Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/09/12 Tape #251 Side 2:O-1100 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, September 12, 1984 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman O'Neill, Commissioners Carson, Green, Ghiles, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: With Notification: Cannon STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman O'Neill and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman O'Neill reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meetin§. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guiles/Carson) to approve the minutes of the meetin~ of 8/22/84 as mailed with a correction on pa~e 12 to show the voting record in the first motion as Carson "yes" and Guiles "no." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. P-84-14: CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN FOR CHULA VISTA WOODS SUBDIVISION OF 11O MANUFACTURED HOMES, STAFFORD/GARDNER DEVELOPMENT Chairman O'Neill announced that the public hearing on this item had been closed at the meeting of August 22, 1~84, so no new testimony would be accepted on this item. Commissioner Shipe stated that as he had been called away from the previous meetin§ prior to consideration of this item, he would abstain from voting. He then left the dais. Chairman O'Neill said he would continue to conduct the meeting and, although he had read the minutes and participated in previous meetings on this subject, would abstain from voting because of his absence from the August 22 meeting. Planning Commission -2- September 12, 1984 Principal Planner Lee explained that at the previous Planning Commission meeting final action was taken on the EIR, General Plan Amendment, tentative map, and the rezoning of the Chula Vista Woods property; however, the Commission inadvertently took no action on the Precise Plan. Staff recommends that, based on the findings and the l0 conditions included in the previous staff report, the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Council. This action will complete the package. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tugenberg, Principal Planner Lee stated that when a zoning change is granted, all uses permitted in that zone are appropriate and there is no way to actually guarantee that the present developer {or any other purchaser) would adhere to the stated intention of providing housing, at affordable prices. Commissioner Tugenberg expressed his concern about the appearance of parking in other developments in the City with less than minimum lot sizes and said most families have cars for each adult plus driving teenagers. Mr. Lee cited a comparison between the lots in this development which were designed at 55-60 feet in width and all having 2-car garages, landscaping to be maintained by a homeowner's association, plus prohibitions against garage conversions as opposed to previously approved projects which had 35-43 foot-wide lots, 1 and 2-car garages {individual owners maintaining front landscaping) and no prohibitions against garage conversions. MS (Green/Guiles) that based on the findings listed in the staff report to recommend City Council approve the Precise Plan for the Chula Vista Woods Subdivision subject to the conditions listed in the report. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Green, Guiles, and Carson NOES: Commissioner Tugenberg ABSTAIN: Commissioners O'Neill and Shipe ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon Chairman O'Neill declared that this will not represent an affirmative vote but will be forwarded with the development package to the City Council with the voting as noted. Commissioner Shipe returned to the dais. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-85-2 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 13 APARTMENT UNITS IN THE C-N ZONE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HILLTOP DRIVE AND EAST RIENSTRA STREET WAYNE N. CLARK Principal Planner Lee declared the applicant wishes to construct a 13-unit apartment complex on a 32,500 sq. ft. parcel located within an existing shopping center at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and East Rienstra Street in the C-N zone. - Planning Commission -3- September 12, 1984 Using an overhead projector and slides, Mr. Lee showed the location of the proposed complex with relation to the existing commercial center and the single-family homes, the slope bank leading to the parking area of Castle Park High School, the vacant commercial properties, and the higher elevation of the single-family homes. He reviewed the history of the subject property from its annexation in 1968 through (1) zoning changes from R-1 to C-1-D in 1965, to C-N in 1966, and (2) its piecemeal development into five parcels containing a service station, a convenience store, an office building, a retail structure and this undeveloped parcel. Conditional use permits for a racquet ball facility in 1978 and a 12-unit condominium project in 1980 were allowed to expire. The Planning Department and the Commission have both expressed concern over the piecemeal development of the center, however, the parcels were split off, sold, and developed independently leaving the less desirable parcels vacant. The proposed development consists of 13 two-bedroom units in two structures; the northerly is a two-story structure containing eight units; the other is a combination one- a~d two-story building with five units, a storage room and laundry. Usin~ slides, Principal Planner Lee showed the proposed elevations and layout. The buildings will include private patios and balconies, however, the total area of the pro~ect is extremely small making it difficult to achieve a self-contained residential atmosphere in the rear of several commercial facilities. In the opinion of the Planning staff, a satisfactory residential environment cannot be created, also the construction of a residential complex, as proposed, would reduce any redevelopf~ent possibilities to convert the existing commercial uses into a well-planned shopping center to serve the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the request as it does not represent good planning. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Crane, 155 Sierra Way, CV g2011, a realtor specializing in commercial property and a past member of former Mayor Hyde's Economic Advisory Committee, spoke in favor of the project stating that, in his opinion, there was little possibility of developing the area commercially as his firm had been unable to find a buyer for the property commercially even when offered at ~4/foot. He had, therefore, recommended that Mr. Clark develop it as residential. Mr. Crane testified that the property would serve as a buffer between commercial and residential; the permitted zoning was 17.4 du/ac but with only 13 unit% a large amount of landscapin~ was possible and the development would upgrade the neighborhood. In reply to Commissioner Green's question, he said some of the owners of the commercial property had existing leases and were, therefore, unable to act together to develop a larger residential or commercial area although they might favor the idea. ~- Planning Commission -4- September 12, 1984 Speaking in opposition to the project were Bob Dixon, 1475 Cuyamaca Way; Frank Campbell, 1476 Cuyamaca Way; and Denis McCarthy, 1490 Cuyamaca Way; all long-time residents of Chula Vista and property owners. Their testimony included statements that the area has been haphazardly developed as commercial and is not the proper location for residential; the area is overrun with apartment houses; other single-family residents are opposed to the development; the proposed approach to the apartment complex is "blind" because of the hill, heavy traffic, including high school students, create a need for cautious driving; the view from the single-family homes includes Pt. Loma and Tijuana; 13 apartments in that small area doesn't make sense; and there was overcrowding now. Wayne Clark, P. O. Box 1092, Bonita 92002, owner and applicant, read a letter in support of the proposed development from Mr. James Pendleton, 1415-1417 Hilltop Drive, CV. Mr. Clark stated that there were five different owners of the neighboring property; there had been no objection in 1980 to his request to develop 12 condominiums; the "blind" corner would remain regardless of residential or commercial development; the attempt to market the site as commercial had failed; the present objections proposed by staff were the same as those in the staff report on his 1980 condo development; other areas are to be found in Chula Vista with closer proximity of commercial and residential than the proposed development; the previous application had been approved but the gas station owners would not grant an easement to establish the 5-foot landscaped buffer area; the plans for this project had not been developed until after extensive review with the Planning Department; the units do not face the commercial area but the landscaping; and, if desired by the Commission, he would not object to a wall as an additional barrier. The easement, property line and height of the roof line were discussed. Principal Planner Lee confirmed that the view of the residential dwellers would not be obscured to any significant degree. Replying to the Commission's questions, Mr. Clark noted that the rental range would be $500 to $525 a month; he had purchased the property 5 years ago; the service station and convenience store owners were not interested in redevelopment; Southland Corporation was asking an astronomical figure for their propert~ and the professional offices have long-term leases. Commissioner O'Neill remarked that the piecemeal development has already taken place; with the l-l/2 to 2 percent vacancy rates in Chula Vista, apartments were needed; and so far as commercial abutting residential is concerned, the application for a set of apartments overlooking a welding yard at Third and "K" Street was approved; and he favored the project. Commissioner Shipe agreed with him and expressed belief that, after reviewing the history of the real estate involved, the apartment complex would be the highest and best use for the property. He plans to vote against the recommendation of denial. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission -5- September 12, 1984 Chairman O'Neill asked staff what conditions they would like to see attached if the Commission votes against denial. Principal Planner Lee stated they would like the final development plans reviewed at the Planning Director's level. He agreed that the applicant had done as much as possible with the site plan and elevations to remove objections and remarked that staff was not uncomfortable with the proposed plan. MSUC (Green/Shipe) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-53. MSUC {Green/Shipe) that based on the findings listed below to approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-85-2 subject to review by the Planning Director. 1. The project would contribute to the well-being of the neighborhood and would provide needed rental units as well as improve the appearance of the area. 2. The proposed use provides an adequate buffer between the residential and commercial areas and will not be a problem with the safety or welfare of persons residing in the area. 3. The project meets the R-3-G regulations as required by Code. 4. The proposed use is allowed in the C-N zone upon the granting of a use permit and the determination that the area will not be developed commercially. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-84-6 - CONSIDERATION OF AMEND~NT TO TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAPS FOR ONE-LOT CONDOMINIUMS Principal Planner Lee remarked that on July 16, 1984, the City Council accepted the report on the land development process in the City of Chula Vista. One of the recommendations contained in that report was to allow the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps for one-lot condominiums instead of being forwarded to City Council for approval. This would reduce developer's processing time by about 3 weeks. Anyone disagreeing with the Planning Commission would still have right of appeal to the Council. In reply to questions from the Commission, Principal Planner Lee explained the difference between a one-lot condominium wherein a person buys an individual unit and also has common ownership of a larger parcel, as opposed to a land subdivision of property involving more than one lot. In a one-lot condominium, there typically are no dedications of street rights-of-way as it fronts on an existing street. Also, frequently the site plan and architectural package have already received Design Review Committee approval, the review by the Planning Commission and the City Council is almost a "rubber-stamp" procedure to permit the developer to proceed to sell his units. Delegating this responsibility to the Planning Commission will negate the developer going through the hearing process twice. Final maps will still require City Council approval. Planning Commission -6- September 12, 1984 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/Shipe) to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 18 {Subdivision Ordinance) as shown on attached Exhibit "A" allowing the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps for one-lot condominiums. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission about the Planning Commission/ Design Review Committee field trip and dinner study session. Commissioner O'Neill said he would be unable to attend as he would be out of town. Commissioner Shipe expressed concern that every time he picks up the Star News he seems to be reported as absent from Planning Commission meet~ wanted it known that, excepting the last meeting when he was called away on a family emergency, he has been absent only three times since his appointment over two years ago. Commissioner Green remarked that the Star News has been very accurate lately on their reporting of the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Shipe agreed. Commissioner Guiles asked for clarification from the City Attorney regarding the Chula Vista Woods project. Assistant City Attorney stated that lack of action on the precise plan at the 8/22/84 meeting was an oversight, but with the change in composition of the Commission from the previous meeting to this {with Commissioner Cannon absent) it is something that staff will have to explain in the minutes as to why it was overlooked or provide an explanation to the Council as to what transpired. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:10 to the Joint Study Session meeting with the Design Review Committee on September 19, 1984, at 5:00 p.m. in the Planning Department. Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 1337P