Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/08/13 Tape No : 272 Side: 2 356-1510 Tape No.: 273 Side: 2 0-260 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, August 13, 1986 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Green and Guiles STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon, followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Shipe/Tugenberg) to approve the minutes of the meeting of 7/23/86 as mailed. Chairman Cannon and Commissioner Carson abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-86-2 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that the project involves the demolition and replacement of the Country Club Clubhouse located at 88 "L" Street and the major use permit which addresses the golf course use. He Planning Commission -2- August 13, 1986 pointed out that the EIR reviewed the historical, cultural and architectural significance of the clubhouse which was designed in 1921 by one of the region's most notable architects, Richard Requa. He outlined the processing of the project commencing with consideration of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR on September 10th; the major use permit consideration by (1) the Montgomery Planning Committee and (2) the Planning Commission and, finally, consideration by Council of both the Final EIR and the major use permit. Mr. Reid stated that comments received had been included with the staff report except those of Ms. Bushong which had been distributed prior to the meeting. He then introduced Maria Burke Lia, Attorney at Law, and specialist in historic preservation and consultant for the EIR, to present the document's conclusions. Ms. Lia reviewed the significance and contributions of Mr. Requa, the architect of the original Country Club structure; noted the importance of the golf course placement in relationship to the clubhouse; displayed slides of the original clean and simple design of the structure and the results from the modifications and add-ons made over the year; she cited the concerns raised about fire and seismic safety; remarked that when the Historic Building Code was adopted in 1979, many architects had been unaware of its adoption and that the renovation options cited by Tucker, Sadler and Associates were not made under that Code. Ms. Lia pointed out that a possible alternative would be to retain and remodel the original building utilizing it as a golf clubhouse and to develop another building dedicated to meeting the social needs of the Club. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Lia replied that a structural engineer would be needed to decide if the building is safe according to today's standards and codes; that she had found no apparent evidence of architectural damage caused by the 1933 earthquake; that opinions differed as to whether this structure was one of Mr. Requa's best works; however, the many former members who had achieved prominence in the County demonstrated its cultural significance. Staff also supplied information that there are 13 historic sites in Chula Vista and that the Resource Conservation Commission {RCC) is holding public meetings prior to making recommendations on 50 other sites including the Clubhouse. Mr. Chairman instructed the audience and the Commission that the adequacy of the EIR was the focus of the hearing's consideration not a decision regarding removal or retention of the building and comments should be limited to that context. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Anthony Ambrose, Planner with HCH, 4877 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, 92123, representing the applicants, stated disagreement with the staff report and the EIR's conclusions that demolition of the existing clubhouse would result in a substantial environmental effect. He contended that there had not been a consensus among the experts regarding preservation; the EIR had not convinced him of the building's "true historical significance"; only the north or front elevation was similar to (but not the same as) Requa's design; the Club's Ad Hoc Committee had indicated in 1982 that the existing facility was Planning Commission -3- August 13, 1986 functionally inadequate for current or future needs; renovation or restoration was too costly and the membership had approved construction of a new clubhouse. He corrected the square footage reported in the staff report from 26,140 to 36,140 square feet - an expansion of over 12,000 square feet; and agreed with the RCC that the Country Club site should be designated as a historical site without any permit control regulations. Mr. Ambrose presented the Commission with a written response to Mr. O'Neill's letter (in the packet) and noted that the Club's Manager, Mr. Chuck Talbott; the President, Mr. Walter Haase; and the Counsel, Mr. Steve Oggle, were available for questioning. Irene Bushong, 856 Country Club Drive, and Frank O'Neill, 836 Turbot Court, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the demolition of the clubhouse citing the adequacy of the club for all but very large social activities; the membership is not expanding but is limited to 400 members; the matter should be delayed until planning and building guidelines for the Montgomery area are developed; and the need for the membership to have all options presented fairly including an opinion {Mr. Whitelaw's) of the building's structural integrity. Ms. Lia emphasized that Mr. Whitelaw's indicated figure of $10,000 was for a structural engineering analysis of the building and did not include an architectural analysis. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Carson) (5-0) to schedule consideration of the Final EIR for September 10, 1986. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-82-3 - CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO PCC-82-3 IN ORDER TO INCREASE STUDENT ENROLLMENT AT 470 'L' STREET - CHURCH OF CHRIST Principal Planner Lee commented that the amended master plan approved by the Planning Commission in 1985 authorized a 175-student school with play limited to the northwest corner of the site and the present request is for approval of a 75-student increase. Mr. Lee noted that since the existing classrooms and parking area could accommodate up to 270 students and over 200 vehicles respectively the primary question is the effect of the noise impact and the adequacy of the outside play area as a result of the increased capacity. The new acoustical analysis based on the increased enrollment, the lunch area and activities as well as recess activities has concluded that the increase of 1-2 decibels would not be audible to the human ear. The applicant has submitted an agreement from Sweetwater High School District authorizing the use of the adjacent high school grounds for a play area; and one letter of protest has been received from 441 Westby which is not in the vicinity of the play area. Commissioner Cannon remarked on the irritant factor of an increased duration of a noise level and asked if the ordinance gave consideration to the cumulative amount of time in which people are exposed to a decibel reading. Planning Commission -4- August 13, 1986 He was answered that the ordinance is based on specific levels taken over a specific time and that since the facility currently conforms to the ordinance, the increase in the number of lunch breaks would actually lower the decibel rating and, therefore, a significant effect is not being created. The Commission complimented the applicant on the improved appearance of the project area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Leppard, 8929 Complex Drive, San Diego, 92123, representing the Church of Christ and the Southwestern Christian Schools acknowledged the compliment and reviewed mitigation measures taken to protect neighbors from noise; the availability of classroom and playground space; noted that the requested increase in enrollment would take place over a number of years; that it was their belief that any impacts would be insignificant; and stated the availability of the Principal and two of the Church elders for questioning. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's comment about the need for fence repair on the east side of the property line, he replied that the fence was not on Church property but they have been considering an extension of the masonry wal 1. Peggy Huff, 450 Westby, Chula Vista, a neighbor, inquired if the high school students were being affected by the use of the public school playground. She was informed school grounds were being utilized during times not required by the High School. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-3 with Addendum. MSUC {Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve the request, PCC-82-3, to increase enrollment from 175 to 250 students at 470 "L" Street provided that a valid agreement remains in effect with the Sweetwater Union High School District all owing for use of the high school playground area. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-L - REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE STANDARD CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO OPERATE A NIGHT CLUB AT 15 FOURTH AVENUE - SU LI IP Principal Planner Lee indicated the item is a request to establish a shared parking agreement on a 2.6 acre site located at Fourth and "C" Street where the applicant is proposing to convert a vacant racketball facility into a night club. The land use is allowable; however, to compute the parking need by all the businesses, 170 spaces would be required. By restriping the parking area and with a shared parking agreement, 140 spaces could be Planning Commission -5- August 13, 1986 accommodated - a deficit of 29 spaces. However, if the size of the night club were to be reduced to about 3,000 square feet plus a valid agreement guaranteeing no new businesses with conflicting hours, and shared-parking with those firms presently having non-conflicting hours, the requirements would be met. Mr. Lee reviewed the conditions of approval and pointed out a possible conflict area in that since the night club is proposing a dance floor, a bona fide eating situation must be included. Mr. Lee also noted that letters of protest had been received expressing concern about possible noise plus fire hazards occasioned by patrons utilizing private driveway space thereby impeding access of emergency vehicles. Commissioner Grasser asked if recommendations 5 through 8 are actually requirements or conditions. She was answered that items 5 through 7 would be required in the course of construction but were included in the staff report for the information of the applicant. Other concerns of the Commission included whether a review by the Fire Department would be required; the opinion of the neighboring businesses about the parking lot restriping, and a possible parking overflow into the Department of Motor Vehicle facilities. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Regina Hickey, 21 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista and Barbara Orsa, 45 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, neighboring apartment complex owners, expressed concern over increased trash-littering on nearby private property; possible drug dealings; irrigation ditch no deterrent to parking and chain-fence torn down several times; possible overflow of parking to private areas resulting in difficulty or inability of fire and emergency vehicles accessing apartment projects. Raymond Bernier, 156 Garrett, Chula Vista, 92010, representing the applicant said that by utilizing a revised parking plan, the requirements could be met. He indicated that according to his count, only 30 spaces had been used by the seven businesses in the center; that the "Smith Private Service" maintains a security check in the area. He questioned use of reduced areas for compact cars; and if the club could be opened for bar and lounge use only between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. if parking were available. In response to questions from the Commission he noted that no live music would be used and Ms. Su Li Ip replied that a liquor license had been secured. Abe Sinor, 3100 Fifth Avenue, owner of the shopping center, said that Mr. Lee had made no mention in his presentation about the letters sent by the tenants who favor the project because the parking lot will be resurfaced and lighted, transients discouraged and the vacant building utilized; after l0 years of operation, the insurance costs had forced the closure of the racketball court; there were few uses for such an area so it had been vacant 8 months; that he was willing to do anything feasible to make the property more attractive to the public; and that the private security patrol had never reported problems in the area. Planning Commission -6- August 13, 1986 Mr. Lee observed that supporting letters had been received from three tenants; Woods Appliance, PetCo and the Co-op Laundry; that compact spaces were effective only where a certain amount of parking control could be exercised as in office structures and employment centers; however, compact spaces are not effective in retail establishments. He suggested that the possible construction of a wall on the south property line of PetCo would discourage people from parking in adjacent areas; and that in light of the testimony given, a 2-weeks continuance to resolve the problems of additional hours, parking ratios and the floor plan should be considered. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (5-0) to continue the hearing for 2 weeks. At 8:35, the Chairman declared a 5-minute recess. The Commission reconvened at 8:39. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-1 CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION REGARDING THE COLOR OF THE MAIN BUILDING CANOPY FOR 1136 BROADWAY - HANDYMAN CORPORATION Principal Planner Lee commented that Handyman has a new building under construction next to the Price Bazaar and that when the plans were initially submitted a bright orange color was proposed for the main building canopy. The Zoning Administrator using his design authority declared the color inconsistent with the adjacent structures, whereupon the design was resubmitted featuring a brown color. Mr. Lee noted that although Handyman claims the orange color is part of its corporate image the slides being shown the Commission illustrate that the orange canopy is not acceptable in other design sensitive communities. He recommended that unless the Commission denied the appeal, the item should be continued to the meeting of August 27, 1986 for input from the Design Review Committee. Charles McCray, 6666 Convoy Court, San Diego, Planning Director for Handyman and representing the firm, declared an immediate decision was needed to facilitate a Thanksgiving opening; that the slides shown were of facilities that had been part of Handyman for a 5-year span; the orange canopy is representative of their current corporate image and their present objective to make all the stores exactly alike outside and inside. He pointed out that the elevations were simple and well-designed; the wall system is a concrete color and therefore almost a negative space; they had no desire for a incorrect design situation but the orange canopy would not be as offensive as the plain walls. Mr. McCray used the overhead projector to display slides of the nearby Ralphs, McDonalds, Target and Price Bazaar which also use bright orange-red colors. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. McCray said that the plans had been submitted for over 6 months and that the brown canopy had been submitted to facilitate the reviewing process with the determination to request a color change further in the process; that it had never been Handyman's intent to utilize a brown canopy if there was an alternative. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission -7- August 13, 1986 Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the logic that permitted Home Depot to retain their logo and denied Handyman. Principal Planner Lee explained that Home Depot had requested a striped sign program; but the case in question was a total architectural element because the color jumps out in a bolder fashion; he cited other corporations who had minimized their logos for use in Chula Vista; and noted the great need to upgrade not only the appearance of the Montgomery area but the total neighboring community. Commissioner Cannon stated that he did not feel the orange canopy would add anything to the corporate image and that Chula Vista should not take the back door in aesthetic quality. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) (5-0) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-86-34 REQUEST TO LEGITIMIZE AN EXISTING 46-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AT 381 "E" STREET - CAMERA BUG Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has a business located on the north side of "E" Street which is 15 feet wide and has a 78-foot non- conforming, projecting sign perpendicular to "E" Street. In previous years, the former occupant had added a nonconforming sign facing the service station. Some months ago, the present occupant painted the wall and sign; a violation of the Code which allows for wall signs facing dedicated streets but not on adjacent private property. The sign duplicates the identity of the business and fails to meet the test requirements for a variance as there is no hardship nor preservation of property rights possessed by others in the same district involved. Also, there is a blank wall surface on the "E" Street frontage of the store that could accommodate a 45-square foot wall sign that would be in conformance of the Code. Staff, for these reasons, is recommending denial of the request. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Papadakis, 75 Third Avenue, representing the Camera Bug, declared that the new sign is economically vital; they have tried to simplify and improve a previous nonconforming sign to make it easy to find the business; the whole theory of signage exists for the use of the public which has the right to find a place easily. He contended that new architectural structures work signage into the plans at the time of plan drawing, but older buildings are stuck with very little sign ability; and because they are on a corner they can make theirs more visible. He cited the instance of a visitor from Coronado who had great difficulty finding their location as she was looking for a sign at eye level. He noted that because of the traffic conditions on "E" Street, prospective patrons do not look upwards for signs. Joann Papadakis, 75 Third Avenue, a sales clerk in the Camera Bug; and Mary Wilardson, 509 Carvalos Drive, Chula Vista, owner of the property, spoke in support of the request stating that there have been fewer accidents at the corner of Fourth and "E" and an increase in business since the sign was put Planning Commission -8- August 13, 1986 up; there had been an intention to put the name on the front of the building but it was judged that the public wouldn't see it; that the City Fathers want to see business in Chula Vista prospering; and that the other sign had been erected before the Papadakis' moved into the building and she, the owner, saw no reason why it could not be replaced with a clearer one. Charles Butler, Butler Chevron, 397 "E" Street, cited parking problems occasioned by patrons of the Camera Bug parking on his site; that the previous sign had been blue lettering on a white background (the same colors as the service station) and less startling than the bright yellow wall; and the Chevron District Manager had suggested that some sort of greenery be planted to hide the sign if it is permitted to remain. In response to why the previous tall plant foliage had been removed, Mr. Butler said there had been water damage at the top of the building caused by leaves shedding into the gutter and the trees had been removed at Camera Bug's request. Mr. Papadakis returned to the podium saying that the parking problem has not increased because of the new paint job, but has been a constant problem because of the location of the two businesses and that a similar parking situation exists a block away involving another service station. He referred to the enforced removal of the highway signs as an aesthetic measure several years ago which resulted in only the signs belonging to companies wealthy enough to locate "monstrous signs" 600 feet away remaining while numerous small businesses were "wiped out". No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would favor the recommendation of staff since there was no justification to allow this bright yellow wall and refuse Handyman's orange canopy. Commissioner Cannon said he considered the present signage to be adequate and he was unable to make findings that the property is unique and requires that type of signage. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (5-0) to deny Variance ZAV-86-34. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-2 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE AS AN UNCLASSIFIED USE Principal Planner Lee said that the Planning Commission had previously voted to initiate a zoning text amendment to place RV storage in the unclassified use subject to location in any zone upon issuance of a CUP. The proposed amendment contains a listing of the issues to be addressed with each CUP application to enable the Commission to determine if the usage is interim in nature by virtue of the adjacent uses and zoning and whether it would require yearly review or remain in effect for a maximum of 5 years without a rehearing. Planning Commission -9- August 13, 1986 Discussion ensued between Commission and staff regarding the acceptability of the wordage "...vacation and camping trailers, boats and the like..." (page 1 under D. ANALYSIS) which was considered too broad a description. Concern was also expressed regarding the recreation storage use being allowed in a residential or retain commercial zone when the I-L zone appeared to be more appropriate. Staff explained that with the CUP process the appropriate land use would be determined by the access and adjacent land use but an opportunity would be created for utilization of areas throughout the City which are similar to the SDG&E easement (part of which is zoned residential) on an interim basis with rezoning the area; that it is more restrictive to utilize a CUP because the underlying zoning remains for any additional use of the property and it avoids the problem of opening up the area for other industrial land uses if the I-L zone is established and then the use is terminated. This being the time and the place as advertised, and persons being present wishing to testify, the public hearing was opened. John Gardner, 753 Rocha Road, Chula Vista, said he and his partner had leased a parcel from SDG&E; were operating a toy storage facility and are seeking to acquire another parcel from SDG&E for similar usage. He indicated that the stored vehicles are basically of a wheeled nature, such as cabin cruisers on belts, but are not necessarily restricted to camping vehicles only. He volunteered that the phrase "and the like" might describe the three amphibious World War II "ducks" that are parked on the site. In response to questions he replied that the area was zoned I-L-P (Limited Industrial). MSUC {Tugenberg/Shipe) to continue for 2 weeks leaving the Public Hearing open for further comments to enable the Planning Department to clarify the description of recreational vehicles. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director of Planning Krempl noted that background material for the next workshop and been distributed to the Commissions. A presentation would be given by staff from the City of San Diego, as well as from SANDAG, and would address San Diego's activities on-the Otay Mesa as well as the overall comprehensive traffic study underway for the South Bay areas. As the workshop is a dinner meeting, he asked the Secretary to poll the Commission for those who would be attending the dinner portion. Commissioners Shipe, Tugenberg, Cannon and Carson indicated they would attend; Grasser, undecided. COMMISSION CO~4ENTS - none ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 20. 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. WPC 3126P