Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-04-15 PC MINS MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 15 , 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 the Civic Center with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland , Willhite, Adams and Guyer. , Also present: Planning Director Fretz, Assistant Planner Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Duberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. 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 April 1 , 1963. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Member Guyer and unanimously carried that the minutes of April 1 , 1963 be approved , copies having been mailed to each member. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - (Cont 'd) Portion of Grout Annexation - Interim R-1 to Permanent R-1-13-1; Planning Director Fretz explained that this hearing was continued until the engineer submitted a tentative map showing the lot pattern. Mr. Fretz then pointed out the proposed lot patterns and said that he would make one recommendation; that lots 6-7-8-12 and 13 be zoned as 9,000 square foot lots instead of the proposed 7,000 square feet. . This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Willhite suggested that lots 12 and 13 be enlarged to the north so,-that the R-1-B-9 zoning would include them. Member Adams asked the Planning. Director for specific instructions as to the method of zoning this area. Mr. Fretz stated that if the Commission agrees with the revised pattern, then lots 1-2-374-5-9-10 and 11 should be recommended to be zoned as R-1 or 7,000 square- foot lots; lots 6-7-8-12 through 19 be zoned as R-1-B-9 or 9,000 square foot lots; lots 20 through 26 as R-1-13-12 or 12,000 square foot lots; and lots 27 through 32 as R-1-13-15 or 15,000 square foot lots. - There was some discussion relative to joint usage of panhandles and the paving of these, but it was agreed that this is a matter that should be taken up at the time the tentative map is considered. RESOLUTION NO. 265 Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Zoning of a Portion of Grout Annexation. Offered by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Comstock, passed, approved and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: -1- AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: None ABSENT: None Further, the findings are based on the following: 1 . This is a continuation of the existing lot pattern in the area. 2. The topography of the area requires greater flexibility in lot zoning. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING (Cont 'd) Andrew Hom - 980 "F'' Street - Convention Hall and Motel in M-2 Zone Planning Director Fretz reviewed the matter stating it was continued from the last meeting because the Commission felt a more precise parking layout should be brought in. A plan showing the total eventual development anticipated and parking for 625 cars was explained. It included a 114 unit motel but did not show a convention hall as originally requested. Mr. Fretz stated the parking spaces shown are quite adequate. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented on the northwest portion to be developed as a hotel', the parking over which the Commission has no control , since there is nothing in our ordinance stipulating the number of parking spaces required for a hotel . Mr. Stewart questioned, however, the parking for the proposed marina and wondered if Mr. Hom would have to come back with his plans for this when he is ready to begin construc- tion. Director of Planning Fretz said he would not - the Commission has the entire parking layout in front of them tonight. Chairman Stevenson asked the Planning Director if the parking was checked according to the traffic flow, since at times , the traffic will be quite heavy here. Mr. Fretz said the staff feels there is adequate circulation provided. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether the entire parking layout would be paved when Mr. Hom opens. Mr. Hom said he plans to do this. Mr. Fretz suggested that the Commission approve this in concept; the details to be worked out with the staff. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock asked for the staff 's comments as to the compatibility of the use as applied to zoning. - Mr. Fretz said, as far as this recreational facility in the midst of an industrial zone is concerned, he feels that the Bay has as much recreational potential as industrial . Vice-Chairman Stewart said that he felt that this use would not be incompatible with the uses that will eventually be in this area. Member Comstock stated that he believes the area should then be zoned commercial so that Mr. Hom would not have a non-conforming use. Member Willhite commented that the entire risk comes from Mr. Hom,and Mr. Comstock said that was just his point: Mr. Hom would come in and oppose any M-2 development next to his place. He added that the applicant should recognize that he does have an incompatible use in an industrial zone. Mr. Hom stated that he understands this. -2- Chairman Stevenson said most people keep associating the Bay front with industrial , but the greatest part of the Bay front is developed as commercial and recreational . 1 Member Adams felt they should look forward to a great variety of development here, and for the most part, he thought it might be largely warehousing which would not be too bad next to Mr. Hom's development. He added that he felt Mr. Hom's develop- ment, along with the marina, is large enough to "stand by itself. " It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Vice-Chairman Stewart that the condi - tional use permit for the motel be approved, subject to the ,following conditions: 1 . The driveways and parking area to the east of the line described by the Plan- ning Director be paved with asphalt concrete, including the access driveways. 2. Details of landscaping to be worked out with the Planning Director. 3. Final plans to be brought in for approval by the. Planning Director.. Further, that action be based on the following: 1 . It will entail none of the conditions and hazards outlined in' the ordinance. 2. It is reasonably compatible with the uses we can expect to be developed in this area. 3. We look to this area for variety of types of uses to be developed. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Guyer , Stewart, Weakland, Stevenson and Willhite NOES: Member Comstock - ABSENT: None VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - Abe and Rose Orley - West Side Hilltop Drive - 300 Block Area and Easement The application was read in which a request was made to divide the property into three lots , one of which will have 75 feet of frontage on an easement to Hilltop Drive. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan with an overlay showing the lot splits. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Ernest L. Cooper, 370 Hilltop Drive, presented three letters of opposition from: Robert Prescott, 360 Hilltop Drive, John D. Anderson, 366 Hilltop Drive and one from Mr. Cooper. They protested on the grounds that additional traffic on an already overloaded easement would cause a hazard and hardship on the owners and users of the easement. The Commission discussed the easement and the paving on it. Mr. Orley stated that -:3;- that he has an 18 foot easement. Member Willhite commented that no objections were heard at the last meeting where a variance was requested for a much smaller lot on the same easement. Mr. Duane Wilson, Attorney, stated one of the reasons Mr. Prescott did not object to the variance of Mr. Osborn 's was the fact that Mr. Osborn purchased a 10-foot easement from him. He further stated that he was in favor of this application. Mr. George Harvey, real estate broker, stated he made a search of title on the pro- perty because of the misconception as to the zoning. He found that five houses have a legal right to use this easement - the other three houses do not have the legal right. Mr. Larry Fletcher, from First American Title Company, said he felt the plans pre- sented by both Mr. Orley and Mr. Osborn (at the previous meeting) were good sound plans and there were many lending institutions that would lend money on this property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that the two lots were only 7 or 8 % less than required by ordinance, and he felt it couldn 't be divided in any other way to make them desirable as building lots. Member Weakland asked how many families could safely be served from the 28 foot easement. He added that the property belonging to Prescott and Anderson is land- locked and in time, they will come in and want to use this easement when they subdivide. Planning Director Fretz said this depends on how the easement is im- proved , also how the property adjacent to it is developed. He pointed out two parcels adjacent to it that have not caused any problems because they have suffi - cient parking on their lot. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he felt extra off-street parking spaces should be provided if the lot on the easement is approved. Member Comstock suggested that the portion zoned R-1 should be rezoned in order to establish a setback from the easement sufficient to provide for offstreet parking for guest parking. Vice-Chairman Stewart stated it was not necessary to rezone this as the zone variance would accomplish the same thing. Member Adams pointed out that it was necessary to have a zone variance whether it was rezoned or not, and asked if it was necessary to establish a setback to get the extra parking. He said he felt the Commission should require four or five additional parking spaces to that required by the ordinance. Chairman Stevenson asked for the Planning Director 's comments particularly as to the offstreet parking. Mr. Fretz said he would suggest three conditions be imposed: (1) Five on-site surfaced parking spaces be provided; (2) Lot No. 2 is not to have access to the easement to the north. (3) Proof be presented as to legal rights to the 18 foot easement. Member Adams stated he believes that they had found the key to this easement in the matter of the off-street parking. He added that the owners of the vacant land should know that we want the lots to be large enough so that we can provide off-street -4- r parking so that the easement would be adequate. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart and seconded by Member Comstock that the variance be granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . Lot No. 2 is not to have access to the easement to the north. 2. Lot No. 3 is to provide at least five on-site surfaced parking spaces. 3. Proof be presented as to legal rights to the 18 foot easement. Further, that findings be based on the following: 1 . The exceptional circumstances are that the property facing on Hilltop Drive, with lots of 60 by 200 feet, is not practical to develop. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial pro- perty right of the applicant. 3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or property improvements in the zone in which this property is located. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Admiral and Mrs. Marshall White - Church Avenue, South of "G" Street Setback The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of rear yard set- back from 15 to 8 feet to allow for construction of 74 apartment units. ..Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan, explaining the location of the pro- posed apartments. Chairman Stevenson asked what the ratio of parking was as per- taining to apartments and was informed that it was 1 1/3 to 1 unit. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Loch Crane, architect for Admiral White, spoke in favor of the proposal and cited as the exceptional circumstance the large lot and its unusual shape. He said the apartments were designed in a way to get the southern sun. Member Comstock asked about the central patio, and Mr. Crane stated it would be between the apartments and will be 46 feet, 10 feet of which will be for the apartment 's private patio leaving a 26 foot central patio for the use of all the people. Chairman Stevenson asked about the traffic pattern. Mr. Crane stated that the side driveway would be 25 feet and there would be an 18 foot wide driving space around the apartments. Chairman Stevenson then questioned Mr. Crane as to how much of this would be used for a driving lane. Mr. Crane stated 10 feet 'with 8 feet for parking. There would be one-way flow of traffic established. Member Comstock asked if the development could be moved to the west; however, Mr. Crane said this would cut down on the patio depriving the occupants of light and air. -5- Member Guyer asked for the staff's comment regarding the rear yard. Planning Director Fretz said our rear yard definition takes the rear lot line as its point of reference; and the rear lot line of a rectangular lot is ordinarily that line i which is substantially parallel to the street frontage. The staff would therefore call the easterly property line the rear yard. The Commission concurred. Member Weakland said that he felt because this was a large piece of property, there was plenty of room to build the development according to the ordinance. It was moved by Member Guyer andseconded by Member Weakland that the variance be denied. Further, that findings be based on the following: 1 . No exceptional circumstances could be found that would justify granting the variance ; the lot is rectangular and contains adequate area. 2. The plans could be revised to show a 15 foot rear yard setback as stipulated by the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer , Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - St. John 's Episcopal Church - 760 First Avenue - Setback The application, submitted by Mrs. John Hancock on behalf of St. John 's Episcopal Church,` was a request for reduction of front yard setback from twenty-five feet (25 ') to zero to allow for construction of an ornamental wrought iron gate at the brick entrance-way onto First Avenue. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan explaining that the applicant plans to put up a. fence here also, and according to the ordinance, he would be restricted to a 32 foot fence. The Commission discussed the proposed fence and Chairman Stevenson stated that he felt this school should enjoy the same privileges as public schools which have a much higher fence than 32 feet. Member Comstock asked if a 6-foot fence was con- templated. Father Nale was dubious about this , stating that, at the present time, they have a 4 foot fence around the school grounds. He thought the 312 foot fence was adequate. Member Comstock questioned whether to include the fence in the motion; however, Vice- Chairman Stewart stated that he felt only the gate could be included in the hearing. Chairman Stevenson asked Father Nale .if he understood that 42" (forty-two inches) was as high as he was allowed to go on a fence, and anything different than this , he would have to come in for a variance. Father Nale said he understood this. It was moved by Member Comstock and seconded by'Member Willhite that the variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . The gates must open only to the interior of the lot. -6- 2. The entire 630 feet frontage on First Avenue be devoted to church and church school uses. Further, that action be based on the following: 1 . The usual exceptional circumstances as to the intended_ use are not applicable in this request. 2. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone in which the property is located. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite, Guyer and Stewart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: Member Adams Deferment of Public Improvements - Dr. Dowels Pet Clinic - 4055 Bonita Road Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, read the letter from iMr. Johh-K.-,- Gardner, builder of the proposed pet clinic requesting the deferral of public improvements due to the fact that the engineering has not as yet been completed. Mr. Harshman recommended that this be approved conditioned upon availability of plans for street improvements; that a cash deposit be given to the City in the amount determined by the Engineering Department as sufficient to cover the cost of these improvements. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Weakland and unanimously carried that the request be approved subject to a bond or cash deposit to be given to the City to cover the improvements. Deferment of Public Improvements - Don E. Norman for Russell P. Haas - Main Street Deferment of Public Improvements Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, read a letter from Don E. Norman requesting deferral of public improvements for a parcel of land facing Main Street immediately west of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, until such time as the street is improved by the County. Mr. Harshman stated that Engineering recommends this deferral be approved, subject to a bond or cash deposit being given to the City to cover the cost of the improvement§ and installation upon 30 day notice given by the City. It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Member Guyer and unanimously carried that the request be approved subject to the engineer 's recommendation. Findings of the Planning Commission Appeal of Harry and Magdalen Osborn '. The findings were read in which the application of Harry and Magdalen Osborn was denied. Chairman Stevenson requested that his statement about the fact that this would be establishing a precedent be put into the findings. Member Adams suggested that the percentage of the lot size, namely 35 % less than the -7- required 12,000 square foot zoning also be put into the findings. It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Vice-Chairman Stewart and unanimously carried that the findings be approved as . follows: 1 . An 8,000 square foot lot would not be compatible with the B-12 zoning and lot sizes in the area. 2. The proposed lot would be 35 % less than the required 12,000 square foot zoning. 3. Granting this request would establish a precedent for the reduction of other lots in the estate-type zoning categories. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Fretz read two letters concerning Planning meetings: 1 . From the League of California Cities - monthly meeting to be held on Friday, April 19, 1963 at the Town and Country Hotel . 2. A meeting of the San Diego County Planning Congress to be held on Friday, May 10, 1963 at the Torrey Pines Inn. The Commission asked that they be called during the following week for their reser- vations. MISCELLANEOUS Member Comstock brought up the subject of our ordinance having no provision for re- quired parking in the case of hotels . The Commission discussed this and concurred that an amendment should be drawn up rectifying this. It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Member Stewart ,:-.that the staff draw up an amendment to the ordinance specifying required parking for hotels. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Weakland, seconded by Vice-Chairman Stewart and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn sine die. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary i