Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/05/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, May 8, 1985 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Zoning Enforcement Officer Le Blanc PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag vas led by Chairman Green and vas 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No ne Chairman Green announced that Item 5 would be taken out of sequence at the request of the Planning staff. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-12 CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR 558 BERLAND WAY - DAVID BERTRAND Principal Planner Lee stated that a letter had been filed late today by Mr. Bertrand advi sing the Planning Department that he vas relinquishing hi s home occupation permit. No action is required by the Planning Commission except to have the minutes reflect the fact that a letter vas filed on May 8, 1985, relinquishing the home occupation permit for 558 Berland Way. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing w~s opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing vas closed. A motion vas made by Commissioner Cannon and seconded by Commissioner Shipe to revoke the home occupation permit at 558 Berland Way. Planning Commission - 2 - May 8, 1985 Assistant City Attorney Gill stated that a revocation requires a specific procedural process and findings and advised the Commission to accept the letter and have it noted in the minutes. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) that the minutes reflect that Mr. Bertrand relinquished his home occupation permit for 558 Berland Way on May 8, 1985 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-85-1 - PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF 2.09 ACRES AT 176 OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RETAIL COMMER(JlAL" AND "PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATiVe- COMMERCIAL" ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM OF THE LAND USE ELEMEN) OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-85-C - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 2.09 ACRES AT 176 OTAY LAKES ROAD - KINDER CARE LEARNING CENll~RS, INC. Principal Planner Pass stated that the t~o items could be handled separately even though they vere companion cases. He then said that the Commission is asked to find that the project ~ould have no significant environmental impacts and to adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-85-25. The Commission is also asked to adopt a motion to redesignate the site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on the plan diagram of the Chula Vista General Plan. He remarked that the site is an integral part of the Otay Lakes/Allen School Lane low-to-medium density residential fabric and the Planning Department, after restudying the area, believes the site' s arterial location and relatively topographic isolation does net support the area' s commercial development; that the retail feed business and stables are rural in orientation and do not constitute a reason to authorize the southerly expansion of the Bonita Road commercial strip. The proposed General Plan Amendment of the 550 square foot southerly expansion of the commercial strip is not justified by any documented or demonstrated need nor has a marketing report manifesting this need been submitted; the Department considers the site location, topography and existing land use supports a redesignation to Medium Density Residential. Such a designation ~ould permit the entire parcel to be used as proposed in later submittals by the developer; namely, the southerly 2/3 becoming the site of a day-care center, while the northerly {feed barn and stables) is retained for that use Which is still needed by the community. Mr. Pass recommended that the prior Negative Declaration, IS-84-28, adopted by the Commission on June 27, 1984 and having to do with redesignation of the subject territory from its existing designation of Low Density to Retail Commercial and High Density Residential, be the enviro~nental basis, if the Commission wi shes to support staff' s position. Plannin9 Commission - 3 - May 8, 1985 Questions regarding the noise element in the Negative Declaration {IS-85-25) were raised by Commissioner Cannon who requested clarification of why the noise generated by the proposed center ~ould be handled by the Nuisance Ordinance instead of the Environmental Impact Report. Principal Planner Pass replied that the land use will be held to noise regulations contained in the new Nuisance Ordinance which requires monitoring by the City and provides power to suppress or require abatement of noise by legal action if the new standards are exceeded. The Department believes there is no valid v~y of predicting the amount of noise to be generated by the day-care center but is confident the new Ordinance and equipment will protect the neighbors. Commissioner Cannon stated he also had confidence in the new Ordinance, hovever, the Commission is being asked to adopt a Negative Declaration without being given sufficient supporting facts on which to base the judgment (other than the statement that the noise emanating from the proposed center will be controlled through the Nuisance Ordinance). He maintained that this uses a police pover under the City instead of exercising control through the mechanism of the Environmental Impact Report. There is no indication in the Negative Declaration of whether the noise generated will be excessive or not; and there should be a statement contained in the EIR of the effect the noise will have on the environment, or a statement made in the Negative Declaration that there is no environmental impact. Mr. Pass replied that the intent and tenor of the report indicated no evidence that the school ~ould generate excessive noise. Director of Planning Krempl stated that: (1) the noi se provisions do distinguish betveen environmental and nuisance noises and both ~ould have an environmental impact, however, neither one nor the other should be excluded as the ~ording implies; {2) the level at which the determination of significance should be dealt with is during the City's land use approval process; (3) approval of a day-care center weuld require a conditional use permit with a separate analysis; therefore, he interpreted the wording to indicate that no significant impact i s associated with the General Plan Amendment' s redesignation of 2 acres. Mr. Pass explained that while Negative Declaration IS-85-25 had been attached to Stem l, what is being considered is the long-range comprehensive General Plan, and the rezoning and conditional use permit should not have been included in the item; in essence, the final determination on the noise is being delayed until the use permit is considered. Commissioner Cannon declared that in order to make a finding of "ne significant impact", a better Negative Declaration addressing only the issue of a General Plan Amendment or only a Kinder Care day-care center wes needed. Commissioner O'Neill suggested the removal of paragraph D2 as it had no reference to the land redesignation in Item 1. Planning Commission - 4 - May 8, 1985 At the request of the Chairman, Assistant City Attorney Gill read the Municipal Code regulations pertaining to the subject. Commissioner Shipe asked for clarification of Mr. Corn's statement in his letter of May 7, 1985, that the child care center will cause a depreciation of land values. He was informed that there is ne evidence that a school site lovers values since the land value is predicated on the general market in the general area. Upon interpretation of the statement in paragraph E-3 that "the development of the property Would not cause increased runoff from the property" as meaning the runoff would net affect adjacent lots, Commissioner O'Neill recommended more caution in the wording of the Negative Declarations. Commissioner Cannon interjected that the wording in paragraph E-4 under Findings of Insignificant Impact indicated the "project ven't create or add to the enviro~nental noi se on the project site", which, even with the removal of paragraph D2 (as Commissioner O'Neill suggested), raised the same problem of anticipating noise on the site, and that similar problems existed with a number of other paragraphs. The Commissioner said the Negative Declaration was addressed to the second agenda item but was attached to both items as support and it was far too over-broad for Stem 1. Principal Planner Pass explained that is why the Commission was being asked to adopt Negative Declaration IS-85-25 and readopt IS-84-28 {which staff felt was more germane); and that the recertification of IS-84-28 could support a favorable vote on the redesignation. Commissioner Cannon objected that he did not have Negative Declaration IS-84-28 in front of him; two Commissioners vere not present in June of 1984; and it was his understanding that staff's position and recommendations had changed since that meeting. Mr. Pass informed him that the staff continued to support the residential designation. Commissioner Guiles expressed concern of the use of the word "will" in findings #3 and #4 When conformance cannot be guaranteed, and suggested a change in wording to reflect the situation. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened to speak to the General Plan Amendment only. Nancy Brown, 4646 Bonita Road, Bonita, spoke in opposition to the rezoning declaring that Bonita' s serenity and rural environment i s being sacrificed for commercial interest at the expense of the residents; the area in question is saturated with commercial enterprises and excessively congested with traffic; and urged the Commission to vote against the rezoning. Plannin~ Commission - 5 - May 8, 1985 Norman Williams, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, representing the applicant, said that since his remarks on the GPA and the companion request Would overlap, he Would speak only once. He noted that the request to amend the General Plan and rezone the 2.09 acres from Low Density Residential to a .7 acre Commercial and a 1.36 acre of Professional and Administrative designation is supportable as the site is well isolated from residential use and in close physical proximity to the Retail Commercial on the north; the proposal for a Plan change recognizes the Red Barn as a retail commercial operation; and the request for office use on the southern 1.36 acres provides a good transition from the adjacent Retail Co~ercial and would permit Kinder Care to apply for a conditional use permit to build their nursery. As the Kinder Care investment will be in the neighborhood of $1 million, a provision for a commercial office building is considered appropriate in the unlikely event that Kinder Care should have to cease operations. Mr. Williams said the issue of site separation from Low Density Residential uses is demonstrated by the SDG&E sub-station to the south; Allen School Lane being 300 feet from the nearest back yard in the south; a 25-foot elevation difference between pad elevation and Mr. Corn's home; and Kinder Care Would be a 1-story building {the same as the stable building and the two residences to be removed). He pointed out that the eastern side abuts Otay Lakes Road; the two nearest homes are approximately 50 feet above Otay Lakes Road; and the homes on Calle Mesquite are 200 feet above the road as opposed to the 5-7 foot elevation difference between the site and the Bonita commercial area. Amending the General Plan and rezoning the existing Red Barn site to Retail Commercial would terminate at the SDG&E sub-station. Mr. Williams then added that he wes available for questioning and that Mr. Hyatt of Kinder Care v~s also present and available. No one else wishing to speak to the General Plan Amendment, the public hearing v~s closed. Commissioner O'Neill said he w~s not comfortable with Item 1 as presented and asked how long it would take to remove the Kinder Care proposal from Item #1 and have it reworked? Director of Planning Krempl replied that if revised, the Negative Declaration would have to be put for public comment for 21 days. Commissioner Cannon said that in the absence of a continuance he ~ould vote against the Negative Declaration as written and v~s of the opinion that the item should be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting after the publication and comment time on the Negative Declaration i s completed. Assistant City Attorney Gill suggested that a specific date be set so readverti sing would be unnecessary. Chairman Green reopened the public hearing on Item 1 for the purpose of continuation to the meeting of June 12, 1985. Norman Williams concurred with the continuance. Planning Commission - 6 - May 8, 1985 No one wishing to speak, the public hearing v~s closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/O'Neill) to continue Item 1 to the meeting of June 12, 1985. Chairman Green reopened the public hearing on Item 2 for the purpose of continuation to the meeting of June 12, 1985. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing on Item 2 v~s closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/O'Neill) to continue Item 2 to the meeting of June 12, 1985. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-19 - REQUEST TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PRE-SCHOOL AT 471 "E" STREET - COTTONTAIL PRE-SCHOOL Commissioner Cannon cited a possible conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers at 7:45 p.m. Principal Planner Lee noted that approval v~s granted to conduct a pre-school for 25 children on a 1,000+ foot site at the northeast corner of Brightveod and "E" Street in 1982. The applicant is seeking approval to expand the number to 50 children, a total of 560 square feet of floor space, and a new fenced play area to the vest of the structure (adjacent to Brightveod Avenue.) The number of staff veuld be increased from three to seven, and an additional four parking spaces would be leased from the church across the street. The hours of operation ~ould remain the same, outdoor recess periods would be staggered so that no more than 35 children are out of doors at any one time and are distributed among the back, side and front play areas. A 3-story condominium is planned in the adjacent lot to the east and the owner has indicated no objections. A petition v~s submitted by the applicant supporting the project. Also, one w~s received from the apartment owners tve lots to the east, Ruth and Joe Bishop, voicing an objection because of the noise. Tve letters vere received, one from Mrs. Galligan, 466 "E" Street, who expressed concern over the possible external appearance being too institutional; suggesting the existing chain link fence be replaced by solid fencing and extended across the front of the school to screen the children's activity area and minimize the noise; that additional landscaping be provided in front of that area (a suggestion that has been incorporated into the staff conditions of approval.) The letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Scott, 462 Street, expressed concern about traffic congestion, and recommended replacement of the chain link fence with a more solid 5-foot fence; more shrubbery planted and that the new construction not cause removal or drastic trimming of the trees in front; the on-street parking be designated for limited parking to prevent the daily double-parking and to ensure the sidewlk remains clear of vehicular parking at all times. Questions asked by the Commission included: (1) Is the fence proposed as a solid fence along the vest boundary? (2) Will the proposed expansion comply with the Noise Ordinance provisions? (3} Have there been any complaints with the current limit of 25 children? (4) Has the daily traffic congestion cited in Mr. Scott' s letter been checked out? Planning Commission - 7 - May 8, 1985 Principal Planner Lee replied that {1) the fence is proposed as 5 feet in height along the west and along "E" Street; (2) the Noise Ordinance has not been reviewed for this site, therefore, possible violations could occur in the play area; (3) there have been no complaints received about the facility; (4) only the letter-writer has expressed concern, the traffic at the location has been checked many times during the past several weeks but no problem ws observed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing v~s opened. Those speaking in favor of the expansion were: (1) Cynthia Smothers, 158 E. E1 Capitan~ (2) Mark Anderson, 475 "E" Street, across the street from Cottontail; {3) Dan Armstrong, 37 Palomar Drive, former patron and now husband to one of the partners~ (4) Valerie Fast, 485 "E" Street. Their remarks included: {1) Quality care for children is most important, her daughter has benefited greatly from the school, and her daughter' s therapist had vi sited and commended it; {2) In their year's residence in the area they have noticed no problems, the noise is slight and he had no objections to the enlargement; (3) The proposed 3-story building on the adjacent lot will minimize any noise in that direction; there is no double-parking as there are seven parking spaces off-site and five on-site plus the drivev~y; Cottontail's reputation is what brought him and his 2-1/2 year old daughter to the school; that of the 562 square feet proposed for addition, 152 square feet will be brought up to Code and is already on the diagram; there is no intention of destroying any trees or plants; during the Easter party with 70 students, 40+ parents plus brothers and sisters present, he had checked the noise level from across the street and could hear voices only during a lull in traffic. In a reply to Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Anderson said that, upon approval, the ground-breaking weuld be in June and the Werk w~uld be done around the school schedule. The school v~uld close on the July 4th weekend and be framed and reroofed by the end of July or the first of August; (4) One of her twe children going to Cottontail is very emotionally disturbed and has benefited greatly from the care she has received at the school; and children love going there. Speaking in opposition to the expansion were: (1) Joseph Bishop, 445 "E" Street, 2 lots east of the school; and (2) Gerald Scott, 462 "E" Street. Their comments included: (1) the noise situation has been bad for 2 years and is disturbing to the day-sleepers who occupy bedrooms facing the school; if the increase is doubled, they fear bedlam; across the street is a Lutheran School with lO0 students, and 1/2 a block awey is another nursery school. (2) He has no objection to pre-schools except in residential areas; he wished the area to remain residential in appearance; in case of a business failure, the house remains in its interior condition suitable only for another pre-school; the children do not play on the west side (awey from the residences) but on the Bishops' side and in the front; there is double-parking although it is not continuous, but it exists; and at pick-up time there were five cars parked up to "E" Street at 4:30, Tuesday, 5/7/85; the office is a garage that Ks constructed without a permit and, if sold as a single residence, must revert to a garage again; their views had been expressed at the inception of the project; they have lived with it for 2 years without complaining, but to increase it 100 percent is asking too much of a residential area. Planning Commission - 8 - May 8, 1985 To shorten the public hearing, the Chaiman asked those in the audience representing approval to stand. Approximately 20 people {the majority of those in the room) stood. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner O'Neill noted that he could see problems with the size increase, however, today's economic situation almost demands twe breadwinners per family and child care is a necessary function. He favored the expansion. Commissioner Green said he could not see how the expansion ~ould affect the exterior greatly, and he Weuld favor the expansion. Commissioner Shipe remarked that he, too, would support the recommendation as he knows the effect that a good pre-school has on his own children; it is a demonstrated need in our society and we must always look at trade-offs; namely, the noise in comparison to the good effected. He expressed slight confusion as to the final list of recommended conditions. Principal Planner Lee replied the conditions were those outlined in the staff report, plus the addition of one which requires that all trees referenced on the filed site plan remain or be replaced subject to the City Landscape Architect's approval. The other twe conditions mentioned in the letters included extending the solid fence across the front of the property and additional landscaping. He added that the present chain link fence does an effective job of blending in with the landscaping in the area, however, with the increased equipment in the activity area, the Commission may wish to screen it off further either with solid fencing or landscaping. Commissioner Tugenberg advocated the pre-school notifying the parents to never drop off or pick up their children on "E" Street, and that the pickup time be spread over a larger time span in consideration of the doubled enrollment. MSC (Carson/Guiles) Cannon abstained - that based on the Findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve the request, PCC-85-19, to expand an already existing pre-school at 471 "E" Street subject to the conditions contained in the staff report including a review of the landscaping in Section D and that the trees remain or be replaced subject to approval of the City Landscape Architect. Principal Planner Lee asked for a clarification of the landscape review and ws informed by the Chairman that the review of the landscaping should be subject to staff approval~ if staff feels more is required, then it should be required. Commissioner Carson expressed agreement and Commissioner Guiles did al so. Planning Commission - 9 - May 8, 1985 Mr. Lee asked further if it v~s the intent of the Commission that the landscaping be regarded in terms of screening and was answered in the affi rmati ye. Commissioner Cannon returned to the Chambers and the dais. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-85-8 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARK WAY PLACE TOWNHOMES CHULA VISTA TRACT B~ THOM L. SANDERS ASSOCIATES The project site of 0.32 acres at 364/368 Park Way is comprised of two parcels Which vere originally occupied by a single family dwelling each. The applicant received approval from the Design Review Committee for a one-lot condominium project of eight units which is now under construction. The development meets all the City requirements relating to common open space, private open space, storage and parking. The staff recommendation is that the Commission ask Council to approve the tentative map. However, under the new changes to the regulations involving one-lot condominiums, the Planning Commission is responsible for approving the tentative map and it would to on to the Council as a final map. Commissioner Tugenberg asked how many years the owaer retains the right to change from apartments to condominiums and w~s answered that once the map is recorded, the applicant may seek approval for condominiums. The tentative map is approved up to 6 years before it is required to be filed as a final map, however, in most cases the applicant moves ahead to record the final map as an economic consideration. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing v~s opened. Thom Sanders, applicant, stated that they have applied to the Department of Real Estate and plan to move right ahead with sales. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing w~s closed. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, approve the tentative subdivision map for Park Way Place Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 85-8, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. DIRECTOR' S COMMENTS: Director of Planning Krempl reminded the Commission that the questionnaires from SANDAG regarding Planning Commission training should be returned by early May. A memo had been sent to the Traffic Engineer regarding the bike paths, and highv~y signs. Another memo sent to the City Manager regarding identification badges for the Commission. The Director also reminded the Commission of the dinner workshop at the Sea Food Broiler on the 15th. Planning Commission - l0 - May 8, 1985 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairman Green said he did not understand the SMARA letter he had received. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of May 15, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms #2 and #3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 1992P