Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/07/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 7, 1969 The regular 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, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Minutes of the meetings of June 16 and June 23 be approved, as mailed to the members. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - 2.44 acres on the south side of Bonita Road, west of Vista Drive to R-1 - Kovar's Sweetwater Valley Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, which is located on the south side of Bonita Road, west of Vista Drive, comprising 2.44 acres. The property, consisting of three single-family dwellings, is presently being annexed to the City, having just been approved by the L.A.F.C. and the Commission. Mr. Warren noted the location of the Inland Freeway interchange which, he stated, will deny the Bonita Road access to two of these parcels, and when the road is realigned, all three will have access from Vista Drive. The staff is recommending R-1 prezoning for the property. At such time in the future, after the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the Conditional Zoning provision will be available, an appropriate commercial zoning could be applied to this property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Emil Kovar, 2894 Bonita Road, stated he initiated the annexation proceedings since the freeway will take the front portion of his property containing his septic tanks, and upon annexation to the City, he will be able to hook up to the sewer. As to the proposed commercial zoning for his property, Mr. Kovar declared they did not anticipate having their zoning changed--they would prefer that it remain in the residential category. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the possible rezoning to commercial at a future date when the freeway alignment is completed. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 577 City Council Prezoning to R-1 for Kovar's Sweetwater Valley Annexation -2- 7/7/69 Findings are as follows: a. This annexation contains three parcels, each of which contains a single-family dwelling, and a portion of Bonita Road. The residents of these three lots desire that their properties be placed in a residential zone. b. While the General Plan designates this property as Visitor-Commercial, it would be impractical to prezone it to a commercial category at this time because the new Commercial Zones are presently unavailable and it would encourage piecemeal commercial development of these parcels. c. After the new Zoning Ordinance is in effect and the Conditional Zoning provision is available, appropriate commercial zoning could be applied based on a plan. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE - Establishing an arcnitectural control zone adjacent to the Civic Center Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area delineated for this architectural control zone. He explained that since the adoption of the Civic Center Master Plan, considerable discussion has taken place as to what can take place in the area surrounding this complex. The Commission asked the staff to study a zone which could be used to protect the architecture and aesthetic quality of the Civic Center. The boundaries, as suggested by the staff, have been designed to surround the Center to the extent that any new development in this area will be influenced by what takes place in the Civic Center. This zoning has no effect on the existing uses--it is designed so that with significant redevelopment architectural compatibility will result. The staff is proposing a Modifying District - "M Civic Center Design District." Mr. Warren then reviewed this proposed ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the staff originally felt this should be a "D" zone--he has no objection from a legal standpoint, but he feels it is of significant importance to establish a separate modifying zone. Mr. Lindberg felt the "M" designation should be changed as most communities use this letter to denote their manufacturing zone, and there may be some confusion. He also felt that Spanish architecture deserved modification--it should be Spanish Mission architecture. Under the provisions for the Zoning Administrator's Action, Attorney Lindberg suggested a change in the last sentence of the first paragraph: instead of landscaping and improvements "as are necessary in his judgment," the wording be changed to "landscaping and improvements as are necessary to carry out the intent and purpose and compatibility of design with the architecture established in the Plan adopted by the Council." Director Warren explained that the "M" was the only designation the staff could come up with that wasn't already used in the new zoning ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -3- 7/7/69 City Attorney Lindberg suggested the ordinance be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting with the changes as discussed at this meeting. MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) The public hearing be reopened and continued to the next meeting (July 21) and the City Attorney and staff be directed to reword the ordinance and bring it back to this next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE - Establishin~ a method of density calculation when using the Planned Unit Development Procedure Director of Planning Warren discussed the proposed ordinance which he explained has been on the book for some time but has never been used. One question that has been raised is the method of calculating density. The staff has proposed a schedule for this density calculation, and added that they will eventually develop some guidelines for the procedure when this is used. Mr. Warren discussed the proposed ordinance stating the staff feels the density offered is a reasonable one offered under this procedure and it will offer an incentive to the developers to use the planned unit development procedure. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Meyer, 23 E1Capitan Drive, stated he has a copy of the final draft of the new Zoning Ordinance, and the amendment under discussion is one feature of the ordinance of interest to him. He discussed what this proposed density calculation would mean in terms of housing on property at Telegraph Canyon Road. He declared he is against this proposed ordinance as a Planned Unit Development would allow the developer to increase one-half of his property by 100% and certainly, the developer does not need the additional 25% bonus. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams explained that the bonus percentage was not a mandatory one--it may be given at the discretion of the Commission. Director Warren remarked that this proposed ordinance was a procedural one which may be used throughout the City and does not apply to any specific property. Any time the ordinance is used, it will be subject to public hearings. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 578 to City Council the Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Density Calculation when Using the Planned Unit Develop- ment Procedure. The density calculation will be as follows: a. Density. Except as provided in paragraph b, the number of dwelling units to be built on the property shall not exceed that set forth in the following table: -4- 7/7/69 ZONE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS R-E-40 Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 40,000 Square Feet R-E Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 20,000 Square Feet R-l-15 Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 15,000 Square Feet R-l-lO Sq. Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 10,000 Square Feet R-1 Sq. Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 7,000 Square Feet R-2 Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 3,500 Square Feet R-3-G Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 2,500 Square Feet R-3-T Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 2,000 Square Feet R-3 Sq. Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 1,350 Square Feet R-3-H Sq.Ft. of Land Area (Gross) 800 Square Feet b. The Planning Commission may, upon review of plans, grant up to a 25% increase in this permitted density as a bonus for exceptionally good design and innovation and retention of natural topography and plant materials. This bonus shall not apply to the R-3 zones. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE - Prohibiting Intermittent and Flashing Signs Director of Planning Warren explained that in May, 1969, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance prohibiting flashing and moving signs in the City. This ordinance is effective for 90 days, therefore, a permanent ordinance should now be adopted. The new zoning ordinance has been accepted by the Council, but the sign regulations for the different zones have been lifted for further study. This hearing is to place this ordinance permanently on the books. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -5- 7/7/69 Member Putnam felt the word "moving" should be inserted in the title of the ordinance. The Commission concurred. Member Chandler questioned the status of barber poles. City Attorney Lindberg stated this pole has been required by custom for many centuries. It is an operation that is far different than the logos of national concerns, and is a standard of the industry itself. He felt it should be allowed. Mr. Warren stated he would write it into the ordinance. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 579 to the City Council the Adoption of a Permanent Ordinance Prohibiting Moving, Intermittent and Flashing Signs Throughout the City The exceptions to this ordinance are the Time and Temperature Signs and barber poles. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE - Establishin9 a Conditional Zoning Provision City Attorney Lindberg discussed this proposed ordinance commenting that the new Zoning Ordinance is now approximately five years old, and during the course of these years, it has undergone many changes; so the area of planning and zoning is rapidly changing, and further changes will be taking place. He stated that Chula Vista has been one of the first communities to adopt conditional zoning (approximately two years ago) and now he is suggesting that it be expanded to include the requirement of a precise plan under certain specified circumstances. Everyone recognizes that in certain circumstances zoning must be tailored and requirements must be imposed for plans so as to protect the total community. The device suggested here can achieve this and further, can benefit those seeking rezoning. In answer to Chairman Hyde's inquiry, Attorney Lindberg indicated this would apply to areas of large parcels of land being rezoned in an already subdivided area such as from R-1 to R-3 where the greater intensity of use would dictate street widening and street improvement to accommodate this intensity of use. Mr. Lindberg discussed the Orange Avenue improvement requirement which he stated is one required of a subdivider created by the division of his property. This is a long-standing provision. Mr. Lindberg noted a change in the proposed ordinance in the last paragraph under (1) which should now read: "the suitability of the full-range of permitted uses within the zone is accepted but it is recognized that said uses might for any particular one of said uses, under certain development plans, have a detrimental effect . " This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -6- 7/7/69 Director Warren pointed out that not all of the rezonings will be based on this provision. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 581 City Council the Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Conditional Zoning Provision The ordinance shall read as follows: Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council may attach any conditions to the zoning of any property except for supplemental zones as provided in this Chapter, and the property owner shall be authorized without restriction to use the property for the uses and purposes enumerated in the zone subject only to the regulations of the zone, provided, however, that the Commission may recommend or the Council may require on its own motion that all public improvements, including streets and sidewalks and drainage facilities, as well as necessary dedications deemed needed to serve the uses authorized under the proposed zoning be installed as a precedent to the zoning in order to prevent t~e imposition of a burden upon the community and the City created by said uses. The requirement for installation of public improvements may be deferred in accordance with the provisions as set forth in this code. In addition to the requirement for the installation of public improvements in necessary dedications the Planning Commission or the City Council may require that a precise plan for the development of the property, which may include but is not limited to the location of the building or buildings, architectural features of the building, general plot plan, parking areas and landscaping, be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission before the zoning recommended for the property shall become effective. The requirement for such a precise plan shall be limited to those circum- stances where (1) the suitability of the full-range of permitted uses within the zone is accepted but it is recognized that said uses might, for any particular one of said uses under certain development plans, have a detri- mental effect on the surrounding properties; (2) such uses are indicated on the adopted general plan but the surrounding development or community requirements do not clearly warrant nor necessitate the present rezoning for the uses thus shown; or (3) development in the absence of a precise plan could adversely affect prospective development of surrounding properties. Move-In - From 838 Ada Street to ll90 Trenton Avenue - Chesle~ Manock Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area onto which the four-unit apartment house will be moved. The parcel measures 45' x 146' and is zoned R-3. The function of the Commission, in this case, is to determine the architectural compatibility of the move-in. There is no uniformity of architecture in this area, and the staff would state that it does not conflict nor will it be incompatible with what is presently existing in the area. Mr. Warren noted the requirements of the Building Inspection Department which was submitted with this report. The Chairman discussed adding a provision for landscaping. Mr. Warren indicated the Commission's action in this matter was primarily one pertaining to the architectural compatibility of the building. -7- 7/7/69 MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Recommend to the City Council that the structure is architecturally compatible with the area in accordance with the standards delineated in Section 8.21 of the City Code. Architectural Approval (Continued) - 515 H Street - Mother Butler's Pie Shop and 521H Street - Sam's Roast Beef Restaurant Director of Planning Warren stated that he received a telephone call from the applicant requesting postponement of these two items to the next meeting. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Consideration of these two items be continued to the meeting of July 21, 1969. Request for waiver of installation of underground utilities - 8 lots in the Bonita Cove Subdivision - Frank Ferreira Director of Planning Warren explained that this is a request for a waiver of the installation of underground utility service in this subdivision. He submitted a plot plan of the area noting the eight lots in question and commenting that there are now poles on the street, and it would be possible to serve these lots with underground service. Generally, the utility companies try to coordinate their service with the developer in order to service the lots with one trench. In this case, this was not done and it would necessitate a new trench. The staff agrees with the subdivider that since 40 of his 48 lots have been developed, the installa- tion of underground service through an underground district is extremely remote. Mr. Warren asked the Commission to define some policy for underground service, so that the staff can arrive at some sort of recommendation for denial or approval. This policy should be spelled out especially for the service that would come from alleys and local residential streets. Presently, because of the funds that are available and the techniques that are used, most of the conversion to under- ground service will be made along the major streets, because of street widening projects, etc. For this reason, these local, residential streets will be the last to be converted. The question remains, is there some merit to attempt to under- ground a single-family residential lot on a local street on a sporadic basis? Member Adams cited the ordinance whereby the Commission can waive the requirement if there is an extreme difficulty or it would incur unusual expense to the applicant. Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 250 Bonita Glen Drive, Chula Vista, spoke in defense of his request noting the existing telephone poles in his subdivision and those adjacent in the County. He commented that the Gas & Electric Company would possibly place the underground wiring in the water trench; however, the require- ments for the water and sewer trenches are not as great as those for telephone and electric wiring. Mr. Ferreira discussed digging another trench into the hillside to accommodate the underground wiring, maintaining that it would be hazardous to do so--the problem is holding the soil once it is dug up. He added that the cost of under- ground service for one lot would be from $800 to $1200 for a hillside lot and from $600 to $1200 for lots on the lower ground. -8- 7/7/69 Director Warren read the letters received from Pacific Telephone and San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, felt this problem was the same as that with a new 8-lot subdivision. He compared this site to the new dwelling recently constructed on the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Hilltop Drive which put in underground service. Mr. Ferreira claimed the reason this house went to underground is because they are extending that street; also, they have a 6' to 10' elevation for their building pad whereas his lots are at a 30' to 40' elevation. He added there was no comparison here. The Commission discussed the poles now existing on this subdivision. Member Stewart commented that it does impose an additional expense to the subdivider and this area is quite remote from the road. He felt nothing would be gained by requiring underground service here except to establish a policy. The Commission should consider each lot on its own merits, as no two lots are alike. MSC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the waiver of the underground utility service for the 8 lots in the Bonita Cove Subdivision as delineated on the plot plan presented at this meeting. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Chandler, Stewart, Hyde, Rice, and Putnam NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None Chairman Hyde discussed the question of establishing a policy. He stated this is already spelled out in the underground ordinance, and exceptions to this would be treated by the Commission in the matter of waivers. Director Warren cautioned them to watch very carefully for the inconsistencies because it is difficult to say what constitutes an economic hardship: would it be $400 - $900? He discussed the basic reason for the undergrounding service, to facilitate t~is undergrounding in the future. Unless this underground service becomes more reasonable in the near future, no one is going to want to put it in. Member Rice remarked that the cost was not the only criteria involved in waiving this requirement tonight--the Commission looked at what they would accomplish versus what they would lose. Another pole would have had to be erected here to service these few lots, and it would impose a financial hardship on the applicant. City Attorney Lindberg stated that essentially the problem in discussing under- grounding is money. He feels that the State Legislature will soon be stepping into this deal and possibly the Public Utilities Commission in order to find the funds to install this service. He added that if the Commission establishes a policy in this regard, they may tend to prejudge those cases, and in many cases where a hardship might exist, the property owner may prefer to have the utilities go underground rather than request a waiver. Director Warren indicated that it has been, perhaps, a case of poor communications in the past whereby the property owner or developer was not informed of this requirement and, consequently, because it was not included in the bid, requested the waiver. Chairman Hyde suggested this matter be placed on the next workshop agenda. -9- 7/7/69 Request for modification of condition approving Conditional Use Permit at 298 Broadway - William R. Nager Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question. He explained that on November 18, 1968, the applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit to construct a car wash on this site. One of the requirements was that the parkway area on Broadway be filled in with concrete and two tree wells be located thereon. The applicant is now requesting a waiver of this condition, but has agreed to plant the two trees elsewhere on his lot. The staff has been requiring that all parkway areas adjacent to commercial sites be filled with concrete in order to eliminate a maintenance problem. This is also a standard of the Division of Engineering, as part of their street standards, and for this reason they are recommending denial of the request. The staff concurs with this recommendation but feels the requirement for the street trees should be waived. A comprehensive street tree program will be proposed for Broadway at such time as the utility poles are removed. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the applicant had previously requested a deferment of the installation of the public improvements on F Street; however, this afternoon he called and stated he now wishes to put in these improvements. The Commission and the Director discussed the protests from the merchants along Broadway to the requirement for the planting of palm trees. This requirement has since been waived until such time as the underground utilities are in. Member Rice commented that he felt trees should be put in and this type of structure can use all of the landscaping they can get; trees add a lot to the street. MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Condition requiring the filling in with concrete in the parkway area on Broadway to remain; however, the two tree wells located thereon be waived, with the understanding that the applicant will plant these two trees on his lot, subject to the approval of the Planning Department. Request for approval of sign at 535 H Street - Robert A. Laswell Director of Planning Warren referred to the correspondence received from Mr. Laswell requesting approval of an existing business sign. The sign was described as a 2' black steel post, 6' in height, with a lantern-type electric light in the top. One sign extending from the pole will be 24" x 8" with the lettering, "Attorneys at Law." Beneath that will be two individual bars, 24" x 6", with the names of the attorneys inscribed in gold on a black background. The Commission concurred that the sign was an appropriate one and in keeping with the area. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Approval of the sign as submitted at this meeting. -lO- 7/7/69 Resolution approvin~ the Landscape Manual (MSUC) Stewart-Chandler F Street School Site ulrector ot vlanning Warren referred to the letter received from Mr. Swanson, San Diego County Planning Department for a report from the Commission regarding the proposed transfer of the north half of this property to the City for the expansion of the Civic Center. The Commission's findings in this matter would be whether the use conforms to the General Plan. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Report to the City Council that the use of this land for Civic Center expansion is in conformance to the Chula Vista General Plan. Settin~ Date for Joint Plannin~ Commission-Parks & Recreation Commission Meetin~ T his is a meeting originally suggested by the Planning Commission. Director of Planning Warren stated he discussed it with the Director of Parks and Recreation and they have indicated they could meet wi th the Commission on any of the last three Wednesdays of this month. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) The Director be directed to set up the meeting for the evening of July 23, 1969. New Comprehensive Zonin9 Ordinance Director of Planning Warren stated he had an inquiry from a developer relating to the effect the new Zoning Ordinance would have on the existing subdivisions. A legal opinion from the City Attorney states that any tentative map filed prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain effective until such time as it expires. The question that comes to mind is the application of zoning standards to the development of these lots. If someone comes in a week after the new ordinance is adopted, with building plans designed under the old ordinance, then how is it administered? Will they be required to observe the 10' and 3' setback or will they have to go to the 5' and 5'? City Attorney Lindberg stated that certainly between now and August 7, the day the zoning ordinance becomes effective, there will be subdivision maps submitted. Up to this date, these developers are well within the law to follow the existing rules. There will be a greater preponderance of those that will be taking advantage of the new ordinance. Anyone designing now under the new ordinance would, however, be taking his risks that the ordinance might be subjected to referendum before this August 7 date. Mr. Lindber9 stated he will be sending the Commission a written report on this in the very near future. Oral Communications Mr. Frank Meyer, 23 E1 Capitan Drive, stated that he objected to an expression used by the Director of Planning in one of the hearings tonight in which he alleged that the Director used the term, "kicking around" an ordinance. He then questioned the policy of the new ordinance in regard to the public notices, and also questioned the statement made by the City Attorney in stating that the ordinance may be subjected to a referendum. -1 l- 7/7/69 City Attorney Lindberg explained the public notice procedure as practiced under the old ordinance noting there would be little, if any, change in the new ordinance. As to his term "referendum of the ordinance," this was not meant facetiously or with reference to any particular person or parties. It was meant to point out quite clearly that until August 7, people who are developing plans are working under an existing law and they have no absolute assurance that the law is going to become changed and become effective on August 7. Director Warren commented on the allegation made by Mr. Meyer. The term referred to is one he stated not usually used by ~im, and if it were, it certainly shouldn't have been interpreted to be offensive or directed at any one person. Out of necessity, the Commission meetings are sometimes carried on in an informal atmosphere, and sometimes things are said that may be misinterpreted. Mr. Warren declared, however, that he will never take issue with any person appearing at a public hearing making any comment they care to make--this is what a public hearing is for. The Commission considered the remarks made by Mr. Meyer and ruled that Mr. Warren's remarks need not to have been interpreted as disrespectful or derogatory or offensive in any way whatsoever, and the Co,~ission does not consider them as such. Time Limitations on Applications Mr. Frank Ferreira spoke of the consistent rise in cost of building materials and labor which places a developer in somewhat of a dilemma when he begins plans for his development to the time he can get it financed. He asked that the Commission give this due consideration in the overlap of the new Zoning Ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg explained the policy that will be used in considering these plans assuring Mr. Ferreira that the time limit will be such that no developer will be placed in an awkward situation. Joint Meeting of South Bay Plannin9 Commissions Chairman Hyde discussed the Commissions of the adjacent cities of National City, Imperial Beach and Coronado, and suggested that perhaps the time has come to meet with these municipalities for the purpose of having a meeting to discuss matters of mutual concern. Perhaps they could even meet on a quarterly basis. The Commission discussed the matter, indicating other items that could be discussed. Director Warren spoke of the Comprehensive Planning Organization which meets at a regular basis, but it does not involve Planning Commissions as a whole. He felt that the Commission may be expanding their thoughts further than may be acceptable to some legislators; however, the joint meetings sound acceptable. Chairman Hyde commented that with the Board of Adjustments, which will be formed shortly, the Commission should be getting into more pure planning and they will have an opportunity to look about and see what is happening to the area around this City. -12- 7/7/69 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Rice) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of July 21, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/~ennie M. Fulasz Secretary