Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/07/06 ORIginAL >~7~IJ"ES O~ A REGULAR MEETING O5~ THE PLANN]ZNG COloR'fISSION OF C!IULA V!STA~ July 6, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on above date at 7 p,mo Thursday~ July 6, 1967, in the City Council Cham?~er~ Civic Contort 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members pres~=_nt: Stewart., Rice, Adg~ms, York, Hyde, and Gregson. Absent: ~%em~,?r Guyer, with prior notification~ Also present: Director of P!aa~ing Warren~ Assistant Planner Lee~ Planning Draf~.sman %rish~ City Attorney Lindberg~ and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. ~£LEC'FION O~ CHAiP~AN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN ~e~to~r York nomin~ted Member Guyer for Chairman. Mem~0~r Rico renominated Member Stewart, MSUC (Adams-Rico) Nominations be closed.. A ballot wes distributed by the City Attorney after which he announced that Chaizn,aan Stewart was reelected. Member Adams nominated Men~er Guyer for Vice~Chairmano MSUC (Ad,ms-Rice) Nominations be closed. Memb~}r Guyot ~,~as a~ani~ously elected Vice-Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUT~SS ~[SUC (Adgm]s-Gregs~n) Minutes of the men, ting of June 19, 1967t were appr~'~ved, as mail~d~ Request for App~o~gal of Realignment of Vist~ Drive Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the area showin~ the ~el]eral configuration of the 805 Freeway design. He ara'ted that once this freeway is constructed, it will be necessary to reati~]n Vista Driv~~. ?he State has submitted plans which they indicate is tha firm alignment ~u~d design of the interchange; the only item in question is the .~:'ea!ig~menn of Vista Drive - which will be called Bonita Gle~ Drive. Mr. Warren then noted ~he two routes delineated on the plat - R~3u~zes ~A" and "B"~ declaring that the State prefers Route "A" and has asked ~J~e City tc submit their approval. Tile ~3wner of the eroperty.h.as submitted his~ proposal - shown as ~'B". In makinq their dec~_s.lon the State ~eels Route "A" %~ould so, rye the prei3~er2ies fronting on Bonit~ Road. Diractor Warren t~en no!~e~l tko topof~a~hy in this area and indicated that the DivisiD~ Engi~'~ee~cing h~3~ mnde a study of these routes and have dete~ai~e-] that ~J. th~r ro,~te ~ould be feasible to cons!~ruct. Based cn the prez~!ing that has transpired, it is logical 1ho ass~ne hhat some form of co~uer- cia! use ~ill take place in this area which wou~.d ultimately rep~.ace tko single-family use in this area. With the proposed southerly align- ment, all of the properties could be developed in one block. Th~a staff reco~m~ends Route ~B" for the reason that it will allow the retenhion of approximately 8 acres of commercial land between the free~ay inter- change and Bonita Glen Drive - if ~lder one ownership, and it %~iil allo\~~ a more flexible and desirable pattern of development for tourist-.com- mercial, facilities. Route "B" will discourage the individual develop- men~ ef those parcels now fronting on Bonita Road and will promote their development a~ part of one integral unit° The precise alignment of Route ~'~" sh©uid be such that all the right~of-way would be wLthin Mr. Ferreira's five-acre parcel, and the ultimate land use patte~i~n of the aI'ea should place all that land south of the realigned Bonita Glen Road in a residential classification. Member Adams expressed concern o~fer the adoption of Route ~B" which he felt would leave three or four properties cut off from any street frontage~ Director Warren declared that the State would have to pro- vide access for these properties. He then showed a cul-de-sac access which the State proposes to adopt should the City approve Route "B~. Chairman Stewart remarked that the highest and best use for this area would be commercial~ based on the prezoning that has~ occurred° Member Gre~son commented that the residential use with access to Bonita Roac could exist for years and, therefore, in his opinion~ Route "A" would be preferable. Me~mber York cautioned that the Commission should consider the best alignment from a Planning Standpoint: "A" wo~ld be best for the property owners at present but from a Planning standpoint, they must think of a master plan for some type of commercial development - and it is ~ogical to ass%~e that all this land should be under one ownership. The Bonita Road frontage should be tied to the commercial develoI~ment; it does not make a good commercial development to have a street sunning through the middle° in view of this, it would be most logical tc adopt Route "R". Member York then commented on his discussion with Mr. Dmve Shepherd of ~he Division of Highways in regard to this area and .~'e marked that the State would be making a temporary investment of State Funds to buy this land because they can sell whatever they do not need for the aligDment. Route "B" would also cut down the State's cost for this road. Director Warren stated that Route "B" as shown on the plat doesn't make any attempt to establish a firm line. A precise aligr~ent would have to De approved by the City Engineer with final approval based upon s%~- mission of improvement plans. "3-- ~ember Adams stated that the Co~nission has a responsibility to all property owners in the area, and adopting Route "B" would leave them la,d-locked or ~;ith a temporary access. Member York reiterated that ~e Commission should look at this in te~]s of what was D~st from a Planning standpoint in view of the overall area. Mr. Frank Ferreira~ 3715 Putter Drive, owner of the 5-acre parcel through which this frontage road will traverse, stated that he ha~ been working with the City Engineer and the State Highway Department and both have agreed with his proposed alignment. He added that there will be no land-locked properties - and if there are~ then the State will create them~ The reasen the State suggested Route "A" was because it was the point of least resistance to them. They must make a determination as to the 5'oute~ and they look at it with a monetary point ~f view. ~r~ Ferreira added that ~]ere is some misunderstanding as he felt this was agreed upon by a13.~ and he has already spent thous~]~ds of dollars grad- ing for this~ Mr~ Howard Gesley, Assi~tant City Engineer, stated that, from an Engi-~ n~ering standpoint, there is not too much difference as far as ~rades are concerned - for either route. He added that their preference woukd be Route "D"; however, they are not objecting to either alignment.. Chairman Stewart questioned Mr. Ferreira as to moving the radius at 'the easterly point of Route "B" at Vista Drive so that it would not cut off any of the property to the south, and the entire right-of-way would be on his property~ Mro Ferreira stated that he has spent $9,000.00 on engineering s'~udies for this alignment, but that it doesn't make any difference to him whe- ther or not all of the right-of-way is on his property. MSUC (York-Hyde~ Eecommend to City Council the adoption of Route as delineated on the plat submitted at this meeting, for the followin~ reasons: 1~ Route "B'~ will allow the re~ention of approximately $ acres of mercial land between the freeway interchange and Bonita Glen Drive° This large block of land, if under one ownership, will allow a more flexible and desirable pattern of development for tourist-commercial facilities. 2o Route "B" will discourage the individual development of those par- cels now fronting on Bonita Road, and will promote their development as part of one integral unit° PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING--Abe Sinor - East Side of Fourth Avenu~ - 160' South of C Street - R-3 to ~-I and Setback uctlon rom 0' to 5' The application was read in which a request was made to rezone that property on Fourth Avenue south of C Street from R-3 to C-1 and also a reduction in setback from 30' to 5'. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land use. The General Plan designates this area as high- density; however, the trend in the area now makes such infeasible. The staff recommends approval of the C-1 zone with the supplemental "D" zone attached and that the setback be established at 15 feet~ This would be more compatible with the existing development in the area. This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened~ Mro Abe Sinor~ the applicant, stated the statements made by the Direc- tor were true and he agrees with them, and has nothing to add. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked about the setbacks on the balance of Fourth Avenue° Director Warren stated it is 5' in the C-1 zone; however, the buil. d~n~s' are set back and the parking is in front. The existing set~ack on the residential property is 30'. Member York stated that he questions this 5' setback, since the on the corner doesn't observe it and neither does the apartments. ~[e asked if the applicant's plans were such that they needed this 5'° Mr. Sinor claimed he would lose the exposure needed for a retail com- mercial building if they were not allowed this setback. As far as the setbsck for the apartments, they are on a different terrain entirely. Chairaan Stewart declared that it was true that none of the buildings in this area observe a 5' setback, but it would work a hardship on this applicant if he has to observe more than this since his parking a~ea would be oriented to the back and sides of this business. Member Adams commented that 15' would be more compatible with the ~rea - that some of the properties here observe a 30' setback° Mr. Adems added that he would compromise and suggest a 10' setback and that thai parcel was more suited to commercial development than multiple-family. RESOLUTION NO~ 475 Resolution of the City Planning Conunission recommend- MSUC (Adams-Guyer) ing to City Council rezoning from R-3 to C-I-D for property at the east side of Fourth Avenue, South of C Street Findings be as follows: a~ Good zoning practice requires the change requested~ because of the relationship that this property holds to that to the north which is presently zoned and developed with commercial use. b. The topography of the area and the physical characteristics of de- velopment in the area make this lot undesirable for development with multiple-family use. co The change requested is not in conformance with the General Plan, since the Plan delineates high-density residential use for all of that area soutk of Third Avenue extension and east of Fourth Avenue. Based on the trend of development in this area, however~ we believe the Plan is unrealistic in this regard and will ultimately be changed to reflect the trends. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING- R. H. Woodward - 65-81 Third Avenue - R-i to R-3LD The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-i to R-3-D approximately 3% acres of vacant property at 65-81 ?hird Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location~ adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant~ in a subsequent applica- tion, is also requesting a conditional use permit to develop the prop- erty with a convalescent home. The General Plan places this area in a medium density residential c~assification. The staff recommends that the area be rezoned to R-3-B-4-D - Multiple-family, 4,000 square feet of land area per dwelling, with design control. This would insure the medium density classification in case the convalescent home is not con- structed. Chai~nan Stewart questioned whether the conditional use permit applies to the entire lot being considered for rezoning. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Commission's first action was to consider the re- zoning solely as outlined on the submitted plat and then the conditional use permit. Director Warren indicated that it involved the entire parcel. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Jacobson, £3 ~bird Avenue, questioned whether the applicant can construct something other than a convalescent home if the property were rezoned. Chairman Stewart explained that he could construct anything else per- mitted in the zone; however, the applicant has filed a conditional use permit to permit construction of a convalescent home. -6- Mrs. Jacobson questioned whether the applicant could construct apart- ment~. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Commission cannot concern themselves with other developments other than that which will take place under this rezoning. If this zoning is recommended by the Com- mission, the applicant can legally construct apartments here; however~ he has decided to construct a convalescent home. The Commission, nevertheless~ cannot force him to do this. Director Warren remarked that he received a call from one of the prop- erty owners stating that he signed the petition favoring the construc- tion of ~he convalescent home but that he would be opposed to apart-- ments. Mr. Warren pointed out to h]~m that the staff recommended this density control so that in the event the convalescent home was not constructed, the ~rea would retain the same density control as that suggeste~ by the Gsneral Plan. ~e~er Adams declared that the rezoning as suggested by the staff was very suitable for this property, and added that it was highly improbable that the area would ever be developed with single-family units. ~SOLUTION NO. 474 Resolution of the City Planning Commlission MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) mending to City Council rezoning from R-i to R-~-- B-4-D for property at 65-81 Third Avenue Findings be as follows: a. Good zoning practice and the general welfare require this change in zone to provide for utilization of land which cannot logically be de- veloped at a lower density° b. This rezoning will eliminate a fire hazard and an unsightly condi- tion and will increase the tax yield from a present unproductive prop- erty. c. The proposed change will be in substsntla~ conformance to the Gen- eral Plan because the proposed density of development of 1 dwelling %-~it per 4,000 square feet of land area would yield a net density of within that proposed for the General Plan. d. The attac]unent of the supplemental D zone will assure that what- ever form of multiple-f~nily development might occur would be physically designed in such a manner that would be compatible with adjacent areas. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R. H. Woodward - 65-81 Tbird A__venue - Request for Convalescent Hes~-~l---~ Zone - The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct and operate a convalescent hospital having a 99 to 150 bed capacity on property at 65-81 Third Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location explaining this was the same property just considered for rezoning. Mr. Warren pointed out the access drives and the proposed parking lay- out also noting that the service area will be at the northeast corner of the building. The property has a 20' access onto Chula Vista Street. The proposed plm~ of development was presented. Mr. Warren then sub- mitted the staff's recommendations for approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr~ Del Thurber, San Diego, representing the applicant~ discussed the reasons for access from Del. Mar Avenue. Mr. Thurber discussed the quirement of the fence along the easterly property line and expressed concern about this closing off access to Del Mar Avenue. He felt road should be le~t open for emergency vehicles. Director Warren explained the staff's recommendation for the distance of the fence noting that it would not cut off access from this street; however, they felt that the Del Mar access should not be used by the hospital - access for this should be fro~ Third Avenue. Mr. Warren suggested this be left up to the staff for approval~ and they can dis~- cuss this with the applicant. Mr. R. H. Woodward, 1130 Barcelona Drive, San Diego~ read from a pre- pared statement stating the need for this facility. Plans for the hospital have to be approved by the Hospital Board as well as the City of Chula Vista~ Mr. Woodward then discussed the number of adjacent property owners who signed the petition favorinq ~he request. Mr. Robert McAl!ister, 423 Kearney Street, stated he was associated with the proposed hospital, and asked for a favorable consideration of the request. He added that they have to operate under the State Public Health Code, and consequently, can see no problem with the use. Mro M. J. Wilson, 66 Del Mar Avenue, asked what is going to happen to the access way. He was concerned over the construction of the fence if it would block off his access way. Chairman Stewart explained that the only thing the Commission is con- cerned about is that this street not be used as an access way by the hospital. They will not be blocking off any of the adjacent propert~ owners' access in this area. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Gregson-Rice~ Approval of the conditional use permit subject the following conditions~ 1. Access via the 20' drive at the northeast section of the property shall be eliminated~ for use by the hospital. 2. A detailed plot plan '~ith building elevations and landscaping plan showing a method of irrigation shall be approved before the issuance of any building permit. 3. Ail signs to be placed on the property shall be approved by the Planning staff and shall conform to the provisions of the n-3 zone. 4. No existing trees shall be removed from the site without specAfic approval from the Planni~g staff. 5. Generally, a 6= high solid fence with block pilasters or a m~ason~, wall ~hall enclose the northerly~ easterly and southerly property~ The details of the fence location to be approved by hhe Planning staff. Findings be as follows: a. That 'tile proposed use at the particular location J.s necessa~3 or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to tk~e general ~;ei!being of the neighborhood or the The area has one existing facility in close proximity which has added much to the entire neighborhood and the community~ A majority of people in the area have signed a petition favoring a facility of this type. b. That such use will not~ under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to ~!~e health, safety or general welfare of per- sons residing or working fn ~he vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. This facility would in no way be detrimental to the health~ safety, and welfare of persons in the vicinity. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and condi- tions specified in the Code for such use. This convalescent facility will comply with all the regulations and conditions of the c~nmunity. do That the granting of this conditional use wi!l not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chu!a Vista or the adopted plan of ans~ governmental agency~ The density' proposed by the hospital facility would be compar-- able to singleuf~aily density. The General Plan calls for very high density on the property directly to the south and high density for that area to the west. -9- PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE (Cont'd) - Ray and Lorene Crockett - 1029 O~'de~ Avenue - Request for Varig%ce from ~ence ~eight Re~%ric~ions in Front Setback from ~3-~' to ~: Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter whereby it was con- tinued from the las~ meeting to allow the Commission an opportunity to check the loss of view for the adjoining property owner who pro- tested at this last me~t[ngo The request is for a reduction of a portion of the setback by 4' to allow construction of a fence at the top of the slope. The staff reiterates the opinion that the angle of view from this ad-~ joining property ~,~er's house is such tllat a 4' change of setback would not materially affect the view. This being ~%e time and place as advertised~ the continued p~b~.ic hearing was declared opened. Member Rice commented that the two trees on the north side of the property pretty well restricts any view, and these trees are only one-- third of their full size. Mr. Rice added that he cannot see what possible difference 4~ further out would make to the property to the Chairman Stewart agreed, and added that the area that would be left outside the fence would be difficult to landscape and maintain. Mr. Ray Crockett, the applicant, ackno"wledged that he was present and said he had nothing to add. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The C~mnission again briefly discussed the request and concurred that it was reasonable. MSUC (Rice-York) Variance be approved subject to the following condi- tions: Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or require- ments would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Because of the 20' 25' height differential between the lot pad and the street, the reasoning behind the reduced height requirement within the front setback, i.e., vision clearance, etc., is not applicable in this case. -!0- b~ That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable ~o the property involved or to the intended use or development o~ the property that ~o not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. Since this parcel has a 20' private drive traversing its rear yard and the front yard consists mostly of slope~ the usable yard area is limited. Approval of this request would give the owner 5' more private yard area. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detri~entaI to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in ~hich the property is located. Raising the height of %~e ~roposed fence an additional 2%~ would have no effect on the surroundinq area because cf the property's elevation and rear orientation. d. That the gr~ting of a variance will not be contrary to the ob- jectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL uSE PERMIT - Atlantic Richfield Co~3n_~_ --Southwest Corner of Bonita and Otay Lakes Road - ~e__s't'.for Service Station in C-1-D Zon~ The application ~as read in which a request was made for permission to construct and operate a service station on property at the southwest corner of Bonita and Otay Lakes Road. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He declared that the area comprised 8 acres of !and, zoned C-l-D, of which this parcel would be the corner lot~ the site measures 150' x 150'. Mro Warren discussed the proposed construction of the building: simulated board and batten with a rock Tool. They have proposed this rock roof because of the existing roof on the Golf Course building across the street; however, the staff feels the character of the Bonita area is such that the use of shake roofs is quite predominant and ~ey wo~ald recommend some type of imita~ tion shake shingles, medium or dark color. There will be a concrete block wall on the south end of the property. Mr. Warren then submitted the staff's recommendations. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Stewart, 7154 Rumford Street, San Diego, representing Atlantic Richfield Compamy, stated that they agree with all the conditions. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -ll- · ,~SLC (Adams--Hyde) Approval of conditional use permit ~ubject to the fol!o~ing conditions: 1. Approval of the request excludes approval of any signs proposed (signs to be considered in the varisnce request). 2. The landscaping plan as submitted shall be revised by the appli- cant to reflect additional street trees and trees on the site as well as an additional planter and change in plant materials. 3. Ail 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 or other items for sal~ be stored or displayed outside of this area. ~. The roofing material shell be of a medium or dark color, preferably imitation shake shingles, to be in keeping with the existing service stations and buildings in the Bonita area. 5. The trash enclosure shall be large enough to enclose a typical d%~ps~er used by ~%e trash collection service. 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 we!lbeing of the neighborhood or the com~nit~. %'he proposed use will offer a desirable service to the community since only two other service stations exist for about two miles in any direction. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case~ be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of per- sons residing or workin? in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Th~ design of ~he service station is such that it will not eh- damager health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. c. Thet the proposed use will comply with the regulations and condi- tions specified in the Code for such use. Yhe proposed ~se will comply with the regulations and the ~on-- d~zons ~mpose~f would result in the compliance of all appli- cable codes. 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. -12- The General Plan is unrealistic in this area since the Com- mission has elected to maintain the C-I-D commercial zoning on the property. Therefore, we believe the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - Atlantic Richfield Company Southwest Corner of Bonita and Ota~ Lakes Roads 2 Signs The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of setbacks and increase iD permitted sign area for the purpose of erecting the following signs for the service station: 1. One - 3' 10" x 22'8" freestanding sign, 30' high, pole 10' from property line 2. Two - 3'x 5~ price signs located 1' from the property line at the intersection 3. One - 12 square foot "Building Eagle" on the face of service station 4. One - 1' x 14'8" flush sign attached to the building - "Richfield" 5. One - 7'6" x 8%" flush sign attached to the building ~ "Richfield" 6. Two - canopy banners 1' x 12' each Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the proposed location of the various signs, explaining that this was the same loca- tion as that Just considered for a conditional use permit. The prop- erty is within the "D" zone, thus limiting the maximum sign area to 50 square feet - the applicant is requesting a total of 175 square feet. The staff, as well as the Commission, recognizes the need for proper identification for a service station, but some compr~itise should be made since it will be in a sign-controlled area. Mr. Warren then ana- lyzed .the individual signs requested, co.~enting on the need for the various sings. The applicant is requesting a freestanding sign 30' high - previous approvals for neighborhood stations have been with a 20' height llmlta~lon. Director Warren then submitted the size and signs the staff would recom- mend for approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Stewart, 7154 Rumford Street, San Diego, representing Atlantic Richfield Company, spoke of the need for the signs and stated that iden- tification is of the utmost ~ecessity especially for this type of build- ing. He also maintained that they do need the 30' high freestanding sign at the corner. -13- Mr. Frank Verreira~ 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, spoke favorably of the request. He commented that their other station at the corner of Broad- way and E Street has signs equal to those requested and is an asset to the City. Director Warren indicated that the station at Broadway and E is in a C-2 zone whereby this proposed station will b~ in a C-1-D zone. Member Hyde agreed that this station will be compatible with the area ~n view of their building plans, but he questions the merit of having to deviate from the ordinance granting more signs ths~ that permitted for the zone. As far as competition is concerned, this is a rural area which the Commission is trying hard to keep from beooming a forest of signs° Mr. Hyde declared that he would like to have concrete proof of a determination or hardship to this service station as a result of being limited to smaller signs. Member Ad,ns remarked that you cannot look at this service station - on a Country road the same way as the one on Broadway. The Commission granted 175 square feet of sign area to some of those stations down there ~%d it is not too far out of line because of the location; how-- ever, this is Bonita, and they are trying to maintain a semi-rural character for this location. Mr. Adams felt the large sign on top of ~'~e pole would not be compatible in this location. ~e suggested the total sign area be limited to 100 square feet, and added that if all stations in this area were limited to this square footage, then no one would have grounds for objection. The Co~mission discussed deviating from the ordinance and allowing more signs than permitted. Member York felt the ordinance should be changed an.~ ~a~e more realistic. Member Hyde maintained that they must find a hardship about the property in order to grant a variance. Mr. Bob Stewart allege~ that his 16 years in this business proved that identification is the key for a successful business. He added that in¥'est2~ent today is so large for a corner lot that they need this addi- tional identification. ~4e~b.~r Hyde asked~ if o'aher stations were limited to 50 square feet of signs, could he pro~'e a hardship if he were limited to this amount also~ Mr~ Stewart felt he cculd, becaus~ of the traffic and movement the way it is today~ they need a large sign on ~%e corner° ~enf0er York declaimed that one of the drawbacks this ~pplicant has is his company's large n~ue - you c~not reasonably put the name Richfie!~ in 16" letters on top of a 20' pole, whereas the lettering '~76" for instance, can be quite large since it does not take ~p as much room. Men, er Adams discussed the different sign areas allowed for service stations throughout the years, and felt it might start a precedent in the area if t~ey granted the applicant's request for this total sign area~ -14- Chai~nan Stewart felt it would not be fair ~:o reduce the number of signs for this applicant so that he would have to operate his station with le~s signs than the other stations in this area° Chairman Stewart discussed the proposed sign ordinance noting that it has an abatement clause which will make all service stations conform to a specific square footage. Meanwhile, he felt they would be discriminating against this c~mpany if they granted h~a less sign area th~% those previously granted by ~he Commission for other similar service stations. Director Warren co~ented that nearly every station has a different amount of signs approved. Member ~yde remarked ~at they were not being discriminatory since there was no other commercial facility in tk~is immediate area with which he is competing. He s%~gested that the Planning Director get together with Mr. Bob Stewart and compromise on a figure less than 175~ Director Warren discussed the various signs requested, and noteO the particular sign in question contains 90 square feet. He commented that this is the size sign historically used by this company~ and they are more or less stuck with it. He indicated that the problem lies %~ith the 50 square foot total restriction. Member York maintained that service stations need the main identifying sign whatever size it might be depending upon the name they have to use; they need the standard signs to go on the buil~ing; and they need the price signs. This is the minimum number of signs a service station must have to operate the business. City Attorney Lindberg noted that in the past two years~ whenever there is a variance request for signs for service stations, the Commission, with great regularity, spent considerable time discussing it. Mr. Lindberg added that it was true, there has been no uniformity and a variance has been granted in these "D" zones. He further added that At was encumbent upon the Commission to face up to these problems since this has reoccurred time and again - in fact, they ha'~e discarded the "D" zone as far as applications for service stations go. Mr. Lind- berg felt the Commission should hold a workshop meeting to discuss this matter. Mr. Ferreira co~ented that the quality of signs used in the service station were excellent and the emblems were part of their architecture - it was strange that they should be considered as signs. The Co~mmission discussed this matter further and agreed that it should be continued for further study. Director Warren felt whis would not cause a hardship on the applicant since he has been granted his con- ditional use permit and can start planning for the station. He added that he would contact the Commission for a possible date for a workshop meeting. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Postpone their decision and continue the public hearing until August 7, 1967. ~4ember Gregson l~ft the meeting at this time~ ~UBLZC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE ~E~MIT- ~yler & Kleinfetd - 273 Beech ~ven~e.- Request for_D, ay..Nu___rse___~ in R~---L~.Zone ~he application was read in which a request was made for permission to operate a day nursery for approximately 20 children at 273 Beech Avenue~ an R-3 zone. 13irector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location · nd adjacent l~nd use. The house was formerly used as a rest hom~ and ~aas been checked by both the Building Department and the Fire Marshal. Mr. Warren then submitted the staff's recommendations for approval, commenting on the lack of offstreet parking. This being the time and place as advertised~ the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Ester Tyler, 3615 Audubon Court, Bonita~ the applicant, agreed with the recon~zendations, and stated tkat she would like to have a sign put up, perhaps on the door of the garage. Director Warren stated that the staff has no objection to a sign~ but ~hat it ~3.s an R-3 area comprised primarily of single-f~mily dwellings and they w~.mh to keep compatibility with the area. C!~ai~r, an S~ewart suggested t~is be left to staff approval and to2d the applicant to get in touch with the staff as to the size, location, etc~ He '~hen asked the applicant if she had room to care for more than 20 children. Mrs° Tyler stated that the State requires a ~inimum area of 25 feet in- doors and 75 feet outdoors for one child. Maintaining this requirement, they would have room for just 20 children. There being no further comment~ either for or against, the hearing was declazed closed. Membez York questioned the first requirement pertaining to concreting the ~outher!y 4' adjacent to the existing driveway. Since the curb cut is offset, he felt it would be advantageous to pave that area to match the ~xlsting driveway. Director Warren indicated that the goal here was ~o accommodate additional oars. Chairman Stewart suggested this be settled by the staff and applicant~ Director Warren stated that he would change the wordin~ on this condi- tion to take care of it. MSUC (Hyde-York) Variance be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Ar additional a~ea adjacent to the e:~i~:J.ng driveway shall bo con- crete:f to matDh ~he existing drive and pco~,ide adequate parkin~3 2~ Azy signs advertising the use shall ]~e approved by the stafff, 3. T~is use shall ~e gray, ted for a t~'o-i%,ea~ period ~d shall be r~..~ v-iew~(, every two years wi. th notices sent %o the neighbors. FJndl~gs be as follows: a. Tl at the proposed use at the particular locat~on is necessary cr desirable %o provide a service or facility which %~ili contribute to general wel!being of the neighborhood og~ the com~unity~ T?ere appears to be a need for the saz~vice in the co~maunity since the existing nurseries are li~%~_ted to a specific num- b~'r of children. b. T~at such use wil~ not, ~d. er the clrc~/~usaances of the parti::uia:~' case~ be detrimental to the health~ safe~y or gene:gal %?elfare of sons lesiding or wolking in the vicinity, or injurious to proper{:y or improleaments in the vicinity. T1 ere is nothing' in the operation of & day nursery which wor~kd D~ detrimental X:o the health~ safety or general welfare. c. ?1 at the propo~d 'use will comply wi~h the regulations and. tions specified in ~he Code for s~ach use. D~y nurseries ~re pern~.itted in the R-3 zone with a conditional uae peri, it and %~onld comply with the ~egulations and conditions~ d. T~at the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan [~f a:uy goverzmental agency~ Tie General Plan is not affected. Request for Mo___d__ific~ttion of Condition of Variance Granted for ~ ' A letter from Mr. Mizysak was rea4 and Director Warren explained in December 1966, the Con~nission gr&nted them a variance for the con-. struction of a 20-in,it apartment complex. One condition imposed for tt~e construction of a 6' high solid fence on the north property line -. the purpose of this was to separate the apartments from the istin~/ office building. The applicant construct, ed a 5' high fence and is nov, requestiI~g permission to maintain the fence at this level~ The staff has no ob3eotLon. The Con%mission agreed that this would be acceptable. MSUC ~Rice-Adams) ,'.~odification of this condition be approved. llet~'%t£~st i!or E~ten~ion ~:~f .3?i~e - Chula Vista Center - Completion of A ]~tter from Mr. Milo Berenson was read in which he requested ~%n ex- '~ens~on of time %o September 9~ 1967, for the improvement of th~ l~ark~.ng area on t>le south side o~ Center Street. He stated that the i.~a~kin9 area is tentative ~nd its ultimate location will depend on th~ dev.mloumcnt of the larger pazcel of property of which this area is a pc~ction ~ City Atgok~ey Line,berg maintained~ ~he bond would have to be ext~nded I3i~.3ec~tor Warren indicate(1 that ~e staff reco~ends approval and ~t %hat tJ.m~, temporary p~ving be permitted fcra period of six months ~s quir~[1%~der Section 33.54.1 of the zoning ordinance. The bond would l~av~ te r~ain in effect. City ~ttorney Lin~erg explained tha~ the bond is for ~}rmanent paving and would have to stay ia effect for 6 month,s from ~eptember 9~ !967. MS'DC (York~Rice) Extension of time to September 9~ 1967~ be granted with the stipulation that tempora~ paving be permitted for a m~im~ of 6 months. Such paving to be treated or covered in a manner approv~d by the City Engineer to assu~e dustless surface. Also, the exit;ting bond be extended ~o secure performance in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This extension should be to and ~til March 1, ~968. ~ark~ F~rea for ~ark Hill ~ethodist Chur~ A letter from J~es Brabant~ Minister of the Park Hill Methodist Church, East Naples Street, was read in which he requested a waiver of improvements for 360 feet cf frontage on East Naples Street~ and a seco~d request for the improvement of their parking area. The Co~mis- sion imposed a coadi'gion at their hearing of May 15, 1967~ to pave the area with 2'~ of asphaltic concrete over 4" of decomposed granit~. The a~plicant is requesting installation cf decomposed granite as a tem- i~era~y parking area for a period of one year. Dizector of Planning Warren stated the staff would agree to the first ~request, but for a defel~aant rather th~ a waiver of the publi~ im- prouemen~s~ As tD the second request, ~%ey would reco~end a montk period of time which is the t~me allowed by ordinance for tem- t~o~a~y paving of parking %~'~ie Com~'~-~.~sion ~:~ct~sse~ Doth requests and conc~.~rre:f~ w~th the mend~.~ions of the Planning Director. 14lOC (York-Rice) Approval of deferment of public i~pzovem~nts f~)r that prc~rty at East [qaples Street for the Park Hill Me~o~fis~ Ch~r~h~ as cequested, ~] %hat a bond or lien be posted in an amount to be de%er- minmd by the Division of Engineering to insure future installa~lon of %it. ese improvements.