Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/06/21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 21, 1965 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7 P.M., Monday, dune 21, 1965, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Millar, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Members Stewart and Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, City Attorney Lindberg, and City Engineer Cole. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournment, as provided by law, the order of the Commission for the adjourned meeting of June 7, 1965. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Comstock) Minutes of June 7, 1965, be approved, as mailed. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Richardson & Tipton - 677-681 "F" Street and 285-293 Woodlawn Avenue - Sign Area The application was read in which a request was made for permission to erect a si9n on the corner of Woodlawn and "F" Streets measurin9 62.5 square feet. It was noted that the applicant was not in the audience. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Continue the matter until the next meetin9 so that the applicant can be present. PUBLIC HEARING: Thomas H. Bogard - 836 Wiler Drive - Area Lot Coverage and Setback Reduction The application was read in which a request was made for permission to cover 65 % of the rear yard area by erectin9 a sunshade to cover a pool and patio. A request was also made for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 3 feet to allow for enclosure of the structure. Director of Planning submitted a plot plan noting the location and the area the appllcant desires to enclose. Most of the open space on this property is in the front and side areas. The 1or to the west is considerably lower than this one. Member Comstock questioned any possible drainage problem that might occur if the structure were permitted on the 3-foot line. Director Warren explained this would be policed by the Building Inspector to see that all conditions will be met. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -1- Mr. Thomas H. Bogart, 836 Wiler Drive, the applicant, stated his reasons for wanting the area enclosed. There is a severe wind problem on this site which curtails the use of the pool area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer felt there were exceptional circumstances here. Member Comstock agreed adding this was due to the topography in the area. He indicated he would like to see something in the motion givlng the City protection for any drainage that might fall from the top of the roof to the slope. He felt the roof should be facing away from the slope. City Engineer Cole stated the eave cannot be projected over the property line, and from the plot plan shown, drainage is to the rear of the lot anyway; therefore, there would be no problem. MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Approval of variance to cover 65 % of the rear yard and for reduction of rear yard setback from 20 feet to 3 feet. Findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the ordinance which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and condltions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The rear property line is approxl- mately 90 feet horizontally from the house to the rear of the applicant's lot, and 35 feet vertically above same. The intent of the ordinance for adequate light and air will still be maintained. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. The ordinance allows 40 % maximum lot coverage. The applicant's proposal will not exceed this due to the orientation of the house on the lot. The applicant states that the wind is so sever that he cannot use the pool and patio very often, and that this enclosure will give them a much greater use of this area all year. 4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district ~n which said property is located, because the severe slope to the rear of the lot provides a much greater setback and open area than is normally found in this zone. PUBLIC HEARING - Richardson & Tipton - 677-681 "F" Street and 285-293 Woodlawn Avenue - Sign Area The applicants, having arrived at the meeting, the Commission asked that the matter now be heard. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot p~an noting the location and adjacent zoning. The proposed sign would be 5' x 12½'; the ordinance allows two separate signs that would total 32 square feet. This sign would be illuminated. Mr. Warren indicated there was some question as to justification for allowing a sign twice the size as the ordinance allows. Member Adams questioned whether the sign would be in the setback area. If this were the case, then the sign could not stand more than 3½ feet in height, unless of course, the applicant requested a variance for such. Mr. Warren indicated that no reduction of setback for a sign has been requested. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Richardson, one of the applicants, stated he understood the sign would not protrude in the setback area, but he cannot state this definitely. He explained it would be much better for them to have the one large sign at this corner, than the two smaller signs allowed by ordinance. It would be much more beneficial to the project. Woodlawn is a very lightly-traveled street and is a dead-end; therefore, they must depend on the traffic on "E" Street. In order to attract this traffic, the sign must be large enough to be seen from this street. A small sign would not serve this purpose. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock commented that in order to attract traffic from "E': Street, the proposed sign should be on "E" Street; they have more need for an off-site sign than an on-site sign, because of their location. Director Warren remarked that it has been the custom in the past, where a developer wished to use one large sign having a maximum of 32 square feet instead of two signs, he was permitted to do so. Chairman Stevenson discussed business signs whereby the signage area was based on the frontage of the business. He felt there was some merit to this. Director Warren agreed but cautioned the Commission to be careful about this. He added that based on this development, the staff will be asking that the remaining property in this area be rezoned R-3. Mr. Warren remarked further that having a large sign visible from Broadway would not be appropriate in this zone. If it ~s to be billboard size, than the sign should be on the freeway or in a proper zone. Member Millar declared he does not go for the 64 square foot sign; however, he feels that the applicant has ample reason to justify a larger sign because of his frontage. He would suggest a signage area of approximately 50 square feet. Director Warren cautioned the Commission that this was a residential use and not commercial. If the Commission desires to base the sign area on the developer's frontage, than they should change the ordinance. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Application for a 64 square foot sign be denied as no exceptional circumstances can be found, as required by ordinance, that would justify granting the variance. SUBDIVISIONS Holiday Estates - Tentative Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the map stating the area was in the process of being annexed to the C~ty. It is south of the Loma Verde School all the way to -3- Main Street and an extension of Hilltop Drive. The subdivision will contain 146 lots encompassing 38 acres; one lot in this area will be reserved for in- dustrial. The property to the east is undeveloped, part of it is being used for a dairy; to the west is the area for which a tentative map was approved for the Russell P. Haas development. Director Warren continued noting that there will be some residential lots in this subdivision backing up to the industrial lots. The subdivision is proposed in five units; unit one is satisfactory, as far as the staff is concerned. There is some question, however, as to whether the area in Unit No. 4 should be reserved for industrial use; it may in all probability involve a different street pattern. The present lots are 74 feet deep. Director Warren stated he would like to see this portion of the subdivision reserved for further study. The General Plan reserves this for ~ndustrial; however, as has been mentioned before, the General Plan does not necessarily follow the property lines. Director Warren then presented the recommendations of the staff. Member Comstock questioned the need for an east-west street through the develop- ment. Director Warren stated this was a good question since a pattern of develop- ment has been difficult to anticipate to the east. He suggested a stub street be reserved and the developer has agreed to a flexible condition whereby one lot would be reserved in either Unit 1 or 2. Member Comstock remarked he was thinking primarily of the emergency vehicles, such as fire and police cars, going down these long streets. Director Warren declared there has been no comments from the Fire Department concerning this sub- division. Mr. Warren then discussed the possibility of extending Tremont Street. City Engineer Cole d~scussed the County's plans to improve Hilltop Drive. He stated they have attempted to get the County to lower the grades on this street which they have established, by about 3½ feet, especially as it affects Orange Avenue because the grades from Hilltop down Orange drop off rather steeply. Mr. Cole added that the street was in the County, however, and all they could do would be to make suggestions. Mr. Cole then presented the recommendations of the Engineering Division. Mr. Ben Jaehn, the developer, stated time was of importance here. He will be losing 16 lots by annexing to the City instead of staying with the County, because of the County's smaller lot sizes. Member Guyer asked the developer ~f he would have any objection to holding Unit #4 off for further study. Mr. Jaehn stated he did not; however, he would appreciate the Commission's consideration for R-1 for this area. Member Comstock questioned whether the developer had any objection to putting in another street, east-west, since this would mean losing perhaps four lots in the subdivision. Mr. Jaehn remarked that he would have no objection in extending Tremont on through to Street ~'EI'; this would only cause him to lose 2 lots. Member Comstock stated he felt quite strongly about having another east-west street through this subdivision, and would also like to have some comments from the Fire Department. Director Warren indicated it would be desirable to have a stub street here, and depending on how Unit #4 developes, there may be no reason to extend Tremont through to Hilltop Drive. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of tentative map of Holiday Estates subject to the following conditions: '4- 1. Easements for street tree planting shall be provided as required to allow a minimum of 10 feet behind sidewalk. 2. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specifica- tions on file in the Planning Department. 3. Grading plans shall be submitted prior to approval of the final map. No grading shall occur until such plans have staff approval. 4. Unit No. 4 is not approved at this time. 5. The staff shall work with the developer in providing an east-west street between Hilltop Drive and Street "E". If they cannot come to any agree- ment on this, then this matter should come back to the Planning Commission. Prior to filing the final maps of Units 2 and 3, one lot in the easterly tier shall be reserved for street purposes; the specific lot to be chosen prior to submission of the final map. 6. Provide a 1 foot control lot across the end of Street "A". 7. Provide a 1 foot control lot across the end of Tremont. 8. Property line radii are not shown on Lots 14, 22, 127, 131, 140, 141 and 146. All of these radii shall be 18 feet with the exception of Lot 146, which shall be 25 feet. 9. Setback on westerly side of Lot 91 to be 10 feet. 10. Centerline radius of Tremont Street to be a minimum of 200 feet. 11. Provide temporary turn-around at south end of Street "A" unless this street pattern is revised. 12. Orange Avenue grades will be subject to future approval. 13. Hilltop Drive is proposed to be improved by the County Road Department under Road Survey 1763. If this is not accomplished prior to the development of the subdivision, the improvements on Hilltop Drive will include all of the improvements except the center 24 feet of street surfacing. 14. In addition to statement No. 1 relative to street structural section, street improvements shall be subject to conditions of City Council Resolution No. 3077. 15. All storm drains and surface run-off disposal systems shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Drainage systems shown are schematic and sizes and kinds of materials are also subject to City Engineer's approval, including drainage from Loma Verde School. 16. The area is also within the Montgomery Sanitation District and the lots fronting Hilltop Drive are subject to a sewer connection fee. Action to withdraw the area from the Montgomery Sanitation District should be com- menced upon annexation. -5- Princess Manor Unit No. 8 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the map noting the location as south of Rienstra and east of Hilltop Drive. The area contains 9½ acres and will have approximately 43 lots. Since all of the conditions imposed on the tentative map have been met, the staff would recommend approval. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Recommend approval of the final map of Princess Manor Unit #8. MISCELLANEOUS Resolution - Canceling Meeting of July 5 (Holiday) Director of Planning Warren explained the first regular meeting of the month falls on a holdiay, and the next day is a City Council meeting. The staff would suggest, therefore, that the Commission cancel their meeting and hold it on Wednesday, July 7, 1965. RESOLUTION NO. 358 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Chula Vista, California, Canceling the Regular duly, 1965 Meeting and Holding the Meeting on July 7, 1965 daehn Annexation - Staff Report on Minimum Floor Area Requirements & Land Use Director of Planning Warren explained the proposed annexation contains more than what is being subdivided, so that there will be no creation of an ~sland in the County. Mr. Warren discussed the developer's house plans for the area, and re- marked these were below the sliding scale required by Ordinance. The developer has submitted an application for variance, which will be heard at the next meeting, requesting he be allowed to construct 2 bedroom homes having a floor area of 884 square feet; 3 bedroom homes having 1144 square feet and 4 bedroom homes having 1248 square feet. To the north of this development is vacant land and will probably be developed with single-family homes. Mr. Warren commented that much of southern Chula Vista is being developed with low-priced homes. Princess Manor is building homes having 1000 to 1600 square feet. Mr. Warren added that this was just a discussion, not a public hearing. Mr. Ben Jaehn discussed his house plans and asked that the Commission note the large patio areas for each home . He asked for the Commission's feelings on his request for small-size homes. Chairman Stevenson commented that in a general way, he could say that the size of the homes were based on the surrounding area; the Commission always considered conformity in any area. Oirector Warren noted the appllcantls letter in which he requested prezoning for this annexation. He pointed out on the map the area requested for R-1 (single- family) and the area for M-1 (light industrial) and asked the Commission to set this for hearing. City Attorney Lindberg noted the area is in the Montgomery Fire District which might present some problems. Mr. C. C. Alley, realtor, representing the applicant, informed the Commission that Mr. Fred Ross, Chief Administrative Officer, was working on this problem. -6- RESOLUTION NO. 359 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Chula Vista, California, Stating Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing on July 19, 1965, for the Purpose of Prezoning the Jaehn Annexation Resolution - To Be Set for Public Hearing - Partridge Annexation - Prezoning to R-l-B-30 Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the annexation as being east of the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision at the end of Calle Mesita. It contains two parcels, and the staff would suggest R-l-B-30 zoning for the area. City Attorney Lindberg questioned whether the prezoning would be approved before the annexation becomes final. He asked that the Commission approve either rezon~ng or prezoning. RESOLUTION NO. 360 Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Vista, California, Stating Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing on July 7, 1965, for the Purpose of Prezoning the Partridge Annexation to R-l-B-30 Deferral of Public Improvements - John F. McCrory - James Court City Engineer Cole discussed the request stating the lot is 60 x 140 and is con- tiguous to James Court. The City holds a one-foot control lot and the area in front of this property has been offered for dedication. There are no improve- ments on the north half of James Court. In order to have the applicants get a building permit, they would be required to put in improvements; however, it would not be feasible for them to put in the improvements at this time, since it would cause a drainage problem. As far as the Engineering Division is concerned, they have no objection to the request for deferral of these improvements. Mr. Cole commented that there will probably be a series of these requests to come for this a rea. MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Approval of request for deferral of public improvements with the following conditions: 1. That installation of public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pave- ment) be deferred until such time as installation is ordered by the City. 2. That a lien, bond or cash deposit in the amount sufficient to cover cost of installing improvements adjacent to the property be provided as assurance of completion of such improvements. 3. That the applicants will commence installation of required improvements within 30 days following receipt of written notice to proceed from the City. Swimming Pool Areas Member Comstock discussed rear yard requirements as relates to pools in residential zones. He remarked that more and more homes are having swimming pools put in their rear yards; as a matter of fact, one out of 25 houses now have pools. Member Com- stock wondered if some study or thought should be given to this matter - to whether our rear yard setbacks are adequate to provide for pools. -7- Director Warren commented that normally, there is no problem with this until such time as the people wish to enclose them. Chairman Stevenson suggested this be discussed at the next meeting with the consultants and perhaps be put into the'~new zoning ordinance. Resignation of Member Millar Member Comstock noted that Member Millar had submitted his resignation from the Commission. The Commission expressed their pleasure in having had him serve on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Meeting adjourn sine die. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, jJe~nle M. Fulasz Secretary