Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-09-05 PC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 5, 1962 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chamber at Civic Center with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Willhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Fretz, Assistant Planner Warren, and Principal Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL. OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Willhite and unanimously carried that the minutes of August 20, 1962 be approved, copies having been mailed to each member. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - 'Grout Annexation - Interim R-3 Zoning for a Portion of the Grout Annexation Planning Director Fretz submitted a map which showed the proposed location. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked about the river channel and whether the engineers had made a study as to flooding in this area. Planning Director Fretz said he felt this area was away from the river channel and less likely to be subject to flood- ing. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing. Frank Ferreira, owner of the land, told the Commission that he was contacted by the State Division of Highways in an attempt to acquire this acreage for a State maintenance station site. Rather than sell it to them, Mr. Ferreira said he would like the rezoning to R-3 and build multiple units here - a senior citizens type community. Mr. Art Schuller, 551 Third Avenue, realtor, spoke in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Jim Lister, representing Mr. Robert Tyson, an adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition. He stated that Mr. Tyson was also opposed to a maintenance yard but they seem to be caught between having a maintenance station here or R-3 multiple dwellings. He said they would prefer to have it R-1 , if possible. Mr. E. A. Barnerout, owner of the property west of the proposed annexation, said he had no objection to single-family units , but objected to multiple-family units , and stated the other residents nearby would also object but they haven' t been con- tacted because they live in the county. Mr. Comstock asked the applicant what benefits he hoped to derive from having this zoned R-3 , as long as the State has made an offer on it. Mr. Ferriera said that Mr. Montgomery, from the State told him they would drop the proceedings if the land was annexed to Chula Vista. He further stated that sometime ago, the Com- mission turned down R-1 zoning for this area for anything but large lots. Mr. Ferriera expressed the desire that the Commission act on this matter right -1- away, as time is of the essence to him. Member Guyer asked for the staff's comments. Mr. Fretz stated he felt that the interchange planned would affect this area and that at least one of the basic factors necessary for good multiple family zoning is present - that being frontage on a major street and close proximity to a freeway. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether this would be a good policy to establish. He said that he felt if this is zoned R-3 simply because a freeway was coming close to it, then all property owners with proposed freeways nearby would be coming in and asking for the same zone change. Planning birector Fretz told the Commission that the State contacted him about four months ago and asked him what he thought of this location for a maintenance shed, and Mr. Fretz told him he felt it was not a desirable site from the City's standpoint. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether, from an academic point of view, this would be good zoning as R-3. Member Adams said he felt it was premature to zone this R-3; that the Commission would be disrupting the zoning pattern already established. He felt it would be spot zoning. Member Willhite felt this zoning would affect the Valley adversely, and that the Commission should think of it that way. Art Schuller explained that the R-3 zoning was the only zoning they could apply for since they hope to make this a senior citizens ' type village. There being no further comment, either for or against, Chairman Stevenson declared the hearing closed. The Commission discussed the annexation proceedings on this parcel . Chairman Stevenson said that if the Commission wished to impose the proposed "D'' zone on this portion of land, they would have to continue the hearing until such time as the, "'D" zone is put on the books. Mr. Ferriera stated that if the Commission could give him some assurance that a restrictive R-3 zoning would be put on this land , he would consent to a continuance. Planning Director Fretz explained that the hearing could be continued to the lst of October and could go to the Council on the 16th. Chairman Stevenson then stated that the public hearing was reopened. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Guyer that the public hearing for Interim R-3 zoning for a portion of the Grout Annexation be continued until the meeting of October 1 , 1962 for the purpose of considering a supplemental zone to the R-3 zone that would give the City control over the type of development. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: None ABSENT: None -2- Planning Director Fretz asked the Commission if they want to take any action concerning the State's proposal to condemn this land. Member Comstock said the Commission certainly should; however, Mr. Ferriera asked the Commission not to make issue of this. Member Adams stated he felt the Commission just wouldn ' t be doing their duty unless they tell the State how the Commission feels on this. Chairman Stevenson requested that the staff inform the State Highway Commission of the Commission's feelings on this matter. The Commission concurred. SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - Portion of Allied Contractor 's Annexation R-1 to R-1-13-20 and ''A" Zone Planning Director Fretz submitted a map and also showed on the county map, that portion of the annexation to be rezoned. RESOLUTION NO. 240 - Resolution Calling Public Hearing to Consider Rezoning from R-1 to R-1-B-20 on a portion of Allied Contractor 's Annexation Offered by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Comstock, passed, adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: None ABSENT: None SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - Both Sides Church and Landis (''E" to "F'' Streets) from C-2 to C-1 Planning Director Fretz submitted a map showing the zoning on both sides of these streets , and stated that this area is an integral part of the retail business di..strict of the City' and that uses listed as C-2 are generally considered to create voids in retail trade areas and would not contribute their maximum to the retail trade area. RESOLUTION NO. 241 - Resolution calling Public Hearing to Consider Rezoning from C-2 to C-1 for Both Sides of Church and Landis Avenues Offered by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock, passed adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC HEARING - Friendship Assembly of God - 381. 19" Street - Church Site The application was read requesting approval of property located at 381 "D'' Street to be used as a church site. Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan of the proposed location. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. -3- J. B. Meyers , Pastor, the applicant, explained that he has submitted an offer for 420 feet of the land. Member Stewart questioned the applicant about the possibility of building a church in back of the property. He felt the congregation would park on "D" Street rather than park in the back of the church, should it build on 'the front of the property, due to the narrow frontage of 60-feet. He further said that since this was an odd-shaped piece of land, he would like the Commission to see more precise plans for the church. Mr. Edward Culnan, speaking for Mrs. Ferrell , owner of the property, stated there was no question of landlock in the back of the property; that the balance of the land has been sold to the property owner to the north. Mr. Robert Grove, 83 Glover Court, and Mr. M. K. Anderson, 89 Glover Court, both spoke in opposition. They said they felt the notice was not explicit enough, that they were sure most people on Glover Court felt this concerned the Northeast corner of "D" and Fourth Avenue only. Member Willhite commented on the sideyard setback for the church, which is 10-feet, stating that it would only leave 14-feet on the other side for a driveway in which cars would have to come in and out. Member Adams said that due to the size and shape of the parcel , he felt the Com- mission should see a detailed plan of this church site; the parking, showing the entrance and exits , the sanctuary, how the parking area will be laid out, etc. Vice-Chairman Stewart contended that the best place for a sanctuary was in back of the property. Member Adams felt this should be included in the conditions and asked for the staff 's comments. Planning Director Fretz explained that there is a 60-foot frontage here on a dedicated street, without the portion that the house is on, and that the staff feels this is far too minimum for a church site. He further added that the situa- tion could change if the applicant will use the entire lot and have 150-feet on a dedicated street. Member Comstock asked if the applicant would consider con- tinuing this matter and bringing in a more detailed plot plan showing access to the rear 100-feet. Mr. Meyers said he would agree, adding that this was a pioneer church and that they hoped someday to use the whole location; that it would be about two years before this church is developed. Planning Director Fretz said he would like to have the houses on the site shown on the detailed plans. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether one building would satisfy the needs of the church; whether a Sunday school building would be needed. It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Comstock and unanimously carried that the public hearing on the application of the Friendship Assembly of God, 381 "D" Street for a church site be continued until the meeting of September 17, 1962 so that the applicant could bring in more detailed plans. PUBLIC HEARING - Security Title Insurance Company - Hilltop Estates Subdivision - Signs and Tract Offices The application was read requesting that two signs , one on Lot 59, 302 East "J" -4- Street for a 6x12 sign, and a 4x32 sign on lot #14 on Monterey Avenue be allowed to remain, also the temporary sales office located on lot #22, 308 E. James Street. The above request was for a 9-month period. Planning Director Fretz told the Commission that they will get quite a few of these, since letters have gone out to everyone who has a sign.-;violation. He sub- mitted a plot plan of the area showing the location of the signs in violation. Mr. Fretz stated that the sign on Monterey Avenue has been cut down and is now about 90 square feet. He suggested the sign on the corner of East "J" Street be moved to the back of the lot across the street since it is now in the setback area. Planning Director Fretz said he 'talked to the City Attorney and was told that a subdivider could apply for more than one conditional use permit to allow as many signs on the tract as they wanted. He pointed out, however, that the Commission would not have to allow all of them. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the hearing. Art Westenberg, realtor, speaking for the applicant, spoke in favor of the signs. Member Comstock asked what percentage of homes was sold here, and Mr. Westenberg said there are 60 homes in this subdivision - 45 of which are sold. He further stated that they must have the signs as people are continually calling them up and asking for directions to get to the subdivision. Member Willhite stated that there were no complaints here against the applicant for the signs , that as far as he can see, it is a general form to bring everything up to the standards of the City Ordinance. Francis Young, 325 E. "J" Street, spoke in opposition, stating there are at least two other signs in this same area that are in violation. Member Adams told him to report this to the police. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the time element for allowing signs on conditional use permits. Member Adams moved, seconded by Member Weakland, that the conditional use permit for Security Title Insurance Company (Hilltop Estates) for signs be approved with the condition that: (1) The sign on the corner of Monterey and "J" be moved to the rear of Lot #1 . (2) The two signs that are included in this application be reduced to a total of not more than 150 square feet. (3) This would be for a period of nine months or earlier, if all the homes are sold before the nine-month period. Further, that action 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 for signs does not include any -5- r , hazards to persons or property from explosion, contamination or fire, or damage arising from noise, smoke, odor or dust as specified in the Ordinance. (2) The signs are compatible with the area because they are located on new-home property that is for sale. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Member Adams , Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson and Willhite. NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Robinhood Homes , Inc. - Robinhood #6 47 48 The application was read requesting that four signs located on the Robinhood Subdivision be allowed to remain. The signs are: (1) 3 x 5 on 338 East "L" Street, (2) 4 x 8 signs on lots 332 and 355 and (1) 4 x 8 sign on Intersection Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion. Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan of the area showing the location of the signs, stating that all the signs were within the setback. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the public hearing. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson Commented that the total square footage of the signs was less than 150 square feet, as required by Ordinance. It was moved by Member Adams , seconded by Member Guyer that the conditional use permit for Robinhood Homes, Inc. for signs on subdivisions #6 47 -#8 be approved for the locations as stated in the application, based on the following conditions: (1) The conditional use permit to run for nine months or a lesser period if the houses are sold before the nine-m6nth period. Further, action be based on the following: (1) Granting the use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as- use for signs does not entail any damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor , dust or vibration, or hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination or fire, as stated in the Ordinance. (2) The use is reasonably compatible because this land is being developed for sale. Motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson and Willhite NOES: None ABSENT: None VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - Harold L. Thompson - 634 Dennis Avenue - Setback Reduction -6- Application was read requesting a sideyard setback reduction from 5-feet to 21-z-feet in order to add an additional bedroom, bath and family room. Planning Director Fretz submitted a plot plan of the proposed addition, saying this lot was 70-feet in front and 53-feet in the back. This being the time and place as advertised, Chairman Stevenson opened the publ'ic hearing. Mrs. Harold Thompson told the Commission that the lot tapering off presents a problem. Member Willhite questioned the possibility of the addition being moved to the South, thus eliminating the need for the sideyard reduction, but Mrs . Thompson said it could not because it would cut off the light in the kitchen. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked the applicant about the construction of the roof, and was told that it would be the same as the rest of the house, and would be gabled to the back. The Commission discussed the possibility of moving the room back. Mr. Harold Sicard , 640 Dennis Avenue, told the Commission that he is neutral . He questioned the need for a 5-foot setback. Mr. Robert Love, 626 Dennis Avenue, said the addition would be an improvement; however, he felt it would only encourage others in the area to apply for variances and if the granting of this variance would make it more feasible for his neighbor to get a similar variance, he would be opposed. A letter from Mrs. Annie Keightley was read in which she protested on the grounds that the 22-feet was too close. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked for the staff's recommendations. Planning Director Fretz reviewed the facts that the staff had outlined in its report to the Commission. He further added that the adjacent property owner would have the same right as the applicant - he could apply for a 212-foot setback also. Member Adams felt the opposition to the adjoining property owner should be given some consideration. He said the addition could be constructed without any need for sideyard setback- reduction. It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Weakland that the application of Harold L. Thompson, 634 Dennis Avenue, for a sideyard setback reduction from 5-feet to 21-2-feet be denied as no exceptional circumstances were found to justify granting the variance. Further, that granting this variance would be detrimental to the adjoining property. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Membe-rs Guyer, Stewart, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite and Adams NOES: Member Comstock ABSENT: None -7- SUBDIVISIONS Reinstra Subdivisions - Tentative Map Planning Director Fretz submitted a map and explained the location of the sub- division. He pointed out the San Diego Gas & Electric Company's right-of-way and the number of roads planned to cross it. He further pointed out some lots on Quintard and Melrose Streets that the staff considers of minimum design. Mr. Fretz recommended that there be two less lots and another lot pattern was presented by the staff. The recommendations from the Engineering Department were read, and the Planning Director added the following recommendations from the staff: (1) That portion of the subdivision not now in the city be annexed to the City. (2) Work out problem as far as water district is concerned. (3) Slope control and street tree plan to be approved by the Planning Department. (4) Approve the lot pattern as suggested. Planning Director Fretz said he was concerned about the pedestrian traffic on the easement, and Member Comstock asked who would have to maintain the 10-foot right-of-way. He said a lot of trash collects here. Member Adams felt the pe- destrian right-of-way over the easement should be eliminated. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked for the engineer 's recommendations on the drainage. Mr. Bill Harshman, Principal Engineer, said a closed drainage was contemplated. It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Member Willhite and unanimously carried that the tentative map for the Reinstra Subdivision be recommended to the Council for approval , subject to the following conditions: (1) Show further detail on existing topography particularly upon the Northerly and Westerly subdivision boundaries. (2) Show utility easements at the rear of all lots. (3) Offer that portion of Melrose Avenue lying southerly of Quintard Street to the City in its entirety, or provide one-foot lot. (4) Show availability of existing utilities adjacent to proposed subdivision. (5) Show'map number for Judson Estates, Unit #3. (6) Drainage facilities - show that they shall be subject to Division of Engineering approval and the Engineer of work shall submit technical data as required to prove adequacy of existing streets to receive storm waters. (7) The typical section shall show a parkway width of seven feet on Melrose Avenue. (8) The standard note regarding the design of the structural street section shall be added to the map. (9) That portion of the subdivision not now in the City, be annexed. -8- r (10) Slope control and street tree plan to be approved by the Planning Department. (11) Street names be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. (12) The 16-foot walkway between Melrose and Quintard be.deleted and a 10-foot drainage easement be furnished by the subdivider. (13) The revised lot pattern for lots 1 through 6 and 25 through 35 as presented by the Planning Director be incorporated in a revised map. Palomar View Heights - Final Map Planning Director Fretz reviewed the map and four of the conditions imposed on the tentative map which have not been complied with. It was moved by Member Guyer, seconded by Member Adams and unanimously carried that the final map of the Palomar View Heights be approved and recommended to the City Council subject to the four conditions being complied with, prior to the map being submitted to the Council . STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Division of Highways - Meeting, September 18, 1962 - "Scenic Highways" Planning Director Fretz told the Commission that the Council had appointed Mr. Guyer along with Mr. DeGraaf to attend this meeting; however, Mr. Guyer finds he will be out of town on this day, and has asked Mr. Fretz to take his place. Mr. Fretz stated that we should protect our highways and the land adjacent to it; that entrances to the state, in particular, should receive special treatment. Location, design and treatment should be considered for a scenic highway. He further stated that one of the two highways to the South should be developed as a scenic highway. It was moved by Member Comstock, seconded by Member Adams that the Planning Director submit Route 241 as our recommendation for a "scenic highway." The vote carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Department of Engineering - Correction of Minutes for Meeting of Jan. 15, 1962 A letter from the Engineering Department was read in which they stated that the minutes of January 15 , 1962 regarding the Castle View Subdivision conditions state that .it calls for Melrose Avenue to extend to the southerly boundary of the sub- division, and that the recorded map shows a cul-de-sac extending south from East Quintard Street. They asked that the minutes be changed to eliminate possible confusion in the future. It was moved by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Willhite and unanimously carried that Condition No. 3-on the minutes of January 15, 1962 which reads: "That the cul-de-sac at the southerly end of Monserate Avenue be eliminated and, the street extended to the southerly boundary of the subdivision," be eliminated. from the conditions. -9- MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Addition of Supplemental "D" Zone and Amendment to C-1 Zone Requiring all Sales and Storage to be in Enclosed Buildings Planning Director Fretz reviewed the proposed supplemental "D" zone amendment, explaining that it would regulate buildings and development in a "D" zone so that they would be harmonious with the area and the architecture of the area where they are proposed. Mr. Fretz went on to explain that the C-1 amendment would control all sales and storage so that they must be in a totally enclosed building constructed in con- formity with the Building Regulations of the City. Chairman Stevenson suggested that the "D" zone should also control the number of buildings in a development. Member Adams said it should also control the amount of stories in a building. RESOLUTION NO. 242 - Resolution Calling Public Hearing to Consider Addition of Supplemental "D" Zone and Amendment to C-1 Zone Requiring all Sales and Storage to be in Enclosed Buildings Offered by Vice-Chairman Stewart, seconded by Member Comstock, passed, adopted and approved by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Comstock, Weakland, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Weakland, seconded by Member Willhite and unanimously carried that the meeting adjourn to September 17, 1962. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary