Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/10/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA October 5, 1970 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Macevicz, Chandler, Hillson and James. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, City Attorney Lindberg and City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - South side of "I" Street 152' east of Broadway R-1 to C-T-P - Far West Services, Inc. Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the property, fronting on "I" Street, just east of Broadway, with the Chula Vista Shopping Center located on the opposite side of "I" Street. The shopping center is presently zoned C-T and proposed for change to the designation of C-C (central commercial); the adjacent property to the west is zoned C-T; the balance of the property on the south side of "I" Street is zoned R-1. The applicant has submitted plans for a Plankhouse Restaurant under the requirements of the Precise Plan requested in the zone change application. Mr. Warren recalled that in March, 1969, a request for C-1 rezoning of this site was denied by the Planning Commission, among other reasons, due to traffic congestion which already exists on "I" Street, and the fact that the south side of "I" Street has not been widened beyond one travel lane and one parking lane. Mr. Warren pointed out that the basic request is for rezoning, and while the Precise Plan does give the Commission some control over the site development it does not limit the use to a restaurant. He commented that while the proposed tennant would be an asset to the city, the staff does not find this is the best site for the facility. He reiterated the staff's reasons for recommending denial. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Gant, an attorney with offices in San Diego, spoke representing the applicant. In response to the concern of the Planning Department that this rezoning as applied for would tend to extend C-T and commit "I" Street to further strip zoning, Mr. Gant pointed out that by using the Precise Plan the Commission could control the development so that it would serve as a buffer between the high intensity commercial use on Broadway and the residential use. Mr. Gant assured that the applicant would accede to all controls and condi- tions under the Precise Plan and the use of the property will be consistent -2- 10-5-70 with the ordinance, and by putting a landscaped parking lot on the eastern portion of the property, it would not create the problem of committing the remainder of "I" Street to strip zoning. He presented to the Commission a plot plan which provides for a 4,400 sq. ft. building on 50,025 sq. ft. of land area with parking spaces for 74 cars. When questioned about intense use as it applies to the generation of pedes- trian and vehicular traffic, Mr. Gant pointed out that this type of restaurant would not create in and out traffic similar to a drive-in as the patrons tend to stay for a longer time. He further stated that by intense land use he had in mind extreme land coverage, whereas in this case less than 10% of the land will be used for the building and the balance will be for parking and landscaping. Mr. Wesley N. Garst, 625 Beech Avenue, commented on the extremely heavy traffic coming from Broadway on to "I" Street; also on the fact that there are 26 eating places within about three blocks of this location and he did not feel the need of another one, and is therefore opposed to this rezoning. City Engineer Gesley commented that while the city does not have any plans at the present time to widen "I" Street, at some time the street might not handle the traffic and it will be corrected if the traffic warrants. Lou Malaska, 627 Ash, lives on the cul-de-sac in the property immediately adjacent to the property under consideration and stated he was neither in favor nor opposed, but wished to get information as to whether they would build a substantial wall between that property and the residential area, what they can expect in the way of refuse or garbage from this operation and how late in the evening they would operate. Director of Planning Warren advised that in the event the City Council approves a rezoning for this property and if the Precise Plan Modifying District were attached, it would mean that any development would be subject to approval of a precise plan. That does not specifically control the use but in the analysis of the precise plan, consideration would be given to its relationship to adjacent use, the architecture of the building, landscaping, all of the things that have been questioned. The ordinance has requirements for offstreet parking, that enclosed trash areas be provided and that there be a wall between commercial ~nd adjacent residential use. Mr. Wesley Garst, 625 Beech, asked if the restaurant should be built and then discontinues business, could anything move in? Chairman Rice advised that if it were zoned strictly commercial any use could go in that would conform to that zone; however, if there is a precise plan there is a limitation on the site development. City Attorney Lindberg advised that zoning law demands a uniform application of use requirements in all zones of a similar designation, so whatever is -3- 10-5-70 allowed in a C-T zone in the rest of the city must be allowed here. Director Warren commented that construction of a restaurant doesn't require the C-T zone; there are other commercial zones that might be used here. Mr. Gant, in summarizing the objections, advised that the trash disposal area will be adjacent to McDonald's, with respect to traffic, that was answered by the City Engineer, with respect to the wall, they are cognizant of the fact there must be a separation between commercial and residential use and feel the parking lot will serve as buffer between the two uses. He contended that R-3 development might be less advantageous with respect to adjacent residents. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Member Hillson commented that this is a growing city and there is going to be an increase in commercial enterprises. He spoke against strip zoning but pointed out the need for more commercial zoning in selected areas and it would depend upon the type of business going in as to whether it is complementary to the City plan. He pointed out another instance where commercial zoning eroded into a residential area to provide a parking lot for another restaurant at Broadway and F. He felt additional commercial enterprises should be accommodated since this is the greatest source of revenue the city has. He further expressed his belief that a commercial enterprise of this nature would be more desirable at the back of the shopping than residential use, and it is restricting the growth of the city if the Commission opposes strip zoning or expansion of the shopping center. He would favor having the city expand through well planned, central commercial area than spread throughout the various streets. He felt this application would be a logical extension ~f commercial 6us]ness in this area. Member adams concurred that the frontage along "I" Street, adjacent to the shopping center is a natural area for commercial expansion and it should have the same zone as the shopping center. He felt C-C zoning would be preferable to C-T for this application. In discussing further commercial zoning on "I" Street, Member Stewart pointed out that some of the homes are new but the homes on the lot under consideration are old and not a credit to the neighborhood; for that reason he felt any improvement would help the particular area. He felt, however, commercial zoning should not be done piecemeal and recpmmended a study of the entire area of "I" Street from Broadway to Fifth Avenue. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Gant stated that at the time the application was made he was not aware the C-O and C-C zones would permit the attachment of a precise plan; if those are more restrictive zones which permit restaurant use, they would be perfectly satisfied. Member Stewart asked if the applicant would be willing to construct a -4- 10-5-70 masonry wall on the south and east boundries of the property. Mr. Gant accepted that condition. MSUC (Hillson-James) Recommend to City Council change of zone for RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-V 572-586 "I" Street from R-1 to C-C-P In discussion on the motion it was brought that the precise plan to be brought to the Commission for approval should cover all the points about the building, development of the site, and protection of adjacent property; however, the rezoning should require dedication of property for future widening of "I" Street. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 800 block G Street - Use of propert~ as auto storage lot - Charles P. Mote and Duane Pudgil Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of the property north of G Street, between the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway right of way and West Bay Blvd.; the entire area west of the freeway is zoned "I" General Industrial. The request is for the operation of an auto storage facility to replace such facility operating under a use variance at 621H Street. Mr. Warren enumerated the conditions under which the staff recommends approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Edmunds, attorney, representing tile applicant, advised that he finds tile conditions recommended by the staff acceptable. When questioned as to access, he stated their lease will provide for an easement for access through the adjacent parking lot. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of a conditional use permit for operation RESOLUTION NO. PCC-70-30 of an auto storage facility on property north of G Street, adjacent to San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway right-of-way, subject to the following conditions: (1) When this site is ready for occupancy, the use variance at 621 H Street shall expire. (2) No salvage or wrecking operations shall take place on this site. (3) No signing, other than directional, shall be utilized. (4) The applicant shall provide staff with evidence that the necessary access rights from G Street have been provided. (5) The staff shall impose conditions of paving, enclosure and architecture required by ordinance. -5- 10-5-70 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 site is well located for the proposed use and removes the use from a less desirable 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. The only uses that might be non-compatible are subject to abatement. With the development standards required by ordinance there would be no detrimental effect. c. That tile proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The use shall comply with all conditions and regulations. 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 is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 1367 Melrose Avenue - Side yard setback 10' to 2' for fence - John R. Dingsdale Director of Planning Warren pointed out tile location of the lot at the corner of Melrose Avenue and Prospect Court. This variance is for a 6' grape stake fence 2' from the property line of the exterior side yard adjacent to Prospect Court. The fence has been constructed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Dingsdale, 1367 Melrose Avenue, advised that the reason the fence went up was that they moved from Simi Valley in Los Angeles three weeks ago. They have a large German shepherd dog which they had to fence in as quickly as possible, and he was not aware of the ordinance against the fence. He further stated the existing 4' chain link fence was not adequate to contain the dog. Robert Ballard, 316 Prospect Court, commented he lives across the street from this property and this is the first improvement he has seen in that back yard in 7 1/2 years. He felt the fence was an asset to the property and also that it was a good idea to fence in the dog. -6- 10-5-70 There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Member Hillson expressed opposition to erecting 6' high fences along the sidewalk; it sets a precedence here that everyone may want to fence their lot right to the sidewalk and the streets will be lined with fences. He felt the new fence could have observed the 10' setback as tile original fence had done, but he assumed the applicant had gone to considerable expense and labor on this and has made an improvement in the area, so he would not request that the fence be removed. Chairman Rice pointed out that due to the slope of the lot away from the street, the 6' high fence was needed to provide the applicant some privacy; also since the lot is narrow at the back the decreased setback affords more usable rear yard area. The Commission has previously granted such variances for a corner lot. MSUC (Adams-Hillson) Approval of variance for reduction of side yard RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-31 setback from 10' to 0 for a fence at 1367 Melrose Avenue subject to the condition that the area between the fence and the sidewalk be landscaped subject to staff approval. Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Because of the lot configuration a narrow rear yard area is produced. 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. This variance will yield a net usable rear yard area similar to other properties in the area. 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 sight problems or traffic hazards will be produced by this variance. 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 - Windsor Heights Final Map Director of Planning Warren pointed out that while there is usually no -7- 10-5-70 discussion concerning a final map, on this development there are still some unresolved problems. This is a Planned Unit Development consisting of 56 lots. The map is substantially in conformance with the tentative map and approval is recommended subject to qualifications as follows: (l) That the designated planted island located in the center of the cul-de-sac on Sheffield Court be included as part of Lot 1 and, therefore, not dedicated to the City. (2) That a revision to the grading plan for the area centered between Lots lO through 23 be submitted to the Planning staff for approval prior to the submission of the final map to City Council. (3) That necessary pedestrian access to Hilltop High School, via the cul-de-sac at the westerly portion of this subdivision, be included on the final map. Member Macevicz commented that he had discussed the location of the pedestrian access from Sheffield Court with the principal of Hilltop Hi9h School and the Principal preferred that they vent out to the south and west rather than behind the stadium because of the control they have. He would rather have the students walking down the proposed "I" Street on the outside of the fence, rather than to go inside. Mr. Warren stated the message would be conveyed and that this would be dis- cussed further with the District office. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Recommend approval of the final map for Windsor Heights subject to conditions stipulated by the staff. Request for approval of Move-in at 41 40 Calle La Mirada in Countr~ Club Estates Director of Planning Warren reminded the Commission that for approval their finding should be that the structure would be architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions for architectural improvement. The applicant seemed willing to work out details of adding wood or masonry on the front elevation but questioned the requirement for a shake roof. The structure presently has a composition shingle roo~. A field check of the area revealed that while there are some tile and rock roofs, the predominate use in the area is the shake roo~. The staff feels the shake shingles are needed to make the structure compatible. Frederick Tindall, applicant, commented that he had driven through the area recently and while he agreed that most do have shake roofs on that particular street wi th five or six houses, two do not have shake roofs, one has composition shingles and the other is Spanish type. He reported he had consulted a roofing contractor who advised that for a shake roof he should have 6" gaps under the shingles rather than the solid plywood which is now on the house. He was told -8- 10-5-70 if he put shakes over the plywood he would have trouble with it breathing. He felt since the present roof is not in bad shape he should not be required to go to the additional expense. Member Macevicz commented this is one of the more expensive areas for lots in Chula Vista and if a person buys a lot in that area, the Commission should not make exceptions to the requirements for a move-in if it would downgrade the area. Elizabeth Kamoo, 4260 Calle La Mirada, speaking for residents on the street, commented that all of the houses are rather exalusive, three being individually designed, custom built homes and the other five were built by Silvergate Loan Corp., and were in the upper 30 thousand, or 40 thousand dollar range. The neighborhood is concerned that moving in a house of that type would be detri- mental to property values of the area. They feel if the house is moved in it should be fixed up to compare with the neighborhood and placing a shake roof on the house would be almost imperative to achieve this. Jimmy Kelly, 4100 Calle La Mirada, has the house directly next door. He pointed out that due to the terracing of the tract, the roof of that house is what will be seen from the street and he would favor the requirement for the shake roof. Mrs. Lowell A. Henderson, 4230 Calle La Mirada, asked if there is an enforced time limit during which repairs or improvements must be accomplished after tile structure is moved on to the lot. The City Engineer advised that utilities could not be turned on until improvements covered by the building permit were completed. Mr. Warren stated that there is a time limit and indicated he would check and advise Mrs. Henderson. MSC (Adams-Hillson) Recommend approval of the move-in at 4140 Calle La Mirada subject to the following conditions: I. The structure shall make greater use of wood and/or masonry details on the front elevation, subject to staff approval. 2. A shake roof shall be utilized. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Hillson, Rice, Stewart, James, Chandler NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None Chairman Rice reminded the audience this action is a recommendation to the City Council who will make the final decision on approval. -9- 10-5-70 Request for extension of time on tentative subdivision map of Tree Haven Apartments Request for extension of time on Variance #69-52 - 632 F Street - SYB, Inc. Request for extension of time on Variance #69,57 - 288 F Street - Community Congregational Church of Chula Vista Director of Planning Warren advised that the staff recommends approval of all three requests. John Morgan, member of the building committee of Community Congregational Church, asked if the extension was approved for two years. This was the time requested and approval is recommended. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) All three requests for time extension be granted. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Request for clarification of Planning Commission recommendation of Burgener's request for prezoning south of Otay Valley Road Director of Planning Warren stated that an inquiry from the applicant brought up this request. The staff had made a recommendation which set forth certain requirements; the Commission motion was to approve the prezoning in accordance with the staff report. The report states: The staff recommends that basic land use and densities be approved as follows, and set forth the densities, and further recommended that the "P" Precise Plan be attached and no precise zoning other than R-l-5 be recommended until precise plans are approved by the Commission, and pointed out that certain changes had to be made. The applicant has requested Council action before spending any more time or money on plans. Member Stewart commented that he had made the motion and it was his intent to carry out exactly what was just outlined here. He had stated that he felt the staff had been very generous in their recommendations and the motion was to approve the staff's recommendations and the precise plans should include the seven items enumerated in the staff report. Mr. Warren asked what means the applicant has to bring this before the Council if he doesn't wish to do any more on the precise plan. The Commission concurred unanimously with Mr. Stewart's recommendation. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Rice commented on the Robinhood development across from Castle Park High School stating that he had not been favorably impressed with this develop- -10- 10-5-70 ment. He felt the commission should carefully consider this type of housing before approving additional projects. Member Chandler advised he would be on vacation and absent from the meeting of October 19. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-James) The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the workshop of October 12 and the meeting of October 19. Respectfully submitted, me/eh S. Mapes, ~ecre~ary