Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1979/07/11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 11, 1979 A regular 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 Lippitt, Administrative Analyst Boyd, 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 MSUC (Pressutti-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1979 be approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commissioners. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of PCA-79-12 to amend the Municipal Code relating to storage requirements for condominiums Director of Planning Peterson reported that this agenda item was continued from the previous meeting with suggestions of certain changes in the language and a request that the policy guidelines be written in ordinance form to be included in the Municipal Code rather than in policy form. The suggested changes have been made, including the addition of a section to allow the Planning Commission and City Council some discretion in evaluating each condominium proposal. It is recommended that the proposed ordinance amendment be sent to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. Chairman Smith reopened the public hearing. Gene York, 160 Brightwood, advised that he has no quarrel with the terms of the ordinance with one exception, that being the leniency or consideration given by the City as allowed under the section which gives some discretion to the Planning Commission and City Council to depart from the stated standards on individual projects when good cause can be shown. He felt that without the use of that discretion few apartment projects in Chula Vista could be converted to condominiums. -2- July 11, 1979 Thomas Adams, 1965 Sunset Boulevard, San Diego, expressed support for the ordinance and the recommendation to the City Council for its approval. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill expressed the opinion that the amount of storage space proposed is bare bones and he would favor adding 50 cubic feet in each category. He also pointed out that all of the requirements are stated in the positive form of "shall" except No. 5, which says, "should allow". He asked if this was by intent. Mr. Peterson advised it was an oversight in rewriting the requirements into the ordinance and would be changed to "shall." Chairman Smith suggested that the security measures required in condition 4 should not be limited to the storage spaces on the ground floor, but should be applied to all storage space accessible from outside the living area. MSUC (Pressutti-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends the adoption of the amend- ment to Section 15.56.020 C and the addition of Section 15.56.070 as set forth in Exhibit A of the staff report, with standard 4 modified by deleting the words "on the ground floor" and standard 5 modified by changing "should" to "shall." 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-79-J - Change of prezonin~ for 18.14 acres at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road from A-8 to R-3-P-8 and C-C-P - ADMA Company, Inc. Director of Planning Peterson advised that in May the City Council amended the General Plan to change the three acre portion of this property from high density residential use to retail commercial. It was contemplated at that time that the applicant would follow with an application to change the prezoning since the property is in the County. The application being considered seeks to prezone three acres to C-C-P and 15 acres to R-3-P-8. The R-3-P-8 zoning would allow multiple family development at 8 units to the acre - a low density multiple family zone - which is appropriate by virtue of the topography of this land. The development plans are not far enough along to be presented for approval at this time, but the applicant has indicated the intent to construct a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, with 15,000 sq. ft. devoted to small retail shops, and approximately 120 dwelling units on the remaining 15 acres. The proposed zoning conforms to the General Plan and approval is recommended subject to 7 guidelines for the precise plan. Mr. Peterson reported the receipt of a letter, late this afternoon, from Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who own the property adjacent on the east, expressing their opposition to the requested rezoning. They state it would ruin the rural atmos- phere of the area; deprive them of their view, light, air and privacy; and that the fill which would be required to raise the building pads above the flood level would be objectionable to them. -3- July 11, 1979 Mr. Peterson displayed slides showing the topography and the existing condition of the property. Commissioner Williams asked the City Engineer to comment on the impact the filling of this site would have on the property to the east. City Engineer Lippitt advised that at the present time there could be flooding on this site in an intense storm; therefore, if development occurs it is required that the buildings be constructed above the flood level. If the grading plans indicate that the required fill will block the flow of water from the east, the developer will be required to provide drainage structures to carry the water through. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James J. Boyd, 956 Songbird Lane, expressed concern about the commercial use and particularly about the 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, which he assumed would be a hamburger stand. He pointed out there are numerous hamburger stands along Bonita Road and they have not added to the beauty of the area. He asked for information as to the kind of restaurant it would be, whether it has a name or a franchise; also the nature of the types of businesses planned for the retail commercial shops. Mr. Peterson pointed out that any kind of a restaurant would be allowed in the C-C-P zone and until a precise plan is filed it is not germane for the Commission to determine the type of restaurant. Jeanne Campbell, 5711Sunnyview Drive, Bonita, advised that she represents a group who own the property just east of the Brown property. She felt it is time for the valley to be developed in smaller than 4 acre parcels, and they plan to develop their own property in the future. She expressed the opinion that the development of the property under consideration for rezoning would be an asset to Bonita. Madelyn Boyd, 956 Songbird Lane, expressed opposition to commercial development at the corner of the property which she contended would take away from the aesthetics of the housing to be constructed. She suggested there is a greater need for housing on those three acres than for retail shops. Edward Anderson, 1009 Calle Mesita, Bonita, indicated the location of his lot on the cul-de-sac street at the top of the slope to the south of the subject property. He asked about the height of the residential buildings proposed in this development and whether they would block the views of the present residents. Mr. Peterson advised that is one thing that will be looked at when the precise plans are considered, but that at this point it cannot be guaranteed that no views would be blocked. Mr. Anderson pointed out that for years the property under consideration has been a ponding area in times of heavy rains. He asked how much fill would be placed to obliterate that ponding. -4- July 11, 1979 Mr. Lippitt expressed the opinion it would be about the same elevation as the shopping center to the west of Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Anderson expressed the opinion there is not a need for another fast food outlet in the Bonita area. Dale Combs, Eucalyptus Hills Drive, Lakeside, project architect for the ADMA Company, noted that the staff report indicated the residential development would range from single family structures to fourplex units. He advised they are now considering duplexes on the hillside and fiveplex and ei§htplex structures on the flat land area. He wondered if the people who have commented on the proposed development are enlightened on what the attachment of the "P" Modifying District to the property means, as it requires that both the commercial and residential aspect of the project receive approval of precise plans to be presented at a later date. He felt the questions being asked now will be answered at that time. He advised that ADMA Company is having discussions with the Marriott Company (owners of Bob's Big Boy restaurants) but that the architecture of the restaurant must be compatible with what is planned for the shopping center. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that the Commission's concern at this time is over the land use and not the particular type of restaurant. She noted that residents seem to have a positive attitude about the ADMA shopping center to the west of Otay Lakes Road and if a restaurant is to be constructed on the subject property it should be a high quality restaurant. Mr. James J. Boyd again expressed his objection to any type of hamburger restaurant, but felt that a high quality restaurant with a cocktail bar and entertainment center would be well received. Madelyn Boyd stressed that the value of the new homes in the area would dictate the need for high quality commercial development. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that much of the testimony presented tonight should be considered downstream from the issue of the zoning of the property. He felt at this time the main concern is that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan for the area and that through the attachment of the "P" District the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the development. Commissioner Williams pointed out that the action taken by the Planning Commission a few months ago was not consonant with the zoning proposed at this time and the Commission has the alternative of expressing again what they feel is appropriate at the corner of Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that the recommendation of the Planning Commission to limit the land use to residential was overridden by the City Council and any action now to the contrary would be ineffective. Commissioner O'Neill advised that he was one of the members on the minority side supporting the commercial land use, based on the presentation made by Mr. Thoryk -5- July 11, 1979 of the type of commercial center he envisioned. Mr. O'Neill had supported that concept until he learned that the restaurant being considered was a Bob's Big Boy and that changed his mind. Commissioner Pressutti commented that the reaction of the Commission at the former hearing was to the tremendous growth of commercial area and they voiced objection; but now the General Plan says that area is commercial and residential and the proposal tonight will simply make the zoning match the General Plan. MS (Pressutti-Stevenson) Based on the findings contained in the staff report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the change of prezoning from A-8 to C-C-P and R-3-P-8, subject to the seven precise plan guidelines enumerated in the staff report. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Pressutti NOES: Commissioners Stevenson, O'Neill, G. Johnson, Smith and Williams ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson The Commission raised a question as to whether failure to pass the motion amounted to a denial of the application. Mr. Peterson advised that while the effect is the same, he felt that for the benefit of the Council it would be appropriate to pass a motion to deny, indicating whether the denial is for the entire application or only for the commercial portion. MS (G. Johnson-Williams) The Commission recommends that the prezoning for 18.14 acres at the southeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road be changed from A-8 to R-3-P-8. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Williams, Smith, O'Neill and Stevenson NOES: Commissioner Pressutti ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that this is a violation of the rule that the General Plan and zoning must be in agreement. Since the General Plan calls for Commercial, if the property is not zoned commercial the General Plan will have to be amended. Mr. Peterson concurred, pointing out that while the General Plan and zoning do not have to be mirror images of one another, in a case where the General Plan has just been changed, it is the staff's opinion that the zoning and General Plan should agree. He also pointed out that the staff report included four guidelines for the precise plan development of the residential area which he felt should be included in tile resolution recommending the prezoning. MSUC (G. Johnson-Williams) The Commission recommends that conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the staff report relating to PCZ-79-J be included in the resolution for the prezoning. -6- July 11, 1979 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 79-12, Hudson Valley Estates Unit 2 Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that this hearing was previously continued at the request of the applicant, who has now indicated a desire to meet with the adjacent residents to resolve engineering problems which will require a longer extension of time. It is now recommended that the hearing be continued to September 26. MSUC (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The public hearing for consideration of the tentative subdivision map of Hudson Valley Estates Unit 2 be continued to the meeting of September 26, 1979. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 79-20, Villa Antigua, 8 unit condominium at the southwest corner of Del Mar and "I" Street Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that the site plan and architecture for this 8 unit complex at the southwest corner of Del Mar and "I" Street was recently approved by the Design Review Committee. The tentative map has since been filed to permit development as condominiums rather than an apartment project. Storage is shown adjacent to the units and in a carport area at the south line of the site. The storage is in excess of the 256 cubic feet per unit presently required by ordinance and also meets the criteria for storage requirements as recommended for adoption by the Commission this evening. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bruce Wyman, 5676 Conway Court, San Diego, engineer on the project, expressed his willingness to answer any questions concerning the map. The Commission had no questions, and as no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Pressutti-Williams) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Commission recommends approval of the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 79-20, Villa Antigua, with the recommended condition amended to read, "all storage space accessible from the outside shall be secured with security type hinges utilizing a nonremoval pin, a solid core door and a single cylinder dead- bolt (minimum 1" throw) lock. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street Director of Planning Peterson advised that the procedure to be followed on this item is slightly different than the Commission is accustomed to on environmental hearings because the City is not the lead agency in the proposed project. The Federal Highway Administration is the lead agency and they will consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and any testimony that is offered during the hearing, which also becomes a part of the environmental impact statement. -7- July 11, 1979 He reported that Doug Boyd of the Department of Community Development has been actively involved in the preparation and review of this EIS and will answer any questions. Commissioner Williams pointed out that one of the suggested mitigating measures calls for recreating some environmental aspects. He asked if there is any experience in this area as to how successful that is. Doug Boyd advised that the mitigating measure would require the creation of new marsh area to compensate for marsh lands destroyed by construction of the street. The Regional Commission has recommended that this be done at a ratio of 2:1 and under those circumstances the project will be required to create 12 acres of marsh to compensate for the 6 acres which will be destroyed. He further advised that there has not been much experience in marsh restoration on the west coast but it has been accomplished successfully on the east coast; and Community Development is anxious to proceed with the project here in order to establish some expertise in this area. Commissioner Williams also asked if construction of the road would offer the opportunity to control, more effectively, the use of offroad vehic'les and the destruction they do in that area. Mr. Boyd affirmed that construction of the road would give access to the D Street fill and would spur development there. Any development that takes place on the D Street fill would unquestionably reduce, if not eliminate, the offroad vehicle activity. Chairman Smith pointed out that on page 54 of the report it refers to water service by the California American Water Company. Since that is no longer true he suggested that the page be revised to identify the correct water agency. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Boyd advised that the letters which have been received with reference to this report will be included in the EIS, along with the questions and comments presented by the Planning Commission at this meeting. 6. Consideration of Basfront freewas identification sign Supervisor of Current Planning Lee reported that the Redevelopment Agency retained the firm of Araiza and Owens to design a sign for the freeway interchange and to identify the Bayfront area. He displayed a model of the design which would be constructed of a sandblasted light weight concrete forming a triangular structure, 50 feet in height and 60 feet at the base, to contain 9 panels in pyramid style for identification of businesses and a four faced logo at the top measuring 7 ft. by 9 ft.. The rendering shows eight businesses and leaves three panels vacant to serve as a design element of the structure. The name panels will accommodate 2 ft. high letters. -8- July 11, 1979 The sign would be located on the west side of I-5, in line with D Street and could be read from approximately 1/4 mile away. In the staff's opinion the sign is attractive and imaginative and will provide distinctive identification for the Bayfront. It is recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a recommendation be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency to approve the design and location of the sign as proposed. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that this sign will take care of traffic going south and asked if there are plans to take care of traffic going north. Doug Boyd affirmed that this sign will address just the traffic going south, the northbound traffic will be served by a sign on the other side of the freeway. From looking at the sites available on the east side, it is assumed that a smaller sign will be suitable. Alfredo Araiza, 272 Church Avenue, discussed the dimensions and design of the proposed structure and advised they do not consider it a sign, but an identity structure. He also displayed an enlarged, colored illustration of the logo. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission finds that the construction of an identification sign for the Bayfront area will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-79-64. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the design and location of the proposed Bayfront freeway identification sign as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS James Johnson, 424 Stoneridge Court, extended an invitation to the Commissioners and Planning staff to attend the annual open house of the South Bay Pioneers to be held on Sunday, September 30 at 2:30 p.m. at their facility at 230 C Street. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson reported that the State Office of Planning and Research is sponsoring a workshop for Planning Commissioners in San Diego on Saturday October 13. The program has not been definitely set but a similar work- shop held in northern California included a discussion on conducting meetings and the kind of testimony that is relevant in public hearings. There was also a video tape of a Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Peterson reported that he has been asked to get some indication as to how many Commissioners would be available on that date and would be interested in attending. The six Commissioners present at the meeting indicated their interest in attending such a workshop. -9- July 11, 1979 Mr. Peterson reported that the study session next week will start at 5:00 p.m. with a presentation by the staff on the development plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area at 1-805 and H Street. It is anticipated that the EIR on that project will be considered by the Planning Commission in September and the project itself probably in October. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner O'Neill reported that he would be absent from the meetings of July 18 and July 25. Commissioner Pressutti advised he will also be absent from both of those meetings. Commissioner Stevenson commented that considerable time has been spent on the requirements for storage space for condominiums. He felt it would make sense to adopt some storage space requirements for apartments. When this is being considered, he asked that the staff also look at parking requirements. Mr. Peterson advised that the staff has recently reviewed the parking requirements and reached the conclusion that the existing standards are satisfactory. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectful ly submitted,