Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1984/06/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chan~aers Wednesday, June 27, 1984 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman O'Neill, Commissioners Cannon, Green, Guiles, Johnson, Pressutti and Shipe CO~4MISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Principal Community Development Specialist Kassman 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. ORAL CO~IUNICATIONS None. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-84-6 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF THE OTAY LAKES ROAD, BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND ALLEN SCHOOL LANE Commissioner Green stated he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. Principal Planner Pass entered into the staff recommendation to: (1) adopt the Negative Declaration and (2) approve the GPA. He noted that the second recommendation was based on the fact that the proposed high density site is isolated from those to the west ano south and its development as a garden project will not produce land-use friction; and that the northerly half acre abuts the Bonita Road commercial Area and would not bring about a land-use change. He also noted that the proposed apartments would not significantly affect traffic in the area, but would provide increased housing opportunities for middle-income families. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission -2- June 27, 1984 Carol Freno, 3703 Alta Loma, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, declared that this area is designated low density residential within the Sweetwater Community Plan and while it is contiguous to a commercial area, it is also contiguous to a residential area. As the original owner of the feed barn was granted certain considerations in the form of special permits and exemptions from flood control drainage requirements, Ms. Freno asked if these considerations would apply to the proposed project. She remarked that the density requested definitely would have an affect on the heavily-used intersection; the idea of "piling as many units as possible on 2 acres" was questionable; and the Association requests denial of this rezoning. Commissioner Cannon said he had been involved in this issue when the property was requested for the feed barn and asked if there had not been an agreement with SDG&E regarding exemption from the undergrounding of utilities. Ms. Freno affirmed this. Robert C. Spriggs, 441 San Antonio Avenue, San Diego, representing the applicant, said he had been working with the property owners; there have been no problems in the planning level with the proposed plan; and the owners have endeavored to alleviate the drainage problems. Curtis Corn, 4429 Loma rased, San Diego, owner of Lot 125 in the County, remarked that he had testified in favor of the zoning change to permit the feed barn, but expressed concern over having 26 apartments 40 feet from his property. He had purchased the property because it was isolated, wished it to so remain, and would do everything legal within his power to prevent the apartment complex. Principal Planner Pass responded that the item for consideration was a General Plan Amendment and did not include a rezoning. When the net density on the property is preliminarily established and the Department is satisfied with the proposed preliminary design, the proposed rezoning would be brought before the Commission. He added that much study would be necessary before a decision was made on the number of units allowable in the subject project. The proposed GPA would establish a gross density range of 13-26 dwelling units per acre. Flood control regulations would be considered at a later date. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Shipe/Johnson) - Green abstained to adopt Negative Declaration issued under IS-84-28. MS (Shipe/Guiles) to adopt a motion to approve GPA-84-6. Commissioner Cannon stated he would vote in opposition as he believed the developer was taking advantage of the community. The original concept was for a low density area with single houses. The feed barn was permitted because it was the type of activity useful in the neighborhood and Mr. Berg had been forced to relocate from a previous site. However, to all ow an intrusion into an area designated low density with all property over 1 acre in size and permit an apartment complex with 26 units is to allow high density. He also asked if there was not an access easement across the rear of the property of some of the homes. Planning Commission -3- June 27, 1984 Principal Planner Pass replied that some easements had been established in conjunction with the parcel, but that he didn't believe that they would affect the proposed amendment. He further advised the Commission that, in his opinion, the easements probably accrued to the benefit of the subject land. In conclusion, he observed that the matters in question would require legal addressment, The motion to approve GPA-84-6 failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Shipe, Guiles, Pressutti NOES: Commissioners O'Neill, Johnson, Cannon ABSTAIN: Commissioner Green Commissioner Johnson stated that in his opinion high density would not be appropriate for this area which should not exceed medium density, Conmnissioner Pressutti asked it it would be possible to specify medium density and was answered that the Commission has the right to make any motion that is more restrictive than that advertised, A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve a medium density Residential and Retail designation. The motion died for lack of a second. 