Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/02/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 24, 1969 The regular adjourned 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, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Member York. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 10, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - 286 Madrona Street - C-1 to R-3 and change of setback from 5 feet to 15 feet - Bettye L. Peters Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, t~e adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that a few years ago, this property was rezoned from R-3 to C-1 and now the request is to change it back to R-3. The property lies wi thin the parking district and, in theory, may not require offstreet parking. The applicant's plans show offstreet parking. The staff is recommending approval of the request since it is better related to residential use. Mr. Warren then noted two letters: one approving the request and the other, from Mr. A. Boyer, attorney, opposing the request. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the property could not be removed from the parking district because of the problems relating to the contingent ad valorem assessment that might be imposed upon the property in the future. He added that there is nothing wrong in conditioning this zoning upon a requirement of a certain amount of parking spaces since the Commission must recognize what problems might be created by this particular use as compared to the use that would normally be allowed there. Mr. Lindberg also commented on the proximity of this Madrona Street parking lot which he felt never gets much business and questioned whether this fact would influence the amount of parking that might be stipulated for this type of use. Director Warren remarked that the only real value of the parking lot is if the need arises for guest parking. As long as parking is not available on site or on-street, the lot will be used. It would certainly serve to satisfy the needs of guest parking unless some fantastic amount of business is generated in this area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. D. Peters, husband of the applicant, stated he was present to answer any questions. He commented that they are short 2 or 3 parking spaces and will be coming back to the Commission to request a variance. Mr. Peters added that he owns the adjacent lot to the east. -2- 2/24/69 Member Rice cautioned the Commission about not requiring sufficient offstreet parking for this development. He remarked that the parking lot is there to serve the business needs and is frequently used in the evening. City Attorney Lindberg declared that they all recognize the fact that the lots within the parking district do not provide the degree of parking they feel is essential for a business district. But against that must be weighed the contingent liability on this lot, as well as the others in the district, that an ad valorem assessment would necessitate payment of the loan to the City. Member Stewart felt the stipulation should be imposed whereby they would require parking as stipulated by the Code. Mr. Lindberg explained the requirement could read that although the lot is in the parking district, offstreet parking will be required as stipulated in the R-3 zone. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 558 to City Council the Change of Zone and Change of Setback for 286 Madrona Street The recommendation is for a change of zone from C-I (light commercial) to R-3 (multiple-family) and a change of setback from 5' to 15'. Although the lot is within the parking district, offstreet parking as required in the R-3 zone must be provided. Findings be as follows: a. The General Plan designates this area as very high density residential. b. The property is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate sound commercial development. c. The location of the property on a local residential street does not provide it with adequate exposure with which to properly accommodate commercial development. Home Occupation - 8 Prospect Court - Wright Director of Planning Warren explained that he has not had time to meet with Mr. Wright concerning this home occupation. He asked that the matter be placed on the March 3 agenda. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Discussion on the home occupation at 8 Prospect Court be considered at the March 3 Commission meeting. Discussion - Garage requirement in R-1 zones Director of Planning Warren explained that at their January 7 meeting the City Council granted an appeal for a garage conversion on Melrose Avenue which essentially left the applicant with a 1~ car garage. He noted that there are many conversions taking place in the community, but that this was the first variance of this type that was granted. -3- 2/24/69 The Council felt that the Commission should review the requirement and perhaps recommend some modification to it. They generally felt that if offstreet parking can be provided and some enclosed storage, then the home- owner should be allowed to convert his garage. As the ordinance is presently written, a developer is required to build a 2-car enclosed garage, but the homeowner is given the alternative in the future to convert the garage if he substitutes a carport or another garage for it. Member Stewart cautioned that if the developer is given a choice, he would build nothing but carports. In this particular part of the country where the homes do not have basements, all storage material is put into the garages; 90% of the garages have storage materials that would ordinarily be stored in a basement. Director Warren spoke of some alternatives and said the staff feels that the garage should be initially required and that the home owner be permitted to enclose it for residential use without a complete substitution, providing that adequate offstreet parking remains and some enclosed storage space was availble. City Attorney Lindber§ discussed his legal opinion on this question and commented that they all recognize that the 2-car garage lends itself to the aesthetic value of the home. He feels strongly that the conversion of the garage is in many cases essential to a family to provide living space at a cost they could afford. Director Warren commented that if the requirement is changed, they will be getting conversions according to the Code, rather than having them done illegally. The amount of storage area is required by ordinance. The Commission spoke of having control over the amount of junk put into the garages, and of the many violations now existing in the City of these garage conversions. Mr. Warren stated that noting these violations and the many variances granted, there must be something wrong with the ordinance. It seems to be a good idea to provide the garage initially--most people use it for storage or for parking their autos, or both. The people that do convert their garages are the ones not using it anyway, and they would have to provide two offstreet parking spaces. City Attorney Lindberg commented that where the Commission does have archi- tectural approval over the custom built homes, they could allow a carport in lieu of a garage subject to certain circumstances. Member Stewart asked the Director to gather some statistics to back up this claim that most homes in San Diego are built with garages even though none is required. Director Warren discussed the recent problem of low-income housing and suggested the Commission take a field trip to the Otay Mesa area where the homes are constructed on 5000 square foot lots and have no minimum floor areas. Many of these homes have no garages; in some cases, they have carports. -4- 2/24/69 Member Adams said this was a good idea and they should bear in mind that carports are what they will get in the developments for the lower-income groups. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Postpone any further discussion on this item until the meeting of March 17 in order to give the Commission and staff time to make a field trip and to gather more information on this matter. Discussion - Gross density provision in the supplemental B-20, B-25, B-30 and B-la zones Director of Planning Warren referred to the discussion that took place at the February 17 meeting at which Mr. Eugene Cook, Engineer for the Bonita Village Green Subdivision stated his opinion that the gross density provision in Section 33.52 of the zoning ordinance was permissive and not discretionary on the part of the Commission. City Attorney Lindberg submitted a written report on this to the Commission. He explained that the opinion hedges a bit because what Mr. Warren, his predecessor, and the Commission intended by the language set forth is generally accepted as the general rule of statutory interpretation and uses the term which allows discretion to somebody. However, the reading of the language as set forth doesn't state that any has discretion. It should definitely be revised. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Any matter which comes up for a reduction of lot sizes should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney is hereby instructed to revise the ordinance as such. Under discussion, Mr. Warren brought up the point of making it discretionary and when they would use it and when would they not use it. There ought to be some statement here, such as in the planned unit development, stating it would apply when they make better use of the land, etc. Member Stewart said it could also apply to where they have all level land. Mr. Warren indicated that sometimes it is more effective on hilly land because it allows them to make use of the peaks, etc. Chairman Hyde felt some criteria, some standards should be set up whereby they could justify granting this to one and not to another. It should be demon- strated that better utilization of the property will result. City Attorney Lindberg commented that they are not allowing the developer more units--it is a flexibility. Mr. Warren indicated there would be a slight increase in the density because it would be figured on a gross basis rather than net. Chairman Hyde directed the wishes of the Commission that the revision in the ordinance, to be prepared by the City Attorney, be reworded in such a manner that it is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and not permissive as it now implies, and to set up some guidelines if possible, some general statements as to when it should be used. -5- 2/24/69 Resignation of Eugene York Director Warren stated this matter will be on the March 3 Planning Commission meeting. A resolution will be submitted. Procedural Ordinance Director of Planning Warren explained that the Council has a procedural ordinance that sets forth the basis for their operation; however, the Commission does not. There is a staff policy concerning receipt of applica- tions for rezonings and variances, subdivision maps, etc. The matter that concerns the staff is the written communications--many times the Commission will get requests that are not on the written agenda, and this is because they are submitted to the staff at a late date. The staff feels these communications should be in in time to be included in the Commission mailing. Member Stewart agreed and suggested this be established as a policy. The Commission discussed this matter and felt it should be presented to the staff at least one day, if not two days, before the Commission meeting. Mr. Warren indicated this was important as the agendas are mailed out to other interested persons and if the requests are not typed on, they have no way of knowing it will be considered. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Staff be directed to submit a resolution to the Commission at the next meeting which would require that any written communications for Commission consideration be submitted to the staff at least one working day prior to the day of the Commission meeting. Parkin~ District Member Stewart questioned whether land in the parking district, zoned for residential use, should be taken out of the district or should they be required to put in offstreet parking. The primary reason for the parking lots is for business purposes and residential uses should be required to provide offstreet parking. City Attorney Lindberg stated that if any lots are to be deleted in the district, permission will have to be secured from the owners that are being assessed. In the matter of rezoning the lot, then offstreet parking should be provided on that property. Member Stewart felt they should keep in mind that we can condition a rezoning to provide offstreet parking on their own lot. Director Warren brought up another point--that of multiple-family developments adjacent to the business areas. They can justify l~ parking spaces per unit in those areas that require the residents to have cars, but not always in those apartments that cater to senior citizens or pedestrians. It does seem that under certain circumstances, there is justification for changing the requirements. -6- 2/24/69 Member Stewart quoted the phraseology in the ordinance which permitted the granting of a variance: "or the intended use of the property." Director Warren commented that granting the variance would be somewhat arbitrary unless they can determine some means of figuring out what the parking demand is. Split Duplexes Chairman Hyde discussed the subject of the small lots whereby the developer is now allowed to build on a lot having 3500 square feet and up; these are split duplexes in the R-2 and R-3 areas. Director Warren remarked that they wouldn't want to apply the zoning on that basis. He noted there were still people who wanted a single-family detached home on a single lot with a fence around it, etc., and the split duplex concept would not appeal to them. Chairman Hyde referred to the P.U.D. concept stating that with the 25% bonus a developer can use, and other tools at his disposal, he can build on a lot having a minimum of 5600 square feet and that a great deal of flexibility has been provided~ ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary