Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/01/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 18, 1965 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, Cali- fornia, 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, Stewart, Johnson, Comstock, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Member Willhite. Also present: Planning Director Warren, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. 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 January 4, 1965. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Minutes of January 4, 1965 be approved. (Member Comstock informed the Commission he called the Secretary about a change in the minutes: his vote on the sign for the Bonita Valley Country Club was "no".) Member Johnson abstained from voting because he was absent at the last meeting. REZONINGS PUBLIC HEARING: Rob~nhood Homes~ Inc. - Southeast Corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion Avenue R-3 to C-1 The application was read in which a request was made for rezoning from R-3 (multiple- dwelling) to C-1 (light commercial) for that area on the southeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the location, adjacent land use and zoning. The Director also pointed out the location of the proposed Free- way and interchanges in relation to this site. The applicant has indicated that a service station (which would require a conditional use permit) will be constructed on the site; however, Director Warren added, if rezoned, the applicant will be allowed any use under the C-1 zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr~ Merritt, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., explained the merits of having a service station on this site, explaining also that a 35-foot high bank on the property separates this site from the residential section to the south and west. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated he felt it was not in the public interest to extend commercial zoning any further in this area. One service station in the area was sufficient for the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Adams added that the land could be used for R-3 purposes. -1- Vice-Chairman Stewart commented on the extremity of the grade in the rear of this property. He felt extensive grading would have to be done to develop this residentially; it would be less than desirable, also, due to the traffic pattern. Mr. Stewart further added that he felt it would be good zoning to rezone this to a C-1 use, but that they should see evidence that a service station would be constructed here. Mr. Merritt showed the Commission a statement of an offer to purchase made by Mobile Oil Company. Director Warren said the staff would suggest imposing the "D" zone on this site. Member Johnson remarked that he was reluctant to see another commercial parcel created out here; however, he would go along with the service station, but in the event a service station is not constructed out there, he would like to have this come back for reconsideration. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission could not legally restrict the applicant's use, when a C-1 use for all other owners have not been restricted. Mr. Robert Casey, the owner, claimed he would put up a bond, if necessary, assuring the Commission that a service station will be put on the site. He declared he would put in adequate landscaping. MSC (Guyer - Stewart) Rezoning from R-3 to C-1-D be approved. Findings be as follows: 1. Property does not lend itself to a completely satisfactory residential development. Applicant states a service station will be built on this site; the relationship of the parcels to the intersection and the proposed freeway ramp pattern makes the site ideal for service station use. 2. The rezoning for the purpose of constructing a service station is in the public interest. No objections were heard from the adjacent property owners. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson and Stevenson NOES: Member Adams (Not in the public interest to extend commercial zoning any further in this area; one service station in this area is sufficient and land can be used for R-3 development). ABSENT: Member Willhlte. PUBLIC HEARING: R. H. Woodward - Third Avenue~ 140 Feet North of "D" Street - R-1 to R-3 The application was read in which a request was made for a rezoning from R-l, single- family, to R-3, multiple-dwelling for that area 140 feet north of "D" Street on Third Avenue for the purpose of constructing a convalescent home or apartments for retired people. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent zoning and land use. The property has frontage on Third Avenue. Chairman Stevenson asked if a cul-de-sac could be arranged if the property stayed R-1. Director Warren commented it would be a difficult street pattern to work out; access from Third Avenue would be difficult because of topography. Ten or twelve years~go, a map was brought in which shd~ed a street through this property, but it was a poor street pattern. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. R. H. Woodward, the applicant, stated he could not develop this as R-1 because of the high cost of the lots -- the homes would be $50,000. He has had a few offers for the land and all of them have been for R-3 usage. He added that any improvement on the land would be of entire benefit to the neighborhood. A petition in opposition to the rezoning was read. It was noted that there were 79 signatures representing 45 property owners. Mr. 01e Knudson, 57 Third Avenue, spoke in favor of the development. Those speaking in opposition were: Mr. William Rathmann, 240 Chula Vista Street, Mr. Walter Temple, 67 Del Mar Avenue, Mr. Jack Brower, 226 Chula Vista Street, (spokesman for approximately 30 people present), Mr. Richard Lane, 52 Del Mar Avenue, Mrs. Margaret Cameron, 311 "D" Street and Mr. Jerome Smith, 282 Sea Vale Street. They stated as their reasons: (1) the traffic problem it would create through the R-1 area; (2) general safety of the neighborhood would be in jeopardy; (3) General Plan considered this as R-1 use; (4) bought homes here in R-1 zone and expect it to remain that way; (5) too difficult to keep vigilance to make sure the apartments would be rented only to retired and elderly people; (6) can feasibly be developed with hill- side homes; (7) this is a promotional venture on the applicant's part; (8) Fredericka Manor is next to this property and is strictly for elderly people -- they have vacancies now and with their multi-million dollar development, will always have vacancies, so there is no necessity for this development; (9) should not "spot zone"; the whole neighborhood should be considered for rezoning. Mr. Woodward explained if he developed this as R-l, he would be able to get perhaps 12 lots out of the site. Seven years ago, he was offered $80,000 for this site and with another $20,000 added for streets and improvements, it would cost about $100,000 to develop this. This amount for just 12 homes would raise the cost of the homes to around $50,000 each. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chalrman Stewart said there was no doubt but that Mr. Woodward did have problems with the area; however, the site is surrounded by R-l, single-family homes. Also, that Chula Vista has a number of canyons, and if the Commission rezones this one, then they will be faced with this request for all canyons and drainage areas. Member Comstock agreed, adding that he felt the owner has more of an economic problem than a planning problem. Chairman Stevenson commented it would be totally improper to rezone this to R-3. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Rezoning be denied for the following reasons: 1. Public necessity has not been demonstrated. 2. It is not necessary for the convenience and general welfare of the public. 3. It would not be good zoning practice to rezone this land to R-3; the land is surrounded by R-1 (single-family)zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: Truman E. Anderson - North Side of "C" Street between Fifth Avenue and H i~hland - Car Wash The application was read in which a request was made to construct a coin-operated, self- service car wash at the north side of "C" Street, between Fifth and Highland Avenues, a C-2 zone. =3= Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location as being next to Unimart Store on the east. He stated this was the same firm for which the Com- mission approved a site on Third Avenue, south of "K" Street, but which the Council denied and which is now up for a reheari~g~ The applicant proposes a 30 inch high wall in front of the development with suitable landscaping. The area is zoned C-2; the setback is ~ feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Colllmy, representing Truman Anderson, Inc., stated this was a good location for this type of operation; they would be rendering a good service to the public. As to the construction of their buildings, at the peak of the gothic arch, it would be 16 feet 11½ inches. Member Comstock questioned the 20 foot easement indicated on the plot plan. Mr. Collimy explained they had an agreement with the owner of the property to use this strip for extra space for the cars. "Easement" was probably the wrong word -- the lease could read 120 feet of frontage, rather than 100 feet. Chairman Stevenson remarked that Unimart was a very heavily-traveled area and questioned whether this new development would cause any traffic problems. Mr. Collimy stated it would not; whereas other car washes have one tunnel, they will have four tunnels. There will be very little noise; the maximum amount of water that will be used for 5 minutes will be 7½ gallons. The construction of the building will be the same as they have throughout the country; they now have about 1000 of these units in this country. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the development and the site and concurred they had no objection to it. MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Conditional use permit for car wash be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A 30" block wall and landscaping be included in front of the development. 2. Lighting for the area be so arranged that it reflect toward rather than away from the proposed site. Further, findings be as follows: I. That granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as delineated in the Ordinance. 2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the t~pes of use permitted in the surrounding areas. The Unimart Service Station exists to the east and similar uses would be permitted on either side within the C-2 zone. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: F. L. Whittington - Property South of "K" Street~ East of Third Avenue - R-3 Use in R-1 Zone The application was read in which a request was made to construct single-story apart- ment units on property located at the rear of 244 and 246 "K" Street, an R-3 use on property zoned R-1. Director of Planning Warren explained a similar request has been before the Commission two times previously. The applicant had purchased another lot and has now brought in his revised, or final plan. Director Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant proposes to construct twenty-nine (29) single-story apartment units with access on "K" Street. Mr. Warren then submitted the applicant's plot plan explaining the layout of the development. There would be approximately one unit per 4200 square feet of land which is far in excess of what is normally found in an R-3 area. Director Warren noted the guest parking was proposed for the front of the development and said he would suggest some of it be placed in the rear. Director Warren then submitted several conditions he would ask the Commission to impose. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Whittington, the applicant, stated he had no objections to the conditions outlined by the Planning Director. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, remarked that the plan was vague on the parking situation. He asked that the applicant be required to submit detailed park- ing plans to the Traffic Engineer for approval. Director Warren stated this would occur. Member Johnson questioned whether the street widths for fire equipment would be taken into consideration; Director Warren assured him this plan would be referred to the Fire Department. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the revised layout of the development and concurred they had no objection. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Approval of variance for permission to construct twenty- nine (29) apartment units at the rear of 244 and 246 "K" Street, subject to the following: 1. That the use and proposed density only be approved; that detailed plans be sub- mitted to the Commission for approval showing: a. Elevations and floor plans of all buildings. b. Detailed site plan. c. Detailed landscape plan. 2. That all structures be restricted to one-story. 3. That all access drives and parking areas be paved and marked. 4. That only golf carts be allowed access to Del Mar Avenue. 5. That no outdoor lighting shall reflect on adjacent residential property. 6. That all signs shall be in conformance with R-3 regulations. 7. That the recreation area be located in the center of the development. 8. That all but the "K" Street frontage and minimum access to Del Mar Avenue be enclosed with a six foot (6') high grape stake and masonry fence. -5- Further, that findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the Ordinance as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the pro- visions of said Ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions 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. Property is almost an island with limited access to the surrounding streets which is the rear yard of two rows of single-family homes and lies adjacent to undeveloped C-2 property. Conditions are such that organizing a single-family subdivision out of all this property seems to be impossible. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, applicant is deprived of reasonable use of property. Because of its size, shape and location, and the paralleling ditch, it is impractical to develop this area with single?family homes. 4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. No objections from adjacent property owners. PUBLIC HEARING: John and Grace Peneau ~ 49 East Oxford Street - Reduction in Rear Yard Setback The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet, for the purpose of constructing an attached carport. · The reduction is for the east side of the residence, which they wish to call their "rear Yard"; the carport will be constructed on the north side. Director Warren explained the house is on a corner lot and the applicant has the prerogative to designate which side he wants as his rear yard. He then submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land use of the property. Mr. Warren remarked that the key to this was the fact that the property to the east is developed with a water storage tank and is permanently open to the adjacent property line. Member Johnson questioned the distance of the water tank to this dwelling; Director Warren stated it was well over 30 feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. dohn Peneau, 49 East Oxford Street, the applicant, declared the real necessity for the request was the difficulty they had in getting in and out of their driveway. This slopes to their garage and when backing out into the street, there is too much of an obstruction whereby they cannot see traffic or pedestrians. He desires to call this east side of his home his rear yard and is as king for the reduction here. He will build a carport and utility room on the north side of his home which will give him better access and vision to the street. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams questioned whether a rear and side yard were specifically defined in the ordinance, as such. Director Warren explained the applicant had a choice since he lives on a corner lot. As long as you have 20 feet, you may call either side your rear yard. -6- The Commission discussed whether or not the applicant could legally build a carport instead of a garage. Director Warren stated he could, quoting from the Ordinance: "any garage existing at the time this ordinance is adopted may be converted to l~ving area provided two (2) off-street parking spaces are provided; one of which shall be in a garage or a carport and further provided that all stipulations of the Uniform Building Code are complied with." Mr. Warren added that the new ordinance will not have this stipulation. If the "sliding scale" is adopted, it will require all residents to maintain a garage. The Commission further discussed whether or not they could require the applicant to build a garage instead of a carport. City Attorney Lindberg stated they cannot legally do this as it would conflict with the Ordinance; the applicant has asked for a reduction in rear yard setback, and he has the right to build either a garage or a carport, or an addition to his house here. Member Comstock remarked that the applicant did have an access problem. He felt it would be better to grant him a variance to build his carport on the north side of his home, calling this his rear yard. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented on one point the applicant mentioned: the slant of his driveway. The applicant can't see the traffic coming along Oxford Street until he gets up onto the sidewalk. Mr. Stewart felt this justified his request. The Commission discussed the two sides of his residence concluding that the applicant did have a choice as to which side he could claim as his rear yard, but that his rear yard in this case is clearly established. Member Adams cautioned that they should grant the applicant a reduction as to the exact amount he needs and not any more than that. MSUC (Johnson-Stewart) Reduction ~n rear yard setback (north side of the dwelling) be approved from 20 feet to 5 feet for the purpose of constructing a carport. Variance be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Construction be in accordance with the plot plan submitted, to be ~modified as required by existing ordinances. Further, that findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of the ordinance as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the pro- visions of the ordinance. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions 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 setbacks are provided to assure light and air and to protect adjacent properties. The adjacent use, in this case, is not residential and the distance between the water tank and this dwelling is more than adequate to provide needed light and air. 3. Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. Without this variance, applicant has no other reasonable area in which to build a carport; also, unnecessary setback is being observed. 4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. No objections from adjacent property owners. MISCELLANEOUS Review of Plans for State Employment Office - 426 "F" Street Director of Planning Warren submitted the plan, explained this was brought in because the Commission had stipulated they wanted to approve the final plans, which would also show the landscaping. Director Warren noted the building to be rectangular in shape, stucco in construction with a ceramic tile feature over the front doors. He reminded the Commission that at the previous meeting, they discussed the architecture and stipulated they wanted it to be compatible with the Civic Center using the Spanish influence but not necessarily a duplication of the Civic Center. No attempt has been made to do that. Chairman Stevenson asked if the architect was present. Director Warren noted that he was not, but said he called and stated he would have someone representing the applicant present at the meeting; however, no one was in the audience. Chairman Stevenson felt they should perhaps wait and continue this as there was no chance, for instance, to ask the architect to put on a tile roof, or anything like that. Member Adams suggested that the architect be required to submit another set of plans showing a better elevation and rendering of the building. Director Warren commented that the architect did inquire as to what would happen to the plans should the Commission reject them. He told him the plans would be sent back to him with the suggestion that it be redesigned to relate to existing Ci vic Center architectOre. Mr. Warren added that the floor plan is committed; however, some attempt should be made to correlate the architecture making it compatible with the Civic Center complex. This provision was made with the County for the "F" Street property; we stipulated that there should be some Spanish influence here. The Commission discussed the plans and concurred that some Spanish influence on the front of the building certainly should be required. City Attorney Lindberg stated the construction is being built by a private owner and it is not inconceivable for the State to commission the owner to build ~t according to their plans. The State, however, always cooperates with municipalities and their zoning regulations, even though they are, legally, under no obligation to do so. If the Commission rejects the plan because they find it is not harmonious with the. Civic Center, then it is up to the architect to find a better solution and bring in a plan that provides a more harmonious structure. The Commission discussed the "D" zone in which this office is to be built and the fact that no landscaping plans were submitted. They concurred that the Director of Planning should be given the authorization to approve the final plans. Director Warren stated he would do this but if the developer disagreed with the staff, the Director would like to reserve the right to have the plans brought before the Commission. The Commission agreed. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Plans be sent back to the developer and the architect, stipulating that the Commission finds it unsuitable and not compatible with the Civic Center architecture, and: 1. There appeared to be no attempt to correlate the architecture of the building with that of the Civic Center buildings. 2. A detailed landscape plan was not submitted. 3. Revised plans be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval. -8- Request for Extension of Time -."H" Street Nursery School - 194 "H" Street A letter was read from the owners of the "H" Street Nursery School requesting an extension of time on their existing zone variance, either a five-year extension, or ~f possible, a permanent extension. Director of Planning Warren explained that the last extension on this variance was granted in 1962 which expires on January 20, 1965. Member Adams questioned the number of children enrolled in the school at the present time. Miss Shenza Richutti, the director, stated they have 20 children enrolled. The hours of their operation is from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Member Adams commented the place was very well kept up and very orderly; he had no objection to it whatsoever. He would suggest, however, they do not extend it beyond three years; he felt a longer extension, if granted, could result in the place being sold and the new owners not taking care of the place. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether the variance could be transferred. City Attorney L~ndberg stated that, legally, a variance could be transferred. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested the motion state the approval should read "three years or until the School is sold, whichever one comes first." MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Approval of three years or until the Nursery School is sold, whichever comes first. The extension will now expire on January 20, 1968. Request for Extension of Time - Weatherstone South Subdivision A letter was read from the Engineering firm of Edwards, Craig and Bartels requesting an extension of one year on the tentative map of Weatherstone South Subdivision in order that they may have time to file a final map of Unit No. 2. The Commission discussed the subdivision and concurred they had no objection. MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Recommend to City Council approval of one year extension. Member Johnson abstained from voting because he lives near the proposed subdivision. Request for Approval of Si~n - La Bonita Town & Country Apartments Member Comstock abstained from the hearing. A letter was read from Daniel B. Thomas, owner of La Bonita Town and Country Apartments requesting approval of a sign erected on the roof of the apartment's recreational building. The sign measures 6 feet by 8 feet. Director Warren stated the staff had no objection to the sign, as is, but the ordinance does stipulate the maximum square feet for signs in a development. Mr. Thomas has two signs on his wall out front which measures approximately 40 square feet. This new sign contains 48 square feet, which would bring the signs for this development well over the limit allowed by ordinance. Chairman Stevenson commented that because the development is substantially larger than most, they need both signs. Director Warren said this may be true; however, there was a question in his mind as to whether the Commission could legally grant this much more. Mr. Daniel Thomas, owner of the apartment building, stated he obtained three building permits; there are three separate buildings and three signs involved. He then explained the construction of the sign. City Attorney Lindberg stated the ordinance spells out it must be 50 square feet in the aggregate for any one business, but does not take ~nto consideration double-faced signs, which this one is. This sign actually has 96 square feet. Chairman Stevenson remarked that the apartment deal did come to the Commission in "one package." Member Johnson declared that if three separate building permits were taken out, then they should be allowed three signs, or 50 square feet for each building permit. Member Adams disagreed saying the Commission does not go according to building permits. Vice-Chairman Stewart commented they could take as a comparison, the Telegraph Canyon Shopping Center with one building and ten signs. Director Warren stated that was a commercial shopping center with ten separate businesses whereby this is one apartment building with no sideyards separating the establishment. The Commission could, as he sees it, approve a sign for ten (10) square feet or the applicant could apply for a variance. Chairman Stevenson suggested the City Attorney and the Planning Director get together and arrive at a solution as to what the applicant can apply for and bring this back to the next meeting. Request for Deferral of Public Improvements - Quality Steel Corporation - 130 Bay Blvd. A letter was read from Mr. Sam Jaffee, President of Quality Steel Corporation asking for deferment of public improvements on his property at 130 Bay Boulevard. The letter from the Division of Engineering was also read stating they would recommend approval based on the Corporation posting a bond for the improvements. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Approval of deferment of public improvements for 130 West Bay Boulevard subject to the following conditions: 1. That installation of public improvements (curb and sidewalk) be deferred until such time as detailed plans by the Division of Engineering are completed. 2. That a lien, bond or cash deposit in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4000.) be provided as assurance of completion of such improvements. 3. That you will commence installation of required improvements within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice from the City Engineering Department. Recommendation to City Council - Fred Rohr School Site Annexation Director of Planning Warren noted the location of the school site annexation. He explained this was approved by the Boundary Commission and the Local Agency Formation Commission. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Recommend to City Council the approval of the Fred Rohr School Site Annexation. -10- Request for Approval of Dwellin~ in Bonita Verde Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans for a new residence to be built in the Bonita Verde Subdivision. The construction will be on Lot 24, 3617 Bonita Verde Drive. The house will be over 2000 square feet, shake shingle roof and stucco exterior. It' will be compatible with the home, already built in the subdivision. No landscaping plans were submitted. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Approval of the plans, as submitted. Member Johnson abstained from voting because no landscaping plans were submitted. Tidelands Development Member Johnson asked the Director if he had any information as to any plans for the tideland development. Director Warren stated he plans to meet with the Port people and discuss this matter sometime before February 1st. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, spoke of the improvements in the area: They already have sewer and water and with the paving program, it will be ready to open up in the near future. One-half of the Tidelands Avenue, from "E" Street to "G" Street, for a length of 600 to 800 feet, is now completed and this opens up the access to the area for such time as the traffic access warrants one-half of a street. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Meeting adjourn sine die. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary