Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/09/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 24, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with t~e following members present: Rudolph, Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Starr. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Chandler. In the absence of Chairman Chandler, Vice Chairman Rudolph was chairman of the meeting. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Llppltt, Assistant City Attorney Beam, ann Secretary Mapes. Acting Chairman Ruoolpn led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Smith requesteO that the minutes of September 10, 197b be corrected on page 11 under Commission Comments to state that he reported ~e had made an engineering investigation of the property on Toyon Lane rather than an engineering survey. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) T~e minutes of tl~e meeting of September ~0, 1975 be approved with the correction as noted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman ca~led ~or oral communications and none were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-75-16 - Request to operate boarding house for 18-24 persons, 153 Brightwood Avenue - First Baptist Church Director of Planning Peterson noted that the applicant has requested a continu- ance of this hearing to the meeting of October 27, 197~ MSUC (Floto-Pressutt~) The public hearing on PCC-75-16 be continued to the meeting of October 27, 1975 2. P~BLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-75-17 - Request to construct 21 be~ hospital winq and freestandin~ office building. 3 North Second Avenue - V~sta Hill Hospital Current Planning Supervisor Lee called attention to the aeria~ pi~oto showing the existing builoings of the 58 Bed psychiatric hospital ano to the plot plan showing the location of the propose~ 21 bed addition. The adoition will replace a carport ann will connect two existing buildings of the hospital. The appli- cant also proposes to construct, at the northeast corner of the property, a two-sto~v s~ruc~ure to include off~ce, library and lounge facilities. Mr. Lee noteO that the site presently has 54 parking spaces, and a recent parking study, conducted at t~e request of the Planning Department, revealeo -2- September 24, 1~75 tnat the maximum number being used was 49 spaces, or slightly less than a l:l ratio. Based on this study it is recommended that a minimum of 70 spaces be required after the expansion of the facility and that an effort be made to retain as many of the mature trees on the site as possible. Mr. Lee reporte~ that the architecture will be the same as the existing build- lngs and that t~ere will De extensive upgraaing of the fire protection system. He called attention to the findings for approval ot this request and to the recommended conditions. In response to questions from Commissioner Starr, Assistant Director of Public Works L~ppitt discussed the proposed realignment of Edgemere Avenue and con- ~irmed that full street improvements would be required w~th t~e filing of a parcel map or application for ouilding permit for the hospital project. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Norval Richardson, administrator of the ~ospltal, confirmed that the proposed building extension would have little effect on the amount of open space since it will replace a carport and an equipment storage yard. He confirmed that the northern driveway would be eliminated and another driveway may De moved a little to obtain safer access from Edgemere. He pointed out that widening Edgemere woulO make a big improvement. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Floto) The Commission finds that the proposed project would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies t~at t~e Negative Declaration on IS-75-62 is in conformance with CEQA, 1970, as amendeO. MSUC ~Starr-Pressutti) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, conditional use permit PCC-75-17 for extension of facilities of Vista Hill Hospital is approved subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-15 - Request for reOuctlon of front setback from 20' to 17~' for construction of an 8' hiqh wall, 222 L Street~ T~omas and Doris Bra~ley Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the property on the south side of L Street where the building line map nas established the front setback at 20 feet. The applicant proposes to extend the ~iving room area of mis residence to the 20 ft. setback line, and to construct an 8 ft. high sound attenuating wall from the edge of the extended room to the driveway. This wall would encroach 2~ feet into the setback area, since a wall placed on the setback line would allow only an 18" passageway at the front of the garage. This wall would shield the entrance to the house from the street and would permit opening the windows in the dining area for light and air by serving as a barrier against the traffic noise on L Street. In the staff's analysis this extent of encroach- ment wou~d not violate the intent of tne zoning ordinance to maintain spacious front yards. Mr. Lee reported the receipt of a petition signed by neighboring residents opposing the granting of this variance, which they feel would create a commercial look ano set a precedent for succeeding requests to infringe upon the setback. -3- S~ptember Z4, 1975 The staff recommends approval of the request subject to the requirement that materials used on the wall match the existing structure and that the area in front of the wall be landscaped with trees and shrubs. In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, Mr. Lee explained that the setback established by tne Building Line Map adopted a number of years ago takes precedence over the setback standards established by zone for new developments. Tnis being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Thomas R. Bradley, 222 L Street, the applicant, described his plans for enlarging the residence, noting that the front wall of the room addition would be insulated and have double pane windows to serve as a sound barrier. The 8 ft. wall would have the same facing material and contain a pattern to simulate a window. He advised that landscaping plans have been prepared to include shrubs in front of the wall. In response to a question from Commissioner Rudolph, he acknowledged that an alternate method of sound attenuation would be the permanent closing of the dining room windows and installation of air conditioning in the house. Aubrey Meleus, 233 L Street, reported that he was speaking for 15 people who signed the petition objecting to the granting of this variance which they feel would De followed by similar requests from everyone else. Gene Sacks, 215 L Street, spoke of the increase in street noise over the past l0 to 15 years. He contended that construction of a solid wall would cause the street noise to reverberate. Mrs. Robert Proctor, 228 L Street, reported that the drawing shown is not a true drawing of the house, wnich has had other additions, making it a two-story building. Mr. Bradley confirmed that the building is two-story at the back elevation and that the drawings were made to show the front elevation as it will appear after the addition. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Starr commented that this is a difficult decision to make without more information on the house plan and the need for additional room. He advised that he shared the concern of the neighbors in terms of the appearance of the wall and also about the precedent factor. Commissioner Smith noted that wh~le granting one variance does not set a precedent, t~e same findings for approval could apply to 30 or 40 houses along that street which are subjected to the same traffic noise. He expressed the opinion that the building line map was adopted to establish a uniformity of setbacks along the street and should not be violated. Acting Chairman Rudolph questioned whether a~ternative solutions had been carefully considered. She pointed out tnat a variance can be granted only if findings of a hardship or practical difficulties in developing the property -4- September 24, 1975 can be demonstrated. She advised that she personally could not concur with ._ the first and second findings contained in the staff report. Commissioner Pressutti expressed support for the findings as written, and pointed out that tne noise is not generated by fault of the land owner but is precipitated by development in the area that was not expected when these homes were constructed. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti that variance application PCV-75-15 be approved based on the findings established in the staff report and subject to the conditions contained in the report. The motion died for lack of a second. MSC (Smith-Starr) Variance application PCV-75-15 be denied. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Start, Floto and Rudolph NOES: Commissioner Pressutti ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler Acting Chairman Rudolph advised the applicant of his r~ght to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-16 - Request to create 2 lots with less than llO ft. depth, nor~corner Hilltop Drive and ~ Street - Hen[y W. Algert Oirector of Planning Peterson noted the location of a parcel containing .8 of an acre, fronting on Hilltop Drive and extending to the 1-805 right of way. The applicant proposes to divide the property into four lots, two of which would have less than llO feet of depth, due to tne shape of the property, but would be in excess of the minimum area required for R-1 lots. The llO ft. depth is estab- lished as a requirement for lots adjacent to freeways, major streets or col- lector roads to provide sufficient separation from the road noise and exhaust. These lots, however, are 200 feet from the nearest travel lane ot the freeway and at an elevation 70 feet above the freeway. He pointed out that the con- figuration of this property was causea by the acquisition by the State of the freeway right of way. Mr. Peterson reported the receipt of a letter of protest of this variance request and a petition signed by a number of property owners in the area. He called attention to the findings for approval and recommended that the variance be approved. This being the time and place as advertised, the public nearing was opened. Henry Algert, 74 E Street, the applicant, reported that he had nothing further to add. In response to a question from Commissioner Starr he advised that he has an option to purchase the property. Patricla J. Sanford, 98 Hilltop Drive, reported that the petition acknowledged by Mr. Peterson was signed by all but two of the people who live on Hilltop Drive. They object to development of the property at any less than the estab- lished regulation for lot depth. -5- September 24, 1975 Wayne Copp, 12 Casselman Court, reported that he has no objection to the sub- division of the property except that it does set a precedent and there is still 25 to 30 acres of property to be developed in that area. He called attention to the half-street which serves as access from E Street, to the dangerous entrance at that intersection, and to the circuitous route required in order to avoid that intersection. Gladys Copp advised there are a large number of vehicles at the homes in that area since they are large homes. This adds to the problem occasioned by the poor access. It was affirmed that development of the subject property would require widening and full improvement of Hilltop Drive from D Street to Casselman Court. Mr. Peterson reported that the area between D and E Streets is under study at the present time. It is recognized that the intersection of Hilltop Drive and E Street is potentially a dangerous one so there is a question as to whether that segment of Hilltop Drive would be widened to full street standards or whether an alternate route down D Street to a more favorable intersection would be accomplished. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Starr, Mr. Peterson affirmed that without a variance the northern portion of the subject property is undevelop- able. He pointed out that the required separation between the lot and the freeway is provided within the freeway right of way and is the basis for ap- proving the variance request. In response to a comment by Acting Chairman Rudolph, Mr. Lee acknowledged that the third finding as required by the code was omitted from the staff report. That finding affirms that the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Munic- ipal Code. Mr. Lee presented the following statement to support that finding" "The distance of these lots from the freeway fulfills the intent of the Municipal Code regarding lot depth. The lots would be developed in accordance with the R-1 zone standards and would be entirely compatible with existing single family homes in the immediate area." MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Commission finds that the project under variance PCV-75-16 would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration for IS-75-59 relating to the project. MSUC (Floto-Smith) Based on the findings contained in the staff report and presented at this meeting, the Commission approves variance application PCV-75-16. 5, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrator denial of request for variance ZAV-75-8 to increase rear yard coverage from 30% to 59% at 950 Melrose Avenue~ Howard L. & Kathleen McCaule~ Director of Planning Peterson advised that the normal rear yard requirement is 20 feet, but that there is provision for encroaching into that area with a -6- September 24, 1975 single story addition to within l0 feet of the rear property line if the addition covers no more than 30% of the rear yard. The applicant made use of that provision to construct an addition to his house and that addition was authorized by a building permit. The applicant then constructed a sunshade over the patio area, which increased the total coverage of the required rear yard area to 59%, thus violating the code. He is now requesting approval of a variance to allow that extent of coverage. The applicant submits that due to the western exposure of that side of his house the sunshade is necessary to make the rooms on that side of the house and the patio area usable. Mr. Peterson reported that the staff could not make the findings as required by ordinance for approval of the variance request as submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The request was denied and that decision is appealed by the applicant. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Howard McCauley, 950 Melrose, the applicant, referred to photographs showin9 two patios with sunshade coverings constructed in his rear yard. He advised that he had placed the project of the addition in the hands of a contractor who had obtained the necessary permits, and that he, himself, was not aware of the ordinance restrictions. The contractor did not finish the project and it was learned he was not a licensed contractor. Mr. McCauley reported that the room addition contained more window area than the original structure and it became apparent that shielding from the sun would be required on the west and south sides of the house. Mr. McCauley contended that he had made the best possible improvement of his property without hurting his neighbors and they had expressed no opposition. Eugene R. Pierson, 972 Melrose Avenue, spoke of the problems which the McCauley's had experienced in dealing with the contractor and in completing the work which he had not finished. He affirmed that the sunshade to himself or other neighbors was not offensive and asked that the Commission approve the variance. James Monroe Darnell, 954 Melrose Avenue, adjacent to the McCauley's residence, expressed the opinion that the construction which has taken place enhances the appearance of the McCauley house and makes it more livable. He confirmed that without sunshades the afternoon sun makes the rooms with the western exposure unlivable and the sunshade allows utilization of the house to the fullest potential. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Starr, although appreciating the problems experienced by the ap- plicant, expressed the opinion that there are good reasons for the setbacks as established by ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that based upon the negative findings as stated in the Zoning Administrator's letter, the appeal be denied and the Zoning Administrator's denial of the request be upheld. -7- September 24, 1975 The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Commissioners Starr, Smith and Rudolph NOES: Commissioners Pressutti and Floto Assistant City Attorney Beam ruled that the motion did not pass since the City Charter requires the affirmative vote of the entire body of the Commission to adopt a motion. He suggested that a vote on a motion for approval of the appli- cation would clarify the Commission's position. It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Commissioner Floto, that in view of the extenuating circumstances behind the development of the structure itself, in view of the apparent esthetic quality of the finished structure, in view of no opposition from the neighbors and acceptance by the neighbors, the variance request be granted. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pressutti and Floto NOES: Commissioners Rudolph, Smith and Starr ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler Acting Chairman Rudolph advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of changing street name from Crest Drive to Oleander Avenue~ PCM-75-17 Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that although this is not a land use planning question, it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act in a recommendatory manner to the Council on proposed street name changes. This change is being considered because of the proposal to signalize the inter- section of Oleander or Crest and Telegraph Canyon Road. This will entail placing new street signs and it is deemed advantageous to motorists for a continuous street to have one name in both directions. It was pointed out that the two different names at the intersection resulted from a realignment of the proposed route of Oleander Avenue when the subdivision south of Telegraph Canyon Road was developed five years ago. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Speaking in opposition of the proposed change were: Michael Joseph, 876 Crest Drive; Michael Hanson, 884 Crest Drive; Frank Yeargain, 893 Crest Drive; Mrs. John W. Parker, 852 Crest Drive; Barbara Wesson, 879 Crest Drive; Marjorie Yeargain, 893 Crest Drive; and E. Klemke, 883 Crest Drive. All objected due to the inconvenience and time required to accomplish change of address on all documents and records as necessary; also tO the fact that Crest Drive has been so named for 12 years, and if a name change is necessary it should be Oleander, the new street. Mr. Peterson pointed out that Oleander is a much longer street, extending from Main Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. It was also noted that present development -8- S~?tember 24, 1975 plans show the deadend of Crest Avenue about 100 feet beyond the existing terminus, so it is not a residential collector street beyond Telegraph Canyon Road. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Pressutti and Rudolph expressed the opinion that the residents should not be subjected to the inconvenience of such a change and also that there are other intersections in the city which are more confusing to the motorist than this particular one. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Planning Commission recommends denial of the pro- posed street name change from Crest Drive to Oleander Avenue 7. Adoption of Resolution setting Planning Commission meeting dates This resolution effectuates the meeting date change as agreed by the Commission at the previous business meeting and in discussion at the study session. MSUC (Pressutti-Smith) Resolution PCM-75-18 be adopted, establishing the meeting dates of the Planning Commission on the second and fourth Monday of each month, with a study session to be held on the third Monday. This schedule will be in effect for the study session and second business meeting in October. Mr. Peterson advised that he had no Director's Report for this meeting, and no comments were presented by the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairman Rudolph adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully presented, Helen Mapes Secretary