Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/12/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA December 7, 1970 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, Associate Planner Lee, City Engineer Gesley and City Attorney Lindber§. 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 November 16 and November 23, 1970, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) - REZONING - Tidelands Area north of Street to City Limits, from mean high tide line to Interstate 5- from "I" General Industrial to interim A Agriculture Director of Planning Warren displayed a map indicating the boundaries of the tidelands under consideration and reminded the Commission this hearing was continued from the meeting of November 2 at the request of the attorneys for the Santa Fe railway. He pointed out the staff's recommendation is for a moratorium prohibiting building for a period of 9 months rather than rezonin9 at this time. The City of Chula Vista and San Diego Unified Port District are negotiating for a consultant study of this area and upon its completion appropriate zoning would be applied. Chairman Rice opened the public hearing. Paul Peterson, Attorney, representing California General and Street and Sons Auto Wrecking Yard, expressed concurrence with the staff's recommendation inso- far as it affects the properties of these firms. These properties are presently developed for industrial use and they feel rezoning would be inappropriate. Michael Dorazio, Jr. Attorney with Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon, San Diego, representing Sam Vener, discussed the land in his ownership and that which he leases for agricultural use from the Santa Fe railroad. He stated that Mr. Vener takes the position that the best use for this land is manufacturing. His prop- erty is bounded on the north and south by industrial property and when and if there is a ~c~nd.~p~ning to the San Diego Har~or~ this @rope~ty wo~ld be]~- portant to bnu/a vista s economic existence. ~e ooes no~ wan~ any ~ype o~ ~reeze or restrictions on his property, although they would prefer a moratorium to rezoning at this time. -2- 12/7/70 Member Stewart suggested a show of hands by the Commission to indicate whether they favor a moratorium or rezoning; the moratorium was favored unanimously. Gerald Dawson, 1900 First National Bank Building, San Diego, spoke representing Harding Campbell, James Cappos, Charles Offerman, Emmet Kaul and Dr. and Mrs. Case, all of whom are property owners in the area, wi th all of their property located east of the railroad tracks with the exception of Mr. Cappos. Mr. Cappos owns the property at the intersection of the mean high tideline and F Street, which is presently used for light industrial purposes; he has a rain soft water service there. A moratorium which had no exceptions would be a serious detriment to Mr. Cappos and would impair his ability to realize reason- able use of his property. Mr. Dawson urged that if a moratorium is adopted it contain some provision for exceptions where there is a specific showing of the need. When questioned about exceptions to a moratorium, City Attorney Lindberg advised that in establishing a moratorium, since there is a study being made, no action could be taken that would jeopardize outcome of that study and the proposals that may result from the study. He did not feel the term moratorium should be considered as an absolute and that exceptions could be made by the City Council. Robert McGinnis, Attorney in San Diego, appeared on behalf of the Santa Fe Railway Company. He confirmed their concurrence with the staff's recommenda- tion for a moratorium and stated they would withhold construction or permits in the nine month period. They are, however, opposed to the rezoning, but they would withhold their presentation against rezoning until such time as rezoning is under consideration. MSUC (Stewart-James) Recommend to the City Council that the question of rezoning the Tidelands area be denied but that a moratorium be declared for a period of nine months prohibiting building on the property west of the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. right-of-way but that some provision be made for hardship cases in the event a building permit is requested in conformance with the present zoning. City Attorney Lindberg advised that unlike most rezoning applications denied by the Commission, this application will go to the City Council since it was initiated at their request and a public hearing will be held by the Council. Mr. McGinnis reported that the Santa Fe believes that the departments of its company--Traffic, Engineering, and Real Estate--could possibly furnish information in connection wi th the study, and offer to do this to the consultant making the study and to cooperate in any way that might be of assistance to the City. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 174 E Street - R-1 to R-3 - Richard J. Lareau Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the property fronting on E Street between First and Second Avenues, and the surrounding zoning which includes R-l, R-2 and R-3. He reported two petitions have been received, one in support and one in opposition to this application. -3- 12/7/70 Mr. Warren displayed the applicant's plan for development of the property which proposes 44 dwelling units in 2 and 3 story buildings; the density would total one dwelling unit for each 1800 square feet which is less than the Standard R-3 zoning. Mr. Warren pointed out that some of the things the Commission should consider is the fact that this is one piece of property in the middle of an R-1 zone; it is on a major street close to the Central Business district; and one of the difficulties is what it does to adjacent property and existing zoning to the west. The staff has recommended that R-3 zoning be approved with the attachment of the P Precise Plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Lareau, applicant and owner of the property, discussed the proposed plan for development, which would locate the recreation area at the bottom of the basin adjacent to the drainage ditch wi th the dwelling units facing that area; the driveway and parking would be located at the eastern, western and northern perimeters of the property. Mr. Lareau displayed a plat of the surrounding area indicating the support or opposition of adjacent property owners. This revealed the people at the front of the property felt the proposed development would enhance the neighborhood, while property owners adjacent on the south were opposed. Mike Ellis, 163 Lansley Way, spoke in opposition to the development on the grounds that it would increase the number of children in the neighborhood and there is no place for them to play except in the street and that it would increase the traffic on E Street which is already heavy. C. A. Perkins, 167 Lansley Way, objected because the plan indicates the driveway would follow around the property line causing car$~ to pass within 40 feet of his bedroom. James T. Wooten, 216 Minot, expressed his feeling that the proposed development would be an asset to the neighborhood and a definite improvement over the weed patch which presently exists. He also commended Mr. Lareau's plan for taking care of the drainage. Bill Moore, 191 Second Avenue, stated that is taking a neutral stand because it is a wonderful improvement for E Street, but he agrees with Mr. Perkins that the cars will be too close to his back yard and there should be some protection against noise for the people on Lansley. Richard Lareau testified that after talking to Mr. Perkins, he has agreed to lower the road so that it would be 13 feet below the top of Mr. Perkins' wall and also to provide landscaping at the edge of the property. As no one else wished to speak, for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. - 4- 12/7/7O Member Hillson expressed his belief that this improvement would be for the benefit of the city, and pointed out that cars using the driveway would be going very slowly and should not create noise like traffic on a public street. Member Stewart pointed out there is a serious drainage problem as well as land elevation problem in this area and this property lends itself to useful development at higher density than R-1. He felt this is a good land use and within the concepts of mixing R-3 use in with R-1 where it can be accommodated. MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Recommend to City Council the approval of RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-BB rezoning property at 174 E Street from R-1 to R-3-P subject to the approval of a Precise Plan. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - 166.5 acres north of Otay Valley Road~ east of Interstate 805 , County A, 3(8)to R, 1 , commission initiated Associate Planner Lee indicated on a plat the area in question which is a portion of the area considered for annexation. He advised that although this was advertised for consideration of prezoning to R-l, the staff recommends considering A-8 Agricultural zoning for this property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Recommend to City Council the prezoning of 166.5 acres RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-CC north of Otay Valley Road, east of Interstate 805, to A-8. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Facilities for Service Club in R-3 zone - Lions Club of Chula Vista Associate Planner Lee reviewed the request for the use of an existing church building at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Mankato Street. This is surrounded by R-3 zoning and the basic land use is a combination of single family dwellings and apartments. He indicated the portion of the property adjacent to Mankato has been used for parking which does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. A letter from the Director of Public Works indicates it would not be acceptable to have parkingobacking onto Mankato. Mr. Lee displayed an alternative parking plan using 20 parking to eliminate backing over the property line on to the street. He also reviewed conditions recommended by the staff covering improvement of the alley, construction of a 6' high zoning wall, and a landscaping and irrigation plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Robert Laswell, 535 H Street, appeared representing the Lions Clubs of Chula Vista and Outlined their plans for remodeling the building to serve as a service club center available to all service clubs in the area. This would include -5- 12/7/70 removal of an existing classroom building to provide additional parking at the rear of the property. He reported this remodeling will take a great deal of money and they wish to divide the work into three separate phases. He expressed their desire to delay construction of the zoning wall until it is determined if they can acquire additional adjacent property. The Commission discussed with Mr. La,well the approximate time schedule for completion of the various phases and which conditions would be met under each phase. Mr. Warren indicated that since he was not aware of the proposed phases, the staff would want more time to evaluate the schedule before the Commission makes a decision on the phasing of the project. Mr. Ed Izzo stated that he lives adjacent to the property and is not objecting to a service club, but is concerned about the parking, since Mr. Laswell indicated their plans are for a facility to accommodate 200 people. He felt the property could not provide enough parking for that kind of meetings; he also suggested that improvement of the alley should be included in the first phase of the work. Andy Henry, Lions Club President, pointed out that with the revised plans there are 40 parking spaces available, and the membership of the largest club expected to use this facility is 45. Mr. Henry asked if improvement of the alley would require that only half the width be paved..by their organization. Director of Planning Warren indicated a determination would have to be made on that matter; in some cases the developer has been responsible for the entire width. The Commission discussed the question of alley improvement and Mr. Warren in- dicated there are two or three points concerning this application which should be resolved at the staff level and then brought back to the Commission. Howard ~yan, Pastor of the church on this property, commented on the lack of parking facilities and indicated that is one reason they are building a new church. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Rice asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the proposed use if the conditions could be resolved. The Commission was unanimously in favor. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Action on this application be postponed to the meeting of December 21, 1970. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 24 Broadway - Major auto repair facilities in C-T zone - Allen Castleberr~ Associate Planner Lee explained the request and pointed out the location and the adjacent zoning and land use. This use is permitted in the C-T zone, -6- 12/7/70 however, a zoning wall is required between the commercial use and the existing residential use adjacent on the west. Mr. Lee enumerated the conditions recommended by the staff with reference to a zoning wall along the western property line, redwood slats installed in the chain link fence along the northern property line, landscaping, and sign regulations. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Rupert D. Castleberry, National City, spoke in behalf of his son who submitted the application, indicating the automotive repair work would be done inside the structure and the outside area would be for parking cars only. He stated there would be no body repair work. He felt the construction of a 6' masonry wall would be too great an expense for the proposed operation. Manuel Michado expressed the opinion that this operation would be no more objectionable than the trailer parking area across the street. Werner Hirzel, 618 Sea Vale, spoke of the improvement in the appearance in the property since being occupied by Chula Vista Blue Print. He declared the Big Wheel had made a dump along the fence at the property line and it took considerable work for the new owner to clean up the property. He felt, however, the 6' wall should be required. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the masonry wall and called upon Mr. Michado, owner of the property, to determine if he would construct the 6' wall along the westerly property line. Manuel Michado reported that he has no objection to putting in slats in the chain link fence but he does object to building a concrete wall for that small an operation. Member Hillson expressed the opinion that this size of an operation would not be too much of a nuisance and suggested the permit be issued on a one year basis. MSC (Macevicz-Adams) Approval of a conditional use permit for auto RESOLUTION NO. PCC-70-35 repair facility at 24 Broadway, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 6' decorative masonry zoning wall shall be constructed along the western property line. 2. Redwood slats shall be installed in the chain link fence, including the gates, along the northern property line. 3. The landscaping shall be continued all along the north property line between the sidewalk and property line. A sprinkler system shall be installed along the full length of this planting area. 4. If t~e~x~st~ng pp)e.s~gn is ~o~ified~to includ~.~ny, si~n ~or ~hq.applicant, It sna)! De orougn~ lnIO compJe~e contormance wl~n ~ne Lonlng Urolnance, including landscaping. -7- 12/7/70 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. The proposed location is near other automobile oriented uses such as body shops and parts dealers, and therefore desirable in this location. 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. With the addition of screening and zoning wall, there will be no detrimental effect from the proposed use. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. All conditions and regulations in the Code for this use will be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any govern- mental agency. The General Plan is not affected. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Macevicz, Adams, James, Stewart, Rice and Chandler NOES: Member Hillson ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 2886 Bonita Road - Create two parcels-Et°Rbe served by access easement from Bonita Glen Drive - "D" zone - Tri-Count~ Construction, Inc. Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the property which is presently served by an access road from Bonita Road and from the stub of Bonita Glen Dirve. The property is presently improved with a single family dwelling. It is desired to split the property into two lots of 20,000 sq. ft. and 53,000 sq. ft. A third parcel in the County is also served by the access easement. Mr. Warren enumerated the conditions recommended by the staff for approval of the variance and advised that one letter of opposition had been received. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -8- 12~7/70 Eugene York, 280 K Street, representing Tri-County Construction, Inc., asked if the 20' easement required would include the existing easement and not be in addition to the existing easement. He was advised the total width mequired would be 20'. R. J. Williamson, 4338 Ola Court, owner of one of the two pieces of property immediately above this lot, expressed concern about the reason for the lot split. He felt it was done so that at a later time they can request R-3 zoning and develop with multiple family units. Cal Denton, 4342 Ola Court, remarked he has the same fears that Mr. Williamson spoke of. He also voiced objection to having Visitor-Commercial zoning in the area. There being no further comment the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of variance to create two parcels to be RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-37 served by access easement from Bonita Glen Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. A parcel map shall be filed with the Division of Engineering executing the lot split. 2. The applicant shall obtain a 20' wide easement across Parcel B of Parcel Map #85 from the subject property to Bonita Glen Drive. No new dwelling units shall be constructed on Parcel B until said easement is obtained. 3. The easement shall be paved to engineering standards at the time additional dwelling units are constructed. 4. Prior to any grading, a grading plan shall be approved by the staff. Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The lack of any dedicated street and topography precludes any other means of development. 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. There are many other lots in the city that front on an easement. 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. -9- 12/7/70 The Zoning Ordinance states that an R-E lot may front on an easement if the Planning Commission, as in this case, approved. 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 - 610 G Street - Reduction in front ~ard and open space; increase'in density, R, 3 zone - W~ E~ Linthicum Associate Planner Lee enumerated the three requests contained in this application as follows: (1) to allow the construction of an apartment complex at one unit per 1200 sq. ft. in lieu of the present Code requirement of one unit per 1350 sq. ft.; (2) the plan provides 235 sq. ft. of usable open space per unit, the Code requires 400 sq. ft.; (3) the front yard setback request is from 25' required by the building line map to 15'. Mr. Lee pointed out the location of the property which is located on the south side of G Street and has a drainage structure at the eastern and southern property lines. Plans for development of this property were first submitted in 1969, prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. There were problems concerning the drainage project and an easement was granted to the City for the construction and maintenance of a storm drain on July 20, 1969. This project was completed October l, 1969. On June 30, 1970 the applicant made application for a building permit and was informed that the plans did not meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and subsequently, on November 18, 1970 application was made for this variance. Mr. Lee discussed the adjacent land use which includes various commercial facilities to the east and north; apartments on adjoining property to the west developed at a front yard setback of 15'. He also discussed the proposed plan for development and advised that the staff recommends denial of the request for increased density and reduction of open space as this would imapir the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The staff recommends approval of the request for reduction of front yard. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. William Bauer, Attorney, 530 Broadway, San Diego, representing the applicant, contended that inasmuch as he had cooperated with the City in deeding as easement for the drainage project, he should now be permitted to develop the property under the previous standards. William E. Linthicum, applicant and owner of the property, stated he was not aware there was a change in the Zoning Ordinance and he had been in no hurry to develop the property. There being no further comment, for or against, the public hearing was closed. -10- 12/7/70 The Commission discussed the extent to which the drainage project may have delayed the development of the property. MSC (Hillson-Chandler) The variance request for property at 610 G Street RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-39 for reduction of front yard from 25' to 15m be approved; request for reduction of usable open space and increase in density be denied. Denial is based on the following findings: a. No hardship peculiar to the property has been demonstrated. The delay in submission of plans was created by an actof the owner. b. The granting of this variance would impair the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing a substantial reduction in the usable open space available to residents of the proposed development. Findings for approval of reduction of front yard are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The required 25' front yard setback would represent an unnecessary hardship for this lot because of the 13' parkway which exists and will be maintained as a landscaped 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 adjacent property was granted and utilized an identical 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 interest. The reduced setback will not be detrimental because there are shorter setbacks in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Hillson, Chandler, Rice, Stewart, Macevicz and Adams NOES: Member James -ll- 12/7/70 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 517 Halse~ Street - Lot frontage reduction 60' to 20' , Hazel R. stafford Associate Planner Lee advised that a previous lot split had been approved providing a 25' access easement; the applicant wishes a further reduction to 20'. Mr. Lee listed three conditions recommended by the staff for approval of this request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Gardner, grandson of the applicant and owner, discussed development of the lots adjacent to this. He stated all utilities are available for the development of this lot. He further commented that the reason for the request of a 5' reduction from the present easement is to retain the foliage surrounding the tennis court. Emma Copeland, owner of the property adjacent to easement, raised a question about the wall and whether the easement would be paved. She did not think a 6' wall is necessary, and a low wall of the same material would be preferable to having no wall at all. Mr. Warren pointed out the ordinance requires permanent paving of an access but the requirement of the wall should be determined. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Member Stewart pointed out that a wall had not been required in previous cases of access easements and he felt a 6' wall would be an unreasonable requirement. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Approval of variance for 517 Halsey Street for RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-40 development of lot with 20' access easement, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall deed the small 9' x 46.88' finger along the eastern property line to the northern adjacent property. If the applicant is unable to do so, the Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement. 2. The applicant shall provide, in addition to the 2 car garage requirement, two offstreet parking spaces. 3. The applicant shall meet with the staff to determine what type of wall or fence should be constructed along the westerly property line of the driveway from Halsey Street. Findings for approval are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act .of the owner exists. -12- 12/7/70 Frontage on a dedicated street cannot be provided due to the configuration ~-~ of lots in the 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 area of the subject lot is in excess of that required, and there are other lots in the area that have similar frontage. 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. With an adequate zone wall along the driveway there will be no detrimental affect. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Warren introduced to the Commission the new Senior Planner, Mr. Norman G. W~lliams. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Rice adjourned the meeting at lO:lO p.m. to the meeting of December 21, 1970. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes, Secretary