HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/10/21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 21, 1968
The regular adjourned meeting was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council
Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde,
York, Stewart, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of
Planning Warren, Associate Planner Man§anelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City
Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of the meeting of October 7, 1968, be approved as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - Southerly 50' of property at 370 E Street - R-3 to C-2 - Planning Commission initiated
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro-
posed rezoning and explained that the hearing was called following the approval of
a variance permitting the market (Garden Farms Market) to expand into the property
in question which is zoned R-3. The other three lots which comprise the total area
owned by the market are zoned C-2. The property is being used for parking purposes.
Mr. Warren noted an adjacent lot across the alley and fronting on Garrett Avenue,
presently zoned R-3 which the Commission could have considered for a zone change
along with subject request; however, this can be rectified at the time of the
changes that will be made to the comprehensive zoning map.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
RESOLUTION NO. 544 the City Council the Rezoning of the Southerly 50 feet of
Property at 37U E Street from R-3 to C-2
Findings be as follows:
a. The property is presently being used for commercial parking.
b. A recently approved variance permits a more intensive commercial use for the
property (a portion of a market building).
c. Good zoning practice dictates that adequate depth of commercial zoning be
provided to insure good commercial development.
PUBLIC HEARING: Chan§e of setbacks - lO00 block of Del Mar Avenue - 25' to 15'
Planning Commission initiated
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the pro-
posed setback change. The hearing was initiated by the Commission at the request
of the staff as a result of the Commission's approval of a recent variance allowing
a front setback reduction at 1070 Del Mar Avenue to 15 feet. A 15 foot front
setback is now recognized as a standard setback by the City for R-3 zoned areas
which front on a local street. The staff recommends approval.
-2- 10/21/68
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Adams-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
RESOLUTION NO. 545 the City Council the Change of Setback from 25 feet to
15 feet for the 1000 block of Del Mar Avenue
Findings be as follows:
a. A 15 foot front setback is now recognized as a standard by the City for R-3
zoned areas fronting on local streets.
b. A variance permitting a reduction in front setback has previously been approved
for a parcel on this block.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Property south of 144 and 152 K Street - Request to
create two lots with less than 50' of street frontage - Arrasmith
A plot plan was submitted by the Director of Planning noting the location of the
proposed lot split, the adjacent land use and zoning. Mr. Warren noted the design
of the two-way lot split commenting on the previous history of this property whereby
the applicant had originally requested a 4-way lot split. Then, upon recommendation
of the Commission, he and the staff got together with residents of the area to see
if they would all join in the development of their rear lots and provide an access
from Second Avenue to serve these new lots. Only two adjacent neighbors were willing
to participate in the development which would have made it an 8-way lot split;
however, at the Commission hearing, they withdrew their request. The applicant is
now applying for permission to split this lot into two parcels: 17,393 square feet
and 19,338 square feet; both lots to have access from the existing 17 foot wide
strip which extends 120 feet to K Street. This request meets all the criteria for
approval of a variance. The staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions
which he outlined.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Delbert Arrasmith, 3723 Ciene§a Drive, Bonita, the applicant, discussed his
earlier attempts to develop this parcel and the objections of the residents which
he felt was largely due to the traffic that would be generated on this 17 foot wide
roadway. He agreed that eight homes relying on this 17 foot access would be too
much; this is the reason he is now asking permission to split the parcel into two
lots. He plans to construct the dwellings on the northerly portion of the lots so
that, at some time in the future, should the resiOents in the area desire to develop
their rear lots, there will be sufficient room to provide a road through here.
Mr. Arrasmith asked that condition No. 1 be changed as he does not feel he should
be required to improve the entire road width with 2' asphalt concrete over 4' D.G.
or to construct curbs. He would prefer to improve it to alley specifications,
leaving a portion of it unimproved so that the utilities and sewer hookup can be
put in as the homes are constructed.
lqr. Warren commented that this was acceptable to the Assistant City Engineer.
-3- 10/21/68
Mr. Garvin, 128 K Street, stated he didn't know whether he was for this request
or against it. He felt the development of this parcel would leave his adjacent lot
landlocked. At t~e present ti me, he has no intention of developing his property or
selling it, but may wish to do so at the time his children get of college age. He
would like to see an access road from Second Avenue be made first.
City Attorney Lindberg explained the process of condemnation the City would have
to go through in order to get this accomplished, and also that because the applicant
is applying for a variance to build on two lots using a 17' wide roadway, that it
was not incumbent upon him to instigate proceedings to get a roadway in from Second
Avenue.
The Commission discussed Mr. Garvin's lot and noted that he has a 12 foot wide
driveway on the easterly side of his dwelling, thereby making the rear of his
property readily accessible and not landlocked. They explained to him that if he
wished to develop it in the future, he can apply for a variance the same as the
applicant is doing, and the Commission will consider it on its own merit.
Mr. Harold Mack, 146 K Street, declared he objected to the previous request for four
homes on this parcel of land, but will go along with the two homes if he can be
assured that the applicant will not come in at some future time and ask for another
variance to put in two more homes.
Chairman Hyde explained that the applicant has this right to develop his property
as it is zoned, and they cannot condition this variance on the fact that he would
not come in again and make a similar request.
Mr. Warren commented that this would take another variance, and noted that the site
plan was to be submitted for staff approval. The specific size of the lots are not
being considered--the request is for permission to use the 17 foot wide roadway for
access. In reviewing the site plan, the staff will be looking at the way the homes
will be sited on the lots. The staff, moreover, has felt that four homes on this
lot would generate too much traffic for this roadway; however, two could be
accommodated.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission discussed condition No. 1--the paving of the roadway. Member Guyer
felt the applicant should be allowed to improve one-half of this roadway until
such time as his sewer and utilities are put in.
Director Warren commented that the improvement should be wide enough to adequately
provide a proper access for the two homes--sufficient space could be left for
utilities. They should be careful not to create a maintenance problem whereby
weeds, etc., would be here.
Member Adams said he favored having the entire width improved because of its length.
-4- 10/21/68
Member Stewart maintained that the roadway should be 17 feet, but a temporary access
of 12 feet would be adequate now.
Director Warren remarked that the alley-type construction would be acceptable in
lieu of curb, gutter, etc., and that the details of paving be left up to the staff.
MSUC (York-Guyer) Approval of variance to create two lots with less than 50 feet
of street frontage on property south of 144 and 152 K Street.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The entire easement (17' wide X 120' deep) shall be improved, subject to the
approval of the Planning Department and the Engineering Division.
2. A grading plan noting all elevations at lot corners and pad elevations shall be
submitted for staff approval.
3. Any slopes shown on the grading plan shall meet the standards adopted by the
City for planting and grading.
4. All utility service shall be underground from K Street.
5. Building elevation and plot plans of each parcel shall be staff approved prior
to obtaining a building permit.
6. Minimum setback from the terminus of the 17 foot strip shall be 20 feet.
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 existing 17 foot wide access represents the only access to the property
for development.
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 area involved is much larger than needed for a single-family lot in this
neighborhood.
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 neighbor-
hood in which the property is located.
The two sites created are in excess of the minimum lot size of the City, and the
existing lots in the area. Development will eliminate an unsightly condition and
a fire hazard.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
The General Plan encourages utilization of by-passed properties and enclaves
whenever possible.
-5- 10/21/68
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 254 Fifth Avenue - Request for reduction of setback
alon~ Davidson Street from 25' to 15' - F. Whe~land
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area requested for
the setback reduction. He noted the property is on the southwest corner of Fift~
Avenue and Davidson Street and has 150' of frontage on Davidson and 104' of
frontage on Fifth Avenue, There is a single-family dwelling on the lot which will
be retained; the applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit apartment building
within 19' of Davidson Street.
He discussed the proposed layout of the building on the property and felt the
applicant was making a mistake in locating his~building in this way; the old home
on the lot will eventually have to be replaced at some time. However, the variance
cannot be judged on this. This was pointed out to the applicant. The staff
recommends approval subject to four conditions which the Director outlined.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
A representative of the applicant stated he had nothing to add.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission felt this was a typical variance situation and should be approved.
MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of the variance request subject to the following
conditions:
1. The northerly 4 feet of this property shall be dedicated for the construction
of a sidewalk monolithic with the curg.
2. A 2-1/2 foot wide utility easement and a 10 foot wide tree planting easement
located 4 feet from the existing property line shall be offered to the city.
3. A minimum of four street trees (6' high) shall be provided along Davidson Street
and a complete landscaping plan for the Davidson Street frontage shall be approved
by the Planning staff prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. Any signs to be placed in the setback area shall be submitted for staff approval.
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 north side of Davidson already enjoys a 15' setback as well as the south
side from Broadway east to this parcel.
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 adjoining lot was given a variance identical to this request less than one
year ago.
-6- 10/21/68
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 neighbor-
hood in which the property is located.
The building setback of 15 feet is in keeping with other properties 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.
Request for approval of building plans for Richfield Oil Station at southwest
corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road
A plot plan was submitted by the Director of Planning noting the area proposed
for the service station site, the location of the pump islands and the building.
The station shows a rock roof but they have agreed to alter this to a shake roof.
The color of the sign will be yellow and tan. Since there are no buildings
immediately adjacent to this in the vicinity, it is a little difficult to determine
its compatibility to the adjacent area; however, the changes discussed will be
compatible with the shopping center. The staff recommends approval subject to
two conditions: the white exterior be revised to light brown and the planter
areas to be a minimum of four courses high and of used brick. Colored photos of
the proposed building were submitted to the Commission.
Member Adams stated he was not in accord with this plan since it is the very same
building they use in their general commercial areas with the same facilities. He
felt the station with the large canopy was too much for this neighborhood shopping
center. Mr. Adams cited an example of a good looking station as that on Telegraph
Canyon Road and L Street. He opposes the use of the canopy on this service station,
as well as on any service stations--they should be done away with.
Member York felt they served a purpose such as during the rainy weather or the hot
spells; this is when the canopies are needed.
Director Warren remarked that he disagrees with Member Adams as to the architecture
of the station. The canopies are useful; they tend to cover up the lights and the
outdoor activity. He did agree that the oil companies are defeating their purpose
in putting this ranch-type station in the commercial areas when they should be
reserved strictly for the residential areas.
MSC (York-Stewart) Approval of the site and building plans for the service station
subject to the following conditions:
1. White exterior shown on photo be revised to light brown or tan.
2. Planter areas to be a minimum of four courses high and of used brick.
The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members York, Stewart, Hyde, Rice, and Guyer
NOES: Member Adams
ABSENT: None
Member Adams voted "no" because he felt the building is incompatible, particularly
with the canopy.
-7- 10/21/68
Request for approval of building plans for American Oil Station at southeast
corner of Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the proposed station. He
noted the location of the pump station and the ingress and egress along with the
proposed landscaping. This station is located in a C-N zone, which according to
the ordinance, may be approved by the staff. However, at the time the Commission
granted a variance for this use, they expressed concern over the architecture and
asked that the plans be brought back to them. The staff discussed the plans with
the applicant and several changes were made: raised planters will be used,
supports of the canopy will be of used brick, and they will be using brick on the
building. The building does not have the same lines as that of the 7-11 store in
the Center, but the applicants have tried to make it compatible with the residential
area. Mr. Warren then reviewed the staff's conditions of approval.
Member Adams commented that this station was a little better designed than the
previous one, and without the canopy, it would be quite compatible. He remarked
that he viewed several stations in the area with Mr. Cregan.
Director Warren commented that the signs, as proposed, would conform to the ordin-
ance.
Mr. George Cregan, representing American Oil Company, discussed the proposed signs
and passed around some pictures of the light fixture they will install there.
MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) Approval of building plans for the service station subje ct to
the following conditions:
1. Planter boxes extending along Hilltop Drive and Rienstra shall be constructed
of used brick (minimum four courses high with cap).
2. Used brick support members shall be used for the canopy areas.
3. If baked enamel finish is to be used, it shall be light grey or darker, semi-
gloss, and used brick shall be used as delineated on the prespective submitted.
4. Rock roof shall be in a grey color to blend with the siding.
5. Planter along Rienstra shall be extended to the east and curved adjacent to the
"ramp area."
6. Light standards shall be revised to be in keeping with the residential area.
Member Adams abstained from voting.
Approval of final map of Festival Subdivision
Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map of the subdivision, originally
part of the Flair Subdivision. The subdivision contains 31 lots and is located north
of Wisteria Street and east of Oleander Avenue. The map is in conformance with the
approved tentative map and the staff recommends approval subject to the conditions
noted by the Division of Engineering.
-8- 10/21/68
MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of the final map of Festival Subdivision subject
to the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. Completion of public improvements to the subdivision boundary at the east end
of Juniper Street.
Review of plans for expansion of Norman Park Center building
A plan of the proposed building addition was displayed for Commission review.
Director of Planning Warren explained that the addition will be architecturally
identical to that which exists. The matter of the Commission approving this item
is a routine one, and the findings would be that the addition will not be in conflict
with the General Plan.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Proposed addition to Norman Park Center as submitted at this
meeting will not be in conflict with the General Plan.
Request by Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee for extension of time to complete
prezoning study
Director Warren reviewed the status of the Committee whereby they were scheduled
to give a report to the Council on October 22. At the time the Council asked to have
this Committee formed, Mr. Warren asked for six months to complete this study; the
Council, however, gave them three months. The staff is now asking for an additional
60 days; this is due to staff overload and the relatively slow committee progress.
Two weeks ago, the Committee was presented the first draft of the prezoning plan.
It is their Committee and they must agree with the plan as a whole, after which
time they will present it to the Commission. The Commission may disagree, and after
review, will transmit it to the Council.
MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Request an additional 60 da~vs time from the Council to complete
the prezoning study plan.
The Commission discussed the function of the Committee. Member Hyde commented on
the change of attitude among the members of this Committee and felt they would
give a favorable reaction to the prezoning plan.
Discussion - Proposal .by G.eorge Soden, et al, to annex a portion of Sunnyside
area to Spring Valley Sanitation District
Director of Planning Warren stated that the City has an understanding with the local
Agency Formation Commission that all matters within our planning area will be
referred to us. He noted the map which outlined the proposed annexation to the
Spring Valley Sanitation District, and is assuming that George Soden has the agree-
ment of all of the people in the area to annex. The City is protesting this annexa-
tion as it would make the governmental operation of the Valley much more confusing
than it is now. He added that this proposed annexation was not discussed with any
member of the City, and he is at a loss as to why they do not want to annex to the
City.
-9- 10/21/68
Mr. Warren discussed the sewer trunk line running through the Valley. They can
conceivably serve this area, for which the City has reserved a certain capacity and
is paying for it.
Member Stewart felt the City should have stipulated certain conditions with Spring
Valley at the time we entered into this agreement.
City Attorney Lindberg explained that Spring Valley Sanitation District came into
being as a going operation subsequent to the time of the Metropolitan District.
It is unfortunate that these districts provide the only means of sewers to these
properties. General government functions handled by the cities is the only way
to approach these problems. The City is paying for a capacity of 26 million gallons
a day and we are only using 7 million. However, the City can appeal to the LAFC
that this proposed annexation is not an orderly growth. Sewer is not the only
thing that the City offers; in the future, these people may want the balance of
services offered by the City.
MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend to the City Council that they protest this proposed
annexation.
Council Referral - Proposed A~riculture, Residential and Commercial-Office Zones
Director Warren discussed the transcript of the City Council meeting, a copy of
which was given to each Commissioner. He stated he has gone through this and
picked out anything that was a concrete recommendation and has made a staff
recommendation on it.
Page 19, G-l: Lot widths - The Building Contractors' Association requested that
the minimum lot widths be reduced; however, if this is done, you will end up with
long deep lots, one-half of which could be taken up with slope. Also, there was
a question of side yards on the R-E. The staff recommends that this section remain
as is; the lots are large enough so no problems with setbacks or frontages would
arise. The ordinance now requires 50 feet on a dedicated street, but not on a
cul-de-sac.
Member York asked if the staff took into consideration the topography--quite a
number of these properties may not be easily developed. The places that would
have an R-E zoning would most probably be places that would have horses and deep
lots would be desirable.
Mr. Warren stated this was considered. He then discussed the front setbacks for
cut-de-sacs which is regulated by the subdivision ordinance.
Member York asked if these large zones should have an average density. Mr. Warren
indicated this was provided for on page 20 (4) under standard provisions to provide
for gross density calculation.
-10- 10/21/68
Member York stated he goes along with the recommendation made by Gene Cook
(representing Building Constractors' Association) on both the setbacks and the
lot frontages. Ultimately, these lots will have to be redivided and if you have
these large setbacks, you will preclude the possibility of access to the back of
the lots.
Member York moved that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Building
Contractors' Association in regard to the lot widths and setbacks for the R-E 4A,
R-E 2A, R-E 40, and R-E zones. The motion died for lack of a second.
MSUC (Stewart-York) That a provision be made for modification of street frontage
for cul-de-sac lots to prevent creation of poorly shaped or deep lots.
On page 21, garage requirements - Mr. Cook recommends a carport with enclosed
storage. The staff recommends this provision be left as is.
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) no change in this provision.
Page 26 - R-1 Zone. The Building Contractors' Association recommends a 6,000 square
foot lot. The staff feels this could be permit~eQ but that the Commission should
adopt a policy as to when it would be utilized.
Member Rice expressed concern over the large homes that could conceivably be built
on these smaller lots.
The Commission felt they should let it ride as it is and watch this actively in
the future.
MSC (Guyer-Rice) No change in the provision. The Commission will continue to
give this matter some study to reducing the minimum lot size for certain situations,
but they believe a blanket reduction would not be in the best interest of the City
at this time. A provision should be made for modification of street frontage for
cul-de-sac lots to prevent creating of poorly shaped or deep lots.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Guyer, Rice, Stewart, Hyde, and Adams
NOES: Member York
ABSENT: None
Page 26 - Lot Widths (G) - The Building Contractors' Association is requesting no
change in the 15,000 sq. ft. lot; that the lot width be changed from 70 to 65 feet
for the lO,O00 square foot lots and no change in the 7000. On the 10,000 square
foot lots, they are proposing that one sideyard be changed to 6 feet and both side
yards to 12. They do not go along with providing the wider setback on one side
for access; they feel this is no big problem, and if it is necessary, the builder
will provide it. On the 7000 square foot lots, they recommend 5 feet on one side
and 10 on both. The staff is recommending no change in these provisions. The
Commission concurred.
-ll- 10/21/68
Page 30 - Lot Area (G) - The Building Contractors' Association is recommending
a lot area of 6000 square feet. The staff recommends no change in this provision.
Regarding the side yard--if you have duplexes, you may lose part of the logic in
putting it over to one side so that you can have access to one side, depending on
how it would be used. The staff recommends that one side yard be changed from
10' to 5' and both side yards be changed from 13' to 10'. Discussion was held on
splitting the duplexes. Mr. Warren reviewed the proposed ordinance recently approved
by the Commission.
MSUC (Rice-Stewart) No change in minimum lot area but that side yards be changed
to 5' since access to the rear yard on one side only would not have the same
benefits as the R-2 zone but it would in the single family zones. In reference to
the provision for splitting duplexes for individual sale, the Commission has
previously recommended such an ordinance to the City Council and requests that
such be adopted.
Member York asked that under the previous item - R-1 - to have the records show
he was in favor of the recommendations made by the Building Contractors' Association.
He did not make a motion on it because of lack of support, but is in favor of
their recommendations.
Page 34 - Under the C-O zone in regard to mortuaries and hospitals. It was pointed
out at the Council hearing that the Commission should take another look at the
two uses: mortuaries and hospitals. The staff feels that general hospitals should
be taken out of the R-3 zone and recommends that under No. 5 under "D" on page 34
that general hospitals be deleted from this section.
Member York commented that there are areas where you might want to put a mortuary
and hospital and not make the zone C-O; therefore, if you take them out of the
R-3 zone, then the C-O zone would be the only place they would be allowed. He
questioned whether they would have to spot zone C-O on the proposed hospital site
at Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road. There are places where R-3 is an
appropriate zone and the Commission does have proper control over it with the
conditional use permit.
Director Warren discussed the site at Telegraph Canyon Road and Hilltop and main-
tained that rezoning a 47 acre parcel would not be spot zoning. He remarked that
at the Council hearing, the attitude there was that mortuaries were no more
objectionable than hospitals, so why place it in the C-O zone when hospitals are
placed in the R-37
Member York felt it should be placed in the Unclassified zone.
MSUC (York-Guyer) General hospitals be removed from R-3 section (page 34 G-5) and
placed in the Unclassified Use Section which would permit same in any zone subject
to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Page 36 - G - Director Warren reviewed the requests of the Building Contractors'
Association in regard to this section whereby they asked to have the area per
dwelling unit changed from the 1350 to 1000 square feet per dwelling unit. The
staff felt that the few developments that were developed at this maximum density
and had to provide 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit were generally poorly done. They
would recommend it be left at the 1350 density.
-12- 10/21/68
Member York moved that another category in the R-3 zone be incorporated which
would permit the density of 1000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit
requirement.
Director Warren remarked that the 1350 figure was reached as a compromise
between the Building Contractors' Association and the Commission; however, when
they reached the Council hearing, they changed their minds and requested 1000
square feet.
Member York's motion died for lack of a second.
Page 36 G-1 - Director Warren asked that the words "area per dwelling unit and"
be deleted from this paragraph.
Page 36 R-3-H The Building Contractors' Association feels the requirement
of 10,000 square feet for the building site is unrealistic. The Council suggested
it either be increased or deleted. The staff recommends it be increased to 20,000
instead of 10,000 square feet.
MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) The minimum building site be increased from 10,000 square
feet to 20,000 square feet, and the words "area per dwelling unit and~' be deleted
from paragraph G-1.
Page 40 D-4 C-O zone - (York-Guyer) Mortuaries be removed from this section and
placed in the unclassified use section which would permit same in any zone subject
to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Page 41 2(a) Signs Director Warren briefly discussed the sign area for signs
situated on corners which has not been provided for in this section. The staff
would recommend the provision be put in here which would allow a sign to face both
streets.
MSUC (York-Stewart) Add the following provision: "Permitted sign areas for corner
sitew may be doubled to permit similar identification on both streets."
Page 42 G Front side yards - Mr. Warren related that comments were received from
the Building Contractors' Association that this front setback requirement should be
increased to 15' instead of having it 10', except when abutting R-1 zones, then it
should be 15'
MSUC (York-Stewart) That the setback be left at 10' since most areas of applica-
tion of this zone would abut areas presently zoned for multiple-family use or
areas of transition which would ultimately eliminate single-family use. In most
cases, the imposition of a 15' setback would unnecessarily restrict the use of
the property.
Discussion - Casey's Prezoning Request at Tobias and First Avenue
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting Mr. Casey's property
(approximately 8 acres) and the adjoining properties that were included in this
request which total 33.15 acres. At their meeting of August 19, 1968, the
Commission recommended to the City Council that the area be prezoned R-l; the
staff had recommended approval of the R-3-B-3-D. Mr. Warren cited the land use
and zonings in the adjacent areas and said the area was somewhat committed to
R-3. Over the recommendations of the Commission, the Council rezoned that area
-13- 10/21/68
to the north to R-3-B-3-D. They have now sent this matter back to the
Commission for reconsideration. The Commission should consider the land use
and the density of the property--what the basic underlying zoning of the
property should be.
Mr. Allen Perry, attorney representing the applicant, delineated the adjacent
land use and zonings in the area. For this reason, the Commission should give
consideration to zoning other than R-l; if they conclude otherwise, it would
be simply to create an incompatible and incongruous zoning pattern. They
would go along with the staff's recommendation to apply the "D" zone which
would protect the residential areas in the vicinity. Mr. Perry then discussed
Mr. Casey's proposal for this land: He desires to create a subdivision of small
lots and will construct homes that will be utilized by the occupants on an
ownership basis--a duplex construction. The relative cost of the homes will be
low, perhaps about $14,500.
Member York questioned what would happen to the variance if they recommended
R-3-B-3-D to the Council and this was adopted and in the interim the R-2 amend-
ment was adopted. He asked if the applicant would have to come in and ask for
a rezoning.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that the ordinance is not written in that manner.
The R-3 is a different type of use altogether.
Mr. Warren declared that they could not split the homes and sell them under the
R-3 zone.
Mr. Perry offered several suggestions for revising the proposed split duplex
ordinance and commented on its application.
MS (York-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council that the area be prezoned R-3-B-3-D
as requested. Under discussion, the Commission discussed reasons for changing
their recommendation to R-3-B-3-D instead of the R-1 which they previously
requested. They reiterated their reasons for recommending R-1 for the area due
largely to the fact that the R-2 amendment was in the works and they felt they
would rather wait until this amendment was adopted and then take another look
at the area.
Member York stated he was not commiting himself on the approval of splitting
lots and constructing duplexes in making this motion.
Director Warren explained that they are considering the entire 33.15 acres in
this motion.
Member Guyer withdrew his second because he thought they were just considering
the 8 acres owned by the applicant, and prefers to have it left as is until the
R-2 amendment is adopted.
The motion then died for lack of a second.
Mr. Robert Casey, the applicant, discussed the meetings he had with FHA in which
they denied him the R-1 use for this area.
Director Warren declared that the Commission cannot feasibly prezone a portion of
this area to R-3 and not the adjoining areas.
-14- 10/21/68
MSUC (York-Stewart) Recommend to City Council approval of R-3-B-3-D prezoning
RESOLUTION NO. 542 of the entire acreage of that property generally bounded
by Quintard Street, San Diego Gas & Electric right of way,
Tobias Drive and Hilltop Drive
Findings be as follows:
1. The decisions by the City Council which zoned the parcels on the northwest
and southwest corners of Hilltop and Quintard to R-3-B-3-D virtually committed
the remainder of the County island to this classification.
2. This prezoning is logical since it represents an additional extension of
the R-3 designation which presently extends easterly from Third Avenue to the
subject property. The high school and the C-N area across Hilltop Drive serve
as effective barriers to further progression of this zoning.
3. The General Plan would be altered to reflect the City Council decisions which
set the precedent for such zo~ng in this area.
Council Referral - Proposed amendment to R-2 re§ulations
Director of Planning Warren discussed the conference held on this matter at 3:30,
October 21, with the City Council and the Planning Commission. On August 17, this
ordinance was placed on its first reading at the City Council meeting, but they
moved to refer it back to the Commission. The staff would recommend that the
Commission reiterate their previous recommendation to the Council. Director
Warren then reviewed the ordinance indicating that he assumed it applied to the
R-3 zone as well, but now finds that it does not.
Mr. Allen Perry, attorney representing Robert Casey, spoke of the benefits of this
ordinance. He questioned Sections 33.24 which he interprets as requiring a
7000 square foot lot, but that it can be split into two 3500 square foot lots.
Under 33.18.1, it is reversed. He feels more thought should be given to the area
of the lot frontage of a lot, the side yards, and minimum floor areas per dwelling
unit. He added the ordinance should be flexible enough in the reductions permitted.
Mr. Warren commented that these are no different than that of the R-2 density.
City Attorney Lindberg explained that they haven't reached a point whereby they
are willing to allow more flexibility. They are talking about a number of lots
based upon lot size, not the number of lots you can achieve in a number of acres.
Director Warren remarked that the R-G-T zone in the new proposed ordinance might
give them another tool of flexibility.
MSUC (Stewart-York) Commission reiterates their original recommendation to the
Council: the adoption of the proposed amendment t~ the R~ Zone regulations.
The Commission recognizes that thNs proposeu proceaure wiII not necessarily
provide housing that will meet the needs of the lower income groups, but will
provide another tool necessary to accommodate a diversity of housing types needed
in a growing community.
-15- 10/21/68
Council Referral - Proposed amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance concernin~ establishment
of mobile home parks
Director of Planning Warren explained that this item has been continued two or
three times. Not all the research has been done as requested by the Commission,
but the more the staff thinks about it, the more they like the original procedure,
and would recommend that the City Council proceed with the unclassified use route.
The Commission discussed allowing this use in the R-1 zones, and discussed the
underlying zone of Layton's annexation on Otay Lakes Road.
Member Stewart commented that they all concurred that their mobile home park plan
of 9000 square feet per unit was good, but to prevent them from using it for other
than the purpose intended, the Commission increased the underlying zoning to
12,000 square feet.
Member York discussed mobile home parks; that they were a community within
themselves and provided the recreational facilities needed for this park.
The Commission then discussed the Planned Unit Development ordinance as compared
to this use, noting the open space, recreational facilities, and the like.
MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Reiterate to the City Council the Commission's previous
recommendation of mobile home parks--allowing it in the Unclassified Use Section.
Chairman's Report
Chairman Hyde discussed the last meeting held with the Sweetwater Valley Planning
Committee in which they were presented with a preliminary prezoning proposal.
The next meeting will be held on October 24, 1968.
ADJOURNMENT
IqSUC (Rice-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of October 28, 1968.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary