Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/05/11 Tape No : 290 Side 1 : 0-1457 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, May 11, 1988 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenber9 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Casillas - with notification STAFF PRESENT Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Rudolph, Assistant Planner Schilling, Associate Planner Bazzel and Associate Civil Engineer Thomas 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 (Fuller/Shipe) to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 20, March 23 and April 13, 1988 as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-3M - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE REDESIGNATION OF A CERTAIN 2.82-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLORADO AVENUE, EXTENDING SOUTH FROM MOSS STREET, FROM LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (3-6 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE) TO RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL, ON THE PLAN DIAGRAM MINUTES -2- May ll, 1988 Principal Planner Pass gave the staff presentation. He indicated that the applicant is requesting a plan amendment to resolve the conflict between the existing industrial use of his property and its residential designation on the Montgomery Specific Plan Diagram. The property, located between two residential areas, was brought into the City on December 31, 1985 with the retention of its M54 (Heavy Industrial) zoning. Development of the four industrial buildings was commenced several months prior to adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan which designates the applicant's property Low/Medium Residential. The proposed amendment would not only bring the site's current zoning and existing land-use development into consistency, but would also allow subdivision of the site into four separate sites and buildings for eventual sale to individual )urchasers. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. The Chair interrupted the hearing to announce the location of the Mobile Home Residents and Tenants meeting being held in the building. Several persons left the chamber. Bob Dumler, Box 2284, Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067, the applicant, spoke in support of the request noting that his intent was to provide the opportunity for smaller business firms to purchase their own building and land and that, at the initiation of the project a year ago, he was not aware that any consideration had been given to residential development in the neighborhood. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Grasser) (6-0) to find the adoption of GPA-88-3M will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-5M. MSUC (Shipe/Grasser)(6-O) to approve GPA-88-3M and recommend its adoption to the City Council. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-42M REQUEST TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 124 SPRUCE ROAD - WOODLAWN PARK CHURCH OF GOD Assistant Planner Schilling said that the item was a request to remodel and expand an existing church located on a .64-acre rectangular lot at 124 Spruce Road within Woodlawn Park in Montgomery. The proposed plan is to demolish the rear building and expand and remodel the church to create a fellowship hall. Landscaping and a 60-space paved parking lot is required. The elevations have been reviewed and a formal application has been submitted for design review consideration. The church has been in existence since 1945, which was prior to implementation of zoning by the County within the Woodlawn Park Community. Consequently, no major use permit has ever been filed for the church and no design standards for religious assembly have been applied to the site MINUTES -3- May 11, 1988 previously. The church does not conform with current standards within the City of Chula Vista; however, staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of the major use permit based upon the conditions listed within the report. According to the Fire Marshal, only three children can be accommodated within the nursery room, based on the square footage. The applicant is working with the Fire Marshal to amend this. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The meeting was interrupted by a citizen who had been in the wrong location in the building and had missed the item on which she wished to speak. She was assured that the meeting before the Council would also be a public hearing, she would be noticed and could offer her comments at that time. Steve N. Goins, 1177 Greenfield Road, E1 Cajon, the building designer, spoke in support of the project and indicated willingness to work with the Fire Marshal. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) (6-0) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-70M. MSUC {Cannon/Fuller) {6-0) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-88-42M, to remodel and expand an existing church at 124 Spruce Road subject to conditions "a" through "e" in the staff report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-45 REQUEST FOR MASTER CUP FOR SELECTED COMMERCIAL USES IN THE I-L-P ZONE AT 687/693 PALOMAR STREET - MAZAL REALTY INVESTMENTS Principal Planner Lee stated that the hearing and land use issues relate to the westerly half of the Palomar Commerce Center located on the north side of Palomar extending from the trolley line northerly to Oxford Street. The Center has been developed with commercial zoning on the frontage and with industrial on the northerly portion. There are two buildings in the westerly area (687 and 693) with the bulk of the parking located toward the southwest end of the property and access coming in from Palomar. A SDG&E easement runs along the property limiting its use to parking. The applicant is seeking approval of a Master CUP which would authorize a variety of commercial land uses. The applicant has indicated that 1/4 of the building would be used for retail space and the remainder for industrial. Staff has reviewed the requested list of uses and concurs with all except the financial institutions, insurance and real estate offices. Staff is of the opinion that the ordinance would need to be changed to permit these latter uses in the I-L zone. The Code authorizes certain retail uses within the industrially zoned area provided the uses meet the criteria of high volume, warehouse sales and uses supportive of on-site manufacturing outlets. Staff has suggested 21 uses subject to MINUTES -4- MaS ll, 1988 administrative approval of the floor and site plan by the Planning Director as the specific uses are determined. Also included in the conditions of approval is that the location of the principal entry be toward the south or west away from the limited parking area. No specific time limit has been suggested. An increased traffic fee payment would be required prior to approval of the final Master CUP. In response to an inquiry regarding the objection to "office centers", Planner Lee replied that because of the price of industrial land, offices tend to gravitate to those areas, crowd out the limited-industrial activities and result in inadequate parking because the original parking ratio was based on industrial type uses. Kearny Mesa is a good example of such a take-over. In Chula Vista, offices are permitted in a separate commercial office zone, retail commercial zones, and as an auxiliary use in an industrial zone (in conjunction with a manufacturing operation). This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lucius Quinney, 363 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, representing the applicant, indicated agreement with the proposed staff conditions, particularly with respect to limiting the CUP to the main building. He agreed that the smaller building included in the original request was inappropriate for retail uses by its exposure and parking. Mr. Quinney also agreed to the ~ imposition of the traffic fees. He maintained that office uses would be compatible with the retail uses in the Palomar Center based on the history of the changing market conditions during the last 8 years. He discussed the confusion regarding the definition of "manufacturing" now broken into "light-industrial, heavy-industrial, business park, R&D, and employment serving commercial." Mr. Quinney pointed out that the employment serving commercial" is an important definition because it offers the potential of decreasing traffic if restaurants, certain kinds of offices and banks are so located as to serve the people in the area without the need of driving. Mr. Quinney displayed slides taken at Sorrento Mesa Development, Scripps Ranch and Scripps Commerce Center in which there are mixtures of offices, light-industrial uses, restaurants, and even a Montesorri School. He pointed out that these centers had less parking than that provided by Palomar Commerce Center. He requested that the office uses originally requested, real estate, escrow, credit unions, title and mortgage offices be reconsidered. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) (6-0) 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-88-72. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) (6-0) that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-45, for a Master CUP for selected commercial uses in the I-L-P zone at 687/693 Palomar Street subject to conditions "a" through "i" and that the land uses shown in 2a be expanded to include real estate offices, escrow offices, credit unions, title offices and mortgage offices. MINUTES -5- May ll, 1988 In answer to a question, Principal Planner Lee informed the Commission that since there is no ordinance, the item would proceed to Council with the Commission's recommendations (which would allow the applicant to proceed with the items listed in the staff report). The Council would then direct staff, if it so desired, to amend the zoning ordinance to include these office uses in the I-L Zone. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the Commission had, in effect, made a finding that the added uses are permissible within the I-L Zone based on interpretation of Section 19.22.030A, which says that accessory permitted uses in the I-L Zone include "administrative, executive and financial offices and incidental services." He noted that it would be necessary to review this because of the definition of "other office uses" in other sections of the Code defining the properties for commercial uses. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-41 REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 22-BED CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH AVENUE AND "G" STREET - MELVA E. TORRES Principal Planner Lee said the request is to construct a 22-bed residential care facility for the elderly on a 9,000 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Fourth and "G" Street in the R-3 zone. The project would consist of a 2-story, 7,000 square foot building and nine off-street parking spaces. The facility would accommodate up to two residents for each of the ll bedrooms, have a staff of 3-4 employees, and would be licensed by the State. Residents would be over 62 and ambulatory. Meals, housekeeping and transportation would be provided by the facility. Common areas include the dining and kitchen facilities and a patio. The facility is well located within convenient range of medical facilities, public transportation, the library, Memorial Park and the downtown shopping district. It appears to present little potential for conflict with adjacent uses which are mostly multi-family uses. Staff has concerns about the lack of common facilities and amenities as well as the building aesthetics. The building itself extends to the setback lines at all points and presents an unrelieved, rectangular exterior with little visual variety or interest. The project is scheduled for Design Review Committee consideration and a condition of approval specifies that the Commission's approval (if granted) does not prohibit a subsequent reduction in the square footage or number of bedrooms if that is deemed necessary to achieve a more acceptable design. Staff also has a concern regarding the viability of a small congregate care facility and the building's subsequent reuse with such minimal parking provided. Mr. Lee noted that the project had been reviewed by the Commission on Aging that afternoon. Their concerns included: 1. The amount of traffic at this intersection; proximity of the Junior High School and foot traffic; lack of parking caused by the red-curbing on Fourth Avenue and the limited frontage on "G" Street which makes on-site parking of critical importance; the location of the emergency access onto Fourth Avenue. MINUTES -6- May ll, 1988 2. Lack of adequate common space and the need for individual private space within the common areas and the fact that the dining hall and kitchen are considered part of the common space. 3. The Commission on Aging requested return of the item prior to review by the DRC; that the architect provide more common area; and a response from the State as to whether the project meets State requirements. The architect has informed staff verbally but has not presented written verification that the project is in conformance with the State Standards. Questions asked by the Commission included: (1) Is the common patio (230 square feet) indoors or outdoors? (2) Does the arrangement of the kitchen as part of the remaining 450 square feet of indoor common space comply with health regulations? (3) Do the nine parking spaces provided include that of the employees and guests? (4) What experience has the applicant had in operating this type of facility? (5) What is the meaning of the terminology in the Negative Declaration, page 2, Section B, "...for the care of individuals 62 years of age or older and the mentally unstable"? Replies were that: (1) The common patio area is outdoors but it will be covered. (2) The kitchen arrangement has not been cleared by the State. (3) A total of nine parking spaces will be provided since in congregate care homes not too many people drive. (4) The Commission on Aging had a list which showed that the applicant has had experience in operating congregate care homes. 15) The "mentally unstable" refers to persons suffering from Alzheimer's (in case there is such a need). This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Austin Lucius, 10817 Aveoida Roberta, Spring Valley, CA, the designer, stated he had been working with the City and would continue to do so to develop a workable project. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenber§/Shipe) (6-0) 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-88-69. Commissioner Tugenberg moved and Commissioner Cannon seconded for discussion purposes that the City Council deny the request PCC-88-41. Concerns expressed by the Commission included: Commissioner Tugenberg: That a 22-bed facility is a very marginal facility financially and a possible reduction by the DRC in the number of units would lessen its viability. There is not enough interior space for common facilities. What would be the disposition of the building with such minimal parking if the venture failed? The increasing concentration of senior facilities in west Chula Vista makes the viability of the downtown commercial area more difficult. MINUTES -7- May ll, 1988 Commissioner Cannon: That the DRC should not, as a design function, indicate a limitation on the size of a project since it is within the Commission's purview to judge a project based on the number of units versus lot size. This particular project has too many units on too small a lot. From personal experience with congregate care facilities much more parking is required than is proposed. He shares the concern about the viability of this size of facility even while he recognizes the need. The area is too congested with traffic. The project would not benefit the City in that location with the size and number of parties involved. Commissioner Carson: Safety is an important consideration and anyone suffering from any mental confusion like Alzheimer's would not be safe with the amount of traffic. Commissioner Shipe: Uncomfortable about the traffic and will support the denial. The move to recommend Council denial of PCC-88-41 was carried unanimously. A recess was called from 8:05 to 8:12 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-M-M - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE A 4-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND ANITA STREET FROM A C-37 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO A I-L {LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) ZONE - HEDENKAMP AND ASSOCIATES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-88-43M REQUEST FOR A MASTER CUP FOR SELECTED COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE I-L ZONE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND ANITA STREET Assistant Planner Schilling said that the site plan proposes the development of two triangular-shaped parcels 17.60 acres) located on either side of Broadway between Anita Street and Main Street. The present zoning is C-37; however, the land use designation within the Montgomery Specific Plan is I-L for the eastern lot and commercial for the opposite parcel. The applicant requests that the eastern parcel be rezoned to conform with the Montgomery Specific Plan. In addition, the applicant requests approval of a Master Conditional Use Permit for some selected commercial uses which would complement the light industrial activities. Using the overhead projector, Planner Schilling displayed the elevations and the layout of the total development indicating the proposed project consists of demolition of existing structures and subsequent construction of commercial/industrial buildings totaling 100,208 square feet. The western parcel commercial buildings would cover approximately 52,626 square feet and the eastern parcel's two buildings would total 57,582 square feet. The eastern parcel would be served by a parking lot with 226 spaces. The design for both the eastern and western parcels are complementary. The Master CUP would permit the uses shown in condition A of the staff report which were developed between staff and the applicant and contain only those uses categorized in the I-L Zone as retail MINUTES -8- May ll, 1988 distribution centers, manufacturers' outlets or supporting uses. Some of the conditions of approval are designed to buffer the site uses from adjacent mobile home parks. Others are more standard in nature to ensure that signs, alterations and changes are reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC). Ms. Schilling pointed out a correction in the staff report; namely, that the findings for approval of the rezone are listed in Section E of the staff report and findings for approval of the rezone are listed in Section F. These findings need to be referenced in the appropriate action. Staff recommends approval of the rezone request as it brings the eastern parcel into conformance with the specific plan; however, staff also recommends that the P (precise plan) designator be added so that any future proposed alterations or additions would be reviewed by the DRC. In reply to questions by the Commission, staff indicated that: (1) in addition to a landscape buffer between the eastern unit and the mobile home park, a 6-foot, masonry zone wall was required; and (2) the parking standards referred to in Section G are not those of the County but those of the City of Chula Vista. For the eastern parcel, parking standards for Title 19 would be in effect; for the western parcel, the County parking standards since no change is proposed for the western parcel. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, San Diego, 92101, the architect, stated that the applicant and the Civil Engineer on the project were both present to answer any needed questions. Mr. Hedenkamp said that a very high-quality limited industrial and commercial project was planned with larger size commercial spaces for larger uses. The bay depth on the buildings will range from 64 feet to 100 feet. No neighborhood commercial type uses are included. In addition to the quality design and landscaping, approval of the conditional use permit and the rezone will bring the zoning map into conformance, remove existing eyesores in the neighborhood~ upgrade the streets both physically and visually by improving Silva Street to a full street width as well as improving Anita Street and along Broadway. A landscape median also will be provided along Broadway and the utilities in the neighborhood be brought up to par. Mr. Hedenkamp stated that the applicant concurs with all of the staff comments and would like to go on record on two items. They would like to work with Mr. Leutch (one of the mobilehome residents who expressed concern about access to his property and the zoning wall and buffering between the two projects) so a solution can be arrived at prior to the DRC meeting early in June. Regarding condition J, they want to provide fire protection that is adequate and necessary but not necessarily l0 hydrants and a fire sprinkler system. They have met with the Fire Marshal and discussed alternative ideas. Mr. Hedenkamp requested, therefore, that condition J be changed. In reply to Commissioner Shipe's inquiry regarding the property owner's concern about ingress/egress, Mr. Hedenkamp replied that with the widening and improvements of Anita Street, a portion of Mr. Leutch's property protrudes into Anita Street because he is not dedicating additional land and the right-of-way is not improved. It is believed that Mr. Leutch is now satisfied with the explanation and transition required by the Traffic Department. ~- MINUTES -9- May ll, 1988 Andy Lambert, 2204 Garnet Avenue, AI02, San Diego, 92109, Civil Engineer, said he was available for questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-62M. MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) based on the findings in Section E to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone currently in effect over the 4-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita Street from C-37 (heavy commercial) to I-L-P (limited industrial). MSUC (Cannon/Grasser) based on the findings contained in Section F of the staff report to approve the request, PCC-88-43M, to approve select commercial uses within the subject I-L-P zone subject to conditions A through L with the deletion of condition J to delete the 10 private fire hydrants and leave it subject to the review of the City Fire Marshal. Commissioner Cannon commented that the design for that shape of property is excellent and quite unusual. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCS-88-7: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LADERA VILLAS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-7, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PASEO ENTRADA AND PASEO RANCHERO EXTENDED (b) P-88-6 - CONSIDERATION OF PRECISE PLAN FOR LADERA VILLAS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-7 Principal Planner Lee indicated that the 10-acre site is located north of Telegraph Canyon at the terminus of Paseo Entrada and is immediately adjacent to the future Paseo Ranchero Road. It is part of the E1 Rancho del Rey (ERDR) Specific Plan and is designated at 6-8 du/ac. The adjacent land uses include a 261-unit subdivision to the west, schools to the north and east and open space to the south. The proposal is to create 46 single-family and one open space lot. Of these lots, 31 will be 5,000 square feet or less; 5 will be between 6,000 to 7,000 square feet; and only 6 lots will be above the traditional 7,000 square foot size. Staff has significant concerns about: 1. The subdivision will be mainly small lots without any open space amenities. 2. The 3-4 foot grade difference between a number of the lots would necessitate a retaining wall. Homeowners typically place a 5-6 foot fence on top of that resulting in as much as a 10-foot difference between the top of the fence and the adjacent ground level. This could create a very tunnel-like effect with these narrow lots and the 5-foot side yards. 3. The development standards submitted call for increased lot coverage and floor area ratio IFAR) requirements as well as decreased lot size, width and side and rear yards. MINUTES -10- May ll, 1988 4. The development guidelines call for two-story houses on relatively small lots. 5. The applicant objects to physically installing Paseo Ranchero to connect to Telegraph Canyon Road. 6. The applicant has proposed grading into established open space area. Staff believes the small product has a place but only if it is a part of a total recreation and open space package providing compensating amenities which are lacking in this project. Staff made a commitment to City Council during discussion of the subdivision located further to the north that any additional development in the area would be required to connect to Telegraph Canyon Road rather than impose on the existing subdivision street system immediately to the west. Neighbors have indicated an objection to the extension of Paseo Entrada and the resulting road-connection through to the east. The applicant is not desirous of building Paseo Ranchero at this point, therefore he would want to take his access to the west. Staff is of the opinion that should this area develop with single-family homes, it may be advisable to complete the connection. Should this area develop in a higher density {as is proposed in the ERDR Specific Plan), staff would review to determine if the area should be more isolated with the access limited to the east. Staff is not in favor of taking the traffic back through the residential subdivision. It is the position of the residents that this is a rather straight street and if the road is carried through and the connection is made there is a probability of higher speed traffic through the area. Staff is of the opinion that with a single-family development a connection would provide an opportunity for residents at the eastern end to proceed to Paseo Ranchero and create a split in the amount of traffic. Staff is recommending denial of this project based on the following: 1. Design of the project fails to promote order and aesthetic spatial relationships or to protect the topographic character of the area. 2. This subdivision design was set to fit lot sizes and no units were established to fit the land. 3. The graded slopes intrude into designated open space. 4. The subject property is proposed as single-family homes at a density inconsistent with the area and topography as set forth in the Specific Plan. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Don Lindberg, 4201 Bonita Road, Bonita, 92002, representing Ladera Villas Development, stated that Mr. Max Stewart as well as some of the neighbors would also be speaking. Mr. Lindberg declared that the developer disagrees with staff recommendation and that the location is ideally suited for MINUTES -11- MaN 11, 1988 single-family development contrary to that allowable under the Specific Plan of some 80 condominiums or a cluster-housing pro9ram. Even though the lots are smaller, they will not create an incompatible project with the surrounding development. Neither will these small lots cause irreversible and detrimental changes in the land form. Mr. Lindberg pointed out that the original planned location of Paseo Ranchero was not located on the subdivision property; would not have been a part of the development of the project and would have permitted several additional lots to be developed. The slope that is created is primarily the result of that relocation also. The neighbors' objections to the connection between Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero should be considered by both staff and the developer. No objections have been advanced by the neighbors to the single-family development even though small lots are involved. A comparison with previous maps would not indicate a significant difference in land modification. The previous project had involved a considerable amount of fill, but the present project involves a movement of existing earth within the project boundaries. A cluster or condominium program of high density would increase the traffic problem; and with the rejection by staff of the private street system traditional in cluster housing developments, the use of public streets required this type of development and the configuration of the tentative map of the single-family project. Mr. Lindberg commented that the developer wishes to work with staff and return to the Commission with a program satisfactory not only to the interests of the total community but especially to that of the surrounding neighbors. He indicated his willingness to answer questions and asked for rebuttal time at the end of the presentations. Max H. Stewart, 1077 Eolus, Encinitas, 92024, applicant, said he took exception to some of the staff objections; pointed out that he had developed this product in other locations including Encinitas where he had been asked by the City to return and develop another site for the City with the same product type. Mr. Stewart said he had offered to go through a design review to accommodate any concerns regarding the scope and bulk and would be more than willing to have that as a condition of approval. He pointed out that the road had been realigned from its original position and within the draw and placed on the concave side of the slope. This placement had caused the massive grading and disturbance of the view corridor on Telegraph Canyon Road. To moderate this condition, they had met with owners of Casa del Rey and have attempted to work out a development not involving a cluster or high-density multi-family but of a single-family detached product. Mr. Stewart questioned the logic that the City was better served having a higher density, multi-family attached product than 46 single-family detached homes and dealing with the bulk and scale involved. Commissioner Cannon asked staff to clarify the speakers' statements that they were entitled to build 80 units on the property as a cluster development or condominiums. Principal Planner Lee replied that a 65-unit subdivision had been proposed at one time. He agreed that realignment of the road further to the west was disruptive to the property and had an effect on what can realistically be placed thereon. Mr. Lee noted that the density on the property had been established at 6-8 du/ac; and while single-family homes MINUTES -12- May ll, 1988 might be preferable in terms of compatibility with the surrounding area, 46 small lots might not be the proper development. Discussion ensued about whether a proposed development on this property had been considered by the Commission previously. Commissioner Tugenber9 referenced the ERDR outparcel consideration by the Planning Commission noting that he had moved for a density of 0-2 du/ac at that time although the 6-8 du/ac density was subsequently passed. Charles Pearson, 8753 Broadway, La Mesa, 92041, the project engineer, said there had been a 26-1ot tentative map approved in 1980 when the road was in its original alignment. He had reviewed what would happen to that particular development if the road had been pushed over to its present proposed location with that design and noted that six 7,000 square-foot lots had been eliminated. G. R. LaLande, 3445 LeBow Drive #1233, San Diego, CA, 92122, one of the two owners, said that the 6-8 density had been acquired several years ago when a 120-unit condominium product was planned and an 80-unit product approved. He said that that knowing the Planning Department preferred a single-family development and had objected to the higher density at the time, he and his partner considered the 46 single-family development with this lower density would be suitable. He considered the product to be very viable and urged approval. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV, 92010, speaking on behalf of CROSSROADS, spoke against the project as being insensitive to the topography of the area, substandard in terms of lot size, and against all Chula Vista has been endeavoring to accomplish in the last 15 years. He compared the project to the 1972 Sports World project, only on a small scale. George Hartman, 1034 Paseo Entrada, CV, representing the residents to the west of the proposed development, spoke of their concern regarding the traffic flow and the possibility that an alternate thoroughfare to Telegraph Canyon Road might be developed through their subdivision. The residents would like to see Paseo Entrada tied off at its current terminus at the northwest corner of the property. Mr. Hartman noted that a single-family development in the area would be preferable, however, many issues need yet to be resolved and as a group they were not taking a position regarding the use of the land. Don Lindberg returned to the podium to say that the necessity to develop this project in an economic manner to achieve the number of lots requested had been well illustrated. The project could and would be a positive asset to the City as well as compatible with the neighbors. The development of Paseo Ranchero should be considered as part of the Eastern Interim Financing Program rather than requiring a small development to bear the cost. It was hoped that, in accordance with staff's alternate recommendation, the matter would be referred back to staff for further discussion and return with positive recommendations more satisfactory to the Commission. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg expressed strong disapproval of the tentative plan. MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to deny PCC-87-M and P-88-6. MINUTES -13- May ll, 1988 Commissioner Tugenberg moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the density of this particular 10-acre parcel be reduced to 0-2 du/ac and the dwelling units be confined to construction at the ridge line. There being no second, Commissioner Tugenberg said he would like to submit his motion as a comment and have it included in the minutes to the City Council. Commissioner Cannon said he did not care for this particular project, but another more compatible with the terrain might need a density higher that 0-2 du/ac. Commissioner Tugenberg inquired of staff the appropriateness of a recommendation to Council that "no more than xxx number of units be developed on these lO acres"? Principal Planner Lee replied that under the present zoning, it is designated on the Specific Plan for a specific range, and it was possible to go with the traditional zoning and assign any density thought appropriate. Staff is not convinced of the exact density appropriate to the property. A density of 6-8 appears inappropriate for the topography; 2-4 would certainly be compatible with the adjacent area. When the 6-8 density was applied, there was insufficient evidence applied to the topography of the area in relationship to the adjacent property to make a completely informed decision. Council established the 6-8 range and new facts would need to be brought forward to allow them to re-evaluate the property. Commissioner Cannon suggested Council view the property again with respect to the development of ridges versus hillsides and to the use of fill in the ERDR area. This would eliminate submittal of developments requiring a substantial amount of fill and provide guidance for the property owner. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-5 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 5.26, 19.04, 19.32, 19.36, 19.40 AND 19.58 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF DANCE PERMITS Associate Planner Bazzel said that Chapter 5.26 (Public Dances) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code now governs licensing requirements for dance floor permits within the City, including the Montgomery area. Section 5.26.100 requires that a business establishment qualify as a "bona fide eating place" in order to obtain a dance permit. The elimination of this requirement will provide consistency throughout the City (including Montgomery) and requires the submission of a permit request through the Police Department. Since the Police Department finds that there have been few difficulties experienced with establishments containing dance floors with no food services, staff is recommending that dance floor permits be allowed for cocktail lounges, nightclubs or bars, as well as restaurants, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. In addition, staff is recommending that the Zoning Administrator (Planning Director) be permitted to modify or waive any of the above conditions upon a determination that the condition is being satisfied by another acceptable MINUTES -14- May ll, 1988 means. Additional conditions may be applied, based on an analysis of the site, and any violation of conditions shall be grounds for revocation, upon written notice to the applicant. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearin9 was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) (6-0) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-88-68. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) (6-0) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A as modified on page 2, last sentence under Chapter 19.58.115D to read, "Any violation of the above regulations or other conditions attached to the permit shall be sufficient grounds for the City Council to suspend or revoke the dance floor license pursuant to 5.26.210. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commission that the May 18 Workshop would begin at 4:30 instead of 5:00 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Carson suggested that when several meetings are scheduled in the building, signs indicating the proper location be utilized to avoid confusion. Commissioner Fuller asked about the status of Broadway Equities and was informed that the applicant had requested a continuation because one of the representatives was out of town. Council verbally received new evidence relating to what the applicant offered to do and subsequently recommended the project be returned to the Montgomery Planning Committee, then the Planning Commission and return to Council in July. Staff has requested written clarification on the proposal from the applicant. The item is scheduled before the Montgomery Planning Committee in June, the Planning Commission on the following Wednesday and to Council on July 12, 1988. Chairman Carson noted that a letter had been received from Ladera Associates regarding the eastern territories. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting on May 18 in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 at 4:30 p.m. and to the Regular Business Meeting of May 25, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary WPC 5236P