Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-04-01 PC MINS r MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 1 , 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 following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present; , Director of Planning Fretz, Assistant Planner Warren, City Attorney Duberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Adams and unanimously carried that the minutes of March 18, 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-B-12 Planning Director Fretz reviewed the matter, stating that the hearing had been con- tinued twice to allow the developer to prepare a plan for 12,000 square foot lots as an alternate to the initial map of 7,000 square foot lots. Mr. Dennis Wittman, Engineer for the subdivider, stated that his studies show the area should not be divided into 7,000 square foot lots exclusively, but that some compromise should be made between the 7,000 and the 12,000 square footlots. Mr. Wittman submitted two profiles of the proposed subdivision pointing out the difference in grades from 2 % on up to 25 %. Because of the grades, it would be impractical to design normal residential streets to serve the entire area; therefore, Mr. Wittman proposed that the subdivision, a total of 10.3 acres, be divided into 32 lots ranging from 7,000 square feet, on level ground, to 18,000 square feet served by easements on the steep topography. He further added that this would, in effect, be equivalent to 12,000 square foot lots based on the formula: 10.3 acres in the sub- division deducting 1 .5 acres for street sections leaving a net acreage of 8.8. Planning Director Fretz asked how many 7,000 square foot lots were proposed and Mr. Wittman said there would be five. The Commission questioned Mr. Wittman as to the size of the lots; he stated a few as: 80x110, 90xl20, 75x95 and 100x80 square feet. Mr. Fretz stated that the staff agrees with the basic concept that recognizes the capability of the land for various lot sizes. Vice-Chairman Stewart expressed concern over the panhandle lots and asked whether this was a good standard to set. Planning Director Fretz said that panhandle lots are frequently used where it is not practical to develop a full street. Vice-Chairman Stewart then asked about the drainage. Mr. Wittman stated that the area has natural drainage. The street pattern was discussed and Vice-Chairman Stewart felt it should be mandatory -1- to have 20 feet of paving to the panhandle lots. 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 Adams commented that this was a logical way to develop the land with the smaller lots adjacent to similar lots on Bonita Road. He added that he had no objection to the panhandle lots; the biggest problem was approving the plan without violating the zoning ordinance. He indicated that in such situations , the ordinance should provide for flexibility. Chairman Stevenson said he felt this was a good subdivision plan - keeping faith with the surrounding neighborhood. Member Adams asked for the staff's comments, particularly as applying to the zoning. Planning Director Fretz felt that if the Commission recommended the basic concept of the 12,000 square foot lots with an additional recommendation that the additional lot sizes within this R-1-B-12 area be based on the final subdivision map, the City Council . could then zone the five lots as R-1 - the other lots will have to be worked out with , the subdivider, and it will have to be zoned as shown on the map. City Attorney Duberg questioned the matter of approval of the rezoning as 12,000 square foot lots since the lots would run from 7,000 to 18,000 square feet. Planning Direc- tor Fretz explained that the motion could be stated as "based on the concept of the 12,000 square foot lots" which would, he feet, cover the smaller and larger lots. Mr. Wittman suggested a continuance so that he could bring in a tentative map based on the exact rezoning he would ask for; Mr. Fretz stated he had no objection to this. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the hearing be continued until the next meeting - April 15, 1963. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Andrew Hom - 980 "F" Street - Convention Hall and Motel in M-2 Zone The application was read in which permission was requested to construct a 52 unit motel and convention hall on property located at 980 "F" Street. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan and explained Mr. Hom's plans. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mrs. Martin, representing Mr. Hom, spoke in. favor of the request. She stated this convention hall , which will be 140 x 140 square feet would be a supplement to the pro- posed 8,000 square feet of convention facilities in the restaurant presently under construction. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked how much parking would b,e provided. Mr. Andrew Hom, the applicant, stated that for the convention hall and motel , 152 spaces are proposed; however , there will be space provided to park a minimum of 600 cars on the property when the entire project is completed. -2- r Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned that adequate parking is planned and stated that a precise parking plan should be laid out on paper. Mr. Hom pointed out that he has 170,000 square feet plus 75,000 square feet from the tidelands fill , making a total of 245,000 square feet of property; on this, he could provide adequate parking for 800 cars. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked for the staff 's suggestion on this matter, and Mr. Fretz said he would recommend that it be continued for two weeks so that the parking pro- blem could be worked out. Member Willhite agreed, noting that three people to one automobile was an average, and if a convention brought one thousand people here, the parking plan would be inadequate, especially since this is a dead end street. The Commission discussed the parking, and Member Adams said he felt the parking does need study and should be brought to the Commission in a more precise form. It was moved by Member Adams , seconded by Member Weakland and unanimously carried that the hearing be continued until the meeting of April 15, 1963 in order for the applicant to bring in a detailed parking plan. PUBLIC HEARING - Charles E. Brown and C. D. Matthews -- Southwest Corner Industrial Boulevard and "L" Street - Motel and Restaurant in an M-2 Zone The application was read requesting permission to construct a 152 unit motel at this location. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan showing the proposed motel units , commenting that the existing building, which contains approximately 20,000 square feet will be used, in part, for a restaurant. _ This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Brown, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the request. He said there is a drainage ditch along the south side of the property and consequently, they will have to alter their plans somewhat to conform to this. Mr. J. Yamate, owner of the property to the south of this location, asked what the applicants propose to do with the ditch. Mr. Brown said they propose to leave it as is. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock asked what else, besides the restaurant, was planned for the 20,000 square foot building. Chairman Stevenson said it was stated that part of this building would be for meeting rooms. He did express concern over the fact that the railroad tracks were used by the packing shed, and at certain seasons of the year, this would be quite busy and perhaps the motel owners will be complaining about the noise. Member Willhite commented that noise will come from the freeway, also. He felt the plan was a good use for the property. Member Comstock said that landscaping should be provided to buffer the sound from the freeway. Mr. Brown indicated that a fence was planned along the freeway to help alleviate noise. Chairman Stevenson asked the Planning Director if the parking was adequate. Mr. Fretz -3- remarked that they have proposed 50 spaces for the existing building, and whether or not this is adequate would depend on how much of the building is used for a restaurant. Mr. Brown stated that one-half of the building will be used for the restaurant and the other half possibly for convention purposes. One hundred fifty seats are con- templated for the restaurant. The Commission discussed the ordinance pertaining to the parking spaces required for the restaurant. Member Weakland commented that .the proposed parking should be based on the whole building, not just a part of it. It was moved by Member Guyer and seconded by Member Comstock that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) Parking lot should be surfaced with asphalt concrete according to engineering standards and the spaces should be marked. (2) Landscaping to be approved by the Planning Department. Further, that findings be based on the following: (1) Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as stated in the zoning ordinance because the street pattern and the railroad tracks isolate this area. (2) The characteristics of the use are reasonably compatible with the type of use in the area. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: None ABSENT: None VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - Harry K. & Magdalen Osborn - 368 Hilltop Drive - Area and Easement Member Weakland asked to be excused from this hearing. Application was read in which permission was requested for construction of a dwelling on a lot having only 7,939.25 square feet in an R-1-B-12 zone. The request included . use of an easement to Hilltop Drive instead of frontage on a public street. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a. plot plan pointing out the adjacent lots and zoning. The proposed lot will be 75 by 105 feet leaving a distance of 20.6 feet between the existing house and the side lot line. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Duane E. Wilson, attorney representing the applicants , spoke in favor of the request stating that circumstances generating this request was the large lot. Mr. Wilson proceeded to point out the existing zones and ;lot sizes in the area declaring it was good zoning practice to create buffer zones , as was done in this area. He added that strict application of the ordinance would deprive Mr. Osborn, the applicant, of the use of his land, and that at the time of purchase, the applicant was informed by his real estate agent that this property was zoned for 7,000 square foot lots. Mr. Morey Weakland, 362 Hilltop Drive, claimed the attorney was in error in citing -4- some of the adjacent zoning; the two adjoining lots are B-12 zoning all the way back, not partially back, as Mr. Wilson pointed out. Mr. Weakland stated there was no possible reason why this variance should be allowed - it was not necessary for the protection of the applicant's rights. The house has been on this location for fifteen years , and he can see no reason why the lot has to be split now. At the time of the rezoning, the lots were zoned B-12 for the sole purpose of not allowing them to be split. Mr. Wilson asked about the vacant land adjoining this property. Director of Planning Fretz explained the existing zoning and the reasoning used in determining this zoning. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson asked for the staff 's comments. Planning Director Fretz pointed out the number of lots that could eventually be served by the easement and said he felt the potential increase in traffic could be significant. Mr. Larry Fletcher, from First American Title Company, stated that according to a title search made by their firm, the 8,000 square foot lots adjacent to the west have access only to the north easement. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that whatever hardship might apply to this property, applies also to the property to the north. He added that he felt sure the property owner knew it was zoned B-12 at the time of purchase. Mr. Osborn declared he did not know, at the time of his purchase, that the land was zoned to B-12. Chairman Stevenson felt that granting this variance would set a precedent and stated that the Commission is confronted with the task of finding something about the land that is exceptional so that a variance could be granted. Member Guyer questioned that any exceptional circumstances existed here. Member Adams commented that this was a large lot and in order to use the entire property, it could be necessary to divide this lot; however, he added that splitting this area into small lots was a detriment to the existing character. Chairman Stevenson agreed. Mr. Wilson asked for a continuance so that this hearing could be held on the same night as the hearing of Mr. and Mrs. Orley since he felt the two cases were similar. Member Adams stated that he felt there were no similarities between the two variances. Planning Director Fretz reiterated that the zoning in this area is for 12,000 square foot lots. In the past, the Commission has approved variances where the lot area was slightly below that required, say 200 to 500 square feet, but he added, the Commission has never reduced the area requirements by 25 % as requested here. Mem- ber Adams added that a new lot should be close to the ordinance requirements. It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Member Guyer that the variance be denied on the grounds that the 8,000 square foot lot will not be compatible with the B-12 zoning and lot sizes in the area. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked Member Adams to insert that there were no exceptional -5- circumstances applicable here, since the law states that no variance shall be granted unless the applicant can produce facts to show that he has practical diffi - culties and unnecessary hardships that would result from the strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance. . Member Adams , however, stated that he did not wish to include this in the motion, since he personally felt that, being a large lot, it could be deemed to be an exceptional circumstance; the Commission has, in the past, granted variances to applicants having large lots, constituting this as an exceptional cir- cumstance. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams , Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Stevenson and Willhite NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: Member Weakland PUBLIC HEARING - J. B. Myers - 381 "D" Street - Lot Split and Easement to "D" Street The application was read in which permission was;-requested to divide the lot into three parcels: one - 150 by 290 feet in front, which would be used for the church, and two - 75 by 130 feet in the rear, to be developed as single family residential sites. The applicant also requests that the two rear lots be served by an easement to "D" Street since they would not have 50 foot frontage on a dedicated street. Assistant Planner Warren submitted a plot plan and reviewed the original application -For the church site. Member Willhite said the original application set aside two lots (75 x 100 feet) for single 'Family residential sites and questioned the additional 30 feet requested now. Planning Director Fretz stated that, due to the topography, the additional 30 feet is needed so that the lots may be served by the "D" Street sewer. Development of a site plan for the- church revealed that this 30 feet was not needed. This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Rrv.J. B. Myers , the applicant, confirmed Mr. Fretz's comments on the sewer, and stated that the lots would be served by a 20 foot easement. Chairman, Stevenson questioned whether this easement would be used solely by the people on these two lots or also by the people attending the church services. Rev.- Myers stated it would be used by both, and added that they have provided parking for 70 cars. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the 20 foot easement has been surfaced as yet, and how the applicant proposed to handle the surfacing, as he felt a condition should be imposed for this paving if the variance is granted. The applicant stated he will abide by the conditions imposed. Mr. R. Martin, 87 Fourth Avenue, questioned whether the easement would abut his property but was told it would not. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -6- Member Adams said this land was landlocked and the lots will be of standard size; therefore, he is in favor of it. It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Member Comstock that the variance for the lot split and easement to "D" Street be approved subject to the following con- dition: (1) The easement from the public street and also the easement in front of the two lots to be paved with asphalt concrete. Further, that findings be based on the following: (1) The exceptional circumstances are that the property is landlocked and cannot be used unless variance is granted. (2) In view of the relationship of this property to adjacent property and existing uses, granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the area. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams , Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson and Willhite. NOES: None ABSENT: None SUBDIVISIONS: Hilltop Chateau - Tentative Map Mr. Dennis Wittman, engineer for the subdivision, stated he wished to withdraw this map and submit a revised map with the filing fee to be applied to the new tentative map. Princess Palomar - Final Map Planning Director Fretz stated that all of the conditions of the tentative map have been complied with. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the final map be recommended ''nor approval . Whittingham Heights — Final Map Planning Director Fretz stated the conditions imposed on the tentative map have been complied with. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, Seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the final map be recommended for approval . MISCELLANEOUS Plans for Dr. Dowels Pet Clinic - C-1-P-D Zone (Cont'd) Planning Director Fretz reviewed the matter stating it had been continued because Dr. Dowe was not present at the previous meeting with his plans. Mr. Fretz then -7- submitted Dr. Dowe's plans explaining that the plans call for shake shingles on the roof; however, our ordinance prohibits the use of shake shingles in a commercial area. Member Comstock felt this was directed to a downtown area where it is more congested and fire would be a greater problem. Mr. Comstock felt that the hazard was not the same in such rural-type developments. He suggested that the City Attorney should study an amendment to our ordinance to allow such construction materials in similar situations. The Commission discussed the building plans and noted it conformed in design to the existing Bonita Village Shopping Center. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock that the plans be approved. The motion carried unanimously. It was also moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the City Attorney draw up a resolution to be forwarded to the City Council modifying the ordinance that specifies that no wood be used for roof materials; that the use of such materials might be governed by the supplemental "D" zone regulations. Findings of the Planning Commission Appeal of William E. Davidson The report of findings were read in which the Commission denied the request of Mr. Davidson for a reduction of rear yard setback from 20 to 15 feet for property located at 923 Myra Avenue to allow for construction of a two-story addition to the existing dwelling. The Commission discussed the findings and asked that the follow- ing comment be inserted , which was discussed at the last meeting: "The two-story structure would deprive the property to the rear of sufficient air and light." It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the findings, with the insertion as stated, be approved. Findings of the Planning Commission Appeal of George B. W. Manos The findings were read in which the Commission denied the request for permission to build six two-bedroom apartment units (two-story) in front of the existing house - 172 First Avenue - an R-3 use in an R-2 zone, but granted a variance to construct a duplex on the front portion of the property. The Commission asked that the reasons for granting less than requested be included in the variance. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Guyer that the findings be approved with the following findings added: (1) Overbuilding the lot. (2) Six units, plus present unit, is considered excessive for this area. COMMUNICATIONS Request for Extension of Variance - Fredericka Manor Planning Director Fretz stated a letter was received from Donald Neptune, architect- engineer for Fredericka Manor , asking for a two-yeas extension on Variance No. 62-1 . -8- It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Guyer and unanimously carried that the extension be granted for a period of two years . ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Weakland, seconded by Member Willhite and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn to April 15, 1963. Respectfully submitted, Bennie M. Fulasz Secretary