HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-11-16 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
November 16, 1964
The regular adjourned 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, Willhite, Adams and Guyer.
Absent: Members Stevenson and Comstock. Also Present: Director of Planning Warren,
Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg 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 November 2, 1964.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Minutes of November 2, 1964 be approved, as mailed.
REZONING
PUBLIC HEARING: 660 Feet North of Southwestern Junior College on West Side of Otay
Lakes Road - R-1 to C-2
The application was read in which a request was made to rezone eleven (11) acres of
property located 660 feet north of Southwestern Junior College on the west side of
Otay Lakes Road from R-1 (single-family) to C-2 (heavy commercial) .
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location of the pro-
posed rezoning and adjacent land uses. At the present time, there are no residents
in the area; homes are being built in a nearby subdivision. As indicated in the
General Plan, this area is set aside for a community shopping center (25 acre plot) .
The applicant owns eleven (11) acres of this land and has stated he has two tenants.
After discussion with our planning consultants on this proposal to get their reaction,
the following prerequisites to this rezoning were decided upon:
1 . That there will be at least 1500 to 2000 families within one mile after the
opening of the first unit of the shopping center. The developer should demonstrate
that he will initiate construction of the shopping center within one year of the
' approval of the rezoning.
2. That the developer has adequate assurance of the key tenant of his shopping center.
This should be a supermarket.
3. That his center is so designed that it can be expanded into a well-designed
community shopping center of about twenty-five (25) acres.
4. . That h.is design makes proper provision for future intersection and alignment of
Rice Canyon Road ("H" Street extens icn ) and Otay Lakes Road.
Member Guyer questioned the approximate location of the alignment. Director Warren
stated that no studies have been made as to the precise location.
-1-
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Norman stated he now has several tenants ready to move into the area. Since
this zoning has been recommended for this site by the General Plan, he felt it was
logical to request it. Mr. Norman further stated he is asking for C-2 (heavy com-
mercial) zoning instead of light commercial , because he would like to have a repair
shop in the area because of the numerous cars going to the college, etc. The types
of tenants that would lease shops here would be a beauty shop, barber shop, dress-
making shop, etc. These people are already well-established and do not expect to make
any profits for the first year or two.
Vice-Chairman Stewart asked when he planned the first occupancy. Mr. Norman answered
it would in approximately eight months.
Member Guyer questioned whether this shopping center would conflict with the other
one proposed for the area. Director Warren indicated it would not, if the total
market were there; there is no market there presently as the homes are just being
built.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Director Warren reviewed the comments he made earlier and added that if "H" Street
extension goes through and this becomes a major intersection, this site (because of
the schools proposed) is the area for the community development. It is difficult to
zone this today, because no one has any idea how this development will occur here;
the area has not been adequately planned.
Member Willhite asked if the applicant submitted any plans for the general layout of
his proposed shopping center. Director Warren said he had not.
Member Adams declared it would be very unwise to grant commercial zoning here at this
time, since according to the Master Plan, the only commercial zoning that should go
in here should be for a 25-acre community shopping center and the applicant 's acreage
is not adequate. The applicant has a number of "little" stores coming into the area;
no large chain stores. Mr. Adams added that it would be years before there is a
market here for a regional shopping center, and in the meantime, there will be a
neighborhood shopping center that is already zoned for such, to meet the needs of
the people who will live there.
Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested a study be made of the surrounding area prior to any
rezoning for the community shopping center.
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Rezoning be denied for the following reasons:
1 1 . It would not be good zoning practice because the area is undeveloped, and the
proper location for the regional shopping center has not been determined.
2. The alignment of "H" Street has not been established.
3. The applicant 's parcel of land (11 acres) is too small for a community shopping
center.
4. A detailed study of the surrounding area should be conducted prior to zoning for
the community shopping center.
