Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/07/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA July 1, 1968 The regular 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, and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member York. Also present: Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. SUBDIVISION - SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE ESTATES, Unit No. 3 (Revised) Associate Planner Manganelli submitted the revised map explaining that this matter was continued from the last meeting at which time the Commission instructed the developer to submit a revised map showing lots fronting on H Street--originally, these were double-frontage lots. Mr. Manganelli showed a diagram of the T-driveways, to be used on lots with 'qt" St. frontage, as submitted by the developer. This method is acceptable to the staff and they would recommend approval. He noted on the map the areas of land that would be transferred to the Chula Vista School District and a proposed church. Mr. Manganelli then reviewed the conditions of approval. Assistant City Engineer Gesley noted the future extension of "H" St. which will have to be improved by the developer of the property to the north. Mr. Ray Swanner, representing the developer, stated they are in complete accord with the conditions outlined by the Planning and Engineering staffs. He stated that they have made the adjustments with the school and the church and they are in complete agreement with the exchange of properties. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Recommend approval of the revised map subject to the following conditions: 1. The minimum depth of all lots fronting on H Street shall be 110'. 2. The excess property located between the present school boundary and lots 275 through 278 shall be designated as Lot "A" and deeded to the school district. 3. An agreement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints shall be filed with the City stating their approval of this revised tentative map as it pertains to the change in their boundary lines prior to the recordation of a final map. 4. Prior to submission of improvement plans, a profile of H Street to Otay Lakes Road shall be submitted for approval. 5. Additional right-of-way shall be acquired so that "A" Street and Fordham Avenue shall have a minimum travel way of 28 feet for the half street portion. 6. Street improvements for the northerly terminus of "F" Street shall be constructed within the right-of-way in a manner required by the City Engineer. -2- 7. Thirty foot curb radius shall be used on "H" Street. 8. One foot control lots shall be dedicated to the City, as required by the City Engineer. 9. Minimum A.C. thickness on "H" Street shall be 3 inches. 10. Sidewalk width on "H" street shall be 5.5 feet instead of 5.0 feet as shown on the tentative map. ll. All improvements shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings of the City of Chula Vista. 12. Minimum travel way on "H" Street in front of Lots 279 through 283 shall be 28 feet. 13. That small parcel of land at the rear of Lots 275 through 278 shall be incorporated into those lots or deeded to the adjacent school property to the east. 14. The alignment of "H" Street as shown on the tentative map will require the road to pass through the school property to the east. The subdivider shall work out an arrangement satisfactory to the school district such that an easement for road purposes shall be granted to the City of Chula Vista through the present school property. 15. "H'~ Street shall be improved to provide a 20 foot travel way both north and south sides in front of Lot 358 through 361. The subdivider shall acquire right-of-way as required. Subdivision - Tentative Map - Princess Manor, Unit No. 6 (Reconsideration) Associate Planner Manganelli informed the Commission that a request was received from this subdivider asking that this matter be considered at the next meeting. MSUC (Rice-Adams) This matter be continued to the meeting of July 15, 1968. Subdivision - Reconsideration of condition - Rancho Vista Estates, Units 2 and 3 City Attorney Lindberg explained that in approving this tentative map, a condition concerning the dedication and improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road was waived. The City Engineer has indicated that it would not be desirable to waive the condition if the only requirement was to be that which is in accordance with the ordinance requiring certain public improvements when a pemmit for $5,000 or more of improvements is issued. Mr. Lindberg stated that he feels the obligation should be imposed upon the owner of the R-3 and C-1 zoned properties fronting on Telegraph Canyon Road to fully improve this south side of the road. The developer has stated he will accept this condition and it will be offered to the City Council. Either the south side of this road will be completed with the develop- ment of Units 2 and 3 of Rancho Vista Estates, or when the final map is brought to the City Council, they will execute an agreement posting a bond or lien when the C-1 and R-3 zoned properties are developed or at such time as the City may require it. There is no question but that the full improvements will be installed. -3- MSUC (Adams-Rice) Recommend that the additional condition be imposed that the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road be completely improved either as a condition of this subdivision, or with a separate agreement and posting the proper surety bond. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Rezonin9 - Property at the northwest corner of Second Avenue and Palomar Street - R-1 to R-3-B-3 Aardema and Covin Associate Planner Manganelli stated this matter was continued twice previously when it was learned that the County Planning Commission was rezoning property a few hundred feet away from this particular area. The County has subsequently continued their action several times because they are working on an agreement for street dedica- tion. The Board of Supervisors will have this matter for consideration sometime during the middle of August. The applicant in this case has again asked for a continuation of his request until the next meeting - July 15; however, the staff is recommending that the matter be continued until August 26. By this time, the Board of Supervisors will have taken action on the proposed R-3 rezoning of the property in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property. MSUC (Hyde- Gregson) Matter be continued to the meeting of August 26, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin§ - Property at 70 East J Street - R-1 to C-t State Mutual Savings and Loan The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from R-1 to C-1 of that property at 70 East J Street. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a pl~t plan noting the area requested for rezoning, the adjacent land use and zoning. The existing market has been there since World War II when a housing development was in that area. The applicant has submitted a plot plan for a 7-11 store in this location. The staff cannot support the request for C-1 zoning here as it would create a spot zone and would recommend instead that the Commission either deny this request and direct the applicant to file a variance for his proposed development or to recommend approval of the C-N zone subject to the dedication and improvement of additional right-of-way on J Street. Chairman Stewart asked if the C-N zone would require site plan approval. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was one of the conditions of the C-N zone. The Commission discussed the variance procedures and felt there would be no hardship shown which could justify this approval. Member Adams asked if the present market was to be removed. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission cannot make this a requirement of the rezoning. They can make this a requirement under the variance, but the~' applicant can choose not to accept the variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. It was noted that three letters of protest were received and on, of approval. Mr. Norman Seltzer, representing the applicant, stated they are prepared to go along with the recommendations of the Planning staff and will accept the C-N -4- zoning and conform to all its requirements. When the site plan is drawn, he added, they will have to remove the present building. They will also conform to the landscaping requirements. Mrs. Humerick, residing at the corner of Claire Avenue and J Street opposed the request noting the three schools in the area, the fire station and the present store cause a heavy traffic and this proposed development will bring in a heavier congestion. She added that there was considerable trash pile-up with the present store. Mr. Hyde, residing three houses up from the store on Claire Avenue spoke of the trash accumulation caused by the students going to this market and stated he would like to see more of the plans before he will accept the proposal. Mr. Seltzer referred to the conditions of the C-N ordinance noting particularly the trash condition and landscaping requirements. He reiterated that they will comply with all of these requirements. Mr. Lindberg commented that the C-N requirements were applied to a number of existing centers - none started from scratch with this C-N zone. One reason for recommending the C-N zone is that it must be as compatible as possible with the R-1 neighborhood, and further, that a convenience center should be provided for a neighborhood's needs. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams questioned what actually was proposed for this center. Mr. Seltzer declared there was nothing definite at this time, but that whatever they proposed would have to come back to the Commission for site plan approval. The Commission discussed the possibility of the present grocery store remaining on the site. City Attorney Lindberg noted that they can operate as a non-conforming use under the existing R-1 zone. With the establishment of the C-N zone, they would be required to make certain changes that would upgrade the situation. Mr. M~nganelli affirmed this indicating they would have one year to conform to the requirements of this zone. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 525 the City Council the Change of Zone from R-1 to C-N for that Property at 70 East J Street Findings and conditions be as follows: 1. The C-N zone will be compatible with the adjacent R-1 development. 2. Good zoning practice requires a zone change rather than have the applicant apply for a variance request. -5- PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 656 Glover Place - Request for reduction of rear yard from 20' to 17' - William Pockin~ton The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard from 20' to 17' for the purpose of enclosing an existing patio. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request and the adjacent land use. He noted the configuration of the lot - 85' deep on the west and 105' deep on the east side which size lot makes it almost impossible to add on to the dwelling without having to apply for a variance. Mr. Manganelli noted the previous variances granted in this neighborhood and commented that the applicant will be enclosing an already existing screened patio - no extension of the patio will be made. He noted a letter received from an adjacent neighbor favoring the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The applicant stated he was present to answer any questions. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request briefly and concurred they had no objections - this was enclosing a room presently existing. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of variance; 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. Strict application would force a redesign of the outside wall, bringing it in 3 feet, even though the supports for the patio could remain at their same location. The resulting room would serve no useful purpose. 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. Similar variances have been granted in the area in the past seven years. This lot is too shallow to provide adequate rear yard area. 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. This would not be detrimental to the area since no change in the roof line is planned and other variances exist in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Conditional Use Permit - 1225 Frontage Road - Request for a mobile home park in R-3 zone - George TrustS Associate Planner Manganelli explained that this matter was continued from the last meeting in order to determine what conditions would be applicable to impose on this applicant. The standards listed in the new Mobile Home Park -6- ordinance recommended to the City Council by the Commission were felt to be inappropriate in this case because of the applicant's situation - he has an existing trailer park which is being replaced because of the freeway widening. Mr. Manganelli showed two plot plans of the proposed development - the first plan showed the proposed construction of the park in the near future, and the second plan was of the proposal after the freeway was widened. He then noted the conditions of approval discussing the landscaping requirement and noting the areas to be landscaped. Member Adams asked if the space sizes will be the same as the old park. Mr. Manganelli stated it will be just about the same. He noted the areas set aside for the guest parking, since the tandem parking, as previously proposed, is not allowed by the City. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. George T~usty, the applicant, stated he is in complete agreement with the conditions. Mr. Manganelli noted that the only landscaping that will be required now will be on Ada Street. Mr. Trusty agreed to that. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the two plans and concurred there was no objection to it. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of conditional use permit for a mobile home park subject to the following conditions: 1. The density of the development shall not exceed that as shown on the plot plan submitted with the application. 2. The wheels or any similar transporting devices of any mobile home shall not be removed except for repairs, nor shall such mobile home be otherwise permanently fixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent ready removal of said mobile home. 3. Sanitary regulations prescribed by the State, City, and/or County, together with all amendments thereto subsequently adopted, and as may otherwise be required by law, shall be complied with. 4. All areas used for automobile access and parking shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. All areas not used for access, parking, circulation, buildings and services shall be completely and permanently landscaped and the entire site maintained in good condition. 6. All buildings and mobile homes shall be located not less than twenty (20) feet from all exterior street lot lines of the mobile home park. -7- 7. Any mobile home park shall contain one or more developed recreation spaces with an aggregate area of two hundred (200) square feet per mobile home site in said park. 8. Site plan, architectural plans, and landscaping plans shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. 9. Grading plans shall be submitted to the staff for approval and shall generally be in accordance with the proposed new grading ordinance which is presently under contemplation for adoption by the City Council. 10. The hearing and decision granting this conditional use permit is conditioned upon the adoption of the amendment to the ordinance placing this use in the Unclassified Use Section, and subject conditional use permit will not become effective until the effective date of the amendment. 11. Additional right-of=way for Otay Lakes Road shall be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista as determined by the City Engineer. 12. All public improvements, including street lights, shall be constructed on Otay Lakes Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 41 "I" Street - Request to construct church in R-1 zone - First Church of Christ, Scientist The application was read in which a request was made for permission to build a church at 41 "I" Street. Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted a site plan of the property showing the proposed building, parking and landscaping and commented that the staff report was based on another plann submitted earlier. He pointed out that the property goes uphill and the proposed landscaping for the front of the property will not be sufficient to screen the premises. The staff recommends approval of the site only with more landscaping and better site plan - th~s should be subject to staff approval. Mr. Manganelli then discussed the proposed parking and noted the two curb cuts on "I" Street remarking that there may be some confusion here. In all, the plan is not properly designed for good traffic flow and circulation, and, he added, the entire structure would be surrounded by an asphalt parking area. Mr. Manganelli then delineated the staff's recommendations for approval of the request. Assistant City Engineer Gesley commented that, in the past, they have had several plans for development of this parcel. With the approval of this plan, the best use of the land remaining to the east will probably be for multiple-family develop- ment. Associate Planner Manganelli state that the staff has made informal studies on the property. It is a difficult piece of property to develop. He commented that now the City has dwelling group procedures and planned unit development procedures which is designed for just such problem parcels of land. -8- City Attorney Lindberg reminded the Commission of the findings they must make in granting approval of churches, hospitals, etc. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Elton Hoover, 373 Alpine, chairman of the church building committee, stated they will submit a new parking proposal and he said he talked to the staff about providing additional landscaping near the building, and some tall shrubbery along "I" Street. Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Hoover if the conditions as delineated were acceptable to the building committee. Mr. Hoover stated they were and commented that they received permission from the Planning Commission in September 1954 to build a church on this site. Mr. Herber Sglvester, 619 Carla, a member of the church, declared this development will be a wonderful addition to this area and will be beautifully landscaped. Mr. Robert Steiner, 55 "I" Street, asked to have some landscaping along the west side of the property - his property adjoins this. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Gregson mentioned that he was on the Council of St. Mark's Lutheran Church - the church to the east of this property - an~ saw no objection to the request. The Commission agreed that approval should be given to the location of a church site only and the applicant should submit revised plans to the staff incorporating the requirements as delineated by the Associate Planner. MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Approval of the location of a church site. Revised plans to be submitted incorporating the following: 1. Relocation of the building to allow for parking in the rear or landscaping used in the parking area to soften the asphalt appearance. 2. Underground service of all public utilities from the existing poles. No additional poles to be added on the site or along the "I" Street frontage. 3. Elevations, including a color scheme. 4. A preliminary landscaping plan with a minimum of four street trees (6' high). 5. A 6' high fence along the west, north and east property lines, reduced to 3-1/2' high in the front setback area. 6. A finished grading plan showing the proposed land elevations at each building corner as well as the parking areas. -9- 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 site was purchased for a church complex some time ago to supply a service for its members. 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 operation of a church is in no way detrimental to health, safety, or general welfare of the area. c, That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The Ordinance requires the applicant to comply with the conditions specified. 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 City Attorney stated this request will become final in 10 days during which time anyone desiring to do so may appeal this decision to the City Council. Deferment of Public Improvements - Bonita Road - Gordon Pettit A letter from Mr. Gordon Pettit was read requesting a deferment of public improve- ments along Bonita Road in relation to the proposed plant nursery building that will be constructed in the near future. He requested this deferment be granted for a 5 year period. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated the Engineering staff concurs with the request. They would recommend that the improvements be deferred and that the property owner provide either a bond or lien against the property covering the cost of these improvements until such time as the City should require them. City Attorney discussed the five year time period involved in these deferments. He stated that a long period of time would require a surety bond and a short period would take a lien on the property. He felt the time period should be upon the requirement imposed by the City Engineer. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of deferment of public improvements subject to the posting of a bond or lien acceptable to the City Engineer to cover the cost of improvements at such time as the City should require it. Request for Extensions of Time: a. Variance - 211 Church Avenue - Marie Gray Associate Planeer Manganelli briefly reviewed the variance granted Mrs. Gray for an apartment building at 211 Church Avenue. The staff would recommend approval of the applicant's request'~for a six month extension of time. MSUC )Rice-Gregson)~Approva~ o~six month extension of time; subject variance will now expire on January 5, ~o~. -10- b. Conditional Use Permit - Holiday Estates Subdivision - Jafro~ Inc. The request from John Morgan, Jafro, Inc., was noted requesting a six month extension of time on his conditional use permit to sell homes from a garage of a model home in this subdivision. Associate Planner Manganelli explained that the Planning Director has already granted this applicant two extensions of time which, by ordinance, is all he is allowed to do. Any further extension should come from the Commission. The applicant has requested R-3-B-3-D zoning for that property across the street, and if this prezoning is granted, he would have no further use for this condi- tional use permit. If, however, the zoning is denied, then he will be developing that area with single-family residences and would be utilizing this sales office. It should be noted, Mr. Manganelli added, that in this case, the sales office will be in the City and the homes he will be selling will be in the County. The staff would recommend approval of the six month period of time. City Attorney Lindberg stated that he discussed this matter with the staff and felt they should take another look at the ordinance. A reasonable time for model homes in a subdivision is not one that they can dictate. A developer will not be keeping model homes in a subdivision for any length of time--he will want to sell them as quickly as he can. The Commission discussed the request and agreed there was nothing wrong with the model homes being in the City and the homes for sale being in the County. Member Adams felt the request for extension should be granted subject to the time needed for their present subdivision. MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Approval of a six month extension of time. Request for approval of "Move-In" - Garage - 238 Kearney Associate Planner Manganelli noted the location of the proposed move-in which he stated will be an 18' x 20' garage which will be moved from 670 Broadway to 238 Kearney Street. He submitted a plot plan noting the proposed location of the structure. It will abut a rear property line which separates the residential zone from the commercial property fronting on Third Avenue. The staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed by the Director of Building and Housing. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Recommend to the City Council that the structure is architecturally compatible with the area in accordance with the standards delineated in Section 8.21 of the City Code. Discussion - 211 Cypress Street A letter was read from the owner of property at 211 Cypress Street noting the two zonings on his property, R-3 and R-1. He asked that the Commission rectify this to place the R-3 zoning on the entire property. The Commission concurred that the property should not have the split zoning. MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Set the matter for hearing ~br the meeting of July 22, 1968. -ll- ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of July 15, July 22, and the special meeting of July 29, 1968. Respectfully submitted, ~,~ennie M. Fulasz ' '-"Secretary