HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/06/11 Tape 272 - Side 1
0 - 1219
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
'CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday June 11, 1986
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson,
Grasser, Green, Guiles and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Shipe
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal
Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill,
Deputy City Attorney Moore
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon and was
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 (Green/Carson) Guiles abstained, to approve the minutes of the meeting of
April 23, 1986, as mailed.
ORAL CObIMUNICATIONS
None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE ZAV-86-26 REQUEST TO
INCREASE LOT COVERAGE FROM 40 PERCENT AND TO INCREASE
THE NUMBER OF STORIES AT 165 MURRAY STREET
J. ANTHONY RASO
ner Lee stated that the Planning Commission had recently denied
Principal Planm~ · ..... 4. ~.+ overa,e from 40 percent to 61
a variance request ~r_ a~ ~[~4~-~+c ~r ~Raso's appeal to the City
percent and from 2-1/z to J s~uF~:~ ,- -~-~ ........
Council was denied with the request referred to the Design Review Committee to
search for a design solution to reduce the bulk and height of the building.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June ll, 1986
Council also suggested that a design solution might result in the need to
consider a variance for lot coverage. Staff offered Mr. Raso a "first-step"
design solution which would lower the height to 28 feet while retaining the
8/12 roof pitch with the intention that Mr. Raso would seek professional
design assistance to refine or modify the concept. Prior to the Design Review
hearing, staff and two members of the DRC met with Mr. Raso who presented
copies of the staff sketch indicating it was the design the City wanted. The
Subcommittee emphasized clearly to Mr. Raso the need to pursue a design
solution by hiring a competent designer. Mr. Raso, however, chose not to hire
design help and at the DRC hearing again presented the very elementary
bulk-study drawings as the design that the City wanted. Staff, at the same
time, submitted a more refined mansard design which eliminated the 8/12 front
roof pitch and lowered the roof to 25' feet in height as evidence of another
possible design solution. The Design Review Committee contended that Mr.
Raso's submission was not sufficiently detailed for recommendation purposes
and emphasized that the role of the DRC is to critique drawings, not design
buildings for the applicant.
It is staff's opinion that Mr. Raso wishes to finish the house as it is now
framed, however, that option is no longer available because of the variance
denial. Staff recommends (1) denial of the variance request for an increase
in the number of stories; and (2} approval of a variance for 46.2 percent lot
coverage subject to removal of the accessory structure located at the rear of
lot, reduction of the building height to 30 feet or less and submission and
approval of an acceptable design exterior by the DRC. Mr. Raso's other option
would be to remove enough of the building area to adhere to the 40 percent lot
coverage and lower the building height to a minimum of 35 feet in accordance
with the approved drawings on file with the city.
Mr. Lee continued that 62 residents of Chula Vista had submitted letters
extolling the design of 165 Murray Street and pointed out that the matter of
contention was inappropriate scale and proportion of the building with the lot
on which it is located and not design.
In reply to questions from the Commission, staff replied that Mr. Raso is now
the "owner of record" of the property under question; in addition to
compliance with the lot coverage permitted, removal of the third story would
be needed to bring the building into compliance; the new FAR regulations would
become effective only if Mr. Raso were to file new plans; however, if he were
to build in compliance with the plans on file and the building permit already
issued, (limiting building size to 40% of the lot) he would be in compliance
with the City Code; Mr. Raso had indicated at the Council hearing a
willingness to lower the roof height in exchange for lot coverage that would
ermit the existing footprint; the staff report and analysis concludes that
benefit the neighborhood
Powering the roof height constitutes a greater to
than strict adherence to the lot coverage as the 4,000 square foot footprint
offered several design options.
~Commission Minutes -3- June ll, 1986
n the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
This beg ~ ...... ~-- -eo-le s-oke in opposition: Mike Burgess, }~ Hal~y
opened. )ne TOm~uw~ ~ ~
St.; Daniel Wall, 156 Halsey St, Lois Myers, 162 Halsey St.; Helen waoswor~n,
175 Murray St.' and Wayne Myers, 162 Halsey St., Chula Vista. Their
objections and Jtatements included doubt that the mansard roof design would
permanently eliminate the roof deck overlooking neighboring yards causing loss
· · that a itched roof design over the entire structure would
o~. Rr~acyl ...... ~.~- ~ ok and the third floor; if the house we[e~
em~mna~e ~ .... ,~, ..... -=-e could be accepted; the rear wew OT
ruc~ure. ~.~ ~u~ ~-~-~
one-s~ory ~ ~ t ....... + ~-~ the windows which destroy the
lB a ~ea~ure~ess pox ~x~uv~ -~-
building .... ~___, .... nt of the City (meaning tax-payers)
' 'vac ' OD ec%lon anu
neighbors pti YC Q ..... ~-~ ~n-es bv Mr. Raso are at fault, not
in building costs for ~ne nouse; uub~, ~-~ u
the City Planners; how the 61 percent lot coverage figure was derived and the
height of the building determined; construction of the third floor without a
permit; how many of the 62 supporting letterwriters were from the immediate
neighborhood; the exhaust from the fire places is in the middle of the second
floor of neighboring houses, a possible fire hazard.
Joseph Raso, 165 Murray St., stated, for the record, "I do not desire a
variance but request a continuance to work out a design to please my
neighbors. It is the City's request I get a variance, not mine. The City
Council thinks it would be proper to lower the height of the house and allow
t to remain - which would require a variance and I am working on
the 46 percen ........ , ...... ~:telv." When asked if he wished to
a design that comp)les Wl~n ~: .:- ~v,..v.~ J .......
withdraw the request for a variance, Mr. Raso sago ne olo no~ want to withdraw
the request, but wanted that to fall back on; that he had received a list from
the City of 68 names and intended to communicate with them on the design. In
response to Chairman Cannon's request for the length of continuance time he
would need, he replied about 90 days.
Director Krempl interposed that~,~he time was scheduled for Council
consideration at the meeting of ~ 17, 1986 and stipulated that if a
continuance were granted, it is the position of the City that the stop-order
on the house remain. /~
Mr. Raso expressed agreement with the stipulation and showed a series of 15
slides illustrating the type of construction used, the amount of detail and
heavy construction work that would have to be removed, with great difficulty,
if the building were modified or the roof height lowered. He noted his intent
to utilize planter boxes and hanging vegetation to soften the "boxy" look of
the elevations. He declared he had not known until tonight that the roof deck
might be illegal and expressed willingness to remove the deck if such were the
case. Principal Planner Lee replied that there is nothing in the Code to
preclude the deck, however, he would check with the Building Department to
ascertain the facts related to the deck.
In reply to the Chairman's question of his desired intent, Mr. Raso replied
that he would comply with the Council's wishes to let the house be built to 46
percent lot coverage while continuing to work with the neighbors to reduce to
40 percent. He requested that the Commission not lock the variance approval
Plannin9 Commission Minutes -4- June ll, 1986
to a 30-foot height limit. He notes that on the "red tag" which was issued,
the words "excessive building height" had been crossed out because by law the
height was not illegal by measurement.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Director Krempl explained that the ordinance has been changed; that,
theoretically, Mr. Raso could have constructed to a building height of 42
feet, however, he never obtained an approved permit for that height and the
only valid permit is for 35 feet - anything in excess of that figure is
illegal.
MS (Tugenberg/Guiles) to deny the variance.
Commissioner Cannon noted that in the "findings" it is essential to establish
there is a hardship; however, the hardship in this case would be the current
zoning law or, in other words, that if Mr. Raso builds to Code, it would
constitute a hardship. The Commissioner said he was not about to "find" that
to comply with the legal Code is a hardship.
Commissioner Green cited agreement with what had been said and added that the
neighbors might not understand all that is proposed, however, he hears them
saying, "make him do it legally" and will therefore vote to deny the variance.
Commissioner Guiles commented that many details have been discussed that
should have been covered through the correct submittal of the plans, reviews
and approval by the City and the neighbors before action was taken.
Commissioner Carson expressed regret for the neighbors viewing the house which
has been constructed and for the person doing the construction, however, she
would vote to deny the variance.
The motion was unanimously carried by a 6-0 vote to deny the variance.
The Chairman summarized the action for the audience saying the item would be
forwarded to Council again with the Commission's repeated recommendation for
denial and that if it were returned through future Council action, he hoped it
would be returned with more guidelines.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-33 - REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION AND MINI-MARKET AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST 'H' STREET AND THE MAIN
ENTRANCE TO THE TERRA NOVA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
SHELL OIL COMPANY
Principal Planner Lee noted that the item involved a request by Shell Oil
Company to construct a 24-hour self-service gas station and mini-market on .98
acres located on the southwest corner of East "H" Street and the main entrance
to the Terra Nova Shopping Center. He stated that the project has been
approved by the DRC; it is well-designed; provides a service not available in
~lannin~q_Commission Minutes -5- June ll, 1986
the neighborhood; and staff recommends approval. In reply to a question from
the Commission, he said that Shell does not anticipate putting in a car-wash
facility in the future.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James A. Leary, 11545 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, 92121 - architect
representing Terra Nova Association and Shell Oil Company, testified that they
have worked closely with staff to develop anacceptable design, and that
representatives of these finns were available for questioning.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC(Tugenberg/Grasser) to recertify EIR-79-8 and Addendum "B"
MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) based on findings contained in Section "E" of the
staff report, to adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-86-33, to
construct a self-serve gas station and mini-market at the southwest corner of
Eat "H" Street and the main entrance to the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center
subject to the condition that development of the site shall comply with the
plan approved or conditionally approved by the Design Review Committee
(Reference PCM-86-28).
The Commission complimented the applicant on the excellence of his design.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: pCZ-86-D - CONSIDERATION TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY
45.75 ACRES OF TERRITORY, LOCATED sOUTHEASTERLY OF THE
TERMINUS OF MACE STREET AND EXTENDING IN A
sOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO THE NORTH-FACING SLOPES OF
THE OTAY VALLEY, TO A-8 (AGRICULTURE) AND F-1
(FLOODWAY) ZONES
Principal Planner Lee stated that on March 18, 1986, Council initiated
annexation action on 61+ acres of land located south of Otay Valley Road and
west of 1-805. This territory is within the boundaries of the Chula Vista
Sphere-of-Influence Plan. The 15+ acres to the east was prezoned A-8 with the
Fenton/Lake prezoning. The remaining 4~+ acres, is.recommended for prezon~ng
t Mesa/Nest Community Plan designates the area north of
to A-8 also. The ~ ay ..... =---~nl with the river and areas located to
the Otay River as Low-DensitY
the south as Parks and Open Space. Staff's recommendation is to prezone the
area to A-8 (Agriculture) which is specifically a holding zone. The riparian
area abuts the edge of the floodway; however, the actual area is not defined
on the map. The Chula Vista General Plan designates the area north of the
river as Research and Development with the riparian portions of the river
designated as Parks and Open Space. No future General Plan action is required
and final resolution of the zoning issue will be settled when a Specific Plan
is submitted or the General Plan is updated for this area.
In reply to a question from the Commission, Director Krempl advised that since
staff's intent is to duplicate as closely as possible the existing zoning of
the City of San Diego (Floodway), the prezoning would make little change.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June ll, 1986
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
The following people indicated opposition to the prezoning: Kathleen Cheers,
505 Gatty Ct., San Diego, 92154, homeowner/Otay Mesa Homeowners Assc.; E.
Malec, 3614 Lindbergh St., S.D., Otay Homeowners Assn; Joan C. malec, 3614
Lindbergh St., S.D.; Charlie L. Lawson, 3584 Lindbergh St., S.D.; Diana
Farnsworth, 4384 Murrieta, S.D.; Richard D. Lazo, 4064 Chanute St., S.D.; Val
Guerra, 3618 Palm Ave., S.D., Otay Mesa Homeowners Assc./Otay Mesa Planning
Gp; Gerry Bettencourt, 4392 Murrieta, S.D.; Ruby A. Lawson, 3584 Lindbergh
St., S.D.; Art Schilling, 601 Twining, S.D., representing The Common People;
Ruth J. Schneider, 1042 Piccard Ave., S.D., Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning
Committee, Otay Mesa Homeowners Assc.; Manuel Bettencourt, 4392 Murrieta,
S.D.; William L. Elyea, 4270 Powderhorn Dr., S.D.; Phyllis Miller, 4341
Murrieta, S.D.; John Farnsworth, 4384 Murrieta, S.D.; Robert Torrif, 506 Gatty
Court, S.D.; Gladys Torrif, 506 Gatty Court, S.D.; James and Charlene
Burleson, 4056 Chanute St., S.D., 92154.
