HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/07/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
July 15, 1968
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista,
California was held on the above date at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Civic
Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Stewart, Hyde,
Gregson, Rice, Adams, Guyer and York. Absent: None. Also present: Director
of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, City
Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of the minutes of June 17 and June 24, 1968, as
mailed, and approval of minutes of July 1, 1968 after the following correction
is made.
On pages 6 and 7 delete conditions 1-12 listed under the motion for approval
of conditional use permit for a mobile home park for George Trusty, and insert
the following conditions:
1. All unpaved areas shall be permanently landscaped. A landscape and irriga-
tion plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
2. New pavement shall consist of 2" AC over a 4" base, unless CBR tests
determine that a lesser standard would suffice, and shall be kept in
good condition.
3. Plan A shall be effective until the relocation of the frontage road,
after which Plan B shall take effect.
Also add the following findings of approval:
(a) That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-
being of the neighborhood or the community.
This use provides a needed housing type for the City.
(b) That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case,
be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Such uses are al ready in existence in the area without any apparent detri-
ment. It is an expansion of an existing use.
-2- 7/15/68
(c) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
Ordinance requirements and the conditions imposed will result in Code
compliance.
(d) That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - Area ~long both sides of Oran§e Avenue approximately
700' west of Hilltop Drive - M-1 t? R-3-B-3 - Jafro~ Inc.;
Variance - Same area - Jafro~ Inc.~ Subdivision Tentative Map -
Holiday Estates, Units #5 and #6
Director of Planning Warren advised that these items have been continued to this
meeting from the June 17, 1968 meeting to give the staff a chance to meet with
members of F.H.A. and the San Diego City and County Planning Departments to discuss
the matter of appropriate location and guidelines for a development of this type.
This meeting was delayed due to the v~¢ations of some officials and although the
meeting has now been held the staff has not had sufficient time to evaluate the
various points presented and to reach the conclusions ~o present to the Commission.
Since the applicants do not object, it is therefore recommended that these items
be continued to the meeting of August 5, 1968.
MSUC (Adams-Rice) That the hearings on the rezoning, variance and subdivision
tentative map be continued to the meeting of August 5, 1968.
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning (Cont'd) - Property west of Hilltop Drive along both
sides of Orange Avenue (Frome Subdivision/ from County R-1-A
to R-3-B-3 - Jafro, Inc.
PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin9 - Property at the northwest and southwest corners of
Hilltop Drive and the extension of Orange Avenue from County C to
C-N Plannin9 Commission initiated
Director of Planning Warren stated that a letter has been received from the
proponents of this prezoning withdrawing their request for annexation and for
prezoning, indicating their intention to develop the property with single family
residences in the County. Since this date for a hearing to consider prezoning
to C-N had been set by the Commission and publicly advertised, the Commission
has the prerogative of going ahead with the consideration of this prezonin9.
Although the County has granted commercial zoning to small parcels at both the
northwest and southwest corners of Hilltop Drive and the extension of Orange
Avenu~ the staff cannot justify the imposition of a service station site on the
subdivision proposed at the northwest corner of the intersection and would
recommend C-N zoning only for the parcel at the southwest corner of Orange and
Hilltop.
-3- 7/15/68
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No
one present wished to testify so the public hearing was closed.
The Commission discussed the area and concurred that R-1 zoning would be the
most logical for the property prosed for residential development and that the
C-N zoning should be confined to the parcel at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Orange and Hilltop.
MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the
RESOLUTION NO. 526 City Council Prezoning Property west of Hilltop Drive along
both sides of Orange Avenue (Frome Subdivision) R-1 and
Prezoning approximately Two Acres at the Southwest Corner of
Hilltop Drive and Orange Avenue C-N
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. The R-1 portion is in conformance with the General Plan.
2. The C-N portion is already zoned "C" in the County. The C-N classification
would give the City some measure of control to insure compatibility with
abutting residential uses.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 52 and 54 J Street - Request to create lots for
residential purposes on 15' easement Dieterle
An application was read which proposes to create two residential lots without
street frontage, access to be provided by easements from J Street.
Assistant Planner Lee presented a plot plan pointing out the parcel of approxi-
mately one acre presently served by a 15' wide paved easement extending 290 feet
from J Street. As the division of the two new lots was not clearly indicated on
the plot plan submitted with the application, Mrs. Dieterle was called upon to
clarify this point and indicated that a parcel 100' X 166' would be divided
equally, creating two lots 100' X 83' less the necessary easements. This would
require an additional easement 22' wide extending 127' to the first lot, plus
another easement 15' wide extending 83' to reach the second lot.
Assistant Planner Lee also discussed the conditions which the staff recommends
be imposed in connection with this variance.
Assistant Engineer Gesley raised an objection to the third proposed condition
which dealt with City maintenance of access easements at the expense of the
property owner. He felt this is not possible and pointed out that there are a
dozen building sites involved for which similar variance requests may be made.
He stated the Engineering Division feels a halt should be called to this type of
development as it is a good example of "bootleg subdivision."
Mr. Gesley further pointed out that plans were developed at the City's expense
seven years ago for public improvements in this area, but at that time the people
were not interested and did not wish to go ahead and improve the area. As a
result the area does not have the same improvements the Engineers strive to
approve for the rest of the City. Property owners should be made aware that
access easements are not maintained as public Streets. Mr. Gesley recommended
deletion of condition No. 3 if the variance is approved.
-4- 7/15/68
Planning Director Warren stated that he is in agreement with the elimination of
this condition and the maintenance of an easement becomes the responsibility of
the property owner with no other alternative than to keep the easement in good
repair and presentable condition.
Chairman Stewart stated that if the people desire to make the easement into a
public street it must be done through the financial support of the residents to
be served. If there are other parcels to be divided, the new homes should bear
the cost of improving a public street; however, there is no way the City can
insist upon putting in a public street.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Adolph Dieterle stated that there is no way of getting to the two lots
which they wish to create and improve except through the use of easements which
they are requesting. She would be in favor of dedicating the land for a public
street but the cost of such improvement should be shared by all property owners
to be served by the street.
As no one spoke in opposition to this variance the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams expressed the opinion that the Commission should not penalize these
people by refusing to grant a variance because they cannot get a public street.
Member York concurred, adding that if people wished to maintain a rural atmosphere
by improving lots without street frontage, under certain circumstances they
should be allowed to do so by variance.
MSC (Adams-York) Approval of the variance request, with the following conditions
attached:
1. A minimum pavement width of 12' shall be required on the proposed 22' wide
easement extending 127' along the northerly boundary of parcel #2, with a
15' wide paved easement extending from the north property line of parcel
#1 along the easterly property line for a distance of 83'. The remaining
area to be landscaped.
2. A minimum of two on site surfaced guest parking spaces shall be accommodated
on each lot of parcel #1, in addition to the required two-car garage, when
construction of dwellings takes place.
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 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.
-5- 7/~5/68
(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.
Lots will be comparable in size to many parcels in the area and no significant
increase in traffic will be generated.
(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.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Adams, York, Hyde, Stewart, Guyer
NOES: Members Rice, Gregson
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 550 First Avenue - Request to create lots for
residential purposes on 19' easement - Williams
An application was read requesting permission to create and improve a new lot
by dividing an existing lot which is served by a 19' easement from First Avenue.
Both lots would be served by a common driveway. The newly created lot would
also have approximately 40 feet of frontage on Linda Lane, which is not suitable
for a driveway because of the topography.
Assistant Planner Lee discussed the plot plan pointing out that the new lot
would have two different elevations with the upper level containing about 7500
square feet and presently occupied by an existing garage; the lower level would
contain about 9200 square feet and would be graded to provide building site for
a new dwelling. This would entail realig~:ng an existing 6' diagonal drainage
easement to the edge of the property line.
Director of Planning Warren stated the department had received petitions of
protest signed by 15 property owners and a letter of protest.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Harry L. Williams, 550 First Avenue, the applicant, stated it is his desire
to improve the neighborhood as the present lot is too large to be properly
maintained. He maintained that the construction of a dwelling and installation
of landscaping would be an attractive improvement to the area.
Mrs. George Morrow, 537 Linda Lane, in protesting the variance enumerated her
objections as follows:
It violates the City Code which the other property owners in this area
have abided by.
We do not believe the rear site, where the home is proposed, is a desirable
location for a home and do not see how it can contribute to the betterment
of the neighborhood--cannot imagine anyone wanting to live in an area
surrounded by back yards.
-6- 7/15/68
In regard to the shape of this proposed lot, there must be some undefined
purpose why the narrow strip would be included in the new lot. We think the
reason this was included with this parcel was because the owner had no use
for the garage--it would be included as a garage for the new building.
This brings us to the problem we could not imagine why a garage which would
be approximately 100 feet from the house in the rear, would mean a problem
of climbing a 12' embankment to get to the garage or walk 220 feet if you
do not go up the slope. It is our belief that the garage would eventually
be moved and a roadway to Linda Lane constructed.
Ten years ago we checked with the City to see what would be done with this
area. We were told it did not meet the requirements for a dwelling.
Mr. Williams was not interested in building a retaining wall (along Linda
Lane frontage), but said if the others wished we could do so. We have
landscaped and maintained the bank on Mr. Williams' property. Can see no
reason for putting this corridor in with parcel No. 2.
Mr. William R. Haneline, 112 Shasta Street, stated that he had mailed a letter of
protest, but wished to express the following:
When we purchased our home 8 years ago we were told by dealers that because
the lot had no street frontage there would be nothing built there. If the
lot is built on it will deprive us of privacy. We don't want to look at a
fence or incur expense of a fence. Undesirable people might move in.
On easement for drain, at the present time it is an open drain diagonally
across lot; with 90° turn an open drain will flood over. If it is a covered
drain it will take a mighty big pipe--pipe would have to be 10 feet to take
care of the water, and with sharp turn there would be stoppage. Realignment
of the drainage ditch is detrimental to my lot and other lots facing it.
Mr. D. R. Smith, 536 Linda Lane, stated: I believe everything that has been said
expresses my thinking in regard to this matter. I don't believe it is a desirable
building lot and believe there would be an attempt to open into Linda Lane.
Mr. Ayer, 118 Shasta, in opposing the realignment of drainage easement, declared:
On the east side the drain is pipe and the diagonal is an open ditch. Where it
goes across, the whole field has been flooded. Easement is one foot above the
lot. Our lots are below easement. If we are flooded under will the City pay for
the damages? The inlet going to the street will not take care of it.
Chairman Stewart stated the proper drainage is a matter for the Engineering
Department to take care of.
Mrs. Ballantyne, 536 First Avenue, is opposed because: Proposed house would be
in our back yard. Drainage easement would be at our property line. The front
of our lot is level, the back is low. We would be looking into the yard of
other lot---cannot imagine anyone wanting to live in that type of lot. We
were told there would never be a house back there because it had to have a street
frontage.
-7- 7/15/68
Chairman Stewart asserted that several people have testified they were
promised a house would not be built on that lot. There has always been an
ordinance to permit a lot without adequate street frontage to be developed by
requesting a variance so the land can be used. Anyone who stated a lot could
not be built upon did so in error.
Mrs. Ernest Campbell, 560 First Avenue, remarked; All I have to say, are we
allowed to cut up Chula Vista and put houses in the middle of the block with a
19' easement?
Mrs. Kelly, 542 Linda Lane, declared that Mr. Williams was the builder of four
houses on Linda Lane and four on First Avenue, and she questioned why he didn't
include these parcels when he built before.
Max Lofton, 122 Shasta, stated: We enjoy the privacy that a dead end street
allows. An easement creates a problem of traffic. Where we have streets I
think we should enforce the present ordinances. You are taking away the privacy
people have in their back yards.
Chairman Stewart called on Mr. Williams to answer the question raised about the
reason for including the corridor in this new lot.
Mr. Williams declared there was no particular reason, he felt he could use the
garage for storage area if he occupied the new house to be constructed. He
further pointed out that most city lots back their yard up to another one, and
he could not see that this is different than any other.
Director of Planning Warren stated that since the question was raised concerning
the configuration of the lot, he would suggest that this item be continued to
the next meeting so the staff could meet with the applicant in an attempt to
come up with a better configumation on the second parcel.
Mr. Williams replied that he would go along with Mr. Warren on anything he
wants to say on the configumation of the lot, and reiterated that what he is
asking for is a 19' easement for two dwellings, adding that he thinks a
residence built down there would be an improvement.
When asked if he had developed the other property in the area, Mr. Williams
replied that he developed seven lots.
City Attorney Lindberg declared that there has been a great deal of discussion which
does not concern the issue of whether or not a 19' easement will be approved. The
lots constitute a legal definition of building sites and the configuration of the
lots does not have any bearing on the variance.
Mr. Stewart declared the public hearing closed and stated that action will not be
taken until one week from tonight.
Jack Farmer, 556 First Avenue, declared that last year in the heavier rain they had
two feet of water in their lot, so there is a lot of water coming from Mankato
across the lots and into the drainage easement.
MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Continue action on this request for variance until July 22, 1968.
-8- 7/15/68
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 8 Angela Lane - Request for rear yard reduction from
20' to 16' - Reisweber
An application was read which requested the rear yard reduction for the purpose
of constructing a 6' X 12' walk-in type closet; the application was signed by
14 neighboring property owners giving their approval and endorsement to the
request. The staff has recommended approval of the variance.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Reisweber stated he had nothing to add to the information in the application.
When asked if his next door neighbor had agreed to the request, Mr. Reisweber
confirmed that the neighbor had.
The public hearing was then declared closed.
The Commission could see no objection and Member Hyde remarked that questions
like this should be handled by the staff.
Planning Director Warren advised that this will be a provision in the new
ordinance.
MSUC (Hyde-Guyer) Approval of the variance for reduction of rear yard setback.
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.
There is only 3' in the rear yard, exclusive of required yards, in which to
expand the dwelling.
(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.
Approximately 70% of the lot is taken up in required yards, thus leaving
an inadequate area in which to expand.
(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
neighborhood in which the property is located.
The proposed addition would be 17' away from the property line which is the
neighboring property's side lot line to which the neighbor may build as
close as 5'.
(d) The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this variance.
-9- 7/15/68
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 225 and 227 Landis Avenue - R-3 use in C-2 zone -
Tesch
The application was read requesting permission to convert an existing garage
into a studio apartment.
Assistant Planner Lee presented a plot plan showing the building in question in
relation to the location of two other dwellings on the same tot, also pointing
out where offstreet parking spaces can be accommodated. He advised that the
staff would recommend extending the driveway through to the alley to facilitate
movement of traffic through the lot; also that the applicant should be made
aware that approval would be required from the board of appeals and fire
department before such conversion could be undertaken.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gard Tesch, owner and applicant, stated he felt this would be an improvement
in the appearance of the area as the building would be painted and windows
installed. He also affirmed that he would have no objection to putting the
driveway through to the alley.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams expressed opposition to granting the variance as, in his opinion,
it would be a very undesirable and economically infeasible method of development.
Member Hyde concurred with Mr. Adams, adding that this is encouraging a condit~6n
which good zoning practice should discourage--development of residential property
in a C-2 zone. He could not visualize any hardship in not approving this request
and feels the Commission should not encourage bad zoning practice.
Member York concurred with Mr. Hyde's conclusions but not for the same reason. He
pointed out that a check of the General Plan shows this is to be developed R-3,
and any money spent on this particular development will prolong the day when the
area will be upgraded as C-O or R-3.
In response to a question Mr. Tesch confirmed that the existing buildings are
not new. In five or six years, possibly 10 at the most, it is entirely possible
that something else will be done with this property. He asserted that the type
of building he is proposing, inasmuch as he proposes to remodel a garage
immediately for his own family, it can be seen it is not a permanent type of
improvement but a stop gap measure. He estimates the cost of this at $2,200 to
$2,500 and states it will look nice.
Chairman Stewart stated that he deplores the use of an old structure for conversion
to use that may not be up to standard, but he could not agree that this is a
basis for denying the request for variance.
Member York declared that he had voted for previous requests for variance in this
zone but they were for new developments. If the applicant wanted to tear down
the building and build an R-3 he would be the first to champion him.
-10- 7/15/68
MS (Gregson-Stewart) Approval of request for variance based on findings of the
staff. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Gregson, Stewart
NOES: Members Rice, Adams, Guyer, York, Hyde
ABSENT: None
Chairman Stewart advised the applicant the request had been denied and he has
ten days in which to appeal this decision to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Southwest corner of Second Avenue and quintard Street
Rgquest for reduction of front yard from 25' to 15' on quintard
street and 25' to 10' on Second Avenue Noble
The application was read which requests the reduction of setbacks on the corner
lot for the purpose of constructing apartments in this R-3 zone.
Assistant Planner Lee presented a plan of the area and advised this would be
developed along both streets in a monolithic development to the curb with a
total distance of 33' from the building to the curb on both streets. He also
enumerated conditions which the staff recommends.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. There
were no comments, either for or against, and the public hearing was declared
closed.
MSUC (Gregson-Hyde) Approval of the request for variance with the following
conditions:
1. A preliminary landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
building permit for the area between the building and the sidewalk. A
final landscaping plan shall be submitted for staff approval prior to
electrical inspection.
2. All proposed signs 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.
A 25' setback would represent an unnecessary hardship on this lot since a
14.5' parkway is maintained as well.
(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 to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.
There is an existing 15' setback on the east side of Second Avenue.
-ll- 7/15/68
(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
neighborhood in which the property is located.
The reduced setback will not be detrimental to the area since 15' setbacks
exist in the area and the proposed setback will be the same as that
contemplated for much of the city in multiple-family zones.
(d) The general plan will not be affected by the approval of this variance.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 547 Glover Avenue - Request for reduction in front
yard from 20' to 15' on Glover Avenue and 15' to 10' on Mankato
Street - Weimer
An application was read in which the request for reduction of
setback was made in order to construct and develop a 15 unit apartment complex on
this property zoned R-3. Planning Director Warren advised that one letter of
protest to this request had been received--mailed from Charleston, South Carolina.
Associate Planner Manganelli presented a plot plan indicating the property in
question. He also pointed out that Glover is an 80' wide street which functions
as a local street. With the setback requested there would be a distance of 35'
between the dwelling and the curb on Glover and 21' between building and curb on
Mankato. Other uses on Mankato utilize a 5' setback and since this request is
less than that on the opposite side of the street, the staff recommends approval.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. There
being no response, either for or against, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of request for variance for reduction of setbacks
subject to the following condition:
Preliminary landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Director
of Planning for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such
landscaping and irrigation system shall be installed prior to the final
inspection of the improvements.
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.
On Glover: A 20 foot setback would be an unnecessary hardship on this lot since
an extra 13 foot parkway is maintained as well.
On Mankato: Exterior side yards of 10 feet are contemplated for the R-3 zone in
the proposed new Zoning Ordinance.
(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.
-12- 7/15/68
On Glover: 15 foot setbacks have previously been approved for n~ltiple family
uses in recognition that deeper setbacks on local street locations
are unnecessary.
On Mankato: The parcel to the east enjoys a zero setback while the parcels on
the south si de of Mankato are permitted to utilize a 5 foot setback.
(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.
On Glover: No apparent detriment to the area by approval of this request is
anticipated. This neighborhood will ultimately be redeveloped
with R-3 uses which could utilize the same setback under new ordin-
ance provisions.
On Mankato: Since lesser setbacks are utilized in the immediate vicinity of the
property, no detriment would result.
(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.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 312 and 314 F Street - Request for C-2 use on C-1
property - E~er
An application was read requesting permission to operate a small commercial
printing plant, to produce cards, letterhead stationery, envelopes, brochures
and labels--no publication or newspaper publishing.
Director of Planning Warren discussed the area and the adjoining uses which
include a bowling alley and two auto repair shops. He indicated the property
would be enhanced by granting this variance as the building is presently vacant
and in poor repair.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Robert Fuson, of Fuson's Garage, in the vicinity of this property, testified on
behalf of Mr. Eyer's integrity as a businessman and recommended the variance be
granted.
Member Adams declared he felt the variance should include one condition: That the
building be made presentable.
Mr. Eyer replied that would be his intention, but he must first rid the building
of termites and has contracted with a termite exterminator. He must then have the
necessary power installed for operating the equipment. After that he will
completely paint and renovate the exterior of the building.
The public hearing was then declared closed.
-13- 7/15/68
MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Approval of request for permission to operate commercial
printing plant subject to the following condition:
The exterior of subject building shall be painted and ~enovated to the
extent that it will be compatible with other commercial buildings in the
area.
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.
There are several printing operations presently in use in the C-1 areas and
the nature of this operation would not be incompatible with the commercial
uses in the immediate vicinity.
(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 proposed site has a bowling alley across the alley directly west, and
two auto repair garages within 230 feet. The city's proposed new zoning
ordinance provides for printing shops within the central business area if
the location is compatible.
(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.
Without this variance, the applicant is deprived of the right to conduct a
business similar to other printing businesses in this same area and zone.
(d) The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this variance.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 315 H Street - Request for reduction in rear yard
from 15' to O' - Burni
An application was read which requests the reduction of rear yard to zero for the
construction of a retail discount store in the C-1 zone. The application points
out that since the property will be developed with a structure from property line
to property line (no access to rear yard) the rear yard would serve no useful
purpose and would restrict the amount of parking space for this particular use.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Paul Miller, representing Ralph Burni, stated the applicant accepts the
conditions as proposed by the Planning Department.
Chairman Stewart asked if the diagonal parking as recommended by the staff would
allow sufficient parking spaces as required by the square footage of the building.
Director of Planning Warren replied this cannot be answered at the present time
but will be resolved as plans are developed.
-14- 7/15/68
Member York raised a question as to the time the installation of landscaping and
irrigation will be required.
Director of Planning Warren indicated this would be required prior to final
inspection. Discussion ensued.
MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Request for variance be approved subject to the following:
1. The parking layout shall be revised subject to the approval of the staff.
Angular parking spaces (60° or less) shall be encouraged.
2. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such
landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection.
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.
Since the property will be developed with a structure from property line to
property line (no access to rear yard) this rear yard serves no useful
purpose and restricts the amount of parking for this particular use.
(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.
Rear lot line of this property abuts adjoining side yard of commercial lot
to the north which enjoys a zero setback.
(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 neighborhod
in which the property is located.
The property in the rear being commercial, can be built upon with a zero
setback.
(d) The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this variance.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 395 D Street - Request to construct
additions to church - First Assembly of God Church
An application was read requesting permission to build an auditorium for church
services and to provide Sunday school rooms and offices for the operation of a
Church School on Sundays.
Assistant Planner Lee presented a plot plan pointing out the location of present
buildings and the site of the proposed auditorium, also the area planned for
parking. Two R-1 dwellings at the rear of this property will be served by an
easement at each side, one with a 12' driveway and the other a 15' driveway from
the back of the parking lot.
-15- 7/15/68
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Pastor Ryan expressed his acceptance of the conditions recommended by the staff
and his willingness to answer any questions on this proposal.
There being no further comments, the hearing was declared closed.
MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Approval of a conditional use permit for construction of the
church subject to the following:
Completed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department staff for
approval, incorporating the following:
1. Elevations of all the proposed buildings, including a color scheme.
2. A maximum seating capacity shall be indicated for the main auditorium
with proportionate parking as required by the ordinance.
3. All parkway areas shall be filled with concrete.
4. Locations and renderings of proposed signs.
5. A preliminary landscaping plan--include location and type of all
existing trees.
Findings be as follows:
(a) That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of
the neighborhood or the community.
The approval of this permit will allow the applicant the opportunity to
construct a new facility.
(b) That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The buildings designed will not be detrimental to health or safety of those
persons residing in the area. Adequate steps have been taken to assure
proper parking for site.
(c) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
The buildings will be used for the purpose it is being constructed and all
conditions imposed by the city will be observed.
(d) That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The use will be compatible with the requirements of the General Plan.
-16- 7/15/68
Subdivision - Tentative Map - Princess Manor Unit No. 6 (Reconsideration)
Director of Planning Warren reported that a request had been received from the
subdivider to continue this matter to the meeting of August 5, 1968.
MSUC (Adams-Rice) Continue the consideration of Princess Manor Unit No. 6
tentative map to August 5, 1968.
Assistant Engineer Gesley expressed disapproval of this continuance as the
subdivider is proceeding with the grading.
Planning Director Warren and City Attorney Lindberg both asserted the subdivider
has been informed that grading performed prior to approval of the tentative map
will not influence the Commission's decision.
Recommendation - Proposed condemnation of properties for public purposes -
Council referral
Director of Planning Warren reported that the City Council had taken action to
refer the matter of the proposed condemnation of three parcels of land for public
purposes to the Planning Commission for their recommendation as to whether or not
these acquisitions conform to the General Plan.
One parcel contains 47.76 acres and its acquisition is aparently proposed for the
construction of a community hospital. It is felt this area is in excess of the
need for a hospital but it may have other functions. The staff finds it difficult
to make a recommendation concerning acquisition of the land without full knowledge
of the proposed use; however, the General Plan places the area in residential land
use and the staff recommends this acquisition for public use would be compatible
with the General Plan.
City Attorney Lindber9 pointed out that while the proposed use is essentially for
hospital purposes, the question of how much land is taken must be based on the
cost of condemnation. The City might make application for open space grants.
Member York expressed the opinion that in the past the City has been short-sighted
in the acquisition of lands, While this is far in excess of the needs for a
hospital it will be short-sighted if they don't pick up the rest of the land, as
it will not decrease in value if no use is found.
MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that
the acquisition of 47.76 acres on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road for
public use is compatible with the General Plan.
Member York stepped down from the meeting before the Commission considered the
other parcels of land.
The parcels referred by the City Council included 2.10 acres at the southeast
corner of Fourth Avenue and Center Street and 2.15 acres to the east and adjacent
to the other property. Planning Director Warren stated the staff would recommend
also including approximately 2/3 of an acre in a triangular shape between the
park and the intersection of Third Avenue and Madroma Street.
-17- 7/15/68
Member Gregson commented that the City needs space for civic center expansion
and the General Plan has indicated use of this property for a convention hall.
Member Hyde asked if it could be extended from Madrona to Center Street.
Planning Director Warren stated the staff is not ready to recommend that.
Chairman Stewart advised that this be taken up at a later date.
MSUC (Adams-Hyde) That the Planning Commission reco~ends to the City Council
that the acquisition of the two parcels which they have indicated would be in
conformance with the General Plan and further recommends the inclusion of the
area owned by the railroad be added to the area to be acquired.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Gregson-Hyde) Meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes
Acting Secretary