Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/05/10- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 10, 1976 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, Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Smith, Pressutti and Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of public Works Lippitt, 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 (Rudolph- Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of April 26, 1976 be approved as written. Commissioner Starr abstained from voting on the motion as he was absent from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Request for extension of tentative subdivision map PCS-74-8 for Zenith III Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this subdivision map, approved in the latter part of 1974, contains 16 single family lots on 4.4 acres. The applicant has requested an extension of time and since there have been no signi- ficant changes in the area, it is recommended that a one year extension be approved. MSUC (Rudolph-Smith) The planning Commission grants a one year extension of time, to May 26, 1977, on tentative subdivision map PCS-74-8 for Zenith III. 2. Request for conversion of residential structure to office use~ 249 Fourth Avenue - quint Zuhlke Realty Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the site at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Davidson Street, which contains a duplex residential structure. Other duplexes are located to the north and east, and the west side of Fourth Avenue is developed with single family homes. He pointed out on a site plan the front unit of the structure which the applicant proposes to convert into a real estate office while retaining the rear unit in residential use. Such conversion in the C-O zone requires Planning Commission approval. It was noted that this site is not within the Third Avenue Redevelopment District. The applicant has proposed no exterior modification of the building and the staff believes that the existing stucco and wood frame duplex structure is not consistent with the guidelines of the Civic Center Design Control District. Mr. Lee indicated that the mixture of residential and commercial office use on this lot is not -2- - May 10, 1976 compatible since it is proposed to use most of the residential rear yard area for driveway and parking spaces. The applicant proposes to close the existing driveway from Fourth Avenue and to obtain access from Davidson Street. Mr. Lee pointed out that due to the location of the garage 3 feet from the property line adjacent to Davidson, cars exiting at that point would have very restricted sight distance. The Chairman invited response from the applicant but he was not present. MSUC (Johnson-Pressutti) Based on the finding of architectural incompatibility, improper mixture of land use, and poor site and circulation design, as stated in the staff report, the Planning Commission denies the request for conversion of one unit of an existing duplex at 247-249 Fourth Avenue for office use. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-76-G - Re~onin9 4.10 acres located at the southwest quadrant ~f F~fth~venue and C Street from R,3 to R~I - CitS initiated Director of Planning Peterson advised that several weeks ago the City Council expressed concern about the transition to multiple family use in various single family areas which are zoned R-3. This area is one of that type. Mr. Peterson reported that following a report to Council on a number of similar areas, petitions in support of rezoning to R-1 were circulated by citizens and recently submitted to the office. The petitilon relat~n§ to this area contains the signatures of the owners of 13 of the 26 lots under consideration. He also reported that Mr. Pike Hodge, who owns the property on the north side of C Street telephoned the office expressing opposition to the rezoning. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Francis C. Kinnel, 37 Date Avenue, reported that when they purchased the property in 1953 it was their understanding it was in the R-1 zone and they had not been aware that the zone had been changed to R-3. He expressed support of changing it back to the R-1 zone. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Starr-Pressutti) Based on the findings as stated in the report to the Commission, the Commission recommends to the City Council that the 4.10 acres be rezoned to R-1. MS (Rudolph-Smith) The motion be amended to include in the rezoning area the northerly lot at the west end of Sea Vale cul-de-sac and the two lots on the south side of Sea Vale which are indicated as containing single family and two family uses, The Commission discussed the fact that addition of the 3 lots to the area would create a nonconforming use which could continue to exist indefinitely. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that if the Commission wished to consider those additional lots, the public hearing should be reopened to permit additional testimony. The owner of one of the parcels indicated his presence at the meeting and that he had no comment for or against the change of zone. -3- ~' May 10, 1976 The amendment to the motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Smith, Pressutti, Chandler and Floto NOES: Commissioners Starr and Johnson The motion, as amended, to recommend rezoning from R-3 to R-1 carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING; PCZ.76-E - Rezoning 7.73 acres south of quintard Street between First Avenue an~ TObia~ Drive from R-3,G,D to R-3-P,15- City in~t~ate~ -' Director of Planning Peterson reported that earlier this year the City Council expressed concern over the fact that with the adoption of a revised comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1969 the reclassification of properties resulted in a slight increase in density for certain properties. In the area under consideration the reclassification resulted in an increase from one unit per 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area to one unit per 2500 sq. ft. The Council directed that all such areas of the City be considered for rezoning to the previous density category or a more appropriate zone. In the initial staff report to Council staff concluded that the subject properties did not receive a substantial enough increase to warrant rezoning action and therefore suggested that the properties not be re- zoned. The Council did not agree and directed that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The detailed study then conducted by the Planning Department revealed that the predominant character of the developed properties in the area is a density less than the existing R-3-G zoning. He further noted that environmental review on other properties to the north of Tobias Street indicated that there is an overload of students in the schools and that the sewer use is above capacity. This lead to the conclusion that the property should be placed in a density category similar to that enjoyed prior to 1969. It is therefore the staff recommendation that the two properties in question, designated as Area A and Area B on the locator plat be rezoned from R-3-G to R-3-P-15 to permit development at a maximum density of 15 units to the acre. Mr. Peterson acknowledged and read a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Roy F. Winder, owners of the property located at 1465 First Avenue, and indicated as Area B, in which they protested the rezoning of the property to a lower density. The letter stated that the taxes have tripled because of the previous zone change to R-3 and now to lower the density when they wish to develop the land is unfair and discriminatory as it lowers the value of the property. Mr. Peterson also acknowledged the receipt of a petition signed by 44 people in opposition to the downzoning; he noted that most of the signators appear to live outside of the affected area. He also acknowledged receipt of another petition signed by 340 persons requesting that the property be rezoned to R-1 and that a moratorium be placed on apartment construction in the area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -4- - May 10, 1976 Roy Winder, 1465 First Avenue, advised that they have owned the property for 25 years and everything around them is built up and was allowed to be developed as it was zoned. He asked that their property be left as it is presently zoned so that they may do the same. Norman Starr, 824 Jamaica Court, San Diego, reported that he has a purchase agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Winder for the property and has made a preliminary site study on it. With the existing zoning they could construct seven buildings with 8 units in each, for a total of 56 units; parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.3 spaces per unit~ and site coverage would be less than 30%. He noted that the space between buildings Cs wider than FHA minimum requirements. Mr. Starr passed to the Commission photos of apartments he constructed in San Diego depicting the architecture he proposes to use on this site. He expressed his willingness to file a precise plan for the development. He advised they would lose a total of 8 units if the proposed rezoning is adopted. Elsie Mills, 81 Bishop Street, spoke of the sewerage problem due to lack of capacity and pointed out that 56 new units would increase the problem. She also maintained that the schools in the area are already overcrowded and that 3-bedroom apartment units will mean additional school children. Mr. Peterson and Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt affirmed that the Capital Improvements Program budget for the next fiscal year includes a project to increase the capacity of the downstream sewer lines to alleviate the existing sewer problem in the area. Floyd Burgi, 66 Quintard Street, advised that he has owned property in Area A since 1953 and it has undergone a zone change several times. He questioned how stable zoning is and when rezoning is started. He reported that in 1969 he had a buyer interested in the corner property, who made preliminary site plans, but when he came to find out about building he learned that a moratorium had been placed on apartment construction in the area, and the sale was dropped. He noted that taxes have more than quadrupled the original cost and expressed a desire to sell the property at the tax assessor's appraised valuation. He noted the high density apartment development on Quintard Street and on Palomar Street all the way to Third Avenue, and contended that development of his property would not produce as many apartments as presently exist between Hilltop and Tobias. He could not understand the reason for downzoning the property. Richard Butler, 97 Bishop Street, reported that he had contacted the principals of all three schools in the area who indicated their enrollment is at capacity although they could place portable units on the school sites to accommodate additional students. Mr. Butler expressed the opinion theme should be no more apartments in the area and the desire to have the property zoned lower than at the present time. Joe Scannicchio, President of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, read a letter from the Chamber's Political Action Division, stating their position in favor of leaving the zoning as it presently exists on the subject property. The letter pointed out the density of three apartment developments on Hilltop Drive which is highe~ than that proposed fo~ the Hinder property~ Clay Morud, 32 Plymouth Court, contended that the area is heavily saturated and does not contain the amount of park land specified in the City's plan; also that the schools are at or near capacity~ there is an earthquake fault near the area; the high density development results in heavy traffic and high crime rate. He pointed out that the goals of the General 'Plan are to preserve and enhance the residential quality of Chula Vista. -5- '- May 10, 1976 Felicitas Cofer, 58 Provence Court, advised that they purchased their home with the understanding that this was all R-1 housing. She elaborated on problems of drainage in the area and expressed the opinion that in apartments the residents have no pride of ownership as with single family homes. She contended that apartments lead to deterioration of the residential area. Jackie Morud, 32 Plymouth Court, reported on her work in circulating petitions against apartments on the north side of Quintard. She read numerous quotes from people she had contacted expressing concern and discontent over various items related to overcrowding in the area. Ray Vellinga, 5109 Hilda Road, San Diego, advised that he owns property in the area and opposes lowering the density. He contended that lowering the density contributes to urban sprawl; that vacant lots are not complimentary to the area, and that a well planned development will help the area rather than detract from it. He asserted that improving the vacant land is tantamount to improving the services in the area. In response to a question regarding the legality of recommending R-1 zoning for the property under consideration, Assistant City.Attorney Beam advised that it is within the legal ability of the Planning Commission to recommend a more restrictive zone than that recommended by the staff, however, they must have some factual basis in support of the recommendation. Since the report for this meeting does not contain facts to support a more restrictive zone than R-3-P-15, he recommended that if it is the Commission's desire to support a more restrictive zone, the hearing should be continued and direction given to the staff to address the more restrictive zone in a report for Commission consideration. Clay Morud, 32 Plymouth Court, asserted that there are such facts in the 24 page environmental report for the property across the street. He also objected to the finding in the Negative Declaration that this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. Attorney Beam reiterated the information, as previously stated by the staff, that the reason this particular project received a Negative Declaration is that the project is a rezoning to a less intensive land use. It does not contemplate the actual physical development of the area; it merely contemplates a reduction in density in the area. Bill Cofer, 68 Provence Court, advised that he purchased his home 10 years ago because he felt Chula Vista was the nicest area in which to live. He now feels that his home is being devaluated by apartment development in the area and he is being deprived of his right of privacy. Bob Hastings, member of the Environmental Control Commission, spoke at some length on the environmental impact report on the Green-Vellinga project, which he contended does not consider the cumulative impact of individual developments. He also discussed contacts he made with the principals of all three schools in the area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Floto expressed the opinion that the Castle Park area is overcrowded and he was unsure that this rezoning would solve that problem but it is a step in the right direction; he would therefore favor the rezoning as recommended by the staff. -6- ~- May 10, 1976 Commissioner Rudolph noted that the Commission has been aware of overcrowding in the Castle Park area for some time and she was not certain that this reduction would have enough effect. She suggested asking the staff to consider rezoning the property to R-1. Commissioner Smith pointed out the property has been in the present zone since 1969 and questioned that it should be changed when development is proposed. Commissioner Starr expressed the belief there is some moral obligation to the present owners of the properties. While the proposed rezoning would reduce the density from 17 to 15 units to the acre, he did not feel that should outweigh the obligation to the owners. He favored leaving the zoning as it is. MS (Rudolph-Floto) The public hearing in consideration of the zone change be continued to the meeting of June 28 and the staff requested to study the R-1 zone or the designation proposed at this meeting. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Floto and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Smith, Chandler, Johnson and Starr MSC (Smith-Starr) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-22 and the findings therein, this project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and certifies the Negative Declaration. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES; Commissioners Smith, Starr, Floto, Chandler, Pressutti and Johnson NOES: Commissioner Rudolph MS (Smith-Starr) The Commission recommends that the property remain in the R-3-G-D zone. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith and Starr NOES: Commissioners Chandler, Rudolph, Johnson, Floto and Pressutti MSC (Floto- Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning from R-3-G-D to R-3-P-15. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Floto, Johnson, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Rudolph, Smith and Starr Mr. Zuhlke came to the microphone and asked the outcome of his request for conversion of the duplex at Fourth and Davidson. Upon being advised that the request was denied by the Commission he protested, claiming that he had not received notice of the date of this meeting in time to permit changing-another appointment he had on this date. As a result he did not arrive at the meeting in time to address the Commission relative to the request. He also objected that he had not received info)~nation on what modifications to the structure would be required to make it acceptable. Mr. Zuhlke was advised that he could appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. -7- - May 10, 1976 5. Consideration of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1976-1977 Director of Planning Peterson advised that it is the Commission's role to determine if the projects proposed in the Capital Improvement Program conform to the General Plan. The Program covers the next six fiscal years but the immediate concern is for fiscal year 1976-77 as funds will be allocated for those projects. The staff's review of the projects has revealed no conflict with the General Plan and it is recommended that the Commission find the Capital Improve- ment Program is in conformance with the General Plan, Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion that the Commission should have a more detailed report on the various projects in the Capital Improvement Program, pointing out that such review is specifically called for in the Housing Element. Commissioner Pressutti remarked that while he has some qualms about the expenditure of $226,000 to widen F Street from Fourth Avenue to Chruch, the Commission has the limited responsibility of determining conformity with the General Plan. MSC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission finds that the Capital Improvement Program for the year 1976-77 conforms to the General Plan. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Starr, Floto, Chandler, Johnson and Smith NOES: Commissioner Rudolph DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission that the study session next Monday is scheduled for 5:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room with adjournment for dinner at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS No comments were presented. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~elen Mapes, Secretary