Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1986/09/10 Tape No : 274 Side: l: 0-763 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, 1986 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shipe, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Grasser, Green, Guiles and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Shipe and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Shipe reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-2M - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHILD CARE CENTER AND PRE-SCHOOL AT 95 ORANGE AVENUE - ELVA CACHO Principal Planner Lee stated that the site plan for this project is under revision to accommodate alterations in parking design and vehicular access to the site; therefore, Mrs. Cacho, the applicant, has requested that the hearing be rescheduled to the meeting of October 8, 1986. MSUC (Cannon/Carson) to continue this item to the meeting of October 8, 1986. Planning Commission -2- September 10, 1986 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-86-2 - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Commissioner Green stated he had a potential conflict of interest as he was a member of the Country Club and left the dais and the Chambers at 7:15. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated the Draft EIR was considered by the Planning Commission on August 13, 1986. The written and verbal comments, along with a transcript of the testimony from the public hearing have been included in the Final EIR. Where appropriate, comments and responses have been added to the report. He noted that a basic disagreement with the conclusions of the EIR had been stated by Anthony Ambrose, HCH planner, representing the applicant. However, the opinions of the three architectural experts noted in the EIR, the inclusion of this site in the State Historical Site Inventory, its discussion and inclusion in the "Chula Vista Heritage", and the recent recommended designation as an historical site by the RCC support the conclusion that the demolition of the clubhouse will result in significant environmental impact and the elimination of an example of a prominent architect's contribution to the regional architectural heritage. Staff recommends certification of EIR-86-2 and that the Planning Commission will consider the information in the Final EIR when it reviews the Major Use Permit for the project. Mr. Reid stated that, after certification of the EIR, the Final EIR and Major Use PErmit will go to the Montgomery Planning Committee on October 1st, to the DRC on October 2nd and return before the Planning Commission on October 22, 1986. Commissioner Cannon requested advice from the Deputy City Attorney whether he should support certification of the EIR if, in his opinion, the conclusions are not substantiated by the facts of the report. Deputy City Attorney Moore replied that a motion could be made to certify the EIR and Commission members vote according to their opinion. Commissioner Cannon explained that he believed the EIR had been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines in the proper fashion; however, he also believed the conclusions were erroneous. Commissioner Guiles stated that he had not been present at the meeting of August 13, 1986, but had read the material and after checking with the Assistant City Attorney felt that he could vote on this matter. MSC (Cannon/Carson) Green abstained, to not certify EIR-86-2. Commissioners Cannon, Tugenberg, Guiles and Carson agreed that the building is in a state of bad repair, the air conditioning and electrical are inadequate, and the opinions of the experts are based on pictures taken in the 1920's. They considered that the EIR had been prepared correctly in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, but could not support its conclusions although they could adopt a Negative Declaration if presented. Planning Commission -3- September 10, 1986 Environmental Review Coordinator Reid offered the suggestions (1) to have staff return the document to the consultant to make the findings insignificant or (2) to direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration in connection with the Major Use Permit. MSC (Cannon/Guiles), Green abstained, to request staff to prepare a Negative Declaration on this item. Commissioner Green returned to the Chambers and the dais at 7:30 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE LAS FLORES STUDY AREA FROM R-2 (ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE) TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE) Assistant Planner Julie Schilling noted that PCZ-87-C is a consideration to rezone portions of the Las Flores Study Area from R-2 to R-1 with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet proposed. The Department had received a petition signed by residents of the Stu~ Area requesting a continuance of the hearing to the meeting of October 8, 1986 to allow more time for the residents to review the Study. While staff has no objection to continuing the hearing, it was requested that the staff presentation be given at this meeting so any questions which cannot be answered or any additional information wanted by the Commission could be provided at the next hearing. This being the time and the place as advertised, the Chairman opened the public hearing to the subject of continuance. Discussion ensued among the Commission members as to whether to continue the entire matter to the meeting of October 8, or to listen to the staff report at this meeting. MS (Green/Tugenberg) to continue the item to the meetin~ of October 8, 1986. Discussion continued regarding staff's request to make the presentation. Director of Planning Krempl explained that the public hearing could be opened to rule on continuance or, if the Commission desired, staff had no objection to continuing the entire matter to the 8th. Director Krempl explained the report is rather lengthy and complex and it was thought it would be helpful to the Commission and the audience to hear it. Furthermore, some people in the audience might find it inconvenient to return to the later hearing and would prefer to give their testimony tonight. Upon recognition by the Chair, Richard Alvord, a member of the audience, stated he was a property owner and developer on Minor and was interested in hearing the staff's recommendations before supporting a delay. The motion to continue to the meeting of October 1986 was carried with Cannon and Carson voting no. (5-2) Planning Commission -4- September 10, 1986 There being concern if the members were aware of whether they were voting for continuance of the entire item or to receive the staff report and testimony at tonight's meeting, it was decided to revote. RESTATED MOTION: MS (Green/Tu~enberg) to continue the entire item including staff report and public testimony to the meeting of October 8, 1986. Objections were voiced by members of the audience to postponing the item to the 8th. The motion to continue the entire matter, including staff presentation and opening the public hearing failed by the following vote: AYES: Shipe, Guiles, Green NOES: Cannon, Tugenberg, Grasser, Carson AMENDED MOTION MSUC (Green/Cannon) (7-0) that for purpose of complete clarification, the staff report be heard, the public hearing opened, testimony taken and the public hearing continued to the meeting of October 8, 1986 to ensure that anyone wishing to present testimony at the meeting of the 8th be able to do so. Assistant Planner Schilling stated that both the Commission and the Council had directed staff to prepare a zoning study of the Minot Avenue area as a result of an appeal by the residents of the conditions of a parcel map which required the dedication of right-of-way should widening be needed in the future. Staff held an open meeting on July 24th with the residents to discuss the density issues and the land use. The three alternatives presented and the input from the meeting and letters were included in tonight's staff report. Ms. Schilling stated that the area covers approximately 37 acres stretching from First Avenue west to Second, and from "E" Street north to "D". Development occurring to the north and its impacts are also included in the study. There are presently 30 duplexes in the area, and a recent approval of a 1911 Act Assessment District for Las Flores Drive had set the stage for increased future development. Assistant Planner Schilling discussed the possibility of development of properties along Minot Avenue with a potential for an additional 30 to 40 units along Minot between "E" and "D"; the area south of "D" street with a potential for 27 to 30 new duplexes; presently- approved subdivisions and development plans for the north end of Las Flores Drive of an additional 50 single-family units all equating to a cumulative total of 107 - 120 additional dwelling units within the areas. Traffic impacts for the south half of Minor Avenue as a result of these development pressures would represent an increase of approximately 300 to 400 additional trips per day on a street (Minor Avenue) ~hich is only 30 feet wide as opposed to the City standards of 36 feet. The impact of this amount of development would alter the general character fo the area with the predominance of duplexes resulting in more on-street parking and an increase in the average building size and scale. Planning Commission -5- September 10, 1986 Alternative A would be to rezone the property along Minot and "D" Street to R-1. The balance of the area would remain the same. Projected traffic count would be between 900 to 1,O00 per day at build-out. Staff is recommending adoption of this alternative alone with retention of the 30-foot wide road and the possible future restriction of on-street parking to one side of Minor Avenue. This alternative reflects existing land use as much as possible and will permit the increase of traffic without widening the street. In Alternative B, properties which take access onto 'IE" Street between Las Flores Drive and the alley south of "D" would be zoned R-1 but the four lots abutting the south side of "D" Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores would remain R-2. The projected traffic impact is almost the same as that in Alternative A. Staff feels this is a less desirable option since, although it does address the traffic impact, it does not reflect the existing land use. In Alternative C, the properties adjacent to "D" Street would be rezoned to R-1 with the remaining properties (including most of the properties along Minot Avenue) remaining R-2. Two non-conforming lots would result from this option; however, Minot Avenue would be impacted more significantly by the increased traffic projected at 1,4UO to 1,500 trips per day. This alternative does not address the traffic as much as clean up the boundaries between the present R-2 and R-1 zoning and matching it with existing streets. Three road design alternatives were also presented. The first, to widen Minot Avenue by 6 feet from curb-to-curb and include construction of sidewalks was strongly opposed by Minot residents since the widening might necessitate removal of fences, trees and other landscaping within the ROW. The second option to remove parking from one side of Minot Avenue is dependent on the present number of curb cuts and the resulting on-street area available for parking. The third option presented was to close "D" Street at Minot Avenue thereby limiting traffic increases to development occurring on Minot Avenue; however, closure of the Street creates difficulty for providing services such as police, fire protection, street sweeping and trash collection because of the lack of an adequate turn-around at the terminus of "D" Street. In reply to the Commission's questions regarding consensus by the residents, Director Krempl answered that there was no consensus of opinion except unanimous opposition to the widening of Minot Avenue and, in general, the residents were concerned with the projected increase in traffic and were not interested in a zone change restricting construction of duplexes. Staff's concern was that retention of the R-2 zoning could result in non-conforming units; the need to develop a logical, long-range pattern for the area while recognizing the sub-standard width of Minor, the residents' opposition to widening, the character change of the area if it were developed as an R-2 zone; and the fact that if something should happen to those existing duplexes, a down-zoning would result in their being rebuilt at R-1. Planning Commission -6- September 10, 1986 Concerns expressed by the Commission included the responsibility to future residents of Chula Vista with regard to traffic and the need to examine density; if the study area were maintained at "status quo," what would be the City's procedure to widen the street if necessary; what would be the impact of the non-conforming uses or mixture of R-1 and R-2; whether areas along First and Second Avenues should be excluded from the study area; and Staff's consideration of the residents' suggestion of zoning the entire area R-1. Staff replied that if the "status quo" were maintained, the City would proceed with a 1911 Act Assessment District when 50 percent of the improvements from intersection-to-intersection had been secured through the building or lot- splitting process; however, the City would have progressed a number of years into a developmental mode and would be committed to the pattern; the suggestion to zone the entire area R-1 had been discarded because of the number of duplexes on First and Second Avenues, the ability of those streets to handle traffic and the size of the lots. Staff had no difficulty in supporting a continuance if the residents wished more time to assimilate and discuss the recommendations. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Margie Fuentes, ll Cresta Way, CV g2010, owner of property on "D" Street and past 30-year resident of Minor, stated that upon sale of their property 8 years ago, public improvements from the top of Minor had been required prior to approval of the lot split; they had been working on the R-2 map and tentative map plan to ultimately obtain three R-2 lots which are now vacant and will access off Second Avenue. Their item had been delayed because of the Study; they had written requesting an appeal but had not been advised of the proper procedure and were unable to proceed further. Principal Planner Lee explained that Mrs. Fuentes had been informed that staff was not supportive of the parcel map because of the Las Flores/Minot Study, but directed her to meet with Engineering and file the appropriate fee for an appeal. Through a miscommunication, the appeal was not received by Planning and Mrs. Fuentes thought the matter was taken care of. Mr. Lee noted that the parcel map issue would be considered by the Commission at the meeting of October 8, 1986 and suggested that the matter be delayed until that meeting. Murphy L. Stump, 114 "E" Street, CV, owner of properties on 117 and 119 "E" Street, stated his property was uninvolved; it was a Minor Avenue problem and he did not see why "E" Street should be involved. R.V. Breese, 159 Minot Ave., CV, stated the situation should be left at "status quo" except to limit parking on one side for a year and observe the results. Richard Alvord, 106 Moselle St., San Diego, owner of property at 192 on Minot, stated he has an approved tentative map for four lots and plans to build three duplexes and improve the existing Minor Avenue house. $30,000 has been invested for public improvements; the units are standing; he has $1/2 million (finished value) development in these four lots; has no problem with the R-1 Planning Commission -7- September 10, 1986 zoning except as it relates to his Minot lot where he has a house (in escrow) that needs improvement and feels this would be an excellent upgrading. He then questioned if the zoning on a tentative map with an approved parcel map could be changed; referred to a precedent established by the Fairbanks Ranch (formerly Rancho Zoro) case; and stated he did oppose the R-1 zoning change along Minot Avenue. Deputy City Attorney said she would research the item questioned before replying. John Schultz, 134 Minot, CV, lives in a 2-on-1 lot; approves Alternate A; the Commission should look at the physical property before making a decision; street widening would change the character of the neighborhood; temporary barriers which could be removed in case of disaster would separate Minot from the rest of "E" Street. Frank Baliesteri, 1030 Fifth Avenue, CV, owner of 170 Las Flores, stated his concern as a realtor about insurance problems engendered by the zoning change; if 50 percent of the duplex is burned down, or if it is sold, it must be considered R-l; it is difficult to secure insurance and consequently a bank loan since sales are severely restricted and the property has been down-zoned. Jim Howard, 105 Second Ave., CV, owner of parcel 1D1 and a lot on North Las Flores, said the his properties do not affect Minot Avenue traffic as they have access to "D" or to North Las Flores which is undeveloped and can be ~ constructed as wide as needed; his parcel map was approved in 1978 and he was concerned about his R-2 zoning being downgraded to R-1. Mr. Howard also noted he was representing his neighbor, Ms. W. Ramish, who owns parcels 103, 109, and ll5, who is elderly and unable to be present at the meeting. Richard Morgan, 124 Minot, CV, said he was charged for a duplex lateral when he secured a building permit; the plans have been approved, construction is not completed because of financial matters; this is his retirement and the City is trying to take it away from him; only three residences on Minot are affected by the removal of the front portion of their land in case of street widening. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was continued to the meeting of October 8, 1986. Principal Planner Lee asked if there was additional information that the Commission wished staff to bring to the meeting. Commissioner Cannon replied he would like a more straight-to-the-point recommendation pertaining to retaining the zoning in its present condition. The Chairman then asked for a show of hands of those in the audience who wished the street to remain as is; approximately 50-60 persons raised their hands. In reply to a gentleman who did not give his name and who asked why the meeting was being postponed, Commissioner Cannon explained that the postponement was at the request of a petition submitted by the residents requesting additional time to study the recommendations. Planning Commission -8- September 10, 1986 DIRECTOR'S REPORT The meeting of September 24, 1986 will be rescheduled to the meeting of September 17, 1986 and there will be no workshop meeting held this month. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None ADJOURNED at 8:25 to the Business Meeting of September 17, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3198P