-2-
PUBLIC HEARING: Permanent Zoning - Portions of Jonathan Manor Annexation (Princess
Manor) - Interim R-1 to R-1 and C-1-D
This is a Commission-initiated action. Director of Planning Warren submitted a
plot plan noting the location of the proposed permanent zoning.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ray Rainwater, representing Princess Park Estates, Incorporated, questioned the
meaning of the "D'' zone attachment on the shopping center. Director Warren stated
this supplement has been used extensively in the Bonita Valley area and is being
applied more frequently in all new residential areas. Mr. Warren explained the
purpose and control of the supplemental zone.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 337 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) to the City Council the Permanent Zoning for Portions of
Jonathan Manor Annexation - Interim R-1 to R-1 and C-1-D
Further, that findings be as follows:
1 . Constitutes good zoning practice in conformance with the General Plan.
2. Shopping Center is needed to provide services to adjacent subdivisions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
PUBLIC HEARING: Truman Anderson - West Side of Third, 175 Feet South of "K" Street -
Car Wash in C-2 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made to construct and operate a coin-
operated, self-service-car wash at the west side of Third Avenue, 175 feet south of
"K" Street.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land
uses and zoning. He described the general layout of the proposed car-wash.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Daniel Bloom, Vice-President and General Manager of Truman Anderson, Inc. ,
showed prictures of the proposed business. He stated it would be a silent operation;
the only noise would be of the fine spray of water coming out at 72 gallons per a
five-minute cycle. The company constructs its own buildings - 20-guage steel , built
' to a pitch of sixteen (16) feet. They will be equipped to take in house trailers.
The building will be back far enough to take the traffic off the street, and there
will be plenty of room for parking facilities in the rear. The property is 150 feet
deep.
Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether the applicant proposed to surface the entire
area. Mr. Bloom stated they intended to do this. Vice-Chairman Stewart then asked if
the applicant would be willing to construct, a wall on two sides of his property where
it would abut potential residential use. Mr. Bloom remarked he hadn't thought of this;
because they have such a large area, they have found they do not need any walls since
they do not create.a disturbance. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt the neighboring residents
should' ,be protected against flood lights , etc. , since it will be a 24-hour operation.
-3-
Mr. Bloom explained the interior of the stalls would have fluorescent lights and
there would be spot lights on' the front.
Mr. Harold Starkey, one of the owners of the property, said he viewed this operation
in other cities and could verify there would be no offensive noise here.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Director Warren commented that the car wash was appropriate for the area; however, it
would eventually be the least attractive structure on Third Avenue. Some effort should
be made to make it look attractive; some form of landscaping should be imposed, at
least along the front. Mr. Warren further stated that these places do eventually
branch out and sell cokes , etc. , and these products should be either under canopies
or sold inside the building. Mr. Warren suggested the following conditions, if
approved:
1 . That the entire surface be paved and landscaped where feasible (a landscape plan
should :be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval) .
2. Any required parking spaces and traffic lanes should be marked.
3. That a six-foot high masonry wall be constructed along the westerly and southerly
property lines.
4. That one free-standing .sign and one other sign be allowed on the building.
The Commission discussed the need for the six-foot high fence and concurred that it
could be eliminated because of the adjacent land uses.
Member Johnson asked how many times a week a service man will be on the premises.
Mr. Bloom stated a man will come in once a day; however, landscaping would entail
putting in more water lines to maintain the shrubbery.
Member Willhite commented that the building was unattractive because it was functional ;
he agreed some form of landscaping should be put in.
Member Adams suggested a block wall in front, between the two driveways, about 32 to
4 feet high; this would help to soften the appearance of the building.
Mr. Bloom spoke of the plastisol coating which is sprayed on the building; this helps
prevent any rust or corrosion and is attractive.
Member Willhite agreed with Member Adams about constructing the wall in front com-
menting that Third Avenue goes through the heart of town and every effort should be
made to keep it attractive. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed suggesting it be- set back
five feet; this would be ample room for shrubbery.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Johnson-Guyer) Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1 . That the entire surface be paved and landscaped where feasible. Detailed site
plan includihq landscape plan to be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval .
2. Any required parking spaces and traffic lanes to be marked.
-4-
3. That one free-standing sign and one other sign be allowed on the building.
4. A 30-inch high masonry wall be constructed along Third Avenue, five (5) feet from
the property line, between the two driveways , as shown on the plot plan.
5. All lighting shall reflect downward.
6. Any sale of products to be under canopies or within buildings.
Further, that findings be as follows:
1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare. The noise commonly found with these car wash businesse
apparently will not be present. The size of their property appears to be large
enough to handle any overflow of cars.
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types
of use permitted in the surrounding area.
PUBLIC HEARING: William Minkoff - 426 "F'' Street - Office Building in R-3 Zone
The application was read in which permission was requested to construct an office
building which will be leased by the State of California, Department of Employment,
in an R-3 zone.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, shape of
parcel , the adjacent land uses and zoning. Director Warren commented that this was
an appropriate location for the office building because of its relation to the Civic
Center and County offices. Since it is adjacent to the Civic Center , Director Warren
offered the following suggestions to be imposed, if approved:
1 . That a detailed landscape plan for the entire property be submitted for Commission
approval along with architectural renderings of the building proposed. The staff
feels an attempt should be made to carry out the Spanish influence here, although not
necessarily a duplication of the Civic Center architecture.
2. A six-foot high solid fence or wall should be constructed along the southerly
and westerly property lines , unless waived by the adjacent property owners.
This being the time and place as advertised, . the public hearing was opened.
' Mr. Jayne, representi ng the applicant, stated the building will be 50 x 100, and that
they do plan to submit a landscape plan. Mr. Jayne asked the Commission to reconsider
the condition of the six-foot high wall because there is an existing house in the rear
of this property; the wall would only serve as a hindrance, especially to trash trucks
coming in. The building will be put on the easterly property line to allow a ten-foot'
wide driveway to the house in the rear. The building is standard, one story, as
specified by the State Department of Employment.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was declared closed.
The Commission discussed the need for the wall . Vice-Chairman Stewart felt there
probably would be no need for it since the building will set back and because of its
relation to adjacent uses. The Commission agreed that the architecture should conform
-5-
somewhat to that of the Civic Center.
MSUC (Guyer-Willhite) Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the following
condition:
1 . Detailed landscape plan for the entire property be submitted for Commission
approval along with architectural renderings of the building proposed.
Further, that findings be as follows:
1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types
of use permitted in the surrounding area. The Civic Center is located across the
street which is obviously an office use. Commercial zoning at present is located
adjacent to this property as are commercial uses.
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING: William Minkoff - 426 "F'' Street - Reduction in Frontyard and Sideyard
Setback in R-3 Zone
The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in front yard
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet and sideyard setback from 5 feet to zero.
Director of Planning Warren' submitted a plot plan explaining the 1'ocation of the pro-
posed building. Director Warren remarked that the Civic Center maintains a deep
setback and for this reason they asked the applicant to maintain at least a 15 foot
setback in order to have some conformity here. Normally, where commercial abuts a
residential area , a 5 foot setback is required; here they are requesting a zero set-
back. However , the use to the east in this case will be generally open eliminating
the need for this usual five foot setback.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Member Willhite questioned whether the driveway was sufficient for fire trucks.
Member Adams stated the ten foot access to the rear would not be adequate if the rear
was to be used for any substantial purpose. He added the zero setback requested would
not have a serious effect on adjacent property.
Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked this could be the rear yard for the next development
that would perhaps face on Fourth Avenue.
' Mr. Jayne, representing the applicant, stated this property will be -filled, setting
the building above the golf course level .
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Willhite remarked that the adjacent property (to the rear) is owned by the same
owner; the building is being built on the line in order to convenience this one
individual . He added that if the Commission approved this , they may live to regret it;
this individual does not have a hardship case.
Member Adams agreed stating they cannot say it is a deep lot,:_and the owner does not
-6-
have access to the rear; he has all the land on the west side. Vice-Chairman Stewart
said this was true; however, the Commission should take into consideration the
established lot lines. Member Adams said he would go along with this.
MSC (Adams-Guyer) Variance for reduction in front and sideyard setbacks be approved.
Further, that findings be as follows:
1 . That there are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of the Ordinance which .would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of
said ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property
or class of uses in the same zone. The lot is exceptionally long and narrow, and so
that access may be available to the rear of the lot, the applicants have to set their
building to one side. The uses to the east will be generally open eliminating the
need for the usual five (5) foot setback.
3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located. The uses to the east are open negating the usual need for five
(5) foot sideyard setback.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams , Guyer and Stewart
NOES: Members Johnson and Willhite
ABSENT: Members Stevenson and Comstock
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
PUBLIC HEARING: Section 33.54. 1 - Offstreet Parking - Development and Maintenance
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, reviewed the amendment stating the only change was
the provision for temporary uses of property; this would give them some relief from
the requirement that they must pave their area.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no f-+r-t-I;a-r comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 338 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista',
MSUC (Johnson-Willhite) California, Recommending to City Council an Amendment to
' the City Code, Chapter 33, Zoning, Section 33.54. 1 --
Offstreet Parking - Development and Maintenance.
SUBD IV IS IONS
Princess Manor Unit No. 3 - Final Map
Director of Planning Warren submitted the map, explaining the location. Director
Warren also showed sketches of the homes proposed for this area. There will be : 137 lots;
one of these lots will be the panhandle lot approved by the Commission sometime ago.
The homes will range from 1006 .square feet to 1621 square feet. Director Warren com-
mented that these subdivisions do have a more interesting appearance because of the
-7-
way the houses are designed and placed on the lot - some homes being one story and
others two-story.
Vice-Chairman Stewart asked that the percentage of homes with less than1300 square
feet be checked out before submitting it to Council for approval .
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, submitted the Engineering Department
recommendations. Director Warren stated the staff would recommend approval based on
these recommendations.
Mr. Warren asked that when Unit No. 3 is completed, the Commission plan to visit the
subdivision to analyze the development with the goal of guiding better subdivisions
in the future. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked the Director to place this matter on
the next Commission field trip.
MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Final map of Princess Manor Unit No. 3 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1 . The subdivider shall submit a letter from the Title Company approving metes
and bounds description as shown on title sheet.
2. The subdivider shall show utility easements at rear of lots or provide letters
from the various utility companies stating the easement is not required.
3. The subdivider shall modify the map as required by the Division of Engineering
following a complete check of the improvement plans.
4. Record map sheet details shall be modified as directed by the City Engineer.
Such modifications are shown in red upon the Engineering check copy.
5. The subdivider shall provide turn around easement for access road on Parcel #1
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Separate instrument) .
6. A cul-de-sac shall be provided at southwesterly end of Marl Avenue of a type,
location and size as approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning.
7. Provide all necessary slope rights outside of the subdivision boundary as
required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to consideration of the final
map by the City Council .
8. All fees to be paid prior to the consideration of final map by the City Council .
MISCELLANEOUS
' Approva4 of Proposed Bonita Village Annexation No. 2
Director of Planning submitted a map noting the proposed annexation: both sides of
Allen School Road, south of Bonita Road. The area encompasses approximately 2. 63
acres. This has already been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission and
the Boundary Commission.
MSUC (Adams-Willhite) Recommend to City Council the approval of Bonita Village
Annexation No. 2.
-8-
Discussion —Plans for Commercial Development of Bonita Village Annexation No. 2
Director of Planning Warren presented the artist's drawings of the proposed commercial
shopping center for the area noting the buildings would be constructed of clap wood
and adobe brick, with a shake roof overhang.
Mr. Robert Edwards, architect for the project, stated the walls would be on one-hour
fire protection - the overhang would give the appearance of a shake shingle roof. There
would be wood timber between window separations. The layout is of a flexible plan
that can be split for multiple-purpose usage.
Member Willhite questioned the depth of the overhang. Mr. Edwards stated it would be
four feet. Member Johnson remainded the applicant that this area was under the
supplemental "D'' zone and therefore should have landscape plans. Mr. Edwards claimed
he will submit them with the detailed plans of the buildings. He added the buildings
will incorporate 15,000 square feet of land area , 3680 square feet for parking, 5256 squar
feet for sidewalks and 17846 for landscaping.
Member Willhite asked if the Master Plan recommended this area for commercial .
Director Warren noted that commercial use was not specifically proposed for this area;
however, a portion of this .area had already been zoned commercial .
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Plans for a shopping center be approved subject to the following
conditions: ;
1 . A detailed plot plan showing landscape plans be submitted to the Commission for
approval .
2. Final plans for the proposed shopping center be submitted to the Commission for
approval .
=Resolution - Intention to Prezone Bonita Village Annexation No. 2 - C-1-D
Director of Planning Warren stated this area is presently zoned commercial in the
County and if annexed to the City now, would come in as interim R-1 . The developers
discussed this with the staff and indicated they would come into the City only as
commercial .
Vice-Chairman Stewart stated they had assured the people in this area , if they annexed,
whenever practical they would enjoy the same :zoning as they now have with the County.
Mr. Stewart felt this area was best suited for commercial use and the Commission was
justified in granting such, even though not recommended by the Master Plan.
Member Wi1lhite commented that County Planning has recently zoned commercial down to
Otay Lakes Road and he felt this would be starting a strip commercial zoning pattern
' down Bonita Road.
Director Warren noted the adjacent property owner 's land to the east and said this is
now interim-zoned commercial . Mr. Warren then noted the commercial area near the
college. With all these commercial areas , he would suggest the Commission, if.,agreeable,
go on record as opposing any further commercial development east of the annexation on
Bonita Road. The Commission concurred that no further commerc.ial zoning should be
granted further east than this annexation.
RESOLUTION NO. 339 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Intent to Call a Public Hearing on December 7, 1964 for
the Purpose of Prezoning to C-1-D Land Known as the Pro-
posed Bonita Village Annexation No. 2.
-9-
Discussion - Interpretation of Uses Allowed with Conditional Use Permits in R-3 Zones
A letter was read from Mrs. H. Green, co-owner of the miniature golf course on
Street, requesting an interpretation as to whether or not a miniature golf course
would be allowed with a conditional use permit in an R-3 zone.
Member Adams remarked there was as much difference between a miniature golf course
and a regular golf course as "night and day. " There are more people concentrated in
a miniature golf course in a smaller area, and this is- not nearly as compatible in
an R-3 zone as a regular golf course.
Mrs. H. Green asked about possible expansion of her golf course. Vice-Chairman
Stewart declared this would have to be done by variance. If the rezoning on her
property is approved (to R-3) she will have a non-conforming use. Mr. Stewart felt
a miniature golf course is more of an amusement center.
Director Warren then asked the Commission about bank buildings being allowed in an
R-3 zone with a conditional use permit. Normally, professional and office uses are
allowed in this zone with this permit. Mr. Warren asked if a bank building would
fall into the category of an office building.
Vice-Chairman Stewart stated that banks are lending institutions, they handle escrows ,
car loans, etc; they conduct what is strictly a commercial enterprise, creating in
this respect, a great deal of traffic.
The Commission concurred it would be a bad precedent to allow a bank building in an
R-3 zone with a Condiltional Use Permit; that a "bank" was not within the definition
of a "business or professional office" referred to in the Ordinance.
Division of Highways - Meeting
Director of Planning Warren stated the Division of Highways will hold two meetings on
the proposed freeway Route 54 between FAI 5 and 0.4 miles east of FAI 805. The
fi-rst meeting will be held Tuesday, December 15 in National City and the second on
Wednesday, December 16, 1964.
League of California Cities - Dinner Meeting
Director Warren stated the next dinner meeting for theLeague will be held Friday,
November 20, 1964 at the Stardust Motor .Hotel in Mission Valley. The host city
will be Imperial Beach. Mr. Warren stated the secretary will call them for reserva-
tions.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Johnson-Willhite) Meeting adjourn sine die.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary