Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-02-17 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 17, 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, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Member Comstock. Also Present: Acting Planning Director Warren, Junior Planner Lee and City Attorney Duberg. 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 February 3 , 1964. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams - Guyer) Minutes of February 3 , 1964 be approved , as mailed. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont 'd) Ignacio Munguia - 1181 Trenton Avenue - Setback Reduction The application was read in which a request was made for reduction in a portion of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet to allow for construction of a dwelling. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan showing the location of the property. He stated the property contains less than 5000 square feet, triangular in shape, created by the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way going through here. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ignacio Munguia, the applicant, said if he could not get this variance, this land would be wasted. Since he owns the two adjoining parcels of land, he is the only one that can develop this odd-shaped parcel . There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson remarked that since this parcel was adjacent to a permanent large open space, no one will be deprived of light, air, etc. Member Adams felt the exceptional circumstances here would be the size and shape of the lot and that the building to be constructed here, which would be 807.5 square feet, was certainly reasonable for this lot. The Commission discussed the lot and Member Stewart commented that the Gas Company knew they were spoiling a good size lot when they cut their right-of-way through here; they must have paid someone a sizable amount to do this. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned the legality of building on a lot this small . Mr. Warren stated this was zoned R-3 and the adjacent property is in the same ownership here, thus qualifying this lot as a legal building site. -1- Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned what would keep the owner from selling off this sub- standard lot. He felt that one condition of approval should be a provision preventing the sale of subject lot. Mr. Duberg, City Attorney, stated the condition should require that a deed be recorded showing. the two lots as one parcel . MSUC (Adams .- Guyer) Variance for reduction in setback from 15 feet to 5 feet be granted with the condition that the applicant record a deed showing the lot involved in the application and the lot contiguous on the south as one parcel under single ownership. Findings are as follows: 1 . There are exceptional circumstances to the property that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone - The triangular shape of this lot makes it difficult to locate a house on any portion of the lot. 2. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone in which this property is located - The adjoining property is not developed and the property to the south is under the same ownership; the intent of the ordinance will be observed. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant - Without this variance, the owner would not be able to properly develop his lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Ross M. Willhite - Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision (Lots #128 - 129) - Split lots and build on easement. Member Willhite abstained from the hearing. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan showing the location of the lots. The two lots contain a total of 81 ,000 square feet; the applicant proposes to split this property into three lots which would contain approximately: 30,000 square feet, 29,000 square feet and 21 ,870 square feet. These three lots will be served by an easement. The access to these lots is already paved; the applicant proposes to pave the cul-de-sac. Mr. Warren added thatr the staff would suggest, the following conditions be imposed: the ..entire drive be paved to , a minimum 20 foot width and the entire turn-around be paved; that parking be prohibited on this access drive. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked what radius was required for a turn-around.' Mr. Ross Willhite, the applicant, said he spoke- to the City Enginee.r. and was told it was 38 feet; ,.he has left 60 feet here. Chairman Stevenson commented that this could be made a condition:"subject to the engineer- ing standards. " Mr. Stevenson asked for the Fire Department 's comments on this easement. . Mr. Warren said they had not been consulted, but felt sure they would have no objections since this plan provided for an adequate turn-around, not required on the subdivision map. This being the time and place as advertised , the public hearing was opened. The Commission discussed the lots , serving off the easement, and concurred that no parking should be allowed here. Mr. Willhite stated this was agreeable to him; however, he questioned how he would be able to enforce this. He wondered if the City would put up signs here. -2- Member Adams declared it would be up to the owner to enforce, since it is a private driveway. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested this "no-parking" condition be put into the deed restriction. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared -closed. The Commission further discussed the lot split; Chairman Stevenson remarked that he felt this ,was a good answer to a controversial piece of land. MSUC (Guyer - Stewart) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . No parking on the cul-de-sac or access road. 2. A minimum pavement width of 20 feet on the access road shall be provided. The radius of the cul-de-sac paving shall be adequate as approved by the Traffic Engineer. Further, that findings are as follows: 1 . There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone - The shape of the parcels and the fact that such a lot split would require only administrative approval if on a dedicated street. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant - Applicant proposes development on lots larger than required by ordinance. The variance allows maximum use of property. 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 this property is located - No objections from the neighboring property owners and the proposed lot sizes are in conformance with the zoning requirements. PUBLIC HEARING - Grace Baptist Temple - 345 Fifth Avenue -- Height of Sign Structure The application was read in which permission was requested to erect a 20 square foot sign with a maximum height of 8 feet. Base of sign to be located one and one-half (1 '—z) feet from the property line. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location of the sign. The ordinance allows a height maximum of 42 inches; they have already constructed this sign to a height of 8 feet. This sign has been up now for almost a year, and has been cited as a violation by the inspector. If the sign sets back any further, the plant materials would tend to obstruct it. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Yaeger, 414 "J" Street, spoke in favor of the sign, stating he passes it about three times daily and feels there is nothing objectionable about it. Rev. Kenneth Johnson, Pastor of the church, explained that he was notified last year of this violation, and the Chief Building Inspector gave him a period of 12 months to file a variance for this. He added that if the sign sits back any further, it will be of no use to them. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the 12 month period allowed to correct this violation. -3- Vice-Chairman Stewart asked the applicant what the size of the sign was. Rev. Johnson said it was 50 inches by 50 - inches. Mr. Stewart commented that he felt it would constitute a hardship if the sign cannot be observed due to the shrubbery. Member Johnson stated there was a driveway just north of this sign, and since the sign hangs east to west, he wondered if it would obstruct the view of people coming out of this drive. Reverend Johnson said there was ample room here for an automobile to go completely beyond the sign; there would be no obstruction whatsoever. MSUC (Stewart - Johnson) Variance be approved. Findings are as follows; 1 . There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone - Plant materials nearby would tend to obscure a low sign and the grade of the property. is low. 2. Variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant - Sign could not be seen if setback is observed. 3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district Ln which said property is located - The frontage of the property is unusually wide and no one has protested. SUBDIVISIONS Princess Palomar Unit #3 - Tentative Map Mr. Warren stated the staff was not satisfied with the design as changed in the last two days and asked that the Commission continue this matter and consider it at the next meeting. This will give the staff and the developer a chance to discuss changes. MISCELLANEOUS Architectural Consideration - Residence on Bonita Verde Subdivision Mr. Warren submitted a map noting the location of the subdivision. He then reviewed a plan of the proposed residence stating it would contain approximately 1700 square feet. The house would be stucco and stone with shake shingles on the roof. The type of con- struction will be compatible with the construction now going on in the subdivision. Member Johnson asked about the landscaping; he felt this should be shown on, the plans. Mr. Warren commented that usually landscaping is considered more on R-3 or Commercial developments , where more people and a larger development are concerned. If the Commission desires the landscaping to be shown on single-home residence plans , they should perhaps make this a policy. Member Adams felt this shouldn 't be necessary for small homes. The Commission then discussed the location of the home - on Doral Drive. MSUC (Guyer - Willhite) Plans , as submitted, be approved. Findings of Planning Commission Denial of Variance - Nickolas Kromydas The Secretary read an appeal to the City Council from Mr. Kromydas concerning his request for reduction in front yard setback from 15 feet to 13 feet at property located on 782 Melrose Avenue. The report of findings was then read and discussed. MSUC (Stewart - Adams) Findings be approved, as read. -4- Findings of Planning Commission - Appeal of Variance Conditions - Mrs. James R. Logan The Secretary read an appeal to the City Council by Mrs. James R. Logan concerning certain conditions required for approval of a variance at 88 Hilltop Drive. The applicant appealed the condition requiring curbs along the north-south easement in- volved, and asked for deferral of paving this easement until such time as a legal building site is established .on the property contiguous to the south. The appeal also asked for deferral of sidewalk along the east-west easement. The findings were then read in which the Commission approved the variance request on a plan submitted by the Planning Director. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked the City Attorney if the action taken by the Commission could be modified at this time. Mr. Duberg stated they had the right to do so since the Commission imposes conditions after the publici, hearing is closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the staff had any knowledge of the drainage for this area. Mr. Warren said he understands the curbs could compound the drainage problem here. Mr. Davis, the resident to the south of the property in question, stated that Mr. Lively, the owner, has talked to the engineer and has worked out this problem. The Commission discussed the easement; Member Adams stated they never approve building on an easement without requiring the easement to be paved. Mr. Warren said this- is true; however , he felt it was not necessary to require the curb and gutter to be installed. Member Adams felt the sidewalks should not be deferred; this would be the time to get them in. MSUC (Stewart - Johnson) Findings be approved, as read with the following note: "After hearing the appeal at the Planning Commission meeting on February 17, the Com- mission stated that they would have no objection to the elimination of curb and gutter along the north-south easement, nor -to a deferral of paving this easement until such time as a building site is approved on the rear of the lot to the south." League of California Cities - February Meeting A letter was read stating the February meeting would take place on Friday, February 28, 1964. The City of Carlsbad will be the host city. Arrangements have been made at the Constitution and Ark Royal rooms at the Oceanhouse at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary was asked to contact the-Members for their reservations. Planning Commission Trip Mr. Warren stated he has received several letters from different cities in answer to his query concerning their methods of treating an .imbalance of low-cost homes. Mr. Warren said they are at the point of organizing a trip for next week. It will take three days and they will probably go up as far as the Bay area. Members Willhite and Stewart expressed their desire to make this trip. Mr. Warren stated he would contact them as soon as he setsup the itinerary. Parking Requirements Mr. Warren stated the staff has been working on a revision of parking requirements. As soon as the City Attorney has had a chance to review the changes, a copy will be mailed to each Member so they will have a chance to study it. Perhaps , by the next meeting, it -5- will be ready to be set for public hearing. Subdivision Ordinance Mr. Warren informed the Commission that the Consultants have the Subdivision Ordinance draft ready to go again. Sometime during the month of March, the General Plan will be ready for presentation. The Consultants are now working on plans for the Downtown area and the Civic Center Area. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Johnson - Guyer) Meeting be adjourned sine die. Meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. Respectfully` submitted, envie M. Fulasz Secretary