Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/11/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 15, 1971 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Stewart, Rice, Adams, Macevicz, Rudolph and Chandler. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Assistant City Attorney Blick and Assistant Director of Public Works Robens. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Rudolph requested that the minutes of November l, 1971 be corrected to indicate that her statement in the discussion of bars in the C-N zone was that while restaurants are permitted in the C-N zone, it is her understanding of the ordinance that the sale of liquor is permitted only if it is incidental to the sale of food. MSUC (Macevicz-Rice) The minutes of the meeting of November 1, 1971 be approved as corrected. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 105-115 No. Glover - Request to construct carpet warehouse in I-L-F zone - Christensen Construction Co. Director of Planning Warren reminded that this hearing was continued from the previous meeting at the applicant's request in order that he might consider redesigning his plan. The applicant has now advised that he is unable to redesign the plans and stay within allowed lot coverage. The staff recommends that the request be filed. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) The conditional use permit application for 105-115 No. Glover be filed. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): VARIANCE - 644 Second Avenue - Request to create lot with less than required street frontage - John L. McCall Director of Planning Warren advised that this item was on the November 1 agenda and was continued to this meeting due to the applicant's inability to be present at that meeting. Mr. Warren reviewed the plans as presented by the applicant at the meeting of October 4, and the recommendation of the staff as presented at that time for development by means of a street between Second Avenue and Del Mar through dedication of street right of way by property owners. The hearing was continued to enable the applicant to ascertain the interest of other property owners in such a plan for development of the rear portion of lots fronting on Second Avenue and Del Mar. Mr. Warren advised that the staff still recommends denial of the variance request; however, if the Commission desires to approve the request, conditions were enumerated to insure that development of this property would present minimum conflict with a future street. The staff also offered findings to support approval of the variance, if desired. Chairman Stewart declared the public hearing reopened. 11/15/71 John L. McCall, 820 Country Club Drive~ stated his concurrence with the recommendation that the property should be developed with a street between Second Avenue and Del Mar, but added that other property owners were not interested in such development at this time. He further added that he concurs with all conditions enumerated for development if the variance is granted. As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was closed. Member Rice commented that in view of the size of the applicant's lot, 29,100 sq. ft., it is not unreasonable to permit him to develop it into two lots utilizing an easement for access. Member Chandler remarked that while he is in sympathy with the applicant's desires he would not like to see the area developed piecemeal. Member Rudolph took exception to the findings offered for approval of the variance pointing out that the size of the lot does not consisute a hardship, also that division of the property is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights possessed by other properties in the vicinity, since other lots in this block have not been divided, the surrounding blocks which were developed with 7,000 sq. ft. lots were done so in an orderly fashion with the required street frontage. She further felt it is open to question whether the authorizing of this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. She also questioned whether this is orderly development as stated in the objectives of the General Plan. Member Ri ce contended that dividing this property into two lots is not an unreasonable request inasmuch as the area is large enough for three or four lots. Since no street is presently available at the rear of the property the applicant should be permitted to utilize an easement for access to the rear lot until such time as a street may be constructed. Chairman Stewart contended it is a waste of land and an undue hardship to the owner not to permit the development of the property. MSC (Rice-Adams) Approval of the variance request to create a lot at 644 RESOLUTION PCV-71-21 Second Avenue with less than required street frontage, subject to the following conditions: 1. No structure shall be constructed within 50 feet of the present rear property line. 2. The site plan and architecture shall be subject to staff approval, with special attention given to the west elevation. 3. The proposed dwelling shall maintain a 20' setback from the proposed lot split line. 4. The applicant shall sign an agreement with the City that he will not oppose any street dedication at the rear of his property and will participate in any proposed street improvements. 11/15/71 Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The lot contains 29,100 sq. ft. and is in excess of the City's minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. The property is located within an area that has not been subdivided whereas the surrounding areas have been divided into lots containing 7,000 sq. ft. c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the ordinance or the public interest. The conditions of approval will insure the development will be compatible and will not impair future development. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The increase in density is below the allowable density indicated for this area on the General Plan. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Rice, Adams, Stewart, Macevicz NOES: Members Rudolph, Chandler ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 40 Third Avenue - Request to construct office building in C-C-F zone - Mrs. C. W. Hickey Director of Planning Warren advised that all construction in the Flood Plain Modifying District is subject to a conditional use permit to insure that no flood hazard is created. The area being considered in this application is near the outer edge of the Flood Plain. Mr. Warren specified the conditions relative to storage of materials and building construction which should be required in approving this request. He also advised that once the flood control channel is constructed the flood hazards will be eliminated. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Charles Hickey, 1623 Kearsarge Road, La Jolla, expressed agreement with the conditions recommended by the staff. As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of a conditional use permit for construction of RESOLUTION PCC-71-29 an office building west of 40 Third Avenue in the C-C-F zone. 11/15/71 PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) Consideration of Amendment to Animal Keeping Regulations ~.rdinance .... Senior Planner Williams reviewed the request for an amendment to the City Code to permit keepig of animals in the residential zone in conjunction with 4-H, F.F.A., or other youth organization projects. This request was made by residents of Sweetwater Valley prior to the annexation election. Since there are several conflicts between provisions of the Zoning OMdinance and the Animal Regulation Ordinance, and since the annexation of the Valley area is no longer imminent, it is recommended that this matter be referred to the staff for a more compre- hensive study before the required amendments are presented for adoption. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) The question of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Animal Regulations Ordinance be referred to the staff for a comprehensive study. Request for 9xtgnsion of time on Variance for 4201 Bonita Road - Richard Wilson Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of a vacant parcel of land zoned R-3-G, and adjacent to property developed with apartments, which were constructed when the zoning permitted one unit per 3000 sq. ft. Upon adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 1969 this property was placed in the R-3-G-D zone which permits one unit per 2500 square feet. In November, 1970, the Planning Commission approved a zone variance to allow the transfer of density from the adjoining parcel to permit construction at the net density of one unit per 2500 sq. ft. in the two parcels. Mr. Wilson has reported that while construction has not actually begun, considerable time and effort have been expended in the preparation of plans, obtaining surveys and maps, release of easements, and an agreement for an exchange of land with the City of Chula Vista. He is requesting an extension of time to November, 1972, on the variance. The staff recommends granting the request. Member Rice commented that in the past it has been quite routine for the Commission to grant an extension of time on a variance when the basic conditions remain unchanged. However, he felt the development which has taken place on this project has created a screen or wall obstructing the view of the public golf course, or open space, from the thoroughfares and from motorists and pedestrians. He felt this is an encroachment on the rights of the people of the City and he does not concur with an extension of the variance. Member Macevicz expressed his objection to the increased density in the area. Chairman Stewart avowed that since the applicant has gone ahead with plans for developing the property under conditions allowed by the variance which was granted by the Planning Commission, and since conditions remain unchanged, he felt the Commission would not be justified in changing their mind after a variance was once granted. Richard Wilson, 249 E Street, answered questions of the Con~nission concerning the problems it had been necessary to resolve prior to starting construction on this project. These included two easements and an exhcnage of property with the City to allow for better development of their property and also better design of the parking lot for the Municipal Golf Course. 11/15/71 MSC (Adams-Macevicz) An extension of time to November 16, 1972, be granted on Variance PCV~70-35 for property at 4201 Bonita Road. The motion carried by the following vote; AYES: Members Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, Stewart and Rudolph NOES: Member Rice ABSENT: None Discussion of "I" Street zoning StUdy Senior Planner Williams reported that this zoning study was undertaken at the direction of the Planning Commission following the denial by the City Council for rezoning to C-C-P for the properties located at 574-586 "I" Street. He pointed out that the General Plan designates this area as high-density multiple- family units, to provide an area of residence convenient to the shopping center. Such apartments would also serve as a buffer for the single family residential homes to the south. Mr. Williams reminded that one of the goals in the Chula Vista General Plan is a conservative policy in adding new land to the commercial land supply and that every effort be made to increase the efficient use of existing commercial uses. He reported that as of April, 1971, there were 175± acres of land zoned C-C (Central Commercial) of which 50± acres were improved with commercial structures, 11± acres were improved with residential and agricultural uses and 70± acres were vacant. Mr. Williams enumerated six reasons presented by the staff for recommending that no further consideration be given to rezoning of property located at 574-586 "I" Street to C-C. Members Rice, Stewart and Adams expressed praise for the exhaustive study and excellent report prepared by the staff concerning this matter. Member Rudolph concurred, adding that she felt the shopping center north of "I" Street is already too large. She expressed the opinion there should not be traffic through a pedestrian oriented commercial area as there is at this center with Sears and Home Fair separated from the rest of the center by busy streets. MSUC (Rudolph-Rice) Recommend to the City Council that the "I" Street zoning study report be accepted and that no further consideration be given to commercial zoning in this area. Discussion of A.B.C. regulations concernin~ sale of liquo~ Assistant City Attorney Blick reported he had discussed this by phone with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and they indicated there were no regulations which would interfere with the restrictions for the operation of bars in the C-N zone that the Planning Commission wishes to apply. The A.B.C. tends to encourage local government taking action in this field and made some suggestions as to how to do it. Mr. Blick reported he had also discussed this with the City Attorneys in E1 Cajon and in Escondido and they have been successful in putting conditions of restriction in a conditional use permit. Some of the limitations they suggested were to prohibit -he use of live entertainment, and as a means of making sure the -6- 11/15/71 sale of liquor is incidental to the sale of food to eliminate a counter or bar. Chairman Stewart suggested that based on these recommendations the City Attorney draw up proposed amendments limiting the operation of bars in the C-N zone and that it be further discussed at a ~orkshop. Director's Report Director of Planning Warren advised that the first available date, and probably the most feasible one, for a workshop meeting before Christmas would be November 29th. He further suggested that the workshop convene in the conference room at Civic Center at 5:00 p.m. and after about two hours of discussion the members could go to dinner where reservations had been made. Director of Planning Warren called attention to the preliminary report prepared by the consultants on the Bayfront Study and advised that the consultants will be in San Diego on Tuesday, November 23, to make a presentation to the Port Commission. Plans for a presentation to the City Council and concerned Commissions of Chula Vista are being formulated although the exact time and date have not been determined. The Commission expressed preference that such presentation be made on Wednesday, November 24th. Director of Planning Warren read a letter from the Chairman of Environmental Control Commission requesting support of the Commission for a resolution from Lesser San Diego via the Sierra Club, which is directed to the County Board of Supervisors and requests that a moratorium on development (growth) be immediately instituted until the carrying capacity of the San Diego region can be determined. Mr. Warren expressed concurrence with the need for a study to determine the carrying capacity of the region, but stated he was not in a position to support a moratorium on all development within the region, before the study is conducted. The Commission expressed agreement for supporting a study but felt a moratorium could not be applied immediately. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Advise the City Council of the Planning Commission's concurrence that there is a need to conduct a study to determine the carrying capacity of this region but they do not support a moratorium on development since the ramifications of such a region-wide moratorium are unknown. Director of Planning Warren reported that the staff has been working with F.H.A. in attempting to arrange a bus tour of existing Planned Unit Developments in Orange County. It is felt this would be feasible only if a number of Commissioners, Councilmen and members of the Environmental Control Commission would be interested in attending. A number of Commissioners indicated they would be interested in such a tour. Commission Comments Member Macevicz commented that the report on the Bayfront S~udy is an extremely well done document written in a manner easily understood by the general public. The Commission discussed the "No Smoking" rule in the Council Chamber. 11/15/71 Oral Communications Kathrum Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive~ reported that she had attended a meeting in San Diego of an ad hoc committee concerning the proposed moratorium on develop- ment. This is proposed for the City of San Diego because of the shortage of schools in two sections of the city particularly. She reported they were trying to determine whether or not it is legal to declare a moratorium on building. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Rudolph) The meeting be adjourned to the meeting of November 22 1971. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ' Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretaey