Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/04/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 25, 1979 A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Smith, Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Williams and Stevenson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, City Engineer Lippitt, Director of Building and Housing Grady and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. ORAL CO~IMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Smith requested that agenda item No. 3 be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. 1. Annual report of Design Review Committee A written report as required by ordinance was submitted for Planning Commission review. 2. Consideration of request for extension of time for tentative subdivision map for Hudson ValleS Estates The tentative subdivision map for Hudson Valley Estates was approved on November 22, 1977 and is due to expire on May 22, 1979. A two year extension has been requested by the developer and is recommended for approval. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The two items on the consent calendar be approved. 3. Consideration of request for vacation of Madison Avenue from "H" Street to 290 feet south City Engineer Lippitt reported that the owner has requested vacation of this portion of Madison in order to incorporate the area into the parking lot of the adjoining property; access to "H" Street would be retained fr~m the parking lot. Chairman Smith advised that the ownership records which he checked indicate a separate owner for each of the three adjacent parcels; access to "H" Street should be assured to each owner. -2- April 25, 1979 Harriet Stone advised that she is representing the owners of all parcels and it is hoped the three parcels can be integrated into one plan. Chairman Smith expressed the opinion the Planning Commission should see an integrated plan or agreement for access before taking any action on the request to vacate the street. With no dissent from the Commission he ruled that this request be laid over to the meeting of May 9. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of precise plan PCM-79-22 for development of 0.88 acre parcel in the 1800 block of Nirvana in Otay Industrial Park - Rafael Ficachi and Oscar D. Cruz Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that the proposed development on a 38,500 sq. ft. vacant property in the Otay Industrial Park includes a 13,000 square foot building, which is not exempt from Planning Commission and Council review under the recently adopted precise plan guidelines. Mr. Lee reviewed the four conditions, relating to landscaping, fencing, grading and parking, which were recommended for approval of the plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Errol Bruce of Valle Verde Construction, contractors for the project, expressed their hope of making this an attractive project that will be a trend setter for the industrial park. He concurred with the conditions recommended by staff. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) The Commission finds that the project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-52. MSUC (G. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan for develop- ment at 1887 Nirvana Avenue, subject to the four conditions listed in the report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for revision of precise plan to permit erection of a freestandin9 sign at 410 "H" Street - First Nationa' Bank of San Diego CountS Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that the applicant is considering revisions to their existing sign program and have asked that this request be continued to the meeting of May 23rd in order that they may submit a new program. MSUC (R. Johnson-Williams) The public hearing to consider the request for a freestanding sign at 410 "H" Street be continued to May 23, 1979. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ReQuest for revision of grading plan approved under precisn plan for 152 unit condominium project at 500-630 Telegraph Can,yon Road - Jlen, Inc. Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reviewed the history of this development which was first approved as a 179 unit apartment complex and later reduced to 152 units -3- April 25, 1979 with a subdivision map filed to convert the project to condominiums. At a previous hearing concern was expressed by adjacent residents that the project would block the views which they presently enjoy. The residents were assured by the proponent that the buildings would be well below the pad level of the adjacent lots and would not obstruct their views. The site was graded and verification received from the applicant's engineer that it was done according to the approved plan. After construction of the buildings had been started, telephone calls were received from residents stating that the buildings were projecting higher than indicated at the hearing. The Engineering Department was contacted a short time later by the applicant's engineer who indicated that the property had not been graded in accordance with the plans. The developer then submitted an as-built plan reflecting the changes in pad elevations, and including a proposal to construct retaining walls to compensate for some of the grading changes. The staff has authorized completion of the units located east of Oleander, but it was concluded that the area lying west of Oleander contained too much change in elevation of some of the buildings to be approved by staff. Building pad heights were increased as much as 23 feet and changes in grading occurred which required the construction of numerous retaining walls. In addition, some of the buildings were mislocated horizontally, one by as much as 90 feet, and level areas adjacent to building entrances were substantially reduced. Mr. Lee reviewed the six conditions recommended for approval of the revised plan, which include removal of the upper two units from each of three buildings located to the east of the cul-de-sac drive to preserve views and reduce impact on the adjoining single family area, construction of retaining walls, and installation of landscaping to prevent erosion of the banks. Mr. Lee showed a series of slides taken from the lots adjacent to the south side of the project and discussed the most critical changes in building elevations and location. He also passed to the Commission a number of photographs taken by the developer depicting the elevation of the buildings as they relate to adjacent pad levels. Chairman Smith suggested that the line of sight studies which the report indicates will be required should be available to the Commission prior to their decision on approval of the revised plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. J. B. Leach, 531Manzanita Street, felt that in addition to blocking the view of the single family residents, the construction of the apartments also results in loss of privacy, since residents of the apartments may look into the bedrooms of the single family homes. Cam Malone, 535 Manzanita Street, recited his early protests to the developer and to the Engineering Department. As his home is located behind the building nearest to the property line, he contended their privacy has been hurt and they have suffered tangible losses in the value of their property. -4- April 25, 1979 William R. Smith, 545 Manzanita, reported that when he purchased his home a year ago he was assured that the new development would be well below the level of his property and that he would have an unobstructed view of the ocean. He felt the height of the buildings should be reduced, not only for the three under discussion, but others further to the west as well. Allen Andrews, 541Manzanita Street, contended that any buildings that were not constructed in accordance with an approved plan should have to be removed. Donald Anderson, 555 Manzanita, advised that his house is directly behind the easterly building of the three under discussion and his view is completely blocked except for one small gap between rooftops. Joseph Lathers, contractor and builder, reviewed the history of development attempts for this property over the past ten years. He acquired the property after a plan had been approved for Saratoga Gardens. He reviewed the problems encountered in trying to produce a workable project on a difficult site. He expressed accord with all of the recommendations of the staff with the exception of the requirement to remove the two upper units of three buildings and redesign the roof, which he contended would result in an extreme financial hardship. He avowed that the change in the grading was for the purpose of providing drainage away from all units into the streets in order to prevent erosion and other problems attributed from runoff water which in his opinion would have resulted if the approved plans had been followed. He concurred that the elevation of the three buildings does vary from the approved grading plan. Cam Malone, J. B. Leach and William Smith spoke again in rebuttal to remarks made by Mr. Lathers. In attempting to determine at what point in the development it became apparent that the grading was not in conformance to the plan, the Commission asked for testimony from the developer's engineer. Emory Giblin, Cordova Engineering, La Mesa, advised that he was not asked by Mr. Lathers to stake the site but when he became aware of the problem that the grade was not in accordance with the plan, he immediately contacted the city. He reported that the discrepancy in the grading resulted from their attempts to drain the water away from the various building sites. He asserted that since there were many buildings in the project he could not say exactly at what stage of construction the buildings under discussion were in. The Commission discussed at some length with the City Engineer the inspection policy of the city and whether work had been stopped when the errors were discovered. Mr. Lippitt advised that new policies have been adopted that would preclude discrepancies of the nature encountered in this development. Mr. Lathers reported that he had failed to address one item of concern. The staff had requested a wrought iron fence along the entrance walk at the front of the buildings nearest Telegraph Canyon Road. He requested permission to erect a slumpstone and wood slat fence rather than the wrought iron. He pointed out that the walls along Telegraph Canyon Road are of slumpstone and wood and he felt that material would go better with the apartment buildings than the wrought iron fence. -5- April 25, 1979 As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Lee again reviewed the elevations of the pads of the single family homes and the site of the various building locations in the new development. Commissioner G. Johnson reported that she visited some of the homes that are affected by this development, and from the living room window of one of the homes the roof of one of the new buildings was about all that could be seen. Commissioner G. Johnson also asked for the staff's reaction to the request to use a slumpstone wall rather than wrought iron. Mr. Lee advised it is the staff's opinion that wrought iron would be more permanent and would not be a maintenance problem, as in the case of a fence using wood. Since safety is an issue here, the more permanent type of fence should be required. Staff had no objection to using slumpstone and wrought iron. Chairman Smith suggested that if a line of sight study is necessary to make a decision, the Commission should have that information. Commissioner Stevenson suggested it would be well for the Commission to make a field trip as a group or individually and visit the homes and the units that are under consideration to see if the units do look into the homes. Chairman Smith pointed out that the failure to follow the grading plan is highly irregular. Commission G. Johnson asked if a motion is adopted, could the Commission ask that if the line of sight study shows something different the Commission would have that information before the recommendation goes to the Council and Mr. Peterson responded affirmatively. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the revised precise plan for Telegraph Canyon Terraces subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and with the further stipulation that upon receipt of the line of sight studies if the staff feels the view of homeowners is still blocked, this plan shall be reviewed again by the Planning Commission before it goes to the City Council. The meeting recessed at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Smith reported that a request was made to consider agenda item 9 before items 7 and 8. If there are no objections from the audience or from the Commission, that change in agenda order will be granted. No objections were raised. -6- April 25, 1979 9. Consideration of staff recommendation for implementing Booz, Allen and Hamilton Report Director of Planning Peterson reported that one of the recommendations of Booz, Allen and Hamilton was that precise plans for development in industrial and commercial zones, which are now reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, be changed under the ordinance to no longer require that kind of review, but make it the responsibility of the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee has been active for a little over a year but their review has been limited to development in the R-3 zone. Mr. Lohman, Chairman of the Design Review Committee, is present at this meeting and it would be appropriate to hear from him regarding the Booz, Allen and Hamilton recommendation. Jack Lohman, 262 A Rancho Drive, reported that the Design Review Committee had discussed the proposed change and are receptive to helping relieve some of the burdens of the Planning Commission. The Design Review Committee have had light agendas and have been successful in resolving problems related to multiple family development. They endorse the recommendation of the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report. Commissioner O'Neill asked if there would be any time that precise plans for commercial and industrial development call for a public hearing. Mr. Peterson advised that under the present ordinance there are public hearings on those precise plans. If the ordinance is changed, making approval of such plans the responsibility of the Design Review Committee, public hearings would not be required. He noted that any interested party could appear at a Design Review Committee meeting to offer testimony. Supervisor of Current Planning Lee pointed out that the Design Review Committee is presently composed of an architect, building designer, local business man, graphics designer and a city planning director. This is a very able committee which is well qualified to look at all aspects of a proposed development. Mr. Lohman advised that decisions made by the Design Review Committee are based upon view protection, architectural esthetics, treatment of roofs, fencing, landscaping, buffers, and various other considerations which make development desirable. Mr. Peterson suggested that in order for the Planning Commission to have further time to consider this recommendation and the testimony offered by Mr. Lohman, the item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. MSUC (R. Johnson-O'Neill) Consideration of the recommendation for implementing the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report be continued to the meeting of May 9. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-79-5 to amend the Municipal Code relating to panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served bS an easement Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the zoning ordinance specifies the minimum lot size for each zone and specifies the amount of frontage each -7- April 25, 1979 lot must have. In the past the Planning Commission has approved many variances to permit the development of lots which do not have the required frontage on a public street. It is sometimes difficult to make the findings that are required in order to approve a variance, so it is suggested that the zoning ordinance be amended to permit lots that do not have the minimum frontage and provide guidelines or development criteria for such lots. Commissioner G. Johnson noted that development of flag lots has been relatively recent, but she asked if there have been any complaints with regard to the maintenance of the easements. She has noted locatiomwhere the easement has not been maintained at the entry. Mr. Peterson advised that he has not received any complaints personally but would be interested in knowing the location of the easements referred to by Commissioner Johnson. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-49. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code as indicated in Exhibit A attached to the staff report. Chairman Smith pointed out under Section 19.22.150 F it states that maintenance and the cost of maintenance shall be equally shared by the property owner of each lot. He felt it would be preferable to state "shall be shared under contractural agreement by the property owner of each lot," since that would permit maintenance costs to be borne in relation to the benefit derived from the easement. Commissioners Stevenson and R. Johnson agreed to the rewording of Section 19.22.150 F as suggested by Chairman Smith. The motion for adoption carried unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of ?CA-79-9 to amend the Municipal Code relating to dwelling groups in R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that at the present time dwelling groups are now all owed by conditional use permit in the R-E and R-1 zones and are allowed as a principal permitted use in the R-2 zone. He felt that at the present time this section of the ordinance is not clearly worded to express the intent that the added dwelling or dwellings must be of the same housing type as that permitted by the underlying zone. In the draft of the revised ordinance that has been corrected. Mr. Peterson indicated that after further review of the ordinance he felt the change should not be made in the R-E and the R-1 zones to change dwelling -8- April 25, 1979 groups from conditional uses to permitted uses. He, therefore, recommended deleting the proposed amendments to Section 19.22.020, 19.22.040, 19.24.020 and 19.24.040 in order that individual review of each request for a dwelling group in the R-E and R-1 zones would be required. Chairman Smith concurred that there could be problems if dwelling groups were permitted in the R-1 zone as a principal use and agreed with the change suggested by Mr. Peterson. He expressed concern that there may be more traps in this amendment and felt that the Commission should have additional time to study it more carefully. Commissioner Williams felt that the recommended change for Section 19.26.020 may be at variance with Section 19.26.010 B as it presently exists and which is not being changed. Mr. Peterson agreed that additional study of the entire revision may be called for and suggested that the hearing be continued for two weeks to the next Commission meeting. Chairman Smith opened the public hearing to entertain a motion for its continuance. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The public hearing for consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code relating to dwelling groups in R-3, R-1 and R-2 zones be continued to the meeting of May 9, 1979. City Engineer Lippitt commented on the unpleasant experience occasioned by the grading error for Telegraph Canyon Terrace. He advised that as a result of that error the staffs of the Engineering, Planning and Building and Housing Departments have reviewed the present grading ordinance which was adopted approximately a year ago. In addition to requiring certification by a soils engineer and the engineer of work, as required by the old ordinance, the new ordinance also requires all lots to be flagged in a subdivision, drainage facilities to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit, retaininQ walls to be built, and cut and fill slopes that are 15 feet or higher to bi planted prior to issuance of a building permit. It is possible that a walk-through with the inspector and the private engineer, similar to the process for acceptance of public improvements, may be required for acceptance of grading. He pointed out that since the original grading ordinance was adopted in 1967 the city has never had such a serious problem as the one considered this evening. Chairman Smith expressed the opinion that the problem in this instance was that the grading plan prepared by the engineer was not followed and he would object to making the ordinance more restrictive because of one instance where the grading plan was not followed. He felt it was regrettable that the site was not staked according to the plan prior to the commencement of grading operations, but he did not feel the ordinance should be more restrictive, because that would put a burden on every other developer as well as the city's engineering division. -9- April 25, 1979 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson called attention to the invitation to all the Commissioners to attend the dedication ceremony and open house of the new Public Services building to be held on May 7 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. He cordially invited all Commissioners to attend and to bring a friend if they desire. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Williams asked about an item appearing in last week's paper concerning a parcel of land in the Bonita area and owned by the City and the uses which might be suitable in that location and how that relates to the Planning Commission's action on the GPA at Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Peterson advised that the property under consideration by the Council is located on the north side of Bonita Road just west of The Glenn and adjacent to the golf course. The Council asked for a list of possible uses for that city owned property; the list included apartment development, motel and restaurant, and other visitor and recreational uses. Mr. Peterson pointed out that there is a significant difference between that type of use and the retail sales use which was denied by the Planning Commission last week. He stated that the city property is in the flood plain and is zoned agricultural so that any development would first require a change in the General Plan and rezoning action. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary