Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/03/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 3, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Chandler, Stewart, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Minutes of the meetings of February 17 and 24, 1969, be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Prezoning - North of East Oxford Street~ bounded by Flair to the south to R-1 - Mahy Construction Company Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the area in question, the adjacent zoning in the County, and land use. The applicants are requesting prezoning to R-1 (7000 square foot residential lots); the County zoning is R-1 (10,000 square foot lots). The staff included the freeway right-of-way in this proposal, at the request of the Commission. Also requested is the standard setback of 15 feet which is established by subdivision map. The staff recommends approval of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission concluded that the request was appropriate for the area. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 559 City Council the Prezoning to R-1 of Property east of Interstate 805 Freeway, south of East Oxford Street and north of Flair Subdivision. Findings be as follows: a. The zone proposed is in conformance with the General Plan. b. The zoning on surrounding properties is also R-I. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 166 First Avenue - Split lot into two parcels, one to be served by a 20' wide easement - F. & D. Cutchshaw Director of Planning Warren submitted the plot plan noting the location of the appli- cant's property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted the topography of the property and remarked that the applicant is requesting permission to split this property into 2 lots: 8,400 sq. ft. lot with 60' of frontage along First Avenue, and the second lot will have 20 feet of frontage and comprise 8,960 sq. ft. The size of the lots exceeds the ordinance requirements. The staff recommends approval subject to three conditions regarding a grading plan, offstreet parking, and paving the driveway area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -2- 3/3/69 Member Rice suggested a condition to have the alley paved. The Commission discussed this and felt the applicant should sign an agreement whereby he would state he would not object to participating in the improvements at the time the City requires it. Mr. Bob Gross, real estate agent working at Lee Mather Realty, 760 Fifth Avenue, stated he is representing the applicants. He explained that the property is in escrow, but that the buyer will not object to this paving condition. If the Commission so desires, they can increase the width of the access from 20' to 30'. Member Stewart noted the slope at the proposed driveway and questioned the applicant as to how wide the driveway would ultimately be. Mr. Gross maintained that they would be putting up a retaining wall at ttris location and that the details had not yet been determined. Mr. Richard M. Hatton, 161 Minot Avenue, commented that a variance for duplex construc- tion had been denied previously for this property, and now this applicant is requesting permission to put in two duplexes. He questioned how this would be sewered, and whether the adjacent property owners would have to share in this cost. Director Warren stated that the applicant must provide sanitary facilities for his lot; this is an Engineering or Building Department matter and has nothing to do with the variance request. This project in itself could not obligate adjacent property owners. Mr. Gilbert Dahms, 178 Minot Avenue, objected to the request stating he does not want to have to share in the cost of the sewer. If the request is approved, it would start a precedent, and others will come in and ask for the same thing. Director Warren explained that the sewer could be put in with a 1911 Act; however, the ~uilding Department must determine what type of sanitary facility must go in. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the applicant can go to the expense of having a sewer extended. This would involve no cost to the people adjacent unless they wanted to hook onto it. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. A grading plan shall be submitted to the staff for approval prior to the recordation of the parcel map. Said plan shall provide for a minimum paved driveway width of 12 feet and any slope areas shown on the plan shall indicate the type of landscaping to be used, as well as method of irrigation. 2. A retaining wall may be required along the length of the driveway. This retaining wall shall be subject to staff approval upon submission of a grading plan. 3. The westerly parcel shall provide a minimum of four offstreet parking spaces for the duplex to be constructed. 4. The paved driveway and parking shall be a minimum of 2" A.C. over 4" D.G. as approved by the City Engineer. 5. The property owner shall sign an agreement, prepared by~t~e Citv.Attor~ a~esti~g to the fact that they will not protest paying their snare oT ~ne pa-ring oT aojacen~ alley if, at such time in the future, an improvement project is approved by the city. -3- 3/3/69 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. If this variance is not granted a large portion of the lot could not be developed. 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 parcel is not of sufficient size to provide a dedicated street to serve the lot. 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 lot size will be comparable to many in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The lots will conform to the General Plan. Under discussion, Mr. Gross questioned the requirement for a retaining wall. He declared that he was referring to the south side of the property when he spoke of the retaining wall. Mr. Warren indicated that a grading plan must be brought in, and asked that this be left up to the staff for approval. The Commission concurred. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 163 Glover Avenue - Reduction of front setback from 15' to 7' for offstreet parkin9 and from 5' to zero for erection of ~ buildin9 wall (southern end of property ) - A Wasserman Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted the applicant's requests: (1) The zoning ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15' from the front property line; however, for offstreet parking, the setback is calculated from the back of the walk which is 5' from the property line in this case. This would permit one parking space to be located 10' from the property line, but as proposed, the space would be 8' from the property line. (2) The ordinance requires 11 spaces for the proposed 7 units; the applicant has room for only 10. He states that his rentals are for retired people only and the demand would be for even less than the 10 spaces. (3) The ordinance requires a 5' side yard, but this development has one apartment on the second level which will be on the southerly property line. The applicant's plan utilizes the maximum density of 7 units. -4- 3/3/69 Director Warren then discussed the apartment units in the downtown area that do not have any parking areas for their tenants, and the apartments oriented to the retired citizens that do not own vehicles. He felt this was immeasurable and needs some study. The staff recommends denial based on the reasons stated in the report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. A. Wasserman, 37 San Miguel Drive, stated the units will contain 2000 square feet of floor space on this 7000 square foot lot. He will be renting to senior citizens only as he does with another apartment he owns on G Street. He maintained that they will not be using the parking spaces. Mr. Hobart Gilkey, 862 Ash Avenue, stated he owns two lots on Glover Street, across the street from this proposed development. He is opposed to having this applicant get permission to build on the property line. In the future, someone next to this lot may also want to build on the property line. It would start a bad precedent. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams agreed that it would start a precedent if they granted this applicant's variance. Member Rice declared he would be against anything that would downgrade the parking requirements. He commented that even though this applicant would be renting to senior citizens at this point, there is nothing that would assure them that the apartment complex would not ~ange hands next year and demand the parking requirements. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Denial of the request based on the following findings: 1. Strict application of setbacks required would not prevent the applicant from reasonable development of this property with R-3 use. 2. There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property which do not apply to other properties in the area; the cost of the site cannot be accepted as such justification. 3. With the exception of some deviation in the parking requirements, granting this variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood since all other units constructed observe the required setbacks. 4. Granting this variance would be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan which is to provide usable open space for residential use. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision wi thin 10 days to the City Council. Reconsideration of Home Occupation - 8 Prospect Court - C. E. Wright Director of Planning Warren explained the matter before them. This was before them in November, 1968, at which time a complaint was received from one of the neighbors. At that time the Commission approved the continuance of this home occupation permit, based on the testimony of other adjacent property owners. Two conditions were imposed: (1) the hours for the operation of this business be limited to 3 hours in the evening, and (2) the garage doors are to be closed at such time as work is being -5- 3/3/69 done on these machines. Subsequent to this meeting, the City Council has received a complaint about this operation, and the Chief Administrative Officer has directed this back to the Commission for reconsideration. The staff has made two observations: (1) the home occupation, as presently conducted, takes up one-half of the garage, and (2) a home occupation involving anything other than a telephone, etc., is difficult to control. Based upon the provisions establishing a home occupation, the staff believes this operation far exceeds that originally estab- lished. They recommend that the Commission reverse their original decision and direct that tilis operation be discontinued in a matter of 60 to 90 days. Member Rice asked if the applicant was doing any contractural work for Rohr Manufac- turing. Mr. Wright, the applicant, stated he was doing some work for Rohr, but that it was very small. Member Rice and Member Chandler indicated they would abstain from the discussion since they are employed by Rohr. Chairman Hyde asked about the scope of the operation since the original permit was granted. Mr. Warren stated the applicant initially applied for a permit in October, 1964 for "experimental go-cat, work on lathe." Mr. Wright explained that the machinery he has now is a lathe and a milling machine, and he only works on one of them at a time. He does not work on go-carts. He has put in 40 hours so far this year. Mr. Wright declared this was more or less a hobby and questioned whether he would have to remove this equipment if the Commission determined that it should cease. City Attorney Lindberg felt this would be difficult to condition. Members Adams felt the equipment should be removed, and he is against the continuance of the operation. Member Stewart agreed that it should be discontinued since the people in the neighbor- hood again felt it was necessary to complain. It has gone beyond a hobby and has now become a commercial enterprise. What this applicant is doing is setting a precedent, and the Commission cannot possibly grant this to everyone. Mr. Wright declared that many of his neighbors have machinery in their garages that make more noise than his does. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the City now has a Zoning Enforcement Officer and if any business is being conducted in this area, it will be ascertained. As far as a hobby is concerned, they are at a loss as to how to control it. Member Putnam felt the machinery need not be removed. Director Warren asked that this be left up to the staff to be enforced under the regulations of the new zoning ordinance. -6- 3/3/69 City Attorney Lindberg ruled that Members Chandler and Rice could participate in the voting as the remoteness of their interest in this matter would allow them to do so. Member Rice and Member Chandler asserted that they would abstain. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Direct that the home occupation be discontinued within 60 days based on the following: I. The home occupation has far exceeded the original application granted on October 7, 1964, for "experimental go-cart work on lathe." 2. This type of use exceeds the intent of the home occupation provisions. 3. The machinery used is not the type normally approved for a home occupation use. 4. Complaints have been filed against this use by your neighbors. Subdivision - Tentative map of Zenith Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location as south of Oxford Street, abutting the easterly side of Interstate 805 and the northerly boundary of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company easement. The area contains 21 acres and will be designed with 93 single-family lots. There are a series of eight cul-de-sacs varying in length from 150 feet to 650 feet from a main point of access from Oleander. The staff feels this is too much development with only one point of access. There is no way to cross the freeway and nothing was stubbed from the sub- division to the north. The staff discussed with the subdividers the possibility of crossing the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. right-of-way, and believe that such a crossing is necessary; other- wise, the subdividers should redesign the subdivision to form some sort of loop. The San Diego Gas & Electric Company has declared their objection to such a crossing, pointing out that this right-of-way is needed for their transmission lines and future location of the lines are uncertain at this time, but would restrict their use. Director Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval. Member Rice questioned the City's authority to require crossing the right-of-way. City Attorney Lindberg alleged that the City does have the right of eminent domaine here; it would be up to the City Council to make a decision on this. Mr. Ted Richmond, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, reaffirmed that they do object to the crossing over their right-of-way. Oleander, Nacion and the Freeway will be crossing over their right-of-way and all of these streets jeopardize the location of their power poles, tower sites, future gas lines and any undergrounding that might take place. Street crossing just adds to the cost of the installations because it would necessitate crossing the street or tunneling under it. Since this right-of-way is not fully developed at the present time, they cannot state just where these tower sites and poles will go. -7- 3/3/69 Member Stewart remarked that he agreed with the staff; there are too many lots in this proposed subdivision to be served with the one main access; it imposes a further problem as to the emergency vehicles that would have to service this area. He felt there was sufficient flexibility in undergrounding the lines without having too much loss, and the necessity of another access was great enough so that they should impose this condition. Mr. Don Westphall, civil engineer for the project, stated the developers have no objections to the conditions as stated. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Recommend approval of the tentative map subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 10 and 39 shall be eliminated and Lot ll shall be redesigned to eliminate frontage on three streets. 2. Dedication of a 10' wide strip at the terminus of each cul-de-sac abutting the San Diego Gas & Electric easement for future access to the easement. 3. "F" Court shall be extended through San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of-way. 4. The right-of-way for "A" Street and the southerly extension of "F" Court is to be 55 feet and designed as a residential collector street. 5. The westerly half of Oleander Avenue shall be improved to the center of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of-way. 6. Payment in the amount of $3,096.90 shall be made to the City of Chula Vista for connecting to sewer line that has been constructed through the freeway right-of-way to serve this property. 7. The cul-de-sacs which have a property line radius of 43 feet shall be revised to 45~ feet. Subdivision - Tentative map of Bonita Village Green Subdivision Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff received a letter from the subdivider asking that this matter be withdrawn. Chairman Hyde declared the tentative map filed without action. Council referral - Report on change of front setback 25' to 15' for area bounded bs Flower, D Street~ Woodlawn and Madison Avenues Director of Planning Warren explained that the Commission initiated this matter and reco~ended to the Council that it be enacted. Upon an appeal to grant a setback reduction in this block, the Council granted the appeal and denied the setback reduction. They then indicated they would take no action on the setback change and referred the matter back to the Commission for a report. This is not a public hearing, and if the Commission so desires, it can be placed on a future agenda, and notify the people in the area. -8- 3/3/69 Member Stewart felt no new evidence was brought in and can see no need for another public hearing. He suggested they reiterate their previous recommendation to the Council. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Send a report to the City Council reiterating their previous recommendation and the findings for such. To be set for hearing - Prezoning Plan for Sweetwater Valley Director of Planning Warren explained that on February 20, 1969, he presented the prezonin9 plan to the general membership of the Sweetwater Valley. Therefore, now is the time for the Commission to consider the requested changes. The staff can be directed to make these changes or the Commission can refer it back to the Committee. Mr. Warren suggested a workshop meeting be called for February 10 to discuss these proposed changes, and a public hearing be scheduled for the 19th. City Attorney Lindberg stated he would be gone on the 19th. Director Warren indicated that if any legal problems occur, the Commission could continue the hearing to a date when the Attorney will be present. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) A workshop meeting be scheduled for March lO and a public hearing on the prezoning plan be called for March 19, 1969. To be set for hearing - Amendment to Zgning Ordinance - Gross density provision in the supplemental B zones Director of Planning Warren asked to have this matter brought back at the next meeting. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) This matter be placed on the next Commission agenda. Resolution - Establishing procedure for accepting written communications for Planning Commission meetings Director of Planning Warren stated the staff put into resolution form what the Commission requested. He then read from the resolution whereby written communica- tions would have to be in the hands of the staff at 9 a.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting of the Planning Commission in order to receive action at the Commission meeting. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Adoption of the Resolution of the City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 560 Establishing Procedure for Accepting Written Communications for Planning Commission meetings. The procedure is established as follows: 1. All written communications received no later than 9:00 A.M. on the Thursday preceding each regular Planning Commission meeting will be subject to staff comment and may receive Planning Commission action at said meeting. 2. All written communications received later than the time specified in #1 shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission meeting agenda. -9- 3/3/69 Resolution - Commending Eugene York for service on the Planning Commission MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Resolution of the City ,Planning Commission Commending RESOLUTION NO. 561 Eugene York for Services on the Planning Commission Purchase of Future Park Land--Ba~,view Baptist Church Director of Planning Warren explained that this was a proposal for a park site. The land is owned by the Bayview Baptist Church comprising approximately 2 acres lying west of Melrose Avenue, east of Monserate Avenue, and north of the Kellogg School. The matter is referred to the Commission from the Park & Recreation Commission. They indicate that the school will agree to develop about l½ acres of turf thus making the park site approximately 3~ acres. The Commission should determine whether there is any conflict with the General Plan, and the General Plan does delineate the need for a park at this point. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Staff be directed to send a report to the Parks & Recreation Commission stating the purchase of this land for a park site would be in conformance with the General Plan. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of February lO, 1969, and to the regular meetings scheduled for March 17, 19, and 24, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~x/dennle M. Fulasz ~Y Secretary