HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/06/15 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 15, 1970
An adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above
date beginning at 7 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Civic Center,
276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz,
Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent: Member Stewart (with permission).
Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, and
Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 1, 1970,
as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - 4700 block Otay Valley Road (north side). 600'
east of Oleander Avenue - from A-3(8) to "I" zone - J. Shinohara
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a location map noting the property in
question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is requesting
prezoning to "I" (General Industrial zoning) for 30 acres of land, and the
staff has included 16 acres located between this site and the present City
boundaries, since annexation would involve both sites. Mr. Lee noted the
location of the proposed Boys' Center and the County refuse center for which
he indicated the County would like to have an additional access road to serve
this site. In order for this to be accomplished~ a road would have to be
constructed on or immediately adjacent to the subject 30 acre site. There is
also concern on the part of the County Planning Department over the further
expansion of industrial zoning in this area. Mr. Lee pointed out on the map
the existing industrial zoning both in the City and County, and the residential
zoning west of this proposal as well as the 160 acres to the north proposed for
residential development. In view of these existing problems, the staff is
requesting a continuance of 60 days to provide them with sufficient time to
meet with the applicants in order to coordinate this request with other
proposed projects in the area. In case the Commission does not want to
continue the matter, then the staff recommends denial. Director of Planning
Warren stated that the staff's primary concern is one of coordination, and
that they would, in all probability, be in favor of perhaps an "I-L" zone for
this area. Mr. Warren then noted a petition of protest received by the staff
signed by 141 persons representing lO1 properties.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Virgil Clapp, realtor, representing the applicants, stated they feel
industrial and commercial would be the best use. As far as the excessive
amount of industrial zoning in the City is concerned, Mr. Clapp declared
that most of this land is tied up by the Santa Fe railroad. He added that he
-2- 6/15/70
would go along with the staff's proposal for the 60 day delay.
Speaking in opposition to the request were: James Bates, 1665 Oleander Avenue,
and Danny Palm, 1660 Oleander Avenue. They stated as their reasons: (1) the
area is residential and should remain so; (2) they do not want to be sandwiched
in between two industrial zones; (3) they might go along with a limited industrial
zone or light commercial.
MSUC (Chandler-Hillson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of August 17,
1970 to allow the staff sufficient time to meet with the applicants to
coordinate this request with other proposed projects in the area.
PUBLIC HEARING - E STREET ZONING STUDY - COMMISSION INITIATED
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area of study,
explaining that the study was initiated at the request of the Council as a
result of a rezoning request by Castle Plymouth. Director Warren then
reviewed the report in detail explaining the alternatives as recommended
by the staff. The staff is recommending the second alternative, as
presented in the report, which would leave the study area zoned C-T, and
a statement of policy adopted that any future expansion requests of this C-T
zone both to the north and south is recognized as necessary and desirable
under certain conditions, and further, that the merits of such rezoning
will be considered on an individual basis with any approval subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission of a Precise Plan.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gus Pappas, attorney representing Castle-Plymouth, favored the second
alternative as the better recommendation. He stated that if alternative
#1 was adopted, (zone the area C-C and the non-conforming uses would have
to be abated) it would penalize several uses along this street that have
been established there for some time.
Mr. John Keel ey, owner of the property to the north of Castle Plymouth,
discussed the expansion of the commercial enterprise into the residential
areas. Under the concept presented by the staff, it would have to depend
on the depth of the property and the area line would be jaggered and a
hodge-podge situation would be developed. Mr. Keel ey favors a precise
line for expansion limitation whereby everyone would be treated the same.
Milton Vest, 174 Landis Street, opposed Alternative #2 declaring that
whereby you have a mixture of different zones, such as in this case, it
would be preferable to have a buffer zone so that you wouldn't go from
C-T to an R-1 zone: something like an R-3 or a lighter commercial would
be appropriate.
Mr. Regler, representing owners of the property at 178 Third Avenue,
favored the second alternative indicating that the City is beginning
-3- 6/15/70
to concern themselves with the business aspects of E Street.
Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, stated alternative #2 as recommended by the
staff was the best solution to the problem. In the other alternative, the
City would be faced with shallow lots that could not accommodate a good
commercial zone. It is logical to adopt the policy whereby these lots on
E Street can be expanded for commercial use with a Precise Plan whereby the
Commission would have complete control.
Mrs. Mary Vest, 174 Landis Street, stated there are very few vacant areas for
expansion, because most of it is residential. She indicated that 45 property
owners on one street signed a petition stating they did not want expansion
of commercial zoning into their residential area.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
Member Adams suggested this matter be continued to a workshop discussion.
Member Hillson commented that there is a problem here whereby they will
not be able to please all the property owners and businessmen on this
street -- perhaps there would be some way to get a compromise. He added
he cannot go along with Mr. Keeley's suggestion of a firm line down the
street separating the two zones.
Member Adams made a motion to continue the matter to a workshop meeting.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Member Hillson felt this matter has been before them long enough for them to
make a determination on it. He added that the businesses established along
this street have a right to expand and unless they are permitted the proper
depth, the problems of strip zoning would be compounded. Member Chandler
voiced his agreement. Member Adams declared that this whole matter has been
thrown into a question of expansion, whereby the real question here is the
correct zoning for the area. It is his opinion that certain uses permitted
in the C-T zone would not be compatible with this business area and he
strongly feels it should be rezoned to C-C, and realizes that this particular
zone would make a few non-conforming uses but auto sales businesses are not
compatible with this particular area.
Director Warren commented that the same problems exist under both the C-C
and C-T zones. The staff has always resisted strip zoning, but does
recognize that it exists here. In making the report, they looked at the
character of the street -- it is a major thoroughfare that carries a lot
of traffic. As far as the basic uses of the street are concerned, they
are there to stay.
Member Adams stated he can't see what traffic - light or heavy - has to do
with the uses along this street. When the interchange of 805 is constructed
in Bonita, E Street will then carry a tremendous amount of traffic, but this
-4- 6/15/70
has nothing to do with C-C or C-T zoning.
MSC (Chandler-James) Resolution of the City Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-70-15 Reco~ending to the City Council the Adoption
of the Area Study for a Portion of "E" Street
The Commission adopts the following alternative:
Leave the study area zoned C-T and a statement of policy be
adopted that expansion of this C-T zone both to the north
and south is recognized as necessary and desirable under
certain conditions, and further, that the merits of such
rezoning will be considered on an individual basis with any
approval subject to approval by the Planning Commission of
a Precise Plan.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Chandler, James, Rice, Hillson
NOES: Members Macevicz and Adams
ABSENT: Member Stewart
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 834 First Avenue - Request to build on easement
and reduction of side yard from 5' to 3' - John
Sheffield
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a general locater map indicating the
property in question. He explained that the applicant has a parcel measuring
21,847 square feet which he wishes to divide into 3 parcels, each containing
at least 7000 square feet, and with one parcel to be served by a 15' wide
easement. The applicant has also requested a reduction of side yard for one
parcel from 5' to 3' for a detached garage situated on this property. A
single family dwelling exists on the first parcel. Mr. Lee further explained
that the applicant had to locate the proposed property line between parcels
#1 and #2 in order to provide the required street frontage for this second
parcel. The staff believes that the 15' wide easement would cause no harmful
effects due to the ingress and egress on the existing adjacent properties
since this easement will be located approximately in the center of the present
parcel.
The Commissioners discussed various alternative methods of splitting up the
property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing
was opened. Mr. John Sheffield, the applicant, explained that the easement
would be considered part of the lot and landscaped. He questioned the
conditions regarding the undergrounding of utilities.
Director of Planning Warren explained this was an ordinance requirement for
all new construction, unless waived by the Commission.
-5- 6/15/70
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was
closed.
Member Adams stated it would be a less attractive development to put a
new house in back of an old garage.
Director Warren stated the staff is requesting that the garage be removed.
Mr. Sheffield contended that the garage is identified with the character
of the house and it would continue the same design in order to give it a
flow and continuity. Mr. Warren asked that this problem be resolved by
the staff with referral to the Commission if necessary.
The Commission discussed the request and agreed it should be granted.
MSUC (Macevicz-James)
RESOLUTION NO. PCV-70-15 Approval of the variance request to split the
property at 834 First Avenue into three parcels with the rear lot having
access via a 15' wide easement. Also granted is a reduction of side yard
setback for one lot from 5' to 3' for an existing structure.
Variance is approved subject to the following:
1. All new utility service shall be underground.
2. A grading and sewer plan, to assure adequate usable area, denoting
elevation at parcel corners and pad elevations shall be submitted for
staff approval.
3. Building elevations and plot plans for parcels #2 and #3 shall be
approved by the staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. Parcel #3 shall maintain a 10' setback from the easement and shall
maintain a 20' setback from the north property line.
5. A two-car garage or carport shall be provided on parcel #1 prior to
approval of the Parcel Map.
6. A sidewalk along First Avenue shall be required for parcels #1 and #2
prior to issuance of building permit for parcels #2 or #3.
Findings be as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owners exists.
Reduction of setback: The 5' sideyard setback requirement
would necessitate removal of the entrance into the
dwelling, thereby eliminating the possibility of a portion
of the entry for laundry facilities.
-6- 6/15/70
Permission to build on an easement: The parcel could not
be developed without access to a dedicated street.
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.
Reduction of setback: Substantial remodeling would be
required to accommodate laundry facilities in the general
location of the kitchen facilities.
Permission to build on an easement: Similar requests have been
granted in the general vicinity for development of parcels
receiving access by an easement.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose of this
Ordinance or the public interest.
Reduction of setback: The 3' setback is adjacent to the 15'
easement insuring ample separation of structures.
Permission to build on an easement: The applicant could be
permitted to construct 3 units under the dwelling group
provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
Reduction of setback and permission to build on easement:
The objectives of the General Plan would not be affected.
SUBDIVISION - Holida~ Estates No. 6 - Tentative Map
Director of Planning Warren stated that the developers of this subdivision will
be filing a variance request which could be heard on the July 6 meeting. The
staff will recommend that this map be continued to that date so both requests
will be heard at the same time.
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee explained the problem confronting the approval
of this map. In the later part of 1968, the developers, Jafro, Inc., proposed
a 251 lot subdivision of attached single-family dwellings to be located west
of Hilltop Drive and south of the San Diego Gas & Electric easement. The
Council approved the northerly 147 lots and withheld approval of the southerly
portion of the property pending the granting of a conditional use permit
which would authorize the additional units. A conditional use permit is now
no longer required for attached dwellings, and approval of this map by the
Commission will constitute the approval of the attached dwellings and the
R-2-T zoning. Mr. Lee then referred to the subdivision map noting the general
layout of the development and the ingress and egress which he pointed out
would be limited to Connoley Avenue - this would have to serve 104 units. The
-7- 6/1§/70
staff has submitted an alternative access: "C" Street which cul-de-sacs at the
easterly end of the site could be stubbed against the north property line
with extension to Tamarindo Way which could be accomplished when that area
is developed. This solution, however, would impose a hardship on the property
owner to the north since such an extension would only serve as a detriment to
his property, and he is adamantly opposed to such a street extension. Associate
Planner Lee noted the variance requests which will be sought by the developers
for a reduction in setback for fence locations on the corner lots and a reduction
in the parking standards established for the single-family houses. Mr. Warren
stated that the street should be extended by Morgan and Gardner as an off-site
improvement.
Mr. John Morgan, 665 H Street, the developer, stated they have worked very
closely with the Planning staff but were surprised to learn about the extension
of this street. In planning the layout of this subdivision, it was determined
that no access was needed fo rthe southerly portion since it is industrial, and
no access points were needed for the areas to the west and the north.
Mr. Alex Harper, representing Mr. Jearls, owner of the property to the north,
stated his client believes the density of the proposed development is a little
too high; however, they are not against that, per se. He explained that Mr.
Jearls has put in and paid his portion for sewer laterals, has dedicated a
portion of his property for street purposes, and now with this proposal, it
would deprive him of at least two lots of his property if access was extended
through here. Mr. Harper presented another alternative for access suggesting
that at the easterly end of the subdivision, 1 or 2 of the houses now under
construction be removed and an access be put through here. Mr. Jaerls has no
immediate plans for the development of his property, but maintains that he
could get 8 lots out of it; however, if an access were to be extended through
his property, he would have a difficult time getting 6 lots out of it. Mr.
Harper noted on the map the area he was suggesting for an access extension
and said it would be cheaper to remove the slab and frame of the houses there
now rather than to condemn his client's property. Chairman Rice alleged that
there should be a better circulation pattern for this subdivision, but is not
sure it should be put through Mr. Jeart's property.
Member Adams suggested the street should be run through as proposed by Mr.
Harper, and the developers told to redesign their map.
Mr. Jack Gardner, co-developer of the subdivision, declared they were surprised
to learn of the proposal to extend the street through. At one time, they
presented their master plan to the Planning staff and this was approved; the
staff should have told them, at that time, that another street was needed here.
Director Warren indicated that this portion of the Plan was not approved.
Chairman Rice stated it was the concensus of the Commission that the staff get
together with the developers and work out a second access along the lines
suggested by Mr. Harper -- one that would not cut through Mr. Jearl's property.
Director Warren stated this would be done, and if they cannot reach an agreement,
he will bring it back to the Commission for their determination.
-8- 6/15/70
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 65-81 Third Avenue -
R.H. Woodward
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the area in question, the
adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is in Japan, and consequently,
not able to be here tonight. He explained that the original conditional use
permit was granted in 1967 for a convalescent hospital. Since then, the
applicant has been granted two extensions due to the difficulty of obtaining
financing. He is requesting an additional extension, and the staff recommends
approval since conditions in the area have not changed.
Chairman Rice questions the number of times the Commission should grant
extensions; he felt that, logically, this should be the last one.
Member Macevicz remarked he is opposed to granting any extensions after the
variance has been in effect for more than two years.
Member Adams felt that the length of time or the number of extensions doesn't
mean a thing -- that if the use is a proper one for that particular property
should be all that matters.
The Commission discussed this use for the property and the difference between
extensions for variances and conditional use permits.
Member Macevicz felt the matter should be readvertised and the people now
living in the area notified of this proposed use.
MS (Macevicz-James) Set this matter for hearing and notify the property owners
in the area of this proposed use.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Macevicz, Chandler, James
NOES: Members Rice, Adams, Hillson
ABSENT: Member Stewart
MSC (Hillson-Adams) Approval of an extension of time of one year; subject
conditional use permit will expire on July 6, 1971.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Hillson, Adams, Chandler, Rice
NOES: Members Macevicz, James
ABSENT: Member Stewart
Request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit - Southeast corner
Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive - Shell Oil Station
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot noting the area in question, the
adjacent land use and zoning. He also noted the proposed alignment of the
Interstate 805 freeway and the interchange. The applicants are requesting
-9- 6/15/70
another extension of time for their proposed construction of a service
stati~on on this property. Since conditions in the area have not changed,
the staff recommends a 2-year extension in order that the applicants may
coordinate their plans with that of the freeway construction.
Member Adams felt the Commission should first determine whether or not
another service station is needed in this vicinity.
Member Chandler stated there are now 15 service stations, existing and
proposed in the Bonita area; there are 65 in the City.
Director Warren indicated it was not illogical to have two service stations
at a freeway interchange. He has a report, prepared by a member of the staff,
of the freeway interchanges, which will be sent to the Commission soon.
Mr. Mike Stellman, representing Shell Oil Company, stated they have not
changed their plans any - they still propose to build a station that will be
complimentary to the area. They have their plans set to §o with the freeway
construction; the freeway plans have been delayed. The development plans
for this service station have been planned for the last four years.
Chairman Rice indicated the Commission may want to take another look at the
area since they are concerning over the number of service stations springing
up all over this vicinity.
Member Hillson declared the Commission has an obligation to this company - they
have been granting extensions to Shell Oil since 1966 and should grant this request
putting them on notice that it would be their last extension. If, in fact,
there is a surplus of service stations in this area, the Commission should use
this point to start denying further requests for this use.
Member Chandler commented that he is not in favor of approving another service
station anywhere in this area; however, under the circumstances, the applicants
have purchased the property for this use and the construction has been caused
by the delay in freeway construction.
MSC (Hillson-Adams) Request for extension of time be granted for a period of two
years; subject conditional use permit and variance will expire on July 6, 1972.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Hillson, Adams, Chandler, Rice
NOES: Members Macevicz, James
ABSENT: Member Stewart
Director Warren commented that when the Commission adopted the new zoning
ordinance, they eliminated the Conditional Use Permit requirement for service
stations in several zones. Perhaps the Commission should reconsider this
matter and keep the use under the complete control of the Commission.
-10- 6/15/70
RELOCATION OF ROHR BUILDING
Director of Planning Warren explained that a request was received from Rohr
Corporation for approval of a building on the Tidelands.
Associate Planner Lee noted on a large plat of the area the precise site of
the relocation of this building - Building No. 42. It will be 500' closer to
Tidelands Avenue, but is not a controversial issue since it does not interfere
with any marina plans; therefore, the staff is recommending approval.
MSC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of the relocation of Building #42 on the Tidelands
as submitted at this meeting.
Members Chandler and Rice abstained.
Vacation for Commissioners
A chart was presented to each Commissioner indicating their tentative vacation
dates for the next few months.
MSUC (Macevicz-James) Vacations be approved in accordance to the chart submitted
at this meeting.
STAR-NEWS Editiorial
Member Adams praised the editorial which appeared in the STAR-NEWS concerning
annexation of Bonita to the City of Chula Vista.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Meeting be adjourned to the June 22, 1970, at 7 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Fulasz
Secretary