HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/09/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
_ CITY PLANNING COMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 25, 1974
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 tile following F,~eembers
present: Rudolph, Rice, Floto, Starr and Pressutti. Absent, with previous
notification: Commissioner Chandler. Also present: Assistant Director of
Planning ~illiams, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Engineer t~arshman
Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. '
Tile pledge of allegiance to the flag ~as led by Vice-Chairman Rudolph, followed
by a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF ~.IINUTES
MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The minutes of the meeting of September 11, 1974 be
approved as mailed. ,
No oral communications were presented.
1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Rezoning PCZ-74-H - l0 acres west of Otay Lakes Road,
660 feet north of H Street, C-T-D to P-C or R-3 and C-T
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that consideration of the rezoning of
this property was initiated by the City Council when it became apparent that the
C-T zoning applied to the property in 1965 was no longer suitable due to a number
of changes in the area, particularly the relocation of H Street and reevaluation
of the E1 Rancho del Rey development plans. The hearing has been continued
several times at the request of the owners of the property who have now indicated
they have a possible use for offices and retail tenants. Hr. Lee reported that
the City Council has approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance ~hich will
allow residential use in C-C and C-It zones by conditional use permit. Consideration
was given to rezoning this property P-C as suggested by the Council, but the staff
believes the desired objectives for the property can be achieved by rezoning it to
a more conventional zoning pattern; namely, C-O, for office use, for approximately
2 acres north of the collector road, and C-C, for retail commercial use on the
7.5 acres to the souti~ adjacent to proposed commercial development of the El Rancho
del i<ey property. It is recommended that the "P" Precise Plan I1odifying District
be applied to both parcels. ~.Ir. Lee called attention to the 7 guidelines recom-
mended to be adhered to in developing precise plans.
In response to a question from Vice-Chairman Rudolph, Mr. Lee discussed the zoning
and land use of surrounding property, noting the location of Bonita Vista Junior
High and Bonita Vista High School, and the vacant one acre parcel presently in
the P-C zone between the proposed C-O-P zoning and the junior high school. He also
pointed out the 8 acre parcel adjacent to the south of the C-C-P zoning which is
also planned for commercial development.
- Vice-Chairman Rudolph reopened the continued public hearing.
-2- Sept. 25, 1974
Gene York, 72 Sandalwood Drive, representing Glenn Ashwill and Don Norman, owners
of the subject property, expressed their agreement with the proposed zoning
categories and recommendations presented by the staff.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Starr-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning of the property to
C-O-P and C-C-P as shown on Exhibit A, subject to the precise plan guidelines and
based on the findings as presented in the staff report.
2. Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance to permit communes in R-1 zone
Assistant Director of Planning Williams advised that the current provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance limit permitted uses in the R-1 zone to one single family dwelling
unit on any one lot and defines a family as an individual, or two or more nersons
related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than three persons
(excluding servants) who need not be related, living in a dwelling as a single
housekeeping unit and using common cooking facilities.
Mr. Williams reported that a request was made to consider amending the Zoning
Ordinance to permit communal living in R-1 zones. He advised there are presently
10 communes in the City; 6 in the R-1 zone, 2 in the R=2 zone and 2 in the R-3
zone. These communes were examined by the staff to determine if they are appropri-
ate in the R-1 zone. Based on the stude made, it is the staff's recommendation
that communes not be permitted in the R-1 zone. It appears possible under the
current zoning regulations to consider them in the R-3 and C-O zones subject to a
conditional use permit. If it is the Commission's desire, the staff could explore
this further with a view toward listing communes as a conditional use in the
higher density residential zones.
Mr. Williams advised that since the meeting of August 28, 1974, when this consider-
ation first appeared on the agenda, six letters and three petitions containing 220
signatures have been received expressing opposition to permitting communes in
the R-1 zone.
Assistant City Attorney Beam commented on the mention in the staff renort of a
case before the Supreme Court which upheld the exclusion of communes from single-
family residential district. He advised the Commission that that decision was
not a unanimous one and was heavily criticized by some of the court. He reported
that the Supreme Court says that as an exercise of zoning power, local governments
have an obligation and right to consider the circumstances under which members
of the community live; this includes the right to restrict uncontrolled growth,
solve traffic problems, maintain housing costs at a reasonable level. Powers
which they do not have relate to the use of zoning in a way that would infringe
upon other constitutional rights, which includes freedom of association through
political action groups or religious groups. The dissenting members of the
Supreme Court, in consideration of the exclusion of communes from the R-1 zone,
felt the zoning power stated in the case might constitute an abridgement of those
rights. The majority of the Court, however, did not agree.
Mr. Beam pointed out that the issue on communes should be considered in terms
of land use, traffic, safety, potential burdens upon public services, including
streets, sewer service, and the like.
Sept. 25, 1974
Commissioner Floto asked the nature of the complaints which have been received
concerning communes.
~r. Williams reported that these mainly related to the lack of parking and re-
sulting congestion of streets.
Although not an advertised public hearing, Vice-Chairman Rudolph asked for testimony
from interested persons in the audience.
Ken Pagard, 424 Westby, pastor of First Baptist Church, discussed the history of
their Commune and related conferences with the City Attorney and several Council-
men . He felt thatmanypeople have an erroneous impression of communes as being
irresponsible people living together under all kinds of conditions. He advised
that their households are made up of very responsible people, living together to
bring healing to broken people. He indicated they operate as a family whose
members have a life commitment to ministering to others. He cited instances of
progress made in changing people who were problems of society into the role of
contributors to society.
Vice-Chairman Rudolph noted thata number of the communes in the city have as many
as 18 or 19 residents and asked Mr. Pa§ard how such a number could be accommodated
in a single family house.
~r. Pagard advised there are 8 bedrooms in the household in which he lives. He
affirmed they are conscious of the parking problem since they do not wish to be
a nuisance to their neighbors. He noted that four cars can be parked within the
driveway and four at the curb in front of their lot, and there are eight cars in
the household. He reported they have vehicles that hold a larger number of people
and attempt to share a vehicle whenever possible.
Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that even if the Commission has empathy for
this type of living, they must address theirselves to the parameters established
for~e R-1 zone. He questioned why Mr. Pagard's group had not moved into the
R-3 zone where they could possibly obtain a conditional use permit for the use.
Mr. Pagard indicated that in Chula Vista there are few houses large enough for
this use in the R-3 zone; also that their aim is to be an influence scattered
throughout society.
In response to a question from Commissioner Floto, Mr. Pagard advised that a
number of the people in their household have regular jobs and pool their resources.
Anlong their residents are a school principal, Rohr employee, church pastor, teacher
and a nursery school ~orker. Their household also contains children, including
a baby, a two year old, 4 elementary school children, 4 in junior high, one in
high school and two in college. He expressed the opinion that the best working
model is about 17 or 18 people to be able to have an effective ministry ~ith the
people there.
-4- Sept. 25, 1974
Speaking against allowing communes in the R-1 zone were: Howard Rinden, 400 Westby
Street; Roy Hall 73 Mitscher; R
aymon¢, West, 473 Skyhill Court; Ralph Benfler, 109
Fourth Avenue; William Rambur, 325 East James Street; Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue;
Joan Smithey, 534 Madrona, I. L. DeZort, 159 G Street. Many of those opposed lived
in the vicinity of a commune, and many based their objection on the parking problem,
noting that in many instances the garage had been converted into a bedroom and
additional bedrooms added on to the house to accommodate the large number of residents.
Mr. Hall reported that the residents in the communal househol..I near him were good
neighbors and no more noisy than the single family that lived there previously. He
expressed concern, however, at how the City could differentiate between these
households and other types of communes.
Assistant City Attorney Beam confirmed that the City cannot control who would be
involved in this style of living. The City has the right to determine whether a
group of persons can live in a single dwelling unit in an R-1 zone, but does not
have the right to determine that only persons affiliated by religious group of
political association can validly live together.
Mr. Rambur spoke against the lifestyle of communes, citing a number of affiliations
throughout the country which he felt were extremely detrimental to the young people
taken in by them.
When no others indicated a desire to be heard, the chairman closed the discussion
from the floor.
Commissioner Starr asked if the question under consideration would be an amendment
to allow communes in the R-1 zone as a right rather than as a conditional use.
Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that the City Council is aware of tile contro-
versy generated by the current situation in the city and they asked the Commission
to consider whether this usage should be permitted in various zones pursuant to a
conditional use permit. Fie felt the staff report had not adequately spoken to this
issue.
Assistant Director of Planning Williams concurred that the staff report is focused
on the narrow question of whether or not communes should be permitted in the R-1
zone. tie pointed out that the staff recommendation is not directed at the lifestyle
but at whether this type of use is appropriate in the R-1 zone. Fie suggested that
the Commission may wish to give further consideration to permitting this use in the
R-3 and light commercial zones by conditional use permit.
Comnissioner Rice expressed the opinion that while some communes may provide some
benefits to the locality in which they are located, from the standpoint of traffic
volume, noise potential and other factors that result from putting a large number
of people into an area designed for a single family is not an appropriate use in the
R-l, and he could not support it in the R-1 zone under any conditions.
Vice-Chairman Rudolph expressed the opinion the commune is a fact of today's life
and this should be recoqnized in city regulations. She felt, however, that the
R-1 zone as planned now~may not be adequate to hold the amount of density that is
generated by a commune. She suggested that the staff explore the possibility of
allowing the lifestyle, but controlling the number as it is with f~ster care
children, and also explore the possibility of allowing this use in the R-3 zone
with a conditional use permit.
-5- Sept. 25, 1974
It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti that the Commission recommend to the
Council the denial of any change in the R-1 zoning to permit group lifestyle living,
but request the staff to come back at the first opportunity with some recommendations
of Zoning Ordinance modification that would permit this kind of group living and
alternative lifestyle in some zone other than R-1 with the kinds of constraint which
they recommend be applied in the application of that zoning.
Commissioner Rice requested that this action be taken in two separate motions.
MSC (Pressutti-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the denial of an amendment to
R-1 zoning to permit group lifestyle living.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Rice, Starr and Floto
NOES: Commissioner Rudolph
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The staff be requested to present at the first opportune
moment some information on how to meet the needs for alternative lifestyles by
conditional use permit in areas other than R-1.
Assistant City Attorney Beam requested that as a point of clarification to the City
Council, since they have expressed interest in it, the Commission either affirm or
deny a motion to investigate the use of the conditional use permit procedure for
communes in the R-1 zone.
It was moved by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Commissioner Pressutti, that the
previous motion be amended to include in the study the possibility of conditional
use permit in the R-1 zone.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Starr, Pressutti, Rudolph
NOES: Commissioners Rice, Floto
It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti, seconded by Rice, that the staff not
consider conditional use permit for communes in the R-1 zone, since this Commission
does not believe the R-1 zone is appropriate for this type of communal living housing.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Rice, Starr
NOES: Commissioners Rudolph, Floto
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
Assistant City Attorney Beam expressed the opinion that the Commission's intent is
clear and if there is need for further discussion, the question will be brought to
the Commission at a future date after it is properly noticed to interested parties.
A recess was called at 8:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
Sept. 25, 1974
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use~ermit ~P~C~C-7~?-.22 -_Request to c~nstruct
~-~b~ c~-~ood Plain, Fourth and ~treets,
~--~-ner ~
Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated the location of the proposed 7,000 sq. ft.
building for a handball court in the south portion of the 2½ acre parcel at the
southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and C S~reet. He advised that the conditional
use permit is required because this will be a recreational facility and is located
in the flood plain area. He discussed the proposed site plan, noting there is ample
parking and satisfactory access from Fourth Avenue and from Third Avenue Extension.
Mr. Lee called attention to the five conditions recommended and to the findings
offered for approval of the application.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Owen Lippin, 3100 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing Abe Siner, advised in
response to questions from the Commission, that the building will be air conditioned
and will contain no windows except in the two doors. He indicated the ceiling and
walls will be soundproof.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) Based on the findings presented, PCC-74-22 is approved for
the construction of six handball courts, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the property shall be subject to site plan and architectural
review, including building elevations, landscape and irrigation plans, sign
plan and a lighting plan.
2. The structure shall be floodproof and permanently anchored to prevent
· floating away during flood conditions.
3. All utilities to the building shall be placed underground.
~. The existing drainage ditch along the southerly property line shall be
improved in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer.
5. Directional arrows shall be placed on driveways leading to and from the
handball court parking area.
Findings are as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general wellbeing of
the neighborhood or the co~m~unity.
The proposed facility will provide a needed and convenient service to business
persons working in the area and other persons living nearby who are interested
in the sport of handball.
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.
Subject to the conditions of approval, the facility will not be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing in the
-7- Sept. 25, 1974
the vicinity, because of the following facts:
1. The site is surrounded by compatible commercial uses on three
sides and the apartment building on the fourth side is considerably
higher in elevation that the subject site.
2. Access to the site is from a major street.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
Subject to the conditions of approval, the facility will comply with the
code of requirements for such use, particularly with regard to flood hazards.
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.
As authorized, the facility conforms to the zoning category of the General
Plan.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-74-22, Appeal of Zoning Administrator denial for
reduction of sideyard setback from 10' to 5'6", 62 Millan
Court, W. F. Flanners.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that this application was considered and
denied by the Zoning Administrator due to the inability to make the findings
necessary for granting a variance. He pointed out that a revision to the Zoning
Ordinance adopted in 1971 established the requirement for a l0 ft. sideyard in
order to provide access into the rear yard from the street. He noted that the
subject lot is 70' X 140', mostly level, with ample area in the rear for the
desired expansion without encroaching into the sideyard beyond the l0 ft. require-
ment. For this reason, there is no justification of a hardship due to the physical
aspects of the property, and denial of the application is recommended.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. William Flannery, 62 Millan Court, pointed out that the house next door has a
solid wall without windows on the side adjacent to this proposed addition. She
stressed their need for an enlarged dining area and for a separate family room and
maintained that the floor plan does not lend itself to an addition to the rear. She
also pointed out the rear yard has been feautifully developed and the side area in
which they desire to construct the addition is useless as yard area. She reported
that five properties within the block do not have access into the rear yard since
the houses were built in 1966, prior to the ordinance revision in 1971. She
appealed that the variance be granted.
Morris Pion, 52 Millan Court, reported that his house has the same floor plan as the
Flannery's and he has added a room exactly as requested in this case. He indicated
his request for variance was approved due to the location of a swimming pool in the
rear yard which precludes expansion in that area.
-8- Sept. 25, 1974
Gerard Sobieck, 56 Millan Court, owner of the property next door on the side
where the addition is being requested, stated that he has no objections to
granting the request, and that he felt requiring the space for access to the rear
yard is an injustice to the applicant since a number of other houses in the tract
do not have such access.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rice expressed feeling for the applicant's request, but felt the
necessary findings for allowing the variance could not be made in this instance.
Assistant Director of Planning Williams reported the receipt of a petition
containing 24 signatures of home owners in the area in support of granting the
variance.
Commissioner Pressutti expressed the opinion that human factors should be taken
into consideration and whether an addition to the rear would meet the needs of
the resident.
Assistant City Attorney Beam affirmed that the Commission is bound by the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and in order to grant a variance they must make the findings
required by the ordinance.
MSC (Rice-Floto) The application for variance ZAV-74-22 for reduction of sideyard
to 5'6" be denied, based on the following findings:
a. The existence of a hardship peculiar to the physical attributes of the property
and not caused by the property owner cannot be said to exist since there are many
options to satisfy the increased space needs without going into the sideyard set-
back, including the expansion of the existing dining room into the permitted side-
yard, and the addition of a room onto the rear of the house.
b. Granting this variance would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by
the neighboring homeowners or other homeowners of similar lots, since other proper-
ties conform to the setback requirements of the ordinance.
c. Granting of such a variance would block access to the rear yard--one of the
primary intents of the sideyard setback--and would run counter to the inherent
design of the subdivision; specifically, to create lots with ample room in the rear
for expansion, thereby maintaining spacious setbacks between the individual houses.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rice, Floto, Rudolph and Starr
NOES: Commissioner Pressutti
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
The chairman advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council
within 10 days.
Sept. 25, 1974
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-74-10, Re_~s~_~or freestanding sign witho
requ-~ire~-~tr~e-~- fronta~ 470 Thir~-~-~ Ro~
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that a freestanding sign is allowed in
the C-¢ zone if the lot has 100 feet of frontage; the subject lot has 68 feet of
frontage, which necessitates a variance from the code provisions. Mr. Lee pointed
out that the established setback on Third Avenue is 5 feet and the majority of the
buildings observe that setback; however, the building owned by the applicant
is set back 30 feet from Third Avenue. He noted that a similar request had been
granted for property in the 700 block of Third Avenue
Mr. Lee called attention to the rendering of the proposed 30 sq. ft. sign which
provides for 14" letters. The staff recommends reducing the size of the sign to
25 sq. ft. which would accommodate 9"-10" letters and still be adequately read at
a distance of 600 feet.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Norm Ross, 909 Wrangler Court, discussed his need for a pole sign due to difficulty
in seeing the building from any distance down Third Avenue. He referred to an eye
chart which indicates that the effective reading distance for 14" letters is
600 feet; the size of letters recommended by the staff would reduce the reading
distance to 400 feet. He therefore felt the 30 sq. ft. sign is necessary.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ftoto concurred with the justification for a sign and felt that the
extra 5 sq. ft. of area would not damage the area.
MSUC (Floto-Rice) Based on the findings presented, variance PCV-74-10 for a
freestanding pole sign be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The sign shall have a maximum area of 30 sq. ft. and a maximum height of
20 feet.
2. The base of the pole sign shall be landscaped with a planter as provided
by ordinance.
The findings are as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the regulations.
The existing 30 ft. setback of the building creates a visibility problem for
the business since it is obscured by the other buildings having only 5 ft.
setbacks. In this case the freestanding sign closer to the street is needed
to give this business identification on a parity with other enterprises in
the area. The unusual setback of the building thus constitutes a hardship
peculiar to this particular property.
-10- Sept. 25, 1974
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that
do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.
Proper identification of other businesses on Third Avenue is achieved by
wall signs (predominantly) because the buildings are close to Third Avenue
frontage. For this owner to enjoy identification on a similar basis with his
neighbors, a freestanding sign is required. Without the granting of a
variance the applicant would be denied the same degree of identification
enjoyed by adjacent properties.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neigh-
borhood in which the property is located.
The granting of this request to erect a freestanding sign will not unreason-
ably obscure any other signs on adjacent properties.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan.
This request does not affect the General Plan.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-74-11, ~equest to create four lots with two
s_e~v~ed~b_~, an i~ access easement, 510 Hilltoe Drive,
Bonita Associates
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the single lot in excess of
30,000 sq. ft., measuring 140 feet wide by 220 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance
requires 60 feet of frontage on a dedicated street unless the property is served
by an access easement and development is approved by the Planning Commission. The
applicant desires to divide the property into four parcels, having two served by
an 18 ft. access easement, and each lot to be approximately 7700 sq. ft. in area.
Mr. Lee noted there are several areas in the city where this type of development
has been accomplished.
Mr. Lee called attention to the 13 conditions recommended in the staff report and
asked that the following additions be considered: On condition 3, add the require-
ment that maintenance of the easement be apportioned equally to each parcel.
Condition 5, calling for retention of a large pepper tree, be modified by adding
"if feasible as determined by the City's Landscape Planner," and adding the provision
that, "the net usable area of parcel 2 may be reduced to accommodate the driveway
change." Condition 12 should require deed restrictions rather than CC&R's.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Frank Phillips, Civil Engineer, 240 Woodlawn, representing Bonita Associates,
expressed agreement with the proposed conditions, and indicated they will attempt
to retain the trees as requested if the grade of the lot does not interfere with
the root system.
John Christensen, 34 H Street, asked for clarification concerning the 18 ft. easement
and whether it would be practical to connect that to an easement at 50 H Street.
-ll- Sept. 25, 1974
Mr. Lee advised that the easement from Hilltop Drive would terminate near the
front of the two rear lots in a T-type turnaround.
Clyde Hogue, 520 Hilltop Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed division of
property, lie felt the construction of one or two homes would be acceptable, but
that the deep lots should be retained. He also pointed out there is not much
parking on ~illtop Drive due to the heavy volume of traffic, and he felt four
homes in the subject area would be overcrowding.
Herbert Hillson, 537 Hilltop Drive, concurred with the previous speaker relative
to the heavy volume of traffic on Hilltop which makes turning into driveways
hazardous.
Ken Kolk, real estate broker, noted that the size of the proposed lots is within
the ordinance requirements. He pointed out that the existing apron and added street
width in front of this property make access and egress less hazardous. He expressed
the opinion that the homes to be constructed on these lots will be in keeping with
the area.
Commissioner Pressutti commented on the requirement for a two car garage plus two
additional parking spaces for each of the lots, which should nearly eliminate the
need for onstreet parking by residents of these lots.
Patricia Hogue pointed out that the incline of Hilltop Drive between H and I Streets
adds to the traffic problem due to lack of visibility. She also asked about the
placement of tile houses on the proposed lots and whether their back yards would be
adjacent to the side yard of the Hogue's lot.
Mr. Lee advised that site plans for development of the property will be subject to
staff review and approval, and pointed out that if the rear yard of the proposed
lots abuts the existing lots it will require a deeper setback, and therefore more
separation between buildings, thaw if it is a side yard.
Commissioner Pres~utti expressed the opinion that the findings necessary for
granting a variance have been presented in this case.
MSUC (Pressutti-Rice) Based on the findings presented, variance PCV-74-11 to
create four lots at 510 Hilltop Drive is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Creation of the four lots shall be accomplished by the filing of a parcel
map with the City.
2. The easement shall be paved to a width of 18 feet with P.C.C. at a thickness
to be determined by the City Engineer. The easement shall terminate in a T-type
turnaround acceptable to the City.
3. A permanent easement shall be granted to each separate parcel to provide
access from Hilltop Drive. The method of providing such access shall be
approved by the Engineering Division. Cost of maintenance of the easement
shall be apportioned equally to each parcel.
4. All existing driveways which are not used shall be removed and replaced
with a sidewalk.
-12- Sept. 25, 1974
--- 5. Existing trees on site, including the 40'± pepper tree located in the
driveway area, shall be retained, if feasible as determined by the City's
Landscape Planner, and the driveway shall be routed around the tree. Drive-
way width around the tree on the south side shall be 10 feet. Net usable
area of parcel 2 may be reduced to accommodate the driveway change.
6. Grading of the property, if needed, shall be carried out in accordance
with Ordinance No. 1455.
7. All utilities for the four parcels shall be placed underground.
8. Structures shall be set back 5 feet minimum from the driveway easement.
9. Landscaping and irrigation plans for the houses shall include 15 gal.
trees, one street tree per house, plus 5 gal. shrubs.
10. Site plan and architectural review shall be required for the building
permits. This includes house elevations, landscaping and irrigation plan and
guest parking layout.
ll. In addition to the two car garage requirement for each home, two guest
parking spaces shall be required for each house, for a total of eight guest
offstreet parking spaces. The houses with street frontage will be required
to have offstreet parking since it is anticipated that future traffic volumes
on Hilltop Drive may require that the curb parking now existing be eliminated.
12. Deed restrictions shall be drawn up prohibiting garage conversions to any
other use.
13. All structures shall be sewered by a gravity sewer.
Findings are as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The lot size allowed in the R-1 zone permits the owner to create four lots on
this property; however, the depth of the lot (220 feet), precludes two of the
parcels from having street frontage, thereby working a hardship and practical
difficulties upon the owner's efforts to develop the property in conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district
and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute
a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
~ranting of this variance will enable the owner to create four lots similar
n size and configuration to other properties in this area in the same zone.
Without the granting of this variance, the owner would be deprived of the
ability to create four lots of legal size in conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
-13- Sept. 25, 1974
c. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or the public interest.
Subject to conditions of approval the houses built on these four lots will
be well separated from the adjoining lots and will not be detrimental to
the neighboring residents or property values.
d. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed lot split conforms to the zoning category (R-l) and the General
Plan (medium density residential, 4-12 dwelling units per acre).
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-74-9, request to provide identification for
more than one tenant on 50' high, 225 sq. ft. freestanding
~ign, 637 H Street, Victor's Too and The Grapevine
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this need for a sign is a problem
that typically results when a shopping center is developed without a sign program.
In this case the major tenant, C & R Clothiers, had an identification sign, 150 sq.
ft. in area. The present ordinance allows either the major tenant or the name of
the center with no other tenant names. Two tenants are now requesting permission
to place signs on a modified sign structure of the C & R Clothiers sign.
Mr. Lee advised that the Council has indicated acceptance of the new sign provisions
which would permit tenant identification signs, limited to 35' in height and 150
sq. ft. in area.
This request is for a double pole structure, 50' in height, with the addition of
two tenant signs between the poles. The staff recommends a modification which
would allow a sign 35' in height, with the C & R Clothiers sign, 150 sq. ft. in
area at the top, with a total of 50 sq. ft. additional sign area for the two tenant
signs. Mr. Lee called attention to the rendering of the proposed modification which
was labelled Exhibit B in the report.
Commissioner Rice commented that if this sign request is approved, it should be
determined that there is adequate room on the sign structure to permit identifi-
cation of additional stores in the center.
Mr. Lee pointed out that the proposed sign revisions limit the number of tenant
identification signs for any one center to five, which would allow only two more
signs at this location.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened·
in Stre t Clai~emont .e p es ed ap re i tio or the
Vic ~ Halma hi 6 ll C ar f a s~ n, w~c~ ~e ~eels ~s ~e~n~e~y
sta~ s reco~e~da~,on ~or a~prova~ ~ g
needed· He indicated that he leased the business from the original owner and a sign
was discussed but nothing put in writing. He reported that the store location
cannot be seen by motorists going west on H Street due to the landscaping in the
parking area. He expressed his satisfaction with the 25 sq. ft. area and the 35'
overall height for the sign.
-14- Sept. 25, 1974
David Bernatz, 4420 Vista Nacion, owner of The Grape Vine at this center, urged
approval of the sign as recommended by the staff, which he feels conforms to the
spirit of the new sign ordinance proposal.
As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Rice-Pressutti) Based on the findings presented, variance PCV-74-9 be
granted to allow tenant identification on a modified sign structure, 35' in
height, subject to the following conditions:
1. The new sign shall conform to the design shown on Exhibit B. The sign
shall have a maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum copy area for the
three tenants of 200 sq. ft.
2. The base of the new sign shall be relandscaped, if necessary.
3. Any additional tenant signs shall be subject to separate review and
consideration through the variance process. Additional tenant signs shall
conform to those now approved in terms of cabinet size and copy and letter
size.
Findings are as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner existS.
The applicants experience a hardship due to their location away from H Street
in a shopping center building and the fact that the existing mansard sign for
"Victor's Too" can only be seen from traffic traveling west on H Street.
This hardship associated with tenants in shopping centers has been acknowledged
and corrected in the new sign regulations for the C-T zone, which permit
identification of up to 5 tenants on a freestanding sign. Permitting a sign copy
area larger than the 150 sq. ft. is considered necessary in this case in order
to avoid working a hardship on the owner of the existing center who would be
unable to offer other tenants an opportunity for a freestanding sign.
b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
At the present time "Victor's Too: and "The Grape Vine" are being deprived
of the same level of identification enjoyed by C & R Clothiers. Until the new
sign ordinance becomes effective, a variance is necessary to avoid this
deprivation.
c. That the authorizing of such variance will not be substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not m~terially impair the purposes of this chapter
or the public interest.
The new sign will not obscure the visibility of freestanding signs of
neighboring businesses.
-15- Sept. 25, 1974
d. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
This request does not affect the General Plan.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to original conditional use permit to include
Thrift Shop at 122 Fourth Avenue, Seventh DaS Adventis'~ Church
Commissioner Starr reported that he wished to abstain on this item since he is a
member of that church. Mr. Starr therefore left the podium.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that for the past several months the church
has been operating the Thrift Shop at 122 Fourth Avenue, in a house south of the
church facility. This shop is open for four hours, three days a week. This partic-
ular property was not included in the original conditional use permit for the church,
which was granted in 1961. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow
for retail uses in the R-3 zone, with the only exception being an incidental use
which is defined in the ordinance and pertains to facilities designed to serve the
residents of the apartment complex in which it is located, and not to serve the
general public. He reported that the staff could not make that determination of
incidental use on this application.
Mr. Lee also noted that the Building Inspection Department has inspected the site
and reported that the structure is in very poor condition and should not be approved
for this use.
Inasmuch as the staff was unable to make three of the four necessary findings for
granting a conditional use permit, denial of the application is recommended.
. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Marie Giddings, 40 E1 Rancho Vista, reported that the subject property was
purchased in August, 1973 for the purpose of expansion of the church. The property
contains a single family structure and until such time as the building expansion
program is under way, the church desires to use the structure for church related
purposes. She advised that at the time the property was purchased a member of the
church board was advised by City representatives that the existing building could
not be used for assembly, or religious or education purposes, without considerable
renovation, but that it could be used for storage or church-related community
welfare programs. The Thrift Shop was conceived as a part of the community welfare
programs. Mrs. Giddings reported that she was advised by the City that no business
license would be required for this operation; and that only a solicitation permit
was required for such a church related operation. Such a permit was obtained in
February, 1974. She advised that during the few months of operation the program
has not only served the community but has provided funds for the church community
program. Due to the Planning Department report on this operation, the church is
now looking for a suitable location in a commercial zone for this project but they
are concerned about the effect an immediate closure would have on an established
program. She asked that this program be permitted to function on this property
until the end of the year or until a new location is found.
