Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/05/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 9, 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, O'Neill, Williams and Stevenson. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner R. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, City Engineer Lipppitt, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner G. Johnson advised that in the minutes of April 25, on page 5, she was the maker of the motion for approval of the revised precise plan for Telegraph Canyon Terrace. Commissioner Stevenson reported that with regard to the same motion, he felt the intent of the Commission with regard to the line of sight studies was recorded erroneously, as it seems to indicate that if the line of sight study confirms the views are blocked it would come back to the Planning Co~mission; that was not his understanding. Commissioner O'Neill suggested that the motion be changed to read "is not blocked" rather than "is still blocked." Chairman Smith concurred. MSUC (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of April 18 be approved as written and the minutes of the meeting of April 25 be approved with the correction suggested by Commissioner O'Neill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. Consideration of request for vacation of Madison Avenue from "H" Street to 290 feet south City Engineer Lippitt advised that this request was continued from the previous meeting because the Planning Commission wished to see the proposed redevelopment plan for the adjacent property and also they felt the property to the south of the terminus of the street should be given access from "H" Street. Assurance of such access is added as a condition to the recommendation for approval of the street vacation. -2- May 9, 1979 Mr. Lippitt noted that the Commission should also certify a Negative Declaration of environmental impact from this street vacation. The Commission questioned the difference between granting an access easement to another property owner and granting a public easement. Mr. Lippitt explained that the proposed easement would take the form of an agreement between the two property owners and they would be responsible for the upkeep of the easement. Such an agreement would permit traffic going to the business establishment on the south property to cross the applicant's property. Mr. Lippitt also affirmed that the City does not have plans to extend Madison from "H" Street to connect with the segment extending north from "I" Street. In response to a question as to whether that access could at some time be blocked off, Mr. Lippitt advised that the property is to be developed under an approved site plan showing that access from "H" Street and any change in that site plan would have to be approved by the City. Harriet Stone, 6566 Ridge Manor Avenue, San Diego, owner of the property since 1945 spoke of their desire to redevelop and upgrade the site, and in so doing to use the vacated area for parking and landscaping, while at the same time providing access to their property and to the property to the south. She affirmed that the driveway would be narrower than the present street right-of- way, but it would be ample for traffic to go thro~h. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed the opinion that this proposal will make the site look more like a shopping center and bring the area together. Commissioner Williams felt the vacation should be supported because it would tend to make traffic slower going through the parking lot than if it were a public street. MS (G. Johnson-Williams) The Commission finds that vacation of a portion of Madison will have no significant adverse environmental impact and certifies the Negative Declaration on IS-79-44. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Williams, Pressutti, O'Neill and Stevenson NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson MS (G. Johnson-Pressutti) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the vacation of that portion of Madison Avenue extending 290 feet south from "H" Street, subject to the granting of a 25 ft. easement for ingress and egress to the owner of the property at the southern terminus of the vacated portion. -3- May 9, 1979 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Pressutti, Williams, and O'Neill NOES: Commissioners Smith and Stevenson ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-79-14 - Request for conditional use permit to operate real estate school at 428 "F" Street in the C-O zone - Anthony Schools Chairman Smith asked Vice-Chairman Pressutti to take the chair at this time because he has a personal interest in a closely related project. Mr. Smith then left the podium. Supervisor of Current Planning Lee noted the location of the property on the south side of "F" Street just west of Fourth Avenue, stating that the site contains 35,000 square feet and is improved with a 6,100 sq. ft. building that is presently vacant. It is the applicant's intent to sublease the northern half of the building and retain the southern half for operation of a real estate school. Their lease stipulates 100 parking spaces although the plan as submitted does not indicate that number. The staff has therefore proposed an alternate site plan which extends the site area to the east to provide for 100 parking spaces, as well as the required landscaping and the retention of two large trees toward the east side of the property. The 100 parking spaces would accommodate the two uses as proposed. As noted in the report, it is felt that this particular operation has an unusually high parking requirement based on the high percentage of adults attending the school and driving to the location. It is expected that the chance of filling both the assembly classroom and the testing room to capacity at the same time would be remote; however, due to the adjacent uses, which also generate high traffic and parking requirements, adequate offstreet parking should be assured. Condition "i" was included to provide a safeguard against possible parking shortfalls, but after discussing this with the City Attorney and the applicant, it was agreed the condition should be amended by adding, after the phrase "if a traffic problem arises," the words "due to change in operations, such as increased hours, seating capacity, or overlapping classes." This gives the applicant assurance that as long as the operation is within the bounds approved, the City will not change the requirements. Mr. Lee concluded that the proposed use is appropriate and compatible with the area, and with the revised site plan and recommended conditions, the application should be approved. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Lee advised that extending the parking area to the east will not result in an unusable parcel adjacent to this property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bill Powell, president of Anthony Schools of San Diego, expressed pleasure at being a part of the Chula Vista community for the past eight years. Due to the growth of their operation they recognize their parking need, and feel this location is about the only spot in Chula Vista that can accommodate that need. -4- May 9, 1979 He outlined their plans to upgrade the property for beautification as well as meeting their needs and advised that with the clarification in the language of condition "i", the conditions are acceptable to them. He asked about the permitted size of a monument sign and the possibility of substituting a free- standing sign. Mr. Lee reviewed the sign restrictions and advised that due to the location of the site in the Civic Center Design Review district it is felt a monument sign would be more attractive and compatible with the area. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission finds the proposed use will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the conditional Negative Declaration on IS-79-54. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) Based on the findinns stated in the report, the Commission approves conditional use permit PC~-79-14 for operation of Anthony's School at 428 "F" Street, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report with the revision suggested by Mr. Lee. 3. Consideration of request to convert residential structure to office us~, 717 Third Avenue in C-O zone - R. N. Cassel Supervisor of Current Planning Lee noted the location of the proposed conversion and passed photos to the Commission showing the site before remodeling started and as it exists at the present time; noting that much of the exterior remodeling of the building has been completed. This was done under a building permit to stucco the structure. Conversion to an office use will require site plan modifi- cations to provide offstreet parking and landscaping. Mr. Lee displayed a modification of the site plan which will meet the requirements of the code. He recommended approval of the conversion based on the modified site plan and four conditions enumerated in the staff report. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the need for a zoning wall along the east property line, and Mr. Lee indicated that could be optional based on the existence of fences and buffering plant materials and the wishes of the adjoining residential property owners. MSUC (O'Neill-Stevenson) The Commission approves the request for the conversion of the existing single family dwelling at 717 Third Avenue to use as a psychology clinic, subject to the four conditions listed in the report. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of PCA-79-9 to amend the Municipal Code relating to dwelling groups in R-E and R-1 zones This public hearing was continued from the previous meeting due to questions raised by the Commission which will require further study. Director of Planning Peterson reported there are many other projects having a higher priority than this proposed amendment and it is recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of June 27. Chairman Smith reopened the public hearing for a motion for continuance. -5- May 9, 1979 MSUC (Pressutti-Stevenson) The public hearing to consider PCA-79-9 relating to dwelling groups be continued to the meeting of June 27, 1979. 5. Consideration of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1979-8~ for conformance to the Chula Vista General Plan Director of Planning Peterson noted that the Capital Improvement Program is customarily prepared for the next six fiscal year, but state law requires Planning Commission review for conformance to the General Plan only for the next fiscal year. He reported that the program for the next fiscal year includes 28 projects, including the two projects covered by a separate memo to the Commission after preparation of the regular report. These projects include improvements to certain park and recreation facilities, a new fire station in the 450 acre area of E1 Rancho del Rey, which will replace Fire Station No. 2 on J Street, improvements to the street system, additions to traffic signal system and improvements to drainage ways. Many of those projects are below the level addressed in the General Plan, but they have been reviewed by the staff and none are at odds with the General Plan. It is recommended that the Commission adopt a motion finding that the Capital Improvement Program for 1979-80 is in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner O'Neill questioned the allocation in future years of a large amount of funds to the improvement of East H Street, east of Otay Lakes Road. He felt it has been the custom to require developers to pay for street improve- ments. He referred specifically to an amount of $266,000 in the 81-82 fiscal year. City Engineer Lippitt reported this would depend on how the area is developed by that time, and if there is a need for the street improvements it would be installed at city expense with a reimbursement district set up to require repayment from developers of the adjacent property. Commissioner Pressutti expressed extreme pleasure in the fact that the city will attempt to relieve the unsafe traffic conditions on East "L" Street through the installation of street medians and traffic lights, also to eliminate the cross gutter on "L" Street at Hilltop Drive. MSUC (O'Neill-G. Johnson) It is the finding of the Commission that the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 1979-80 is in conformance with the city's General Plan. 6. Consideration of staff recommendation for implementing Booz, Allen and Hamilton Report Director of Planning Peterson noted the review of the Planning Department operations, the firm of Booz, Allen and Hamilton made a report to the City Council including their recommendations for various changes. The Council referred the report to the City Manager for his recommendation and he, in turn, appointed a committee to look into the various recommendations and report back to him. That committee included Commissioner O'Neill and the Director of -6- May 9, 1979 Planning. The committee's report was submitted to the City Manager, who reported to the City Council. The Council has now requested the recommendation of the Planning Commission on those items which fall under the responsibility of the Commission. The recommendation, as presented by the City Manager, would delete certain items from the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission; these include: Variances, which would be handled by the Zoning Administrator; deferral of public improvements, which would come under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer; review of precise plans in the commercial and industrial zones, which would become the responsibility of the Design Review Committee along with their review of plans for development in the R-3 zone; and responsibility for the site planning and architectural compatibility of structures moved within the city, which would become the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator. If those recommendations are adopted, it is estimated it would result in about a 20% reduction in the number of items on the Planning Commission agendas. The Commission requested that Commissioner O'Neill report on his insights from working on the committee appointed by the City Manager. Commissioner O'Neill reported that he went into the committee with the idea of giving the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report a fair shake and looking at all of their recommendations objectively to see if these things could be implemented. The thought he got from that report was that as things were passed out of the sphere of the Planning Commission's responsibility, they would be replaced with items passed down from the City Countil. The final report to the Council has not accomplished that aim, but instead tends to erode the authority and stature of the Planning Commission. He felt that in the matter of changing responsibility for variances from the Commission to the Zoning Administrator, the opportunity for public input is considerably lessened. He had no particular objections to the recommendations concerning deferrals of public improvements or the review of development plans for the commercial and industrial zones. Commissioner O'Neill pointed out that the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report involved quite a bit of staff reorganization and reshuffling of duties within the staff, which are not addressed in this report. He also felt that the thought behind reducing the responsibilities of the Planning Commission was to enable the Commission to spend more time on long range planning and on changes to the General Plan. Without commensurate staff support for this type of activity by the Planning Commission, it is sort of meaningless. Commissioner Pressutti suggested that the Planning Commission should be included in the route of appeals of decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. After some discussion on that point, City Attorney Harron advised that it could be included in the code that the variance does not go into effect until a ten day appeal period has expired without appeal. If it is appealed by anyone within that time period the grant by the planning staff would be null and void and the decision by the Planning Commission would be reached after a public hearing. Commissioner Williams commented that as he recalled the Booz, Allen and Hamilton report, it was aimed at a couple of major objectives: One, to streamline the process for handling various types of applications, and second, at restructuring the day to day role for the Director of Planning to permit more long range planning and less time devoted to current planning items. He questioned whether the recommendations now under consideration really address those objectives as fully as they could. -7- May 9, 1979 Commissioner O'Neill felt this had been addressed in another vehicle and not in this one. He believed that there have been some changes implemented within the Planning Department that are more or less related to the report. Director of Planning Peterson confirmed that understanding, but reported that since Mr. Williams' departure from the department, and the decision not to fill that position, things have reverted back and the Booz, Allen and Hamilton recommendations are not going to be implemented in that respect. He stated that it is the prerogative of the City Manager to determine how the staff is to be organized and what the functions shall be, and the Council's interest in the Planning Commission's recommendations dealt with the processing of different types of applications. Mr. Peterson advised that he would like to get more into the advance planning area and still hoped he could find a way of doing that, perhaps in a scaled down fashion to what his initial thoughts had been. From past experience, he was not confident the Commission would feel comfortable in devoting a good deal of time to that activity, but sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side. Chairman Smith commented that in looking at the five items recommended for change in the City Manager's memo, he wondered which ones are not working, at least reasonably well, the way they are now being handled. He felt the changes would not result in much saving of staff time and wondered if anything would be gained by making the changes. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion i~ would tend to expedite the processing of applications, except for the cases that are appealed. He pointed out that the number of times the Planning Commission action on a variance is appealed to the Council now is very minimal, maybe less than three or four per cent, and he would expect the same thing to occur if the staff assumes responsibility for acting on variances, so those applications would be handled more rapidly. With reference to the design review of commercial and industrial development, Mr. Peterson felt the point raised by Chairman Smith is more valid. However, the meetings of the Design Review Committee are quite informal as compared to the Planning Commission; it takes less staff work for the preparation of a report since each case is handled verbally, to a greater extent, between the developer, the Committee and a staff representative. It requires an average of two weeks lead time to get an item on the agenda for the Design Review Committee as compared to five or six weeks for many items on the Planning Commission agenda. Chairman Smith suggested that the Commission take action separately on each of the recommendations in the City Manager's memo to the City Council, which was subsequently referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation of support or rejection. He asked for the Commission's position on the first recommendation, i.e., "Make the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on all variances." MS (O'Neill-Stevenson) The Commission recommends that there be no change in the present zoning ordinance with regard to the processing of variance applications. -8- May 9, 1979 Commissioner Williams suggested that possibly without changing the ordinance, there could be a change in policy to give the Zoning Administrator a little more latitude in determining which variance applications should be sent to the Planning Commission and which he should process himself. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners O'Neill, Stevenson, Smith and Williams NOES: Commissioners Pressutti and G. Johnson ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Chairman Smith noted the second recommendation; "Make the City Engineer rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on requests for deferral of public ~improvements. Requests for waivers would remain with the Planning Commission. Decisions on requests for deferral or waiver of the requirement to underground utilities would remain with the City Council." Commissioner Pressutti questioned why the deferral or waiver of undergrounding utilities goes to the City Council. He felt this should be handled at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the findings required to be made in order to grant deferral of public improvements are pretty well spelled out in the ordinance and the staff can make a judgment according to those findings. That is not so much the case with regard to undergrounding utilities and in the past the Council have expressed their desire to be deeply involved in that matter. Commissioner Williams pointed out that by having these things come before the Planning Commission they become part of the corporate knowledge of the Commission and that is useful information for the Commission to have. MS (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission endorses the City Manager's recommendation to make the City Engineer rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on requests for deferral of public improvements; requests for waivers to remain with the Planning Commission; decisions on requests for deferrals or waiver of the requirement to underground utilities to remain with the City Council. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Stevenson, Smith and O'Neill NOES: Commissioners Williams and Pressutti ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Chairman Smith read the third recommendation in the City Manager's report: "Make the Design Review Committee responsible for review of precise plans in the commercial and industrial zones in addition to their present authority in the R-3 zone. It is recommended that this authority not be extended to the review of development in the P-C zone at this time." Commissioner Pressutti suggested the last sentence in the recommendation be reworded to state "Review of development in the P-C zone would remain with the Planning Commission." -9- May 9, 1979 Commissioner O'Neill felt the Commission should also insure that they are in the appeal chain on this item. MSUC (O'Neill-Pressutti) The Commission recommends that the Design Review Committee be made responsible for review of precise plans in the commercial and industrial zones, in addition to their present authority in the R-3 zone, with the condition that appeals from their decision be passed up to the Planning Commission. It is further recommended that the authority for review of develop- ments in the P-C zone be retained by the Planning Commission. Chairman Smith noted that the fourth recommendation is to make the Zoning Administrator responsible for the site planning and architectural compatibility aspect of the moving of structures within the city and the Director of Building and Housing responsible for seeing to it that such structures meet present codes. Commissioner Pressutti asked if the Planning Commission could be included in an appellate role in the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and Director of Building and Housing. Assistant City Attorney Harron affirmed that can be done. MSUC (Pressutti-O'Neill) Recommendation No. 4 be adopted with the modification to include the Planning Commission in the appellate role. Chairman Smith noted that the fifth recommendation in the City Manager's memo does not require Planning Commission action since it relates only to the scheduling of items for consideration by the Redevelopment Agency. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that a field trip has been scheduled for next week's study session. The Commission will meet in this building at 5:00 p.m. and make the trip together in a city van, followed by dinner at 7:00 p.m. at the Black Angus. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill commented that if gas rationing on a coupon basis is enacted, coupons should be furnished for the Planning Commissioners to cover the driving required to view the various sites under consideration on each agenda. Chairman Smith noted that the copy of the Barbour report on the Long Canyon Drainage Channel has been circulated among the Commission members and will be placed on file. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary