Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/04/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 19, 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: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, James and Hillson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 5, 1971, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 176 Third Avenue - Use of property in R-3 zone as parking lot for new car storage and display - Castle Plymouth, Inc. ' Chairman Rice commented that following the advertising of this application, the City Attorney had advised that this could not be considered under the conditional use permit procedure, but should be filed and readvertised as a rezoning. MSUC (Chandler-James) Application for Conditional use permit for 176 Third Avenue, Castle Plymouth, Inc., be filed and that a public hearing be scheduled to consider rezoning of subject property. Discussion of Conditional Use Permit for church facilities at 345 Fifth Avenue - Grace Baptist Church Director of Planning Warren displayed a plat locating the church facilities and surrounding lots and briefly reviewed the conditional use permit issued in 1962 for this use. He pointed out that in recent months complaints have been received through the City Attorney's office from adjacent property owners concerning excessive noise emanating from this use. He read excerpts from a letter citing the incidents of noise. Chairman Rice called upon anyone from the audience wishing to testify to substantiate this complaint. There was no response and the Chairman asked if the Pastor of the church would speak. Pastor Kenneth Johnson of Grace Baptist Church commented it is not their intention to offend or disturb the neighbors and enumerated measures they had taken to eliminate any disturbing noise. These included: discontinuing the use of a buzzer at the end of class sessions on Sunday morning, keeping the windows adjacent to residential property closed during the service, asking congregation not to slam car doors loudly and create other unnecessary noise in the parking lot. -2- 4/19/71 Mr. Johnson also enumerated the hours during which service or activity is conducted at their facility, which totals about 7-1/2 hours a week; time spent singing totals about 3 hours and 15 minutes a week including choir practice. City Attorney Lindberg recommended that this problem be turned over to the staff to determine if additional means of toning down the noise are necessary. Member Chandler felt the matter should be dropped without action. Member Stewart pointed out that churches are an authorized land use in all residential areas and no one can expect church service to be conducted without a certain amount of noise. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) The staff make a study of the Grace Baptist Church by observation during the time the services are in progress and report back to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing d.a~ nurseries and nursery schOols as Unclassified Use Director of Planning Warren pointed out this is a hearing to consider an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish a procedure by which nursery schools and day nurseries could be considered in any zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and no particular site for a nursery school is under consideration. He enumerated the conditions recommended by the staff to be applied to such use, which include: minimum area of one acre, location on, a major or collector street, landscaping and appropriate screening, no signs and limitation on hours of operation. Mr. Warren reported the receipt of petitions bearing 595 signatures objecting to this change in the ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg pointed out tI~at this proposed amendment is an effort to rectify a discrepancy in the Zoning Ordinance which permits the location of other schools, public and private, elementary and secondary, in all residential zones but restricts nursery schools to the R-3 and C-O zone. He cautioned that a procedurel change in the ordinance should not be confused with objections to a particular site; if this ordinance is adopted, then a person wishing to locate a nursery school in any zone would have to apply for a conditional use permit and meet the requirements of being compatible with other uses in the particular area. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chester Corbin, 320 Nocturne Court, spoke of the need for more nursery schools in Chula Vista and of the limitation on where they can be established since most commercial property is too expensive for such use. Margaret Corbin, 320 Nocturne Court, pointed out the need for locating preschool facilities in a residential neighborhood so that children can go to ~hem; that a commercial environment is inappropriate. Mary Pochodowicz, 10 East Palomar, reported that she had a petition with 8 additional signatures in opposition to this amendment and asked that they be added to those already on file, making the total number of signatures 603. In speaking against this amendment, Mrs. Pochodowicz stressed the point that nursery schools are a commercial enterprise established for a profit which is not true of public or parochial elementary schools. She also expressed concern that approval of this amendment would "open the door" for other types of schools such as beauty colleges, -3- 4/19/71 barber colleges and other technical and trade schools. She pointed out there is no guarantee that the standards now adopted might not be lowered in the future. Aubrey Melius, 233 L Street, contended that to classify a nursery school as not being a business leads other businesses to request consideration as an unclassi- fied use. He further felt that one acre is not large enough for such use. Howell Hodgson, 682 Carla Avenue, pointed out that most schools and churches are located on property that was originally developed for that purpose and to reclassify property which has been on the tax roles as residential property is entirely different. Inasmuch as a nursery school requires a business license it must be considered as a business and should not be permitted on property that has been zoned for residential use, but should be restricted to commercial property. John McGuane, 433 Keaney Street, expressed opposition to the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested that if nursery schools are being included as an unclassified use, so also should beauty colleges, secretarial' schools and any other schools run for a profit. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discuss+on the Commission discussed their feeling that the R~I zone should be exempt from this type of use. It would possibly be permissible in the R-2 zone but in light of the small amount of R-2 zoning in the City, a change in the ordinance does not seem justified. MSC (Chandler-Macevicz) The proposed amendment to place nursery schools and day nurseries in the Unclassified Use section be denied. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Macevicz, Stewart, Rice, James and Hillson NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: None City Attorney Lindberg adivsed that this matter is concluded at this level unless it is appealed to the City Council within 10 days. .Request for approval of side sard reduction for sign at 6.65 H Street - Edith Bremer Associate Planner Lee indicated on a plat the location desired for a pole sign 2 feet inside the side property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10~ side setback to prevent one sign from obscuring another, but in this case the adjacent property has a driveway at the property line and their sign is located near the other side of the property by a street intersection and there would be no sight problem if this request is granted. MSUC (Adams-Macevice) Approval of side yard reduction for sign at 665 H Street. -4- 4/19/71 .Request for modification of Conditional Use Permit for Post Office on Third Avenue Director of Planning Warren reported the receipt of a letter from the contractor constructing the new building for the Post Office Department requesting a waiver from the requirement contained in the conditional use permit for the undergrounding of existing utility lines along the street at the front of the property. They indicate this would place an extreme hardship on the project. In pursuing this with the Gas and Electric Company the Planning staff was advised this would cost between $15,000 and $18,000. Mr. Warren further pointed out that the Engineering Department has plans for widening Third Avenue at which time undergrounding could be considered by the City Council for the overall area. This is approximately 8 to 9 years away on the present schedule. In view of these circumstances the staff recommends approval of the waiver for undergrounding the utility lines along Third Avenue at th~s time. City Engineer Gesley confirmed that the Engineering Division has plans for widening the west half of Third Avenue from the Post Office site south to where it has already been widened, but there are no plans for undergrounding utility lines in connection with the street project. Carl Stahlheber, Postmaster in Chula Vista, expressed his belief that it would be unreasonable to require undergrounding of utility lines across the front of just one property when the remainder of the street has overhead lines. He also pointed out that poles in front of their property also service businesses on the opposite side of Third Avenue. He had been advised that the cost of this is esti- mated at forty or fifty thousand dollars. It was his understanding that the $18,000 would be the cost of placing service to their own building underground. Mike Rosenberger, representative of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, advised that the figure of $15,000 to $18,000 was a rough estimate of the cost of installing a transformer to get the power across Third Avenue without the overhead poles but then it be:omes a problem as to how to service the buildings which are wired to take overhead service. Norbert Pieper, architect and representative of the owner of the building, Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation, confirmed that they will place the lines under- ground from the street to the building; also that they will widen Third Avenue and will relocate the poles in order to do that, but they did not anticipate undergrounding the service along the street. He did not think waiving this requirement at this time would preclude assessing the property in order to accomplish this at the proper time. The Commission expressed a§reement that undergrounding utility lines along the street at this time is an unreasonable requirement. MSUC (Adams-Hillson) The conditions of C.U.P. #70-4 be modified to eliminate the requirement to underground the electrical utility lines in front of the Post Office with the provision that the owner and/or lessee enter into an agreement to participate in the undergrounding at a future date. -5- 4/19/71 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Ota~ Lakes Road - Location of church facilities in R-l-lO zone - New Testament Church Director of Planning Warren reminded the Commission an application for this use had previously been presented and approved, but it was determined the plat submitted at that time did not represent the actual property line, which has necessitated a new application for the boundaries as shown on the plat displayed. The staff recommends approval subject to the same conditions as required previously, plus the condition that the property be consolidated into one parcel prior to construction. The public hearing was opened and Thomas Beard, representing the New Testament Church, expressed agreement with all conditions except the one for consolidating parcel A and parcel B. He assured the Commission these parcels are under one ownership and on one trust deed and had been delineated separately in the interest of procuring a loan when they are ready to build. Mr. Warren adivsed that if there is a legal means by which the Commission can be assured the two parcels may not be divided for sale, there is no objection to granting the conditional use permit. MSUC (Chandler-Hillson) Approval of a conditional use permit for location RESOLUTION NO. PCC-71-5 of church facilities in an R-l-lO zone on the north side of Otay Lakes Road by the New Testament Church subject to the following conditions: l) Dedication and improvement of Otay Lakes Road shall be as recommended by the City Engineer. 2) If, for financing purposes, it is necessary to devide the total site, no portion shall be sold or developed for any other use unless approved by the Planning Commission. 3) Grading for the access drive shall be subject to staff approval and if feasible the grade should not exceed 10%. 4) A grading plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. Said grading plan shall insure ample sight vision at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and the access road. 5) A landscaping and irrigation plan for all slopes created shall be submitted using the following criteria: a. Slopes of 3 feet in vertical height or less shall utilize fine leaf ice plant such as mesenbreanthemum crocea or rosea. b. Slopes of 3' to 15' in height shall have the top 6 foot strip planted in a fine leaf ice plant as in a, the balance to be planted with carpobrotus edulis. Substitutions may be considered by the staff. c. On all slopes greater than 15 feet, add to b one shrub or tree per 150 sq. ft., one gallon size minimum, to be selected by a landscape architect for deep rooting qualities as well as aesthetic values. -6- 4/19/71 d. All slopes and landscaped area shall be watered by a sprinkler system. The irrigation plan shall be submitted with the landscape plan. 6) A pedestrian walk shall be provided on one side of the access road. 7) The access entrance shall be landscaped and treated to provide an aesthetic and pleasant effect. 8) Ten per cent of the parking area shall be devoted to landscaping. 9) The area around the church shall be landscaped. Findings are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. Future development will require additional community facilities in the area. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The adjacent properties can be developed as they exist and this proposed use would not be detrimental. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. All regulations and conditions will be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected. Community facilities are usually located where there is a need for them. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 203 Seavale Street - Reduction of portion of rear yard 20' to 5' - Edward E. & Dorothy Hartz Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location of the property at the northwest corner of Seavale Street and Second Avenue and displayed a plat showing the location of the dwelling on the lot. This residence observes a 25' setback from Seavale Street and 16' from Second Avenue. The most logical expansion of the house is to the north of the building which would necessitate the requested reduction of the rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance provides for 40% lot coverage in the R-1 zone and the proposed addition containing 496 square feet would bring the total area of the house to 2331 sq. ft., which is 419 sq. ft. less than the maximum coverage allowed. -7- 4/19/71 The public hearing was opened and Mr. Edward Hartz, 203 Seavale Street, testified that he had checked into the possibility of adding a second story, but this would be considerably more expensive than the proposed addition. As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Macevicz-Hillson) Approval of a variance for the reduction of a portion RESOLUTION NO. PCV-71-8 of the rear yard form 20' to 5' at 203 Seavale Street based on the following findings: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The present location of the house and its orientation towards the streets precludes any logical expansion in any other area. 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 setback requirements will not permit the allotted amount of lot coverage without the variance. 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 variance. This property is a corner lot which abuts the adjacent properties side yards. Granting of the variance would not adversely affect these properties as ample separation would be maintained. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - South side of J Street east of 1,805 - Division of parcel into 4 lots, 3 to be s~rved b~ easemen~ - Thomas ~. Terry Associate Planner Lee indicated the location of vacant property abutting the freeway, with difficult topography for development. He also displayed a plat showing the applicant's proposal for developme~ into four lots, three to be served by an easement from J Street. He discussed the problem concerning sewer provisions for this property inasmuch as it is below the le?el of the sewer which serves the area. The staff recommends that development be limited to a maximum of three lots, and the question of using septic tanks be subjected to further staff analysis. Mr. Lee reviewed the conditions the staff woul!d recommend if division of this property for development is approved. -8- 4/19/71 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tom Terry, 1202 Walnut tree Lane, E1 Cajon, expressed basic agreement with the conditions requested by the staff. He asked, however, that in the event a pump system is installed to handle the sewer requirements, would consideration be given to the approval of four lots. Mr. Terry confirmed that they plan to build two- story houses and that the garages could be moved back enough to provide 22 feet from the easement for parking. Mr. Warren reported the receipt of petition of protest bearing 91 signatures representing 57 properties. He also stated that under no condition would the staff recommend approval of more than 3 lots. Anita Haynes, 438 East J Street, stated that she was speaking for the 91 home owners who signed the petition and were not present at the hearing. She pointed out that this ~rea is a fairly new development and to her knowledge no other property had required a variance from the requirements of the City Code concerning street frontage and she felt it would be a detriment to the area to permit additional homes on a 20' alley. Tom Harris, who lives on Greenfield Drive in E1 Cajon, reported that he is the owner of this property, and pointed out there is in excess of 45,000 square feet of land and he felt the map which they submitted was in error in depicting the amount involved in slopes. He suggested that 70% is flat but no accurate determination of this has been made. He maintained this is ample area for development into four lots and that the drainage and sewer could be handled. Dale Hoffland, 446 East J Street, contended that attempting to develop this property into four lots, Mr. Terry is asking for an easement which is a substandard street, substandard drainage, and substandard sewer. In essence, Mr. Terry is asking the Commission to accept a substandard development simply so he can make more profit on the land. Aubrey Kesterson, 428 East J Stret, owner of the property which abuts the eastern edge of this parcel, commented that this variance would permit a street within 10 feet of his house from which he had assumed the code of Chula Vista would protect him. He refuted Mr. Terry's statement that this development would improve the neighborhood, stated that to the contrary the neighborhood would be accepting septic tanks which they do not want and an unimproved alley running within 10 feet of a house. He commented on the trash and debris which went into the fill for this property and maintained it had not been compacted. James Holodnak, 463 Allveiw Court, also expressed concern over what he termed substandard development. Harry Berry, 458 East J Street, asked if there would not be additional fill to be placed on that lot; if not, he questioned the accuracy of the figures. He also pointed out a lack of parking facilities for this development and that cars would pe parking on J Street which carries considerable traffic. R. E. Lee, 446 Willowcrest Way, pointed out there is no drainage off this land unless it drains on the freeway. -9- 4/19/71 There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The City Engineer expressed the opinion that the property could and should be subdivided with a normal street. In discussion, the Commission agreed that the owner could not be denied the right to develop the land if he meets the requirements of the City Code. They also discussed the possibility of moving the easement to the west side of the property so it would not be adjacent to existing homes. Chairman Rice felt many points needed to be resolved before a determination could be made as to whether this land could support one, two, three or four homes. MS (Adams-Stewart) Approval of a variance to permit division of the land into three lots, subject to conditions recommended by the staff and an additional requirement for two additional parking spaces per lot besides the garage requirement. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Stewart, Hillson NOES: Members Rice, Macevicz, Chandler, James MSC (Chandler-Macevicz) The public hearing be reopened and continued to the meeting of May 3 in an attempt to obtain more concrete information concerning the development; particularly concerning existing grades and compaction. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Macevicz, Rice, James and Adams NOES: Members Stewart and Hillson PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 697 Gretchen Road - Reduction of setback 25' to 0 - Carol J, Harding Associate Planner Lee indicated this is a double frontage lot facing Gretchen with the rear property line adjacent to J Street. He commented on the width of J Street and that its ultimate widening would require an additional 10 feet of right of way on the north side. He acknowledged the need for the fence to provide privacy and that if it were set 25 feet from the property line, it would be ineffective due to the difference in elevation with J Street being above the subject property. Mr. Lee enumerated four conditions recommended by the staff in the approval of this variance. Member Macevicz questioned the condition requiring a 10' dedication for street right of way, pointing out that a short distance to the east such dedication would be in the front yard about 5 feet from the dwelling. He questioned the feasibility of widening this side of East J Street. City Attorney Lindberg maintained that the question is: Does the dedication of _ that 10 feet become a requirement because of the variance requested by the applicant. He is not sure that is the case. -10- 4/19/71 Chairman Rice asked whether it is the intent that the City.would relocate the fence or require this of the applicant. The staff indicated this would be the City's obligation in connection with widening the street. The Chairman opened the public hearing and George Prussel, 3645 Lomacitas Lane, speaking for the applicant, stressed the need for the fence at the property line for privacy andprotection, since the headlights of cars shine directly into the rear of the house. Re indicated the applicant had no objections to the conditions imposed by the staff. City Attorney Lindberg still objected to the first condition, stating there is no showing that the request for dedication of street right of way is required by this variance and he requested that it be deleted. MSC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the request for variance for the reduction RESOLUTION PCV-71-7 of setback from 25' to 0 at 697 Gretchen Road, subject to the following conditions: 1) The proposed fence may be constructed with a 0 setback (30' from center line of J) with a requirement that said fence may be relocated by the City when the widening of J Street is accomplished. 2) The final setback of the fence or wall shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to insure no sight distance problems and compatibility with adjoining walls or fences. 3) The design of the proposed wall or fence, to be constructed before or replaced after the widening of J Street, shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Adams, Stewart, Rice, James and Hillson NOES: Member Macevicz Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. There is a substantial grade difference between the subject property and the public right of way. 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. Without this variance the normal privacy of a rear yard area could not be afforded this property. -ll- 4/19/71 c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will ~ot materially impair the purposes of the Ordinance or the public interest. As long as no site distance problems are created, no detrimental effects will be created. c. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. Approval of final, map of Apollo Unit #2 Director of Planning referred to the map of Apollo Unit #2 located south of Rienstra Street bisected by Melrose Avenue and reported that it is in conformance with the approved tentative map. MSUC (Stewart-Hillson) Recommend to the City Council the approval of final map of Apollo Unit #2. Discussion and Recommendations on Subdivision Ordinance Director of Planning Warren suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission may wish to postpone discussion of this somewhat lengthy ordinance until after they have held a workshop meeting to discuss it. He stated that also a request for delay had also been requested by the South Bay Improvement Association. The Commission agreed and requested a dinner workshop on May 10, 1971. Director's Report a. Mr. Warren circulated a picture showing that the House of Fabrics sign has been removed from the poles supporting the FedMart sign. Chairman Rice asked if a penalty against this firm would be pursued in court. City Attorney Lindberg indicated that he would move to dismiss the action since they have now complied. Mr. Lindberg then complimented the efforts of the Zoning Enforcement Officer in securing compliance with the recently adopted sign regulations. b. Mr. Warren reported the Council's delay in approving the condominium on Fourth Avenue; this was a conversion of existing apartments to permit private ownership and he felt possibly there should be a joint meeting with the Council to discuss the city's limitations in such action. He also reported that the rezoning request to R-3 at Palomar and Nolan was denied by the Council, which makes him wonder about the goal of the General Plan to disperse multiple family throughout areas of the city. -12- 4/19/71 c. Mr. Warren reviewed the efforts of San Diego County in conducting the Castle Park zoning study. This matter was continued at the Planning Commission level and Chula Vista has asked for an opportunity to review this with the County staff before it is again presented to their Commission. Commission Comments Member Hillson reported that he had heard some comments during the past two months concerning the sincerity and dedication of the Planning Commission when there is so much laughter and jocularity going on. He felt all Commissioners should give due attention to comments by the staff, other commissioners and testimony from the audience. He suggested they should become more professional and thus might shorten the meetings somewhat. Chairman Rice felt no one could doubt the dedication of the Commission members if they consider the time and effort required by some of the questions presented to this body. Oral Communications Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, called attention to the fact that this is Earth Week and the importance of environmental controls. She quoted from a presentation mady by Mr. Ruckleshouse, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., during a recent meeting in Las Vegas. This pointed out the growing problems pollution and other types of environmental deterioration, and that the solution to these problems will be found only through the total involvement of citizens, consumers, government officials and corporate officials. Mary Pochodowicz saluted the members of the Commission for their dedicated service to the community. Chairman Rice adjourned the meeting at ll:O0 p.m. to the meeting of April 26. Respectfu 1 ly s ubmi t ted, Helen S. Mapes, Secretar~ Chula Vista Planning Commission