Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/04/28 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 28, 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: Associate Planner Manganelli, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 21, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Authorizing staff to include additional matters in notice of public hearings Associate Planner Manganelli explained the need for this amendment indicating that there have been times in the past where an application has been filed either for a setback change or a rezoning for one particular lot when actually the Commission should be considering the change for the entire block or for several lots. In these circumstances, the staff must bring the application to the Commission requesting permission to advertise the additional lots, thus causing delay in the applicant's application. In other cases where the application was brought to the Commission, the Commission had to set another hearing to consider the same request for the rest of the block in order to have some continuity. This amendment, as proposed, will save time and money to all concerned. 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. The Commission concurred that the amendment was an appropriate one. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 570 City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance authorizing the Director of Planning to Include Additional Matters in Notices of Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF SETBACK - 25' to 20' on "E" Street - Northeast corner ~Corte Maria and "E" Stre6t Associate Planner Manganelli explained that this matter was set for hearing by the Commission as a result of a previous request for a move-in on this lot. The setback was originally 25', but has changed with the realignment of "E" Street. He presented a plot plan noting the location of the property and the existing setback line, which he said does not change with a realignment line and now varies from 0 to approximately 17'. The lot is City-owned, and the staff is recommending that the setback on "E" Street be established at 20 feet. 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. -2- 4/28/69 The Commission agreed that the setback establishment was a logical one for this lot. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 571 to City Council the Establishment of a 20' Setback for the Northeast Corner of Corte Maria and "E" Street with the Notation that any Proposed Construction be Oriented to Corte Maria Street Findings be as follows: a. At present a portion of the property has no setback because of the realignment of "E" Street. This action will serve to establish a setback on the "E" Street side of the property. b. Good planning practice dictates that building setbacks be established on arterial streets. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 1352 Hilltop Drive - Reduction in size of dwelling from ]200~square feet to 1,O15 square feet - Guadalupe Frutos "MOVE-IN" - to 1352 Hilltop Drive - Guadalupe Frutos Associate Planner stated he will take these two items together for the purpose of explanation. He passed photographs around taken of the dwelling, and submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed move-in, the adjacent land use and zoning. Mr. Manganelli explained that the house is sub-standard in size: the ordinance requires a 3-bedroom house to be 1200 square foot minimum, this house is 1,015 square feet. The topography of this lot makes it very difficult to develop; the pad is about 15 feet above street level. Quite a bit of grading will have to be done to the lot, and street improvements will have to be put in; this is a requirement of the City Code where improvements to a lot amount to more than $5000. Associate Planner Manganelli then noted the two possible accesses to the property. He added that the dwelling has a l~ car garage when the applicant will convert into a 2-car garage. As to the reduction in the house size, there are two adjacent subdivisions in the area that have substandard size homes. For this reason, the staff is recommending approval of the request. Member Rice questioned whether the applicant would have to put in the entire street improvements if the lot was split. Mr. Manganelli declared that the applicant would be obligated to put in the street improvements only on the lot that is being developed provided a parcel map is filed; otherwise the entire frontage will have to be improved. He further explained that the applicant probably has difficulty understanding the terms and conditions as she speaks little English. The staff has contacted her contractors and explained the conditions to them, such as the street improvements, etc. 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- 4/28/69 Member Stewart commented that he was on the Commission at the time they set up the scale for the house sizes and they discussed areas where adjacent homes were smaller than that required by ordinance. The feeling and concensus was that the Commission would give relief in these cases to requests for smaller houses going in these areas if warranted. The Commission discussed the possibility of the applicant having access to her home through the southerly portion of the property. Member Rice questioned whether they could impose the condition that she develop and improve the one lot with access on this lot. City Attorney Lindberg stated there was no way to prevent anyone from obtaining an easement over another person's property. He realizes, too, that a better development would be had if they could possibly avoid the easement over another person's property. Member Macevicz commented that the area is substandard now, and the question is whether the Commission is going to allow it to continue or are they going to improve it. Member Hyde remarked that the whole lot is adjacent to a subdivision that meets the Code requirements for the minimum square footage. He would feel differently about the request if the home was to be situated in the midst of smaller homes. MSC (Stewart-Adams) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The bank facing Hilltop Drive shall be regraded to a maximum slope of 1~ to 1, planted and maintained subject to staff approval (plan to be submitted prior to foundation permit). 2. The dwelling shall be placed on the lot as shown on the plot plan (northerly portion of lot) as submitted at this meeting. 3. The applicant shall convert the existing l~ car garage to a 2-car garage according to Code standards. 4. Approval of this variance shall be subject to the approval of the "move-in" dwelling by the City Council. 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. Requiring an additional 185 sq. ft. of building to be added on to this structure would represent a hardship inconsistent with the neighborhood. 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 proposed house size will be compatible with the area. -4- 4/28/69 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. The architecture and house size are in keeping with the area. 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 the variance. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Rice, and Putnam NOES: Members Macevicz and Hyde ABSENT: None MSC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of the "move-in" to 1352 Hilltop Drive in accord- ance with the standards delineated in Section 8.21 of the City Code and subject to the conditions outlined in the Building Director's report. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Hyde, Rice, Adams, Putnam NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None "MOVE-IN" - to 196 East Oxford Street - Dale G. Hill Associate Planner Manganelli referred to the staff's comments on this item, in which the staff recommended approval; however, upon visiting the site and viewing the proposed structure, Mr. Manganelli stated he cannot recommend approval of the building in its present state. He submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property and passed around some pictures of the proposed move-in. The build- ing will serve as a combination workshop and garage; it would be located on the rear property line located at the southwest corner of East Oxford Street and Monserate Avenue. The staff feels that the building is out of scale for that neighborhood. Mr. Manganelli pointed out that the applicant can build such a building as that on this property, by ordinance, without coming to the Commission for approval. The rear of this building will be on the property line, so they will be required to construct a one-hour fire wall on that side. Member Rice noted that the building was equivalent to a three-car garage; it is 690 square feet. City Attorney Lindberg declared the Commission should be looking at the architec- tural compatibility of the proposed move-in, and not the location of the building on the lot. -5- 4/28/69 -- Member Adams felt the building would look all right if the applicant did a decent job of remodeling it. Chairman Hyde suggested that the final remodeling plans be approved by the staff. He added he was not too entirely pleased with it, but with the condition that the applicant make it architecturally compatible, it should be all right. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the applicant should be notified if the Commission is going to consider imposing conditions on a move-in, rather than just to find it architecturally compatible. The Commission agreed that the matter should be continued. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Continue the matter to the next meeting, May 5th, and the staff be directed to meet with the applicant to discuss ways to make the build- ing architecturally compatible with the area. Consideration - Approval of Rohr Building - Tidelands Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan of the area noting the location of the proposed building. This will be located on Tidelands Avenue and will observe the 25' setback. This is before the Commission because the Ordinance requires the Commission to review all proposed buildings located in the tidelands zone. The building will be 24' x 64' and will be used for a shop and wash rack. The staff sees no problem with the request and is recommending approval. MSC (Putnam-Adams) Approval of the construction of the new building. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Putnam, Adams, Macevicz, Stewart, and Hyde NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Members Rice and Chandler Consideration - Sign Approval - La Pinata Restaurant - Bonita Village Shopping Center Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a sketch of the proposed sign explaining that it is 22'6" high freestanding sign and will be located approximately 5 feet from the front property line of the shopping center. This request falls within the 50 square foot requirement of the "D" zone since the applicant will be removing the present sign existing on the building. The staff feels the sign is attractive, but the problem is the freestanding sign which could set a precedent for other businesses in the area. Mr. Manganelli remarked that the bank in the center requested a freestanding sign on two occasions, and the Commission turned them down for fear of starting this precedent. -6- 4/28/69 Member Putnam questioned whether there was a possibility of all the businesses in the center getting together and advertising on one freestanding sign placed in front of the center. The buildings in the center all set back so far from the road that they need advertising. Member Stewart maintained that it would be contrary to the policy that has been established for that area. The Commission would be setting a precedent if they approved this request. This kind of shopping center appeals only to a certain amount of through traffic, mainly for the people in the area. Member Rice agreed and added that this shopping center should serve the needs for the immediate area and they should not have a sign out front to attract the passers-by. Member Putnam commented that perhaps the signs on the buildings should be lighted. Mr. Bob Townsend, owner of the restaurant, stated that they have had many people calling them asking for directions on how to get to the restaurant. This is especially true at night, since the center is hard to find. A sign out front would help these people find the business. Mr. Townsend added that he talked to the owners of the other businesses in the Center and no one wants to put a freestanding sign out there. The Commission discussed the request and agreed that it would start a precedent. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Denial of the request based on the following reasons: 1. It would create a precedent for other freestanding signs. 2. The sign on the building is sufficient identification. Rgquest for extension of time - Variance - Northwest corner Third Avenue and "C" Street - R.~'~. Hiqqins Associate Planner Manganelli explained that this is the second request for an extension of time by this applicant. In November 1967, the Commission approved a zone variance to construct apartments on this property. No changes have taken place in the area--the building plans are identical to that originally submitted; the staff recommends approval. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Approval of a one-year extension of time; subject variance will now expire on May 8, 1970. Proposed vacation of Public Ri~ht-of-wa~ -- Northwest corner of Bonita Road and Willow Roa~d Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, submitted a plot plan of the area noting the section requested to be vacated. The Division of Engineering is recommending the vacation of this section of the street. The purpose of the request is to provide better access for the business they propose to put on -- this corner. They have paid for some of the improvements and the curb, gutter and sidewalk has been put in up to a certain point. After construction of the proposed building, the rest of the improvements will be put in. The Engineering Division designed this corner primarily so that the school buses would be able to turn here. It is a 30° radius which is an adequate turn area; for this reason, they are recommending the vacation of that portion of the street. -7- 4/28/69 In answer to Member Rice' inquiry, Mr. Gesley indicated they are reducing the sight distance and possible turning radius of this corner. The Commission discussed the request commenting that since it is the respon- sibility of the Engineering Division to maintain standards throughout the City, and since the Planning staff also recommends approval, they would go along with the action and make this recommendation to the City Council. Member Macevicz remarked that one advantage to leaving it as it is would be to keep the proposed service station from moving the driveways closer to the corner on both sides, because they would probably put their driveways as close to the corner as they could possibly get them in order to get the traffic from both sides. Member Chandler questioned whether there will be a right-hand turn lane here. Mr. Gesley assured them that with the signal installation and the proposed two lanes planned for this section, there will be a right-turn area for this corner. He noted the portion belonging to the County which he indicated would be improved in the next few years. Member Hyde suggested that perhaps they would continue this item until they all got a chance to go out and look at it. Member Stewart disagreed remarking that the staff and Engineering Division would not be recommending this vacation if it did not meet all the standards and requirements. If they didn't approve it, they would be faced with putting in the improvements for this particular section some time in the future. Member Rice stated that he would prefer to see a more generous curb here with an island in the middle for a separate right-hand turn area. MSC (Stewart-Adams) Recommend to the City Council the vacation of this portion of the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Willow Road. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Hyde and Putnam NOES: Members Macevicz and Rice ABSENT: None Workshop - May 12, 196~ Associate Planner Manganelli stated the staff wishes to set up the workshop meeting for the 12th of May, the second Monday of the month. The topic has not been set; however, the General Plan revision may be ready for discussion; the City Attorney's suggestion for a civic center zone could also be discussed. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Staff be directed to set up a workshop meeting for Monday, May 12, 1969 in the Administrative Conference Room. -8- 4/28/6@ Equestrian Trails in the Sweetwater Valley - William Jasinek Associate Planner Manganelli referred to the letter from Parks and Recreation Director Jasinek, a copy of which was sent to the Commission, agreeing that a feasibility study should be made, probably in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The letter, a report of the Parks and Recreation Commission, also suggested that the County be contacted for assistance on this matter. Member Stewart suggested some consideration be given to the area of the H Street extension going through Rice Canyon and onto Otay Lakes Road. No action was indicated or taken on this letter. Sign Ordinance Chairman Hyde asked about the standing on the proposed sign ordinance. Associate Planner Manganelli stated that Ken Lee, Assistant Planner, met recently wi th the Broadway Association and they concluded that their original recommenda- tions still stand. The staff has received no comments from the Downtown Associa- tion, and they will go ahead and work on it on their own. Chairman Hyde suggested this item be put on the agenda for the workshop meeting. Mr. Manganelli indicated it should be a separate workshop meeting for this item alone, since it will involve much discussion. Gersten Meetin9 wi th Commission Chairman Hyde asked about this possible meeting. City Attorney Lindberg stated such a meeting was being planned, possibly for the third week in May. He will have the exact date for the Commission at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,/',," Jennie M. Fulasz ~/ Secretary