Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/04/29 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 29, 1968 The third public hearing on the proposed new comprehensive zoning ordinance was held at 7 p.m. on April 29, 1968, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, California. Members present were: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Rice. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, and Associate Planner Manganelli. Chairman Stewart opened the meeting by describing the purpose of the hearing and asked for comments from the Director of Planning. Director of Planning Warren remarked that they have received many comments concerning this proposed ordinance from the builders, the Building Contractor' Association, utility companies, and others, and also, the Commission held many workshops in this respect. A great many of the suggestions have been incorporated into this proposed ordinance. The meeting tonight has been called to consider the residential sections. After the Commission completes hearings on the entire ordinance, a fifth draft will then be typed and sent to the City Council for public hearing. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Director of Planning Warren delineated the changes prepared in the synopsis mailed to the Commission and interested organizations. He reviewed the several changes proposed for the "A" (agriculture) zone. No comments or opposition was offered in regard to these particular changes. MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Sections 33.3.1-2-3-4, 33.4.1-2 and 33.5.1 covering the estab- lishment and designation of zones and the "A" zone be approved with the changes as delineated in the Synopsis. SECTION 33.5.2 - R-E RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE Director of Planning Warren reviewed the changes as delineated in the synopsis for this particular zone. Mr. William Holland, a resident of Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision, stated he was concerned with the provision for keeping horses. Presently, if you have one-half acre minimum lot size, you can keep one horse, but he understands that this will be changed to one acre and asked if this would be in keeping with the rural atmos- phere of Bonita. He felt there should be some provision in the zoning ordinance to take care of this. Mr. Warren explained the present provision for keeping horses in residential zones. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner explained that in the new zoning ordinance, the provision will be to keep one horse on one acre and one additional horse may be kept for each twenty thousand feet by which the parcel of land exceeds one acre. He added that, primarily, the ordinance is geared for urban development. -2- Director Warren discussed possible Bonita Valley annexations, and questioned the requirement for horses should much of this area come into the City. Member York asked about the County's requirement. Mr. Warren indicated the property owner was allowed to keep horses on parcels containing one-half acre. Member York discussed previous workshop meetings whereby it was decided that the~e would be certain areas in the City where horses would be allowed, and then other areas where they would not be allowed. Chairman Stewart declared that there was a lot of discussion about horses creating a nuisance to the neighbors. If a property owner in a residential zone keeps two or more horses, it can become a nuisance if the area is not cleaned up properly. The horses should be kept at least 100 feet away from a residence. Director Warren indicated that the provision for the keeping of horses is covered in the "Special Provision" section of the zoning ordinance, and asked the Commission to approve "R-E" Section as changed, and discuss this subj.ect of horses at the time the Commission discusses the Special Provision section. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Section 33.5.2 pertaining to the R-E Residential Estates Zone be approved with the changes as delineated in the synopsis. SECTION 33.5.3 - R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Director of Planning Warren reviewed the changes for this zone as proposed in the synopsis. He explained that the change in the side yard requirements (page 26 under Area, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements) to 10' for one side yard and 13' for both side yards was primarily for providing access for boats, campers, trailers, etc. There is some question in the staff's mind as to the justification for this requirement. Presently, there are a great number of houses in the City with this space that do not utilize it; instead, the boats, trailers, etc., are still sitting out in the front yard. No doubt it would be a valuable provision if it would be used, but it does reduce flexibility of development. Member Adams questioned whether this was related to another ordinance provision whereby the requirement is that a boat, trailer, etc., not be parked in the front yard. Mr. Warren stated this provision was taken out of the ordinance. Chairman Stewart felt the Commission should be realistic and face up to the fact that the space would not be utilized, since the area would have to be paved or surfaced to get the boat, trailer, camper, etc., to this area. This is an expensive project and, consequently, the majority of home owners would not do this, but simply park their vehicles in the front area. Member York discussed the cost of building a single-family home indicating they are getting where they are pricing themselves right out of the market, and requiring any substantial side yard would be a hardship. -3- Mr. Eugene Cook, representing the Building Contractors' Association, commented on the problem of sideyards--whether they are needed or not--and felt they could argue both sides of this question. The cost of lots has increased very rapidly these past few years, due to the cost of improvements: sewer, underground utilities, sidewalks, etc. The builder has to charge this to the cost of the house. Mr. Cook stated they would prefer to have a 5' side yard requirement for both sides of the house; that the requirement for rear yard vehicular access cannot be justified. NSC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of Section 33.5.3, except the provision for the side yard requirement as noted on page 26, paragraph G which provides for 10' on one side yard and 13' for both side yards. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hyde, Gregson, Stewart, Adams NOES: Members Guyer and York ABSENT: Member Rice Mr. Eugene Cook requested that the Commission include the following proposed zones in the classification section of the ordinance: CLASSIFICATION R-l-20 R-l-lO R-l-8 R-l-7 R-l-6 R-l-5 Lot Area - Sq. Ft. 20,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 Interior Lot Width - ft. 80 65 60 60 60 50 Corner Lot Width - ft. 85 70 65 65 65 55 Front Yard - ft. 25 20 15 15 15 15 Street Side Yard - ft. 15 l0 l0 10 l0 10 Interior Side Yard - ft. 8 6 5 5 5 4 Rear Yard - 25 20 20 20 20 20 Lot Depth - 100 100 100 95 95 95 Mr. Cook stated it was common practice in both the City of San Diego and the County to build on 6000 square foot lots. He added that he attended a symposium two weeks ago whereby the builders explored means of providing lower-cost housing--that homes are priced out of reach of lower income groups. In setting up these smaller zones, such as B-l-5, it will not necessarily mean that all development will occur on 5,000 square foot lots--most of the builders will be developing on the larger size lots. Mr. Warren questioned the corner lot width on the R-l-lO as proposed by Mr. Cook. He stated that they had agreed, in their former discussion of the matter, that it would be 75 feet instead of 70 feet. Mr. Cook acknowledged that this was true. He added that what he is proposing is the same criteria that is being used in San Diego and was first initiated in 1961, and that they (Builders Contractors' Association) would like to see some uniformity between the cities and county in these particular factors. He further added that the use of the number of different zones gives them more latitude in making adjustments. -4- Mr. Cook then referred to the requirement for a two-car garage (page 22, Section 33.5.2, paragraph I) stating they would like to see this modified, because sometimes it is not a two-car garage that a builder wants. They feel it should be one car garage with one space in front of the garage for pamking another vehicle. This can be accomplished with the provision for the 22' for the straight-in garage, and the one-car garage could still maintain enough area for storage. This would give the builders considerable more flexibility and also give him the option of building carports. Mr. Cook also requested that the R-2 zone provide for the splitting of duplexes for sale of each unit separately. Director Warren explained that he felt this provision was given to them in the R-G-T Section of the ordinance. What Mr. Cook is requesting is a provision for the same type of development recently approved for Kiffe (Quintard Street and Tobias Drive). The Commission discussed the zones as proposed by Mr. Cook. Chairman Stewart stated he would go along with all the zones from 7000 square feet up, but the smaller zones should have more study. He felt that nine out of ten annexations would request the minimum--he questioned how other cities control the use of such small lots. Mr. Cook maintained that in San Diego almost all annexations are prezoned R-l-5, but most of the land is developed as 6000 square foot lots. The developer should be required to bring in a master plan and a map of his proposed development. Chairman Stewart declared that this deserves a lot of study, and suggested that a study be made of it. He would want to see proof of San Diego prezoning an area for 5000 square foot lots and then the developer coming in and developing it as 6000 and 7000 square foot lots. Director Warren commented that when the staff first heard this request for smaller lots they opposed it, but now they are giving it second thought. The R-l-5 zoning would be appropriate for areas of level topography; it has worked on Otay Mesa. He mentioned that the Princess del Cerro Subdivision homes range in price upward from $35,000 and these lots are in an R-l-6 zone although the lots are actually larger. Member York agreed that there is a need for more variety for the larger size lots, but said he was confused on this proposal whereby they start at 5000 and up to 10,000 and then jump to 20,000 square feet; perhaps there should be a 12,000 in between. Mr. Lee explained that the City presently has a 7000, 9000, 12,000, 15,000, and 20,000 lot size range. Member York made a motion accepting the proposal as submitted by Mr. Cook beginning with the 7000 square foot lots, going to the 8000, 10,000 and 20,000 with a study to be made on the smaller lots. Member Guyer seconded the motion. -5- Under discussion, Chairman Stewart suggested the study include contact with other communities in California that have experienced this size lots and the difficulties they had in controlling it, but that this action should come at a later time. Director Warren explained the difference in the City's 20,000 square foot lot and that proposed by Mr. Cook is the requirement for the frontage. By making the lot fronts smaller, the lots themselves would be much deeper. Mr. Cook stated that in many hilly areas, you would want an 80' lot with 200' or 250' depth--this may possibly be going into a canyon area. Member Hyde remarked that one reason for the 20,000 square foot lots was to provide for a more open feeling. To accept these proposed standards would be contrary to the side yard requirements just approved by the Commission. Member York stated he withdraws from his motion the proposal for the 20,000 square foot lots. Chairman Stewart indicated the developer could be given a zone variance for these difficult lots. Member Guyer declared he is withdrawing his second to the initial motion. He feels the staff should study this proposal more closely. He would prefer to go along with the changes as recommended in the synopsis. Member York made the motion to approve the R-1 zone section with the exception of the lot classifications and have the staff come back with a future recommendation for this prior to the last public hearing the Commission will hold on this zoning ordinance. This motion includes the entire R-1 Section with the exception of paragraph G on page 26: Area, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements. Member Adams seconded this motion. Chairman Stewart felt the staff does not have enough time to study the 5000 and 6000 square foot lot size before the Commission is ready to send this proposed ordinance to the Council. He opposes the motion on this basis. Director Warren suggested the Commission adopt the whole thing as it is recom- mended and further direct that the staff come back with a recommendation in regard to the lot sizes proposed before their final hearing. Chairman Stewart stated he would like to have a written report on this. Member Adams declared he is withdrawing his second to the motion. MSC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of Section 33.5.3 of the fourth draft with the changes as delineated in the synopsis. Director Warren noted a further change on page 26, under the lot width for the 10,000 square foot lots, this should be 70 feet instead of 80 feet. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members H~de, Gregson, Stewart, Adams, and Guyer NOES: Member York ABSENT: lqember Rice -6- Chairman Stewart stated that the staff is hereby requested to study the recommendations of the Building Contractors' Association and to bring the recommendation in at such time as an adequate study is completed on the control of lot sizes of small lots, comparing this to other communities that have adopted this in their ordinances. SECTION 33.5.4 - R-2 ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Director of Planning Warren reviewed the changes as proposed for the R-2 zone. The Commission discussed briefly the provision for a planned unit development and the minimum lot size for such. There were no comments concerning any of the proposed changes for this zone. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of Section 33.5.4 - R-2 One and Two-Family Residence Zone as proposed in the Fourth Draft with the changes delineated in the synopsis. SECTION 33.5.5 - R-G GARDEN APARTMENT RESIDENCE ZONE Director of Planning Warren reviewed the changes proposed for this Section. He elaborated on the changes proposed for paragraph G on page 35: Area, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements. Mr. Cook remarked that this section is very progressive. Director Warren discussed a further change--that a 25~ front yard setback be required for the lots fronting on major or secondary streets, and this increased by 5 feet for each story in excess of three. Some of the major streets, as delineated on the General Plan, would be "E", Fourth Avenue, "L" Street, et. and the secondary streets would be Third Avenue, Nacion, Naples and Palomar. Mr. Lee declared that in most cases the setbacks are presently 25 and 30 feet on these streets. Chairman Stewart felt this might create a problem if they ever get a high-rise, in having to have it set back too far from the street. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of Section 33.5.5 - R-3 Apartment Residence Zone as proposed in the fourth draft with the changes as delineated in the synopsis. Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Cook to present the staff with any data he may have relative to his proposal for the 5000 and 6000 square foot lots. Next Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance The Commission set May 13, 1968 at 7 p.m. as the next public hearing on the zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren explained there was some conflict presently for the Council Chamber but -7- he will notify the Commission as to the place of the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. The next hearing is scheduled for Ma~ 13, 1968. Respectfully submitted, .dennie M. Fulasz "Secretary