HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/10/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 20, 1969
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava
Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Stewart, Rice, Adams, Chandler,
Putnam and Macevicz. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate
Planners Manganelli and Lee, Junior Planners Lettieri and Reid, Zoning Enforce-
ment Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Adams requested that a correction be made to his comment in discussion
of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on the modification of lot size in
R-1 zone wherein he made reference to restrictions in the R-l-5 provisions,
as shown on page ll of the minutes.
Member Rice asked for a correction on page 2 concerning his comment relating to
establishing homes for retarded children in Unclassified Uses.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of October 6 be referred back to the
Secretary for correction prior to approval.
Request for approval of sign in C-N zone - 5419 Otay Lakes Road - Apache Barber
Shop
With reference to this sign Director of Planning Warren advised that the location
and type seem to conform to that presented on elevations at the time the
architecture of the shopping center was approved, but since this is the initial
sign and will establish the character of signs for this center, the staff is
asking for the opinion of the Planning Commission.
The Commissioners who viewed this sign on a field trip reported they were not
favorably impressed with its appearance.
Member Rice suggested that the frame of the sign should be painted to blend
with the color of the building, and Members Adams and Putnam expressed the
opinion that a longer and narrower sign would fit the location better.
Director of Planning Warren suggested that if this matter could be continued
to the next meeting the staff would contact the owner of the center and operator
of the barber shop and attempt to come up with a design more acceptable.
MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Consideration of the approval of sign for the Apache
Barber Shop be continued to the meeting of October 27.
-2- 10/20/69
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued}- Variance - 430 Broadway - Reduction of rear yard
from 15' to 0 - Leo Wells
Director of Planning Warren pointed out on a plat the proposed location of a
building on the property line abutting the parcel on which rezoning to C-T was
approved by the City Council on October 14, 1969; this ordinance becomes effective
on November 14th. No plans for the development of the rear parcel of land have
been submitted and the staff can find no justification for granting the variance;
it is also the opinion of the staff that the variance is no longer necessary.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No
one wishing to speak, either for or against the application, the public hearing
was declared closed.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Application for variance for the reduction of rear yard
at 430 Broadway from 15 feet to zero be denied since rezoning action approved
by City Council makes the variance no longer necessary.
PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Establishing Home for Retarded
Children in Unclassified Uses~ subject to Conditional Use
Permit, with certain guidelines
Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the City Council previously adopted
an emergency ordinance which removed nursing homes as an accessory use from the
R-3 zone and included such homes wi thin the Unclassified Uses. The Commission
previously considered this matter and it was readvertised for this meeting due
to an error in advertising for the previous meeting. Mr. Warren enumerated
three guidelines proposed to be included in the amendment to be followed when
determining the suitability of any particular location for nursing homes.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert Branshaw, 440 Flower Street, expressed his view that this use should
not be in a residential area where homes are closely spaced as in Chula Vista.
He reiterated that homes for mentally retarded children do cause problems and
he felt they should be in a building away from the residential area.
Mr. John Brink, 3595 Desert Inn Way, advised that he is in the Administrative
Director for the Regional Center for Mentally Retarded in San Diego and Imperial
Counties. He pointed out there are a considerable number of retarded children
and the problem of the Center is to find proper residence and people to care for
these children that are more than the families can handle at home. The Center
has an obligation to those children and to assist the parents, and if a restriction
is made against having such homes in a residential area it eliminates the placement
of children in foster homes. He advised there is presently a shortage of such
homes and they are soliciting to find homes that will take care of these children;
those children who are unruly and would cause disturbances are placed in mental
hospitals, and the children placed in foster homes are merely ones who are more
than their own family can take care of. The purpose of the Regional Center is
to get these children out of the hospital, get them into the community, get the
community involved, and if possible keep them near their parents. But with
many restrictions placed on the location of these homes, the program of the
Center will be defeated.
-3- 10/20/69
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that it has not been the desire of the
Council or the Planning Commission to eliminate these homes but merely to
place them where they will not create a problem to other residents. The
City has no desire to hinder the fine work the Regional Center is doing.
Mrs. Raymond Smith, 454 Flower Street, stated that she has a very sick husband
and the crying of the children is very annoying, since he has no place to go
except his back yard; the crying of retarded children is unique or different
from an ordinary child.
Member Putnam pointed out that it should be made clear that the intent of
this is not to barr such foster homes from any zone, but it places them in a
category where each case will be considered on its own merits under the
conditional use permit structure; it potentially broadens the locations into
which they can go.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Recommend to City Council adoption of permanent ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. 591 Establishing Homes for Retarded Children in Unclassified
Uses, subject to Conditional Use Permit, and with the
following guidelines:
1. The size of the parcel to be used shall provide adequate light and air in
proportion to the number of residents.
2. The location of windows and open play areas shall be approved by the
Planning Commission.
3. Spacing between these facilities shall be such that the character of the
neighborhood is not affected by the grouping of these homes.
PUBLIC HEARING - Propert~ north of Telegraph Can~on Road between Hilltop Drive
and L Street - Ota~ Land Company
a. Rezonin9 from R-1 and R-3-T and C-N
b. Planned Unit Development for development of condominium
or townhouse units
Director of Planning Warren pointed out on a plot plan the area for which R-3-T
rezoning is requested, as well as that designated for C-N, and a tier of lots
at the northerly boundary of this plot which will remain in R-1 zone and be
developed with single family dwellings. He also pointed out the full interchange
of Freeway 805 and Telegraph Canyon. He commented on the topographical features
of this area, which is in a canyon, and the natural drainage channel along
Telegraph Canyon Road.
Associate Planner Manganelli showed the plan of the proposed development which
would include 138 two-story townhouses and 180 two-bedroom rental units. The
plan provides for streets, walkways, 580 off-street parking stalls with 45 guest
spaces provided along the streets. Mr. Manganelli gave a breakdown of the area
and the density proposed, including both the R-1 and R-3; the density of the
entire project including R-1 is 8 units per gross acre, the density for the R-3
only is 10.9 units per gross acre. The dimension of the drainage channel has
-4- 10/20/69
been set at 80 feet in width, although this could possibly be engineered to
require less width.
Mr. Manganelli also exhibited tentative sketches of the multiple family units
and a rendering of the typical single family homes to be constructed.
The Planning Department recommends that this plan be approved in concept only
since this plan does not represent a finished, complete plan; and there are some
problems still to be resolved.
It was further pointed out that Nacion Avenue would be constructed through the
project connecting the area above the canyon with Telegraph Canyon Road; Melrose
Avenue and Monserate would extend into the project but would end in their
present form.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Carmen Pasquale, representing Gersten Construction Company, remarked that
he concurs with the recommendations made by the Planning staff. He reminded the
Commission that his company has twice previously sought rezoning of the 47 acres
and at each hearing they had been asked why a P.U.D. was not presented; they are
now asking for concept approval of the P.U.D. submitted, and they will then
prepare the necessary detailed plans, filling the requirements of the ordinance
and return them for formal approval.
Their main concern at this meeting is for a zone change of approximately 29.1
acres from R-1 to R-3 and of 7.3 acres from R-1 to C-N, the remaining 10 acres
is proposed for development of 42 single family dwelling units on the north
boundary of the property, which will remain in R-1 zone.
It is their contention that the development of their land will have no detri-
mental effect on schools, traffic circulation, or relationship to adjacent
properties, and that this development will truly enhance the neighborhood and
have no detrimental effect to the residents of the area.
Mr. Gersten called the attention of the Planning Commission to the benefits of
developing with a Planned Unit Development: (1) Large percentage of open
land area; (2) mixture of housing types; (3) lower road maintenance cost because
many of the units are served by private streets and walkways; (4) a P.U.D. is a
well-planned and coordinated development which stands on its own. This plan will
enhance the value of the surrounding property and improve the 47 barren acres
that now exist.
Mr. Frank Meyer, 23 E1 Capitan Drive, spoke in protest of granting the P.U.D.
or the change of zone to R-3-T, appearing as an individual property owner, on
behalf of property owners adjacent and contiguous to the site and representing
the Sea View Property Owners Association. He pointed out that previous requests
for rezoning of this property from R-1 were denied for the reasons that "the
Commission believed the R-1 zoning was appropriate, there had been no demonstra-
tion for the need of high-density residential use in the area and such granting
would produce development incompatible with the single family use in the area."
-5- 10/20/69
Mr. Meyer quoted from a report made by Williams & Mocine that "multiple housing
units should be promoted in an orderly expansion in appropriate areas;" also
"it is recommended that the character and value of existing desirable neighborhoods
be maintained, and that incompatible uses of land should be prevented from
intruding upon residential neighborhoods.'~ Previously the Commission has
stated that the granting of an application beyond R-1 would permit development
incompatible with the adjacent single-family use. Mr. Meyer stated that the
average density in the area for R-1 is about 4.5 dwellings per acre; the
present application for the 30 acres is well over l0 dwellings per acre; this
is an increase of probably 240%. There have been no significant changes in
the area to warrant any change of zone.
Mr. Meyer spoke further against the need for any additional shopping facilities
in the area, and the C-N zone, therefore, cannot be justified.
Mr. Meyer contended that the application for the P.U.D. does not meet the
requirements for such a plan as set forth in Section 33.602. He asked that these
applications be denied.
Mr. Troy Kimbrough, 337 Inkopah, President of Sea View Property Owners Associa-
tion, advised that they had decided it would be best to delegate one person to
express their views and that had been done by Mr. Meyer.
Mr. Bill Mahin, 797 Monserate Ave., expressed concern as to whether the 10.4
acres remaining in the R-1 zone will be developed concurrently with the R-3
development. He also concurred with Mr. Meyer that there is no evidence of a
need for the R-3 type of development, or any need to change the area from R-1.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was declared closed.
Member Macevicz asked if the Gersten Company plans to start construction in the
R-1 area at the same time they do in the multiple family units.
Mr. Pasquale confirmed that they do; further that these will be nice single
family homes--as nice as any in the area; and these are considered a part of
the P.U.D. package.
Member Putnam commented that in considering a P.U.D. there is emphasis on open
space and this seems to be somewhat deficient in this plan.
Chairman Hyde raised a question concerning the drainage channel since there had
been no comment on how it would be finished. City Attorney Lindberg advised that
the Subdivision Ordinance and Drainage Ordinance set the standards for drainage
facilities and any modification of natural drainage would require adherance to
those standards.
Assistant Engineer Gesley affirmed that the drainage channel would be lined
with concrete or gunite and that asphalt lining would not be acceptable. Mr. Warren
commented that there may be alternatives to consider.
Chairman Hyde, speaking with reference to the proposed rezoning for 8 acres to
C-N, point out that a staff study has been initiated for the major interchanges
of Freeway 805, the area around them, and particularly the need for commercial
development. This area is contiguous with 805 Interchange at Telegraph Canyon
..... 6- ~- 10/20/69
Road and in view of the lack of demonstrated need for additional commercial
zoning at this time, Mr. Hyde felt that approval of the C-N portion of this
request would be premature.
Member Stewart commented that he would like to spend some additional time in
studying some of the points raised during this testimony before taking action
on this request, and would like to see it postponed for, at least, one other
meeting. Regarding the question of commercial zoning area, Mr. Stewart felt
there is no demand for it now, nor is there a demand for all of the commer-
cial zoning that has been made surrounding this interchange, but it must be
kept in mind that this was predicated on future needs. If the commercial zoning
is denied and the property developed R-l, and there is a need for commercial
property some time in the future, it is too late then. Rezoning now is just
putting ti~is property into reserve in case it is needed. If the owners find
in the future that there is no demand for it, they are not going to leave it
lie vacant perpetually; they are going to ask for a change in zoning back to
some use for which there is a demand. While it was stated some time back that
there is adequate commercial zoning in the area, based on the projected future
growth this plot would not be excessive commercial zoning.
Members Adams and Putnam expressed agreement with the possibility of that area
being developed to a point where there will be a need for commercial develop-
ment.
Chairman Hyde speculated that the owners of the property would not rush in
and start building R-1 units until they see the way the area develops arid
postponement of the rezoning at this time would in no way effect their interest.
Getting back to the Planned Unit Development, Member Adams expressed himself
as being favorably disposed as to what is proposed; it represents a great deal
of effort and considerable concession on the part of the developers. Where they
originally proposed some 590 units, now they have brought the density down to
390 with the single family residences, and they have also agreed to put the
single family residences up along the top ridge, which helps to make the
development acceptable.
Member Chandler remarked that while they have done an excellent job of cutting
down, it is not far enough; straight R-1 would run about 168 units and they are
still up about 360, so there are roughly 190 or so more units, which, he felt,
is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Member Putnam stated he would tend to agree, partly on the basis of the lack of
open space, but as far as that property being developed, this is the only way
it is going to be developed.
Member Rice commented that the development as presented here is about the most
practical plan seen so far for that piece of peoperty. He felt it could be
done very attractively; it is hard some times for people to realize what can
be done until they see the end result. He is more and more convinced that R-3
can have a place with R-1 in any locale if it is done properly, with the right
standards. He expressed the opinion that this is an ideal location for a
development of this type, considering the street locations and topography.
-7- 10/20/69
Member Stewart commented that at the time the General Plan was adopted, it was
common practice to designate large areas R-l, R-2 or R-3. This concept during
the past ten years has disappeared from usage in many of the well-developed
areas. He spoke of the Fremont area and the Irvine Ranch area. The concept
accepted now is to establish a balanced mix so that you have a little bit of
higher density mixed in with R-l, and there is nothing wrong with this. Planners
originally tended to zone whole sections R-3 which tends to ghettoize an area.
It is a better standard of people if there is a mix. Canyon type areas lend
themselves to R-3 or multiple family development and it is not detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhoods. For that reason Member Stewart felt this plan is a
good one and will be a credit to the community.
MSC (Adams-Rice) Recommend to the City Council change of zone from R-1 to
RESOLUTION NO. 595 R-3-T for 30~ acres located north of Telegraph Canyon Road
between Hilltop Drive and L Street, to become effective at
the time the Planned Unit Development is approved
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. Subject property, as a result of grading that would be necessary to develop
this property, would have a considerable topographical separation to that of
the single family dwelling units to the north. This segment of Telegraph Canyon,
because of its topographical features, is isolated from the adjacent single-
family development and a variety of land use could take place within it with
little effect on adjacent single-family use.
2. The individually owned single family dwellings adjacent to the northerly
boundary of this rezoned acreage would act as a buffer between the existing
single family dwellings to the north and the proposed development.
3. The relationship of this property to major streets in the area and the
proposed interchange with Interstate 805 will prevent creation of traffic
problems with adjacent areas.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, Rice, Stewart, Putnam, Hyde, Macevicz
NOES: Member Chandler
ABSENT: None
Concerning the proposed zone change for the 7.3 acres to C-N, Member Rice made
the additional comment that this area is a logical extension of the present
neighborhood shopping center there, and as the area develops a need will be
apparent on this ~de of the freeway. He felt it would make good sense to put
this in reserve now and as the economic needs require, it will be developed
appropriately.
MSC (Stewart-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the change of zone for 7.3
RESOLUTION NO. 596 acres north of Telegraph Canyon Road east of right-of-way
for Nacion Avenue
Findings are as follows:
1. Subject commercial zoning will be needed to serve the adjacent residential
neighborhood and also the freeway traffic. C-N zoning will permit such
-8- 10/20/69
services and will insure development compatible with residential use.
2. Finished grading on the property will place this commercial site at an
elevation considerably below the adjacent residential use, and with proper
architectural site development control, compatibility with adjacent residential
use would be promoted.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Stewart, Rice, Adams, Putnam, Macevicz
NOES: Members Chandler, Hyde
ABSENT: None
Director of Planning Warren reminded the Commission that some action is required
on the P.U.D. since it was a public hearing. It was his recommendation that
action be continued until such time as the City Council takes action on the
R-3-T zoning and revisions to the P.U.D. can be filed, and if it is your desire
this can be readvertised for hearing.
MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Continue action on the Planned Unit Development until the
City Council has taken action on the R-3-T zoning and readvertise this matter
for public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - Property south of Sweetwater Road between Bonita Verde Sub-
division and Rohr Park - H & N Construction Co.
a. Rezonin~ from R-E to R-3-T
b. Planned Unit Development for development of condominium or
townhouse units
Director of Planning Warren pointed out the 22 acres of vacant property lying on
the south side of Sweetwater Road, abutting the Chula Vista golf course, and
between the Bonita Verde. Subdivision and Chula Vista Rohr Park. This property
is in the City, as is that adjacent to it except for the property north of
Sweetwater Road. The property is now zoned R-E (20,000 sq. ft. lots), as is that
developed to the west. The property in the County is in a l-acre zone and is
generally developed in that density. This property is in the Flood Plain,
considerably lower than Sweetwater Road.
Mr. Warren pointed out that development in the R-3-T zone, as requested, requires
a Planned Unit Development. He then discussed plans for the development which
would include 156 townhouse units, proposed for individual sale. These would be
one- and two-story units with a single car garage for each unit and a setback
from the street to provide tandem parking space in the driveway and additional
parking bays to accommodate 150 parking spaces. This proposal would represent
a density of one unit per 6,185 sq. ft. of land area or about 7 units per acre.
It includes a private 25 foot wide road system to provide circulation within the
project with no parking on the road. It also provides common open space,
including a recreation center.
-9- 10/20/69
Mr. Warren enumerated some of the points the Commission will want to consider in
connection with the rezoning initially and subsequently the Planned Unit Develop-
ment, which include the existing zoning and how it relates to adjacent zoning
and land use. The R-3-T would permit a higher density than what is proposed;
there is some question as to whether that zoning should have been requested--
quite possibly R-1 zoning should have been requested with a Planned Unit
Development. The present General Plan places this area in open space category.
It has been the Commission's recommendation that this be purchased or preserved
in one way or another as common open space. This was presented to the City
Council in the last year, with Planning Commission recommendation and that of
the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Council declined to purchase it.
Even with this application pending, it would still be tile recommendation of the
staff that the Council reconsider purchasing the land, however, in the event
the Council would again decline , the Commission should give consideration to
what would be an appropriate land use.
Mr. Warren recalled the work of a committee of Sweetwater Valley residents in
presenting a prezoning plan. The status of that plan at present is that it has
not been adopted by the Council but has been recommended by the Commission. At
that time certain changes were proposed from what existed in the City and
R-l-15 zoning was recommended for this property.
Mr. Warren remarked that the staff has had difficulty in reconciling this request
with what the Sweetwater Valley Committee and the Planning Commission have
recommended; however, there is a demand for variety of housing types and if
there is to be such variety the Valley floor would be the place for it, inasmuch
as there is permanent open space around it in the form of the golf course and
park.
The staff has recommended that a Planned Unit Development be based on R-l-lO
zoning with 25% bonus, which would give them a total of 121 units instead of
156 as proposed; it is felt this density would remain compatible with the
single-family use.
Associate Planner Lee passed around to the Commission some photos and perspec-
tives of the proposed development. He also presented a revised plan which the
applicants had brought in on this date, and which represented a better street
plan for circulation of traffic through the project and better utilization of
the open space.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Paul Miller, Realtor, 350 E Street, representing the Charles Provence
property, contended that the town house and condominium development with the
proper use of green areas are ideally located near a golf course. He expressed
the opinion that this development would not downgrade the homes on the west.
He pointed out that at Rancho Bernardo there is a mixture of the townhouse,
condominium and fine homes; it is found in new developments that these things
complement one another.
Mr. Robert G. Stewart, representing H & N Construction Company, the applicant,
requested that the zone change application be considered with the Planned Unit
Development application to afford continuity to the presentation. He asserted
that the City of Chula Vista recognizes the need and desirability to provide
quality residential programs of varying densities to satisfy the diverse
requirements of the citizens of the city. In this sector of Chula Vista it is
-10- 10/20/69
felt the need of the citizens for a townhouse environment can best be achieved
on the subject property. He pointed out that the subject property is conveni-
ently located with respect to the Rohr Park, Municipal Golf Course, Sweetwater
Road as to access, and convenient shopping at Willow and Bonita Road. It is the
applicant's opinion that the welfare of the community will not be adversely
affected by this proposal. The proposal is residential in character which is
compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Physical conditions relative
to horizontal and vertical separations are additional factors which, they believe,
protect the general welfare of the community.
Concerning good zoning practice it is the applicant's opinion that this request
is not an intrusion or spot zoning but is compatible and complementary to surround-
ing existing and proposed uses.
Mr. Stewart pointed out on an exhibit that at a distance of approximately 248
feet from existing residences north of Sweetwater Road the proposed development
would be approximately 60 feet below these existing residences.
With respect to conformity with the General Plan of Chula Vista, Mr. Stewart
pointed out that the General Plan as depicted in 1964 depicted this property
as a portion of a golf course or public open space. The proposed zone and related
Planned Unit Development application envisions a residential use for the property.
The adjacent uses to the golf course, depicted on the General Plan, are residential
and of varying degrees of density. For those reasons the applicants feel that
substantial conformance to the General Plan, as adopted can be demonstrated.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that a study of this area designates the subject property
as residential but of a lower density than proposed by the applicant; this
study is being considered by the Council but has not yet been adopted.
Co~nenting on the recommendations of the Department of Planning, Mr. Stewart
recalled that the Director of Planning has reported that the site is an ideal
location for a well-designed planned unit development because of its proximity
to the Municipal Golf Course and Rohr Park, but suggests that a somewhat lesser
density than proposed would be more appropriate. Concerning this point, the
applicant feels the density they are proposing versus that suggested by the
department will, in all probability, result in approximately the same percentage
of the subject property being covered by structures; they have introduced two-
story as well as one-story units for variety and view potential. A lesser total
number of units would probably result in more one-story units to maintain
the proper balance between the structures and the open space as to the entire
site. Because of the adjacency of the golf course and Rohr Park, it is the
applicant's opinion that the open character of these uses translates into and
complements the subject property and makes an absolute computation of density
in this instance somewhat unrealistic. If the subject property was bounded on
all sides by other uses a lesser density would be more appropriate.
Concerning the Planned Unit Development application, Mr. Stewart felt that
Director Warren had adequately presented the broad concept of the proposal and
has pointed out certain areas that require further deliberation by this
Commission and the Department of Planning. These areas include the matter
of designating certain areas within the project for enclosed storage facilities
to accommodate boats and trailers. It is the intent of the applicant to
prohibit such storage within the compound by covenant and to require that such
items be stored off site as to this project.
-11- 10/20/69
Mr. Stewart pointed out that the reduction or elimination of two-story units
along the westerly property line and relocation of the road and the setback
to the units would afford a solution as to an adequate buffer with relation
to the existing R-1 property to the west.
Mr. Stewart concluded that the applicants would be agreeable to a continuation
of the Planned Unit Development to enable the Planning staff and the applicant's
engineers and architects to work out some detailed solutions.
Director of Planning Warren reported that petitions in protest of this development
had been received bearing the signatures of lO1 property owners, and also a
separate letter signed by 12 to 15 students in the area opposing this, based on
the following reasons:
1. The applications are not considered in the best interest of the community in
general, and specifically, not in the best interests of the immediate area.
2. They would not be consistent with the existing character of the Bonita Valley,
which the residents have grown to love, and for which non-residents have expressed
admiration and respect.
3. It places a high-density development in a low-density community on Sweetwater
Road, a road which is least capable of accommodating the additional traffic in
a safe, orderly manner.
4. The need for additional high-density housing can be met in other undeveloped
areas, some only five to ten minutes distant, on roads designed and built to
handle the attendant volume of traffic.
5. The existing zone restriction (20,000 sq. ft.) provides much of the
incentive for most of the owners who purchased property adjacent to the 22
acres under consideration. To change the existing zone would, in fact, be
denying these property owners the contentment, peace of mind and the financial
security they planned for and deserve.
The letter signed by nearby students points out they feel the character of
this development, the impact on Sweetwater Road, would spoil this area and
prevent the equestrian activities which take place, and so on.
The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning and development
plan: Mrs. William A. Spies, resident of Bonita and Board Member of Sweetwater
Civic Assn.; Jack Macauley, 3580 Evergreen Road; Dean Buck, 3555 Desert Inn Way;
Frank Daniels, 3555 Yerba Lane; John Brink, 3595 Desert Inn Way; Ralph Wagner,
3601 Bonita Verde Drive; Mrs. Richard Hagen, 4347 Grace Road; Dr. Carlos von
Pohle, 3335 Evergreen Road; Dale Lawson, Orchard Hill; Richard Stevens, 4379 Grace
Road; Richard Hagen, 4347 Grace Road; Mrs. Carlos von Pohle, 3335 Evergreen Road;
J. O. ~rixey, 3609 Bonita Verde Drive.
Their points of opposition included the following: (1) Completely out of character
with existing contiguous development, and approval of this request could set
precedent for further high density throughout the Valley. (2) When City of
Chula Vista instructed Planning staff to undertake a prezoning plan for the
entire Valley and a committee of Valley residents were appointed to assist with
this study, they were told that Chula Vista was sympathetic with the goals of
the residents of the Valley, and were attempting to preserve community identity
and come up with reasonable guidelines that would permit development; that the
-12- 10/20/69
benefits of a prezoning plan would extend not only to the residents but also to
a developer who might be planning use in the Valley; any prezoning plan adopted
by the City of Chula Vista would take effect only when any segment of the
property involved were annexed to the City of Chula Vista. (3) This is the
first crucial test of the value of a prezoning plan and the Commission should
be guided by the recommendations of the Committee. (4) Density requested could
result in up to 21 people to the acre; area to the north has density of about
5 per acre. (5) Shortage of open space makes it advisable to keep this unchanged.
(6) In Bonita Verde 100% of residents signed petition of protest; entire hill
above the proposed development is against it. (7) Would result in increased
traffic on Sweetwater Road which is not able to handle it. (8) Development
would exclude view of sunrises from adjacent residents. (9) Apartments are
already established near commercial area, no need for further high density.
(10) Bonita is a low-density island and should be kept so. (11) Highest horse
population of any place in the United States; need for more horse trails.
(12) Five years ago buyers were told the area would be restricted to 1/2 acre
lots. (13) Condominiums will not uphold the standards established. (14) Half
acre lots provide for a more relaxed atmosphere, resulting in greater tranquility;
high density housing is tension producing. (15) Development would exclude the
view of the golf course from motorists and other residents. (16) Property could
be developed in same manner as Bonita Verde was developed. (17) People in the
Valley want to live in a rural atmosphere, why bring the city out into the
country when it is unnecessary. It was also mentioned that a group of citizens
might make some effort to work with Chula Vista with regard to obtaining that
area for park purposes.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Provence, 4370 Sweetwater Road, owners of the property,
both spoke in favor of the applicant's proposal, pointing out: that their property
was within the City before prezoning planning was started; they purchased the
property 21 years ago and have been supporting it that long, it should now
support itself and help support the city; they endeavored to sell it to the City
for a park but the Council declined to buy it because they already had too much
open area in that vicinity; the Bonita Verde Subdivision restricts their view as
much as this development would restrict the view of others; prominent builders
have told them it is too expensive to develop with single family dwellings due
to fill required in the flood plain, high building costs, etc. They urged the
Commission to make a decision based on sound planning and not on pressure.
As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was declared
closed.
Member Chandler pointed out that this property is Presently zoned for a density
of one to three units per acre and he could see no justification for changing to
a high density with a minimum of 9 or 10 units per acre. He felt the Commission
should abide by the prezoning plan for the Valley.
City Attorney Lindberg announced that the question of Member Chandler's interest
in this matter, based upon his residence in close proximity to the subject
property, has been raised prior to this hearing. Mr. Lindberg indicated he
thought Member Chandler should abstain, due to this personal interest.
-13- 10/20/69
Member Adams commented that he felt this proposal is very interesting and a
fine type of development, and something they have been wanting to see in this
area. He expressed favor in the Planning staff's recommendation for a
revision to 121 units, which would correspond to R-l-lO.
Member Putnam raised a question about the possibility of sending this back to
the City Council to see if there would be reconsideration concerning the
purchase of this land.
Member Stewart felt the Commission should again suggest to the City Council
the purchase of this land for open space and hold action on this application
in abeyance until there is some indication from the Council concerning this.
He further suggested postponing this until the next meeting.
Mr. Provence testified that he believed the membership of the City Council was
the same as it was when they rejected the proposal to purchase the land, and the
owners could not quarrel with their reason for their conclusion.
Member Rice commented that the expansion of the La Bonita Apartments to the
south is walling in the golf course on that side to where it is losing some of
its aesthetic appeal. He further remarked that he can see there are problems
with the development of the property in question but did not think changing it
to anything lower than R-l-15 could be justified. He felt the prezoning plan
approved by the Commission would make this more compatible with the surrounding
area. He remarked that the plan presented was a beautiful one and there is a
place for it somewhere in the Valley, but he did not think this is the place for
it, nor is the density proposed right for this area.
Chairman Hyde expressed agreement with Mr. Rice's view, and he commended the
applicant on the plan they have presented. It is the type of development they
want in the City of Chula Vista, but the requested zoning is not right for this
area; and the Commission should bear in mind that this is a test of the validity
of the prezoning plan and the integrity of the Planning Commission.
Member Adams remarked that if this isn't the place for this sort of development
in the Bonita area then in his opinion there is no place in Bonita for it.
MS (Macevicz-Stewart) Action on this application be postponed for two weeks to
give the Commission a chance to study what has been presented.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members Macevicz, Stewart, Adams
NOES: Members Hyde, Rice, Putnam
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINING: Member Chandler
MSC (Rice-Hyde) The request for rezoning be denied, for the following reasons:
I. The density of the proposed development is incompatible with the densities
of the developed areas in the vicinity of the subject property.
2. The zoning proposed neither conforms with the General Plan nor with the
Sweetwater Valley Zoning Study previously approved by the Planning Commission.
-14- 10/20/69
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Rice, Hyde, Stewart, Macevicz, Putnam
NOES: Member Adams
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINING: Member Chandler
Chairman Hyde announced that the request for rezoning was denied and advised
the applicants they have l0 days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council.
MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Request that the staff prepare and forward the Commission's
recommendation to the Council that they consider subject property for possible
acquisition as open space or park and recreational land to the City of Chula
Vista. Member Chandler abstained from voting on the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ - Both sides of H Street between Fourth Avenue and
Fig Avenue - R-2 and R-3 to C-O "P" - Commission initiated
Associate Planner Manganelli pointed out the property in question and recalled
that the City Council had approved rezoning to C-O for four lots at the corner
of Fig Avenue and H Street. He also advised that this hearing was advertised to
C-O with the "P" (Precise Plan) attached with the hope it would result in
consolidation of lots; however, the City Attorney advises that the "P" zone
cannot be used in that manner. The staff, therefore, recommends rezoning the
north side without any restrictions, and that approval on the south side to
C-O zone be withheld pending submission of parcel map or subdivision map that
would consolidate some or all of the parcels into some feasible property to
accommodate C-O development.
City Attorney Lindberg clarified that the recommendation was to approve the
rezoning to become effective upon filing of appropriate subdivision map or
maps, so that, in effect, it would be possible to consolidate portions of
that area on the south side of the street to incorporate sufficient amount of
property into single ownership that would provide adequate lot size for the
type of development.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Douglas Hoff, 425 Shasta Street, raised a question as to why the four houses
and duplex fronting on Shasta Street were not included in this rezoning.
Director of Planning Warren pointed out that in the absence of any demand
for that property, it was felt the rezoning should be limited to H Street
frontage; and the staff would recommend rezoning of the lots facing Shasta
only if they would be developed with the property fronting on H Street.
Member Stewart commented that the natural boundary between C-O and R-1 is the
rear of the lot, not the street, and since this property is on a dedicated
street, the owners could not be compelled to develop the property as one piece.
-15- 10/20/69
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Recommend to City Council the change of zone from
RESOLUTION NO. 597 R-2 to C-O for property on the north side of H Street,
extending 620 feet from Fourth Avenue
Findings of fact are as follows:
a. While the General Plan designates this area as very high density residential,
the revision to the Plan indicates professional and administrative uses for the
property.
b. The report entitled "Area Study - A Portion of H Street" approved in 1968
by the Planning Commission had projected office uses for the subject property.
c. The recent Planning Commission and City ouncil approval of C-O zoning at
the southeast corner of H Street and Fig Avenue was based on "a" and "b" above.
MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Recommend to City Council the change of zone from R-2
RESOLUTION NO. 598 and R-3 to C-O for property on the south side of H
Street, extending 367 feet westerly from Fourth Avenue,
subject to the condition that this zoning shall not
become effective until a subdivision or parcel map and/or
a precise plan consolidating all or some of the lots in
a manner which will assure sound commercial development
is approved by the City.
Findings of fact are as for the previous resolution.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Rezoning - 288 F Street - C-T to R-3-H - First Congregational
Church of Chula Vista
Variance - 288 F Street - Misc. requests for construction of
16 story Senior Citizen Housing Project - First Congregational
Church of Chula Vista
Director of Planning Warren advised that the rezoning and variance applications
refer to the same property and the applicant has requested postponement of the
hearing on the variance until October 27; the staff therefore recommends both
hearings be continued to that date.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Public hearings to consider rezoning and variance for property
at 288 F Street be continued to the meeting of October 27, 1969.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - NWC Palomar Street & Walnut Avenue - Erection of 65' high freestanding sign - Atlantic Richfield Co.
Associate Planner Lee indicated the location of the proposed sign and of signs
at nearby service stations which are approximately 65 feet high. A staff inspec-
tion of the existing signs revealed that the increased height does not increase
visibility of the sign at a readable distance; the staff therefore recommends denial.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-16- 10/20/69
Mr. William M. Ferguson, representing Atlantic Richfield Company, contended that
their company should be allowed the same sign height as their two competitors
in the vicinity; it was also his contention that the 65 foot height would make
the sign more readily visible from the freeway.
No one else wished to speak, and the public hearing was declared closed.
Member Putnam pointed out that they are trying to elevate the standards by lowering
the signs and if they continue to allow variances to permit what they have been
trying to change, nothing is accomplished.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Variance request for a freestanding sign 65 feet high be
denied for the following reasons:
a. The visibility of the sign is not affected by the height requirements, no
hardship exists.
b. Because of the ease of visibility of both the 45' and the 65' signs each
have substantially the same property rights.
c. The granting of this variance would serve only to increase the number of
unnecessarily high signs in the area; this would not only be detrimental to
adjacent property owners but also to the interests of the general public.
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - NWC Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest -
Construction of service station - At].an.tic Richfield Company
Associate Planner Lee pointed out the proposed location for the service station
and the fact that it will be the third station on the east side of the Freeway
at the interchange; there are also two stations on the west side. He reviewed
conditions relative to signs which the staff felt should be adopted if this
application is approved.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As
no one wished to speak at the hearing, it was declared closed.
The Commission discussed applying a condition that the station would not be
constructed until the Freeway was under construction; but since preliminary work
on the interchange has been started, it would be difficult to set a date when
construction of the freeway was considered started, and the owners of the station
should be permitted to proceed at their own risk.
MSC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of a co~itional use permit for construction of
a service station at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of this request excludes signs that are to be considered in a
variance request.
2. With the exception of signs granted under a variance, the station shall conform
to all requirements of sign regulations in the C-C "D" zone when established. Until
then the following regulations shall be complied with:
-17- 10/20/69
a. All flags, pennants, whirligigs, and other attention getting devices
are prohibited.
b. Only one "A-frame" type sign shall be permitted.
c. No signs shall be suspended from the light poles, canopies, columns,
or any other structural member.
d. No sign shall be placed on or above the roof or canopy.
Findings are as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-
being of the neighborhood or the community.
The station will serve customers from Interstate 805, Telegraph Canyon Road--
a master urban road--and the surrounding residential area.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The site is located in a Central Commercial Design Zone with a great height
differential to residential uses to the north. The "rustic design" of the
service station and the adequate amount of landscaping blends well with the
area.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
The station will comply with all regulations of the Code.
d. The granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan is not affected by this use.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Putnam, Rice, Adams, Hyde
NOES: Member Macevicz
ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member Chandler requested that he be excused from attending the next meeting
(October 27) as he will be on vacation.
MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Member Chandler be excused from the meeting of October 27.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of October 27. The
meeting adjourned at ll :25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen S. Mapes, Acti~gg Secretary