Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1980/09/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 24, 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. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Commissioners present: Pressutti, Smith, R. Johnson, G. Johnson and Stevenson Commissioners absent (with previous notification): O'Neill and Williams Staff present: Director of Planning Peterson, Principal Planner Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pressutti, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (R. Johnson-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of September 10, 1980 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None were presented. 1. Request for extension of time and expansion of variance PCV-80-1 for exemption from the west to east development policS of the E1 Rancho del ReS Specific Plan Director of Planning Peterson reported that last year the Planning Commission approved a variance request to waive the requirement of the west to east development policy which is part of the Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey for the area east of 1-805 and permit development of a 2.6 acre parcel on the north side of "H" Street just west of Otay Lakes Road. At the Council's request, the Commission's action was forwarded to the Council for consideration and action. The Council voted 3:2 to deny the request, but since a 4/5 vote by the Council is required to overturn the Planning Commission's action, the Council then adopted a resolution approving the variance subject to a condition requiring that the developer participate in an improvement district to complete the installation of East "H" Street. The variance as approved by the City Council will expire on November 20, 1980 unless development has been commenced prior to that time. The site has been purchased by Huffman Construction Company who have requested a nine month extension of the expiration date and an expansion of the area permitted to be developed to include 1.4 acres adjacent to the north. It is recommended that the request be approved. -2- September 24, 1980 Although not a public hearing, Chairman Pressutti opened the discussion to input from the applicant or anyone interested. Michael Witte, 3232 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, attorney representing Huffman Construction Company, pointed out that the City Council did adopt a resolution granting the original variance with the addition of certain conditions relating to participation in public improvement costs. He also reported that Huffman Construction Company's precise plan for the 2.4 acres was ready for submittal about two months ago, when the staff asked them to consider including the adjacent 1.4 acres in their plan if terms for its acquisition could be agreed upon. Huffman has reached an agreement with the Gersten Company to acquire that property but will need additional time to revise the plan. Due to this delay in their planning procedures they earnestly request the nine month extension of time, with the addition of the adjacent 1.4 acres if that is the Commission's desire. Commissioner Smith noted that the Commission is entitled to grant a one year extension of time on the variance. MSUC (R. Johnson-Smith) The Commission grants a one year extension of time for variance PCV-80-1, and an expansion of the area to include the additional 1.4 acre site adjacent on the north. 2. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property on the north side of Main Street at Maple Drive to R-3-P-12 - Pacific Engineering Principal Planner Lee reported that this hearing has been continued on three previous occasions; the applicant is now preparing a precise plan which he expects to have completed within the next week so that the design of the project can be considered by the Design Review Committee on October 16. The applicant has asked for a continuance on the rezoning to October 22 since it is important for them to present a plan to show that the property can be developed at 12 units to the acre. MSUC (G. Johnson-Smith) The public hearing to consider the rezoning application PCS-80-G be continued to the meeting of October 22, 1980. 3, PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-32, Telegraph Canyon Villas, 183 unit condominium project at the 600 block of Telegraph Canyon Road Principal Planner Lee reported that the applicant has a 183 unit apartment complex under construction on this 8 acre site, at a density of approximately 23 units to the acre. The site has been zoned R-3 for some time which would allow a maximum of 32 units to the acre. The single family homes abutting the site on the north and east are at a higher elevation (20'-30'above) however, some of the buildings in this development which average 35' in height will project above the pad level of those homes. A shopping center is located to the west of this site and another condominium development is across the street to the south. Slides were displayed of the architecture of the structures which was approved prior to the start of construction. The private open space and storage for each unit comply with the code regulations for condominiums. The units have not been occupied so the project is not subject to the moratorium currently in effect. -3- September 24, 1980 Mr. Lee noted that eight conditions are listed in the staff report, but it is recommended that condition 6, relating to the provision of low and moderate income housing be deleted due to recent City Council direction. It is also recommended that the finding under item 4.b. be modified by deleting the last sentence, which also relates to the provision of low and moderate income housing. In response to a question from Chairman Pressutti regarding the possible advantage of securing approval of an apartment project, then requesting conversion to condo- miniums, Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion there is no advantage since the development must be designed to meet the standards established for condo- miniums. In a number of cases the developer has indicated the subdivision map is filed as a safeguard against rent control. It would also give the investors in a project the ability to sell the units if their investment needs so dictate. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Arthur Peinado, attorney with Jenkins and Perry, Suite 1900 Central Federal Tower, San Diego, expressed the applicant's concurrence with the conditions as modified with the exception of condition 5 which he felt needs clarification as to the type of agreement requiring participation in a reimbursement or other district for the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road. Commissioner G. Johnson referred to the description of the project which indicates two guest rooms will be located on the second floor of the recreation building. She asked if this is a new concept and whether the Home Owners Association would oversee the use of those rooms. Ray Huffman, 2700 Adams Avenue, San Diego, owner and developer, advised that this development complex is being built as apartment housing, is financed as apartments and will be operated as apartments. In a number of developments they have included guest rooms which are available for the convenience of tenants who may have out of town guests who cannot be accommodated in the individual units; this practice was begun in 1963 or '64 and has proven very helpful to the tenants. The rooms are furnished but linens are not supplied. The apartment house manager assigns the use of the rooms. The use of the guest rooms in a condominium project has not been addressed as they have no plans for selling the units. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith agreed with the applicant's representative that condition 5 should specify a dollar amount or at least an explanation of the specific improve- ments to be covered by the reimbursement district. Senior Civil Engineer Daoust advised that the reimbursement district for the improve- ment of Telegraph Canyon Road has been under consideration for quite some time. They do not have an estimate of the dollar cost for each development along the street. The costs are expected to be prorated on the basis of traffic volume which each development would contribute to the street, but they do not have a figure to apply to the cost per dwelling unit. Mr. Daoust further explained that the area along Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 has been divided into three separate districts; the developers within each district would bear the cost of improving Telegraph Canyon Road for the length included in that district, but as yet the dollar amount of such costs has not been established. -4- September 24, 1980 Commissioner Smith further discussed the urgency of completing the design of the improvements and establishing the cost so the various developers will know what is expected of them. MSUC (Smith-Stevenson) Based on the findings as stated in the report, with the deletion of the last sentence of item 4.b., the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32, subject to conditions 1-5, 7 and 8 as listed in the staff report (deleting condition 6). MSUC (Smith-Stevenson) The Planning Commission shall address a communication to the City Council asking that Telegraph Canyon improvements be planned as quickly as possible and that a formula for allocation of the cost be developed so the developers can be informed as to their obligations. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Conditional use permit PCC-80-21, request for expansion of existing mini-shop at 196 Broadwa~ - Atlantic Richfield Compans Principal Planner Lee noted that this hearing was continued from a previous meeting when the Commission voted 3-3 on a motion for denial of the request. It was hoped that the full Commission would be present to consider the revised plans; however, only five members are present at this meeting and approval of the application would require four affirmative votes. For that reason the applicant should be afforded a further continuance if desired. Sam Blick, attorney with Higgs, Fletcher and Mack, representing Atlantic Richfield and Mr. Rodriquez, the operator at the subject location, expressed optimism that the Commission would approve the request based on the revised plan which has the support of the staff. Commissioner Stevenson suggested that the revised plan be reviewed and if there appears to be doubt among the Commissioners, the applicant may then wish to request a continuance until all Commissioners will be present. Principal Planner Lee displayed and discussed the proposed site plan and reviewed the Planning Commission and Council's previous actions which resulted in the conversion of a portion of the building to the sale of fast food items and beer and wine. The present request would convert the entire building to that type of service and would eliminate the garage and lubrication stall, as well as the pump island adjacent to Broadway. The staff now recommends approval subject to conditions to limit the signing on the site, require additional landscaping, and modify the site plan to shift the parking spaces along the east property line closer to the north driveway to lessen the chance of a circulation conflict. Slides were shown depicting the elevations of the remodeled structure. Chairman Pressutti reopened the public hearing. Sam Blick advised that the staff presentation had covered their desires very clearly and in response to a question from the Commission concerning the possibility of a future review of the operation following the conversion, he indicated they would welcome such review, noting that the previous mini-shop had been reviewed after a -5- September 24, 1980 year of operation and no complaints were found. He suggested that the City would benefit from a more esthetically pleasing site at this busy location if the proposed plan is approved. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Planning Commission approves the conditional use permit application PCC-80-21 subject to the conditions listed in the report. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of zonin§ text amendment PCA-81-1 relating to replacement of garage conversions Director of Planning Peterson reported that the question of garage conversions was discussed at a study session some months ago and a request made that the staff consider amending the present regulations, which require the construction of a garage with any single family home or duplex located in the R-E, R-1 or R-2 zone, but permit the conversion of such garage to living quarters subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator and the provision of offstreet parking which may be located in the front driveway. Mr. Peterson advised that prior to 1969, when the existing regulations were adopted, the conversion of a garage required its replacement with another garage. On most lots that could not be accomplished so there were few garage conversions. The present regulation has resulted in numerous conversions with parking accommodated on the driveway or on the street. This results in a very congested appearance if several conversions occur in the same block. As noted in an exhibit included in the report, seven cities in this area which were surveyed do not permit parking in the front setback, and four of the cities require a replacement garage or carport. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the proposed amendment would require the replacement of any garage or carport converted in the future with a similar structure to accom- modate the same number of parking spaces. Slides were shown of numerous garage conversions which have taken place, some of which do not meet the architectural requirements of the existing code. Commissioner G. Johnson commented that such conversions frequently hinder the resale of the property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak so the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The Commission adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-81-10 and finds that the proposed amendment will have no significant environmental impact. MSUC (Stevenson-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Sections 19.62.170 and 19.62.190 of the municipal code as set forth in the staff report. -6- September 24, 1980 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson called attention to the announcement of the annual League of California Cities Conference to be held in Los Angeles in October. The budget includes funds for the expense of two Planning Commissioners to attend this conference. Any Commissioners interested should advise the secretary so registration and reservations can be taken care of. Mr. Peterson also reported that no public hearings are scheduled for the next regular business meeting date on October 8 and if it is the Commission's preference that meeting could be cancelled and the Commission meet next for a study session at 5:00 p.m. on October 15th to be followed by dinner. The October 15 meeting would include a discussion of preservation of agricultural lands by a representative from the County Department of Agriculture. With the consent of the Commission, Chairman Pressutti declared the meeting of October 8 cancelled. He also reported he would be out of town for the next few weeks and would miss the study session on October 15th. He may be back in time for the October 22nd meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner R. Johnson commented on the unsightly appearance of the area adjacent to "E" Street just west of the railroad tracks. This is at one of the gateways to the city and he felt it should be cleaned up. Mr. Peterson reported that has been called to the attention of the Parks and Recreation Department which is responsible for the area and it will be cleaned as soon as personnel is available to accomplish that. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. to the study session at 5:00 p.m. on October 15 and a regular business meeting at 7:00 p.m. on October 22, 1980. Respectfully submitted,