Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1987/01/14 Tape No : 278 Side: 1 0-1315 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, January 14, 1987 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Green, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Shipe (with notification) Commissioner Grasser (with notification) STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, City Traffic Engineer Glass, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman pro Tempore Cannon and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REt4ARKS Chairman pro Tem Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Carson/Green) to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 3, 1986, as mailed. ORAL CO),iMUNICATIONS None. Chairman pro Tem Cannon. stated that several items might be taken out of order because of the potential conflicts of interest involving different Commissioners on different items. The first item to be considered by the Commission would be Item 2. 1. REPORT: VARIANCE ZAV-87-10 - REQUEST TO INCREASE FLOOR AREA RATIO AT 59 "K" STREET - JACK AND MARLA KUTA See page 3 Planning Commission -2- January 14, 1987 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CLUBHOUSE AT 88 "L" STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB (CONTINUED) Commissioner Green declared a potential conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers. Principal Planner Lee stated that a continuation had been requested to the meeting of February 25, 1987; however, with Mr. Green's conflict of interest there would be insufficient members to form a quorum, which would automatically continue the item to the next meeting {1/28/87). The Chairman tabled Item 2 until after the arrival of Commissioner Grasser so a quorum could be formed and the item continued to February. See page 4 Commissioner Green returned to the dais. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THEOKA VILLAGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-3, LOCATED AT 325-345 "K" STREET See page 4 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-4 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR BAYFRONT UNITS NO. 1-10, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-4, LOCATED BETWEEN THE I-5 FREEWAY, THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE OF SAN DIEGO BAY, 'G' STREET AND D' STREET EXTENDED - CHULA VISTA INVESTMENT COMPANY Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant had requested continuance to the meeting of January 28, 1987. MSUC (Green/Carson) 4-0, to continue the item to the Planning Commission Meeting of 1/28/87 at the applicant's request. Principal Planner Lee commented that Item 1 is a report in which testimony would be taken and on which at least two members of the Commission had indicated a potential conflict of interest; he asked if the Chairman wished to trail that item behind Items 5 and 6 awaiting the arrival of Chairman Grasser. Members of the audience volunteered the information that Ms. Grasser was out of town at a Realtor's convention. The Chairman then decided to proceed to Item 1 as he had a conflict on Item 3. He informed the audience that this item had been returned to the Commission by the Council for a recommendation (not a resolution) with regard to the FAR issue; that public testimony would be received although the item was not considered a public hearing. Planning Commission -3- January 14, 1987 1. REPORT - VARIANCE ZAV-87-10 - REQUEST TO INCREASE FLOOR AREA RATIO AT 59 'K' STREET - JACK AND MARLA KUTA Commissioners Green and Carson declared conflict of interest and left the dais and the Chambers at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Tugenberg said that while he agreed with Mr. Kuta that the garage would be more suitably located further back on the property, it was his opinion that findings of special circumstances could not be made and the garage size should be reduced the 1/2 of 1% and there would be no further problem. Commissioner Cannon stated he had originally voted against this item because of an inability to make the findings necessary to increase the FAR; however, reduction of an existing FAR presented a different aspect. He noted that the FAR Ordinance was established in the recent past months "basically to prevent certain monstrosities from being built upon pieces of property". He pointed out the property being considered falls into the gap created by the already-existing FAR when it was legally built and the present FAR. Ne questioned the need for reviewing a reduction of a FAR already existing on the property. Mr. Kuta had originally requested a variance to exceed the amount he had, now he was requesting permission to reduce it. Commissioner Cannon pointed out that "we are the ones who passed the law to put his house into violation; therefore, we are the ones who created the hardship." He noted that the issue of building on "0" lot lines is not the case before the Commission since there is an existing ordinance allowing construction within those rear yard setbacks; although he would agree that the subject of building on "0" lot lines should be considered in the future. The Commissioner stated he had no difficulty in finding "hardship"; that he felt substantial property rights entitles a man to build on his property basically the way he wants to within certain limitations. The standards are arbitrary and must be flexible for those people who have fallen outside these arbitrary standards. He did not consider the addition of 3 feet to the garage to be a substantial detriment to any of the neighbors beyond what the 20 x 20 foot garage would have been; nor could he see where the General Plan of the City was adversely affected in any manner. Commissioner Cannon summarized his statement by saying that he would have made a motion based on those findings. In response to Commissioner Tugenberg's comment that the issue was precedent- setting and would permit the next applicant to ask for 45.6 percent. Commissioner Cannon replied that was the reason for the variance procedures. 7:45 p.m. Commissioners Green and Carson returned to the Chambers and the dais. Planning Commission -4- January 14, 1987 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-87-5M - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CLUBHOUSE AT 88 "L" STREET - SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB /CONTINUED) Because of a lack of members to form a quorum, the item was automatically continued to the meeting of January 28, 1987. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THEOKA VILLAGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 87-3, LOCATED AT 325-345 "K" STREET As Commissioner Cannon had a potential conflict of interest there were not enough Commissioner to form a quorum and the item was automatically continued to the meeting of January 28, 1987. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-86-34M/P79-O13 CONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO CONDITIONALLY REVOKE MAJOR USE PERMITS FOR OPERATION OF AN AUTO DISMANTLING FIRM AT 3513 AND 3517 MAIN STREET - JOHN AND CAROL MARQUEZ Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner, stated that PCC-86-34M involves conditional revocation of major use permits granted to J&C Auto Wreckers for failure to fulfill the conditions of the use permit; i.e., failure to install and maintain landscaping within designated areas of the lot and the continued open storage of wrecked vehicles within 400 feet of Main Street outside of the area so designated in the use permit. After a slide presentation illustrating the referenced site and violations, she noted that staff is recommending revocation subject to the condition that the Zoning Administrator be authorized to grant four 90-day extensions if it can be shown that the owners have installed and continue to maintain the required landscaping and have kept the front lot clear of stored cars. After a 1-year period, if compliance has been maintained, the item would be returned to the Commission for reconsideration of the revocation. Ms. Schilling continued that the applicant had been contacted on numerous occasions since May, 1986 and since the revocation process started the front area has been maintained free of vehicles and a landscape plan was approved by the City Landscape Architect on January 8, 1987. The owners have indicated they wish to cooperate and will correct the violations including some unrelated zoning and grading ones at the rear portion of the property. Staff would like to continue with a conditional form of revocation to ensure close monitoring of the operations. The following Findings necessary to approve the conditional revocation were read into the minutes: "l. The Major Use Permit was granted on the condition that landscaping be installed and maintained in good condition within designated areas of the front portion of the property, and that no open storage or dismantling be allowed within 400 feet of Main Street. Planning Commission -5- January 14, 1987 "2. On-site inspections were made on more than six occasions over a period of 6 months by City personnel, and continuing violations of the conditions were noted. The unsightly storage of wrecked vehicles visible form Main Street and the lack of adequate landscaping constitutes a detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare." This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bob Holaday, 7443 Central Avenue, Lemon Grove, San Diego County Auto Recyclers Association, and Sheri S. Marquez, 3513 Main St., CV, spoke in support of the applicant. Mr. Holaday noted that the auto dismantling business is a dirty business under hard times lately with many new environmental regulations requiring removal and separate disposal of different parts of the car; that the property declined slowly to its present state through lack of prior enforcement and while Chula Vista's efforts to improve the area are admirable, the rapidity is difficult for the property owners. Ms. Marquez stated that the area in the front lot was not used for storage but for inventory purposes and that the firm now takes the cars inside the gate for that purpose; the landscaping was removed when SDG&E tore down the Butler building; and that wrecked cars have been abandoned in front of the site and the police have been so infomed. Carole Marquez, 3513 Main Street, CV, the applicant, claimed she has been working with staff since June 14th and has been trying to get her plans for the Butler building and also the landscaping approved; the City Landscape Architect refused approval of the original plans on the basis that they were not designed by a licensed landscape architect; and expressed her willingness to cooperate with the City. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Cannon/Green) 3-1, Carson no, not to revoke major use permits P-79-013 and PCC-86-34M and direct J and C Auto Wreckers to cease operations at 3515 and 3517 Main Street. A 5/7 vote being needed to overrule the recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the item was continued to the meeting of February 12, 1987. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-10 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW OFF-PREMISE REAL ESTATE OPEN-HOUSE SIGN FOR THE RESALE OF HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Assistant Planner Schilling commented that PCA 86-10 was initiated in response to a request by the South San Diego Bay Cities Board of Realtors to allow temporary off-premise open-house signs in residential areas. Presently, no such provisions exist in the zoning ordinances for either Chula Vista or the Montgomery Area and a survey of nine other jurisdictions indicates off-premise open-house signs are prohibited therein. Staff is of the opinion that these signs could be accommodated if sufficient enforcement provisions are designed into the ordinance to ensure against a proliferation of signs resulting in Planning Commission -6- January 14, 1987 visual clutter. The proposed ordinance specifies that (1) no more than one off-premise open-house sign be allowed for each residential open house; (2) no more than one sign be allowed on each parcel; (3) open-house signs be permitted on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours; (4) signs be restricted in size to 4 square feet and in location to (at least) 3 feet from the sidewalk or 10 feet from the curb or edge of pavement, whichever is greater, and not be located within the right-of-way; and (5) the copy display be limited to the words "open house", the address, the logo of the realtor and a directional arrow. The proposed amendment ordinance would expire in 1 year unless renewed by Council prior to that date. These regulations would prevent the problem of visual clutter wherein numerous signs accumulate for a single open house, are posted on a continuing basis, or congregate in certain locations with high visual exposure. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended approval of the ordinance with revisions that would remove the limit on the numbers of open-house signs allowed as well as the number of days signs are permitted. Staff has revised the proposed ordinance to include the realtor's logo and directional arrow on the sign copy and to remove the requirement that written permission must be secured from the property owners; however, in view of the potential problems which could be created by visual clutter and enforcement, staff recommends the balance of the ordinance be adopted as originally drafted. In response to Commissioner Cannon's question, Director Krempl replied that the proposed ordinance amendment had been submitted to the Montgomery Planning Committee as a matter of courtesy rather than legal obligation, and it would not require a 5/7 vote to overrule. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Patty Davis, 653 Redlands Place, Bonita, CA 92002, representing the South San Diego Bay Cities Board of Realtors, read a prepared presentation into the record after presenting copies to the Commission. This pointed out that open houses are an essential home-sale tool of great benefit to prospective homebuyers; (1) the restriction to only one off-premise open-house sign is unrealistic in light of the many cul-de-sacs and deadend streets in the area, and because open houses are frequently located far from main thoroughfares and require a number of turns to reach; (2) signs are expensive, therefore practicality dictates than no unnecessary signs be posted; (3) corner parcels might require as many as two signs for visibility - one for each corner and should be excepted from the single-sign per single-residence stipulation; {4) a 3-foot setback from all property lines would ensure visibility better than l0 feet from the curb; (5) language in the ordinance should be clarified to (a) indicate open-house signs may be utilized in conjunction with condominiums; {b) explicitly permit open-house directional signs to include the name and/or logo of the realtor for contact as well as enforcement purposes; and (c) that verbal permission of the property occupant be sufficient to grant emplacement of sign. Planning Commission -7- January 14, 1987 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Discussion among the Commissioners included approval of the way the Montgomery Planning Committee approached the solution; the need for the permissible number of signs to be decided and specified; how close to the curb placement of signs should be allowed; the need for signage to be limited to daylight hours; signs should be displayed close to the weekend and not all week; abuse by private parties (non-realtors) in displaying sale signs continuously for months at a time; the difficulty in reaching homes without the use of several signs; the alternate suggestion that vocal directions and maps could be utilized to find open homes; possible proliferation of signs where numerous homes are for sale; people look for signs in places more obvious than 10 feet back from the street; single-family homes can be detached or attached, in fact, condominiums can be considered single-family in that sense; corner lots need more than one sign; an important part of the open-house for realtors take place during the week rather than the weekend. Director Krempl suggested the Commission propose a motion on the items they have established agreement on so far. MSUC (Green/Carson) to follow the recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee and to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment as outlined in Exhibit A and B in the staff report and made a part hereto subject to the following revisions; ordinance to expire one year after the date of adoption unless legislation to renew the ordinances are approved by City Council prior to that date. 1. Corner lots should be allowed to have one sign per frontage, or two signs total per corner lot. 2. Size limitations and restrictions on the location of signs from the curb should be deleted. 3. Sign copy should include the company logo and a directional arrow 4. Placement of signs should not be contingent on securing written permission from the property owner. 5. The sunset clause should be deleted. MSUC (Tugenberg/Green) to limit the number of signs to five signs within a 1-mile radius. MSC (Cannon/Tugenberg), 3-1, Carson : no, that signs should be allowed throughout days of the week. This motion did not carry and therefore reverted to Staff's original recommendation that off-premise open-house signs shall only be displayed on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours. Planning Commission -8- January 14, 1987 The motion was made by Commissioner Carson and died for lack of a second that off-premise open-house signs shall only be displayed on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-3 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REPEAL CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SECTION 19.12.110 WHICH REQUIRE A CITY COUNCIL OVERRIDE OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL TO FIRST BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Principal Planner Lee noted that the return of items to the Commission which had been overruled by Council for further comments or recommendations has proven to be cumbersome and unnecessary; therefore, Council directed that section of the Code be repealed. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed that the return of an overruled item only delayed the applicant further and that such return was unnecessary and time-consuming. MSUC (Carson/Tugenberg) 4-0, to recommend that Council amend Section 19.12.110 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A attached to the staff report. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Krempl asked if the Commission would be in favor of a Saturday morning workshop (with a continental breakfast) on January 31, 1987, from 9:00 to ll:O0, on the General Plan Amendments with maps, exhibits, PRC's economic analysis of the City and informal input from the Commission. With no consensus of opinion expressed, the Secretary was directed to poll the Commission later in the week as to a favored time and date. COMMISSION COM~)ENTS Commissioner Tugenberg stated that Baylor AVenue, which is in the Chaparral/ McMillin Development, is now open to and through College Estates. The traffic from College Estates and from Baylor intersects with East "H" Street and the through traffic is coming at high speeds making the crossing extremely dangerous. Director Krempl replied that the information would be passed on to the Traffic Engineer and the Safety Commission for further consideration. Commissioner Cannon reported on the traffic situation at the Federal Credit Union in Bonita saying, "All our efforts have resulted in a sign at the North Island Federal Credit Union in the parking lot that says - City Ordinances say don't park in the bike lane." Planning Commission -9- January 14, 1987 ADJOURNMENT AT 8:52 p.m to the Regular Business Meeting of January 28, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Ruth M. Smith, Secretary Planning Commission WPC 3583P