Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1988/03/09 Tape No : 288 Side 1:193-835 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CNULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, March 9, 1988 Public Services Building ROLL CALL CO~MISSIONERS PRES£NT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Cannon, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONFRS £~CUS~P: Commissioner Casillas (attending Planning Commissioners' Institute) STAFF PR£SENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Associate Plan- er Griffin, Building & Housing Director Larsen 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 ~EMAPKS Chairman Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 24, 1988 as mailed. ORAL £OM~UNICATIONS 1. Fred Drew requested that the Planning Commission look into the ordinance governing the keeping of horses in the City because of complaints regarding those located next to the Woodlawn Park Church of God. The Chair asked Mr. Drew to submit a letter outlining the situation and problems involved. Mr. Prew assented. Commissioner Shipe submitted that he had a potential conflict of interest on Item ~, National Avenue Associates, and asked for a change in the Agenda order. The Commissioners having no objections, Chairman Carson stated that Item 3, PCZ-88-1, would be taken second; Item 4, Variance ZAV-88-20, taken third; and Item 2, PCM-88-16, National Avenue Associates, taken last. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 9, 1988 Commissioner Cannon said he would have to leave at 7:45 because of a family emergency. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-36M - CONSIDERATION OF A MAJOR USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO DISMANTLING YARD TO ALLOW LEASING TWO ACRES OF THE SITE TO STORE TRUCK TRAILERS AT 3513 AND 3517 MAIN STREET - STRICK LEASING Associate Planner Griffin stated that the item had been withdrawn at the applicant's request and that no action by the Commission was necessary. 2. PDBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-16 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS AND ACCESSORY USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY BROADWAY, FIFTH AVENUE, 'C' STREET, AND STATE ROUTE 54 - NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOCIATES This item was taken out of sequence - see page 6. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-I CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 3.19 ACRES FROM R-3-G-D, C-T AND C-T-D TO C-T-P AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND 'K' STREET - TRAVIS A. RENEAU This request to rezone 3.19 acres involves a 0.29 acre, R-3-G-D site which presently contains a single-family dwelling and is part of a larger parcel used for parking by South Bay Chevrolet employees. The remaining 2.9 acres includes a portion of the main South Bay Chevrolet complex, a pizza restaurant site and the parking area. All property involved is owned by the applicant. The 2.9 acre site has been included in the proposal to clean-up the C-T zoning pattern on the balance of the applicant's holding and the action would place all of the property within the C-T-P district. Any proposal for future development would be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. Staff recommend approval of the rezoning request. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Paul Manganelli, 9903-B Businesspark Avenue, San Diego, 92131, representing South Bay Chevrolet, stated his willingness to answer any questions. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC {Tugenberg/Shipe) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-49. MSUC {Tugenberg/Shipe) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 3.19 acres from R-3-G-D, C-T and C-T-D to C-T-P as shown on Exhibit A attached to the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 9, 1988 4. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-88-10 REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE FOR THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 1275 BANNER AVENUE - FRED DREW Associate Planner Griffin stated that the Commission had considered aspects of this case earlier regarding interpretation of Section 19.22.170 of the Code which requires that when more than 50 percent of the original authorized floor area is increased the existing dwelling must comply with current ordinance standards including enclosed parking. The Zoning Administrator recently approved the addition of a second dwelling unit on the property under the dwelling group provisions of the Code. The property is the only R-1 zoned lot in the area, the remainder being in Montgomery which will not be brought under City zoning standards until the latter part of the year. Since the new dwelling proposed on the property exceeds the 50 percent standard, Mr. Drew would be required to provide a new two-car garage for the existing dwelling as well as a new two-car garage for the additional dwelling. Mr. Drew is requesting a variance from this requirement; namely the two-car garage for the existing dwelling. When the Commission considered the interpretation of the Code at earlier meetings, several concerns had been raised and are discussed in detail in the staff report. A summation of these concerns includes: 1. Garage space for four cars seems excessive in comparison with the normal two-car garage requirement. The dwelling group provisions are actually designed to create two separate, single-family living units and associated yards, thus a more appropriate comparison would be with two single-family lots instead of one thereby making two two-car garages appropriate. 2. The existing dwelling was not originally required to have a garage. The provision is designed to require that in case of significant new construction, the existing dwelling be brought into conformance with present standards otherwise additional construction would not be allowable. 3. The applicant's property is the only one requiring enclosed parking at this time. This is true: however, la) the property is subject to City zoning standards because of its previous annexation to the City several years prior to the Montgomery annexation; (b) the rest of the neighborhood properties will be subject to these same standards when they come under City zoning standards; (c) several of the nearby properties already have garages so a garage would not be unique to the neighborhood. Staff considers the property large enough to accommodate a new dwelling and garage as well as one for the existing dwelling in a logical manner consistent with the R-1 standards. Staff cannot find a hardship favoring approval of the variance and recommends denial based on the findings outlined in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 9, 1988 Frederick Drew, 1275 Banner Avenue, Chula Vista, stated he found it difficult to understand how he could be held to a requirement which has not yet taken effect; there are other garages in the area, not because they are required but because the owners wanted them. He does not want, need, nor will he use any garages for parking. Regarding the fact that he has the only ~-1 property in the area, he noted that there seemed to be some confusion regarding whether he should be adhering to the existing standards of the Montgomery neighborhood or to those of the City of Chula Vista. He noted such standards did not cover all areas of Chula Vista such as Otay Panch or the Golf Course or other areas with large properties with many dwellings thereon. He likes the fact that there are laws to restrict overbuilding on some properties however considers that the original intent of the restrictions involved small properties "already overdeveloped with one house". He pointed out the amount of room on his property; said he wanted to provide accommodations for his hospitalized father and his son - the same intent as that provided in the "granny flats" ordinance. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Shipe stated that he would support the staff recommendation to deny the variance based on the fact that hardships, whether personal, family or financial, do not fit the criteria for the variance. Granting the variance would represent a special privilege for the applicant. Commissioner Cannon said he would support the "hardship" on this property in that there are a unique set of circumstances where a garage has not been required from the inception of construction and to build two separate garages is a unique hardship; Mr. Drew wanted to do something originally intended in the Commission's support of the "granny flat" principle (before Council espoused the "dwelling group" provisions) and to have to build a garage in what could be considered a "granny flat" situation does not make sense. He summarized saying the property is large, is unique to the area and, therefore, in and of itself has a particular hardship to construct an extra garage in the backyard. MS (Cannon/Fuller) to approve Variance ZAV-88-10. Commissioner Fuller stated concurrence saying there is reason to find an exception to the ordinance, not-so-much based on the hardship, but in looking at the area itself. She found the neighborhood, which was part of the County and has now been annexed, to be one which will create a good deal of confusion during the application of City zoning standards as it appears to be a "mish-mash" of residential areas. Deputy City Attorney Moore noted that in order to approve a variance, four findings are necessary and asked if the findings made by Commission Cannon were those in his previous discussion. Commissioner Cannon then presented the following proposed specific findings: Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 9, 1988 l) That a hardship peculiar to this piece of property exists in that from inception of construction, this property has never had a requirement for a garage while the ordinance was drafted to require the construction and bringing-up-to-standard of houses that essentially already had garages. The property is unique in that it is larger than any other parcel in the neighborhood, is the only R-1 parcel in the area which is under City zoning jurisdiction, is surrounded by property governed by County zoning, and that zoning ordinances peculiar to it are being enforced upon it. 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity since the closest R-1 zone is located in the Chula Vista area prior to annexation; such properties in the Chula Vista area would have the right to construct a "granny flat" in the backyard without the necessity of building another two-car garage. The requirement to have four garages is very unusual and from the finding standpoint, impossible to find such a set of circumstances within the City of Chula Vista. The applicant would not be receiving a special privilege over and above that which will be received by others in the neighborhood when they are brought under the zoning code of the City of Chula Vista. 3. Authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the public interest but would coincide with the original intent to facilitate the location of older family members on property owned and occupied by their children. Mr. Drew is attempting to provide residential care outside of a hospital situation for his father. 4. Authorization of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City as it is within the meaning of the R-1 zone to have group dwellings on a piece of property, and there is no requirement for a substantial increase in the number of garages particularly where garages were not required initially. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's inquiry about the number of garages required, Commission Cannon replied that it was his understanding that the applicant was required to build a two-car garage for the second unit, but the Commission was waiving the requirement for a two-car garage on the old unit by way of the variance. In response to another inquiry, Commissioner Cannon RESTATED THE MOTION. MSC (Cannon/Fuller) Shipe, no to approve Variance ZAV-88-10 based on the findings just listed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 9, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-$8-16 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS AND ACCESSORY USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY BROADWAY, FIFTH AVENUE, 'C' STREET AND STATE ROUTE 54 - NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOCIATES Commissioner Shipe stated that he had a potential conflict of interest with this item in that his wife's employer, Dr. Penner, has a substantial interest in the property. He then left the dais and the Chambers. Associate Planner Griffin noted that the Planning Commission had earlier authorized staff to prepare a report and recommendation on the applicant's proposal to allow new car dealerships and accessory uses on the described property currently in the I-L zone. He noted that the westerly half of the property is also within the Coastal Zone and covered by the Bayfront Specific Plan and is designated General Industrial. Neither of these specifically list new car dealerships as permitted by conditional use; however, considering the nature and charactership of new car dealerships in terms of space requirements and levels of activity, the use seems to be consistent with others allowed in the Light Industrial areas. Because these allowable uses require extensive areas for the display and storage of merchandise, are often low-volume businesses which do not create traffic and activity impacts conflicting with light-industrial operations, staff recommends the Commission render an interpretation that new car dealerships are consistent with the nature and character of other conditional uses allowed for in the I-L zone. This would take the form of an amendment to the Land Use Chart and recommendation that Council amend the Bayfront Specific Plan. Commissioner Tugenberg drew attention to an inconsistency in the wording contained on page 2, paragraph 3 of the staff report, "...that new car dealerships are consistent..." and the wording contained in paragraph A, line 5, of the Negative Declaration, which states, "...Automotive Sales..." and makes no reference to any accessory uses. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerald A. Alford, 2643 Fourth Ave., San Diego, 92103, representing National Avenue Associates, asked for a clarification of Commissioner Tugenberg's comment and pointed out that the sale of used cars was usually connected to a new car dealership. Discussion ensued about the need for consistency in the wording of both the report and Attachment A {Negative Declaration) to prevent future confusion as to whether or not used car sales could be used as a primary function. Suitable wording was suggested. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-39. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 9, 1988 MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to amend the Land Use Chart to allow new car dealerships by conditional use permit in the I-L zone. MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) to recommend that City Council adopt an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto but amended on page 1, Paragraph A, line 5, to read "...New Automotive Sales and Accessory Uses... " DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS The workshop on March 16, 1988 will cover Scenario IV of the General Plan Update; and will be a dinner meeting. (NOTE: The meeting will be held in Conference Room #1.) COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Carson said she would be late in arriving at the workshop meeting. Commissioner Grasser said she would be out of town for the meeting of March 23, 1988. Commissioner Cannon referenced statements made by the Council at the last joint workshop meeting, saying that, in his opinion, the Council was supportive of the Planning Commission with regard to minor projects but not with major projects such as EastLake, Rancho del Rey and Rancho del Sur (Sunbow) wherein the Council overruled the denials of the Planning Commission. He expressed concern over the likening of potential traffic control of large industrial parks to that exercised by Rohr with its private traffic control officers and staggered hours. The Commissioner expressly noted that Rohr was not located in the center of a residential community as was the E1 Rancho del Rey industrial park with its potential for an "absolutely abominable traffic situation." Concern was also expressed about the position of the Design Review Committee (DRC) regarding their purported inability to forcefully direct developers regarding when can be constructed. It was indicated that the DRC did not have enforcement power and he would like to see such power be given to them. In response to a question from Commissioner Fuller, Director Krempl indicated that Council had approved the Randolph's daycare home but had returned the Urgency Ordinance to staff for further consideration of traffic impacts. The ordinance will return through the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:48 p.m. to the Study Session on ~larch 16, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 4890P