HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/06/02 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 2, 1969
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California,
was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 276
Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz,
Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: none. Also present:
Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg and Senior Civil Engineer Harshman.
PUBLIC HEARING - Reduction in front yard setbacks from 25' to 15' for 226 through
244 E Street and from 20' to 15' for 202 through 223 Twin Oaks
Avenue - Robert Keyes
birector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question,
the adjacent land use and zoning and the existing setbacks along these streets.
He noted that no consistent setback pattern exists along these streets, and
although the new zoning ordinance establishes a 15' setback for R-3 property on
local streets and 25' on arterials, the setbacks on E Street run between 0 and 30'.
If a setback of 25' were established on E Street, then most of the structures
existing along this street would be non-conforming. The staff, therefore, is
recommending approval of the change of setback for these two streets.
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.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. 575 to City Council the Establishment of a 15' Setback on
the 200 Block of E Street and Twin Oaks Avenue.
Findings be as follows:
Concerning E Street --
a. The setback immediately to the west of the subject property is
l0 feet while the setback on the block east is 15 feet.
b. The uniform 25 foot setback for arterials abutting R-3 zones is
impractical in this area due to the already existing conflicting
zones and setbacks.
Concerning Twin Oaks Avenue --
a. 15 feet is the setback established by the new zoning ordinance for
R-3 development on local streets.
b. The Commission and Council have, in the past, consistently set 15
feet a the front setback standard on local streets.
c. The width of the street (60') is in excess of the standard local
street width (51'), and thus 4-1/2' additional land on each side
of the street is available for setback purposes.
-2- 6/2/69
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 652 Garrett Avenue - Request permission to construct
~-~-~h f~t--~-~~d setback - Robert H. Kin9
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question,
the adjacent area, and zoning. The applicant has a corner lot--southeast corner
of Garrett Avenue and Glover Street--wi th a 3~' high block wall located on the
property line. He is seeking permission to allow him to maintain a 6' high block
wall at this location in order to enclose a swimming pool area. Because of this
being a corner lot, most of the area is taken up with setbacks and little additional
area is available for outdoor living. The staff recommends approval of the request
subject to the wall design being submitted to the staff for approval prior to
construction.
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.
Member Macevicz questioned whether the height of the fence would in any way
interfere with the sight distance for vehicles going north.
Mr. Warren explained that it would not.
MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Variance be approved with the condition that the wall design
be submitted to the staff for approval prior to construction.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the regulations.
The proposed location for a swimming pool represents the only logical place on
the lot to build and provide access around the periphery. The Building Department
requires that a pool be enclosed by a wall a minimum of 5' in height.
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.
This is a corner lot with the existing house extended to the 20' setback in
the rear, leaving no possible expansion for construction.
c. T~at 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 proposed fence will be the same height as the existing hedge which has had
no apparent detrimental effect on the public welfare.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected by this variance.
-3- 6/2/69
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 430 Corte Maria Avenue - Reduction of rear yard
setback 20' to 9' - John Rindone
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the dimensions of the
property in question as being 60' frontage, widening out to 91~' in the rear.
The depth of the lot measures 95'. He noted that the house sets back 27' from
the rear property line because of the narrow frontage and shallow lot, and the
addition would be limited to 7' in width unless a variance were granted. With
this addition, the applicant will still be able to maintain a rear yard area of
over 2,000 square feet, whereas a normal rear yard on a 70' wide lot would be
1400 square feet. The staff recommends approval of the request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
iqr. John Rindone, the applicant, stated the setback from the addition to the rear
property line would be 9' instead of the 6' as shown on the plat.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of request for reduction of rear yard setback
to 9'.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent wi th the
general purpose and intent of the regulations.
The primary intent of the 20' rear yard requirement is to provide a reasonable
separation between neighborhood dwellings to afford the occupants "living space,"
light and air, and a modicum of privacy. The distance between the neighboring rear
dwelling and the proposed addition would be 125 feet, a distance which would insure
such privacy.
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 only 95' deep, making any addition inflexible by maintaining a 20'
rear yard.
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.
Adequate open space remains in the rear yard since approximately 2200 square
feet would exist, when the lot would normally have 1800 sq. ft. (90' x 20').
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal.
-4- 6/2/69
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street -
Request permission to construct a 3' x 8' entrance sign - Big
Apple Store
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the layout of the shopping
center and the proposed location of the requested entrance sign. The applicant
maintains that because of the construction on the lot, it is necessary to identify
the parking lot entrance to this store. The business is restricted to 50 square
feet of sign area because of being in the C-1-D zone; they nave exceeded this
amount, and therefore, the need for the variance. Iqr. Warren showed a sketch of
the proposed sign noting the dimensions. The staff recommends denial of the request
because they feel the sign is advertisement for the Dusiness and is not needed for
the parking lot. Also, if this sign were granted, it would then necessitate other
signs for the other stores in this center.
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.
Member Rice stated there was no justification for this additional sign.
Member Chandler agreed adding that the large sign on the store itself was clearly
visiDle from the street.
Member Putnam maintained that confusion does exist on this particular entrance
because of the service station, Kentucky Beef, and the other businesses out in
front of the ~ig Apple. He felt that if the Apple logo was taken off, he would
have no objection to the sign.
The Commission discussed the parking layout, after which they concurred that the
entrance was obvious and that this sign would not correct the shortcomings of the
parking layout.
~irector Warren commented that this matter was not referred to the Traffic Engineer
for his comments, and asked the Commission whether they would want this done.
Member Stewart remarked that the people that use this center are repeat customers
who need no further identification to indicate the entrance to the parking lot. He
added that the business has over 250 square feet of signs now, and no justification
has been shown for this additional sign.
MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Variance request be denied for the following reasons:
1. No exceptional circumstances were found to justify the granting of this
variance since the parking area entrance is clearly visible from the street and
is unobstructed.
2. The proposed sign represents a form of advertising for the Big Apple store
rather than a directional sign for parking.
3. Because the major store is set back a considerable distance from the street,
variances have already been granted representing over four times the allowable
sign area for this business.
The Chairman explained that the applicant has the right of appeal to the City
uounci~ within l0 uays.
-5- 6/2/69
Request for waiver of the installation of under~round utilities - Lots 58 and 59 -
Country Club Heights (Bonita Bel-Aire/ and 738 Myra Avenue
Director of Planning Warren explained that three single-family dwellings are
involved here--two from the same area. The applicant of 738 Myra Avenue requested
a waiver of the installation of these underground utilities because the existing
service is on the other side of the street, and it would be necessary to set a
new pole adjacent to the property if undergrounding is desired. Since overhead
service can be accomplished from the existing poles, the staff recommends approval
of this request.
As to the request for Lots 58 and 59 in the Country Club Heights Subdivision, the
staff found that there is a difference in grade elevation between the street and
the building pad on Lot 59 which will cause additional expense to the property
owner to have to go underground with the utilities--it would entail very deep
trenching.
~irector Warren noted the letters received from the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company and the Pacific Telephone Company, and remarked that the City does want
undergrounding of utilities, but this will come first on all of the major streets.
These local streets, especially those with large frontages such as this subdivision,
will be among the last projects to have the utilities undergrounded. The staff
recommends approval of all three requests.
The Commission agreed with the staff's comments.
MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Approval of the waiver of the installation of underground
utilities at 738 Myra Avenue in accordance with Chapter 34, Section 34.2.3,
of the City Code, because it would be necessary to set a new pole adjacent to the
property if undergrounding is desired and overhead service can be accomplished
from the existing poles.
MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Approval of the waiver of the installation of underground
utilities for Lots 58 and 59 of the Country Club Heights Subdivision (Bonita Bel
Aire) in accordance with Chapter 34, Section 34.2.3 of the City Code because there
is a difference in grade elevations between the street and the building pad (10'-20')
on Lot 59 which may cause additional expense to the owner; and because neither of
these lots face on a major street, the practicality of this area being undergrounded
in the foreseeable future is remote.
Request for extension of time - Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Bay
General Hospital at 435 H Street
Director of Planning Warren explained that this involves both a variance and
a conditional use permit granted to the hospital for expansion of their facilities.
A building permit has been requested and the plans for the addition are now in the
Planning Department being checked.
The applicant is requesting a two-year extension; since conditions have not changed
- in the area, the staff recommends approval of the request.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of a two-year extension of time; subject permits
will now expire on June 19, 1971.
-6- 6/2/69
_. R~equest for deferment of public improvements - 900 block of F Street - Shan~.r.i-La Motel
Director of Planning Warren referred to the report from the Engineering Division
in which they recommend approval of this request since plans have not been completed
for the street. They recommend the posting of a bond or the execution of a lien
agreement in the amount of $9,500.00 to cover the cost of the future installation
of these public improvements. The staff concurs with the Engineering report.
In answer to the Commission's inquiry, Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner,
explained that the applicant proposed to finish construction of the motel and there
will be a restaurant there also.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of the deferment of the installation of public
improvements for 906 F Street,Shangri La Motel property, subject to the posting
of a bond or a lien agreement to be executed to cover the cost of plan preparation,
plan check, inspection fees and required public improvements. This bond or lien
agreement to be in the amount of $9500.00.
Final Map - Rancho Vista Estates Subdivision - Unit #4
Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map of the subdivision noting the
location as south of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of Oleander Avenue. Unit #4
lies just south of Unit #2. The tentative map showed ll lots, and the staff asked
the subdivider to work with the property owner to the southwest to negotiate for
-- additional land in order to make a loop street; however, they haven't been able to
do this; consequently, a revision was made to this final map.
Mr. Warren pointed out that if the future loop street is decided upon, that a sub-
standard lot containing approximately 5000 square feet would be created within the
area to be subdivided west of Rancho Vista Estates, Unit #4. In the interim, a
cul-de-sac will be created at the terminus of Mariposa Circle.
MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Recommend approval of the final map of Rancho Vista Estates,
Unit #4 with the following condition:
The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all necessary bonds,
deeds, slope rights and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been
delivered.
Discussion - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing contract zoning provision
City Attorney Lindberg explained that as a result of attending the League of
California conference for City Attorneys, he made several suggestions for modifica-
tions to the Zoning Ordinance. These came about as a result of the research he
had to do on a paper he presented to the conference on contract zoning.
For several years, many communities in California have used several devices to
obtain public improvement and dedication of right-of-way which was incorporated
into the City zoning ordinance approximately two years ago. Another aspect is the
situation whereby a developer tends to portray to the Commission the type of
development he has in mind, which is allowed in the zone, and presents a precise
plan. This is not something by which he can be bound in the future because he
can make use of the property in whatever manner is set forth wi thin the terms of
the zoning itself. Mr. Lindberg added that after reviewing most of the case laws
and finding ll jurisdictions which authorized conditions on zoning, that 8 of these
do allow for a precise plan to be presented.
-7- 6/2/69
Mr. Lindberg then read and explained the amendment to the zoning ordinance which me
- is proposing. He commented that the City Council would like a report back from the
Commission in regard to this matter, so that it can be incorporated into the new
zoning ordinance. He reviewed three situations and felt the Commission would want
a precise plan under these circumstances, which would be the most honest approach.
A precise plan should be required under certain circumstances, but this does not
pertain to all circumstances.
Member Adams felt the amendment would override most of the objections they receive
from adjacent property owners--they may not object if they could see exactly what
will take place.
Member Putnam agreed, adding it is a step in the right direction, and the more
plans the Commission receives, the better.
Mr. Lindberg stated that in drafting this amendment, he tried to fol.low what the
courts in other communities have agreed upon. He discussed areas in the City
whereby this ordinance would apply.
The Commission discussed what symbol would be used to identify this zone.
Director Warren indicated that it probably could be applied to our modifying
zone "P" using this for the precise zone.
Attorney Lindberg stated that it may be advisable for the Commission to hold a
public hearing on it, and he would suggest that a report be sent to the Council
indicating the Commission's favorable consideration of the amendment.
MSUC (Stewart-Rice) The staff be directed to send a report to the City Council
stating the favorable consideration of the Commission in regard to the amendment,
and further that this matter be set for hearing for either June 16 or June 23, 1969.
Reconsideration - Method of calculating density with use of Planned Unit Oevelopment
procedure
Director of Planning Warren referred to the staff's comments and the formulas
delineated therein, which was a comparison based on a sample. He explained that
the Commission must consider two things: (1) that the development will be "in
harmony with and complementary to the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and will preserve the density allowed by the underlying zone;" and (2) that unless
a significant density is permitted the developer, he will not make use of the
planned unit procedure. So much is required of him in the form of additional
amenities, such as open space, develop the project in a country club setting, etc.,
that the cost becomes prohibitive to the buyer.
Member Rice commented that the action taken by the Commission on this was a good
one, and that they should not try to achieve the density that San Diego has. He
discussed another formula whereby the Commission can use a straight 18%: either
take the 7000 square foot minimum lot size and add the 25% bonus, or take the
5-6-7,000 square foot lot sizes and add an 18% bonus.
City Attorney Lindberg related his experience in working with this zone in San
Diego where, he stated, it was on the books for seven years and it is only now
that they may possibly progress with their first planned unit development.
-8- 6/2/69
Chairman Hyde declared that they should not lose sight of the fact that the
Council and Commission have the means to turn down any planned unit development
that doesn't meet the goals for which it was intended. He added that the bonus
was anywhere from zero to 25%--that the figure 25% was not automatic.
Member Chandler read a newspaper article pertaining to a similar development in
the San Marcos area whereby 600 homes were put on 156 acres and the price range
for these homes ran from $20,000 to $30,000. He also mentioned that in granting
a developer this bonus, plus the 20% allowed for streets, etc., they are, in
effect, granting a developer a total of 45% as an incentive for using the planned
unit development.
The Commission discussed the percentages they could allow under this use.
City Attorney Lindberg remarked that they are discussing open space that will have
to be maintained, and the home owner will have to pay for this. However, the
P.U.D. could still provide for the City taking over the maintenance, if it will
be open to the public.
Under further discussion, Member Hyde commented that they should look at the
entire project and not just individual lots.
Director Warren indicated the highest percentage that could be allowed a developer
-- under this plan would be a little over 50%. In this P.U.D., they are talking
about encouraging its use, and this percentage will be a tool that will be
available for this development.
Chairman Hyde commented that (1) the Commission is the authoritative body to approve
or disapprove whatever proposals are brought before them, and (2) if they find
that the formula they have recommended is not satisfactory, they could always
recommend a change.
The Commission discussed having a development with both the single-family and
multiple-family uses, and agreed that this would make a good development. They
agreed that their original recommendation was the right one.
MSC (Rice-Stewart) Reaffirm the Commission's original recommendation to the
City Council--that the formula used will be the total acreage divided by 7000
square feet (minimum size lot) with a provision for up to a maximum of 25% bonus.
The motion carried by the following ~ote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Rice, Stewart, Adams, Putnam, Macevicz, and Hyde
NOES: Member Chandler
ABSENT: None
-9- 6/2/69
Written Communications ~ Letter from Phoenix Institute - 666 Third Avenue
In reply to the staff's inquiry, a letter was received from the Phoenix Institute
describing the use for the property at 666 Third Avenue, ori9inally approved for
church purposes. Director of Planning Warren indicated that, based on this letter,
the staff feels the use is in conformance with the original conditional use permit
granted to them.
The Commission concurred.
Vacation for Member Putnam
Member Putnam informed the Commission that he will be out of town for the meetings
of June 9 and 16.
MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Permission be granted to Member Putnam to be absent from the
Commission for the meetings of June 9 and 16.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Meetin9 be adjourned to the meetings of June 16 and 23,
and to the dinner workshop meeting of June 9, 1969 to be held at the Sunnyside
Steak Ranch, Bonita Road, Bonita. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
~R~spectful ly submitted,
'. Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary