Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-03-16 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 16, 1964 A regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Johnson, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Members Comstock and Willhite. Also Present: Acting Planning Dj rector Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Duberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting of March 2, 1964. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING: Mestler-Jacquot, Inc. - 844 Fifth Avenue - Tract Sign and Sales Office The application was read in which a request was made for permission to erect a tract sign (4 feet by 8 feet) on subdivision property (Aletha Park Subdivision) . Permission was also requested to use the garage of one of the model homes on Lot #5 in the sub- division as a temporary sales office. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the subdivision and the proposed sign and sales office. He explained that the request was a formality that all sub- dividers go through. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1 . That upon sale of the home containing the office, the garage shall be reconverted for vehicular use as required by ordinance. 2. This conditional use permit shall be valid for six months , or until the homes are sold, whichever occurs first. 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. MSUC (Guyer - Johnson) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Director. 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. There will be none of the nuisances or damage occurring .as delineated' in the ordinance. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. The property contains new, unoccupied homes; these permits are consistently granted for new tracts. =1- PUBLIC HEARING: Tri-County Construction, Inc. - Bonita Cove Subdivision - Tract Sign and Sales Office The application was read in which a request was made for permission to use the garages of the model homes on Lots 31 and 36 in the Bonita Cove Subdivision as temporary sales offices. Also requested was permission to erect an advertising sign, 12 feet by 40 feet on Lot 41 of the subdivision. Mr. Warren noted the location of the sign and sales offices on the subdivision map. He explained that the proposed sign is larger than that allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Warren suggested the following recommendations if the Commission considers approval : 1 . Upon sale of the homes containing the offices, the garages shall be reconverted for vehicular use as required by ordinance. 2. This conditional use permit shall be valid for one year, or until the homes are sold, whichever occurs first. Member Johnson asked if any illumination or mechanical objects are planned for the sign. Mr. Warren stated the Planning Commission has control over this. Mr. Frank Ferreira, the applicant, declared there would be no moving parts on the sign; however, he may want to illuminate it at some future date. 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. The Commission discussed the proposed sign. Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that a con- dition should be imposed whereby lights , if used, would not reflect on any adjacent residential property. Mr. Warren asked the Commission to phrase any recommendation for approval with�a provision restricting the size of the sign to that allowed by ordinance. The Commission concurred and stated that they would consider the size of the sign in the request for variance following. MSUC (Adams - Stewart) Application for sign and tract offices be approved subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Director and with the following additions: 1 . The sign referred to is a sign within the limits provided by the City ordinance. 2. In the event the sign will be lighted, the lights shall be reflected away from the windows of adjoining houses. Further, that findings be as follows: 1 . Granting this- conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety .or welfare. There will be no damage or nuisance occurring as delineated in the ordinance. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. The property is presently unoccupied; these permits are consistently granted for new tracts. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Tri-County Construction, Inc. - Bonita Cove Subdivision - Tract Sign -2- The application was read in which permission was requested to erect a tract advertising sign (480 square feet) on Lot 41 of the Subdivision. Mr. Warren noted the location of the proposed sign on the subdivision map. The sign will have a black background with red lettering. The ordinance allows a sign up to 150 square feet in area; the applicant is requesting a 480 square foot sign. The staff recommended that a one-year time limit be placed on any approval , because of the over-size. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Ferreira, the applicant, indicated that the sign would be in good taste; the final plans for the sign could be subject to Commission approval . Member Guyer asked about the elevation of the sign. Mr. Warren stated it would be approximately. 40 feet above Bonita Road elevation. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams compared this situation with that of the Bonita Bel=Aire request. He felt that if they approved this sign, they should have also approved the one for the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision. Vice-Chairman Stewart declared there was a difference here between the two subdivisions , as Bonita Bel-Aire had frontage on Otay Lakes Road whereas this subdivision does not have frontage on a dedicated road. The Commission discussed the exceptional circumstances. Chairman Stevenson commented that the area- in which the sign would have to set to be visible presents a problem. Member Adams felt the approval of this sign would set an unjustifiable precedent. MSC (Stewart - Johnson) Approval of the sign at the location and size specified in the application, and subject to the Planning Director 's recommendations: 1 . Time limitation shall be one year from this date or until the houses are sold, whichever occurs first. 2. The final content of the sign .shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval . Further, that findings be based on the following: 1 . That 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 subdivision has no frontage on an existing street. To be visible from Bonita Road, the sign must be placed on a bank at the southerly edge of the subdivision; therefore, a larger than usual sign is required. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. . Adequate advertising could not be provided without the variance. 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, because of its temporary nature and relation to existing development. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: -3- AYES: Members Stewart, Johnson and Guyer NOES: Members Stevenson and Adams ABSENT: Members Comstock and Willhite PUBLIC HEARING: Great National Development Corp. - M. L.McMillin - Mission Court- Setback The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback along one side of a corner lot from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow for the con- struction of a dwelling in the Hilltop Panorama Subdivision. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the subdivision. He stated that most subdivisions are granted 15 foot and 10 foot front setbacks on corner lots. In this case, the applicant failed to ask for that at the time he submitted his map and consequently, a 15 foot setback was applied to both sides. The standard subdivision home cannot be placed on this particular lot without this requested reduction in setback. 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. MSUC (Stewart - Guyer) Request for reduction of setback be approved. Findings be based on the following: 1 . 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. In most single-family subdivisions approved currently, a setback of 10 feet is allowed along one side of street frontage on corner lots; a 15 foot setback was inadvertently applied to both sides on applicant 's lot. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant cannot place the standard subdivision house on the lot without the reduction in setback; applicant would lose too much of his land. 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. Such an allowance is customary in most new subdivisions. SUBDIVISIONS Palomar Plaza Subdivision - Revised Tentative Mr. Warren submitted the revised tentative map noting the location of the subdivision. The map, as submitted, contains 41 single-family lots and a 6 acre commercial area for a shopping center. Palomar will have a grade separation at the freeway. Mr. Warren referred to a letter received from the Division of Highways stating that the Interstate 805 Freeway will be developed adjacent to this subdivision. They request that a right- of-way reservation for this freeway construction be made on the easterly portion of the subdivision. Inview of this request, Mr. Warren submitted an overlay which would change the design of the subdivision and reserve this right-of-way for highway con- struction. Mr. Warren presented the following recommendations for approval : 1 . Easements for street tree planting shall be provided along all streets as required. A deposit for street trees shall be paid in accordance with Ordinance No. 872. -4- 2. The map note regarding setbacks shall be altered to allow for ten (10) foot setbacks on one side of corner lots. 3. The final map shall reflect the changes suggested on the overlay submitted by the Planning staff to provide for logical extension of Nacion Avenue. Travelway shall be 40 feet in width; typical section including curb, gutter and monolithic sidewalk shall be shown. The final treatment of this area shall be coordinated with the State Highway Department. 4. All slopes shall be planted in accordance with the standards on file in the Plan- ning Department. 5. That a six (6) foot high masonry wall be built along the northerly and easterly lines of Lot 2. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, then presented the recommendations of the Engineering Department: 1 . Clearly define limits of existing dedications on Oneida, Nolan and East Palomar. 2. Clearly define the subdivision boundary and adjacent property under same ownership. 3. If condemnation of street right-of-way is necessary, the subdivider shall submit a detailed letter of request addressed to the City Council and stipulating that subdivider will bear all related costs. 4. Dedication and improvement of Oneida Street from east line of Neptune to east line of "A" Street shall be provided. Minimum pavement width - 28 feet east of Mylo Ocean View Estates. Remainder within such subdivision shall be improved full width. 5. Palomar Street shall be improved with a minimum of 28 feet of pavement, curb and gut- ter and monolithic sidewalk. Adequate slope rights beyond the south edge of pavement shall also be provided. Revise typical section. 6. All provisions for drainage shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. 7. Provide one foot lots at: a. Southerly edge of pavement on Palomar. b. Easterly end of Palomar. c, Easterly end of Oneida. d. Northerly edge of pavement on Oneida. e. Along non-dedicated portions of Nolan Avenue. 8. Show method of sewage disposal for Lots 1 , 2 and 11 through 41 acceptable to City Engineer. 9. All of Nolan Avenue except the portion adjacent to the church property to the west which is not required for current dedication, shall be fully improved including sidewalk on -both sides. Walk shall be monolithic .and 5 feet in width including the top of curb. 10. Sufficient right-of-way and paving shall be provided within the intersection of Nolan and Palomar to allow safe turning movements and simultaneous passage by two vehicles. Details of such provision -shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 11 . Clarify status and intended use of narrow parcel severed from remainder of ownership by Nolan Avenue. -5- 12. Total area served through the Naples Trunk sewer shall be subject to any applic- able special area sewer charges. 13. Show utility easements at rear of all lots or provide letter of release from each utility company. 14. Show 300 foot centerline radius at north end of Nolan Avenue in accordance with existing dedication and previously prepared sketch on file in the City Engineer 's office. Mr. Warren explained that the revision he suggested would allow for the extension of Nacion, increase the shopping center area by one acre and reduce the 'residential lots to 26. Mr. H. Ralph Lovett, Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, the applicant, stated that before he made any comments he would like to hear from the State Highway Department's representa- tive. Mr. D. S. Shepard, District Design Engineer for the Division of Highways confirmed the letter referred to and stated he would answer any questions on the matter: . Mr. Lovett discussed the problems they have had in other areas when land reserved for a Freeway was not used. He reminded the Commission that an area for Freeway ramps was reserved on a tentative map of this subdivision approved two years ago and that that interchange has now been eliminated. Mr. Lovett asked that the land reserved for Free- way be made available for subdivision if not purchased by the State within six months from approval of the final map. Mr. Lovett stated that he would accept the remaining .conditions imposed. Mr. Shepard stated that he could not promise that the State would purchase the land within any specific length of time. Vice-Chairman Stewart declared he was not in favor of placing a time limit on the reservation of this property; it's in the public interest and other subdividers have had to reserve land for this purpose. The 'Commission then discussed the question of the time limit. City Attorney Duberg stated this would have no legal significance on the price. Chairman Stevenson stated that the number of recommendations looked "out-of-balance" and asked if any attempt had been made to work with the developer on these and solve some of them. Mr. Harshman said they had worked at some length with the subdivider, but a number of problems still remained. The conditions they ask are not unreasonable, most are technical in nature. MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Revised tentative map be approved subject to the conditions recom- mended by the Engineering and the Planning Department. Bonita Cove Subdivision - Final Map Mr. Warren submitted the final map of the subdivision, and explained the events occurring since approval of the tentative map. It was approved by the Planning Commission, went to the City Council and was approved based on the recommended conditions. Then rezoning was recommended to the City Council for approval ; however , because of much controversy at the meeting, Mr. Ferreira, the developer, submitted a slightly,revised map. Another revised map was submitted tonight, but because of the lack of time, Mr. Warren stated he had had no time in which to study it. The subdivision contains 49 lots , a part of which is being annexed at this time. Mr. Warren indicated that there were problems yet -6- to be solved that could not be solved tonight. If the Commission approves the map, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1 . The dimensions of lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be altered to assure that proper setbacks of existing buildings will be maintained on those lots presently fronting on Bonita Road. A certified survey of existing lots fronting on Bonita Road should be submitted to assure all lot splits will maintain required setbacks. 2. That Bonhill Drive be changed to Bonhill "Way"; that Tonita Avenue, Tonita Court, Kennedy Avenue and Kennedy Court be changed, subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 3. If the easterly 20 foot strip of land south of Tonita Avenue is excluded from the subdivision, a deed shall be recorded showing this parcel and that contiguous to the east as one parcel . Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, presented the following Engineering recom- mendations: 1 . There are three obvious discrepancies between the tentative and final maps as submitted which should be corrected: (a) At the intersection of Hilltop and Tonita. (b) At the southwest corner of the subdivision. (c) Along the northerly subdivision boundary between lots 1 and 2. 2. The easterly tier of the lots have been reduced in depth by 20 feet to leave an unidentified strip of land which does not constitute a legal building site. This strip is presumed for alley purposes but is in no way identified upon the map, and was - not shown in any form upon the t entative map. We recommend that this 20 foot width strip be eliminated and incorporated in the areas of such adjacent lots by extending the east-west- lot lines to the subdivision boundary. Use of such 20 foot width strip as a public alley is specifically not recommended by this Division. Should it be a condition of approval that this strip be dedicated and improved as a public alley, such improvements shall be made in accordance with estab- lished Council policy. 3. No title sheet, grading plan, drainage calculations, offsite sewer easements , slope rights , improvement plans, or lot closures have yet been submitted to the Division of Engineering. Adequate check of the final map is not possible on the basis of in- formation submitted. 4. Road survey references should be shown on the map. 5. Tree planting easements shall be shown on the map. 6. Cul-de-sac configu-ration on Tonita Court is not in conformity with standard pear shape shown on Tentative map. Final map should be revised to incorporate this con- figuration. 7. New subdivision boundary shown at Hilltop and Tonita effectively prevents access to public street by the undeveloped acreage lying to the west of the subject subdivision. The boundary shown on the tentative map would have permitted such access. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether they should approve this map based on all these conditions. Mr. Warren stated they could do that or have the developer bring in another -7- map and have this considered at the April 6 meeting. Mr. Frank Ferreira, the developer, stated there was a problem of an alley created on the eastern side of. the subdivision. He questioned whether he could bring this alley with this map or create a private alley. He will be developing the adjacent R-3 property at the same time as this subdivision and proposed to use this alley for access to the apartments. The reason he set aside this 20 foot portion for an alley was be- cause he gave up three lots in the subdivision in order to cooperate with adjacent property owners , thus making other lots larger. The Commission discussed the improvements for the alley. - Mr. Ferreira stated this would serve the residences facing this alley which will have two or three-car garages accessible to the rear, and there will be a 30 foot alley at the southerly end of the R-3 property connecting to this one. Mr. Warren questioned the desirability of serving both R-1 and R-3 properties with this alley. Mr. Ferreira stated that F. H.A. has high' standards related to this which will require a fence with gates along the R-1 property. Mr. Warren stated that as presented, the alley now forms an illegal sized parcel . If the developer wishes to dedicate the alley, the City may require a cul-de-sac instead of a dead-end alley. The Commission concurred this needed more study and discussed the possibility of hold- ing it over until the next meeting. City Attorney Duberg considered the problems that have resulted, and questioned whether the area was surveyed. Mr. Warren said the tentative map was apparently drawn up from City topography maps. Mr. Norris Lud ke of Wittman Engineering Company stated the tentative map was drawn up from existing paper records and aerial maps. Since then, an accurate survey has been made. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested the Planning Director and the subdivider get together to resolve the issue. The alley should either be included in this subdivision and zoned R-1 or move the property to the west and rezone it to use it for the R-3 property. MSUC (Guyer - Johnson) Final map be held over until the mee-ting of April 6, 1964. MISCELLANEOUS Architectural_ Approval of Final Plans - City Corporation Yard Mr. Warren stated that several revisions were necessary in the final plans because of the reduction in the budge for the Yard. Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, discussed the changes. A chain link fence will enclose the Yard with a hedge planted inside to screen the Yard from the street. The building will be -of a modern, tilt-up concrete with a composition crushed" rock roof. Member Johnson asked if they propose. to have a sign here. Mr. Cole said there will be a small sign on the corner, identifying the Yard. MSUC (Guyer - Stewart) Approval of final plans , as submitted. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS To Be Set for Public Hearing - Street Name Changes`- Princess Hilltop Subdivision -8- Mr. Warren explained that the map was approved while the area was still in the County. Consequently, the street names were erroneously assigned and do not relate to any of the adjacent streets within the City. The staff would recommend that a change of street names within this subdivision be recommended to the City Council . MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Consideration for name changes be set for public hearing on April 6, 1964. To Be Set for Public Hearing - Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Mr. Warren explained- that although a motion was made and seconded at the last meeting to set this hearing for April 6, there was no action taken because of the lengthy' dis- cussion that followed. Therefore, he would ask for another motion. RESOLUTION NO. 300 Resolution of the Planning Commission of Their Intention To (Guyer - Stewart) MSUC Set a Public Hearing To Consider Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for April 6, 1964. Public Hearing on the General Plan Mr. Warren stated he has set public hearings on the General Plan - March 25 and April 1 , 1964, both Wednesdays. These hearings will be at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber. The City Attorney asked that a motion be made by the Commission ratifying this action. MSUC (Adams - Guyer) The dates of March 25 and April 1 be approved for the two Planning Commission public hearings on the General Plan. MISCELLANEOUS Findings of Planning Commission Approval of Variance - R. Hickey - Fourth and "D" Streets The findings were read in which an appeal was made by C. L. Yates , 66 Glover Court to the action of the Planning Commission in granting a variance to R. Hickey for permission to construct 20 apartment units on property located 160 feet east of Fo urth Avenue and 420 feet north of "D" Street, an R-3 use. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that two important items discussed at the meeting should be put into the findings: the fact that the windows on the top floor of the apartment buildings would be below the top of the fence at the rear of the R-1 property to the east, and second , that it is impossible to prevent multiple-family use from abutting single- family use in the older parts of the City. MSUC (Guyer - Adams) Findings be approved as read with the addition of the two suggestions by Member Stewart. COMMUNICATIONS League of California Cities - Monthly Meeting. Mr. Warren reviewed a letter from the League of California Cities stating the next meeting will be held on Friday, March 20, 1964 at the Stardust Hotel at 7:30 P.M. The City of Chula Vista will be the host city and the program for the evening will be: "The Past, Present and Future of San Diego's Unified Port District. " Mr. Warren informed the Commission that the Secretary would call them for their reservations. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Johnson .- Adams) Meeting be adjourned to the special meeting of March 25 , 1964. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. espectfully submitted, -9- Jennie M. Fulasz, Secretary