Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/06/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, June 12, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles, O'Neill and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With notification: Commissioner Shipe STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant City Attorney Gill (arrived 7:55) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Green and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Green reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (O'Neill/Tugenberg) to approve the minutes of the meeting of April lO, 1985 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR MISSION VERDE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 82-8 Principal Planner Lee noted that the tentative map for Mission Verde had been approved 3 years ago. The property involves a subdivision of 10 acres into a one-lot condominium project consisting of 102 dwelling units. There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which would affect the original conditions or findings of approval, therefore staff is recommending approval. 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 (Guiles/Cannon) to approve a 3-year extension of Tentative Map for Mission Verde, Chula Vista Tract 82-8, the map to then expire on August lO, 1988. Planning Commission - 2 - June 12, 198~ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EL RANCHO DEL REY UNIT 6E, CHULA VISTA TRACT 85-10 - EL RANCHO DEl REY Principal Planner Lee stated that the site of E1 Rancho del Rey 6E has been rough-graded and the street fully improved along the property frontage. The proposal is for the creation of nine zero lot line single-family residential lots. The site is consistent with the adjacent area and the Ranchero SPA standards for zero lot line development. Staff has recommended approval with 16 conditions. Mr. Lee noted that condition B.2. o should be corrected to read "33 feet" instead of "43 feet". Commissioner Cannon asked how enforceable was the condition stipulating maintenance of walls and fencing by the individual homeowner and was graffiti included. Mr. Lee replied that graffiti was included and the wording had been suggested by the Attorney in previous similar cases. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Hutchison, 8324 Allison Ave., La Mesa, representing the applicant, stated the owner's concurrence with all conditions and with the modification of B.2. o. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Guiles) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-39. MSUC (Cannon/O'Neill) based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report to recommend that Council approve the tentative subdivision map for E1 Rancho del Rey 6E, Chula Vista Tract 85-10, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with condition B.2.o corrected to show "33 feet" instead of "43 feet". 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) GPA-85-1 - PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF 2.09 ACRES AT 176 OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RETAIL COMMERCIAL" AND "PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL" ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN 4. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCZ-85-C - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 2.09 ACRES AT 976 OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM A-D TO C-C-P AND C-O-P - KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER Principal Planner Lee noted that these items were continued from the meeting of May 8, 1985 in order to refine the Initial Study (IS-85-25) in terms of potentially significant acoustical impacts, and that a revised negative declaration has been prepared and advertised. For General Plan purposes, the 2.09 acres is requested to be redesignated "Retail Commercial" and "Professional and Administrative Commercial" and the companion rezoning Plannin~ Commission - 3 - June 12, 1985 request to "Central Commercial" on the northerly 0.73 acres and "Commercial Office" on the southerly 1.36 acres. This would permit the applicant to establish a proposed day-care center (through the CUP process) and would also permit the continuing operation of the feed business on the northerly part of the premises. The need for commercial expansion of the Bonita area has not been supported by documented or demonstrated need and the many vacancies attest to the over-commercialization of the area. Staff recommends a redesignation to "Medium Density Residential" and a rezoning of the southerly portion to a multiple-family density compatible with the adjacent area. Commissioner Cannon commented that (1) again, there was only one Negative Declaration although it would seem there should be two with differing environmental considerations for a General Plan Amendment and a specific project; {2) unnecessary emphasis had been placed on environmental procedures at the previous meeting and the Commission should now concentrate on the project application; {3) although his staff report indicated an acoustical report would be submitted to the Commission prior to the meeting, he did not have one. Environmental Coordinator Reid explained the wording was misleading and meant that the acoustical report would be submitted at the time of submittal of the CUP for the land use. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Norman Williams, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, representing Kinder Care Learning Center, stated that they wished to indicate that there is a commercial use, the feed business, on the property and are requesting C-O-P zoning on the remainder to permit the operation of the nursery school {through the CUP process); that the investment of nearly $1 million is protected by a potential office use for the development if, for some unknown reason, Kinder Care were not successful. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission asked: {1) In the zoning proposed as a staff recommendation, would an office building be allowed on a conditional use permit basis? (2) What would happen to the feed business under the current staff proposal? (3) Had the entire area been looked at as potentially commercial office? Principal Planner Lee replied: (1) The R-3-P-8 would not permit an office building on the CUP basis. (2) The feed business would be a non-conforming use as the existing A-D zoning is the only one left in Bonita and is being phased out; however, as the feed barn was under a special use permit, the business could remain. (3) Consideration had been given to extending the "Commercial Office" designation, but it could not be justified. Commissioner Green said he was of the opinion that the use was appropriate and would like to see the entire area "Commercial". Planning Commission - 4 - June 12, 1985 Commissioner Cannon agreed but said that he could not support the designation of "Retail Commercial" al though an office designation would not be too offensive. MSUC (Cannon/O'Neill) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and to adopt the "revised" Negative Declaration IS-85-25. MSUC (Green/Cannon) to recommend that Council redesignate the subject site from "Low Density Residential" to "Professional and Administrative Commercial" MSUC (Green/Cannon) to recommend Council enact an ordinance rezoning 2.09 acres at 176 Otay Lakes Road from A-D to C-O-P. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-13 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM THE APPROVAL OF TENIAIIV~ PARCEL MAP 8§-10 FOR LOUIS GUILLEMElT~, 160 MINOT Principal Planner Lee noted that approval of Tentative Map 85-10 (creation of four parcels from one existing parcel at 160-162 Minor Avenue) had been appealed by 45 Minor Avenue residents. His slide presentation showed a 2,000 foot tree-shaded street, 40 feet wide with a 30-foot travelway, minimal sidewalk installation, and mostly single-family dwellings. Mr. Lee pointed out that a standard street contains 56 ~eet of right-of-way with 36 feet curb-to-curb; and that the southerly 2/3 of Minot Avenue is zoned R-2 and the northerly 1/3 zoned R-1. The R-2 zoning of the project area would allow the applicant to build 4 duplexes (although only one duplex is planned); and a 6-foot wide street dedication is required of the developer in the event future widening of Minot is necessary. He stated that the appellants had expressed concern that the increased density caused by the project would result in additional traffic generation, necessitate the widening of Minor Avenue and deterioration of the rural atmosphere of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that a sufficient number of questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness of the present zoning and the desirability of the lot split to warrant a zoning study of the area and has recommended a 90-day continuance for that purpose. A recess was declared at 7:43 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 7:48 p.m. In reply to Commissioner Cannon, Principal Planner Lee said the matter of continuation for zoning study purposes had been discussed with the City. Attorney Commissioner Cannon stressed that if the project were continued, he would request a report from the City Attorney regarding the legality of such action and the exposure of the City. The Commission questioned the following: (1) the basis for R-2 zoning on part of Minot Avenue in view of the R-1 zoning of the surrounding area; (2) the time span needed for a zoning study; (3) the necessity for opening the public hearing in view of a proposed continuance; {4) if the appellants would favor a down-zoning; and (5) would the zoning study affect the Las Flores subdivision. Planning Commission - 5 - June 12, 198~ Assistant City Attorney Gill arrived at 7:55. Staff replied that (1) no documentation was readily available to explain the R-l/R-2 zoning proximity; (2) 60 days would be the minimum time allowable including appropriate advertising of the study; (3) testimony of the residents and their views might benefit staff; (4) it was believed a down-zoning would meet with approval; (5) the Las Flores subdivision would be involved in the study for traffic generation, drainage and similar issues; (6) the matter before the Commission is an appeal of the lot division and Commission can deny the decision based on facts which would show that the appropriate standards of the subdivision ordinance have not been met. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chairman Green asked for a show of hands of all present who had appealed the decision; approximately 20-25 people raised their hands. He then asked how many were in favor of a down-zone; approximately 12-15 so indicated. The following spoke in support of the appeal: David Bristol, 61 Minor; Margaret Myers, 74 Minot; Bill Schmitt, lO1 Minor; C. R. Mallow, 135 Minot; and Gayle Norris, 135 Minor. Their comments included: "No street widening should be done, no more sidewalks should be added, and no trees should be removed"; widening Minor would bring the new street and sidewalk within 15 feet of bedroom windows; it is a case of 45 long-time residents against one newcomer who wants to change the neighborhood from a quiet, safe area for children to a multi-family area with heavy traffic and, possibly, no children; most of the residents are retired, living on fixed incomes and are concerned about changes, substantial costs, future taxation, inconveniences in relocation of curbs, poles, meters, loss of 40-year old trees; and a fear that a later administration might condemn homes within the 20-foot setback limit {as a result of the street widening). Questions proposed included if an additional 5 feet would be required for the sidewalks; have alternate plans, such as parking on only one side of the street, or closing "D" at Minot and opening Las Flores at "E" been considered; and the meaning of term "for street purposes". Staff answered that only the developer of the property in Tentative Map 85-10 is required to dedicate land for street-widening purposes; there was no intention of an immediate widening of Minot and the existing houses were not subject to land dedication unless the 1911 Act was invoked. Commissioner Cannon explained that while a dedication of land was requested for street-widening purposes, there are no immediate plans for Minot to be widened; it is a proviso in case of future need. Chairman Green emphasized that the land dedication is being requested as an offer of dedication by only one person - the developer. James Algert, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista, Algert Engineering, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that the applicant does not believe the project is placing an increased burden on the street. There are presently three units using Minot. The project would eliminate two of those houses and Planning Commission - 6 - June 12, 198~ substitute a duplex; the single-family home might conceivably be reconstructed as a duplex in the unknown future; however, density would not be increased by the number of houses fronting on Minot, plus the site would provide off-street parking. Martha Aquillard, 138 Minor Avenue, stressed that nothing was gained for the homeowners by a down-zoning to R-1; the Engineering Department had informed them the street would be widened within a year. Commissioner Tugenberg asked why no one testified at the hearing on lot splitting in the Las Flores Subdivision and the required land dedication for widening of Minor Street on May 22, 19857 Mrs. Aguillard replied that no notification of such action had been received, even by owners of a corner lot on Minor and "E". She maintained that one of the three dwellings on the applicant's parcel had originally been a chicken coop illegally converted into living quarters, and demanded to know why three dwelling units on an R-2 lot had been permitted by the Commission. She al so contended that down-zoning would result in the split-up of large lots into smaller ones on Las Flores with increased traffic impacting Minor and urged that a solution other than widening Minot and causing reduction of their front yards be sought. Commissioner Cannon endeavored to explain that as the City is concerned about the possibility for street-widening in the future, the applicant's land dedication at this time would prevent future cost to the City in the eventuality of a street widening. Principal Planner Lee noted that limitation of street parking to one side was a more probable solution than "widening Minor within a year" a statement he felt certain was a misunderstanding. The applicant was the one who had represented three dwelling units on the property. The history of the parcel had not been traced back because such construction would fall under a non-conforming dwelling unit at this point in time. Under today's R-2 zoning, eight dwelling units were permissible for each 3,500 square feet of land area. Notices had been sent to everyone within 300 feet of the Las Flores Subdivision; however, the issue would be double-checked and reported back to the Commission. Frank Balistrieri, 1030 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Las Flores Group who are in opposition to the 90-day continuance, requested that their street be removed from the rezoning being considered as such a continuance would leave them with useless plans and installation of utilities currently underway. He commented that they needed to install utilities and laterals prior to the City putting in storm drains and street improvements (currently out to bid with construction estimated to start on August l, 1985); and if the property were rezoned to R-l, their plans would be useless. Chairman Green advised that the continuance would not place a moratorium on anything already approved. Planning Commission - 7 - June 12, 1985 Principal Planner Lee interpreted Mr. Balistrieri's statements to mean if the zoning study were completed and the conclusion was that the Las Flores area, as well as Minor, should be rezoned R-l, the Las Flores Group would have utilities down in anticipation of developing a duplex on several lots. Mr. Balistrieri continued that his group could not afford to repair an asphalt street which would be put in after the City installed the storm drains and water line; they had been denied the use of their money and property for many years awaiting installation of the road and utilities by the City; they needed the help of the Commission to allow them to proceed; and that down-zoning would devalue their property. Commissioner O'Neill inquired what the delay had been. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust said the item has been held up a number of years from a variety of reasons including disapproval by Council of the 1911 Act; there was a City project providing 24 feet of pavement along the centerline of Las Flores which had either gone out to bid or would be doing so; and that Mr. Balistrieri's property was in the affected area. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney Gill stated that staff's recommendation to continue creates potential legal problems unless the applicant is in concurrence, and that the Commission should decide tonight whether or not the appeal should be granted or denied; however, if it was the Commission's desire to not approve the subdivision, special findings must be specified and the decision based on them. Commissioner Cannon moved, and it was seconded by Commissioner Tugenberg, that the appeal be denied and staff provide a zoning study within the next 90 days, and a report be submitted to the Commission by the City Attorney regarding the type of legal action that might involve the City if this area was down-zoned from R-2 to R-1. Commissioner O'Neill commented that the motion seemed quite complex. Commissioner Cannon then offered to reword the motion into two if it was agreeable with Commissioner Tugenberg who had seconded. Commissioner Tugenberg agreed. Commissioner Cannon continued that he saw nothing wrong with the subdivision and the map meets all applicable local and state requirements. Substitute Motion MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) to deny the appeal. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) that staff provide a zone study within 90 days and that the City Attorney render an opinion on the effect a down-zone may have with or to potential legal ramifications to the City. Planning Commission - 8 - June 12, 198~ Chairman Green suggested a meeting be held between staff and the appellants to discuss the possible down-zone. He then emphasized that the action taken by the Planning Commission did not mean that the owners of existing housing were being asked to dedicate any land. Only the applicant for Tentative Parcel Map 85-10 was required to dedicate a portion of his land for possible street-widening purposes. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked that Minor Avenue is a very attractive street, it would be a shame to have to widen it, and he felt every effort should be made to accommodate traffic without widening the street. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-85-3 - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE Director of Planning Krempl noted that Council had expressed concern in 1984 regarding the location of some existing satellite dishes within the City, particularly those on roof tops in residential areas, and asked staff to return with some regulations. On January 12, 1985, Council passed a 90-day moratorium and on April 4th, an urgency ordinance. Council accepted staff's recommendation to continue discussion and to solicit input from the satellite industry, the Chamber of Commerce and the Planning Commission regarding whether further refinement or changes to the ordinance were needed. Director Krempl said the Chamber had responded verbally that they see no problems with the regulations: the satellite antennae dealers and the industry were sent copies of the regulations and invited to a workshop meeting. No one attended the workshop; however, several phone calls were received from dealers indicating acceptability; an opposition letter from Mr. Stone, and one from the Society for Private and Commercial Earth Stations (SPACE) discussing possible topographic or man-made obstructions blocking reception were included in the Commission's packet. Mr. Krempl noted that the ordinance allows the dish antennae as a permitted accessory use in the R-1 districts if ground-mounted to the rear of the lot (with the exclusion of a hillside district); that in the commercial area, a building permit and CUP are required for rooftop installation plus staff approval of the dish color and a stipulation that any identification marks such as phone numbers would constitute signage. Staff believes the regulations are appropriate and should be recommended for adoption by the Council. Discussion and questions by the Commission included: (1) why satellite dish antennae receive different treatment from ham radio antennae; (2) the fact that people are accustomed to objects that resemble TV antennae but not round objects; (3) the 15-foot height proposed by the satellite industry seems more realistic than 12 feet; (4) a requirement that a 12-foot dish antenna be so screened by a 5-foot high solid wall that only 25 percent of the antenna is above the wall seems a physical impossibility; and (5) the status of previously installed antennae. Plannin~ Commission - 9 - June 12, 1985 Staff's explanations were: (1) ham antennae were considered by the Commission about 10 years previously and it had been detemined their height was necessary for world-wide reception, they provided a valuable service transmitting infomation during emergencies and, therefore, the City chose not to take any action to preclude them or remove existing ones in the City; (3) San Diego has modified its 12-foot height restriction to 15 feet, however, many other jurisdictions have experienced no problem with the 12-foot restriction during the past 2 or 3 years; (4) screening is dependent on the location of the antenna and is a combination of fencing and landscaping and/or depressing the foundation of the dish so it is actually placed below the natural grade level; (5) previously installed antennae would become non-confoming uses and be unaffected. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Commissioner Cannon declared that the problem is legislation on how someone makes his house appear; that more and more laws are infringing on the use by a person of his property; there are enough laws already in existence and to proliferate that type of activity on a City level is senseless; roof top installations are ugly, it's true, however no uglier than many other objects, and the point is we are legislating something because it is new and this new industry ma3' in the future be recognized as aesthetically nomal in appearance; therefore, he would not approve the ordinance as written or in any other fashion. Commissioner Green expressed agreement and pointed out that satellite dish antennae are the only real competition to the cable companies who need competition as, in essence, they have a monopoly (although not supposed to). Ite said he would be against any such ordinance. Commissioner Tugenberg referred to the regulations in the EastLake and ERDR projects which also precluded antennae, and said he saw nothing unusual in the ordinance as we no longer had a laissez-faire society. Commissioner Cannon replied that regarding such specific projects, if a large landowner makes a choice to put certain restrictions on his property he has that right and that when people purchase, they know those restrictions; there is a difference between CC&R's and placing a burden on someone who is not forewarned as are those buying into planned communities; that if he has the right to put a satellite dish on his property, and when he moved into that property he had that right, for the City to take it away from him would be an infringement to his personal choice. Commissioner O'Neill commented the reference to the cable company was well-taken, however, scrambling the signal will soon be possible so satellite owners will have to pay one way or another. He felt community aesthetics are important and should be protected; he did not see this as an unusual infringement on people's rights: and although some of the restrictions called out in the ordinance are unrealistic, he had no objection to the ordinance itself. Plannin~ Commission - l0 - June 12, 1985 Commissioner Cannon retorted that installation costs range from $900 to $3,000 and the ordinance would add additional costs of a wall, landscaping, etc., which may or may not be what the owner of that home wants, desires or needs. Commissioner O'Neill agreed that was one of the unrealistic parts of the ordinance. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that with the increase in the cost of cable TV, people who are priced out of the market are also precluded from getting programs because they can't have an antenna in certain areas. Director Krempl pointed out the importance of stating that (1) it is not the intent of the ordinance to provide any particular advantage to holders of any one communication device over another; (2) there was no intention of precluding satellite dish antennae; (3) the intent was to establish some regulations regarding their placement and some controls regarding the aesthetics. In answer to Commissioner Guiles' questions, it was explained that there were no restrictions regarding TV antennae for existing houses in older neighborhoods: however, new subdivisions are regulated by the Subdivision Map Act and prohibit TV antennae. In reply to Commissioner Carson's questions regarding the number of satellite dish antennae anticipated in a block, and if the Commission's comments and opinions were necessary with the ordinance al ready in effect, Director Krempl explained the Commission's opinion would be reflected forward to the Council which has the power to rescind, modify or change the ordinance. MSC (Cannon/Green) that Council rescind the satellite dish antennae ordinance. Commissioners Tugenberg and O'Neill voted "no". (Commissioner Shipe was absent.) DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Krempl informed the Commission that there are no items for consideration for the meeting of the 26th, and asked if the Commission would rather cancel that date or move the workshop to the 26th and cancel the 19th: the Commission elected to cancel the 19th and move the workshop to the 26th. Director Krempl noted that Council had approved ERDR, 3-2; that the Union had erroneously noted that the Commission had previously approved ERDR 7-0, however, a correction would be made. Planning Commission - ll June 12, 1985 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Guiles said he would have had to be absent on the 19th if there had been a meeting. Commissioner Green will be on vacation and absent on the 26th. Commissioner Tugenberg would like to have the minutes earlier if possible. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 p.m. to the Study Session meeting of June 26th, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 2018P