Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/03/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 26, 1980 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, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Pressutti, Williams and Stevenson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Supervisor of Current Planning Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-80-14 - Request for commercial parkin§ in R-2 zone, Fifth Avenue and Otis Street - Home Federal Savings and Loan Supervisor of Current Planning Lee noted that the written report to the Commission contained a recommendation for denial of this request. The project architect has since met with the staff and submitted a letter requesting that the applica- tion be withdrawn. Home Federal's proposed building expansion and parking will be limited to the property fronting on "H" Street. It is therefore appropriate for the Planning Commission to file this request without action. MSUC (O'Neill-Stevenson) Conditional use permit application PCC-80-14 be filed. In response to a question raised by Co.q~issioner Pressutti, City Attorney Harron advised that a motion to file an application, following a request for its withdrawal by the applicant, does not require that a public hearing be opened. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-12, Bonita Vista~ conversion of 6~-~-nits to condominiums at 4243 Bonita Road Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that this 60 unit apartment project was developed in 1972. The required parking is provided by 46 spaces in carports and 32 open spaces on the site. The report indicates that the site had been raised one foot above the 100 year flood level of the Sweetwater River, but it has since been determined that while the floor level of the units are above the flood level, portions of the site remain below that level. -2- March 26, 1980 The project meets the requirements for condominiums in open space and parking and the required adjacent storage space will be provided in the patios and balconies with additional storage in the carports. The recommendation for approval includes four conditions; in addition, it is recommended that condition 4 be modified to include the requirement that both the existing and proposed storage space shall comply with all Municipal Code regulations. It is also recommended that an additional condition be included to state that the developer shall provide adequate protection of the property against erosion from flows in the Sweetwater River. The exact method of protection shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and shall be constructed or guaranteed prior to approval of the final map. Commissioner Stevenson asked if it would not be appropriate to require that the entire site be raised to meet the 100 year flood level. Mr. Lee expressed the opinion that reconstructing the parking area and reinstalling all landscaping to meet that goal would be too costly. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust pointed out that this project was built in 1972 and it was not until 1975 that the city received the calculations showing the 100 year flood level. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Pierson, 9471Ridgehaven Court, San Diego, representing the applicant, advised that they had not been aware of the added condition concerning erosion control and were of the opinion that the entire site was above the 100 year flood level. He pointed out that the erosion from the recent stormy season occurred on the golf course property and they could not place erosion control facilities on that property. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Daoust advised that the Engineering Department does not have specific measures in mind for erosion control but would expect the applicant to submit a proposal which would insure protection of the buildings from erosion damage in the future. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner O'Neill expressed the opinion that when any project is brought to the Planning Commission for consideration, definite conditions should be spelled out as to what the applicant is expected to do. He indicated he would feel uneasy in approving a project where a solution to the conditions would be worked out at a later time. Commissioner Johnson pointed out the applicant has indicated he is willing for the Commission to act on the project at this time and that he feels he can work it out with the Engineering Department to fulfill the conditions. MS (Stevenson-G. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 80-12, Bonita Vista Condominiums, subject to five conditions, included the the added condition and modification suggested by Mr. Lee. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES Commissioners Stevenson, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Pressutti, Smith and Williams NOES: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None -3- March 26, 1980 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-13, Carabella, construction of 11 new condominium units at ~ Street Director of Planning Peterson reported this 11 unit condominium complex is proposed on a lot just over 16,000 sq. ft. in area on the north side of "E" Street. The ground floor level of the three story structures will be lowered approximately 3 feet below the level of the street and will be devoted to parking. The living area of the units will occupy the two upper floors. The site is presently developed with a single family home and detached garage, both of which will be removed. The proposal meets all standards and regulations pertaining to condominium develop- ment with regard to open space, private storage space and parking. The architec- ture of the project was approved by the Design Review Committee in September of last year. Mr. Peterson noted the recommendation for adoption of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the findings and conditions for approval of the subdivision map. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Mr. Peterson advised the two structures would be 27 feet in height and would maintain a 10 foot setback from each side property line. He did not have figures at hand of the distance between adjacent dwellings and the property line. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Papish, 471 "E" Street, owner of adjacent property to the west, expressed opposition to the design of the project since some of the units face toward his lot, and since the living area on the second floor of the structures would be only 2 feet below the height of the proposed 6 foot fence, he would be deprived of privacy in his back yard. He also asked what type of 6 ft. fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site and how they will protect his trees and shrubs which are within one foot of the property line. Mr. Peterson advised that the plans indicate a wooden fence. He also pointed out that an apartment complex can be built at this location without Planning Commission approval, so this hearing deals with subdividing the property for condominiums. He questioned whether it is appropriate to require more burdensome conditions for a condominium than would be required for an apartment complex. A question was raised as to whether there is an opportunity for public input when the Design Review Committee considers such projects. Supervisor of Current Planning Lee advised that at the time this project was considered no notification was sent out to surrounding property owners, but the department has since decided it would be in the best interest to notify adjacent property owners so they can attend meetings of the Design Review Committee to provide input. Mr. Papish passed to the Commission photos he has taken of the site and of his own back yard area. -4- March 26, 1980 The Commission noted that the proposed setback exceeds the requirement of the zoning ordinance and that a single family home could be constructed two stories high and have the same effect of invading the privacy of the adjacent yard. Joe Bishop, owner of the Casa Vista apartments on the east side of this project, expressed concern that the height of the proposed buildings would shut off the view of his tenants as they have patios adjacent to this property. He also advised they have gates from the private yard areas opening into the existing driveway of the subject property to provide access for SDG&E to read the meters. He expressed concern over this access being closed by the proposed development. C. H. Harris, 189 Brightwood, advised that his back yard also adjoins the side of this property, and if the units face the west they would be looking into his back yard. Randy Mulheim, representing J. H. Hedrick Company, expressed agreement with the staff recommendations and appreciation for the efforts of the staff. In response to the issues brought up by the adjacent residents, he pointed out that their project exceeds the required setback, and that they are limited by code to a 6 ft. high wall. He advised their experience has been that it is preferable to have vehicular access to the interior of the lot with pedestrian access and entrance to the units oriented toward the property lines. He also advised that their title search did not reveal the location of an easement on the property, as suggested by Mr. Bishop. He expressed their desire to abide by all code regulations in protecting the rights of the adjacent owners. Mary Papish, 471 "E" Street, asked if they should not have been notified when the Design Review Committee would consider this project. Mr. Peterson advised there is no ordinance requirement for such notification but the Department has followed that practice in recent months. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission reiterated that their responsibility is to determine whether the project meets all condominium standards and regulations, and since there has been a change in procedure concerning notification of Design Review Committee meetings it might be appropriate to refer this back to that Committee with notice given to the adjacent residents. MS (Williams-R. Johnson) The proposed project for the Carabella condominiums be referred back to the Design Review Committee. The motion passed by the ~ollowing vote: AYES: Commissioners Williams, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, O'Neill and Stevenson NOES: Commissioners Pressutti and Smith ABSENT: None Mr. Lee indicated this could go to the Design Review Committee at their second meeting in April or first meeting in May, and notifications of the date and time would be sent out. -5- March 26, 1980 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to establish stora~erequiyements for apartments Director of Planning Peterson reported that this amendment to the zoning ordinance would make the construction of new apartments subject to the same storage space requirements as now required for condominiums. Although there was some protest before that standard was adopted for condominiums, most developers now provide more storage space than required by the ordinance. Since housing costs may force more families to rent, it seems appropriate to require additional storage space for apartments also. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti, Mr. Peterson expressed the belief that the additional cost of meeting these requirements would not result in a significant increase in rental costs--probably not more than a couple of dollars a month. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Commissioner G. Johnson suggested that subsection D of the proposed ordinance be modified to state "Storage space located within the living area of the unit will be counted toward the total required space only if it clearly exceeds the closest, cabinet and laundry unit space which is normally provided for such a unit." Commissioner Pressutti commented that looking at things "normally provided" is a wide open case. Who knows what normally provided is? Mr. Peterson advised that FHA has certain minimum standards. Interpreting this provision for condominium developments has not been a problem. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code by adding a new Section 19.28.200 to read,rated in the staff report, with the addition of "laundry unit" space in subsection D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson advised that the April 9 agenda will include two fairly heavy items: Development plans for E1 Rancho del Rey #6 and for the East College Sectional Planning Area, or The Terraces. In response to a question from Commissioner Pressutti concerning the possible rezoning of ~ acres at the corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion, Mr. Peterson reported that a hearing has not been definitely scheduled as the applicant is still working on the traffic analysis portion of the EIR. When that is submitted a public hearing will be set. It appears that the applicant may be asking for R-3-P-18, 19, or 20 density range, whereas earlier comments of city representatives have indicated it should be at the lower end of the 13-26 range indicated on the General Plan. Commissioner Pressutti advised that he will be away on vacation and absent from Commission meetings during the period of April 17th throu9h April 29th. -6- March 26, 1980 Commissioner Stevenson asked about the time schedule for installing a sidewalk along Hilltop Drive at "F" Street as required by an application for a home addition approved some months ago. Senior Civil Engineer affirmed that the building addition has been completed and approved by the Building Department. The Engineering Department has wri~tten to the applicant in this regard. Commissioner G. Johnson asked if a future workshop meeting could include a review of the city's history of garage conversion ordinances and ordinances applying to boats and non-operable vehicles being parked on city streets. Mr. Peterson concurred that is a good topic for discussion at a work shop. Commissioner O'Neill called attention to an announcement that a forum sponsored by the Kiwanis Club of San Diego, entitled "Water: Will San Diego Have Enough", will take place on Tuesday, April 8th, with talks from 9:00 to 12:00 and luncheon at 12:00. The fee is $12.00 including lunch or $5.00 for the session without lunch. Chairman Smith commented it would be a good meeting to attend and it was great to have it brought before the community. Commissioner Williams reported that Metro II is holding a series of two meetings on the sewage plant capacity; that will be tonight and tomorrow night in the Point Loma area. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary