Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/09/06 ORIGJNAL b.~INU~0,, OF A ~,E~,g_,,AR MEETING O? T{~E CITY pLi~J~NING CO~C~[ISSION OF 'PHE CIi3Y OF C~b..~ ~ ~.'..~, September 6, 1967 The regu!~r meeting cf the City Pl~c:~ning Commission was held on the ~3~cve date in the Council Chamber~ Civic Cent. er~ 276 Guava Avenue~ at 7 p.m. with the following me~,~ers present: York, Hyde~ Guyer~ Rice~ and A<laz~ P~sent (with previou~ notification): p[embers Stewart and Gregson. Also preson!:.~ Direcqor of Planning Warr~n~ As~istant Plato]er Y,ee~. Junior Planne~' Masciare!Ii~ City A%torney Lindbergh. and Assist~I~t City Engineer Gesley. In ~he absentee of Chairman Stewart~ Vice~Chairmun Guyer presided the meeting ~ APPROVAf~ OF }SUC {Rice-~Adams~) Minu~es of the meeting of August 2!~ !967~ be .qs mai led. U C?L1C h~'ing~i. ~ZONrNG Southeast Corner ef Foullth Avenue and ~ letter was .,read from Mr~ Georqc Owen~ Vlce-President~ recluestinc, day postponement on this ~'~atter be~:ause of recent ~d'verse puhli, civy HSUC (A{iams~,Hyde) Public Hearing be postponed until the m,>~h~ng Noven~oer 6, 1957. ~gBLIC .qEARING - VARIANCE (Cant'd) - ~16 .~}'ifth Aven'~le - Requa~t with {.~:e adjoining property ~ ~'~ ;n ~ ~ .... ~ - ~on~cn ve/op~rn~t of the fear pot{ions of the prope)2hie~ Tb;.c woJ]d ~e dena ,~Jth same form of acccss from "K' Street, The applicant has requ '-'-,- '~'{on ~ '~ let w~ ~r'>' wi!~. be F,,.I~i ....... to cons~c.t'uc~ a. ~%wel. ling on the rear If ~:~ :~e' =, fls~ Fifth served with a 20' wide ....... m,.nt .... t~ ~ he .... t ~].,,J~ the proper%:y owl%ers .~r~ l:}le area ,~,ey a.L. agreed that t~,~.,z wanted ~. split %heir lc'rs so~t,~,,~$~v' and .: Tnz~ be:~ng' the time and place as adveztised~ the ~ubl. lc hearing was '=~_~.e being no commenh, either for or against, the hearinq. '~as declared .,~ ..... .A,~am~ stated he agreeo, with the reco~endation of the Planninq Di~ec[;o¢, and could see no valid reason for holding up this applicant's Ch~iiI~n Pro-tern Ouyer a~reed~ adding %hat the easement was of adequahe ~¢'Ldth for a development cf the rear aporova~ s~bjact to the following .A complete plot plan f:or the rear p~roel shall be sub~qitted for ~taff approval prior t? the issuance of a bu~]~ing per~t~ I'n~?. easement serving the rear parcel ~hal! be pavea ,..3 a minim~.m Approval of this req~:~st :~s subject to the c'i~, ment~s acceptance of a new curb cut and the --'.' FJ.~[%ings ba as fot~owJn9: That the ~hr~ct a~)Dlkcatton of the zo~!ing re~%!ations :z¥~nts would res'~IA~ in particular difficulties or ~.~z~ecessary - .... ~=-~.- ~{ with %:h~ g~,,e_al pu~pos~ D~d intent ~f the regulaqio~:~ ' T~.e variance is the on].5' m~thod aTaJ. 1- to dare, lop two !~as~ able to develop '~=~ the p~'opert:?' involv~'~! or to the inkended use or prol}erhy that do no~:. :~.-r-,~x;t:. ~.. ~ generally to oth~?r -~..,=-~, the same .~ne~ or ?teighbori:.ood_. ].~-~_ ,=n~ga- ~ ' in area for 'gwo' lots. '~,e3 .... rea.~ l,Drti,on of the property is landlocked and cannot be served b5 a full wi~th s~reet. 'z>n< or neighborhood ~ii wh3_oD the propert? is J.s _~)rougn the ap'~)!ieant's lot and ~he parcel i~ill be dw~_..~n~ similar tc those in the ~*e]oped with a single-family =-i 5 3~ ,,.,L the granting of a varlf~]ce will not becc,~,~ra.~y to the obi;ac-~ tires of th~=~ G~neral Plan. :Ehi:-~ variance will not sffect the General P!an~ PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Southw¢:st corner of Hi.i..lto~_ Drive and The aL~piicatlon was read. in which a request was made for: {i) a re- duction cf lot size from 7~000 square feet of land area pet' dwelling %.~n.~t required by ordinance to 3,500 square feet; (2) a red,orion in ~i~?e yard setback from 5' ~o zero; (3) permission ~o build on a lot ha~'ing ~rontage of 25' instead, of 50' as required; (4) a r-aduction ,~f offstreet pa~'king requirements fro~ 1% spaces per unit to 1 space ~r unit~ Directc~ of Planning Warr(~n submitted a plot plsn ~.oting t~e !ocati~3n~ adjacent land use and zoning. Yhe area is zoned R-3-B-3-~D (m'~.~itiple- fan~ily~ 3000 square feet of laud area per dwelling unit with the desi,~n control attached). ~r. Warren e~plained that the lot enco~?a~'~s%~s aeles and the applicant is planning to develop it ~%nto 30 -~50Q foot lots sn~l one ]..6 acre parcel. On each lot wo~t~ contain half duplex with the property line being split down th~ center of the arty an~ the building-. Each unit would contain 900 square f~3et and wo~%l~, have two bedrool~s ~ plus a one.-ca.r garage. ~']%e secon~ spcce would be in the dri%,eway within the setback area. ~'t~e iars~'e lot ~'o~1~t be reserved for a multiple-family developmant someti~e ir3 th%% future. %~his is an attempt cc, ordinated wi~.h the I~{.A. to i~rD%,i~ cost housing in the City. The most difficult is the vsria~ce for tL~e p~rkiac~ requirenlents. Di3cector Warren referred tc the sk~tches tc the Cc~u~ission delineating tv~o methods of providing these park~n] spaces per unit. The staff believe~ t~he applicant's reque~t repres,~nts ~ good use for the land and 3~.s a sound concept. Men,Der ~{yde questione(~ %-~hat the legal implications would bc~ to ha?e covenant in the deed restricting the conversion of the 9'ara~ at later d~ate. City Attcrney Lindberg st~ted that the Con~ission and tko Cou~cil au ont{y one ~3revious occasion have included certain deed r.~strictions in the requirements~ ~hc City has no power of enforcement of d~ed restxictions, but if r~a so~le, could be require~l initi,~l!y b~ the Ci~'~y to as~ist enforcc=n~ent. ~irector Warren ac~ked if the Co~'~ission could make this %~hat the ~eed. restriction~'~ be i~]posed ~y the City Arrow-ney Lindbe'cq felt tkey could not. Hel~er York asked if the pax'king ~.~yout, as proposed by the Directoc~ could~.~ imposed, as a condition of the variance~ City Attorney Lindberg stated it could. The Cormaission discussed the parking as proposed by both ~e applicant and the Director Assistant ~ ~- . ,~,y Engineer Gesley commented that the City Code limits width of curb cuts to 40% of Co ~ncm~. would ~ug- wzat~; any variaDce must be granted by the City He gest that the triveway length be increased from 20' to 25' so that if addition~l parking Js ~ ~ = it ..... ~l~.red~ would be easier to swing in if the garages were further back and car would ncr be left overhanging the ?his being the time and p.a.e as =d~_~tls=d, the public hearing was opened. ~.~r C!~rence P. f[iffe the ,~z~p~.lcant, explained that he was tIying b~ild a condominium type ~oncept and give fee title. He declared ~h{ topography here was such that it was a difficult piece of property ho develop and would have 18' bobby?eon the buildings coming down r~_st~lc~l~no go~ be will place heavy deed hill~ As far as the deed = -~' ' 'o'~ ~?~tzi{t]ons on the units - even as to the c~lange of color of the peen .... ae,~ h.. dlscusse<i this entire concept v~,J. th ~[,.L.~,~ and has ~ <>3 ~.o~,~ldo a;vt La;<e San H~.ccos e~ view similar develor}ments. In ef'ils~t, i~h~ people will he bulling an apartment; this type of development appeal chiefly to young people a~d to the aged~ ~k Kiffe declared that the garages would be 25' deep and !2~ wide tbh d~iveway area would be sepal'areal by a rail-type ~ - ' Director Warren co~*~ented that if the Co~mnission i~ considering zng the houses to be staggered at 25~ and 30'~ it 9hould be in back of /..-I- . slc~ewalx' ' ' and not the property line~ Hr, 'qa_r-~,.. ~ ~.,,~.~,:~. noted ~:zid~h of the street and cons~.entec! that there may b.2 a request to aa-To some of thJ. s vacated at some time in the ~h,: Com~aissioD discussed what '~-~ distance sno~.d r~e ~?oo the b:...K Df ~Sc sidev;aik to tile cjarage door, Ntenhber Adams felt it should be and com~uxted that it would not ~{:~ .... ....... u.u the project, at alt. Dil'ecto~:' 'Warren declared that thc appl%caI't does net intend to dove, top his pi. aris ,.~ntl~ sucl time as tfle .~:s OD the 25~. ~,..,.ec .... ~arren then read the s{c~ff~s conditions of approval. Mr~ Rifle objected to therc~q- ~ ~-~'~u~..,.~:.,~cn -~'u for two offshreet parking spa:~es ~ u ....... this and the filing of a subdlv!s~ex map7 n~. stated '~ ~zou.~d pro/ec~' h...'~ then..~'_~u~.~'~. the underqroundinq of ~tilities f~ the ~ .... $18 utilitI ..... ,pa.~ . _. ~em.~l ~ eirector Warren stated that the staff ~- street. ~. ~.~e uh~.ost importance .~.~ Kiffe stated that the time element is of him ~.'.,,m~,, and this weulJ, be delayed, a great deal if he was ~;~1~ a ,~ubdivision map~.~ has filed, this ~<-~,n~ ...... -~c~-~ .lcn~ under ~]e pr~ ~_~.~3r of the St~t~ Law whereby a =ubd~ ...... o,. map zs not required C~,~y Atu. ornay L[niberg stated this was true~ .~eno~,.eu. that unJ.ts wo~Id sell for $12,500 to ~14,5 ....~a~, a~nd he is in ~avor_ of the one-car garace. '] N~-~a bei[~g Ro f t~the- cor~ment~ either for or against, the hearing ...... ~ .... :~_ the density ~s ?500 m~uare feet ' "thc ";'i'J b'~ ' ~ = -"~'c~''~ ~""'~:~ ~ -'~ ~'' :' ' . ~, : ~ ,,rtl ....... ,~c.ept~.blc. to htn',. He would, n2tvev~r, ~:.;.[~ v.:':;,uld l)':~ red,~ced ceasidera}::lv..., t~e is ,:t little dt~bJ.o~!s ~ .._.~ :-, '.:~,~:a~.:~f ,-'~,-.. kis property jo,q~-iFc' ~lce and : ' ne. 9'hbor wa:] let ' ~ ~; ~:es '-~"~ filing of a :a~ce! i:~a.p iff you have ~ ~arce! of land ',~ ?he only th'lng d!fferent ' ..... ' The Co~q'~ission di_sc~issed tander~'~ parking; ~einber Adanls declared that one disadvantage to this proposal %~,as that one car eve,~tually ends up on the street. Membe'~~ i-lyde discussed the requirement for 1% parking spaces per unit for this zone an~ the staff's recom~nendation for t?~o spaces commenting ~h~t one space is ac~.3ua!!y gained for every duplex. He suggested that one unit have a one car garage and another unit have the two-car garage t_hus staggering the spaces° Director Warren co~,~_mented that unfortun- ately this prcposal would not work~ as these will be individually- o~..ined units and although it might work for the initial buyer~ subse- quent buyers might not have the same pattern of car ownership. City Attor~ey Lindbe~:g was excused at thi~ time to atten~ another meeting ~ie rei~.el,'~'ate~ that he could see no real advantage for req~iring a sub-~ ~i~;ision map - that a parcel map defines the property as well as a s~.bdivi sion map. Me,tuber Ada~ll~s asked if the parcel map would provide the sarape control as a subd:~vision map ove_~ the developr~:ent as a who3. e, Mr. Lindberg returned to the meeting at this point. He stated it would not, but here they are discussing a variance request - the Comm. issJon can put in these conditions, such as undergrounding of utilities~ etc.~ if they so desire. Director Warren commented that seve~.~a] points must still be determine~ ti?,e dedication of Tobias Street; the question of to what d[egree the c. tilities should be underground -- whe~zher this can be handled as a condition of the variance is something the Co~nission :nust determine. Mr. Waz'ren then submitte~ a plot plan noting the entire development, co_~m]en~;~ing that the width of %'obias would have to be determined by the City Engiueer, He indJcat~d that this matter does need f~lrther study: that there is a question now in the minds of the staff as ~:o the need loc a subdivision map~ Ch£~irman pro tern Guyer com~ented that the concept is a good one~ ~d th~a price range is also good - something the C:~ty could use. }fo does ha?e reservations about th~ proposed parking~ however~ and wou.~.~9 sug~ gest postponing this entire matter until :~uch time as a full Co~5?,ission is present. Mr, Guyots: co~ented tkat in October, ~e!~l~er Gregson l~o~;]d be present.~ .~.Ienfoer Adams agreed that mcre study should be devote~l tc this matta-r. ~iis idea for a subdivision map is k. ased entirely cn the matter of contz-oi.. The Conunist~ion discussed the proposed. :~equest and concurrcd that tLe concept was a good one ~,ut that the~ ~natte~: should be cont!.nued fc~r fur-- thor study, -7- City A;~.torney Lindberg sLlggested a postponament of two weeks, Director Warren agreed, indicating that there would be no assurance on the part of the Co.~ission that the entire, mem.~bership would be present in October. Mc~-~er York commentec! th4t with this small lot, tandem parking would be mere acceptable tha~ side-by-side parking and would be aesnhetically mo~e pleasing~ ?.$UC (Rice-llyde) Continuation of this hearing to the meeting of Septem- ber IS, 1967, to pel~uit further study for parking provisions and to de~ermine whether or not a subdivision map should be required. ,-d.~I~ ~.EARING .-- CONDf~IOi~AL USE PEP&]I~2 - East side of Fourth Aveuu,~ :~outh o~. C S~.zee~.~ - R~qauo~ to construct commerc~ al J~h~ applicagion was read J.n which a request was m~.~:e Lo co2struct a ~ ~=+v-. ' %he flcod plain c~p~t~ercial building lc ...... d ~r:~ ~" D~ector' of P!annillc~_. t0,.a~*,~r, submitted a plot plan noting ta~ adj:?~cent land us~. Under "h.~ zeqa.~.~n~nLs of the zonixg ~..f the particular method c~-? ~ ,-~-', ~e]t pro~;osed. ,-~. Warren added ~b. at the Di~zision of Engmneer~r~g roe.rids ~-m::*rcvaI ,~3ect to thz~o conditions, which '~ 2ai~ ~ez.~SJ time olace as ad~ez't1.~ed, the publxc hea:cinq 3~c~ ~be Siner, ow:~ex' of the property in u.~st~c-~ stated he ha,.~ nothinq ~ add to the DJrechor~ remarks~ ohn=z than %n(. o~operty ,,~ls ,.~eutly rezoned C-I--D z, z ...... zs parhicul~Lr type of o. ecl~r~a closeo. ..,%D~.~3.~.~.on~.. Use Permit be approved subjech lowing conditions: An}, buildings for ' .... habitation should be constructa2 one foot ~bcve the 200-.year f3.ood level. Such elevation shall be by '-' C'; -tv '~ _.. ma~.e. 2.:~- shr~u~.d De confined to a warehou~e area, ':' Any f'toatad~le '~ '"' "~ - co~ .......... c.~.ec, sh~l! oe able to withstand by water an:~ '~elociti~s expected in the area. The appliceu'~t shall show proof that the drainage ditch on the south side of this parcel is not on his property~ If it is dete~ine~gt that this ditch is on the subject property, drsinage shall be handled in accord~nce wi~ Ordinanoe No, 1032 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Finding~ be as follows: a~ Than the proD, osed use at tile particular location is necessary or d~- sirab!e to provicle a service or facility wn3~ch will contribute to the !~eneral well-being of the neighborhood or the ce~u~unity. Other sit, ilar uses are located directly tc~ the north of this p,~perty~ actually lying closer to the floo~ plain channel~ b~ That such use will not~ under the circumstar~cas of the partico~] case, ~e ~3.etrimental to the health~ safety or 9'ene~.'al welfare of sons le~i~.i~g or workin~ in the vicinity, or injurious te p~'operty ~m?rove~en'~s in the vicinity. ~h.~.s use will not be injurious to property c~" improvements in tb~ area because of building rest~cic~aions plac:~d on the There are no detrimental aspects applying tc this business accordin~ to ~%he Engineerin~ Ds?~rtment because it i~ nou bei~g used for human habitation~ c. ?~lg~h the pro~osed use will comply %~ith the re~p~:llations an~ tions specifie~ in ~e Code for such use. The City Engineer states that no fkoodin9' or d3~ainage ~?roble~s will occur as a result of the propose!{ use. d. Tl~at th~ g'ranting of this condition~i use will not advers~=ly th~ Ce~.eral P~an of th~ Citi~ of Chuta vis~a or the adopted plan cf ?he propDsal will not affect %he General Plan since it located~ away from the actual flood plain chann<~l. PUF, LiC HEAi~ING - VAIiID2~CE in C-!-D zone - Cabri!lo T.V. ?he application was l-ead in which a request ~zes n~a~le for an increas~'~ iD the total sign ar~a pe~mi~2ted for this property - from 50 sq[uare fe~t to 232 square Director of Planning sub~itted a plot plan and sketches of the proposed bu. ildin~ showing the signs proposed. There will be two 3~ x 20~ flush signs advertising the name of the products: "Mag~navox'' and '~Frigidaire"~ and one 7~ x 16' flush sign indicating the name of the establishment. The si~%ns would be ~kttached to the front of the building - an interJ, or.~ iliuminated panel which runs the full length of ghe 100~ b~:d. Iding and is attached to a canopy extending 8' cutward from the builc,ing~ The staff reco~ends approval based on the con0ihion that the total sign a~-ea not exceed 10O square feet. Mr. Warren explained that this is the max:,~mura square footage recom.m~nded by the Conl~ission at their last work- shop me.ting at which they favored a control of signs based on io% frontage~ In f~e new zoning ordinance~ the C-T and C-C zones would .kimJt the m~im%lm size of signs to 100 square feet based ui~on 1 square foot of sign per each lineal foot of frontage. Thi:~ being the tim~ an~ ~lace a~ adverti.~d~ the pnblic hearing was Mr~ J~ h~ittis, representing California Neon Products, 4530 Mission Gorge Pi~ ~~, San Diego, explained ~e signs would be of p[[exigla~ ~ on a pl~xi~- g]as fa~,~J.a~ and are dra%;n to scale as shown on the sketch submitted. ~]~a si~iins would actually get their light from the ].~_ghted fascia, thus t~%ere will be from 65% to 70% reduction of li~i~, in the sis~ns because ~Ir. Y~ar~in, the applicant, explained ~hat he se?.ls only on~ a~.~:~o~ of te'~.evisLons and one brand of refrigerators and needs these twc names his stoi~e front for identification. ~k~ f~3~e Siner, owner of the prcperty, declared that there ~,;'i!l be no signs o~ the sides or rear of %he store building. The Co~uission should a~.low %he applicant to adYertise aha type of products for which h.~ There being no fu~er conm~ent~ either for or against~ the hearing was declared ciosed~ M,}n-2~er Ad.ms e~p3~aine~ that the Director did not intend to convoy ir~p,cessi, on that he would not allow the nam~s of the products to be ad- vertised on the store front~ but ~%~ely that the sign area should be Director Warren affirmed 'this. adding that the staff sug-gested that the scale of the signs be decreased on the brand signs so that they would l~ave less signifioance. By ~ceconupending the figure of 100 squ~re ~.~ e ~ m= u~x.~ng .... e reco~a-nendationof the Con, mission in the draft of the new zoning Meml~er ~f¢~rk rel~mrked that ~:e could see not~hing objectionab)e about proposed si~ns tha~ this was a new type of store dealing in bra~ na~es that only he carries~ It has a drawing power for the s~ore~ Re~ ducing the siz~ of the two signs would m~e them insignificant as y~,~ ha',<~ to mainta~n a ratio to the building and fasci~ Th~ Com~ission dJ~cus~e~ reducing the sign area in proportion to the buil~in~. Meatier Hyde c~r~y~mentect that at the workshop me~tinq, Co~ssion concurred that the sign area shoulcl be based on the lineal io. t of lot frontsge, ~{e fait khe Com~]ission shou?~d Bdhere to this ?olicy ~.u~!ess there is a ?rove~ hardship. Zn this particular insta~ce~ th~ app!J, cant is asking f(~r 200% over the required sign allowance, }~a~:J.~u~: square footage allowed in this zone for sic'ns is 50 square ~ C (A, la~ls-~yde) Approlva[{ of request based on tS~ ii~.tation of %~:~.' ~re '~eet of sign ~%rea ~d s~.,ject to t~e foliowin? conditions: ~ ~l'he to~zal sign area on the ~)%.i!dJn~[ sllall not exceed 100 squace feet, with th~ nar~te o~f the establishm~nt to represents, the larg'e3t position of the si.gu a~rea. All si~ns shall be rest~?icted to face of the front ove~hang~ Final approval of signs she3.1 be th~ responsib~;tit}f of the staff. i~3in~js De as follows: a, ~fhat +~e strict a?piicatian of the zoning reg~ilations <>z' rcl,~ir~ me?~ts %,~oul~ ze$~ult in particular difficulties or unnecessa?y i~%consJstent ~.~ith the general pu~.'pose and intent of the regulations Oth~r busi~sses in t~e same neighborhood have considerably sign area t~an 50 squa~'e feet which ~ou!d place the ~pplican~ a dis~.d.vantage wf. th b. That there ar~ exceptioual circumstances or conditions tc, the property in~o!ved or to the intende,i use or d~a~lopment of ~rc~perty ~ha~ do not apply general, ly ho o%he:r p~operty in tt~{, s~n]e er nei ghborh{}o~i., Relating the allowable si.{%n area '~} a 50 sque,~ foot and not ~o street frontage is unrealistic and net in keeping with other~ uses in the area. c~ ?he{i the grant~.ng ~ a v,~riance wi~i no~ be ~a%eria!ity detri~enP, al ~,c. [he public %~<~]f~P~re or inju3~io~s to pro~erty er ~.mprove~ants in '~}}~h or ~%eighborhco~ in which the pro?~?ty is iocaee{, 'l~he sign.~ will. be fl'c{sh with the canopy whic[~ is set back f2l'cm the p'~2operty line appr~}}~imately 'i,. %~hat the grantin~ o~ a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the G~nerai Plan~ %'hie variarce woul, d be in compliance with the General ~.~e~'~)er York co~en%ed~ that he voted "Yes" on the motion no~ because was in favor of the limitation of !00 square feet of sign ~rea: but r~her ~.hat he did not want the request to be denied beca%lse of the nu~3)er of Commicsioners pre.~ent (a variance needs ,~ votes to pass) Cha~zrman pro tern reminded the applicant of his right to appeal. ~;~7~_.~_.~s?~r_.~3..o~ o~ site plan and architecture ,- C. abril!o %'. V. !1 Fourth Avenue C~t-~D Zone D[.~ctor of Planninq War~.en explained that this proposed b~..J, ldir~g J.s in ~D" zone and therefore subject to architectural and site plan Tb~re is some question as ~o the location of the ~ra~nagc ditch wn~,i~r J.~ be~.~ngs to the applicant or to the property to '~he souhh. ~farza~- noted that %he building wil~. be constructed of Loma ve~ecr'~ glass and s%~Icco on the west end and concrete block on the si~ 'i~he staff is concerned with the !i~jhted canopy whic!~, being frc~ the fronh property line, could produce a distinct glare which ~;~d-~'erse]y affec~z this busy intersection. ~nother concern ~s the de~ vE~2.op~n[; of the remaining property to the rear {15~600 square feet) ~L~2~a~-~s th'~s portion were developed in conj~lnction with the properlY, es north which face Third Aven~e Ext~<~,~ion~ this area woul.d be virtually staff reco~ends approval based on five conditions. ~gm,~er Rice questioned what cou2.d prevev~t the rear of the property be~oming a patcb~ of weeds~ Director ~arren indicated that the Fire Mar~hal would have to control that. He added ~at any of the area in rear that will be used for p~rking will have to be paved, MSUC (Hyde-Ric~) Approval of the architecture and site plan subject to following conditions: The area be~zeen the concrete walk in front of the building and the p,~lic sidewalk shall, be la~,~saaped in~luding t~;o stre~t ?he applicant shall ~a;,bmit ~. landscape and irrigation plan ~o the Director of PJs.~ming for approva!~ ?he canopy sha]~l be unlighted or of lo~' intensity light. The air condi~zioning unit an~ other ~echanical equipment shall ~e placed on tk, e ground in the rear of the building or property' ~creened tc baffle noise if local,;ed on the roof as proposed. -12- 4o The pa~?kway shall be filled in with concrete. 5. An enclosed trash area with dimensions capable of containing typical commercial dum, pster units shall be provided at the rear of the ' U!.~LIC HEARING - VARIA~'~CE - 238 Davidson S~reet Request for reduction ................. in rear y~-~r~a-~-~r~'-I~-%~-~---~omas ~n--dF Yha application w~s read,, i.n which a request was made for a reduction in the .zest yard~ setback fron 15 feet to 5 feet for a portion of the arty at 23B Davidson S~reet~ Di~ectcr of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting t~e location, adjacent land use an~. ~on~.ng. The applicant has a let which ha~3 $3~ of ~'~nta9e~ but the west side of the property extends south for a distance uf 60~ ~r3d then jogs 19" to~ards the center of the lot continuing to the south ~here the lot remz~.ins a constant 44' in width. Both the !9~ ~d 44' wi.ia areas require the !5~ setback; the request is to duue the !9' wide area from 15~ to 5~ There is an l~Id house on the lot ,.?hich will be re~aoved anc% a five-unit apartment bui!~ing be con- structed on the site: The staff has no conditiens directly related to this but because the setback involves the design of the entire lot, ~he staff is reco~nending f~o conditions of approval: existing t?ees on the site to be retained ~.~here feasible, m%d landscaping plan for the fscnt setback area to be s%fcmitted for staff approve). ?h~s being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was ops~ed. ~r~ Thomas Haynes~ Old Orchard Lane~ Bonita, the applicant~ stated the old house will be removed and the apartment constructed on this site~ Mr~ Haynes discussed his proposed parking layout deciar!n~ that with 63' frontage it gives them Dust enough room to park at 90~ angle on each side with enough turn--aroun~ in the middle~ Th~re being no further coi~ent~ eithsr for or against~ tt~e hearing was ~ec ~ ~kred c!osed ~ ~S~C (Rice.-.York) Variance ~e approved subject to the following condi- tions ~. 1. Trees existing on the site shall be retained %,~here feasible. The trees to be retained shall be shewn on the plot plan. 2. A landscaping plan for the front setback area and p~'kw~y shall be snbmitted for staff approval~ A sprinkler syste~% shell be provided. for irEigation. The parkway may be paved with concrete instead of t~dscapir,~, if ~.esired. Findin93 be as follows: That the sr~rict application of the zoning ret-elations ~r require- m,~ts would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardsh3ip$ -~ncensi~tent with the general p~rpose and intent cf the regulaiions if the applicant were force:~ to ob~erve the 15~ rear yard area~ he '~ould be aDle to ut~ilize only 30' of the lot in this area due to the 15' front yard setback. A~so the lot developed adjacent to the request is loc~3~ted just 5' fro~,~ the property line. That there are e~ceptional circumstances or cond. itions applicable the proFerty invoi,~ve¢~ or to the intendeduse or development of the pr~,perty that do not apply qene:~?ally to other property in the same ~c~e or neighborhoo,~ Tl~e westerly t9~ of this lot is not sufficient to serw=- as a rear yard, but tke ~ot wi!i; still have a 44' wide section to the ess which is adeq~.~at~-.~ for a 15' 'tear yard~ That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental tl~e p~01ic welfare or injuri<),as to property or ~[mpr¢>veme~%ts in ~o~e or nei[[hborhoed in which the propert~~ is located. ?he rear 19' section abuts ~he si<te yar,4 of the adjoining which already enjoys a 5' setbac'k. ?ha~ the granting of a variance will ~ot be contrary to the rives of the General Plan~ The G,enera! Plan will not be affected by this request. R,-i 'to R-3 D.~,~'ect©r of Plannin~-~ ~arren submitted a plot plan notin%~ the ~;e~oned.. He explained that yea~ aa9-o~ zoning was estabT, i~hed ~f. ons rather than folito%~ing established lot lines. In scn~e ca. sc~s~ a 3result, you would find two ~),ifferent zonings on one partic%il~,r such as is the case here~ The staff feels that this proble~n s~%ould toy,'reck.ed since the property owner wishes to redevelop his therefore~ the staff ~etlu<~sts that the Conm[~.ssion call a hea~3.i~g ?kqUC (l'iice-Adams) A pub>tic hearing be called fo;r October 2, 1967~ ~treet~ Re~uest. for Sorting Cla~isification of ~ar~buhance Service A letter was read from Alfred Eo Curtis~ o~;ner of Pacific ~ulance Set'vice, requesting a zone classification for an a~ulance service, D!.~ector of Planning Warren explained that, presently~ th~} ordinanc~.~ does not spell out this use in any zone; however, under the C-2 uses~ there is a statement to the effect that the Com~ssion mal:~ by reso- !ution~ allow other uses which are similar to and no more objectlon~ie th~n any o~ those itemized. The staff has gone through several zor~ing c~clin~?~:~c~s of differer~t cities and have found only two ci~2ies that he~d ~hi"-: use liste~. One peri~ts it in its heaviest con~terci~ zone~. %h~ other city permits it with a conditional use permit in its hca%y co~aercial zone. The staff can see no problems in allowing this u~ e ~n the C-2 zone. Me~.ber Rice felt it should be subject to a conditional use permit th~ incidental repair[; and service to be conduc~;ec/ in a completely c!~sed building~ Chairman pro tern Guyer asked if the St~:te and City ]!ave an? o~:~r this use.. Director Warren stated he doesn't know cf any, but that the City does regulate to a certain extenc these a~r~u!ance services- t3 ~re must be certain safety requirements. ?~iDer York suggested the use be pek~itted in the C-2 zon~,~, and in the C-1 zone subject to a conditional use pe~it= ~e~er Adams agreed but questioned the residentia] use (personnel t-~ra) )_n a commercial zone. ~,le~J.>er York stated this %:as done throughout because it is a 2~ hou'~ serviue~ provisions must be mad. e for the personnel. Director Warren explained that if the applicant were requegtir<3 a 3 dence for himself a~d his fami]ys he woul~ certai, r!y need a variance: however, provision mus~:~ be made for the staff on %:he site~ ~4r. Curtis., the owner~ dectare=X he owns several of these ai~ulance v.Sces in differen~ cities and explained there will be flo~:~ 2 to 4 per-~ sons laving in at all times; ho%,,ever, it will be strictly an al~u!ance station and not a residential t~e!ling. In this City, BroadwaV seems to have the only C-2 2oning fo:. its eptire length~ but az, are~_ for this service is hard to fin~ there. ?~r. ~<lainta?.ned that he 'Findis it ea.sier to !ocate an area by goin~ off the main roa~ a co~p!e of blocks ii~.:o an R-3 Or M-1 Director W:irre~ suggeste~ the .Comr~d.ss:~on direct the staff r.o prep~c a reso~.ucic.:~i 5~or their approval es{:ablishing thJ. s service i~ the ciai zone, as directed. -15- ~.~3UC (Adams-York) Resekution of the City Planning Commission of Chuia RESOLUTION MO. 4T9 Vis%a~ California, e~tab!ishing the operation of an ambulance service ~.~ a Permitted use in a C-2 zone~ and a permitte,f~ use in the C-1 zone with a conditional use pernlito ............... .,hopp~.ng Center .'R_.e._q_uest ~ '~' approval cf siqn - Laundromat Bonita Plaza =' Director of Planning Warren submitted a picture of the proposed s~ign advertising a laundromat in the Bonit~. Pl~za Shopping Cen~ec. The pro- ?ose. d sign measures 3~ 9" x 8' and is of ~etal ~on~truct~n. Two types of_ signs have been appr~ved in this shopping center: the in' ,~'..,~1~.1 ~ighted. rectangular signs and the cut-out letter signs wi~:h rear light- lng (for the steak house). ~n ~i~3 case, the applicant is requesting spproval of another ty~,e sign~ ~'he s~,~f.~ does nok believeit~ is compatible %~l.t~l those~._._.n~.~ presser L:iy ew{sting in the Cente~. ?he sign should clearls, indicate t~'e ty?e T~ushness to be cond~c'te~ but ~ot the ' '~' ~ MoJ~, (York-Rice) Denial of sign sub~itted for approval for ~ at the Bonita P].a:4a Skor~ping Center based on the following fan.=l 1., Yhe proposed sigD is out of character with the area~ and 'the of signs e.t~b.=~ohed ~n th~s Cen'ter~ Tenants should adhe2ce t~ type of '' ~ ' ,..ype of .. s3,,gn., previously approved for this ar~a. The ~ sig~):~ for this Centez' shouldnc' ~-- advertise uhe product~ but the serwice ~ The sign should confol~ to '~e size of the ~igns previou~iy proved. Oiscussion ~ Clarification of Conditional Use Peril. it granted to General Director of Planning ~arren e~pla~ned t.~ ..... ~h;% Co~]issio~ ~ranted a con- dStional use pem-~it to the Bay General ~{ospital oD August 7, 1967~ th.~ City Council by tie ~"' ' ~-~lu~l~,y Hosp~.-c&i. Th~s hearing was night~ but the Council ~' "~' ' ~' e sion clarificatiDn on w~l~.t ~as acuual~y gr~nte~], .~% i~ ~ ~ ,,'~ hhe=~"=annlng, ' staff tb~t both i. he resulutlon ~ minutes were prepaIe~ '7.n err~r~, and that it was the Com~.~s., ~n ~, intent to gran{~ :'~n.r~ments; this wou~d k e known a~ Pha~e I, Pil,~se II wo~l~:~ ad~ ano';'her ).0:3 D~d~=~ The total ~rking proposed fo3~' the ent3_re de~e_~._,pm~n~ Ue 25~ ~he reso!utic~n~ however, ~ays not3~ing about Phas~ ii rJ.;~g only to .... D~z~se I, but imposing ~ con~i~;:ic~'~ ~-~herebv~ th<y n,~t 265 spaces ~ 5Lr~ Warren questioned the intent of the Coc, umission - to approve Phase t on).y~ or ~hase I and Phase II. Chair~'aan pr~ tern Guyer ~[eclared he made the motion for apprcvaI and w~ his inten'c to approve Phase I only, and that 2he appl:~.can'c b:~ck to the Con~i:~sion at some future date for approval of Pha~e Director Wacren co~nented that the Com_~ssion's m~tions have always bean in accordance with the stz:ff's cotangents, and the staff in this stance~ referred to both Phase I and II. Tn~ Corm~issLon discussed the ~,~ber of parking spaces required foe phases of construct. ~m~ City Attorney Lindberg cautioned the Co~nsis- sion shout re~ev31u~ting the parking proposal, at this time~ they should only ~ clarifying DrevJcus action~ Director? Warren clarified the Commissian's interpretation of the reso iutlon in that they approved P~ase I ~ a total of !50 %.cd~ with !92 ?~,rking spa~s~ and Phase ti wJl! be considered at a :~u}~sequ~% [mb!it h~arin~/ City Attorney Lindber(~ discussed the 15 ~nth ~]eriod of tlm~ atlow~d by -- ~ ~ the will Director Warren stat-c~ that staff read.rite the resolution ~-' ~ouac~ 1 will submit it ~.0 each Con-~issioner for approval. The ~ ' · ' . ' consider this item on the i9th. [%9_~}~j~_~.~z~!.?f time - Chuta Vista ShoDpln~ Center A letter wa~ read from ~. Milo Berenson, Partner of the Shopping Center~ r_.que~t..,.9 a 60 day extension of time for the improvement of ~he lng area on the scuth side of Center Street. The present e~:tension ex- pires on oep=emb~, 9~ 1967, ~, letter was read from William A~chltec,., stating he has been engaged, by the '~ ':-~ ....... ~ . ' Mr. Warren indicated that the applicant is attem ~r~ to . p.~ :., lease so,ne land from t~'~e Sante Fe Railroad south of Center Street for ~i~e purpose of constructing an apartment project. He adde~ that the Ccmmission should be assured of getting the parking when it is needed an~ thereby~ sb. ould be ~ssured that this pr(?ect] will actually go. Member Adams,.~.,,.~.~m-..~,~+~d.,... 'tt~.ut the Commission must take ~a~ aD01icant~s_.. wor,~ for 'this; that it would be difficult not to grant th[s extension, If the parking situation were actually acute in this Center, they would be forced to take cther action. MF. UC (z~y~e-tzce} Appreval of 60 day ~-~'~ ' Direc'irc.,: of Piannin,1 Warren stated that r~tpresentatives of this ~uil, d- er~:~ Association ha~e ~xpressed ~eir desi:re to meet with the members ~:,i: ,h~: staff and Commission at a worksh,~p meeting whereby they can :;<."~ th~r recom~t~ndstion,~ and change~ to our new propose~ zc~::i~lg o~-di nz~nce before s[~mltting them at a public City Ai:'[orney Lin~rg felt '~%is should be a public h~ari~q, Director ;ar2:en indi~ated that the Commission will not be actJ~k~ upon tl~ese 2oi~di[:!o~s which they will s~mih, Mr. Lindberg stated t~-at ~:her~ sh~:n:!d ke a notice of the meeting. D~xechcr Warren co~t~e,nte~ th, at perhaps only %tree me~bers will be pre- .;?n u2 this m. aeting~ and therefore~, it can not be a public sJn:e irate wi ii ~tot be a qeorum., H~, Lindberg affi;~med tPis ~'~d ge~'<~c< that tl:.~ press a'a keas[: be infermec,, Ch~:~.33m~n prc~ ':em Guy,~r agreed~ arlding hha{' any Co~mission~:~'s wouJ.d be ac%!ng as sl. ecta~:.ors~ since ,:~:7, y ~tateria! actual.i} s[~bmi~.t, ed [o; consideration w{N~td have to be se, b!ni.t{ ed a.t a puJ~lic T}.'~e meeting was scheduled for 3 o~clock, }~edDesdla>~ Septe~::be~ !3, ADJOUI~N~ENT i4SUC (t:~--,,;l~-.Rice) ~:eet:ing be adjourned %0 the meeting of (967~ at 3 ,'}~clock and to tile public hearing on the ne~, proposed }r~i~:ar~ce a~: 7:30 p,m. September 25~ t~67,, The ~.ee{.'~n,:7 Respectfully submitted F~les z Secr:zta .'y