Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/12/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 18, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista. Members present were: Stewart, York, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Hyde. Also present were: Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary hereby states that she did post, within 24 hours as re- quired by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of December 4, 1967. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (YorK-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of December 4, 1967, be ap- proved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed rezoning from C-1 and R-1 to C-l-D, property west of Third Avenue between "K" and "L" Streets City Attorney Lindberg referred to the adoption, two years ago, of a procedural ordinance limiting presentations from the audience to five minutes. He stated that in large groups of people, they should obtain a spokesman and he should present their point of view. Mr. Lindberg added that he would hope that all presentations made tonight to the Commission be limited to this five minute period of time and that these people try not to be repetitious in their statements. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed rezoning on which the applicants intend to locate a K- Mart store. The Commission recommended denial of the request for C-2 zoning for this property in November 1967, and the City Council upheld this decision at their meeting of December 5, 1967. However, upon the request of the Chamber of Commerce, the Council voted to initiate a new public hearing to consider C-1-D zoning and subsequently was referred back to the Commission for consideration of the following: 1. The creation of a satisfactory buffer between the residential area and the proposed store. 2. The requirement of a conditional use permit for certain incidental uses. -2- 3. Revision of the site plan to make it more workable and compatible with the R-1 uses to the west. Mr. Manganelli noted on the plot plan the suggestion for the extended cul-de-sac on San Miguel and Sierra Way as made by the Mayor. Another possibility would be the creation of a buffer along the entire westerly property line. Mr. Manganelli then delineated the staff-recommended guidelines for the development under the "D" zone, in the event this proposal were ultimately approved by the Council: 1. That a buffer along the entire westerly property line be provided. This buffer shall be a minimum of 10' wide with trees and shrubbery planted within it. This buffer would be in lieu of the proposal for construction of additional single-family homes on the westerly edge of this stie as delineated at your meeting. 2. The westerly line shall have a 6' high masonry wall, design of which to be approved by the staff, placed along its entire length either east or west of its buffer strip as desired by the adjacent residents to the west. 3. The buildings shall be no closer than 65' to the westerly property line, and the tire-battery-accessory store shall be moved to the northerly end of the buildings and shall have no openings to the west. All mechanical equipment associated with the store should be located within an enclosed building. Any mechanical equipment that must be placed on top of the building shall be screened, as approved by the staff. 4. Any transformers or other heavy-duty electrical equipment shall be within a screened enclosure, as approved by the staff. 5. Street trees on all street frontages shall be provided, and a land- scape plan with a method of irrigation shown for the entire site shall be submitted to the staff for approval. 6. No signs shall be moving or flashing, and all building signs shall be flush. The building signs shall not extend above the roof line. Freestanding signs shall be no higher than 35' nor shall exceed 50 square feet in area. The number of freestanding signs shall be subject to Commission approval. The building signs shall not exceed 200 square feet in total area. Mr. Manganelli added that, basically, the Commission is considering whether the area is appropriate for another cormmercial shopping center and, therefore, should it be zoned commercially or not? The other cri- terion to consider is that if it were rezoned to commercial, how should it be developed? City Attorney Lindberg stated for the record that the petitions submitted and comments made at previous hearings should be made a part of this record for legal purposes. -3- Member York asked to clarify something for the record. He referred to the statement that this was referred back to the Planning Commission at the request of the Chamber of Commerce of which he is an officer. While this was their recommendation, it was at the request of the City Council that it be referred back to Planning Commission with the specific items to be studied. It was not initiated by the Chamber of Commerce. He felt that because he was an officer of the Chamber of Commerce, if it had been initiated by the Chamber as such, he might have been expected to abstain from this matter. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. L. A. Stewart, real estate broker, 615 Ash Street, San Diego, stated he was speaking for the applicants. He said that at the last meeting it was suggested that other alternatives were available for this development. He visited all these sites, 4 of them, and came up with the same answers as the first time. Some of the sites have the very same problem as this particular site; some have traffic problems; some economic. All of these sites were revie%~ed with the developer and now they can come back to the Commission more firmly stating that this is the only acceptable site in the City of Chula Vista for this develop- ment. Mr. Stewart declared that the main question in their approach to this, due to public reaction, was how the buffer this type of develop- ment against the residential area. They toured comparable sites and stores in the Los Angeles area with a few members of the Council, Com- mission and staff. These sites represent a commercial development adjoining a residential one; they are not buffered by R-2 or R-3 de- velopments but rather by distance and a separating wall. It is not important that these developments be buffered otherwise. Mr. Stewart contended that the people in Los Angeles living next to these develop- ments are not unhappy with this type of development - they are actually satisfied now. Mr. Stewart added that they are happy with the recommendations of the planning staff for the buffering characteristics of this site. It would be a satisfactory solution. They do have a problem with the shape of the building and the size of the plottage additional plottage is needed for this buffer and this of course raises the question of economics; however, it can be resolved. Mr. Stewart then discussed ad- jacent property values alleging that these homes will not be hurt economically by living next to this development. Men%Oer Adams asked if these other sites visited by Mr. Stewart were designated for commercial use on the General Plan. Mr. Stewart declared he was not that familiar with the City's General Plan but would be willing to point these sites out to Mr. Adams on the map. His comments concerning the General Plan were made at the previous meeting. -4- Chairman Stewart questioned Mr. Stewart as to the planning staff's recommendations - which one did he favor: the 10' strip with landscap- ing or the proposal for additional land for construction of the addi- tional single-family homes on this westerly edge. Mr. Stewart stated they would favor this 10' planting strip, thus having a 65' separation from the property line. Member Gregson, referring to the other plan, asked how much property it would cut down from this area. Mr. Stewart figured it would be possibly 4 acres - that they need ap- proximately 10 acres for this site; right now, they have an option on 9.8 acres. The developer has one strict requirement for his develop- ment - they must provide parking for 700 cars. Member Rice asked if they had any option on any of the property front- ing on K Street to be used as a possible egress. Mr. Stewart stated they did not have; however, it was a possibility to look into. Chairman Stewart asked for the ordinance requirements for parking spaces. Mr. Manganelli stated that according to the square footage of the building and the square footage needed to accommodate the parking, they would require approximately 8 acres. They have not stated to what use the additional 2 acres would be made. However, according to the size of the building (109,000 square feet) they would be required to provide approximately 500 spaces. Mr. J. Offret, 327 L Street, read a letter written by his parents ask- ing for approval of this rezoning. They are one of the applicants of this request. Others speaking in approval of this request were: Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce Director, who stated the Board of Directors of the Chamber have gone on record that they would like to see a change in zoning for this particular property - in their request, a buffer zone was mentioned. He discussed the possible extension of San Miguel and Sierra Way should other commercial enterprises go in here or if residential development occurs which would increase traffic, tie spoke of the added revenue for the City and the additional jobs (150) this development would create declaring that there was a great deal at stake here and he would sug- gest all interested parties get together and discuss this in an informal "round table" discussion. He asked if it would be possible to continue this matter and set up a conference between the Council, Commission, applicants, property owners, and Chamber of Commerce representatives. City Attorney Lindberg stated that it should be recognized that the reasons for zoning on this property should be made at a public hearing. The general philosophy of the request could be discussed at a confer- ence; however, the Commission, on hearing a specific request, should hear the evidence here and now at this public hearing. The evidence should be weighed and the determination recommended to the City Council to act upon legislatively in the future. -5- Chairman Stewart remarked that the Commission could hear all evidence tonight and then close the hearing; that they needn't vote on the issue tonight - they could do so in the future. Mr. Lindberg reiterated that a specific request for rezoning should be discussed at a public hearing from an attorney's point of view, if there is any possible or potential legal action (what goes on in the conference, he would not be able to relate in court), it should be on record right here. Mr. Slijk questioned whether it was impossible to hold such a conference of this importance with members of the Council, Commission, Chamber and interested parties - to discuss all aspects of this situation at a round table discussion in a more relaxed atmosphere and then make recom- mendations. Member York explained his interpretation of Mr. Slijk's remarks that they not sit down at a conference and actually discuss whether or not it should De rezoned C-1 - this would be an improper thing to do; but that there has been so much discussion at the public hearings on this suOject as to what the proper conditions should be imposed on such a development if it is rezoned C-1. They could then get the public reac- tion to whatever comes out of this meeting. Mr. Lindberg contended that any question of developmental standards should be discussed openly at a public hearing or come from the staff. The services of this Commission to the Council is one of recommenda- tion as an independent body and should not be on any specific item on a matter of compromise or attempting to ameliorate to the varying view- points to find a solution. It sometimes becomes necessary to have such meetings in order to clarify the community thinking. Mr. Slijk alleged that he was not advocating a "closed" conference, but rather that it would be open to the public. Others speaking in favor of the request were: Madalon Bagnall, 819 Fourth Avenue; Celia Hatz, 838 Third Avenue; Charles Offerman, 331 L Street; Clint Mathews, 4305 Vista Coronado Drive; Phyllis Lerned, realtor, 462 Third Avenue; William Eckhart, 381 Corte Maria; J. Bagnall, 819 Fourth Avenue and Bob Le Bre, realtor, 596 Third Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (1) Chula Vista should recognize the bles- sings of getting such a store here; (2) if these developers are willing to furnish the money to construct such a site, we should find the place for it; (3) it would reduce the taxes, help with the schools; (4) at present this site is a disgrace to the City - covered with weeds, etc.; (5) the people should not fight everything that comes this way - you will never be making progress this way; (6) Mrs. tIatz claimed she held this land for a number of years jsut for such a development such as this one; (7) Offerman - it has been stated that there wasn't much chance of commercial coming into this area; this is ridiculous since L Street is now a main thoroughfare, east to west and just viewing the -6- site today with the adjacent developments one can see that this area must go more dense; (8) it was proper 5 years ago to put in the Broadway shopping center and it is equally proper today to put in this particular shopping center; (9) if an R-3 development went into this area, there is enough room here for a great number of units which consequently would increase the traffic considerably; (10) there are people living on San Miguel and Sierra Way that have a different viewpoint from that of their spokesman they do not wish to have these streets opened; (11) something has definitely got to be done with this site - what will go in? R-l? R-37; (12) request that the Commission "bend over backwards" and encourage these people to build on this site; (13) Mathews - as a real estate broker, he had property for sale on K Street for many years and it is very difficult to sell because of the mixed-up zoning - this is an opportunity to correct this situation; (14) Lerned - referred to several pages of the General Plan pertaining to industrial and commer- cial land in the City and the ratio of commercial districts; (15) Mrs. Lerned indicated that 12 property owners were involved in this matter - 6 applicants and 6 that live on the border of this development. These six property owners seem to have more to say about this request than the 6 property owners who have given options to sell their properties~ (16) Le Bre - as a real estate broker he runs ads on commercial prop- erty and indicates that 9% of the property in this City is commercial; a chain store such as K-Mart guarantees a site finder from $25,000 to $50,000 a year and these men must certainly know what they are doing in picking out these sites; (17) Bagnall as to noise factor - there are numerous children living here, two schools across the street, football and dancing are sponsored by the school; (18) as to the lights - by pulling down the shades, you can block out any light in the world; (19) the trucks will not be loading and unloading here constantly. Speaking in opposition was William Nichols, 353 Palomar Drive, who stated he was the spokesman for the group who signed the petition. He stated the notice indicated a plot plan would be on file, but none was filed by the applicants for something new; they were consequently in- formed that this was a zoning matter and no plot plan was required. It appeared that the specific topic was a compromise or buffer zone or some architectural development or details so that something might be filed. The zoning issue on this matter was settled on November 28. The applicants filed an appeal which, according to the City ordinance, did not meet the requirements set forth in the ordinance for the filing of such appeal. Mr. Nichols contended that no new facts were submitted by the applicants and, based on the facts on hand, the previous deci- sion of the Planning Commission is still valid and should not be changed. It is the responsibility of the developer to submit plans for approval and not that of the City to develop plans that would be accept- able to the developer. Here is an opportunity for a precedent in that in the future if a developer submits plans and it is not acceptable by the City, the City would submit alternate plans. -7- Mr. Nichols then discussed the fact that the Council asked the Commis- sion to consider a possible buffer zone if the Commission feels this is desirable, they should accept a buffer adequate enough that a rear abutment (not a side abutment) be made on the residential property in the commercial zone. It is difficult to see how an adequate buffer of less than 220' could be made with an extension of San Miguel and Sierra Way to provide access to these lots. It has also been suggested that if the Commission take this action, that dedication of streets (San Miguel and Sierra Way) be made. Mr. Nichols added that throughout these hearings, Sears and Broadway Shopping Center sites has been mentioned - it would be well to adopt some of their guidelines such as: underground deliveries, sign control, hours of operation, noise factor, loud speaker control, no outside selling - must be under enclosed roof, 10% of the parking area to be landscaped - in addition to the buffer area, mechani- cal equipment should be screened and/or architecturally provided for, no new buildings to be constructed on the land without a public hearing by the Commission for these new buildings. The two acres not accounsted for in the site have not been settled yet -- this should be done; the construction of the building should be compatible with the general area; underground utilities should be installed; vehicular access to be limited to K and Third Avenue through existing commercial zones, nothing less than an 8' wall shielding the residential area; the drainage prob- lem here will have to be resolved--the land slopes naturally toward the residential area; the staff recommends a distance of 65' from the edge of the building to the rear property line--they would recommend no less than 80' - Sears store is 150' from the rear of the residential prop- erties; the parking lot should be cleaned and cleared of debris every night; the tire and battery shop should be located on the northerly side of the property in the existing commercial zone (Third and K Street). Mr. Nichols further added that these standards are nothing more than those already existing in the central commercial area of the City. City Attorney Lindberg asked Mr. Nichols if he still wished to have the previous testimony (made at the last meeting) and petitions be made as part of this record, in addition to the guidelines just delineated. Mr. Nichols stated this was correct, in principal, their views on the matter have not changed--they still feel that Planning Commission was right the first time in their original decision, but, if they feel this should be developed as requested, they wanted to submit these sugges- tions for the Commission's consideration. Others speaking in protest were: Richard Schott, 358 San Miguel; John McQuan, 433 Kearney; Arnold Stammer, 352 San Miguel; and Roberta Darrell, 371 San Miguel Road. Their objections were as follows: (1) if this change takes place here, it would be a precedent for the entire Third Avenue frontage to go likewise--this should be taken into consideration; (2) the majority of the people speaking in favor of the request are realtors, since this would make a choice commercial site; (3) the appli- cants have submitted nothing that would be justification enough for the Commission to change their original decision; (4) a note from a property owner in the audience stating she is personally acquainted with some of the people in Los Angeles who live next to the K-Mart store and they are unhappy over it--they state, however, that once this store goes in, -8- there is nothing they can do about it; (5) one of the protestants clained the loading dock would be 45' from his dining room window - an offer an an additional 10' was made by the developer's real estate agent but this would not block off the noise of the trucks, etc; (6) no representative of the K-Mart has ever been present at any of these meetings; (7) the Commission is considering a change of zone, and there is a possibility that K-Mart may not even go in here; (8) as to a defi- nite noise factor--one lady stated she would compare the noise made by her five children against a diesel engine any day, and her children do not create smog. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams asked for a show of hands: it was noted that there were 37 against the proposal and 24 for the request. Mr. Nichols declared this should have nothing to do with the request--they did not feel any need to "pack the house" with protestants tonight since all of their testimony has been recorded at the previous meeting and this is the only thing that really should be considered. Member Gregson stated he favors the proposal of Mayor Sylvester for the Duffer zone of residential lots if it is agreeable with the de- velopers and property owners. Member Rice advocated that the question here before the Commission was whether or not the rezoning is proper and whether the Commission's for- mer recommendations stand. Chairman Stewart felt that if this arrangement is imposed, there would not be sufficient ground for their development; the applicant would have to come up with another plan. This plan would take 2-3/4 acres away from the area. Member Adams commented that the primary question is whether it was proper to have commercial zone extending back 660' in an area designated by the General Plan as high-density residential. The ultimate plan for Third Avenue was to prevent commercial use from running down clear to Main Street. The Plan calls for high-density residential and professional offices. Mr. Adams discussed the three commercial sites listed on the General Plan (Broadway and H Street, Third Avenue and C and Fourth Avenue) and added that it was considered by the consultants that these sites, with normal expansion, would provide for the commercial needs of the City in the future. He added that if this site is approved, it would drain off the business from these other sites and completely stag- nage those centers. Member York disagreed with Member Adams in that he felt that this Third Avenue frontage would be commercial, and it was time the Commission did something about it in order to prevent it going strip commercial by expanding this depth. It is not realistic to think that this frontage on Third Avenue will be developed residentially. By giving them more -9- commercial depth, the City can be assured of a good commercial develop- ment. As to draining off the business from other commercial sites, Member York declared this is probably true of the Third Avenue business district because of the nature of their commercial development, but this would not be true of the other commercial sites since they have developed centers with their own parking, etc. Another answer must be found for the problems of downtown Third Avenue--but not denying zoning to properly accommodate a development such as this - this would only work to the economic detriment of Chula Vista. These centers (K-Mart) will go into the trading areas, if not Chula Vista, then perhaps National City. The stronger we make the commercial base in Chula Vista, the more people we will attract to the City and this will helpthe existing businesses in the City also. More people from the surrounding areas will come into the City to shop. Mr. York discussed the South Bay Plaza Shopping Center and the Broadway Shopping Center. Zoning this particular parcel commercial in order to get a well-financed, well- planned with adequate parking facilities, modern buildings, etc., re- gardless of whether it is in one center or in two centers, will be a much stronger commercial base and much better for all the merchants in Chula Vista. Also, unless they do something to make this more attrac- tive, they can look forward to strip commercial development between K and L Streets. Many people, including the opposition, have expressed their opinions that some adequate buffer between these two areas is the only reason this would not be a logical expansion. Everyone has indicated that some adequate buffer should be designed. Member York added that his recommendation would be for the Commission to recommend to the City Council (and they hold a public hearing on this) that this zoning be approved (C-l-D) subject to the developer and the Planning staff coming up with recommendations that would be accept- able to both; that the Commission not try to tack on what is a good buffer - the staff and developer should be able to do this. Chairman Stewart asked if recommendations could be made contigent upon rezoning. City Attorney Lindberg declared that what Member York is advocating would De covered in the "D" zone. The rezoning comes first and then a hearing can be held on the analysis of design at some time in the future. Member Guyer remarked that he advocated a more adequate buffer between the residential and the commercial property at the last meeting; he still contends that it would be a better plan if this aspect could be worked out. The Commission discussed this area and zoning as it relates to the General Plan. Member York felt that action will not be taken here which is in conflict with the General Plan regardless of what they do here this evening - either the action will be taken which is in conflict with the General Plan to expand this zone or someone will eventually come in and put something on this land that is already in conflict with the Plan. -10- Chairman Stewart indicated this is a speculation that is entirely pos- sible. Member Adams said he would rather take a chance on this than go against the General Plan. Chairman Stewart reported that he did go to Los Angeles and view the other K-Mart stores and having one in Chula Vista would be an asset to the community. He must, however, take issue with the fact that it would bring in large volumes of business to Chula Vista. It would bring in some new business and provide additional jobs, however. But it has only been a short time since the City adopted the General Plan and nothing in this area has changed since then to justify the Commission in saying they were wrong in accepting a high- density designation on the Plan for this area. Mr. Stewart declared that he doesn't believe the Commission can adopt the precept that when something looks good, they should ignore the General Plan. The General Plan was adopted for a purpose and is to be used as a guideline for the development of the City and the Commission should certainly go along with this. He is not completely sold that no other areas in the City can accommodate this development. Member Adams stated that if this development goes in, it wouldn't be too long before commercial would be expanded in this area and this would fracture the community so that it would stagnate the existing central commercial areas. Member York stated that they should have a concentration of commercial development. Under the General Plan and from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to achieve it in one area for the size of the develop- ment these stores must have to come into Chula Vista and for the small stores that would come in on "their coat tails". Member York added that it was not impossible for a city the size of Chula Vista to have a large center with as much as 200 acres with four major department stores and 2 or 3 stores such as K-Mart all concentrated within this one center. This would give them a strong commercial basis. Where in Chula Vista do they have 200 acres for such a site? In the absence of this, Mr. York continued, the Commission should take 10 acres here and there and rezone it to accommodate these stores; if they don't, some other city will. MSC (Guyer-Adams) Recommend to the City Council the denial of C-1-D zoning for this property based on the following findings: 1. The General Plan places this Third Avenue frontage in a residen- tial classification. The goal in the Plan is to concentrate com- cercial centers where trends are clearly established. This should be done by encouraging high density residential use in areas pre- sently vacant and improperly zoned for commercial use. 2. The value of the R-1 land involved is no greater than that recently developed with single-family homes in other areas of the City. Economics alone cannot dictate proper land use. -11- 3. The subdivision to the west of subject property was designed with the intention of extending the streets through to the present C-1 zoning on the Third Avenue frontage. If commercial use were to occupy the vacant R-1 property, the subdivision should have been designed with rear yards abutting the commercial use. 4. There has been a constant drive to expand the commercial area on "H" Street between Fifth Avenue and Third Avenue. If the need exists and expansion can be appropriately accommodated, then re- development of that area should be encouraged. 5. The commercial trend in the area of this request is negligible and should be confined to that area presently commercially zoned. The construction of a major store in this area such as "K-Mart" would create a nucleous for a new commercial center which would weaken the business district further north. 6. As a city grows, it becomes impossible to consider that the only "available" land in the central area is that which is vacant. If private enterprise wishes to prevent ultimate federally-assisted urban renewal, then redevelopment by private interests must take place. 7. Regarding the aforementioned site plan and buffer, the consensus of the Commission appeared to favor the creation of R-1 lots upon extension of Sierra Way and San Miguel Street - this solution was apparently unacceptable to the applicants since it would take two to three acres of the property to accomplish this. The Commission further concluded that any consideration of the plot plan or a buffer zone should be considered at a subsequent hearing under "D" zone provisions should the Council choose to rezone the property to C-1-D and when the applicant provides the City with a defini- tive development plan for the property. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Adams, Gregson, Stewart, and Rice NOES: Member York ABSENT: Member Hyde City Attorney Lindberg stated that since this was a referral by the Council, it will be sent back to the Council. A hearing will be set by the City Clerk and the property owners notified. No appeal was necessary on this matter. -12- PUBLIC HEARING: Request for rezoning from R-1 to R-3-B-2-D - Northwest Corner of Second Avenue and Palomar Street - Aardema and Covin The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to R-3-B-2-D property on the northwest corner of Palomar Street and Second Avenue. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use, and zoning. He stated that the property in question comprises 6.5 acres of land which the applicants have indicated that they will subdivide into R-3 lots upon which fourplexes would be con- structed. The applicant provided the Commission with pictures of com- parable buildings taken in the Orange County area. Mr. Manganelli re- viewed the previous requests for this property: the subdivision maps that were filed in 1961 and 1964, and the denial of R-3 zoning request by both the Commission and Council in 1966. He indicated that the Commission is considering only the rezoning of the property so the Commission cannot, by condition, be assured that the development pro- posed would be built. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Martin, stating he has entered into a joint venture with the applicants, discussed the development declaring it will be an attempt to upgrade the area. Their proposed 4-plexes will be on subdivided lots with the idea to sell them eventually. Mr. Martin referred to the adjacent J-L-J apartments declaring the rents for these apartments are lower than they will be asking for their development. He added that they are not asking for the highest type of density for this area but rather for B-2, 2000 square feet of land area per unit. Mr. Stenobrey Covin, 1278 Second Avenue, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the request and commented that the surrounding land is zoned R-2. Mr. Pat Stanzione, 1254 Second Avenue, stated he was concerned with the type of buildings they can construct here. Chairman Stewart explained that the applicants are requesting a change in zone, and therefore, the Commission has no control over what they can put on it. He then reviewed the requirements of the "D" zone. Mr. Lee Dumas, 1255 Second Avenue, declared he lived in the County but did receive a notice of this request, and said he was in favor of this rezoning because he has confidence in Mr. Aardema and Mr. Covin in what they will build. He felt it would be up-grading the community quite a bit. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -13- Member Guyer, referring to the staff's comments, felt these observa- tions were good. Member York asked if this would be a proper subject for a subdivision map. Mr. Manganelli commented that a subdivision map was very expensive - the preliminary filing fees are 10% of the total cost, perhaps several hundred dollars. Mr. P. Aardema, the applicant, stated it costs $5,000 for a subdivision map plus $1,000 fee for the City a gamble of $6,000 on the hope that they will get R-3 zoning. Member York remarked that if they filed a map in conjunction with this request, the Commission would know the size of the lots and of the units. Mr. Manganelli stated that there was no assurance that such a map would be finalized. The Commission discussed the density of the J-L-J apartments which is straight R-3 zoning. Mr. Manganelli noted that it is built at about 2000 square feet of land area per unit. Mr. Martin admitted that the only assurance the Commission has is that they will build to 2000 square feet of land per unit. Member Adams commented that he always considered this area appropriate for lower-cost family residences - $16,000 to $18,000 homes. There is not much property in the City available for this; there is an abundance of R-3 property~ however. He would prefer to see the area intact for possible R-1 development. Chairman Stewart declared that this was the conclusion the Commission reached the last time they considered R-3 for this area. Member Rice pointed out that from previous findings and from the General Plan, high density is concentrated on the south side of Palomar. He wondered if it would be more realistic to consider a buffer zone across the street from this area. Member York declared that this points up to the fact that they need to adopt the ordinance to implement the General Plan. Anything the Com- mission does this evening will influence the surrounding properties upon annexation. Chairman Stewart discussed the area commenting that he didn't feel that R-1 and R-3 are incompatible. As far as appearances are concerned, it is not bad across the street (J-L-J apartments). You have R-1 and R-3 abutting each other in all parts of the city. Since most of the area around this is used as R-l, it would be an intrusion into this resi- dential area. He added that he would like to see the staff make a study in connection with the interested parties here for an R-1 subdivision. Mr. Stewart added that the Commission should abide by the General Plan for this area - he is opposed to R-3 here. -14- MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Request for R-3-B-2-D zoning be denied based on the following findings: 1. The General Plan designates medium density residential for prop- erties located north of Palomar Street (4 to 7 units per gross acre) . 2. There is an abundance of R-3 zoned land in the City, and it is questionable that still more of this zoning is needed at the pre- sent time. 3. The apartments which exist to the south are single-story struc- tures and would not be incompatible with single-family dwellings. 4. The requested rezoning would be contrary to good rezoning practice. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed rezoning from R-3-B-3-D to R-3-D - Northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street - Quintard Street - Quintard Annexation No. 1 Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location, land use and zoning of this area. He stated that this hearing was initiated by the Commission at the request of the City Council as a re- sult of a request by one of the property owners. The property was re- cently annexed and prezoned R-3-B-3-D by the Council which overruled the Commission's recommendation for R-1 zoning. The owner, Mr. George Edwards, complained to the Council that his property has a flooding problem as a result of the construction of Hilltop Drive by the City. He feels he now needs a higher density of development to offset the cost of this drainage problem. The Commission, in setting this matter for hearing, included all the R-3-B-3-D zoned property at the subject corner since it would not be good zoning practice to consider just one parcel. Mr. Manganelli then reviewed the changes that occurred in the area since the Commission's recommendation of R-1 zoning for the property; the new R-1 subdivision to the north and the Commission's approval of a variance for a low density (1 unit per 3000') development to the south. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. George Edwards, the complainant, stated he was under the impression that the Council was only concerned with his property and not the entire annexation(Quintard Annexation No. 1). His property was developed be- fore it came into the City. He has a 15 room house and a swimming pool -15- located on the corner of Hilltop and Quintard. It was understood that there was a drainage problem here that was created by the City. This left his property in such a manner that it cannot be used as R-1. If he can get this zoning one unit per 1000 square feet - he can then afford to remove his house which has suffered structural damage because of the drainage problem created by the city. This water has run under the house and onto the pool. He could salvage the swimming pool but the home would have to be removed because it will have no value. This is not a matter of choice, but something the City has created. Member Adams asked if anyone confirmed the fact that this damage was created by the City. Mr. Edwards alleged that it was confirmed, by two or three City Coun- cilmen, some members of the Police Department and it is a matter of record now because of the last public hearing before the City Council it came out, and the Councilmen admitted that this thing probably did not exist before the City of Chula Vista came in there. He added that Mr. Lindberg could correct him on that. City Attorney Lindberg informed Mr. Edwards that he had no knowledge of what the Council's position on the matter is or that of the Engi- neers regarding this particular drainage problems as to whether it was created by the City. As a matter of fact, as the City Attorney, he would not make such a statement. Chairman Stewart asked if the engineers of the City have ever conceded that the City has caused him damage. City Attorney Lindberg commented that he hoped that the Engineers never made any such statement. Chairman Stewart declared that, up to now, it has not been determined that the City has caused this damage. Mr. Edwards remarked that he made one mistake that there was a time when the City of San Diego was ready to annex this property. He should have gone along with it; if he did, he wouldn't be before the Commission with this problem now. The Commission discussed the reasons for justification of a zone change. Mr. Edwards contended that the Engineers did correct a portion of this problem but have not corrected the damage previously done. He added that they did attempt to build some large homes here on the hill; however, some subdividers came in and got permission to build small homes adjacent to the area which "killed" their area, created the street problem, and the drainage problem which they have now. If they had anticipated Judson Estates coming into that area, they would never have built here. -16- Mr. Nicholas Besker, 1382 Hilltop Drive, stated the only knowledge he has of the problems here are those occurring since he moved in here seven years ago. The grade was raised after he moved in. Someone on the City Council suggested that if they would do something to alleviate the problem, if the homeowners would do something, that would perhaps take care of it. Mr. Besker claimed he dug a ditch along the paved area which doesn't come up to the property line and then oiled his driveway; this did alleviate the drainage problem on his side. Now Mr. Edwards is getting the drainage from his (Mr. Besker's) driveway onto his property. Mr. Besker then discussed the line of sight on Hilltop Drive, maintaining that something was wrong with it, particu- larly the left-hand turn onto Hilltop Drive from Quintard Street. The point he is making is that the grade of Hilltop Drive has been raised since he has been living there. Chairman Stewart asked if raising the grade of Hilltop Drive changed any grading characteristic in relation to Hilltop Drive and the ad- joining property. Mr. Besker answered that he didn't know. Mr. Edwards maintained that it did have something to do with the drain- age situation. Also, Mr. Besker's house is high on the hill, and he (Mr. Edwards) does not have the opportunity to do what he did, in that he has an L-shaped unit. He has no way in which to get this water out; that is why he wants to get the house out and build up to street level. Mr. Edwards requested that in the voting, one way or the other, that the Commission specifically spell out his property (150' x 180' on the corner of Hilltop and Quintard). There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was closed. Member Adams stated he was quite familiar with this area and remembers when Mr. Besker's house was built. This was built 1' to 1½' below the grade of the road - he wondered at the time why this gentleman wanted to build his house like that. He can't see now that raising the street another foot or two makes that much difference. Another fact, they have had no official showing or representation to the Commission by the City (engineer or memorandum from the Council) that there is a drainage problem here. Member York felt this was a marginal area that could be R-3, R-3-D, R-3-B-2 or whatever. He recalled that he was in favor of granting the R-3 zoning at the original request; however, he doesn't feel that cor- recting a drainage problem is a reasonable reason for granting R-3 zoning. They would have to find other reasons to justify this. The Council referred this to the Commission because they were without a recommendation from the Commission for this zoning request. The Commission must consider this on its own merits - whether it is proper for R-3 zoning. As to the drainage problem, who created it, etc., does not enter into it. If the City created this, there are other means of taking recourse against the City for damages done, if this is provable. Mr. York added that he still feels this property should be zoned R-3 or R-3-D, in view of the adjacent uses. -17- Member Rice claimed he was against the R-3 zoning in the first place, and is even more against the more liberal density requested now. Member Adams felt the drainage problem here could be corrected without too great an expense. If it could be proven that the City was at fault here, then he is sure they would share some of the expense in correcting this problem. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Request for R-3-D for Quintard Annexation No. 1 and including the premises of Mr. George Edwards at the corner of Quintard and Hilltop Drive be denied for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential which corresponds to the R-1 classification - the applicant already has a less restrictive zone. 2. Abutting this property to the north is a parcel on which a new R-1 subdivision has been constructed. 3. In order for the Commission to alter its previous decision, con- ditions or circumstances should have changed in this area. The only changes which have occurred only serve to reaffirm the logi- cality of the existing zoning, i.e. the construction of the R-1 subdivision to the north and the Commission aprpoval fo a variance for a low density (1 unit per 3000 square feet) development to the south. 4. Any drainage problem that may exist on the property can not be corrected by rezoning. PUBLIC HEARING: 211 Church Avenue - Nyle and Marie Gray - R-3 use on property zoned C-2 The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct five apartment units and one office building at 211 Church Street. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land uses. He stated the applicants are proposing to construct a 6 unit building~ one of which would be an office. They propose to provide five parking spaces in the rear of the building for the apartments - it should be noted that they are in the parking dis- trict and, therefore, no spaces are required except as a condition of approval of a variance. The property is presently zoned C-2 and the land use is R-1. Mr. Manganelli reviewed the following staff suggestions: (1) the lot directly north developed with a real estate office and three units is also owned by the applicant. It would appear to be more practical to -18- combine the development of both lots with residential and office use, rather than as individual lots; and (2) The Planning Commission should emphasize to the applicant that any approval of use, without plans sub- mitted, is not a blanket approval as such. When plans are submitted, the Commission has the right to reject, revise, or approve the project. He added that the applicants are asking for approval of the concept, rather than the basic plan. Member Rice asked whether the parking district applied only to commer- cial uses rather than the residential. Mr. Manganelli ascertained that no residential zoning exists in the parking district. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. It was then noted that the applicants were not present. The Commission concurred that the hearing should be postponed until such time as the applicants will be present. MSUC (Adams-York) Continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 3, 1968, and the staff directed to notify the applicants to be present. Request for change of setback requirement - Kiffe's variance on south side of Quintard Street Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the requested setback change. In the resolution approving this zone variance (November 6, 1967) no mention was made concerning the setbacks since the applicant did not specify any setback change from the existing 25' setback on the property. Mr. Kiffe, the applicant, has completed his plans and finds that the two corner lots and the lots facing Tobias Drive are closer than 25' He is requesting that the setbacks be established to conform to this. He would like the setback on Tobias Drive reduced to 18' Since we do not have an 18' setback on the Building Line Map, the staff would recommend this be set at 15' It should be noted that the ordinance still requires 20' between the garage door of the units to the sidewalk for straight-in driveways; this would be maintained in spite of this setback reduction. The staff also recommends 10' setbacks on the cor- ner lots and the 25' setback to be maintained on Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street - this can be accomplished on the parcel map which has been filed. MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of the following setbacks: 25' along Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street, with the corner lots reduced to 10', and Tobias Drive to be established at 15'. Such setbacks to be established on the parcel map for the property at the southwest corner of Quintard Street and Hilltop Drive. -19- Request for approval of mechanical equipment for Home Occupation in R-1 zone Associate Planner Manganelli reviewed the application submitted by Donald Byrum for permission to operate a T.V. repair service in his home at 4 Fifth Avenue. This would be on a very limited basis; in this case, the applicant claims he would service most of the sets at the customer's home and taking an occasional set to his home for repair. He would use certain electrical equipment to repair these sets. Chairman Stewart questioned the applicant as to the aspects of this proposed business. Mr. Donald Byrum, the applicant, stated he will be repairing these sets no more than a few hours a day, as this is more of a hobby with him. The equipment he will use would be limited to meters for checking tubes and a tube testing mechanism - no heavy equipment or motors of any kind will be used and no electrical units that would interfere with the nieghbors T.V. and radio receptions. He has a 1½ car garage and would be fixing the sets there; however, most of the sets will be serviced in the customers' homes. There will be no customer pick-up at his home; he will deliver and pick-up all the sets. Mr. Manganelli asked that the number of sets he takes home for repair be limited to two. In this way, they would be assured of not having the garage congested with T.V.'s with no room for the car. The Commission discussed the number of operating hours for this home occupation and determined that 4 hours daily would be allowed. Chairman Stewart asked the applicant if he would be willing to accept these restrictions. Mr. Byrum stated he would. MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of home occupation for T.V. repair service at 4 Fifth Avenue subject to the following restrictions: 1. The hours for the servicing of the televisions be limited to not more than four hours per day. 2. The number of sets on the property for repair at any one time be limited to two (2) sets. 3. The garage shall not be converted solely for the repair of the television sets. 4. The type of equipment used for the servicing of the sets shall in- clude meters for testing tubes and other minor electrical units - no motors or heavy equipment of any kind shall be permitted. -20- Subdivision - Final map of Flair Annex Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the final map of Flair Annex Subdivision commenting that this was originally 68 lots but because of the grading, has been reduced to 64 lots. The subdivision is located south of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of-way, north of Rienstra Street and adjacent on the east to Unit No. 1 of Princess Manor. The staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions and that of the Engineering Division. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Recommend approval of the final map of Flair Annex subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights, and easements as required by the City Engineer have been delivered to the City. 2. A temporary off-site cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the easterly terminus of Spruce Street. 3. A plot plan on lots 40 and 41 shall be submitted with a final grading plan for approval by the Planning Department prior to recordation of the final map. Subdivision - Final Map of Chula Vista Gardens, Unit No. 4 Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the final map of Chula Vista Gardens, Unit NO. 4 noting the location of the subdivision as west of the proposed freeway 805 between Naples and Oxford. Unit No. 4 is located in the southeast section of the tract about 600' south of Naples Street and contains 50 lots. The staff recommends approval of the map since it is in general con- formance with the tentative map. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, deeds, slope rights and easements as required by the City Engineer have been de- livered to the City. -21- Report on changes to Outdoor Advertising Act City Attorney Lindberg asked for a postponement of this item to the next meeting. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Matter be continued to the meeting of January 3, 1968. Request for extension of time - Tentative map of Dalseth Hills Subdi- vision, Unit No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 Associate Planner Manganelli stated a request has been received for a 1 year extension of time on this tentative map. The subdivision is lo- cated south of East "J" Street, just west of the proposed 805 Freeway. The staff recommends approval of the request. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of extension of time to January 26, 1969. Resolution - Changing meeting date from January 1, 1968 to January 3, 1968 Associate Planner Manganelli explained that the first meeting date falls on a holiday and the next available meeting night would be Wed- nesday, the third. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission of the RESOLUTION NO. 493 City of Chula Vista Rescheduling Regular Meeting of January 1, 1968 to January 3, 1968 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Meeting adjourn sine die. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ie M. Fulasz Secretary