Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/06/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 1, 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 Administrative Conference Room, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista. The following members were present: Rice, Stewart, Macevicz, Chandler, Adams, James, and Hillson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren and City Attorney Lindberg. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Adams requested that the statement he made pertaining to the conditional use permit for a sign (Frank Balestreri, 1179 Frontage Road) be reworded to more clearly indicate his intent as follows: "The Planning Commission should take note of the fact that when they granted approval of a conditional use permit for use of the building on the property, the three sign supports were there and they were to be removed as part of the clean-up of the premises that was to be done in connection with granting the conditional use permit." MSUC (Chandler-James) Minutes of the meeting of May 18 be approved as revised, and the minutes of the meeting of May 25, 1970, be approved as mailed. PREZONING AND REZONING (Continued) - Property fronting on east side of Third Avenue between quintard Street and Third Avenue and on south side of Quintard Street easterly from Third Avenue to C-T; one lot fronting on Quintard approximately 500' east of Third Avenue and remaining vacant property to the rear of Third Avenue and Quintard Street frontage (approx. 3.7.acres) to R-3. Setbacks requested: 10' for C-T zoning and 15' for R-3 zoning Director of Planning Warren referred to a plat noting the properties in question. He explained that this was a new hearing on this matter because of the Commission's desire to consider commercial zoning for those properties on the south side of Quintard Street, as requested by the residents. They stated at a previous hearing that they had received commitments for their properties for insurance and real estate offices. This hearing was advertised for the C-T and R-3 zones in order to give the Commission the greatest flexibility. The staff has prepared two alternative zoning patterns for the Commission's consideration. Alternate "A" would rezone that property fronting on Third Avenue and including the dental office on Quintard to C-T, and for the remainder of the property the recommendation would be R-3; this is the pattern which the staff recommends. Alternate "B" would rezone the properties fronting on Third Avenue to C-T; then beginning with the dental office up to the vacant property at the rear, the zone would be C-O; the remainder of the property to the south would be rezoned R-3. The staff further recommends that the R-3 zoning become effective upon approval of a Precise Plan, and that the setbacks be established as 10' for the C-T and C-O zones and 15' for the R-3 zone. -2- 6/1/70 Mr. Warren stated that commercial zoning on Quintard would promote marginal use and the proposals discussed by the applicants could easily be accommodated along Third Avenue where an abundance of commercial zoning exists. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. David Liedike, 354 Moss Street, and David Wilson, 275 Quintard Street, spoke in favor of C-O zoning, indicating money is available for financing and parking on the premises is ample. A representative of the Williams Marvin Company, 605 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, owners of the property which is proposed for the Big Bear Market (northwest corner of Quintard and Third) spoke in opposition to the request. He stated he was an appraiser for 14 years and questioned whether these people would be able to obtain financing for the commercial use of their properties. He felt there would be a definite problem in trying to remodel these homes for business offices; it is a secondary usage and it would be a mistake to allow it. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed their views on Alternate "B" indicating they favored this plan since it almost coincides with the commercial boundary across the street; the people in the area have requested it indicating commitments for it; it will be compatible with the surrounding area; nothing detrimental to good zoning practice. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-J to City Council Prezoning and Rezoning of Third Avenue and Qmintard Street The zoning recommended is as follows: That property fronting on Third Avenue in the 1400 block to C-T (thoroughfare commercial); the properties on the south side of Quintard Street, easterly from Third Avenue beginning with the dental office to the easterly vacant parcel (6 properties) to C-O; the remainder of the parcels to R-3. The R-3 and C-O zoning to become effective upon approval by the Planning Commission of Precise Plans. Setbacks to be established at 10' for the C-T and C-O zones and at 15' for the R-3 zone. Findings to be as follows: C-T - While the General Plan designates this property for high density residential uses, it is already commercially zoned in the County and will thus be developed with commercial uses and remain unincorporated if this request is denied. By prezonin§ the property C-T, the City will be assured that such commercial development will be improved to City standards. C-O - a. Uses permitted in the C-O zone are generally considered compatible with the heavier commercial uses and high density residential use. b. The C-O zone as proposed represents a logical expansion or supple- ment to the shopping center to the north. -3- 6/1/70 R-3 - a. The General Plan designates this area High Density Residential. b. The property adjacent to the east is zoned R-3 and is partially improved with multiple family dwellings. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 102 Fourth Avenue - Reduction of front setback 15' to 13' - Seventh Day Adventist Church of Chula Vista Director of Planning Warren referred to the location map noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicants are requesting a reduction in front setback from 15' to 13'. The setback by Map is 30', but this church was constructed to 15', perhaps by variance. Director Warren then showed the elevations of the proposed church remodeling indicating that the 2' encroachment is to provide additional area for entrance into the church and to provide architectural features that would greatly improve the appearance of the building. They will not be increasing the seating capacity from its present 234 seats. The staff believes the proposed changes will have no effect upon traffic from the parking lot. The staff is recommending three conditions of approval: parking layout to be approved by the staff; seating capacity not be increased; landscaping to be approved by staff. The variance request is based on the submission of these plans, and any change in these plans would have to come back for Commission approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Grover Starr, 388 First Avenue, representing the Pastor, and Dr. Ralph Giddings, 40 E1 Rancho Vista, spoke in favor of the request and the need for the improvement. There being no further comments, for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Chandler commented that the 2' requested is not going to make any appre- ciable difference especially since they are going to put landscaping in front, from a planning standpoint; however, to the applicants, the 2' would make all the difference in the world. MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Variance be approved for the reduction of front setback from 15' to 13' subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a parking layout subject to staff approval. 2. The seating capacity shall not be increased unless additional parking is provided. 3. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for the south parking area and the area adjacent to the entrance to be approved by the staff. -4- 6/1/70 Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The present entrance is inadequate to provide ample pedestrian circulation within the church as well as ingress and egress for the present seating capacity. b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed alteration represents approximately 25% of the property frontage and is not utilizing the average percentage of frontage of the setback along the street. c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this ordin- ance or the public interest. The architecture is an improvement of the existing structure and should serve to enhance the property and the surrounding 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. Request for extension of time on variance - 667 Third Avenue - T. Pieknik Director of Planning Warren reported that a request has been received from the applicant asking for a three year extension on the variance granted him in June, 1966 to construct a two-story building at 667 Third Avenue; a residence is proposed on the second floor and a ballet studio on the first floor. He explained that the applicant was granted a two-year extension in June, 1968. Director Warren commented that the area has remained unchanged and the staff would recommend an extension; however, they will be recommending that this area be rezoned to C-O, possibly within this year. Therefore, in view of this, the staff is recommending a one year extension on the request. Member Chandler declared that the applicant or a representative should be present at the meetings when requesting an extension. (It was noted that the applicant was not present.) Member Hillson stated he could see no real justification for the need of this extension. He would move for a postponement until the applicant was present. City Attorney Lindberg informed the Commission that they grant variances because of a hardship and practical difficulties to development of property--if, after four years, the variance has not been exercised it leaves some question as to whether the representation, as originally made, had some basis. Mr. Lindberg -5- 6/1/70 indicated that it would be well-advised to ask the applicant to state his position and indicate to the Commission that it is a question of hardship and practical difficulties. There is a difference between the issuance of a vari- ance and a conditional use permit which you may very well extend because all you would be doing is granting a use that is permitted, upon acceptance in the area. In a variance, whereupon you are basing it on a hmdship, you don't ask for it ten years in advance. Director Warren explained the uses of the C-O zone indicating this use would be allowed subject to a conditional use permit. MSC (Chandler-Macevicz) Denial of the request for extension of time based on the following: 1. The original variance was granted June 20, 1966 with a two-year extension approved on May 27, 1968; thus, the variance has not been in effect for four years, which is more than a reasonable time to initiate construction. 2. The C-O zone will be recommended for this area within a year; this zone would permit the uses you propose subject to a conditional use permit. 3. No justification was given for the extension. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Macevicz, Stewart, Rice, James and Adams NOES: Member Hillson ABSENT: None Member Hillson explained his "no" vote in that he felt they should have asked the applicant to come in and perhaps he could present something new to the Commission that he didn't before. Director Warren remarked that the applicant has the right of appeal, and the area will be recommended for the C-O zone, under which he has the right to file for a conditional use permit for this use on his property. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Population Figure Director of Planning Warren stated that the population estimate for the City as of March 1, 1970 is 68,200 as reported by the State. Budget Director Warren presented each Commissioner wi th a copy of the Department's budget. He briefly explained the new format and stated that the Chairman or his alternate is requested to be present at the budget hearing before the Council. -6- 6/1/70 Vacation for Commissioners Member Stewart asked to be excused from the next four meetings since he will be on vacation. MSUC (Macevicz-James) Approval granted for Member Stewart's leave of absence. Director of Planning Warren asked the Commissioners to call the secretary and give her the dates of their vacations so that a chart can be made to be brought back at the next meeting for approval. Oral Communications Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, stated he was informed that the Commission will adjourn to a workshop session concerning the report on E Street; however, since he is not allowed to speak at this session, he wishes to make his comments now. Director Warren stated that he informed one gentleman this afternoon that testimony would not be heard from the floor concerning this subject tonight. He stated the Commission has indicated they will hold a public hearing on the matter. City Attorney Lindberg alleged that there is no objection to discussing this matter in a workshop session. The Commission can hear the conclusions reached by the staff, and if they so desire, they may then call a public hearing. Any testimony relevant to this matter by an interested party should be heard at the public hearing so that all persons interested in this could be present and be able to hear the testimony and make any comments on it. Mr. York indicated he failed to see what a workshop meeting is--it is a public meeting--the public is invited but not allowed to speak. He feels he certainly has the right to speak under Oral Communications, but will refrain from doing so and will hold his remarks for the public hearing. Director Warren commented on the workshop meetings remarking that he hoped there was some way to establish the format to be used. The Commission can hear the testimony at a public hearing and then adjourn to a workshop meeting before making any final determination. The Commission discussed the legalities of having workshop meetings, comparing their meetings with those of the Council at which the public is allowed to comment. Member Stewart explained that at the Council Conferences, the public is allowed to testify since the matters before them are ones on which no public hearing is held. Mr. Gus Pappas, Attorney representing Castle-Plymouth, stated that the Commission should get the subject matter of the workshop away from the public hearing--it shouldn't concern their application for zone change. This study is a method of approach in the event applications come in concerning E Street, and this was done at the request of the City Council. Mr. Pappas declared that the Col~mission is equipped to make a decision on this matter without holding a public hearing. Any testimony presented by the people would be on their application and not on the E Street study. -7- 6/1/70 Chairman Rice stated that the Commission did tell these people that a public hearing would be held on this matter and they are morally bound to have one. City Attorney Lindberg, referring to Mr. Pappas' statement that the people who are against their application (Castle-Plymouth) should not have the right to testify on the E Street study, cautioned the Chairman to be extremely careful in directing tile testimony of these people to the matter on hand. There should certainly be no discussion heard on the matter of the Castle-Plymouth request. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Delete the workshop meeting from the agenda. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) E Street area study be set for public hearing for the meeting of June 15, after which time the Commission will hold a workshop session to review the testimony presented. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-James) Meeting to be adjourned to the workshop meeting of June 8, 1970 to be held at Christie's Restaurant at 6 p.m. and to the next regularly scheduled public hearings of June 15 and June 22, 1970. Respectfully submitted, ~/den~'~e M. Fulasz 6x Secretary