Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-10-19 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 19, 1964 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, Califor- nia, was held at 7:00 P.M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Members Johnson and Willhite. 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 October 5, 1964. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Minutes of October 5, 1964 be approved, as mailed. REZONINGS PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Robert A. Miles - Southeast Corner of Fourth Avenue and Center Street - M-1 to R-3 The application was read in which a request was made for a change in zone from M-1 (industrial) to R-3 (multiple-family) for property located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Center Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed rezoning, adjacent land uses and zoning. He explained this hearing was continued from the last meeting, as requested by the Commission, so the staff could study the adjacent area and recommend suitable zoning. In making this study, the staff took into consideration the General Plan and the existing uses. This area has held improper zoning for some time. The staff recommends , in accordance with the sketch submitted, that the M-1 and C-2 be changed to R-3 and C-1 . The request of the applicant is reasonable; the property should be rezoned to R-3. Director Warren added, that because of its relationship to the adjacent shopping facilities , the triangle-shaped property should be R-3. Director Warren then explained the recom- mended front setback changes: 15 feet along the proposed R-3 frontag e and 5 feet for property zoned C-1 . Member Comstock questioned the 15 foot setback indicating that 20 feet should be minimum to eliminate the problem of cars overhanging the sidewalk. Vice-Chairman Stewart stated he would agree ifit were in an R-1 zone; however, this would be a multiple-unit zone and cars would not be parking in the driveway. Director Warren declared that the ordinance prohibits any straight-in driveways unless a 20foot setback is observed. Mr. Robert Miles, the applicant, said he felt his request was reasonable and asked that it not be delayed further. -1- Chairman Stevenson questioned whether this rezoning study was considered along with the Downtown Study. Director Warren said it was; however, the fact that this is private property and not public was taken into consideration. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson remarked that this rezoning study was consistent with the General Plan. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, RESOLUTION NO. 330 California, Recommending to City Council the Rezoning of Property at the Southeast Corner of Fourth Avenue and Church Street. Further, that findings be as follows: 1 . The change constitutes good zoning practice. 2. The existing zoning in the area is a part of an improper island of M-1 zoning in the middle of the City. 3. R-3 zoning is more compatible with adjacent zoning and will allow proper re- development of the property. RESOLUTION NO. 331 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) California, Stating Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing for November 2, 1964 to Consider Rezoning and Establishment of New Setbacks along the South Side of "F" Street from a -Point .310 Feet West of Fourth Avenue Extending to Garrett Avenue, also the Area Bounded by Fourth Avenue, Third Avenue, Center Street and Madrona Street. The Commission will consider rezoning the area to C-1 and R-3 or another appropriate zone and establishment of new setbacks as follows: 15 feet for R-3 zoning and 5 feet for the C-1 zoning. Discussion: Member Adams commented it appeared to him "strange" to have C-1 zoning on the interior of this area since it is a side Street; he felt it should be R-3. Director Warren said this would be true if you were considering raw land and then this area would be zoned as an entire block; however, there presently exists C-2 zoning in front of this area which the staff considers inappropriate. Consideration was given to existing zoning and use in the area in the staff 's study; it was felt that R-3 zoning would be premature here, that we should provide for office use. Member Comstock felt the triangle-shaped parcel should go to C-1 to make it con- sistent with the existing shoppping center, rather than the recommended R-3. Director Warren explained the zoning pattern does look odd on paper; however, the staff feels the C-1 uses in the area are not related to this corner. Whatever is developed on this parcel will be orientated toward Fourth Avenue. Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that for the safe of uniformity and because this area is under study for the expansion program, it would be reasonable to leave it R-3. -2- In the future, it can be changed if someone comes in with an idea for the expansion of the shopping center. Director Warren remarked that the wording of the resolution was "or another appro- priate zone" and asked the City Attorney's opinion on this. City Attorney Lindberg stated that normally, the Commission would be restricted to the limitation of the least restrictive zone. Director Warren commented that the Commission generally hasn't granted a more intensive use than that advertised. PUBLIC HEARING: Beulah & Charles Whitney - 178 Third Avenue and 181 Landis Avenue - R-3 to C-2 and Reduction in Setbacks from 15 Feet to 5 Feet The application was read in which a request was made for rezoning property located at 178 Third Avenue and 181 Landis Avenue from R-3 (multiple-family) to C=2 (heavy commercial) . The application also requests change in building line from 15 feet to 5 feet. Director Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area proposed for rezoning, the. adjacent land uses and zoning. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert J. Cooney, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus Sessions, owners of adjacent property, stated his clients oppose this request for rezoning. They have four duplexes on their property all rented by elderly ladies living on Social Security. To permit this rezoning would be damaging to this property. Landis Avenue is a quiet residential street and across Third Avenue is. Fredericka Home which would also expect to be facing a residential section. Mr. Cooney added that the proposed use is not compatible with these uses and there is definitely a lack of necessity for the re- quest - there is an ample amount of C-2 land in the City not being used. Mr. Pete Vanderpool , 196 Landis Street, stated his objections as follows: The applicant has consistently refused to correct the parking problems in this area; that the applicant has not exercised the variance granted him by the Commission. Mr. Chester Regler, 3776 Putter Drive, Chula Vista, owner of property adjacent to the proposed rezoning request, stated he favored the request for the following reasons: the Commission's own plan put Third Avenue extension into a higher traffic district; it would be wise to have this commercial development extended on Third Avenue; this has created parking problems on Landis but wi-th commercial zoning 'here, it will be controlled; the applicant should be given the opportunity to develop the land as it should be. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson said he feels the same as he did when the request was before them the last time; he isagainst this total rezoning. Member Comstock stated a 141 foot commercial depth was insufficient today unless it would be used for a hamburger stand or service station. He added the owners are going to find it necessary to develop parking here and they cannot do this with a 141 foot depth. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt the rezoning would be an intrusion into the residential section, and the request was for the sole purpose of expanding the business of the car agency on the corner and would be for the purpose of making one man some money. The -3- applicants should have exercised the Variance granted them. Member Adams asked about the Master Plan in regard to this request. Director Warren remarked that it doesn' t call for expansion of commercial in this area and the Consultants suggested some of the existing zoning be contained. Member Adams declared he was against this rezoning as it would set a precedent for other property owners in the .area to come in and ask for the same thing. MSC (Adams-Guyer) Request for rezoning be denied for the following reasons: . 1 . It would not represent good zoning practice. 2. It would be an intrusion of commercial into the residential area; residential use prevails on three sides of subject property. 3. Additional commercial zoning is not needed in this area; there is already an ample amount of land zoned commercial , some of which is now vacant. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Stewart, Stevenson and Guyer NOES: Member Comstock ABSENT: Members Johnson and Willhite CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING: Hogan & McCray - 648 Third Avenue - Electric Cart Repair Service The application was read in which a request was made for permission to repair and service electric golf carts and street-operated electric cars at property located at 648 Third Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro- posed business and the surrounding land uses. . He explained this lot contained a — home converted into a commercial use and the applicants would be using the 2-car garage on the premises as a temporary location for their business. This being the time- and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Myrtle Powell , owner of property at 637-639 Third Avenue opposed the request stating the entire block was being converted over to doctor and dentists ' offices, and that she felt the applicants would have these electric cars parked over the block marring th& appearances of the street. This would turn out to be similar to a lawn mower bus'i'ness whereby the lawn mowers are displayed in front of the building. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the applicant as to where he proposes to store the equipment he will be working on. Mr. Harry L. McCray, the applicant, stated every- thing will be stored behind the building in front of the lot. Member Guyer asked if all the work will be done in the building. Mr. McCray said it would be and the hours would be confined to daylight hours. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson commented that this matter was discussed previously when the -4- applicants were told to apply for a conditional use permit. MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) Conditional Use Permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . Operation of this business be restricted to daylight hours. 2. The permit be issued for one year and a renewal be sought if needed. 3. Storage of carts be confined to the rear of the building on the front of the lot and all repair to be indoors. Further, that findings be as follows : 1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as none of the factors as delineated in the Ordinance would be significantly present. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. This use is normally allowed in a C-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. It will be compatible if the repair service, as contemplated, isconfined to inside the garage. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: F. L. Whittington - 272-276 "K" Street - R-3 Use in R-1 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct 40 apartment units on property located at 272-276 "K" Street, an R-3 use on property zoned R-1 . Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land uses and zoning. He then explained the proposed development according to the plot plan submitted by the applicant, commenting that this would not be the precise plan as the applicant has stated he would like to come back to the Com- mission with this at some later date. The plot plan indicates 37 units; the construc- tion will be of masonry and wood with shake shingle roofing. Director Warren further explained the ingress and egress of the plan. This -being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Those speaking in opposition were: Myron Schraud, 246 "K" Street, Joseph Sowers, 233 San Miguel Road, Walter Gorrell', 230 "K" Street, John Adams , 244 "K" Street and a letter from J. D. Jones , owning property at 250 San Miguel Drive. Their objections, as 'stated, were: (1) would like to have Del Mar made a through street to San Miguel ; (2) there will be an added increase in traffic which will be dangerous to the children now playing here; (3) if road is extended, it will pick up traffic from "L" Street ; (4) should have two entrances to the development as fire trucks will not be able to use the San Miguel extension; (5) contrary to the best interests of the neighborhood; (6) if allowed, it would be a "breach of trust" to those property owners who selected this area because it was permanently establ-shed as as residential . Mr. Jack Thurman, 245 Sierra Way, stated a group of the residents met with Mr. Whit- tington to ta;.lk over his plans and would ask the Commission to consider the following suggestions: -5- 1. Total number of units be limited to 38. 2. Two-story units be limited to the area adjacent to the bank building. 3. Development to be similar to "Tree Haven" development located on "J" Street. 4. Density of development to diminish from west to east making it more com- patible with the existing R-1 usage in the area. 5. Access from Del Mar to the south be restricted to use by pedestrians and golf carts. 6. Development to be walled or screened. 7. Final plans be submitted to Planning Commission for approval . Those speaking in favor of the development were: Raymond Roberts, 212 and 218 "K" Street and Mrs. Crawford, speaking for her son, Archie Rice, 257 "K" Street. Mr. Frank Whittington, the applicant, stated he would like to count on 40 units; he has 161 ,000 square feet of land and according to the ordinance, he could con- struct 161 units here if zoned R-3. Main entrance will be on "K" Street —would like to keep San Miguel entrance for parking of trailers and boats. The only place he would put any 2-story structures would be next to the commercial area. The Commission discussed the possibility of opening Del Mar Avenue. A suggestion was made to open Church Street; however, Mr. Whittington refuted this by stating the area belonged to the Thriftimart Corporation. Director of Planning Warren declared through traffic should be discouraged. He then submitted a plan the staff would suggest if it were to be developed as R-1 - the plan indicated 18 lots. Even by this plan, Director Warren stated that a certain amount of traffic could be expected on Del Mar. Director Warren then presented recommendations the staff would ask, if the variance was granted. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson questioned the requirement for a fence; Director Warren stated it would exclude the "K" Street frontage. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt a public hearing should be called when the precise plans were brought in. The Commission, after discussion, agreed the residents , should be notified; however, a public hearing was not necessary. Mr. Whittington asked for an approval on the use so that he could get some ground- work laid down. MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . The use for multiple-family dwellings only is approved. 2. That detailed plans shall be approved by the Commission showing: a. Elevations and floor plans of all buildings. b. Detailed site plan. C. Detailed landscape plan. -6- 3. The density shall not exceed forty (40) dwelling units. 4. Any two story structures shall be restricted to the "K" Street frontage or adjacent to the Bank of America property; all others shall be one-story. 5. All access drives and parking areas shall be paved and marked. 6. Not more than twenty (20) parking spaces shall be accessible to Del Mar Avenue. 7. Any outdoor -lighting shall not reflect on adjacent residential property. 8. All signs shall be in conformance with the provisions for an R-3 zone. 9. The recreation area shall not be located adjacent to existing residences - should be centrally located or related to the commercial zone. 10. All but the "K" Street frontage shall be enclosed with a 6 foot high solid wall or fence (grape stake and masonry is suggested) . Further, that findings be as follows: 1 . There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of the 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 samezone. Property is almost an island with limited access to the surrounding streets which is the rear yard of two rows of single family homes and lies adjacent to undeveloped C-2 property. Con- ditions are such that organizing a single-family subdivision out of all this property seems to be impossible. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservationof the substantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, applicant is de- prived of reasonable. use of the property. Because of its size, shape and location and the paralleling drainage ditch, it is impractical to develop this area with single-family homes . 4. 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. It is directly related to the commercially-zoned property to the west and represents the rear yards of the single family homes to the north and south. The density will be lower than that normally found in R-3 zones. PUBL"I'C HEARING: Raymond Roberts - 212 "K" Street - Split Parcel & Build on Easement The application was read in which a request was made for permission to divide the property at 212 "K" Street into four lots , each lot containing over 7000 square feet, with three of the lots fronting on.a 20 foot wide easement. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and explaining the division of the land as proposed by the applicant. -7- Chairman Stevenson asked if the lots would meet the 7000 square foot requirement. Director Warren stated they would; however, the applicant wishes to consider his easement as part of the square footage of each. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Raymond Roberts , the applicant, stated an easement here would be the only way he would have" of utilizing his property. The property is deep and nothing but weeds on it now. Those speaking in opposition were: Mr. John Adams , 224 "K" Street, Mrs. Charles . Hathaway, 818 Second Avenue, Mrs. John Adams, 224 "K" Street. Their objections were: (1) property will be used solely for rentals; (2) "K" Street will be going "R-3"; (3) problem of placing a house on the lot since there is a City law pro- hibiting the back of one house facing the front of another; (4) easement would present a trash collection pickup problem; (5) problem of degree of slope and drainage on the property. Mrs. Crawford, speaking in behalf of her son, Archie Rice, 257 "K" Street, spoke in favor of the request. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams questioned whether there was any drainage problem here especially in relation to the lot next to the applicant's. Mr. Roberts answered his lot was level with the adjacent lot and both slope down in back; he stated there would be .no difficulty here and no fill dirt will be brought in. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt this was an engineering problem and not related to what was being considered before them tonight. Mrs. Roberts stated they are dropping the request for the homes to be less than 1300 square feet; they will now comply with the ordinance as to the minimum square footage. Director Warren remarked the request was advertised as dividing the property into four lots , three of them to be served by an easement; however, the applicant shows one house on his plot plan. Mr. Roberts said this was true - he would be able to build only one home at this time; however, he would like the Commission 's approval for the four lots. Member Adams felt the objections raised by the people were worth considering; that possibly four homes back of this lot would be too much and three would be more acceptable. He would also like to see the square footage of the land increased to more than 7000 square feet per lot. The Commission discussed the total square footage of the property and the area of each lot and felt it would be adequate. Member Guyer questioned the applicant using the easement as part of his square footage. Director Warren said, although not consistent-ly, it has been done . Director Warren then submitted four recommendations: MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: . 1. Easement shall be paved full 20 feet of width. 2. A solid wall or fence, 6 feet high, shall be constructed along the east and west -8- property lines unless adjacent owners agree to a waiver. 3. A 20 foot rear yard shall be observed along the west property line. 4. Applicant shall landscape each lot when occupied. Further, that findings be as follows: 1 . There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone. Primarily the narrow frontage: 122.3 feet by 254 and 404 feet deep which would make it difficult to develop and it is four times larger than the normal R-1 lot. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Variance will permit applicant to develop his rear property. Lack of street frontage contributes to hardship of the owner; land is unusable without street frontage. 4. 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. Lots will contain a ,minimum of 7000 square feet as are majority of adjacent lots. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE - To Be Set for Hearing: Provision for Day Nurseries by Conditional Use Permit Junior Planner Lee explained the need for this requirement. At the present time, the ordinance provides for a Day Nursery in an R-1 zone with a limit of three children. With this amendment, it will allow the Day Nurseries in R-3 and C-1 zones with. a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lee added that this was discussed with Mrs. Muir , a representative of the Department of Soc1al Welfare. These Nurseries are controlled by the State, and most ordinances duplicate what is already required by the State. Chairman Stevenson asked if there was any way in which to control the .uses in an R-3 zone; for instance, if 90 % were used as apartment units and 10 % for a Day Nursery. Member Comstock felt this should be left up to the property owner. He would not do anything which would be detrimental to his property. Director Warren commented on the opinion of the Former City Attorney who stated that an existing use granted by the Commission could be discontinued when the applicant was applying for a new use for his property. RESOLUTION NO. 332 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula MSUC (Stewart -Guyer) Vista , California, Stating Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing for November 2, 1964 to Consider Amending Section 33.3, 33. 26 and 33.33. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. MISCELLANEOUS Consideration of Building in Supplemental "D'' Zone - Bonita Village Shopping Center -9- Director of Planning Warren showed the plans submitted by the applicant. This will be an addition to the presently constructed bank building in the Center and will house two shops. Director Warren said he would recommend that the parking spaces for this building be delineated adjacent to this building since the develop- ment is extending easterly. Landscaping plan is schematic but suggests good concept. MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Plans be approved as submitted. Discussion - Proposed Panhandle Lot in Princess Manor Unit No 3 Director Warren submitted a map showing the panhandle lot. He stated this was not shown on the tentative map of Princess Manor. Because of the drainage ditch and the grading involved, it was impossible to develop this any other way and still provide for the extension of Melrose Avenue as planned. The lot contains at least 12,000 square foot of level land - the rest of the parcel slopes down. The access is 20 feet wide. Normally, the staff would not approve such a lot; however, in this case, the staff would recommend approval . MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of panhandle lot in Princess Manor #3. Consideration of Proposed Dwellings in Bonita Verde Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans for two residences proposed for construction in Bonita Verde Subdivision; one on 4015 Bermuda Dunes Place and the other on 4050 Doral Way. Homes will be in excess of 1600 square feet and com- patible with the other homes in the area. No landscape plans were submitted. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Approval of plans for two homes to be constructed in the Bonita Verde Subdivision. Recommendation on Loma Verde Park Annexation Director Warren explained this was a formality whereby Commission recommendation is needed for the Annexation. The area encompasses' five and one-half (52) acres and is adjacent to the Loma Verde School . It will be used as a park in relation to the school . MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Approval of the Annexation. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Recess until Thursday, October 22, 1964, 7 p.m. in the Administration Conference Room, Civic Center, Chula Vista. Respectfully submitted, r Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary