Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/06/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 24, 1981 A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginnin9 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Commissioners present: Pressutti, G. Johnson, O'Neill, Williams, Stevenson and Green Commissioners absent: R. Johnson 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, and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (O~Neill-Stevenson) The minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1981 be approved as mailed. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-81-15 to operate family video entertainment cen~er at 60-C East J Street, David Campbell Director of Planning Peterson pointed Out this is a proposal to establish a video game center on the south side of "J" Street in a small neighborhood shopping center, which is 1.2 acres in size and contaln~ two buildings. Hoagy~s convenience store occupies the buildin§ nearest to "J" S~reet, while the second building, which is set farther back on the lot, is occupied by a coin operated laundry and has a vacant space just over 1,000 sq. ft. in area,'which was formerly used by a bike shop. The applicant proposes to install 14 g2me machines and has indicated there would be one or two employees on the premise~ at all times, with a security guard present during peak hours. The applicant proposed to have the center open from no~n to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week. This location is fairly well isolated from residential uses since it is surrounded on three sides by a junior high school, fire station and elementary school district officesl Single family homes are located on the opposite side of "J" Street. Mr. Peterson advised that a petition bearing 103 signatures, representing 69 properties, was received, expressing opposition to the application on the basis of problems existing in the center at the present time. These include excessive noise, traffic, rowdy behavior and late night loitering, which the signers feel would be compounded if the proposed use is approved. -2- June 24, 1981 Since the site is fairly well isolated from residential uses, the staff concluded the amusement center is an appropriate use in this location, subject to conditions limiting the hours of operation to 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. when schools are in session, the provision of a bicycle rack in front of the establishment, the presence of a security guard during all hours of operation, and the provision that any continued disturbance or problems shall be cause for the Planning Commission to review the use permit to determine whether the use should be allowed to continue. In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson concerning the definition of a security guard, Mr. Peterson affirmed that training should be required to fill such a position and he would think the person should be at least 2t years of age. In response to a question from Commissioner O~Neill concerning curfew hours for youngsters, Assistant City Attorney advised there is a curfew for children under the age of 18 from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Chairman Pressutti expressed the opinion there should be a review of this operation after a specified period of time even if staff does not receive reports of problems. Commissioner G. Johnson suggested there should be two restrooms and a drinking fountain within this center. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. William Hawes, Principal of Hilltop Junior High School, 44 East J Street, expressed the school district's concern over the overlapping of hours with the school's schedule, as this could cause some truancy. If the opening hour of the game center is changed to 2:00 p.m. on school days that would remove the objections of the school district with regard to this application. He affirmed that there is heavy traffic on "J" Street, without this particular establishment, and also that there are a lot of children in the area of the shopping center after school hours. Residents speakin9 in opposition to the application included: Ruth Hyde, 684 Claire Avenue; Frank Delgado, 41 East "J" Street; Joy Sheresh, 688 Robert Avenue; Gerry Beeson, 37 East "J"; Luis Muhlbach, 31 East "J"; Wade Richardson, 101 East "J"; Sharon Antrim, 693 Robert; Doris Humerick, 694 Claire; Emily Baca and Robert Hyde. Their opposition was based on the noise, rowdiness and traffic generated by the shopping center at the present time due to the large number of young people congre-. gating at the convenience store which presently has four video game machines. It was anticipated these impacts would be increased if an amusement center is permitted at this site since it would draw added numbers of youth into the area. Incidents were cited with regard to drug dealing in the parking lot, beer and wine bottles thrown into nearby yards or broken on the pavement, and cars racing up and down "J" Street during the night as late as 2:00 a.m. It was affirmed this area is under regular police patrol and police cars are there nightly. David Campbell, the applicant, stated that he did not want to downgrade the area and felt that a properly supervised amusement center would not add to the problems presently existing. He expressed his intent to cooperate fully with the schools and the amusement center would not be open during the hours school is in session. He cited other video game centers in Chula Vista which apparently operate with no -3- June 24, 1981 detrimental impact on the surrounding area. He affirmed that his 18 year old son would operate the center and would be the security guard after attending school to become certified and licensed for that purpose. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussing the application, the Commission noted that in view of the opposition expressed by residents of the neighborhood it is difficult to make the finding that the proposed use would constitute a necessary or desirable service to contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. MSUC (Stevenson-O'Neill) The Commission denies application PCC-81-15 to operate a family video entertainment center at 60-C East "J" Street, based on the following findings: The proposed use would be located within a small existing neighborhood shopping center intended to provide convenience goods and services to the immediate neighborhood. It would be located in close proximity to three schools and family residences. The proposed use, which would result in the collection of children at this location, may well promote vandalism and rowdiness disruptive to the area. The need for such an entertainment center is not considered a valuable necessity to the services offered in this area. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within ten days. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-6~ Otay Valley Industrial Park~ development of 19 industrial lots at 500 block Otay Valley Road Principal Planner Lee advised that a tentative map for this site was approved by the Commission about two months ago to divide the property into 29 industrial lots. The map was subsequently withdrawn and redesigned to create a 19 tot subdivision with the aim of reducing development costs. The new design requires less street construction within the development site. Mr. Lee noted that the primary issues discussed in the report relate to publi~ improvements, onsite and offsite, and to slope ratios. With regard to onsite improvements it is recommended that the two streets be increased to 68 foot right-of-way with 52 feet curb-to-curb width, rather than the 56 feet and 40 feet, respectively, as shown on the map. This would meet the established standard for industrial streets. While certain industrial uses may not require that width of street, the ultimate uses of the lots in this development have not been determined so it is advisable to have the streets developed to industrial street standards. It is also recommended that the developer be required to widen Maxwell Road from the subdivision boundary to Otay Valley Road, and also to widen and improve Otay Valley Road from Maxwell to the western boundary of the subdivision, with the stipulation that the developer may request a reimbursement district for the cost of improvements that will benefit other properties. Mr. Lee reported that the applicant has agreed to increase the slope ratio to 2:1, but has requested that rather than constructing a 3:1 slope at the southwest corner, he be permitted to use a steeper slope landscaped with specimen trees. The staff recommendation remains that the slope be kept to a flatter grade adjacent to Otay Valley Road. -4- June 24, 1981 In response to a question from Commissioner O~Neill, Mr. Lee advised that if the developer encounters a problem in acquiring the land necessary for the additional right-of-way along the north side of Otay Valley Road, the City will assist by using the condemnation procedure at the developer's expense. Mr. Lee also advised that the Community Development Department has been apprised of the need for public improvements to enhance industrial development east of 1-805 and is presently conducting a study to determine if the City will assist in providing those improvements. A report in that regard should be submitted to the City Council prior to their consideration of this tentative map. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gene Cook of E. F. Cook and Associates, representing the developer, told of their efforts to hold the cost of the development to a level that would enable them to offer saleable lots to industrial users. They hoped the redesigned map would meet this aim but fear that adding the cost of widening Otay Valley Road, especially since they do not own the property required for the right-of-way, and also widening the interior streets to full industrial standard, may increase the cost to a point where they are not able to go ahead with the development. He requested that the map be approved as submitted. In particular, he asked for relief from conditions d, e, f, g, h, and i, all of which relate to onsite and offsite street improvements. He also requested approval of a 2.5:1 slope at the southwest corner of the property, rather than the 3:1 slope recommended by the Planning Department. He also asked for deletion of the requirement of a decorative bloc.k wall unless the individual lots are developed for storage use or some activity that would require such screening. In response to a suggestion of phasing the development in order to spread the cost of street improvements, Mr. Cook noted that the total area would have to be graded in one operation and if a portion of the development were delayed that area would have to be landscaped to prevent erosion; he felt phased development would not be feasible. It was also pointed out the developer could request a deferral on the offsite street improvements until such time as increased traffic required the street widening. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-81-24. MSUC (Stevenson-Williams) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Otay Valley Industrial Park, Chula Vista Tract 81-6, subject to the 21 conditions recommended in the report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-8~ Lansdown Vil.las~ construCtion of 20 unit condominium project at 365 Roosevelt and 370 Vance Principal Planner Lee pointed out the location of four lots, presently developed with single family homes, which the applicant proposes to consolidate into one through lot extending from Roosevelt Street to Vance Street. The existing homes -5- June 24, 1981 will be removed and the site redeveloped with 20 two-bedroom units to be sold as condominiums. The lot will have 130 feet of frontage on the south~de of Vance Street and 100 feet on the north side of Roosevelt. This property and the surrounding area is zoned R-3 and is going through a transformation to apartment development although it is dominated by single family homes to the west. Architectural and site plans for the project were approved by the Design Review Committee on May 7. A two-car garage for each unit will be provided underneath the buildings with access via an 18 foot driveway from each street. The driveways are not connected, which precludes any through lot circulation and provides for more usable open space in the center of the lot. There will be three open guest parking spaces on the site with the street frontage affording six additional guest parking spaces at the curb. The required storage space will be located in the individual garages. Mr. Lee displayed slides showing the elevations of the buildings and the location of private and common open space which meets or exceeds ordinance requirements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Schnitker, 230 Glover Avenue, the developer, advised that all conditions recommended in the report have been incorporated into the plans. He also affirmed the buildings are designed on an economy basis in an attempt to provide affordable housing. Don Raymetz expressed his concern over parking and traffic on Roosevelt. He suggested posting the street for two hour parking. He contended that the 248 space parking lot owned by the hospital is not used because hospital employees consider it too expensive and park their cars on residential streets. Richard Barton, 378 Vance Street, discussed parking difficulties on Vance which he asserted were the result of an apartment complex of 16 units which was constructed in 1960. He contended the problems would be compounded by the construction of this project. Wilber Payne, 371 Vance Street, questioned whether the three onsite guest parking spaces would be retained for that use or would be used for trash dumpsters. Mr. Lee affirmed that the dumpsters would not be located in those parking spaces but would be located in an enclosed area. Richard Barnett related an incidence of a problem in getting an ambulance to his residence due to cars blocking the driveway. Mrs. Payne, 371 Vance Street, pointed out there are presently three apartment houses on that stubbed street and she did not feel there should be 20 additional units to add to the confusion. Brent Bergh, owner of the property, pointed out they have designed the project with 25% more parking than required by ordinance and have placed the parking under cover in a garage, along with storage space and laundry facilities. He advised they would encourage two hour parking restrictions and the minimum amount of driveway cuts. He asserted that if there is a need to widen Roosevelt or to restrict it to one-way traffic they would cooperate. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -6- June 24, 1981 MSUC (Williams-Stevenson) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-81-32. MSUC (Williams-Stevenson) Based on the findings in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Lansdown Villas, Chula Vista Tract 81-8, subject to the conditions recommended in the report. Chairman Pressutti requested that based on the discussion concerning parking and traffic problems on Roosevelt and Vance Street, the staff study this area and bring back a report or some solution. DIRECTOR'S REPORT The Director of Planning had no report. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner G. Johnson suggested that the staff examine the ordinance with regard to the requirement for onsite guest parking in multiple family developments. Director of Planning Peterson advised that such a study had just been completed at the Council's request and the conclusion reached that there is not a need for additional onsite guest parking over the present requirements. Commissioner O'Neill asked what happened to the supplemental EIR on the closure of Fifth Avenue which was to have been scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson advised that the City Council decided not to proceed with that project at this time because spokesmen for the Sears company expressed concern over the possible closure of Fifth Avenue and wished to study it further. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. to the meeting of July 8, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Sec~