-16- Sept. 25, 1974
_ Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that this type of operation in a residential
zone amounts to a use variance which the Planning Commission does not have the
jurisdiction or discretion to grant. He also cautioned against continued use of
the building which does not meet safety standards established by State Law and
which local jurisdictions have no right to waive. Since this use is not a legal
use, it is subject to immediate abatement but the City Council may give direction
to the City Attorney's office in this regard.
As no one else wished to speak the pbulic hearing was closed.
MSC (Floto-Pressutti) Due to the fact that findings cannot be made to legally
permit this use, PCC-74-23 for operation of The Thrift Shop in the R-3 zone shall
be denied.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Floto, Pressutti, Rudolph and Rice
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Starr
ABSENT: Commissioner Chandler
9. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Safety Element of General Plan
MSUC (Rice-Floto) This public hearing be continued to the meeting of October 23,
1974.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Director of Planning Williams advised there is no Director Report for
this meeting.
COMMISSION CO~ENTS
Vice-Chairman Rudolph asked for a report at the next meeting concerning the request
made to the State Highway Department to change the signs on Highway 54 to route
the traffic bound for I-5 away from Second Avenue.
Vice-Chairman Rudolph commented that when the condominium conversion of the Jay L
Jay Apartments was considered by the Planning Commission recently, the request was
forwarded to the Council that they explore every avenue to try to make sure low
income people presently living at that complex have an opportunity to continue
living there at prices they could afford. She reported that with the assistance of
Lynn Skinner she has been exploring ways in which they might be accomplished. She
asked that Mr. Skinner make a report on a proposal they have prepared.
Lynn Skinner,Senior Planner with San Diego County Planning Department and recently
Project Manager for the County Housing Element, called attention to the written
report distributed to the Commissioners on a Proposed Rehabilitation and Conversion
to Cooperative Ownership for Low and Moderate Income Families, which he felt
outlines a method that could be pursued at little or no expense to taxpayers to
-17- September 25, 1974
provide low income housing to tenants of Jay L Jay apartments. Basically, the
proposal is to take two concepts--redevelopment and cooperative housing, and
combine them in order to get a greater benefit than using them separately. He
advised that under the State Community Development Law, the project qualifies as
a blighted area. The City, acting as the Redevelopment Agency could acquire it,
make the necessary improvements--such as those recommended if the complex were to
be converted to a condominium--and resell the property to a cooperative composed
of the residents of the area who wish to continue living there, or if there are
vacancies, any new residents who wish to buy. The project could be financed by
the Redevelopment Agency's issuance of bonds, secured by a mortgage on the property
and by use of the tax increment funding. He felt that such bonds could be marketed
at a little less than 8% interest. Mr. Skinner called attention to the charts in
the report showing the present rental rates, cost to buyers under the owner's Proposed
private sales program, and the cost under a rehabilitation and conversion to coopera-
tive. He noted that additional staff work would be required in determining the
actual cost under a redevelopment agency.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rice, Assistant City Attorney Beam
advised that there is no way under the terms of the State Subdivision Map Act that
the owner can be precluded from submitting his map to the Council for conversion
of the property to condominium ownership. He advised that Mrs. Rudolph, if she
wishes to interest the Council in providing housing through public housing or some
plan in that area, could make a proposal to the City Council as a private citizen
to determine their reaction.
In response to a point raised by Commissioner Rice, Mrs. Rudolph advised that the
intent is not to try to force the owner of the Jay L Jay apartments into a denial
or postponement of the condominium conversion; the condominium conversion could be
approved, then the City be the purchaser. She pointed out that the owner has
expressed concern about the people who are there and wanting to do what they can-
to help them in purchasing the units, and have also expressed concern about wanting
to get out of the apartment business at that location, so that she felt the City
might get considerable cooperation from the owner.
Commissioner Pressutti raised a question as to the Planning Commission's role in
such a proposal. He felt the Commission's obligation is to consider and make
recommendations on proposals which have been researched and reported by the staff,
rather than to initiate proposals.
Mr. Skinner advised that the Community Development Law says the Planning Commission
can formulate a preliminary plan for redevelopment on its own motion or by the
direction of the City Council or at the request of the Redevelopment Agency.
Mrs. Rudolph advised that the purpose of bringing this proposal to the Commission
was for information.
Commissioner Rice suggested that the City Manager may wish to direct this proposal
to the ad hoc committee working on the Housing Element.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Rudolph adjourned the meeting at ll:O0 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Hele~ Mapes, Secretary