Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-04-17 PC MINS MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MFFTING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 17, 1961 An adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at Civic Center with the follow- ing members present: Comstock, Weakland , Stewart, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Members Ste- venson and Harmstead. Also present: Director of Planning Fretz and City Attorney Boyer. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Planning Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adournment, as provided by law, the order of the Planning Commission for the adjourned meeting of April 17, 1961 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was. moved by Member Guyer , seconded by Member Weakland and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meeting of April 3 , 1961 , be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - Addition of Supplemental P Zone to Certain Commercial Areas Planning Director Fretz submitted a map showing existing commercial areas that are largely undeveloped or are developed in such a manner than off-street parking is being or can be furnished. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. There being no comment, either for or �Jlagainst, the hearing was closed. Planning Director Fretz stated that several property owners had contacted the Planning Department and did not appear to object to the addition of the Supplemental P Zone when its provisions were understood. Member Adams stated that the fact that no one had appeared to raise any ques- tion about the parking requirements indicates that the action is a desirable one. RESOLUTION NO. 206 - Recommending to City Council the Combination of the Supplemental P Zone With Certain Existing Commercial Areas Offered by Member Adams , passed, adopted and approved , by the following voter to-wit: AYES: Members° Adams , Guyer , Comstock, Weakland and Stewart !! NOES: none ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead PUBLIC HEARING - Interim C-1-P and R-1 Zoning - East Palomar Street Annexation Planning Director Fretz submitted a map showing the 20-acre East Palomar Street Annexati .. and stated that the owners had requested commercial zoning. He stated that the staff could only justify a neighborhood shopping center in this area at the present ti• - therefore recommended that the southwest portion - approximately 5 acres - be it zoned C-1-P and one lot depth along Oneida. be interim zoned R-1 . He stated that i. recommended R-1 zoning for the eastern portion of the annexation with the thought 'l - 1 - that in the future the area might lend itself very well to professional and business office building development. He stated that the commercial zoning wouldbe 300 to 400 feet from the proposed freeway intersection so should not create any traffic problems and that the R-1 fronting on Oneida would back up to this commercial which would be the best possible relationship between the two uses. This being the time and place -as advertised , Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. Mr. Ralph Lovett, representing the owners, spoke favoring the zoning. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Member Adams asked how close this area is to the two areas previously denied commercial zoning. Planning Director Fretz explained their locations and the location of the pro- posed interim C-1-P zoning in relation to existing commercial areas. He stated that the study made on shopping area locations at the time' of approval of Halecrest commercial zoning, indicated that 'another neighborhood shopping area should be located in the general vicinity of the East Palomar Street Annexation. RESOLUTION NO. 207 - Recommending to City Council Interim C-1-P and R-1 Zoning for the East Palomar Street Annexation Offered by Member Guyer , passed, adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members: Guyer, Comstock, Weakland, Stewart and Adams NOES: none' ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead COND ITLOAAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING (cont.) - Lutheran Church - Northeast Corner Oxford and Nolan A letter was read from the Lutheran Church asking that the Planning Commission continue the hearing for anotherrn"month Until definite development plans are completed. It was moved by Member Guyer , seconded by Member Adams and unanimously carried that the hearing be continued to the May 15th meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - Coronado Southern Baptist Church - 805 Riverlawn The application was read reques.ting permission to operate a Baptist Mission in a double- car garage at •805 Riverlawn. Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan showing loca- tion of the existing building and proposed off-street parking. This .being the time and place as advertised , Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. Reverend Acker, Minister of the Coronoado Baptist Church, explained that the church had felt this a good location to attempt to start a church, as there are some 160 Baptist families in the area who had indicated that they would welcome a church. He stated that they have. agreed to rent the entire two-unit building with the thought that it would provide suffi- tient space between the garage area to be used as a meeting place and the adjacent home, as well as provide for restroom and child nursery facilities. He stated that they had felt thishome, adjacent to commercial , would be more desirable for use as a church than would be a home in the middle of a residential area, and that if the congregation grew, they would then attempt to get a more suitable location and start a building program. Acker stated that they do not expect the garage to hold more than 34 people. The Commission discussed the adequacy of the proposed off-street parking and whe it would be easily accessible for use. 2 - Protests were heard from Mr. Herbert Cromer, 819 Riverlawn; Horace Yule, 829 Riverlawn; Mrs. McBride, 805 Riverlawn; Max Willy, 811 Riverlawn; Donald Murdock, 63k 11K11 Street and Mary Barto, 829 Riverlawn. They stated that they would not object to construction of a church building on the site, but felt that building is not adequate in size or facilities for church purposes; the use would create a disturbance in the neighborhood and off-street` parking facilities would not be adequate in number and accessibility. Mrs. McBride, 805 Riverlawn, stated that she lives in one of the units and has not been given any notice by owners of the property that they were considering renting to the church. Rev. Acker stated that he, had contacted Mr. Glenn Morris and was of the opinion that the building would be rented to them if the City approved the conditional use permit. Further protests were heard from Mr. Herbert Hirch, 847 Riverlawn and Mr. Gordon Hawkins , 825 Riverlawn, that the parking provisions were not adequate and the use of a residential building for church purposes would be detrimental to the neighborhood. There being no further comment, the heark g was closed. Planning Director Fretz stated that it is-.,,usually recognized that a new church cannot start off with a building program on a permanent site. He added that the parking facili - ties are not easily accessible and that Rev. Acker had believed earlier that they could use the parking area on the adjacent service station property on Broadway. Member Adams stated that there is a vast difference between a church site with a new building and use of a residential building for church purposes . He stated that in going along with approval of a similar previous request , he had not objected since there was no substantial protest from adjacent property owners and that he had felt the same way about this application. He stated that there has been substantial protest from adjacent residents , the parking arrangements - while made in good faith - are not good and probably would not be used. Chairman Stewart agreed and stated that recognizing that churches must get a start, he doesn ' t believe this is the proper location or facility. It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Member Guyer that the application for condi- tional use permit for a church in the garage of property at 805 Riverlawn be denied for the reasons that the property is not adequate, parking facilities would not be adequate and because there is substantial objection from adjacent residents. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members: Adams , Guyer, Comstock, Weakland and Stewart NOES: none ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - Joseph Ortega - 290 Shasta Street - Dental Laboratory The application was read requesting permission to operate a dental laboratory on the pro- perty at 290 Shasta Street. Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan of the property showing proposed off-street parking and explained that the Zoning Ordinance provides that where the side of a n R-1 lot abuts a lot in a commercial zone - as is the case with this property - a'doctor 's or dentist 's office may be located within a residence, provided the residential character of the building is not changed. This being the time and place as ad- vertised, Chairman Stewart opened the hearing. Mr. Ortega stated that there would not be traffic and parking problems normally connected with a dentist 's office as the business would be conducted over the telephone and he or his assistants would pick up and de�iver the orders from dentistsA offices. He stated that he would have a maximum of three employees. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. i - 3 - The Commission asked about mechanical equipment to be used, whether it would interfere with television reception. Mr. Ortega stated that he would have small motorized equip- ment with a maximum 3/4 horsepower and that there would be no night or week-end work. He stated that one of his technicians would live in the house. The Commission discussed the similarity of a dentist 's office and a dental laboratory, noting that a small laboratory is often found as a part of a dentist's office. It was moved by Member Adams and seconded by Member Guyer and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission approve the application tocallow the operation of a dental laboratory at 290 Shasta, an R-1 zone, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the building retain the appearance of a residence, with one of the employees living in the building. 2. A maximum of three employess. 3. Two off-street parking spaces be provided. 4. Signs be restricted to one sign, having a maximum 12 square feet in area and that the sign be attached to the front on the building. Further that action be based on the following findings of fact: 1 . There are exceptional circumstances pertaining to the property in that the side of the property abuts a lot in the commercial zone and for that reason the lot is not desirable for R-1 use. 1 2. The variance is necessary for preservation of a substantial property right or the intended use of the property. - 3. There were no objections and the characteristics of the use are similar to and no more objectionable than a dentist 's office, which is permitted in an R-1 zone where the side of a lot abuts a commercial zone. The motion carried by the following vote, towit: AYES: Members: Adams , Guyer, Comstock, Weakland and Stewart NOES: none ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead PUBLIC HEARING (cont.) - Robert & Marilyn Nash - 965 Melrose - Height Variance The Planning Director submitted a plot plan showing location of the fence within the setbac and reviewed the matter. A letter was read from the Chief Building Inspector stating that the fence contractor had submitted the application for the fence permit giving the City the information that the lot was not a corner lot; therefore the permit had been issued for a 5 foot fence around the rear yard. Chairman Stewart reopened the hearing. Mr. Nash stated that the fence contractor had admitted the error to him also. He stated that the slopes on the south and east property lines cut the, useable. area of his rear yard to approximately 1 ,866 square feet, and that a fence, on the; set,back..-,line would create a "hole" between the fence and slope that would be unsightly and would collect trash. He stated that the lot slopes two ways and is very difficult to fence, and without approval of the fence as constructed , the yard will not afford privacy enjoyed by other property owners. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Member Comstock stated that he felt the property did have unusual circumstances because of the compound slopes. Chairman Stewart stated that he feels the property ;bwp�rri:s:e�r`tia_]:ed - 4 - to the same privacy as he would if the property did not slope in two ways and if he had a :;6 foot fence on the setback line. He stated that the 5 foot fence already built does not afford that much privacy. It. was moved by Member Comstock, and seconded by Member Weakland that the application for a variance to allow a 5 foot fence within the setback along Nova Way be approved and that action be based on the following findings of fact. 1 . There are exceptional circumstances in that the property slopes on both the south and east property lines. 2. The granting of a variance is necessary for preservation of a substantial property right because a 32 foot fence within the setback will not offer privacy for use of the back yard. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the,..area. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members: Comstock, Weakland, Stewart, Adams and Guyer NOES:- none ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead SUBDIVISIONS View Hill - Tentative Map Planning Director Fretz submitted the revised tentative map of View Hill and read the letter 'of recommendations from the Engineering Department. Mr. F,retz recommended that the lots on the cul-de-sac on Floyd Avenue have a 15 foot building line as shown on the other lots rather than a 5 foot building line. Mr. Frank Whittington, subdivider , stated he would not .object to a 15 foot building line on those lots on the cul-de-sac except on lot 11 , which slopes down so rapidly that he will- need a small building line in order .to build on the lot. Planning Director Fretz pointed out thatthere is a knoll north of lots 12 and 13 that, because of topography, will not have access from the north. He added that it was not substantial enough to warrant a stub street, but that it might be advisable to establish an easement between lots 12 and 13. Chairman Stewart said he felt the property owner should make his own arrangements for access. It was moved. by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the tentative map of View Hill subject to the following conditions: 1 . The roadbed of Floyd Avenue be graded eight feet beyond the easterly subdivision boundary. 2. That paving shall consist of 21:' asphalt concrete and 411' of aggregate base with prime and seal coat. 3. The subdivider shall submit necessary slope rights prior to approval of the final map. 4. That setbacks on lots 8, 9, 10 and l2be changed to 15 feet. - 5 - 5. That a 1 ' lot be provided along the easterly line of Floyd Avenue to the extreme northerly end of the cul-de-sac. Planning Director Fretz stated that the staff would like a new map, showing all changes , submitted prior to submission of the finalmap. Robinhood #8 - Tentative Map Planning Director -.,Fretz asked that consideration of this tentative map be continued to the mewing of May 1 , 1961 . R6binhood #7 - Final Map Planning Director Fretz submitted the final map of Robinhood #7 and reviewed the condi- tions of the tentative map. Engineering Department recommendations were read. It was moved by Member Adams , seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the final map of Robinhood #7, subject to the condition that all fees , including Telegraph Canyon Road sewer connection--, charges be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City Council . ANNEXATIONS Muraoka Annexation Planning Director Fretz submitted a map of the proposed Muraoka Annexation and stated that the owners had requested R-1 , R-3 and C-2-P zoning for the area. Mr. Fretz explained the procedure for interim zoning , stating that the hearings should be held during annexa- tion procedure- so that the interim zoning could be effective on date the annexation is completed. RESOLUTION NO. 208 - Declaring Intention to Call 'Public Hearing to Consider Interim Zoning for the Muraoka Annexation Offered by Member Comstock, passed, adopted and approved , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members: Comstock, Weakland, Stewart, Adams and Guyer NOES: none ABSENT: Members: Stevenson and Harmstead Mr. Rindone, Superintendent of the Sweetwater Union High School District, stated that they do not object to the annexation including the Castle Park Junior High School and asked whether the annexation could be amended to include the site of the proposed new high school . It was pointed out that this could notbe done. San Diego County Planning Congress Planning Director Fretz stated that he had attended the luncheon meeting of the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Planning Congress with Chairman Stewart, President. He informed the Commission of the program the Board agreed upon for the ensuing year. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Weakland, seconded by Member Guyer and carried that the meeting adjourn, sine die. Res 7nectful ly ssuu mmi tted , Audrey St' nehouse Secretary