HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/12/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
December 9, 1968
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
California, was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with
the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Chandler, and Adams. Absent:
Member Rice (wit~ previous notification). Also present: Associate Planner
Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg,
and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
Discussion of window signs for Bonita Plaza Shopping Center
It was noted that no one concerned with this item was present at the meeting.
Member York felt it would be unfair to discuss the item unless these tenants were
present.
Associate Planner Manganelli explained that a copy of the staff's recommendations
was mailed to Mr. Robert Helmuth, owner of the Shopping Center asking him to notify
the tenants of the meeting. Since Mr. Helmuth lives in La Jolla, there is a
possibility that he did not receive the letter in time to notify his tenants of the
meeting and of the recommendations.
The Commission agreed the matter should be continued to give these tenants a chance
to discuss their signs.
MSUC (Stewart-York) This matter be continued to the meeting of January 6, 1969, and
the staff be directed to send a copy of the staff's recommendations to each of the
tenants in the shopping center concerning the window signs of his business establish-
ment.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - Property south of San Diego Gas & Electric right-of-way,
approximately 630 ' west of Hilltop Drive from M-1 to R-2 - Jafro, Inc.
Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the
adjacent land use and zoning. The applicants are requesting a change of zone from
M-1 (industrial) to R-2 for the purpose of developing the property with split duplexes;
the property comprises 34 acres of vacant land. Mr. Manganelli explained the zoning
pattern which exists in the County, and added that the General Plan designates a
low-density residential category (4-7 units an acre) for this area. The applicants
plan to develop the area at a density of 13~ units an acre.
Mr. Manganelli declared that the staff has some reservations about rezoning the
entire property to R-2 at this time. They are in agreement, however, with the
applicants' views on the proposed development; they have something to offer here,
and R-2 may be an appropriate zone for this area. The question is how much s~ould
we zone at this time. The staff suggests that only a portion of this property be
rezoned R-2 and developed at this time, then if the Commission feels this project is
desirable in this neighborhood, they can go ahead and rezone the other portion of the
property. The staff feels that some caution should be exercised in going ahead and
rezoning the entire area for the development of split duplexes at this time. They
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 2.
would recommend that the northerly portion of the property (to a line north of the
lots delineated on the extension of Tamarindo Way, in accordance with a plot plan
submitted by the staff) be rezoned R-l, and the southerly portion of the property
be rezoned to R-2 for the construction of their project.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Morgan, 665 H Street, one of the principals applying for this rezoning,
stated he met with the staff and representative of the Engineering Division last week
to work out any problems. He declared this was the first time he was aware of the
staff's recommendation to rezone the northerly portion of the property to R-1 and
the southerly portion to R-2. They have no interest in the adjoining commercially-
zoned property in the County. They did contract to improve this property for the
owner. They feel the logical development would be to carry Orange Avenue through
the shopping center and develop the northerly portion of the property first. If
there was some reason to rezone a portion of the property at this time, they would
suggest that the Commission rezone the northerly portion to south of Taramindo Way
to R-2, in order for them to improve Orange Avenue along with their development.
Mr. Luis Cacho, 1503 Albany Street, stated he and his mother own some of the
adjacent area zoned R-1-A in the County. Mr. Terry, owner of a trailer court in
Chula Vista, spoke to them about the development of a trailer park in this area.
Mr. Cacho asked what the requested rezoning of this property to R-2 would have on
his plans for a trailer park.
Member Stewart explained to him that it would be mere speculation on the part of
the Commission to give him any answer on this now. He is presently in the County
over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. If he cared to annex to the City, a
public hearing would have to be held on his request and the Commission would judge
this independently.
Associate Planner Manganelli stated that a trailer park falls into the Unclassified
Use category and is subject to a conditional use permit in any residential zone in
the City.
Mr. Jack Gardner, also a principal of the business firm of Jafro, Inc., applicants
in this request, stated he was disturbed to see the staff's recommendation on the
R-t portion of the property. This did not come up at their meeting held on
December 3. They are anticipating to do a first class job on this project, and the
duplexes will sell at $16,500, $17,500, and $18,500. They plan to construct 250 units.
Mr. Gardner added that they realized this many units would bring on the need for
another school in the area, so they discussed this with the School District. Dr. Tiffany,
the Superintendent, informed them that they have already purchased the sitefor a school
and will be building one in the area as soon as funds are available.
Member York questioned the staff's recommendqtion of~approval of the tentative map
since it does not coinciae with the recommenaations ~or rezoning of the property.
Associate Planner Manganelli explained that if the Commission approves the rezoning
in accordance with the staff's request, then they should disregard the recommendations
made concerning the tentative map, since that map would then have to be revised.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 3.
Mr. James Olds, 3730 Festival Court, stated he was concerned with the R-2 request.
He discussed the other residents in the area, statin§ they all bought their homes
here because this was the price range they could afford. Eventually, they will be
annexing to Chula Vista; at the present time, they constitute a small island in the
County. A large number of people are now moving into their new homes in the adjacent
subdivision and they are not aware of this request. Mr. Olds spoke of the need for
another school because the present ones are at their capacity now. In answer to
City Attorney Lindberg's inquiry, Mr. Olds declared he is aware of the M-1 zoning
presently existing on the property and the type of use that could go in under this
zoning. He wished to emphasize, however, that when they purchased their homes in
this area, they were assured, by an agent of Jafro, Inc., that the vacant land would
go into the same type of use as his--single-family residential.
Mr. Rogus, 3732 Holiday Court, remarked that he realized the need for this type of
house and he is not against it. Presently, he has a view lot on Holiday Court,
and if this subdivision of duplexes is permitted to go in, he will have four back
yards adjacent to his rear lot.
Mr. Gardner commented that their plans would have this adjacent property 16' to 20'
below the elevation of Mr. Rogus' property; therefore, his view will not be impaired.
Mr. Man§anelli informed the Commission they had four choices to make in this matter:
(1) zone the entire property R-2; (2) zone it in a combination of the two zones as
recommended by the staff or some other combination; (3) zone the entire property R-l;
(4) leave it the way it is.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member York indicated he was in sympathy with the staff's recommendation of not
rezoning the entire property R-2 at this time, since these houses are somewhat
experimental. On the other hand, he is aware of the problems that would confront
the developers if just the south half was rezoned R-2. He would suggest they
rezone the northerly portion to R-2 and either recommend R-1 for the southerly
portion or leave it M-1 until such time as they see how this development will work
out.
Mr. Morgan indicated they would be willing to go along with this suggestion.
Hr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, remarked that if the duplexes are allowed to
go in on the northerly portion of the property, they would not be able to encourage
R-1 development on the southerly portion, if the project is not successful. The
development is effectively cut off from Hilltop because of the two streets ending
in culs-de-sac (Holiday and Festival Courts). Mr. Lee added that if the Commission
does want to limit the amount of duplexes in this area, it might best be limited
to the southerly portion. The Commission discussed continuing this item to a later
date in order to work out the problems arising out of the staff's recommended rezoning.
Mr. Morgan commented that this matter has been going on since March and they feel
that it is time to get it started. He spoke of the reasons they would not care to
develop the southerly portion first: the access would have to come from ue~ind the
shopping center; the development of the utilities would have to come from the
northerly end; and they would have to improve one-half of a street to get to the
bottom one-half of the property.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 4.
Member Hyde remarked that if the Commission does recommend approval of R-2 for
the northerly one-half, it predetermines the fact that the lower half will also
go R-2.
Mr. Richard Swalm, 3737 Festival Court, asked that the residents in the area get a
chance to vote on this request.
MSUC (Adams-York) This matter be continued to the meeting of December 16, 1968,
in order to give the staff an opportunity to meet with the developers and resolve
some of the problems concerning the staff's recommendation of rezoning this property.
Member Adams modified this motion, and Member York seconded it, that the request for
variance, conditional use permit, and the tentative map (Holiday Estates Units 5-6-7)
be continued to the meeting of December 16, 1968.
Member Stewart remarked that if the agenda of this meeting was heavy, the staff
should set the meeting to start at 3:30 p.m.
Subdivision - Final map of CorkS McMillin's Subdivision~ Unit #3
Mr. Lee submitted the final map and noted the location as the west side of Fourth
Avenue, approximately 290' south of L Street. The subdivision will be developed
with 14 single-family lots on 3.3 acres of land. The staff recommends approval of
the map since it is in conformance with the tentative map. The Division of Engineering
has one condition of approval.
MSUC (Stewart-York) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following
condition:
The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all necessary bonds,
deeds, slope rights and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been
delivered to the City.
Request for extension of tentative map - Dalseth Hills, Units 6-7-8-9
Mr. Lee noted the location of this subdivision as being located South of East J
Street, adjacent to the proposed Interstate 805 Freeway. The units in this
subdivision are almost completed with the exception of Unit 9 which is affected by
the freeway and realignment of J Street. The staff reconm~ends approval of the
extension of time, as provided by the State Map Act, so that Unit 9 will be constructed
at a later date.
MSUC (York-Stewart) Recommend approval of a one-year extension of time; subject
subdivision will now expire on January 26, 1970.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 5.
PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) - Variance - Property between First Avenue and Tobia~
Drive, south of Quintard Street - Request to construct single-
family attached dwellin~ units on 2800 square foot lots and other
related variances - Robinhood Homes~ Inc.
Mr. Manganelli explained that the letter from a representative of Robinhood Homes,
Inc. $~bmitted at the last meeting asking for a continuance of time was sent in
error. The applicant and his attorney have indicated that they wished the matter
filed, since they are preparing new applications based on the R-2 ordinance.
MSUC (Stewart-Adams) This request be filed.
Discussion - Minimum lot size in the R-1 zone
Associate Planner Man§anelli discussed this item which was referred to them by the
City Council. They have continued their action on this matter to their meeting of
December 30. The staff feels that a smaller lot size has some merit and some sort
of a reduction should be considered. The Director of Planning has discussed this
with the City Attorney and found several alternatives available. One was the type
of provision discussed by the Mayor which would permit a cluster plan, having the
smaller lots on the level land in exchange for the retention of some of the areas of
open space. This proposal is covered in our new zoning ordinance under the planned
unit development section. Mr. Manganelli discussed the two staff proposals: creating
a 6000 square foot zone, and modifying the R-1 zone to allow 25% of the lots in a
subdivision to be reduced to 6000 square feet and 10% to 5000 square feet in area.
He emphasized that this was no magic formula and the percentages could change, as the
Commission wishes.
Chairman Hyde remarked that in their previous discussions on this subject, the
Con~ission felt the 7000 square foot lot should remain as the standard but some
reductions below 7000 square feet would be acceptable. He suggested the following:
75% for 7000 square foot lots; 15% for 6000 sq. ft. lots and 10% for 5000 sq. ft. lots.
Member Adams remarked that he would not want to see the lots go down to the 5000 square
foot size. The City Council never asked for that, he added, so why put it in.
Chairman Hyde commented that the San Diego Building Contractors Association has
requested the 5000 square foot lots for certain areas. He felt the Commission should
be willing~ try to allow some flexibility of a limited scale for the smaller lots.
Member Chandler stated that he gets the impression there is pressure upon the Commis-
sion to come up with these smaller lots. He indicated that the Commission should
not be concerned with what San Diego and other outlying areas have in the way of
minimum lot sizes. He can see reducing the lot size from an economic standpoint;
however, not because some one just comes in and requests it.
Member Adams agreed adding that 7000 square foot lots have been the minimum size lot
in Chula Vista for a good many years. They have never had any trouble with it, and
no one has come in to request a change until the Building Contractors Association.
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 6.
Member Stewart discussed a meeting he attended at which representatives of FHA were
present, and they indicated that Chula Vista was not doing its share in lowering the
lot standards so that the cost of the homes could qualify more people for FHA
financing.
The Commission discussed lowering the minimum lot size; they felt the developers want
to get the size down to as low as they can, and then there would not be a single
subdivider coming before the Commission asking for 7000 square foot lots. Member Adams
discussed the strategic location of Chula Vista and how the developers are desirous
of developing here.
Member York discussed a conference he attended in San Francisco recently at which
discussions were held concerning certain communities that try to eliminate the lower-
income groups from coming in by the use of the large lot zoning. He added that in
not lowering the minimum lot size, the Commission is being very unrealistic about it.
He said the day will come when 5000 square feet will be considered a large lot and
that people will have a 3000 square foot home on a 4000 square foot lot. By our lot
size regulation, lot front regulations, building standard requirements, etc., they
are making it impossible for a large segment of the population to even dream of
owning their own home.
The Commission discussed the 5000 square foot minimum lot size. Chairman Hyde said
he was dead set against the 5000 square foot size zone, and feels the same about the
6000 square foot minimum; however, he is not sure that having none of these is the
right thing either. He is willing to take the hesitant step and have 15% of a sub-
division reduced to 6000 square foot lots and 10% to 5000 square foot lots. He
suggested they try this, and if it doesn't work out, the Commission can initiate
proceedings to revoke this ordinance.
Member Adams declared this would be a foot in the door. Soon after this, they will
be getting numerous requests for more 5000 and 6000 square foot lots.
Member York remarked that something along this line would bring in the development
that Chula Vista is now losing to the County and to San Diego.
MS (York-Stewart) Follow the staff's recommendation: 25% to go to 6000 square foot
lots; 10% maximum to go to 5000 square foot lots; this will be upon approval of a
subdivision map. Also, that the staff be directed to study a minimum pad size for
the lots and report to the Commission at a later date.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members York, Stewart, Chandler
NOES: Members Hyde, Adams
ABSENT: Member Rice
MS (Hyde-Stewart) Upon approval of a subdivision map, 15% of the lots will be
permitted to go to 6000 square feet and 10% to 5000 square feet.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Members Hyde, Stewart, Chandler
NOES: Members Adams and York
ABSENT: Member Rice
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 12/9/68 7.
MSC (Chandler-York) Upon approval of a subdivision map, 20% of the lots will be
permitted to go to 6000 square feet, and 10% to 5000 square foot lots. The basic
minimum lot size in an R-1 zone shall be 7000 square feet, and the staff is directed
to study the minimum lot pad and report to the Commission at the next meeting
December 16, 1968).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Chandler, York, Stewart, Hyde
NOES: Member Adams
ABSENT: Member Rice
League of California Cities Dinner Meetin~
Associate Planner Manganelli informed the Commission of the dinner meeting of the
League of California Cities to be held on Friday, December 13, 1968, at the Kona Kai
Club, Shelter Island, with the City of Imperial Beach to be the host city. The
Secretary was asked to call the Commission for their reservations.
Housing Units - Duplexes
Member Stewart asked the staff to determine the total number of housing units now
involved in plans for split duplexes in the City. He wished to see what impact this
wi 11 have.
Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee
Member Hyde stated that the next meeting of this Committee will be Tuesday,
December 10, in the Administrative Conference Room, Civic Center, at which time
the Committee will attempt to wrap up their recommendations for presentation to the
Commi ssi on.
Construction Costs
Member York discussed construction costs and the fact that reducing the size of a
lot will not greatly affect the profits made by a developer. He added that building
was a highly competitive field and quality of the home is an important factor to this
market. The fact that the developer wants a 5000 square foot lot in order to make
more money is erroneous--the consumer is the only one who benefits from it.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of December 16, 1968.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
· J'ennie M. Fulasz ~
¢/" Secretary