Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/02/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 19, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held at 7 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chamber, 276 Guava Avenue, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, and Adams. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Masciarelli, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of ad- journment as required by law the order for the adjourned meeting of February 5, 1968. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Minutes of the meeting of February 5, 1968, be approved. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - 593 "E" Street R-3 to C-2 and reduction of setback from 30' to 15' - Dr. Gerald Handler The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from R-3 to C-2 and a reduction in setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for property at 593 E Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area re- quested for rezoning, the adjacent land use and zonings. He explained that the lot measures 90 feet on E Street with a depth of 292 feet. The setback along E Street is 30 feet and they are requesting a reduc- tion to 15 feet. Some of this land may be used for the expansion of the service station~ some of it will be for access for a proposed restaurant. While generally it would not be considered desirable to rezone this separate parcel fronting on E Street to C-2, it is desirable that the depth of commercial zoning along Broadway be increased and that is the effect here. The Con,mission must keep in mind the new apartment complex adjacent to the east which limits the commercial ex- pansion. The staff would recommend approval of this request with the condition that the "D" zone be attached and certain guidelines be established: that the development be oriented toward Broadway and that the build- ings be located a minimum of 15 feet from the easterly property line. -2- Member York asked if the legality of these guidelines were checked out with the City Attorney. Mr. Warren answered that they were - that in a rezoning, you have to judge each case on its own merits and if apply- ing the "D" zone, you can set up guidelines which would indicate to the developer what you will be looking for in reviewing his conunercial development. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. William Cameron, Jr., attorney representing the applicant, ex- plained his client's proposal to build a restaurant which will be Broadway oriented. This will be located where the metal shop presently exists. The Shell Oil Company on the corner is presently negotiating for a portion of the frontage of subject parcel on E Street. Their property, as presently zoned, does not permit expansion in an easterly direction. There would be an easement from the proposed restaurant southerly with the access off E Street. Mr. Cameron then discussed the problems with having the 15' setback at the easterly property line. He felt this condition should be predicated upon the development plans of the property. He has no objection to the "D" zone. Director Warren explained the staff's recommendation for this 15' set- back. Since the building will be oriented toward Broadway, the easterly ~ property line would then be considered the rear lot line and the north and south lines would then become the side yards. He felt the Commis- sion should consider the need for this setback explaining that there are no plans before them now which they could analyze, and until such time as plans are submitted, the Commission could then waive this re- quirement, if appropriate. Mr. Cameron stated he concurs with the recommendations but takes ex- ception to the setback requirement on the easterly property line. The main intent here is to obtain the necessary depth from Broadway and flexibility is necessary. The Commission discussed the proposed rear and side lot lines with the development oriented toward Broadway. Mr. Hal Rader, owner of the property at Broadway and E Street (the service station) stated that the station is considering remodeling. If present plans go through, they will be needing some of this easterly property for the expansion; however, there are no definite plans as yet. He has no objection to the rezoning but does object to the re- duction of setback to 15' until such time as plans are developed. Chairman Stewart declared that 30' setback for a commercial zone is unusual. Mr. Rader discussed his setbacks for the service station, indicating · that he has 5' or 0' for his pumps. -3- Director Warren stated it was 5' He then discussed the setbacks along H Street which were left at 20' and the variances that were granted for signs, etc. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice remarked that they have to evaluate the request as sub- mitted - that there was no point in talking about what may happen. Member York, discussing the easterly property line, commented that it was not the Commission's prerogative to establish conditions. He agreed that they could impose these as guidelines in connection with the "D" zone; that they are not conditions of rezoning. Member Adams noted that additional depth on Broadway is necessary, and with the "D" zone guidelines, the Commission does have adequate control. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recom- RESOLUTION NO. 496 mending to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property at 593 "E" Street from R-3 to C-2-D Findings be as follows: a. This rezoning represents good zoning practice because the area adjoins commercially zoned property on Broadway and this would provide additional depth for a better and more substantial com- mercial development. b. The 15 foot setback will permit development consistent with other new commercial areas along major streets. c. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said reclassification be granted and that, under the provisions of the supplemental "D" zone, the following guidelines for development are established: (1) Any orientation of structures and access shall be to Broadway unless specifically waived by the Planning Commission upon their review. (2) Buildings shall be located to a minimum of 15 feet from the easterly property line. -4- At this time, the Commission considered item 4 on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 22 Sandalwood Drive - Request for reduc- tion in front setback from 15' to 0' - Louis Nedopad The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front setback from 15' to 0' for the purpose of erecting a fence to enclose a swimming pool. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed fence and swimming pool. He explained that the City Code requires a 5' high fence constructed around a swimming pool; however, in this case, if the fence were to be constructed at the set- back line, the applicants would have no privacy because of the slope. The elevation of the rear yard is below the existing sidewalk and the proposed fence would be located at the top of this bank. The staff recommends approval of this request with two conditions: staff ap- proval of the type of fence to be constructed and that the area between the walk and fence be planted and permanently maintained. Member Rice declared that the fence should be permanently maintained also. This being the time and place as advertised, the hearing was opened. Mr. M. Murdock, representing California Pool Company, stated that they will be building this fence and spoke of the need to build this fence in the setback area. He explained the regulations they must adhere to in the Building Code in constructing the swimming pool. He asked that the variance be granted adding that it was not an unreasonable request and should be no problem in the area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren noted the telephone call received by the staff from the adjacent neighbor at 261 Coralwood Court, indicating his support of the request. Member Adams suggested the fence be cut down at the northwest corner and a gate put in here. Mr. Murdock explained that he needs to have a 3½' retaining wall be- cause of this slope but that they do propose to have a gate at this location. Member Rice asked about the filter and pump setup. Mr. Murdock ex- plained that the City Code requires them to set this up 25' away from the house. -5- Member Adams stated that the fence should have the same appearance on both sides, or else the smooth side to face on the street. Director Warren indicated that the staff would take care of this when they approve the construction of the fence. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Elevations of the proposed fence shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department for approval and shall utilize stone or masonry pillars of a decorative design spaced a minimum of 15 feet apart. 2. The area between the walk and fence shall be planted and per- manently maintained. 3. The "front" side of the fence shall face the street, and the fence shall be permanently maintained. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The strict application would limit the actual rear yard area to less than 1,000 square feet and would not be adequate to build a swimming pool and provide the required 5 foot wall for protection. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The lot is designed so that three (3) sides of parcel face streets, with a portion of the south side being the required rear yard. In addition, the rear yard area is below the street level and the variance is needed for privacy and safety. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The fence will set back 44 feet from the intersecting streets and will not be adjacent to any driveways. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. -6- PUBLIC HEARING - Variance 394 "G" Street - Request for reduction of front setback from 20' to 15' - Jeanne Campbell The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard setback from 20' to 15' for the purpose of constructing an apartment building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zonings. The lot is situated on the south side of G Street measuring 150' x 63' with a single-family residence exist- ing on the site. He explained that the setback along the street is 20' and the applicant is proposing to construct an apartment complex with the parking along the side and rear of the lot, and have a land- scaped area. The staff has conducted a setback study for the central part of the City. In this study, a 20' setback was proposed, but in the new zoning ordinance meetings, the Commission and staff agreed that a 15' setback on streets such as this would be appropriate. For this reason, the staff recommends approval of this request. The single- family residences will be removed and replaced with these new buildings. Mr. Warren added that G Street is not expected to be widened in the future. He then discussed the applicant's proposed parking plan and the conditions the staff recommends for approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Jeanne Campbell, ~e applicant, stated she accepts all of the con- ditions, and explained the reason for the setback requests was that they want to increase the apartment units to 600 square feet in floor area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that the application was in keeping with what they expect will eventually take place on G Street. MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Approval of variance request subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. A landscape and irrigation plan for the front setback and parkway area shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. (Street trees may be required.) 2. Any signs placed within the front setback area will require Plan- ning Department approval. 3. utility service from the street shall be underground. 4. It is understood that some of the frontage gained by the reduction in setback will be used to increase the dimensions of the rear parking lot as stated in the application. -7- Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regilations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A 15 foot setback is being contemplated in the City's proposed zoning ordinance for multiple family use, a required 20 foot setback would represent an unnecessary hardship on this lot, as a 13 foot parkway is presently being maintained as well. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. There is an existing 15 foot setback existing on the north side of G Street in the area. The 20 foot setback was established for single family houses, but the area is zoned R-3 and new construction in recent years has been for multiple family units on G Street. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The reduced setback will not be detrimental to the area since 15 foot setbacks exist in the area and the proposed setback will be the same as that contemplated for much of the City in multiple family zones. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - 236 Third Avenue - Request for use of existing building for church purposes - ~frst United Pentecostal Church of Chula Vista The application was read in which permission was asked to use an existing building for church purposes for a period of one year. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the existing building. The building is in the downtown Third Avenue area, the character of which is changing and needs everything anyone can do to bolster this area. The staff is recommending denial of this request since certain findings have to be met in granting a conditional use permit.He added that the church is of such a nature that it does -8- not add to the economic stability of these areas. It is not a neces- sary service for the community when located in areas such as the one proposed. This church is presently located at 629 H Street; they were granted a temporary use permit by the Commission in November 1963 and have since been granted extensions in order to give them time to find a permanent location. Mr. Warren then discussed the conflict this would have with the General Plan if located in this central business district. For the reasons above, the staff recommends denial. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Milton Morris, representing the church, stated their present lo- cation has been sold and they have to vacate the premises by the first of the month. They are a small group and feel this new location can work out for their use. The owner told them they could lease this place for as long as they want to and then he will tear the place down. They have placed a $100 deposit on it for a month's rent, and feel the use would not be a detriment to the area. They feel they have the proper parking facilities here and since it is within the parking district, they feel their application should be approved. No one will be living in the house - it will be used solely for church services. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that he knows of the problem of these small churches to find a place to meet until such time as they are financially able to build their own property; however, the introduction of this use on Third Avenue would have a downgrading effect on the district. In time, this district will improve economically and the Commission should give it all the help they can. He added that they should find a place somewhere south of It Street along Third Avenue; this would not be opposed by the Commission. Mr. Adams declared the Commission should not do anything to stop someone from tearing down an old building on Third Avenue. Chairman Stewart agreed adding that in this particular case there seems to have been no effort on the applicant's part to make plans for de- veloping their own church. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Request for church use be denied based on the follow- ing reasons: 1. The proposed use at this particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service for the neighborhood or the com- munity. The zoning ordinance provides and encourages the location of church facilities in the residential areas. The downtown area is designed to accommodate commercial retail uses. -9- 2. The proposed use will not comply with the regulations in the Code since the Planning Commission has given the applicant adequate time in the past to find a permanent location and no progress has been made. 3. The use is in direct conflict with the General Plan and proposed new zoning ordinance which states the purpose of the central business district is, "To stabilize, improve, and protect the commercial characteristics of the central business area." The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. SUBDIVISION - Tentative Map of Palomar Plaza (Revised) Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map stating that it involves 9 acres lying between East Palomar Street and Oneida Street just west of the proposed 805 Freeway. The map includes 10 single- family lots and 1 commercial lot containing approximately 5½ acres. The map was first considered by the Commission in 1961 and the developer has deleted part of these lots - that area east of the extension of Nacion Avenue; however, the subdivider will develop the northerly ex- tension of Nacion Avenue from Palomar Street to the northerly boundary of the subdivision. Of concern is the development of lot 10 which the Engineering Division maintains cannot be sewered and which they feel should be deleted and combined with lot 9. The Planning staff, how- ever, is not in agreement with this since sewer will be constructed at some future time within Nacion Avenue and the lot could then be de- veloped. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval. Assistant City Engineer Gesley discussed the question of sewering lot 10. He explained how this lot could possibly be sewered - by taking the sewer along the southerly line of the lots which they would not recommend. They feel that the subdivider should not create a lot which cannot be sewered. Mr. Gesley spoke of the disadvantages of permitting a private sewerage disposal system. Director Warren indicated the City would not permit the construction of a cesspool unless they were assured it would work. He asked about not developing the lot until such time as it could be sewered. Mr. Gesley stated they would have no objection to this. Mr. Sol Levy, representing the developer, stated that if lot 10 cannot be sewered, then they cannot build upon it. They cannot see any logic in creating a situation where they would need to get a lot split in the future. As far as the creation of the small lot to the west is concerned, they see no problem in deeding this small parcel to the adjacent owners - the Starlite Center. He added he can see no problem with the other conditions. Member Rice asked about their plans for the area to the east. -10- Mr. Levy declared it was left out of the map for two reasons: the Freeway doesn't know, at this point, where tSeir drainage will be taken; and, at the present time, there is the problem of sewering that piece, however, in the future, with development to the south taking place, sewer will be available to this parcel and then they will want to go ahead with a similar plan which they submitted years ago. He added that they will have to provide a slope to build Nacion as shown, and the excess dirt will be put onto this area to fill it up. This slope will not extend far enough to get into the ditch, so there should be no added problem with the drainage here. Director Warren indicated that as long as there is a stipulation that he cannot build on lot 10 until it is sewered, the staff would agree to the map. Mr. Levy stated that as he understands it, they have to show that they can provide lot 10 with sanitation facilities or they will not be able to get a building permit for it. Chairman Stewart commented that the Commission has no objection to the lot having a septic tank. MSUC (Rice-York) Tentative map be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed alignment of Nolan Avenue would create a small illegal lot adjacent to the westerly and northerly subdivision boundaries. The subdivider shall affect a transfer of ownership so as to in- corporate the parcel into the adjacent legal parcel reserving any slope easements as may be necessary. 2. The subdivider shall provide permanent slope rights as necessary for the protection of street improvements. 3. That a building permit for lot 10 shall not be issued until such time as sewer is available to that lot or until a private sewage disposal system for this lot is approved by the City. 4. The location of access points to lot 1 are not acknowledged at this time, but will be the subject of staff consideration in re- viewing the plans for the development of this lot. 5. The slope planting along Nacion Avenue and East Palomar Street shall require a specific planting plan subject to staff approval. -11- Request for approval of "Move-In" - Fourplex - 216 Glover Avenue Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed move-in. He stated that this will be a two-story fourplex apartment building which they are requesting be moved to 216 Glover Avenue. The location is bounded by a 15' alley on the north side and similar apartment units on the west and south sides. The staff recommends that the Commission forward the findings to the City Council that the building is architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Forward to the City Council the findings of the Com- mission that the building is architecturally compatible with the sur- rounding area in accordance with standards delineated in Section 8.21 of the City Code. PUBLIC IIEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of an Unclassified Use Section Director of Planning Warren explained that this ordinance was adopted by the City Council as an emergency ordinance in December 1967 which is effective for a period of 90 days. The staff is now recommending that this amendment be made permanent. In this draft, the staff has made the changes which the Commission recommended in their earlier discussions. Member Adams questioned item 1 (airports and heliports - private) and item 8a (airports and heliports - private) - as undesirable in the "R" zones - and asked how the Commission would be able to distinguish between these two. Director Warren felt that item 1 could be deleted and just let it go under item 8a. The Commission concurred and agreed to the text of the remainder of the proposed amendment. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recom- RESOLUTION NO. 497 mending to the City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Creating an "Unclassified Use" Section -12- Action on proposed amendment to Section 33.85 of the Zoning Ordinance "Failure to Utilize a Conditional Use Permit or Variance and Extension of Time" Director of Planning Warren explained that the staff did not have the opportunity to review this draft as prepared by the City Attorney. One exception the staff has is in the wording of paragraph (b) refer- ring to"the evidence of change of position would include completion of construction or any expenditures of money..." Mr. Warren ques- tioned how one would verify an expenditure of money. The City At- torney has stated that this could be done by producing invoices and the like. Member York commented that in the next paragraph (c) the wording "after commencement of construction" could be deleted. This would take care of the matter. The Commission discussed this change. Member Rice suggested this item be continued and that the staff and City Attorney get together and come up with a proposed amendment suitable to both. Member Adams suggested that the first paragraph be changed so that an extension would be granted for a one-year period. Chairman Stewart disagreed, stating that flexibility for longer extensions would be desirable. Member York discussed paragraph (c) noting that it does not provide for any extenuating circumstances, such as strikes, etc. He felt a clause, such as "and not beyond the control of the applicant" should be inserted. Deferment of Public Improvements - Vista Hill Hospital A letter was read from Mr. N. R. Richardson, Administrator of the Hospital requesting a deferral of public improvements on North Second Avenue concurrent with their expansion of the north nursing station and patients lounge. Director of Warren noted that there were no other street improvements there and would recommend granting the request. Assistant City Engineer Gesley stated that they have examined the prem- ises and feel there is no need to put the improvements in at this time. The Division of Engineering would recommend the deferral subject to the posting of a bond to guarantee this installation at some future time. Captain Richardson, Administrator of the Hospital, stated he has no objection to this condition. -13- MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Approval of the deferral of public improvements at 3 North Second Avenue subject to the posting of a bond, or a lien upon the property. This deferral shall remain in effect until such time as the City issues a written notice to install the deferred improvements, which installation shall commence within 30 days after receipt of such notice. Letter from the San Diego County Planning Commission The Director discussed the letter received from the San Diego County Planning Commission in regard to the areas along Interstate 5. They are seeking cooperation from the different cities involved along this route to do everything in their power to beautify the route especially in regard to signs, billboards, etc. Mr. Warren declared that he did discuss this with Dan Cherrier of the County and the request is reasonable and timely. The Commission discussed the contents of the letter and agreed that they should cooperate in this regard. They felt they should continue to maintain this goodwill and coopera- tion between these two jurisdictions. MSUC (Hyde-York) A copy of this letter be forwarded to the City Council for their information and indicating the Commission's wholehearted support of this request. C-N Zones Member Rice asked about the expiration date of the letter sent to the neighborhood-commercial centers asking them to comply with the require- ments of the zone. Director of Planning Warren felt the deadline was April, but said that he would look this up and give the Commission a report at their next workshop meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned. The Commission will meet at 7 p.m. Monday, February 26, in the Council Chamber for a workshop meet- ing. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Rgspect fully submitted, 'Jennie M. Fulasz, Secretary