HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/04/06MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
_ OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
April 6, 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:
Smith, Pressutti, G. Johnson, Starr and Renneisen. Absent ( with previous
notification): Commissioners Chandler and R. Johnson. Also present: Assistant
Director of Planning Williams, 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 Pro Tempore Smith,
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner G. Johnson advised that under item 1 in the minutes of March 23rd
she had voted against the motion for approval rather than in the affirmative as
shown. Commissioner Starr reported that his vote was in favor of the motion
rather than opposed as shown. The Secretary was directed to correct the record
of voting on that item.
MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The minutes of the meeting of March 23, 1977 be
approved as corrected.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Pro Tempore Smith called for oral communications and none were presented.
The Chairman noted that with the absence of two Commissioners there was still a
quorum present. He asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain the vote which
would be required for the various types of applications on the agenda.
Assistant City Attorney Beam explained that approval of conditional use permit
applications would require an affirmative vote of the majority of the entire
membership of the Commission, or four votes. In the event of failure to receive
such approval, the decision could be appealed to the City Council. Reversal of
the Planning Commission's action would then require a 4/5 vote by the City Council.
Recommendation for approval of precise plans or the change of zone would also
require an affirmative vote of four Commissioners. These items, however, go
automatically to the City Council for final action and require only a 3/5 vote
for approval by the Council.
Both applicants for conditional use permits indicated they wished to proceed with
their applications at this meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-77-6 - Request to expand parking
lot at 317 Del Mar Avenue - American National Red Cross
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the vacant lot, 55' x 133'
on the east side of Del Mar and zoned R-3. The American Red Cross occupies
-2- April 6, 1977
the adjoining site and can accommodate parking for only 6 vehicles. This
application is for an expansion to increase the parking capacity to 28 vehicles.
Mr. Lee discussed the detailed site plan showing the layout of parking spaces and
landscaping, and noted the three conditions recommended in approval of the request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Robert Moran, 4631 De Soto Street, San Diego, representative of American Red Cross,
expressed concurrence with the conditions with the exception of the requirement
for a 3½ ft. decorative screen wall in conjunction with the landscaping facing
Del Mar. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Starr, Mr. Moran advised
that the parking area would not be lighted as their boildinq is not in use after
reQular davtime workinq hours.
Mr. Lee advised that the wall as specified in the second condition is a code
requirement for screening parking areas.
Mr. Moran responded that in that case he withdrew his objection to construction of
the required wall.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative
Declaration on IS-77-19 and the findings therein, this parking lot approval will
have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and certifies the Negative
Declaration.
MS (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission approves PCC-77-6 for the use of an R-3
lot immediately adjacent and south of the American National Red Cross facility at
311 Del Mar Avenue for offstreet parking, subject to the three conditions enumerated
in the staff report.
It was m~ved by Commissioner G. Johnson that the motion be amended to add a fourth
condition to require a small trash container on the parking lot. The motion died
for lack of a second.
The original motion for approval of PCC-77-6 carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-77-4 - Request to construct Jack-
in-the-Box Restaurant at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue
and C Street in the Flood Plain District - Foodmaker, Inc.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted that the site is comprised of two lots, one
vacant and the other occupied by a car wash facility. The lots will be consolidated
into one and the car wash structure removed. The proposed drive-in restaurant is
an allowed use in the underlying C-C zone and the conditional use permit is concerned
only with the fact that it is located in the Flood Plain District. It is 1800 feet
south of the main stream bed of the Sweetwater River and subject only to infrequent
backwater flood conditions. The building will occupy approximately 16% of the site
and will be constructed on a raised pad area about 2 feet above the existing grade.
Mr. Lee called attention to two conditions recommended in approval of the request
and to the findings in support of approval of construction in the Flood Plain District.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-3- April 6, 1977
Robert Gustafson, 2679 Via Viejas, Alpine, reported that he is the owner of the
property and is leasing it to Foodmaker. He advised he had taken over a year to
find a suitable tenant who would construct a nice building. He commented on
the attractive new Jack-in-the-Box restaurant at Bonita Road and Willow Street.
Dave Jervis, architect with Foodmaker, Inc., advised that he took no exception to
the conditions recommended and would be happy to answer any questions.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance with the
Negative Declaration on IS-77-14 and the findings therein, the proposed construction
in the Flood Plain District will have no significant adverse environmental impact
and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission approves PCC-77-4 for the construction
of a drive-thru restaurant at the northeast corner of North Fourth Avenue and "C"
Street in the C-C-F zone subject to the two conditions stated in the staff report.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-77-14 for East Orange Plaza,
Phase III - Celia Seligson
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of the property which was
included in a rezoning action of a larger area last year. The applicant has
previously developed the property to the west of this site and has received approval
for development of the property to the north. Acquisition of this property allows
the applicant a better circulation plan by permitting a center access point from
Orange Avenue.
The development includes 60 apartment units wi th a total of 252 parking spaces
provided for Phases II & III, including 50 spaces within five garage structures
located on the periphery of the site. The architecture is the same as that used
in the project to the west, East Orange Plaza Phase I, and includes stucco walls
with some wood siding and a number of offsets in the buildings to provide relief
along Orange Avenue.
Mr. Lee noted the four conditions recommended which relate to grading, circulation
and parking, and to the reco~endation for approval of the plan.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As
no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (G. Johnson-Starr) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the Precise Plan for East Orange Plaza Phase III, subject to the four conditions
listed in the staff report.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning PCZ-77-H - Change of zone from R-2 to R-3-P-11, east of Rancho Drive adjacent to 1-805 - Carl Salatino
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the area comprising just under
- four acres, located on the east side of Rancho Drive and extending to 1-805. It
is adjacent to the Rancho Rios project, a planned unit development, consisting of
just over 500 units at a density of about 10 units to the acre. The proposed zone
change represents little change in density, but provides more flexibility in
dwelling types and will permit development of this linear property without dedicated
streets.
-4- April 6, 1977
It is recommended that the Negative Declaration be certified and a recommendation
for approval of the zone change forwarded to the City Council subject to three
guidelines relating to architecture, landscaping and grading.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As
no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission finds that in accordance wi th the
Negative Declaration on IS-77-2 and the findings therein, this project will have
no significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (Pressutti-Renneisen) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the change of zone from R-2 and R-2-F to R-3-P-11 for 3.89 acres lying on the east
side of Rancho Drive, adjacent to 1-805 and Otay Valley Flood Plain, subject to
the three precise plan guidelines contained in the staff report.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-77-13 for development of
40 units on 3.89 acres east of Rancho Drive adjacent to 1-805-
Carl Salatino
Current Planning Supervisor Lee discussed the site plan and elevations of the
applicant's proposal for development, noting there are two access points from
Rancho Drive providing circulation and parking around the periphery of the site with
the six residential structures located toward the interior of the lot, with
substantial open space between the structures fronting on Rancho Drive and those
closer to the freeway side of the lot. The architecture and type of building
- materials proposed to be used is similar to that used in the adjacent fourplexes
of the Rancho Rios project.
Thc one aspect whi~ch the staff did not support was the building layout, which
results in excessively long unbroken building frontage facing Rancho Drive. The
staff prepared an alternate site plan which provided for the separation of 8-unit
buildings into smaller 4-unit structures, arranging them in clusters around smaller
open space areas. Staff's proposal would also provide for a single access driveway
from Rancho Drive and the location of three buildings toward the southerly end of
the site where the applicant had proposed a single four-unit structure.
Since the applicant did not find the staff's proposal acceptable, both plans were
submitted for the Commission's consideration.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Robert Thompson, 1709 Canyon Road, Spring Valley, building designer for the
applicant, reported that they have a letter from the Rancho Rios developers expressing
support for their project and granting a permanent easement along Rancho Drive
between the two driveways as shown on their plans, a distance of approximately
325 feet, subject to seven conditions listed in the letter. He distributed copies
of the letter from the OdmarkCompany to the Commissioners.
He discussed the various aspects of their proposal as opposed to the proposal
of the staff and contended that placing the building in two parallel lines would
-- more effectively lessen the impact of noise from the freeway. He also advised
that the staff's proposal to locate three buildings at the southerly end of the
lot would result in the location of a building within the SDG&E easement and
underneath a high tension utility line, This, of course, is not permissible.
-5- April 6, 1977
He also contended their circulation plan is the type preferred by the City Fire
Department since it would require no turning around to exit from the project.
With reference to the length of the buildings, he indicated they had originally
planned for only two buildings and have now broken it into six buildings and it
is their feeling that the buildings are not now excessively long, since there is
a jog at midpoint in each of the longer structures to relieve the long straight
lines and improve the architectural appearance. In response to a suggestion by
Commissioner Starr to put gabled roofs on the garages, Mr. Thompson indicated
that would be too costly. He also confirmed that their greatest objection to the
proposal submitted by the staff is a matter of cost, contending that they cannot
afford to build lO separate buildings which would add to the cost of plumbing,
wiring and roofing.
Assistant Fi re Chief Longerbone affimed that while the Fi re Department prefers
a complete circulation route through a development, they have reviewed the
staff's proposal for this site plan and would have room at the end of the drive
for a turnaround.
Carl Salatino, 7329 Turnford Drive, San Diego, commented that cost is a very
important factor in the design of this project. Changes already incorporated in
the plan, such as hip roofs with shake shingle, in order to make it compatible
with the adjacent Playmore condominiums, have increased the cost above the original
estimate to a considerable extent. He asserted that any additiolal cost increase
would make the project infeasible. He contended that dividing the structures
into ten bL:ildings as proposed by staff would increase the cost of installing
utilities as it is their plan to have only three utility service centers.
Mr. Salatino also reported that a competent acoustical analysis supports the site
plan which they have proposed as the best design for lessening the impact of
noise from the freeway, since each apartment unit would contain only one window
in the wall facing the freeway. He reiterated that it would be impossible to use
any other configuration of buildings on the lot and make a viable project.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Salatino advised that $14,000
would be a round figure of the difference in cost of the staff recommended plan
over his proposed plan.
As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner G. Johnson expressed support for the plan proposed by the applicant
as she felt the open area between the buildings would be very usable for the
recreation of resident children. She felt the appearance created by the long walls
could be offset by the planting of trees and other landscaping.
Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that the plan proposed by the staff would
be far more aesthetically pleasing than the applicant's proposal. He suggested
the request be referred back to the staff in an attempt to reach a compromise
acceptable to the applicant.
It was determined that the meeting of May llth would be the earliest date at
which this could be brought back to the Commission.
Mr. Salatino reported that there is an 80 day time limit on the offer of the
access easement from the Odmark Company, so it is expedient to get the request
to the City Council as soon as possible.
MS (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve
-6- April 6, 1977
the Precise Plan for the development of a 40 unit apartment complex on the east
side of Rancho Drive, subject only to conditions 2, 3 and 4 as stated in the
staff report. (This would eliminate the condition requiring the modification
and rearrangement of the buildings and revision of the circulation plan.)
The motion failed to receive the necessary majority of affirmative votes for a
recommendation to the Council by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, G. Johnson and Smith
NOES: Commissioners Starr and Renneisen
ABSENT: Commissioners Chandler and R. Johnson
The Chairman reported that this application for precise plan approval will be
forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation of the Planning Commission,
although the Commission's vote will be noted in the report to the Council.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that there are no urgent items for
discussion at the April study session and if the Commission wishes they may cancel
the study session meeting scheduled for April 13th. The Commission members present
concurred with cancelling the April 13 study session.
Assistant City Attorney Beam reported that there is some uncertainty as to whether
Commission members are required to file a yearly financial statement. If this is
required Mr. Beam will contact the Commissioners in the near future.
No comments were offered by the Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT
Chaiman Pro Tempore Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~Helen Mapes
Secretary