Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/01/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 20, 1969 The regular 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, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Adams asked to have a statement in the minutes of January 6, 1969, clarified. On page 1, regarding the rezoning for Otay Land Company, the minutes quoted Mr. Adams as stating "600-800 units" and "low-cost apartments." He asked that these be changed to "600 units" and to "apartments to be rented to lower-income groups." MSUC (Rice-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of January 6, 1969 be approved, with the change as noted. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) Minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1969 be approved, as mailed. SUBDIVISION - Tentative Map - Palomar View Heights Director of Planning submitted the tentative map noting the location as the north side of Palomar Street extending 321 feet west from the extension of Nolan Avenue. A total of six R-1 single-family lots are designed for the 1.95 acre site which will have five lots fronting on Palomar Street and one lot fronting on Nolan Avenue. The Division of Engineering has recommended approval of the map and the staff also recommends approval. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) Recommend approval of the tentative map. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 777 Nolan Avenue - Request to construct 6' high fence within front setback area - Williams Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6' high wooden fence on his exterior side property line (Millan Street), on a 5'4" high slump block retaining wall. This wall retains its 5' height for the entire Millan Street frontage but decreases to 1' after it rounds the corner. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to two conditions regarding the construction of the fence. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Williams, the applicant, stated he agreed with the conditions imposed by the staff. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The frame to which the fencing is nailed shall be oriented to the interior of the lot. 2. Pilasters composed of slump block matching the existing retaining wall shall be spaced at a minimum of 16 feet apart, subject to the approval of the staff. 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. Since the lot pad is 5'4" higher than the street, the reasoning behind the reduced height requirement within the exterior side yard, i.e., vision clear- ance, etc., is not applicable in this case. 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. If the fence were placed at the setback line, the l0 feet of yard outside the fence would be virtually wasted since, because of its elevation, it could not be seen from the street and thus would contribute nothing to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. c. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighbor- hood in which the property is located. Raising the height of the feme an additional 2½ feet would have little effect on the surrounding area because of the property's elevation. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan w~uld be unaffected by this variance. PUBLIC HEARING -~o~ditional Use Permit - Propert~ between First Avenue and Tobias Drive south of Quintard Street - Request to construct and split duplexes for individual sale in an R-3-B-3-D zone - Robinhood Homes PUBLIC HEARING -Variance - Properts between First Avenue and Tobias Drive south of Quintard Street - Request for modification of off-street parkin9 requirements - Robinhood Homes, Inc. The City Attorney suggested that both these items be considered together. Director of Planming Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He also noted a large plot plan which delineated the layout of the proposed duplexes. The area encompasses 10 acres of vacant land and is zoned R-3-B-3-D; a request for annexation of this property -2- has been filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission. The request is for approval of a plan which would develop this area with duplexes for individual sale. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, explained the applicant!s building layout. There will be 92 units as proposed; the one existing house on the premises which will not be taken out at this time makes up the 93rd unit. The applicant will be providing single-car garages with tandem parking in the setback area. Mr. Lee discussed the proposed parking layout and the recreational area with parking around it. This proposal was studied by the staff, the Parks Department and a representative of F.H.A., and they subsequently came up with a different design pattern for the recreational area which would allow an easier flow of traffic through the interior of this project. In another recommended change, the staff has deleted two living units and in its place, put in a parking bay of 16 spaces. The other proposed parking bays in the right-of-way were studied by the Engineer- ing Division, and they feel they would be feasible if concrete paving was put in these areas. Mr. Lee then discussed the conditions of approval as submitted by the staff. He discussed the proposed landscaping for the project: the applicant will provide one tree and grass for each unit - the staff feels there should be an overall landscaping plan for the entire project. As to the variance request, the applicant is requesting lots of a minimum size of 2809 square feet, but the average net size for all lots is 3400 sq. feet ; the minimum lot for the City is 3500 square feet in an R-2 zone; however, they more than meet the density requirements under their present zoning (R-3-B-3-D). Mr. Warren indicated that the basic issue was whether or not there was justifica- tion for the variance from two off-street parking spaces behind the setback. Then the question becomes how to provide supplemental parking for guests or the owners. One thing they must consider is the fact that some of these residents may want to convert their garages for another room; this, of course, must be avoided and one way to take care of this would be by deed restrictions. As far as the parking bays are concerned, they are necessary and it would be desirable for the subdivider to work out the specific location. Director Warren then discussed the slope banks on the lots to the east and commented that the size of the lot was sufficient in this zone if they have some usable yard area and that retaining walls may be necessary. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that the applicant will have to submit a sub- division map at a later date. Member York questioned how the park area would be maintained. Mr. Warren indicated that they could have an assessment district, but are not recommending a home owners' association. City Attorney Lindberg declared that an alternative to the maintenance of open space would be (1) the dedication of the property whereby the cost of the maintenance is split up among all the taxpayers; (2) an assessment district; or (3) a home owners' organization. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -3- Mr. Allan Perry, attorney representing the applicant, spoke first on the conditional use permit: there are only 27 of these lots out of the 93 that are less than 3000 square feet. The average density in the development is well above 3400 square feet for each unit. The applicant states that tandem parking can be effective because it provides two spaces for each dwelling unit. To be effective, tandem parking must provide two things: there must be restrictions on the property prohibiting the garage to be converted - this would have to be done in such a way as to permit the City to enforce this restriction; (2) the developer is proposing 43 additional parking spaces in the two parking bays. The staff's recommendation for a revised recreational area eliminates 10 spaces. The applicant believes that his parking requirements, without the additional parking bay as proposed by the staff, meets the requirements for this project. Director Warren indicated that the overall density of the project is closer to 3200 square feet per lot, not 3400 square feet as stated by Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry commented on the maintenance of the recreational area stating the most desirable thing would be dedication of the area to the City, and the second thing would be the assessment district. The least desirable would be the home- owners' association. The Commission discussed the same type of development at the southwest corner of Quintard Street and Hilltop. Director Warren commented that many of these lots are less than 3500 square feet; however, the net size may be higher than this proposed development. City Attorney Lindberg stated he had no objection to using the deed restrictions for preventing garage conversions; however, the City will not have muGh opportunity to secure the deed restrictions. The Commission should make sure that the garage area is made available for parking of cars, and this aspect can be enforced here. The best approach is through the conditional use permit procedure; the Commission has proper control with this. Assistant City Engineer Gesley spoke of the needed extra lighting in the walk-way and in the recreational area. This lighting should be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams discussed the existing ordinance regarding R-2 zones which allows for split duplexes for individual sale on a 3500 square foot lot. These projects are still experimental. This proposed project does not meet these requirements at all, and nothing less than what the Commission agreed upon in this ordinance should be satisfactory. Mr. Adams felt this use should be taken out of the R-3 zone, and it was not the proper application to apply the density of R-3 for such a project. City Attorney Lindberg spoke of the recent amendment to the R-2 zone allowing a split duplex on a 7000 square foot lot, to which no one disagreed. In this case, the zone is R-3-B-3-D allowing a density of 1 unit per 3000 square feet. He stated that the Commission is back to the initial dispute - the density has not changed. Mr. Lindberg further added that this was a very important legal aspect. -4- The Commission then discussed this type of project as compared to a multiple-family type project - having several units in one building, etc. Chairman Hyde said he would rather see a go6d R-3 development here to this strictly unimaginative, strictly economically-oriented project. This type of project brings on a congested traffic problem, for one thing, and since the construction of the pilot program, there have been no comments complimenting this type of development. Member Rice agreed, adding that he would rather see a 3-story apartment building put in here and sold off as a condominium than this particular type of project. Member Putnam said he felt the pilot project was not a failure, and this proposal was a step in the right direction toward providing homes for the lower income families. Chairman Hyde declared that his main objection is to the scrimping all around the ~-oject in order to get the R-3 density. Member York indicated the project was being proposed under the R-3 standards and requirements. The Commission is basing their objections on the aesthetic standards of the development. Member Rice clarified this by explaining that they are talking about a cluster type development with a lot of open space as opposed to this "doll house" type lots all in a row. He felt they would be going in a wrong direction if they allowed a reduction in the size of the lots. He added that price was not the only criteria involved in these projects--that there are still some vacancies in the Kiffe development (southwest corner of Hilltop and Quintard Street). Member Adams suggested they deny the request and ask the developer to come in with a new design. He cautioned having another builder coming in and instead of requesting R-2 zoning, asking for R-3 zoning in order to get more units in his development. MSC (Adams-Rice) Application for co~itional use permit be denied based on the fact that it does not conform to the standards as delineated in the newly adopted procedure set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in regard to the R-2 zone. These are minimum requirements and should be followed even in the higher density multiple- family zones. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Rice, Putnam , Chandler and Hyde NOES: Member York ABSENT: Member Stewart MSUC (Adams-Rice) Variance be denied for the same reasons. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the motion, simply stated, is that the variance be denied because it could not be granted because of the denial of the conditional use permit and the reasons appropriate to that should apply to this as well. Chairman Hyde advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. Request from Masor McCorquodale to undertake study of park land fee ordinance Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter from the Mayor asking that a study be made on park land fees on new developments. He explained that sometime ago, this proposal had been thoroughly studied with the City Engineer and the City Attorney, and somewhere along the way, this study was side-lined. The Parks & Recreation Department recently brought this up again , and the staff pointed out that it would be a beneficial ordinance. Member York asked if this proposed study would push back the review of the General Plan. Member Rice indicated that a priority list should first be established and this be placed in the order of its importance. MSUC (York-Putnam~ Address a letter to the Mayor advising him of the previous work done on this proposal; the directive from the Commission that the staff submit a work program, and the infeasibilty of giving this project priority over the review of the General Plan. Under discussion, City Attorney Lindberg discussed the fact that this fee would have to be levied against the home owners as compared to all taxpayers. This is a leqal question which is presently being fought in the courts in Walnut CreeK. The City Attorney was requested to so advise the Mayor. Request for extension of time for variance at 249 E Street - R. Wilson MSUC (York-Putnam) Approval of an extension of time o~ one year; subject variance will now expire on January 17, 1970. Letter of resi§nation from the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee - F.Lon~worth Director of Planning Warren noted the letter of resignation from Mr. Longworth. The Commission asked that a letter be written to Mr. Longworth expressing their appreciation for the time and effort he spent on this Committee. Director Warren indicated that the work of the Committee is not over, and when it is, a letter will be going out to all of them thanking them for their work on this committee. Appointment of Director and Alternate to San Diego County Planning Congress Member Adams nominated Member Rice for Director. Member Rice declined the nomination and instead, nominated Chairman Hyde. Chairman Hyde stated he couldn't make these meetings because of professional commitments. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Member Stewart be appointed Director and Member Putnam, the Alternate. Setting date of workshop meeting Director of Planning Warren stated that no applications have been filed for the meeting of February 3. In view of this, he asked the Commission's feelings on having a workshop dinner meeting that night. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Chandler Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of January 27, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully yours, -6- ~/dennie M. Fulasz, Secret~ry