Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/06/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 7, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Johnson, Millar, and Adams. Absent: Members Stewart and Guyer. Also present: Assistant Planner Terrell, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Principal Engineer Harshman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Minutes of May 17, 1965, be approved, as mailed. REZONING PUBLIC HEARING: Frank Ferreira - Parcel Bounded by Moss, Naples, and Alpine Streets - R-1 to C-2 The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to C-2 a triangular-shaped parcel of land bounded by Moss, Naples, and Alpine Streets. Assistant Planner Terrell submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent zoning. He stated the properties surrounding this parcel were zoned R-1 (single- family). The setbacks for this parcel are 25 feet. The County zoning adjacent to this is zoned R-2. The parcel encompasses 8062.5 square feet, with 280 square feet of usable area with the existing setbacks. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. DeWitt Higgs, Attorney for the applicant, residing at 12 Toyon Lane, discussed the history of the property. This matter has been before the Council and Planning Commission several times in the last 10 years. The applicant first applied for R-3 zoning in 1956, and the vacation of Moss Street, but this was rejected by the City Council. In 1959, he applied for C-2 zoning; the Commission denied this and recommended R-3, which was subsequently turned down by the Council. Just recently, the applicant again applied for the vacation of Moss Street. This was approved by the Commission but rejected by the Council. It was suggested the City purchase this property as a possible park site, which is now under study, but which is opposed by the Planning staff because of the size of the area, since only 280 square feet of it can be used, with the present setbacks. Mr. Higgs stated further that everytime this matter comes up, it is met with numerous protests from the adjacent residents. He would ask the Commission, on hearing these people, to have them state their name, address, and whether they reside in the City or the County, and what suggestions they would have as to what they would like to see the applicant do with this property. Those speaking in opposition were: Robert Gans, 129 Naples, Kenneth Anderson, 122 Moss Street, John Stauffer, 135 Naples Street, George Lorenz, 116 Moss Street, Mrs. George Lorenz, 116 Moss Street. They stated as their objections: (1) area is surrounded by residential; this would be an intrusion into the residential zone; -1- (2) at one time, the applicant stated he would put in a medical clinic; the resi- dents would go along with this; (3) people in the area paid for the improvements on their street; the applicant should do the same; (4) it would greatly increase the traffic problem in the area; (5) owner knew what he was purchasing - the set- backs and zoning were already established on this property at that time. Mr. George Owen, 50 Monte Vista Street, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Frank Ferreira, the applicant, 3715 Putter Drive, Chula Vista, stated that everytime he comes up with a request for this property, the residents in the area oppose it. He wishes to publicly announce that the property is for sale. The parcel cannot be used for R-l; he was turned down for R-3 zoning; he objects to having these people tell him what to put on the property, ~uch as the medical building and so this leaves him one alternative - a commercial zoning. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Johnson asked for the staff's comments on the use of the property as a park. Assistant Planner Terrell stated this has been considered by the City Council, but the staff has opposed it. The parcel is too small for a park, bounded on three sides by streets making it unsafe for children; it would be unfeasible to use as a park. Member Adams felt the C-2 zoning would violate good zoning practice, and it would be an intrusion of commercial use into a residential area. He stated it would be a mistake to grant C-2 zoning for this area. Member Comstock agreed, and asked whether the Traffic Engineer recommended closing Moss Street. Mr. Terrell remarked that the City Council turned the vacation of Moss Street down against the recommendation of the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Comstock added that Mr. Ferreira has a problem property here, and he would suggest the matter be sent back to the Council again recommending the closing of Moss Street. He further stated that granting C-2 zoning here would be spot zoning, and contrary to good zoning practice. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Application for rezoning to C-2 be denied for the following reasons: (1) the rezoning would constitute spot zoning and would be contrary to good zoning practice; (2) it would be an intrusion of commercial zoning in a residential area. Member Johnson felt the Commission should try to find some use for this property. Member Adams commented that the staff has suggested that the property could be used very well if Moss Street was vacated and the interchange designed as suggested at a previous hearing. He would suggest it be rezoned R-3-D, limiting it to one- story rental units. Mr. Higgs questioned whether the Commission could deny the C-2 request and rezone it R-3. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission could legally do this, but he would suggest they reopen the hearing and let the people present state their comments on this new request. He would also caution that the issue of closing Moss Street should not be discussed in this connection. It should be an entirely separate matter. Mr. Ferreira stated he would be willing to accept R-3 zoning for this property. -2- Chairman Stevenson explained the Commission can grant the applicant something less than he requested, and that the Commission should hear both sides on the R~3 issue. Mr. Stevenson declared the public hearing re-opened to hear the comments on the R-3 request. Those speaking in opposition to the R-3 zoning were: Mrs. Dean Smith, ~063 Jacque- line Way, Mrs. George Lorenz, 116 Moss Street, Mrs. Paul Taylor, 1070 Jacqueline Way. Their objections were as follows: (1) The change might alter the wishes of the City Council to consider buying it for a park; (2) it should be purchased by the City as a landscaped parcel; (3) would add considerably to the traffic problem already in the area; (4) the people renting the units would be parking in the road and backing out of the property into the street; (5) would not object to one-story apartment units provided the owner has on-site parking and meets the City's parking requirements; (6) would like to see the plot plan of any proposed development; (7) object to closing Moss Street, and this would have to be done if apartments are going to go in there. City Attorney Lindberg again stated that the closing of Moss Street is strictly a matter of determinati~ of the City Council that that portion of Moss Street is not necessary for a street right-of-way now or in the future. This matter was presented to the Council with the Commission's recommendation of favorably closing Moss Street. This matter will have to be separate from the rezoning. The only Commission action on this could be a letter of transmittal asking the Council to establish a new hearing on the vacation of Moss. Mr. Higgs discussed the new proposed zoning and stated his client will accept R-3 zoning. He added that 'la man cannot be required to keep his property without any possibility of developing it." He further added that the people objecting tonight - to both the C-2 a nd R-3 requests - made no "honestI' objections. Mr. Frank Ferreira explained how the parcel came into being - it was originally part of Robinhood #2, but in the approval of the tentative map, the developer had to eliminate this lot from his subdivision. Actually then, it was created by a previous Council and Commission. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson said he would like to see a plot plan of the proposed develop- ment, especially in terms of setbacks. Assistant Planner Terrell stated the staff feels that there should be no rezoning on the property until such time as the Council vacates the street. MS (Adams-Stevenson) Verbal application for R-3 zoning be denied for the following reason: the street pattern should be completed before development takes place. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams and Stevenson NOES: Members Comstock, Johnson, and Millar ABSENT: Members Stewart and Guyer MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Matter be continued until the 1st meeting in duly in order that the staff be given time to make a study of Moss Street and a recommendation from the staff be given to the Commission at this meeting. -3- City Attorney Lindberg stated this matter is not appealable to the City Council at this time, even though the Commission did deny the C-2 zoning. Mr. Ferreira asked if the public hearing is closed and will be closed even at this next meeting. Chairman Stevenson stated that was correct. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING - (Cont'd) Architectural Control Ordinance City Attorney Don Lindberg stated he and the staff are in the process of redrafting this ordinance. He would like to see the Commission hold a workshop meeting on this prior to the time they have a public hearing on it. Mr. Lindberg added he would suggest the hearing be postponed until the 1st meeting in July, and that a workshop meeting be set up within the next 10 days. MSUC (Adams-Comstock) Public hearing be postponed until the 1st meeting in July. SUBDIVISIONS MAJESTIC TERRACE - Tentative Map Assistant Planner Terrell submitted the map stating this was a revised map, since the developer has now added 10 additional acres to his subdivision. There will now be 80 single-family lots. Mr. Terrell noted the location of the proposed subdivision as the southwest corner of Naples and Osage, and pointed out the pro- posed five units. He stated the staff contacted all adjacent owners and held a meeting with them on their willingness to develop their properties in conjunction with this subdivision. Some of them expressed a willingness to cooperate; however, to date, nothing has been accomplished. Mr. Terrell then presented the recom- mendations of the Planning staff. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, presented the Engineering recommendations, explaining each condition. He noted the triangular-shaped parcel that would be created through the extension of Melrose Avenue. He suggested this parcel be combined with another triangular-shaped parcel from the subdivision to get several lots out of this area. Mr. dames Patten, one of the developers, stated they do not have objections to any of the conditions except this last one. Member Comstock commented that this triangular-shaped parcel is outside the subdi- vision and is a separate problem. He added it would be encumbent upon the City to consider this problem area when the adjacent property is developed. In accordance with condition eleven of the Engineer's report, the Planning Commission concurred that specific approval be given to the proposed unit breakdown, as shown on the tentative map. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Tentative map of Majestic Terrace Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specifications on file in the Planning Department. 2. Easements for street tree planting shall be provided as required to allow a minimum of 10 feet behind the sidewalk. '4- 3. "D" Street (Nacion) shall be realigned in accordance with plans for extension of Nacion, to be approved by the Engineering Department prior to submission of a final map. Any lots affected by this realignment shall be subject to re- view by the staff or Planning Commission. 4. Grading plans shall be submitted prior to approval of the final map. 5. The centerline elevations and proposed method of site grading is approved in concept only but not as to detail. 6. The width of pavement of Naples Street in Seaview Estates is incorrectly de- picted upon the map. A 40 foot traveled way within an 80 foot right-of-way now exists. 7. A typical section of East Naples Street depicts a 70 foot right-of-way. This is in direct contrast to the 80 foot right-of-way which now exists in all full width sections of Naples Street. In that Naples Street is designated as a collector on the City's Select System of Streets, there is a distinct possi- bility of widening to a 64 foot travel way in the future. However, there is no point in obtaining the additional width i~ a future widening does not appear to be probable. Therefore, it is proposed that the exact width of Naples Street not be established at this time, but rather that the determination be post- poned pending the results of an Engineering study of the probable traffic loadings to be imposed upon East Naples. One further possibility would be the dedication of 30 feet, as shown upon the typical section, with the reser- vation for street purposes of an additional l0 feet. It should be noted that the setback in such conditions should be increased to 25 feet rather than the 15 feet shown. In the event that the 70 foot right-of-way is found to be adequate, it will be necessary to make the following changes to the typical section. (a) Show face of curb to back of walk dimension as 5.5 feet. (b) Show back of walk to property line dimension as 4.5 feet. (c) Show 5 foot width easement for utility overhang and tree planting. (d) Show sidewalk and curb as monolithic structure. (e) Show pavement to meet existing pavement where full depth structural section is obtained rather than at subdivision boundary. 8. Revise the typical section of Melrose Avenue and "D" Street as follows: (a) Curb and sidewalk shall be in monolithic structure. (b) Face of curb to back of sidewalk dimension shall be 5.5 feet. (c) Back of walk to property line dimension shall be 4.5 feet. (d) Edge of 28 foot width pavement on Melrose Avenue shall be finished against a 2 x 4 redwood header or through the installation of an additional 1 foot width of asphaltic concrete on native soil 2 inches in thickness. -5- 9. The subdivider shall provide all off-site easements, right-of-way and slope rights in the form prescribed by the City Engineer in the name of the City prior to Council action upon the appropriate unit of the final map. 10. The subdivider shall provide evidence of having obtained all necessary private slope rights, rights to do work upon adjacent property and/or rights of in- gress and egress prior to initiation of work upon the appropriate unit of the subdivision. The final map shall show a utility easement at the rear of all lots where the subdivider shall secure appropriate letters from the various utility companies negating the needs for such letters prior to Council con- sideration of the appropriate unit and map. 11. The attention of the Commission is directed to the proposed unit breakdown shown upon the tentative map. It is suggested that specific approval of the proposed units be entered into the Commission's Minute Record of their action upon this map. In particular regard to the proposed Unit 1, it is suggested that Naples Street in front of Lot 4 be improved as far westerly as the centerline of Melrose Avenue. Under the proposed unit breakdown, Melrose Avenue would be the last street improvement to be installed. In the event that the Virginia Terrace Subdivision improvements on Melrose Avenue should be commenced prior to the initiation of Unit 5, then the subdivider of Majestic Terrace should be required to install his portion of Melrose Avenue concurrently with the Virginia Terrace installation. 12. In the event that the subdivider is not successful in acquiring the off-site portions of Melrose Avenue, he shall be required to submit a letter to the City Council requesting that the City initiate condemnation proceedings and further stipulate that he will bear all costs associated with the condemnation action. Request for Extension of Time on Tentative Map - Princess Manor A letter from Princess Park Estates, Inc., was read in which a request was made for a one-year extension of the tentative map of Princess Manor. Assistant Planner Terrell submitted a map noting that there appear to be substantial revisions pro- posed for this unit east of the proposed freeway. He would recommend that the matter be continued for two weeks; that a map similar to the original tentative be submitted to the Engineering and Planning Departments by Monday, June 14, and that this map show the units as constructed or approved (to be noted as such on the plan) and the amended portions and how they relate to the constructed portions and the remaining portions approved on the original tentative. Mr. Terrell added that the staff would like to see a map on the east side of the Freeway inasmuch as the developers propose to change two street alignments here. Mr. Ray Rainwater, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated that when one presents a tentative map, as they did one year ago, it is just that -- a tentative. Some changes are proposed, but what they are asking now is the extension of one year on the original tentative, and if the Commission so desires, they will come in with their proposed changes. Mr. Rainwater continued that in reality, they cannot talk about a continuance of two weeks since it will be carried over and presented to the Council and then it will be 5 weeks or more. A subdivider cannot afford to have land just laying around if they can prevent it. In order to make up a map as the Assistant Planner requested, it would take many, many hours and be quite costly. -6- City Attorney Lindberg questioned whether the developer would bring in an amended tentative. Mr. Rainwater stated they never offered to bring one in, as yet; how- _ ever, if the Commission feels the changes they propose are substantial, then they will bring one in. City Attorney Lindberg reminded Mr. Rainwater that the developers are entitled to the one extension only. Member Comstock stated the staff would have to advise the Commission as to whether or not the changes proposed would be major ones, and then the developers would be required to submit a revised tentative. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Approval of extension of one year for the tentative map of Princess Manor subdivision and the staff to be alerted as to any changes the developer might make. Assistant Planner Terrell remarked he would like to have the following added to the motion: that prior to preparing the final map, a preliminary plan of the pro- posed unit, showing the design and its relation to the remainder of the approved tentative map east of the Freeway be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Departments for their review and approval. If a substantial revision from the approved tentative map is proposed, the map shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval. Member Comstock amended his motion to include the condition proposed by Mr. Terrell. City Attorney Lindberg stated the map will now expire on March 17, 1966. Request for Approval of Signs - Shopp~n~ Center at Telegraph Canyon Road and "L" Street. A letter was read from Michael Farres, 417 Telegraph Canyon Road, asking approval of a sign for his liquor store ~ Metro Liquor Store - at the shopping center. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, showed sketches of the proposed sign. He remarked that this sign would be in keeping with the signs that are already in the Center. The s~gn will be flush with the building; there is no problem as far as the staff is concerned. Mr. Lee stated the Commission's action would be architectural approval on the sign. The sign is within the 50 square feet allowed by the "D'~ zone. MSUC (Comstock-Millar) Approval of sign in accordance with the plot plan submitted. Mr. Lee discussed the numerous other signs in this same shopping center, declaring there were six other businesses there with which the staff has had problems from time to time. Five out of six of these businesses have now complied with the "D" zone regulating their signage area; however, there is the problem of signs in the windows. In the next zoning ordinance, there will be a provision for this. Member Adams commented that if we are providing for this in the future, they should let it ride. Member Comstock felt they were doing themselves more harm than good in covering their windows this way. Member Johnson suggested th~s matter be taken up at the workshop meeting, because this is the "D" zone, and he felt the Commission should be careful how they handle it. Chairman Stevenson remarked that the tenants would have to get a variance if they desire more signs than they are allowed. Mr. Lee noted the one particular business in the Center which has their windows covered with signs - the laundromat and dry cleaning establishment known as "Dapper Dan's." He indicated there might be two businesses he~ for which they would be '7- allowed 100 square foot of signage area. Member Comstock questioned whether two separate licenses were taken out. Mr. Lee stated he hadn't becked that. City Attorney Lindberg cautioned the Commission that the mere separation of two businesses is not a factor in determining whether this would in reality be two businesses. Two separate stores would permit each independent establishment to have 50 square feet of signs . Mr. Frank Harrall, owner of "Dapper Dan's'l, stated he has two separate licenses: one from the City and the other from the State of California for the dry-cleaning business. Member Comstock stated this does not indicate that there are two separate businesses here and felt the staff should study this situation. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Matter be referred to the staff for study and brought back to the next meeting - June 21, 1965. Request for Approval of Si~n - Brookside Winery -- Bonita Road Assistant Planner Terrell submitted the proposed sign sketch, stating it will be a free-standing sign, 48 square feet, and 26 3/4 feet tall. The staff would recommend approval, but would suggest it be limited to 20 feet high. Mr. John Dover, 914 Nita Court, manager of the Winery, admitted the sign was rather high, but stated his architect designed it so it would be in proportion to the building. There is a problem with the house next to the building; therefore, the applicant requested that the height be approved to not less than 23 feet. The height of the building is 24 feet and the bell tower is 32 feet. Member Comstock questioned whether it would be a flashing sign. Mr. Dover stated it would not. Chairman Stevenson questioned the 20 foot height requirement made by the staff. Mr. Terrell stated the staff feels 20 feet is an adequate height to accomplish the objective of signs in commercial areas, and they would like to start with this one. This will be proposed for all commercial areas in the future. Member Millar felt they couldn't just say "20 feet"; it might not look ~ight in some cases. Chairman Stevenson felt there should be a relationship between the size of the sign and the building. MSUC (Comstock-Millar) Approval of sign subject to the following: the height of the sign be limited to 23 feet. Recommendation on First Presbyterian Church Annexation Assistant Planner Terrell submitted a plot plan explaining the location as the southwest corner of Hilltop and "L" Street. Two property owners have signed the petition to annex; however, two still oppose and refuse to sign. Nevertheless, in order to make this a legal annexation the Local Agency Formation Commlss~on re- quired that they be included in this annexation. MSUC (dohnson-Adams) Recommend approval of the First Presbyterian Church Annexation. Recommendation on Reappointment of Commissioners Chairman Stevenson felt a recommendation would be in order; however, the Council may or may not take this under advisement. Members Adams and Millar are the Members up for reappointment. -8- Member Comstock remarked that the Commission is the advisory body to the Council, and he feels it would be presumptious of the Commission to recommend or advise them in this way. Member Adams disagreed stating this has been done in the past, many times. MSUC (Johnson-Stevenson) Recommend to City Council the reappointment of Members Adams and Millar. Request to Allow Ballet Studio as Permitted Use in C-1 Zone A letter was read from Mrs. Jeanette Piekniek requesting the Commission clarify a Ballet Studio as a use in a C-1 zone. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, explained this use is not spelled out in the ordinance; however, the Commission, can by resolution, classify this as an added use, if they so desire. After discussion, the Commission concurred this use would be no more objectionable than those listed for the C-1 zone. MSUC (dohnson- Comstock) Resolution of the City Planning Commission of Chula RESOLUTION NO. 357 Vista, California, Establishing the Operation of a Ballet Studio as a Permitted C-1 Use. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~.~qposed Jaehn Annexation Mr. C. C. Alley, realtor, stated he was in the process of selling 45 acres of land adjoining Chula Vista to Mr. Ben Jaehn for a subdivision. The land is north of Main Street, east of Hilltop Drive; Woodlawn Park is to the east, and Loma Verde School to the South. Mr. Fred Ross is checking out the problems of the Fire Dis- trict, and the subdivider would like to get the feelings of the Commission as to the type of houses he proposes to construct in this area. They will not meet the minimum square footage set by ordinance. This difference could in all probability mean whether Mr. Jaehn would come into the City or stay in the County. Mr. Ben Jaehn, Cambridge Development Company subdivider, stated this surrounding area contains all low-prlced homes. He proposes to construct a 2-bedroom house containing 886 square feet, 3 bedroom - 1144 square feet, and 4 bedroom - 1300 square feet. These homes will sell from $11,000 to $16,000. There will be 164 lots in the subdivision; however, he will lose 16 lots if he comes into the City of Chula Vista, rather than stay in the County, because of the City's required lot sizes. The garages will meet the city's minimum requirement as they will be 440 square feet. Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the staff has given this any study. Assistant Planner Terrell said the staff has not, as yet, however they have given it some thought. He reminded the Commission that 1000 square feet is the City's minimum floor area size. Mr. Jaehn commented that in the first 34 houses, he proposes to build 4 of these two-bedroom homes. Chairman Stevenson commented that the Commission cannot act on this officially until the area is in the City. He would suggest this be held over for two weeks and that the staff conduct a study of the area, sending the Commission a report -9- on it before the next meeting. Member Comstock remarked that the staff should check this with the General Plan. Mr. Terrell indicated the General Plan suggests industrial for the area, and that very likely, the staff would recommend adhering to it. He added that as far as the area is concerned, some reduction in floor area should be in order, but as to how much, the st~ff would prefer to leave this up to the Commission. Mr. Jaehn declared that seven acres is being held out for industrial zoning. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, sald he was familiar with the area and would recommend the Commission favor this. He feels the City is being too re- strictive as far as the minimum floor area ordinance ~s concerned. He added the Commission should consider the area and be fair to this subdivider. Chairman Stevenson asked the staff to set this for the next meeting, and commented that the Commission feels there is no reason to hold up the annexation. Vacation of Vice=- Chairman Stewart Chairman Stevenson stated that Vice-Chairman Stewart will be out of town for the ten weeks and suggested the Commission elect an interim Vice-Chairman. City Attorney Lindberg agreed and also requested the Commission give their approval of his absence. Member Comstock felt the election could wait until the Ist meeting of July when the normal election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman take place. MSUC (Adams-Comstock) Approval of the 3-month absence of Vice-Chairman Stewart. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Meeting adjourn to 7 p.m., dune 21, 1965. Meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary