Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/05/13 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 13, 1968 T~e fourth public hearing on the proposed new comprehensive zoning ordinance was held at 7 p.m. on May 13, 1968, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, California. Members present were: Stewart, York, Hyde, Rice, Adams and Guyer. Absent: Member Gregson (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee and City Attorney Lindberg. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Minutes of the meeting of April 29, 1968 be approved, as mailed. VACATION LEAVES Member Adams requested permission to be out of town from May 15th to June 1. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of leave of absence for Member Adams. Member Hyde requested permission to be out of town from June 17th through June 30. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of leave of absence for Member Hyde. Chairman Stewart announced that the Commission will consider the commercial and industrial zones. Director of Planning Warren commented that at the April 29 meeting the Commission, with certain exceptions, completed consideration of the residential zones, or through page 37 of the proposed zoning ordinance. The subject of lot sizes, on which the staff will make a report, will be brought back for Commission action. The staff is suggesting that a fifth public hearing be set for June 10. Section 33.5.6 C-O Administrative and Professional Office Zone Director Warren reviewed the changes as delineated in the synopsis for this particular zone. He explained this particular zone was quite restrictive--mainly designed for professional and administrative offices, with residential use permitted subject to a conditional use permit. In reviewing the section on signs, Mr. Warren declared this has been entirely rewritten and the new proposals were delineated. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Miles, 392 E Street, chairman of the zoning committee of the Building Contractors' Association, stated they approve the Z-O zone verbatim, as outlined, with the changes as delineated in the synopsis. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Section 33.5.6 - C-O Administrative and Professional Office Zone be approved with the changes as delineated in the synopsis. -2- Section 33.5.7 C-B Central Business District Director of Planning Warren stated this is a new zone which will take the place of some of the C-1 zoned areas in the City. This will take place in such areas as Third Avenue, between "E" Street and "H" Street. It will be more precisely located on the map following the adoption of this zoning ordinance. On page 44, discussion ensued on item #5 regarding "electrical" which was to be deleted. Director Warren indicated that in discussions at the workshops, the Commission felt that work on small appliances would be allowed operation. Chairman Stewart substantiated this commenting that they objected to the large operation; however, the small appliance repair shop would not be objectionable. Mr. Robert Miles discussed the uses allowed in this zone and those that required a conditional use permit. He declared that the Commission should try to encompass all of the uses possible in this zone without listing a number of them under the requirements of having to obtain a conditional use permit; only under extraordinary conditions should they have to apply for a conditional use permit. Member Adams claimed this was their intent all along and that many such changes had been made. Chairman Stewart maintained these uses were allowed subject to conditional use permit in order to upgrade the area, such as Third Avenue, and not to permit it to deterior- ate further. Director Warren explained that in many cases in this proposed ordinance, they have taken quite a few of these uses out of the conditional use permit sections and put them in the permitted uses. One example of a use subject to a conditional use permit in this zone is an automobile service station. The second use--public and quasi- public uses--is a use moved to the unclassified use section. Mr. Warren discussed Third Avenue Business District in particular stating every effort is bein9 made to upgrade this area--that certainly a bowling alley, dance hall, roller skating rink, etc., would be uses whose effect could cause a certain amount of interruption in this business district. Unless these uses are permitted subject to a conditional use permit, then the Commission should take them out altogether, as they are not typical Third Avenue business uses. Member York asked Mr. Miles if he was not aware of the fact that these uses, subject to a conditional use permit in this zone, are a permitted use in another zone. Mr. Miles declared that he was aware of this, but that he is trying to isolate these things into these different categories. A service station, for instance, draws businesses. When a service station comes into an area, other businesses, such as laundries, etc., follow. These should all be classified as permitted uses. Mr. Joseph Stransky, 6th and Grand, Los Angeles, representing the Western Oil and Gas Association, discussed item #1 on page 43: "automobile service stations," subject to provisions of Section 33.9.1 (27). In this latter section, he stated, service stations are permitted only when they are clearly required by public convenience and necessity. Mr. Stransky objected to this first requirement stating that when an -3- applicant comes before the Commission, he has already determined through extensive and expensive studies that a service station is needed here. Literally, what he is doing, therefore, is having to come before you and prove to the Commission that he wants to come into this City and make a living. He must prove his business will not create a traffic hazard. Mr. Stransky suggested that certain criteria, certain guidelines be set up for these retail businesses so that they could follow them and not have to request a conditional use permit. This is being done in cities such as Pomona, for instance. These guidelines can be clearly written, clearly under- stood, and they can be used the year around. He added that a service station is a retail use, but they are the only retail use that has to come before the Commission and meet certain conditions. Mr. Warren asked Mr. Stransky if he felt every request for a service station should be approved. Mr. Stransky answered "not the way it is written here." If they have to use the guidelines, as written in this ordinance, it could be disapproved. Economics change and what is approved one year by one Commission could be disapproved the following year; the site may not be appropriate for a certain use the next year. On page 143, items 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are quite clear; however, the other conditions are not. If certain guidelines are set up, and an applicant can meet all of these guidelines, then it is a reasonable and fair thing for him to go ahead with his project. These guidelines or criteria should apply to all districts. Director Warren asked Mr. Stransky if he believed a service station should be a permitted use in the C-B district. Mr. Stransky declared that it should be; that economics would dictate whether or not it would go in. Member Adams asked Mr. Stransky to give the Commission and the staff the sources of information he referred to in his testimony. Mr. Stransky stated it was mainly the ASPO bulletins to which the Planning staff has access. Mr. Eugene Cook, Civil Engineer, representing Building Contractors Association, stated he was the one that suggested that these conditional use permit uses, as written, may not be necessary. On Section H, page 46, "Other Required Conditions," when the Commission starts applying these particular conditions, they will get exactly the type of business they want. Because of this section (H), Mr. Cook maintained that the conditional use permits are not appropriate. Member York stated that the fact to remember here is the Oistrict in which these uses will be going--this particular one being the C-B zone. One area under this zone will be Third Avenue and it is strictly a pedestrian-oriented area. If the Commission wishes to maintain it as that, it is absolutely mandatory that certain uses be subject to a conditional use permit. Mr. York added that there is nothing that breaks up a shopping pattern in a pedestrian-oriented center than uses such as skating rinks, laundries, etc. He further added that he agreed with Mr. Stransky in that all business should have clearly delineated guidelines set up for it; however, they must include these as conditional use permits if they are going to maintain the character of the district. -4- Member Hyde suggested the words "pedestrian-oriented" be added to Section A, on page 43 - the Purpose of the C-B District. He felt this would strengthen this phrase. He also proposed that the Commission expand the number of conditional use permit uses here and include the uses that are oriented to customers in cars, such as banks, restaumant drive-throughs, etc. Chairman Stewart stated that the site must be considered, traffic studies made, etc. This particular area (Third Avenue) is suffering from certain amount of vacancies. There tends to be a deterioration of land use here, and some control must be exercised until:this area is stabilized. Mr. Robert Miles commented that the suggestions offered by Members York and Hyde were the proper approach to take. Mr. Miles informed the Commission that his group will be happy to work with the Planning staff on writing some guidelines. He asked to have this set aside for one week so they can get together with the Planning staff on this. Member Adams maintained that the Commission has been setting this aside for many months. Chairman Stewart agreed, adding that this has been in existence for over a year now. Mr. Miles declared that one more week isn't asking too much, then. Mr. Cook stated that the words "pedestrian-oriented" does change the scope of the district--with that thought in mind, the conditional use permits are not so far out of line. Night clubs and theaters could cause problems with this pedestrian- oriented district because of the traffic they would generate. Items 5 and 6 on page 44 are uses which should be subject to conditional use permits. Director of Planning Warren continued reviewing the changes as proposed for this section. He stated he appeared before the Downtown Association and discussed the sign provisions. Notification of these hearings have been sent to them for the last two years and the staff has received no comments from them. The Downtown Association formed a committee to study these provisions two weeks ago and after walking along Third Avenue, they were amazed to see how many of these signs would be non-conforming; over 50% of these signs would be non-conforming and these signs would be subject to abatement; they were perhaps more amazed to see how bad the signs and store-fronts look. Mr. Eugene A. Mohler, Jr., director of Southern California Electric Sign Association, 4461 Melrose, Los Angeles, stated his remarks pertain to all of the commerical zones. He received his copy of the fourth draft of this zoning ordinance in December but did not receive notice of the workshop meetings. He commented that what they are doing here tonight is working on advertising and merchandise, and he felt that Planners should be experts on this. He discussed the Act passed by the State of California in 1967 for the Highway Beautification Act. Within 90 days, they found they made a mistake and had to relinquish the ban on the revolving signs. Since that time, another ten changes have been made. Mr. Mohler read some excerpts taken from this Act and also from the ordinance passed by the City of Arcadia. Mainly the problems directed with signs are their size, height and lack of maintenance. -5- Mr. Mohler referred to a report partially authored by Corwin Mocine setting up guidelines for signs, a copy of which was given to the staff. He stated that several cities are now using this as their basis for signs; Vancouver has it and Seattle and Anchorage just requested it. He added that Chula Vista is not a resort town, and that this city needs these retail and commercial areas. Mr. Sid Durene, National Neon Company, 935 Broadway, stated he is a local sign contractor, and asked that his letter to the Commission be read. Mr. Warren read the letter in which he expressed opposition to the sign restrictions in the proposed ordinance and to the abatement clauses. Director Warren pointed out that the first draft of the Chula Vista ordinance prepared by Mr. Corwin Mocine was much more restrictive than the draft before them now. The staff and Commission have tried to be more equitable with the regulation of signs, have tried to relate signs to scale, and quite properly, there will be further changes in this ordinance before it goes on to City Council. Mr. Warren then pointed out the problem the staff has had in generating interest by the property owner and the merchants in these proposed ordinances. Member York commented that, unfortunately, people do not get excited about this until the last minute. He commented that whatever is adopted can be amended. He suggested they note the different areas in which people have expressed an interest, study this once again, and then bring it back to another meeting before sending it on to Council. The Con~ission discussed holding off action on the commercial areas because of the controversial issues which were presented tonight. These will be reconsidered and brought back to another meeting for final action. Director Warren stated that the next possible date for another public hearing on this ordinance would be June 10. Mr. Clint Mathews, 710 E Street, co-owner of the Cavalier Motor Hotel, referred to the elimination of flashing signs stating his business sign has flashing lights on top of the sign. Director Warren remarked, in answer to whether Mr. Mathews could apply for a variance to retain the flashing lights, that possibly the applicant could apply for a variance. However, if they are going to create a provision in the ordinance to which they will be granting a number of variances, then they can assume that the ordinance is not properly written. According to the abatement clause in the proposed ordinance the non-conforming aspects of the sign would have to be eliminated or altered within two years. Member Adams commented that Chula Vista was certainly not the only city in the nation with sign restrictions--this is going on all over the United States and they are just trying to do what these other cities all over the country have been doing. -6- Se__ction 33.5.8 C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone Director Warren discussed the changes made in this zone. It was agreed that discussion on the changes in the sign ordinance and the conditional use permit section would be deferred until the next meeting. Mr. Cook stated that in their original comments on the ordinance, they had some comments to make on all of the commercial zones, and he suggested they get together with the staff and go over them again. Mr. Warren remarked that the staff held a meeting with representatives of the Building Contractors Association on the residential zones, and have no objection to holding a special meeting with them on the commercial zones. Director Warren then continued to review the changes noting that the landscape manual referred to is now being prepared and will be coming to the Commission for approval when completed. Mr. Cook pointed out one item to which he requested more consideration be given: the 10% of the parking areas to be used for landscaping. He felt this was a considerable amount of landscaping to put on a site. He suggested, instead, a proper type of tree program for these centers would be more proper. There will be some merchants that will complain about the type of tree perhaps, but requiring 10% is a considerable penalty--it should be 5~. Director Warren noted that this was a fairly consistent provision throughout the ordinance. The staff has worked this out and finds that 10% can be easily accommodated. Perhaps the manner in which it is developed becomes important here. Member Adams indicated that an even higher percentage would be suitable for a C-N zone. The Commission discussed the landscaped area of the Broadway Shopping Center and directed the staff to find out how much acreage was devoted to landscaping. Member York commented that trees are more effective and the maintainenance on this is less. He added that flowers and shrubs can become a problem. Chairman Stewart indicated that they will review the standards on landscaping at the next public hearing--at the same time they will review the commercial areas. Director Warren continued with his presentation of reviewing the changes in the ordinance. Member York stated he would prefer to see more study done on this 10% of the parking area--the wording here might be what is objectionable. It should be 10% of the site exclusive of the building. -7- Section 33.5.9 C-C Central Commercial District Director of Planning Warren commented that this particular zone would be related to such areas as Broadway Shopping Center, the shopping center at Third and Palomar, etc. Director Warren then reviewed the proposed changes for this section. Mr. Robert Miles stated the only objection they have in this section is that the car washes be subject to a conditional use permit. He stated they should be given specific guidelines without having to apply for a conditional use permit. Director Warren discussed the difficulties that would be encountered in writing up guidelines for these different uses--it should depend on the overall plan and the adjacent uses of the shopping center, otherwise all flexibility will be lost. Mr. Ted Richmond, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, referred to their letter of September 12, 1967 in which they requested that electrical substations and gas regulator stations be a permitted use in these zones and not subject to a conditional use permit. Mr. Warren discussed this use indicating it would be a permanent use with no moving traffic or noise. A standard would have to be set up for screening these stations; however, he had no objection. Mr. Richmond asked that these stations be a permitted use in the following zones: C-C, C-V, C-T, I-R, I and T zones. The Commission stated they had no objection. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the suggestion that standards be set up for conditional use permit uses. He agreed that there should be guidelines to assist the developer in order to help him with his development. However, the Commission has to consider certain findings before issuing a conditional use permit, such as: whether the use is necessary or desirable to provide a service to the community; whether it will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare; whether it will comply with the Code, etc. These findings the Commission must make have been accepted by the courts for the last fifty years. Section 33.5.10 C-V Visitor Commercial District Director of Planning Warren explained this was a new zone to provide for the needs of tourists and travelers in general. It will be most often oriented to freeway interchanges, and it could also be applied to the marina depending on their plans. He reviewed the proposed changes for this section. On page 63, under conditional uses, discussion ensued on the deletion of cocktail lounges. The Commission discussed Hotel Circle in Mission Valley with Director Warren commenting that all of these hotels have cocktail lounges--this was allowed as part of their hotel complex. The Commission discussed adding it as a permitted use when it was associated with the hotels and motels. Director Warren then indicated they were requested to add automobile car wash as a permitted use in this zone. The argument here is that it is a use for the tourist, but at one time or another almost every use is needed by a tourist. Mr. Warren suggested it be a use subject to a conditional use permit. Mr. Miles claimed that there is no zone in the new ordinance that allows a car wash as a permitted use. Member York stated it was a permitted use in the C-T zone. The Commission decided to leave it a permitted use. Section 33.5.11 C-T Thoroughfare Commercial District Director Warren commented that this zone was designed for major streets such as Broadway. He then reviewed the changes made in this section. He noted that on page 67, item #2, the words "display and sales only" should be deleted, and on page 68, paragraph C (2), "new car dealers" should be taken out. Mr. Warren felt perhaps they should rewrite the permitted uses, since any new car dealer will in all probability have a used car lot as an accessory. The Commission concurred. Chairman Stewart indicated that the members requested the meeting adjourn at 10 p.m. Mr. Warren stated they will again start with reconsideration of the commercial zones at the June lO meeting. MSUC (Guyer-York) A special meeting be called for June 10 to further consider the proposed zoning ordinance, beginning with the commercial zones. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of June 10, 1968. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/XJs~a~~ Fulasz