Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/07/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 22, 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, Chula Vista, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Rice (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. Action on Variance (Cont'd) - 550 First Avenue - Request to create lots for residential purposes on 19' wide easement Williams Chairman Stewart explained that this matter was continued from the last meeting at which the public hearing was closed and action deferred to this meeting. Director of Planning Warren explained that he pointed out at the last hearing the staff's concern over the configuration of the lot split. If the lot split is approved, as submitted, vehicle access would be from First Avenue. The Commission continued action at the July 15 meeting and directed the staff to discuss another configuration of the lot split with the property owner. The revised plan, as delineated by Mr. Warren would eliminate the appendage extend- ing westerly to Linda Lane. The concern of the staff was not over the access to Linda Lane, but the disassociation of this end of the property to the new building site. Director Warren discussed the appropriateness of the lot split. The majority of the property owners in the area reside on 7000 square foot lots; this appli~ cant is proposing to divide his lot, containing 35,500 square feet, into two parcels which would average 17,750 square feet per lot. A standard subdivision in the area would give these residents far less privacy and also a greater number of neighbors. In discussing the drainage situation with the Division of Engineering, it is acknowledged that there is a problem here, and any realignment of the drainage would have to be supervised by the Division of Engineering. For these reasons, the staff recommends that the variance be granted and the new lot split be adopted. A letter from Mr. G. W. Opdycke, 129 Shasta Street, was read in which he raised several questions pertaining to the drainage, precedence, devaluation of property, access, etc. Chairman Stewart noted that most of these points were raised at the last public hearing. Member Adams remarked that the letter doesn't say anything about a property owner's right to the best use of his property. -2- 7/22/68 The Commission discussed the access road. Director Warren indicated it would be 12 feet wide; that this was referred to the Fire and Police Departments, and they had no objections. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, noted on the plot plan the route for the drainage channel. He commented that the drainage from the roof of the house would not be of sufficient amount to cause any damage, and before they would let them vacate their present easement, they might end up with a closed pipe section in this area. Member Guyer commented that a representative of the Engineering Division always sits in on Commission meetings and any questions as to drainage, etc., is comnented upon then. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot split shall be done in accordance with the plan submitted by the Planning Department at the meeting of July 22, 1968. The portion of the proposed parcel 2 which now extends to Linda Lane shall remain as part of parcel 1. 2. The 19' wide easement extending 159' shall be paved to a minimum width of 12' with the remaining 7' area to landscaped and maintained. 3. A minimum of two on site surfaced guest parking spaces shall be accommodated on the northerly most parcel, in addition to the required two-car garage. 4. The existing 6' drainage easement shall be realigned subject to Engineering Department 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. Both parcels will far exceed the minimum lot size requirements established by the city. 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. Street frontage is not available at this time for development of the lots. 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. Lot will be comparable in size to many parcels in the area and no significant increase in traffic will be generated. -3- 7/22/68 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Property between 146 and 152 K Street - Request to create 4 lots for residential purposes~ frontin~ on 17' wide access drive - Delbert Arrasmith The application was read in which permission was asked to divide the property on the south side of K Street into four single-family parcels. The one acre site would be served by a 17' wide driveway. A request is also made for a reduction of rear yard setback from 20' to 7' for one of the proposed dwellings. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request and the proposed lot split. He noted the property will have 17' of frontage on K Street; the net lot areas will be slightly in excess of 7000 square feet. The access drive will be approximately 220' long terminating in a 40' diameter cul-de-sac. The staff made a brief study of the area between First and Second Avenues, south of K Street, in an attempt to determine some possible alternatives to this development. Because of the deep lots, additional dwellings could be constructed here at some future time, and each would have to have access by individual easements, unless an overall subdivision layout could be developed for the entire area. Director Warren then showed two alternative layouts showing possible development of this area. He commented that any such development here would involve at least 12 different property owners. Both plans would require the realignment of the drainage channel. He added that the Commission has three alternatives in this case: (1) to approve the application as requested, subject to conditions; (2) disapprove the application; or (3) continue the matter and instruct the staff to contact all the property owners affected by a subdivision of the area. If this is done, the matter should be continued to the meeting of August 19. Director Warren further added that the Commission has approved similar requests many times and should find some way to accommodate the applicant and assist him in the development of this land. The staff is not sure that this is the way to do it, however. Mr. Warren then discussed the proposed easement and the traffic that would result from development of this property, which he indicated would be minimal since only four lots are involved here. If this origi~nal application is approved, it would leave a tight situation as the roadway is narrow; the turn-around would have to be enlarged. The staff is also concerned about how the property will be graded; they would have to know what usable land the applicant is talking about. Mr. Warren then delineated the six conditions the staff would recommend for approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Delbert Arrasmith, the applicant, stated his case was well presented by the Director of Planning. He discussed his proposed development as being on two levels and subsequently would not impose a drainage problem. He stated -4- 7/22/68 he discussed his proposal with his neighbor to the east - Mr. Warren, who in turn discussed it with his adjacent neighbor - Mr. Garvin, and they have expressed interest in developing their rear properties along with this land. He has no objection to compromising with his neighbors. Mr. James Warren, 130 K Street, stated he lives immediately east of this proposed development and would be willing to cooperate with the applicant in the development of these rear properties. He remarked that his neighbor to the east - Mr. Garvin - has indicated his willingness to cooperate in this project also. Lt. Garvin, 128 K Street, declared his willingness to cooperate. He commented he was new in the neighborhood, having resided here for 2 weeks, and his only concern at the moment is the drainage area. Chairman Stewart asked if there is a definite agreement set up among these gentlemen as to financing, etc. Lt. Garvin stated ~hat they did not go into it in that detail. Mrs. Anna Senk, 166 K Street, asked if the area could possible go R-3. Chairman Stewart explained that it was zoned R-1 and would be developed with single-family homes. The Comnission discussed a continuance of this matter. Mr. Arrasmith agreed to a continuance indicating that his neighbors should be given an opportunity to go along with this proposed development. Director Warren reiterated that this matter should be continued to the meeting of August 19. The staff believes that if they are going to consider development beyond this property, it should involve all the property owners. Chairman Stewart declared that the people to the west should be involved. He indicated that the layout showing the access of Second Avenue is the best plan. Mr. Mack, 246 K Street, commented there was always a flooding condition after every rain on this property. Mrs. Addle Wyatt, 152 K Street, stated she lives on one Fide of the proposed easement and would object to the traffic flow by her bedroom window. She has no objection, however, to having the access off Second Avenue. Victor Brewster, 140 K Street, questioned one of the lots in the area as being 6600 square feet. Chairman Stewart explained that his lot was built upon before the ordinance was adopted. MSUC (York-Gregson) Continue this matter to the meeting of August 19 and the staff be directed to contact the property owners to the west of this to work out an arrangement whereby a street can be brought in off of Second Avenue to serve all of these properties; however, in the event they run into any opposition from the property owners to the west, and not to lose a lot of time, then they should work with the three property owners who have indicated their willingness to work together to work out something for the three properties to the east, and inasmuch as the properties to the west are not forever cut off from access and development could be worked out at a later date. -5- 7/22/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - 211 Cspress - Portion of lot from R-1 to R-3 Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren stated this was Commission-initiated at the request of the property owner. He submitted a plot plan showing that the parcel contains two zone classifications: R-1 for the easterly 33' and R-3 for the westerly 57'. The area is developed predominately with single-family dwellings, but it is ready for redevelopment; the zoning in the area is R-3. The staff, therefore, recommends that this portion of the lot be rezoned R-3. 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. Member Adams asked what the future zoning for this area will be. Director Warren answered that the General Plan places this area in a high density classification, which proposed zoning will conform to the Plan. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City Council the Change of Zone for a Portion of the RESOLUTION NO. 527 Property at 211 Cypress Street from R-1 to R-3. The findings are as follows: a. Good zoning practice requires that zoning be consistent on parcels of this size. b. This change will make it consistent with the remaining lots in the area. c. It conforms to the General Plan. Request for extension of time - Variance for DaS NurserS in R-1 Zone - 194 H Street - Miller Director of Planning Warren explained that this applicant was granted a variance for a three year period beginning August 2, 1965 when they purchased the property, to conduct a day nursery at the southeast corner of H Street and Second Avenue. A nursery has been operating in this location for the past 16 years and the staff has had no complaints from the neighbors. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of the applicants' request for a 5 year extension of time, or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first. The Commission briefly discussed the request and agreed that the nursery was not a detriment to the area and the extension should be granted. MSUC (Hyde-G~egson) Approval of a five-year extension of time, or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first. Recommendation - Proposed acquisition of propertS along south side of Sweetwater Road between Bonita Verde Subdivision and Rohr Park Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed acquisition of land. He explained that the area comprises 21 acres -6- 7/22/68 and is within the flood plain. The area is vacant with the exception of a single-family dwelling. The land would be used for the expansion of the golf course or Rohr Park. The function of the Commission, in this case, is to make a determination if it is in accordance with the General Plan. Since the General Plan places most of the Sweetwater Valley floor in an open space category, the staff recommends that the Commission finds that the acquisition of this property is in conformance to the General Plan. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Recommend to City Council that the acquisition of this property for public park purposes is in conformance with the General Plan. Discussion - Sweetwater Valley ZonSn~ Study Director of Planning Warren explained that at the City Council meeting last week, they took action approving placing a mobilehome park in the unclassified Use Section subject to a conditional use permit. When it came to prezoning the property, they referred the matter back to the Planning Commission, continuing it for 90 days and directed the staff to get together with a committee of Valley resi- dents and come up with a prezoning plan for the Valley. Mr. Warren pointed out to them that this plan should include the whole Valley and not just this area in question, and that anything less than a 6 month period of time would be an unrealistic assignment. They felt that a committee of Valley residents should be appointed by the Planning Commission to come up with this Plan. Member York asked about the boundary line of the Valley. Director Warren indicated this would have to be worked out first - what he wants to do now is to get authorization from the Commission to come up with a list of names --perhaps 12, and have a cross-section of the property owners of the Valley. Also on this committee should be one staff advisor and perhaps the Chairman of the Commission. This committee will, in turn, be reporting to the Commission. The Commission discussed this and agreed that the Commissioner should be an observer on this committee. Director Warren commented that the Mayor wanted to k.now what a consultant would charge to do a planning sbudy of the area. The cost would not be less than $5,000. The staff could do it, if enough time was allocated to do the study. Because of the many times the Council and the Commission have had to act on different requests in the Valley, perhaps an outside interest should be involved. However, for the City to p~ outright for a plan for an unincorporated area is beyond question. The Commission was of the opinion, generally, that an outside consultant should be avoided. Director Warren indicated the staff would take a topography map and determine the boundaries from this before calling the committe together. Member Guyer asked that the staff submit this plan at the next meeting. -7- 7/22/68 MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) That the Planning Director and the Chairman of the Commission appoint a committee of approximately 12 Valley residents to come up with a plan for the Valley. Discussion - Attendance at League Conference Director of Planning Warren explained that this year's conference will be held in Los Angeles beginning October 13 through 16. Because of the demand for hotel reservations, the City Administrator has asked that an indication be given now by the Commission if they are planning to attend this conference so that reservations can be made early. Those indicating that they will attend were: Adams -1; Stewart -2; Guyer -2; Hyde -2; and York -2. Member Gregson stated he will be on vacation at this time and will be unable to attend. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman MS (Guyer-Adams) Will Hyde be nominated for Chairman. Member Gregson nominated Kyle Stewart. Mr. Stewart thanked him but asked Member Gregson to withdraw the motion as he felt the Chairmanship should be rotated among the members. Member Gregson withdrew the nomination and Member York made a motion to close the nominations. The Commission unanimously voted to appoint Member Hyde as Chairman. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Member Guyer be re-nominated for the office of Vice-Chairman. Member Stewart made a motion that the nominations be closed. The Commission voted unanimously to reappoint Member Guyer for Vice-Chairman. Member Guyer thanked Mr. Stewart for an outstanding job as Chairman of the Commission. The Commissioners agreed and conveyed their thanks also. Telegraph Canyon Rezoning A letter addressed to the Mayor from Dan Cherrier, County Planning Department, was read in which he stated that on July 9, 1968, the Board of Supervisors, on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, adopted regular zoning for the Telegraph Canyon area. Director of Planning Warren noted on the map the area rezoned R-1 and that rezoned commercial. He commented that Mrs. Eleanor Anderson, the city's former Councilman, has just been appointed to the County Planning Commission. The Commission expressed their appreciation in having this area rezoned by the county. Afternoon Meetings Member Guyer brought up the matter of having the staff administer routine variances. Director Warren explained there has been some discussion about making an amendment to the text concerning rear yard intrusion, etc. The staff, however, hesitates to initiate any new procedures to the Council at this time because it would have to be handled by a new position --Zoning Administrator. He felt that perhaps they should wait until the new zoning ordinance is adopted. Member Stewart discussed the long agendas, and suggested that perhaps they could hear some of these items in the afternoon- so that their evening meetings could adjourn not later than 10 p.m. The Commission discussed this and felt it was a good idea since matters such as subdivisions, etc., could be discussed in the afternoon. Member York commented that the Commission needs to get back to workshops again. Director Warren remarked that they could try this plan; that a city the size of Chula Vista will probably have to go to daytime meetings. Member Stewart asked if a study has been made as to how many other cities conduct daytime meetings. Mr. Warren declared that no study has been made on this. He discussed the amount of overtime accummulated by the staff for which compensatory time has to be given. If the meetings begin in the afternoon, this time would be greatly reduced. MSUC (Stewart-Guyer) A request be made to the City Council for authorization to hold afternoon meetings when in the judgment of the staff they feel it necessary to facilitate the workload of the Commission. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Stewart-York) Meeting be adjourned to the special meeting of July 29, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. .R~spectfully submitted, '/Uennle Fu/asz '~ Secretary