Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-09-04 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 4, 1963 A 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 follow- ing members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Also present:Director of Planning Fretz, Assistant Planner Warren, City Attorney Duberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Comstock requested that the statement on page 3 of the minutes of August 19, 1963 referring to his abstaining from the hearing be changed to say it was because of a "possible conflict of interest." MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Minutes of August 19, 1963 be approved, with the correction suggested by Member Comstock. REZONING - Northeast Corner of Broadway and Parkway Planning Director Fretz summarized the matter, explaining this was continued pending study of the City Attorney's opinion which was presented to each Member at the last meeting. The public hearing was reopened by Chairman Stevenson; and there being no comment either for or,= against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson commented that the Commission must find that public necessity - required the• elimination of the "P!' zone on this property. He added there are many things that.-th'is lot can be used for with the "P" zone attached; one would be a gas station, which does not require too much offstreet parking. Member Adams said he was against the rezoning because of the repercussions they would get in setting a precedent. Vice-Chairman Stewart stated that it places the Commission in an awkward position of bargaining; he felt the City should find some other way of getting this street. MSUC (Adams - Stewart) Advise the City Council that in view of the City Attorney's opinion, and because of the undesirable precedent, the Commission is unable to find any suitable grounds for this rezoning. ! East Side of Church Avenue (between "E" and "F" Streets) Planning Director Fretz explained this was initiated by the Commission. The area is now zoned C-2 and the request is to rezone it to R-3. Assistant Planner Warren sub- mitted a plot plan. Member Comstock asked for the staff's recommendations. Planning Director Fretz said this all came about because of the amendment to the ordinance prohibiting residential uses in a commercial zone. After talking to several of the property owners, it was felt that the area would not be developed as commercial ; therefore, it was suggested the area be rezoned R-3. At the time this came up, they did not realize that this area was included in the municipal parking -1- district, which means they will have to bear their proportionate share of the ex- pense of these facilities. If rezoned R-3 and developed with professional offices or apartment bvi.ldings, the parking district facilities for which they will be assessed would not satisfy the requirements of this zone, even though they will satisfy the "P" zone requirements. Mr. Fretz added that the staff feels there is some middle ground that could be worked out here in the way of a new zone, and said the staff is now working on this. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson`,bpened the public hearing. 'Mr. Harry Lindemood, 271 Church Avenue, spoke in favor of the rezoning, stating he initiated it. He wants to build a cottage in the rear of his property which will be used by his grandchildren; he also wants to maintain his office in the front room of his home. A letter from Charles E. Brown, 245 Church Avenue, realtor, was read in which he opposed the rezoning. He constructed a building on the street which includes 10 apartments and his office. After the building was completed, the parking district was reorganized to include the east side of Church Avenue. He added that Ot' rezoned R-3 , the property owners would have to adhere to the zoning ordinance requiring one living unit per 1000 square feet of land area plus one offstreet parking space, and= felt they could not do this and compete with other R-3 properties in Chula Vista, based on the prices the people have placed on their property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. In answer to Member Adam's question, Mr. Brown explained that his apartment building was designed so that it could accommodate both apartments or professional offices. He added that Mr. Lindemood 's problem could be solved by applying for a variance rather than rezoning the entire street. Chairman Stevenson commented that each property owner who wanted to build here, could come in for a conditional use permit. Member Adams said he was not in favor of this rezoning until such time as a fair situation for the parking problem in this area could be worked out. Member Johnson asked how this problem could be solved, and Planning Director Fretz said an amendment to the ordinance could be made providing for a service-commercial district. MSUC (Guyer - Comstock) The rezoning be denied because this area is included in the parking district. Roy Cook - 706, 706A and 708 'IF" Street The application was read in which a request was made to rezone that portion of the land now zoned M-1 (61 feet x 706 feet) to R-3. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan, explaining the location and adjacent land uses. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Roy Cook, the applicant, said he proposed to construct 125 units in this location. The front apartments will be one-story and the rear apartments will be two stories. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson commented on the adjacent industrial development and the proximity of the railroad tracks, and said he felt this was an ideal area for light industrial . -2- Member Com- stock said this was a. good point, and added that the whole area here should be studied; He pointed out the Prudential Overall Company as one industry that has made substantial improvements in the area. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed saying he felt it was not proper; to change the zoning for any R-3 use. Member Adams stated it would be very undesirable to have a multiple development in this strip. He said he is in favor of initiating industrial zoning for the adjacent land to the east. Vice-Chairman Stewart proposed that the suggestion made by Member Comstock be undertaken. by the staff. . .that a feasibility study be made of the area for zoning it to light industrial . MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Rezoning of this 61 foot parcel from M-1 to R-3 be denied. Findings be based on; 1 . Not good zoning practice. 2. Would not be appropriate due to the industrial land use to the west. 3. Not compatible for R-3 use. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS County of San Diego - "F" Street School Site Application was read in which a request was made by the County of San Diego to construct a governmental branch center at the "F" Street School Site. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan. Planning Director Fretz explained a plan of the proposed development, but stated that the desire of the County and City staff is that they not be tied down to this specific plan, as they would like to work watt with the County on this. Before finalizing the purchase for this site, the County would like to know if the Commission agrees with their use of the land. Mr. Fretz added that he feels it was a healthy thing for Chula Vista to have these offices in our Civic Center area. Architecture-wise, the County wants to do something that is compatible with that existing. Chairman Stevenson asked if there were any plans to widen Davidson Street. Mr. Fretz said this was discussed with the engineering department and they have come to the conclusion that it -sfhould not be widened, but should, in time be made a one-way street. Also, that the County would like to have this made a part of the record. Mr. Herb Malley of the County, explained that before purchasing the property, they must seek approval of their use of it. The 100 spaces for parking stated in the applicat4 on are to be in the service area -- the main parking area will be the ex- tension of Memorial Way. As to the architectural control , he hasn't discussed this with his superiors but can state that they will make it compatible with our area; they would get together with the Planning Department on this. The Commission dis- cussed the ratio of landscaped open area for the Civic Center, and Planning Director Fretz said this was basically 1 square foot of building, l square foot of landscaping and 2 square feet of parking spaces. The County has adopted 1 to I to 1 ratio which actually meets the ordinance requiremen*ts. Mr. Herb Malley stated there would be approximately 200 parking spaces provided on Memorial Way. Mr. Fretz pointed out that, at the present time, the City has no definite plans for their half of the school site - the police department will probably go there, for one thing - and added that Memorial Way need not be developed -3- as a street. He added that if the Commission would give consideration to giving their approval to the County, and not tying it down to the plot plan presented, the details can be worked out with the Planning and Engineering staff. Reference could be made to the agreement on Davidson Street. Chairman Stevenson commented that the 1 to 1 to 2 ratio and the architectural con- sideration should be mentioned. Member Comstock questioned the number of people that will be employed here, and whether enough parking spaces was provided for their vehicles. Mr. .Malley stated they would be unable to provide parking for them in the 100 spaces mentioned, since this would accommodate most of the County vehicles; however, there would be more than ample room for them to park on the grounds. Member Adams stated the rules governing the offstreet parking were not in the form of an ordinance and should be stated in the conditional use permit to be binding. Planning Director Fretz said they could only require that which is specified in the ordinance: 1 to 1 ; however, they would work with the County on this. He added they were a higher governmental agency and could do whatever they wanted with this property, but that they are working with the City. Member Willhite then questioned whether architectural control would only be a gesture on the conditions. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he felt it would be well to put it in. MSUC (Stewart - Willhite) The conditional use permit be approved with the following conditions: 1 . That Davidson Street be not widened but be made a one-way street at such time as traffic volume requires it. 2; Memorial Way be considered as a parking lot rather than improved as a dedicated street. 3: The proposed building development be compatible with the existing architecture in the Civic Center. Further, the findings be based on the following: 1 . Granting this use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. There will be no hazards as enumerated in the ordinance as traffic conditions will actually be helped. 3. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the uses in the area; no objections have been heard. SUBDIVISIONS Hilltop Panorama - Final Map Planning Director Fretz explained that this subdivision was not, as yet, in the City, and the final map would not be approved by the City Council until the annexation is complete. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, presented the following recommendations: 1 . Subdivider shall provide written release from the San Diego Gas and E,iectric -4- Company in regard to omission of normal utility easement at rear of each lot. 2. Show drainage easement if required 10 feet wide as approved by the Division of Engineering in the vicinity of Lot 12. Mr. Jim Patten stated they have solved the drainage easement by pulling the street back to the south. Mr. Harshman stated this would eliminate the need for the second recommendation. MSUC (Guyer - Comstock) Final map be approved subject to the recommendation of the Engineering Department. Aletha Park - Tentative Map Planning Director Fretz explained the location on the map and said the staff would recommend that a "Lot All be created on the westerly end of Sierra Way within the subdivision. Member Johnson questioned the elevation of the surrounding area. Mr. Fretz pointed out that there was a difference in elevation of Sierra Way -- There is a bank along the south edge, but basically it is the same elevation. Mr. Westenburg, "K" Street, stated that this subdivision would block his property, and several others. He said there were several properties backing up to this one. In time, they would like to get a street put in in order to have access to their properties. As yet, they have been financially unable to do this, but would like to get together with the planning staff and the subdivider and work out something that would be beneficial to all . He added that the subdivider did offer them a price for their land but they felt it was not enough. Mr. Carl Muller, representing the owner, asked that it not be held over; however, they are 'willing to get together with the property owners, only if they will be assured of 100% cooperation from them. Planning Director Fretz said, in the interest of good planning, the staff suggests continuing the matter so that something of mutual advantage to both parties could be worked out. Joseph Barahura, 542 "K" Street, spoke of the weed problem in the area. MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) Defer action on this matter for two weeks. MISCELLANEOUS La Bonita Town and Country Apartments - Bonita Road Member Comstock abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. ' Planning Director Fretz summarized the situation: plans were brought in for a 3-story, 66-unit apartment building which, because of the architectural control , must be approved by the Commission. Because of the great difference of opinion at the last meeting, the staff was requested to get together with the owner and the representa- tives of the Valley and try to work something out. Mr. Fretz said he has met three times with Mr. Montgomery, the architect, and with Mr. Dawson representing the Valley residents. He said there is unwillingness on the part of factions to concede any- thing about the three stories. -5- Mr. Daniel Thomas, the applicant, said they have complied with all the regulations regarding lot coverage, area, etc. They feel two stories would create congestion and three stories would give them open spaces and green area. He pointed out the existing uses surrounding his proposed development, and said he plans to put in the most luxurious type apartments ever seen in Chula Vista. Referring to the archi- tectural control , Mr. Thomas then cited two court cases: Lockheed Aircraft vs. the State of California and the People Vs. Holler whereby any statute must meet the test of certainty. It must state what must be done without violating any provision of the ordinance. Architectural control must be spelled out. Mr. Richard Blair, Barcelona Drive, Bonita, spoke for the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stating they do not question the legality of apartments in the area; they are basing their objections on the three stories. Nowhere in the entire Valley are there any two story buildings let alone three stories. He said there is a rural flavor in the Valley and this is a high density development which violates that character. He added that at the time of annexation, a City Official came before the residents and gave them a verbal promise that Bonita would be kept rural -- this com- plex would most certainly violate that promise. Mr. Stephen Gassaway, also speaking for the Association, stated that Mr. Blair spoke from notes compiled by a survey made of the Valley residents. Over 95 % of them were opposed to apartments. They realize, however, that Mr. Thomas has a moral right to put apartments here, but three stories is not in keeping with the architecture in the area. Chairman Stevenson asked if the Association was in agreement with the new plan brought in showing the exterior changes. Mr. Dawson,said he did not understand the plans. . Mr. Nolan Montgomery, the architect, explained the new changes, saying there would be board on board on the exterior. The walls facing Bonita Road would have no windows as the apartments open out on the golf course. Member Johnson asked about the fence on Bonita Road. Mr. Montgomery said it would be a little over 7 feet high but would graduate to 6 feet. It would be about 65 % open - thus making it more of a screen than a fence. The building roof would be flat except on the central recreation and entry portion which would have a pitched roof with shake shingles. Chairman Stevenson asked for staff comment on the architectural control . Planning Director Fretz stated he was keenly interested in getting public reaction to this and has talked to many developers in the area, property owners , citizens, engineers, etc. and found only two people that fe,,I.t, tlie- tthree(. story aspect did not conflict with the existing architecture in the area. He added that he felt this would change the character of the area considerably and if three stories are allowed on this first phase, the "die would be cast" and the total development could go the same way. Mr. Fretz said he was in support of the changes made in the exterior of the building but disagreed with the three-story height. . Mr. Dick Wilson, Bonita, said he was verymuch in favor of the project. When this area was in the "courtship" stage with the City, they assured them the zoning would not be any more restrictive than it was in the County. If three stories are pro- hibited under architectural control , Mr. Wilson added, the City is overstepping their bounds here. The Case against Mr. Thomas is based on emotion; if he does not get his apartments approved, the property will be sold to someone else. Mr. Gordon Pettit, Bonita, said he welcomes Mr. Thomas into this area and approves of this development. -6- Chairman Stevenson asked about the County regulations, and Planning Director Fretz said in the County C-1 zone, 2- stories or 35 feet is allowed, whichever is less. Mr. Thomas said he was surprised about this as he once presented his plans to the County and they gave him a verbal approval of the 3 stories. Mr. Dick Allen, Allen School Road, Bonita, said this area was not closely associated with any buildings in the Valley; it is river-bottom land. The closest homes were at a higher level than the proposed apartments. Chairman Stevenson said this all boils down to the 3 stories and the stated fact that 2 stories would cut down on the green area. He added that there was more than enough green area in the golf course to offset this. Two letters were read: one from Craig Starkey, Holly Way, and the other from Charles Dawson, President of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, stating their oppostion to the apartments. Member Willhite explained that apartments here didn' t just happen as a result of annexing to Chula Vista - the zone was already established by the County. Vice- Chairman Stewart said he has changed his attitude toward multiple dwellings here in view of the fact that there are no single residences in the immediate area; the homes are one or two stories above this in the surrounding area. Member Willhite asked what the grade level would be before this building can be erected, since this is river bottom land and the subdivision across from this devel- opment was required to bring theirs up to the 50-year flood level . Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, said this was essentially the same situation, but they are not required to meet this standard since it is not a subdivision; however, they are still subject to innundation. Mr. Montgomery informed the Commission that they plan to put in 3 feet of fill . The Commission discussed the legality of the architectural control and Chairman Stevenson commented that the City's ordinance is patterned after ordinances in other areas, and if Mr. Thomas cares to test the legality of it, it would be his decision. Member Willhite brought up the point of the denial of Mr. Thomas 's variance at the last meeting and felt this would have a bearing on the decision now. Member Adams explained they couldn't find any exceptional circumstances on which to grant this variance but have made a recommendation that a setback be established. He added he would be in favor of a 5 foot setback. Mr. Thomas stated he will comply with what- ever setback is established. He will even remove the fence from his plans if the Commission so desires. Member Guyer asked the height of the apartments and was told it would be 28 feet high. He said he felt this wasn 't too high in view of the fact that the County allows 35 feet in this zone. Planning Director Fretz reminded the Commission that the . ordinance states 2 stories , or 35 feet, whichever is less and in this case it would have to be 2 stories. Also, the ordinance is directed to commercial buildings which have a much higher ceiling than an apartment house building. Member Willhite stated he was against the 3 stories as this would change the appearance of the Valley; how- ever, he was not against the apartments. Chairman Stevenson agreed saying 3 stories would set a precedent. MSC (Guyer - Stewart) Architectural consideration be approved as per the revised plan. Findings be based on the following: 1 . The exterior of the building as revised is harmonious with the area. -7- 2. Since the City ordinance allows 3 stories or 35 feet in a C-1 zone, the height of 28 feet is not excessive. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart and Johnson NOES: Members Stevenson, Willhite and Adams ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: Member Comstock COMMUNICATIONS Reservations for San Diego Planning Congress Meeting Planning Director Fretz reminded the Commission about the meeting to be held on September 20, 1963 and asked that the Members notify the staff of their intention to attend. Street Name Change - Floyd Avenue A petition from 12 property owners was read in which they request the name of their street be changed from Floyd Avenue to View Hill Drive. Planning Director Fretz explained that the City Code spells out that a street name may be changed by the City Council ; however, in these matters, the Council usually �. refers them to the Commission for their feelings. Mr. Fretz stated that in view of the fact that this is a dead end street, the staff can see no objection to this change. If approved, it would involve buying a new sign for the street. Vice-Chair- man. Stewart said it would also involve changing the City maps. Mr. Don Riley, 678 Floyd Avenue, said the residents desire a better name than Floyd Avenue because of the expensive homes on this street. Member Johnson asked if there was a specific name for a cul-de-sac and Mr. Fretz said they are usually called "Court" or "Drive. " Member Comstock said he felt there was too much of this now in the City and could see no purpose in changing this name just to bolster the people's ego. Mr. Dave Galey, 654 Floyd Avenue, said service deliveries are always a problem for the people living on this street. Since the street is an extension of Floyd Avenue, people are constantly getting mixed up in trying to find the houses. Member Comstock asked if the police and fire departments would object to this change, and also what would be the cost to the City. Planning Director Fretz said the police and fire department were not as yet consulted, and would suggest this be held over until the next meeting so they could express their feelings on the subject. The cost would be minor, as the existing City maps would be changed and the orig:i,nal would be changed. The Commission concurred that the matter be held up until the next meeting. Resolution of Intention Planning Director Fretz asked that the Commission set a date for a. public hearing and establish a setback on this commercial property in the Bonita Village Annexation. -8- He would recommend,,-,a zero setback. RESOLUTION NO. 279 Resolution of Intention to Set a Public Hearing for (Stewart - Comstock) October 7, 1963 to Establish a Zero Setback on Certain Commercial Property in the Bonita Village Annexation. Bonita Valley Country Club Planning Director Fr-etz explained that a shake shingle roof was approved for the clubhouse by the Commission when they considered the architectural control for this plan. However, the State Fire Marshal_i told them they could not have shake shingles unless they went into a heavier construction, since the building is classified as a "Place of Assembly." They now plan to put in a rock roof, in order to comply with the fire regulations, and would like to have the Commission approve this change. MSUC (Stewart - Adams) The new roof material - rock roof - be approved for the clubhouse. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Willhite) Meeting adjourn to September 16, 1963. Respectfully submitted, � ennie M.' Fulasz Secretary MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 19, 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, Johnson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Planning Director Fretz and Assistant Planner Warren. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting of August 5, 1963. WELCOME NEW MEMBER The new member of the Commission, Mr. Bruce Johnson, was welcomed by Chairman Stevenson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Willhite asked that the minutes of the last meeting be changed to show that he abstained from the entire meeting rather than be marked absent. MSUC (Adams - Guyer) Minutes of August 5 , 1963 be approved, with the correction suggested by Mr. Willhite. REZONING - East Side of Church Avenue - C-2 to R-3 Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan noting the area to be rezoned and the existing land uses. He said several residents have signed a petition in- dicating their approval of the rezoning. The staff suggested that a resolution of intention to set a date for public hearing be passed. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the same situation exists on Landis Avenue. He said he felt the Commission should give this situation a good look and consider it at the same time. Planning Director Fretz said he feels there should be a nucleus of property owners in the area in favor of such action. Mr. Fretz added that a detailed study of the downtown area would be made as a part of the master plan study. RESOLUTION NO. 278 Resolution of the Planning Commission of their MSUC (Guyer - Comstock) Intention to Set a Public Hearing for September 4, 1963 To Consider Rezoning from C-2 to R-3 the East Side of Church Avenue Between ''E" and ' F'' Street Excepting the First Two Lots Southerly of ''E" Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING - St. Rose of Lima Parish The application was read in which a request was made for permission to build a new church east of the existing church located at 293 "H" Street and to add office space to the existing rectory. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan and explained the proposed develop- ment.. The present church will be converted to a social hall . Chairman Stevenson asked if the parking meets the requirements. Mr.. Warren stated it does; the .church will have 730 seats and the spaces provided will be 146. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Cecil Sparling, realtor and member of the parish, spoke in favor of the develop- ment. He explained that the improvements had been contemplated for several years , and now the church is ready to build. The need for the new church is great and the need for the recreation hall has been felt for a long time. In answer to the traffic pattern question by Member Guyer, Mr. Sparling stated the new pattern would be coming in on "H" Street and going out through Alvarado Street. Planning Director Fretz stated the staff would make a recommendation that the Third Avenue entrance be closed to vehicular traffic. He said this was a badly congested area, especially on Sundays during the services , and felt closing this entrance would eliminate a lot of traffic congestion. Member Adams said he had no objection to this being open for service deliveries , etc. , as long as it was not used as access for parking. Father O'Keefe, acting-pastor of the church, asked that this be kept open for the school children whose parents unload them at this entrance. Mr. Fretz stated he would just recommend the curb cut be eliminated. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed saying it would preclude the left turns here. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated there was nothing incompatible about the development. It is well-planned, they have adequate parking, and it is a very good arrangement. He is in favor of it. Member Comstock commented that he felt the curb closure suggested was good as it would help eliminate some traffic congestion. He added that he wished all churches were as well located as this one - away from the residential zones. Planning Director Fretz presented the following recommendations: 1 . That a 5 foot high masonry wall be constructed along the easterly property line of the development. 2. That a landscape plan be approved by the Planning Department. 3. All parking spaces sh&l_l be surfaced with 2 inch asphaltic concrete. and spaces clearly marked. 4. The curb cut be eliminated at the Third Avenue entrance. Father O'Keefe stated he was in agreement with the conditions. 2 - MSUC (Guyer - Comstock) The conditional use permit be recommended to City Council for approval subject to the four conditions outlined by the Planning Director. Further, the findings be based on: 1 . Granting this use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. There will be no hazards as enumerated in the ordinance as traffic conditions will actually be helped. 3. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the uses in the area; no objections have been heard. This is an improvement over the old site. VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING - Daniel B. Thomas Member Comstock abstained from the hearing. He said he had several dealings with Mr. Thomas in the past and would feel prejudiced. The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 25 feet to zero to allow for a 7 foot wall , parking and roof projection. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan. Member Johnson asked how far the property line was from the center of the road. Mr. Warren said it was 50 feet. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Daniel Thomas, applicant, pointed out that he purchased this property over a year ago while it was still in the County but did not oppose annexation because he was assured his rights would not be taken away. He said the County ordinance provides zero setbacks for walls , fences, etc. , and a building can be constructed 50 feet from the center of the road. He added that it is more desirable for them to park in front of the building rather than on the golf course. Member Willhite asked what the depth of the property was. Mr. Thomas said it was 250 feet. Mr. Steve Gassaway, Member of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, spoke in behalf of the Association stating that they did not wish to protest the variance but do wish to be heard on the architectural control of the property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams noted that the site was rectangular - 250 feet by 600 feet and has a 25 foot setback. He stated he could see no reason whatsoever why the apart- ments couldn't be built observing the setback. Mr. Adams added that the re- gulations in the County do not apply to Chula Vista. He could see no exceptional circumstances about this site and therefore, opposes the variance. Mr. Dick Wilson, Bonita, said he and Mr. Gordon Pettit of Bonita were instrumental 1n having this area annexed and in getting Mr. Thomas here. He asked the Com mission to be aware of the fact that Mr. Thomas could go ahead and build apartments - 3 - here without coming before the Commission, but it was only because he wished to put up a wall that he is before them now. Mr. Gassaway stated this was not true, as Mr. Thomas would have had to come before the Commission because of the architectural control imposed on the property. Chairman Stevenson said he understood the total development calls for 300 units. Mr. Thomas answered that 231 units are contemplated; however, only 66 will be built at this time with the development of the balance of the property depending upon the success of this first phase. He said it is entire possible that the rest of their property would be developed for commercial purposes. Vice-Chairman Stewart reiterated that the Commission must find some hardship about the property which they can use as a criteria in granting the variance. He added he can see no exceptional circumstances here, and certainly a "hodge- podge" development does not lend itself to the atmosphere of the area. Mr. Thomas read a letter from F. S. Fulwiler, then City Administrator, which wel- comed him to Chula Vista. He felt this letter would give him legal circumstances to proceed with his development. Vice-Chairman Stewart disagreed, stating the Commission couldn' t go along with a "letter of sentiment" written by Mr. Fulwiler - their sole duty is to uphold the law. Planning Director Fretz commented that, as he sees it, the Commission is not basically opposed to the setback but does find itself in a difficult position in substantiating the variance. There was no setback established for this area when it came into the City; therefore, it automatically getsa 25 foot setback. He said the Commission can pass a resolution of intention toyestablish whatever setback they feel is desirable for this area. (hold a public hearing to) Member Adams felt this was the solution to their problem. He said the Commission should deny this variance and then use this approach. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed stating that large setbacks are not required for R-3 property because it is considered a waste of land. MSC ;(Adams - Guyer) The variance be denied. No exceptional circumstances were found that would justify granting it. Member Johnson voted "no". Member Comstock abstained. MISCELLANEOUS Architectural Consideration - La Bonita Town and Country Apartments Mr. Daniel Thomas, owner of the proposed development, explained the architecture of the buildings; he said they propose 20 units per acre. He explained that because they want to maintain as much greenery as possible, they have decided to make the apartments three stories. In this way, they have only 12� % coverage of the land. He added that they consider the golf course as their "frontage" and the road as the rear of the property. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the Planning staff was aware of the fact that the property ''faced" on the golf course; Mr. Fretz said they were not. Chairman Stevenson commented that the front must face on a' dedicated street. Dr. Charles Henkelmann, 3909 Palm Drive, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Valley -4- Civic Association spoke in opposition stating: (1) Three-story modern apartment buildings, do not conform to the architectural standards of the Valley where the majority of homes are one-story rustic dwellings; (2) The apartment complex is not a in keeping with the Valley as there are no apartments there, no trailer parks, etc. ; (3) He recalled how the Commission supported the Valley residents in opposing a trailer park recently; where they wanted ten trailers per acre, and here the applicant is proposing twenty units per acre; (4) The filing for these apartments was made at the last possible minute before the ordinance prohibiting their use came into effect. If the Commission allows this one to come in, what is to prevent them from allowing others that come along? (5) People living in the Valley do so because they want the rural flavor - apartments would not be compatible with this. Others opposing were: Stephen Gassaway, Bonita; and one of the directors of the Sweet- water Civic Association, Mr. Richard Blair, 3811 Balsamina Drive, Bonita, Mr. Ernest Schnepf, 3676 Valley Vista Road, Bonita. They stated as their reasons: (1) Residents of the Valley are dead set against apartments; (2) Insurmountable obstacles were over- come and the Valley residents endorsed the annexation when Chula Vista promised to keep it a rural area; (3) Architectural control is a good thing and should certainly be exercised to cut down the number of stories here to keep this compatible with the one-story adjacent buildings; (4) Nowhere in Chula Vista is there a three-story apartment building - why put, them in the Valley which is strictly one-story dwellings; (5) The area is not prepared to cope with the problems of high-density residential uses. Planning Director Fretz clarified the fact that apartments are permitted on this portion of land; . however, if the applicant wishes to construct more than the 66 units , he has applied for, he must come in for a zone change or ordinance amendment allowing this. Member Johnson said he would like to know more about the architectural control . After some discussion, it was noted that this was the first opportunity the Commission has had to look at these plans, and Chairman Stevenson said he felt he would like to study it a little further. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked the opinion of the City Attorney in exercising the architectural control in regard to the height of buildings. Mr. Duberg stated the Commission has a right to control the number of stories and the height of the buildings. Mr.. Dick Wilson, Bonita, said he felt the City committed themselves upon annexation to the same regulations the County had on this property. .Mr. Thomas stated he would put in board and batten on the exterior ends of the apart- ments to make them look rustic in appearance. Member Guyer said he would like to see' the staff get together with the applicant and the representatives of the Valley residents and work something out. Member Willhite said he disputes the statement that all the Valley residents are opposed 'to apartments; that he found a number of them in favor of his proposed apartments in the Bonita Bel-Aire subdivision. He cited Rancho Sante Fe, La Jolla and Del Mar as having apartments. Member Johnson, upon looking over the list of uses for a-=C-1 zone, asked if these were any more objectionable than the apartments. Chairman Stevenson said any use placed on the property would have to come before the Commission for the architectural consideration. Member Johnson then asked for the architect 's comments. Mr. Nolan Montgomery, architect for the apartments , said he planned the apartments so that each one could have a view overlooking the golf course. He said they cannot accom- -5- plish this with less than three stories. City Attorney Duberg reminded the Commission that the applicant must submit new drawings and plot plan to get his building permit, should the Commission desire to change the apartments in any way. Mr.-.Thomas stated any delay in approving his plans would cause a financial hardship. The money has already been advanced for the project. He asks that a decision by the Commission be made quickly. . Chairman Stevenson asked the Planning Director to review the procedure set up under the architectural control zone. Mr. Fretz stated the ordinance does not require a public hearing; but where there is public interest, he feels the people attending these meetings should be heard. He added the architectural control zone specifies that the Commission must approve the plans before a building permit can be issued. Also, that it is very difficult to envision the changes Mr. Thomas has proposed tonight, and this alone is justification for continuation. Chairman Stevenson suggested that Mr. Thomas have the plans revised according to these changes so that the Commission would be able to see what effect they would have. . Member Adams said he felt that the three stories and high density was the main ob- jection to the apartments. MSUC (Guyer - Johnson) The matter be continued until the meeting of September 4 in order that the applicant, the planning staff and a representative from the Valley get together and work things out. Member Comstock abstained. Findings of Planning Commission Appeal of Robert McAllister Member Comstock commented that in granting a zone change or a conditional use permit, exceptional circumstances must be found that pertain to the property and not the im- provements placed upon the property. He felt a statement to this effect should be put into the findings. Chairman Stevenson disagreed saying that each member of the City Council receives a copy of the minutes and will read this; and also, many of the Councilman have served on the Planning Commission and are well aware of the ordinance. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed. City Attorney Duberg commented this statement would be irrelevant to the situation. MSUC (Comstock - Willhite) The findings be approved and forwarded to the City Council . COMMUNICATIONS City. Attorney's Opinion - Rezoning Parkway and Broadway A copy of the City Attorney's opinion was presented to each member. Mr. Duberg ex- plained that a copy had been sent to each of the Councilmen also. Chairman .Stevenson stated this matter should be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and the applicant notified. MSUC (Stewart - Willhite) The matter be continued until the meeting of September 4 and all interested parties notified. -6- Deferral of Sidewalk Improvements - F. Ferriera Planning Director Fretz explained that Mr. Ferriera is asking for a waiver of side- walks in front of his property on the south half of Bonita Road in the Grout Annexa- tion. This section has been zoned for R-3 apartments, with architectural control . The engineering department has recommended this waiver. Mr. Ferriera explained the need for this waiver now, as he has asked the engineering department to design the extension and put out for bids , improvements necessary to make this portion of the road conform to the proposed "E" Street Extension, just west of this location. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked for the staff's opinion. Planning Director Fretz stated that the Principal Engineer, Mr. Harshman, recommends an indefinite deferral on this sidewalk. Member Adams commented that this would cause a hardship on the area if, later on, they should decide to have sidewalks here. Mr. Ferreira stated he is granting the easement to the City and is willing to go along with all engineering recommendations. MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) An indefinite deferral for sidewalks be granted subject to a bond, lien or cash deposit being made with the City and with the stipulation that upon 30 days notice from the City Engineer, the improvements must be installed. Resolution of Intention - East Side of Third Avenue Planning Director Fretz stated that several weeks ago, a petition was received from some residents of the east side of Third Avenue, between "I" and "J" Streets to change the zoning so that they could build apartments on their property which is zoned C-l . The staff has studied this area and would now ask that the Commission set a date for public hearing to change the zoning from C-1 to R-3 recognizing that business and professional offices could go in under a conditional use permit. The Commission reviewed a land use map of the area and discussed the area to be included. Mrs. K. Knudsen, 631 Third Avenue, said they wish only to protest the amendment which prohibits residential uses in commercial zones, but do not want the area rezoned. Mr. Fretz stated he knew of no other way in which to handle this situation other than to rezone. Member Adams suggested the matter be continued as the residents seem to have a mis- understanding about this and they should get together with the Planning Director and straighten this out. MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) The matter of setting up a resolution of intention for rezoning this area be continued until the Planning Staff can work out more details. Planning Consultant 's Visit Planning Director Fretz told the Commission that the Con- sultant has set aside three days - September 4, 5 and 6 and would like to come down any two of these three days to meet with the Commission. Mr. Fretz suggested the Commission meet with the Consultant at a dinner meeting on the 5th. MSUC (Stewart - Constock) The Planning Director write and ask the Consultant to come down on the 4th and 5th of September. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Johnson - Comstock) Meeting adjourn sine die. Jennie M. Fulasz, Secretary