Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/05/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 4, 1970 A regular 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, Macevicz, Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent: Member Stewart (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindber9, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-James) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 27, 1970, as mailed. PREZONING - Horton's Telegraph Canyon Road Annexation - to R-1 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the property in question as 120 acres east of Greg Rogers Park and south and west of Telegraph Canyon Road. The applicant is requesting prezonin9 from R-1 and A-l-8 in the County to R-1 and the establishment of a 25' setback on both sides of Telegraph Canyon Road. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to the dedication of 26' on Telegraph Canyon Road for street purposes. This road will eventually be widened from its present width of 100' to 126'. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hillson asked if the proposed school and hospital site would require a public hearing before the Commission. Director Warren explained that public schools are not subject to local zoning, and hospitals are permitted in any zone subject to a conditional use permit. RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-L Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) to City Council Prezoning to R-1 of Horton's Telegraph Road Annexation Findings are as follows: 1. The request is in conformance with the General Plan which designates this area for medium density residential. 2. Approval is recommended subject to the dedication of 26' on Telegraph Canyon Road for street purposes. -2- 5/4/70 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (Continued) - East of Nolan Avenue between East Oneida and East Palomar Streets - R-1 to C-N - Poutous Development and Bible Baptist Church of Chula Vista Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the location of the property in question. He discussed the original request which involved C-N zoning for the entire site. The applicant has since revised his plans and is now requesting a small area, approximately one acre in size, for a convenience shopping center and the balance of the 4 acre site to be rezoned R-3-G for the development of an apartment complex. This item was continued from the last meeting so that the applicant could submit a precise plan for the development. The applicant has just submitted a revised plan of this proposed development; however, the staff has not had a change to study or evaluate it. Mr. Warren then discussed the size of the convenience center which the ordinance sets at a minimum of 3 acres; however, the City Attorney has ruled in the past that this is a guide line and not a specific requirement. The applicant has not provided a market analysis, as also required by the zoning ordinance. The staff believes that some type of convenience center would serve the needs in this neighborhood; but, there is some doubt as to the desirability of the multiple- family development in this area. Mr. Warren added that they understand the problems of the applicant based on their underlying lease arrangement; however, this should not be a motivating factor in making a decision on this request. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of the rezoning to C-N for the small convenience center, and denial of the request to R-3-G for the multiple-family complex. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing is opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Consultant, representing the applicant, discussed the map he submitted outlining their general plan of the area for the shopping center and the multiple-family development. The Precise Plan will follow. The multiple-family complex is based on the density of 2500 square feet of land area for each unit; 3.7 acres is proposed for this development, so there will be approximately 64 dwelling units here. It will be a two-story construction having over lO0,O00 square feet of open space. Parking is based on the l~ to 1 ratio. Mr. W. F. McBride, 336 East Palomar, Mr. Bazencoff, 340 E. Palomar, Salvo Rodriguez, 328 E. Palomar, Mr. Doan, 1300 Park Drive, Dennis Daury, 1308 Park Drive, and Mr. L. Thompson, 164 Murray Street, spoke against the proposal. Their reasons as stated were: (1) Although original General Plan map shows this area as a commercial center, the revised General Plan shows it as R-l; (2) bought their homes in this area after being assured by the developers that the area would be developed as R-l; (3) there are several small shopping centers within a short distance from this center; (4) traffic on Palomar will be increased because of the numerous people going in here, and Palomar cannot take that much traffic; (5) the apartments will rent out to lower income groups; (5) the development will generate a large number of children and the schools are presently overcrowded; (6) it would lower the value of their property; (7) if they had known this development was proposed for this area, they would never have bought their homes here; (8) nearly all the people contacted in this area, all are opposed to the multiple family proposal and about 50% are in favor of having some type of small shopping center here. -3- 5/4/70 Mr. Cliff Burford, in rebuttal, claimed the R-3 development would not be an intrusion in this area as it would be a low-density type development. He stated that the applicant owns the surrounding area presently being developed with single-family residences. He also noted the width of Palomar Street and declared it could easily carry this amount of traffic. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hillson commented on the convenience shopping center saying it was always inconvenient for those people living immediately across from it. Due to a lack of transportation, it is always difficult for the housewives to shop during the day unless they have a store close to them. He would favor this change of zone. As to t~e multiple family development, Mr. Hillson felt the Commission owed it to the residents who bought in the area to keep it R-1. Member Adams remarked that at the last hearing, he felt inclined to favor the multiple-family proposal; however, after hearing the testimony of the adjacent residents, he now feels he cannot support this request. MSC (Hillson-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-E to the City Council the Change of Zone to C-N for approximately One Acre on the Southeast Corner of Nolan Avenue and East Palomar Street Findings be as follows: 1. No shopping facilities exist within 1/2 mile of this area. This rezoning will provide ~he residents a small convenience center without significantly encreaching into the service area of existing commercial centers. 2. The approval is based on the condition that a precise plan be prepared and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the adoption of the C-N zoning. 3. This zoning conforms to the adopted General Plan. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hillson, Macevicz, Chandler, Rice NOES: Members Adams and James ABSENT: Member Stewart MSUC (Hillson-Chandler) Denial of the request for R-3-G zoning based on: 1. The justification offered by the applicant was based primarily on an underlying lease arrangement he has with the owners of the property. No need for apartment units in this vicinity has been demonstrated. 2. The site has no access to the freeway or transportation routes and the intro- duction of higher density into this area should be based on a Planned Unit Develop- ment which would involve the total surrounding 19 acres. City Attorney Lindberg explained the Council action and appeal procedure to the applicant. -4- 5/4/70 SETBACK CHANGE - 500 block of Glover Avenue - 25' to 15' - Commission initiated Associate Planner Lee submitted a map of the area noting the properties in question. This hearing was initiated by the Commission for a change in the front yard set- back from 25' to 15' for the 500 block of Glover Avenue, south of Mankato Street zoned R-3. He explained that the standard front yard setback for R-3 zones fronting on residential streets is established at 15' in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lee commented that this area is developed with single and multiple family uses that are observing the 25' setback; however, the majority of the multiple-family uses are using this front setback for parking. The staff recommends approval of this change of setback. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Robinson, who originated the request, spoke in favor of the change. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed this proposal and concurred that it should be granted. MSUC (Adams-James) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. PCM-70-10 to the City Council the Change of Setback for the 500 Block of Glover Avenue, South of Mankato Street, from 25' to 15' Findings be as follows: a. The standard front yard setback for R-3 zones fronting on a residential street is established in the Zoning Ordinance at 15'. b. A change of setback to 15' was granted by the Planning Commission for the 500 block of Glover Avenue north of Mankato Street. VARIANCE - (Continued - 621L Street - Modification of conditions on variance - Imperial Truck Lines, Inc. Director of Planning Warren stated that this matter was continued from the meeting of March 16, 1970 in order for the attorney representing Imperial Truck Lines to be present; however, he received word today that the attorney may not be present. Director Warren then read a report (mailed to the Commission) relative to the history of this trucking business, beginning with the granting of the use variance in September, 1950, the extension, the violations, etc. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the surrounding use in the area was agricultural when the first variance was granted--there were no residences there. Before the expansion of the business in 1962, residences were there. He added that it would not be possible to completely curtail the operation as it now exists. If the Commission desires to establish it as a non-conforming use, an abatement procedure could be set up within a reasonable period of time, but he is not prepared at this time to state what a reasonable period of time would be. At the present time it is not a non-conforming use because the use variance, in effect, enjoys the same goal as a rezoning, and it must be viewed in terms of a legitimate use--it has a perfect right to be there. -5- 5/4/70 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Zorum H. Hurt, Terminal Manager of Imperial Truck Lines, 621L Street, stated that they have done everything in their power to curtail the noise at this operational site: meetings with the employees to caution them about the noise factor and the complaints of the nearby residents, the planting of a landscaping screen, moving the refrigerator units to the east side of the buildings, etc. Mr. John Wanders, 27264 Lake Wohlford Road, Valley Center, California, owner of the property, declared that he met with Mr. Young to try to resolve these problems. He asked Mr. Young if an 8' cement wall built next to the residential area would curb this noise factor. Mr. Herbert Young, 873 Riverlawn, discussed his talk with Mr. Wanders and said he suggested hiring an engineering consultant to measure the level of noise factor here and suggest ways and means of curtailing it. He, therefore, would request a 30 to 60 day continuance in order to get the consultant's report. Member Hillson commented that an 8' high wall would not lessen the noise as the units of the trucks are higher than that--the trailers are about 10' high. City Attorney Lindberg remarked that they are not talking about the refrigerator units because the variance prohibits them running these at night. He recommended that the Commission continue this matter for 60 days so that the engineer could bring back standards that may be helpful to the Commission in other areas as well. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Continue this hearing to the meeting of July 6, 1970, in order that the parties involved would have time to hire an engineering consultant in order to determine the noise factor and the means of curtailing it. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Chula Vista Gardens~ Unit No. 6 - Change of side sard requirement to 5' (each side) - Nacion Associates Associate Planner Lee submitted a plat noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property involves the Chula Vista Gardens Subdivision, Unit 6, located north of Palomar Street, east of Nolan Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance to use 5' side yard set- backs--the present requirement is for 10' for one side yard and 3' for the other side (13' for both). Mr. Lee explained that the tentative map was approved for this subdivision in July, 1968, but the applicant failed to file his final map thus causing the expiration of the map and necessitating a re-submittal. If the applicant had requested an extension in time, he would be allowed to develop the subdivision with the 5' side yard requirements. The other subdivisions in the area were developed under the 5' side yard requirement, and the applicant has stated that his construction plans were based on this 5' requirement and denial of the request would mean he would have to redesign the subdivision. The staff is recommending approval of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -6- 5/4/70 Mr. Cliff Burford, representing the applicant, stated that the units in this subdivision were in the process of design for a long time and the zoning ordinance change caught them offguard. He explained that due to a technicality, their map was not extended. Mr. Les Thompson, 164 Murray Avenue, spoke against the request citing the boats, trailers and campers owned by many families now with no place to park them, and if the access to the rear yard is inadequate, these vehicles will be parked in the front setback or out on the street. He also claimed that the majority of the families are now buying three and even four cars. Director of Planning Warren discussed the request explaining that the 5' side yard was permissible up to July, 1969. All of the other units in the adjacent subdivisions have been developed with this provision. Mr. Thompson stated he has a petition signed by 22 residents in the area protesting this request; they feel it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Member Macevicz declared the 10' and 3' side yard was designed primarily for the convenience of the homeowners and the American Housing Guild has to comply with the zoning ordinance. If we approve this variance, we are subjecting 55 property owners to something less than desirable, in his opinion. Member Adams asked what would be involved if the applicant adhered to the present ordinance requirements. Mr. Burford claimed they would have to redesign the houses and they would also have to go back to FHA, starting again from scratch. Member Macevicz declared the ordinance was changed to improve the situation of land use. He still feels that making every square foot of a person's property usable has a great deal to be considered. The houses and properties are becoming so compact that it is causing the property owners to back these vehicles out into the streets. Member Chandler indicated that if this was a new request, he would agree with Member Macevicz; however, as stated by the staff, the surrounding areas are enjoying the 5' side yard. If this request is not granted, it would create a hardship for the applicant. Chairman Rice agreed adding that he is basically against the proposal but feels in this case it would create an unnecessary hardship. MSC (Chandler-James) Approval of the change of side yard requirement to 5' for each side. Findings be as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The original tentative map was approved under the 5' side yard requirement and the site on which this subdivision is located is west of Interstate 805 and represents the last of undeveloped land in the area. -7- 5/4/70 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. All other subdivisions in the area have been developed with the 5' side yard requirement and the same basic house models are contemplated. c. That the authorizing of th~s variance v~ill not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the ordinance or the public interest. Development of this subdivision with 5' side yard would be in keeping with the surrounding area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. Granting this variance would have no effect on the General Plan. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, James, Rice, Adams, and Hillson NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT Member Stewart SUBDIVISION - Chula Vista Gardens, Units 6 & 7 - Tentative Map Director of Planning Warren requested that this item be continued until the matter of zoning along that frontage of Palomar Street is decided. MSUC (Adams-James) This matter be continued. The staff will place it on the appropriate Commission agenda when the zoning alon9 Palomar Street in this subdivision has been determined. Planning Commission review of variance - Operation of wholesale baker~ at 645 Broadwa~ Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, noted the location of the property and discussed the variance granted them in May, 1968, to operate a wholesale bakery for Mayfair Stores. Several conditions were imposed on the applicant: maximum number of employees to be 20; maximum number of delivery trucks to be 5; loading to be restricted to the side and rear of building; signs to be approved by Commission. Mr. Lee reported that the bakery employs 32 people--a maximum of 16 on any one shift, and they have 3 delivery trucks. Since there has been no significant change in the area, and the operation does not appear to be in conflict with the surrounding uses, the staff is recommending approval of another two-year exten- sion for the operation. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Adams-James) Approval of a two-year extension of time for this operation. -8- 5/4/7O Written Communications: William Nemour - Princess Park Estates, Inc., - Orange and Melrose Avenues (Zoning Wall) Mr. William Nemour, Executive Vice-President of Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated they plan to start construction this week. It was his understanding that when they brought in the landscaping plan, the wall would be eliminated. Mr. Nemour stated they plan to plant 40 magnolia trees here. He then showed a large rendering of the shopping center to the Commission. Director Warren informed the Commission that their primary concern here was the wall for rear yard of the shopping center. Mr. Nemour claimed that the block wall serves no purpose whatsoever. If the Commission specifically desires a wall, they could put in a chain-link fence. Member Macevicz declared the magnolia trees would not serve as a screen to the north. Mr. Warren indicated that the plan shows oleanders planted here. Mr. Nemour affirmed this. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Consultant, explained that his office is doing the engineering for this project. He noted the slope at this northern end of the center stating there is a 600' course going from 32' to 10', and the applicant's proposal to put in a landscaping screen rather than a concrete block wall is high- ly favorable to him. They own the area immediately adjacent to this proposed center, and Mr. Burford added, if they were on the same elevation as this property, they would insist on the block wall. He feels a chain-link fence would do every bit as good. Chairman Rice disagreed declaring that a chain-link fence would be the worst thing to put in here, architecturally speaking. Member Macevicz felt that this area would serve as a thoroughfare to the residential area by motorcyclists, and the like, if a wall was not constructed. Member Hillson agreed, adding that this particular area will be the one for the trash pickup and trucks coming in. He felt that a 6' high fence would look rather bad, but if they lowered the height of the fence and had the oleanders outside the block wall this would prevent the debris from the shopping center from going on to the adjacent properties. Director Warren stated that anything less than 4' would be ineffective. Member Aoams discussed the Commission's disappointment with the landscaping in all the other shopping centers. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) The wall requirement for the Princess Park Estates shopping center at Melrose and Orange Avenues for the north property line shall be a 4' high solid masonry wall, subject to the approval of the Planning Depart- ment. -9- 5/4/7O Planning Commission review of Capital Improvement Program Director of Planning Warren discussed the Capital Improvement Program, a copy of which was distributed to the Commission at the last meeting. This Program was prepared by the City staff and this is the first time the City has prepared a 6-year Improvement Program. The Committee consists of the Director of Public Works, Director of Planning, Director of Housing and Building, Director of Parks & Recreation and the City Administrative Officer. The goal of the Program is to coordinate development of projects being proposed by each of the departments and placed in some sequence. It is something that was needed by the City for some time. Mr. John Thomson, Assistant Administrative Officer, stated the purpose of presenting this report to the Commission was to solicit their comments. He explained that the document is primarily a budget function and they are particularly interested in the 1970-71 Capital Improvement Program expenditure summary that lists various projects and priorities. He added that the financial problem of the Program was not relative to the Commission's concern. The Program, in turn, will be submitted to the City Council, and this Committee will review it on an annual basis. Chairman Rice questioned No. 7 on the list (Trunk Sewer-Telegraph Canyon Phase I) and wondered if this particular project would go in regardless of whether a development will go in there; in other words, was it basically firm or was it contingent upon what will happen in a year or so. Mr. Lane Cole, Director of Public Works, explained that this particular item was related to the "J" Street widening project from Broadway to Telegraph Canyon Road. The first phase--the trunk sewer comes down Telegraph Canyon Road, down Hilltop to J Street and then straight down J Street across the freeway into a metering station and on into the Metro system. This serves a large development area, and the reason it is in this budget is that one of the gas tax projects is to widen J Street this year. Therefore this will fit into the new bridges, etc., that will be built in the freeway widening. In this way, they can now put in the sewer rather than have to come back in a few years and dig up the road and put it in then. Member Chandler questioned No. 6 - Golf Course Irrigation System. Miss Lily Torricellas, Principal Recreation Supervisor, explained that this expenditure would be for the 6th to the 18th holes on the golf course. It is a continuance of the project that has been started. Mr. Chandler then questioned the golf course restaurant placed on the 1974-75 budget. Mr. Thomson explained that this will be subject to Council review--it is a long range plan and to tie it down in detail now wouldn't be any good. Member Macevicz questioned No. 19 - Bonita Sunnyside Fire station. Mr. Thomson stated that this was put into this budget at the request of the Council. Several sites were looked at and the one area adjoining the golf course was selected, mostly for monetary reasons as it is owned by the City. This is a controversial item--if they put the station in Bonita, it would affect their tax base so that they would probably have to ask the City for a contract basis. -lO- 5/4/7O The objective here is to provide them with the same level of service that the City has--presently the City has a 4 rating and they have a 6 rating. Member Macevicz discussed Item No. 5 - Community Center, Hilltop-Telegraph Canyon Park. This is going to take place with the development of the Hilltop-Telegraph Canyon Park, Phase I. He wondered why they couldn't consider development of a substantial portion of the park first before this center goes in. Mr. Thomson declared this would be one thing the Committee could look into. The Chairman commended the Committee and the City for this fine Program indicating it was something that has been needed for a long time. The Commission discussed the aspects of the Plan. Director Warren remarked that the Commission is being asked only to determine whether or not this Program will facilitate the orderly implementation of the General Plan. MSC (Chandler-Hillson) In the 1970-71 program, there is a proposal to construct a new fire station on Bonita Road in the vicinity of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course clubhouse. In view of the fact that there is an existing fire station in the Valley, and so little of the Valley area is within the City limits, it would seem logical that this project should have a lower priority and should be placed in a later year's program. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Hillson, Rice, James, Macevicz NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: Member Stewart MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Commission finds that the overall Plan is in substantial conformance with the General Plan and recommends its adoption with a request that the Committee review it on a yearly basis. To be set for hearin~ - Prezonin~ Horton's H Street Annexation This annexation involves property just north of Windsor Park Subdivision between Hilltop High School play ground and the proposed Interstate 805 Freeway. It contains 13.98 acres. Director of Planning Warren requested that the Commission set a public hearing to consider prezoning this area to R-1. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Public hearing be set for May 25, 1970, to consider prezoning to R-l of Horton's H Street Annexation. -ll- 5/4/70 To be set for hearin~ - Sign regulations in Commercial Zones Associate Planner Lee submitted a report of the sign regulations to the Commission. Chairman Rice commented that he felt the Commission should hold a public hearing on this matter first and then a workshop meeting. In this way, they could discuss any testimony presented at the meeting. MSUC (Chandler-James) Public hearing be set for May 25, 1970 to consider the sign regulations in commercial zones. Rohr Corporation - Request for extension of variance for trailer office Director of Planning referred to the staff's report on this matter. The original variance was granted in May, 1966, for permission to locate a maximum of 25 trailers within the industrial complex for a period of 24 months. In the original application, the applicant stated that the trailers would be there during their engineering period of new production contracts--approximately 24 months. The staff is recommending approval of the extension for 2 years-- the existence of these trailers has no detrimental effect. MSUC (Hillson-Adams) Approval of a two-year extension of time on the variance. Members Rice and Chandler abstained. Ratner Manufacturin~ Company Chairman Rice commented on the recent developments at the southwest end of this industrial area, which is in the County. He would request that the staff initiate some type of communication to the County stating that something be done about the proliferation of undesirable developments down there. Convalescent Facility - Fourth and Center Member Hillson commented that the Commission approved an extension of time on tMs conditional use permit three weeks ago. At that time, the applicant stated that a wire fence around three sides of the foundation (north, east and west) would be constructed to prevent traffic from crossing the lot. Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, the applicant, stated he has 90 days in which to comply with this condition. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of May 18 and 25, 1970. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~ennie M. Fulasz 'W~ Secretary