The Commission also discussed the percentage of the applicant's property which will be developed with the feed store and hay shelter; this would include about 25 or 30 percent of the total frontage. Assistant City Attorney Beam suggested that the Commission may wish to consider deferring the public improvements for the portion of the property not proposed for development and determine the reasonable improvements to be required in connection with this development. Commissioner R. Johnson moved that the improvements be put in on the portion of the property that is used and that a deferral be granted on the remainder of the property. Assistant City Attorney Beam recommended that the motion include a statement that the deferral be subject to the length of time and terms found acceptable to the Engineering Department and the Attorney's Office so that applicant can be properly bonded for it. Senior Engineer Harshman suggested that rather than limiting the improvements to the frontage to be improved at this time, that a little flexibility be allowed to provide for adqquate left turn and right turn movements and acceleration lanes. Commissioner R. Johnson expressed agreement with such an amendment to the motion. Mr. Berg advised that he could not accept a deferral, but must have a waiver of the requirement for public improvements or he will not develop that property and will locate the feed store at another site. Commissioner R. Johnson withdrew his original motion and moved that the request for waiver be denied. Commissioner G. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: -8- Septmeber 27, 1976 AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti and Starr NOES: Commissioner Smith Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of his right to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reminded the Commission of the regular business meeting to be held on October 4th, due to the legal holiday which falls on October llth, the normally scheduled meeting date. Mr. Peterson also reported that Commissioner Robert Floto has submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission to the City Council due to added responsibilities he has assumed on behalf of his church. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Starr requested that a study session review the types of applications and the responsibility of the Planning Commission on the various requests. He pointed out the frustration of holding a hearing and receiving lengthy testimony on an item and then having the Council hear the whole thing again when the Commission's recommendation has been made. He asked the extent of the report made to the Council concerning Commission recommendations. Commission Smith requested that a detailed study, by quarter sections, be made of the entire City to determine the appropriateness of the zoning and the compatibility with the General Plan. He pointed out recent instances wherein rezoning of property was considered following submission of development plans. It was pointed out that amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map are limited to two or three times a year. The next amendments to be considered are scheduled for hearing on October 18, 1976 at which time a number of areas will be considered. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,