Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/09/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 14, 1977 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, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Renneisen and O'Neill. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Senior Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Harron, 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 (R. Johnson-Renneisen) The minutes of the meeting of August 24, 1977 be approved as mailed. Commissioners Pressutti and G. Johnson abstained due to their absence from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. " 1. Consideration of formation of Open Space Maintenance District No. 9 in E1 Rancho del ReS Unit 5 Director of Planning Peterson advised that one of the conditions required in the approval of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit #5 was that there should be created an Open Space Maintenance District to maintain the open space slope areas. The developer of that subdivision has petitioned for the creation of an Open Space Maintenance District with an estimated annual assessment of $63 per year per home. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the estab- lishment of Open Space Maintenance District No. 9. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Peterson explained that the developer is obligated to install any landscaping required in the district and to maintain it for one year. The homeowners then pay an assessment cost on a monthly basis to finance the maintenance after the one year period. MSUC (R. Johnson-Renneisen) The Commission recommends that the City Council estab- lish Open Space Maintenance District in the E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 5 subdivision. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-5 - Request to operate card room at 1055 Third Avenue in C-T zone - Anthony Raso Director of Planning Peterson advised that several months ago the Municipal Code was amended to allow cardrooms in the C-T and C-C zones subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This is the first application under that ordinance. He pointed out that the application involves a 12,000 sq. ft. lot on the east side of Third Avenue about midway between Moss and Naples Street. The property is vacant and it is proposed to construct a building approximately 3,300 sq. ft. in area, with the front portion to be occupied by a cardroom and the rear portion - -2 September 14, 1977 to be devoted to a small cocktail lounge and food service area. He called attention to the floor plan and plot on display. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that this an appropriate land use in this location but added that there is a concern over the adequacy of the offstreet parking. The zoning ordinance has established a formula for the parking required for a cocktail lounge or restaurant at one parking space for each 2½ seats in the establishment; the ordinance, however, gives the Commission the discretion of establishing a suitable formula for parking for a cardroom. After observing the only existing cardroom in the city, the staff felt the same formula should apply as required for a cocktail lounge. As noted in the staff report, the proposed plan is short of the required parking, therefore, one of the recommended conditions of approval requires that the site plan be revised to provide the required number of parking spaces for the proposed uses, based on the formula of one space for each 2½ seats in both uses. Mr. Peterson noted that the applicant has made a point that there.would be some joint use between the cocktail and food service area and the cardroom, and while, under the Code alcoholic beverages cannot be served or consumed within the card- room area, it is common that a cocktail lounge be located close by, as proposed here. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alfredo Araiza, architect for the applicant, suggested that it is important to consider the joint use of the two facilities, as the people going to the cocktail lounge would be the same ones that used the cardroom. He also expressed a pre- ference that the pass-thru for food service be between the kitchen and the cock- tail lounge rather than between the kitchen and the cardroom and that the door between the kitchen and the cardroom be retained. Commissioner Renneisen asked how they would provide the required amount of parking. Mr. Araiza indicated they would reduce the seating in the bar area and would post the allowed occupancy limit. Anthony Raso, owner and applicant, explained that his concept was to have three separate businesses: a kitchen, a bar, and a cardroom. He was aware that there cannot be access from the cardroom to the bar, but planned to have the kitchen take care of the customers in the cardroom and also take care of the customers in the bar who wished food. Mr. Peterson advised that the proposed plan had been discussed with the Police Department who advised that if there is a walk through connection between the bar and the kitchen and also between the kitchen and the cardroom, that is a violation of the City's ordinance. The Police Department has concurred with the use of a pass-through for food only into the cardroom. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner R. Johnson expressed concern on the lack of parking. He felt that either the cardroom or cocktail lounge, under proper management, could be quite successful, and either use could fill the number of parking spaces proposed on the site. Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that directly across Third Avenue from this -3- ~ September 14, 1977 site is a large area of paved parking at the K-Mart store. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out it is not up to the K-Mart store to provide parking for a cardroom. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Peterson affirmed that the Planning Commission may approve offsite parking for an establishment provided the operator of that business demonstrates that he holds a lease or real property interest in the site to be so utilized. MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Nega- tive Declaration on IS-78-14 and the findings stated therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the Negative Decla- ration. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Chairman Chandler, that based upon the findings as stated in the staff report, the Commission approves the request for a cardroom at 1055 Third Avenue subject to the five conditions enu- merated in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Chandler, O'Neill, Renneisen and Smith NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson and G. Johnson ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin§ PCZ-78-D - 2 acres on southwesterly side of Otay Lakes Road, north of H Street, from C-O-P to C-C-P - Don E. Norman and Glenn Ashwill Director of Planning Peterson reported that the application for rezoning covered the two acres on the west side of Otay Lakes Road and the north side of Ridegeback Road. The property to the south of Ridgeback Road is in the process of being developed with apartment units; it is zoned C-C-P. In advertising the public hearing, the Department included 1.18 acres located between the subject property and the SDG&E easement to the north, which is presently zoned R-E. He advised that it is the staff's opinion that there is an excess of retail com- mercial zoning in this area. The 8 acres at the corner of Otay Lakes Road and H Street is zoned P-C and designated on the development plan for a retail shopping center, for which plans were submitted some years ago but the site has not been developed. In addition, the Southwestern College Estates neighborhood shopping center at the corner of Otay Lakes Road and Gotham Street is only a little more than half developed at the present time. He also pointed out that the property which is being developed with apartments is zoned C-C-P. Mr. Peterson noted, however, that the C-C zone does allow office type uses and affords the applicant a broader area from which to seek tenants. All things considered, it is still felt that C-O zoning would be more compatible with the adjacent uses--apartments and a junior high school. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that there appears to be a contradiction between the recommendation for rezoning the 1.18 acres to C-O and the environmental report on the area which resulted in the Negative Declaration. -4- '~' September 14, 1977 Mr. Peterson pointed out that since the C-O use is less intense than the C-C zone considered in the environmental study, there should be less impact than noted in the Initial Study. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Carmen Pasquale, representing Otay Land Company, advised that they are the owner of the 1.18 acre parcel and have no objection to rezoning it to C-O-P. He con- curred that the C-C-P zone has more flexibility in allowable uses and if the Commission desires to approve C-C-P zoning, that would also be acceptable. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-78-15 and the findings stated therein, the rezoning of this report will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report the Commission recommends that the request for rezoning 2 acres from C-O-P to C-C-P be denied, and further recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of 1.18 acres adjacent to the SDG&E easement on the southwest side of Otay Lakes Road from R-E to C-O-P. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): a. PCA-78-1 - Zoning text amendment to create a Design Review Committee b. PCM-78-1 - Resolution to adopt a Design Review Manual Director of Planning Peterson noted that this item was considered in public hear- ing in July, at which time the Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to adopt the amendment. At that time the Commission also asked the staff to investigate methods used by other cities in the area with regard to architectural review. This is discussed in the staff report. The only two cities which use a design review board throughout their corporate limits are Del Mar and Coronado. Certain areas in the City of San Diego are subject to that sort of review; those areas are, basically, La Jolla, Town Center, and Old Town areas. Other methods used by cities throughout the state for conducting a design reivew program, range from assigning such review to the Planning Commission or City Council, to having it done by the Zoning Administrator. The City of Berkeley employs a City Architect who conducts that review. Some cities have a City Beau- tiful Committee. After considering all methods the staff still feels that in the City of Chula Vista a Design Review Committee is the appropriate agency to do this work. That Committee would review multiple family developments in the R-3 zones, and other development in areas where the P Modifying District is established. The Committee would review the site plan as well as the architectural design of the buildings. -5- ~-- September 14, 1977 Mr. Peterson reiterated his feeling that a Design Review Committee would be the most effective means of assuring good development in the R-3 zone, which has been a concern expressed by the City Council. He noted that multiple family develop- ments are quite prominent in the city because of their size and location, and expressed the belief that as the cost of single family homes continues to escalate, more families will be forced into multiple family units and there will be a continued demand for such development. Mr. Peterson recommended adoption of the proposed amendments and also a Design Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Commission G. Johnson questioned whether other cities that have design review boards limit their review to multiple family developments, or include industrial and cormnercial development as well. Mr. Peterson advised that generally such review covers all development except single family homes. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith with reference to the cost of administering this program, Mr. Peterson indicated that with a Design Review Committee he would not see the need for lengthy printed staff reports. The Committee's review would entail oral discussion of the proposed site plans and architectural renderings. At present, developmentsin the P Modifying District must undergo two public hearings--one before the Planning Commission and one before the Council--in order to obtain approval of the plans. Under the proposed procedure such review would be done only by the Design Review Committee unless the decision of that body was appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing. Steve Owens, partner in Owens Araiza Architects, 272 Church Avenue, expressed support of the proposed amendment to create the Design Review Committee and urged the Commission to send a recommendation for approval to the City Council. He felt such review would enhance the design of multiple family dwellings in the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Renneisen as to his reasons for the previous statement, Mr. Owens said he thought the majority of the multiple family structures in Chula Vista are designed by nonprofessional people, such as drafting services, building designers, contractors~, who are not trained in the architectural field. He felt the Committee should not be composed of five architects, but should include an architect, a developer--who would be knowledgeable of cost factors- and other design professionals, such as graphic designers. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti concerning the various connotations of what is good design, Mr. Owens pointed out that an architect must consider the setting of a building and adjacent area in determining the best design. William Edwards, on behalf of the Political Action Committee of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, expressed some reservations over the proposed amendments. He felt an important factor is what it will cost in terms of delays. If, in fact, it eliminates a couple of steps in getting approval, then it would be a good step. If the Planning Commission and City Council are not willing to relinquish the decision making, then this would be an additional step and would delay the process. He suggested there is a question of how much professionalism is needed. -6- -, September 14, 1977 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Chandler asked if the Design Review Committee would be responsible for such things as open space and setbacks. Mr. Peterson advised that these things are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Committee would be expected to adhere to the ordinance regulations pertaining to any type of development. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson as to who reviews the design for single family houses, Mr. Peterson noted that such developments are reviewed by the Planning staff for conformance to ordinance requirements on space, setbacks, and so on, and there is no architectural review in the R-1 zone. Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that house design must be appealing to the potential customers or the homes would not sell. Commissioner O'Neill expressed the opinion that the proposed amendment would add to the proliferation of boards and committees presently operating in the city. He also felt that the principles and standards listed in the Design Manual are very highly subjective, although having a Design Manual is a good idea. He suggested that whatever iboard reviews design should do so for the R-3, industrial, and commercial developments, rather than having separate review bodies for the different zones. He also felt there is enough professional talent on the city staff to handle such review. Commissioner Pressutti asked to what extent this Committee would relieve the staff of work they now perform. Mr. Peterson indicated it will not lessen the work of the staff and may tend to add to it. He pointed out that there is not a professional architect on the staff. Without such personnel the staff does not have the expertise that is required for the review of some fairly complex multiple family proposals. The staff may make suggestions to a developer, but not to the extent that a body of five persons who have some formal training in design and sensitivity to good design. He agreed with Mr. Owens that if nothing else, the Committee would recognize poor design when they see it and would reject it. Right now that is not being done. He felt that it would be easier for a developer to accept the decision of a board or committee than of an individual, especially if the person seeking approval is a registered architect and the staff member is not. Chairman Chandler asked if the Council is looking for a means of getting volunteers on a committee in lieu of hiring a professional architect. Mr. Peterson felt the review of various developments is subjective enough that there needs to be more than one person trained in that field, so a committee would be preferable to just one professional employee. Commissioner Smith pointed out that under principles and standards in the Design Manual, it states that the Design Review Committee may require larger setbacks than specified in the Code. Mr. Peterson felt that standard would not be frequently applied, except in cases having a definite problem that the Committee was trying to address, or