Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-12-07 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 7, 1964 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7:00 P.M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stewart, Johnson, Stevenson, Adams , and Guyer. Absent: Members Comstock and Willhite. Also present: Planning Director Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Johnson-Guyer) Minutes of November 16, 1964 REZONINGS _PUBLIC HEARING: Southwest Corner of "H Street and Fig Avenue - San Diego Trust and Savings Bank - R-2 and R-3 and- C-l .- The application was read in which a request was made to rezone that property on the southwest corner of "H" and Fig Avenue from R-2 and R-3 to C-1 for the purpose of constructing a bank building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location, ,zoning, and adjacent land uses. The Sears property backs up to this parcel and Mr. Warren noted that Shasta Street would be opened into the Sears site. The applicants have not sub- mitted a plot plan. The General Plan designates this area for high density residential use. Director Warren warned if C-1 zoning is allowed here, strip zoning furtber east along "H" Street -would be likely. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Glen Rick, Consultant for the San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, introduced other Bank representatives present: Mr. Tom Sexton, Art Anderson and C. Will . Mr. Rick summarized the bank's financial statement, indicating the need for another bank in Chula Vista and the proposed property as the logical place for their bank. Since "H" Street was now well established, they felt it would be logical to request this re- zoning. Mr. Rick showed two photographs of buildings the-bank recently built in other cities. He declared the officials are ready to cooperate with the Commission in any degree as to the design of their building, the landscaping and the accesses. He added the rezoning would be such a small intrusion, it would be no detriment to the General Plan. Chairman Stevenson asked how many other sites in commercial zones, the applicants looked at .before deciding on this parcel . Mr. C. Will stated they did look over the City for potential acreage; however, they felt this particular parcel , being next to Sears and the Shopping Center would give them the best exposure. The secretary informed the Commission that one letter of protest was received. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented on the Director 's remarks as to once business is established on this corner, it would be difficult to refuse rezoning for the next '. corner and so on down the line. He added the City has had two Consultants to guide the growth of the community and both have agreed there should be no "'strip" zoning ' - on "H" Street. He felt the Commission should hold the dune on this strip zon,,pg, and that the applicants should consider the available commercial land in the City for their bank. Member Adams agreed stating the Commission should give serious consideration to the fact that this does conflict with the General Plan. The Consultants advocated that whenever the Commission proposes to take any action contrary to the Plan, a study should be made first. On this particular situation, Mr. Adams felt a study of the area would not justify the request. MSU (Stewart=Adams) Rezoning be denied for the following reasons: 1 . The rezoning would be contrary to the General Plan. 2. Two Planning Consultants have specificially recommended that -strip zoning not be extended along "H" Street to Third Avenue. 3. It would be an intrusion into the residential area of homes that are of good quality, and it would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. i 4. There is adequate vacant commercial zoning in the City suitable for such use. Mr. Glen Rick discussed the decision stating the bank would be more desirable in this location than the hospital across the street, and that it would make a good buffer between the commercial and residential zones. Mr. Rick added that they are a "berderline" case and should be given every consideration. Member Johnson agreed Fig Avenue would make a good buffer zone, and that there is justification in ex- panding to this corner. Chairman Stevenson disagreed stating any expansion here would go clear to Third Avenue. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Stevenson, Guyer NOES: Member Johnson ABSENT: Member Comstock and Willhite PUBLIC HEARING: Bonita Village Annexation No. 2 = Prezonin to C-1-D Director of Planning Warren explained this request came in at the time of the Annexation. This is Commission-initiated at the request of the staff. Mr. Warren reviewed the plans of the applicant to put in a shopping center in this area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 340 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Prezoning to C-1-D. for the Bonita Village MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Annexation No. 2 Further, findings be as follows: -2- 1 . Both the property to the west and to the east are now zoned C-1 and are in the City. 2. Because of tts relation to present zoning, good zoning practice requires the recommendation of C-1-D zoning for this property. VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Richardson, Tipton & Dean, Inc. - Northeast Corner of Woodlawn Avenue & "F" Street - R-3 Use in C-2 Zone. The application was read in which a request was made for a variance to construct 116 apartment units on property zoned C-2 on the northeast corner of Woodlawn Avenue and "F" Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent zonings , and land uses. Mr. . Warren stated the staff feels this entire area should ' be considered f-or rezoning to R-3. The General Plan calls for high density in this area. The uses in the area are scattered. The applicant has applied for a variance for expediency purposes. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Richardson, one of the applicants, stated they chose this location be- cause it has already established itself as a residential area, even though zoned commercial . There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams noted the General Plan calls for- high density in this area and stated he would like to see it all rezoned. He felt, however, there was no exceptional circumstances that would justify granting a variance in this case. Director Warren noted the plot plan submitted by the applicants showing the general layout of the development. Mr. Warren said this was not necessarily the final plan and that this was not a very good piece of property towork with and come up with a satisfactory plan. He suggested a revision of the. plan. He also recommended a 6 foot high masonry wall be constructed on the northerly property line of the pro- perty. Mr. Warren further discussed the front setback stating 5 feet was inapprop- riate and a 15 foot setback should be established; however, if the applicants plan to use the front section for parking; then a 10 foot setback would be acceptable, and landscaping should be put in. Chairman Stevenson questioned the time element involved in a rezoning. Director Warren indicated it would be approximately 90 days , from Commission to Council hearings. The Commission discussed the possibility of a street being put in to bring access to adjacent property owners. Director Warren stated the property owners would have to get together in order to have an effective development. Vice-Chairman Stewart discussed the exceptional circumstances remarking the General Plan calls for residential in this area and there is a demand for it; however, there is no demand for C-2 zoning. Chairman Stevenson suggested the shape of the lot as a hardship. Director Warren suggested any rezoning of this area go down to that C-2 zoning fronting on Broadway. City Attorney Lindberg declared it would not be illegal to grant this variance if findings can be made justifying it. -3- Member Adams` commented on a rule which states ,"you�ishpuldnit do by a variance what you can do by a rezoning. " He added. he wasn 't ''sold" on this matter, but would not oppose it. MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . That a six-foot high masonry wall be constructed along the northerly property line of the property. 2. That a 15 foot setback be established along Woodlawn and "F" Street for buildings. 3. That the applicants be allowed a 10 foot -setback if the frontage on Woodlawn and "F" Street is to be used for parking. In that case, a planting strip be pro- vided and a (�Clw, decorative wall around the parking area frontage be constructed. 4. That a landscape plan and detailed building plans be submitted for approval at a later date. 5. That the plan be revised in accordance with plan on file with Planning Depart- ment. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER REZONING PROPERTY South of "F" Street between Guava and the Chula Vista Shopping Center - C-2 and M-1 to C-1 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro- posed zone changes. He reviewed the Commission 's recommendation to the Council that this area zoned M-1 and C-2 be rezoned to R-3. At the Council meeting, two property owners protested the rezoning; therefore, the Council sent it back to the Commission for consideration of C-1 zoning. The property owners next to the shop- ping center stated to the Council that they are proposing to expand the shopping center and requested their land remain commercial . Director Warren recommended the setbacks be established at 15 feet, because of its relation to the Civic Center. City Attorney Lindberg requested that a recommendation on the entire rezoning of the area go back to the Council , not specifically this portion. Director Warren stated he intended to send the Commission's recommendation on the entire area to the Council ; he asked specifically for this portion to be set for hearing because it was the only one opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 341 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chu(ba Vista California Stating Their Intentoto Call a Public Hearing on January 4, 1964 to Consider Rezoning and the Establishments of New Setbacks on the South Side of "F" Street between Guava Avenue and. the Chula Vista Shopping Center. MSUC (Stewart-Johnson) MISCELLANEOUS Report of Findings —Appeal of Don Norman to Commission Action Denying Rezoning to C-2 Otay Lakes Road Planning Director Warren submitted a. plot plan and reviewed the location and the matter. He stated the applicant has appealed to the Council the Commission's denial on his request for rezoning from R-1 to C-2 his eleven (11) acres of land north of the Southwestern Junior College on Otay Lakes Road. -4- The findings were then read. MSC (Adams-Guyer) Findings be approved and submitted to the City Council . Chairman Stevenson although agreeable to the Commission 's action, abstained from voting because he was not present at the hearing. Request for Deferral of Public Improvements on West Bay Boulevard - H. Campbell A letter from Mr. Harding Campbell was read requesting a deferral of public im- provements in l'front of his property on West Bay Boulevard. A letter from the Engineering Division was read in which they recommend deferral until detailed plans for the street are available. They also request that prior to any construction, such plans to be coordinated with the Port authorities and the local office of the Division of Highways. The Engineering Division futher re- commended that a bond, lien or other suitable guarantee of performance be posted in the amount of $1 ,000.00. Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the property on the map; in this particular case, the staff would recommend deferral , however, he felt the time was appropriate to begin putting in improvements in this industrial area. He added that development is beginning in that area and no imp.®vements are being put in. Director Warren ,asked the Commission to give serious thought to requesting im- provements in this area and to also encourage the Port Authorities and Street Divisions to complete their plans for this area. Chairman Stevenson asked the Director to draft a letter of inquiry to the Port Authority on the subject and to ask Engineering for a report. MSUC (Johnson-Guyer) Deferral of public improvements be approved subject to the following: 1 . That installation of public improvements (curb and sidewalk) be deferred until detailed plans are available. Prior to construction, such plans shall be co- ordinated with the Port authorities and the local office of the Division of Highu- ways. 2. That a lien, bond or cash deposit in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000.) be provided as assurance of completion of such improvements. 3. That the applicant will commence installation of required improvements within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from the City Engineering Department. DISCUSSION - Plot Plan' for Quality Steel Industries 130 Bay Boulevard Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby the Council approved the location for this steel mill about two months ago, and at that time asked the developer to submit his plans for approval . Director Warren showed a plot plan submitted by the developers stating a cyclone fence has already been installed around the property. In its first stage of operation, the majority of the work will be conducted outdoors. Director Warren remarked that, although they should not discourage industry from coming into the City, they should be concerned with upgrading industrial areas. If this operation is going to be outdoors, there is the question of noise and any light emm4-tied: The Commission should have some -5- assurance that a building will be constructed in the future, and why it couldn't be done at this time. The Commission 's action at this time will be advisory to the Council . Mr. Sam Jaffee, president of the corporation, stated it was much faster to move the equipment and put them on pads than to wait for constructing buildings. They will eventually house this equipment. in the future, they will employ approximately 50 people; they will have 10 employees to start with. Mr. Jaffee stated his property can not be seen from the freeway because of the elevation and the fencing. The equipment will be set back far enough so as not to detract from the property. He remarked it was interesting to see the operation out in the open than in the build- ing. Mr. Warren pointed out that although the property cannot be seen from the freeway, it is on the same level with R-3 for use across the freeway. Chairman Stevenson asked when they propose to house the equipment. Mr. Jaffee asked for one year. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested 18 months and recommended a stipulation be made concerning this. Director Warren felt this would be in order and at the end of that time, the applicants could ask for an extension of time. Chairman Stevenson inquired about a solid fence. Mr. Jaffee said this was too easy to push down; for security reasons , since they are dealing with hot metal and high voltage, they felt a chain link would be better. Member Adams remarked that they have seen a layout of the machinery but now would like to see a detailed plot plan brought in as further construction is contemplated. MSUC (Stewart-Johnson) Site plan be approved with the following conditions: 1 . A structure housing the construction line be built within a1period of 18 months. 2. At the time the building is to be constructed, a landscape and site development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for approval . DISCUSSION - National Scenic Roads & Parkway Study This matter was referred to the Commission by the City Council . Director Warren referred to a letter received from the Division of Highways concerning the Recreation Advisory Council . This Council has recommended that a national program of scenic roads and parkways be developed and asks for participation in the study for any recommendations the Commission may want to make for any local roads or streets within the City which they feel would meet the concepts for scenic routes. Chairman Stevenson requested that a copy of thi.s-. letter be sent to each Member so they may study it. Member Johnson recommended Telegraph Canyon Road. Director Warren stated, in the past, they .have always felt that Route 241 should be considered, because of its approach to Mexico and the view of the mountains. The Commission also suggested the route through Sweetwater Valley. DISCUSSION "K" STREET ZONING Member Adams mentioned the one block of M-1 zoning existing on "K" Street between -6- Third and Fourth Avenues. He felt the Commission should g.i.ve some consideration to having this rezoned. Director Warren commented on the car wash proposed for this area, that was just denied by the Council . At that time, the Mayor recommended that a study be made of this area. At present, a warehouse occupies the M-1 zoning; it is being used for industry. MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Recommend. the staff study the area to determine appropriate zoning. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS City Attorney Lindberg discussed the problems of procedures of rezonings. He said he recognizes the fact that the consultants are going to be bringing in the first draft of a new Zoning Ordinance; he is now working on procedural proceedings and would like to see this worked out first. When it actually comes into the substance, the Commission may have prolonged hearings on this matter. The Commission discussed other- phases of the ordinance; Vice-Chairman Stewart - mentioned the Conditional Use Permiit which he felt was not a bad implement but should get "rid" of it if the Commission cannot use it. Member Johnson felt the statement "reasonably compatible in the area" should be definitely spelled out in the Ordinance. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested this matter be discussed at the next Commission workshop meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Meet.ing adjourn until 7 P.M. December 21 , 1964. Respectfully submitted, gJrennieM. Fulasz Secretary -7-