Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/05/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 20, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission was held on the above date at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 276 Guava Avenue, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice and Guyer. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Adams. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manyanelli, Assistant Planner, Lee, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post, within 24 hours as required by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of May 6, 1968. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Rice asked for a correction to be made in the minutes: page 3, third para- graph, regarding access road proposed for Whispering Trails subdivision, this should read seven trips a day instead of four. MSUC (York-Gregson) Approval of minutes of May 6, 1968 with the correction as noted. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - Property east of Albany Avenue, north of Main Street - R-1-A and M to M-1 - Haas Brothers Motor Company The application was read in which prezonin9 was requested to M-1 of that property east of Albany Avenue, north of Main Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent zonings. He stated the area is bein9 processed for annexation and contains 15.32 acres. This prezonin9 hearing includes the entire area, a portion of which is owned by the School District for a possible future school site, and another parcel owned by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Mr. Warren noted that the General Plan delineates this area as Research and Limited Industrial and, therefore, would put this proposal in conformance with the Plan. The staff recommends approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Director Warren declared that there was some question as to whether or not a school will be developed on this site; the District is looking for a better site. RESOLUTION NO. 513 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) City Council Prezoning to M-1 that Property east of Albany Avenue, north of Main Street Findings be as follows: -2- 1. Industrial zoning for this property follows the trend which has been developing in the area and will provide additional land available for development in the city. 2. The General Plan delineates this area as Research and Limited Industrial and this proposal is in conformance with the Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 645 Broadway - Request for M-1 use in a C-2 zone - Gardner-Stafford Properties The application was read in which a request was made to operate a wholesale bakery at 645 Broadway, a C-2 zone. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and the adjacent land use. He stated the bakery will be used primarily for the production of doughnuts for the Mayfair market and an expansion of the existing adjacent opera- tion. They plan to employ 15 people working two shifts, with three delivery trucks operating from this building. The staff has pointed out that this area would fall under the C-T zone in the new zoning ordinance; this use would be allowed in this C-? zone subject to a conditional use permit. The staff recommends approval based on four conditions. Member Hyde questioned whether any performance standards would be applied to this, such as for odors. Director Warren indicated the standards could apply here, if and when adopted. Chairman Stewart asked if the staff considered restricting the loading to the side and rear of the building. Mr. Warren remarked that such a condition would be appropriate. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Gardner, 4363 Grace Road, Bonita, one of the applicants, stated that loading will be done at the side and rear of the building only; they are willing to accept this as a condition of approval. He explained that there will be no substantial noise factor associated with this business; that they have adequate parking spaces for their employees and the trucks. It is contemplated that they will cut a doorway through the two buildings on the inside--this is an expansion of the already existing business there. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hyde asked the City Attorney if it were legal to place a limitation on the number of employees. City Attorney Lindber§ stated it was since the intent here is to limit the traffic density on the whole operation. In the future, if they feel they need to increase the number of employees, they have the right to come back to the Commission with this request. Director Warren agreed, stating the staff made this condition on the basis of the availability of the parking on this site. -3- The Commission agreed that the operation would be compatible in this area, and not objectionable. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum number of employees for any one shift shall not exceed 20. 2. The maximum number of delivery trucks shall be limited to 5. 3. Loading shall be restricted to the side and rear of the building. 4. The Planning Commission shall review this variance every two years to determine its compatibility with the uses in the area. 5. Any proposed signs shall be approved by the Planning staff prior to installation. Findings be 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 proposed location is ideally suited for expansion of the present bakery located north of this site. Denial of the variance would force the relocation of the proposed operation, but would allow the present bakery to continue. 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. The proposed zoning ordinance presently in public hearing stage before the Planning Commission provides for bakeries in the C-T (thoroughfare commercial) zone which would be applied to the Broadway area. Under present zoning classifica- tions the zone variance is the only method for permitting this use in a C-2 zone. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. This same use has been in operation for a number of years on the adjacent property with no detrimental effects. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. This use will tend to advance the objectives of the General Plan by placing this use in a proper location. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 44 East Shasta - Request for reduction of portion of rear yard setback from 20' to 17' - W. K. & J. E. Wilson The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of a portion of the rear yard setback from 20' to 17' for the purpose of constructing a room addition. -4- Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He noted on the plot plan the location of the proposed addition which would encroach 3 feet in to the rear 20 feet. The property is located approximately 8 feet higher than the property abutting it to the rear. Mr. Warren noted that such variance requests are becoming common and perhaps an amendment to the ordinance or an addition to the new proposed zoning ordinance to modify these rear yard requerements would be appropriate. In this case, the applicant would still be retaining approximately 2500 square feet of rear yard area; the staff believes this is a good use of the land and recommends approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Dr. W. K. Wilson, the applicant, 44 E. Shasta Street, stated he would be pleased to answer any questions. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and concurred that it would be a proper use of a variance request. Chairman Stewart directed the staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance to cover situations such as this one. MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of the variance request based on the following findings: 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 primary intent of the 20 foot rear yard requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between neighborhood dwellings to afford the occupants "living space," light and air and a modicum of privacy. The distance between the neighboring rear dwelling and the proposed addition would be 50' to 55', a distance which would insure such privacy. 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. There is an approximate 8 foot difference in elevation between the subject property and the parcel to the rear and the remaining portions of the house are unusually far from the rear property line. 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 neighborhood in which the property is located. The proposed addition would be hidden from the view of the rear property by virtue of the co mbination of slope, fence, and landscaping existing on the properties. Adequate open space remains in the rear yard since before the addition, the closest portion of the house is 37 feet from the rear property line and then because of an offset in the plan, steps further back to a dimension of 57 feet. This leaves a rear yard area of 2500 sq. ft. which exceeds the typical requirement of 1400 sq. ft. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. -5- PUBLIC HEARING: Variance -llO East "L" Street - Request for reduction of portion of rear yard setback from 20' to 16' - George J. Daigle The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of a portion of the rear yard setback from 20' to 16' for the purpose of constructing an addition to the dwelling. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent zonings. He noted on the plot plan the location of the proposed addition stating this request was similar to that previously considered (Wilson, 44 East Shasta) in that this property is graded 15' to 20' higher than the lot abutting to the rear. Adequate rear yard is still being retained here, and the staff recommends approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. George Daigle, the applicant, in answer to Member Rice's inquiry as to the type of addition he is proposing, stated this is the size, type and location of the addition he wants since he is contemplating an extension of his carport in the future and feels this would be compatible. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of the variance request based on the following findings: 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 primary intent of the 20 foot rear yard requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between neighborhood dwellings to afford the occupants "living space", light and air and a modicum of privacy. The distance between the neighboring rear dwelling and the proposed addition would be 40'-45', a distance which would insure such privacy. The property is shallow (92.74') and the front yard is relatively deep (25') leaving little developable area in the rear yard. 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. There is an approximate 15'-20' difference in elevation between the subject property and the parcel to the rear and the remaining portions of the house are unusually far from the rear property line. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. No apparent detriment to the area is evident primarily because of considerable difference in elevation between the subject property and the parcel to the rear and more than adequate rear yard remains on either side of subject addition. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this proposal. -6- Request for approval of site plan and architecture - Proposed development of property at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street - (C-l-D zoneI - Julius Kahn Director of Planning Warren submitted an area map noting the adjacent zoning and land use in the area. The property has an existing 25 foot front setback. Mr. Warren noted the number of businesses which will be located on this property: Big Apple Discount Store with an adjacent site reserved for a future market; a bank building, a Kentucky Beef restaurant, and a service station operated in conjunction with the discount store. He noted the square footage of each building and the three access points off of H Street and Fifth Avenue into this center. They propose 585 parking spaces--540 are required. Mr. Warren commented that the applicants have indicated that a l0 foot wide landscaping strip would be used on both streets with small planter beds in the parking area; however, the staff feels that they should submit a detailed landscaping plan for the entire site for staff approval. At present they show 900 parking, but this is subject to change since the staff has pointed out to them the advisability of using angle parking which is much more acceptable to the customer. There is an opportunity here for a good shopping center, because of the size of the property--8.5 acres. A great deal of planning has gone into the Sears-Chula Vista Shopping Center, and this center should be coordinated with that one. The architecture of these proposed buildings do not relate with each other. The design of the bank building is fixed and plans have already been sent to the Building Department for a building permit. Modification of the facade of the Big Apple can be made so that it would be harmonious with the bank building by using the same textures and color, also the service station. The architecture of the Kentucky Beef restaurant has no relationship with any of the other businesses. They claim they cannot change the architecture of their building and in this respect the staff has no recommendation to offer. The staff feels that the Commission can recommend approval of the site plan and of the architecture of the three buildings--the approval for the Kentucky Beef building can be brought back at a later date. Director Warren reviewed the conditions submitted by the staff for approval and discussed the condition for underground utilities. The staff would like to see this both on-site and off-site. Member Rice questioned the number of cars that could be lined up next to the bank window. Mr. Warren stated it would be about seven on-site. The Commission discussed this problem that the bank across the street has with cars being out in the road at times. It was explained that because of the angle driveway going to the bank window, this problem will be minimized. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Technology, 6151 Fairmont Avenue, San Diego, representing the applicants proposing to develop on this property, stated they have been working with the staff to get together a package that would be acceptable to the applicants and the city. They feel this plan is the best solution to the traffic and the best use of the land. They are basically in agreement with all of the conditions sub- mitted by the staff except the condition on the underground utilities for the off- site improvements. He asked that this item be handled at a later date when they are working with the staff on the landscaping and their other smaller problems. He stated they are going to angle parking and will maintain the existing entrance on H Street. Member Rice asked about having the bank entrance off of Fifth Avenue. Mr. Burford stated this was the problem they tried to solve by paralleling the driveway with H Street and having the driveway separated by a landscaped buffer. They feel there will be very short periods of time when the cars would ever extend off the driveway. The Commission asked whether the building permit on this development would be held up if they brought back the utility agreement at a later date. Mr. Gene Grady, Chief of Building and Housing, stated it would not, if so stipulated by the Commission. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Approval of the site plan as submitted to the Planning Department dated May 13, 1968 subject to the following conditions: 1. Because of traffic which will be generated from these new shopping facilities, it is necessary that the street improvements on Fifth Avenue adjacent to the site be widened. The easterly half of Fifth Avenue adjacent to this site shall be widened to 32 feet of paving from the center line if Fifth Avenue; curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be replaced as necessary. 2. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. Street trees will be required, as necessary, along both the H Street and Fifth Avenue frontage. All landscaping shall be completed prior to the final inspection of the buildings (phasing will be considered). 3. A masonry wall, 6' high, shall be constructed along the easterly property line with the exception of the 25' front setback area where such wall shall be reduced to 3-1/2 ft. in height. The design and materials shall be approved by the Planning staff. 4. All utilities shall be placed underground, both on-site and within the street right-of-way. If detailed studies by the utility companies reveal this to be infeasible, the Planning Commission, upon request by the applicant, may consider waiving this requirement within the street right-of-way. Chairman Stewart now asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak on the architecture of the buildings. Mr. Joe Fickleburg, 3225 Layton Street, Los Angeles, representing the Kentucky Beef restaurant, stated this was an image-type building being built throughout the United States. Presently, they are being constructed or planned for construction in La Mesa, E1 Cajon, National City, Hillcrest, the college area in San Diego and Chula Vista. There is a patio connected with the business which is strictly sandwiches, and this is mostly take-outs. The business is operated by the same people who have the Kentucky Colonel chicken businesses. Mr. Fickleburg discussed other "image" buildings in Chula Vista, such as Der Weinerschnitzel. Chairman Stewart asked how many of this type of building are located in the middle of shopping centers. Mr. Fickleburg indicated that this could be the first one. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the other buildings in this center. Mr. Warren stated he was assured by the applicant that the other buildings would be harmonious with the bank building. -8- Member Rice commented that he would favor approval if the sign was brought down in size, and more landscaping was put around this building, in additioin to a modifica- tion of the facade to be more compatible with other buildings on-site. Member Hyde remarked that these applicants with their "image" buildings must also consider the areas that they propose to put them in and the image a city may be trying to establish. This particular area has the "D" zone classification and the Commission is obligated to assure the community that the Chula Vista Shopping Center will be protected from any "hodgepodge" development. He stated he is not in favor of approving this particular architecture, since it would not be harmonious with that of the proposed bank and other buildings. Member York declared that this was the least objectionable of most of the take-out restaurants that he has seen. With the right type of control, and scaling down of the sign, it would be agreeable. They have stated that they may come in on Broad- way without controls. The Commission then discussed the landscaping and the patio area of the restaurant, and the Center in general. The Commission concurred that they were not "overjoyed" with the second rendering of the Big Apple discount store, but that it was better than the first one. MSC (York-Rice) Approval of the architecture of the proposed United California Bank building and a stipulation that the architecture of the Big Apple store building and the service station building be submitted to the staff for approval when the plans for same are revised to the extent that the basic design and materials would be compatible with the bank building. With the exception of signs, the architecture of the Kentucky Beef restaurant building is approved with the condition that the staff give special attention to the landscaping and treatment of the patio area between the building and H Street. AYES: Members York, Rice, Gregson, Stewart, and Guyer NOES: Member Hyde ABSENT: Member Adams PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - Request for approval of service station site in C-1-D zone - North side of H Street~ 600' east of Fifth Avenue - Julius Kahn The application was read in which a request was made to locate a service station on the north side of H Street, 600 feet east of Fifth Avenue, a C-1-D zone. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed service station as on the easterly site of the property. It will observe the setback requirements. The building will comprise a 600 square foot retail or storage area and they will have three sets of pump islands. This station will be operated by the Big Apple Discount Store. A letter from the Bay General Hospital was read in which they protested the construction of this station adjacent to their hospital for reasons of a probable noise factor, lights, and the concept of dangerous gas, the fumes of which would be blown into their intake vents. Director Warren then reviewed the staff's recommendations of approval. Chairman Stewart declared that there should also be a condition stating that the lights will not reflect on the adjacent areas. He commented that this entire operation will be behind a 6 foot high wall. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, 6151 Fairmont Avenue, San Diego, representing the applicant, stated that the comments of the Bay General Hospital were unwarranted in this case. There is a considerable distance between the hospital and this service station and it will be separated by a 6 foot high wall; no auto repair work will be done in this facility, it will be done elsewhere on the property; there has not been a major service station fire in nine years in this area; and if there is anything~else they can do to protect the hospital, they will be glad to do it. They are not asking for any additional sign area for this service station and there will be no flashing lights; there will be no undue emission of gas odors. The service station will stay open until ll p.m. and the main store will close at 9 p.m. There being no further comments, the public hearing was declared closed. The Commission, discussed the request and felt it would not be detrimental to the hospital subject to the conditions listed by the Planning Director with the added condition concerning the lights. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the staff for approval and coordinated with the shopping center site plan. 2. A trash area shall be designed to enclose a typical dumpster used by the trash collection service. 3. All sales shall be limited to those normally considered incidental to service station needs and confined within the building or beneath the canopied areas. In no case shall tires and other items for sale be stored or displayed outside this area, and in no case shall there be any sales of auto parts and accessories. 4. Flags, pennants, whirligigs, or other attention-getting contrivances shall be specifically excluded from use. Any signs to be used shall be subject to Planning staff approval. 5. Approval of this request excludes architectural approval which is considered with the total shopping site. 6. The exterior lighting shall be such that it will not be directed on any adjacent areas. Such lighting shall be subject to staff approval. 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 proposed use is an integral part of their total complex and would serve the shoppers and passing public. 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. The conditions imposed and the design standards adhered to will make this use compatible with other uses in the area. A wall between the service station site and the hospital property will be required. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The subject use will comply with regulations as proposed. 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Property at northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street - Request for increase in permitted sign area in C-1-D zone - Bi9 Apple Discount Store The application was read in which an increase in the sign area was requested from 50 square feet (permitted in this zone) to 465 square feet. Director of Planning Warren submitted a rendering of the proposed sign comparing it with their first rendering. The sign area on the second rendering totals 129 square feet, and the staff recommends approval of this portion and offers findings for its justification. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, 6151 Fairmont Avenue, San Diego, stated they have submitted this second rendering as a compromise with the staff, and they agree to the staff's recommendations. He discussed the changes they made in this sign area, mainly omitting the words "Discount Department Store". Member Rice asked about an easterly section of the building. Mr. Burford stated this was a facade and would not be lighted in any way. Mr. Julius Kahn explained how the sign will be lighted--it will be a channel neon--only the letters "Big Apple" will be lighted on the facade. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hyde commented that the applicant did a good job making the necessary changes to come up with this second rendering of the sign. Chairman Stewart remarked that the sign represented a good proportion to the building. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Variance request is approved subject to the following condition: The sign is not to exceed 129 square feet total on a 360 square foot backing, as submitted on the detailed plans May 20, 1968. Findings be 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 50 square feet would not allow the applicant proper identification for a business located 300 feet from the street. 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. Strict applica- tion would not allow the applicant the same identification enjoyed by other busi- nesses in the area and a 50 sq. ft. sign would not be in scale with the building. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The proposed sign area will be similar in size to other commercial uses in the area. 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Property at northeast corner of Fifth and H Street - Request for increase in permitted sign area in C-1-D zone and reduction in setback from 25' to 10' - Kentucky Beef The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in setback from 25' to 10' for a free-standing sign and for a total sign area of 360 square feet for property located approximately 400 feet east of the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed signs. He delineated the proposed measurements of the letters and the pictorial representations. He said he pointed out in his report to the Commission that the 50 square foot total sign limitation is not realistic in this case, and the proposed new zoning ordinance would permit a larger sign more related to scale. Director Warren then listed the conditions of approval in which the staff recommended that the free-standing sign not exceed a total of 50 square feet, and that only one sign be permitted on the mansard roof. The height of this proposed sign is 32 feet-- the staff recommends the total height not exceed 30 feet as in the proposed new ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -12- Mr. Joseph Fickleburg, representing Kentucky Beef, stated they are willing to eliminate the two signs on the sides of their restaurant, but that it was infeasible to scale down this free-standing sign. He commented they were not adverse in Chula Vista to revolving and flashing signs, and listed a few. Mr. Fickleburg then noted the different aspects of the free-standing sign, indicating that the picture of the Colonel will be lighted as will the name of the business. The picture of the sandwich is the only advertisement they have in notifying the public that the restaurant is a sandwich-to-go type. The cost for this alone is $1080.00. There is nothing bad about this sign--it is done in good taste, and the flashing elements will be eliminated. Member Rice suggested the hearing be continued until such time as the applicant can work with the staff and come up with a sign more in keeping with this center. Member York agreed, adding that they are a long way apart here and that a compromise should be pursued. Mr. Fickleburg declared that they will compromise on the signs on the building; however, they take a strong stand on the free-standing sign. Mr. Richards, Manager of Kentucky Colonel and Kentucky Beef restaurants, stated they propose to stick with their free-standing sign--that they are giving up two of their proposed signs on their restaurant. Mr. Julius Kahn, 4750 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, reiterated that the applicants are giving up two of their signs on the restaurant. He stated he is speaking in behalf of their request and declared that the service station adjacent to this building is requesting no signs so that, in a way, this could be a way of compro- mise. Mr. Ri chards claimed they are trying to observe a national image; as a matter of fact, they are even reevaluating the Kentucky Colonel Chicken signs. As to the free-standing sign, they do not want to have to change this in any way--they want to keep national image. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice commented on the flashing signs--he indicated that there will be a provision against this in the new zoning ordinance, and this, plus the fact that they are willing to give up two of their signs on the restaurant, does not constitute justification for the free-standing sign. Mr. Rice added that he believes the sign should be scaled down, and that they should be willing to negotiate with the staff on this. The Commission discussed the size of the letters and the overall size of the sign. Member York, in looking at the picture which they passed around, felt the sign, as pictured, may not be that large--that perhaps it shows it out of propor- tion. He added that in view of the service station not requesting any signs--that the total signs of the site is pretty much in line, even with the future market coming in. -13- Member Rice felt that the Commission should not take into consideration the fact that the service station is not requesting any signs--that each case has to stand on its own. The service station could come back at a later date and ask for signs. Director Warren remarked that it would be interesting to know how these "images" are created. In this case, they have designed a sign and now they are stuck with it, and apparently, this city will be, too. It would have been a simple matter to include the word "SANDWICHES" on the main sign. Mr. Warren added that he agrees with Member York that the wording on the sign itself is relatively small; however, it is the overall dimension that is large. Member York discussed reducing the sign 25%. Mr. Fickleburg stated they would be willing to reduce the sign 10%. Member Rice felt this reduction would not be noticeable and would accomplsh nothing. The Commission asked the applicants if they would care to have the matter continued and work with the staff on this. Mr. Fickleburg stated they preferred to have a decision tonight. MSC (Hyde-Rice) That a modification of the variance request be approved, as follows, and subject to the following conditions: 1. One building sign on the south mansard roof (as submitted) shall not exceed letters 2-1/2 feet high, and a maximum of 16 feet in length, totalling 40 sq. ft. In addition, the freestanding sign may total 50 sq. ft., but shall not exceed 32 feet in height. 2. In no case shall flashing, moving, or scintillating signs be allowed. Findings be 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 50 sq. ft. limitation for signs in the "D" zone areas is not adequate for proper identification of a commercial facility located in a shopping center of this type. The front setback for signs has been reduced by variance on other parcels along H Street. 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. Other adjoining commercial uses enjoy signs larger than that which would be permitted in the "D" zone. The adjoining commercial areas have a 5 foot setback for signs, with this parcel at 10 feet. 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 neighborhood in which the property is located. The signs as approved will be similar in nature to other existing signs in the area and would be in scale with the building. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. -14- PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Property at northeast corner of Fifth and H Street - Request for increase in permitted sign area in C-1-D zone - United California Bank The application was read in which a request was made for permission to attach six building signs (totalling 112 square feet) identifying the business at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area for the proposed building and delineated the square footage of the proposed signs. He showed a rendering of the proposed building indicating that the four signs at each corner of the building measures 4' x 4' and the two signs stating "United California Bank" would total 24 square feet each. The staff recommends approval of the proposed signs. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. W. Don Sinclair, Assistant Manager of the United California Bank, 600 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, asked approval of their request and added that they agree with the findings of the staff. The Commission discussed the proposed signs and concurred that since no free-standing sign will be used, the signs were justified and necessary. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of the variance request based on the following findings: 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 50 sq. ft. limitation for signs in the "D" zone areas is not adequate for proper identification of a commer- cial facility located in a shopping district. The area of the signs viewed from any one side of the building will contain less than 50 sq. ft. 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. The adjoining commercial uses all enjoy signs larger than the ll2 sq. ft. proposed. No free-standing sign will be utilized. 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 neighbor- hood in which the property is located. The signs will be similar in nature to other existing signs in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. -15- Request for approval of plans - Whisperin~ Trees Apartments - 250 Bonita Glen Drive - Frank E. Ferreira Director of Planning Warren submitted a rendering of the proposed apartment complex stating it will contain 98 units; it will be 2-story and of a basic Old English architecture. The exterior will be of used brick, shake roof and stucco with "plant-ons". The center building will be 30 feet above pad level with the westerly unit measuring 25 feet above pad level. Director Warren then discussed the parking spaces--they will provide 147 spaces, 48 of which will be covered either by garages or carports. Mr. Warren pointed out that the plans were schematic, but that they are ready for checking. The staff reco~ends approval of this request subject to five conditions. In condition No. 2, Mr. Warren asked that this be changed to the landscaping being approved by the staff prior to final inspection of the building rather than prior to having a building permit issued. In reference to the east-west easement, future development to the north may ultimately require a cul-de-sac at its westerly terminus. Before taking any action on this matter, the Commission considered the next item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 250 Bonita Glen Drive - Request to build on property with less than the required 50' frontage on a public street and to provide seven compact parking spaces to meet part of the offstreet parkin~ requirement - F. Ferreira The application was read in which permission was requested to use a 25 foot and an 18 foot easement from Bonita Glen Drive as access to a proposed apartment complex; also permission to use seven compact spaces as required parking in connection with this development. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the applicant is in the process of dedicating Bonita Glen Drive which will be extending to within 100 feet of this proposed development. The 25 foot easement will be used as access to these apartment units and for possible future development to the north. The 18 foot access road will be constructed on the east side of the property and will be used as access to the parking areas. The applicant meets the parking requirements and the staff has no objections to the use of these easements. The second part of the applicant's request concerns the use of compact parking spaces--the Commission, in the past, discussed and agreed that 10% allowance should be made for compact spaces, when the parking requirements are revised in the future. The staff feels that this request is reasonable and recommends approval. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the proposed road stating it will be a one-half street 28 feet wide with an 8 foot parking land and two 10 foot lanes. Member Rice asked if there would be adequate room on the east side of the building to get in emergency vehicles. Director Warren indicated there was and added it would be subject to Fire Department regulations. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -16- Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, the applicant, stated he will be moving some 26,000 yards of dirt, and he has about 30,000 yards left to move for the proposed complex. He indicated that this development will be visible for about one mile before approaching the interchange proposed for the corner. The driveway in front of the building will be 6 feet below the floor level. All future development in this area will also be below this project. Because of the topography and the other ownership involved to the east, he is asking permission to use an 18 foot easement. His main purpose in requesting this variance is to keep the traffic away from the residential area. He has submitted plans for the dedication of the 28 foot street, but Mr. Ferreira stated he will be moving the dirt from the front of this proposed building to the commercial area. They have raised the building 4 feet and dropped the front driveway so that the traffic will run under the building. He added he is in agreement with the recommendations of the staff. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the proposed project and agreed that it would be compatible with adjacent uses. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of the plans for the Whispering Trees Apartments subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of five enclosed trasn areas shall be provided to accommodate the containers used by the trash service company. 2. Landscaping plans shall be approved by the staff prior to final inspection of the building. 3. All utility service shall be underground from the street. 4. No signs are approved at this time and shall ultimately be approved by the Director of Planning. 5. Pad elevations shall be at 67 foot maximum. MSUC (Gregson-Hyde) Approval of variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The compact spaces shall be a size as determined by the staff before a building permit is issued. 2. The 25 foot easement shall connect to a dedicated and improved public street as shown on the submitted plot plan. Findings be 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. Easement - It is not practical nor desirable to dedicate additional land for street purposes. Compact Spaces - It is the intent of the ordinance to provide adequate offstreet parking. The compact spaces can be assigned to tennants with compact cars. -17- 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. Easement - The applicant states property lying between this project and Bonita Glen Drive is not owned by the applicant. Compact Spaces - A 10% allowance for compact spaces is being proposed in our new zoning ordinance. 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 neighborhood in which the property is located. Easement - The easement will extend through existing R-3 zoned land, leaving no affect on the area. Compact Spaces - The spaces will be assigned to tennants living in the complex. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. Easement - The General Plan is not affected. Compact Spaces - The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 629 H Street - Request for reduction of rear yard setback 15' to zero - Pacific Wholesale Electric Company The application was read in which a reduction of rear yard setback was requested from 15 feet to zero for the purpose of constructing a light fixture store on property zoned C-2. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed business, the adjacent land use and zoning. The parcel measures 120' x 150' deep. The setback reduction request is for permission to constmuct the building on the rear property line with a zero setback instead of 15 feet as required by ordinance. The staff would propose that a 6 ft. high masonry wall be constructed along the north property line to the east property line in order to screen the loading area. The property north of this proposal is developed with apartments. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Henry E. Brink, Architect, representing the applicant expressed his opposition to the condition because it would cost them ofer $1,000 to put in this wall. There is a chain link fence there now and they are willing to put in some landscaping along the fence to screen the area; however, this is not a loading dock as such--the unloading is done inside the building. Member Hyde asked if any other type of fence, other than masonry, would be acceptable. Director Warren indicated that if they are going to require a screen wall, they would want to have one with the least maintenance. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, noted the area of the adjacent apartments and remarked that the carports for these units would be closer to this proposed wall than the units themselves. -18- Mr. Henry Bender, the contractor for this building, discussed the loading dock. He stated they would not be having large trucks coming into the property--only the small delivery trucks will be coming here. They have a central business location down town at which they do all their main deliveries. There being no further cogent, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer remarked that he would be in favor of dropping the condition of the wall in view of the fact that this will not be a loading area. Member York agreed and added that he would also base his decision on the fact that the property abutting this area is used for driveway and carports--there will be no loading area here, so the requirement for a masonry wall is superfluous. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of variance request based on the following findings: 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 requirement for a 15' rear yard would serve no useful purpose in this case since the adjoining property already enjoys a O' rear yard setback. 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. The separation of this use with the adjoining residential use represents more open space than normally required and the additional setback would simply leave the area open for possible storage of commercial goods. 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 neighborhood in which the property is located. The encroachment into the rear yard area already exists with the adjoining parcel to the west, with no detrimental effect. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendment to the City Code concernin~ the regulation of installation of under~round utilities City Attorney Lindberg briefly reviewed the contents of the proposed ordinance; it will be a new chapter to the City Code. It is separated into three categories: the first is as presently contained in the subdivision ordinance; the second category covers undergrounding utilities for all new structures--residences and commercial zones; and Article III is simply a procedural ordinance providing for the establish- ment of an underground utility district to make use of the funds that will be available on an annual basis to assist in defraying the cost of undergrounding these utilities. Mr. Lindberg added that the City Council must hold a public hearing to designate the districts. This ordinance has been reviewed by the utility companies and the only questions they have raised were in regard to the two alternatives stated in the proposed ordinance: (1) the Director of Public Works can post a 30 day written notice on the property after which time he can order the disconnection and removal of all overhead service wires, etc. This is the direct approach and there is a provision for appeal. This type of action might not be feasible or effective. The Director of Public Works then might deem that a more formal determination by the City Council might be more feasible, and in those instances, he could go to the second alternative that outlines the provisions for providing these underground utilities and charging the cost to the property owner. This ordinance was brought to the Commission because of their interest in general utility undergrounding requirements. Revisions of the subdivision ordinance will have to be made and it will be appropriate for this Commission to hold a public hearing to add its approval to that of the underground utility committee. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. Dewes, ~derground Utilities Coordinator for San Diego, complimented the City Attorney for what he considered a very good ordinance. Mr. Virg Larsen, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph thanked the Commission for allowing them to review this ordinance and work with them on it. He, too, complimented the City Attorney on the ordinance. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York remarked that he wholeheartedly agreed with this ordinance, but was reluctant to vote on something he hasn't read. Member Hyde commented that he did not recall receiving the ordinance. City Attorney Lindberg stated that there was a degree of urgency here. Director Warren stated that the ordinance was mailed to the Commission two weeks ago; the staff wanted to get this to them in advance of this meeting so that they would have plenty of time to review it. MS (York-Hyde) That this matter be brought back to the Commission for a formal vote for the next meeting, May 27. The motion failed to carry by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members York, Hyde NOES: Members Guyer, Gregson, Rice and Stewart ABSENT: Member Adams -20- MSC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 514 City Council the adoption of the Proposed Amendment to the City Code concerning the Regulation of Installation of Underground Utilities The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Guyer, Rice, Hyde, Gregson, and Stewart NOES: Member York ABSENT: Member Adams Findings be as follows: a. There will be no substantial change from the regulations that now exist in the subdivision ordinance. b. A new provision would require underground service for all new construction in the residential and commercial zones whether or not it is part of a subdivision, and such provision will facilitate undergrounding of utility lines that may now exist in the public right-of-way. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of May 27, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectful ly s ubmi tted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary