Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/05/26 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 26, 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, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams and Putnam. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of May 19, 1969 be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Modification of parking requirements in an R-1 zone. Director of Planning Warren explained that the hearing was continued because a proposed ordinance had not been drafted modifying the parking requirements in this zone. Mr. Warren reviewed the necessity of this amendment which was insti- gated at the time the Council granted an appeal permitting a conversion of a portion of a garage in an R-1 zone which then left the residence the equivalent of a 1~ car garage. They did this without requiring any form of substitution, such as a carport or another garage. Their theory was that they felt it should be important only to provide two offstreet parking spaces on the premises and some enclosed storage space. As the ordinance is presently written, any converting their garages must substitute it wi th another two-car garage or carport. In all new subdivisions, the developer would still be required to build a two-car garage. Director Warren then read and reviewed the proposed amendment maintaining that the only question remaining would be whether or not these two parking spaces that would be required should be out of the front yard setback. 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 Adams expressed regret over the fact that the City Council had over- ruled the Commission in granting this appeal. He felt the rules, as presently set up in the ordinance, are good rules and should be abided by. Member Stewart declared that there are approximately 200 converted garages in the City and nearly all of them park their cars in the front yard setback. He commented that they should be allowed to do this in certain cases--these should be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and granted only upon the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Chairman Hyde remarked that they should not encourage this parking in the front yard setback. -2- 5/26/69 Planning Director Warren explained that the majority of conversions that would take place would necessitate the parking of the vehicles in the front yard setback. If they weren't allowed to do this, they would have to pave another area on their property for this purpose, and this would not be desirable. The Commission concurred that this approval should be given. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 574 to the City Council an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Modifying the Parking Requirements in an R-1 Zone. Amendment to read as follows: (D) Garag~egulations. In the event that an individual property owner desires to convert the established 2 car garage for living purposes, he shall be required to provide two (2) paved offstreet parking spaces. In addition, he must provide proper enclosed storage space. The required storage unit shall contain a minimum of 80 square feet of floor area and shall be no less than six (6) feet high with no other dimension less than four (4) feet and shall have direct exterior access. All plans for the conversion of existing garages for living purposes shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval to insure that the conversion is compatible in design and materials with the existing dwelling. In the event that the parking is to be accommodated in the front yard set- back, it shall require the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Findings in support of said amendment are as follows: a. The original intent of the ordinance will be observed in that the initial development of subdivisions would provide enclosed garages which would meet the general needs of the residents. b. The proposed amendment will give the flexibility needed to meet the individual needs of said residents and will offer alternatives for meeting desirable off- street parking in a residential neighborhood. Outdoor Advertising Director Warren announced that an article in the STAR-NEWS yesterday (May 25, 1969) stated that a public hearing would be held on the regulation of outdoor adver- tising. He wished to inform anyone in the audience that specifically came to the meeting for this hearing, that the newspaper was in error and the ordinance pertaining to this matter is one that will just be set for hearing. -3- 5/26/69 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Request for increase in permitted lot coverage in an R-3 zone - 445 · Street - Joe Bishop Uirector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property is zoned R-3 and the request is for a variance to increase the lot coverage in the rear yard setback--the ordinance allows a 30% coverage; the applicant is requesting permission for 100% coverage. Mr. Warren indicated there were two things to consider: the effect this would have on the adjacent property to the north, and the effect it will have on the parking for this apartment complex. By putting up this 8' high wall as they are proposing, it would diminish the size of the parking stalls, as presently developed. Ten feet is required for the end spaces next to the wall--they will have to reduce this to a 9 foot width. For these reasons, the staff is recommend- lng denial of the request, plus the fact that they feel it does not qualify for a variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Taylor, 657 Van Horn Road, E1 Cajon, the contractor for the project, stated he discussed this with all of the adjacent neighbors and no one had any objections; as a matter of fact, the property owner to the north indicated he would be constructing in the same way. The parking spaces are already there, and this will not change that except to have them covered and an 8' wall around the project. The wall will not obstruct anyone's view; as a matter of fact, he can come out further with the wall and make the end spaces 9'6". Mr. Ira Taylor, 443 E Street, Chula Vista, discussed the various uses in the neighborhood, and offered support of the applicant's request maintaining that this would be the only way to use this space effectively. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams cautioned that the Commission would be setting a precedent if this is approved, as the property owner to the north has al ready indicated his intention to develop his property in the same way. He declared there were no exceptional circumstances here to warrant granting this request. Member Stewart commented that if these spaces were not covered, there would be no problem here. Mr. Warren asserted this was correct and explained that the applicant could build a 6' high wall around this area without applying for a variance. Director Warren added that the staff is not solidly opposed to this request, as long as the parking layout works; however, if the Commission wishes to approve this request, then they should consider changing the ordinance. Member Stewart remarked that the ordinance is faulty because of the inflexibility of the required open space. -4- 5/26/69 Planning Director Warren asked that any changes to the ordinance be not made to the existing ordinance but to the new proposed ordinance. This particular matter does warrant a study by the staff. The Commission agreed that a study should be made by the staff with a recommenda- tion modifying this section of the ordinance in order to allow this type of use. Chairman Hyde questioned the applicant as to any problems he may encoumter if the Commission postponed this item. Mr. Taylor stated he would agree to the postponement, rather than have the Commission deny this request tonight. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Public hearing on this matter be reopened and continued to the meeting of June 16, 1969, and the staff be directed to study this matter and report to the Commission on the modification to the ordinance which would allow this use. Resolution - Classifying Health Clubs as a permitted use in certain zones Director of Planning Warren explained that this particular use was not specifically listed in the ordinance, and a request has been made for this classification. The staff contacted eight cities, and they were all unanimous in their decision that the use is a commercial one. The staff agrees with this and recommends that the Commission find that the use be first permitted in the C-1 (limited commercial) zone. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Classifying RESOLUTION NO. 572 a Health Club as a Permitted Use in the C-1 Zone Request for extension of time of a conditional use permit - Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive - Shell Oil Company Director of Planning Warren briefly explained the request for this extension for the construction of a service station. The staff recommends approval since nothing has changed in the area. He indicated this would also include the variance granted to them for this particular station. Member Rice guestioned the number of times the Commission should be granting these extensions. Member Stewart asserted that the staff thoroughly checks out these requests as they come in, and based on their recommendation, the Commission should go along with it. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of a one-year extension of time; subject requests will now expire on July 6, 1970. -5- 5/26/69 Request for extension of time of variance for 99 Broadway - Avon Jennings Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question and explained that the original variance was granted for a reduction of rear yard setback from 15' to l' to provide for a new addition to the motel. The staff recommends approval of the request since no changes have taken place in this area. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) Approval of a one-year extension of time--subject variance will now expire on Ma~v 25, 1970. To be set for hearing - Ordinance regulatin~ display of outdoor advertising Director of Planning Warren explained that they have taken the landscaped freeway ordinance and have recommended its adoption. There is no change here except in regard to the prohibition of the billboards--this will have an earlier date than that adopted by National City and San Diego. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the ordinance that is being presented to them to be set for hearing can have changes made in it during the course of the hearing and as a result of the hearing--the broad subject is the control of outdoor advertising signs. Director Warren indicated he would give this wide distribution prior to the hearing. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Public hearing on the ordinance regulating display of outdoor advertising to be set for the meeting of June 16, 1969. To be set for hearing - An amendment establishing a procedure to change setback lines Director of Planning Warren referred to the memorandum and proposed ordinance drawn up by the City Attorney which was mailed to the Commission. He asked that they set this matter for hearing for the June 16 meeting. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Public hearing on an amendment establishing a procedure to change setback lines be set for the meeting of June 16, 1969. Discussion - Establishment of an architectural control zone adjacent to the Civic Center Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the Civic Center area noting a proposed boundary line for the feasibility of incorporating a Civic Center zone. The most recent construction in this area was the Employment Office which the staff persuaded to use some Spanish influence. Director Warren explained there would be three methods the Commission could use to regulate the control: 1. Create a separate zone which would specify permitted uses and conditional uses with architectural approval and sign control. 2. Establish a civic center area by description~ then require review of all buildings and signs to be constructed within said area. -6- 5/26/69 3. Create a supplemental zone which would be attached to the existing zone, controlling architecture and signs. The staff feels that #3--using the supplemental zone--would do the job. City Attorney Lindberg stated he would favor #1--creaging the separate zone; however, he sees nothing wrong with the supplemental zone providing it is something other than the "D" zone. Mr. Warren declared it would be the "D" zone but with guidelines. Mr. Lindberg commented that with the money being expended for the Civic Center Master Plan development, the City should get their money's worth by establishing a zone for the area in order to favor the type of architecture that has already been accepted by the public. The Commission discussed the three methods of incorporating this architectural zone, with the majority of the members favoring method #1. Mr. Warren felt it would be difficult to draw up an ordinance on this method. City Attorney Lindberg declared that if they could not find a solution under method #1, then they could go to method #3. The Commission then discussed the area, as delineated by the staff, that would have this control zone, and favored enlarging the area to the north and south. Member Hyde suggested no decision be reached on this matter tonight, and that it be brought to the next workshop meeting for discussion. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Postpone any decision on the specific method so that it can be discussed further at the next Commission workshop. Discussion - Landscape Manual Director of Planning Warren discussed the Landscape Manual, a copy of which was mailed to each Commissioner. He emphasized that it was a draft, and said that, hopefully, the final edition of the zoning ordinance would refer to this manual. The staff would like direction from the Commission as to how to proceed with this matter. Prior to any hearing on it, the staff will distribute it to all interested people. Chairman Hyde commented that perhaps after distribution of the manual to various groups, they may find it necessary to hold a public hearing on it. City Attorney Lindberg stated a public hearing should be held on this manual. Mr. Lothar Schipanski, Landscape Planner, explained that the manual is a guide, and represents a concensus of ordinances adopted by other communities. He condensed these ordinances to what meets the needs of this community--Chula Vista. -7- 5/26/69 Chairman Hyde suggested copies be sent to the San Diego Building Contractors Association, Downtown Association and Broadway Association, among others. Member Rice questioned the designation of specific trees for certain streets. Mr. Schipanski indicated he has a comprehensive list of these trees and shrubs which he is recommending for certain streets in that he feels they would be suitable in t~at area. City Attorney Lindberg stated this would follow the same administrative regulation as that given to the drawings and specifications adopted by the Public Works Department. The City Council adopts this by resolution, and the ordinance makes reference to it as adopted. It can be changed from time to time. Discussion - Method of calculation of density with the Planned Unit Development Director of Planning.Warren explained that the Commission did adopt a Planned Unit Development procedure in the existing ordinance and it was duplicated in the new zoning ordinance. The staff now finds that further guidelines are necessary; otherwise, they are left with a number of decisions in the wa~V in which it will be used. They have recently had some inquiries about the density factor and would like to have some guidelines from the Commission in this regard. Mr. Warren discussed the density and bonus factor, as written in the ordinance, and commented that they have yet to use this. He noted two methods of calcula- tion that could be used in this determination, including one used by the City of San Diego. Depending upon the underlying zone, the City of San Diego divides the gross acreage by 5,000 sq. ft. and then will add up to 25%, whereby Chula Vista's experience has been to permit 4~ - 5 units per acre plus a 25% bonus. Should we use the same formula used by San Diego? The Commission discussed using the sliding scale method, and noted the square footage per unit that would result. City Attorney Lindberg declared that nothing was spelled out in the ordinance, and that the issue was not the resultant square footage per dwelling--the Commission should be looking at "units" per acre. Mr. Warren then discussed with the Commission the double bonus standard that could result in the calculation method used by San Diego. Member Stewart remarked that our standards are higher than those of San Diego and this city should not liberalize to that extent. Director Warren explained that they are faced with the fact that San Diego does have a planned unit development ordinance; however, no density bonus is written into their ordinance, but they are recommending one to the City Council. Prior to this, they have used the method of calculation as discussed; however, they now contend that they need an additional bonus because the incentive to use the planned unit development just isn't there. Chula Vista is going to encounter the same problems and, Mr. Warren continued, based on their experience the Commission should give these developers the highest yield possible if better use of land results. -8- 5/26/69 City Attorney Lindberg discussed San Diego's planned unit development, indicating they have never really used this because they have not been able to grant the developer sufficient density to make this development attractive. It isn't working in San Diego, and it isn't going to work here--there is not sufficient incentive to make it work unless the developer gets a higher yield. He added that whatever the Commission decides, they will be committing themselves in all the planned unit developments that will eventually come along. He further stated that a planned unit development is a method of obtaining a more direct control of a development that they would like to see take place, and it gives the developer a higher density than that found in a normal sub- division pattern. The best solution is to be able to designate the number of units per acre instead of fooling around with minimum lot sizes. Member Chandler questioned whether this 25% bonus factor would be in addition to the 15%-20% allowed for streets. Mr. Warren indicated it would be. Chairman Hyde remarked that the resolution should read: "up to" 25%-- the actual amount should be left up to the discretion of the Commission. MSC (Stewart-Putnam) Resolution of the City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 573 Recommending to the City Council the Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Method of Calcu- lation of Density with the Planned Unit Develop- ment process The method of calculation to be as follows: Divide the gross acreage by the minimum lot size (using 7000 square feet and not the sliding scale), plus the granting of a bonus of up to 25%. This same method to be used in the other residential zones by using the minimum lot size (7000 square feet) for the R-2 zone, and using the density established for the R-3 zone. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Putnam, Hyde, Rice, Adams, and Macevicz NOES: Member Chandler ABSENT: None Report - School Bus Loading Committee Member Putnam, a member of this committee, discussed the results of the meeting held May 7, 1969. They couldn't see that the need existed to go to the extremes of paving areas for these students, as it would create problems. The only problem is in the areas where there is no sidewalks--especially in the large lot areas, a need exists to provide an area for these stops. Each area would be studied separately and the Committee would meet to consider all facts. -9- 5/26/69 Chairman Hyde referred to the committee as an ad hoc committee, and felt t~at bus stop areas for all future subdivisions should go to a permanently established commission, such as the Safety Commission, rather than back to this particular committee. Director Warren commented that this could delay approval of a subdivision for two to four weeks. He declared the staff would be aware of this problem in the future, and in looking over the subdivision maps, if they do encounter a problem, they should recommend something to the Planning Commission. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Staff be directed to send a letter to the City Council explaining the reaction of the Commission to the Bus-Loading Committee report. There is nothing that could or should be done at this time, and if the problem occurs, then the Planning staff will make a report to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Setting date of workshop dinner meeting MSUC (Rice-Chandler) The workshop dinner meeting be scheduled for June 9, 1969 at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch in Bonita. Absence from Commission Chairman Hyde requested permission to be absent from the Commission for the meeting of June 16 and June 23 because of being on vacation. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Permission granted to Chairman Hyde to be away on June 16 and 23. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Meetin§ be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/'dennie M. Fulasz Secretary