Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/05/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 19, 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, Rice, Adams, Stewart, Chandler, Putnam and Macevicz. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. Chairman Hyde acknowledged and welcomed the members of the Political Science Class from Southwestern College who were attending the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Rice) Minutes of the meeting of May 5, 1969, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - San Diego Gas & Electric Company property (portion of Casey's First AVenue Annexation) to R-3-B-3-D Planning Director Warren pointed out the area, comprising 13 acres, adjacent to an area recently prezoned, and included in annexation proceedings known as Casey's First Avenue Annexation. It was pointed out that this land is used for the electric company's power lines and it is improbable that any structures would be erected thereon. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There were no comments, either for or against, and the hearing was declared closed. The Commissioners expressed agreement that this land should be prezoned to the same classification as the other area included in the annexation. RESOLUTION NO. 570 Recommend to the City Council Prezoning to R-3-B-3-D MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) of land Belonging to San Diego Gas & Electric Company, north of Orange Avenue and west of First Avenue Findings of fact are as follows: 1. This designation is compatible with those which presently exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 2. Previous zoning decisions in this area have determined that the General Plan would be altered to reflect these decisions. This alteration will result in conformity of the proposed prezoning to the Plan. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Setback Reduction - 146 Mankato Street - A.P.Gallupe Planning Director Warren pointed out the location of the property on which the applicants propose to construct a second story addition over the garage of their home. This is to create additional living area that will be eliminated on the ground floor by enlarging the garage, and as designed, the addition would project 2 feet nearer to the front property line than the present structure, plus an additional roof overhang. Mr. Warren pointed out that the zoning ordinance permits fire escapes, cornices, eaves, canopies, and awnings to extend four feet into the required front yard, while open stairways or balconies may project 30" into the front yard, while open stairways or balconies may project 30" into the front yard, and it is the opinion of the staff that a 2' projection of a second story would be as inoffensive as the permitted intrusions. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Amos Gallupe, 146 Mankato Street, testified that the walls of the addition will remain within the required setback, and the roof is all that will extend into the setback. Under these conditions, no variance would be required. MS (Rice-Chandler) The application for variance be filed. City Attorney Lindberg suggested that if the Commission were favorable to granting the variance, this could be done, and if investigation revealed that the variance were not necessary, the application fee could be refunded. Further questioning Mr. and Mrs. Gallupe revealed that the foundation and walls of the structure are presently 22 feet from the sidewalk, the floor and walls of the addition will be cantilevered out to within 20 feet of the sidewalk, and the roof will extend 2 feet further. Since the property line is usually back of the sidewalk, and the plan submitted with the application indicated there would be a 2' encroachment, it was felt the variance would be required. Member Rice, with the consent of Mr. Chandler, therefore withdrew his motion to file the variance request. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Variance request of A. Gallupe for reduction of front setback be approved. 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 2 foot projection requested is no more detrimental that projections permitted by the Ordinance. These projections are allowed at twice the distance as that which is requested. 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. -2- The dwelling has a small kitchen and a one-car garage. The addition would permit the construction of larger kitchen facilities and a two-car garage - which would upgrade the property and the neighborhood. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. There would be no change to the front setback since the proposed addition would occur on the second story, and the overhang would create a more pleasing front elevation on the building. Thus no detriment to the neighbor- hood is apparent. 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 the approval of the request. Member Stewart requested that the staff consider the feasibility of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit second story projections of the type requested into the front setback and report to the Commission at a future date. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 242 and 244 E Street - General Real Estate and Contracting Office Robert Keyes Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the requested use as the two end apartments in a row of single-story apartments fronting on E Street on R-3 zoned property. Parking would be in the rear and is presently used by tenants of the apartments. Mr. Warren enumerated the adjoining uses which include single-family dwellings, apartments, and two offices on the opposite side of "E" Street, one of which was established by variance several years ago in the R-1 zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Keyes, real estate broker, who is the applicant and owner of the property, expressed the belief that the proposal is compatible in the area. He affirmed there is sufficient parking in the rear to handle this use as well as the tenants in the remaining apartments. He contended that since this use was permitted across the street in the R-1 zone, he should be entitled to it in the R-3 zone. There being no further comments, for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. Member Adams expressed his agreement with the recommendations of the staff that this permit should be denied, and the reasons set forth for denial are valid. Member Stewart remarked that applications in the past for dual use of property-- commercial and residential--have been denied and it has been the general policy of the Planning Commission not to permit commercial use in a building with residential use. -3- MSUC (Adams-Chandler) The application of Mr. Keyes for a conditional use permit to establish a real estate and contractor's office at 242 and 244 E Street in - an R-3 zone be denied for the following reasons: 1. A proliferation of similar uses along "E" Street would be encouraged. 2. Access to the off-street parking is inconvenient and would encourage street parking on "E" Street, one of the highest traffic carriers in the City, thus reducing its efficiency. 3. The conversion of these dwellings would create a mixed use of the building for which such uses were not designed. Conversions of dwellings to business uses are marginal at best. Subdivision - Tentative Map - Princess Manor, Unit #6 (Revised) Director of Planning Warren indicated on a map the location of the unit under consideration, which is east of Oleander and is bordered by Orange Avenue on the south. He also pointed out the area on the original tentative map of the entire subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and which indicated development of lots on both sides of Orange Avenue. Mr. Warren recalled the reasons for denial by the Planning Commission of another tentative map of this unit, submitted in June 1968, as it made no provision for the dedication or improvement of any segment of Orange Avenue, and it was the opinion of the Commission that this section of Orange Avenue would be needed to serve the Princess Manor Subdivision. Planning Director Warren that while he had felt it was necessary to recommend denial of this latest revised tentative map because some of the points of difference have not been resolved, it is now his feeling that perhaps the Commission should forward it to the City Council with certain conditions for approval. This would include changing the grade of five lots which border on Orange Avenue so that natural ground would not be left at the rear of the lot below the graded slope, since such ground being separated from the building pad by a graded slope would probably not be taken care of and would become an eyesore. Also, the condition that all slopes adjacent to Orange Avenue should be planted and irrigated and a 5' high masonry wall provided adjacent to the northerly edge of Orange AVenue for the length of the subdivision. Mr. Warren suggested that additional conditions should be presented by the Assistant City Engineer. Engineer Howard Gesley concurred with the Planning Director in that there are basic objections to the map. He pointed out that Lots 876, 877 and 878 have a depth almost double the depth of other lots in the area, and this lot arrangement should be revised. He further recommended that the street indicated between Lots 911 and 912 should be moved approximately 100 feet easterly to permit proper development of the land to the north; also, that this street be extended and improved to Orange Avenue to permit traffic from the subdivision to flow on to Orange Avenue rather than traversing residential streets. Mr. Gesley also felt it necessary that the subdivision boundary from Lilac Avenue to the easterly subdivision limits be moved southerly to the centerline of Orange Avenue and that Orange Avenue be improved with 28 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights and a block wall the length of the subdivision. This -4- would also necessitate constructing a drainage channel south of Orange AVenue. Mr. Gesley specified that the alignment of Orange Avenue be modified with 400' of tangent between the curves. Mr. Gesley pointed out the developer had proposed some offsite sewer facilities and it would be necessary to construct access roads to serve such facilities. The Chairman asked for any Gomments in support of this map. Mr. Jim Bear, attorney for ~rincess Park Estates, and Mr. Arthur Shurtliff, engineer for this project, spoke in support of the proposed map. Mr. Bear said he agreed with the staff recommendations that the map be sent to the City Council with such guidelines as the Commission can give on this problem. Hel felt that the basic problem is the improvement of Orange AVenue, since this is a costly thing. He pointed out that an earlier tentative map for this unit (submitted in June 1968) did not come down to Orange Avenue. They have now revised the boundary to come to Orange AVenue and propose to improve half the width of Orange Avenue for approximately half the length of the subdivision, or to Lilac Avenue. They would provide access to the vacant proper~y to the east but cannot improve it or provide access to Orange AVenue at that point. Mr. Bear asserted it is economically infeasible to go to the extent of the staff recommendations in improving Orange AVenue, and he objected to the requirement of a 5' block fence along Orange Avenue. Chairman Hyde raised a question as to what is the responsibility of the developer concerning streets adjacent to his property. City Attorney Lindberg advised that the responsibility of the developer for improving streets is based on whether or not the improvements are necessitated by the development of the subdivision. The question was raised about the ownership of the area just south of Orange AVenue, which was included in the original tentative map of Princess Manor Sub- division. Mr. Bear affirmed he has a title which shows the owner of that area is Donald G. Perkins. Mr. Rice asked about the legal ramifications of the property having been sold. City Attorney Lindberg affirmed that the City does not like to see developments take place in such a piecemeal manner as done in this subdivision. He agreed it is wrong to permit piecemeal development in order to eliminate the possibility of obtaining improvements required by development of the entire area. Planning Director Warren remarked that the issue is raised on almost every subdivision approved as to carrying utilities to the outer boundary of the develop- ment so that future development can be accommodated; there is a question on stub streets, should land be reserved, or dedicated and improved. Under questioning, Mr. Arthur Shurtliff, 2030 State STreet, San Diego, affirmed that the original tentative map for this subdivision showed the improvement of Orange Avenue, but he felt they should no longer be bound by the original map which has expired. Engineer Gesley asserted that he felt Mr. Bear attempted to mislead the Commission. He stated that he also has the title showing the property south of Orange AVenue was sold to Donald G. Perkins, and the report, dated last week, shows that Princess Park was the trustor. =5= Member Adams asked the Director of Planning to again state the conditions which should be applied to the approval of this tentative map. City Attorney Lindberg advised that whatever conditions are applied should be stated as being based on the finding that the necessity is created by the development of the area in question. Member Adams stated that the entire north half of Orange is needed to serve this subdivision to provide proper traffic flow in both a westerly and easterly direction ultimately. Director of Planning Warren again reviewed the conditions recommended by the Planning staff and Engineering Division as necessary for approval of the map. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Recommend approval of the tentative map for Princess Manor, Unit #6, with the following conditions for improvements necessitated by the development of this area: 1. The Subdivision boundary from Lilac Avenue to the easterly subdivision limits shall be adjusted to include the northerly half of Orange Avenue. Orange Avenue shall be improved with 28 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, including street lights and a block wall in the locations required by the City Engineer. 2. The alignment of Orange Avenue shall be modified so that 400 feet of tangent shall be interjected between reverse curves. The centerline radii may be reduced from the 1200' shown to a minimum of 1000'. 3. The subdivider shall obtain the necessary permission, and construct the channel south of Orange Avenue in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. The design and construction of onsite and offsite sewer facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Access roads shall be constructed to serve the offsite sewer facilities, as required by the City Engineer. The necessary easements and/or slope rights for this work shall be obtained and granted to the City of Chula Vista. 5. That the future street reservation presently shown near the easterly end of the map be moved easterly one lot depth (a distance as yet undetermined) and extended southerly to Orange Avenue. Subject street shall be dedicated for public use and fully improved by the subdivider. 6. Lots 876, 877, 878, 926 and 927 shall be graded in a manner that will provide a continuous slope from the pad elevation to Orange Avenue. The grading shall be accomplished in a manner acceptable to the Planning and Engineering staffs. 7. All slopes adjacent to Orange Avenue shall be planted and irrigated in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department and Division of Engineering. A 5' high masonry wall shall be provided adjacent to the northerly edge of Orange Avenue for the length of the subdivision. The details of such landscaping and wall construction shall be approved by the staff prior to submission of the final map to the Planning Commission. -6- Architectural Approval - Woodlawn Avenue between "E" and "F" - Apartment Buildings Director of Planning Warren showed plans for a 25 unit apartment building, con- sisting of two stories, and trimmed with stone veneer, columns, and a fascia on the roof. Traffic will enter from Woodlawn, circle the site and go out on Woodlawn. Mr. John Ketchingham, 24 East 30th Street, National City, representing the applicant, raised a question as to when the landscaping would be required, and was advised that it is only the final landscaping plans that must be approved prior to electrical inspection, and the landscaping should be installed at the completion of the project. MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Approval of architectural plans for apartment buildings on the east side of Woodlawn Avenue between "E" and "F" Streets. Architectural Approval - Shopping Center - South side Telegraph Canyon Road east of Interstate 805 - Saratoga and Poutous Develop. Co. Planning Director Warren presented a proposed plan for the entire shopping center, including a service station, remarking that it is a schematic plan and may be changed, but the plan as submitted appears to be satisfactory. The plan does not indicate the colors or type of materials to be used in con- struction of the stores. A representative of the Humble Oil Company has implied the type of materials to be used in the service station is flexible. Mr. Warren recommended that the overall concept of the center be approved and permit the staff to work with the developers on materials, elevations and colors. Mr. Dennis Wittman, President of Saratoga Development Corporation, indicated they would be willing to work with the Planning Department on the utilization of the most desirable type of materials but do not wish to be committed at this time. He pointed out that each oil company has a certain type of architecture they identify themselves with and they cannot deviate greatly from the accepted standard. Mr. L. W. Weaver, 1241 Essex Street, San Diego, representing Humble Oil Company, expressed his willingness to go as far as he could in developing a service station compatibt~ with the rest of the shopping center. He prefers old brick for the siding, but if the Commission wants slump s~one, they would go along with it. They would also change from white rock roof to aluminum shingle shake roof, if desired. MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Approval of the general site plan of the center with the provision that the architectural design of the Humble Oil service station be brought back for Commission approval when the plans are definite. The design of the service station building should be more closely coordinated with that of the maJn shopping center buildings. -7- Request for classification of Health Spa Planning Director Warren referred to a letter asking whether a health spa could be classified as a commercial recreational facility, which would come under Unclassified Uses permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit. He expressed some doubt as to whether it should fall into that category and felt it compared more closely to establishments offering personal services such as beauty parlors and barber shops, which have been considered in the same class as a retail use. I~ discussion, the Commissioners brought out that this would probably be a night time use, would be an indoor use, would create additional traffic which would make it undesirable i~'a residential zone. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Director of Planning be instructed to research other ordinances to determine how health clubs are classified, and report to the Commission. To be set for hearing - Ordinance regulating display of outdoor advertising Director of Planning Warren referred to the 90 day moratorium on the construction or relocation within the City of any outdoor advertising structures, and asked for directions from the Commission as to the type of permanent billboard ordinance they wish to adopt--a landscaped freeway ordinance as National City has, or one restricting billboards to one particular zone. Chairman Hyde commented that this matter had been discussed at a recent workshop, and it was the consensus of opinion that the Commission would ask for the most rigid requirements on billboards and confine those permitted to such areas as freeway interchanges. City Attorney Lindberg referred to new legislation before the State which declares billboards are a public nuisance, which reverses the position they took two years ago. It was directed that an ordinance regulating billboards be presented at the next meeting, May 26, 1969, to be set for public hearing. Communications Arrangements for attending the Planning S~posium at San Diego State College on Saturday, May 24th, were discussed. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of May 26, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes Acting Secretary