Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/04/08 Tape No.: 278 Side 2: 800-1,849 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CNULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, April 8, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Fuller, Green, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Shipe - with notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Associate Planner Griffin THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman pro tempore Carson and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman pro tempore Carson reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC IGrasser/Green) to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1987, as mailed. OP~L COMMUNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-16 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION DISAPPROVING A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR THE SOUTNWEST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND FLOWER - APPEL DEVELOPMENT Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project is for a 1.38 acre commercial center at Broadway and Flower Street in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-T) zone. The Municipal Code requires consideration of the surrounding area to determine site planning, access and internal circulation. The design proposes a single structure extending the entire length of the site on Planning Commission -2- April 8, 1987 Broadway. This presents a conflict with the Municipal Code since it would prevent vehicular access to Broadway by the 2.55 acre property in the rear. Future commercial development of the rear property site would necessitate the use of Flower Street and/or Jefferson Avenue, residential streets not designed to accommodate commercial traffic. For those reasons the Zoning Administrator denied the site plan. The applicant appealed the decision on the basis that the adjoining area is inadequate for commercial development and therefore will not require access from Broadway. The applicant wishes to develop a residential development on the rear parcel and has requested a General Plan Amendment and a rezone of the site from C-T to High Density Residential (R-3). Consideration of that item by the Planning Commission is scheduled for June 24. Staff requests that the Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Green asked if the appeal were granted, would the item proceed to Council. Principal Planner Lee replied that Council would be sent an information memo and has the option to call the item forward if desired. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's query regarding whether or not an off-ramp was planned for Broadway at the 1-54 freeway (which would affect the volume of southbound traffic in front of the site), Commissioner Cannon replied that he had been infomed that there will be an off-ramp at Broadway and 1-54 and none at Highlands Avenue. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Charles Gill, 600 "B" Street, Suite 2200, San Diego, representing Appel Development, noted that the issue is a legal planning policy issue not directly related to the architecture of the building and involves the siting of this type of structure at this location. He listed three reasons for upholding the appeal, namely: 1. The Municipal Code is being broadly interpreted and not applied appropriately. 2. The concerns raised by the Planning Department are Subdivision Map Act issues - access concerns and development of the lot. The development already has an approved tentative parcel map as an individual, single lot from Broadway to Jefferson as of November, 1985 and there was no condition requiring access to the rear portion through the lot on Broadway. 3. It is bad planning to use a legitimate C-T property, and defeats the purpose of the C-T zone (direct access to a thoroughfare) to provide access to the lot in the rear since it will destroy the use of the front lot for C-T purposes. Mr. Gill noted that staff and the Planning Commission had supported the earlier (1985) proposal for multi-family development on the rear lot based on the CUP process which allowed, at that time, multi-family developments in the C-T zone with a 200-foot setback from the street. Council denied the request Planning Commission -3- April 8, 1987 and expressed concern about the use of the CUP process to allow residential in a commercial zone. Subsequently, the Municipal Code was amended to evaluate commercial property for residential purposes under the context of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning process rather than conditional use process. Mr. Gill explained that the proposal submitted in July, 1985 was for residential development on the rear lot because it was considered inappropriate for C-T on the basis of its relationship to the existing school and residential area and the lack of either visible or direct access to Broadway. No development project was proposed for the front lot. When Appel Development filed the General Plan Amendment and rezone request in December, 1986, it was with the understanding that the tentative parcel map would allow commercial in the front lot. A site plan was submitted because it is a requirement of the C-T zone. 1. The site plan section of the Municipal Code is limited to site-specific issues and the established character of the neighborhood. It is inappropriate to require access to an adjoining lot through the site plan mechanism since that is the purpose of the precise plan. If the intent had been for the site plan to require consideration of existing and proposed development, there would have been the same type of language as the precise plan, but there was not. 2. The second issue relates to the Subdivision Ordinance which provides a mechanism for denial if the design is inappropriate for the neighborhood or inconsistent with the General Plan or Specific Plan. The subdivision map submitted, however, was not denied either for inconsistency with the zone by creating a thoroughfare lot that does not front on a thoroughfare, nor was access across the front lot a requirement. 3. The economic analysis indicates that the rear portion of the lot is not appropriate for commercial development. Replying to Commissioner Tugenberg's inquir~, Mr. Gill said that finding users for this site has been unsuccessful. The neighboring mobile home park owner was not interested in developing the two lots as an integrated unit with the mobile home park. He then introduced Ron Barefield, Project Manager. Ron Barefield, 2254 San Diego Avenue, San Diego 92110, representing Appel Development, said they have been marketing the property since September, 1986 without success; a four-acre parcel is not large commercially; a hotel or motel is considered inappropriate; and the market analysis reveals that tile absorption rate on just the front lot would take about 4 years. He displayed a rendering of the type of center they propose for the front lot, a single-story, Mediterranean style. In reply to further questions by the Commission, staff and Mr. Barefield replied that the tentative map had been approved by the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works, when the Zoning Ordinance permitted residential development in the C-T zone by CUP, with final action taken by the Planning Commission -4- April 8, 1987 Commission on the CUP in September, 1985 and the tentative map in November, 1985; in the meantime, however, Council called the item up on appeal and denied the CUP in December, 1985 by a vote of 3-2; Appel purchased the property afterwards. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Lee said the decision of the Council to call the matter forward and not approve the CUP placed the staff in an awkward position; that normally, under those circumstances, the applicant would not go forward with the tentative map after Council's action, however, in this instance the applicant is attempting to record the map and sell off the property in the rear. He maintained the site plan as submitted should not be approved since the Council has not made a final decision about the land use of the property. Deputy City Attorney Moore stated that her office regards the applicant's interpretation of the ordinance as being rather narrow while the Planning Department is a broader interpretation wherein the ordinance states that "all factors shall be considered" which indicates an intent to look to the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Green said he considered the fact that a tentative map was secured at some point did not alter the fact that it was bad planning to deal with just part of the parcel; that he would prefer regarding the whole property as one unit. MS (Green/Tugenberg) to continue the item to the time of consideration of the General Plan Amendment request affecting the whole property. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that he considered that the property was ideally suited for a residential neighborhood and had been approved 6-0 by the Commission; that Council had been influenced by the possibility of a "mile-of-cars" for Chula Vista; the property in relationship to the other C-T zones facing Broadway is much too deep; that the property is best considered as a commercial zone facing Broadway and a residential zone facing Feaster School. Commissioner Cannon agreed but expressed doubt over the necessity to continue the item until June saying it would be best to have Council face the decision of leaving a commercial lot facing on a back street; he was unable to visualize a large shopping center in a "U" shape or any other shape at this location; that the zoning area was narrow except at this lot; and he would vote against the motion. Commissioner Tugenberg then withdrew his second. MSUC (Tugenberg/Cannon) to find this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-44. MS {Tugenberg/Cannon) to approve the appeal and deny the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Planning Commission -5- April 8, 1987 Commissioner Cannon said the staff's report is correct in general but the Commission had been put into an untenable position; he could see delaying the decision until the General Plan Amendment was considered but was of the opinion that this item should be taken care of now; and if Council objects, the developer could have the benefit of further direction by the Council. Commissioner Green said it was his opinion that the item would return to the Commission anyway because Council is receiving it prematurely. Commissioner Carson noted that the vote would be an indication to Council of the Commission's concerns in this matter. Commissioner Grasser said she would vote against the motion because she considered it bad planning to make this decision at this point and she would like to wait for the item to come before the Commission as part of the General Plan Amendment. The motion to approve the appeal failed by the following vote: Yes: Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg, Cannon No: Commissioners Grasser, Carson and Green The motion will go forward as a denial of the appeal. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-35M - REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD ON LEASED PROPERTY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 1450 JAYKEN WAY JOHN GARDNER AND WILLIAM GRETLER The applicant has requested the hearing be continued to the meeting of April 22, 1987 to allow time to resolve outstanding planning and engineering issues associated with the project. Staff is in concurrence with continuance of the hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-21M - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW THE REOCCUPATION OF A NONCONFORMING HOUSE AND A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR AN AUTO SALES OFFICE AT 606 CRESTED BUTTE - CARLOS LAVENANT Principal Planner Lee noted that the applicant is requesting a variance from nonconforming use regulations to reside within an existing house while operating a used car lot on the eastern portion of 606 Crested Butte. The house has been vacant 3 years, is in significant disrepair; and a compliance survey will be required to ensure that necessary repairs have been made and the building is habitable. Findings can be made for approval of reoccupation of the residence, even though the 12~month time limit for re-establishment of a legal nonconforming use has been exceeded, since the house is adjacent to a Planning Commission -6- April 8, 1987 single-family residential neighborhood and would serve as a buffer between the adjoining commercial and residential uses. The General-Commercial (C-36) zoning prohibits single-family residential uses but would permit the operation of a used car lot. The applicant is also requesting encroachment into the rear yard setback to accommodate placement of the sales office. Staff believes this can be permitted because the shallow depth of the lot makes placement of the office difficult and adequate circulation would occur without any conflict with uses on adjacent properties. This item was originally intended for review by the Zoning Administrator, but after receipt of objections by 30 residents, the item was rescheduled for Planning Commission consideration. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended approval of the variance request on April l, 1987. Staff has also recommended approval subject to five conditions. Staff does not consider this a use-variance since the dwelling is already in existence and not "to be constructed". Deputy City Attorney Moore stated that the applicant is asking for a variance from the time-period allowed for abandonment of the property. The ordinance says the property may remain unoccupied for 12 months. This property has been abandoned for 3 years. The time period for the legal nonconforming use has expired. There is nothing to grant a variance from. Commissioner Cannon commented that the Commission must look to the City Attorney for interpretation of legalities and expressed concern that staff was not. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's inquiry if the Montgomery Planning Committee had received the same legal interpretation just given to the Commission, Principal Planner Lee indicated that legal interpretation had not been available for the Montgomery meeting. Commissioner Fuller expressed a wish to know the opinions of the neighbors; noted that the area is quite degraded$ a car lot did not appear to be much of an upgrade; and said she would vote against it. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dale Collier, 1038 Broadway, 92011, a veterinarian residing to the north of the project, said that in his opinion the neighbors did not really want a car lot; however, they preferred a car lot with a residential dwelling acting as a buffer to demolishing the house and use of the entire lot for cars. The property has been empty while in probate for the last 3 years, utilized by undesirables, and the situation is bad. He pointed out an error on the drawing representing a solid wall to the east, saying that the wall extends only to behind the house and varies in height from 4 feet to 5-1/2 feet on his side of the property line. Motorcyclists and pedestrians use the opening to avoid the police. He requested that a solid brick wall be stipulated if the project is approved. Dr. Collier said he was not opposed to occupation of the house because it would be better than the present situation; however, he was not convinced of the real intent of the owner and feared a situation might develop after the car lot is in place, if the owner decides it too expensive to fix up the house. Planning Commission -7- April 8, 1987 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's question as to the degree the house would be rehabilitated, Principal Planner Lee stated that is why a compliance survey is stipulated; and the building would be brought up to Code, painted, landscaped, a new garage and driveway constructed. MSUC (Cannon/Tugenberg) {6-0) to deny the request. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT AT 7:58 p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of April 15, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3787P