Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/08/10 Tape No: 292 - Side 2 900 - 1872 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, August 10, 1988 ROLL CALL COM~ISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenber9 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Principal Planner Pass, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant Planner Herrara, Planning Technician Batchelder, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust 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 MSUC (Shipe/Fuller) to approve the minutes of June 8, 1988 as mailed with the indication that Commissioner Cannon had a conflict on Item #1 and had abstained. MSC (Fuller/Grasser) to approve the minutes of July 13, 1988 as mailed with the correction of the spelling of "Fritscher" to "Fritsch" on page 1. Commissioner Grasser abstained because of absence from the meeting. MSC (Fuller/Cannon) to approve the minutes of July 27, 1988 as mailed. Commissioners Tugenberg and Shipe abstained because of absence from the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES -2- August 10, 1988 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-80-5 REQUEST TO EXPAND HUMPHREY'S MORTUARY AT 855 BROADWAY GARDNER STAFFORD PROPERTIES Associate Planner Griffin stated that the request was to expand Humphrey's Mortuary at the southeast corner of Broadway and Sierra Way by adding a 3,250 square foot addition to be used for office and employee areas while the existing office area on the the first floor would be converted to parking. Mr. Griffin showed slides illustrating the relationship of the addition to the existing structures and said that the proposal is consistent with the present activity on the site; the design relates well to the building; and that with the two conditions proposed (landscaping and alley improvements), staff recommended approval. In reply to Commissioner Grassers' inquiry if the street light was a normal requirement for a remodel, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust declared that any time the valuation on a building permit exceeds $10,000 on a commercial facility, Council has directed that full street improvements (which includes street lights) are required. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dan Way, 4541 Cresta Verde Lane, Bonita, representing Gardner-Stafford Properties, asked if the street light requirement was to replace the old light and if there was any criteria such as a footage requirement between the property and an existing street light. Mr. Daoust replied that it is the intention of the City to replace those lights currently leased from SDG&E with City-owned, decorative standards and that depending on the spacing between existing lights and the footage of the property, one or more lights might be required. In reply to a question about the cost, Mr. Daoust indicated the cost to be +$3,000. In reply to a question from Commissioner Cannon, Mr. Way said that installation of the street light would be acceptable to the applicant. Jack Gardner, 1497 Jayken Way, CV, the applicant, said he had purchased the property 30 years ago, had put in Broadway including the sidewalks and curbs and when he put in his parking lot he also put in the alley. He noted that the cost of tearing out and redoing the alley in concrete, changing the radius on Sierra Way and putting in a street light would amount to $20,000 in public improvements for a 3,200 square foot remodel and that such action seemed unfair. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-89-5, to expand Humphrey's Mortuary at 855 Broadway subject to conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Cannon commented that the cost of public improvements is getting very expensive but he did not think the City had any recourse but to place the burden of the cost on the developer of the property. MINUTES -3- August lO, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-89-3 - REQUEST TO LOCATE PARKING IN EXTERIOR SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 495 SMITH AVENUE DR. NICK GISTARO Associate Planner Griffin stated that the site is a rectangular, 7,481 square foot parcel with a frontage of 60 feet on "H" Street and 125 feet on Smith Avenue. The property is zoned C-C-D and presently contains a single-family dwelling. The proposal is to reduce the setback on Smith Street from 10 feet to 8.5 feet to accommodate parking for an office building proposed for the site. The applicant maintains that because a corner site is involved, the setbacks required decrease the usability and lessen the value of the property. Also, two extra parking spaces are required because the dental office is assessed by Code at a greater parking ratio than general office use. Staff's position is that no unique hardship is demonstrated since dental and medical offices generate a much greater demand for parking than general office use. Also the greater exterior sideyard setback occasioned by a corner parcel applies to every corner parcel in the City. Staff also indicated that the 10-foot landscaping requirement and the 10-foot setback are identical. The landscape strip is essential to enhance the appearance of the site. Staff is recommending denial of the variance based on the findings contained in the staff report. Planner Griffin continued that the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) supported staff's recommendation for denial by a vote of 6-0 at the meeting of August 8, 1988. Discussion ensued about setbacks required on corner parcels and the lack of such setbacks at locations such as, Roberto's at "F" and Third, the pharmacy on the opposite corner of "F" and Third, and the Redevelopment Building on the corner. It was noted that the building at Landis and "F" Street was right on the sidewalk as well as the fact that many of the commercial buildings on "H" Street appear to be right on the sidewalk without any landscaping. It was asked where the setback actually began. Staff replied that for a number of years, the City was guided by the Building Line Map which took precedence over zoning. This resulted in occasions within the business district or even in thoroughfare-commercial where a "0" setback in the front and/or exterior sideyard was utilized. The Code now requires exterior setbacks for literally every parcel in the City. The setback begins at the property line which on "H" Street would be 8 feet from the curb. The 10-foot setback is consistent along Fifth Avenue and up to Smith Avenue with landscaping elements all along that portion. It was pointed out that these properties have an alley access which is of benefit to a corner lot in eliminating use of a large portion of the lot to gain access to parking in the rear. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. MINUTES -4- August 10, 1988 Dr. Nick Gistaro, 809 Arroya Place, Chula Vista, the applicant, presented slides of a building in his immediate area that has little or no setback. He noted that parking on the property he is developing would go on the side street with the exception of the 1.5 foot setback which he suggested screening with a 5-foot latticed Bougainvillea. Dr. Gistaro pointed out that in his present location (where his lease is expiring), he was a sole practitioner, shared the building with a chiropractor and had no trouble with the six parking spaces allotted. The doctor noted that most of his patients use commercial transportation, HandYtrans or walk. He maintained he did not need the extra parking spaces, wanted to improve the area, and would accept any compromise. Michael Green, 43 Palomar Drive, CV, spoke in support of the requested variance, saying that he had an office next to a similar type medical/dental building and had no problem with any overflow parking from that facility. He represented the present appearance and condition of the building at 495 Smith Avenue as a hardship to the neighborhood. Mr. Green expressed concern about an interpretation of "hardship" by the City, citing examples such as the removal of concrete lattice-work on the northwest corner of Fourth and "H" for street-widening purposes; the remodel/addition at Bob's Big Boy on Broadway and "H"; and the location of the parking spaces at the Broadway Shopping Center flush with the sidewalk as examples of where such a finding was apparently found desirable by the City. He requested a favorable consideration of the variance request and noted that the proposed facility would be an asset to the City and help everyone. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would vote in favor of the variance this time. It was his opinion that the "hardship" was not for the owner of the property but ~or the City which is not utilizing the space effectively in light of the rehabilitation of the shopping center across the street. The development of "H" Street into a prime commercial area would benefit not only the applicant but the City. Commissioner Cannon offered the opinion that the "hardship" was the requirement for a setback on this particular lot when examples of numerous locations without such a setback can be cited. Commissioner Cannon moved and Commissioner Shipe seconded that ZAV-89-3 be approved based on the following findings: 1. This particular lot has a hardship in that double setbacks on both of the street frontages are required; setbacks that are apparently not required on numerous other locations throughout the City of Chula Vista and to place this requirement on this particular lot would in and of itself single out this lot in a fashion with which other lots have not had to comply. MINUTES -5- August 10, 1988 2. It has already been shown that with regard to the property across the street and the property on "H" Street that setbacks are not required nor have been required in the past; therefore, the granting of the variance would not represent a special privilege and it does represent something that is enjoyed by other corner lots in the same general vicinity or zone. 3. Authorizing the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent property nor materially impair the purposes of this chapter of the public interest and will be of substantial benefit to the community and the people in the general vicinity. 4. It will not adversely affect the General Plan nor is it contrary to the aesthetic values embodied in the Chula Vista General Plan. Commissioner Casillas supported the motion saying that after reviewing other neighboring property, the imposition of this requirement on the applicant seems to be a case of over-kill. The requirement represents a hardship because it places the applicant's property in a state all of its own and a condition all of its own totally apart from what is in the general area. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-23M - REQUEST TO EXPAND MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 340 NAPLES STREET - NAPLES STREET INVESTORS, INC. Principal Planner Lee noted that during Council consideration of an appeal of a denial of a major use permit to expand a mini-warehouse at 340 Naples Street, the applicant offered to modify the plans. The modifications were from the previously proposed three two-story storage buildings to single-story structures with the exception of a manager's unit to be located at the west end to provide a transition between the residential area immediately to the west. The Council, thereupon, returned the item to the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission for reconsideration in light of these proposed modifications. On August 3, 1988, the Montgomery Planning Committee reconsidered the item and by a vote of 6-1 recommended approval based on the fact that although the expansion did constitute an addition to the storage space in the Montgomery Area, the property was unique in that the new square footage being proposed was an expansion of an existing use rather than the establishment of a new use. The existing development had access to Naples Street; and the existing C-36 Zone provided for uses which were less compatible than that proposed by the applicant with the referenced modifications. These modifications also made the use more acceptable to the residential units in the area. Mr. Lee concluded that staff recommended approval of the modified plan based on the findings and conditions in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. MINUTES -6- August 10, 1988 Don Lindberg, 4201 Bonita Road, #245, Bonita, CA 92002, representing the applicant, noted that this was the expansion of an existing facility to make it more usable and compatible with both the residential and commercial areas. He pointed out that the transition provided by the revised plan is acceptable to all the residents in the area. The applicant concurs with conditions in the staff report although concerned regarding the need for additional traffic signals in this area because of the expansion of the facility. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-23M. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) that based on the findings contained in Section "D" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-23M, to expand a mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street subject to conditions "a" through "e". Commissioners Fuller and Shipe expressed appreciation of the changes made to the proposed plan as a result of the previous denial. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PART THREE, THE "IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM" OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN Principal Planner Pass stated that Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan being presented tonight was the post-plan component and dealt with the implementation program of the policies, goals, objectives and proposals stated within Part Two. He traced the structure and flow of the plan stating that the first part, the foundation, dealt with the physical/social and economic survey of the Montgomery Community. From evaluation of this survey, the trends analyses were established and forecasts made and utilized in preparing the Plan for Part Two. Part Three involves the zoning and rezoning program including the additional implementation mechanism such as subdivision controls which will discourage the panhandle lots, shoe-string and pork-chop subdivisions already overabundant in Montgomery. It also initiates the Capital Improvement Program, Code enforcement and introduces the new Montgomery Neighborhood Renewal Program (MNRP) and, finally, the strongest form of implementation, the Redevelopment Program. Mr. Pass also referenced the special study areas (the White-land studies) which will deal with the Otay River Flood Plain, the mixed uses in West Fairfield and other open spaces such as the SDG&E right-of-way to be considered in the future. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the awareness and input into Part Three by the people of Montgomery. Mr. Pass replied that the matter was thoroughly promulgated, public hearings were held, people were invited, and bilingual flyers were available at Community Centers, libraries and other public or quasi-public centers. The turn-out, however, was small and most of the concern was about the zoning or the Specific Plan. Even those who do not like the Specific Plan expressed little criticism of the implementation program. MINUTES -7- August 10, 1988 In response to Commissioner Fuller's questions regarding the reaction to and mechanism of the Revitalization Program, Mr. Pass commented that good response had been received although the program is still in the formulation phase. Director Krempl interjected and offered to provide the Commission with background material and arrange for a review and discussion of the program at one of the workshops. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Casillas said he considered the Plan to be well conceived. He asked about the density bonus being granted for good design (paragraph 5, page 7), and asked staff's opinion on the anticipated number of applications. Principal Planner Pass said a large number of applications were not anticipated because of the amount of time necessitated for recommendation by the Planning Director, review by the DRC, the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. He explained the difference between the density bonus achievable from the low-and-moderate income and the "good design", but noted that they were mutually exclusive. For that reason, many developers will utilize the affordable housing density bonus route. It is considered that the "good design" plan will be excellent in certain areas where there is enough involved land to make it profitable and where there are long-term expectations on development. Only a small number of developers have expressed interest. The State, in creating the specific plan process, generated a process that is both general plan and precise plan in order to tailor-make communities. This beneficial provision allows a partial re-tailoring of the Montgomery Community. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul Green, 141 Lotus Drive, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to Item 4c, paragraph 2, page 1. He referenced copies of the County Use Regulation given to both the Montgomery Planning Committee and to staff. He pointed out that under the R-C zone of the County his possession of 20 old cars on his property had been protected and asked how the zoning had been changed from County to that of Chula Vista and had it been done without due process of law. Principal Planner Pass indicated that the County's R-C zone is not established within the Montgomery Community and that Mr. Green's land is in the R-S6 zone. Mr. Green then drew the Commission's attention to "Section II - Zoning and Special Regulations" of the Draft Plan which outlines the methodical reclassification of the Montgomery Territory from County to Chula Vista zoning and regulations. He expressed concern that the City had not waited until implementation of this plan before taking action on the removal of his cars. Mr. Green asked for an additional 30 minutes to present his case to the Commission. Commissioner Fuller said she was of the opinion that Mr. Green was referring more to the Code enforcement than zoning. For the benefit of others in the audience with this same concern, she stressed that the implementation portion of the Plan does not rezone the property. The rezoning called for under the Table of Translation (page 5A of the Plan) would be undertaken separately and is subject to additional environmental review on an individual basis in the future. MINUTES -8- August 10, 1988 Ken Harland, 347 "L" Street, owner/operator of Castle Park Montessori School on Kennedy Street, expressed concern about the high density bonus factor and asked for a clearer explanation. Principal Planner Pass explained that the State Density Bonus for low-and-moderate-income households allows a 25% density bonus for those meeting the qualifications. The Urban Design or Townscape Planning Bonus is completely separate and covers housing of all types. The bonuses are not related and if a person has qualified for an Affordable Housing Bonus, the additional (Urban Design) bonus would not be available. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Grasser referenced page 8, item 6, regarding automatic fire sprinklers, and asked if this was standard for commercial development over 2,000 square feet in the City of Chula Vista? Planner Pass replied that it was decidedly not standard but was included {as explained in the footnote) as an advisory n~ unique to Montgomery. He noted that industrial uses have been built alongside of residential uses and very primitive fire-fighting facilities have been developed on site. Fire hydrants unattached to water mains, for instance, have been discovered in the community. Commissioner Grasser said her concern was the high cost of fire sprinkling system installation and voiced the opinion that it might be better considered on a case-by-case basis instead of "across the board." Mr. Pass agreed that the point was well taken and had been discussed at the meetings. He added that the insertion of such a requirement, although stipulated as advisory at this point, serves to put the people on-notice and the Chairman of the Montgomery Planning Committee had expressed conviction that the economies achieved in flre insurance and in reduction of the need for fire hydrants and stand pipes would be more than offset by the incorporation of this provision. The provision, of course, would need review by both the Department of Public Safety and City Administration before adoption. Commissioner Fuller drew attention to differences between the Implementation Draft Program in the packet and the blue-bound copy sent later. She referred to page 8 specifically. Mr. Pass noted that the last revision to the draft had been the fire sprinkler situation just discussed. MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M. MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) to approve Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan and recommend that the City Council adopt such. Commissioner Fuller commended the staff on the excellence of the report. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS None MINUTES -9- August 10, 1988 COMMISSION COMMENTS In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's question about Council action on the Raso house, Director Krempl replied that the variance was continued for one week and a motion of denial failed 2-2 with one member absent. Commissioner Fuller (as a member of the Charter Review Commission) explained the action regarding the issue of a stipend for the Planning Commissioners. The proposal from the Charter Review Commission was a recommendation that the Council could, if so desired, give a compensation to the Planning Commission but to no other Board or Commission. During discussion, Council indicated that they had not been aware that other cities throughout the County had been reimbursing Commissioners. They also felt that it would be awkward to single out one Commission. After Council had left the joint meeting, the members of the Charter Review Commission, by a vote of 3-2, withdrew the recommendation for the present time. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 17, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 5523P