Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/04/11 Tape 246: Side 1 0-1692 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:04 Council Chambers Wednesday, April 11, 1984 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman O'Neill, Commissioners Cannon, Guiles, Pressutti and Shipe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Green (with notification) and Johnson (without notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attor- net Gill, Secretary Ruth Smith 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commissioners that a 4/Sths vote would be needed because of the absence of two members. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-82-4 - CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION TO REDUCE THE PARKING RATIO FOR AN APPROVED SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIFTH AVENUE AND PARK WAY - APPEL DEVELOPMENT CORP. Principal Planner Lee stated that the subject property is under 1 acre in size and is located on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and Park Way. It was previously approved, in 1982, for a 48-unit senior housing project (rental or condominium). The proposed development consists of a three-story residential structure stretched along Fourth Avenue with the parking tucked underneath and 26 open parking spaces positioned over a drainage channel which is proposed to be covered. The applicant is requesting reduction of the number of off-street parking spaces from 40 to 24 spaces (a change in ratio from 0.83 to 0.5 spaces per unit). The applicant bases his request on the fact that the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego have approved other senior projects withe the lower ratio; the 340-foot street frontage would allow parking of approximately 14 cars on the street; the site is adjacent to public transportation and within walking distance of most facilities and shopping; the proposed establishment of a manager-operated shuttle service; the estimated $40,000 cost savings effected by not having to cover the drainage channel would be passed on to the tenants in a rent reduction of approximately $100 a year. Planning Commission -2- April ll, 1984 Mr. Lee continued that the Traffic Engineer opposes the reduction in parking regardless if the project is rental or condominium; at the original public hearing (1982) considerable testimony was given regarding the existing and potential park- ing problems in the general vicinity; there are a number of older apartments in the area having less parking than present Code requirements; a letter from a property owner to the south opposing the parking reduction has been received. Staff recommends that the project be denied, or limited to a rental program only, the shuttle service installed, and conformance to the City's adopted senior housing program. In reply to questions asked by the Commission, staff replied that if not needed for parking, the proposed site would remain an open drainage system; if the shuttle service were discontinued in 3 or 4 years, the Planning Department would first con- tact the applicant and if no satisfaction received, refer the matter to the Attorney for enforcement; however, the units being occupied, enforcement would be a difficult matter. Director of Planning Krempl pointed out that if the project were approved and the conditions violated, it could be required that the drainage channel be covered and utilized for parking. This being the time aed the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kendall Squires, 417 "C" Avenue, Coronado, California, representing the owners of the adjacent apartment spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit change citing that parking is needed for visitors; most active seniors have cars as this is a mobile community; no cost analysis nor time schedule has been submitted re the shuttle bus; no level of service can replace the private automobile; the rental cost cut is not guaranteed; the shuttle service cost would exceed the cost savings of leaving the drainage area uncovered; the original resolution passed on 12/16/81 stated "as planned (the development) did not adversely affect parking" and to allow this reduction in parking negates that provision of the resolution. Dean Bowden, 8283 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, 92037, co-trustee to the project immediately adjacent, spoke in opposition saying he represented his wife and approxi- mately 250 tenants, had built the drainage channel at a cost of $90,000 to prevent flooding in his apartment-complex and donated it to the City; the area presently has a very high density of 42 units per acre, which after development of this project will be 57 units per acre as opposed to the 16-26 recommended in the Master Plan; this density will increase traffic; the theory that senior citizens over 55 need a parking ratio of 1:2 and over 62 1:3 is not valid; the manager of Villa San Miguel (ratio 1:3) said they need 120 spaces instead of the 56 they built; a ratio less than l:l creates a dangerous situation; the cost of a bus to maintain a shuttle service would be $40-50,000 thereby negating the projected savings; the developer failed to show any financial hardship; the developer's cost in these 5 lots is $172,000, and the change in zoning from the original five single-family units to 48 units creates a windfall of $250,000 for the applicant. He urged the Planning Com- mission to deny the request as the developer has failed to show any need for a change. Planning Commission -3- April ll, 1984 Dan Appel, Appel Development Corporation, 5797 Chesapeake Court, Ste I, San Diego, 92123, applicant, commented that Mr. Bowden's 1:1 ratio on a multi-family project is inadequate by today's standards and the applicant's project should not be penal- ized for that fact; Appel Development is in the process of purchasing the property and is paying more than the $172,000 quoted; Villa San Miguel is a condominium com- plex which requires more parking; Morgan Towers, in National City, is a rental project which estimates that less than 50 percent of the tenants have cars; the conditional Use permit has a Section 8 provision on income and rent guidelines which limits the tenants to the low-income category and makes it unlikely that many will have cars; spot-checks of the parking on Fifth Avenue in the area have been negative; bids on covering the drainage channel come to approximately $65,000 which is expen- sive parking. In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Appel stated staff conditions are acceptable as the developer's primary objective is renting; the shuttle service would be operated by the manager with the aid of a large van or by a contract with a rental car agency; the per-unit rental reduction had been calculated by using the $40,000 with a 12 percent interest rate, dividing the $4800 by 48 units, and dividing that by 12 months which equaled $8.33 per month; there are no immediate plans for condominium conversion but parking would then, most likely, be added as a sales feature. John Whittingham, 338 Fifth Avenue, CV, 92010, owner of the adjacent property, spoke in opposition to the project saying that even with his 170-foot frontage he often has difficulty getting out of the driveway and when his property is developed, there will be even more congestion. Principal Planner Lee remarked that the layout of the development invites parking on the street; the apartment directly to the west with the 1:1 ratio would not meet today's requirements; if the applicant wishes to convert to condominiums later, adequate parking ratio will be required. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to deny the request. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-84-E - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.13 ACRES LOCATED AT 309 AND 315 SEA VALE STREET FROM R-1 TO R-3-P-13 - DAVID P. DAVIES Princpal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has a 1-acre site that was zoned R-3 until 1976. At that time, it was zoned R-1 as part of an overall City study. Since that time, the commercial area to the south along Third Avenue Extension has been developed and the City recently rezoned property to the north and east of the site to R-3G to allow construction of a 207-unit senior citizen project. The appli- cant is asking rezoning from R-1 to R-3-P-13 and is proposing to construct a 12-unit condominium project which will be set back about 100 feet from Sea Vale Street. The project consists of two 6-unit structures with three basic floor plans. Each building will have two units and six garages on the first floor with four units on the second. The buildings are contemporary Spanish architecture with a stucco exterior, mission tile roofs and wood trim. Access is provided by a driveway between Planning Commission -4- April ll, 1984 the two buildings. The parking ratio is 2:1. Several petitions both pro and con have been received. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Corey Breininger, 9525 Mission Gorge Road, #35, Santee, 92071, the architect, said the goals of the development included quality of the environment, architecture and the impact on the surrounding community. Methods taken to create a development which blends in and complements the neighborhood include retention of mature trees; a set-back of the buildings 100 feet from the corner with landscaping designed to hide cars from view; buildings located 50 feet from any single-family residence; units broken into four smaller buildings to maintain residential atmosphere; all parking (24 spaces) provided on-site to eliminate curbside parking; and the use of parapets to hide the solar heating units. A slide was presented showing the result of a survey of all property owners within a 300-foot radius. Mr. Breininger sum- marized his presentation saying the property would act as a buffer between the resi- dential and commercial developments. Lane Cole, 273 Coralwood Court, CV, 92010, a Registered Civil Engineer representing the applicant, reviewed the staff's arguments against the project saying traffic safety would not be impaired because the distance from Third Avenue to the entrance of the development is about 300 feet which gives a safety factor of 98 feet for stopping distance; a traffic count on Friday between 4:50-5:50 (peak hour) indicated 27 westbound and 50 eastbound cars; there have been only three accidents on Sea Vale since 1980; the statement that development of this project is equivalent to "spot zoning" because the additional property included by the City is unlikely to be developed is purely speculative as there is room for development; the lO0-foot "buffer" space will prevent "intrusion" although looking at a zoning map gives the appearance that the R-1 is intruding into the multi-dwelling and commercial area; and, finally, the commercial properties are in the immediate vicinity and the effect on the property cannot be ignored. Speaking in support of the project were Ray Yoder, 296 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010, broker; Dorothy Davies, 309 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010, applicant; David Davies, 132 East 28th Street, National City, 92050, applicant's son. Their comments included the need for Mrs. Davies to generate income; topography limits the lot-splitting; 12-unit condominium development is cost-effective, single-family development would not be; the Davies' participation in civic growth throughout the past 46 years. Speaking against the project were Carol Smith, 275 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010; Carole Williams, 299 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010; Lowell Batterton, 209 Nixon Place, CV, 92010; Susan Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV, 92010; and Dean Smith, 275 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010. Their comments included 209 Sea Vale could be developed into four or five lots thereby maintaining the R-1 zoning; the R-1 area is defined by the topography; neighborhood is an unstandarized mixture of old and new and representing quality in the community; want the R-1 zone retained; feel secure having a home in an R-1 older zone; many near collisions and one serious crash caused by poor visi- bility created by sharp angle of the turn; request protection from destruction of the neighborhood; one change from single-family residential establishes a precedent; with 12 garage units and spaces, all will expect a garage and space and visitors will end up parking in the street; if this goes through we will become a neighbor- hood in transition; a person's need to generate income is not a planning tool; drivers traveling west tend to shade to the left causing near accidents; the slides (presented by Lane Cole) were taken with a telephoto lens; the hill is at a steep pitch and people will have to cross it at the most dangerous part. Planning Commission -5- April Il, 1984 Commissioner Pressutti remarked that he was impressed with the project which creates an excellent buffer between commercial and single-family area but is concerned about the safety factor. He asked for the opinion of the Traffic Engineer. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied that he had discussed the safety factor at length with the Traffic Engineer who was unable to give a precise summary because the potential trouble for traffic coming~pSea Vale and turning left was balanced by the low volume of traffic on Sea Vale and that which is anticipated to be generated by the project. Commissioner O'Neill commented that three accidents in 3 years is not many and the project is architecturally well designed and does provide a buffer, however, in listening to the concerns voiced by the neighbors and by staff he is finding a decision hard to make. Mr. Cole declared that he had used a wide-angle 28 mm lens and there was no intent to foreshorten; the accident rate indicates that people using the street exercise caution; the only way to put multiple-family on the development would be to con- solidate lots through purchase and to buy single-family dwelling units and build multiple-family on them doesn't pencil out; if you have a stable single-family area, it's going to stay that way and if that wasn't the case, someone would have picked up the adjoining R-l's when the 34 units went in on Third Avenue below. In response to Commissioner Guiles' question, Mr. Daoust said the accident history did not warrant the installation of a traffic sign at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Breininger declared that the project was designed to not cause on-street parking. The interior parking area is closer to the units than anything on the street. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Shipe said he would not support staff's recommendation to deny the request as the project is a beautiful architectural rendition and will add to the property value in the neighborhood, forms an excellent buffer and safety is not that much of a factor. Commissioner Cannon stated he sees no problem with safety, however, previous rezonings have involved projects surrounded by commercial, this area is R-1 and has single-family homes all around it. MSUC (Guiles/Pressutti) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-84-22. MS (Cannon/O'Neill) - Shipe, Pressutti and Guiles voted "no" - to deny the request. Chairman O'Neill, after consulting with the Assistant City Attorney, declared that no further action on the request for rezoning was required unless the applicant filed an appeal with the City Council. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Krempl asked the Commission's preference for a preview of the Land Development Process study prior to its presentation to Council (in May) and which will possibly be referred to the Planning Commission and Design Review Com- mittee or cancellation of the workshop meeting of the 18th. The Commission chose to cancel the meeting. Planning Commission -6- April ll, 1984 CO~qISSION CO~qENTS Commissioner Pressutti is leaving for Japan in the morning and will be absent from the April 25, 1984 meeting. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:29 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 25, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secretary /rms