Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/04/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 26, 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, Floto, Smith, Pressutti and Johnson. Absent (with previous notification) Commissioner Start. 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 MSC (Floto-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of April 12, 1976 be approved as written. Commissioners Johnson and Pressutti abstained from voting on the motion since they were absent from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - The Chairman called fore, al communications and none were presented. l. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-5 - Request for lot frontage reduction 65 ft. to 60 ft., and increase in densit~ 511 Park Way- ~al ~vestment Properties~ Ltd. Current Planning Superviso~ Lee noted that this property was previously considered a few months ago under a request to construct 20 additional apartment units on the vacant portion of the property adjacent to Fifth Avenue. The parcel is a little over 3 acres in size, The existing development of 128 apartment units is located on the westerly 2 1/2 acres which is separated from Fifth Avenue by a drainage channel. The current proposal is to divide the property, creating four lots fronting on Fifth Avenue to develop with single family dwellings. Mr. Lee pointed out that although this property is zoned R-3, the area to the south and east of the site is developed with single family homes. The Director of Parks and Recreation has advised that the City would not be interested in developing the area as a mini park due to the cost of maintenance of small parks. Mr. Lee advised it is the staff's recommendation that the variance request be approved subject to conditions which include impro~ment of the drainage channel and installation of a solid fence between the channel and the single family lots. -2- - April 26, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary McCabe, 2160 Fletcher Park Way, E1 Cajon, representing the applicant, expressed the opinion that construction of four single family houses on the property would be a compatible use and also be a means of solving the drainage problem which has been there for some time. He concurred with the conditions recommended in the staff report. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rudolph-Johnson) The commission finds that this project and the construction of four single family dwelling units would not have any significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration on IS-75-78. MSUC (Rudolph~Floto) Based on the findings as stated in the report to the Commission, the Commission approves variance application PCV-76-5, allowing an increase in density on the 2.41 acre parcel to one unit per 820 sq. ft., and a reduction in the minimum lot frontage from 65 ft. to 60 ft. for four lots on Fifth Avenue, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report. 2, PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map PCS-76-3~ 511 Park WaS - Royal InVestm~ht ProPerties~ Ltd. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this subdivision map is for the development of the property considered in the preceding variance request. The map includes four single family lots facing on Fifth Avenue, and a fifth lot which is already developed with the apartment units. He called attention to the findings of consistency with the General Plan and to the conditions recommended in approving the map. 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. Commissioner Smith questioned the requirement in the third condition for "temporary or permanent" transition structures. He requested that the words "temporary or permanent" be deleted, and that instead the wording shall include, "transition structures satisfactory to the Department of Public Works." MSUC (Smith-Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the report to the Commission, the Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of tentative subdivision map PCS-76-3 for Park Way Place, subject to the conditions as contained in the report with the modification to condition 3 concerning transition structures. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: General Plan Amendment GPA-76-1 - South side of "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue~ from Medium Density to H~hI Density Residential Director of Planning Peterson noted that this property, in the County at the present time, was prezoned R-3-G-P in 1969, which allows 17 units to the acre. The General Plan designation for the area permits 4-12 units to the acre. There is presently renewed interest in annexing the property to the City and because of the inconsistency between the zoning and General Plan designation, the applicant has filed a request to change the General Plan to permit 13-26 units per acre. -3- ~ April 26, 1976 Mr. Peterson advised that due to the surrounding land use and character of the neighborhood the staff does not feel the General Plan should be amended to permit the higher density development. It is recommended that the General Plan not be amended and that a public hearing be set to change the prezoning of the property to R-3-P-12 which would permit multiple family development at a density wi thin the General Plan designation. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gaylord Henry, attorney representing Charles and Barbara Offerman, distributed to each Commissioner a copy of a letter received on this date by the Planning Department, in which he took exception to some of the points raised in the staff report in opposition to the General Plan amendment. He pointed out that three-fourths of the adjacent area is in other than R-1 use, noting the location of the high school, Rice elementary school, Church of Christ, and the Girls Club. He noted that many of the parcels within the area under consideration have more than one dwelling unit, so it is not an R-1 neighborhood. The Offerman property contains five units. Using rental figures of the existing units and projected return on development at the density recommended by the staff, Mr. Henry demonstrated that such redevelop- ment wQuld not be economically feasible. He contended that if it is not redeveloped the present units will continue to deteriorate. He also asserted that the schools in the area are not overcrowed and that the impact on school enrollment is not affected so much by the number of units developed as by the number of bedrooms, in excess of one, in each unit. He called attention to the change in character of "L" Street since it has become a major connector between the two freeways, making it unsuitable for R-1 development. He indicated, however, they would not seek a change of zone to permit more than 17 units to the acre. Charles Offe~an pointed out that the area indicated on the plat as being considered for the General Plan amendment contained one lot more than was included in the petition to annex. He reported that all but three owners within the area have signed the petition to annex. Leonard Bowman, 410 L Street, reported that their property is already developed and it would not be practical for them to utilize high density zoning. Arthur Peinado, attorney with Jenkins and Perry, 1010 Second Avenue, San Diego, speaking on behalf of Betty Padelford and her two brothers, owners of the second large parcel, concurred with the presentation made by Mr. Henry in support of higher density development, stressing that the schools and public streets are capable of handling a density up to 17 units per acre. He also pointed out that the philosophy of the General Plan encourages that the central district be developed with greater densities; in cities where density is limited, urban sprawl has resulted. Dorothy Showman asked if having this area annexed to the City would enable the owner of the property at the corner of Fourth and L to ask for commercial zoning. Mr. Peterson advised that the property referred to is zoned R-1 and it is extremely unlikely that the City would entertain an application for commercial zoning. -4- - April 26, 1976 Jan Aragon, owner of residential property on Westby Street, reported that they have no objection to Mr. Offerman's development plan. Doris Bradley, owner of single family residence at 428 L Street, reported that the property was purchased in 1974 as a rental unit with anticipation of con- verting it into a 3-unit income property. She indicated that unless multiple family development is permitted it will be impossible for them to continue owning the property. She therefore requested that the General Plan be changed. Warren Harding, owner of property at 448 L Street, advised that they purchased the property in 1971 with the R-3 pre zoning and are interested in annexing to Chula Vista if that zoning remains effective. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith asked about the present use of all properties involved. Mr. Offerman again pointed out the property owned by First Church of Christ and enumerated the number of dwelling units on each lot under consideration. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that a density range of 13-26 units per acre would permit development at too high density. Assistant City Attorney Beam explained that the General Plan is an overlay of broader density ranges. The zoning does take precedence, including the pre- zoning which would allow 17 units per acre unless it is amended. If the owners desired a higher density zone, it would require a separate application and public hearing. Mr. Henry advised that the proponents are satisfied with the existing R-3-G prezonin9 for 17 units per acre. The only problem is that such zoning is not in conformity with the General Plan and therefore they are asking for an amendment to the General Plan, to make the General Plan and zoning consistent. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that development should be at a density lower than 17 units to the acre. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration, as amended, and the findings therein, GPA-76-1 will not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended. MS (Pressutti-Rudolph) Based on the findings contained in the report to the Commission, the Commission denies the request for General Plan Amendment GPA-76-1. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Rudolph, Chandler NOES: Commissioners Smith, Johnson, Floto ABSENT: Commissioner Start Director of Planning Peterson advised that due to the split vote (3-3) the request for amendment to the General Plan would be forwarded to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. -5- April 26, 1976 4. PUBLIC HEARING: General Plan Amendment GPA-76-2 - 1.2 acres at Fourth and Brisbane from Retail Commercial to Limited Industrial Director of Planning ?eterson reported that the property covered by this request is now developed with a building formerly used by the telephone company which lends itself better to light industrial use than to commercial use. The property is at the entrance to Sweetwater Industrial Park. The staff recommends that the amendment to change the General Plan designation from commercial to research and limited industrial use be adopted. Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion this is an appropriate change and asked that the staff examine the area around this site for possible change at a later time. 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 (Rudolph-Floto) The Commission finds that in accordance with the draft Negative Declaration on IS-76-10 and the findings therein the General Plan Amendment will not have any significant impact upon the environment, and certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Based on the findings in the report to the Commission, the Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan be amended from "Retail Commercial" to "Research and Limited Industrial" for approximately 1.2 acres located on the easterly side of North Fourth Avenue, south of Trousdale Drive. 5. Consideration of the Draft Redevelopment Plan of the Chula Vista Town Center Pro~ect Area~ and its consistenc~ with the Chula Vista General Plan. Director of Planning Peterson noted that this item was continued from the previous Commission meeting and was also discussed at a study session. He offered to review the plan if the Commission desired further clarification of the material included in the Commission report. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Planning Commission certifies that they have reviewed the contents of the adopted Master Environmental Impact Report on the Thir~ Avenue (Chula Vista Town Centre) Redevelopment Plan (EIR-75-7) before considering the draft Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre. Commissioner Floto abstained from voting on the motion. MSC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that the Draft Redevelopment Plan is designed to promote the orderly revitalization of the Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area, and the general welfare of the City Of Chula Vista, and is sub- stantially consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and its constituent goals, objectives, statements of policy, standards, design proposals and elements. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti, Chandler and Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSTAINED: Commissioner Floto ABSENT: Commissioner Starr -6- - April 26, 1976 MSC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission adopts Resolution PCM-75-7, thereby recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve and adopt the Draft Redevel- opment Plan. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti, Chandler and Johnson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSTAINED; Commissioner Floto ABSENT: Commissioner Start Commissioner Smith advised that he voted against the motion on the grounds that he does not believe any public agency should have the dictatorial power to control the right of a citizen to own property inside the project area, and also that the taxpayers outside the project area should not be compelled to subsidize either the taking of private property or the financing of improvements within the project area. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson advised he had no report at this meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rudolph commented on the report of the County sent to the Commissioners on low income housing which went into great detail about the trickle-down theory for providing low income housing. She maintained that as housing trickles down it decreases in numbers whereas the greatest demand for housing is at the lower income levels. She contended that to provide a greater amount of housing within any price bracket there must be more housing constructed within that bracket, and in the case of the low bracket this may require subsidizing. Commissioner Pressutti raised a question concerning the correlation between the General Plan and the zoning map and whether one must be an exact replica of the other. Director of Planning Peterson explained that the zoning of property must come within the range of density of uses designated by the General Plan. He noted that in Chula Vista the Council adheres quite closely to the General Plan designation in appr~ingthe zoning of each parcel. In some cities the Council takes into account the nonresidential uses in an area, as in this instance, there are two schools and a church, and the argument could be made that those properties are not in residential use, therefore the density not being used by those uses could be used on other properties in the same area. He pointed out that this becomes very complex and would require the adoption of additional guidelines and policies. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion there are many problems within the City in the developed areas and that it would be good for the City to look into it and allow mixtures of housing types in redevelopment while still protecting what is there without causing unfortunate side effects. She felt there should be some device that would allow for mixtures and for changes without causing deterioration in existing development. -7- - April 26, 1976 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8;43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'Helen Mapes, Secretary