HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/03/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
March 24, 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, Assistant
Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant
City Engineer Gesley.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Prezoning - North side of Sweetwater Road, west of
Bonita Woods Subdivision from County E-1 to R-l-B-12 - Vitek Constructors
Oirector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent
land use and zoning. The area comprises 135 acres of vacant land presently zoned
E-1 (one-acre lots) in the County. The applicant is requesting 12,000 sq. ft. lots;
the ordinance requires that this be developed at the net basis. He plans to annex
this area to the City, but details of the annexation have not been worked out. No
subdivision map has been filed on the property. The Sweetwater Valley Planning
Committee recommended R-l-15 zoning for this area; however, this was not the unanimous
recommendation of the Committee, it was a split vote. The staff is recommending
prezoning of 15,000 sq. ft. lots instead of the 12,000 as requested.
Director Warren then noted the petition of protest received by the staff signed by
over 140 property owners in the area. The General Plan puts this property into a
low-density classification (1-3 dwellings for each acre). In working with the
Planning Committee, the staff was given a gross density figure for the entire Valley.
With so much one-acre zoning in the Valley, this gave the staff the opportunity to
increase densities where justified. They have no objection to retaining the one-acre
and one-half acre zoning in the Valley where it presently exists or elsewhere justified;
however, where the topography is relatively flat the staff feels that an increase in
density is justified. The Commission has two alternatives in this case: (1) continue
the hearing until April 7 at which time the Commission will make its decision concerning
the prezoning of the Sweetwater Valley, of which this is a part; or (2) prezone the
area R-l-15 in accordance with the recommendations of both the Sweetwater Valley
Planning Committee and staff.
Member Stewart suggested consideration of the "D" zone.
Member Adams felt the Commission was not equipped to effectuate approval of architecture
of the individual homes.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Alvin Vitek, 5289 Cantebury Drive, San Diego, the applicant, introduced his
Civil Engineer, Charles Crull.
Mr. Crull remarked that they have attended all meetings on the prezoning of the Valley
and on their own particularly property and believe their proposed development will
"add a little extra" to the Valley. Mr. Crull discussed the proposed development
declaring they will have one-half acre lots on the perimeter of the subdivision that
will serve as a buffer to the adjacent residences to the east and west. They will
have lots averaging 15,000 sq. ft. in the center of the development, and will provide
a bridle path which will be open to the public. In all cases, they will take advantage
-2- 3/24/69
of the topography and will have a minimum of cut and filling. Some of the lots
will be a little more than one-half acre and on most of these large lots, the
houses will be custom-built. They will have underground utilities and sufficient
landscaping. Mr. Crull added that they have no objection to the attachment of the
"D" zone. In answer to Member Chandler's inquiry, Mr. Crull claimed that the lots
will average out to better than 20,000 sq. ft.; this density includes streets.
Mr. A1Vitek stated they originally intended to use a few lots in this area for the
12,000 sq. ft. lots. They started off with 303 lots, but then became involved in the
buffer zone and now they are down to 204 lots. If it is the desire of the Commission,
they will favor using the 15,000 sq. ft. lot. They have 17 different elevations for
the subdivision.
Member Chandler asked if they would still provide the buffer one-half acre lots if
they have to go to the 15,000 sq. ft. lots.
iqr. Vitek indicated this would be debatable; it is up to the Commission.
Mr. Warren remarked that a subdivision map for this area has not been filed and most
of the discussion is revolving around this; the Commission should wait for the map.
Mr. Warren noted the private road being proposed as an access road and questioned
whether this was available to the developers.
Member Rice asked the legality of dedicating the bridle path to the City.
City Attorney Lindberg stated he was in no position to answer this at this time.
Options would be available if the City desired to incorporate a network of bridle
trails.
Mr. Paul Miller, real estate broker, 370 E Street, stated the subdivision was a
five-year plan and the total amount of the houses would not be built at once, and
the homes planned would not devaluate the price of the adjacent homes; in fact, they
would upgrade the area.
A letter was then read from several of the residents on Orchard Hill protesting the
proposed request.
Mr. Jack Hillier, Orchard Hill, stated he was one of the residents who signed the
letter of protest and questioned where the gross density figure for the Valley came
from. Mr. Warren explained that this figure was obtained from the Sweetwater Valley
Planning Committee.
Mr. Hillier added that he was given a tentative map by Mr. Miller of the proposed
subdivision which shows the buffer zone on the east and the west; however, it does
not come down to Sweetwater Road on the west. He questioned this aspect and also
maintained that going down to 15,000 sq. ft. lots was taking too much away from
the area. Mr. Hillier then asked if Mr. Vitek was one of the subdividers of Sweet-
water Heights, as they are trying to prevent this same type of development in their
area.
The City Attorney ruled that the question was irrelevant.
-3- 3/24/69
Mr. Hillier remarked that the 20 foot easement was a private road and no indication
was given to Mr. Vitek that he could use this road for an access.
Other protestants were: Frank Kral, 4816 Butternut Hollow Lane; Albert Marn, 4809
Butternut Hollow Lane; Richard Price, 4825 Bram Avenue; Dale Lawson, Orchard Hill.
They stated: (1) there is a 9.2 acre parcel north of Bonita Woods Subdivision known
as Bonnie Brae Estates for which the County just denied a request for 15,000 sq. ft.
lots, partially because access would come through Bonita Woods--this proposed
subdivision would also increase the volume of traffic to the point that it would be
hazardous to Bonita Woods; (2) the school problem should be considered--approximately
568 children will come out of this subdivision--that calls for more schools since
the present ones are filled to capacity; (3) the topography of this land must be
considered--the Valley Planning Committee had a split 50-50 vote to prezone this
area to 15,000 sq. ft. lots; (4) providing one access out to Sweetwater Road would
be hazardous and cause numerous accidents.
Director Warren explained that the staff would require that the main access to the
subdivision would come from Sweetwater Road. On the County Major Street Plan, it calls
for an interchange of the freeway in that area.
Mr. Wesley Ball, part owner of the property, stated that Orchard Hill is a private
road but would not be a complete access. He spoke of the taxes he had to pay last
year and indicated he could not afford to keep this up. He sold some of his land
to Irving Kahn north of the freeway, and Mr. Kahn indicated his willingness to buy
this land south of the freeway.
Mr. Vitek discussed the buffer zoned lots. He stated he would sell one-acre lots on
the perimeter of the subdivision for a period of 6 months, before developing them
into the one-half acre lots. As to the private road, he was going to improve the
road for their use and the adjacent residents. The general flow of traffic this
subdivision will bring in will not be unusual, and schools will have to be built in
this area eventually, regardless of who develops it. Mr. Vitek stated he is willing
to alter his request and go to 15,000 sq. ft. lots. He will work with every condition
the staff recommends. He added that he would like a decision from the Commission
tonight.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed continuing the matter to the next meeting.
MSC (Stewart-Putnam) Enter into discussion on this item and vote on the request.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Stewart, Putnam, Chandler, Hyde, Adams, and Macevicz
NOES: Member Rice
ABSENT: None
Member Adams asked how they could be assured of getting the one-half acre lots.
-4- 3/24/69
- Mr. Warren commented that once they establish the underlying zoning, it could be
tied to a subdivision map.
City Attorney Lindberg alleged that they could condition the zoning on the filing
of a subdivision map.
Member Stewart said he realized the desires of the people to retain the large lots
in the Valley, butcalled their attention to one proposed subdivision that has been
before the Commission three times, and none of the developers have been able to build
it because of the larger sized lots. He felt this was unrealistic.
Member Putnam agreed, adding that he, too, hates to see the smaller lots coming in,
but the costs of developing are getting higher.
The Commission discussed the lot sizes, the buffer zone, and bridle path and concurred
that the proposed subdivision would not be detrimental to the adjoining properties
and would certainly not downgrade the properties.
Member Stewart contended that he would still like to see the "D" zone added.
MSC (Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the
RESOLUTION NO. 564 City Council the Prezoning to R-1-B-15-D and R-1-B-20-D for
Property on the North Side of Sweetwater Road, west of Bonita
Woods Subdivision
_ Findings of fact are as follows:
a. The R-1-B-20-D is to be established as a buffer zone on the east and west
perimeter of the proposed subdivision.
b. The "D'' zone attachment will assure the Commission of proper control in order
to make the development compatible with the adjacent areas.
c. The prezoning will become effective only upon the approval of a final subdivision
map.
d. The General Plan designates this area as low density residential (1-3 dwellings
per gross acre); the applicant's request is for 3.6 units per gross acre. The R-l-B-15
zoning will more closely conform to the General Plan.
e. There is a need for a variety of lot sizes in the Sweetwater Valley and careful
subdivision design will assure that compatibility will result between adjacent larger
lots and those permitted in this zone.
f. The natural topography of the land will be more easily preserved because the
developer will be able to more intensely develop the more level land with larger
lots occurring on the more rugged terrain.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Rice, Adams, Putnam, Macevicz, Stewart and Hyde
NOES: Member Chandler
ABSENT: None
-5- 3/24/69
PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Conditional Use Permit - Property south of quintard Street
between Hillto~ Drive and First Avenue - Request for attached
single-family units on individual lots in R-3-B-3 zone -
Robinhood Homes~ Inc.
b. Variance - Property south of quintard Street between Hilltop
Drive and First Avenue - Request for modification of offstreet
parkin~ requirements - Robinhood Homes~ Inc.
Chairman Hyde stated that these two matters will be discussed together, but that the
vote would be taken separately.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land
use and zoning. Two parcels are involved in this request: one is 10 acres and the
other 3 + acres. This is a new application filed for permission to split the lots
in this area for a split duplex development. The area is zoned R-3-B-3-D; however,
the applicants will be conforming to the ordinance providing 3500 sq. ft. lots.
Mr. Warren then discussed the matter of onsite parking stating the ordinance requires
two spaces behind the setback area for each unit. The applicant is requesting
permission to provide one space within an enclosed garage and one space on the drive-
way in the front setback area. Instead of this tandem parking, the staff is
recommending that the same parking requirement be conditioned on this development as
granted to the similar development south of this project: that is, 50% of the models
use two-car garages and 50% single car garages. This would eliminate the complete
front yard paving that would occur. Mr. Warren then reviewed the staff's recommendations.
Member Macevicz questioned the green-colored parcel on the map. Director Warren explained
that this was open space and it would be accessible to the people on the north, and
an access way will be provided to this area for the properties to the south.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearings were opened.
Mr. Robert Casey, the applicant, stated he agrees with all of the staff's recommenda-
tions except the one of onsite parking. If they went into double-car garages, they
would have to put in a completely concrete front yard. He added that, as a professional
builder, his plans are more pleasing than what the staff proposes.
Director Warren asked if Mr. Casey planned to landscape the front of the units.
Mr. Casey stated he did.
Mr. Stan Merritt of Robinhood Homes, Inc., remarked that the one-car garages would be
12 feet, and if they had to go out another 8 feet, it would cut off all of the open
space between the units.
The Commission discussed this requirement. Member Rice stated he was against any
form of tandem parking. Member Putnam indicated there was no guarantee that the
people having the two-car garages would necessarily have two cars--he felt the situ-
ation could be worked out. Member Stewart declared that the 50% figure was not an
unreasonable one since 50% of the residents would have two cars.
The Commission concurred that the requirements of the staff were reasonable.
-6- 3/24/69
MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Conditional use permit be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Site plan and architectural approval by the staff of all building elevations
(including fencing) prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. If the Planning Commission desires a coordinated landscaping plan for the front
setback areas of the entire project, approval will be subject to review by the City
Landscape Architect.
3. Open space as approved shall be dedicated to the City for park purposes and if
such dedication is not accepted a special assessment district shall be established
with each lot assessed within the subdivision for maintenance of said open space.
Prior to acceptance by the City, subject open space shall be improved by the
developer, subject to approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
4. Deed restrictions prohibiting the conversion of garages for residential purposes
shall be imposed by the developer.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of
the neighborhood or the community.
_ The approval of splitting each duplex into separate parcels will provide for
single-family ownership at a level available to those in the moderate income
groups. It will also provide a diversity of housing types leading toward a more
balanced neighborhood.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
Granting this use will comply with the orderly development of the area.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the Code for such use.
When granted, this conditional use permit will comply with all of the building
and zoning regulations now in force in Chula Vista.
d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
This conditional use permit will conform to the zoning density established for
this area.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The location of each unit utilizing the tandem parking shall be approved by the
staff before building permits are requested; such variances to permit 50% of the units
to have one-car garages, the others to have two-car garages.
2. Driveways and parking areas shall be concrete in accordance with standards
administered by the City Engineer.
-7- 3/24/69
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.
Strict application of zoning regulations would make it impractical to develop
units in a lower price range.
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.
Exceptional circumstances applicable to the intended use which do not apply to
other properties in the neighborhood are that lot widths would make it undesirable
or impractical to provide two-car enclosed garages behind the setback for each
unit. There is some basis for the assumption that many of the families in the
income groups toward which these developments are directed would have only one
vehicle.
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.
Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
since space will be available off-street for the parking of at least two vehicles
per unit.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
Granting this variance would have no effect on the objectives of the General
Plan.
SUBDIVISIONS - Tentative Map2 - Kin~swood Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2
Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map of the subdivision explaining
that Unit No. 1 contains 3.21 acres with 28 lots, and Unit No. 2 contains approxi-
mately 10 acres and will be subdivided into 85 lots. The subdivision is located between
Tobias Drive and First Avenue, south of Quintard Street. The area will be developed
as split duplexes and will have an open space which will be dedicated to the City;
the area will comprise 17,300 sq. ft. The staff recommends approval of the subdivision,
both units, with several conditions. Mr. Warren reviewed these conditions. Mr. Stan
Merritt, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., briefly discussed their plans for the
subdivision, such as the entrance way and the landscaping.
MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Recommend approval of the tentative map subject to the
following conditions:
-8- 3/24/69
Kingswood Subdivision - Unit No. l:
1. The developer must apply for, pay the necessary fees and obtain the vacation
of Tobias Drive adjacent to Lots 1 and 28. If this vacation is not obtained,
a revised tentative shall be submitted to the staff.
2. Tentative layouts of each different lot configuration shall be submitted
to the Planning staff for approval prior to the filing of a final map to insure
that all sites are buildable. Minimum rear yard setback, 15' of level ground
(less than 3% slope).
3. The map is approved in accordance with conditional use permit Resolution
No. C-69-10.
Kingswood Subdivision - Unit No. 2:
1. The sewer manhole in Avenue "C" shall be located in the center of the cul-de-sac.
2. The developer must apply for, pay the necessary fees and obtain the vacation of
portions of First Avenue and Tobias Drive within the subdivision. If the necessary
vacations are not obtained, a revised tentative map shall be submitted to the staff.
3. The Engineering Division is not necessarily approving the storm drain system as
shown because of the lack of engineering data and information. It is the opinion
of the engineering division that the storm drain in Avenue "B" may have to be extended
to First Avenue and continued nOrtherly along First Avenue to the outlet end of the
system. An additional headwall and pipe will have to be installed across Tobias
Drive at Avenue "A", along with additional inlets, cleanouts and extensions which may
be required in the system. The storm drain system is subject to detailed approval
by the City Engineer.
4. Lots 29, 30, and 85 shall be improved with landscaping and a sprinkler system
installed by the developer to be approved by the Planning and Parks and Recreation
staffs. In addition, the subdivider shall provide a bond in an amount determined
to be sufficient to guarantee installation and one-year maintenance of this open
space. Subject park shall be dedicated to the City at the end of the one-year
maintenance period, unless development is not complete or plantings are not estab-
lished.
5. Lot lines along "B" Street shall be readjusted to provide wider lots for #54,
#69, and #71.
6. The cul-de-sac at the terminus of "C" Avenue shall be extended south to Lot #55
which will allow a redesign of Lot #28, making it buildable.
7. Tentative layouts of each different lot configuration shall be submitted to the
Planning staff for approval prior to the filing of a final map to insure that all
sites are buildable.
8. A block retaining wall shall be constructed at the toe of all banks on Lots 29,
30 and 85 subject to a plan submitted to and approved by the Director of Parks and
Recreation. Minimum height shall be no less than three courses of block.
-9- 3/24/69
Subdivision - Final Map - San Simeon Unit No. 1
Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map noting the location of the
subdivision as east of the proposed Interstate 805, bisected by "J" Street. This
unit contains 42 lots. The map conforms with the tentative map and the staff
recommends approval subject to the conditions imposed by the Division of Engineering.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following
condition:
The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections
are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid
and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and
easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 540 Carla Avenue - Reduction of portion of rear yard
setback f~O'Neill
Oirector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the
property in question and the proposed addition. The applicant's required rear
yard is 20 feet; however, the addition will extend 5 feet into this. With the
proposed addition, the remaining rear yard usable area would be 50' X 25' on
one side and 30' X 33' on the other, which would still assure adequate open space.
The staff recommends approval of the request and offers findings.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John O'Neill, the applicant, stated he was present but had no additional
comments to make.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the request and agreed that the applicant had sufficient
usable yard left, after the construction of the addition, which would create no
problem.
MSUC (Putnam-Rt~e) Approval of the variance request.
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 primary intent of the 20 foot 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 50 feet to 55 feet, a distance which
would insure such privacy.
-10- 3/24/69
- 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 feet deep making any addition inflexible by maintaining a 20
foot 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 sq. ft.
would exist, when a normal (70' X 20') rear yard contains 1400 sq. ft.
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.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - Northeast corner of Third Avenue and D Street - Reduction
of front setback on D Street from 25' to 15' - Gentry and Kiffe
Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan noting the location of the property,
the adjacent land use and zoning. The property is presently zoned R-3 with an existing
setback of 15' on Third Avenue and 25' on D Street.
Mr. Warren submitted a schematic plan of the proposed development noting that 12 units
will be constructed; the building will be two-story. The site slopes to the north,
so the owner proposes to locate the building as close to D Street as possible in
order to accommodate the majority of the required parking under the building. The
staff recommends approval of the request subject to the submission of landscaping and
irrigation plans.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Clarence Kiffe, the applicant, explained that the building will be 65' deep
with storage and parking under the building. They are requesting the reduction of
setback in order to get good access to the development.
Mr. Virgil Livesay, seller of the parcel, spoke in favor of the request stating it
was necessary for the applicant to obtain the setback reduction in order to get the
building and parking on the property.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the request subject to the following conditions:
Elevations and landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Such landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed prior to the final
inspection.
-11- 3/24/69
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.
A 25 foot setback would be an unnecessary hardship on this lot since an extra 13
foot parkway is maintained as well.
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.
15 foot setbacks have previously been approved for multiple family uses in
recognition that deeper setbacks on local street locations are unnecessary.
The topography of the lot makes it impractical to observe the 25 foot setback.
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.
No apparent detriment to the area by approval of this request is anticipated.
This neighborhood will ultimately be redeveloped with R-3 uses which could
utilize the same setback under the new ordinance provisions.
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 this request.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 581 Vance Street - Request for R-3 use in R-2 zone -
David Livels
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, submitted a plot plan noting the location of
the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant proposes
to develop two existing dwellings into residential use. The property is zoned R-2
which provides for one duplex on the property; however, the applicant wants to
develop it as a multiple use. The existing structures have been on the property
for some time, and there is an alley access to the property. The structures which
were moved onto the property were originally intended to be used as a dwelling unit
and for storage. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to certain
conditions.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Lively, the applicant, commented on one of the staff's recommendation--
to provide two paved parking spaces with access from the alley. He said he preferred
to use this area as a yard instead of the parking as delineated by the staff. The
property is in rundown conditions at this time, and he intends to put in $7,000 to
$8,000 to remodel the buildings.
-12- 3/24/69
The Commission discussed the feasibility of providing the yard area in front of
the dwelling rather than the area next to the alley; they felt this should be left
for parking purposes.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed the proposed parking and concurred that the recommendations
of the staff were reasonable.
MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Request be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Two paved parking spaces shall be provided with access from the alley subject to
staff approval.
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Building Department prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
3. All work shall be completed within the 6 month time limit in order to satisfy the
Chula Vista Building Department's requirements for issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
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 structures exist on the property; this variance would provide for the
completion of the units.
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 General Plan reflects a high density use and other variances for multiple
dwellings have been granted in the past for this area.
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.
The property directly north of this site is developed with apartments. The
proposed change would be an upgrading of the site.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan.
-13- 3/24/69
Request for waiver of underground utility service - 385 K Street - Kuebler
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question.
This is the site of a 22 unit apartment project for which the Ordinance requires
the undergrounding of the utility service unless waived by the Commission. There
is a pole on the premises (145' north of K Street), and Mr. Kuebler is requesting
permission to use the same pole with this overhead service.
The staff recommends approval of the request since it would be unreasonable to
require undergrounding of service for the new building which is served by the
same pole giving service to an existing apartment building.
MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Approval of the request in accordance with Chapter 34,
Section 34.2.3 of the City Code.
Request for modification of landscapin§ requirements for shopping center at
northwest co~n6r o~-Hilltop Driv~ and Naples Street - Jay Pugh et al
Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was resolved this afternoon.
A complaint was filed against the applicants and the City Attorney has now requested
a three week continuance by the Court. They will be putting in the landscaping;
the staff will be sending them a schematic drawing which they allege they will follow
up on. They have three weeks in which to comply.
The Commission took no action on this matter.
Request for architectural a_~p.p_.[9~_al of "Move-In" - 199 Corte Maria - Daniel Green
Director of Planning Warren passed around photographs to the Commission shewing
the house to be moved and the location. The staff finds the house to be architec-
turally compatible with the area and are recommending approval subject to the
conditions imposed by the Building Inspection Department, which are quite extensive.
Member Rice remarked it was unfortunate that the applicant wouldn't construct
another garage onto this dwelling instead of the carport.
Mr. Daniel Green, the applicant, stated he now intends to construct a two-car
garage instead of the carport as originally planned.
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Recommend approval of the move-in in accordance with
Section 8.21 of the City Code and with the condition that a two-car garage will be
constructed; the building will be compatible with the surrounding area based upon
the standards delineated in said section.
Discussion - Council request for consideration of rezoning from R-3 to R-l, area
bounded by Flower ~ D Street Woodlawn & Madison Avenues
Director of Planning Warren explained the referral from the Council. The Council
left the setbacks in the area as existing, 20' and 25'. The people in the area
submitted a petition to the Council and asked that the area be rezoned to R-1.
The Council took no action on this request but referred it to the Commission for
consideration.
-14- 3/24/69
Member Stewart declared that there are a good many homes here in need of redevelop-
ment, and there is some R-3 use in the area. There are many people who do not want
the change; however, the others want to put up apartments on their lots and there is
no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. He is in favor of leaving it R-3.
Member Adams agreed, adding that it was a certainty that no further single-family
construction will be taking place in this area.
The Commission concurred.
MSUC (Chandler-Adams Leave the zoning as it presently exists--R-3, based on the
following findings:
1. Much of the area is in need of redevelopment, and any change which will
take place will be to multiple-family use.
2. The General Plan designates this area in a limited industrial classification.
3. The residents in this area that desire to have their properties changed to the
R-1 zone should file applications with the Commission, and their applications would
be considered on their own merit.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that the people in the area should be notified that
they can apply for a rezoning to R-l, if they are interested in doing so.
Director Warren indicated he would report this to the City Council along with the
findings.
Discussion - Modificatien of §ar~e r~uirement in R-1 and R-2 zones
Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was discussed one month ago by
the Commission and they asked the staff to submit a report. A field trip was taken
to Otay Mesa to view the subdivisions there, in which the Commission viewed the homes
having one-car garages and carports. The staff is reiterating their original
recommendation--to stay with the two-garages and permit the home owner to convert it
with storage and if two parking spaces are available, such conversion to be subject
to staff approval.
Member Stewart commented that the parking requirements for the split duplex develop-
ment taken tonight was a good one and suggested inclusion in this amendment. Director
Warren suggested the Commission wait before incorporating this particular provision
to see how it works out.
The Commission discussed the matter and directed the staff to prepare an ordinance
for mailing to the Commission.
MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Public hearing on this item be set for April 21, 1969.
Aero Awning Company Request for Out__door Display of Merchandise
Director Warren noted a requested received by the staff today for approval by the
Commission to locate on a temporary basis (one year) a patio cover display adjacent
to the entrance of the Big Apple Discount Store on 5th and H Street. There will also
be a 2' to 3' high wall around the display area. The C-1 zone prohibits any outdoor
-15- 3/24/69
sales or display of merchandise, and the staff feels that, if approved, it would
start a precedent here. If approved, we would suggest the location north of the
nursery for this display.
The Commission discussed this new location realizing it would not give the applicant
the exposure he wants. Member Rice commented that this request was contrary to what
they envisioned in the D zone.
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Denial of the request.
Status Items
Chairman Hyde questioned the status on the review of the General Plan.
Director Warren remarked that a draft of a revised report was just given to him today
by the Associate Planner and as soon as he gets a chance to review it, he will send
it to the Commission.
Chairman Hyde questioned the status of the sign ordinance.
Director Warren stated he wrote a letter to Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce, asking
for the comments from the Downtown Association and the Broadway Association. He
said he would try to get this information to the Commission by the next meeting.
Mr. Warren added that a report from the City Attorney will be sent to the Commission
relating to billboards.
City Attorney Lindberg co~ented he received a call from the State Division of
Highways in which they said that they are giving 10 days notice to owners of the
billboard just off of L Street which was put up without permission.
Chairman Hyde asked about the Fifth Draft of the Zoning Ordinance.
Director Warren declared that everything but the provisions regarding signs is being
sent to the Council. He will be calling a joint Council-Commission meeting soon to
review this ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ Jennie M. Fulasz
Secretary