Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/09/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 4, 1968 The regular 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, Stewart, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Gregson. Also present, Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, Associate Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member York asked that the vote on the motion for the Arrasmith variance be noted in the minutes. ~SUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of the meeting of August 19, 1968 be approved as mailed with the correction as noted. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd): Variance - Princess Manor, Unit No. 9 - Request for reduction of minimum floor areas for dwelling units - Princess Park Estates, Inc. Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was continued from the August 26 meeting so the staff could gather facts and statistics in the area and also to get together with the applicant to reach an agreement of what could be granted. The variance request was for blanket approval for a reduction in house sizes for the 49 homes proposed for construction. The applicant has stated he is in escrow for this property, and if granted the variance, will submit plans at a later date for Commission review. The original variance granted to Princess Manor has since expired. Mr. Warren remarked that he talked to the proposed buyer and the buyer stated it would be necessary that he be given a blanket variance since he has no plans at this time. The staff, ho~ever, does not feel this would be desirable. Director Warren then discussed the number of homes in the adjacent units that have smaller size floor areas than the ordinance requires and submitted a plat whereby the location of these homes were noted. He commented that he is trying to show that there is a little misunderstanding a~out these requests. THere has been a gradual upgrading in the area and the staff would like to recommend that the Commission grant to the owner of the property a blanket variance that would permit 35% of the homes in the subdivision to be constructed at a 10% reduc- tion. The intent of the ordinance will be upheld and the character of the neighbor- hood enhanced. The developer will have to bring a set of plans to the Commission before obtaining a building permit. Mr. Warren commented that he explained this proposal to Princess Homes and they indicated general agreement; the applicant, however, stated he would not be interested unless he can get a variance for all the homes. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. -2- 9/4/68 Mr. Kenneth Hoffman, 1550 Melrose Avenue, questioned the time that the variances were granted. Mr. Warren remarked that they were granted over the last three to four years. Mr. Hoffman stated the homes in Units 3 and 4 were built in 1964~65, and ques- tioned specifically when they were granted for Unit 2. He also offered various other comments and questions pertaining to the subject. Member York commented that he felt Mr. Hoffman's remarks were an indication that the Commission granted the variances to the applicant after the homes were built. This was not true--all variances were granted prior to construction of the homes. Director Warren stated he couldn't, at the moment, give any specific dates--it is all a matter of record and dates are available in the Planning Department--however, the overall variance was granted in December 1963 and this was a blanket variance for the entire subdivision. Prior to each unit being built, they were approved by the Commission. Mr. Hoffman asked if the floor area included the area of the garage. Mr. Warren indicated that it did not--the garage would have to be 400 square feet (two car garage). Mr. Hoffman declared this would make the garage out of proportion to the house. He reiterated that he was against giving the applicant a blanket variance. The residents are fighting a carte blanc of 100% blanket variance for the 49 homes. Member York asked him if he was opposed to 35% of the homes being granted a reduction in floor area. Mr. Hoffman stated he was not--he opposes the 100% blanket variance. Member York explained that the word "blanket" here is used only in the sense that they do not have any plans for the 2-3-4 bedroom houses, and not "blanket" in the sense that the entire 49 homes would be granted this variance. Mrs. Phyllis Lord, 1627 Marl Avenue, stated the homes that have had this variance granted are a detriment to the neighborhood; they look terrible, and if this request is approved, it will not help matters any. ~irector Warren discussed the variance approved by the Commission in October 1967. Mrs. Lord claimed that the homes actually built are smaller than that approved by the Commission. Member York maintained that once the Commission approves such a request, it then becomes the supervision of the Building Inspection Department. If, in fact, the houses were built smaller than the size granted, she should notify the Building Inspection Department and the City Attorney. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer felt the 35% control granting not more than 10% reduction was a better and more flexible control than they previously granted. -3- 9/4/68 Member Adams felt the only difficulty in working under that rule was that the subdivider could decide to build 35% of these homes in the smaller sizes. Member York felt this wasn't realistic--he wouldn't be able to get financing for that. The Commission discussed this aspect and concurred that the variance should be similar to that granted in 1967. Mr. Warren delineated the request as granted in October 1967. He added that Princess Manor does not want to be restricted to the same houses they previously built, but that they would be satisfied with the same ratio as previously granted. Member York discussed the formula he suggested at the August 26 meeting: allow 17 houses at a 10% reduction; 18 houses at 5% reduction. He added that he has no quarrel with the recommendation of the Planning Director. Director Warren remarked that he was trying to simplify it; it may be that 10% reduction for the 4-bedroom houses will be too much. Member Adams maintained that all of these homes will be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, and if the houses look improperly designed, the Commission will have adequate grounds not to approve it. Chairman Hyde felt something should be stated in order to safeguard against the developer putting in all two-bedroom homes in this area. MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) Approval of the variance as follows: Of the 49 homes proposed for construction, permission is given to reduce the floor areas of 35% of the homes up to 10% of ordinance requirements. Also, that a mixture of houses (number of bedrooms) reduced be similar to the pro- portion of that of the original variance granted October 2, 1967. Final appmoval of the plans for houses so reduced be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 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 location of tt~is property is such that compliance with established building size regulations would be inconsistent with surrounding improvements. 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 homes in the surrounding area are equal to or smaller than the homes proposed here. This is the last unit of this subdivision in this vicinity. -4- 9/4/68 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 neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The variance as recommended would represent a gradual upgrading of the area. cl. That the granting of a variance ~ill not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. This variance as recommended would seem to have no effect on the objectives of the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - Property along the west side of Fourth Avenue, south of "L" Street (Milli~an-McMillin Fourth Avenue AnnexationI from CountS R-2-A to R-1 Director of Planning Warren explained that following the discussion at the meeting of August 26 concerning annexing this property to the City, the Commission initiated this hearing for prezoning of that property. The staff asked, at that time, to include the one-acre parcel to the north which is under another ownership; however, the annexation request that went to the L.A.F.C. did not include this parcel. The prezoning hearing was called to consider R-1 zoning for both of these parcels. The owners of the property to the north have indicated their opposition to this zone change since they prefer R-3 zoning; however, the Commis- sion could not consider R-3 zoning tonight, since it has not been advertised as such. The staff would recommend that the Commission recommend R-1 zoning for this area and exclude that property to the north. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. D. Peters, representing the applicants (Milligan and McMillin) stated he was present to answer any questions. Mr. Robert Sullivan, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Paddelford, owners of the property to the north, stated he had very little to add to what the Planning Director has said. He declared that his clients will come to the Commission in the near future requesting another zone for their property. They are, at this time, requesting that their one-acre parcel be deleted from this request. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION No. 637 City Council Prezoning for Property Known as Milligan-McMillin Fourth Avenue Annexation. Findings be as follows: a. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential to which the R-1 zone conforms. b. Subject parcel is adjacent to new single-family subdivisions to the south and west. -5- 9/4/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 515-519 and 521Glover Avenue - Reduction of front yard setback from 20' to 10' and request to permit 3 compact size parking spaces - Zogob and Barajas The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard setback from 20' to 10' for the construction of an apartment building at 515, 519 and 521Glover Avenue. The application also included a request to design three of the 33 required parking spaces for compact cars. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He indicated that in the new zoning ordinance, setbacks such as this one are established at 15 feet, which is what the staff is recommending in this case. Mr. Warren discussed the landscaping proposed for the 13' parkway and the width of the present right-of-way. He commented that it would be more appropriate to ask for a vacation of a portion of Glover Street; however, this would take much longer and is complicated by the sidewalk location. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard G. Zogob, one of the applicants, stated he hopes the Commission will grant him the extra 5' setback he requested as it is necessitated by the plan they submitted to the Planning Department. It shows the building 30' from the curb line. In the interest of getting a more aesthetic building and to promote spaciousness, they chose to reduce the units to 22 instead of 25, and the loss of this 5' setback will cost them 30 square feet per unit. This is a secondary street, 80 feet wide, and to vacate any portion of it would be a lengthy process. They are trying to work around the pole transformer on the property belonging to the supermarket (B-J Ranchmart) since it will take approximately $1,000 to move it. Director Warren explained the proposed parking layout stating tile spaces would have access from the alley. A letter favoring the request from a Mrs. Freeman was noted. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that he was always in favor of acting in accordance with the Commission's established principles; however, in this particular case, he wonders if they shouldn't just give them the 10' setback; it is a short street and an extra-wide street. Member Stewart remarked that there must be some hardship shown to justify the variance. He discussed an adjacent case recently considered by the Commission whereby the Commission held the applicants at the 15' setback. He added he cannot see how they can place themselves in a position of granting lO feet here and 15 feet on the corner lot. Director Warren discussed the staff's study on setbacks in the older part of the city made about one year ago. He suggested that, in the future, when these requests come in for an individual parcel, the Commission take a look at the whole street. Member York suggested they grant this variance and set the balance of the street for hearing. This will certainly cut down on the number of requests in the future. -6- 9/4/68 MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The compact spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 7-1/2' × 15'. 2. Revised plans utilizing a 15' front setback shall be submitted to the staff for approval. 3. The front setback and the 13' parkway shall be landscaped and maintained and three street trees a minimum of 6' high shall be planted in the parkway. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent wi th the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Setback - A 20' setback would be an unnecessary hardship on this parcel since an extra 13' parkway is maintained as well. Parking spaces - It is the intent of the ordinance to provide adequate offstreet parking. The compact spaces can be assigned to tenants with compact cars. 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. Setback - 15' setbacks have previously been approved for multiple-family uses in recognition that deeper setbacks on local streets are unnecessary. Parking spaces - a 10% allowance for compact cars has recently been approved by the Commission for the new zoning ordinance presently in preparation in response to the recent trend toward the use of foreign-made compact automobiles. 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. Setback - No apparent detriment to the area by the approval of this request is anticipated. This neighborhood will u~timately be redeveloped with R-3 uses which could utilize the same setback under new ordinance provisions. Parking spaces - The spaces will be assigned to residents of the subject property. 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. -7- 9/4/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 370 E Street - Request for reduction in number of required offstreet par.k.~n9 spaces (Garden Farms Market) - Pugh & Moore The application was read in which a request was made that no additional parking be required for a store remodeling job that would add more space to the floor area, for the market at 370 E Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He stated that the staff just discovered today that the proposed addition will be encroaching into the R-3 zoned area of the property, which means that the matter will have to be readvertised. The applicants have 9,360 square feet of building, 6,200 square feet of which is devoted to the sales area and the remainder is used for storage and work area. The parking requirements are based on the sales area. There are presently 34 striped spaces on the property with room to put 4 more in the alley. This leaves them wi th a deficiency of 9 spaces. Since they propose to make a 12' X 60' addition, they would have to come up with a total of 51 spaces. This becomes quite a problem because it is an established business and they indicate that much of their business is "walk-in" which could justify the granting of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jay Pugh, one of the applicants, discussed his plans for remodeling the store. He stated he plans to come out a maximum of 10 feet for the addition and go completely across the building. They will also be putting in new floors, ceiling, etc. He added he cannot give any specific figures until a complete blueprint of the layout is made. They will use angle parking in the back with access coming in from the alley. This building was built in 1948 and purchased by the applicant in 1962; this addition has always been in back of the store. The Commission discussed how often the parking lot was filled. Mr. Pugh declared that he took a survey for three consecutive weekends and the top customer count was 106 people. It is a rare instance that all of the 30 shopping carts in the store are used at one time. Director Warren noted a petition received favoring the request signed by 23 residents. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked if the R-3 encroachment could be handled as a separate matter and this particular request considered now. Mr. Warren indicated that the Commission would only be approving this in concept. He added that the staff wants to give more thought to the parking spaces as they are concerned with the dimensions. MS (York-Stewart) Indicate to the Planning Director that the concept of this request meets wit~ the approval of the Commission, and that he be directed to readvertise the variance to include the encroachment into the R-3 zoned area. -8- 9/4/68 The Commission discussed the concept of the proposed plan, and the proposed parking. Director Warren requested that the Commission file this request and direct the staff to readvertise the matter. This is a confusing situation--the parking plan is for existing situation, and there is a question as to how they could accommodate their parking. Member York withdrew his motion. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Application be filed and readvertised for the September 23 meeting. The members then indicated their individual approval of the concept of the plan. Request for modification of variance at 98 Fourth Avenue Director of Planning Warren explained that the Commission granted this applicant a reduction of setback from 20' to 10' to permit wider parking spaces for their proposed apartments. In the final plans for this development, they find that the foundation supports are inflexible in their development and to get the required amount of parking, a few of the spaces will be reduced to 8-1/2'. The staff recommends approval of this modification of the request. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of the modification of the variance allowing 8 parking spaces to be 8-1/2' wide; the rest of the parking spaces will be 9' wide. Request for approval of signs in the Supplemental "D" zone - Peters Garden Shop - Bonita Vil}a~e Shopping Center Director of Planning Warren submitted a sketch of the two proposed signs to be located at Peter's Garden Shop in the Bonita Village Shopping Center. The building is located in the "D" zone and, therefore, tile Commission must approve signs. The two signs are identical measuring 3' X 8' and are wood plaques with rustic motifs. They will be dark brown in color with yellow painted etched letters and will be attached to the face of the buildings. The Commission took note of the fact that this request came in for approval before the signs were actually erected. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of the signs as submitted. Council Referral - Reconsideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the establishment of mobile home parks Director of Planning Warren referred to the staff comments on this item whereby he requested a report from the City Attorney. The Attorney is on vacation and a report has not been submitted by him. Mr. Warren suggested this matter be continued to the meeting of the 16th. The ConmHssion has to report back to the Council for their meeting of October 22. MSUC (Rice-York) Matter be continued to the meeting of September 16, 1968. -9- 9/4/68 Resolution establishing ~uidelines under the provisions of the Supplemental "D" zone for the development of property at the rear of 772 Third Ave. Director of Planning Warren explained that during the consideration of this item, the Council expressed concern about the use of the 55 feet of frontage which would remain in the C-1 zone along Third Avenue. They wondered if commercial construction could take place here. The Council specifically requested the Commission to indicate that this should be reserved for parking or access to the apartment project in the rear. Mr. Warren remarked that he talked to the agent for the applicants and he objected to this resolution, stating it was unfair. The question that is important is that it is necessary to reserve some access. The City Attorney has advised us in the past that guidelines are not ordinances and does not mean it is part of the zoning; however, it does give the applicant some indication of what the Commission will look for. The staff is concerned with proper access and do not want it reduced to an i~nproper access from all of the residents that must use it. Member Adams mentioned that they would have to show access plans when they bring in their plans for approval under the supplemental "D" zone. The Commission discussed their control under the provisions of the "D'~ zone and agreed that proper access must be reserved. MSUC (York-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Establishing RESOLUTION NO. 538 Guidelines for Development under the Provisions of the Supplemental "D" Zone for Property Located West of 772 Third Avenue The following is established: That subject frontage consisting of two parcels measuring 25' X 125' and 30' X 125' should be retained for access or parking for the proposed multiple- family development to the west. Consideration of revised tentative map of Flair Subdivision, Unit #4 (formerly Units 5 & 6) -.North of Orange Avenue, east of proposed In}and Freeway Director of Planning Warren explained that at a previous meeting, Commission took action that this map be extended subject to certain revisions. The developers have now submitted this revised map incorporating the revisions which concerns the small.area of canyon retention which was to be dedicated to the City; however, the Commission then decided that this canyon retention should be concentrated to the north. The developer has brought the lot lines down to the canyon along the east side of the property ownership lines and replaced the two cul-de-sacs wi th a loop system. The staff recommends approval of the map subject to the original conditions. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend approval of the revised map and also that the tentative map be extended, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is subject to the original conditions of approval of the overall map (June 6, 1966 and March 6, 1967). -10- 9/4/68 2. A 10' sewer easement shall be provided between Lots 278 and 279 and a sewer line shall be constructed in said easement with a manhole in Lilac Avenue. 3. Some off-site drainage construction will be necessary, such as at the southerly end of Lilac Avenue and east and south of Lot 280. Discussion - Proposed annexation to National Cits of properts in the Sweetwater Valles Director of Planning Warren explained that National City has filed for annexa- tion approximately 1400 acres of mostly vacant property north and south of the Freeway in the Bonita Valley area. San Diego has filed a counter annexation request of the area north of the freeway. Both requests are now pending before the L.A.F.C. The staff is requesting that the Commission forward some request to the Council on this matter. As a staff, they cannot send a representative to this meeting unless directed to do so. Approximately four years ago, Chula Vista and National City entered into a Gentlemen's Agreement as to this growth area to the east. A boundary was agreed upon whereupon National City would take that north of Sweetwater Road and Chula Vista that to the south. The staff, however, recommended that the South Bay freeway become the boundary. Mr. Warren added that Bonita is a separate community and should be retained under one jurisdiction; the whole area should either stay in the County, go to Chula Vista, or to National City. Many residents in the Valley have informed the staff that they would prefer to annex to Chula Vista. One month after this "Gentlemen's Agreement" was entered into, National City and the L.A.F.C. ignored it when they approved the National City airport annexation. Mr. Warren commented he is not representing the Chief Administrator or the City Council in stating that this agreement is no longer valid--this is his personal opinion. Director Warren then discussed Chula Vista's boundary lines sa~ing that from a Planner's standpoint, the corridor connecting Chula Vista to the Valley should not have been approved; however, Chula Vista has done more for the Valley because of this annexation. He further added that he discussed this annexation with the Planning Director of National City (Mrs. Hazel Stockman) and she indicated that prezoning for this area would be accomplished prior to annexation and that they would be working with the developers on this. Member Stewart agreed that a recommendation to the Council should be forwarded by the Commission urging opposition to this annexation, and also to point out that the staff is working with residents in the Valley on a prezoning plan. He felt this would be a strong argument because the people in the area requested that Chula Vista work with them on this prezoning study. Member Rice commented that he knows that most of these residents feel that their future lies with Chula Vista. MSUC (York-Stewart) Commission requests that the Council formally protest that portion of the annexation south of the South Bay Freeway for the following reasons: -ll- 9/4/68 1. The boundaries are circuitous and have no relationship to the present limits of National City. Approval of such an annexation would be contrary to the very purpose for which the L.A.F.C. was formed. 2. This annexation would further divide the Sweetwater Valley among three jurisdictions which would destroy the community identity centered around Bonita. 3. The area involved could be better served by Chula Vista and would represent a logical expansion of our existing boundaries. 4. At the request of Valley residents, the City Planning Commission is presently working with a committee of fifteen (15) Sweetwater Valley residents in an effort to develop a reasonable prezoning plan for the ultimate development of the Valley. Until this study is completed and the majority of the Valley residents have been given an opportunity to express their views concerning annexation, we believe that the annexation proposed by National City should be filed. To be set for hearing: Rezoning of property along the north side of H Street, east of Smith Avenue, from R-3 to C-1-D MSUC (York-Rice) This hearing be set for the meeting of September 23, 1968 Chairman's Report Chairman Hyde reported on the last meeting held with the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee. He discussed the comments made by the City Attorney, the boundaries agreed upon, and the election of the Chairman (Glen Guerin) and Vice-Chairman (John DeBello). League Conference Director Warren stated that the September meeting of the League of California Cities will be held Friday, September 13, 1968, at the Bronze Room Restaurant in La Mesa. He asked that the Commission indicate, no later than September 11, whether or not they will be attending. Engineering Recommendations Member York discussed the requirements set forth by the Division of Engineering in relation to subdivisions, etc., especially in regard to drainage, street improvements, etc. If this is spelled out in the ordinance or City Code, they should stipulate that the drainage or paving be improved according to the City ordinance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. -12- 9/4/68 Member York felt it was not right for the Con~nission to discuss the merits of certain proposed conditions and then find out that these same conditions are covered by the ordinance; it becomes confusing. Assistant City Engineer Gesley stated they spell out these requirements for self-protection. It would be too vague to say that the drainage should be improved to the satisfaction of the Division of Engineering. They note these conditions for the benefit of the developer so that he is aware of what is being required. It also calls to his attention the cost factor that will be involved. Member York cited some recent examples whereby the Commission became involved i~l a long discussion over an engineering requirement only to find out it was covered by ordinance. He added that the Commission does not wish to get into the technicalities of this, but that if it is something quite unusual, then it probably should be spelled out. Director Warren agreed, remarking that the engineering requirements come to tile Commission as a recommendation and if they (Engineering) do not specifically state that it is an ordinance requirement, the Commission may become confused and start arguing about it. This puts them in a peculiar situation. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of September 16 and 23 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ."Jennie M. Fulasz ~= Secretary