Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1985/03/13 Tape #258 Side 1:0-2055 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, March 13, 1985 Public Services Buildin~ ROLL CALL CO~IISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Green, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Guiles, O'Neill, Shipe and Tugenberg STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Principal Community Development Specialist Kassman 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/Shipe) to approve the minutes of the meetings of February 13 and February 27, 1985 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC 85-16: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A CARDROOM AT 838 BROADWAY - JEAN E. LUISI Principal Planner Lee stated that the application is to establish a 24-patron cardroom in the northerly lease space of a single-story building located on a 50 ft. x 83 ft. parcel located on the west side of Broadway between "K" and "L" Streets, the southerly lease space being utilized by a bar. Based on the building footage, 16 parking spaces are required. This will consist of four parking spaces in front and twelve in the rear. Of these spaces, ten will be allotted to the cardroom and six to the bar. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 13, 1985 The Municipal Code allows four cardrooms in the City, three of which are in operation already. The Code also regulates the type of games and hours of operation. Approval is based on construction of a block wall along the rear property line to decrease noise impact, limitation of the number of tables, illumination and landscaping of the parking area, prohibition of liquor on the premises, and a stipulation that any violation would result in revocation of the conditional use permit. A petition signed by 45 owners and renters in the vicinity plus a letter from the owner of Aztec TV have been received opposing the cardroom. Concerns cited included: no wall at west end of the site, existing tavern noise and activities with possibility of increase through cardroom patrons, proximity to bar, inadequate parking, undesignated parking, no illumination of parking area, blocking of fire lane, potential of fights over parking, potential for unauthorized parking at adjacent businesses, and increased potential for burglaries in the neighborhood. Raymond Bastedo, 843 Riverlawn Ave., Chula Vista, one of the signers of the petition, and Rick Jaime, 810 Riverlawn, owner of Aztec TV, spoke in opposition to the request. Their concerns included all the items listed in the petition and the letter, plus Mr. Bastedo expressed concern over the rash of burglaries in the neighborhood during the last 6 months, fights when the bar closes, and asked if the 6-foot wall, illumination, and striping of rear parking area would be required prior to the opening of the cardroom. Mr. Jaime expressed dismay over a common wall between the bar and the cardroom predicting traffic between the two businesses. He declared that the cardroom is detrimental to the neighborhood which is marginal and isolated, the crime rate in the neighborhood is high, there is a lack of light, foot traffic at night, access for a fire lane, and adequate parking. He asked what positive effect would be gained by the cardroom, would there be revenues for the City, and would the cost be offset by the gains. Mr. Bastedo was assured that all conditions of approval must be met prior to occupancy of the building and that the Police Department had found no correlation between the proximity of bars and cardrooms and the increase in crime in the past. He was asked if the fact that the parking lot in the rear would be illuminated reduced his objections to the cardroom substantially. He replied affirmatively. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that his initial impression about a bar in close proximity to the cardroom was negative. He visited a cardroom located near "F" Street, which has a cocktail bar located on either side, and found that most of the patrons of the cardroom were in the older age bracket and that the cardroom served as a social outlet for them. The proprietor had been there about 20 years and knew everyone in the place. He also visited the Xanadu in Bonita and again found it served a social function for older people. Commissioner Tugenberg concluded that the location of the cardroom might be a positive function in that there would be more traffic in the area which might deter crime. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 13, 1985 Mr. Jaime replied that he had been living in the area for approximately ? years and that there were few older people. Most of the people are renters and the turnover is rapid. The neighborhood is marginal and he has witnessed violence in front of his store. He added that the cardrooms should be established near the neighborhoods of the elderly patrons and not away from their neighborhood. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC(Tugenberg/Cannon) Carson voted "no" - to find that the project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-31. MS(Tugenberg/C=;~n) that based on findings in Section E of the staff report, to adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-85-16, to establish a cardroom at 838 Broadway in the C-T zone subject to conditions 1 through 4. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the owner of the Aztec TV had some valid objections; 45 neighbors had objected to the cardroom (although he felt they would be better off with the 6-foot wall and lighting); he had some reservations about the side-by-si de bar and considered the parking inadequate; therefore, he would vote against the request. Commissioner Green commented that some unsavory characters do frequent cardrooms; a lot can happen in parking lots and around them; he was impressed by the neighbors' objections and was definitely against the cardroom. Commissioner Cannon remarked that he was not too concerned about the cardrooms but considered there is inadequate parking. He agreed with Commissioner Tugenberg regarding the social outlet for older and not-so-old people; he, too, had visited some cardrooms and has walked past the Xanadu many times and has seen nothing related to a crime problem. Moreover, since the Xanadu patrons take up at least l0 or 12 parking spaces at all times, even though the Xanadu is not very busy, this indicates to him a substantial possibility of trouble with parking limited to 1:2.5 seats since he doesn't see people carpooling to the cardroom. Commissioner Green added that he believes the cardroom belongs in an area more separated from residential development. There are other places on Broadway located near alleys or commercial facilities where the location would be more appropriate. Commissioner Shipe commented that he has been in one of the other cardrooms owned by a client over a period of quite a few years and has never witnessed nor heard anything other than people behaving themselves and having a good time; that particular cardroom has about 24 parking spaces, and he would support the cardroom application. PlanninO Commission Minutes -4- March 13, 1985 Commissioner Cannon replied that a ratio of l:l is considerably different from 1:2.5 seats. Commissioner O'Neill interjected that parking would also be shared with the bar next door. Commissioner Guiles commented that Broadway is a very busy street for vehicles at all hours of the day and night, even if not for foot traffic. Chairman Green requested that the votes be cast if there was no more discussion. Mrs. Luisi called out from her chair identifying herself and that she had not spoken yet. The Chairman declared that the opportunity to speak had passed. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Tugenberg, Guiles, Shipe NOES: O'Neill, Green, Cannon, Carson ABSTAIN: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING: P-85-5 - CONSIDERATION O~ APPEAL ~ROM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DENIAL OF McDONALD'S/SIXPENCE INNS FREEWAY -S~i-G~--~-~'E'' STREET AND THE I-5 FREEWAY - McDONALD's CORPORATION. Principal Planner Lee stated that this project, including the two monument signs oriented to "E" Street, was approved by the Design Review Committee. The applicant has also requested a freeway-oriented sign which he claims is essential to the economics of the site adjacent to the westerly property line. Staff indicated that the freeway sign was not appropriate as the "E" Street/I-5 interchange provides one of the City's major linkages to the Bayfront Area and the Bayfront Sign Program specifically states that "Private signs which are oriented to the freeway shall not be allowed, except as provided during the interim phase." The Design Review Committee, however, indicated they were open to innovative design concepts. After several sign submittals, the applicant elected to take the design to the Commission on an appeal. Mr. Lee pointed out that the two freestanding, freeway-oriented signs (Anthony's and Days Inn) were approved on a temporary basis in 1974 and are due for abatement on July l, 1985. These were approved to counteract the industrial district identification previously applied to the area west of the 1-5 freeway. Council may allow an additional extension of time since the Bayfront area has not developed as rapidly as originally anticipated. Staff also contended that allowing the installation of the proposed freeway-oriented sign on the basis of economic viability of a business not only affects the interchange's appearance but establishes a precedent. _ Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 13, 1985 Council has been concerned with the signage along "E" Street and "H" Street and a report was presented and accepted by them on March 12, 1985 to expand the "P" zone on streets between Broadway and 1-5 to provide more emphasis on signing, building setbacks, and landscaping in these entry areas. Commissioner O'Neill asked what had happened to the Planning Commission request that staff investigate the program practiced in the northern part of the State and in Washington utilizing logos that identified the types of service available at key freeway interchanges. Principal Planner Lee replied that it had been set up as a pilot program in rural areas on a trial basis but not in urbanized areas in the State. The Commissioners discussed the advantages of that type of signing, the number of entryways into the City, the size and quantity of signs in the proximity of National City and the unsightliness of sign proliferation. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Gardner, 8840 Complex, San Diego, 92123, representing McDonald's Corporation, stated that the preparation for this project has been a lengthy one for the two companies including a total of four meetings with the Planning Commission, two with the Design Review Committee, arrangements worked out for a cross-easement with the Black Angus and a 3-month delay when the traffic flow had to be redesigned because of the proposed site for the "E" Street Trolley Station. The firms have complied with almost all requests of the DRC and Planning Commission and have been leasing the land while awaiting permission to build. Their time is running out and they still lack adequate information to make a decision whether or not to purchase the land. McDonald's currently has four stores in Chula Vista; they have agreed to annex their recently acquired property at Palomar and Broadway to Chula Vista; and this will be their sixth store in the area. He remarked that freeway-access land is expensive and to justify the amount of money being invested to improve an eyesore piece of land, they need identification. Their investment is $1 million and without freeway identification they do not feel the project can succeed financially. The sign they have presented is quite different from the normal McDonald's identification sign. Commissioner Guiles referred to Mr. Gardner's statement that without the freeway identification the statistics do not pencil out and asked if the statement was based on factual experience with another freeway site. Mr. Gardner replied that the site in National City on 1-805 was pencilled out as an average store, however, because of the freeway signage, it has exceeded their expectations by 50 percent. They have been obliged to purchase more land and increase the size of the operation. The proposed location in Chula Vista is an "in-lot" and not a point-of-impact location as is the present location of the adjoining service station. Visibility and recognition from the traveling public is needed and the sign is all important. Plannin9 Commission Minutes -6- March 13, 1985 Commissioner Green asked whether the DRC's request that the applicant return with a revised freeway sign program indicated they didn't like the particular sign in question. Principal Planner Lee answered that staff is the one opposed to a sign in this location; however, the DRC did not like the proposed design which they described as a "sign sitting on top of an oil derrick"; although they were still open to a sign program. Mr. Lee continued that, under the "P" modifying district governing this particular area, the sign could be subject to abatement at a later date. Commissioner Cannon remarked that it appeared the applicant had run into an impasse wi th the DRC. He asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to approve the concept of the sign with the requirement that the applicant return to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the design. Mr. Garnder agreed that if they could be guaranteed the minimum height of 35 feet and the 150 square foot signage, they would be happy to return to DRC with more design concepts. Commissioner Carson asked for clarification of her understanding that if the design was not approved, nothing would be developed on the lot. Mr. Gardner replied affirmatively and explained that the firms are bound by a lease agreement and were currently paying 1/2 the monthly payments and must make their decision about purchasing before the middle of June. In reply to another question from the Commission, he said the "E" Street oriented monument signs were acceptable, but the signage considered vital was the signage on I-5. Don Sodaro, 1751 E. Garry, Santa Aha, CA, representing Sixpence Inns, declared his firm already has approximately $4 million involved, and the project would be one of their largest facilities. He, too, stressed that their primary. business comes from the freeway. They have been working on the project for a long time and have submitted many redesigns. He asserted that the property is expensive and signage is too crucial an item for them not to fight for it in this "do or die" situation. Commissioner Tugenberg asked if signage similar to those of Anthony's and Days Inn would be acceptable plus an agreement that when those signs were abated, theirs would also be abated. Mr. Sodaro replied that several years would be needed to gauge the financial success of the project., however, they were willing to consider any reasonable proposal. He asked if it would be permissible to return and claim "undue hardship" at some later date to retain the signage. Principal Planner Lee explained that Anthony's and Days Inn signs were in the Redevelopment area and the time period was stipulated by the Redevelopment Agency. Also, the signs had been allowed to remain because the Bayfront area had not developed as rapidly as anticipated. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 13, 1985 Mr. Sodaro affirmed that they too wanted an attractive entryway, however, their problem is that they are removed from "E" Street by several hundred feet; have an easement through McDonald's, but lack visibility; their access is limited; they have no freeway identification and only limited identification on "E" Street. He stressed they needed a large facility to justify the monies invested; and were willing to work together with the City on a good uniform sign program. Mr. Gardner returned to the podium and declared that he did not know if McDonald's could live with the sign abatement idea. The DRC had indicated that with the proper design, they would approve the freeway signage; however, McDonald's did not consider it economically sensible to invest $1 million and then have to return in a very short time to request retention of the sign. Mr. Sodaro commented that the DRC encouraged them to return with a sign program and only the staff was in opposition on the basis of establishing a precedent. Director of Planning Krempl clarified that the opposition of staff was not based simply on a matter of the establishment of a precedent; their reasoning was related to sign design and the size of 300 square feet plus 35 feet in height, while the combined existing signage for Anthony's and Days Inn is less in square footage and height than either of the requested signs singly. He mentioned that one item not included in the staff report was discussion with Sixpence Inns on the possibility of the placement of a wall sign on the west side of the building which would provide visibility from the freeway. This of course, would be of no benefit to McDonald's. He agreed that the project had been a long process with a redesign required because of traffic considerations due to the Trolley Station's proposed location; however, it was also a fair statement that staff had expressed its opposition to freeway signage from the inception of the project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guiles inquired how much signage (in terms of square footage) did Anthony's and Days Inn have. He was answered that Anthony's sign was 25 feet in height and 75 square feet, and Days Inn was 45 feet in height and 85 square feet. Commissioner Cannon said he saw nothing offensive about the sign except that the maximum sign area allowed by the underlying zone was exceeded; also, he saw nothing offensive about freeway signage along I-5 since there is al ready considerable signa§e from Imperial Beach to National City and north. He maintained that a tastefully done sign would certainly enhance business and not detract from the location; he could not visualize Anthony's and Days Inn relinquishing their signs willingly as they too needed freeway identification. MSC (Cannon/Carson for discussion) Tugenberg = "no" to approve the sign for McDonald's and Sixpence Inns based on the underlying zoning, which is 35 feet in height and 150 square feet, and the design of that sign be subject to approval by the Design Review Committee. Plannin~ Commission Minutes -8- March 13, 1985 Commissioner Shipe remarked that while he does not care for freeway signage, he is sensitive to recognition, location and designation. He considered this project to be the highest and best use of the property; is unable to see how the project will be successful without signage and would support Commissioner Cannon's motion. Commissioner Tugenberg noted that the signage on "E" is such that it is in an ideal location to be seen by tourists arriving on the Trolley, coming by car, or visiting the Bayfront Area. He sees no problem with having signage on "E" Street only. Commissioner O'Neill declared that there is a need for freeway identification for businesses that are freeway oriented. In response to staff's concern, there is also a need for a coordinated sign program along I-5 and the various entries to the City; however, that is probably quite a way in the future. The area in question is now an eyesore which he would like to see developed and he would also like to see McDonald's and Sixpence getting freeway signage subject to DRC approval. He also recognized that in a year or two, they must comply with an areawide coordinated sign program and would support Commissioner Cannon. Commissioner Green said he would support the signage and he al so would like a sign program which would be good for many areas in the City. He suggested that perhaps what was needed was for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council for such a sign program. He added that the Commission had requested a study a few years back but has received no reply to date al though he was aware of an inquiry had been made to the Department of Motor Vehicles re the freeway (logo) signage. Commissioner Carson commented that basically she is against signs; however, considering the information presented at the meeting and because the "best use" is proposed for this area and in order for the firms to succeed their location must be known, she would support the freeway signage. Commissioner Guiles said he too would support the motion and would like to suggest, for the record, that the DRC consider a combination of landscaping and berming as an alternative in combination with monument signs. He said he has seen many areas with monument signs and landscaping using fill or cut areas (which might be too high for the present situation) that are most attractive. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-8 - CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO CASA DEL REY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - THE HELMER COMPANY In reply to Commissioner Guiles' inquiry regarding his participation, Assistant City Attorney Gill declared that al though the Commissioner lives in this subdivision, the adoption or denial of the project would have no financial effect on him, therefore, he was able to participate. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 13, 1985 Principal Planner Lee noted that Casa del Rey was approved in 1978 for 220 lots, of which 42 were built. The applicant is proposing to develop the remaining 178 lots with several modification to the development standards as fol 1 ows: 1. To increase the height on the corner lots from 1-1/2 to 2 stories with a 25 foot setback. To avoid the two-story wall aspect he is proposing sloping roofs and staggered elevations on 50 percent of the corner lots. The building footprint, however, will be 35-40 percent smaller which combined with the roof design will retain the openness of the corner lots. 2. The second request is a reduction in the sideyard setbacks from lO feet on one side and 3 feet on the other to § feet and 5 feet. This would permit provision of a three-car garage for 50 percent of the lots thereby eliminating the lO foot sideyard which provides easy access to the rear yard. Staff's concern is over the authorization of the high percentage of the reduced side yards in favor of the three-car garage and recommends that only 33 percent (or 59 of the lots) be approved. 3. Reduction of the 35 foot setback along "J" Street to a series of 32 to 28 feet for four of the lots. Mr. Lee noted that the traditional front yard setback for single-family houses is 20 feet, however, "J" Street was established at 35 feet to maintain an open-view corridor. He stated that although the proposal involves only four of the seven lots, it was staff's opinion that the use of smaller models and retention of the 35 foot setback would be a better design solution. Principal Planner Lee concluded that staff recommends approval of the revisions of the height and setbacks for the corner lots, but with the percentage limited to 33 percent, and to deny the "J" Street modification of the setback. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Helmer, 701 "B" Street, Suite 355, San Diego, the developer, said they concur with staff's recommendations but would like to inform the Commission that extensive research indicates that three-car garages will be in tremendous demand. The developer would, therefore, if the demand in the market place is great enough, like to reserve the right to return and request the higher percentage. Commissioner Cannon asked why 50 percent would be more adverse than 33 percent. Principal Planner Lee replied that the applicant is entitled to return at any time {although he would have no guarantee of approval) and request the higher percentage. Staff's concern is with a deviation from City standards of a l0 foot sideyard which is designed to facilitate access to the rear yard; and although a three-car garage {which enables storage for another car or boat) is desirable, staff wishes to be cautious until the pros and cons can be evaluated as the subdivision progresses is occupied and developed. Plannin~ Commission Minutes -10- March 13, 1985 Discussion included the amount of space actually needed for backyard access; problems including possibility of neighbor having a brick wall; property with slope banks and need to get equipment into the rear yard. In reply to Commissioner Guiles expressed concern regarding three-car garages on property with slope banks, Mr. Lee said a condition of approval could be devised for such property, if the Commission wished it. Mr. Helmer said the would agree with staff's recommendation and all they wanted was the ability to return and request a higher percentage if the demand for three-car garages is sufficient and the developer meets the sideyard requirements of the City on a phase-by-phase, issue-by-issue basis. Commissioner Green expressed concern over establishing a precedent in permitting the sideyard setback deviation. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC ITugenberg/O'Neill) to recommend that City Council: 1. Approve the proposed revisions to the corner lot height and sideyard setback standards; 2. approve the sideyard setback reduction for three-car garages for a maximum of 33 percent of the 178 lots. NOTE: A minimum of l0 feet shall be maintained between dwellings; 3. deny the companion request to modify the frontyard setbacks on East "J" Street. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-9: CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT OTAY VALLEY ROAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM Commissioner Cannon said he would abstain from voting because of a potential conflict of interest and left the Chambers. Commissioner Green said he also had a potential conflict of interest, turned the Chairmanship over to Commissioner O'Neill and left the Chambers. Principal Planner Pass presented an overview of the Addendum and stated that the Draft Plan/Addendum is an operational guide for the revitalization and development of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area, and a mechanism for the protection of the project area and its residential environs. He also noted that the Plan/Manual would be a catalyst for the building of the I-P and 1-L-P zoning regulations into an overall implementation package which is consistent with the project area s "Research and Limited Industrial" General Plan designation. He further noted that the Implementation/~ an Design Manual Addendum would constitute an addition to the Citywide Design Manual. He stressed that the proposed regulatory Plan would be responsive to the needs of industry as well as the needs of the adjacent residences, and concluded that the Plan was both protective and flexible. Plannin9 Commission Minutes -ll- March 13, 1985 The Principal Planner then discussed the preparation of the Plan, and several of its principal features. He highlighted the Plan's major land use, bulk, height, occupancy, landscape and urban design features. He emphasized the value of the Plan's landscaping requirements, and covered, at length, its "special permit process". Mr. Pass, using an overhead projection, illustrated the procedure for the processing of development and subdivision proposals before the Planning Commission, the Project Area Committee, the Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency. With respect to subdivisions, he traced the double path required under the State Government Code and the State Community Redevelopment Law. Mr. Pass advised the Planning Commission that some of the procedural proposals presented at the meeting were developed in conjunction with the City Attorney's office as well as the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee, and might require additional refinement. Commissioner O'Neill noted that certain provisions within the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum were more stringent that those in the City Zoning Regulations. He asked Mr. Pass which provisions, those within the Zoning Regulations or those within the Implementation Plan, would prevail. The Principal Planner answered that the Zoning Regulations would remain operational, except where the Plan/Manual Addendum explicitly provided different standards, criteria, or guidelines. Commissioner O'Neill inquired further regarding the items listed on page 7 of the proposed Addendum as requiring special permits which are "permitted uses" on the present land use chart. Principal Planner Pass explained that the uses listed on page 7, are those that might cause hazardous waste, and will require clearance by the County Health Department before being considered further. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don Heye, 3028 McCall, Chula Vista, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, informed the Commission that he, Bob Campbell and Fred Borst were available to answer questions by the Commission. Timothy Flanagan, Property Engineer, P.O. Box 64, San Diego, representing H.G. Fenton Material Company and Nelson-Sloan, stated that 50 of the 60 acres owned by the firm were between the road and the flood channel at the southeast end of the study area; the developer was not opposed to quality industrial development; however, several major aspects of the Plan were cause for concern: {1) the minimum lot size; (2) lot frontage of 200 lineal feet; {3) rear yard setback of 50 feet; (4) 40-foot setback for Otay Valley Road; {5) 20 percent landscaping; and (6) the maximum building footprint of 45 percent of the lot. He maintained that (1) most industrial parks allow down to a 1/2 acre lot or 1-acre parcel; {2) successful subdivisions in San Diego allow from Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 13, 1985 25-foot to lO0-foot frontage and 200 feet is ve~ restrictive; (3) some of the recently approved standards for EastLake all ow 25-foot rear yard setbacks {with provisions down to 0 feet in certain areas); (4) the Otay River floodway is basically undevelopable, most of the widening of the Otay Valley Road will be to the south, and the deduction for excessively wide roads plus the setback leaves little to develop; {5) 20 percent landscaping is double of most industrial parks; and (6) with the price of land, the reduction of the building thereon by l0 percent becomes a critical issue. He pointed out that the project area is extremely difficult to develop because of the high cost of the required infrastructure, and with the usable land reduced by setbacks and density, it becomes a question of comparison with other places in San Diego where a larger building can be placed on the same lot size . Mr. Flanagan requested consideration of the following: {1) lot size of 20-40,000 square feet (instead of 2 acres); rear and street setbacks of 25 feet; building coverage of 50 percent; and landscaping requirements of 10 percent. This would, he said, result in quality developments similar to those in the City of San Diego M-1-B zoning, such as Scripps Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, Carole Canyon area and others. In reply to Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Flanagan stated he had not discussed his opinions in detail with staff. Principal Planner Pass reiterated that the Draft Plan calls for no on-street parking in the project area which requires larger sites; he knew of no industrial parks that allowed building sites of 1/2 acre or under (unless they were modular sites, tailor-made by lumping together several adjacent buildings); the redevelopment standards usually require 2 acres even in medium quality industrial parks. He stressed that this was not a business park but an industrial park which requires use of land for storage (20%), haul-traffic identified with offices, and trucks making 2-acre sites a minimum requirement. Mr. Pass continued that the Plan addresses the problem of Fenton, Nelson and Sloan since the requirements are written in permissive language and there is a process to obtain deviations where the requirements are impractical. He asserted that the zoning ordinance lot coverage was quite high and that the maximum ever found was 50 percent; however, even when the City allows 50 percent, the CC&Rs often do not, therefore, it was considered that 45 percent would be a generous amount considering landscaping, off-street parking and setbacks are included therein. Craig Beam, 110 West A Street, San Diego, Attorney-at-law representing Darling-Delaware, stated that Mr. Flanagan had identified some areas of mutual concern; that his firm supports a high-quality development of this area; but if the area is unable to compete with other industrial markets, the City will not benefit. Mr. Beam expressed concern over the minimum lot size and rear yard setback area in an industrial area adjacent to a residential area. He introduced two marketing representatives to speak regarding the market. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 13, 1985 Douglas Keyes, 8504 Commerce Ave., San Diego, Industrial Property Company (IPC), asserted his firm was involved in land acquisition all over San Diego County; and many of the requests were from companies desiring to occupy their own buildings and wanting to purchase lots of 1-acre size or less. He affirmed that today's market is for 1-acre lots, which are quite common in all areas of San Diego. Craig Beam discussed the rear yard setback area of his firm's site to the south of the residential area, Robinhood Point, saying the need for a buffer between areas of dissimilar land use is often provided partially by the geography of the area. In plotting the requirements of the site, it became obvious that because the site is approximately 90 feet lower than the adjacent residential area to the north, the distance from the residential area to the toe of the slope is 300 feet. Mr. Beam indicated that the wording in the manual regarding the buffer refers to the "property line" in the 200-foot required setback which results in their having to provide a significantly larger setback than 200 feet thus reducing their opportunities for design and also for usable areas of the lots. He pointed out that to measure 200 feet from the property line to a building pad location would result in a 50 percent reduction in the building area for their northerly lots. Mr. Beam commented that industrial users buy property not only by total acreage but by usable acreage. Mr. Beam introduced Rich Orvich, the engineer who prepared the original tentative map, and stated that the area above the 2:1 slope was unbuildable and 200 feet from the property line resulted in no building behind the slope. He pointed out that in some areas, property would be more effectively screened and buffered from residential areas by the topography itself even if the distance were closer than the proposed 200-foot setback. Mr. Beam then introduced Robert H. McCrary, Jr., Vice President of The Chillingworth Corporation, 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 612, Pasadena, CA, a potential investor, who hired a local planning and architectural fim to plot and show graphically the impact of the Addendum to three of the lot setbacks and requirements. Mr. McCrary displayed three charts with the proposed guidelines for property and building setbacks shown in different colors and which depicted graphically the net usable square footage available after deduction of the setbacks. Mr. McCrary said he agreed with Mr. Flanagan's concerns and added that although the guidelines are well conceived, more flexibility is desired. The City's investment in redevelopment dollars will only be rewarded to the extent that the Valley can be developed in the 2-3 year "window" existing before Otay Mesa brings its 2,000 acres (with competitive prices) into the market. In reply to Chairman O'Neill's question if he had discussed the concerns with staff prior to the meeting, Mr. Beam replied affirmatively, however some information is unavailable unless it is plotted out, and as illustrated by the renderings (completed just prior to the meeting) although common goals are shared, there are problems to be reconciled. He requested that (1) minimum Plannin~ Commission Minutes -14- March 13, 1985 lot sizes should be a blend of 1 and 2-acre lots; (2) design guidelines should acknowledge that a buffer may exist by virtue of topography - distances from where the flat pad areas are located to a higher/lower terrain of residential areas. He referred to page 10, 4.2 (5), saying the word "zone" is the problem and suggested a rewording of "Building setbacks adjacent to a residential development should be at least 200 feet from any existing residential lot or any undivided residential property." This would provide 200 feet from the property line or if the residences were closer to the property line of the adjacent industrial users, a 200 ft setback would still be maintained. Commissioner Guiles asked if utilizing the two concepts mentioned, a reduction in lot size and the buffer area, together with the other Plan requirements (one of which would be the lot coverage of 45 percent) would result in a substantial change in the factors illustrated graphically. Mr. Beam replied that it would help the lots next to the residential developments and added that the present lot coverage requirements are considered very tough. Commissioner Tugenberg asked Principal Planner Pass if there was enough flexibility in the document to accommodate various custom problems. Mr. Pass stated that subsection 1 on page 10 of the Addendum discusses the lot size and frontage and states, "The above guidelines may be waived by the Design Review Committee or other Reviewing Body, where such body determines and finds, at a public hearing, that such waiver is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan." Staff considers this to be sufficient. Mr. Beam stated that their concern is the effect of the design guidelines on the real users in the market place who want to be certain of the usable amount before purchase. Fenton, Nelson and Sloan and Darling-Delaware represent 300 acres of this zoning classification - these guidelines inhibit them in achieving the goals of the City. Don Heye stated it was his obligation as Chairman of the Project Area Committee to represent the view of the Committee. He stated that letters were sent to the property owners including Darling-Delaware and Fenton, Nelson and Sloan. As a result of the letters, developers came and made presentations to the Project Area Committee (including Otay Recycling Park, Crown Chemical, Sammis Corporation, and Walker-Palm Group), however neither Darling-Delaware nor Fenton, Nelson & Sloan, responded or they too would have been invited. The Committee consists of five members, and the area consisted of 771 acres including part of the land fill to be considered. It was lonely during those five months that the Committee worked on the Plan. The lot size was considered in some depth and the opinion of four of the five people was that a 2-acre minimum was appropriate. All concerns mentioned tonight were addressed as to "marketing property" not "employing people." The rear-yard setback was considered and there was no substantial objection to the 50-foot setback. The area to the south of Otay Valley Road underwent a lot of discussion because of Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 13, 1985 the narrow zone of usable property. The 45 percent coverage was a very strong point. Mr. Heye said the 200-foot buffer area is in the sensitive impact area of 400 feet. Since Robinhood Homes is essentially adjacent to the Omar Rendering, an unjust restriction may have been made in that singular instance. A more realistic point of view from a true property owner's situation would start at their sidewalk or curb and, in this case, because it is a community owned property, their property line is essentially moved over. Mr. Heye expressed reluctance to speak for the other members as they hadn't had an opportunity to consider this case in point. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's question if the document has enough flexibility to accommodate custom problems, Mr. Heye replied that "there are very many 'should' and very few 'shall'" The "should" are permissive throughout the document. This is an important point. Mr. Beam apologized for the lateness of the suggested revisions. Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, Chula Vista, stated he represented Judy and Jimmy Sinohara who have 60 acres on both sides of Brandywine, behind Hyspan, and on the south side of the Otay Valley River, and that, although he does not represent the owners of the Recycling Park, he has discussed the situation with them and they are most concerned. He expressed his concerns to both Paul Desrochers and to the Mayor on Monday, March ll, 1985. Mr. Kau said that with the 60 acres of the Sinohara land and the Otay Recycling Park, most of the land had been encompassed. He commented that he had not spoken with Tim, Bob or Craig this week, so there was no collusion; however, he is in agreement with what they have expressed. He remarked that land on Otay Mesa sells for $50-$60,000 an acre and will cost $25-30,000 for the infrastructure or $90, O00-acre land. If too many restrictions are put on the Otay Valley land, people will go to Otay Mesa and the revenues to San Diego. Mr. Kau maintained that if the restrictions are adopted, many people will be "scared off"; there is a need for more flexibility. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's question regarding a change in his opinion, Mr. Pass responded that most of the concerns voiced had been brought before the Project Area Committee. He pointed out that the smaller the lot that is partitioned, the more of it gets "chewed up" by setbacks while, in 2-acre lots, not so much is lost. Mr. Pass explained that the sensitive area where residential and industrial adjoined was once zoned Very Limited Research and Limited Industrial and those standards had been adopted; however, some rewording of Mr. Beam's recommendation might provide protection sufficient to satisfy the Planning Department and the Project Area Committee. He maintained the other standards are consistent with on-site parking standards proposed; the area needs vast improvement as it is the area that was cited as the "blighted" area to establish the redevelopment area and 20 percent landscaping was proposed to eradicate this "blight" the. Principal Planner Pass concluded that to maintain the residential/industrial dichotomy, turn back the existing blight and achieve a first rate development, the zoning needs to be stringent. ._ Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 13, 1985 Commissioner O'Neill e~m~d that it has been inferred that flexibility is present throughout the document by citing page l0 where there is a caveat that stipulates, "The above guidelines may be waived by the Design Review or other Reviewing Body, etc." However, this refers just to lot size and frontage which leads him to believe some of the other items are not subject to mitigation. Mr. Pass replied that the point was well taken; however, any place that the document does not use "shall", the Committee has the ability to make adjustments subject to review and evaluation of the circumstances. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guiles said he had no problems except the 2-acre lot size seemed too restrictive. He asked what the effect of the change from 2-acres to 1-acre would be on the long-term objectives? Mr. Pass replied that it might encourage of problem of commercialization in the industrial area as offices are always looking for smaller lot sites; the land is 1/2 to 1/3 the price of commercial sites, and if lots are made too small for truck maneuvering, the result may be another Kearny Mesa. Commissioner O'Neill interjected that in the particular area covered by the caveat, the guidelines may be waived, however, Mr. Beam has a point in that the standards might cause a presentation problem for customers. Commissioner Tugenberg countered that a 1-acre lot size creates parking probl ems. MS (Tugenberg/Carson) to find the subject project would have no significant environmental impacts, and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-85-33. Commissioner Guiles said that Item 4, on page 2 of the Negative Declaration required a finding that "no hazards to human beings will result," which was difficult to state unequivocably and asked for a rewording. Assistant City Attorney Gill suggested that the sentence be eliminated from the motion. Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson agreed to the amendment. AMENDED MOTION: MSC (Tugenberg/Carson) to find the subject project would have no significant environmental impacts, and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-85-33 with deletion of the last sentence in the Findings, Item E.4, (page 2) which reads: "No hazards to human beings will result." Commissioners Cannon and Green abstained. Discussion ensued on the additional items to be included in the motion for ~-~ approval of the Addendum. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 13, 1985 MSC {Tugenberg/~.~-~ ) to approve the Draft Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum and recommend its adoption by the City Council and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency subject to three modifications: l) Amend page 10, 4.2 (5) to read: "When the building site within the project area is adjacent to a residential lot or unsubdivided residential area, the minimum setback between a building constructed upon the said industrial building site and the closest property line of the said residential lot or unsubdivided residential area should be 200 feet unless a reduced setback is depicted on the following diagram." (Diagram shown on page 11 ) 2) On page 6, Section 3.4 (4) add a final sentence reading: "The business license review process, however, is not to be used as an enforcement measure." 3) On the last page of the text under the diagram illustrating the review and approval methods for the Otay Valley Road Project Area - in paragraph B, SUBDIVISION PROJECTS, to indicate that the Redevelopment Agency would finally report to the City Planning Commission on the consistency of proposed platting or replatting. Commissioners Tugenberg and Shipe agreed to the modification. The motion was passed (5-0) with Commissioners Green and Cannon abstaining. Commissioner Green returned to the Chambers and resumed the Chaimanship. He reported that Commissioner Cannon was not feeling well and had gone home. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, RIO OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK, CHULA VISla TRACT 82-11,_ 4826 OTAY VALLEY ROAD Principal Planner Lee stated that the item had been continued from the meeting of February 27, 1985, at the request of the applicant. He noted that the tentative map had been approved on April 20, 1982 and was scheduled to expire on April 20, 1985. Several problem areas have been discussed with the representative of the developer, Mr. Craig Beam, and appear to be resolvable. If Mr. Beam wishes to continue the item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission on March 27, 1985, and resubmit the map in accordance with the guidelines which are being forwarded to the Agency, staff could recommend extension of the map on that basis. Mr. Lee continued that if Mr. Beam was in agreement, staff would recommend continuance of the item to March 27, 1985. Craig Beam, Attorney-at-Law, llO West A Street, San Diego, representing the applicant, Darling-Delaware, replied that there was some confusion as to the relationship between certain conditions of the map dealing with lot size and those in the proposed design manual, namely, which conditions would apply if the manual is approved and adopted. He asked what other date was being considered. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 13, 1985 Mr. Lee replied that the other option would be the first meeting in April; that the guidelines should be in place by that time. Mr. Beam agreed to the continuance but asked if the public hearing should be opened to avoid the necessity for readvertisement of the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Gill stated it was not necessary as the item was being continued to a date certain. Chairman Green asked if anyone wished to address the matter of continuance. No one wished to speak. MSUC (O'Neill/Guiles) to continue this item to the meeting of March 27, 1985 to permit the Redevelopment Agency to consider the Draft Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum, which affects this project. DIRECTOR' S REPORT: Director Krempl reminded that Commission of the dinner workshop on Wednesday, March 20th; stated that the agenda would be mailed Friday: and the material for the E1 Rancho del Rey SPA Plan would be distributed at the meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT AT lO:15 p.m. to the Study Session meeting of March 20, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 WPC 1813P