HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-11-18 PC MINS MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING'COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
November 18, 1963
The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. on the above date in the Council
Chamber at Civic Center with the following members present : Stevenson,
Stewart, Comstock , Willhite and Adams . Absent: Members Johnson and
Guyer . Also present: Acting Planning Director Warren , City Attorney
Duberg and Principal Engineer Harshman .
REZONING
PUBLIC HEARING - Allen-Cromer Annexation
Mr . Warren submitted a map noting the location of the annexation . The
first reading of the annexation has been held by the City Council and
is now awaiting the second reading . Mr . Warren explained that R-I -B-20
and R- I -A zoning was considered; however, he felt split zoning the
property should be based on a subdivision map which the proponents have
not, as yet, submitted. Most of the area around the school site is
relatively level , increasing to a 25% slope on the south half of the
annexation .- Much of the topography is unsuitable for less than one-acre
lots . Mr. Warren stated the staff would recommend that the entire an-
nexation be brought in as interim R- I -A zoning until such time as the
proponents file a subdivision map. Final zoning could be based upon a
subdivision map in the future .
This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened
the public hearing.
Mr . Richard Allen, Allen School Road, said that ultimately their goal
was to develop this property largely with one-half acre lots . He said
that much of the topography in this area was comparable to that on
Acacia Avenue . The quality of the house to be built means more than the
acreage . Mr . Allen stated that one-acre zoning on a temporary basis was
acceptable, providing that one-half acre zoning would be considered for
much of the property if a logical subdivision pattern is approved.
Mr . Robert A. Miles , builder, stated he took this annexation to the
County some time ago and was granted one-half acre lots for a portion
of it . He proceeded with an engineering and feasibility study, then
abandoned the development . He found he could get 76 lots out of the
development, 40 of which would be one-half acre and the balance 3/4 acre .
Mr . Miles stated that a subdivider must get as many lots out of a sub-
division as possible .
Mr . Steve Gassaway, speaking for the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association,
declared that the Association endorses the proposal suggested by the
Planning Staff. They would not protest any zoning that would be one-half
acre or more ® Mr . Gassaway cited several homes adjacent to the annexation
that now have one-acre lots and have maintained them very well . He asked
that final zoning create a buffer of one-acre lots between these properties
and any proposed subdivision .
There being no further comment, either for or against , the hearing was
declared closed.
Member Willhite asked about the topography of this area as compared to
that of Bonita Bel —Aire .
Mr . Warren commented that one—half of this proposed annexation is similar
to the Bel —Aire Subdivision, the other, reasonably level, He further
stated that about half of this annexation is zoned one—acre in the County.
Chairman Stevenson said this was a good area to have in the City . He
agreed with the Staff as to the one—acre zoning, stating that the Com—
mission can hear more precise plans for lesser zoning when the proponents
submit a subdivision map.
RESOLUTION NO. 296 Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending
MSUC to City Council the Pre—zoning of Allen—Cromer
(Comstock—Stewart ) Annexation to Interim R—I —A
Findings were as follows :
I . This will be more in keeping with the existing zoning and land use
in the area .
2. The topography of portions of the annexation exceeds 25% slope,
making lesser zoning for the general area unfeasible .
3. Until such time as a subdivision map is filed, on which the Commission
will have something to base final zoning, the temporary one—acre zone
is justified .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING United Pentecostal Church — 629 "H" Street
The application was read in which permission was requested to use an
existing dwelling located at 629 "H" Street as ,a church .
Mr . Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, existing land use,
and adjacent zoning. He explained that the dwelling is presently being
used as a church . The garage is being used for a cleaning pick—up station,
which is allowed in this C-2 zone . There is sufficient room on the rear
of the yard for parking; the ordinance requires one space per 5 seats .
The lot is 120 x 150 feet .
Chairman Stevenson asked about access to, and improvements for, the off—
street parking on the premises . Mr . Warren explained that the parking
area was unsurfaced; however, the driveway was part concrete and part
gravel .
This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened
the public hearing.
William Kimbley, Pastor of the Church, said this was a temporary location
until such time as they are able to afford to buy some acreage and build
2 —
a church . At present , he has approximately ten members in his church.
He added they are leasing the building and have an option to buy; the
lease expires in June, 1964.
Chairman Stevenson asked if he had any objection if the Commission placed
a time limit on the use permit, say until next June when their lease ex—
pires . Mr . Kimbley, Pastor , stated that he had no objection to this ,
that if they decided to buy this building, they would come back to the
Commission at that time .
The Commission discussed the location of the church and the restrictions
which should be imposed on it . Vice—Chairman Stewart commented that "H"
Street is a heavily travelled street, and if this church is successful
in obtaining a large congregation, they could, in time, enlarge the
dwelling. With no off—street parking here, Mr . Stewart felt that giving
them an unlimited time on the use permit would be going too far . He said
they should have a renewable time limit .
The Commission then discussed whether a church needed a conditional use
permit in a C-2 zone, since the ordinance doesn ' t spell this out . City
Attorney Duberg stated this use was permissible with a permit . .
Mr . Warren commented that a general condition imposed on such a permit
was that the parking area be surfaced and spaces delineated, with good
access provided.
Vice—Chairman Stewart felt this would be imposing a hardship on these
people to make them surface the area since their lease expires in eight
months . Member Comstock agreed, stating they could be too restrictive
for a small, congregation .
MSUC (Stewart — Comstock ) Conditional Use Permit be ' approved subject
to the following conditions :
I . Use of building as church not to exceed a period of two years .
2. During the time the building is used as a church, one parking space
for each five seats in the church shall be provided on the property .
Findings are as follows:
I . That the granting of the conditional use permit will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare .
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with
the types of use permitted in the sureounding area .
VAR 1ANCES
PUBLIC HEAPING — Edward and Marie Rizzo — 71 East Emerson Street
The application was read in which request was made for reduction of side
yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow for construction of a patio
and a storage area attached to the existing garage .
3 —
Mr . Warren submitted a plot. plan noting the location of the property .
He explained that the patio has been attached to the garage which is
three feet from the property line . The building inspector, called to
inspect the swimming pool , 'noticed this violation . The topography of
the property was shown on plot plan .
This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened
the public hearing.
Mr. Edward Rizzo, the applicant , explained that he had hired a contractor
to build this patio and did not realize the contractor had not obtained a
_ building permit for it . Mr . Earl Laird, 73 East Emerson Street, said he
was the adjacent property owner and claimed the three foot sideyard wa.s no
hindrance to his property.
There being no further comment , either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
Member Adams commented that there was a retaining wall on two sides of
the property with another wall contemplated for the east side . The lot
is now level . Chairman Stevenson remarked that generally the Commission
is in sympathy with cases such as this one; however, they must find some
exceptional circumstance that exists . Vice—Chairman Stewart said this
matter deserved some merit ; the patio is 16 feet by 16 feet , is centrally
located, and is a reasonable use of the land.
Chairman Stevenson remarked that the shape of the lot could be noted as
the exceptional. circumstance . Member Comstock mentioned the topography
of the property also presented a problem, '
MSUC (Stewart — Willhite ) Variance be gr-anted as per the plot plan
submitted by� the applicant .
Findings are as follows :
I . Due to the unusual lot shape, desirable and accessible land was not
available for patio within a reasonable distance from the residence .
2. The physical layout of the house, garage and pool , in addition to
the lot shape, restricted I-ocation of patio.
3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property right of the applicant . The Contractor failed
to procure a building permit .
SUBD M S IONS
EI Dorado Plaza — Final Map
Mr . Warren submitted the final mai, explaining the location of the sub—
division and that this map was held over -from the ' last meeting. ' He
reviewed the zoning which the Commission approved for the area . The
final map is based on the first unit which contains 46 lots . On each
of these lot will be' developed a four—plex . Mr . Warren added that the
conditions have now been worked out and the staff recommends approval .
— 4. —
MSC (Stewart — Adams ) That approval of the final map be recommended
to the City Council .
The motion carried by the following vote, to—wit :
AYES : Members Stewart, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams
WES: Member Comstock. Same objection as voiced on tentative map. This
is not a good plan for multiple—type development .
Street pattern is poor .
ABSENT: Members Johnson and Guyer
MISCELLANEOUS
Fund-ings of Planning Commission Denial of Rezoni_ naof Hilltop Drive and
"G" Street
Mr . Warren reviewed the matter . The findings were read in which a denial
was given on a request to rezone property at Hilltop Drive and "G" Street
from R -1 —B-12 to R—I . The application was city initiated at the request
of the attorney for H. Keith Osborn , the appellant .
MSUC (Comstock — Wi I I h i to ) Findings be approved and i)6rward to City
Council .
COMMUN I CAT IONS
Extension of Time on Variance — Madalon Bagnell 4, 819 Fourth Avenue
A letter was read from Mrs . Bagnell requesting a three year extension
on the variance granted her on December 18, 1961 . The variance was for
ten apartment units , six of which have been constructed: Because she
is unable, at present, to obtain financing for the other four units , she
is requesting this extension .
Mr . Warren submitted ' a plot plan and a photograph of the existing apart—
ment building. The Commission discussed the apartment building and its
improvement to this area .
MSUC (Comstock—Adams ) Extension of time on variance be granted for
three years , ,to expire December 18, 1966, in order to allow the applicant
to arrange financing for , and build, the remaining four units .
Change in Minimum Floor Area Ordinance
A letter was read from Kenneth Campbell , City Clerk, stating that a
request was made by the Chamber of Commerce to the City Council that
Section 33 . 16 of Chapter 33 of the City Code be amended to read as
follows :
t°a . 1000 sq., ft . for each dwelling unit having two bedrooms or less .
b. 1200 sq. ft . for each dwelling unit having three bedrooms or two
bedrooms and den or family room.
e, 1300 sq. ft . for each dwelling unit having four bedrooms or three
bedrooms and den or family room.
— 5 --
A two—car enclosed garage containing a minimum of 400 sq. ft . shall be
required for each dwelling unit .19
Mr . Campbell further stated that the Council refers this recommendation
to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation .
Mr . Warren explained that this came about as a result of a temporary
ordinance limiting the floor area to not less than 1300 square feet peg
dwelling in an R- 1 zone . The Chamber of Commerce formed a committee to
study this and came up with this recommendation . Mr . %",,arren added that
the Commission could set this for public hearing if they think this is
a good alternative or send it to staff for further study or appoint a
committee themselves and have this committee study it .
Member Willhite voiced objections to the recommendation stating it is
the number of rooms that are concerned, not merely the number of bedrooms ,
as a dwelling can have a certain number of bedrooms plus a family room,
kitchen , dining room, etc. Vice—Chairman Stewart said the recommendation
reads that way because people do use a family room or a den for a bedroom.
Chairman Stevenson suggested this recommendation be referred to the
Residential subcommittee for the Master Plan which studied this at great
length . They should be encouraged to get the advice of contractors ,
architects , etc.
Vice—Chairman Stewart stated there would be nothing gained to justify the
delay they would get if it is referred back to the subcommittee . The
committee that came up with this recommendation consisted of architects ,
real estate people, builders , etc.
The Commission discussed the present ordinance requiring 1300 square feet
per dwelling, stating they would grant a lesser floor area to persons who
had a justifiable reason for a variance . Mr . Stewart added that the ordi —
nance was set up to restrict overbuilding of low—cost homes , especially
next to an area of large homes .
Member Comstock maintained that it was still possible to put up a 1300
square foot house and make it look like' a cracker box . It isn ' t the
square footage of the house that determines the quality .
Vice—Chairman Stewart claimed that square footage control must be imposed;
economics and potential sales would take care of the fact that a builder
would necessarily build a nicer home . with a larger floor area .
Mr . Quentin Whelan, attorney representing the Lomax Cons tructJon Company,
stated that some sort of limitation should be invoked. Th-e square foot
limitation set forth in the present ordinance is too unrealistic to have
any value in upgrading the community. He added that no other community
in the State would dare to present this in the Superior Court , although
some States do have this 'ordinance . Mr . Whelan cited a few communities
and their square footage minimum requirements . He said the limitation
should be a realistic one to protect the community as a whole .
Mr . Robert Miles , building contractor , said he has been building for the
last twenty years, and that this is a bullder ' s problem which stems from
6 —
eye-sores of the cheaper subdivisions . They are in a competitive buSi -
ness today, he declared, and imposing this ordinance is taking the . e'on®
stitutional rights away from the people who want to build a home that
they are financially able to do.
Myron Dalseth , contractor, stated there.: were_ many facets to this matter .
Standards are set up under the State Housing Act, which each builder
must meet . He went on to state that he could take a 1200 square foot
house and increase it to 1300 square feet at a cost of $200.00. He
feels more study should be given to this amendment .
Member Comstock mentioned that San Diego has a Builder ' s Association
which Chula Vista does not , and suggested that the builders in the city
form a committee and study this, making their recommendation to the
Council or Planning Commission . Mr . Comstock claimed that the Chamber
of Commerce waited too long to start their study of this ordinance--
the emergency ordinance had already been adopted by the City Council
when the Chamber started its study of the matter .
Member Willhite repeated that what was proposed was not the answer; it
isn ' t the number of bedrooms that' matters-' in coming �up with the square
footage of a dwelling. He said he definitely feels more study should
be made' on .i t .
Chairman Stevenson reiterated that he feels it should be given to the .
Residential subcommittee working on the Master Plan and have them get
opinions of the builders in the City.
Mr . James Deal , 660 Floyd Avenue, spoke in favor of the present 1300
square foot ordinance and asked that this not be changed. In the past
year , since the ordinance was in effect, only one person came in asking
that he be allowed to construct a smaller square foot dwelling. Mr .
Deal asked that a public hearing be held so that the people could voice
their opinions on any change .
Mr . Paul Yaeger, 414 "J" Street, stated the entire matter could be
. solved by increasing minimum lot frontage .
Mrs . Madalon Bagnell , 819 Fourth Avenue , stated the limitation should
be set on the size of the bedrooms, not the entire dwelling.
Mr . Warren informed the Commission that the department has had occasional
complaints from the public stating that certain ordinances are contestible;
he has confidence, however, that the City Attorney would not allow the
Commission or Council to enact an illegal ordinance .
MSUC (Comstock — Adams ) Matter be referred back to the Planning Staff
for further study; that the local contractors and builders study the
matter and refer alternative solutions to the Staff, as did the Chamber
of Commerce . These recommendations should be given to the Staff no later
than the first working day in January so that action could be taken within
one month and the matter set for' public hearing.
_ 7 _
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Comstock — Willhite ) Meeting adjourn sine die .
Respectfully submitted,
Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary