Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/07/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 27, 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 lresent: Chandler, Smith, Pressutti, Starr, G. Johnson and Renneisen. Absent with previous notification): Commissioner R. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Senior Planner Pass, 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 (Renneisen-Starr) The minutes of the meeting of July 13, 1977 be approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-77-4 - Request for freestandin9 sign on 75 ft. lot frontage, 255 E Street in C-C-P zone - A.O. Reed Director of Planning Peterson reported that this request is for a 24 ft. high freestandiing sign containing 60 sq. ft. of area to identify a plumbing shop. A business is not entitled to a freestanding sign in the C-C zone unless the property has 100 feet of frontage; the subject property contains 75 feet of frontage. If a hardship in providing identification is demonstrated the variance WOuld be justified. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the building is prominent as it is built to the front property line on E Street. The adjacent office to the east is set back about 12 feet and the property to the west is under development with an office building to be set back 75 feet. He noted that this building has 28 sq. ft. wall signs on the front and also on the east and west sides of the building, but that larger wall signs would be allowed under the ordinance. Field observation of this site did not reveal a hardship in identifying the business which would justify granting the request for a freestanding sign, so it is recommended that the application be denied. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson affirmed that if the variance is approved the three wall signs would also be allowed to remain. Commissioner Pressutti observed that a freestanding sign extending up through the aperature over the patio would appear to be in conflict with the existing palm tree . It was suggested that the question of removing or retaining the palm - tree be asked of the applicant during the public hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner Renneisen as to the maximum allowable wall sign area for this building, Mr. Peterson advised that whereas each of the existing wall signs contains 28 sq. ft., the ordinance would permit a 60 sq. ft. -2- July 27, 1977 sign on the west side of the building, 125 sq. ft. on the front, and 100 sq. ft. on the east wall. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Larry Cunningham, 3751 View Verde, Bonita, store manager for A. O. Reed, recounted various instances of customers having difficulty in finding their location even when they had the address. He stressed the economic necessity of having a sign which would apprise the public driving on E Street of the location of their business. He supported this need by a comparison of their volume of business after one year in this location with that of a new store opened in the Kearney Mesa area where a freestanding sign is permitted. In response to Commi~ssioner G. Johnson's question, Mr. Cunningham advised that the existing palm tree would not be removed,~u~ that it would be trimmed to permit exposure of the sign. ~ · ~ Donald Reed, Executive Vice President of A.~. Reed, corroborated Mr. Cunningham's statements concerning the need for the si~n. m~e contended that other freestanding signs in that vicinity draw the motorists attention away from the buildings, thereby creating a need for them to compete for that attention. He also felt that having a sign visible from a farther distance than th~ wall signs would lessen the possibility of traffic conflicts caused by customers slowing suddenly in order to turn into the parking area for their store. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion, various members of the Commission noted that an economic hardship, or the possibility of economic enhancement, is not justification for granting a variance, and that this site does not possess a physical hardship which obscures the visibility of the signs or the building. MS (G. Johnson-Starr) The application for variance for a freestanding sign at 255 E Street is denied based upon the findings stated in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Starr, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: Commissioners Renneisen and Smith ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson The applicant was advised of his right of appeal to the City Council within ten days. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-77-2 - Zoning text amendment to create slidin~ density scale in R-3 and R-3-M Districts Director of Planning Peterson reported that this amendment would adjust the density that is permitted in the R-3 and R-3-M zones. It amounts to a slight downward adjustment in density for those lots smaller that 15,000 sq. ft. These smaller lots frequently encounter site planning problems and quite often are in - neighborhoods that are in the state of transition between single family and multiple family development. The amount of reduction in the density is proportional to the size of the lot and to the number of bedrooms in the units to be constructed since units with more bedrooms generate more residents than those with one bedroom. He called attention to the table which sets forth the -3- July 27, 1977 lot area required per unit as the parcel size decreases. Mr. Peterson advised that the proposed requirements were arrived at after considerable study of existing developments. It is felt that the proposed amendment would permit reasonable and desirable development of the smaller lots and would not affect the development of lots over 15,000 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Peterson mcommended certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact and a recommendation to the Council for adoption of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Smith noted that the footnotes indicating the number of dwelling units per acre at the bottom of the table setting forth the required area per unit are not quite correct. He suggested that the increased area per unit should be based on the number of bedrooms only and not on lot size. Mr. Peterson pointed out that one of the incentives built into the recommendation is for the developer to acquire more than one small lot in order to get more uni ts. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Thompson, 151 Landis Avenue, expressed regret that the construction industry and the building and design craftsmen of the area had not shown more interest in this proposed amendment since he was apparently the only one at this hearing. He asserted that Chula Vista presently places more restrictions and higher requirements on multiple family development than any other city in the area, such as permitting less units per acre and the requirement for 400 sq. ft. - of recreational area per unit. He contended that the proposed amendment would make it infeasible to develop much of the R-3 property in the city and would cause a rise in rental rates. He asserted it is sometimes very difficult and costly to acquire additional property to accommodate a larger development. He contended that good planning can be done with high, medium or low density, and that lowering the density would not assure good development. Mr. Thompson expressed concern that a number of property owners who would be affected by this amendment were not made aware of this proposal. He felt the city, through the use of the news media, should give broader coverage to an item which will affect a large number of people. Steve Owens, 1358 Caliente Loop, an architect in Chula Vista, spoke in support of the amendment, pointing out that something must be done to stop the creeping blight of development crammed on to small lots. In response to Mr. Thompson's remarks, Mr. Peterson reported that a copy of the proposed amendment was mailed to all building designers, architects and multiple family developers inviting them to attend a meeting about a month ago to discuss this proposal. Attendance at that meeting was low. The same list of people received notice of the date of this public hearing. He noted that if people disagree with a proposal they usually come out in full force and the poor showing at this hearing would indicate a lack of opposition. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-77-34 and the findings stated therein, the proposed amendment will not have any significant impact upon the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California -4- July 27, 1977 Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MS (G. Johnson-Pressutti) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact the proposed amendment to Section 19.28.070 A designed to create a sliding scale of permitted net residential density wi thin the R-3 and R-3-M zonal regulations, as stated in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissionems G. Johnson, Pressutti, Starr, Renneisen and Chandler NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson 3. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCA-78-1 - Zoning Text Amendment to create a Design Review Board ~. PCM-78-1 - Resolution to adopt a Design Review Manual Senior Planner Pass advised that the 15 amendments proposed to the zoning ordinance would create a Design Review Committee which would be invested with the authority of reviewing the architecture and design of proposed developments in the multiple family zones and properties in the "P" Modifying District which are proposed for multiple family development. The amendments establish the dutieS, responsibilities and procedure of the Design Review Committee for handling all multiple family development proposals. The proposed amendments to a great extent involve the "P" Modifying District, which under the present regulations, - requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the amendments are adopted, such review would be handled by the Design Review Committee under the guidelines established in the Design Review Manual, with a provision for appeal to the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council in the event of dissent with the action of the Design Review Committee. Mr. Pass advised that the proposed amendments were spawned by the areas-in- transition studies which dealt with R-3 zoned property in the central Chula Vista area. As a result of those studies, a number of rezonings from R-3 to R-1 have been enacted. There were, however, a number of twilight areas in which premature incursions of high density residential were occurring in stable single family areas. While the areas in transition, or the twilight zone, spawned this legislation, the legislation is not confined thereto; it would be citywide. Mr. Pass noted that upon adoption the Design Manual would become the City of Chula Vista's official design policy and the Design Review Committee would be charged with its implementation. This is a Design Manual for the entire city with the exception of the Town Centre Redevelopment Area which has its own design manual, which has been successfully used in the downtown area more as a shield against poor development than as a sword assuring good development. Mr. Pass poi~nted out that this manual, unlike the Town Centre Design Manual, is not dedicated to a single proposition of producingl towness and urbanity but is designed to improve the overall order and amenity of the far flung multiple family districts throughout the city. In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, Mr. Pass advised that this Design Manual could eventually be extended to commercial and industrial development, but as proposed now it is confined to the R-3 zone and to properties place~in the "P" Modifying District which are to be developed with multiple family units. -5- July 27, 1977 Commissioner Starr reported that without thorough study of the proposals he has some reservations about a Design Review Board and Design Manual. He asked for information on what other cities in the San Diego metropolitan area are doing about this. He asked which cities have Design Manuals and which do not, and the success or failure that has resulted from the use of Design Manuals. Mr. Starr also pointed out that the Design Manual contains too much generality and not enough specifics. He felt that the applicaiton of the manual would be up to the individual trying to apply it. He acknowledged that good design cannot be legislated, it has to grow in an area and Chula Vista is making progress but has a long way to go. He asked what is the purpose of the manual and what other cities in themea have had success with this type of thing. Commissioner Pressutti advised that he also has concerns because this would create another layer of bureaucracy into the system. He noted any requirement which may cause additional delay becomes costly to the builder. He felt enactment of this amendment would cause another delay. He questioned the possibility of setting up a panel composed of five members who have a genuine interest in the community and a sensitivity to good design. He pointed out that good design is a value judgment and it would be difficult to identify who possesses such sensitivity. Commissioner G. Johnson asked if the Design Review Board is proposed because the staff does not have enough time to review architectural design, and with regard to the Design Manual, she felt an added consideration with regard to the location of multi]pie family developments should be a~view of public trans- portation facilities and the provision of suitable bus stops. Commissioner Smith asked if an estimate has been made on the cost of administering this review. Director of Planning Peterson advised that in some respects this amendment would create a new level of review; in other respects it would save a level of review. He explained that the Design Review Board, if created, would review all multiple family development proposals regardless of whether the "P" Modifying District was attached, so for those areas not covered by the "P" Modifying District there would be an additional review by the Design Review Board where no Commission or Council review now takes place. On the other hand, in those areas zoned R-3-P, which now require a public hearing before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, that procedure would be eliminated and there would be a hearing only before the Design Review Board, unless that Board's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission and possibly to the City Council. Mr. Peterson pointed out that presently the staff is charged with the responsibility of site plan and architectural review of all R-3 development on property not covered by the "P" District, however, this has not been carried out with any appreciable strength. While the Council had given no definite indication, he felt they were leaning toward the creation of a Design Review Board in the hope of getting improved multiple family development which would be an asset to the community. Mr. Peterson agreed that the Design Manual lacks specificity in many respects and pointed out that in general these are guidelines for the Design Review Board, but that the manual also includes some specific requirements as on pages 7 & 8. He cited as an example the requirement that front and exterior side yard setback areas should not constitute more than 50% of the common usable open space required by the zoning ordinance, also the requirement for private open space for each unit. -6- July 27, 1977 Commissioner Starr felt the assessment of this type of requirement is not the same type of problem as aesthetic considerations. He felt the general statements under principles and standards are too vague. He also suggested that commercial and industrial developments should be given,at least as much review for aesthetic design as apartment development. Mr. Peterson agreed and pointed out that many of the sections are worded so they might be expanded to include commercial and industrial development. Mr. Pass pointed out that this was suggested by the Council as part of its program for areas of transition, which was a multiple family dwelling problem. He noted that the biggest area of concern during the past year and a half has been the multiple family problem. Mr. Pass advised that the principles and standards in the Design Manual are guide- lines, which will be used by the Design Review Board as the initial step in considering a plan . He felt that one important result is that this would get design review out of City Hall. He reported that a number of developers have said they would prefer unbiased, nonstaff individuals to work on this. In response to the question of which cities use this design review method, Mr. Pass reported that National City does not, and for the most part, San Diego does not; Del Mar and Carlsbad do. He added that other cities up the coast, such as Newport Beach and San Clemente, which have planning integrity, have gone to the third dimension, which this does. He pointed out the evidence of the Council's concern for this third dimension--spatial relationships--in the application of the "P" Modifying District to numerous properties throughout the city. Commissioner Smith pointed out that in the appeal procedure it states that a simple majority of a quorum of the Planning Commission shall be necessary to change or modify the decision of the Design Review Committee, which is contrary to procedure for all other matters handled by the Commission that require a majority of the full membership of the Commission. He questioned having a different procedure for one particular item. Mr. Pass advised that the reason for this is that the Planning Commission's consideration of architectural design is beyond the pale of its jurisdiction under the State Planning and Zoning Law, which requires a majority of the Commission membership. On added considerations, such as this, such majority is not required by State law, and as a matter of expedition a majority of a quorum would be sufficient. Commissioner Pressutti expressed concern over the problem of selecting the right people for the Design Review Board as he felt this could become a tremendously volatile ball game between personalities, between professional stature of individuals and their perception of what is aesthetically sound and what isn't. He thought it could result in an interesting series of debates. Commissioner Starr also expressed concern over the staffing of the Design Review Board due to the limited supply of qualified people in the area. He feared this change might get away from the professionalism of the City staff that now performs this review. He suggested that if it is a question of a shortage of staff, there may be another way of handling it. Commissioner Renneisen reported that he understands and supports what is trying -7- July 27, 1977 to be accomplished, but felt the Commission has not had time to review what is proposed or to consider other alternatives than the creation of a Design Review Board. He requested a report as to whether other cities have taken an alternative approach, and if so, with what results. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Steve Owens, 1358 Caliente Loop, expressed agreement with the concept but voiced concern over the staffing of the Review Board. He noted that if he were an individual with property in the "P" Modifying District he would rather try to sell his ideas to a group of professionals rather than to laymen since they w~uld speak the same language. He suggested this should be tried and if it doesn't work it will probably be repealed due to the outcry of the people. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that this should be tried. He felt a committee composed of professionals would have some technical expertise and could give assistance to a developer in arriving at a good design. Commissioner Starr asked if there isn't a way to contain this within the staff. He noted that the staff frequently suggests changes in a development proposal which the Commission then considers as a body of laymen. He felt such an approach meets the needs of an average community, such as Chula Vista; he pointed out this is not Newport Beach or Del Mar. Mr. Peterson pointed out that most of the design review done by the staff does not come before the Planning Commission --only those projects which are in a "P" District-- and most of the R-3 zoned property does not have the "P" Modifying District attached, so under the present ordinance the staff is charged with site plan and architectural approval, and as pointed out previously, historically this has been a weak kind of review given by the staff, and this is reflected in the multiple family development bhroughout the community. He suggested that the members of the Design Review Board would not absolutely have to be residents of the City of Chula Vista as is required with other boards and commission, although this certainly would be preferable. Commissioner Starr felt that having nonresidents on the Review Board would really create an outcry as the local people would object to having professionals from another Cit~ telling them what to do. He also asked if this needs to be confined to multiple family development as there is a design problem in other types of structures as well. Mr. Peterson concurred it does not have to be confined to apartment development but this is the area the Council has been most sensitive to. He felt if it works out well in this area it would be expanded to the commercial zones, MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-77-49 and the findings therein, the proposed design manual and zoning text amendments 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. MS (Pressutti-Chandler) The Commission recommends that the City Council repeal Section 19.28.150 of the Chula V~ta Municipal Code entitled "Site Plan and -8- July 27, 1977 Architectural Review" which reads: "Site plan and architectural review for the R-3 zone shall be in accordance with Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480". The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Chandler and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Starr, Smith and Renneisen ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that adoption of this amendment would increase the cost of multiple family development inasmuch as additional time in review and obtaining approval of plans is costlyiln, terms of the time of professional people and in terms of intereston loans for purchase of the property or development. Due to this problem and the r~tively short time which the Commission has had to review the proposal, he felt that a month's delay would be appropriate. Commissioner Renneisen requested that the staff, in the meantime, study other alternatives that might be available. He pointed out that only two alternatives have been suggested--having the staff perform the review, or create the Design Review Board. He suggested there must be other choices available and he would ask that the staff address other alternatives before the Commission takes action. Mr. Peterson suggested that continuance of the public hearing should be to a specific date and suggested the meeting of August 24 if all Commissioners would be present on that date. Commissioner G. Johnson advised that she would not be present and Commissioner Pressutti indicated it is doubtful that he will be. Mr. Peterson then recommended continuance to September 14th, at which date all Commissioners indicated they would be present. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing and requested a motion to continue the hearing to the meeting of September 14. MSUC (Smith-Renneisen) The public hearing in consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to create a Design Review Board and the adoption of a Design Review Manual be continued to the meeting of September 14, 1977. Commissioner Pressutti requested the staff to make sure that the people in the construction trade and those directly involved know of this date and request that if anyone has input which will give the Commission guidance that it be submitted for consideration. Commissioner Starr also requested that the staff obtain for comparison,copies of the ordinance or design manual used by other cities in the area, such as Coronado and La Mesa. 5. Consideration of consistency wi th the General Plan of the widening and realignment of Telegraph CanNon Road and relocation and improvement of the drainage channel of Telegraph Canyon Creek Director of Planning Peterson reported that the City is looking to begin acquisition of properties for the realignnmnt and widening of Telegraph Canyon Road and State Law requires that before the City can do that the Planning Commission must determine whether such acquisition is in conformance wi th the -9- July 27, 1977 General Plan. He pointed out that presently Telegraph Canyon Road, for most -- of its length, is a two lane street. It is shown on the General Plan as a major roadway, so it is clear that the widening and realignment of the roadway do conform with the General Plan. It is recommended that the Commission make this fi nding. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson affirmed that the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the natural unlined water course. Commissioner Smith asked if the old right of way would be vacated. Mr. Peterson advised that has not been determined; it may r6~ain as an access road for two uses which presently exist. If it is to be vaoated that will be a separate action after the new roadway is constructed and would be brought before the Commission at that time. MSUC (G. Johnson-Renneisen) The Commission finds that the location, pu~p. ose and extent of the proposed acquisition of land for the widening and realign.m'ent.of Telegraph Canyon Road, and the relocation and improvement of the drainage chan~l. of Telegraph Canyon Creek conforms to the Chula Vista General Plan, and instructs the secretary to report this finding to the City Council. 5. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Plannin9 Commission for 1977-78 MSUC ~Pressutti-G. Johnson) The present Chairman and Vice-Chairman continue to serve for the ensuing year. Chairman Chandler abstained from voting on the motion. Mr. Chandler accepted the appointment and thanked the members of the Commission. DIRECTOR' S REPORT Mr. Peterson indicated he had no additional report to submit at this meeting. COMMISSIONS COMMENTS Commissioner G. Johnson reported that she had read of the development of a "park and ride" lot in La Mesa and Mira Mesa and would be interested in knowing the location of such lots in order that she might observe them. Mr. Peterson indicated this information would be obtained for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. and noted that the next meeting will be held on August 10, 1977. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secreq~ary