Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/07/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 6, 1971 The regular 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, Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent (with previous notification) Members Rice and Macevicz. Also present: Director of Planning Warren and City Attorney Lindberg. In the absence of Chairman Rice, Vice-Chairman Stewart conducted the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Hillson-James) Approval of the minutes of June 21, 1971 meeting, as mailed. Request for modification of Conditional Use Permit 71-17 - Danish Freeze - 360 Third Avenue Director of Planning Warren read a letter from Joe Schmith of QRS Signs requesting that the item be withdrawn from the Agenda due to the recommendation for denial made by the Director of Planning. The application was filed without action by the Commission. Request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit 66-5 - Use of front setback for play area - First MethOdist Chu'rch - 710 Third Avenue Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the play yard in the front setback between an educational building and "J" Street, enclosed by a 5' high chain link fence set back 5' from "J" Street. The setback area contains a eugenia hedge and juniper ground cover. The applicant is requesting approval of a five-year extension of time to permit the play area to remain located in the setback area adjacent to "J" Street. In 1966 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the location of the play area on a temporary basis with the request that future planning accommodate it in an interior portion of the lot. No new construction has occurred and the facility remains in the same place. The staff recommends a one-year extension of time for the play area subject to the condition that the play yard shall be relocated to an interior portion of the site upon Planning Commission review of the next development phase of the church master plan, and that area of the existing play yard shall then be landscaped with material compatible with existing landscaping. Member Hillson inquired if any complaints have been received on the present location of the play yard. Mr. Warren answered that he has received none personally and is not aware of any. -2- 7/6/71 Herbert Hollingsworth, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, First Methodist Church, stated they have developed their church facility with a great deal of open space and taken care of all the landscaping requirements. They do not anticipate any revision of their master plan for an indefinite period, due to present economic conditions and other factors. There is no other suitable area that could be used for the nursery school without extensive building modification. The building presently in use has the required rest room facilities as well as sinks which the teachers use in connection with arts and crafts. Also, this building is all on the ground floor level. Expansion of the play area is restricted due to parking lot on west and walkway to church sanctuary entrance on east. South of it is a paved patio area, so there is no other turfed area in that vicinity. Chairman Stewart asked to have restated the hours and the period throughout the year that this area is utilized, also the total enrollment and how many are in the play area at one time. Mr. Hollingsworth replied that they are essentially on a year-round operation now, some mornings and some afternoons, five days a week. The average enroll- ment is about 40, and they have a rotating schedule, but he did not have other specific information. Member Chandler commented that another five years seemed a little long, and he does not object to the present location, but thinks it not unreasonable to have a shorter period for review of the status of the master plan. Member Adams remarked that the present location seems to be the only place they have for it at the present time, but as the church edifice is a rather attractive building and the playground detracts from its appearance, he would agree with Mr. Chandler that they might allow a longer period than a year, but shorter than five years. MSUC (Chandler-James) Request for extension of time on use of front setback for play area, First Methodist Church, 710 Third Avenue, be granted based on a three-year extension of time for the play area subject to the following condition: Upon Planning Commission review of the next development phase of this church master plan, the play yard shall be relocated to an interior portion of the site. The area of the existing play yard shall then be landscaped with material compatible with existing landscaping. Request for modification of wall requirement under Conditional Use Permit 71-12 - Grace Baptist Temple - 345 Fifth Avenue Director of Planning Warren pointed out on a plat the area along the eastern property line where there is an existing 4'-6' fence, which is required to be replaced by a zoning wall under the Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of this requirement is the protection of the adjacent single family residential development from the commercial-like impact of a church use. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' rear yard setback and a lO' wide landscaping strip or a fence or a wall. This facility is nonconforming due partially to the existing -3- 7/6/71 15' rear yard setback. The existing fencing is not substantial enough to protect the residential area. The staff has no objection to a new 6' high solid fence being constructed, the fence to be maintained in sound condition and attractive appearance; and with landscaping provided between the fence and existing structure. Kenneth Strange, Assistant Pastor, Grace Baptist Temple, stated that they plan to put a masonry wall at the southerly perimeter of the property, but were ask- ing if they could leave the existing fence with landscaping along the easterly property line. It is not 6' high although it is a solid fence. The commission discussed the conditions of the permit which stipulates a 6' high solid fence, which may be masonry or another material, and Pastor Strange agreed they would put up a 6' fence, to be approved by the staff. Member Hillson voiced an objection to the wooden fence, stating that the Council has strongly favored requiring solid masonry type walls between a commercial- type area and a residential one. He feels it would be setting a precedent to allow other than a masonry type wall between the two areas, and that a solid masonry wall should be required here to protect the residents on the other side. Some Commissioners objected to the term "commercial-like." MSC (Adams-James) Request for modification of wall requirements for the eastern property line under Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1971 to the Grace Baptist Temple, 345 Fifth Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A 6' high solid fence shall be constructed along the eastern property line. The fence shall be maintained in sound condition and attractive appearance. 2. 15 gal. trees shall be planted between the fence and existing structure. The exact number and type shall be determined by the City's Landscape Architect to insure adequate buffering between the uses. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, James and Adams NOES: Member Hillson ABSENT: Members Rice and Macevicz Resolution - Approving Planned Unit Development for Area A of E1 Rancho del Re~ development Director of Planning Warren explained that the public hearings on this development have been completed, and this Resolution submitted for formal approval delineates precisely all the requirements specified by the staff and accepted by the Com- mission. The staff recommendation for approval of the Planned Unit Development also approves the basic land use of out-parcels, which would be subject to change upon initiation of those owners for a new public hearing. -4- 7/6/71 Member Hillson inquired if the question of how to connect the street into the open space from the westerly residential area just north of the school had been solved. Mr. Warren replied that it had not because the tentative map has still not been approved. Mr. Warren read a letter from Mr. Joseph W. Odenthal, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Chula Vista Elementary School District, agreeing that the one planned elementary school site should accommodate the students generated from Units 1 and 2 of Area A, and requesting that any preliminary approval of the subdivision be subject to the approval of a purchase option by the school district. Mr. Warren remarked that the High School District is not involved in the sites in this unit, and they will be asked for a statement concerning the impact of the projected student generation at the time the tentative map is considered. Mr. Carmen Pasquale, a partner in the Otay Land Company, stated that they accept the conditions of the Resolution, but requested clarification of various minor points. Mr. Bob McFarland, Wilsey and Ham, raised the question of when graded areas should be considered temporary or when they should be landscaped. Mr. Warren stated that any slope which will be "temporary" for a long period of time should either not be graded or should be planted to prevent erosion. The plan should be flexible, so earth will not be moved and set indefinitely with- out landscaping. After some discussion it was agreed that at the time landscaping and irrigation plans are submitted with grading plans, indications should be made of the temporary areas and a time limit established for removing a temporary condition either by grading or by providing permanent landscaping. Also, that if any question arises about an unreasonable length of time or a problem of erosion, the Engineering Department or the Planning Department should have the oppor- tunity to bring it back to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. McFarland suggested that an adjustment of the number of approved lots be made so that the removal of the lot which protrudes into the open space area would not result in the loss of a lot. Mr. Warren commented they have the privilege of trying to do that when the tentative map is filed for approval. MSUC (Chandler-James) Resolution PUD-71-2 for Area A of E1 Rancho del Rey development be approved as submitted and recommended to the City Council. -5- 7/6/71 Director's Report Director of Planning Warren asked if there were any requests for reservations for the League of California Cities Conference in September, as it is recom- mended that hotel reservations be made well in advance. Member Stewart requested two, and Members James and Adams each requested one. Commission Comments Member Adams called attention to the newspaper article reporting the recent Environmental Control Commission meeting and wondered if the E1 Rancho del Rey plan were the one the ECC had called no plan at all, or even poor art work. Chairman Stewart remarked he felt rather strongly about it and requested Mr. Warren's comment. Director of Planning Warren commented he had attended only one of the ECC meetings, where he didn't really make a presentation of the plan, as it had not been requested, but it was discussed. He believes what seems to be missing is any direct confrontation between the staff and the ECC. There seems to have been much vague criticism but nothing constructive, and he is not aware of the exact problem. Mr. Warren stated the ECC had been invited to the special Planning Commission hearing on the Planned Unit Development, but no one had attended. City Attorney Lindberg inquired who was representing the ECC at the present meeting. Upon Mr. Warren's reply of "No one," Mr. Lindberg remarked that in the past they have not sent a representative to a meeting. Member Adams commented that if the newspaper article were true, he resented very much the intemperate reaction of the ECC to the work of the Planning Commission and the staff, and feels that it is improper for them to speak this way about one of the other Commissions in City government. He believes they do not have the slightest idea what the problems of planning or develop- ment of this kind are. City Attorney Lindberg and Member Chandler voiced their concurrence with his remarks. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leoda Scholl, Acting Secretary Chula Vista Planning Commission