HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/04/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesdas, April 23, 1986 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Green,
Grasser (late), Shipe and Tugenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Guiles
STAFF PRESENT; Director of Planning Krempl, Director of Build-
ing and Housing Grady, Senior Civil Engineer
Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Deputy
City Attorney Moore, Associate Planner Bazzel
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 respon-
sibilities and the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
1. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION PCM-86-22 -
DENYING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A DEL TACO RESTAURANT
AT 4014 BONITA ROAD IN A C-C-D COMMERCIAL ZONE - DWAIN
KANTOR
Principal Planner Lee stated the item is an application to place a drive-thru
facility (Del Taco) which includes seating capacity for 48 customers and 28
parking spaces in the Bonita Village Shopping Center. After its initial denial
by the Zoning Administrator in February, 1986, an appeal was filed with revised
site plan which alleviated some of the problems affecting (1) the exit driveway,
(2) the conflict between the pick-up window location and on-site parking, and
(3) the width and alignment of the westerly entrance from Bonita Road. Staff
is of the opinion that potential problems of increased traffic congestion,
obstruction of sight-view of the shops in the rear of the Shopping Center,
signage, and need for a pedestrian access to the restaurant section have not
been sufficiently addressed by the revised site plan and recommends denial
of the request, PCM-86-22.
Planning Commission -2- April 23, 1986
The Sweetwater Valley Association has contacted staff and expressed their opposition
based on parking and traffic congestion. The applicant has redesigned his
parking requirements to be located in the rear portion of the Center, however,
a high percentage of parking is already located in the rear and although access
is available to these areas, the Center is not oriented to the rear. In response
to the Commission questions, Mr. Lee stated the parking plan is a workable
plan from a physical standpoint, however, the use would be limited because
of the Center's orientation.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
George Kost, P.O. Box 232, Bonita, 92002, President of the Sweetwater Valley
Civic Association, spoke in opposition to the project on the basis of reduction
of the parking area, addition of over 1,000 trips per day exascerbating the
heavytraffic,}n Bonita Road; the anticipated request for signage by those shops
hidden form Bonita Road by the new facility; the proximity of both drive-thrus
and Mexican restaurants in the area; the proposed color scheme at variance
with the current earth-tones used in the Center; and the possibility of trucks
parked on Bonita Road being used to advertise these hidden shops.
William Hedenkamp, 1331 India St., San Diego, an architect representing Bonita
Village Shopping Center, remarked that the particular traffic configuration
for the drive-thru has been used by Del Taco in other locations; pedestrians
crossing the drive-thru area will not be a safety hazard as the drive-thru
is considered a low-intensity, low-use area; there is stacking space for 10
vehicles using the drive-thru; no change in the curb line of the landscaped
area between the drive-thru and Bonita Road is planned although the landscaped
area will be increased to 4,000 square feet; the traffic using the center driveway
will be reduced by its redesign and it will be used primarily for right-hand
turns. In response to questions, Mr. Hedenkamp noted that the visibility of
the facilities in the rear of the Center is provided between and through the
buildings and contributes to the Village character; that the average lot size
for a fast-food restaurant is 10-15,000 square feet with the footprint of this
facility measuring 14,500 square feet.
Fred Schnaubelt, 2727 Camino del Rio South, #331, San Diego, 92108, in partnership
with Dwain Kantor, noted that this is the third or fourth proposal submitted
for this area; the Center itself was upgraded a year ago; a major problem with
this end of the Center is the fact that many shops are hidden from Bonita Road,
however, this particular faciltiy will not detract from their visibility; the
people who use the Center are destination-oriented so no additional signage
is contemplated; it is not anticipated that Del Taco will generate any additional
trips-per-day much less 1,000. In reply to questions, Mr. Schnaubelt said
that traffic has been designed to circle the building with a stack-up for l0
cars; and insofar as safety of the pedestrians crossing the drive-thru path
is concerned, the condition is the same for every store in this Center and the
next three centers.
Planning Commission -3- April 23, 1986
Commisioner Tugenberg said there are two commercial vehicles parked adjacent
to Bonita Road advertising a bike shop and Rita's Mail Box, both a considerable
distance from the primary business. Mr. Schnaubelt said he was not aware of
this situation but the matter would be looked into.
Principal Planner Lee interjected that a vehicle utilzied in this manner is
defined by the Municipal Code as a sign and the matter has been turned over
to the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Tugenberg/Shipe) (4-2) Cannon and Grasser - no - to find this project
will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-86-41.
Commissionor Cannon said he would vote against approval of the Negative Declaration
because of the traffic situation which is an environmental concern. He would
also vote to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator because he is
of the opinion the location is bad for a fast-food operation; that people will
make left-hand turns blocking traffic; the traffic on Bonita Road between Willow
Street and Otay Lakes Road will be exascerbated; and the parking will be removed
from where it is needed and placed in the rear of the Center (an area which
is often full now).
MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) (6-0) that based on the findings contained in Section
"E" of the staff report to deny the applicant's request, PCM-86-22, and uphold
the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-86-26 - REQUEST TO INCREASE LOT COVERAGE
FROM 40 PERCENT TO 6L PERCENT AND BUILDING HEIGHT FROM
2.5 TO 3.0 STORIES AT 165 MURRAY STREET - J. ANTHONY RASO
Director of Planning Krempl advised that Mr. Lee would make the presentation with
regard to the variance request for increased lot coverage and the increase
to three stories. City Attorney Ann Moore would have some comments with regard
to the request. He reported that a petition of protest was received and included
in the Commission packets; a petition in favor of the project was submitted
to the Planning Department today and will be passed to the Commission members
for review; also, a letter dated April 15, addressed to the Mayor, Council,
and Planning Commisison, from Lloyd and Adeline Welker, 167 Murray Street,
in opposition to the project, was received and copies funished to the Commission.
Principal Planner Lee noted the location of the lot, which contains a little
over 8,800 square feet, on the north side of Murray Street in an area zoned
for single-family detached dwellings. Early last year, the owner filed plans
to construct an 887 square foot room addition attached to the rear of the house.
The existing footprint as indicated on the plan has been determined to be incorrect,
and using the figures shown, the lot coverage would have been 46%, whereas
the ordinance allows 40% coverage. It was discovered that a 1300 square foot
accessory building has been constructed at the rear property line and was not
shown on the plan.
Planning Commission -4- April 23, 1986
In midyear 1985, plans were filed showing the existing footprint, including a patio
area constructed since 1978 without a building permit. The plan indicated there
would be no change in the existing footprint covering 3750 sq.ft., 39% of the lot.
The proposed plan called for a second story addition with square footage equal to
the first floor, and an attic area located above the second floor. The roof height
on the approved plans was 35 feet from ground floor to ridge and 29 feet to the
midpoint of the roof. The ordinance permits 2 1/2 stories with the one-half story
under a gable, hip or gambol roof.
In the latter part of 1985 a third permit was issued for an indoor pool which does
not affect this variance. The variance, as filed in April, represents 61% lot
coverage, which includes the footprint as shown and the accessory building.
Detailed plans for the building indicate a three story building, measuring nearly
42 feet to the ridge. The roof has been altered from the plans approved by the
City and framing has been completed with no inspection on the framing requested
from the City,
Mr. Lee advised that in analyzing the property, nothing unique was found to justify
the variance, and the granting of the variance would represent a special privilege
not enjoyed by other properties. A 7,000 sq.ft., 2 1/2 story house could bo
constructed on the lot in compliance with the 40% lot coverage. It is, therefore,
recommended that the variance be denied.
Director of Building and Housing Grady advised that when complaints from surrounding
neighbors led to the discovery that the framing of the house did not conform to the
approved plans, and because of the excessive lot coverage, a "stop work" notice was
issued on the project. Shortly after that there were several days of strong winds,
and a call was received from Mr. Raso requesting permission to nail down some of
the sheer panels and some of the roof panels to prevent material being blown off
and possibly damaging other houses in the neighborhood; that permission was granted.
After the windstorm was over some additional blocking work was being done and a
second "stop work" notice was issued.
Mr. Grady affirmed that the height and character of the building had already been
established before the notice was issued. He advised that plans are reviewed when
the permittee calls for an inspection of the building as required at different
phases of construction. The only official inspection made on this building was on
the foundation; no inspection has been requested on the framing work.
Mr. Grady stated that no permit was found for the construction of the accessory
building constructed adjacent to the rear masonry wall on the property.
City Attorney Ann Moore stressed that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, that
the backup material included with the staff report contains evidence that has been
presented to the City, and in order to protect due process rights, anybody wishing
to do so should be allowed to address any of the facts or issues contained. If
the Commission desires to grant the variance, findings must be made for the four
requirements set forth in the report. If the variance is not granted, the applicant
may voluntarily comply with the zoning ordinance, the City may force him to comply
therewith, or, he can sue the City for a writ of mandate to stop actions the City
may take against him.
Director Krempl advised that this variance request will be considered ~ the City
Council on May 6.
Planning Commission -5- April 23, 1986
'This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Joe Raso, applicant, showed slides of large Victorian houses that are coming into
the neighborhood, and one of a large attractive home that had ~nsp~red him to
rebuild his house in a similar character. He also showed pictures taken from
various points in a walk around the block from which views of his house can be
seen. He admitted that the building is imposing as viewed from the lots adjacent
to the rear of his property. He asserted that he never intended to do anything
wrong. He had constructed the wood shed (accessory building) about eight years
ago without a permit because he did not know a permit was necessary. The wood
shed was sunk down so it would not be offensive. He stated he would remove that
structure.
Mr. Raso stated he did not know a permit was required for the construction of the
patio which was added at the northeast corner of the house. He was not aware of
the 40% lot coverage restriction or that he was building in excess of the allowable
size when he maintained the existing footprint. He said he had not intended to
construct a building that would require a variance. He reported that the stairs
to the top story have been removed and that area will be used as attic storage.
Kathy Orth, 165 Murray Street, a resident in the house under construction, stated
that Mr. Raso had shown the plans to the neighbors several times, so they should
have been aware of the size, and no objections were raised until the roof level
was reached.
James Hughes, 310 G Street, stated he has had a home business of architecture and
engineering service, and he has had plans for structures or additions through the
San Diego Building Department. He suggested that if the house is improper no permit
should have been issued for its construction.
Tom Felts, 191 Murray Street, said he was invited to go through the house; he felt
Mr. Raso was trying to build a beautiful house and he has no objection.
James Moore, 21Connoley Circle, Chula Vista, spoke in defense of Mr. Raso in
his belief that he had city approval for the plan, and that it would be unwise
to stop construction after it has proceeded this far. He would hope that an amicable
agreement could be reached.
Calvin Bright, ~203 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, affirmed that he has a contractor's
license and has helped Mr. Raso with the construction, his main concern being that
it is structurally sound. He reported that after the initial plans were submitted,
all revisions deemed necessary by the Planning Department and Building Department
were made and the plans were resubmitted. He contended that if mistakes were made
in computing the square footage, that should have been pointed out and Mr. Raso
would have made the necessary revisions to comply with the city requirements.
Kitty Raso advised that she and her husband bought this house 15-17 year~' ago.
She believes when the house is finished it will be beautiful and that construction
should be allowed to continue. She indicated the building could not be decreased
in size but would have to be destroyed.
Anthony Raso, father of Joe Raso, asserted that if the city did not see that the
house was too large when they issued the permit, something was wrong. He affirmed
that he is the owner of the house.
Planning Commission -6- April 23, 1986
Chairman Cannon advised that it would be necessary for him to abstain from voting
on this request since the owner, Anthony Raso, has been a client of his in the past.
He, therefore, left the podium and the Council Chambers.
Vice-Chairman Shipe took over the chair.
Clint Sadler, 47 Palomar Drive, Chula Vista, spoke of city ordinances that apply
to construction, in particular, the requirement for a garage with the construction
of any new house, and pointed out this reconstructed house has no garage or even a
carport. He felt no permit should have been issued for enlarging the house. He
made reference to a house on Country Club Drive which he contended violates the
city ordinance, but was permitted by the city.
Mary Kay Bouvier, 154 Murray Street, advised that from her view this house seems ~
tremendous and is out of place in this neighborhood of small frame houses.
Charles Mathews, 175 Halsey Street, expressed the opinion that while this house
is beautiful it should be located on a larger lot where it does not overpower
the neighborhood.
Harold Trousdale, 158 Murray Street, considers the house imposing, oppressive and
totally out of scale for the neighborhood.
Lois Myers, 162 Halsey Street, lives directly back of the Raso house. She
asserted the house is completely out of scale for the neighborhood, both in width
and height; the back of the house looks like a warehouse with two windows. It
also invades the privacy of her back yard and patio which are in full view from the
second story windows.
Wayne Myers, 162 Halsey Street, pointed out that the view of the rear wall of
the Raso house is all he can see from his back yard.
Michael Burgess, 166 Halsey Street, living next door to Mr. Meyers, has the same
view and the same complaints; he believes he has lost value of his property.
Irene Bushong, 856 Country Club Drive, reiterated Mr. Sadler's objection to the
monstrous house on Country Club Drive.
Helen Wadsworth, 175 Murray Street, reported that in 1967 she wanted to build a
second story addition to her house to contain two bedrooms and a bath, but she was
unable to obtain a permit for such an addition, and had to settle for a family
room at the ground floor level. She questioned why the rules have changed and
the Raso's were permitted to build a two or three story house.
Joe Raso pointed out that the height of the house does not exceed city ordinance
and even though it is now 4 1/4 inches wider than the old house, it is not too
wide. He stated that if the variance is not approved, the wood shed at the back
of the lot will be removed and 10 feet at the back of the house will be eliminated,
but that will not alter the appearance of the house as it is today.
Planning Commission -7- April 23, 1986
Mr. Trousdale again presented arguments against granting the variance.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Pro Tem Shipe expressed the opinion that the necessary findings of fact
as required for the granting of a variance cannot be made in this case.
Director of Planning Krempl acknowledged that a permit should not have been issued
for a building which exceeds the allowable lot area. He could not state whether
such approval would have been given if the information on the plans had been accurate.
If the patio structure and accessory building had been shown, the total built on
area would have exceeded the 40% lot coverage without a permit request for the
addition.
With reference, to comments made by Mr. Sadler and by Ms. Bushong regarding the
property on Country Club Drive, an investigation and report to Council was made ~
on that property and the conclusion was that the structure was built in compliance
with the code.
With regard to the question that if the house is brought into compliance with
the city code, would it still have the same visual impact, Mr. Krempl pointed out
that last Tuesday night the City Council placed on second reading an ordinance
which has an impact on this situation and which will become effective in 30 days.
That ordinance has an F.A.R. floor ratio requirement as to the amount of square
footage that can be included in a house; it also has a 28 foot height limit,
measured to the peak of the roof, unless a conditional use permit is approved.
Unless a building permit is issued for this house based on the revised plans
before the effective date of the new ordinance, the maximum height permitted for
this house would be 28 feet.
Director of Building and Housing Grady noted the comments that building inspectors
had been at the site several times in addition to the t~vo called for inspections
of the foundation. The inspectors were there due to complaints received and not
for the purpose of making framing inspections.
MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) The Commission denies the request, ZAV-86-26, to increase
the lot coverage from 40% to 61% and building height from 2.5 to 3 stories at
165 Murray Street.
The motion carried by the following vote: -~
AYES: Commissioners Shipe, Tugenberg, Grasser, Green and Carson
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Cannon
Commissioner Cannon returned to the Chambers and the dias and resumed the Chair-
manship.
A recess was called at 9:32 and the meeting resumed at 9:37.
Plannin~ Commission -8- April 23, 1986
3. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-86-8 - TO AMEND TITLE 19 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE CONSTRUCTION OF APART-
MENTS WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE C-N,
C-C AND C-T COMMERCIAL ZONES
Principal Planner Lee stated that when the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1969,
provisions were included to allow multiple family construction by use of the
conditional use permit in theC-O and C-B zones as the mixture of residential
in the downtown and office areas was, and still is considered a desirable mixture
based on similarity of building scale, traffic and hours of operation. Through
the years, this ordinance has been modified to include C-C and C-N zones by
the conditional use process, and later theC-T zone with the provisions that
a 200-foot commercial depth be maintained. He pointed out that the number
of units constructed in commercial zones in the last 11 years equates to approxi-
mately 56 percent in the C-O zone; 23 percent in the C-C and the remainder
in the neighborhood or C-T zones. The figures are a bit colored in the C-C
zone because 94 of the 114 units were on one project which could easily have
gone through the rezoning process except the applicant elected to use the CUP
process. Recently, Council has expressed concern about development utilizing
the CUP process without the benefit of rezoning. In the report to Council,
staff recommended the ordinance be modified to delete the CUP process and revert
back to a rezoning procedure. Council accepted the report and directed the
Planning Commission to consider the amendment. Staff's recommendation would
be to retain the CUP use in theC-B zone (which is in the redevelopment mode)
and in the C-O zone as this is considered a positive land-use goal, but to delete
its utilization in the other zones.
MSUC (Tubenberg/Shipe) (6-0) to find this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-8-640.
MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) (6-0) to recommend Council approve the proposed ordinance
amendment as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and made
a part thereto.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-4 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO PROHIBIT GARAGE CONVERSIONS UNLESS A REPLACEMENT
GARAGE IS PROVIDED
Principal Planner Lee noted that this particular item dates from 1961 when
a garage requriement was first introduced, to 1969 when the ordinance authorized
conversions with provision of a paved parking area in the front setback. In
1980, staff proposed an amendment to require a replacement garage if the existing
one was converted. This was endorsed by the Planning Commission but filed
by Council on a 3-3 vote. In March, 1986, staff returned with a requested
study on Chula Vista's position on this subject in relation to other jurisdictions.
All other jurisdictions in the area require two off-street parking places;
12 of the 17 require a garage; all but one allow conversion with replacement
parking and seven require garages in that case; only two allow for open parking
(Chula Vista and Santee). Only Chula Vista allows for replacement parking
to occur in the front setback. Mr. Lee remarked that the present ordinance
is inconsistent with those of other agencies and with Chula Vista's Planned
Community Development regulations; it promotes long-term street clutter, safety
problems, and creates no incentive to retain garages or to park inside. Con-
versions also tend to create long-range decliens in property values in residential
areas. An alternative to the proposed amendment would be to allow conversions
Planning Commission -9- April 23, 1986
but require parking out of the front setback. S~aff recommends endorsement
of the amendment as drafted.
Commissioner Tugenberg expressed concern that the proposed ordinance amendment
would lead to illegal conversions to prevent the cost of a replacement garage.
Principal Planner Lee replied that Chula Vista's regulations re building additions
in the rear yard permit a single-story addition to be built within 10 feet
of the rear property line which should encourage homeowners to expand to the
rear of the house; and, although the possibility of violations is realistic,
most lending institutions refinancing structures require compliance with the
garage-replacement policy.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Shipe/Grasser) (5-1) Tugenberg, no - to find this project will have no
significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-81-10.
MSC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-1) Tugenberg, no - to recommend that Council enact
an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A
attached to the staff report.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Krempl reminded the Commision that
- the Beautification Awards Banquet would take place on Thursday, May 8, 1986.
- the Testimonial Dinner for Frank Scott would be on Thursday, May 15, 1986.
- the Planning Commission Workshop on May 21st would feature an outside speaker.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Cannon commented that he would be out of town from May 13th through
the 19th.
Chairman Cannon noted that the terms for Commissioner Shipe and himself expired
on June 30, 1986 although there was a reappointment option for an additional
4-year term if the Council so desired.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:56 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of May 14, 1986 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary