Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/09/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 16, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission 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, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Gregson and Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Senior Civil Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Rice) Minutes of the meetings of August 26 and September 4, 1968, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 383 Mankato Street - Request for reduction of front setback from 25' to 15' - Challenge Development Company The application was read in which a request was made for a front yard setback at 383 Mankato Street from 25' to 15' for the construction of a 16 unit apartment building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land uses and zoning. He stated the lot contains 17,000 square feet and has a 20' unimproved alley along the westerly property line. He discussed the recent reduction in setbacks to 15' along the 500 block of Glover Avenue approved by the Commission. He noted that the entire block is zoned R-3 with the north side of Mankato Street requiring a 25' setback and the south side, opposite the parcel in question, requiring a 5' setback. The staff recommends that this request be granted and that a hearing be called to consider a change of setback for the entire street. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Marvin Henegar, a partner in the business, stated he was present to answer questions. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscape and irrigation plan for the front setback area shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2. Three street trees (minimum 6' high) shall be required in the parkway area, with the remaining parkway area to be filled with concerete. -2- 9/16/68 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. A 25' setback would be an unnecessary hardship on this parcel since two other variances have been granted in the immediate area for a similar reduction to 15' 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 existing setback on the south side of Mankato Street is 5'. 15' set- backs have previously been approved for multiple-family uses in recognition that deeper setbacks on local streets are unnecessary. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improYements in such zone or neighbor- hood in which the property is located. No apparent detriment to the area by the approval of this request is antici- pated. This neighborhood will ultimately be redeveloped with R-3 uses which could utilize the same setback under new ordinance provisions. 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 the approval of this request. MSUC (Rice-York) Call a public hearing for October 7, 1968 to consider a change of setback covering the R-3 zoned parcels in this 500 block of Glover Street and the adjacent areas as deemed appropriate by the staff. Request for approval of house plans in the Bonita Verde Subdivision - Supplemental "D" Zone Director of Planning Warren submitted the two house plans proposed for construc- tion on Lots 15 and 16, Bonita Verde Drive, in the Bonita Verde Subdivision. Mr. Warren explained that the home on Lot 16 will be a 4-bedroom, ranch style house, containing 1,993 square feet with a 3-car garage containing 645 square feet. The house will have wood siding and used brick veneer on one side with stucco on the other 3 sides and will have a medium shake roof. The house to be constructed on Lot 15 will be on the corner of Bonita Verde Drive and Bermuda Dunes Place and will be a 3-bedroom Spanish style dwelling containing 2,155 square feet with a 652 square foot 3-car garage. The outside facade is stucco with a shake roof. The staff recommends approval of the two house plans and finds that they will be -3- 9/16/68 compatible with the other homes in this subdivision. MSUC (York-Guyer) Approval of the house plans as submitted at this meeting. Request for deferment of street improvements - 400 block James Court Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area of the street requested for a deferment of street improvements. He stated this is a one-half street and the applicants are proposing to construct a dwelling at the end of this cul-de-sac; reservation for the complete cul-de-sac is being made. The Division of Engineering recommends approval of this deferment, with the placement of the proper lien or bond to cover the cost of the improvements at a later date. Member Adams asked if there were any conditions that would make it difficult for the applicants to put in these improvements at this time. Mr. Warren indicated that if they were required to do this, they would be the only improvements on the east side of the street at this time. Mr. William Harshman, Senior Civil Engineer, stated one other deferment has been granted on this street just two lots to the south of this one. He spoke of the advantages of requiring the street improvements to be put in as a unit rather than lot by lot, which could create a potential liability and a hazard. Member Rice inquired about the 1911 Block Act. City Attorney Lindberg explained that if they have 50% of the homes in one block committed to improvements, they can force all of the improvements to go in. Mr. Harshman commented that the offer of dedication for the right-of-way has already been received. MSUC (Adams-York) Approval of the deferment of public improvements for the 500 block of James Street subject to the posting of a bond or lien in the amount of $1,000 to cover the cost of these improvements at a later date as directed by the City Engineer. Request for extension of time for a variance 9ranted to 332-1/2 "E" Street - Morrell Director of Planning Warren noted a letter received from Mr. Morrell requesting an extension of time for the variance granted him in March 1968 for a reduction of setback on property at 332-1/2 "E" Street. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request and stated that the reduction request was for a rear yard setback from 15 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing a building along the southerly property line. Conditions in the area have not changed since the approval of this request and, therefore, the staff recommends approval. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Approval of extension of time to March 4, 1969. -4- 9/16/68 Council Referral - Reconsideration of proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding establishment of mobile home parks Director of Planning Warren reviewed this matter stating that the City Council has continued until their meeting of October 22, the public hearing concerning the amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to the establishment of mobile home parks. This amendment places the mobile home parks in the Unclassified Use Section subject to a conditional use permit in any residential zone. This amendment has been sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The Council, however, has taken action on prezoning the property in question that brought this all about (Layton's Annexation on Otay Lakes Road) to 12,000 square foot lots. The request for constr~C~ion of the mobile home park is still pending but it is not related to this item. The Council's greatest concern was with the fact that this requires a 4/5 vote of the Council to reverse Commission action regarding conditional use permits. Mr. Warren added that it would be possible to make some amendment to the zoning ordinance whereby the Council could have this special votin9 privilege--this may be undesirable, however. The Commission in the past have discussed the Supple- mental "M" zone originally recommended by the Planning Consultants and would require a public hearing at both the Commission and Council levels. The Commission, at that time, felt this amendment added an unnecessary time step; however, it may be that the Council should have some say in this regard especially since these mobile home parks are so controversial. Director Warren added that in the staff's report, they are recommending that a hearing be called for October 7, 1968 to consider this Supplemental "M" zone. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission should recognize that the City Council procedure has always required the extraordinary vote to override the Commission. He discussed the matter of rezoning which he indicated was purely a legislative act and the Council should be free to make their determination by a normal majority vote in the adoption of an ordinance rezoning property. When dealing with administrative matters, the Council should be willing to abide by this body acting in the acpacity of experts on these particular matters and should be only allowed to override the Commission's decision by an extraordinary vote. Mr. Lindberg discussed the difficulty in allowing trailer parks as a matter of zoning, and felt they should be put under the scope of a conditional use permit. As to the modifying zone, this can be attached to any residential zoning. Mr. Lindberg referred to Layton's annexation and the numerous objections received by the Council to the request for allowing mobile home parks in this area. The Council felt very strongly about this use and the fact that they needed four votes to override the decision of the Commission. Again, the Council is the legislative body and should they not choose to grant the power of designating trailer parks as a part of the administrative procedure, that is their prerogative. He added that the subject of trailer parks is one that is very difficult to discuss--it is a type of housing and you can establish any type of density control you may wish on this type of housing; however, he feels the question is not one merely of density--it is the aversion of people living in standard type housing have against this type of unconventional housing. -5- 9/16/68 Mr. Lindber§ asked for an opinion of the Commission as to how they would like to see the mobile home parks handled - as a supplemental zone which is a legislative act by the Council or through a conditional use permit. Member Rice stated he would go along with the Supplemental "M" zone giving the Council the final action on these matters. Director Warren explained both procedures to the Commission: The Unclassified Use Section and the "M" zone. The Commission has recommended to the Council for adoption the inclusion of Mobile Home Parks in the Unclassified Use Section; the Council has not adopted this amendment as yet. Member Adams declared that it would not be desirable to make mobile home parks subject to a conditional use permit and specifying a 3-2 vote of the Council. Soon something else may come up and they would want that to be subject to a 3-2 vote, and then later, they will say, let's make it all that way. The Commission should definitely try to keep it at the 4-1 Council vote. Member York declared he had strong feelings about this matter. The Commission needs these controls which they have under the conditional use permits but do not have under rezoning. He agrees with Member Adams in that if they change the voting requirement for this one conditional use permit, they will have to do it for all other permits eventually. The Council is within their right to do this if they so desire, however, it is just another instance whereby the Council is superimposing their judgment over the judgment of the Planning Commission. If the Council wishes to do this, there is nothing the Commission can do about it. The Commission, however, did recommend to the Council the adoption of the Unclassified Use Section and included in this was mobile home parks. Mr. York discussed mobile home parks as a way of life now and the fact that the largest construction companies in the country have gone into the mobile home construction. He discussed the construction of these parks and the fact that it was not economically feasible to build one today unless it were done right. He reiterated that the Commission needs control over these parks and they have it under the conditional use permit - more so than they would under the Supplemental M Zone. He declared that they should stick to their former recommendation--that for the Council to ask the Commission to "rubber stamp" their decision is the wrong procedure to go about to do this. Member Adams agreed 100% but added that if the Commission did this, the Council would then change the ordinance so that all actions of the Commission under the conditional use permits would require 3-2 vote of the Council to override. He would rather compromise and just give the Council this one change. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the fact that the Council does understand that in a growing community, you cannot eliminate sound administrative procedures. He added that this was a fine approach, both on variances and conditional use permits, to relieve the legislative body from the entanglements of each and every one of these decisions. He added that in the future, as the volume of these requests increases, it is going to be very beneficial for the Council to establish the guidelines, by ordinance, for the granting of administrative relief and adminis- trative special permits, and they are going to desire that the Commission be the final arbitrator of a great many of these decisions. -6- 9/16/68 Member York commented that, along these lines, the Council is being "penny wise and pound foolish" in asking the Commission to change this. Mobile home parks are quite controversial, and in the final analysis, they may eliminate the development of these parks in Chula Vista--at least outside the heavy commercial and industrial areas, because of the apparent public feelings about them. He added that if mobile home parks are desirable to have in the City of Chula Vista, and the people who want to live in them want to live in desirable areas, then this should be taken out of the political arena to the extent that it possibly can be, and the decisions be based on what is good planning and good for the community and not what a few home owners in the area are able to filibuster and protest against this type of development. The Commission again discussed the Council's request. Member Rice felt they should be realistic about this request and give the Council what they want--the final determination in this matter. Member York maintained they have that now-- they have the right to override anything the Planning Commission does including conditional use permits, mobile home parks in unclassified use section of the ordinance. What they want is to override this particular aspect by a 3 to 2 vote. The Council can take this out and put it in an "M" zone over which they can have a simple majority vote. Mr. York declared that sooner or later they will then Sake service stations out of conditional uses and put them into another zone, etc., with everything taken out of the conditional uses and put into a multiple of different zones. The Commission discussed how these mobile home parks are handled in other cities, such as Escondido and E1 Cajon. Mr. Warren discussed this and the City Attorney suggested this matter be continued and they investigate the methods used by other cities for this use. The Commission spoke of the October 22 deadline; Mr. Lindberg felt the Commission could have a little more time on this to allow him and the staff to bring back to the Commission a report covering the cities of Southern California, how they handle mobile home parks and the guidelines they use. MSUC (Rice-York) This matter be referred back to the staff and the City Attorney for a study and recommendation; that they contact the League of California Cities and other southern California cities to see what their standards and procedures are regarding this item. Discussion - Report of Broadway. Association regarding proposed new sign regulations Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter from Mr. Frank Humphrey, President of Broadway Association, dated August 16, in which he discussed and outlined the recommendations of the Broadway Association pertaining to sign regulations as proposed in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren explained that the commercial zones have been withheld pending a decision on the sign regulations, and it may be that the Commission will wish to forward the commercial sections on to the Council without these sign provisions. -7- 9/16/68 Director Warren stated that he talked to Mr. Humphrey about this. He was told that this committee contacted all the merchants on Broadway and got their opinions on these sign provisions. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions as proposed by this association: (1) the undergrounding of utilities and (2) the proposal that a review committee be formed to review all existing and proposed signs. This committee will consist of two members of the Downtown Association, two from the Broadway Association and one from the Planning Commission. Mr. Warren said he discussed this with Mr. Humphrey and he indicated they would judge these signs purely on appearance and good taste. However, in the absence of any standards you have to set up something to use as a guide. As to the membership, if such a committee is formed, it should consist of the members of that particular area involved. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was a great idea to have this committee make an analysis of the sign situation; it may inspire some of them as to the conditions that actually exist. He would suggest that this remain a citizens' group only that would make their recommendations to the Planning Commission. However, if they are suggesting this committee in lieu of any sign regulations in the City, it cannot be done. They cannot substitute their recommendations for the regulations established by the Council pursuant to the Commission recommendations and they cannot possibly be put in a position to dictate to the City Council the terms and regulations for signs. Director Warren stated they should meet with this committee or representatives of this organization in order to make any definite determinations on this matter. Chairman Hyde suggested a workshop meeting be held and ask for spokesmen to attend. Member Rice indicated that the City Attorney should be present at this meeting to clarify any legal aspects that might arise. Member York felt they should have more than just a spokesman present--they should invite the entire Association; not all of them will attend. Chairman Hyde asked if the Commission can forward to the Council the commercial sections without the sign provisions. Mr. Warren remarked that he would give them an answer on this in about two weeks. He will get a letter out to the Association and set up a workshop meeting on this matter. Chairman and Director's reports Chairman Hyde reported on the events of the last meeting of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee commenting that there is a restlessness among the members now to get something concrete done. There is also some disagreement among the members which he felt was a good thing. In two weeks the Director of Planning will present them with a prezoning plan after which they will break this down and divide it into sub-groups to study it and make recommendations. -8- 9/16/68 Staff Workload Chairman Hyde discussed the numerous assignments and tasks the staff has been asked to do in the past and is consistently being asked to undertake. They are now understaffed by at least two members and all of these other assignments leaves them little or no time to devote to actual planning. It is a difficult job for them to keep up with their daily routine work. He felt the Planning Commission should be aware of this problem and concerned about it. He added that the whole periphery of the zoning area of Chula Vista is exploding, and the staff is hard pressed to make localized studies. He cited the General Plan as an example which should be reviewed annually, and which has not been done. Member Guyer felt Mr. Warren should make his recommendations to the Commission of what he wants in the way of staff, budget, etc., so that they, in turn, could request this from the Council. Member Rice cautioned that generally what happens is they push for something (such as additional staff) after the fact. He suggested the Commission get ahead of this, to pre-plan for some type of orderly growth, orderly studies and not come back after the fashion in a panic-type method and have to push something through in order to meet a deadline somewhere. He felt they may want to recommend increasing the budget. Director Warren spoke of the staff's work, the established priorities, etc., which depend on the pressures imposed. He discussed the vacancies in the department and the amount of time involved in trying to get another staff member or a replacement. Member York felt the logical approach to this would be for ~he staff to set down all of their projects, what man hours would be needed, and what priority system is required, and also what is required to keep up with the day to day basis. Mr. York discussed the increased number of meetings and the fact that they are now talking about afternoon meetings. This all has to be taken into consideration. Member York further stated that they should take official action on the priorities. He commented that it has been four years now since adoption of the General Plan and they still don't have the new zoning ordinance. They really can't be~n to consider the General Plan - it's so out-of-date. Chairman Hyde asked the Planning Director to contribute all of this information to the Commission along with his recommendations as to how they can best solve this problem. Replacement of Member of Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee Chairman Hyde stated that one member of this Committee, Dr. Reiner, has missed three consecutive meetings and by the decision of the Commission, he must be replaced by another person living in his particular area. Chairman Hyde asked if the Commission wanted to go into executive session on this. They stated they didn't see any need for it. Director Warren commented that the name of Fred Longworth has been recommended. He lives above Valley Road in the same area as Dr. Reiner. He is a building contractor. -9- 9/16/68 MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Appointment of Fred B. Longworth to the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee to replace Dr. Edwin Reiner. Oral Communications Show of Hands at Commission Meetings Member York discussed some of the controversial issues coming before the Commission in which a show of hands of those people favoring and opposing a request is asked for. He declared the Commission is not taking a popularity vote and this is superfluous as the only people who will be present favoring the request will be the applicant, and his engineer, perhaps. The Commission discussed this with Chairman Hyde contending that he asks for this show of hands to give the people who came out to attend the meeting to protest a request a chance to do so; in some ways, this discourages them from coming to the microphone and repeating their reasons for opposition. Member Guyer felt the question of whether or not a show of hands should be requested should be determined on an individual basis. Excused from Future Meetings Member York asked permission to be excused from future Commission meetings up to either the 10th or 14th of October. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of vacation leave for Member York to October 14, 1968. Letter from Mayor Chairman Hyde read a letter from the Mayor in which he requested the Commission be aware of the Watson amendment and its effect on local government. He urged opposition to this proposal and for the Commission to tell their friends and neighbors about this proposed amendment. Chairman Hyde stated he will bring this matter up again at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourDed to the meeting of September 23, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. R~spectful ly submitted, .I Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary