HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/01/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
January 3, 1966
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was
held on the above date in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, at 7 P~M., with the
following members present~ Stevenson, Stewart, Vaden, Adams, and Guyer~ Absent:
Members Johnson (with previous notification) and Member Smith. Also present:
Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Terrell,
C~ty Attorney Lindberg, and Principal Engineer Harshmam
APPROVAL GF ivliNuTES
MSUC (Adams-Vaden) Minutes of December 20, 1965 be approved, as mailed~
~EZONING - PUBtlC HEARING: (Cont'd) Northwest Corner Second Avenue and Palomar Street - R-1 to R-3
D;rector of Planning Warren stated he received a request by telephone from a representa-
tive of the applicant asking the Commission to postpone this hearing until the meeting
of January 17.
MSUC (Stewart-Vaden) Hearing be postponed until the meeting of January 17, 1966.
CONDiTiONAL bSE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: D. F. Reeder 582 and 584 "F" Street -
Continuation of Professional Office Use in R-3 Zoned Duplex
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to continue to use
the existing duplex for medical offices.
Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent la~d
use and zoning. Me described the present parking layout of the duplex stating they
e~e providing six spaces: 2 in the garages, 2 tandem w~th these spaces, and 2 off she
alley The ordinance states they must provide 7 spaces based on the square footage
of tne duplex. Mr. Manganelli explained that the present use was a mislnterpretat,on
of the zoning ordinance which states that medical offices can go into a singie-fami!y
dwelling when abutrlng a commercial zone; this pence! does abut a commercial zone;
however, it ;s e duplex rather than a single-fam!ly structure
Als,}, one side of the duplex is vacant, and Jt has been determined that thi~ particular
o£f;:ce has never been used for a medical officeo The tandem parking presently p'oI
posed in the parking layout is not generally considered acceptable. Mr. Manganel!,
~,bm~tted a revised plot plan showing seven park,pg spaces by removing the garage or
zhe west side of the building which would be the recommendation of the staff. :rase
~p~ces, he added, could be partially screened by some form of !andscaping
Member Guyer questioned whether Lhere was sufficient turn-around area. M
.r,d cated that they had 25 feet here which is ample.
C!a rmeq Steve::~o~ asked if parking on the west side wobld neces~;itate a ;gn out
fror~ direc~i?g patients to this area. Mr. ManganelJi remarkeo chat a ~maJl sig~
would do it; th~ there is a sign in front now which does not detract from the
~ ~ec~or of Pi~, ,rg Warren commented on the landscaping sLati.':g ~t would only soften
~;e e~fec~ o: ~e pa,'kin9 area and not entirely screen the cars from ire front Ne
~r,:~e of an alternate plan whereby one car could be parked at the sot[beast corner of
he ~!diri9 ~qd six or~ the west side~
~:i~b; being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. W A~ Reavle, real estate broker, living at 4201Bon[ta Road, stated he sold this
same property to a Dr~ Goodman four years ago for medical office use. Last February,
tr!s doctor moved out and Mr. Reeder bought it in good faith. Because of this, he
asked the Commlss[on to grant this variance, in all fairness, to the applicant.
Mr~ 0~ Reeder, the applicant, stated he would prefer not to go to the expense of re-
~oving the garage on the west side of the building for parking area~ He just
recently went to some expense to f~x and paint the buildlng~ At present, his in-
rent,or is to use both sides of the duplex for office use, but as his applJcatlon
states, he would like to reserve the right to use one side for residential in case
he cannot get a renter for this space~
~here being no further comment, e~ther for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Adams commented that he had no objection to this use. The property backs up
to commercial and this would serve as a good buffer between that and resldentlaJ~
The only problem, Member Adams continued, was the best arrangement for the parking
erea~ Also, he felt there should not be any mixed uses for the duplex - ~f the Com-
mission grants this use permit for professional offices, then no resldent[al use
should be allowed.
?~'ce-Ehairman Stewart agreed, adding that the use was compatible Jn this area~ and the
difference in income the applicant will be receiving leasing this for office use in-
~te~d of residential should justify some renovation of the property to provide seven
parking spaces~ Member Adams commented that the tandem parking was not good.
D~rector Warren discussed the applicants plan for parking indicating the two doctor~
co~ld park in the garages and the other spaces reserved for patients~
Member Vaden sa~d he felt if this was worth anything ~t all, it should be worth doing
it right -- it would make a more attractive and desirable parking area by following
the ~taff's recorflme~dation.
MS~E ~ade~-Guyer) Conditional use permit be appr.~ved subject to the followfng
co,~d:~ons:
l. ]m,~ parking p~an be developed in substantial conformance with the plan ~ubmitted
by the staff with seven (7) spaces.
Garage on the west side of the duplex to be removed to provide for thJs parking
layout~
Lamdscaping to be provided and maintained at the f~ont of the property; this is
co be approved by the Director of Plamn[ng.
4, ~e~king space within the front ~etback area ~s approved.
5, ~:e dupiex is to be used e~ther for professional offices alone or for residenti~i
purposes alone; no mixed use~
F~d~g~ ~ as follows:
~h.~t the granting of the cond tional use pe'mit wiii not be materially detrime~t~l
thc public health, safety or welfare. None of the factors dellneated in the ordinar~ce
wob~d be significantly present.
12-
The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the types of
u e permitted in the surroundi*g areas~ There is a hospital across the street, ~nd
th use has prevailed for the past four years. 'fha zoning ordinance aJlows
physici~ office:~ in an R-I o~ R-2 ~ot (automatically permitting it in R-3 zone)
whe?e the side of ~uch lot abdtF a commercial zor~e~ provided such use i~ con-
ducted within a one-family dwe!] ]ng a~d the re~dert[a] character of ~uch dwel
~ ~o~ charged
VAR ,~u~. - PLdZ:C ~EAR]NG: ~Pomas A Davies 385 F,~rst Aveque Request to 3p1 t Lot
r~to Four Parcel~ a~d Provide Frontage on Easement For ~hree of ~hem
~he application wa~ read ~n which a reque:t wa made to ~pi~t a lot having 44,988
~qua'e feet ~nto four parcel~, three of wh,[ch would have frontage on a 25 foc)t ea~e-
A ~oc ate P~arner Manganell ~ubmltted a plot plan of the a[ea noting that the
rou"d~ng ]ot~ are large ]ot~ and 7000 ~quare F~ot lots to the ~o~th~ He P~wed the
-~ppl;can~t proposal and commented that the staff =,gree: tP~t nme form of lot
~hould be perm tted, but not nece ~ar~]y as propo~ed by the app~:~cart Mr. Manga~e ~
~F, er, submitted the ~taff~ alternatives - 6 d~fferert sugget-t~on~, du$cus~,ng each
The ~taff~s recom~ndatioo would be Pla~ '~C*' wi ~ the ea:ememt o~ the south s~de of
t~e p~operty with two lots ;rotating o~'~ F~s~ Avenue and one ]ct ~n the r~a~ P~a~ '~E~
wguld also work well - ~plitt e]g the lot ~r. to three pa~cei~ one frontir:g o~, F
Avenue and the other two served by a 25 foot ea~ememt to the north~
C~a rma~ Stevenson questioned whether the Comm [:,~o~ had the authority in
tP ': ici spl;t to deEermine how the parcel: were to be ~d out. D~rector W~.rre~
elated that the Commission can ~mpose any cond~tion~ on a variance which t~ey fee,
TP~ being the time and place a~ advertised, the publ c hear['~g wa& op~ned
~he applzc~[, Mr~ ~homa~ Davies, stated he prefer~ P~a~ "f~ of the staff~ p~opo~~
wh ch ~plits the lot into four parcei~, two of which fret ori First Avenue ~md the
ot~e- ~wo served by a 20 foot easement on the ~outP of the property Ne : w ~
to erne-d hi~ propo~al~ since he plan~ t~ build o~ *he rear of the iot and car
cre~:e the '~quare footage of the lot~ f~o~ting o~ f.r t Ave~ue by decrea~ ,~g P : ,~w-
31rector War~en cautioned t~at the Comm:, ~o~ h,o~ld al o co~ der the ~umber 9C
~ re: de~tial zone with omewhst ~+rger lot [ham 7000 ~quare feet; tk~e
dave )pad at max(mum density were b'~der ~tar~dard ruud vi ;o~ prov~¢ or~ [c)r t~,
'~;a o*', the staff would recomme:,d the Commi: or cone~de~' a ~hree lot pit ,'~
of f-)u¢. M~ Warren df cu-: ed the f r~t lot fror~t rg oF F,~:~ Avenue ~ot~r,9
:~er~ ~:. 15 ;)ct setback here ~md th~5 alo-e would t~ke ~ g~eo[ deal of a'(
from th,, lot ¢: a~y eveqt, perhap, a m~nimum 100 foot depth ~Ouid be
lot th~ ~ part;ou]ar IcL
'~o e vppo ~n9 the lot 5p~[t, as propo~ed, were: d'or L*~ ~, ~7~ ~ '-[ A,.,e'~e,
pre4 ~te the value of thee ¢ properf~es, (2;~ -,¢~'~ge ~t ~, the ~e g~:b:)rrood 8000
:,2 0,000 qudr6 feet, (3) four horne~ or one 13[ wou d b' -9 ~,' ~ ncome
t~( , -ct ,' keeping with the neighborhood, (4, ~,o~ ] ~r b~ )ppo:,ed to -F, ~t:
( ~- ; ~- i'¢, 'Fee I}% couJd turn i-to i~ul~,F (-;. ~ ly ue ~9) oppo ~[ o~' t:, t~
e~emc'~t Or the south s~de of the lot becau:~e it would be too close to the house
~jrder~g th~ side of the properLy~
M D L , ~oodberg, contractor, ~;tated he was not d~rectly involved with this request
-ce he does not 1;ye ]n this neighborhood, but spoke on the differe-,t plans racom-
ma',add by the staff scaling Plar~ '~A'i with the easement run~i~g through the middle of
[he p'operty ha~ beer: do~e many t~mes [p the C;ty and n BO~[La; these lots do ~ot
c~¢~te e~y prDbiem ~t would be his opinion, ba~ed on hi~ past expe~ience, that tKi~:
FI-~ would be the mosL acceptable
Mr Day,es commented that he was quite concerned about the objecL,ons of h,~ immediate
~e~ghhors LO the north and south, and ~f Plan "A" ;s acceptable to them, he w;ll be
w, li~g to adopt th!~ propo=ai The one co-cern he has or~ this, he added, would be
?e fact that some of the old and v~luable trees on the premises would have to be
removed
Cha;rman Steven~o~ asked the appiica~t if he wou~d i~ke e cortinuance on th~s
M. uaz~es stated he would D~rector Warren indicated that ~he start would i:ke to
meet with the applicant pr,or to the next meeting to discuss the proposal~
MSbC (Stewart-Adams) Hearing be continued untii the meeting of ~anuary 17, ,966,
order chat the applicant ca~ meet with the staff to consider a revi~ed lot
L,ty Attorney Lindberg stated the hearing will be .eopened at the next meeting,
anyone wishing to offer his comments on the revised Jot spi~t may do so
(toni'd) PbBLIC ~EARING:: Amendme c ~o Zor=~r:g Ord~r~ance - Pol~ticai Sign::
£,ty ALLot-ay cindberg ~tated tre comments he made at the last meeting ~till
-egardlng Lhis proposed ordiea~ce co~cerni~g the uncon~tiLutfoma!:Ly and out*~gh:
prohibit~oq of ~,gr, s ~ residential areas. He me~t;;o-ed the case pena;,r'g before
the C ty of San ~ego and remarked that one of the £ounc~Jmen there requested
£ t¥ A~to~ey to prepare a political sign ord[~o~ce LO contro! and prohibit
~igr~ from the residential areas ]hat City Attor-ey'~ off;ce was giver the z~k of
coming up wic~i a~ opinion as to the constitutio-olity of a poiiticai s,gn ordn~rce
~' .~doerg stated that Mr. ~uLier, C ty Atto~r'ey ~o. z~-D,ego, w~li be a
~ ~r befo'e that C;~y Cod,ocli ,n the next day o' rw~, ,,"d hC would agai(, ke
a continuan£e of th~ m~ter So ~hat betwee-, the off ce of *he C,cy Attorrey
za~ D:ego ~'d ~imself, they cou!o come up with a- ordJr, a*¢e tnaz would be i,,,~able
~ far as controlling aesthet CS !n re~;dential ~re~ and Co~¢t,tuL~Or'=* ]be
,,mmediate opinio~ of the City Attorney ~2 Sa'=: Oego ~ that ~ucr a cor, t'ol ~- aP
rrr, gemeqt upon the rights of ar~ i,~dividuaJ gu~r:r:eed u-der t~e ?i-:t Amer~dme~T
t~,rma~ Steve~!son commenLed thac the proposed ordinance e- dev!~ed by the
d~c~ not so much re~Lrict $ign~ from re~identia! zone~ ~- Jt ~pe~]~ out what ~
per.on mu~t do im order Lo put One up
D rector Warre~ :rated :he SL~f~ is wi ! ! !r~g ~o (on~ ~o~r whatever coolpromise
'e¢~ :dry for Zh~ proposed ordinance, ~r:d added that ,f tP - wa LO be proper y
'e ulved that perhapz ~ coFfe'e-:ce xhouJd b6 held o, it ~ there i~ bourd to be
a',e p~ osophic~l d;ffere~ce> that cai~, better he re¢,)tved ' sn ]r~formol m~ct g
M~L ,~tewo¢:-V~den~ hearing be coFL:nued u,'[it the meeting or January 17~ ~:966
-4-
~'~d Commi~:; o~ to study a possibie name change of Orange Street becau_.e of the po~ibie
co*fi ct with 0range Avenue n the ~outhern portion of the City~
~ector Warren questioned whether there was a need for a public hearing on thi~
~tte~ C~y Attorney Lir~dberg declared thet the people Jiving on th~s s~re~t should
be give' the opportd~ty to view the}r opinions on it~ Mr: Warren agreed, ~nd~cat[~g
that b~¢ed on pas~ experience on street name changes, lc is desirable to have
p~bl c hear~ng,
Membe~ Adam~ remarked that the Council will h~ve to hold a public hearing o~ ~he
m~t~er, and the Comm:s~on, could discuss th,; ~tler tonight, and seed e recommenda-
t~or. to the Couoc~l lh~s way, only one pub]4c hearing need be held on; th~ metter
[~ ,man Stevem~on felt the Comm~ss~o~"~ recommendation should be guided by commen[~
fr~m the people living ;~ th~s a~ea
M.~uC S{ewart-Vaden) Re~,oiut~or~ of the [ ty Pie~n~'~g Corniness or' S[at'ng The r
R~SOL~N NO. 392 ~nte~t ~o Hold a Public Hea~ rg o~ ~an~r~ 17, ~966 to
Cons ,der a C~ange o~ Name for Orange StreeL
,2:'ector of Plann[~9 Warrer discussed the ~taff report sent to each of the
he tared that thi> proposed extension first came about as a result of a recomme'd~-
t, ;~ by cheChamber of Commerce He noted or~ the map the area being d,~zcu~ed
w~juld be the end of First Aveque where lc '
,nte ~ec:: w~th "D" Street to
A./a-.~e. The area ~nvolvad [~ presertly undeveloped Mr~ W~rren noted the rou~e
the proposed ~outh B~y Freeway~ and what ~.~ proposed for Lh~. area on the
~e'e.a~ Plan ~ ~atter was ~efarred to the Plan-~ng Commission by t~e
Eoun¢~l ef~er h~ar,ng a report from ~he Engineer,ag D~v s~on. On the Genera~
'~a~r Freeway to Freeway ~nterchange wou~d be ~arved by EdgamCre~
~ -ac~or Warren then no,ad two a] gnme~ts for a proposed extam on of r r t Ave
~'A' end 'B'), bot~. ~i~gnment~ :t~t.~g ~t the ~.~ersect~-~ of "D" S~e~ ~'d
'ter+ect ng with Ldgemere Ave,'ue and acro:~ to 30th Street 'he are~, to be ~ervea
ke c-;~[~qued, ~ n a flood
Hembe~ Vad~r~ que~t~o~ed whether or not we should ,now be try ng to establ ~h
alig~me"t or whether we thouid we t ant~ xpec f,c deve!opme~t :s pr}po:ad
qu red whethe, or rot the aJ,;gnment of the channel a~ ~how': wa~ ae propo-ed by
A~my Corp~ of Eng~neer~,
Mr Wafter ~?d,cated thac whe~ever po ~;ble, =,I ~9nme'~t~ of future ' +¢
e:~b~;hed before de~ze~opment [ p~aed ~,' deta ], : i~ce ]t car be of be,'.e'~[ to
both de~eloper a~d Lhe City~ :n adder;om, the al gnmeqt- shown are schematic, but
M' We:'re' toted t~a[ Pier "A'~ ~oul~ cut off por~ on~ of -ome of the p~opert
a d ,em~rke, d t. hst ~Ja- '~B~ ~ p~c:ferred~ because t would sever fewer
] cu ed t~e co~t ~r~y~ ~ of the project t,:t ~,g th,a[ F!~' ~' w)uld co~:t
t~u~e:rd dollar, m.~'e than FIe~ '~A',
~e~e- Vader commeqted that the Comm]~ ~,' 't p-m~y object,ye ~ pi~,:~,-9 ~
':,t ~,-:: ,'ecommend Flan '"A'~ a~though cheaper, ~f Pi~' "-' wouJd better >(',/e t~
The Commissio!~ discussed possible floodlng in this area. Mr, Warren stated it might
be p~ible to develop Plan '~B" in some form of dike manner; at any rate, some form
of ~lood protection is necessary before extensive development in this area occur~
Mr wil~!am Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated they feel this is largely a local
be'~it ih view of the limiited access to the Freeway, and First Avenue would be
M'. Peter De~;raaf, 665 De! Mar Aven~e, stated he owns property in th~s area and
~vor; the extension because it would (1) be of great benefit to the City; (2) the
are~ needs t~ be developed, and the type of development ~eeds to be determined, (3)
t~ ~atter of access has a great deal to do w~th the type of development that will
go i~ here ~e felt Pla~ "B" wa~ preferable over Plan "A" since '~A" "butchered'
toe many pieces of property. Mr. beGraaf declared, however, that before any align-
memt or extension is made, ic i~ quite necessary for the C~ty to obtain the ~ecessary
r~g~t-of-way for that section starting at the inter~ection of '~D'~ Street and meeting
the section (40' strip to the north) dedicated, but ~:ot improved, T~e [~ty ;hound
acquire at least a 30~ easement up to this strip, Mr.. OeGraaf emphasized, ~t~t~qg
thi~ ~ a critical point.
Director Warren said he questioned whether thi~ had any bearing on the recommeoaet~on
the £~mmi~sion would make to the Council. It would have a defimite ultimate develop-
mer, t of the area, but i~ not n, eces~arily related to a Commisslo~ recommendat~or; con-
cerning a!ignment
]he iaundation of the area was ~iscussed. Mr DeGraaf ~tated the WeSL side o~
Edgemere was flooded during th~s last rair~, however, the east side - under
tonight - was not. He stated h~ ow's approximately 70 acres of this
Mr. W~ R Mueller, 395 First Aven~e, opposed any extension of F~rst Avenue stati"g
the ~treet now runs only as far south as the Cou~try Club ~nd stops there. ~he'e
many expehsive homes on First Avenue and this is nme ~ea~o~ why a ~eewav ;kould~ t
be made out of thi~ street~ He ~uggested Hilltop D~ive be extended instead
~t goes through
D:'ec(or ~en expia~ned that at th~s ~ me, the steff ig "or advocati~9 the ex
~e',~on of First Avenue. The C~y Council wishe¢ to consfder i~ ~nd hes a~kea the
P,a~,r!~9 CommOn,lion to s~udy the proper al~gqmen:: should F:[rs~ Avenue be exte3~ed
Hr~ Hae!jer discussed the ~opography of that area ar, d re[t access from Edgemere
~ rector ~arren ~formed the £ommJssion that they mutt do ohe of four tk;ngs'
il) table it and do hothJng; (2) se!"~d it back to the st~ff for further study,
'ecomme~d Plan ~AH or (~) recommend Plen "~" to the
Hr J Hye'~, 367 First Avenue, noted tka[ ~hi~ ~me request Wg~ broug't bp
yeses ~9o a~d at that ~ime~ the peopJe gtro,:9~y objected the C;ty Cou'c~i co'-
~ DeGro~r ~ted he -emember~ thi~ as ,t took piece in i~, howeve~ ii-: ,927,
-- rr~ ~' J oc~z~gd tge feasibiiii~y of both PJ~s ~nd (:o,cu~,red tha~ P]~ ~'~
M~uC i~d~ms-Vade~) Recommend to City Council that Plan 'lB~' be adopted; that the ~taff
report be forwarded Lo the City
V ce-[h~-m:~, Stewart brought up the subject of acquiring the necessary ~ight-of-way
ard fei[ tk;~ should be ;nc!uded in the motion~
Membe, Ad~,~ stated he would i~c!ude this in h~ motion,
REPOR~ OF F!ND~NGS: J, McKinoey - Fourth Avenue and '1~" Street (Southeast Cor-,er)
R-3toC-1
O;rector of Pl=nn~ng Warren b¢!eFIy reviewed the report in which the
de~ied a rezontr!g request from R-3 (multipie-famiiy} to C-1 (light commerc;~l) for
the ~out~a~t corner of Fourth Aveque ~nd '~H~' Street,, The applicant proposes Lo have
. ~ervice ~t~tion built on this site
MS~C (Guyed-Adams) Approval of the Report of
ADJObRNM£N~
MS;£ (Vade~-Adams Meeting be adjourned to January 17, i966~
Sa'~ D!ego County Pia~ning £ocgress Meeting
D;'ecto~ Warren qoted the dipper meeting to be held on Friday, ~a~uary 14, ~966,
the 2a Costa Cou~try Club and urged each member to attend, if possible~
Respectfully submitted,
>ecretory