Loading...
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