Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/03/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 1, 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: Rice, Stewart, Hillson, James, Macevicz, Chandler and Adams. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Associate Planner Lee, and City Attorney Lindberg. Chairman Rice led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-James) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 22, 1971 as mailed. Request for approval of move-in - 1436 First Avenue - Roy Muraoka Director of Planning Warren passed photos of the buildings proposed to be moved to the Commission and indicated on a plat the location of the property which is located between the mobile home park and the SDG&E easement. The staff recommends approval of the request. MSUC (Hillson-Chandler) Recommend to City Council approval of the request for move-in at 1436 First Avenue, subject to conditions listed in report of Building and Housing Department. SUBDIVISION - Request for approval of tentative map - Neapolitan Villas Associate Planner Lee displayed a plat pointing out the location of a 27 lot subdivision on the south side of East Naples with one access street from East Naples and with two lots fronting on East Naples Street. The staff recommends approval of the tentative map subject to conditions listed in the staff comments.. Mr. Chuck Pearson, representing Wittman Enterprises, expressed agreement with the conditions enumerated by the staff. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the approval of tentative map for Neapolitan Villas subject to the conditions proposed by the staff. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) - REZONING - Phase III of City Rezonin9 Plan - C Street to Ada~ Fifth Avenue to Interstate 5 - Director of Planning Warren commented that this hearing on rezoning was continued from the meeting of February 1 to give the staff an opportunity to evaluate 3/1/71 testimony given and to meet with property owners involved. Two such meetings have been held and the staff is prepared to make recommendations on all parcels under controversy. Associate Planner Lee discussed the following recommendations: Section 1 (Area between C Street and E Street) Approximately 6 acres between Interstate 5 and Woodlawn Avenue, opposite the terminus of Sea Vale Street, had been recommended for rezoning from I-L to R-3. The owner of the property indicated the State Division of Highways has proposed an entire taking of subject property for right-of-way, and he requested an abeyance of the rezoning until such transaction is completed. The supervisor in charge of right-of-way acquisition for Interstate 5 indicated such rezoning action would not effect their appraisal of the property. The staff, therefore, holds wi th the original recommendation to rezone this property to R-3. The public hearing was opened and there were no comments concerning this area. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to City Council rezoning of the area between C Street and E Street as recommended by the staff. Section 2 (area between E Street and G Street) The area of controversy involved the south side of F Street east of Broadway presently zoned R-3 and occupied with duplex and single family development. This was previously recommended for rezoning to R-2 but further evaluation indicated the lots are wider than other R-3 property in the immediate vicinity and could be redeveloped for multiple family use. The staff recommends that this area be left in the R-3 zone at this time. There were no comments from the floor concerning this area. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) The area discussed in Section 2 be left in the R-2 zone. Section 3 (area between G Street and I Street) Three lots fronting on Jefferson and Oaklawn south of H Street, which were rezoned from residential to C-T several years ago but still remain in residential use, are recommended to be rezoned C-O, wi th setbacks as required by the Zoning Ordinance, to permit development which would be compatible with the adjoining residential uses to the south. Kenny Thompson, 507 Jefferson Avenue, expressed his feeling that it would be prejudicial to change this property from commercial thoroughfare zoning since the adjoining land to the north, fronting on H Street, has been developed for commercial use. Hector Hemershon, representing his sister who owns property at 511 Jefferson, also expressed opposition to any change in the zoning of this property. Director of Planning Warren commented that although the property adjacent to this with frontage on H Street is zoned C-T, both corners are developed with an office use which is permitted in the C-O zone. He pointed out that the purpose of rezoning is not to prevent thoroughfare commercial development if the lots were incorporated with frontage on H Street, but to prevent such development fronting on the side streets. He stressed that if the three property owners would coordinate development -3- 3/1/71 a request for rezoning could be made at that time. MSUC (Hillson-Adams) Recommend to City Council the rezoning to C-O as proposed by the staff. Section 4 (area between I Street and L Street) Associate Planner Lee advised that no objections were raised to the changes recommended at the meeting of February 1st. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommend zone changes as proposed at the meeting of February l, 1971 Section 5 (area south of L Street) Property at the southeast corner of Industrial Boulevard and L Street, was previously recommended to be changed from I to I-L. This property is presently occupied with uses which would be allowed in either the I-L or I zone and the staff has no objection to leaving this area an I General Industrial zone. Property directly south of the proposed L Street interchange and west of Industrial Boulevard, presently being farmed, was previously recommended for rezoning from I to C-V. The owner expressed his desire to leave it in an industrial classification and since the staff agrees that it could be developed for either industrial or visitor commercial use, it is recommended that it be left in its present I Industrial zone. Mr. James Yamate, owner of the property, stated he wishes to continue his present operation of agricultural use until the widening of Interstate 5 is completed and he is concerned that rezoning to C-V might result in a rise in taxes. With reference to the area at the Palomar Street interchange with Interstate 5, Mr. Lee commented that two meetings had been held wi th property owners in an attempt to establish zoning under which the property could best be developed. The property north of Palomar west of Walnut is recommended to be left in the C-T zone with the exception of 3 lots at the terminus of Walnut Street where it abuts the Gas & Electric easement to be rezoned to I-L. Property on the east side of Walnut, presently zoned R-3, is recommended to be left in the R-3 zone, The three lo~s which abut the service station site at the corner of Palomar and Walnut, presently zoned C-T, are recommended to be left in that zone. South of Palomar Street it is recommended that property between the new frontage road and Interstate 5 be left in the C-T zone and a small triangular lot on the east side of the frontage road be changed from C-T to R-3. It is recommended that the larger area on the south side of Palomar Street between Industrial and the new frontage road remain in the C-T zone with the attachment of the P Precise Plan Modifying District to require coordination of development. George Trusty pointed out that the triangular parcel on the east side of the new frontage road is in excess of 7,000 sq. ft. and he would prefer that it retain its present C-T zoning. He also questioned the meaning of the P Precise Plan District. -4- 3/1/71 Director of Planning Warren explained that this means a plan for the development of the property must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. It cannot be required that all property owners coordinate development for one use but a plan must be submitted indicating the development of all of the property in that district. Mr. Trusty cautioned that development restrictions should not be so stringent that it would force commercial development into the County area east of Industrial Boulevard. City Attorney Lindberg agreed that in the past development has taken place in the County which did not meet the standards adhered to by Chula Vista, but he felt the County is moving toward a more uniform application of zoning regulations and it would be most unfortunate for Chula Vista to downgrade their regulations in order to match the lower regulations outside of the city, when the County is attempting to upgrade their regulations. As there were no other comments concerning the proposed rezoning, the public hearing was closed. Member Stewart commended the staff on their efforts in this area and expressed favor wi th enacting rezoning in accordance wi th their recommendations. Member Hillson suggested leaving the triangular piece in the C-T in accordance with the owner's preference, but Director Warren stated this would cause fragmented development and would be detrimental to the development of the adjacent property with no frontage. Chairman Rice concurred that the zoning suggested by the staff represented good continuity in zoning pattern. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to City Council zone changes in Section 5 in accordance with staff recommendations. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Recommend to City Council zone changes as recommended at the February 1 hearing and not discussed tonight. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - NEC Palomar Street and Nolan Avenue - R-1 to R-3-P - D & E Enterprises Director of Planning Warren displayed a plat and pointed out the location of a 2.47 acre parcel fronting on Palomar Street for which rezoning is requested. The applicant has submitted a development plan for 32 units, or one unit per 3300 sq. ft. He reminded the Commission a previous request on a slightly larger area for development with 64 units as well as some commercial area was denied by the Commission. The adjacent area is zoned R-1 and is developed with single family homes with the exception of one lot at the northwest corner which is developed with a church. He pointed out that Palomar Street is a collector street but no interchange with the freeway is planned at this time. Mr. Warren discussed the proposed development plan which consists of 8 fourplex buildings with two access drives from Palomar Street. The development would include a central recreation area. He pointed out that since the adoption of the General Plan, development of neighborhoods with a diversity of housing types has been encouraged. The staff feels this plan meets that need and at the same time would be compatible wi th the existing residential development in the area. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the density be limited to no more than that currently proposed. -5- 3/1/71 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. - Gene York 280 K Street, representing D & E Enterprises, indicated they are in agreement with the conditions recommended by the staff and that they have no intention of developing to any higher density than one unit to 3300 sq. ft. He remarked they have tried to comply with recommendations of the staff the last time this property was under consideration when it was suggested that it be developed in conjunction wi th the property to the north. He pointed out these will be large two-bedroom units with floor area around 1400 sq. ft. He also commented that this development falls within the medium density as designated by the General Plan for this area. Robert K. Doane, 1300 Park Drive, felt the apartment complex should be denied for the same reasons the Commission denied it last May since conditions in the area have not changed except that there are now .more single family homes under construction. He contented that apartments would devaluate the property values of single family homes in the area. W. F. McBride, 336 East Palomar, expressed opposition due to the fact these will be moderate priced dwellings, 32 of them, which would probably attract two-car families. He felt that not enough onsite parking is provided and that the overflow of cars will be parking on Palomar Street. He also commented that whether or not these apartments will affect property values as appraised by the tax assessor, they will change the retail market of the homes on Palomar Street. Bob Carter, 1321 Park Drive, commented that if apartments are allowed to go in areas such as this, a City ordinance should be passed requiring developers to be honest about future development when he is selling homes. David Bavencoff, 340 East Palomar, commented this is a repeat of the proposal made last May when it was denied by the Commission and nothing has changed since then that would warrant its approval now. Mrs. Carl K. Morrison, 332 East Palomar, felt they were mislead when they purchased a home in this area since they were told by American Housing Guild that they owned the land and were developing it. They were told this was R-1 property, and if the Commission now allows apartments to be built there they are not standing behind the home owners. ~ill Raeburn, 1220 NaciOn, commented that the development of homes in this area is generating extremely heavy traffic on Nacion and on East Palomar which makes it dangerous for the kids. Mrs. George White asked where the exits for the development will be on Palomar Street. This was pointed out on the plan. She asked if there would be access from the north and was advised there would not. Louis Oakland, 319 East Palomar, pointed out that the location of a church at the corner of Melrose and Palomar, one grade school in the area, and a church on Nolan Way, result in traffic problems and in cars parked all along the streets. He also commented that when he bought his home it was a view lot but this development will cut off the view and bring the property value of his lot down. -6- 3/1/71 Bill O'Hale, 1304 Park Drive, spoke on the fact that the schools are over- populated, and the school district is considering year around sessions. Palomar School is now at the maximum and any additional students in the area would have to be bussed out. Philip Young, 133g Nacion, commented that apartment dwellers represent transitory residents, and for an area to change from permanent residents to transitory would devaluate the property. Russell Leach, 1309 Park Drive, asked if the developers would guarantee the present value of the single family homes if values go down due to this development. Gene York pointed out that this development has met the parking requirement under the ordinance and in addition to that each unit will have two parking spaces by using tandem parking. Relative to market values he contended that property values adjacent to well developed multiple family units have not decreased. He also discussed changes made in this proposed development as opposed to the previous proposal with the basic change being the decrease in density and the elimination of commercial zoning. In reply to a question, he advised that the rental of these apartments would be in excess of $200 a month, probably in the neighborhood of $225 to $250. As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was closed. Member Stewart spoke of a visit he made some years ago to the South San Francisco Bay area and at Fremont, which has been nationally recognized as a pioneer in sound planning techniques; they found a mixture of townhouses and single family homes which were completely compatible. He felt this proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area due to the control the city will have on the construction. Member Macevicz voiced his feeling that the Commission should consider the wishes of the adjacent residents since they were told by American Housing Guild that the vacant land would be developed single family homes and purchased their houses on that basis. MSC (James-Adams) Recommend to City Council a change of zone for 2.474 RESOLUTION PCZ-71-D acres located at the northeast corner of Palomar Street and Nolan Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P, subject to the precise plan which incorporates the following: a. Development of the property shall be limited to no more than 32 two bedroom untis. b. The roof material utilized shall be shake shingles. c. Where there is no substantial grade difference, or where no solid wall or fence exists or is planned, a zoning fence shall be required. The motion carried by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Members James, Adams, Rice, Stewart, Hillson and Chandler NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None -7- 3/1/71 The Chairman notified the audience this rezoning will be considered at a public hearing at the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Otay Lakes Road - Use of mobile trailer as meetin9 hall durin9 construction of church - New Testament Church Director of Planning Warren displayed a plat of the area and reminded the Commission a conditional use permit was granted some months ago for construction of a church on the property. He pointed out the difference in boundary lines on the plot plan submitted with the variance request for use of the trailer from those shown on the conditional use permit application. The staff has recommended denial of the variance request because they could find no jusitification for granting it, there was no hardship peculiar to the property, and it is felt the use of temporary facilities for public assembly would deter the ultimate development of the site. If the Commission grants this variance a new conditional use permit application will have to be filed showing the correct property lines. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tommy Beard, speaking in behalf of New Testament Church, advised that their purchase agreement for the property contained the stipulation that they receive permission from the Planning Commission to build a church on the property. At the time they did not go to the expense of surveying the property but submitted a plan on the owner's word as to where his property line was and plotted it for 10 acres. When the survey was taken they found the property line which would encompass 10 acres cut right through the middle of the area where they wished to build, which is at the top of a plateau area. After the survey was taken the property lines were changed to encompass the area they wanted and what they thought they had originally. With reference to the use of the trailer for church assembly and the indication that the Fi re Department would not approve such use, Mr. Beard pointed out that in many areas trailers are used for classroom purposes on a temporary basis. He felt the use for church purposes should be allowed on the same basis and assured that they would work with the Fire Department to fireproof the trailer as much as possible. When asked how long this temporary use would continue, Mr. Beard stated he could not give a definite date. As there was no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the expense involved in obtaining utilities to service a temporary facility and felt this expense might further delay the ultimate construction. They suggested the advisability of securing another temporary meeting place rather than using a trailer. Member Hillson suggested this request might be given more consideration if the applicant would set a time limit for the temporary use. MSC (Adams-~cevicz) Application for a variance for temporary use of a mobile trailer as a meeting hall for the New Testament Church be denied on the basis that there are no exceptional circumstances or hardship peculiar to the property. The motion carried by the following vote: -8- 3/1/71 WRZTTEN COMMUNICATIONS Request for classification of use in C-N Zone - dance studio Director of Planning Warren read a letter from Mr. Robert Roebuck of Princess Park Estates, Inc. requesting that dance studios be classified as a permitted use in the C-N zone. The staff could see no reason why this use whould not be allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone since it would offer a service to the residents of the area. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Adoption of a resolution classifying dance studios as a permitted use in the C-N zone. Request by Julius Kahn for reconsideration of freestanding sign for Home Fair Director of Planning Warren read a letter from Julius Kahn requesting reconsider- ation of a freestanding sign at the site of Home Fair. The letter indicates such a sign is needed for identification due to the change in the name of the store and in the business concept. Mr. Warren commented that while the staff is reluctant to approve any more frestanding signs than necessary, they do feel there is some justification for a freestanding sign at this site. The sign requested would be 47 feet in height, 200 square feet in area, and would be located 70 feet from the right of way of H Street. Cliff Burford spoke for the applicant and reported that he had been engaged to work with the staff to see what type of signing is feasible. He reiterated that the store has changed from a daily type of business to a major appliance store which necessitates a greater need for identification since it attracts a different type of customers and ones who will visit the store possibly semi-annually, or once a year. He reported that he had made a site survey to determine the height of sign needed to be visible by a motorist at the intersection of Fifth and H. It was their conclusion that a sign 47 feet in height, set back over 70 feet from the right of way would give the store the identification needed. Mr. Burford contended that the sign on the building is oriented to customers on the parking lot only. He also stated both the building sign and freestanding sign requested come within the zoning ordinance. Member Stewart asked for confirmation from the Planning Director that the area of this sign, plus the sign on the building, is within the scope of that allowed by ordinance. This was confirmed. MSC (Stewart-Hillson) The question of a sign for Home Fair be reconsidered and a sign approved with a height limitation as specified on the plot and that it be no closer than 70 feet from H Street. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Stewart, Hillson, Chandler and James NOES: Members Rice, Macevicz, and Adams Request for clarification of private preschool - Mr. and Mrs. C. D. Corbin Director of PlanniDg Warren read a letter received on March 1st from Mr. and Mrs. C. D. Corbin. He commented that nursery schools are allowed by conditional use permit in the R-3 zone but elementary schools ma~v be located in any residential zone. -9- 3/1/71 Mr. Chet Corbin confirmed that they would like to locate in an R-1 zone in order that their preschool facilities would be convenient to the families in the area. He pointed out that rather than furnishing all day care for children they would be conducting two 3-hour sessions and would need to be located in an area where the children would come from. They anticipate using an existing building with modifications to meet the state requirements for a licensed school. Mr. Corbin reported that they intend to license for 24 children at a session initially and that an ultimate goal may go up to 34. The Commission asked for an opinion from the City Attorney as to the classification of this use. City Attorney Lindberg asked for an opportunity to study this and bring a recommendation back to the Commission. Member Stewart felt that without the benefit of further research and study this would have to be considered the same as a nursery school or child care center. It was requested that this matter be referred to the staff and City Attorney for study and a report. Home Fair Sign Director of Planning Warren brought up a question concerning the specific design and height of the sign approved for Home Fair and Member Stewart was agreeable to amending the motion. MSC (Stewart-Hillson) Modification of the previous motion approving a freestanding sign for Home Fair to allow the staff to work out the details providing the sign is not closer than 70 feet to the street and not higher than 47 feet. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Stewart, Hillson, Chandler, James, Rice and Adams NOES: Member Macevicz Commission's Comments Chairman Rice reported that the had received a call from Frank Devore of San Diego Gas & Electric Company in regard to previous communications concerning the appearance of their property. Mr. Devore stated he had obtained approval of a landscaping plan and they are prepared to start this after installation of the tanks. He suggested that the Planning Commission and Environmental Control Commission make an inspection tour of their facility on Saturday morning, March 13th, at 9:30 a..m. It was announced that three of the Commissioners would be returning from a conference in San Francisco on that date. tt was, therefore, decided to set this inspection tour for March 20th. Chat'rman Rice asked Mr. Warren to contact the Environmental Control Commission to see if they could attend a joint tour. -~'- -10- "- 3/1/71 Member Hillson commented on statements which he made at the previous meeting with regard to large developments. Relative to government subsidies in financing such developments, Mr. Hillson expressed concern about what would happen to the community after developments are financed and constructed where the government will subsidize the rentals. From studies he has made of this he feels such developments become a burden upon the local municipality from the standpoint of law enforcement, sanitation, schools, upkeep. He felt the Commission should look into such developments and be aware of the problems that might result. City Attorney Lindberg spoke of the limitations of a Planning Commission in attempting to regulate types of financing and cautioned that if they try to exclude low cost housing the government may come and disregard zoning laws. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the meeting of March 15, 1971. Repsectful ly submitted Helen S. Mapes, Secretary, Chula Vista Planning Commission