2. PUBLIC HEABING: GPA-84-2 AND PCZ-84-D - CONSIDERAIION OF AN ~IENDMENT lO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 225 ACRES LOCATED EASTERLY OF BRANDYWINE AVENUE AND NORTHERLY OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD Director of Planning Krempl informed the Commission that a meeting had been held with some of the property owners and tenants within the Otay Valley Industrial Park who would be impacted. As a result of the meeting, several persons have expressed a wish for continuance to allow additional discussion between themselves and staff to the effects of the GPA on their property, its continued use, and to explore alternatives in terms of the Redevelopment Plan short of rezoning the total property. Staff has no objections to this continuance and suggests a date of August 8, 1984. Assistant City Attorney Gill advised the Commission to open the public hearing but to limit testimony to the subject of continuance and to poll the speakers about the acceptability of August 8 as the hearing date. Commissioner Cannon requested that if this item is continued, information be supplied by the Attorney's office to the Commission regarding nonconforming uses, particularly about the sale of property. Planning Commission -4- June 27, 1984 Assistant City Attorney Gill acquiesced, saying the Attorney's office may wish to enter an opinion as this has been the expressed concern of many people. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened and the Chairman announced he would entertain comments from those who wished to speak to a continuance on this item. Those speaking in support of the continuance were: I. Franco, 3384 Peg Leg Mine Road, Jamul, who agreed additional study was needed particularly on the rezoning issue which meant a property devaluation and a cause of financial trouble to many; Henry Kohler, 1547-222 Sonora Drive, President of the California Homeowner's Council; Wendy Longley-Cook, Longley-Cook Engineers, 636 Broadway, Suite 318, San Diego, representing United Enterprises; Dave Foreman, 1653 Pt. Cabrillo Court, representing Robinhood Point; and Karl Turecek, 1872 Nirvana, who requested an earlier hearing date than August 8 as such a delay would place him in jeopardy. He added that the proposal is in conflict with Otay Valley development history and the owners' interpretation of the maps of the Redevelopment District and the Mayor's message that the area would be General Industrial not Light Industrial. He then asked that all who opposed the change to Light Industrial to stand. Approximately 32 people stood. In response to a question by Commissioner Pressutti regarding the possibility of separating the two issues, Director of Planning Krempl replied that the two issues are separate but interrelated items involving (1) the GPA and (2) the rezoning; that it would be practical and feasible from a legal standpoint to consider them separately, but without knowing the full ramification of changes which might be suggested by the property owners, it seemed premature to consider the GPA at this time. In reply to a question by the Chairman regarding moving the hearing to an earlier date, Director Krempl replied that staff's preference was the 8th in view of the number of meetings to be held with the owners, securing input from the Attorney's office, and the pending lawsuit in the Redevelopment Area; however, staff would try to make the date set by the Commission. Upon being asked, Mr. Tureck said an earlier date would benefit him. MSC (Cannon/johnson) - G~-~ abstained - to continue the item to the meeting of July 25, 1984. Commissioner ~ returned to the dias. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-84-4 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PLANS Principal Planner Pass stated that the proposed amendment would authorize the inclusion of special effectuation standards within the specific plans as well as implementation by standard zoning in the P-C zone. Specific plans often Planning Commission -5- June 27, 1984 require special standards in lieu of the preannounced or regular standards. The State Planning and Zoning Law encourages the inclusion of special implementing standards within the texts of specific plans. Chula Vista Municipal Code, however, was revised in 1979 to control the development of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and currently authorizes implementation solely through the zoning mechanism. The proposed amendment would permit the preparation of special regulations where they are needed to implement specific plans, such as the Bayfront Plan. These regulations would usually be more responsive than zoning regulations to the concepts and policies of the involved, individual specific plans. Principal Planner Pass continued that E1 Rancho del Rey was an excellent example of special planning with its own height, land use, and bulk requirements in addition to those of the PC zone. He noted that if a conflict occurs between the plan's special standards and the zoning regulations, the special standards of the specific plan (which is closer to the General Plan) would take precedence. Another example would be the redevelopment plan, under which the built-in guidelines and criteria take precedence over the zoning. Questions asked by the Commission and replies by Principal Planner Pass included: 1. Would the implementing standards employed within specific plans be proposed by the Planning Department? Answer: Since special plans are initiated by the City, their draft internal implementing standards would be prepared by, or with the concurrence of the Planning Department. 2. Since the proposed amendment was not needed in the case of E1 Rancho del Rey, why is it needed now? Answer: The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Chula Vista Code's sections on Specific Plans, as then written. Subsequent to the adoption of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, the said Code sections were changed to accommodate the protection of open space. During the course of this change, the implementation of the specific plan was limited to standard and P-C zoning. 3. Should the proposed amendment include the provisions that the special implementing plans within a special plan shall not be in conflict with the zoning ordinance? Answer: The Planning Department believes that the inclusion of this provision could at least partially, nullify the value of the built-in implementation standards. The test of the desirabillity of the built-in standards should be their capability to promote order and the methodical effectuation of the General Plan, and not their consistency with the parochial zoning regulations of the Municipal Code. Planning Commission -6- June 27, 1984 4. Should conflicts between the proposed implementing standards and zoning regulations be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. Answer: Where these conflicts are substantial, they should be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and the City Council. 5. Where the text of a special plan e~odies standards which are less restrictive than the applicable zoning regulations, should this lack of consistency be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission? Answer: Yes. Director of Planning Krempl pointed out that the intent of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing specific plan regulations. Although there have been no problems in the past, based on recommendations from Sedway Cooke and to prevent any legal challenge, the clarifying language of the amendment is being put forth. It will allow more flexibility in terms of zoning and the interjection of new standards which, for the most part, will be more restrictive. Under certain circumstances, the Commission and Council may, for some valid reason, wish to allow less stringent restrictions. In that instance, both the Council and Commission would be advised. Director Krempl continued that such a statement might be more appropriate as a policy statement by City Council and an administrative procedure rather than a component of the ordinance language. Assistant City Attorney Gill supported Director Krempl's statement adding that otherwise it would be necessary to interpret what comprises "restrictive". 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 (Cannon/johnson) to approve the proposed amendment, PCA-84-4, to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT EIR-84-6 CHULA VISlA WOODS (Continued from meeting of 6/13/84) Principal Planner Lee stated that a letter had been received from United Enterprises requesting a 30-day continuation. This will result in the Final EIR being scheduled for the meeting of August 8, 1984. Wendy Longley-Cook, Longley-Cook Engineering, 636 Broadway, Suite 318~ San Diego, 92101, representing United Enterprises, contended that Dnited Enterprises had not received direct written notice of the availability of the Draft EIR-84-6, and is therefore entitled as a matter of law to at least 30 days within which to review and comment upon the Draft EIR. Assistant City Attorney Gill explained that State Law had been complied with by notification of public review of the Draft EIR through newspaper Planning Commission -7- June 27, 1984 advertisement, however, the Municipal Code of Chula Vista requires individual notices be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the referenced project. Director of Planning Krempl stated that staff has been working with the applicant and felt that the project had been advertised properly, however, no written evidence of notice being sent to United Enterprise was in possession of the Planning Department. He added that the Department did not support the continuance to July 25, 1984. MSUC (Johnson/Shipe) to continue the item to the meeting of July 25, 1984. 5, PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-84-3 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENIS TO CHAP~EXS Ig.14, 19.54, AND 19.SB Or THE MUNICIPAL CODL RELATING TO CARNIVALS AND CIRCUSES Principal Planner Lee stated that carnivals and circuses require conditional use permits which must be approved by the Planning Commission. The temporary nature and time factors involved have resulted in applications being made directly to Council and the issuance of permits without CUP processing. The proposed amendment provides for a special review process by the Zonin9 Admnistrator with the option of referring the matter directly to City Council where a public hearing would be required. The proposed amendment would also establish general development standards as outlined in the staff report and would limit the nu~er of events to four in a given year. Concerns expressed by the Commission at the last study session have been addressed by the exemption of schools from the proposed ordinance and the submittal of the dictionary definition of "Carnival means a traveling enterprise offering amusements wi~ organized entertainment or exhibits." Mr. Lee concluded that if the Commission wished a more precise definition, staff would request a continuance until the meeting of August 8, 1984. Director of Planning Krempl answered Commissioner Guiles' request for clarification of Section 19.14.030, subsection 4C, by saying the intent of the paragraph was to permit the Zoning Administrator to use his discretion in determining whether or not any referral would proceed to City Council. Commissioner Guiles then requested the phrase "or upon appeal" be inserted after the phrase "at his option," for clarification. Further clarification of Section 19.58,042, subsection C, was also requested. Principal Planner Lee explained that four circuses or carnivals would be allowed in the City in one given year. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney Gill explained that Council had directed development of a procedure in conformance with the ordinance and shortening the time between application and approval of the permits. Planning Commission -8- June 27, 1984 Commissioner Green stated he would like the definition of carnivals to be included in the ordinance to avoid confusion between bazaars by churches and schools; the definition to specify "and including mechanical rides." He also requested the addition of the phrase "in the City" be inserted after the phrase "...no more than four circuses or carnivals shall be permitted" in Section 19.58,042, subsection C. MSUC (Green/Cannon) to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relating to carnivals and circuses as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report with the following additions: (1) definition of the word carnival to be shown as "carnival means a traveling enterprise offering amusements with organized entertainment or exhibits and includes mechanical rides"; (2) in Section 19.14.030, subsection 4C, the phrase "or upon appeal" thereby changing the reading to "Notwithstanding the above provisions, the Zoning Administrator may, at his option, or upon appeal, refer applications for carnivals and circuses on which he is authorized to issue a permit to the City Council for review"; and (3) in Section 19,58,042, subsection C, the phrase "in file City" thereby changing the reading to "...no more than four circuses or carnivals shall be permitted in the City during any twelve month period." 6. REPORT: REVOKED HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT AT 724 NOLAN AVENUE - PCM-84-8 On May 23, 1984, the Planning Commission revoked the home occupation permit issued to Lauro L. Parra to conduct an office within the residence located at 724 Nolan Avenue. The Commission requested that a report on the status of the home occupation be brought back in 30 days. Principal Planner Lee stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer inspected the premises on June 8, 1984, and found that all activity within the accessory building had ceased, anU there was no evidence that any business was being conducted from either the accessory building or the residence. Commissioners Pressutti and Shipe said they also had driven past the site and had seen no evidence of business being conducted. Assistant City Attorney Gill remarked that he had been contacted by two persons who felt business was still being conducted on the premises but offered no substantiating evidence. The Attorney's office is ready to listen to any evidence. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director of Planning Krempl reminded the Commissioners that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to review the Capital Improvement Plan in terms of continuity with the General Plan and all elements thereof and to certify to its conformance to the General Plan. He then, using an overhead projection, reviewed and summarized the proposed CIP for Fiscal Year 1984-85. Planning Commission -9- June 27, 1984 Comments made by the Commission included concern that, although a considerable amount of money is being allocated for median renovation, the need for a mini-signal at Hilltop and "H" appears to be deferred until after a traffic study is made (probably in next year's budget). Director Krempl volunteered to bring back a report on the timing of the mini-signal and explained the renovation of the medians and their upgrading, particularly at the gateways to the City, was at the discretion of the Council to upgrade their appearance and to minimize maintenance. MSUC (Cannon/Shipe) to certif~ the Capital Improvement Plan as being in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Cannon asked about the park at Bay Boulevard and "F" Street which appears not to have been watered in months. He was informed that a series of experiments were being conducted at that site with some watering being done through the bubble irrigation system, etc., and that the area would soon be brought up to City standards. Commissioner Shipe thanked Alex Pressutti for the fine job he had done as a Commissioner and expressed regret that this was the last scheduled Planning Commission at which he would officiate. ADJOUR~ENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July ll, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 1211P