within the P Modifying District where the developer had certain flexibility. Mainly, he felt the Committee should adhere to the normal setback requirements unless there was a valid reason for departing from it. -7- ~ September 14, 1977 Commissioner Renneisen complimented Senior Planner Pass on the preparation of both the manual and the amendments which he felt was a scholarly effort. He · agreed with the goals and objectives but had some problems with the method. He commented on the use of quotations from experts in both the manual and the staff report, and read selected quotes from an article entitled "Experts are Never Right": "'War is much too important a business to be left to the generals', according to Clemenceau. He might well have added that the health is too important a business to be left to doctors, law to lawyers, education to teachers, or housing to architects .... Expert advice is indispensible to the democratic process but is not a substitute for that process. What experts lack in insight and balanced common sense, they compensate by intensity of knowledge and devotion in their particular profession .... Expert advice should always be sought, but should not be conclusive on matters of public policy. Expert opinion is an element in the foundation of public policy, but not the public policy itself. There are many experts and technicians whose judgments are indispensible in reaching wise decisions on public policy, but there is only one expert--an educated and articulate citizenry." Mr. Renneisen remarked that he agrees with what is trying to be done, but disagrees with having a board of experts making public policy. He would feel more comfortable wi th a design review committee which acts as an advisory body to the Planning Commission. He reported that if the Commission is prepared tonight to discuss such an approach as that, he is prepared to go through the staff report to discuss changes which would make that possible. He suggested that if the Design Manual is adopted and a Design Review Committee is established, then proposed development plans could come to the Planning Commission with a recommendation from the Design Review Committee upon which the Commission could act. He added that advice from experts--architects, landscape architects, builders, and contractors--would be extremely useful and valuable to the Planning Commission, but he is opposed to having a board comprised of such experts making public policy and firm and final decisions. Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that the City should be looking for less government instead of more. He voiced his opposition to the entire proposal--both the Design Manual and the Design Review Committee. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission recommend that the City Council appeal Section 19.28.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which is entitled "Site Plan and Architectural Review." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and O'Neill ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission recommends that the City Council enact the proposed amendments f~qating to design control in the R-3 zone and P Modifying District, as contained in the staff report, into ordinance. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and O'Neill ABSENT: None -8- ~- September 14, 1977 It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council enact the proposed amend- ments as stated in the staff report, to provide for the creation and operation of the Design Review Committee. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Smith, Renneisen and O'Neill ABSENT: None Co~missioner Renneisen asked that the contents of the Design Manual be further discussed. He pointed out that under paragraph 15 of the glossary of terms, it states, "Texture is a favorite term of land planners, landscape architects and architects." He felt that statement does not have a place in a glossary. He suggested that the paragraph be changed to read, "Texture can be defined as the identifying quality .... "thus eliminating the first sentence of that paragraph. Senior Planner Pass pointed out some minor corrections and changes needed to make the wording consistent throughout the report. Commissioner Pressutti questioned the use of the work "preparators" and asked that it be changed to "preparers". It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista with the corrections as requested by Commissioners Renneisen and Pressutti, and by Senior Planner Pass. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti & O'Neill NOES: Commissioners Renneisen and Smith ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson noted that next Wednesday, September 21st, is the regular date for a study session; also that the business meeting scheduled for the following Wednesday, September 28th, has a very light agenda with no public hearings. He suggested that the Commission postpone the study session to September 28 and devote that regular meeting mainly to the topics scheduled for the study session. The Commission concurred with the change of schedule with the provision that the meeting of September 28 be convened at 5:00 p.m. and adjourned for dinner at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O' ~Neill asked what the relationship would be between the proposed Design Review Committee and the Town Centre Design Review Board and if there might be a conflict between the two. Director of Planning Peterson advised he could see no reason for conflict between the Design Review Committee and the Town Centre Design Review Board. If a separate review committee is set up for the Bayfront redevelopment area that would also be a separate jurisdiction and there would be no overlapping of responsibility. -9- ~'September 14, 1977 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secre~'ary