Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/05/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 25, 1970 A regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, James and Hillson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - Horton's "H" Street Annexation - to R-1 - Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of 13.98 acres just north of Windsor Park Subdivision between Hilltop High School playground and the right-of-way for 805 Freeway. Approximately 12.4 acres are vacant and proposed for a Planned Unit Development, the remainder is occupied by a Cai-American Water Company tank. The only access to this property is from Melrose Avenue, directly from Sheffield Court, a residential street in an R-1 zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As there was no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that R-1 zoning seems to be the most logical and sensible zone for this area. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION PCZ-70-M to City Council Prezoning of Horton's H Street Annexation to R-1 Findings be as follow: 1. The R-1 zone conforms to the General Plan designation for this area. 2. Because the property's only access is through a single-family area, higher density would not be compatible. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - Horton's "H" Street Annexation Director of Planning Warren discussed the plans submitted for this Planned Unit Development, which consists of 62 dwelling units representing a gross density of one unit to 8,434 square feet. A standard R-1 development would have 56 to 60 lots. This development is designed for sale as single-family units although they are attached. Mr. Warren advised that plans for the "H" Street interchange on Freeway 805 are not definite. The Division of Highways has begun their design studies and anticipate having a plan for review in about three weeks. It is impossible at this time to tell the extent of property required for this interchange. Mr. Warren enumerated four conditions submitted by the Engineering Division which include the widening of Sheffield Court and of the interior driveways as shown on the plan. Mr. Warren asked that the Commission approve the concept for this development as submitted with further review and consideration to be given to grading, architectural details and the development of the usable open space. Chairman Rice asked if right-of-way for "I" Street has been dedicated all the way to the property proposed for development. Director of Planning Warren expressed the belief there has been no dedication for "I" Street past the high school property and that there was a considerable topographic barrier. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Moore, 1120 Silverado Street,.La Jolla, architect for the project, felt the conditions proposed by the Planning staff and Engineering Division could be worked out. Mr. Bill Jordan, 612 Melrose Avenue, expressed concern in regard to opening access on to H Street which would allow traffic to go through from Sheffield Court to H Street and the freeway. Director of Planning Warren felt it would be undesirable to have a through route and did not think it would be possible to have access to H Street. Mr. Art Lanman, 616 Sheffield Court, expressed his belief that Sheffied Court was not designed to handle the volume of traffic that would be generated by this type of development; unless a wider street is provided, the area should not be developed. Mr. Gary Wright, 613 Sheffield Court, asked if the development would include underground utilities and was advised this is required by ordinance. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, pointed out that the developer will be required to construct a lift station for sewer facilities; the sewer has been constructed under the freeway but not to subject property. He also commented that access to H Street is out of the question and that Sheffield Court is capable of carrying the traffic for this development. He stated it appears at this time through conversation with the State Division of Highways that the amount of area left to the north will be very small and cannot be developed so there would be no need to extend Sheffield Court further north. Member Macevicz raised a question as to the possibility of working with the high school district to open "I" Street to this area. Director of Planning Warren advised that the staff has talked with representa- tives of the high school district, who have indicated some interest in this. It will be pursued further by the staff. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was closed. 3 Member Chandler expressed the opinion that the topography of this area makes it a logical spot for a Planned Unit type of development; and that every consideration should be given to preserving the view of the residents in the Windsor Park subdivision. He further stated a pedestrian walkway should be provided to the high school grounds. Member Hillson asked what assurance can be given that the open space would not become a waste land, or a junk yard and accumulate trash. Planning Director Warren explained that in this type of development, there are a great many documents and recordings that go into the deed to be sure the development is accomplished and properly maintained. A Homeowners' Association must be formed for maintenance of open spaces. Member Stewart felt the open space would best serve the community if it were developed into a park and playground. He further pointed out that this should be used by the residents of this development only and should not be open to the public. Member James felt the concept of the development was acceptable and when details have been coordinated through the staff, the plan should again be brought before the Commission review. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the Planning Commission of the Basic Concept RESOLUTION NO.PUD-70-1 of Windsor Heights Planned Unit Development with a Precise Plan to be Presented for Approval when the Following Conditions Have Been Satisfied: 1. Sheffield Court shall have a right-of-way of 51' and shall terminate in a standard cul-de-sac. 2. The interior driveways should be 24' in width instead of 20' as shown on the proposed plan. 3. City Drawing #68-13L for the design of a sanitary sewer to be constructed through this area may be modified to suit the needs of the development. 4. The developer shall provide a lift station for the sewer line and shall show the location of the sewer line and the required manholes and provide suitable access to these manholes. 5. Review and analysis of the proposed, grading plan with a goal of preserving views from the adjacent residential development to the south. 6. Further discussion and study to determine whether some form of public access should be reserved for a portion of the property to the north that may remain after freeway construction and possible pedestrian access from this project to Hilltop High School. An attempt shall be made to extend "I" Street into the development through cooperation with the City staff, Sweetwater Union High School Distric~ and Cai-American Water Company. 7. A more specific review of the architectural details and the dimensions and locations of garages. 8. Restudy of the best use and development of the usable open space. 4 Director of Planning Warren asked the Commission if they wished this matter brought back as an item on the agendas or advertised as a public hearing. He advised that in either case the residents in the area could be notified. Chairman Rice directed that when revision of the plans to meet the required conditions is accomplished, the plans be brought back to the Commission as an item on the agenda and that the residents in the area be notified when it will be on the a~enda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 305 East Palomar Street - ReQuest to construct addition to building - San Diego Cou~t~ Association for Retarded Children (Starlight Center) Director of Planning Warren reviewed the request for construction of a 50' x 125' addition to be located on the west side of the existing building. He pointed out the location of the facility at the southwest corner of East Oneida Street and Nolan Avenue. Nolan Avenue is presently umimproved but will be improved in con- j~anction with the subdivision development to the east. Dedication of a strip of the property necessary for the right-of-way of East Oneida Street will be required from the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mr. Victor Wulff~ architect for the proposed addition, advised that it will be a steel frame structure in order to leave the interior as clear as possible. At the north end of the additions there will be some compartmentation to provide for two offices and a showroom for some of the products manufactured at the school, also restroom facilities. Well over two-thirds of the area will be a loft for work room purposes. The exterior is designed to be stucco finish with a facia or frieze around the building, which is small aggregate dashed on an epoxy coating over the metal paneling. Member Stewart questioned~whether the top would also be metal and, if so, if they would not get rust spots showing through. Mr. Wulff advised that the metal will be galvanized and the roof will be all steel with a baked enamel finish. Member Hillson asked if dedication of right-of-way for Oneida Street will be carried through. Mrs. Kay Smith, President of Starlight Center~ 892 Monterey Court, confirmed that they are willing to make that dedication. Concerning the condition for not fencing the front adjacent to Nolan Avenue, Mrs. Smith stated this area is the children's playground and must have a fence. Member Hillson asked the applicant if the requirement for landscaping on Nolan and East Oneida is going to create a difficult problem as to getting it done and financing it, adding that he would ask for a waiver of these two conditions if it is going to create a problem that might hinder the addition of the building. Mrs. Smith reported that they have been most fortunate in getting community support and she did not feel the landscaping would be a problem. Member Macevicz asked what type of activity would be done in the workroom~ and by what age level. Mrs. Smith advised this is for ages 18 to 63. They are presently working on bagging aggregate and have it for sale in several stores. They have a contract with Rohr to sort nuts and bolts. They also do silk screen painting on paper bags. Mr. George Poole, Pastor of the Chula Vista Bible Baptist Church, located across the proposed Nolan Avenue, expressed the support of the church for this endeavor. MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Construction RESOLUTION PCC-70-12 of Addition to Building at 305 East Palomar, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate that portion of this property on the north side necessary for the right-of-way of East Oneida Street. 2. The area fronting on Nolan Avenue shall be modified as dete~nined necessary by the staff. The landscaping shall be approved by the Planning staff. 3. The slopes adjacent to East Oneida Street shall be landscaped within one year after the street improvements on East Oneida Street are installed. The landscaping shall be approved by the Planning staff. 4. A parking layout for the entire site shall be submitted and approved by the Planning staff. 5. If possible, the tree north of the building and within the proposed north parking lot shall remain. 6. No future additions shall be approved until a master pt~ is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. 7. Final details of architecture of addition shall be subject to staff approval. 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 addition ~s an expansion of present facilities and will enable the applicant to provide additional services. 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 site has sufficient area to accommodate the expansion and would not create any adverse affects on surrounding properties. The architecture of the addition is in general keeping with the existing structure. c. That the proposed use will comp3~y with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. It will comply with the required regulations and conditions. 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. It will not affect the General Plan. SUBDIVISION - Chula Vista Gardens~ Units 6 & 7 - Tentative Map Associate Planner Lee reminded the Commission this particular map was held over from the meeting o£ May 4 pending the request for rezoning to R-3 for the area designated as Unit 7. The developer has submitted two alternative plans for development under R-1 if the rezoning is not granted. Mr. Lee reviewed these plans and the conditions for approval submitted by the Engineering Division ~d Planning staff. Mr. Don Westphal, Civil Engineer for the project, expressed agreement with the conditions outlined. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of Tentative Map of Chu~a Vista Gardens, Units 6 and 7, subject to the following conditions: t. The proposed alignment of Nolan Avenue creates a small illegal lot on the west side as shown on the tentative map. This lot shall be designated as Lot "A" and the subdivider shall effect a transfer of ownership so as to incorporate the parcel into the adjacent legal parcel, reserving any slope easements as may be necessary. 2. The subdivider shall provide permanent slope rights as necessary for the protection of street improvements. 3. The subdivider is required to acquire and dedicate that portion of Lot "F" per Map No. 4201~ lying outside of and adjacent to the subdivision boundary, as Oneida Street. 4. The north half of Palomar Street shall be fully improved including street iights, with the public improvements required for the first unit constructed. 5. The southerly subdivision boundary of Unit No. 6 shall be the southerly right- of-way line of East Palomar Street and Lot B. 6. The proposed alignment of East Palomar Street creates an illegal lot on the south side as shown on the tentative map. This lot shall be designated Lot "B" and deeded to the City. 7. The alignment of East Palomar Street shall conform to Drawing No. 69-143D on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. 8. Full improvements shall be constructed in Nolan Avenue, including but not limited to 36' of pavement, curb, gutter &nd sidewalk on both sides of the street, sewer and street lights. 7 9. Lot 154 shall be reserved for future street purposes, until such time as determined unnecessary by the Director of Planning. 10. Setbacks to be shown on the final map will adhere tothe zoning classification of the property. Precise Plan - 231 Fourth Avenue - Chamber of Commerce Associate Planner Lee recalled that the recent rezoning to C-O for properties fronting on Glover Avenue between Davidson and the alley south of E Street becomes effective only upon approval of a precise plan for development of the property. The Chamber of Commerce has submitted a plan for improvement of their property. Member Macevicz asked about the driveway from the parking area to Fourth Avenue at the front of the building. Mr. Eugene York, chairman of the Relocation Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged the rather narrow driveway and stated they will, no doubt, be in to get approval at a later date for use of the driveway. He also requested approval of the site plan for the entire project as well as the precise plan for Glover Avenue frontage. Director of Planning Warren advised that the staff is recommending approval of the total site. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Approval of the precise plan of the Chamber of Commerce with the recommendation that detailed plans be submitted for staff approval to include: Landscaping and irrigation plan, wall design and color, sign, parking layout, and details of architectural modifications. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Sign Regulations in Commercial Zones Director of Planning Warren commented that this public hearing is for consideration of amendments to the C-N, C-C, C-V and C-T zones asestablished by the new Zoning Ordinance. When the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in July, 1969, the sign regulations for commercial zones were omitted pending further study. The staff has been working with committees, first with the Downtown Association, and since with a committee Of Broadway merchants, who have recommended provisions of an ordinance governing signs in the C-T zone. Associate Planner Lee made a presentation of colored slides showing existing signs and pointing out those which would be in conformance with the proposed ordinances and others which would be in excess of the regulations. Mr. Lee then enumerated the provisions proposed for each of the commercial zones, pointing out the differences between the various zones and where the staff recom- mendations differed from those of the committee . Mr. Warren advised that this public hearing is to hear comments from anyone interested and the Commission should continue the hearing and any deliberation to the meeting of June 22 and schedule a workshop session for June 8. He requested that comments be received on each zone separately. The public hearing was opened and Chairman Rice asked for comments concerning the C-T sign ordinance. Mr. Dick Kau, Chairman of the Broadway Sign Committee, commented on the work of that committee and advised that the Broadway Association voted unanimously for approval of the ordinance as presented. Mr. Neil Haas, 986 Broadway, agreed with the need for a sign ordinance, but felt the provisions for the C-T zone were designed around the type of business that can afford a large commercial sign and does not consider the needs of the small business operator who has no means of getting commercial type signing. Mr. J. C. Crain, 172 Broadway, commented that in comparing sign regulations for Third Avenue and for Broadway, it should be taken into consideration that the store buildings on Third Avenue do not have visible side walls except at the corners. There were no comments concerning sign regulations for the C-C, C-V and C-N Zones. Mr. Mark Green, 711 Broadway, pointed out that Broadway is a transit area, with people driving 30 miles an hour and the only way for businesses to stop those people is with signs. He felt this is entirely different from Third Avenue which is like a shopping center or mall. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) The public hearing for consideration of sign regulations in Commercial Zones be continued to the meeting of June 22 with a workshop meeting scheduled for June 8. Director's Report Director of Planning Warren requested that rather than discuss the "E" Street study at the workshop on June 8 as previously scheduled, a workshop be called immediately after adjournment of the regular meeting on June 1 and the "E" Street study be discussed at that time. This would leave the June 8 workshop for discussion of sign regulations. Oral Communications Member Adams called attention to a newspaper account of a report by Richard Brown, Councilman of E1 Cajon and the Chairman of the Policy Committee of C.P.O. in which Mr. Brown suggests that all unincorporated land be zoned no smaller than one acre lots, and if the area wants to urbanize, it ~hould be forced to annex to a city in order to provide smaller lots. He recommended that cities should decide which land should be developed according to services available rather than providing service by special districts. 9 Member Adams also discussed the policy that the San Diego City Council has adopted in regard to development of large areas whmre community services have not been established, the application for rezoning must be consistent with the master plan. City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that this is not an ordinance, it is simply a policy of the Council. He concurred that public facilities must be provided in areas that are to be developed and the provision of such facilities should be concurrent with the need; however, it cannot be required that the cost of all public facilities be borne by the people buying homes in the new subdivision. Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, con~nented on the articles read By Mr. Adams. He pointed out that nationwide it is a popular feeling among governmental authorities that subdividers should provide all kinds of things that historically have not been provided in the past. When a subdivider provides a service or facility for the general public, the cost must be included in the price of the homes. He felt it is preferable that facilities be provided through a bond issue spreading the cost over a long period of time. He recalled that in 1920, single-family homes were a luxury not available to the ordinary family because there was no long term financing for homes. The advent of F.H.A. and V.A. made singlefamily homes the popular thing in this country, but if the cost of all facilities is included in the initial price of a home, the financing becomes prohibitive. Director Warren stated that the matter of these policies has been referred by Administration to him for report and recommendation. ADJOURNMENT MSCU (Chandler-Macevicz) The meeting be adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Acting Secretary