Ms. Cheers declared she had purchased her property ll years ago as a "view
lot"; asked if the City would be willing to write a statement indicating the
zoning would not be changed after annexation; questioned why, if a "natural
boundary" was desired by Chula Vista (as she had been informed by the City),
the Otay Riverbed had not been selected instead of an extension up the slope
to the base of her property; expressed concern over an article in the READER
implying the developers are working with the City to annex the land with the
result that the residents and homeowners (San Diego taxpayers) would "have no
say" in the land's disposition; since the area is a flood zone, that Chula
Vista consider utilizing it as a park space or golf course if the property is
annexed. Ms. Cheers continued that developers have been up on the Mesa urging
sale of properties on the basis that the land will be used as an access way:
concern is felt that the developers would have less difficulty securing
utilities in Chula Vista than San Diego; the homeowners have noted the
Council's recent denial of a new permit for the auto-wrecking facility on Mace
Street which would provide occasion for use of the land being considered for
prezoning; concern that the developer, Chillingsworth, and the City of Chula
Vista "have something up their sleeves"; the designation of "Floodway" did not
prevent construction of a shopping center off H Street being built on a
floodway; they will fight the annexation and oppose any type of "holding
pattern"; they want the territory to remain as open land or be made into a
park; and will pursue the article (READER's) and what is intimated therein.
In reply to the Chairman's explanation that the Commission had no authority to
debate the annexation at the present meeting; and that the proposed prezoning
would be almost the same as the current zoning under the City of San Diego,
she replied that it was the understanding of the residents on the Mesa that
the land was currently designated as Open Land; that Chula Vista wished to
change the zoning to Agriculture and Flood Zone; and that the San Diego City
Planning Department had advised their Council against the proposed annexation.
Mr. Schilling presented the Commission with copies of the READER's article.
Plannin9 Commission Minutes -7- June ll, 1986
Ruth Schneider, Chairperson of the Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning Committee and
President of the Otay Mesa Homeowners' Association, remarked that the majority
of the 25 people living on the rim of the proposed reorganization were present
(the others being out of the State) and would "not sit back and let things
happen"; the river valley is designated as "Flood Plain Floodwa~v Overlay" and
is zoned for Open Space, not Agriculture; the area is inundated with flood
waters during the rains and is not an area for development; the residents of
the Mesa are being "persecuted by land specu/a~o because of the proposed
prezone; if the area were to be prezoned, it should be "Open Space"; and
requested she be notified when this item was forwarded for Council
consideration as she and the residents intend to be present at the meeting.
Discussion ensued concerning the correct zoning with Mrs. Schneider contending
the correct San Diego zoning is Parks and Open Space with a Flood Plain
Floodway Overlay. Director Krempl explained the issue before the Commission
was the prezoning (not the General Plan designation); the San Diego zoning is
Floodway and the proposed prezoning is also Floodway under Chula Vista. The
surrounding property is San Diego zoned as A-lO (Agriculture with l0 dwelling
units/acre) and is proposed for Chula Vista prezoning as A-8 {Agriculture with
8 dwelling units/acre). This is the closest zoning approximation possible.
He added that on the San Diego General Plan the entire area in which the
property is located is designated as Parks and Open Space and the Floodway is
so designated on the Chula Vista General Plan also.
William Elyea, a resident since 1960, added that the river bed floods every 2
years; 5 years ago, the water came up to A-8 (on the overhead projection)
behind Finney School and extended all the way across to the other side; one of
the reasons for their concern about changing control of the land area is
because 15 years ago, Fenton Gravel Company "chopped off the hillsides up to
the back yards" of the houses; and that law enforcement and poor access for
emergency vehicles exist. He expressed mistrust over why Chula Vista would
annex the property if there were not some major plans for development in the
river bed, because, otherwise, there would be "no reason to take it over."
Additional concerns and statements presented included the difficulty and
confusion in getting an emergency response from either Chula Vista or San
Diego; elimination of the known wildlife in the area: quail, coyote, hawks and
hummingbirds; and since this is the last great river valley along the coast,
it should be developed into something of value not as a site for
condominiums.
Ted Hale, 5861 Hampton Court, San Diego, 92154, stated that he was employed by
the H. C. Fenton Material Company, owner of the property, and was present to
defend the firm; they had neither approached anyone and tried to buy their
property nor were they planning any development; the Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning
Committee was aware the property was available for purchase by the City of San
Diego or Chula Vista; there is no sales problem; and "nothing underhand is
going on.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
June ll, 1986
~lannin~Commission Minutes -8-
that any implication that annexation would refute
Director Krempl rema[~ _~ ' nation within the flood pl,ain was
er lanning and ~h~ O~n Space._~g .(nhl~ nnen space corriaor and,
prop p s ~ne floodw.y oS a ...... .-~ -
erroneous. Staff regard ...~--+ +~ City has hired to redo ~e
under the auspices .or a ~nsu~u..~ ~,,~ e ~rridor and arklands through
Plan, will look seriously .t an Open Spac_ c P
river valley; the property had been included in the City's sphere-of-influence
by LAFCO with the partial agreement of the San Diego Planning Department that
to ut the flood plain under the aegis of one jurisdiction would facilitate
theP~roper planning of the entire river valley.
Commissioner Cannon declared that he saw no reason the prezoning would affect
detrimentally the entire floodway area nor how the future annexation by Chula
Vista would degrade the area because the City has an excellent Planning
Department which would make it a fine area for not only the surrounding
residents but for all citizens of Chula Vista and San Diego.
MSUC (Green/Grasser) (6-0) to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance
which prezones the territory A-8 (Agriculture) and F-1 (Floodway) as shown on
Exhibit "A".
4. REPORT: PCM-86-25 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO INITIATE A ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW USED CAR SALES IN THE I-L LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
ZONE - DAMCO USED TRUCKS
Principal Planner Lee noted that Mr. Donald Magley of Damco Used Trucks and
Equipment located at 3554 Main Street has requested initiation of a zoning
text amendment to include used cars sales in the I-L limited industrial zone
on the basis of similar sales on adjacent lots in the area. His request is
not for a specific piece of property but would apply to all the I-L zones
throughout the area. Staff does not support the request because 145 acres of
C-T zoning and 309 acres of M-52 zoning are potentially available for used car
sales; and the limited retail sales now provided in the I-L zones are
supportive of other allowed industrial uses (trailer sales, mobile homes and
boats).
In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Lee replied that the
applicant s location is not part of the Montgomery annexation, whereas the
sites referred to by the applicant are in the newly annexed Montgomery area.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Green/Grasser) to deny the request to initiate a zoning text amendment
to allow used car sales within the I-L limited industrial zone.
5. REPORT: PCM-86-27 - CONSIDERATION OF INCLUDING "RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE" IN THE UNCLASSIFIED USES SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Principal Planner Lee commented that the applicant has property within the
e uesting an amendment to the Zonin~ Ordinance to
SDG&E easement and is i~q~he R-3 zone. He reminded the Commission that any
provide for RV storage
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June ll, 1986
such amendment would apply Citywide. The Ordinance presently allows for
various kinds of storage yards in the I-L and I Zones, with storage through
the CUP process also permitted within the C-T Zone. RV storage (which
includes boats and motor homes) requires large parcels of land and has
potential aesthetic impacts as well and issues of RV storage which concern
screening, access, lighting, hours, parking area security and time limits
should be addressed within individual CUP requests and listed as necessary
items to be covered in the Ordinance. Staff is of the opinion that RV storage
by CUP could be better applied under the Unclassified Uses Zone (those uses
having unique characteristics which make their inclusion into a particular
zone impractical). Staff therefore recommends that the Commission direct
staff to provide a draft ordinance to provide RV storage in the Unclassified
Use Zone with the proviso that the items mentioned previously be covered.
Chaiman Cannon asked if anyone wished to address the Commission on this
subject. No one came forward.
MSUC (Guiles/Carson) to initiate a Zoning text amendment to include
recreational vehicle storage in the Unclassified Uses section of the Zoning
Ordinance.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Director of Planning Krempl
- requested that the meeting of June 25, 1986 be cancelled for lack of
agenda items. The Commission concurred.
reminded the Commission that June 18th was the dinner workshop meeting and
a presentation on the Chula Vista Shopping Center would be given by
Community Development.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tugenberg requested the Commission be provided an inventory of
apartments and condominiums which have been approved but not as yet
constructed. Director Krempl indicated agreement.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of June 18, 1986 at 5:00
p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3.
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary
WPC 2892P