Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/01/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 4, 1971 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, Hillson and James. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Reid, City Engineer Gesley, Director of Building and Housing Grady 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 (Adams-Chandler) The minutes of the meetings of December 7 and December 21, 1970, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 556 Laguna Street - Reduction in side yard 5' to 3' - R-1 zone - Isidore T. Mocny Assistant Planner Reid reviewed the request for reduction of side yard setback for an existing room addition, and displayed a plat indicating the location in an older single family area. He pointed out that many of the residences observe a 4' side yard setback. He pointed out that the reasons for the staff's recommen- dation for denial of the request were that no hardship exists peculiar to this property which were not caused by the owner, no other single family dwelling unit would be allowed to construct at a similar setback with this separation to the adjacent unit, the separation of only 7' impairs the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. In answer to questions from the Commission, Director of Building Grady affirmed that the plans presented in requesting a building permit show a 5' setback for the house and for the addition; also that the slab on which the addition was constructed was existing prior to obtaining the permit and the building inspector was called for the frame structure. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Isidore T. Mocny, 556 Laguna Street, the applicant, raised objection to the fact that this violation of setback was not reported to him until eight months after the construction was completed and approved. He declared he was not aware of the change in the ordinance that established the 5' side yard requirement. He also elaborated upon difficulties and grievances against the adjacent resident. -2- 1/4/71 Ray Evans, President of Easter Construction Company, 2207 30th Street, San Diego, declared the violation which occasioned this request for variance was the result of errors which he felt have been compounded by the Building Department. He pointed out this room addition has now been constructed 15 months. In regard to the Planning Department's concern that there should be 10' between structures, Mr. Evans pointed out it was less than this before the addition was constructed. He also asserted the fireplace on the adjacent structure encroaches farther into the side yeard that this addition does. He contended the structure is not out of focus with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood and calling attention to the violation 15 months after the consturction would be a hardship on the owner and the problem should have been caught a year ago. He expressed the feeling that granting the variance to allow the addition to remain is as fundamental as allowing the house to stand in its position and that no harm can come to anyone else in the neighborhood by allowing the variance. In response to questions fromthe Commision Mr. Evans stated the concrete section was there prior to their work and that it was a prepared foundation with bolts ready for construction of the framework. Charles de Freitas, 391L Street, stated that he recently constructed a 6' fence on the property line for Mr. Mocny and his measurement revealed that the fireplace on the adjacent structure is 3'8" from the property line. There being no further comment, for or against, the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Lindberg asked that it be noted for the record that there were no complaints received against this variance, even though the violation was found as a result of a complaint. Member Hillson pointed out that inasmuch as this addition has been there for 15 months without any disturbance, except for personal reasons, it had not been detrimental to the neighborhood; he would therefore favor granting the variance. Chairman Rice asked the City Attorney if he felt the testimony presented in the hearing would justify findings for granting the variance. City Attorney Lindberg replied that he does not make findings of fact; that is for the Commission to do; but that his earlier point was to the direction of detriment to the neighborhood. He felt there is a correlation between hardship proven by the applicant and detriment to the neighborhood, and the fact that there was no testimony from those who had registered the original complaint indicate there may be no detriment. Member Chandler asked for a confirmation of the date this construction was completed and Mr. Grady reported the permit was taken out on September 19, 1969 and final inspection approved on October 27, 1969. -3- 1/4/71 City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that the city is in a position to bring charges for failure to comply with the Building Code, but there is a time limitation of one year on such violation. This is not true in a zoning violation, but is on a Building Code violation. MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Variance requested for 556 Laguna Street, reduction RESOLUTION PCV-71-1 in side yard from 5' to 3' be granted. Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The narrowness of the lot and location of the house limit reasonable expansion without encroachment into required side yard. 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. Many residences in this vicinity were constructed at less than the required 5' setback prior to the adoption of this ordinance. 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. No evidence of detriment was presented and the Fire Department offered the finding that this variance would not create a hazard substantially greater than already exists. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. SUBDIVISION - Apollo II, Tentative Map Director of Planning Warren displayed the map and reminded the Commission they had approved a Planned Unit development subject to certain conditions. He referred to five conditions recommended by the City Engineer and suggested that Mr. Gesley discuss these for the Commission. City Engineer Gesley commented that the provision of a 5' sidewalk on one side of the private street was a condition of approval of the Planned Unit Development but is not shown on the tentative map and is therefore listed as a condition to be met on the map. He further stated that if lighting is required it should be the same as for public streets in a subdivision. -4- 1/4/71 In answer to a question of the Commission, Mr. Gesley advised that on public residential streets, there is a street light about every 200 feet. Robert Kolkey, President of Triple "K" Developments, commented that if they tried to follow the city standard of approximately every 200 feet "it would be lit up like a Christmas tree." He then pointed out the locations where they propose to install a light pole, which would include one at each street intersection and parking area. Chairman Rice suggested that the details for lighting should be worked out by the staff and the developer to maintain adequate lighting with the same standards as for public streets. With reference to sidewalks Mr. Kolkey advised that they propose to install a walk on one side of the two drives leading to Melrose Avenue and to put walks across the island area rather than all the way around it. They propose to use 4' concrete sidewalks. MSUC (Chandler-James) Recommend to City Council the approval of the tentative map for Apollo Unit No. 2, subject to conditions listed in City Engineer's memorandum and with the provision that details for lighting and sidewalks shall be aubject to approval of the City Engineer and the Planning Department staff. Request for interpretation of Sign Ordinance - R. Schott Director of Planning Warren reported that this item is the result of the use of a trailer type oP portable sign which resembles a small billboard. After discussing this with Mr. Schott, the staff tried to find out if there is any way it could be permitted but in checking all provisions of the ordinance they could find no way it could be approved without a variance. The only thing that would possibly parallel this use would be the provision for temporary signs and these are permitted only for special events, such as grand openings, business anniversary sales, changes of ownership or management, and change of business address, with a time limit of 30 days maximum. Richard A. Schott, 358 San Miguel Drive, asked that this matter be continued as he is expecting a reply from the firm that sold him the signs. It is his contention that since this trailer is a licensed vehicle the sign ordinance does not apply but it has to be controlled by the State of California as in the case of signs on trucks. Mr. Schott provided pictures of the sign which dimensions are 5' high and 12' long. The sign letters are 9" high and are snapped into place on the background so that the message can be changed as desired. -5- 1/4/71 Mr. Schott pointed out this sign has been utilized by the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and by the Jr. Chamber of Commerce. The only sign that has been utilized in Chula Vista that would not fall within new management or anniversary, etc., is the sign that was used for two weeks in K Mart's parking lot; that sign was put in to announce special hours for the Christmas shopping which he would interpret as being allowed under the provisions in the ordinance for temporary signs. Mr. Schott contended this type of advertising is needed by small businesses for promotional events and he is seeking the opinion of the Commission as to when this sign can be used. Member Hillson asked if there is a maximum length of time Mr. Schott would leave the sign up. Mr. Schott advised he has not set a maximum and one service station has leased one for 2 months with an option to bqy but the majority are not used in excess of a month. Director of Planning Warren pointed out there would be no way to limit this sign to the small business man. He felt that granting approval for this type of sign would be setting a precedent for signs which the Commission was trying to eliminate in the adoption of the ordinance. Member Adams expressed his agreement with the interpretation the staff has offemed and his objection to this type of sign being put in without any reference to the amount of sign area the premises are entitled to. This is against the ordinance and destroys the control the city has. Member Stewart contended this sign constitutes a billboard and billboards have not been allowed in commercial areas for years; they are allowed in the industrial area. Mr. Schott commented that he has, in the contract with the people from whom he purchased the sings, a clause that if the City of Chula Vista restricts the sign he can sell the signs back to them. He would therefore ask that the City Attorney or somebody carefully word the restrictions on this so that he would have evidence in writing in the event it is necessary to return the signs. City Attorney Lindberg suggested that the Commission request that a resolution be brought back to them at their next meeting which would define this use, so that Mr. Schott would have this in writing so that he could rely upon it. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) The Commission confirms the interpretation of the staff concerning the use of this sign and requests that a resolution covering the subject be presented at the next meeting (January 18, 1971). -6- 1/4/71 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Warren commented on the City Attorney's request that the records show that no one was protesting the variance request of Mr. Mocny and while he would agree this is significant, he hoped that the Attorney was not endorsing the position that a current supervisor took when he was a San Diego city councilman that variances and rezonings should be granted if there is no objection. In clarification, City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that there was a great deal of testimony during the hearing that was not relevant but it should be understood that the party who raised this issue, who pursued it, and who was quite adamant in demanding that the city vigorously enforce its ordinance because they claimed a detrimental effect as a result of that construction, did not appear here and did not offer any testimony whatsoever as to what detriment was actually being suffered by them and he wanted that to be a part of the record. He stated he would go further and make it part of the record that the variance here does not extend to any other zone violation which might exist in that same neighborhood or vicinity. There were no written or oral communications and the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. to the meetings of January 18 and January 25, 1971. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes, Secretal~y