Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/02/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 23, 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, Starr, Pressutti, Smith and Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam, and Acting Secretary Friedrich. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The minutes of February 9, 1976 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Rezonin~ PCZ-75-J(2)? 4.66 acres at the northwest quadrant of IL805 and EaSt J S~reet~ from PLc to R~lLH-P - C~ Initiated. Director of Planning Peterson reported that this rezoning had been before the Commission on several prior occasions and that the ownership of the property is unsettled and the subject of some litigation, therefore he recommended continuance of the item to the meeting of March 22, 1976. MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) Rezoning PCZ-75-J(2), 4.66 acres at the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J Street from P-C to R-l-H-P, be continued until the meeting of March 22, 1976. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-3~ request for temporary classroom use in mObile'~nit~ 9~ H~lltOp Dr~ve ~ Chula Vista Presbyterian ChUrch. Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the church proposed to locate three mobile units west of the sanctuary, and use them to accommodate their Sunday School classes. The units are located in the parking area and the church will stripe an additional area for parking. The church has stated that this is a temporary solution and will begin construction of permanent buildings within a 1 year period. It is therefore recommended that this request be approved for a 1 year period subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report. - -2- ~ February 23, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don LeCompte, Elder of the Chula Vista Presbyterian Church spoke saying that he had initiated this action for the church. Commissioner Pressutti asked if Mr. LeCompte had read the conditions of the staff and if he had any objections. Mr. LeCompte stated that there were no objections. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) Variance PCV-76-3, request for temporary classroom use in mobile units, 940 Hilltop Drive be approved, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report, the variance to expire in February 1977. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of request for modification of Precise Plan at 1200' block Third Avenue~ Burger Kin~. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that a few years ago the Commission approved a precise plan for Handyman site on the east side of Third Avenue just north of Palomar, and in the southwest corner of the project was an area set aside for some type of commercial development, not specifically designated at that time. Burger King has now submitted a precise plan to develop this site. Mr. Lee explained the type of building proposed, parking, access, and what the staff had required in regard to signs and light standards. He also mentioned a 6th condition regarding the widening of the westerly driveway. Mr. Lee recommended approval in accordance with the staff report and the added condition. Mr. Lee also advised that a joint parking agreement had been filed with the Planning Department between Handyman & Burger King and that the architect for the project had advised that they had a sign more in keeping with what was required by the Plan- ning Department rather than what they had proposed in the beginning. Commissioner Smith asked if the planter that divides the inbound traffic from the outbound traffic on Third Avenue, should be shortened about 10 feet. Mr. Lee said he thought that shortening the planter should be no problem for the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Hines, Burger King Corporation stated that they were in concurrence with the staff recommendations. The sign could be adjusted and as to the planter, they would contact the architect in re§ard to adjusting the length. He also concurred with the staff recommendation regarding the widening of the driveway. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-Johnson) The Commission finds that this project would not have any significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Pressutti-johnson) Based on the findings set forth in the staff report, modi- fication of the precise plan , PCV.76-4, Burger King Restaurant, is approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report and the 6th condition added by staff at this meeting. -3- - February 23, 1976 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ PCZ-76-A~ 65-81 Third Avenue from R-3-G to R-3-G-P - C~t~. Initiated Director of Planning Peterson gave a brief history of the zoning on this property. He stated that the property had been zoned R-3-G in 1969, under that zoning the property can accommodate 63 units or 17.4 DU/acre. Prior to 1969 it was zoned R-3-B-4, a zone which allowed only 10.9 DU/acre or 39 units on this property. Mr. ?eterson stated that the present owner proceeded to draw up building plans and file the Initial Study. Property owners within 300 feet of the project were notified of the proposed development. Some of the property owners went to the City Council meeting of January 13, 1976 and protested the development; the Council at that time directed the staff not to issue the building permit and they also directed the staff to prepare a report on the history of the zoning of the property. The report was prepared and at the council meeting of January 27, 1976, it was staff's recommendation that the building permit be issued. The Council did not concur with the Staff's recommendation and directed the Planning Commission to consider rezoning the property to an R-3-G-P category. As a result of councils direction the staff re-evaluated the zoning of the property and concluded that the property had been zoned to a density higher than justified, and therefore recommend that it be rezoned back to a density comparable to what it was in 1969. The most comparable zone would be an R-3-G-P-12 zone, which allows 12 DU/acre. Under that zoning the property could accommodate 43 dwelling units. Mr. Peterson pointed out four reasons for recommending this rezoning: 1) the immediate area is comprised of single family dwellings, 2) the property does have some significant topographical features which would require a significant amount of grading, and would result in some areas devoted to unusable slopes, which in turn means that a plan which maximizes the density is more crowded than is normal for the R-3-G zone. 3) Third Avenue, at this location, veers off in a "Y" fashion and is on a fairly steep downgrade which is not a good location for a use that would generate a large amount of traffic. 4) The General Plan designates this area as Medium Density Residential , 4-12 DU/ acre. Mr. Peterson also mentioned the moral question involved in a downzoning, especially one which occurs when a builder makes an application for a building permit.in reliance upon the zoning which has existed for some time. Mr. Peterson stated that the recommendation of the Planning Department is to rezone the property to R-3-P-12. Commissioner Starr asked if the property owners had been notified of the zone change back in 1969. Mr. Peterson explained that it was done in conjunction with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and he doubted that any one person received written notice of the change. He also stated that the ordinance did not contain density categories identical to the old ordinance, so the City Council placed properties into the nearest comparable zone. In this case the change resulted in an increase in density on the property. Commissioner Starr wanted to know if this had happened to other properties in the city. Mr. Peterson explained that it had and the Council has asked the Planning Department to prepare a report on these other properties. Commissioner Starr asked if these properties were developed or undeveloped. It was noted that only the property at Hilltop and Bonita Road was undeveloped. -4- - February 23, 1976 Mr. peterson pointed out than an applicant had wanted to locate a convelescent hospital on the property at one time, and the only zone at that time that allowed a convelascent hospital was the R-3 zone. That was the rationale for zoning this property R-3. During the rezoning hearing in 1966 the subject of which of the R-3 zones would be appropriate on the property came in for considerable discussion by the Planning Commission and they felt that if the convelascent hospital did not go ahead then the density of about 1 unit for each 4000 sq. ft. would be a suit- able density for a multiple family development. Commissioner Pressutti said he understood the moral problem that this carries with it, but he wanted to know if there were some legal ramifications on which they have to consider when the City does something like this. Assistant City Attorney Beam felt that the Commission would have to make a recommen- dation based on the facts as it relates to the zoning. The applicant has no vested right to the zoning. He also stated that if the Commission recommends that the property be rezoned he urged them to make it based upon facts that they could find in the particular circumstance, which would Justify a change in the density not based upon any other outside pressure. Mr. Peterson noted that a letter had been received from the South Bay Board of Realtors, stating that they are in support of the present zoning and opposed to any downzonin9. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Perkins, 374 Hilltop Drive, one of the owner's of the property, questioned the staff~sraJ;ionaleregardin9 why they thought the zoning of R-3-G was correct in 1969 and not now. He stated that a lowering of the density would make development of this property i~feasible for them, he also noted that the cost of the improvements would be around $90,000. He asked the Commission for suggestions for an individual property owner to protect himself from this kind of "land jumping" which gives the government the right to take away an individual's rights to develop his property without consideration to the financial losses that will be realized. Ray Yoder, 296 Sea Vale, stated that he opposed the rezoning of the property because he felt that the downzoning would devaluate his property, and that the proposed use would provide needed housing, with easy access to the Downtown area. Chairman Chandler informed Mr. Yoder that this action was not taking away an R-3 zone it was only a recommendation to decrease the density, Vince Davies, 355 K Street, representing the Chamber of Commerce in the absence of the president, stated that they are very much in favor of the existing zoning and against downzonin9 of the property. He stated that purchase of this property was based on the number of units that were allowed at that time, and that the buyers had worked very closely with the city in regard to grading, landscaping; in other words the whole project. And now the owners are faced with a downzoning, he felt that it was not fair, it devaluated the property and made their project unworkable, and puts the realtor in a very awkward position. Newton Chaney, 292 Sea Vale, spoke in favor of rezoning the property. He handed in a copy of a petition which he stated had been circulated in his neighborhood, submitted to the City Council on January 13, 1976, with a copy to go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Chaney went on to state that the first he and his neighbor's had heard of the development of this particular piece of property was when they were notified of the 5 .... February 23, 1976 Initial Study of environmental impact. He went thru a brief history of the zoning of the property and narrated a slide presentation on the property to be developed and the surrounding area. Mr. Chaney concluded by requesting that the Commission downzone the property to R-1. He also mentioned the report from the planning Department that was going to City Council called "Neighbor- hoods in Transition"has an exhibit that shows the neighborhoods that could be rezoned to R-1 from R-3, he felt that this property should also have been in the study. Assistant City Attorney Beam, advised the Commission that their decision must not be based on any show of hands or valuation of property, it has to be made upon the reasonableness of the zoning. They may consider the substance of a petition but the number should have no impact on their decision. Ira Taylor, 234 Sea Vale, spoke in favor of rezoning the property to R-1. He noted that there would be heavy traffic and felt that high density development would degrade the neighborhood. He also felt that some other R-3 properties which are undeveloped should be developed with R-3 uses and leave the R-1 zones to be developed R-1. He also noted that a few years ago, the Ordinance was changed decreasing the allowable density from 1 unit per 1000 sq. ft. per unit to 1350 per unit increased the parking requirements. Mr. Taylor said he thought the neighborhood where he lived was Improving by people remodeling their homes. Frank Sippan, 335 Kimball Terrace, spoke in behalf of he and his neighbors on Kimball Terrace. He stated that they were opposed to development of the piece of property, their concern was the health, safety and welfare of the public, the land-owners and the residents of the area. He thought there should be a certain conformity in the development of the community to help stabilize land values and to help preserve existing land values. His neighbors do not want anything but R-1 zoning on that property, although Mr. Sippan stated he thought R-3-G-P-12 zoning was correct for the property. He wanted the Commission to consider the congestion, traffic hazards, the children living in the area, the runoff from the property, paving of this property would increase the runoff, noise pollution, police service and fire protection. Ron Pek~rek, consulting Landscape Architect for developers of the property, stated that he and the owners had met with the Planning staff and both parties concluded that the present design offers the best solution for development of the site. He noted that the present design segregates the multiple family from single family residents. Mr. Pekarek explaine~ that in his opinion the reduc- tion in density would not result in a better plan noting that the same amount of grading would occur in any event. He assured the Planning Commission that the proposed slopes would be adequately landscaped with the buildings placed on the canyon floor to avoid conflicts with adjacent R-1 houses. Carol Smith, 275 Sea Vale, spoke in favor of rezoning to R-1 stating that projects were designed on paper, and cited the South Bay Pioneers for example, as to noise, lights, and that lower does not necessarily mean that it eliminates the impact, and density does make a difference. R. V. Evans, 271 Sea Vale, felt the primary concern was the access road be- cause of fire protection to the residents. - -6- - February 23, 1976 Truman Brooks, 968 Corte Maria, representing Mr. Gentry and Mr. Perkins, stated that he had met with the staff and adjoining property owners and some approved and some opposed this development. He felt that the owners had the right to develop this property as it is presently zoned for several reasons: l) zonin§ and density were verified by the City prior to the purchase of this property; 2) time has been spent with the Planning Department working out the problems of deYeloping this canyon; 3) the City staff had made no solid objection to the proposed development; 4) the Zoning Administrator certified on January 12, 1976 that the proposed project would not have any possible signi- ficant impact on the environment; 5) the developer has spent $30,000 in plans, engineering and other costs in connection with this project, believing he had met all the requirements of the existing zoning; and 6) for a period of 6 years neither the Planning Staff nor the Commission had made any attempt to alter the zoning or density of this parcel. He further explained that due to improve- ments to the property, to make the site buildable the number of units permitted on the site is critical. The cost of the improvements mentioned would run about $90,000, and at the present time the per unit cost is about $4000 for the land and the improvements. A reduction in density would only increase the cost per unit, making development no longer feasible. Francis Jacobson, 63 Third Ave., stated that she felt that the neighbors of the proposed project should not have to suffer because of something that was done before. She noted that Mr. Woodward tried to put in apartments before and was voted down. Then he came in with a proposal to put in a convalscent hospital. Ms. Jacobson informed the Commission that they had not been notified of the rezoning to R-3-G. She concluded her comments saying that she was in favor of the downzoning to R-3-P-12. R. H. Woodward, commented that he had heard that the State and Federal Govern- ments were thinking about keeping all farm land as farm land, in other words, cities were not going to be able to expand~ as much as they would like to. Also single family dwellings are being priced out of reach of a lot of people, and he thought that this ~as a perfect location for elderly people because they could walk to the commercial areas of town. He suggested a solution to the problem might be for the surrounding property owners to buy the property and do with it as they wished. Robert Nelson, 65 Third Ave., informed the Commission that a 10 foot easement was provided for the lot behind him, and that on the plans he has seen, it has not been included. He spoke to Mr. Gentry about the easement and Mr~ Gentry did not know anything about the easement. Mr. Nelson was under the assumption that he was to provide five feet of the easement and the adjoining property owner would provide the other five feet to make it a ten foot easement. He mentioned the dangers of street parking and side walks which bring kids on skateboards. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Nelson of the nature of the easement. Mr. Nelson explained that it was an easement for in§tess and egress to a rear lot. Mr. Perkins again spoke about the easement stating that they had checked into the problem and discovered that Mr. Nelson's building is encroaching on the easement which was dedicated to the rear property, presently owned by a Mrs. Durland. They had contact ed her offering her access to the site as she would have no access to her property because of the encroachment. -7- February 23, 1976 Peter Watry, 81 Second Ave., expounded on the virtues of the neighborhood, especially the stability. He noted that the Negative Declaration said, "the project will not result in the generation of any noise, air pollution, lights, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to the welfare nor health of any human being~, he thought that this comment was absurd. He was concerned with the character of the neighborhood. He stated that they do not ask for any help from the City in taking care of their neighborhood, that the home- owners bear the full burden of the established and attractive neighborhood. What they did require was the protection from developments that are incompatible with the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to not allow such an intrusion of high density units, and to rezone the property back to R-l. Howard Payne, 54 Del Mar, he suggested that Mr. Gentry increase the 2 bedroom units to 3 bedroom units, which may help him, as it would increase the value of the unit. He also mentioned that this has been planned as an adult unit but may not remain so if the townhouses are resold as condominiums. He mentioned that there was a clause in the zoning ordinance about a zoning fence between the multiple family and single family zones, and he requested that this not be waived because of the noise, Ron Hillsberry, 3112 Kimball Terrace, pointed out that there is no sidewalk on the west side of Third Avenue and that his objection was that if the traffic were to increase it could be dangerous to persons walking on that side of the street and he would like the problem looked into. Sharon Williams, 271 "D" Street, noted that the town of Petaluma imposed restrictions on development and that such controls had now been upheld by the Supreme Court. She thought the development of this project would be a down- grading of their way of life and a threat to the substantial investments that they had in their homes. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph stated that she felt a mixture of R-1 and R-3, if very carefully done could be good, but it had to be pre-planned. She also felt that the staff recommendation of reducing the density would probably be the best for the area because it would conform to the General Plan and the original intent. Also that before any plan is approved she would like the traffic situation looked into. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Peterson if it was correct that at the time these people began preparing their plans they had every reason to believe that this was an R-3-G with a 2500 sq. ft. per unit limitation, and that this was still the zoning. Mr. Peterson answered yes to both questions. Mr. Smith said he didn't understand how they could wait until someone comes in with a plan and change the existing law, and asked Mr. Beam for clarification. Mr. Beam advised that "there is no vested right to particular zoning until such time that the building permit is issued and construction, in good faith, upon that building permit is commenced. Those facts are in evidence in this particular case. There has been some discussion of a~or~tor~um, which in effect precludes the issue of bu~ldin§ permits and precludes the vesting of -8- ~- February 23, 1976 any right to proceed. He recommended that the Com~ission make their recommendation to the Council disregarding any potenti'al legal problem. Mr. Starr asked Mr. peterson Cf the Hillside Ordinance was mandatory on this property. Mr. Peterson stated that the Hillside Ordinance does not apply to this property. Mr. Starr then asked Mr, Peterson if there were a change in zoning in a specific category and the density were changed up or down Would the adjoining properties be notified. He was concerned that the neighbors had not been notified as to the zoning change in this case. He asked if the present procedure was still the same. Mr. Peterson stated that property owners within 300' of a property proposed for rezoning are notified. However, this was not a normal rezoning back in 1969, it was a changing of the zoning classification which was necessitated by the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance which did away with the old zones. Under this circumstance, the Council rezoned properties to the new zone most comparable to the previous zoning under the old Ordinance. Because of the number of properties affected throughout the City, it would be virtually impossible to notify all property owners within 300' of an affected property. Discussion ensued regarding urban sprawl, increased housing costs, notifying adjacent property owners, and density of the project. MSC (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission finds that this project would not have any significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration. The vote was as follows; AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Floto, Smith, Johnson, Chandler, Rudolph NOES: Commissioner Starr MSC (Starr-Floto) Based on the findings set forth in the staff report, PCZ-76-A is approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report. The vote was as follows: AYES: Commissioners Starr, Floto, Pressutti, Johnson, Chandler, Rudolph NOES: Commissioner Smith Mr. Gentry asked the Commission if this decision was final, he said he could not understand why this had happened, why they had to rezone his property after he had proceeded with all his plans. He asked Mr. Beam to put it in writing after the Council meeting. Mr. Beam informed ~Ir. Gentry that he could not bind the Council to any decision. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Francis Jacobson, 63 Third Avenue, suggested that when the Planning Commission and the City Council make any changes to the zoning of property in Chula Vista, that all property owners should be notified~ -9- ~~ February 23, 1976 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson had no Director's report. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rudolph said she had read a report called "Neighborhood's in Transition" and wondered if the Commission was going to get copies of the report. Mr. Peterson advised Commissioner Rudolph that the report was going to Council on February 24, 1976, and that the Planning Department's recommendation was to refer it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Starr noted that in the draft Negative Declaration it stated that the project "will not have a significant effect on the environment", and then in the review of the Environmental Control Committee they insert the word, "no ~significant environmental impact", and the change in wording bothered him. Commissioner Chandler suggested that something be done about the wording. Mr. Beam said he had suggested that the Committee prepare a "handout" for the Commissioner's for their information on the environmental procedure. Commissioner Smith stated that he knew of several other pieces of property that may cause tile same type of problem as tonight, and thought that they should be taken care of before the problem arises again. Mr. Peterson informed the Commission that the Planning Department had been directed by Council to look at the other pieces of property and that they had prepared a report and it was going to Council next week, which may result in referral to the Planning Commission of the downzoning of an additional property. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respecfully submitted d ' h lm Frle rlc Acting Secretary