Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/03/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 20, 1967 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date with the following members present: Stewart, Gregson, Rice and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) York, Hyde, and Adams. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Masciarelli, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours as prescribed by law the order for the adjourned meeting of March 6, 1967. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of the minutes of March 6, 1967, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) - Proposed Ordinances Establishing C-V Zone and the Addition of Special Provisions to Existing Commercial Zones Director of Planning Warren stated that in v~ew of the number of Commis- sioners absent tonight, he would suggest that action of this matter be continued so that a recommendation from a full Commission could be given to the Council. Mr. Warren indicated that he would be out of town on April 3, the next scheduled meeting. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Public hearing be continued until the neeting of April 17. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Rezonlng from C-2 and R-1 to R-3, Property at 365 K Street - Dorothy J. Laubmayer The application was read in which a request was made for a rezoning from C-2 and R-1 to R-3 for the purpose of constructing an apartment complex. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the C-2 zoning is on the front portion of the property and the R-1 zoning exists on the rear~ Garrett Avenue, a stub street, abuts this property and the City has a one-foot lot here; the City Council would have to make a determination if this is to be used for access. Mr. Warren commented that 15 feet is customary for a front setback attached to R-3 zoning, and this ~s what the applicant wlll be observing. He added that if the Commission feels this is a reasonable request, the staff would suggest imposing the "D" zone in order that th~s development would be compatible with the adjacent s~ngle-fam~ly residential area; the Commission would have architectural and site plan revlew~ Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the'hearing was declared A closed~ Mr Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that if they were asked to give a recommendation for releasing the one-foot strip at the end of Garrett Avenue, they would recommend that access not be g~ven for ad3acent R-3 use. Mr. Gesley also discussed the need for a designated trash area, remarking ~hat in some cases one and possible two parking spaces are used for the storage of these bins, etc~ Director Warren discussed the need for a cul-de-sac at the end of Gar- rett Avenue and the degree to which the Commission could impose any conditions concerning lt. He declared that it was probable that they would be faced with a dead-end street because of the resultant zoning pa~tern which was not earlier anticipated. Th~s request represents a compromise to the City instead of C-2; R-3 ~s a good way to clean up the area and w~th the supplemental "D" zone~ the developmen~ could be compatlble wlth the adjacent area. Chairman Stewart noted the non-conforming uses that have been in the area for a number of years. He then declared that ~f the Commission approves this request, they should be assured that a trash area would be adequately provided so ~t would not consume required parking spaces. Member Gregson asked ~f there were a possibility of Garrett ever going through to the south~ ~ Mr. Warren noted this would be infeasible s~nce the necessary alignment would involve approximately two-f~fths of separately owned property still zoned C-2 fronting on "K" Street. There would be no purpose in doing this ~f a t~rn-around could be provided at the southerly end of Garrett. Mr. Jack Mestler, 637 Brightwood Avenue, spoke of the property he owns in this area adjacent to th~s proposed development sta~lng he purchased the property when ~t was zoned M-1. A short time after that, he went to Texas, and while he was away, the property was rezoned R-I~ When he returned, he had ~t rezoned to C-2. At one time, he attempted to develop apartments here, and lending ~nst~tutlons t~rned him down because they felt that apartments were not sultabie ~or th~s area. Mr Steve P!ckard, representing Mrs. Laubmayer, said he felt it would be desirable to have a cul-de-sac at the end of Garrett Street, and they would construct an adequate turn-around area if the apartments could have access ~o Gannett. Director Warren declared ~hat the Commission could not make this re- quirement at %hls time; however, the Council could release the one-foot lot for access. Mr. Pickard discussed the type of development his company would be con- A structlng, which would enhance and upgrade the area. -2- MSUC {Guyer~Rice) Recommend approval of R-3-D zoning for the area and that setbacks be established at 15 feet along K Street. Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the entire "K" Street frontage be- tween Third and Fourth Avenues as medium density residential which corresponds with the R-1 zone, in making closer studies of individual areas of the City both the consultants and the staff have concluded that the General Plan and the zoning map should be altered to reflect a high density residential (R-3) classificat!on in this area~ b. The present non-conforming industrial uses and commercial and indus- %rial zoning in the area are illogical and ill-suited to the sur- rounding neighborhood. These uses should eventually be relocated in proper areas and replaced with residential uses° c. The Planning Commission recently approved an extension of time for a previously approved apartment project on the south side of "K" Street in this area. Consideration of Tentative Map of Mestler Manor Mi Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map explaining that this proposed subdivision comprised of 5 acres is located at the south- west corner of Fourth Avenue and Kearney Street and will be subdivided into 23 R-1 lots~ The area has been used for agriculture~ Mr. Warren then presented the recommendations of the staff for approval. Mr~ Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that this subdivision was unique and that it was the recommendation of Engineering that it be approved. He declared that they had several conditions which the de- veloper has already resolved~ Mr. Gesley then discussed the recommenda- tion of the Planning staff ~n regard to temporary cul-de-sacs being con- structed within the right-of-way at the ends of Fig and Guava Avenue. He stated it would be their recommendation that temporary cul-de-sacs no% be put in; Garrett Avenue will be extended through someday and the Engineering Division is reluctant to see permlss~on granted for a tem- porary cul-de-sac and then have to have this torn up to put in a perma- nent street. As for constructing this in the right-of-way, they feel it would not glve the proper turn-around radius Chairman Stewart noted this area does adjoin a school and even though a school lends itself to R-1 use, it is sometimes not the most desirable use for the area. He would like to see the temporary cul-de-sacs put in because 1% ~s possible that the same type of subdivision may not result ~outh of here. Mr. James Craig, Clvll Engineer for the project, stated it was their understanding that the property to the south of this would someday be developed into residential lots since it was zoned R-l, and that for this reason~ the extension of the street would have to be made to K Street; that is why they did not turn in their plans with the temporary cul-de- sacs. Mr. Warren stated this was primarily the reason that the staff was re- questing temporary instead of permanent cul-de-sacs. --3-- Mr Craig commented that in other areas in the County, the need for a temporary cul-de-sac is based on the number of lots which w~i1 be front- lng on it. The Commission held a d~scussion on th~s aspect and Member Guyer suggested the condition be deleted, as recommended by the D~vislon of Engineerlng~ MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Recommend approval of tentative map sub3ect %o the following condltions~ l~ The specific type of plant material for slope planting shall be approved by the Director of Planning. 2. The slopes facing Kearney Street shall be established, ~f feasible, ~n a manne~ that will allow fences ~o be placed at the top of the slope while st~ll adhering to the 10 foot side yards~ PUBLIC HEARING - Request by G & R Company for Variance at 290 "I" Street Red~ction in Rear Yard SEtback from 15~ to 0' - C-1 Zone The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction ~n rear yard setback ~rom 15' to 0~ to allow a mo~e flexible site develop- ment and to bet%er facilitate additional off-street pa~k~ng for a pro- posed convenience g~ocery market and another business which would be permItted in Lhls zone. Director ef Planning submitted a plot plan noting the area and adjacent land use. He stated that the applicant will be constructing a 7-Eleven market three feet from the rear property l~ne which ~s the s~de lot line of the southerly abutting parcel. This southerly lot ~s ~mproved with a dental of~ce on the front port~on and multiple dwelling units to the rear; a 40 foot driveway separates these bulld~ngs from th~s particular property. Mr. Warren commented that the Commission can gran5 the reduc- tion of setback ~or the plan submitted, or for the entire length which will take care o~ future expanslon~ In v~ewlng this site, Mr~ Warren continued, there are several things that came to the minds of the staff and they are suggesting f~ve ~tems for Commission consIderation. Mr. Warren then enumerated these conditions. Member R~ce remarked that the parking plan looked i~ke poor layout, and he suggested a center driveway whereby parking could be on both s~des - east and west Director Warren commented ~hat there was a number of ways that it could De done; however, as proposed, a dead-end effec5 is el~minated~ Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr Don Smith, architect ~or Speedee-Mart, and representing G & R prop- erties, discussed the proposed pro3ect~ stating it was Lyp~cal of a Speedee-Mart development and d~scussed the parking layout. As for the condition for a sprinkler system in the parkway, Mr. Smith ~ndlcated -4- they were under no obligation to put this in on City property~ He ques- tioned the purpose of it and felt it would be superfluous because of the small amount of landscaping involved for which they could use a bib hose. Chairman Stewart commented that thls sprinkler system condition has been imposed ~n several parkways and felt it was a reasonable request. Director Warren stated that there was a problem involved here~ s~nce apparently there will ultimately be some form of drainage structure con- structed by the City in the parkway. Normally, we have been requesting that parkways be paved and tree wells be left. In commercial zones, any type of landscaped areas are difficult to get the owner to maintain, and it is a sure bet that unless there is a sprinkler systemf the owner will not do it? Th~s condition is not unusual as the applicant must maintain %his area anyway. Mr. Smith reiterated that he would just like to have a b~b hose which would be on their property. Mr. Gesley, ~n answer to the Commission's inquiry, stated they have no time schedule on th~s drainage construction. Mr. Smith declared that they are writing this condition ~nto their fran- chise agreement - to have these people take care of all landscaped areas on the property. Member Rice spoke ~n favor of the sprinkler system. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the requirement of either paving or landscaping the parkway, and concurred that the area should be paved, to which Mr. Smith agreed. MSUC (Gregson-Rlce) Approval of variance subject to the following condi- tions: 1. The palm tree located at the northwest corner of the property shall be retained in a 5' x 20' planter. 2. The parkway in front of the property shall be paved with concrete, the specifications of which shall be sub3ect to approval by the City Engineer. 3. All landscaped areas shall be provided with a sprinkler system and landscaping plans shall be approved by the Dlrector of Planning. 4~ Trash areas shall be screened by a method approved by the Dlrector of Planning. 5. All other improvements shall be provided as shown on the submitted plot plan. -5- Findings be as follows: a~ That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships incon- sistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations, The imposition of the 15 foot rear yard requirement would only result in creating an unusable rear area when it could be better used in the front of the property for parking and ma- neuverability. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the prop- erty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or nelghborhood~ The rear of the sub3ect property abuts the side yard of C-1 zoned land. This abutting parcei could be developed to the property lane if the existing structures were removed and the subject property should have the same pr~vllege~ 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. Since the present improvements on the abutslng property af- fected are separated from the subject property by a 40 foot driveway, this proposal would not be a detriment to this abutting lot. do That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the General Plan. The goals of the General Plan would not be affected by appro- val of this request, PUBLIC HEARING Request by Shell Oil Company for Variance at the South- east Corner of Bonita Road and the Proposed Bonita Glen Drive Reduction in Setback and Increase in Sign Area Limitations Director of Planning Warren stated a request was received from the appli- cant to continue this ~tem to the next meeting. MSUC (Guyer-Rlce) Public hearing be continued until the meeting of April 3, 1967. Request for Approval of Temporary Revision of Parking Plan for St. Mark's Lutheran Church Member Gregson stated he was a member of the church and should be excused from the discussion~ -6- Chairman Stewart noted that without Member Gregson's vote, they would not have a ma3o~aty vote and cannot discuss the assue. He felt that a conflict of interest would be whereby a member would have something financially to gain, one way or another, on the request. In this case, Member Gregson as merely a member of the church. If this issue is con- tested, the applicant can come back and the Commission can hear it again Dlrector of Planning Warren explained the matter, noting that a condi- tional use permit had been approved by the Commassion and the Council for an addition of this church. A plot plan was specifically approved by the Commissaon that called for a partacular parking plan, After the final grading was accomplished, it was determined that there was an underground powerline going to the home to the west of this site which made further gradang impossible and at would eliminate four spaces. The applicants have now submitted a revised plan in which they picked up all but one parking space. Mr. War~en admitted thas was a problem and the ultimate solution would be to remove the line; however, it appears that they cannot do so right now and the new addition to the church as ready to be used. The staff recommends that they be allowed to use this temporary revision for a period of 6 months Chaarman Stewart agreed that thas was a reasonable request. Member Gregson said the Pastor was aware of the time limit. It was noted that the Rev, £auren Egdahl was present Chairman Stewart andicated that they could come back to the Commassion and ask for an extension should they be in the midst of any legal pro- ceedings at that time. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of the submitted plan for the temporarily revised parking layout with one less parking stall due to the primary power line in conduit that runs across the lot to the residence west of this area~ The approval is for a period of 6 months to provide adequate time for the line to be removed and the parkang area to be paved as oraginally planned. Request ~or Clar~facation of Conditaons of Variance Granted to Paul Hook at 125 Corte Maraa Director of Plannang Warren explaaned the need for consaderation of this matter~ The oraganal varaance was g~anted to the applicant ~n February 1966 for permission to create two addItional lots whach would front on a 20 foot easement out of an exastang parcel. The Commission imposed several conditions to the approval three of which pertaan to the request: (1) access easement shall measure 20' x 305' long starting from the east side of Corte Maria; (2) this 20' easement to be offered for dedacation for future street extensaon; (3) the applicant to pave the entire length and wadth of the easement with 2" of hot-max asphaltic concrete on a prepared decomposed granite base 4" in thickness or a less base as ap- proved by the Enganeerang Davisaon, In October 1966, condition #3 was deferred and the Commassaon allowed the appiacant to put ~n a temporary pavement for a period of 3 years. The temporary pavement is an; however, -7- when it came time to sign the agreement for the street permanent improve- ment, there was a question in Mr. Hook's mind that this was what the Commission intended - that it was unfair to ask him to pave the entire length of the easement; he feels he shouldn't be held responsible for the improvements along the side of Lot #1 which is owned by another party. It was the staff's understanding at the time, that Mr. Hook dld agree to the full improvements on the one-half street for the entire length~ Mr. Warren commented that there was a question in the staff's m~nds why Mr~ Hook was willing to do this. The applicant now states that he did not understand the condition; therefore, it is back 5o the Commission to see what your intent was. Chairman Stewart asked if Mr~ Hook ever owned Lot #1. Mr. Warren said he did not. Mr. Paul Hook, the applicant, stated he signed the offer for dedication to the City for this section of street. He was under the impression that he did not have to post the $3,000 bond which the City is now re- questing; he just felt he was to pay for his share of the street when the street went through. He always felt that when the street finally goes in, then everyone pays for this share. Chairman Stewart stated that as he could recall, the final arrangement was that Mr. Hook was responsible for the street improvements. The question of requiring a bond is to assure construction. When the ap- plicant came in for a varIance, the Commission tried to provide the basic improvements for the City so that this could be resolved. Mr. Hook cla~med that this was not spelled out ~o him at that t~me. If he had known at that time, he would not have chosen Chula Vista in which to settle. Member Guyer suggested the matter be held over until such time as the City Attorney can be present so that these legal technicalities can be resolved~ The Commission concurred and also felt Mr. Adams, having been present at these previous meetings, should be present. MSUC (Guyer-Rlce) The matter be continued to the meeting of April 3, 1967, in order that the City Attorney may be present. Item #5 Chairman Stewart noted that an interested party was ~n attendance and wished to be heard on item #5 -- (G & R Company - 290 "I" Street). Mrs. Jean Campbell, 415 Carvalos Dr~ve, s~ated she owns property at 287 "I" Street and did not receive a notice of the proposed request, nor was she given an opportunity to speak~ Director Warren explained that the notice was addressed to the "I" Street address, which was the record the City Clerk had of this property, and returned by the Post Office. Mrs~ Campbell declared that, had she received this notice, she would have canvassed the neighborhood and asked the people how they felt about having a grocery store ~n this location. -8- Chairman Stewart remarked that this was not the request - the request was for a reduction of setback. The land use is established by law and the grocery store is a permitted use. Director Warren commented that if Mrs. Campbell feels she was not prop- erly notified, the Commission could call a new hearing, or she has the right of appeal to the City Council. Chairman Stewart explained the appeal procedure to Mrs. Campbell, and she said she would consider th~s. Request for Modification of Conditions of Conditional Use Permit Granted for Car Wash at Northeast Corner of Broadway and K Street Director of Planning Warren explained that the original conditional use permit was granted in November 1964 for a car wash and related service and repair facIlities. The original plan called for a series of stalls on the easterly property line for car tune-ups and repair. The Commis- sion required that the applicants construct an 8' high masonry wall along this easterly property wall~ It was the staff's oplnion that this was meant for a buffer for the noise from these stalls, since it would be a semi-open use° Mr. Warren added that they are now ready to go ahead with the car wash with the or~glnal plan except for the construc- tion of these stalls - a parking area is proposed for that area now~ For this reason, they would like to go back to the 6' high wall~ The staff would recommend that this be granted with two condItions which Mr. Warren explained~ Mr. Darrell Fields, representing the applicants, declared he had nothing to add since the Director explained it qu~te thoroughly~ MSUC (Rlce-Gregson) Approval of request subject to the following condi- tions: !. The entire site shall be paved wlth 2" A.C. over 2" D.G. 2. The area abutting the easterly property l~ne shall be striped for employee and customer parking. To be Set for Public Hearing - Specific Plan Line for Portion of "H" Street West of Otay Lakes Road Director of Planning Warren indicated that there was some emergency for this hearing. He declared that the Engineering Division has done most of the work on this project and suggested that the hearing be held on April 3. MSUC (Rlce-Guyer) Public Hearing be set for April 3, 1967. -9- Request by San Diego County Horsemen's Association for Endorsement of San Diego's Plan for Trails Director of Planning Warren discussed the proposed request~ A booklet entitled: "Trails for San Diego" has been submitted to the Commission which involves a system of bicycle, hiking, and equestrian trails for an area involving much of the County. This has been adopted by the San Diego Planning Commission, but has not yet been acted upon by their City Council. The Council received a request from the San Diego County Horsemen's Association for an endorsement of a specific extension of a riding and hiking trail west of Interstate 5, to the ocean. In d~scus- sing th~s with a representative of the San Diego C~ty Planning Depart- ment, they indicate that on the surface, this proposal is laudable but that it could involve complications in crossing Interstate 5, the chan- nel, and the slough area and they are reluctant to endorse the project. As far as the horse trails are concerned, San D~ego would have juris- diction only over those trails within their Clty~ but they are coordi- nating with other cities to assure continuity for the complete network. Mr. Warren added that the staff hasn't had the opportunity to prepare maps on this but th~s report would be adaptable to the City's Planning area, and while the staff believes the Commission should not go on record as supporting the Horsemen's Association specific request, a recommendation to the City Council and Parks and Recreation CommissIon of the endorsement of the basic Plan would be beneficial to the City of San Diego and the Horsemen's Assoc~ation~ The Commission and staff discussed the fact that while many of the trails involved are within our Planning area, few are within our City at present~ Mr. Warren felt it was difficult to present th~s to the Commission in this manner since they cannot understand th~s proposal fully. Chair- man Stewart believed the Plan is not so precise at this tame that the Commission need be concerned with mechanics of implementation at th~s time. He added that the Parks and Recreation Commission should be the one to study th~s and come up with a recommendation to the Plan- ning Comm~ssion~ He further added that the D~rector's suggestlon in the staff's comments was the only stand they can take at this time. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Recommend to the Parks and Recreation CommIssion the following: The Commission declines endorsement of any specific trail extensions at this time because there is not enough information available w~th which to make a determination. While the proposal to extend this trail to the ocean may seem laudable, the feasibility of crossing the free- way and possibly a flood channel has not been determined. The Planning Commission finds the basic Plan acceptable and desirable to our C~ty and requests the City Council to pledge their support in ~arry~ng out the Plan as detailed analys~s determines feasibility. -10- Recommendation - Proposed Ordinance Regulating Bu~ld±ng Relocation Director of Planning Warren explained that this proposed ordinance is an amendment to the City Code proposed by Administration Office which would require that all buildings to be relocated in the City be subject to architectural review by the Planning Commission, This matter was primarily brought abou5 by a request to move a building into the City which was to be attached to another building; it ~urned out to be rather complicated and undesirable and the Administrative staff felt that these matters should now go to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Mr. Warren felt there might be some merit to this proposal, adding that any procedure which would assure a better product should be considered. Chairman Stewart agreed, even though it would add some burden to the staff. He questioned whether these buildings were inspected by the Building Inspectors~ Mr. Warren declared that there is specific criteria spelled out in the ordinance and the Building Inspector would check this and then present it to the Commlssion~ Someone from that office would make that presentation to the Commission- Chairman Stewart questioned whether this would necessitate a public hearing. Mr, Warren said it would not - ~t would be a consideration similar to that as held for architectural consIderation; the applicant would have to be present. Member Guyer commented that he was always reluctant to see more laws passed, but th~s one would give the Commission control over these reloca- tions. Director Warren explained that the Commission would be primarily con- cerned with just the architectural aspect of this matter. The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance and agreed that no changes should be made~ MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed s~endment as written which will subject buildings proposed ~or reloca- tion to the Planning Commission ~or architectural review. San Diego Count~ Planning Congress Meeting - Ma~ch 31~ 1967 at Carlsbad Dlrecsor of Planning explained the program which w~il be a presentation by Mr. Foster of Richfield Oil on the sub3ect of service stations. He asked tha~ all members attend, if possible, Chairman Stewart asked that this matter be brought up at the workshop meeting and reservations taken then. Zoning Ordinance Review Workshop - March 22, 1967 The Commission dlscussed the workshop meeting which is tentatively scheduled ~or the Council Chambers. -11- O~L COMMUNICATIONS Member Rice asked about the lot split ordinance. He remarked that the City Attorney stated he had this ordinance and would have it available for this meeting. Director Warren indicated that the City Attorney had been discussing aspects of this ordinance with the attorney for San Diego. Mr. Lindberg informed the Planning staff that he would have his comments available almost immediately and that these comments would go out to the Commis- sion in the mail prior to the next meeting. At that time, if it suits the Commission, as written, the staff would suggest ~t be set for hearlng. ADJOU~MENT MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Meeting adjourn to the workshop meeting of March 22 1967. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. ' d~onsn&?pectfully submitted, ~e M. Fulasz, Secretary -12-