Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/01/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 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, Johnson, Pressutti, Smith and Starr. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Rezonin9 PCZ-75-J(2~ - 4,66 acres in n~rthwest quadr~n~"b~I~805 and Ea~t~J streeti~pc tOR~I~H'P , Cit~ initiated Director of Planning Peterson noted that this hearing was previously continued to this date because of bankruptcy proceedings on the property which were - anticipated to be concluded by this time. Those proceedings have not been concluded and it is not appropriate to take action on the rezoning at this time, therefore, a further continuance is recommended. MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) The public hearing for consideration of rezoning 4.66 acres in the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J Street be continued to the meeting of February 24, 1976. 2. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements) Ba~ Boulevard between H street ahd i stree~ _ Rohr-Indust~esi inc' - Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the construction of a new Credit Union building on Rohr Industries property, as previously approved, would require installation of public improvements in Bay Boulevard from H Street south to the site of the building, a distance of 1445 feet. It is impractical to construct such improvements at this time as it shoQld be done with an overall plan for public improvements in the Bay Front Area. It is recommended that the Commission adopt a motion recommending approval of the request for deferral subject to the requirements set forth in the staff report. Chairman Chandler advised that he and Commissioner Rudolph will abstain from discussion or action on this request due to employment connections with Rohr Industries. -2- January 26,1976 In response to a question from Co~missioner Starr, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised that a contingency factor of l0 percent is included in the calculations for the bonding requirement to cover escalation of costs. He also pointed out the applicant must sign an agreement guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and must also waive the right to protest in the event an assessment district is formed. He also confirmed that the property to the east of Bay Boulevard is owned by the State of California, which cannot be assessed, and that Rohr Industries is the sole owner of property to the west. MSUC (Pressutti-Floto The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the deferral of public improvements to Bay Boulevard, subject to the three conditions set forth in the staff report. Commissioners Chandler and Rudolph abstained from voting on the motion. 3, PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-75-8 for freestanding sign at 98 east Bonita Road - Union Oil Company Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this environmental analysis of the impact of a proposed pole sign is required due to the location of the site adjacent to Scenic Route of the city, namely Bonita Road. It is the conclusion of the report that the proposed sign would have an aesthetic impact on the area, and sets forth alternatives for lessening that impact, which include erection of a sign in accordance with the C-N zoning regulations. The second impact noted relates to energy consumption, and points out that if the proposed sign were to be illuminated for an average of 6 hours a day it would consume the electrical energy equal to the requirements of three typical single family homes which are heated by natural gas. Mr. Reid advised that input to the report was received from the Sweetwater Exec- utive Planning Committee, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, City of National City, and the County of San Diego Environmental Analysis Division. He recommended that the Commission adopt the report with the inclusion of the public input. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gayle McCandliss, representing the Environmental Control Commission, reported that the Commission reviewed the draft EIR and found that it meets the requirements of the State, and that it points out an unnecessary use of electrical energy. Since no need for the project has been shown, that Commission felt such energy consumption would be the worst kind of waste. The Environmental Control Commission recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Environmental Impact Report and deny the variance. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Peterson reported that the sign for the development north of Bonita Road is 43 feet high and contains a total of 216 sq. ft. in two panels of 108 sq. ft. each. He pointed out that property is in the C-V zone which allows larger signs than the C-N zone and also that the sign - was developed as an alternative to having four separate signs at that location. -3- January 26,1976 MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) The Commission adopts EIR-75-8 with the addition of the letters from the Sweetwater Executive Planning Committee, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, City of National City and the County of San Diego. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-75-19 - Freestanding pole si~n at 98 EastSonita Road ~ union Oil company Director of Planning Peterson reported that if approved this variance would permit the erection of a 50 ft. high sign containing 314 sq. ft. to replace the existing sign, 22 ft. high, containing 29 sq. ft. The applicant desires freeway identifi- cation for the service station. In investigating this request the staff determined that the existing sign is visible to southbound traffic on the freeway although it is not a prominent sign. A sign three times the size of the existing sign would be allowed in the present zoning classification without a variance. The staff could not Justify granting the variance since it would constitute a special privilege not accorded to other businesses in the C-N zone, and have recommended denial of the variance application. Commissioner Chandler reopened the public hearing, but as no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Smith and Starr reported that in checking on the visibility of this sign themselves they did not find it easily visible from the freeway and felt that an additional 3 feet of height would not result in much improvement. It was suggested that the applicant be allowed a sign 40 feet high. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that in taking action on the application as filed, the Commission should not prejudge any other proposal. The applicant has not indicated whether he would be interested in a compromise. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out the problems the City has encountered in attempting to eliminate the large number of freeway oriented signs along I-5 and expressed the hope the same problem would not develop adjacent to 1-805. She inquired about State signs indicating services available. Mr. Peterson affirmed that it is the State policy to place signs that indicate gas, food and lodging at locations where those services are available and he would expect they would be placed at this location before too long. MSUC(Rudolph- Starr) The Commission certifies that they have reviewed EIR-75-8 and the information contained therein and find that it was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission denies variance application PCV-75-19 for a 50 ft. high, 314 sq. ft., freestanding sign based on the findings set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Pressutti commented that he felt it appropriate to recognize Miss McCandliss' interest and her presentation regarding this project. -4~ January 26, 1976 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Ya~iance pc¥,76-1 , Request for reduction of lot area/ unit for 48 apa~tm~htS,-511 Park Way , Rosal Investment properties, Ltd. · Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the original ~partment complex, consisting of 128 apartment units on 3.08 acre site, was developed in 1961. The ordinance regulations in effect at that time would have permitted 6 additional units at the density of one unit per 1,O00 sq. ft. of area. In 1962, apparently for tax purposes, the ownersSplit the site into three parcels, creating the 1.5 acre easterly site with 48 units. No parcel map was filed and this is not a legal lot split; the property still remains in a single ownership. Since 1964 the owner has been Royal Investment Properties, which is the applicant of a variance request to divide the easterly 1.5 acre, thereby attaining a vacant 3/4 acre site on which they propose to construct 20 apartment units. It is the staff's position that such division of property cannot legally be made since it would result in a density of 54 units to the acre for that portion already developed. Such density is above that allowed in 1961 (one per 1000 sq. ft. of area) and is far beyond the present ordinance regulations of one unit per 1350 sq. ft. of area. The staff could not make findings to justify granting the variance for the division of the property and recon~end that the Commission adopt a motion finding that the 20 units would not have a significant impact on the environment, and adopt a second motion denying the request for the variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Whittingham, owner of the property adjacent to the north, expressed opposition to allowing any increased density of apartment units over that allowed by the existing zoning ordinance. Glen Hanson, 357 Hedge Way, expressed concern over the traffic and parking problems presently existing on Hedge Way. He reported that with parking on both sides of the street it is sometimes nearly impossi~ble to drive down the street. He felt that any additional apartment construction would add more congestion. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. A representative of the applicant then arrived and the Chairman reopened the public hearing. Roy Johnson, architect for the applicant, called attention to the photos of the vacant portion of the property and asserted there is no way that property can be used without approval of the variance. He pointed out that the drainage channel is a barrier between the developed portion of the property and the vacant area. He acknowledged that if the development had occurred under the present standards the developer would have been required to improve the drainage channel whether the development came over to Fifth Avenue or not. He contended that it is practical to accept the fact that the barrier is there and the portion of the property adjacent to Fifth Avenue can be developed under today's standards with 20 units, thereby making that portion of the property comply with the ordinances as they now exist. -5- January 26, 1976 MSC (Pressutti-Johnson) The Com~ission finds that this project and 20 new apartment units would not haYe any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration on IS-75-78. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Johnson, Floto, Chandler and Rudolph NOES: Commissioners Smith and Starr ABSENT: None MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) Due to the lack of affirmative findings to support the request, variance PC¥-76-1 is denied, based on findings for denial as set forth in the staff report. 6. consideration of request for vacation of easterly 12 feet of First Avenue between'~ St~t and Millan Court. Director of Planning Peterson advised that the City Engineering Division has concluded that there is no foreseeable need for the 80 ft. right of way of First Avenue; however, they also agree that there is no reason for vacating it in terms of benefit to the public. Mr. Peterson noted that this request for vacation is a different situation than the typical street closing request, which usually deal with a street - stub or short street, not used for thru traffic. First Avenue is a through street. The southerly terminus of the street abuts the San Diego Golf Course and there is a potential at some future time for redevelopment of that area. He also pointed out that under the existing grid system of streets, at quarter mile intervals the streets have an 80 ft. right of way for all of those streets. He recommended that the Commission send a recommendation to the City Council that the existing right of way not be vacated. Chairman Chandler inquired if anyone wished to speak on this item. Ken Green, 865 Fairway Court, owner of the property at First and Millan, indicated his intent to develop the property re§ardless of whether the vacation request is granted, noting that approval of the request would allow the con- struction of larger homes. Mr. Green cited the provision in the Municipal Code that right of way may be vacated if "it has been determined that the street is not needed by virtue of a change in plans by the City or the property involved consitutes an unnecessary surplus after construction of the public improvement." He pointed out that the Engineering Division has affirmed that the 12 ft. right of way to be vacated is considered as excess right of way. With regard to the setback on the east side of First Avenue, Mr. Green reported that south of Millan Court those setbacks range from 20 1/2 feet to 38 feet from the curb. The Staff report covered only the setbacks to the north of Millan Court which range from 34 1/2 feet to 71 feet. -6- January 26, 1976 Mr. Green contended that the City would benefit economically by getting surplus property back on the tax rolls. He again maintained that the municipal code provides for the vacation of surplus right of way even if it should benefit a property owner. Mrs. Lucille Pikala, 755 First Avenue, indicated she would not wish to have the 12 ft. portion of the right of way revert to their own property. Commissioner Smith pointed out that the statement of no foreseeable use of the right of way could be applied to a good many miles in Chula Vista. As an example, some years ago nobody saw the need for widening Fourth Avenue. He voiced opposition to reducing the right of way for specific benefit of one property owner. MSUC (Smith-Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council that the request for vacation of the easterly 12 feet of First Avenue right of way between Millan Court and the entrance to Hilltop Park be denied. Director of Planning Peterson affirmed that this action is a recommendation to the City Council who will take the final action on the vacation request. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None were presented. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. ?eterson had no Director's report. COMMISSION COMMENTS None were offered ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secret~