Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/11/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 25, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held at 7 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, and Adams. Absent: None. Also present, Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Rezoning and Prezoning of Layton's Otay Lakes Road Annexation - R-l-B-20 and R-l-B-12 to R-1 - Cameron Bros. Const. Co. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question. The applicant is requesting rezoning and prezoning to R-I ut 66 acres of R-l-B-12 land and 9 acres of R-1-B-2U zoned land to R-l, both located on the east side of Otay Lakes Road, north of Bonita Vista High School. This land has been the subject of a request for a mobile home park, which request is still pending under an appeal to the City Council. The developer has filed a subdivision map which will be on the Commission's December 16 agenda. This map shows lots rangin§ from 7000 square feet on the level land to lots somewhat larger depend- ing on the slopes. The subdivider has requested that this hearing and the map be heard at the same time, which would be on Deoember 16. Mr. Warren added that this area is being studied by the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee as part of their prezoning plan. In order for the subdivider to accommodate the 70UO square foot lots, extensive grading will have to be done on the property. The staff feels there have been no changes in the area to justify the request involved. City Attorney Lindberg explained that there is no grading ordinance available in the City at this time; however, any grading problems can be considered through certain new provisions in the zoning ordinance. ~irector Warren noted that grading will take place ~egardless of the lot size. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, representing the applicant, requested a continuance of this matter to the meeting of December 16, 1968, so that this request and the tentative map could be held at the same time. MSUC (Adams-York) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of Devember 16, 1968, in order to consider this request along with the tentative map scheduled for that meeting. The Commission expressed concern that the items would be ready for consideration at that time. Director Warren assured them that it would be, as far as the staff is concerned. -2- 11/25/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin9 - 500 block Guava Avenue - R-3 and R-2 to R-1 Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use, and zoning. This hearing is the result of a zone change denial for a vacant parcel on this block for R-3 zoning. The lots are zoned R-2 and the Commission felt that the area was improved with single-family residences, which were in exceptionally good condition and would remain so for a number of years. The General Plan places this area in a high-density classification, but the Commission felt that any redevelopment of the area would not be ready for several years. ~irector Warren noted one parcel (408 Shasta Street) zoned partially R-3 and R-2; this request would rezone the small R-2 portion of the parcel to make it all R-3. The feeling of the staff in this matter is that the rezoning is not necessary, but it is predominantly single-family use and should remain so. Mr. Warren then noted the letters received by the staff: Mr. and Mrs. Poore, owners of the vacant parcel in the block, Mr. and Mrs. Vern Fannin, also owning a lot in this area, and a petition signed by 26 property owners stating they had no objection to the parcel owned by Poore's (550 Fourth Avenue) remaining in the R-2 category. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearin§ was opened. Mrs. Jean Goodvin, 561 Third Avenue, real estate broker representing Mr. and Mrs. Poore, stated she has sold this vacant lot (550 Fourth Avenue) to Mr. and Mrs. Hess. These people bought the property as R-2 zoned. They feel that a duplex would not detract from the neighborhood; this is also the general feeling in the neighborhood. Many want the zoning left as is and feel there is no advantage to rezoning it R-I. Mrs. Goodvin then read an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1958 in which the Commission denied a request for R-1 zoning in this neighborhood. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren commented that the hearing was called because the staff felt it was the desire of the residents to have this area remain R-1. The staff is not pushing it. Member York moved they leave the area as is in view of the strong feelings on the matter. He added that the R-2 boundary should be adjusted except for the one lot in question (550 Fourth Avenue). The motion died for lack of a second. Member Adams declared there was no disadvantage in zoning it R-l; it makes sense. Member Stewart explained the reasons for the Commission denial in 1958--there was a difference in lot sizes: The R-2 was 6000 square feet and R-1 was 7000. Since then, the R-2 minimum lot size has been changed to 7000. The Commission discussed the particular tot in question (550 Fourth Avenue) and concurred that it should be left as is since it would not qualify for a zone variance. It would be difficult to find exceptional circumstances to justify a request for such. Director Warren indicated it n~t.b~ proper_~o.leave o~e tot i~ the area R-2 just to accommodate an in~w~ua~ interest; ~na~ prooao~y variance could be justified. -3- 11/25/68 MSUC (York-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Resolution No. 547 to City Council the Change of Zone for the 500 block of Guava Avenue Findings be as follows: a. The area is improved exclusively with single-family dwellings which are only 12-13 years old and in excellent condition. b. While the General Plan for 1990 designates this area as very high density residential, the goals of the General Plan are met by the protection of this area from premature intrusion of any type of multiple family development until such time as the neighborhood is ready for redevelopment--this shomld not occur for several years. City Attorney Lindberg commented that they will be considering an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would be an adjustment of lot lines. In such cases where there is a dual zoning on the lot, the zoning that is over 50% would be the zoning of record. This amendment will be brought to the Commission in the near future. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 3630 Main Street - Request to create four lots served by a 32' wide easement in an M-1 zone - Haas Bros. Motor Co. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property, the adjacent land uses, and the zoning. This is a three acre site zoned M-1 which concerns a request to split it into four lots and to serve these four lots by a 32' wide easement extending north from Main Street. The ordinance requires that these lots front on a dedicated street. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to a parcel map being filed and for the structures to observe a 10' setback plus landscaping. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, asked that a condition be imposed for the improvement of Main Street for the width of the applicant's property on Main Street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Miller, realtor, representing the applicant, stated that they are aware of the requirements and agree with them, except for the improvements on Main Street. They question the need for sidewalks in this industrial zone. Mr. Gesley admitted that sidewalks usually are omitted in industrial areas; they will look into this. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren indicated the applicant would have to put in the street improvements at the time he applies for his building permit unless a waiver is granted and sidewalk could be considered at that time. -4- 11/25/68 MSUC (Adams-York) Variance request be approved subject to the following: 1. Any structures built maintain a minimum 10' setback from the easement and such area be landscaped subject to staff approval when the lots are submitted for building permits. 2. A parcel map be filed with the City. 3. Street improvements as required with standard subdivisions be made for that section of the street fronting on Main Street, unless waived by the Planning Commission at some future date. 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. Denial of the variance would require dedication of a street which is unnecessary according to the Chula Vista City Engineer. b. T~at 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 32' wide easement proposed will provide the necessary ingress and egress to serve the proposed lots. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detr$~mnta~ to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The surrounding M-1 uses would not be affected by this request. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected by this variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Property along the north side of Tele§raph Canyon Road between Hilltop Drive and Interstate 805 - from R-1 to R-3 and C-1 - Otas Land Compan~ Director of Planning Warren referred to a land use map noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The area encompasses 47.4 acres of vacant land located on the north side of Telegrap~ Canyon Road west of the proposed Inland Freeway. The request for the C-1 portion consists of the area between the freeway right-of-way and the future extension of Nacion Avenue and will contain approximately 8 acres. R-3 zoning is requested for the remainder of the land. -5- 11/25/68 Mr. Warren noted the three streets stubbed into this property and commented that Nacion Avenue will continue through and intersect with Telegraph Canyon Road. He then discussed the area to the west, for which R-3 zoning was recently approved by the Commission, but denied by the Council. The General Plan designates the property as medium density residential which is a significant departure from the request; however, the Plan is four years old and subject to review. It is meant to be a guide with some room for flexibility. It does not define property lines, just an overall density. Director Warren then discussed the effect that a request of this magnitude could have on the schools in the area, the traffic, the utilities and commercial facilities. If granted, he continued, no higher than a B-2 density should be considered and the supplemental "D" zone attached. Mr. Warren then noted a letter from Mr. Gersten (the applicant) in which he discussed the limits of density and the type of units he proposed to construct. He added he discussed the school problem with both superintendents of schools. Mr. Rindone, Superintendent of the High Schools, indicated he felt the project would have little effect on them. Dr. Tiffany, Superintendent of the Elementary School District, has not yet reached final conclusions. The development may generate a large number of children and the problem of how these will be handled should be studied. The staff, therefore, recommends that this matter be continued to give the staff time to better resolve the impact of the development on the schools, and to pursue further with the applicant the suggestions he made in his letter. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Lynds, representing the applicant, asked Mr. Warren to read the letter from Mr. Gersten. After the letter was read, Mr. Lynds declared that they are willing to be limited by what they state. He stated that Mr. Gersten, the applicant, is a builder of nation-wide recognition, and is currently building in the Southern California area. His most recent project is the apartment complex at 18th Street and "D" Avenue in National City, one part of which has just been completed. They will soon be constructing 248 more units across the street from this project, for which they have a waiting list. Mr. Lynds then stated he will resume his testimony as a rebuttal after the people in the audience have been given a chance to speak. Director Warren read the petition in opposition to the request signed by 371 residents representing 286 property owners. Those speaking in opposition were: Frank Meyer, 272 El Capitan Drive; Josephine Schwab, 91E. San Miguel; Mrs. Lawrence Lassman, 190 E. Millan Street; Mrs. Howard, 56 Nolan Court, Jim Juerling, 381 E. Millan, William Daniels, 148 E. Millan, Art Weigelt, 192 E. Millan; George Bessinger, 348 E. Millan; C. Bell, 195 E. Millay,Joe Tramwell, 1172 Oasis, W. O. Taltey, 136 E. E1 Capitan; Doug Duncan, 344 E. M~llan; Pierre Coomer, 768 Neptune, and W. Cencebaugh, Vice-President of Seaview Homeowners Association. Their reasons were as follows: 1. No public need for the zone change request. 2. R-3 zoned land on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road has never been developed. 2. No financial loss will be suffered by the applicant if the request is denied. 4. 371 people signed the petition. 5. It is a request of great magnitude and it will be a departure from the General Plan. -6- 11/25/68 6. It will cause overcrowding of existing schools. 7. A subdivider should be required to set aside in new subdivisions an area designated as R-3 and C-1 so the people buying into this area would be fully aware of what is proposed to go in their neighborhood. 8. The people in the area bought their homes here after looking around very carefully to be assured they would be living in a residential area of single-family homes. 9. It is not apartment-oriented land--it is park land and should be developed as such. 10. Telegraph Canyon Road is overcrowded now--this project will bring on much more traffic. 11. The letter of intent from Mr. Gersten is one thing--the finished product is another. 12. The applicant has an abundance of land--over 3000 acres--east of this and they can see no reason for the concentrated effort being made on this particular piece of property. 13. The National City apartment project is one not architecturally pleasing-- they wouldn't want this type of project in this area. 14. This development will be government-financed so it will be a low-cost project which brings in a transient type of individual. 15. Mr. Doug Duncan stated he would like the Commission to stipulate that (a) no building be constructed above the lot elevation of the south side of E. Millan;(b) under the "D'' zone, have the buildings compatible with the homes on E. Millan; (c) enforce a slope erosion control with an installation of a sprinkler system, and no ice plant. 16. When you examine Chula Vista as a whole, you will realize that apartments are not for this area. 17. The homes in the surrounding area range in price from $25,000 to $30,000 and this project would substantially devaluate them. 18. If apartments are needed in this particular area, have them go further east where there is no established neighborhood. 19. There will be a need for increased fire and police protection. 20. What is going to happen to all of these apartments once the war in Vietnam ends and the building boom is over? Director Warren suggested the Commission not close the public hearing, if they plan to continue the matter. These people can present new testimony at the next meeting. The Commission concurred that it should be continued to the next meeting - Dec. 2~ however, Mr. Warren asked for the continuance to Devember 16 in order to give the staff time to meet with the applicant and other interested parties to solve the problems that were mentioned tonight. The Commission cautioned the audience that they would hear only new testimony. MSUC (Adams-York) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of December 16 in order to give the staff time to study the problems of schools, utilities, traffic, fire and police protection for this development. Mr. Warren explained the process of mailing notices to property owners. -7- 11/25/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 99 Broadway - Request for reduction in rear yard setback from 15' to 1' in a C-2 zone - Avon Jennings Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the applicant's property, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant owns a motel on this property and he is requesting permission to demolish an existing one-story structure located 1' from the northerly property line and 4' from the easterly property line, and replace it with a 7-unit 2-story building with parking for 7 cars underneath. The bottom story would be located 4 feet from the easterly property line and the second story would be 1 foot from the property line. The staff recommends approval of this request subject to a few conditions--that the easterly setback be 5 feet instead of the 1' requested by the applicant; landscaping and screening the asphalt area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jennings, the applicant, declared he is not creating any additional units, merely replacing some of them that he has. He noted the two businesses in this same block that do not adi~ere to the 5' setback; for this reason, he cannot see why he has to. The Commission discussed the setback reduction request with the applicant. He remarked it was a feasible request which would make his project worthwhile. He cannot reduce the size of his units because of the parking underneath for two cars; he wants the wa}l on top to coincide with the wall separation below. A suggestion was made to the applicant that perhaps he could move his complex I foot further out to Broadway which would give him the needed 5' setback on the easterly property line. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission stated they agree with the staff recommendation of having the applicant adhere to the 5 foot setback--they could see little justification for the l' request. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Variance be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed building shall be located a minimum distance of 5 feet from the easterly property line. 2. A minimum of two tree wells shall be provided adjacent to Boardway and two minimum 6' high palm trees planted prior to final inspection of the building. 3. A method of screening the asphalt maneuvering area shall be submitted to the staff for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. 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. The lot depth of 100 feet does not allow for the development of a commercial structure with parking unless certain setbacks can be revised. -8- 11/25/68 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 conditions imposed will require the applicant to maintain the normal setback adjacent to the residential area and a reduction adjacent to the commercial property setbacks relating to adjoining commercial zones have been eliminated in our new Zoning Ordinance. 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 neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The building would be main~'taining a setback similar to other uses in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Propert~ between First Avenue and Tobias Driw, south of Quintard Street - Request to construct sin~le-famil~ attached dwellin~ units on 2800 square foot lots and other related variances - Robinhood Homes, Inc. Director of Planning Warren read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance of this item to the meeting of December 2. Mr. Warren commented that this matter has been before the Commission once before, readvertised, and has become confused. He plans to call a meeting with the applicant and the City Attorney to go over this item. MSUC York-Stewart) Continue this matter to the meeting of December 2, 1968. Subdivision - Tentative map of Southwestern College Estates, Unit #4 Director of Planning Warren explained that this item was continued from the meeting of November 18 in order to give the staff an opportunity to work with the developer and the Parks & Recreation Department for a possible park site next to the school. The conclusion was that a park site could be accommodated on the area next to the school site even though it does have a slope. The staff would recommend that the map be approved as submitted and the Commission acknowledge this use of the land as appropriate for a park site. The Council should be asked to make a determination as to their intent at the time they view the map. The staff has indicated on the map two lots of the adjacent unit of the subdivision to be used as an entrance to the park area; the Council should decide whether they want two or three lots here. Mr. Ray Swanner, representing Bollenbacher & Kelton, owners and developers of this subidvision, stated he has no additional comments to make. -9- 11/25/68 Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, indicated the recommendations made by the Division of Engineering were minor and routine. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Recommend approval of the map subject to the following conditions: 1. A one-foot control lot shall be provided at the end of Gotham Street. 2. A temporary circular A.C. berm shall be provided at the end of Gotham Street to facilitate cleaning by City maintenance forces. 3. Change note (8) on tentative map to read: Tree deposit shall be paid in accordance with Ordinance No. lO01. 4. A neighborhood park site is shown on the map adjacent to the elementary school site. Two lots are shown as street frontage for this park, but if additional lots are required by City Council Action, such shall be designated on the final map. Council Referral - Proposed reduction of front setback - 126 Jefferson Avenue, Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was approved by the Commission on October 7 to allow the applicant a reduction in rear yard setback from 25' to 15' for the construction of an apartment building. This action was appealed to the City Council and they have referred the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider a change in setback for the entire block. Mr. Warren then noted t~e setbacks on the adjacent streets, and asked the Commission for their advice as to whether or not they would care to have this set for hearing to consider a change of setback to 15' or leave it as it is and ask the Council to act accordingly. Mr. Warren then discussed the problems encountered with an area of transition as this one is. Residents in these older areas object to a two-story building moving out 10' in front of them. The Commission discussed other areas in the City in which a request for reduction of setback was denied by the Commission for this same reason. Director Warren commented that if these properties are going to remain in the R-3 zone, reasonable conditions for development should be made available or the parking requirements should be changed. MSUC York-Rice) The staff is directed to call a public hearing to consider a change of setback for this entire area. -10- 11/25/68 Council Referral - Proposed reduction in minimum lot size in R-1 ~one~ Director of Planning Wamren explained that at their meeting of November 5, 1968, the Council continued this matter to the meeting of December 3 and referred it back to the Commission for further reconsideration on the matter of reducing the minimum lot size of 7000 square feet. They felt consideration should be given to reducing the minimum lot size, not to replace the 7000 square foot minimum, but a smaller lot size which would be in addition to this 7000 square foot minimum. Another suggestion made at their meeting was to establish an amendment to the R-1 zone that would permit some flexibility in having the 6000 square foot on level land and the larger lot sizes on the area with steep topography. Mr. Warren remarked that the staff feels there is some justification for the smaller lots, and would suggest that t~e Commission direct the staff to work with the City Attorney in the preparation of an ordinance that would establish the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone as 7000 square feet, but would permit 25% of the lots to be reduced to 6000 square feet and an additional 25% to be reduced to 5000 square feet. This would be better than having a olanket provision for either a 5000 or 6000 square foot minimum lot. In answer to Member York's inquiry, Director Warren declared they would also have to reduce the lot frontage and setback requirement. The Commission then discussed having a large home on a small lot. Mr. Warren noted there is a lot coverage regulation in the ordinance. Member Adams declared that Chula Vista has high standards, but that it has produced good results. He would not be in favor of reducing the minimum lot size. If they change the ordinance to 5000 or 6000 square foot lots as the minimum, every subdivision from then on will have these small lots. Mr. Adams added that they will have to make a good argument for not permitting the small lots. Right now, they have the means of permitting it by a variance procedure. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the procedure for permitting smaller lots in Garden Grove, California. The Commission discussed the fact that they are not interested in reducing the quality of the homes being built in Chula Vista, merely the reduction of the cost in constructing these homes. Mr. Warren stated that they wouldn't be sacrificing the quality of the homes in reducing the lot size. Member York felt it was the intention of the Council, in referring this matter back to the Commission,to give serious consideration to adopting a minimum size lot, smaller than the 7000 square foot one the City now has. It had nothing to do with the topography. Member York moved that the staff make a report of devising a feasible way of handling lot sizes and bring this back to the Commission for approval. Member Stewart remarked that he was disturbed over the fact that they would even consider reducing 50% of the lots in any one subdivision. Land values are the things to be considered, and the pressure is being placed in those areas where you can get results. The Commission is being asked to lower the standards, but to go to 5000 square foot lots would be out of the question. -ll- 11/25/68 Mr. Marion Hunt, real estate agent with Mark Money & Associates, spoke of the contact he makes in his business with a great number of people. These people feel that Chula Vista is a clean, well-planned, friendly town, and for these reasons, they want to live here. These things will not be affected greatly by reducing the lot sizes. What matters to these people is the kind of house they find on this lot. He voiced his support of the smaller lot size indicating that if the Commission would drop 1000 square feet of land area from a lot, it would add approximately $1000 more to the house and they would get a better home. Mr. Warren commented that a Council Conference will be held on this subject on December 2 at 3:30 p.m. The Commission discussed setting up a percentage basis for allowing smaller lots in subdivision. Member Rice felt 10% or 20% would be preferable to the 50% recommended by the staff. The other members concurred that 50% was drastic. They all agreed not to consider 5000 square foot lots. Member York rescinded his former motion and made the following motion: MSUC (York-Stewart) Refer this to the staff to work up some report with the City Attorney and bring this back to the Commission. The staff also be directed to ask the City Council to postpone their Council Conference scheduled for this subject on December 2. Discussion - Port District Master Plan Director of Planning Warren submitted the latest map of the Port District Master Plan. Hearings were conducted on the original plan and subsequent revisions have been made. Mr. Warren pointed out Tidelands Avenue and Marina Avenue proposed, and also the mean high tide land. The consultants, in making up the General Plan, looked at this area and tried to suggest some residential use here, but this was ruled out by the Port Director--he felt it was necessary for industrial use. The staff feels that we are selling ourselves short in reserving that much industrial land on the waterfront. The Commission ought to think seriously about more tourist-oriented uses adjacent to the marina; the City ought to capitalize on this. Mr. Warren suggested a representative of the Port District be invited to the Commission meeting in January instead of December, as previously suggested. The staff was directed to get in touch with the representatives of the Port District to get whatever information they can concerning the tidelands area of Chula Vista. Resolution - Commendin~ William Guyer for services on the City Planning Commission MSUC (Adams-York Offer the resolution commending Mr. Guyer for his services RESOLUTION No. 547-A on the Co~nission -12- 11/25/68 Letter from Mr. Slevin A letter was read from Mr. Carrol Slevin inquiring as to the feasibility of changing the setback in the 400 block of F Street from 30 feet to 25 feet. Director Warren stated that this change will automatically be n~ade at the time the new zoning ordinance is adopted. Chairman Hyde referred this matter to the staff. Sweetwater Valley Planning Study Director Warren informed the Commission that the map was now ready and will be set for hearing in the near future. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, nie M. Fulasz ~ retary