Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Comm min 1969/01/27
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY _ PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 27, 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, York, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (York-Adams) Approval of the minutes of January 20, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for change of front setback from 30 feet to 25 feet at 495 F Street - Carrol Slevin Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land uses, and zoning. The applicant is requesting a reduction in setback for his one lot. The staff sees no problem in granting this change in setback; however, they feel it should be done on a block basis rather than a lot-by-lot basis. This same opinion was shared by the City Council in its delay of a recent setback reduction request which was appealed to them. The recommendation, therefore, is that the request either be denied or readver- tised for the entire block. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Carrol Slevin, the applicant, explained his proposed addition to the dwelling and commented on the setbacks enjoyed by his neighbors. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York questioned the reduction to 25 feet since this was an R-3 zone. He asked if there were any plans to widen F Street. Director Warren indicated they have advocated using the 25 feet for the major streets and 15 foot setback for multiple-family projects facing on secondary streets. He explained that in this particular case, the applicant could build up to 25~ feet since the ordinance allows him an average of the setbacks of the dwellings on either side of him. On one side his neighbor enjoys a 21 foot setback, and on the other side the building sets back at 30 feet. Member York questioned why the applicant couldn't have filed for a zone variance instead of the amendment to the ordinance for this particular lot. Mr. Warren explained the need to change the setbacks on a block basis rather than one lot at a time and that in his opinion a variance could not be justified. The staff is asking the Commission to take no action at this time and to consider readvertisin9 this change of setback for the entire block. Mr. Slevin commented, that as he understands it, he has the prerogative to build up to a 25~ foot set- back or to wait the 60 to 90 day period of time it would take to refile this application and have it go to Commission and Council for action. He stated he preferred not to pursue the matter any further. -2- 1/27/69 MSUC (York-Stewart) Application be filed. The Commission then discussed whether the change of setback should be for 15 feet or 25 feet. Chairman Hyde directed the staff to advertising this change of setback to 25 feet for the entire block for the Commission meeting of February 17. Director Warren remarked he would investigate this policy to make sure they are establishing the 25 feet for the major streets and 15 feet for the secondary streets. The Commission discussed establishing a policy whereby an applicant requesting a change of setback for one lot would be set for hearing by the Planning Commis- sion so that they could determine whether or not additional lots should be included. MSUC (York-Chandler) The staff be directed to follow this procedure: Upon application for a change of setback, if it involves property or properties less than an entire block, they are to bring it to the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting and ask the Commission's advise on advertising the change for the entire block. -- PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ - North Side of Arizona Street~ east of Broadway - C-2 to R-3 - Earl Severin Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use, and zoning. The applicant's lot has frontage on the proposed extension of Arizona Street. He plans to split his lot into three parcels. The staff is recommending approval since the property does not have any significant frontage on Broadway and is not suited for commercial zoning because of lack of exposure, and the dual zoning presently existing on the property would be eliminated. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, declared that his department does have an application which was submitted for a 1911 act for the street improve- ments on Arizona Street. Sixty-one percent of the residents on this block have signed the application; this is for the City and County portions. City Attorney Lindberg stated the rezoning should be conditioned upon the street improvements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill DeCamp, E1 Cajon, representing the owner, explained that the applicant filed for a lot split on his property dividing the parcel into 3 lots on which he proposed to build apartments. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -3- 1/27/69 MSUC (Adams-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 551 to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property located East of Broadway, North of Arizona Street, from C-2 to R-3. A setback of 15 feet shall be established for the north side of Arizona Street. Zoning will not become final until street improvements are made on Arizona Street, as approved by the Division of Engineering and until a Parcel Map is approved by the City. Findings be as follows: a. The property does not have significant frontage on Broadway and thus is ill-suited for commercial zoning because of lack of exposure. b. A dual zoning situation would be eliminated by the approval of this request. Request by Richard Kelton for approval of shoppin§ center plans in a C-N zone at Southwestern College Estates Director of Planning Warren explained that the applicant is asking for approval of the architecture and concept of design of the proposed shopping center in the Southwestern College Subdivision, which is zoned C-N. Mr. Warren commented that he met with the developers and they have resolved many of the items. The - developer proposes to develop the center in two phases. There will be one access point off of Gotham Street and from three points off of Otay Lakes Road. The construction of the stores will be a combination of slump stone stucco and wood siding, and the architecture, as proposed, is well done. One problem they are confronted with is the landscaping. The strip adjacent to Otay Lakes Road is shown as 5 feet wide; the staff feels this is inadequate, and in a neighborhood shopping center in particular, an increased depth is necessary if it is to have any effect. The developer has indicated that he would be willing to put in some landscaping in the center of the parking lot and will increase this strip to 6 feet. The staff, however, feels it should be 10 feet wide. Mr. Warren discussed the 90© parking in front of the stores indicating they should have walkways intermittently along this way. The slope at the rear of the lot will be planted only to the extent that it is needed for erosion of soil. When the center is completed, they would have to properly plant the slope, as required by ordinance. Director Warren then noted on the plot plan the future sites of two buildings: one at the curb on Otay Lakes Road and the other marked "future bank building or service station" at the southerly corner of the lot. He remarked that under the C-N zone only one service station site is permitted. As to the future building at the curb, the staff finds it inadvisable to approve this, because in most cases it is a franchise type business which will not be able to conform to the stores in the center. Mr. Warren then noted the signs as proposed for the 7-11 store in this center, and indicated there should be some uniformity of signs for the entire center. -4- 1/27/69 Mr. Richard Kelton, Vice-President of Bollenbacher & Kelton, developers of this site, stated the sign problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the staff. The roof heights of the stores will be a variation of height instead of just one long line; in this way, it will give the idea of separate pavilions. The signs, however, will be placed on the bottom of the fascia which will be the same line throughout. As to the width of the parking area, Mr. Kelton maintained it is their belief that if they are required to put in a l0 foot bed, they would not be able to keep it properly maintained. It would then become an eyesore. The question is not how wide the planting bed is, but how well it is planted. Increasing this strip would also cut down on the parking area. Member Stewart questioned Mr. Kelton about putting in tree wells. Mr. Kelton stated he would prefer to put in shrubs rather than trees as trees are high and there is nothing on the ground next to the asphalt area. Mr. Warren suggested the details of the landscaping be turned over to the Landscape Architect. Mr. Kelton questioned the permissibility of having left-turn movements onto Otay Lakes Road. Member Stewart remarked that this would have to be resolved with the Division of Engineering. Mr. Kelton explained that the future building at the curb would, in all probability, be a food concession business. It is not something special they are asking for--it is a common thing for shopping centers. They have already had inquiries about this site. Member Putnam cautioned getting a beautiful center behind this building and then letting a franchise, such as a hamburger stand come in, and it would ruin the entire center. Director Warren stated a building, such as this one, would generate pedestrian traffic across the street; there will be a certain amount of curb parking, a type of use that would go in here would be a franchise one and they would not be able to adhere to the architecture of the center. Mr. Kelton discussed the problem of corner signs, stating there was no provision in the ordinance for this in a C-N zone. The 7-11 store will be on the corner and they propose to put their emblem on the side of the store which will face Gotham Street. Mr. Warren stated there was no way in which this could be resolved tonight; the applicant will have to apply for a variance. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) The planter areas along the street frontage be increased to 6 feet and a tree well be put along each end of every parking row; these tree wells shall contain a minimum of 24 square feet of erea. -5- 1/27/69 MSUC (York-Putnam) All building signs shall conform to the plans on file which were submitted by the applicant at this meeting. These plans place the signs, in the case of the 7-11 store, adjacent to the top of the front fascia board. The other signs are flush with the bottom of this fascia board. The background shall be white illuminated unless otherwise approved by the staff. These requirements shall be passed on to all tenants, and all signs shall be specific- ally approved by the staff prior to ~nstallation. An alternate below the fascia will be considered. MSUC (Putnam-Stewart) The future building sites adjacent to Otay Lakes Road are approved without any refereoce to architecture or use of the buildings at this time. The future service station site at the southwest corner of the site is not approved. MSUC (York-Chandler) Approval is given to the future building site at the southwest corner of the lot proposed as a future bank building. Request for access across one foot control lot at the northerly terminus of Camino del Cerro Grande - Ray Koeni~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of Mr. Koenig's property and the lot split which was filed with the County. There is a one foot lot across the northerly end of Camino del Cerro Grande so that the City would have control over the access of this street. Access to the applicant's property has to come from this point. The staff feels they should be aware of the pattern of development proposed for the remaining property. The Division of Engineering is offering alternative recommendations for the approval of this access--dedicating the westerly half of the one foot lot only subject to certain conditions. Mr. Warren added that his staff feels there would be no significant effect on what will eventually be the development of the adjacent area by granting this access across the one foot lot. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated they would recommend two plans here: (1) that the applicant submit a plan as to what he proposed to do with his property so they can be assured it will not be developed in a haphazard manner of just this one parcel of land; (2) if approval is given, they would recommend that only the westerly half of the lot be dedicated for use of this property, subject to the posting of a bond, etc. Mr. Gesley cautioned that this is just phase 1 of the total development of Mr. Koenig's property; there will be many more stages of development in the future. Member Rice questioned whether a restriction could be put on the easement that it could not be used for any other lots. Member Stewart remarked that if this applicant is allowed this access, it would not prevent him from selling off more of his lots. The Commission certainly should not make this possible. His property is in the County and he has no intention of annexing to Chula Vista. Director Warren noted that the County granted Mr. Koeni9 the lot split subject to any requirements the City may have. -6- 1/27/69 City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission is dealing here with one specific circumstance: a lot split with access to the existing dedicated street by means of an easement. He added he would share the Commission's concern, as does the County, with an uncoordinated development of the rest of the property. The Commission discussed the problem. Member York remarked that if the applicant annexed to the City, then they could take a new one foot lot over the easement, and the City would still have control. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Access across the one foot lot be denied for the following reasons: 1. The conditions for vacation, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, would impose a financial burden on the applicant that would make the development of only one lot infeasible. 2. Since the property involved is within the County, once any portion of the one foot lot is dedicated, the City would have no control over future develop- ment that might utilize this access. Request for approval of a furniture upholster.¥ business as a Home Occupation at 155 East Emerson Street It was noted that the applicant was not present to discuss his proposed business. The Commission concurred that no consideration be given to the request. MSC (Rice-Adams) Denial of the home occupation request based on the fact that this is not the type of use which sould be considered as a home occupation. The Commission also questions the use of the garage as a work area. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Rice, Adams, Putnam, Stewart, Chandler, and Hyde NOES: York (he did not agree with the motion--the explanation should be that the applicant wasn't here to state his position). ABSENT: None Request for extension of time for variance ~ranted at 315 H Street - Ralph Burni MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of a 6-month extension; subject variance will now expire on July 15, 1969. Request for extension of time for variance ~ranted at 621H Street - Charles Mote MSUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of two-year extension of time; subject variance will now expire on February 20, 1971. -7- 1/27/69 City Council referral - Proposed rezoning of property south of Orange Avenue, west of Hilltop Drive - M-1 to R-2 - Requested by Jafro, Inc. Director of Planning Warren explained that the City Council accepted the recommendation of the Commission to rezone to R-2 the north half of the subject's property, and is now asking that the Commission reconsider their recommendation for the south half of the property. They, too, were concerned over the success of the proposed project (split-duplex development) and did not want to commit themselves to rezoning the southerly portion at this time. They feel this southerly portion should be rezoned to R-1 until such time as the development to the north is completed, after which time a new request for rezoning the south half should be filed. City Attorney Lindberg suggested the Commission recommend rezoning this southerly half of the property to R-1 effective within 31 days, but upon submission of the approval of a subdivision map and conditional use permit for the R-2 development. At that time, the zoning would then automatically go to R-2 which would eliminate the need for additional public hearings. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council that the southerly portion of subject property be rezoned to R-1 with a condition which would allow for the automatic incorporation of the property into the R-2-D zone if, within a specified time, a conditional use permit for the so-called "split-duplex housing" was granted and a final map or maps recorded. There would be a two-year limita- tion placed upon this automatic provision. Discussion - Height limitation of signs in commercial zones Director of Planning Warren explained that the ordinance as written, pertaining to the height of signs in commercial zones is somewhat vague. The staff recommends the ordinance be amended to specify that signs would be subject to the limitations set forth in the commercial zones for "buildings." Director Warren asked that the Commission ask the Council to adopt this as an emergency ordinance, since the staff recently had to approve a sign on Broadway which was in excess of the height of buildings for commercial zones. MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 552 to the City Council the Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Limiting the Height of Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones Discussion - Use of split duplex division in the R-3 zone Director of Planning Warren explained that the Commission requested this item be placed back on the agenda for discussion. This question was raised at the meeting of January 20, 1969, when Robinhood Homes, Inc., requested permission to construct split duplexes on their property zoned R-3-B-3-D. Member Adams declared that this should be eliminated in the R-3 zones. There are many R-3 zoned parcels around the City, and the Commission would not want to see split duplexes constructed on them. -8- 1/27/69 Member Rice agreed adding that there would be no limit in the R~3 zone--the developers could get R-3 zoning and get down to 1000 feet for a unit which would be a very undesirable development. Member York remarked that the Commission should be very careful how they control these developments. Chairman Hyde questioned the members as to whether they would object to a split duplex project in an R-3 zone if they were required to build on a minimum 3500 square foot lot, as specified in the R-2 ordinance. The Commission discussed the requirements of the new zoning ordinance allowing a condominium. Director Warren explained this was set forth in the R-3-T zone; however, a condominium procedure can apply to any multiple-family zone. Member York questioned the basic difference in concept between a split duplex, a triplex, fourplex, etc., and a condominium. The Commission discussed this and Director Warren noted that in a condominium construction, you are selling air space with the land all under one ownership, whereby in duplexes, you are splitting it up into individual parcels. City Attorney Lindberg commented that they could give individual ownership to apartment units, and common ownership to the entire group. This wouldn't change the concept, density, or looks of it at all. Member Stewart remarked he would have no objection to split duplex construction in the R-3 zone provided they adhered to the 3500 square foot lot. MSC (Rice-Stewart) City Attorney prepare the necessary ordinance whereby a split duplex concept would be permitted in the R-3 zone only in accordance with the standards delineated in the R-2 zone. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Rice, Stewart, Adams, Putnam, Chandler, and Hyde NOES: Member York ABSENT: None Discussion - Proposed staff work program Director of Planning Warren referred to the report submitted to the Commission concerning the proposed staff work program. He asked that this be one of the items of discussion at the Commission workshop meeting on February 3. -9- 1/27/69 Resolution - Canceling meetin~ of February 3 and calling workshop meetinq City Attorney Lindberg stated a notice to this effect should go to the newspapers. Director Warren declared there were no applications submitted for the February 3 meeting, and depending on the items, the staff may feel the need to call a meeting of February 10th. Mr. Warren specifically pointed out that the Commission will not be discussing the Sweetwater Valley Prezoning Plan at this workshop meeting. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Canceling Meeting of February 3 and Calling Workshop Resolution No. 553 Meeting Instead Hazard Products Letter A letter was read from Mr. Hazard requesting that the Commission take action in reconsidering sign regulations for their business establishment at 491 C Street. Director Warren stated this matter will be placed on the February 17 agenda for Commission consideration. Amendments to Bylaws - San Diego County Plannin~ Congress The Commission briefly discussed the questionnaire received in their mailing. Mr. Warren indicated they will be discussing these changes at their workshop meeting. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Commission proposes "yes" on all amendments. ADOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the workshop meeting of February 3, 1969. Tile meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,/Jennie M. Fulasz ~ Secretary