Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-01-20 PC MINS MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 20, 1964 The 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, Comstock, Johnson, Willhite and .Adams. Absent: Member Guyer. Also present: Acting Planning Director Warren, Junior Planner Lee 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 January 6, 1964. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Willhite, referring to the matter of architectural consideration for change of roof material for the La Bonita Town and Country Apartments , suggested the name "asphalt tile" be changed to "composition." MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Minutes be approved as mailed, with the correction as suggested by Member Willhite. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning Bonita Cove Subdivision Mr. Warren explained this was City-initiated and this public hearing was called to consider change of zone from R-1-13-9 and R-1-B-15 to R-1 and R-1-13-12. Mr. Warren discussed the location of the Subdivision and the zoning requested. The proposed Subdivision will have 52 lots and will contain 42 acres more than the original map. The area is bounded on the south and north by County property; R-3 property adjoins this to the east. Mr. Warren added that the Commission approved the tentative map at the last meeting pending the outcome of this rezoning. The proposed rezoning requires City Council approval . This being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Those opposing were: . James Glasgow, 270 Rogan Road, Harold B. Starkey, 21 "F" Street, (letter) , Dr. David H. Hersh, 271 Rogan Road, Carlos G. Larson, 275 Rogan Road, Lloyd Coutts , 11 Vista Drive and Joseph Tidwell , Vista Drive. They stated as their reasons: (1) Homes on Rogan Road are all on large lots , the smallest being 16,900 square feet; (2) Sketch Plan recommended low density or 1 to 3 dwellings per acre for this area; (3) It will devaluate-their property; (4) Rezoning it to small lots will set a precedent for the rest of the Valley; (5) The residents of the Valley are strongly in opposition to the existing R-3 zoning to the east; (6) Wait until the County has completed their study of this area; (7) This area will turn into another "Spring Valley"; (8) No homes of 1000 square feet or less should be considered for this area. Mr. Frank Ferreira, owner-developer, submitted a letter from Mr. B. F. Raynes, 299 Hilltop Drive favoring the rezoning. Mr. Ferreira explained that the old map contained 32 lots on 10 acres; he is proposing 4 or 5 additional acres and will have 52 lots , -1- with two more larger lots than the original map. He then submitted some pictures taken of the homes immediately adjacent to the subdivision, noting some small homes on very small lots. He then discussed the relation of Rogan Road to his property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams asked about the proposed freeway, and Mr. Warren pointed this out on the map noting it would go through Rice Canyon; it will be approximately 1000 feet east of the R-3 zoning adjacent to this subdivision. The Commission discussed the rezoning. Vice-Chairman Stewart emphasized that there is R-1 zoning already established on this property. Member Comstock declared the Commission was literally "throwing out" the old map by approving an entire new zoning for the area. Chairman Stevenson commented that if the rezoning is turned down, the subdivider can build under the established zoning which already contains R-1 lots adjacent to Rogan Road. Mr. Warren again discussed the new zoning being requested, commenting that the zoning established by the old map was unrealistic for so small an area. He commented that the Sketch Plan is a preliminary Plan, subject to revision, that the Commission should carefully consider any rezoning and not base such solely on a study which has not yet been adopted. The R-3 zoning to the east was related to the proposed Freeway and the potential Com- mercial i.and at the Freeway interchange. Any development of this land is subject to approval by the Commission, assuring its compatibility with adjacent single-family use. The new' street pattern related to the "E" Street extension, is a deterrent to large lot development adjacent to this area. The land to the south is protected by topo- graphy and the proposed tier of large lots. Mr. Warren stated that the staff does not feel strongly that the lot sizes should be 7,000 square feet instead of 12,000 or 15,000, but does believe four different sizes of lots should not be required. Vice-Chairman Stewart considered this proposal far superior to the original proposal . Mr. Stewart commented further that there is considerable difference in grade from this development to the homes on Rogan Road. Member Comstock remarked that almost two years ago, the Commission was asked for their reaction to R-1 zoning for this area and they considered it incompatible for this area. They were told , at that time, that the State Highway was considering this site for a maintenance yard and the decision of the Commission would have to be made in a hurry. Mr. Comstock felt they could not put 7000 square foot lots here next to the larger lots on Rogan Road and say it is compatible. He added there was no necessity for this rezoning because the pattern was established before the Sketch Plan was devised; the freeway ,is one-half mile away from Hilltop Drive and does not relate to -this area. Member Willhite disagreed, stating that 7000 square foot lots are already in the area; and asked about the homes on the 6000 square foot lots adjacent to the area. Member Comstock considered these "non-conforming" uses and something "they have to live with. " As to the 7000 square foot lots approved for this particular area , Member Comstock declared this was a "mistake" that they can rectify at this time. MS (Comstock - Johnson) Rezoning be denied because it is not compatible with the existing zoning in the area. -2- The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Comstock and Johnson NOES: Members Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Stewart ABSENT: Member Guyer RESOLUTION NO. 299 Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to MSC (Stewart - Adams) City Council the Rezoning of Bonita Cove Subdivision to 45 Lots as R-1 and 7 Lots as R-1-13-15. The adoption of this ordinance be based upon approval of a final map of the subdivision involved. Findings are based on the following: 1 . Little change is proposed in the existing zoning and lot sizes. 2. The perimeter development of the new map relates to adjacent areas in a manner comparable to the original proposal . The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: Members Comstock and Johnson ABSENT: Member Guyer CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING: Delmar R. Joyce - 239 "F'' Street -- Dental Office The application was read in which a request was made for permission to build a single dental office at 239 "F'' Street - an R-3 zone. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan discussing the adjacent zoning and land uses. He also noted the setbacks in the area and said he felt that the proposed reduction should be discussed at this time also, even though it is a zone variance request listed as the next agenda item. The dental office next door enjoys an 8 foot setback. The applicant is asking for an 8 foot front setback and a reduction from 5 feet to zero on the east side. The parking, as proposed, is sufficient to meet requirements of the building. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Dr. Delmar Joyce, the applicant, said he spoke to the lady next door and she had no opposition to the development. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson commented that putting businesses in this high density residential area has been happening quite frequently and was contrary to proposals of our Planning Consultants. Member Comstock stated a precedent has been set in this particular area because of the dental office immediately adjacent to it. He said he felt the plans could be adjusted so that the applicant would not need to ask for the zero side setback, and would be able to conform to the required setback. Member Adams suggested that the two requests be considered separately. He questioned whether commercial use should be extended any further east on "F'' Street; he would -3- advocate commercial use go no further east than Church Avenue. Vice-Chairman Stewart took issue with Member Adams , saying the area in general is destined for renewal action. The house on the lot is old and due for some sort of renewal . He further stated that it would be doing the community a good deed to approve construction of this sort. Member Comstock said he agreed one hundred percent. Member Adams, however, disagreed stating you could put a few of these lots together and use them for R-3 development. Chairman Stevenson said that the further dissemination of commercial uses east of the Central Business District should be discouraged. Mr. Frank O 'Neill , 242 "F''Street, declared the Sketch Plan states that professional offices be kept adjacent to the downtown area. The lots here sell for $20,000. each, and for this reason it is impossible to put two or three of these lots together and use them for an R-3 development. Mr. Warren suggested that approval be based on the following: 1 . That a 6 foot high masonry wall be constructed along the northerly and easterly property lines. 2. That the parking area and drive be surfaced and spaces marked. 3. That the planting plan be approved by Director of Planning. MSC (Comstock - Stewart) Conditional Use Permit for the dental office be approved subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Director. Findings be based on the following: 1 . Granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because the use will not be a nuisance or hazardous by means of noise, smoke, odor, explosion, fire or contamination. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of uses permitted in the surrounding areas , because there is a dental office immediately to the west and two dental offices across the street from this property. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: . AYES: Members Comstock, Johnson, Stevenson, Willhite and Stewart NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: Member Guyer Chairman Stevenson suggested the staff and the Consultants study the trends in this area to guide the Commission in further action. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Delmar R. Joyce - 239 "F'' Street Application was read in which a request was made for reduction in front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet and reduction of side yard setback from 5 feet to zero to allow for construction of a single dental office. -4- Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan expl.ainring the setback requests. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Delmar Joyce, the applicant, cited a variance granted to another dental office in the area, on Del Mar Street, on January 7, 1959. Dr. Joyce stated he proposes to put up a decorative side wall , not cement blocks. Since this land is expensive, he must make economical use of it. He added that the adjacent neighbors were not objecting. He needs this extra room for parking. Member Comstock asked if the floor plan could be revised to observe the sideyard setback. Dr. Joyce stated he would rather see it left as is, because in this way, he would be able to get better efficiency in his office. Mr. Salvatore Albo, 442 Smith Avenue, objected to the zero setback. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the relation of the proposed six-foot wall to the setback requirements. Member Adams commented that he would cooperate on this variance and felt there were exceptional circumstances here -- this is a commercial use and commercial uses are given lesser setbacks; however , he could find no exceptional circumstances that would permit the zero setback. The Commission discussed the reduction in setback given to the other dental offices in the area, specifically the office on Del Mar 'that is enjoying the zero setback reduction} MSUC (Comstock - Adams) Variance for reduction in front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet be approved based on the following findings: 1 . There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone the applicant needs the reduction in setback for adequate off-street parking. The set- backs on this property are established for residential use; setbacks are normally less for commercial use. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant - the property adjacent to the west was previously granted setback reduction; applicant should have same privilege in this case. 3. 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 , because there will be no traffic sight problem that will result; adjacent property will probably be converted to more intense use in the future. MSUC (Comstock - Adams) The request for reduction of side yard setback from 5 feet to zero be denied, because no exceptional circumstance can be found that would be applicable to this property. PUBLIC HEARING: Mary K. Kenworthy -'276 "K" Street The application was read in which a request was made for permission to build 16 duplexes on the property -- an R-3 use in an R-1 zone. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the adjacent land use and zoning. A 20-foot -5- driveway is proposed through the center, which runs into a 10 foot drive to the east property line. The adjacent property is zoned C-2-P. This new proposal precludes access to Del Mar Avenue. The only feasible way this property can be developed with R-1 lots , Mr. Warren continued, would be as a joint venture of all property owners. He then discussed a plan whereby the area could be developed as, R-1 . Member Comstock questioned whether Del Mar could be used as an access with this plan and Mr. Warren stated the City has control with a one-foot lot here. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Those speaking in opposition were: Philip Burrell , Hemet, California, who owns a lot fronting on "K" Street, Paul Stevens , 244 San Miguel Drive, Jack J. Jones, (letter) 1469 Moon Road, Vista , owning property in the area, Myron H. Schraud , 246 "K" Street, Walter T. Gorrell , 230 "K" Street, W. C. Daniels, 238 Sierra Way, Jack Thurman, 245 Sierra Way, John Q. Adams , 224 "K" Street, C. L. Bruso, 250 Sierra Way and Roy R. Ro- berts , owner of property at 212 to 218 "K" Street. They stated as their objections: (1) Do not want apartments in the area; property can be developed as R-l ; (2) It would be down-grading the area; (3) Some of their land will be landlocked; (4) The proposed density of development will create a fire hazard, having but one access point; (5) bought homes in this area with R-1 zoning as protection; (6) There will be three times as much traffic; bad for the children that are used to playing in the streets; (7) There would be more taxes from single units than from the duplexes; (8) Objection to architecture of buildings; they will look like army barracks; (9) Object to two stories - not compatible with the area; (10) Not enough parking for the development. A petition signed by 62 property owners and 11 renters was read. Mr. Arthur Staley, representing the applicant stated this plan would be the only way in which this property can be economically developed. It is not feasible for R-1 develop- ment. He added that Mrs. Mary Kenworthy is willing to give up her home on "K" Street in the interest of the development of the land; however, the neighboring property owners do not want to give up any portion of their lands. Mr. Staley explained the development, stating the apartment units would be in front with the playground and pool in the rear of the property. Mrs . Mary Kenworthy stated that her property and adjacent properties could not be developed as a unit, since not all of the land is available. Their being no further comment either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Willhite asked if any attempt has been made by property owners in this area to join together and improve their properties. Mr. Schraud said there had not. Member Comstock referred to the Aletha Park development whereby five property owners got together and improved their properties for R-1 use as a joint venture. The Commission discussed the various objections and Member Comstock pointed out they must find exceptional circumstances applicable to the property or the intended use. Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that the 20- foot driveway was entirely inadequate, and that he can' t go along with the narrow access going through to the east. He also feels there are too many units being proposed here. Member Comstock discussed the potential of the commercial property to the west. He commented that he, too, feels the proposed plan feF 44is p'^- is entirely inadequate. MSC (Comstock - Stewart) The variance be denied based on the following: 1 . The plot plan is not suitable for the area. -6- 2. The variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property : right of the applicant; the property has access to "K" Street and to the stub' of Del Mar Avenue, and can be developed with adjacent properties as an R-1 use. 3. Granting this variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the area , since the density of use would not be compatible with surrounding uses. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Johnson, Stevenson, Adams and Stewart NOES: Member Willhite. ABSENT: Member Guyer PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont 'd) Princess Park Estates , Inc. (Jonathan Manor , Inc.) The application was read in which a request was made for permission to build homes containing a minimum of 1000 square feet and garages containing a minimum of 336 square feet. A variety of home -sizes is proposed. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining this subdivision would be called "Princess Manor." It will be located between the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's right-of-way and Main Street along the proposed route of the Inland Freeway (241) . At present, there is an interim R-1 zoning on the area. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. Mr. Raymond Rainwater , representing the Princess Park Estates, Inc. , explained why the company wishes to build this type of house. He stated it was for economic purposes and would be the type of home which this area can support. The homes will contain approxi- mately 1006 square feet, 1041 , 1092 and 1146 square feet; they will also have homes that will contain approximately 1163 square feet. Mr. Bond, also from Princess Park Estates, showed some oil sketches of the different type of homes they propose to build in this area. Colored slides of the area in which they propose this development were shown. Mrs. Frazer, a teacher of architecture at San Diego State College gave her opinion of the type homes proposed. She stated in her study of this , she found the rooms to be adequate in size. . In order to get the maximum amount of room space, design of rooms is the key factor. Chairman Stevenson asked Mrs . Frazer for her opinion on the minimum size bedrooms one could get by with. She answered this would vary depending on the use in which it will be put -- a child 's room could be small , whereas a teen's room must be larger, etc. It would also depend upon where the doors and closets were situated. Mr. Rainwater then presented a survey conducted by Mr. Howard Bliss, director of sociology with considerable experience in public surveys. The type of people living in these homes , he said, are teachers, greyhound bus driver, post office clerks , T.V. announcer, Navy chiefs, etc. , representing a respectable class of citizens. . Mr. Rainwater added that the homes they propose to build will enhance the surrounding community. Mr. Lou Feller, owner-subdivider, spoke further of the development. Most of the garages will be detached. The homes will be built on slabs and will have carpets and drapes. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether there would be any way in which they could approve this and attach a condition that whenever a unit is brought in, the subdividers would state the type, size and number of dwellings they propose to build. He further asked if a "D" zone could be attached. -7- The Commission discussed the size of the homes and Member Comstock stated this variance could be conditioned upon submission of the tentative map and the final map and on the areas which they plan to develop. Giving this blanket approval at this time would not be right; it should be considered by units of development. Vice-Chairman Stewart agreed, saying control could be imposed upon the number of each size house they would have in the subdivision. He felt the applicant needed an indication of relief from the 1300 square foot ordinance in order to get the money to go ahead with this project. The variance is justified based on the surrounding area and existing homes. Mr. Warren concurred that the Commission should not grant a blanket variance at this time without proper controls. Any approval at this time should be attached to the plans presented tonight and should be subject to detailed review as each unit of the subdivision comes in as a Final Map. Member Adams asked the Commission to proceed with caution as they are considering 350 acres. He added they are on dangerous ground here and would suggest granting a variance for that area west side of the freeway, as a start. Mr. Feller disagreed, staing they were bounded on the north by an easement, on the south by Main Street and County, and Otay Ranch property to the east, so there is no indication that another development will occur in the area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that this proposed development is a lot different than any of the previous ones that had come before them -- some with 846 square foot dwellings. Member Willhite stated that if this thorough presentation and planning was a result of the present minimum floor requirement, we should consider it a good ordinance and make it permanent. Mr. Warren stated that he felt these homes should. be permitted in this area , but we should continue an attempt to upgrade the type of development to occur east of the Inland Freeway. This is the first time this subdivider .has brought aesthetics into the picture, but basically, the same quality home is proposed. The Commission discussed the 1300 square foot ordinance. MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Application for reduction of home sizes to 1000 square foot minimums and garages with a minimum of 336 square feet, 1041 square foot houses with 336 square foot garages, and 1163 square foot houses with 336 square foot garages be approved with the following condition: 1 . Applicant shall submit the plans and specify the quantity, of each type home. to be " constructed at the time each stage of the tentative subdivision map is submitted for final approval of the Planning Commission. Findings are based on the following: 1 . There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the ordinance that would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of the ordinance in that the character of the area is well established. The intent of the ordinance is to upgrade residential areas , but compliance could result in over- building this area. 2. The exceptional circumstances applicable to the property or the intended use thereof are that the size of homes in the surrounding area are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes here. -8- 3. Granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant - applicant should have the right to build a 'house comparable to those in the surrounding area. 4. 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 as the homes proposed will be compatible with or better than the existing homes in the area. Member Comstock asked to be excused from the meeting at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont 'd) - Salvatore M. Albo - 555 Roosevelt Street Mr. Warren reviewed the matter, stating the staff has worked with Mr. Albo on his plans. He is now requesting a reduction of setback on Smith Avenue from 15 feet to 9 feet which will be his front yard and a reduction in side yard on Roosevelt Avenue from 20 feet to 13 feet. He proposes 8 units , and there will be 8 parking spaces. Mr. Warren added that the applicant needs an unusually wide curb cut and that the City Council must approve this. . At their last meeting, they held their decision pending action by the Commission. The Commission discussed the need of the large curb cut and the width of the sidewalk which Mr. Warren stated would be 5 feet wide. Member Willhite felt this would do away with the blind corner. MSUC (Adams - Willhite) Approval of reduction in front setback on Roosevelt Street from 20 feet to 13 feet and side yard on Smith Avenue from 15 feet to 9 feet, with the con- dition that the parking areas be surfaced with asphalt paving and the spaces marked. r Findings are based on the following: 1 . The exceptional circumstances pertaining to this property are that the existing setbacks are excessive as related to most corner lots. 2. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant because without this variance, the applicant will be de- prived of maximum use of property due to offstreet parking provisions. 3. 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 as the setback reductions present no sight problems . No objections were heard from the neighboring property owners. It will be an improvement to the property. SUBDIVISIONS Proposed Record of Survey Adjacent to Aletha Park Mr. Warren submitted a map showing the lots proposed. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer , submitted the following Engineering recom- mendations: 1 . The "Tree Planting Easement" shown upon the map shall be offered to the City in a form acceptable to the City Engineer. 2. A tree planting deposit in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be filed with the City Finance Officer. -9- . I 3. Items 1(:;and 2 shall be accomplished prior to formal notification of the County of Planning Commission approval . 4: File copies of the record of survey as finally filed with the County Recorder shall be submitted in type and numbers as specified by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. MSUC (Stewart - Johnson) Record of Survey be recommended for approval subject to the recommendations of the Engineering Department. MISCELLANEOUS Findings of Planning Commission Denici.l of,Nariance - Holiday Gardens - 436 Colorado Avenue Mr. Warren stated that an appeal has been filed with the City Clerk. The findings were read in which the Commission denied a request for permission to erect an oversized sign on the rear of Lot 38 in the Holiday Gardens Subdivision. The Sign to be 44 feet wide, 12 feet high and 6 feet from the ground. MSUC (Stewart - "Johnson) Findings be approved. Architectural Consideration - City Corporation Yard Mr. Lane Cole, City Engineer, submitted the preliminary plans for the City Corporation Yard. He stated the proposed construction would be tilt-up concrete. There will be one entrance to the Yard, and the layout is so designed that the administrative part of the building is facing the corner of Woodlawn and "F" Street, which means the people coming back and forth here every day will be met with a pleasing design. There will be adequate - landscaping and some security lighting. The original plans were sent to Mr. Warren and he submitted several important revisions which were put into the plans. Mr. Warren stated these plans were schematic and that the staff recommends approval . Mr. Cole further stated there would be a chain link fence with planting around most of the Yard with a decorative type wall in front. Mr. Cole introduced Mr. French, repre- senting Boyle Engineering Company, architects for the proposed yard. The parking and traffic problems were discussed by the Commission. Chairman Stevenson said he was pleased with the proposed plans. MSUC (Adams - Stewart) Preliminary plans for the City Corporation Yard as presented by the City Engineer be approved, with the stipulation that final plans be submitted for approval . ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Willhite - Johnson) Meeting be adjourned sine die. Meeting adjourned at 11 :50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary