Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/06/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 25, 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, Pressutti, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson and Williams. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner R. Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Stevenson-G. Johnson) ~he minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1980 be approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commissioners. Commissioner G. Johnson abstained from voting due to her absence on June 11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property at the north side of the intersection of Main Street and Maple Drive to R-3-P-12 - Pacific En~ineerin§ Director of Planning Peterson noted that this hearing was continued from a previous meeting and the applicant has now requested a further continuance to August 13 to give them time to prepare development plans to be considered with the request for prezoning. Chairman Smith declared the public hearing reopened. MSUC (Pressutti-Stevenson) The public hearing for consideration of application PCZ-80-G be continued to the meeting of August 13, 1980. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-14, Bonita Hills, conversion of 94 units to condominiums at 1400 Rid~eback Road Director of Planning Peterson reported that this development is a 94 unit apart- ment complex on Ridgeback Road, west of Otay Lakes Road, which was constructed in 1978. It includes 74 two-bedroom units and 20 one-bedroom units, located in nine structures. Also included in the complex are a swimming pool, sauna, jacuzzi, -2- June 25, 1980 recreation room and laundry facility. The buildings are one, two and three story structures, with carports located on the ground floor of the three story buildings. To meet the storage requirements for condominiums the applicant will be constructing additions to the buildings with access from the inside of the units only. Some storage will be provided in the balcony and patio areas. He will also revise some of the entry ways to provide more privacy. Additional carports will also be constructed to supply a one to one ratio with the number of units, and the non-contiguous storage area will be located in the carports. Mr. Peterson advised that the plans meet all requirements and criteria of the code for condominiums and have been approved by the Design Review Committee subject to a number of conditions with which the applicant has concurred. He recommended approval of the tentative map subject to five conditions enumerated in the report. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. Peterson advised that State Law requires that tenants be given 120 days notice of the intent to sell the units with 60 days right of ~rst refusal to purchase. Such notice may be given prior to approval of the final map if the owner so desires. He also affirmed that the proposed storage meets the requirements for three bedroom units in the event the den is converted to bedroom use. In response to a question from Commissioner O'Neill with regard to the occupancy percentage for that complex, Mr. Peterson reported that a few months ago the units were virtually 100 per cent occupied. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Sid Xinos, of Schwerin, Xinos and Associates, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the staff recommendation with some reservation on conditions 4 and 5 relating to the construction of East "H" Street. He concurred with the need for having the street installed but felt some uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate to assess this project for a portion of the cost. In answer to a question from Commissioner O'Neill, Mr. Peterson affirmed that this requirement has been placed on other tentative subdivision maps in the area but this is the first time it has been recommended on an existing development. The condition was requested by the Engineering Division and it is unfortunate that a dollar amount of the assessment has not been determined. The rationale for the staff recommendation is that these residents would undoubtedly be users of "H" Street so that they should help to pay for it. Chairman Smith noted that if street improvements are constructed through an assessment district, the adjoining property may be assessed on the basis of frontage on the street and a larger area assessed depending on the distance from the street and based on use and benefits to be derived from the street. He asserted this requirement should not be included as a blank check for an unknown amount. He felt the cost should have been determined prior to this time and recommended approval of the map without the last two conditions. Mr. Xinos concurred with Mr. Smith's recommendation on the basis that just a change of ownership should not be reason for assessment. -3- June 25, 1980 Mr. Pressutti noted that if this were a bare piece of ground and the applicant requested approval to construct new buildings he would be assessed for the required street improvements. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Assistant City Attorney Harron advised that the establishment of a reimbursement district requires a public hearing before the City Council, at which time the involved property owners are given an opportunity to protest the formation of the district. If condition 4 is included in approving the tentative map, the applicant would have agreed to waive his right to protest against the formation of a reimbursement district. It would not, however, deprive him of the right of arguing how the assessment should be spread after the district is formed. Commissioner Stevenson expressed the opinion that this cost would be passed on to the people buying the condominiums and he felt it should be treated the same as home owners of single family homes in the area. If a hearing is to be held in the future to determine the formation of an assessment district, then these condominium home owners should be considered the same as other home owners in the area rather than forcing them into the district at this time. He suggested that eliminating conditions 4 and 5 would not automatically mean this property would not be assessed, but they will be on the same basis as other residents who may benefit from construction of the street, which would be considered at an ul ti ma te da te. Chairman Smith felt that is not exactly correct; it would be true under a 1911 Act improvement district, but under a reimbursement district that may be different. Mr. Harron affirmed that under a reimbursement district, an assessment may be levied only at such time as the property owner comes in for approval of develop- ment plans. Commissioner G. Johnson asked whether at the time these apartments were constructed there was any contribution toward the widening of Otay Lakes Road. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust advised that at the time the only assessment for widening Otay Lakes Road would have been against property fronting on Otay Lakes Road; he did not believe any contribution was required of this development. It was affirmed that the developers of the medical office building and bank did contribute toward the cost of widening Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that the conversion of apartment units to condominiums should entail some commitment from the owner. If the conversion results in a gain, the applicant should assist in bringing "H" Street through. He felt waiving the right to protest formation of a district is not unreasonable since the applicant would still have the right to debate the amount of the assessment against his property. MS (Pressutti-Williams) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Hills, Chula Vista Tract 80-14, subject to the five conditions listed in the report. -4- June 25, 1980 The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Williams and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Smith, O'Neill and Stevenson ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson MS (Stevenson-Smith) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Hills, Chula Vista Tract 80-14, subject to conditions 1, 2 and 3, only, as listed in the report. MS (Williams-G. Johnson) The motion on the floor be amended to include condition 4. The motion for the amendment failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Williams, G. Johnson and Pressutti Noes: Commissioners Smith, O'Neill and Stevenson The motion by Commissioner Stevenson failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson and Smith NOES: Commissioners Williams, G. Johnson, Pressutti and O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson In response to a question concerning the procedure that follows a tie vote of the Commission, Mr. Peterson advised the tentative map would be forwarded to the City Council with a report advising that body of the 3-3 vote. Commissioner Pressutti asked if the map is approved subject to conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4, would condition 4 subsume condition 5. Would the fact that a reimburse- ment district is formed in which the applicant's property is involved indicate that the applicant would have to pay something? Mr. Harron advised that if the district is formed before the final map is approved, then it would subsume condition 5; but if it is formed after approval of the final map then the applicant would not be affected and wouldn't have to contribute. Commissioner O'Neill commented that he is against the inclusion of conditions 4 and 5 as he does not think that is the way the City should go. However, his "NO" vote in each case is because he sees the potential of putting 94 families out in an already depressed rental market, and that is the basis for his "NO" vote. Mr. Peterson advised that the report to the City Council will include the minutes of the Planning Commission's discussion and action. When it is a close vote the Council frequently asks the reason for the various Commissioners' votes. Chairman Smith suggested that each Commissioner have an opportunity to express his reasoning so this can be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Stevenson stated his basic feeling is that this area has been developed and has paid the price for the appropriate roads constructed in that area, and the people living in these units should be considered on the same basis as other single family home owners in the area. -5- June 25, 1980 Commissioner G. Johnson expressed the opinion that the creation of a new subdivision is a form of land use change and on that basis conditions 4 and 5 relating to street improvements should be included. Commissioner Williams contended that condition 4 should be included due to the filing of the tentative map. Waiving the right to protest formation of a district does not mean the applicant will be treated unfairly in terms of the assessment or reimbursement district, nor will it lessen his ability to argue his involvement. Commissioner Pressutti expressed concurrence with the remarks of the two previous Commissioners. Chairman Smith reported that he is in favor of permitting this conversion to condominiums under the appropriate rules, but he does not believe in their being assessed an unknown amount for participation in the street. He further expressed the belief there are at least three or four possible sources of funding for building this highway; i.e., subventions from the gasoline tax, improvement act funds and assessments or requirements of subdividers for the streets within the subdivision, as normally provided, and to some extent outside of the subdivision. This should be based on the increase in the usage of the road involved as a result of new development. He felt a policy should be developed for this and other streets. Chairman Smith advised Mr. Xinos that this tentative map will go to the City Council noting the tie vote on adoption of the resolution. Mr. Xinos noted that the majority of the Commission members have expressed approval of the conversion itself and asked if there could be a separate motion affirmin§ that approval. MS (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that the proposal meets the criteria established by ordinance for condominiums and supports approval of the conversion, without endorsing the conditions recommended in the report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, G. Johnson, Smith, Pressutti and Williams NAY: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: Commissioner R. Johnson Commissioner Pressutti requested that the record show that he personally opposes converting apartments to condominiums, however, the applicant has met all of the criteria the City has established and he could therefore find no way of voting "NO" on this request. He suggested the City may need to establish tighter criteria. Commissioner Williams expressed agreement with Mr. Pressutti's comment and suggested it is time to seek some criteria that delve into the social aspects. Director of Planning Peterson suggested that this be the subject of a study session at which the Commission may recommend changes to the criteria. Commissioner O'Neill commented that based on reports made to the City Council concerning apartment conversions to condominiums this is creating a social problem that is getting worse. -6- June 25, 1980 Various Commissioners expressed the desire to discuss condominiums at the next study session with background material to include an up to date report of the regulations of other cities in this regard. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson noted that Commissioner Pressutti has completed six years of service on the Planning Commission and has just been reappointed by the Council for his second four year term. COMMISSION ~UU,~L COMMENTS Commissioner G. Johnson thanked the staff for the study on R-1 parking requirements. She asked if further information concerning the requirements of other cities in the area on garage conversions could be supplied at a future study session. Commissioner Stevenson asked for information on the number of new apartment units built last year and thos~n~§~m~Or construction downstream, as compared to the number converted to ~~'~o determine if the city is losing ground on apartment inventory. Mr. Peterson indicated he would have that information available for the July study session. Commissioner Williams asked if it is possible to determine how many units that were converted to condominium ownership are back in the rental market as apartments managed by individual owners, and the effect this has on rental costs. Mr. Peterson replied that that is a little more difficult to come up with but we do have some information that will also be available for the July session. Commissioner Stevenson asked about the status of the property at Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion, which was under controversy some months back. Mr. Peterson advised there had been some delay on the part of the owner in providing the necessary environmental report relating to traffic generation, but this has now been received and a rezonin9 action will be coming to the Planning Commission soon. Attention was also called to the "NOW LEASING" sign located on that property. Mr. Peterson affirmed that is an unauthorized sign and its removal is being pursued by the City. Chairman Smith suggested it is about time to elect a new chairman for the coming year. There was a general consensus that Chairman Smith should continue in that role. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Napes, Secr~ ary~