Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/10/23 Tape 264, Side 2 0-1395 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 23, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Grasser, Green Guiles, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust 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. ORAL COmmUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-86-2 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE AREA R-13 (BRIDGEWATER COVE) CHULA VISTA TRACT 86-2 - MCKELLAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Principal Planner Lee noted the tentative subdivision map concerning the development of a 23-1ot condominium project of 366 units on 20.27 acres was continued from the October 9th meeting to resolve City concerns over the access to the project. These concerns have been addressed and incorporated into the tentative map. This brings the total number of lots to 25 and total units to 422 to be constructed in 12 phases. He explained that the two model complexes adjacent to each entry are not part of the tentative map but of the overall project. Mr. Lee noted that the Design Review Committee had approved the site plan and elevations (with 19 conditions) at the meeting of October 17, 1985. The project complies with all the City's standards for condominium projects and staff recommends certification of EIR-81-3 and Planning Commission -2- 10/23/85 EIR-84-1 and approval of the tentative map subject to 13 conditions and deleting condition "f" which calls for a third driveway. He pointed out that the 3-story buildings feature a split level with heavy emphasis on the hip roof and horizontal siding. In reply to questions, staff stated that (1) the Commission would not be receiving additional tentative maps of the areas as a tentative map was filed for the entire project divided into five areas, and this is a resubdivision of the lots for financial purposes; (2) a development agreement was entered into with the developer to ensure adequate provisions for several large public off-site facilities will be provided since in the opinion of the Attorney's office, insufficient authority is provided by the Subdivision Map Act; Condition "h" is a waiver of the applicant's right to protest the establishment of an assessment district if required. Chairman Cannon remarked that Council had requested a closer look into projects reviewed by the Design Review Committee and asked if staff had made any provisions in that regard. Mr. Lee replied that a meeting with Council is needed to ascertain the full extent of Council's wishes and Director Krempl remarked that a joint workshop is proposed for next month involving Council, Commission and the DRC. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Rikki Alberson, 401 W. "A" St., San Diego 92101, representing PRC Engineering for McKellar Development Corporation indicated the applicant's agreement with the staff report and the modification of condition "f" and her availability for any questioning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC(Tugenberg/Carson) Grasser abstained - to certify that EIR-81-3 and EIR-84-1 have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and that the Planning Commission has reviewed the information contained in each EIR prior to making a decision on the project. MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) Grasser abstained - that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, to recommend that City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for EastLake Area R-13 (Bridgewater Cove), CV Tract 86-2, subject to conditions "a" through "m" with the deletion of condition "f". 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-8 - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE AT 33 NAPLES STREET - CHUVILA PROPERTIES Commissioner Green stated that it is arguable whether he has a potential conflict of interest, however, as a member of the San Diego Country Club (the adjoining property), he believes the value of his membership could be affected. He, therefore, left the dais and the Chambers. Planning Commission -3- 10/23/85 Commissioner Tugenberg informed the Commission that he had been contacted by Mr. Green lobbying in opposition to the item. Principal Planner Lee noted that the item involves a request to establish a San Diego County Department of Social Services in a vacant supermarket within an existing shopping center at 33 Naples Street. He displayed slides of the area and stated that revisions to the building, landscaping and striping of the parking lot are planned. Upon relocation of the San Ysidro Social Services office to this site, the hours would be 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday, and would involve 175 workers on the premises. Approximately 100 clients per day {with a maximum of 30 people at one time) is anticipated except for the peak times during the first five days of the month when 200 clients per day (with a maximum of 75 at one time) are anticipated. Security officers will be maintained on the site. Proposed are 212 parking spaces (double the City requirements) with 49 spaces remaining for use by the balance of the shopping center. By a lease agreement, the owner of the property must provide 250 spaces during a 3-5 year program and the service station site is being discussed as a possible solution. Mr. Lee informed the Commission that the traffic generation anticipated by the proposed facility would be about 750 trips/day as opposed to that of the previous retail store estimated at 4,000 trips/day (based on 120 trips/1,O00 square feet of floor space). He remarked that a series of conditions had been received from the Engineering Department which were not shown in the staff report. These dealt with street lights, lot consolidations, etc., and would either be addressed at this time or during Design Review Committee consideration. Principal Planner remarked that petitions signed by 38 people had been received. He showed the location of the petitioners on a locator map of the area. Concerns cited included increased traffic, noise and air pollution, the safety of children, inadequate parking, an unsightly parking lot, impairment of access to Naples, the area was residential and inappropriate for such an office, a decline in property values and a negative impact on the neighborhood. A wire in opposition was also received on October 23rd from Calmark Development Corporation, developers of the Country Club condominium complex, citing incompatibility with surrounding neighborhood and that the shopping complex should remain as such. In response to the Commission's questions, staff replied that with the cancellation clause if additional parking was not secured, another location would have to be sought; that such a condition in a lease was not enforceable by the City, however, such a condition in the conditional use permit would be enforceable. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission -4- 10/23/85 The following spoke in support of the project: Jay Pugh, 1003 Calle Escarpado, Bonita, representing Rancho Associates at 33 Naples; and Larry Yeakel, 3909 Fourth Ave., S.D. 92103, the architect representing Chuvila/Gibbs. Their testimony included the statements that the vacant store is presently an eyesore; is too small for a chain and too large for an independent grocery; no retail business could go in and survive; extensive building remodeling and landscaping is planned which will make the proposed use an asset to the neighborhood; the proposed office will be similar to the one in Oceanside which is also in a shopping center and will be open 8 hours daily instead of the 24 of a supermarket; will not be a detriment; and the applicant is in agreement with staff's report. Replies to questions from the Commission included that (1) no problems are anticipated for other tenants in the center as a result of the proposed facility; (2) the parking layout, trees and signage are directed toward the larger side of the parking lot which possesses a natural entrance, exit and circulation; (3) the present shopping center would benefit and be upgraded; (4) the redesign of the lot results in a loss of only 5-7 common-use spaces after allocation of approximately 30 spaces to the Social Services' Office and will provide 15 additional parking spaces for tenants' use in the back of the complex; (5) the tenants have been approached and are in approval; (6) in the Oceanside location, the office is across the street from a residential area and parking is shared with the City offices with no congestion problem: (?) with regard to mitigation measures planned to prevent loitering in the area or because of the type of people such a facility might attract, Oceanside experiences no problem and those patronizing the facility are just regular people. Also speaking in support were Bill Gibbs, 1122 La Jolla Rancho Rd., La Jolla, 92037, representing Chuvila Properties: and Michael Vogt, 1027 Neptune Drive, Chula Vista 92011, a realtor with Merrill-Lynch. Mr. Gibbs said that because previously they had no control over the property and parking lot, it was in bad condition although the lot had been paved after Mayfair bought out and a truck crew was sent periodically to remove "dumped" material and clean the area. He noted that $1.3 million was being spent to upgrade the project including $80,000 for initial landscaping and $1,O00/month for its maintenance. Mr. Vogt cited the difficulties in renting the vacant store because of its size, and said that less traffic would be generated by the proposed use than by a large retail use. In answer to questions he replied that the property had been deteriorating since Mayfair left; other small operators have failed; and the neighborhood does not support a small grocery store. In reply to the Commission, staff said that the number of units the Country Club is building would not be affected by approval of the item; that public transportation serviced the site; in the San Ysidro area location the security office was located in the rear of the complex and appeared to be concerned mostly with the security of the parked cars; the size and orientation of the residential development in San Ysidro corresponds more to the Chula Vista site than does the one in Oceanside which is located more to the rear of the development and adjacent to the City offices. No evidence of loitering was found at either site. Planning Commission -5- 10/23/85 Richard Bourke, 3?02 del Sol, San Diego, 92154, District Director for the San Diego Department of Social Services, stated that only one call has been made to the police in l-l/2 years at the San Ysidro office; the clients must be residents of the South Bay as they have no authority to assist transients. It is the policy of the Department to employ guards to ensure security of the staff's cars no matter where the office is located. In reply to questions, Mr. Bourke noted that (1) $?5 million is disbursed annually in direct assistance and medical cards - reimbursements in hundreds of millions; (2) no cash is kept on the premises; (3) approximately 80-85 percent of the money is retained in the area; (4) the hours of the security guards are 1/2 hr. earlier and later than the office workers; (5) the majority of their offices are in, E,r, esidential areas; (6) they had advertised for a month for a location near Street (which is the geographic center of their service area) and received only two replies; (?) approximately 90 percent of the employees drive to work; (8) the increased work load occurred during the first 5 working days of the month when the clients delivered their monthly income report and departed immediately; (9) 80 percent of the clients were driven to the site and approximately 15 percent used the bus; (10) 75 percent of those receiving medical assistance are senior citizens, the largest group are those receiving aid to dependent children, and food stamps cut across all economic groups; (ll} the South Bay office has been the quietest office he has administered, there have been no behavorial complaints and the only trouble occasioned has been by mentally disturbed people from time to time; (12) there are no alternative locations at present time. Those speaking against the project were: (1) - Roberto Vega, 1108 Hilltop Dr., CV 92011 (2) - Chuck Talbott, 88 "L" St., CV 92011 - Mgr San Diego Country Club (3) - Billie Bull, lll7 Vista Way, CV 92011 - self (4) - Richard Dinsmore, llll First Ave., Kung Fu San Soo (5) - Len Lyons, ll07 Vista Way, CV 92011 - homeowners (6) - Mike Strode, ll61 Akron St., SD 92106 - San Diego Country Club (7) - Edna Mae Lyons, ll07 Vista Way, CV 92011 - homeowner {8) - Bob McKenna, 1127 Vista Way, CV 92011 - homeowner (9) - Joe Cordova, ll03 Vista Way, CV 92011 (10)- Ruth Hart, lll8 Tobias Drive, CV Concerns and statements included: (1) If a car is parked on Naples, a one- lane street is created impeding traffic; a lot of traffic is generated by the gas station and the 7-11; people are parking under the trees on Hilltop~ a club for boys would be a better use of the facility. {2} Requested deferral to allow the newly-elected Country Club Board to study this item. (3) There are many children in the area because of the public and private schools nearby; the lot is presently very dirty - how will it be maintained in the future; there will be insufficient parking on site which will force parking on-street creating a hazard for children. (4} he is a tenant of the shopping center and was not approached by Mr. Vogt; the opposition of the tenants is unanimous; Moss and Naples have had many spectacular accidents; it has been the practice of the owners to amortize any cost of improvements by the tenants and such a major improvement cost could wipe them out. (5) The area is Planning Commission -6- 10/23/85 residential and not suitable for a Welfare Office; the street was never intended for this volume of traffic as the feeder streets are two-lane streets; the parking proposed by the Welfare Office shows an expansion from 182 to 250 spaces within 3-5 years which will encompass the entire amount of parking; the facility at San Ysidro has four-lane streets on either side; the parking lot is larger and its condition is not impressive; when the Unemployment Office was temporarily located at this site, the area was crowded and unsightly. (6) As the first notice was received last Wednesday, there has been insufficient time to analyze the impact on the condo project; CalMark has wired a protest; the owner of the property has requested additional parking from the Country Club project so it is questionable if this site is able to accommodate the amount of parking required. (7) The number of parking spaces required will eliminate the little convenience stores serving the community: the parking lot and landscaping are badly maintained; the homes in the San Ysidro are not located so close; most of the owners in the shopping center were opposed, but it was "off-the-record" because they share a common landlord. In reply to a question, she said she would not oppose another grocery store based on the experience with Mayfair. (8) There is al ready a great deal of parking on the street caused by school activities; children go to the shopping center after school but with an influx of strangers this would be undesirable. (9) Loiterers moved by the Security Guards may end up on the corner by his house; who will guarantee that his 5-year old daughter will be safe and won't be molested by some "emotionally disturbed" person. (10) That the Commission take into consideration that the Country Club condo development projected 200 cars/day, this facility anticipates 300 and it is now necessary to wait on Tobias Drive for 2-3 minutes to get across. In reply to questions, the Commission was informed that (1) any street- widening on Naples would be by removing the parkway area (which would also permit adequate on-site parking) on the subject property in order to match that conditioned for the condo project; (3) no statistics were submitted by the Traffic Engineer on accidents at Naples and Moss; (4) approximately 49 spaces would be available for common use which complies with the Code and, in addition, there is an area in the back to provide additional employee parking. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing closed. Discussion followed about the public hearing notice and the Commission was informed by Principal Planner Lee that notices are sent out to be received a minimum of lO days prior to the hearing and are sent to owners of record as listed in the Assessor's Office; that the Commission must consider whether or not to give the Country Club Board more time to weigh the particulars of the project. He added that his statement in response to the effect of the project on the proposed condo development was that the Country Club would still be allowed the same number of units. Attorney Gill noted that appropriate legal notice had been provided and any potential risk entailed is alleviated by the fact that the parties are present. Planning Commission -7- 10/23/85 Mr. Lee remarked that there are undoubtedly areas more isolated from residential developments; however, according to their Director, there was only a minimal response from owners and brokers and that staff had not pursued alternative sites. MS (Shipe/Tugenberg) that based on the findings in Section E of the staff report, to recommend City Council approve PCC-86-8, to establish a County Department of Social Services at 33 Naples Street subject to the following condition: "The site plan and elevations for the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits." With the assent of Commissioners Shipe and Tugenberg, Principal Planner Lee read the Engineering Conditions to be included as an addendum to the motion. ADDENDUM: Engineering Conditions: 1. A twelve foot (12') widening of Naples Street along the frontage of these parcels will be required, matching the proposed widening to the west. 2. Alley-type approaches with sidewalk ramps may be required. 3. All work in the public right of way will require a separate construction permit from the Engineering Department. 4. There are small discrepancies in the lengths of the lot lines according to the assessor's map. 5. The two lots should be consolidated into one. (A.P.N.'s 619-100-29 and -3O) 6. Additional tree planting and maintenance easement (8'-10') will be required. 7. Two 150 watt HPSV street lights will be required. Commissioner Cannon noted that he was voting against the particular location because of the inadequacy of parking: the concentration of traffic during peak work-traffic hours with 175 employees arriving and leaving onto a two-lane street thereby creating traffic havoc at the corner of Naples and Hilltop. He remarked that with 175 workers and if 25 percent of the time {the peak days at the first of the month) there are 200 clients with 75 of them at the facility at one time, all the parking spaces would be utilized. He contended that it is not a normal office building with 175 workers and should not be judged by normal office building standards. Ninety percent of 175 spaces is 135 which is the major part of the total spaces allotted plus moving into other parts of the center for overflow parking. Planning Commission -8- 10/23/85 He cannot see such a facility in a fully residential neighborhood and the one in Oceanside is in a more commercial neighborhood. Commissioner Guiles agreed that the project does not belong in a residential neighborhood but in a commercial/industrial area. He sees the need for this facility but believes there are more suitable sites. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tugenberg NOES: Commissioners Shipe, Grasser, Cannon, Guiles and Carson ABSTAIN: Commissioner Green Commissioner Green returned to the Chambers and the dais. 3. PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC 86-7 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN 18-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 341 "K" STREET - MARY KAYE 4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-86-8 - REQUEST TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY FROM 14 UNITS TO 18 UNITS AT 341 ~K' STREET - MARY KAYE Assistant City Attorney Gill said he would like to speak with the Commission regarding "ex parte communications" as it had come to the attention of the City Attorney that there had been some lobbying on this particular project wherein more than one Commissioner has been contacted individually by the proponent. He stated that ex parte communications are not improper, however, for the purpose of the hearing due process for proponents and opponents, it is necessary for a Commissioner to declare when there has been an ex parte communication; that is, someone has contacted him/her regarding the project outside the public hearing. In addition, if any evidence was given during this contact that was not presented at the public hearing, the Commissioner is obliged to enter it into the record. This gives members of the audience the opportunity to respond to the evidence. He suggested that after the staff report and prior to the public hearing portion, the Commissioner indicate if there has been any contact with individuals who are proponents or opponents to the project, and at the close of the public hearing prior to the hearing itself being closed, any evidence received be entered into the record if it has not already been covered during the hearing. Director Krempl requested that items 3 and 4 be treated as one hearing. The Commission agreed. Chairman Cannon declared he had a conflict of interest and excused himself from the balance of the meeting turning the Chair over to Vice Chairman Shipe. He then left the dais and the building. The Commission recessed from 8:40 to 8:45 p.m. Planning Commission -9- 10/23/8§ Principal Planner Lee stated that in February, 1985, approval was given to construct a 51-unit condo project on approximately 1.68 acres. In the center of the project was a 1/2 acre parcel which was being used as a welding shop and partial storage for chemicals. The applicant now proposes to incorporate this 1/2 acre site and develop 69 two-bedroom units with 126 parking spaces, a swimming pool and a substantial amount of open space. The conditional use permit is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the multi-family building in the commercial zone. As the previous action of the Commission in approving the 51 units determined the appropriateness of the land use and the 1/2-acre site relates well to the proponent's project, staff supports the residential land use as appropriate subject to conditions. The condition that staff wants to bring to the Commission's attention is that the density of the residential project would exceed the R-3 standards, resulting in the second issue of a variance question of increased density, the applicant proposes constructing 18 two-bedroom units on this site. While the R-3 standards would allow 14 two-bedroom units because of the sliding scale (more one-bedroom units allowed than two-bedroom), t~e applicant is arguing that by the R-3 standards he should be allowed 69 two-bedroom units since the project complies with the parking and open space standards. The applicant's project is well designed with a good relationship to the open space. However, the tests of the variance relating to property hardship not related to acts of the owner is not evident as the project can be developed within the R-3 standards either by developing 65 two-bedroom units or some combination of 1 & 2's. Therefore, staff is unable to make findings for the variance and recommends its denial and approval of the CUP which would permit the applicant to proceed with residential development on this site. Commissioner Green expressed concern regarding the height of the front elevation, and recommended additional setback be taken from some of the landscaping in the rear. Principal Planner Lee noted that the present setback was 20 or 25 feet and that one of the considerations given to the design is the use of a true mansard roof so that although the building is three stories, in terms of viewing the roof design, it appears less. He agreed that additional setback would be feasible; however, as double-faced units were involved, care must be exercised so as to not substantially reduce the amount of setback in front of each unit. Commissioner Shipe declared that he was contacted on January 21st by Peter Kaye. When the Commissioner realized that the item under discussion would be an agenda item, discussion ceased. During the very brief discussion Mr. Kaye said he had a significant financial investment and would like to see the project passed. Commissioner Grasser declared that she had met with one of the representatives of the project. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission -10- 10/23/85 Thomas Horning, 448 Del Mar Court, Chula Vista, 92010, representing the applicant Mary Kaye, apologized if he or Mr. Kaye had done anything wrong in contacting individual Commissioners. He stated the building height was 28 feet as opposed to 35 feet for most three-story buildings. He noted that the City has four density tests - {1) lot coverage, (2) open space requirements, (3) parking requirements and (4) a fixed number of square footage per unit and that the applicant is requesting an adjustment of the last item. He compared the criteria for these tests with what is proposed; namely, (1) lot coverage allowed is 50 percent, but because of the three-story design only 23 percent is proposed; {2) 400 sq. ft. of open space per unit is required, and the project supplies 571 square feet; (3) the parking requirements have been met. They are seeking a reduction in the number of square feet of land required per unit amounting to 73 square feet. He noted that the site has enough area to allow for 65.4 units and the Director of Planning indicated they could qualify for 66 units if there was sufficient square footage. Mr. Horning referred to the Commission minutes of January 16, 1985, wherein discussion of the welding shop stated,"the applicant is endeavoring to secure and incorporate the welding yard property located in the center street frontage". Further, it was noted that a condition of approval of PCS-85-6 was that "a lO-foot high fire-resistant concrete wall" be built around this on two sides not the driveway but on the two sides where the 51 units are. During the discussions with staff, the applicant was left with the distinct impression that the City desired the applicant to acquire and incorporate this particular piece of property. It was implied that the City would look with favor on any reasonable plan the applicant would submit with respect to the welding shop property to encourage the applicant to spend the extra dollars to acquire it. The Ordinance does not allow financial matters to impinge upon the decision-making process; however, without the expectations given for 18 units, the applicant would not have committed herself to purchase the property. Mr. Horning stated that the applicant made a grave error in submitting the variance request so late. The property was liened to Sweetwater High School District on May 22, 1985 for a sum of $51,755 for school fees. As soon as it became known that the property could be acquired, discussions were held with the City about the 18 units and an overlay submitted to the DRC showing a building of this general nature. Now, up against time, the applicant finds herself in a difficult position. In reply to Commissioner Green's questions about increasing the setback by 10 feet and his suggestion that there might be some space adjacent to the pool area, Mr. Horning replied that he did not believe a problem would be caused as the space could be also deleted from the tot lot and the green space area in the back of the building. He added that if the variance were granted and they are allowed to proceed with the project this would be done in accordance with the Commission's wishes. Answering Commissioner Tugenberg's query about lowering the lot to minimize the height, Mr. Horning said the lot is at street level, and while the lot in the rear is slightly higher, the grading plans indicate nothing about lowering and, if done, might bring about drainage problems. Planning Commissi on -ll- 10/23/85 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Green requested that a statement be made by the Attorney that it is not illegal for someone to approach one of the Commissioners on a project as long as such contact was declared prior to the hearing. Attorney Gill affirmed the legality of the contact but stated the concern was that the Commission as decision-makers might receive information of which the public was unaware and base decisions upon the information. The reason for the disclosure is to enable the public to respond to any evidence received privately. Attorney Gill continued that if the Commission action is to approve the variance for the 18 units, the Municipal Code requires specific findings on which to grant the variance. He suggested that if that is the intent, the Commission adopt a motion to grant the variance and staff will return at the next meeting with appropriate findings for formal adoption. Commissioner Green remarked that he considered the project good provided there is some relief from the buildings to the west being placed too close to the street. He considered an additional setback of 10 feet (with no more than 5 feet taken from the tot area) to be of importance. He considered that four more units in the project did not make a big difference particularly in view of the amount of parking, open space, play area for children and the many amenities provided. MSC (Green/Shipe} Cannon excused to find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-12. Assistant City Attorney Gill reviewed the findings necessary for approval of the variance and expressed his concern for the need of evidence being presented to substantiate "hardship not created by the owner" and "necessar~ for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights...not constituting a special privilege". Upon being asked if he could provide appropriate findings, Mr. Horning referred the Commission to the applicant's statement regarding the findings which was provided in their packet. To substantiate the "hardship" finding, he claimed the subject project is a redevelopment of the area by the elimination of non-conforming occupancies and effective down-zoning of the bulk of the property; to substantiate the "preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights", he cited that the multi-family uses to the southwest, north and northeast of the property are developed to their highest and best use and the commercial property to the east, southeast, west and south are zoned and developed beyond the subject property. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked that he had encouraged incorporation of the welding shop property at the January hearing, however, to put more and more density into the property becomes a special privilege which is not available to other owners in the area. Planning Commission -12- 10/23/85 Mr. Horning disagreed stating that the purpose of redevelopment is to take an existing use and convert it to something else, which is what is being done, and the westerly property needs the same privilege to redevelop. In reply to Commissioner Guiles' suggestion that a combination one- and two-bedroom units be used, Director Krempl said that theoretically this could be done, however, virtually all the units would have to be one-bedroom. He noted that the proof of variance calls for the ability to make "reasonable use" of the subject property, not "maximum use". He expressed the opinion that approval of this variance would be tantamount to a rezone of the property since density would be increased beyond that normally allowed by the district. The approach to proper planning is to follow the density controls first, then see that the parking, lot coverage, etc., are met, not to indicate that those parameters are met so, therefore, the density should be increased. Mr. Krempl said that he had not heard anything of a factual nature indicating it is impossible to develop this property with 14 units as the Ordinance permits. Replying to Commissioner Guiles' question, Mr. Horning stated that the applicant would not continue to develop the property with 14 units, but contemplates developing a 36-unit apartment project across the back and renting out the front commercial property and the warehouse until the market is sufficient to develop commercially. Director Krempl remarked that the decision for a conditional use permit in the commercial zone is final with the Planning Commission and that the original CUP did not go forward to Council. However, the practice recently adopted, will be to notify Council of this hearing. Regarding the prospect of a different project, Principal Planner Lee commented that if there are any variations to the previously approved plan, the project would have to repeat the entire process through DRC and Commission. Commissioner Guiles said he could not support the variance request as, in his opinion, findings "a" and "b" are not being met. He would, therefore, oppose the project if the motion included the 18 units being considered. Attorney Gill recommended a separate motion be made for the variance. MS (Carson/Guiles) to adopt a motion to deny ZAV-86-8. Commissioner Green stated he was voting against the motion as he likes the idea of developing the project as shown on the plan as it would result in a credit to Chula Vista and he was of the opinion that findings could be made to support the variance. The motion to deny ZAV-86-8 passed with Grasser and Green voting no and Cannon abstaining. MSC (Guiles/Tugenberg) Cannon abstained - that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report to approve the request, PCC-86-7, to construct a condominium project at 351 "K" Street in the C-C zone subject to conditions "a" through "g". Planning Commission -13- 10/23/85 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: A joint meeting with the Council, Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission will be set up in the near future. As there is only one item scheduled for November 27th meeting, he would like to cancel the meeting. The Commission agreed. - That it may be necessary to rearrange some of the meetings during December. Presently, the only meeting would be on the second Wednesday, the meeting on the fourth will be cancelled. - A report will go to Council next month regarding hiring a consultant to program the General Plan, naming Bud Gray as a project coordinator to supervise other consultants. The RFP will be reviewed at the next Planning workshop. He noted that the Commission would be playing a major role in reworking and redoing the City's General Plan. COmmISSION REPORT: None ADJOURNED AT 9:40 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of November 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 2333P