Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1989/02/08 Tape: 296 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, February 8, 1989 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Associate Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Community Development Specialist Buchan, and Deputy City Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC IShipe/Fuller) to approve the minutes of the meeting of January ll, 1989 as mailed - Commissioners Cannon and Grasser abstained because of absence from the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-27 REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE - SALVATION ARMY Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project site located on the west side of Third Avenue south of "I" Street totals over an acre, is zoned C-O (Commercial Office) as are the areas to the north, south and east, and backs Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 1989 up to an R-1 single-family area on the west. The project involves 75 units contained in an L-shaped four-story structure with 34 parking spaces to the west and south of the building and access off Third Avenue. The unit mix consists of 18 studio units, 56 one-bedroom units and a two-bedroom manager's unit. The building contains a 1500 square foot common recreation room and an adjacent area with patio and landscaping. Mr. Griffin displayed slides of three of the elevations and noted that the rear elevation (which faces the single-family residential area) has no window openings or balconies thus minimizing privacy intrusion. Mr. Griffin remarked that the project is sponsored by the Salvation Army as a Federally subsidized Section 8 rental housing development for very low-income seniors. It is processed by a conditional use permit under the City's senior density housing program which allows deviations from the R-3 standards. The exceptions being requested are an increase in density from 36 to 75 units, a decrease in parking from 113 to 34 spaces, a decrease in open space from 30,000 to 16,000 square feet, narrower balconies than normally required and an increase in the number of stories from 3-1/2 to 4 - although the height of the project (44 feet) will remain under the maximum allowed by the zone. He remarked that senior projects have characteristics which differ from standard multiple-family projects thereby supporting significant departures from the zoning standards. In this project, the increase in density and decrease in parking are probably the most significant that have been processed under the senior density provisions and are greater than would be allowed in a privately initiated proposal. Supporting factors include the fact that the property is not in the R-3 but the C-O zone whose standards allow a building of such mass and bulk. The placement of the building on the lot minimizes its impact on the single-family area since the narrowest portion is to the rear and it is set back approximately 60 feet from the property line this reducing the visual impact of the building. Mr. Griffin said that two letters had been received from the homeowners on Landis Avenue objecting to the building height and the potential for excessive on-street parking. Mr. Griffin outlined the characteristics of the very low-income senior group which include (1) limited income of $12,800 for a single person or $14,600 for two; (2) minimum age of 62 with an average age span into the 70's, and (3) average occupancy of 1.1 to 1.2 persons per household. The Salvation Army's intent to provide vans for group transportation plus the major public transportation available on Third Avenue and the proximity of medical facilities and stores will minimize the need for parking. Based on research into similar projects, staff suggests a parking ratio of 1/2 space per unit would be comfortable. With regard to the decrease in the total amount of open space, the Salvation Army is providing private balconies for every unit. These are actually above that allowed by the Federal budget. Since the Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 8, 1989 project does not need to provide recreational areas for children and the occupancy per unit is so low, the on-site open spaces provided equate closely to those of a standard project. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions noted. In discussing the parking issue with the Commission, Mr. Griffin indicated that 39 parking spaces had been recommended. This can be achieved by a combination of compact cars and utilization of the area to the south of the building. Principal Planner Lee commented that shifting the building slightly to the north would provide additional space. Mr. Griffin added that the consensus of opinion from contact with other jurisdictions and managers of similar facilities is that the .5 ratio was more than adequate. The exception being suburban projects away from transportation and other services in which case, the .5 - .75 ratio would be more appropriate. He referenced Town Centre Manor (under .5 per unit) which has indicated they have no problem. He continued that more definitive guidelines for these facilities would be considered by the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Cannon replied that Congregational Towers suffers from a major parking problem and expressed concern that after 5 years no parking policy had been developed for this type of facility. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Vern Swenson, 20737 Stagg Street, Canoga Park, California, representing the Salvation Army, stated they had been sensitive to the requirements of the Planning Department with regard to the construction of the building and that the organization would spend about $1/2 million to fund the balconies, a second elevator, construct wider corridors and provide other amenities. He added that the Salvation Army operates a number of these facilities very successfully. Margo Reid, 1560 W. Colorado Blvd, Pasadena, with Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates representing the Salvation Army, indicated her willingness to answer any questions. Ralph Flewelling, 766 Colorado Blvd, Los Angeles, the architect, stated that at one time a 5-story building with 57 parking spaces had been proposed. The present configuration had been developed with 29 parking spaces. The provision of an additional five spaces by shifting the building slightly to the east is being considered by the Planning Department. Moving the building to the north would entail problems with the Fire Department's stipulation of 24 feet at the hammerhead at the west corner of the building. This would also result in parking on the south side of the building facing into the units. HUD prefers parking around the periphery. If the building were shifted to the east, the parking would be on the west side and would not face into the units. In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr. Flewelling said the additional five spaces would come from the landscaped area adjacent to the recreation room. He pointed out that based on the 45 projects his firm has -- designed during the past 20 years, the amount of parking needed for seniors is less than for regular projects. When regular public transportation is Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 8, 1989 available, occupants tend to dispose of their cars when the insurance comes due. He expressed a preference to retain the green space originally provided with the option of utilizing it for parking if the need arose in the future. He stated that the "worst case" situation was that of Luther Towers constructed + 20 years ago which had zero parking spaces because use of the adjacent church parking area was anticipated. For the most part, the parking ratio is about 1:3. In reply to Commissioner Carson, he said the one-bedroom apartment would rent for 30 percent of the occupant's income. Barbara Ballard indicated that her son, Ronald Ballard, 516 Chantel Court, Chula Vista would speak for her. Mr. Ballard spoke in opposition to the project citing (1) the change in zoning from commercial to residential and from low-density to high-density; (2) the effect on property values in the area; (3) the view of the back of the building from their homes; (4) lack of parking on Third Avenue during the day; and (5) reduced access area for emergency vehicles. He also presented a letter of opposition from a neighbor to the Commission. Pat McIntyre, 639 Landis Avenue, Chula Vista, opposed the fact that the windows on the sides of the building look into her property; expressed concern about the parking, the density, and the effect on her property's value when she wishes to sell. Irene Goodwin, 331 Mitscher, St., CV, opposed the project because of the density, parking and noise. John Miller, immediate past president for the Salvation Army, noted that additional parking is provided on the grounds of the nearby adjacent Salvation Army facility. Dick Kau, 3440 Bonita, addressed the concern of those residents behind the building saying that its height is 44 feet and the allowable height is 45 feet. No windows are on the west which eliminates glare. An agreement has been reached wi th the owner of the adjacent building to permit a driveway to run between the two buildings so traffic will not have to exit onto Third Avenue. Ron Ballard returned to the podium to point out that the easement running between the two properties would create more of a noise problem for the residents in the back. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Lee pointed out that the height of the building is in conformance with the C-O zone and that three doors down the office building adjacent to the market is at the same height as this proposed structure. He noted that staff had explored the relationship of the buildings along Third Avenue with that of the residential homes to the west to make sure there was adequate separation. Moving the building to the east will increase that separation probably to the extent of 70 feet between the rear of the building Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 8, 1989 and the west property line. He added that the rear setback for commercial buildings is only 10 feet and, if this project did not go through, an office building of the same height could come through with a more reduced setback in the area. Any overflow parking would not affect the residential area based on the access to that area to the west. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked normally he did not encourage senior facilities in the Downtown Area because of the effect on the business area; however, he looked favorably on this project based on the location, its proximity to the stores, to public transportation, and the fact that it is sponsored and supervised by the Salvation Army. MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77. MSC (Tugenberg/Grasser) Cannon "no" - based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report to adopt a motion recommending that Council approve PCC-89-27 subject to conditions 'a' and 'b'. Commissioner Cannon said he was very concerned about the parking issue and did not think it was adequate. He hoped he was wrong; however, based on personal experience, he has found the demand for parking in such facilities exceeds that of the 50% ratio. Commissioner Tugenberg replied that this facility was designed for persons whose income would be less than 50% of the norm which would preclude them having very many cars. Commissioner Carson said she had shared the same feelings as Commissioner Cannon; however, the overflow provisions provided by the Salvation Army for parking nearby had changed her mind. At the request of Commissioner Shipe who has a potential conflict of interest on item 2, item 3 was taken at this time. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-29 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A YOUTN/COMMUNITY CENTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF "L" STREET EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE ON THE GROUNDS OF CHULA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Chairman Carson declared that she had a potential conflict of interest with this item because she was employed by the Chula Vista School District and her husband is a teacher at Chula Vista High School. She turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Tu§enberg and left the dais and the room. Associate Planner Griffin noted that the proposal is to construct a youth/ community center to be used jointly by the Sweetwater Union High School District and the City of Chula Vista or a City lessee. The facility would total 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area including a 9,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, two activity/craft rooms with associated offices, utility and storage space. The center would be served by the existing parking area which is striped for 100 cars, although some reduction may occur because of restriping and landscaping Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 8, 1989 to conform with City standards. Arrangements have not yet been finalized as to how the facility would be utilized for programming and scheduling. The footprint and floor plan have not been settled and are subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee, the School District, and the Redevelopment Agency. The Commission is asked to consider the land use issues; namely, (1) the impact on the neighborhood regarding noise and activity; {2) the adequacy of the on-site parking in relationship to the size and function of the facility. No impact is expected from the supervised activities conducted within the building; however, staff does have concern regarding the amount of unsupervised activity occurring outside the building associated with the scheduled evening youth activities at the center. Therefore, a recommendation has been included that supervision/security of the grounds be required for all evening youth programs and activities. Parking is difficult to analyze with the amount of information available. The Code would normally require 240 parking spaces to serve the 12,000 sq. ft. assembly area; however, the 100 spaces are believed to be adequate if the primary use of the center is for youth-oriented recreational rather than assembly activities. However, such parking would prove inadequate if the facility is used to a significant degree by adults or for larger-scale assembly and meeting activities. The condition that has been recommended will require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator on an annual basis of the regularly scheduled program of activities. This would ensure that the normal operation of the center can be accommodated with available off-street parking. In response to a question from Commissioner Tugenberg, Associate Planner Griffin stated that only one letter had been received from the neighbors and that was in support of the project. Replying to Commissioner Casillas' question regarding the type of fencing that would be utilized to separate the area from the school grounds, Principal Planner Lee replied that it would be a continuation of the existing 6' chainlink fence. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Scott Mosher, 1301 Oleander Avenue, Director of the Boys and Girls Club, spoke in support of the facility stating that his facility on Oleander was already over capacity. In reply to a question from Commissioner Cannon, he stated that their building has 25,000 sq. ft. as opposed to the proposed 15,000 sq. ft. facility. They have less than 100 spaces and usually only 25% of these are filled during program hours. Commissioner Tugenberg asked for further clarification regarding the security provisions for youth events. Mr. Griffin said that, in his opinion, it meant that any special, large youth activities scheduled during the evening hours would require security. Mr. Griffin also pointed out that the program would be reviewed and analyzed on a yearly basis. They did not anticipate any additional security provisions needed for items like league basketball games, but perhaps a large teen-age dance might require some. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 8, 1989 MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) (Carson out) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-81. MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) (Carson out) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report to recommend that the City Council approve PCC-89-29 subject to the conditions 'a' and 'b' in the staff report. Commissioner Carson returned to the room and the dais and reassumed the chair. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-E, CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 7.72 ACRES BOUNDED BY BROADWAY, FLOWER STREET, JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND "E" STREET, FROM C-T TO C-C-P - APPEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY/ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Commissioner Shipe said that he had a potential conflict of interest as he had an existing financial relationship with one of the principals, Mr. B~q=~e. He then left the dais and the meeting. _~ /-~- -~/~ Associate Planner Griffin stated that the request was initiated by the Appel Development Company for the northerly portion of the block and expanded by staff to include the southerly portion. The property contains a mix of residential and commercial use as well as a significant amount of underutilized acreage currently being used for open storage on the northerly portion. This block has recently been added to the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area. This particular plan defers to the City General Plan and zoning standards to control the land uses and building standards which would apply to the property. The surrounding areas consist of residential, both single-family and multi-family to the north, commercial fronting on Broadway to the north, commercial to the east across Broadway and to the south across "E," and Feaster Elementary School to the west. There are several factors favoring this rezone including (1) the C-C zone generally excludes Thoroughfare Commercial and automobile-oriented services allowed in the existing C-T zone. These uses are difficult to integrate with other retail and commercial uses and cause interface problems with the residential area, (2) the C-C-P zone will facilitate the redevelopment of all of the properties involved to coordinate other commercial developments and interface with the residential area in a better manner, (3) the C-C zone is consistent with the General Plan Update which shows the property as Retail Commercial use, while the C-T zone does not, (4) the Council has adopted the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the C-C zone to allow mixed use along Broadway, which is one of the development concepts discussed in the General Plan Update, and (5) the rezoning would create only one non-conforming use, the van conversion facility on Broadway--this facility could continue as a regular non-conforming use, but it would not be permitted to expand its operation. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 8, 1989 Appel has submitted a precise plan for a mixed use project on the northerly portion which would include a 10,000 ft. commercial area along Broadway as well as residential use above and to the rear of the commercial facilities. If the rezone request is approved, the precise plan would be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency for final approval. The Design Review Committee has already endorsed the basic site plan and design of this project. Commissioner Cannon noted that projects for this particular land parcel had been considered by the Commission at previous times and asked what had happened to those projects. Mr. Griffin replied that the request for a conditional use permit for residential use on the rear portion of the lot had been supported by the Planning Commission but had been denied by Council on their own appeal. A second project which was a request for a rezone of the rear portion to R-3 had also been supported by the Commission and denied by Council as premature pending the General Plan Update. Commissioner Tugenberg asked what the height limitation would be in the C-C-P zone. Mr. Griffin replied that the height limitation is 45 feet, but the Appel project is proposed at 32 feet. Commissioner Tu§enberg suggested that the time has come when we should consider higher buildings in the downtown area, that it was time to go up instead of out. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tony Ambrose, 4877 View Ridge Avenue, San Diego 92123, HCH, representing Appel Development, said they had contacted some of the property owners in the adjacent areas and that Mr. Fogerty and Mr. Cornell were in the audience. So far they have experienced no objection. They believe this will be a good step to improve the Broadway corridor. Council at the last hearing regarding this property had informed them that their project was premature and suggested it should be combined with the General Plan Update and brought back. That is what they have been doing with staff for the past 18 months. Commissioner Casillas asked if they had considered building up to three stories. Mr. Ambrose replied that the Council direction that they had received indicated they would not support three-story buildings. Ron Barefield, 224 San Diego Avenue, representing Appel Development, repeated that they had been working with staff for 18 months to meet the needs and demands of the City. He indicated his willingness to answer any question. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Fuller said that even if an 18-month waiting period had been involved, the project was now excellent and would certainly improve the area along Broadway. MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) (Shipe out) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-41. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 8, 1989 MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) (Shipe out) to recommend that City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 7.72 acres from C-T to C-C-P as shown on Exhibit A in the staff report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: There will be no regular meeting on February 22. The workshop on February 15 will feature a presentation on the Bayfront by the Jerde Partnership. Commissioner Cannon intervened to urge the Commissioners to attend this meeting if possible. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Chair thanked Commissioner Tugenberg for attending the Awards Committee meeting in her place. Ruth Fritch, Deputy City Attorney, updated the Commission on the Raso lawsuit stating that Mr. Raso has agreed to take off the entire third story and bring the height down to 30 feet. The blueprint is attached to the judgment. If he doesn't do this, he will be in contempt of court. The lawsuit against the City has been dropped. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to the Study Session meeting of February ~, 1989, at 5 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. ~ P~th M. S~ith, SecretarvfJ y~annlng Commission WPC 5990P