Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/01/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, January 27, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Ray, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan, Environmental Facilitator Richardson, Principal Community Development Specialist Haynes, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller, followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Conunission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 13, 1993 MSC (Carson/Martin) 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher abstained) to approve the minutes of January 13, 1993, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- January 27, 1993 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-93-06; APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 10 FT. TO 6 FT. AT 140 MANKATO STREET - J & D Construction Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, noting that the request was to add a 15'x33' carport on the westerly side of the dwelling. The carport would extend within 6' of the westerly properly line; the Code requires a 10' setback. Mr. Griffin reviewed the appellant's reasons for the appeal, and offered some options. Based on the factors in the staff report, Mr. Griffin recommended that the Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal on ZAV-93-06. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerry Drewett, 811 Halecrest Drive, Chula Vista, the general contractor, said that the plans had been approved, but staff had later found that the sideyard setback was too close and denied the approval of the plans. He had applied for an administrative variance and was denied. There had been only one complaint letter out of 42 notices. He noted other properties in the neighborhood with less than 10' setback. Mr. Drewett discussed future access needed for the owner who would probably be wheelchair bound in the next couple of years. Commissioner Martin asked if the reason he was denied the variance was because one person out of 32 complained. Mr. Martin felt it was denied because it was not in compliance with the Code. Mr. Drewett answered affirmatively. Commissioner Martin asked about a path behind the house or a breezeway. Mr. Drewett said the owner did not wish to do this; they were looking at the long-term of her disability and the most convenient access for her to get in her vehicle would be out the side door off the kitchen. The owner did not agree with the breezeway access. In response to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Drewett noted that with a reduced width, there would only be 11 feet, with less than 4 feet to access the vehicle with a wheelchair. Commissioner Ray noted that if it was the owner's intent to park the vehicle there, he agreed they were not in compliance; if it was to gain covered access to the garage, the width could be reduced and be within compliance. Mr. Drewett said the owner did not store her vehicle in the garage but in the driveway. Commissioner Ray reviewed some of the options suggested by staff, but Mr. Drewett did not agree with any of them. Chair Fuller asked if there was any barrier between the edge of the house and the edge of the garage. Mr. Drewett said there was a step down. In response to Chair Fuller's suggestion of PC Minutes -3- January 27, 1993 a covered walkway by the back door, Mr. Drewett said there would not be room for ramp access. Commissioner Carson asked how long the setback had been in the Code. Principal Planner Griffin said he believed it had been since 1970. Principal Planner Griffin stated he had checked the addresses Mr. Drewett had suggested had reduced sideyards. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Drewett if it would suffice if the cover was taken from the existing patio and were back with the full width. Mr. Drewett answered affirmatively. Commissioner Tarantino asked if that would be in compliance. Chair Fuller asked if it would encroach. Mr. Griffin said it would reduce the sideyard at another location and would encroach. Commissioner Ray asked if the only issue was that it would be attached to the structure. Mr. Griffin answered that even if this structure were detached, it would be a violation of the setback. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted it was importam to remember that the roof area could be 15' in width. With the support posts, there would be opportunity for access. If the width was reduced down, there still would be a 12' dimension from the edge of the house to the support posts. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 7-0 to deny the appeal of ZAV-93-06 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Associate Planner Miller informed the Commission that at 4:48 p.m. that afternoon, staff had received a letter from the Greenwald Company requesting withdrawal of PCC-93-18. They had sold the building and the owner would be moving along with National University to a new location in the 600 block of Bay Boulevard. They anticipate submitting an application for a conditional use permit for the new location. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO ALLOW CERTAIN LAND USE CATEGORIES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL:GENERAL LAND USE DESIGNATION WITHIN THE LCP Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan gave the staff report. She said the land uses which would be conditionally allowed would include educational services entailing colleges, PC Minutes -4- January 27, 1993 universities, trade, vocational, and technical schools and also childcare facilities within the overall Industrial:General land use of the LCP. In addition, athletic and recreational activities within the Industrial:General land use designation of the inland parcel located at "C" Street and Bay Boulevard would be allowed by conditional uses. Commissioner Moot asked if the Commission should amend to allow the educational services in light of the withdrawal of PCC-93-18. Ms. Buchan believed they should proceed with it; it would be needed for future uses. Commissioner Martin asked if they were being consistent with the current Local Coastal Program. Ms. Buchan answered affirmatively. The recently approved Local Coastal Program would not be effective until City Council acknowledged the Coastal Commission's action and suggested modifications. This would also be consistent with the new LCP. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Tuchscher) 7-0 to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration under I.S.-91-50(B) and Addendum thereto and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Negative Declaration I.S.-93-17/19, and Addendum thereto. MSC (Martin/Tuchscher) to adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program as proposed, based on the finding set forth therein. Commissioner Ray asked if there were any other amendments in work that the Commission may not be aware of. Ms. Buchan said perhaps by the fall there would be a Local Coastal Program amendment to include the South County islands specific land use plans. Commissioner Ray asked if any of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with the Commission actions. Ms. Buchan answered negatively. VOTE: 7-0 ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-15: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, BATTING AND PITCHING CAGES, AND ACCESSORY USES ON FIFTH AVENUE NORTH OF "C" STREET - National Avenue Associates Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report and recommended approval of the conditional use permit. PC Minutes -5- January 27, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked if besides the normal fencing, there was any way to assure golf balls would not impede traffic on National or South Bay Freeway. Mr. Miller said that had been considered extensively, but an approximately 60' high fence had been required along SR-54 which would alleviate that. An exact height had not been determined. An additional study ias being required of the applicant that will be site specific. Slides of other similar projects were shown. Commissioner Ray asked if there had been complaints at other golf courses regarding errant balls. Mr. Miller answered negatively. Commissioner Moot asked about the Fifth Avenue area. Mr. Miller said there would be a 25' screen of the same material. Commissioner Ray asked the setback and fence height at the north end along National. Mr. Miller said there would be a 5' chainlink fence, but no other fence had been proposed. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that corner of the property was approximately 300 yards away from National City Boulevard. The existing Sweetwater channel separated the property from National City Boulevard. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there were any plans for the adjacent Dixieline property to the south, and if this action precluded any future development there. Lyle Haynes of Community Development said currently there were no plans. He said this was an interim use to give the property owner some income; he had been holding the property for some time. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Jerald A. Alford, 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego 92101, representing National Avenue Associates, agreed with staff recommendations and the conditions suggested. Commissioner Ray asked if Carmel Mountain and Mission Bay had registered any quantity of complaints regarding errant balls. Mr. Alford had not inquired at those facilities. Larry White, 10627 Birch Bluff, San Diego, representing Golf Centers of America, said that Carmel Mountain was very close to the street and had a number of errant balls. The Carmel Mountain golf course had a straight tee line, driving next to the fence, straight down past the fence. He felt the proposed 60' fence height gave a substantial amount of safety. Mr. White discussed the various methods they were using to alleviate the problem of errant balls. Commissioner Ray asked if later it would be a problem to extend the height of the fence. Mr. White said that rather than extend the height, they would probably eliminate some of the tees or control what the golfers would be able to do. PC Minutes -6- January 27, 1993 Mr. Alford added that the 60' fence would be on top of a berm of approximately 4-1/2' to 6'. Some additional trees or hazards could be added to catch the ball. Commissioner Martin asked the height of the fence at 32nd Street. Mr. White said he believed that was a 40' fence. Commissioner Tarantino asked how many batting cages there were, and if it was drawn to scale. Mr. White said there should be nine, and it was drawn to scale. The Chula Vista Little League would be using the batting cages, etc. Commissioner Tarantino commended them for thinking of the youth. Jack Duncan, 3250 Sports Arena Blvd., San Diego 92110, representing Dixieline, said they were opposed because they believed the parcel was the wrong shape for a driving range and did not feel it was safe. The driving area should be wider. They felt it was an inappropriate use for the land; it was part of the redevelopment district of Town Centre II; there was no guarantee that it would be an interim use. They did not believe the use had been addressed properly in the staff report. Dixieline felt the highest and best use for this site would be a large retail center. Dixieline was on the verge of completing the fill project and the 17 acres would be a 10-acre building site. They felt it would be a building site in approximately 1 year. Their opposition was based on three items: safety, the elimination of the I-L zone, and the elimination of the possibility of a big retail center. Mr. Alford rebutted Mr. Duncan saying the zoning was not being changed; Dixieline could still develop their land as an industrial park; they had been worldng with Community Development for over a year on several projects, but could not wait any longer; they needed to build a project. Mr. White felt the community could be well served as a sports facility, and would like to consider that a temporary use. If there is a higher and better use, they would be ready to respond. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson, regarding the interim use, asked if the Negative Declaration use should reflect that. Conunissioner Tuchscher felt it was an interim use pending a better opportunity and did not feel there would be a problem vacating this use for a better project. Commissioner Ray noted that since this was a conditional use permit and an interim facility, he would like to include in the resolution a review period at six month increments upon the opening of the facility for not less than a year, to validate that there had not been complaints or problems with errant balls onto the South Bay Freeway. PC Minutes -7- January 27, 1993 In response to Chair Fuller, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf believed it would be appropriate for the condition to be added as an element in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, or as a condition in the conditional use permit, but believed the best place would be in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Associate Planner Miller asked that wording be included that it be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator rather than bringing it back to the Commission at each interval. Commissioner Moot asked if there was some procedure to halt driving balls in the driving range if there was some problem with balls going onto a busy freeway. Mr. Rudolf said a condition could be added in the conditional use permit requiring a specified level of insurance and/or a hold harmless for the City. Regarding Commissioner Moor's concern, Mr. Miller noted there was wording in Condition 13 stating that failure to comply with any condition of approval would cause the permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf noted there was also language in Condition 12 regarding the potential for additional safety conditions being imposed. Commissioner Tuchscher was surprised to see Dixieline in opposition; he hoped they would come forward in a fast manner with a project, but in the meantime felt this would be a great use for the community. MSUC (Fuller/Ray) 7-0 that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum thereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program issued on IS-91-050B. MSUC (Ray/Martin) 7-0 to include in the mitigation monitoring plan that the staff monitor the conditions of the conditional use permit and bring it back to the Commission if there is a problem. MSUC (Fuller/Carson) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve PCC-93-15 subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council resolution, based on the findings contained herein, and subject to the adoption of the required amendment to the Local Coastal Program. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-93-18: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY AT 740 BAY BOULEVARD (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY) - Foster Properties (Applicant had withdrawn the request for a conditional use permit. See Associate Planner Martin's comment made before Item 2.) PC Minutes -8- January 27, 1993 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the February 5 meeting had been deleted at the previous joint meeting with the County, and the February 24 meeting would probably be longer than two hours. He stated the dilmer workshop was set for February 17. Since the March 10 meeting would be during the week of the League Planning Commission Conference, he would ask for that meeting to be canceled nearer that date. Chair Fuller commented that when the projected schedule for the Otay Ranch meetings with the County Commission had been discussed, there was not a specific time limit on the Wednesday night meetings where the City Planning Commission did not have a scheduled meeting following. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tuchscher Discussion re university siting on Otay Ranch Chair Fuller said this item would be taken up as a joint discussion with the County Planning Commission. Commissioner Ray asked if anyone was successful in locating the memo from John Goss regarding conditional use permits--the letter he had formally written to the RCC. Staff answered negatively. Commissioner Tarantino stated that he had been invited to visit the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis and would not be in attendance at the February 3 meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:50 p.m. to Joint Planning Commission/County Commission Special Meetings of January 29, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. at the County Department of Planning and Land Use Room; February 3, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; February 5, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. at the County Department of Planning and Land Use Room; and February 10, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; immediately followed by a Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Rit~ey, Sect~etary l Planning Commission