Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/04/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 20, 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, Pressutti, Starr, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Renneisen and ex- officio member George Gillow of the Environmental Control Commission. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant Fire Chief Longerbone, 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 (Renneisen-Pressutti) The minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1977 be approved as mailed. Commissioners Chandler and R. Johnson abstained from voting due to their absence from the previous meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements at 209 Garrett Avenue - David Bounds Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that an application to construct six apartment units on the property at 209 Garrett Avenue obligates the applicant to install improvements to one-half of the alley width at the rear of the property. This would be an isolated section of improvement in an alley presently paved with asphalt paving. Since this area is wi thin the Third Avenue Redevelopment Area, this alley may be included with others to be improved with textured paving. It is therefore recommended that the deferral be granted based on the finding that it would be premature at this time. MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission approves the deferral of public improvements to the alley at the rear of 209 Garrett Avenue subject to the three conditions enumerated in the staff report. 2. Consideration of request to vacate Hilltop Drive between "E" Street and Flower Street - Morgan and Gardner Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the tentative map for the Morgan-Gardner Subdivision recently approved by the Planning Commission contemplated that Hilltop Drive would be vacated between "E" Street and Flower Street; this is the official request for that vacation. Mr. Lee reviewed the findings supporting the vacation and recommended that the Commission find it is in conformance wi th the General Plan and recommend that the City Council approve the vacation. -2- April 20, 1977 MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that the vacation of "E" Street _ between Hilltop Drive and Flower Street is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. MSUC (Starr-R. Johnson) The Co~ission recommends to the City Council that Hilltop Drive be vacated between "E" Street and Flower Street subject to the recordation of the final map for the Morgan-Gardner subdivision including the construction of Flower Street prior to the vacation. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Cont:) PCZ-77-L - Rezoning .55 acre at Third Avenue Extension and Kimball Terrace from R-1 to R-3-P-12 - Michael Roark (Cont.) Precise Plan PCM-77-9 for development of 5 units at Third Avenue Extension and Kimball Terrace - Michael Roark Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that on March 23 Commission action supported the change of zone for the property at Third Avenue Extension and Kimball Terrace subject to the approval guidelines and continued the matter to this meeting in order to consider appropriate guidelines. The applicant is working on a precise plan which would meet the desired criteria but the plan is not ready for sub- mission and the applicant has requested a continuance. MSUC (Renneisen-Pressutti) The public hearing on applications PCZ-77-L and PCM-77-9 be continued to the meeting of May 25. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-77-7 - Request to construct racquetball facility and 2 apartment units at the rear of 4206 Bonita Road in C-C-D zone - Ed Svatko Current Planning Supervisor Lee pointed out that all recreation facilities and any residential land use located in a commercial zone require the approval of a conditional use permit. He indicated on a plat the location of the property, comprising nearly one acre, which has a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building located on the front portion of the site, with 30 offstreet parking spaces provided for that commercial use. The owner now proposes to utilize the rear portion of the lot by constructing into and above the slope bank on which the rear property line is located. There is an elevation difference between the developed commercial area and the top of the slope bank of 25 to 30 feet, and, as designed, the proposed structure would vary from 28 to 42 ft. in height. The proposal also includes the provision of 14 additional parking spaces. Mr. Lee advised that a 10 court ball facility was approved some months ago in the Bonita area near Willow Street and Bonita Road. That facility, however, was not constructed and the site has now been purchased for another land use, so the applica- tion under consideration would represent the only racquetball facility in Bonita at this time. After reviewing the plan the staff concluded that the racquetball facility would provide an expanded choice of recreational activity for the residents of the Bonita area; but that the apartments located on top of a commercial building, at the rear of another commercial establishment, would not be in an acceptable residential environment. It was therefore recommended that the apartments be eliminated from the plan, and the building be redesigned so that it would not project above the easement road to the south. It is also suggested that the architecture be changed from a white concrete block structure to utilize materials and colors to blend with the architecture of adjacent buildings. -3- April 20, 1977 Mr. Lee also pointed out that deleting the apartments would permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces required and thereby provide for a turnaround area on the site. It is recommended that l0 additional parking $.paces be provided to meet the need of the racquetball court. Mr. Lee briefly reviewed the 10 conditions recommended in approving the racquetball court and called attention to the findings in support of approving the racquetball facility and denying the apartment units. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was closed. Bill Cannon, 451 Westmont Court, president of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Associa- tion, expressed the opposition of that body to the total project. He contended that the parking and traffic in the immediate area is already congested and approval of this plan would add to an already dangerous situation. He also asserted that 10 parking spaces would not be adequate for the patrons of a 5 court racquetball facility. Don Montell, 1870 Citadel Court, spoke in response to the objections raised by Mr. Cannon. He contended that the need for such a facility in the Bonita area was justified by the approval of the previous application which has not been implemented. He also pointed out that the traffic situation at the Big Bear market would be alleviated by the construction of additional shopping centers in the area which that market serves. Such centers are in the planning stage and are moving ahead. He pointed out that since the heaviest use of the racquetball courts would be after the hours of the other two commercial establishments on this site, the 10 additional parking spaces should adequately meet the demand. He advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation to eliminate the residential apartments. Beverly Bragg, 4027 Old Orchard Lane, pointed out the location of her home immediately behind the property under consideration. She felt that the proposed use and the number of patrons it would attract during the evening hours and week- ends would intrude upon their privacy in a residential neighborhood. It was determined by the plot of the area that the Bragg's residence would be approximately 125 feet from the rear of the proposed facility. B. Virgilio, whose residence is adjacent to Braggs, expressed concern over the removal of trees for the proposed construction, since those trees form the buffer between the noise on Bonita Road and their residence. Mr. McLean, 4200 Loma Paseo, expressed the opinion that the noise that would be generated by the activity in and around a racquetball court, would be very detrimental to the character and charm of that semirural residential area. E. O. Rogers, resident in the area, expressed appreciation of the convenience of the existing comnercial development, but felt that trying to squeeze additional development onto the lot under consideration would be a misplacedimprovement. Ed Svatko, the applicant, indicated his willingness to delete the residential apartments from his original plan, and spoke in support of the racquetball court, contending that would be an excellent location for such a facility, as it will be mainly screened from Bonita Road by the existing commercial buildings. In response to questions from the Commission, he defended the proposed site plan as the best use for the property. -4- April 20, 1977 Warren Gershwin, pointed out the location of his residence adjacent to the Braggs, and indicated he had nothing additional to add but wished to support the arguments against the proposal which had been expressed by the other residents. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to questions raised by the Commission, Mr. Lee advised that the zoning ordinance does not include parking standards for a racquetball facility but the requirement for lO spaces is based on requirements placed on other facilities which the Commission has already approved. He also pointed out that the increase in traffic which would result from this activity would be very small in comparison to the increase anticipated through both the expansion of the existing Bonita Center and the proposed new shopping center at Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road. Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that there is a need for a facility of this type in the area and that it would not be inappropriate in this particular location although he could understand the concern of the individuals living close by. Commissioner Smith expressed doubt that the Commission could make the finding that the proposed use at this particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. He felt approving this plan would be cramming a little too much improvement into too small and difficult an area. Commissioners Chandler and Renneisen acknowledged the desirability of this type of recreational facility some place in the Bonita area, but felt that the particular site was not adequate for the proposed development. Assistant City Attorney Beam admonished the Commission that denial of the applica- tion should be supported by findings covering the same aspects as the findings required for approval. Commissioner Pressutti contended that such finding may be extremely difficult because of the b~oad interpretation of the general welfare and well being of the neighborhood and community if it is truly analyzed. He felt that to deny this would be to prohibit a use which many people in the community as a whole find very desirable. He felt that wi th the changes recommended by the Planning Department, and agreed to by the applicant, the proposal would be compatible and suitable in ~at location. Chairman Chandler advised that prior to taking aciton on the application, the Commission must first consider the Negative Declaration resulting from Initial Study IS-77-21, which was included with the staff report. Commissioner Renneisen pointed out that while that Initial Study deal~t with the impact of noise from Bonita Road on the proposed development, it did not consider the impact on the neighborhood of the noise occasioned by the racquetball court. Director of Planning Peterson commented that in considering this the Environmental Review Committee, which issued the Negative Declaration, had determined that the modern racquetball court, air conditioned and completely enclosed, does not generate noise to the outside. This is in contrast to the courts at Southwestern College which are not air conditioned and are ventilated to the outside. MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-77-21 and the findings stated therein, the proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impact, and certifies the Negative -5- April 20, 1977 Declaration. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner Starr, that based on the findings as stated in Section E of the staff report on this item, the Commission approves the location of a 5 court racquetball facility at the rear of the property at 4206 Bonita Road, subject to the conditions as stipulated in the report. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Starr and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Chandler, R. Johnson, Renneisen and Smith Attorney Beam suggested that the Commission adopt a motion for denial which would include the findings for such denial. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson that the Commission deny both the residential and the racquetball court use on the subject property based on the finding that at that particular location the develop- ment would not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood because of its size, and proximity to single family homes. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen, R. Johnson, Smith, Chandler and Starr NOES: Commissioners Pressutti and G. Johnson Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-77-1 - Amend the General Plan for approximately 5.91 acres located in the southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue from Research and Limited Industrial to Retail Commercial Director of Planning Peterson reported that when the recommendation to apply the "P" Modifying District to the underlying zones in this area was considered by the City Council earlier this year, the Council directed that consideration be given to either changing the zoning of this property which fronts on 30th Street and is zoned C-C, or amending the General Plan to reflect Retail Commercial use rather than the present designation of Research and Limited Industrial. It was noted that the major portion of the property in the Sweetwater Valley Flood Plain is zoned for industrial use, but the property fronting on 30th Street is zoned commercially, as is the adjacent area in the City of National City. It is felt that with the controls of the Precise Plan Modifying District either type of use could be compatible, but since commercial uses have been established adjacent to this site it is recommended that the General Plan be brought into conformance with the zoning, thus recognizing the potential for commercial use along 30th Street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan be amended from Research and Limited Industrial to Retail Commercial for approximately 5.91 acres of land located at the southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue. -6- April 20, 1977 6. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-77-2 for Bonita Glen Specific Plan Director of Planning Peterson reported that this EIR evaluates the impact which might result from the development of the area under a specific plan. The report indicates that the major significant impact would be that of traffic volume and the hazard of left turn movements into and out of the site. The report suggests mitigating measures to avoid this impact. The report also discusses an inferred earthquake fault in the vicinity and directs that during grading an engineering geologist should be present to insure that no substantial hazard is present. The only other significant impact deals with school facilities, which are presently over capacity, and the extent of the impact would depend upon the type and extent of residential development included in the plan. It is recommended that the public hearing be concluded at this meeting and if no response is necessary to the input presented, adopt the EIR as final. If response is necessary schedule consideration of the final EIR for May 11, 1977. Frank Ferreira, owner of property within the area covered by the specific plan, objected to the requirement in the EIR that a geologist be present during the grading operations. He indicated that on the portion of the property which he owns, tests were made some years ago to establish a base for the soil. It would be their intent to merely bring the property up to the grade required for the project they develop. He contended the geology work has been done on the greater portion of that project. He also objected to the implied impact on the schools, pointing out that this is not a suitable area for children due to the volume of traffic, and the type of apartments which he constructs would not appeal to families with children. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Renneisen-G. Johnson) The Planning Commission adopts the draft Environmental Impact Report as the final report for the Bonita Glen Specific Plan with the inclusion of the comments offered as testimony during the public hearing and the written report submitted by the Chairman of the Environmental Control Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-77-C - Prezonin§ and rezonin9 8.7 acres on the south side of Bonita Road between Bonita Glen Drive and 1-805 from E-l, R-l, R-3 and C-C-D to C-C-P, and consideration of Bonita Glen Specific Plan. Director of Planning Peterson advised this is a two part item, wi th the first consideration being the prezoning and rezoning to consolidate under one zone designa- tion and bring it into conformance wi th the General Plan, and the second being the adoption of a specific plan for development of the area. He reported that the issue of the zoning had not been opposed by any of the property owners and his remarks would therefore be directed to the Specific Plan. - Mr. Peterson explained that about a year ago, at the time the Council denied an application by Shell Oil Company, they indicated that the area lends itself and warrants consideration of a special development plan rather than permitting each owner to develop an individual plan. Council directed staff to prepare a plan for the area, working with property owners in the area. The staff therefore held a number of -7- April 20, 1977 meetings with the various property owners and through a number of drafts and revisions have prepared the Bonita Glen Specific Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. In explanation of the reason for adopting a specific plan on this particular property, Mr. Peterson pointed out that the area is comprised of 13 different parcels which are under four different ownerships. The specific plan method provides a means of coordinating the development to create a unified center as opposed to a number of small, individual, unrelated plans. The second factor in support of a specific plan is the control of access points, and the third reason is that it affords greater flexibility as to the uses that can be allowed and the kind of design that can be created. Mr. Peterson noted that the text of the plan specifies a variety of uses which would be permitted within the project area, and also sets forth building bulk and setback requirements, height regulations, parking, landscaping, design and sign control regulations which would apply to all uses and structures established and constructed within the project area. Also included in the report are graphic examples of conceptual plans for the location of buildings in the area. One plan depicts a unified development for the entire area and the second concept recognizes the existence of property lines and utilizes a group of malls or complexes sharing common driveways and parking areas. The same number of access points could serve either concept. Mr. Peterson noted the recommendation for approval of the zone change and adoption of the proposed Bonita Glen Specific Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Beall, resident in the area above the project site, expressed the concern of residents that this is the initial effort by the City of Chula Vista to take over the development of the Bonita Valley in place of the County. Mr. Peterson responded that is not the case and only a small portion of this site is not now within the city limits. The owner of that property has indicated a desire to be annexed to the City if the Specific Plan is adopted. Christian Beall, 7 Vista Drive, expressed the opinion the proposed plan was not clearly described. She complained of the difficulty in getting out on Bonita Road due to the closing of Vista Drive and the construction of Bonita Glen Drive past the apartment development which has resulted in excessive onstreet parking. Patrick Train, representing Hyatt and Gregory, owners of R-1 zoned property fronting on Bonita Road, indicated they have no objection to the joint ingress and egress over their property but do want the option of constructing their own building on their property. Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonita Glen Drive, expressed displeasure that the City is initiating a plan which would include his property. He indicated they are in the design stage and ready to develop the property, and he feels the City has taken a different stand on the most appropriate use for the area. He felt that no one plan could serve the interests of the number of property owners who are involved. He contended that architectural design control is the only control the City needs on the property. Gene York, 160 Brightwood, felt there is confusion with regard to the ownership of the property. He advised that 805 properties, which is a limited partnership, owns -8- April 20, 1977 the only property included in this plan which is still in the County and they intend to annex as soon as prezoning acceptable to them is placed on the property. Mr. York advised that they own approximately one-third of the total site and there are only three other owners: Mr. Ferreira, Hyatt and Gregory, and Shell Oil Company. He expressed support of the plan as presented. He felt the restrictions proposed are not unreasonable and expressed willingness to cooperate with the other property owners in minimizing the number of curb cuts on to Bonita Road. Mr. York commended the staff on an outstanding job of trying to overcome the opposition of property owners. He expressed the opinion that the alternatives contained in thep~an, which cross over the specific allowable uses under any one commercial zone within the city, gives the property owners more flexibility in the development. He pointed out that any development in the area would require approval of a precise plan, either on the basis of the zoning or as a result of the specific plan which is being proposed; therefore, adoption of the specific plan does not take away any rights of the owners. He felt the specific plan gives the property owners in that area the best of two worlds, by giving some flexibility in the type of development that can go in. He wholeheartedly endorsed the specific plan and hoped the Planning Commission would approve it as presented. Ray Powell, Shell Oil Company, 4813 Bancroft Drive, La Mesa, advised that they have owned the property at the corner for nearly 10 years and still feel that the use they have planned for that property is compatible with the area. One of his concerns with the conceptual plan presented is the lack of access from their site on to Bonita Road. At the time they acquired the property they had access to Bonita Glen Drive and to Bonita Road. He also objected to the sign control as proposed by the specific plan. He felt that with the large number of uses which the plan permits--small shops, botiques, tourist facilities--the limited signing as proposed in the specific plan would not be adequate and none of the tenants would be satisfied. He suggested that access on Bonita Road and sign control restrictions should be left to ~later time when each development is further along and the particular use is determined. Frank Ferreira again protested approval of the plan and asserted that under the existing zoning the City has control over what development is placed on the property without adopting either the precise plan zoning or the specific plan. With regard to the point raised by Mr. Powell, Mr. Ferreira expressed the belief that the State Department of Transportation suggests that driveways be located a certain distance from what they consider access control. He questioned the suitability of the access point from Bonita Road as shown on the plan. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Peterson advised that the D Design Control zone on the property which Mr. Ferreira referred to, is now obsolete; since all development in the Commercial and Multi-family residential zone require site plan and architectural review by the staff. He felt the question here is whether the Planning Commission and City Council want to be involved in reviewing the development of the property. If so, that would require that the property be rezoned. He pointed out that Mr. Ferreira's property is presently zoned C-C-D and R-3-D, which is fairly intensive zoning, while other parcels being considered are presently zoned R-l, which is unrealistic in that area. The proposed rezoning would place all of the parcels in that area under one zone. -9- April 20, 1977 Commissioner Smith pointed out that Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, contained in the specific plan, are quite different. He felt the Commission should know which plan is being considered. Commissioner Pressutti noted that the drawings are conceptual, but the text of the plan which proceeds the drawings is more specific. Mr. Peterson advised that under the State law definition a specific plan can be either very detailed or can be almost as general as Chula Vista's General Plan. He pointed out that our zoning ordinance uses the same terms, so this specific plan meets the definition. It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson, that the Commission certifies it has considered the information in EIR-77-2, which was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the California Administrative Code and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista, and recommends that the City Council prezone and rezone the 8.7 acres on the south side of Bonita Road between Bonita Glen Drive and 1-805 from E-l, R-l, R-3 and C-C-D to C-C-P. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Chandler, Pressutti and Renneisen NOES: Commissioners Smith and Starr ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner G. Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Renneisen, that the Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Bonita Glen Specific Plan. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Renneisen, Chandler, R. Johnson and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Smith and Starr ABSENT: None Chairman Chandler noted that the zone change and specific plan would be considered by the City Council at a public hearing. 8. Solicitation of comments reqarding use of 1977-78 Revenue Sharinq Funds Director of Planning Peterson advised that the City Council is soliciting suggestions from all the various commissions concerning the use of $1,455,000 in revenue sharing funds. He reviewed briefly the suggestions submitted by the Capital Improvement Program committee, which include renovation of the old library and post office buildings for $460,000; acquisition of right of way for the extension of Orange Avenue from Third Avenue to Albany so that Orange Avenue can function as a thoroughfare; some storm drain facilities; and the location of a senior citizens center somewhere near the southern portion of Chula Vista at a cost of $98,000. - Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that some of the problems which have come before this Commission are the sewer system at the southern end of the city, and the acquisition of park land. He felt those items should be included as recommendations. -10- April 20, 1977 Mr. Peterson advised that the increased sewer capacity has been budgeted for. He acknowledged that the Co~mission had formerly recommended the acquisition of hilltop view sites in the E1 Rancho del Rey area for funding with Block Grant Funds. Commissioner G. Johnson reported that as an individual Commissioner she feels it is desirable that the library be open on Sundays and possibly some of the funds could be used to cover that expense. She felt it would be nice to have all the sidewalks of the city cleaned up--ice plant and weeds removed--to make them more usable for skateboarders, roller skaters, and people who walk. She further suggested the need for express bus service from Chula Vista to the Coronado beach during the summer months when young people are out of school, and recommended that funding such service be considered. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson noted that two registrations for the ASPO conference to be held in San Diego, April 23-27, were made for the Commissioners. The registra- tion material, which can be picked up after l:O0 p.m. on Saturday, will contain a complete program to enable the members to determine which sessions would be of interest to them. He suggested that he could get the material on Saturday and make it available to the Conmissioners on a check out or request basis. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Smith advised that he would be absent from all May meetings and asked that his absence be excused. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary