Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/02/02 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 2, 1970 The regular 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, Stewart, Chandler, Adams, and Putnam. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Adams asked to have a sentence clarified which he made relative to the hearing on 639-641 Chula Vista Street. Page 4, third sentence be changed to read: "The only question encountered here would be whether or not the slab meets the building regulations as a foundation for the proposed addition to the building." MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 19, 1970, with the correction as noted by Member Adams. Request for approval of a school site for the Trainable Mentally Handicapped adjacent to Ella B. Allen School Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot of the area noting the location for the proposed school. It will be on a 4-acre site adjacent, on the south- west side, to the Allen School. Mr. Warren commented that the only discrepancy with the General Plan is that this particular site is the location for a neighborhood school-park; however, this proposed park can be shifted to the east side of the school without any problem. Member Chandler questioned whether it was normal to put this type of school adjacent to an existing elementary school. There is a different type of education involved here. Mr. Bernard Houser, representing the Chula Vista City School District, stated the supervision of this school would fall under the principalship of the adjoining school. The playground will be included in the Allen School play- ground; however, this particular section will be fenced off for these children. Mr. Houser cited the similar facilities at the Greg Rogers School and the one adjacent to the business office at 84 East J Street (Ann Daley School) main- taining no problems exist with this type of school. MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of the 5-unit Trainable Mentally Handicapped School adjacent, on the southwest, to the Ella $. Allen School in Bonita. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ to C-V - That propert~ presentl~ zoned C-C lying on both the north and south sides of Bonita Road, west of the proposed 805 Freewas - Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren submitted a map of the area noting the parcels in question. He stated three parcels were advertised in the public hearing that was sent to the newspapers; however, due to some misunderstanding, only the property owners within 300 feet of parcel 1 (5 acre site located west of -2- 2/2/70 Vista Drive approximately 330' south of Bonita Road) were notified by mail. He asked if the Commission wished to hear testimony on this particular acre- age, take action, but withhold their recommendation to the City Council until such time as the property owners within 300' of the other two parcels are notified. The Commission can then forward their recommendations on the three parcels to the City Council at the same time. The Commission agreed to this procedure. Director Warren stated the hearing was initiated as a result of the recent approval of C-N zoning for a convenience shopping center at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Sandalwood Drive. At that time, they indicated that this 5 acre parcel was best suited for visitor-commercial purposes, a use designated as such by the General Plan. Mr. Warren commented that the zoning was changed from C-1 to C-C by the adoption of the new zoning ordinance. The staff report, sent to the Commission, relates the testimony and action presented at the meeting in which the C-N zoning was approved for the small shopping center. He noted the alignment of the freeway interchange in this area, and indicated that the staff is presently completing a comprehensive study relating to problems with freeway interchanges along 805. The staff recognizes that there is a chaotic zoning pattern in this area; however, they do believe that it is a primary entrance to the City and the General Plan could best be devoted to visitor-commercial uses. The staff recommends approval of the change of zone to C-V for the reasons that it is so designated on the General Plan; the recent approval of the C-N zoning for a shopping center in this area negates the need for another center here; and the parcel itself lends to visitor-commercial uses rather than traditional shopping center uses. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, owner of the parcel in question, related in detail the history of the zoning of this particular area. He felt the change of zoning was not justified; their position has not changed since they requested the prezoning to C-l, and they would not have spent the money (over $100,000) in grading and architect's fees if they were aware of the fact the zoning would be changed. Mr. Ferreira requested that the zoning remain as it is. He added that he could not see how every interchange area in the City can support C-V zoning, and at such time as this particular interchange is opened, if C-V zoning is found to be the most feasible, the Commission can rest assured he will go along with this type of use. Mr. William Beall, 7 Vista Drive, stated that he felt the time was not right for this particular area to support a commercial facility of this size at this location. Chairman Rice explained that the parcel was already zoned commercial; what is being proposed tonight is to place it in a more restrictive category. There being no further coment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -3- 2/2/70 Member Putnam felt it was too difficult to consider this zone change without the other two parcels; he suggested they wait and consider the three parcels together. Member Adams disagreed, indicating that each of the three parcels were separate and distinct, bearing no significant relationship to each other. He could see no reason why they should not go ahead with this hearing. Member Stewart discussed the land use around the proposed interchange in this area commenting that it does not lend itself to commercial use at this time. The General Plan designates visitor-commercial for this site and he can sympathize with the owner in his future plans for ultimate commercial development here. As the owner stated, if there is a need for C-V zoning on this parcel at the time the interchange is constructed, he would go along with it. Member Stewart added that the opposite is true, also. At this particular time, he (Member Stewart) is more inclined to go along with the C-V zoning. Member A~ams commented that throughout all the hearings pertaining to this parcel, he never favored having a massive commercial development here. Chairman Rice agreed, but added that perhaps they were being premature in changing this zoning at this time. He feels the visitor designation is more appropriate than the C-C for this property; he would like to take a look at the entire area before making a decision here. Director Warren urged the Commission to make a decision on this zone change tonight; this parcel represents the key property and what happens here will have a direct bearing on the other two parcels, since uses for those parcels are already committed. City Attorney Lindberg directed his remarks to Chairman Rice's comments indicating that perhaps the time is appropriate for an analysis of the entire interchange area--something in the nature of an area-wide study with the resultant adoption of a precise plan, recognizing that it is a problem area. Director Warren remarked that the staff is making a study of the interchanges along this freeway. It is a situation whereby most of the zoning has already taken place, and in this particular area, he suspects that their recommendation would remain the same. Mr. Lindberg discussed the procedure used in San Diego whereby they have adopted an area or neighborhood master plan which is much more precise than the General Plan. In this particular situation tonight, Attorney Lindberg commented, there is difficulty in attempting to rezone one parcel which seems to be a key parcel, but it is the key problem in the entire interchange area. Member Adams maintained that in the future, no matter how much is said and done, the Commission would still be faced with the question: C-C or C-V zoning for this property. Member Stewart felt the entire matter should be filed--because of the mixed opinions on this subject, the Commission would not be able to reach any unanimous decision, that they should await the results of the staff study. MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) The rezoning consideration of this entire area be filed pending the completion of the study of the interchanges now being done by the Planning staff. -4- 2/2/70 PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit ~ 1613 Albany Street - Manufacture of furniture in I,R Zone , Isnacio R, Arellano Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the area noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the applicant is seeking approval to operate a furniture manufacturing plant in the I-R zone. He purchased this property when it was M-l; however, now the I-R zone has been applied to the area which has resulted in more restrictive conditions. Director Warren commented that a study is being made of the I-R and M-1 land uses. He added that the staff has found considerable questions concerning this application relating to the operation of the business itself. They are concerned about the effect this operation will have on the residential area; if the amount of sawing is minimal and the business itself involves mostly assembling of manufactured parts, then there is no objection. If it goes beyond that, then there will be a problem, especially with the school site immediately adjacent. If approved, the staff would recommend that it be subject to stringent site plan and architectural review--this would include landscaping and parking. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Phil Seant, citizen of San Diego, stated he was speaking as a friend of Mr. Arellano. Mr. Seant gave a brief history of the applicant's business venture and expansion. He purchased subject property l~years ago and annexed it to the City contingent upon the zoning being M-1 which allowed his particular use. Last July this zoning was changed to I-R and the applicant was not informed of this change. He is now expected to construct a building with more stringent requirements than he had planned. To date he has already spent over $6,000 on this property in grading and architectural fees, etc. The Planning Department informed the applicant that he did not submit details with his application; however, the applicant was down to that office a few times and verbally discussed what he proposed to do. As to the sawing, there are 17 employees in this business and only one man does any sawing; the major part of the operation involves upholstering. Mr. Seant further added that the area is predominantly light industrial, and the residential area across the street is the ghetto area of the South Bay, so this business would have no detrimental effect on the area. The business is a clean one--no noise or smoke--it is very similar to Ratner's manufacturing business. Director Warren noted the area was predominantly residential--not industrial, as pointed out by Mr. Seant. City Antorney Lindberg questioned Mr. Seant about his implication that the use would be suitable because of its proximity to a "ghetto." He maintained that the City is trying to do everything in its power to upgrade these areas, and he certainly hoped that Mr. Seant wasn't inferring that the busines would be the type that would prolong a change to upgrade the area. Mr. Seant retracted his statement explaining that he meant the area was run- down and that perhaps this business might encourage further development of improving the area. -5- 2/2/70 Mr. Bernard Houser, representing the Chula Vista City School District, stated they are not objecting to the proposed use as such, but are requesting Commission consideration of any no~se, traffic, or air pollution that might occur as the result of any commercial enterprise. They have owned this proposed school site for a number of years and contemplate on starting construction, based on the needs of the area, in 1973. Mr. Vic Viabanno, Economic Development Specialist with the San Diego Urban League, declared that they are very much interested and concerned with this applicant and his venture. He indicated there would be no traffic problem generated here, since several of the 17 employees ride together to work arriving before the children get to school, and then these workers leave at 5:30, some time after the children leave for home. The noise factor is minimal as the sawing is done inside the building and by one man only. Director Warren pointed out that the staff report was not a recommendation for denial--an attempt was made for approval based on answers to remaining questions. Mr. Don Goldsted, 3250 Allview Place, Chula Vista, real estate agent associated with Paul Miller Realty, stated he sold this property to Mr. Arellano, selling him the 4 acre site which includes the land adjacent to this parcel, based on Mr. Arellano's future needs of employing 40 to 50 people. The sale and annexation of the property was contingent upon the zoning appropriate for this factory. The conditional use permit states there must be landscaping around subject property. He felt this was a ridiculous condition since there is little or no landscaping in the residential area to the west. Chairman Rice explained that the area is residential--one reason for landscaping was to upgrade an area, not to downgrade it. It is an ordinance requirement. Mr. Sal Saval, 93 E. Whitney Street, stated he has been in the banking business four years, which he spent in Calexico during which he served on the Planning Commission, one year as the chairman. He discussed the rising cost of industrially zoned land indicating it would be very difficult for the applicant to go out and find another piece of property today suitable for his type of business. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Macevicz commented that from what the staff is recommending and what the applicant is willing to do, this area will be enhanced by granting the conditional use permit. Member Stewart agreed, adding that he cannot help but feel that the applicant was victimized by circumstances as relates to the M-1 change to I-R. Since the amount of sawing is so limited, perhaps a condition restricting the number of persons sawing might be appropriate, in case this applicant's business increases many times over. -6- 2/2/70 Members Putnam and Rice agreed; however, Member Adams cautioned the Commission that the way the business is described today presents no problem in going into that proposed location, but as they expand they may also be expanding their sawing operation. He added that perhaps they should impose the condition limiting the sawing operation. City Attorney Lindberg informed the Commission that this will take place in an enclosed building and sound emission is controlled by the Performance Standards section of the ordinance. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the condition that there will be a stringent site plan and architectural review, including zone walls and more detailed plans including landscaping and parking, and that the use will conform to performance standards. Findings be 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 facility will provide needed services to the city, the location is well suited to a limited industrial use. 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. With the compliance to performance standards, and site plan and architec- tural approval there will be no detrimental affect. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. All regulations and conditions will be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Conditional Use Permit - Southwest corner quintard Street and First Avenue - Mobile home park in R-3 zone - Ro~ Muraoka b. Variance - Southwest corner of Quintard Street and First Avenue - Request permission to construct a fence 5' high - Roy Muraoka Director of Planning Warren stated he will take these two hearings together. He presented a plat noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant is proposing to expand his present park facilities -7- 2/2/70 providing 54 more spaces. The addition as proposed meets all the requirements of the ordinance concerning mobile home parks. The access and circulation pattern within the park are good, ending in a T-pattern at each street. The existing park has a 5' high chain link fence surrounding it, and the applicant is requesting that he be allowed to construct a similar fence around this addition, which is a logical request. This is the subject of his variance request. Director Warren commented on the recreational area which he indicated is dispersed and broken up by mobile home sites, roadways and parking, and submitted an overlay suggesting a revised plan. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Roy Muraoka, 103 Quintard Street, manager of the park, questioned the fifth condition: that 7.5 feet be dedicated to the City for right-of-way purposes, etc. He claimed they have no outlet on that side of the park, so there will be no parking along this street. He suggested to the City Engineer that they put a "no parking" sign on that side and use the whole street for a roadway, but without the 8' wide parking lane. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated this requirement is covered by the ordinance, at the time a building permit is taken out. The applicant is asking to change the street section, and this must be approved by the City Council. The development, as proposed, does not have access on to this street, so with that in mind, the Council may approve it providing the applicant gives vehicular rights to the City on to First Avenue thereby preventing any access on this street and discouraging any parking from his tenants on First Avenue. Director Warren contended that this was a matter to be decided by the Council; the Commission could not make a determination on this. Member Stewart raised the question of the park changing ownership and instead of this addition going in, a multiple-family development being constructed. He asked if they would be stuck with this inadequate street size. Mr. Lindberg assured the Commission that, depending on the project, full street improvements would have to be put in. Mr. Muraoka, 1433 Second Avenue, owner of the existing mobile home park, stated he purchased and developed this park in 1963 and now wishes to expand. He briefly discussed the traffic pattern and access points of the existing and proposed park. Mr. Ken Johnson, Inter-City Engineers, San Diego, stated they are the engineers for the project and discussed lot sizes and other park features. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -8- 2/2/7O The Commission briefly discussed the aspects of the proposed park, concurring that no problem exists other than that of the street improvement which matter must be determined by the City Council. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. A fence and hedge similar to the existing ones shall be installed along the north and eastern boundary of the annex and along the eastern boundary adjacent to First Avenue of the existing park. 2. Lots 53 and 54, the recreational area, and the storage area be redesigned to provide more usable recreational area, subject to staff approval. 3. The applicant shall submit to staff all requirements of subsection 20 of Section 33.901A of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Tandem parking, as shown on the plan, be approved. 5. The easterly 7.5' of the Muraoka property beginning at the Quintard Street intersection and extending south as far as Muraoka ownership extends, shall be dedicated to the City for right of way purposes, and all parkway area along First Avenue between the sidewalk and property line may be filled with concrete in accordance with City standards as determined by the City Engineering Depart- ment. Findings be 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. This facility would help to satisfy the great demand for mobile home sites in the community and would be compatible with existing and projected land uses. 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. This area has land use densities and types that would be very compatible with this proposed use. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions spec- ified in the Code for such use. The proposed use will comply with all regulations. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. T~e General Plan is not affected. -9- 2/2/7O MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Approval of the variance request subject to the conditions outlined on the conditional use permit approval. Findings be as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The orientation of mobile home units is generally toward their side yards. The need for privacy is at a premium; this is a special hardship connected with this land use in this location. 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. The existing mobile home park has a similar fence setback. c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the ordin- ance or the public interest. The existing fence has not been of a detriment nor impaired the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, neither will this addition. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this variance. Request for deferment of public improvements - 789 E Street - J. N. Street & Sons Director of Planning Warren explained that a building permit is being processed for a new office building and the applicant is requesting a deferment of the public improvements which he is required by ordinance to put in. The State is widening the freeway (Interstate 5) and relocating the frontage road along this area. The Division of Engineering is recommending approval of the deferment and the staff agrees subject to executing the necessary agree- ment and posting a bond or lien to insure the construction of the deferred improvements. The required improvements are as follows: Type "G" curb, 241 lineal feet at $2.50/ft. $600. 4" P.C.C. sidewalk, 1200 sq. ft. at $0.50/sq.ft. 600. A.C. pavement as necessary 600. Contingencies 200. $ MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Recommend approval of the deferment of public improve- ments subject to the conditions outlined by the Division of Engineering. -lO- 2/2/7O Director's Report Director Warren commented that he has no report for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of February 9 and 16, 1970. The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. ~l~.eZ~. FPectful ly submitted, ulasz, Secretary After the meeting, a discussion was held by the City Attorney and the Commission concerning the Disclosure of Assets forms sent to the Commission. He stated this must be filed on or before April 14. Marina Member Adams questioned the layout map of the marina sent to the Commissioners by the Port District. Director Warren stated he would explain this following the next hearing, February 9 (public hearing: revised General Plan). Market on J Street~ east of Hilltop Member Macevicz questioned the status of the existing signs on the sidewalk in front of this market, and also what is being done about the condition of the parking lot. He stated his wife fell into one of these holes and injured her leg. Director Warren indicated the place was a disgrace and should have been out of there long ago. He will investigate the signs and the parking lot, and get the owners to fix this. Castle-Plymouth Chairman Rice questioned the expiration of the variance for this proposed business, since they are still loading and unloading cars on Landis Street. Director Warren informed the Commission that appeal papers were taken out by the applicants on this use. Chairman Rice requested that the City Attorney take legal action, if necessary, for compliance on this matter. City Attorney Lindberg stated that it has been the policy that if compliance is received, court action is dismissed; however, if the Commission wishes to pursue these matters in any particular case, even after a matter has been abated, he would ask that this be forwarded to the Council and the Council give direction on that.