Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1972/09/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 6, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz, Chandler, Rudolph, Adams, Whitten and ex-officio member Miller. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, and Assistant City Attorney Blick. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Rice, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Whitten-Macevicz) Minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1972 be approved as mailed. The chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 522 K Street and 814 Fifth Avenue - Request to create 3 lots without street frontage and one lot under 7,000 sq. ft. - L. R. Blankenshi9 and Mrs. C. A. Jeerer Director of Planning Warren reported this hearing involves two requests; one to create three lots from a 23,200 sq. ft. parcel with 80 feet of frontage on K Street and the other to split a lot fronting on Fifth Avenue. He displayed a plat showing the proposed division of the property into lots, three of which would be served by a 20 foot access easement from K Street. He pointed out this is an unusual lot size and that some type of variance is needed to utilize the property, due to the limited street frontage. It is the opinion of the staff that lots served by an access easement should be at least the minimum lot size required by ordinance or larger, due to the lack of open space which is afforded by a public street. The staff feels there is justification for two lots to be created from the K Street property and ask that the Commission determine whether the rear of the property at 814 Fifth Avenue is a good building site and whether a variance for a lot of 6,330 sq. ft. is justified. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Frank Phillips, Civil Engineer representing the applicants, pointed out this is level property and all of the area not required for the easement can be utilized for yard purposes. He felt that with the conditions imposed by the Planning Department, including offiste sewer for 320 feet, water about 200 feet, and the fee for community services, it would make a three lot total development infeasible, since these items run the cost up about 30% per lot. He therefore asked that the Commission grant a variance for a total of four lots in this development. Gladys May, 528 K Street, raised objection to the development of four lots since it would be too crowded an area, with the lots too small and the houses too close together. She also raised questions concerning the type of paving on the easement and the means of trash pickup. -2- 9/6/72 Director of Planning Warren read the nine conditions recommended by the staff for approval of the variance, which relate to paving standards, offstreet parking and a fence or wall along the east property line. Mr. Warren also noted that a petition of protest was filed containing the signatures of 31 persons who own property in the vicinity. The petition did not state the reason for the protest. Kenneth L. Wheeler, indicated he lives directly across the street from the proposed development, and objected to the amount of offstreet parking it would create if three residences were built without street frontage. It was pointed out that one of the conditions is the requirement for two offstreet parking spaces in addition to a two-car garage for each residence. Joseph Barahura, 542 K Street, indicated his residence is the fourth house to the west of this lot, and questioned the means of connecting to the sewer. He noted that the five houses to the west are on septic tanks due to the difficulty of making connection to the city sewer line. Chairman Rice advised this is an engineering problem that will be resolved before a building permit could be issued. Frank Phillips, engineer, advised they will connect to the sewer at the end of Date Avenue and will put a manhole in the center of K Street. Bill Stein, 516 K Street, asked what type of divider wall would be constructed adjacent to the driveways and was advised it would be a 6' high solid wall out to the front setback area, then reduced to 3½ feet high. C. E. Darrough, 817 Cedar, indicated his property is adjacent on the west to the rear portion of the subject property, and that he also spoke for the property owner adjacent on the east. He stated neither of them are adverse to having a house constructed there rather than having the vacant lot as it now exists grown up with weeds. Gerry Austin, indicated he had circulated the petition of protest, and their protest was against the variance in general, the congestion that would be created by placing that many houses on an area of that size. He felt the proposed develop- ment would make the houses too tight not only on that lot but adjacent to all sides. He pointed out the narrow lot that would be left after taking off 20 feet for the easement. Gloria LaVere, 813 Cedar Avenue, asked the Commission in the event Mr. Blanken- ship is not allowed to develop four lots and the improvements are too expensive for three lot development, what would happen to the property--might it be rezoned for the construction of apartments? She stated she would rather have four well- built homes adjacent to her property than an apartment house. She further stated she had signed the petition but now wishes to have her name removed from that petition. Mr. Warren advised the property is zoned R-1 and there is no reason to believe it would be zoned for apartment use. -3- 9/6/72 Mrs. Lepovitz, 821 Date Avenue, pointed out that the proposed development of four lots would result in all of them being below the 7,000 sq. ft. minimum. She felt the property should be developed for two houses but indicated she would be receptive to three, but not four. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission concurred that development without street frontage should utilize larger than minimum size lots, but that the 6,330 sq. ft. parcel at the rear of 814 Fifth Avenue is a buildable site. MSUC (Whitten-Rudolph) Approval of a variance to create two lots at 522 K RESOLUTION PCV-72-15 (A) Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the property shall be limited to two lots. 2. A parcel map shall be required for division of the property. 3. The applicant shall comply with Resolution No. 6140 regarding the adequacy of public facilities. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate that all dwelling units can connect to the City sewer system as required by the Division of Engineering. 5. Site plan and architectural review shall be required for all lots and struc- tures prior to obtaining building permits. 6. A driveway easement and turn-around shall be located parallel to the easterly property line. a. The driveway shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and paved according to City standards. b. A T-type turn-around or other acceptable method shall be provided at the end of the driveway easement. 7. A 6 ft. high solid wall or fence, with the design subject to staff approval, shall be erected parallel to the driveway easement along the east property line. The wall or fence shall be a maximum of 3½ feet high in the front setback area. 8. All utility service shall be undergrounded. 9. Two offstreet parking stalls, in addition to the required two-car garage, shall be required for the rear lot. Findings are as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The property is large enough in area to be divided into more than one R-1 lot, however, inadequate street frontage necessitates a variance from that requirement. -4- 9/6/72 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. If this parcel is divided into two lots it would enjoy the same property rights possessed by adjacent properties. 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 Ordinance or the public interest. Limiting the development to two lots will insure adequate usable lot area and will minimize any adverse living conditions. ~ That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The Chairman advised that the granting of this variance or the conditions stipulated may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. MSUC (WHITTEN-Macevicz) Consideration of the request to create a lot at the rear of 814 Fifth Avenue be continued to the meeting of September 18, 1972, and the staff directed to recommend conditions for the approval of this request. Director of Planning Warren advised that agenda item 4, consideration of house plans for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit 1, has been withdrawn by the applicant. Request for consideration of park requirements for E1 Rancho del Res, Units 1, 2 and 3 Director of Planning Warren related that a Planned Unit Development for 300 acres lying west of Southwestern College was approved by the Commission some time ago and the resolution was acknowledged by the City Council. One of the conditions stipulated in the resolution had to do with dedication and development of park land and open space within these units. The applicant has requested that condition 16, which specifies the ownership, development and maintenance responsibilities for open space in the P.U.D. area, be amended. Mr. Warren called attention to the staff comments and copy of the applicant's letter which was supplied to the Commission and advised that if additional statis- tical information is required it may be necessary to continue the consideration to the meeting of September 18 in order for the staff to compile the necessary information. He noted that the basic issue in question is whether all developers within the area are being treated fairly. The applicant has stated that in approving a subdivision map for Candlewood, within this P.U.D. area, the developer was permitted to pay fees and was relieved of any further responsibility of development. He noted that such fees are based on the acquisition cost and development cost, and the fact that E1 Rancho del Rey has dedicated land for parks should not relieve them of the responsibility and cost of development as required in the resolution approving the P.U.D. He pointed out the applicant has requested discussion of this requirement and suggested that the Commission hear from a representative of the applicant. -5- 9/6/72 Paul Peterson, attorney in San Diego, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, noted they want more than a discussion and are seeking an amendment to the Planned Unit Development resolution that laid down this requirement. He reported that sub- division maps for Units 1 and 2 have been approved by the City Council and the map for Unit 3 is pending. Under Units 1 and 2 they were required to dedicate in excess of 9 acres of land, to which they are not objecting. He contended that the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which was adopted subsequent to approval of this P.U.D., would have required only 3 acres of land. He reported that they have already graded the park sites which were dedicated and they are ready for development, and they are not objecting to that, but they are objecting to the requirement, which was imposed on them in connection with Units 1 and 2 and they assume will also be imposed for Unit 3, that they post a $146,000 bond to improve this 9 acres. They think this is inequitable, unfair, and it was not contemplated at the time the P.U.D. was approved that they would receive different treatment than other subdividers within the same area. Posting of such a bond was done under protest in order to get approval to proceed with Units 1 and 2. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the staff reported a development cost of $12,000 per acre is included in the in lieu fees which a developer pays if land is not dedicated. He continued to emphasize that $146,000 for development costs is unreasonable and is the basis of their objection. Director of Planning Warren advised that the $146,000 bond covered not only park development, but included bicycle paths and drainage as specified in the approval of these units. The cost of the drainage facilities was actually reduced through staff compromise. Ron Calhoun, Wilsey and Ham, consulting engineers for the development, further elaborated that if the standards of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance were applied, this development would have required only 3 acres of dedicated and developed park land, whereas they have dedicated 9 acres. Director of Planning Warren stated there is confusion about required acreage dedication and suggested that if the Commission desires a numerical breakdown of the dedication required for Area A and the development costs applied, this discussion should be continued to the next meeting in order for the staff to compile such statistical information. He also stated that these statistics are not pertinent because they were not applicable at the time of approval. The applicant concurred with a continuance to the meeting of September 18, 1972. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Request for modification of P.U.D. conditions concerning park requirements for E1 Rancho del Rey Units 1, 2 and 3 be continued to September 18, 1972. Presentation of Policy Statement on Land Use Plannin9 - Buildin9 Contractors Assn. E. C. Brazell, Consultant on Land Use and Planning, 7841 Balboa, San Diego, spoke as a representative of the San Diego Building Contractors Association, which represents 600 members, who combined provide a payroll of over 20,000 employees. He reported the BCA's Planning Policy is an outgrowth of the General Plan for the City of San Diego, as they felt there was an obvious need to relate this to the San Diego County area, all corporate jurisdictions as well as unincorporated areas. They feel it is incumbent upon the BCA to take part in the vital community process of planning for the future needs of an educational system to meet the needs of -6- 9/6/72 every citizen, and the implementation of a pro§ram by public and private interests to assure continued expansion of job opportunities in order to reach full employ- ment. Mr. Brazell spoke with pride of his past experience as a builder and of the role builders have placed in the development of this fine community. Member Rudolph expressed appreciation for the booklet furnished by the BCA outlining the planning policy and for Mr. Brazell's presentation. She was pleased to note that mass transportation was included as one of the needs of the community. Council Referral - Report on recommendation concerning amendment to Flood Plain Zoning Ordinance Director of Planning Warren reported that at the Council hearing concerning this amendment there was some misunderstanding of the intent of the proposed amendment. He noted this does not effect the establishing of flood plain zoning on property, but relates only to permission to construct buildings where the flood channel alignment has been established. He noted this has been routinely done by the Commission with the requirement of rather standard conditions for flood protection. He suggested that the Commission reiterate their previous recommendation to the Council for adoption of this amendment and if there is a need for guidelines to direct the staff, they should be written into the ordinance. MSUC (Chandler-Whitten) Report to City Council that the Planning Commission's recommendation for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to administrative procedure for uses permitted in the Flood Plain Restrictive District remains as initially stated for approval of the proposed amendment. Discussion and recommendation - Interim Open Space Report Assistant Director of Planning Williams pointed out that Assembly Bill 966, passed by the State, extended to June 30, 1973, the date by which counties and cities must adopt open space plans. It is, however, required that an interim open space plan be submitted which will be in effect until June 30, 1973. He referred to the Interim Open Space Plan submitted for Commission discussion in which the goals, objectives and policies have been stated and would represent the direction to be taken in the remainder of the plan. He felt the discussion should center around the goals, objectives and policies. Member Rudolph suggested that in addition to the 7 categories of open space as enumerated in the plan, there should be one included to provide elbow room or breathing space to avoid an overcrowded environment. Member Macevicz pointed out this requirement is covered by the first goal listed, which is to "preserve open space as necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare." In discussion the Commission felt the goals and objectives as stated would be adequate to prevent overcrowding. MSUC (Macevicz-Rudolph) The Interim Open Space Plan be submitted to the City Council with a recommendation for its approval and submission to the Secretary of the Resources Agency. -7- 9/6/72 Director's Report Director of Planning Warren suggested that a workshop meeting be scheduled before the end of the month and reminded the Commissioners that if any desired to attend the League of California Cities Conference in Anaheim, October 15-18, reservations should be forwarded immediately. Commission Comments Chairman Rice noted that the item of a recommendation to the City Council for a noise ordinance was held over from the last meeting. He asked if any Commissioners had additional input on this matter. Member Rudolph reported she had contacted Assemblyman Deddah's office to find out what legislation is currently in effect, and arranged an appointment to see him the following morning, September 7. Pointing out that excessive noise is of great concern to most cities in California, Mrs. Rudolph suggested that the following recommendations be submitted to the City Council. 1. Present state and local vehicular noise legislation be examined to determine what the deficiencies are. 2. Local responsibilities under any effective legislation, such as local police enforcement, be determined. 3. Local implementation of the authority be examined and if any local authorities lack proper equipment for enforcement that a way be found to acquire such means. 4. Proposals for more effective State legislation be examined and if it is determined that further State legislation is required, the City of Chula Vista vigorously lobby the State Legislature to urge them to pass the needed legislation, and prepare resolutions for presentation to the League of California Cities at the 1973 convention. 5. A statement be prepared for presentation to the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on the status of mandatory vehicular inspection proposals (newport Beach, Friday, September 29) requesting that proposed mandatory vehicular inspections include the generation of excessive noise. MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Request the Planning Director to prepare a letter for submission to the City Council embodying the above recommendations. The Commission expressed regret that Mr. Warren is leaving the City and praise for his accomplishments on behalf of this City. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Whitten) The meeting be adjourned to the meeting of September 18, 1972. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~elen Mapes Secretary