Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/11/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 3, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams and Putnam. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Chandler discussed the comments he made pertaining to the existing zoning and density on property south of Sweetwater Road between Bonita Verde Subdivision and Rohr Park (page 12: Rezoning and P.U.D. - application of H & N Construction Company). He remarked that it was after he made this statement that the minutes relate the City Attorney's advice that he should abstain from this hearing. Member Chandler stated he is not entirely in accord with the manner in which the minutes reflect these comments, but is not requesting a change. Member Rice discussed the statement he made pertaining to this same hearing (page 13) in which he commented that the expansion of the La Bonita Apartments to the south was "walling in the golf course on that side to where it is losing some of its aesthetic appeal." Basically, what he said was that he felt that the proposed townhouse development would do likewise to the northwest portion of the golf course - that the golf course is there for the benefit of the public, and walling it in this way would be depriving the public of the aesthetic benefits of the course. MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 20, 1969, with the corrections as noted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 356 Third Avenue - Request to remodel and reopen existing service station -Powerine Oil Company Director of Planning Warren explained that subsequent to advertising this hearing, it was found that the requirement for this permit was not needed since the property is located in a C-C zone instead of the C-B zone, as originally thought. A service station is a permitted use in the C-C zone subject to certain standards. The applicants were advised of this. Mr. Richard Cannon, attorney for the applicants, asked if any further action was necessary in order for them to obtain their building permit and license. Director Warren, in the absence of the City Attorney (who arrived later), stated he discussed this with him, and it was the intent of the City to hold up any building and zoning permits and license since the Council is contemplating the acquisition of this property. A resolution of condemnation of this property 2 by unanimous consent of the Council will be placed on their agenda tomorrow night (November 4, 1969). If there is any disagreement as to the authority to hold up these permits, it should be pursued with the City Attorney. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Application be filed. Discussion - Construction of Rohr building on Tidelands Avenue in violation of setback requirements Director of Planning Warren explained that a truck shed was constructed by Rohr Corporation on Tidelands property without obtaining a building or zoning permit. It is located l' from the 120' right-of-way line of Tidelands Avenue; this will be the entrance to the boat marina. The City and Port District agreed to a 10' setback from the right-of-way from the standpoint of traffic safety, and to accommodate landscaping as required by ordinance. The improve- ment plans for Tidelands Avenue indicate a distance of 14' between the property line and curb line to provide future needs such as sidewalks, landscaping, etc. Director Warren then submitted a transparency of the area noting the location of the building. He stated that the setbacks for this area were set by resolution of the Planning Commission and were sent to the Unified Port District. In answer to Chairman Hyde's inquiry, Director Warren declared that the Port District is notified of every proposed construction in the tidelands and they issue permits, much the same as does our Building Inspection Department. Mr. Warren then read a memo from Mr. Eugene Grady, Director of Housing and Building, in which he stated that this building was constructed without having obtained a building permit, and because no inspection has been made, they cannot attest to whether or not it meets the building code. Mr. Eugene Grady confirmed this, and added that they have now received a set of plans on this building. They were aware of the existence of this building only when the Port District called their attention to it. Mr. Mitch Koteff, Assistant Secretary of Rohr Corporation, noted the location of the building and the fact that it has been constructed. He commented that there were a number of other structures that have been there for a number of years, and what they are discussing here is what effect this structure and the other buildings will be when Tidelands Avenue and "J" Street is improved. At the time this street improvement is made, it is evident that at that time, Rohr Corporation will have to discuss with the City what they will be doing with these structures. They have been advised that the right-of-way for Tidelands Avenue is 120', south of this building, and J Street is 80' which is approxi- mately 50' to 60' from where this building has been erected; therefore, if they are talking about setbacks, this entire area will have to be considered. Mr. Koteff declared that it would be their suggestion that the permit be allowed with the understanding that when the improvements are made on Tidelands Avenue and J Street, they would then take into consideration the entire program for those setbacks along both of those street, after the right-of-way is acquired for both of these streets. He added that the building was construced without obtaining a building permit--this was an error, and it will not happen again. They have subsequently reviewed these plans with the Port District and the Port has approved the plans. 3 Chairman Hyde asked Mr. Koteff if Rohr would be willing to move or modify this building back to the 10' setback as prescribed. Mr. Koteff declared they may be willing to do that, ultimately. City Attorney Lindberg stated this would be based on a legal agreement, or they could apply for a variance at that time. Member Adams questioned the City Attorney's motive in recommending the variance procedure; however, Mr. Lindberg assured Mr. Adams that he was only advising the applicants as to their legal ri~ghts. Mr. Koteff explained that it was obvious that they will have to discuss with the City the installations on the Rohr property which are almost adjacent and in the same line with the current building. It doesn't seem logical to him to have to pull this building back at this time when all of these other structures are on the same alignment and something is going to have to be done with those at the time the improvements are made. Mr. Koteff added that it would be feasible to do this all at one time. Director Warren stated he couldn't comment as to the agreement - the City Attorney would have to do this. He ~uld indicate that the building, in its present setting, is not harmful if it can be demonstrated that no traffic hazard will result, either now or in the future. He questioned what type of agree- ment Mr. Koteff could commit Rohr to that would assure the City that Rohr would conform to a setback of 10' along that street, unless the use were to be changed. City Attorney Lindberg declared that they are discussing just this one particular building tonight. If, in fact, at some time in the future, the other buildings do not conform to the setback as established, then they are non-conforming uses. He added that Mr. Koteff has assured them that not only this one particular building would be relocated or subject to the consideration of the Commission, but the other buildings which presently do not conform to the setback line may also be adjusted. An agreement can be made between Rohr and the City - the Mayor, stipulating that when Tidelands Avenue is improved, this adjustment would be made or the Con~nission or Council would, at that time, consider a variance. Member Stewart asked if Rohr received a blanket approval from the Port District. Mr. Koteff answered that no conditions were imposed by the District in their approval. Mr. Bill Mack, representing Rohr, stated the building was a temporary one ~or which they contemplate a 3-year need. If, after that time, they find they no longer need it, they would then demolish it. Mr. Mack added that the structure is more a canopy or shed than it is a building. The Commission discussed the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement and concurred that they would agree to it. Member Putnam noted that they are referring to the one particular building under discussion tonight. Mr. Koteff contended that he could not commit Rohr as to the other buildings; when the improvements to the streets are put in, then the entire area should be reviewed as to the setbacks required for landscaping and improvements. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Abstaining: Members Rice and Chandler Approval of a written agreement by Rohr Corporation and the City of Chula Vista to review the setback of this building at the time that Tidelands Avenue is improved with a view to Rohr agreeing to move the building back at that time, if it is deemed necessary. Under discussion, Chairman Hyde suggested the statement be included that it is not the intent of the Commission that the existence of this building at this particular location should constitute the establishment of a legal non-conforming use. Assistant City Engineer Gesley called the Commission's attention to the fact that one of the requirements of issuing a building permit is that the owner put in all the street improvements. City Attorney Lindberg stated that a deferment of public improvements, upon request, would be a future consideration by the Planning Department. As to the agreement, he suggested this be drawn up and brought back to the Commission for approval before going on to City Council. Member Stewart agreed and asked that a copy be sent to Rohr Corporation. Council Referral - Architectural Control surrounding the Civic Center area Director of Planning Warren explained that this ordinance was recommended to the City Council covering a certain area around the Civic Center which would regulate the architecture and would specifically require the Spanish Mission type architecture. Mr. Warren submitted a plat noting the area recommended for this control. Upon review by the City Council, they questioned whether it was necessary for the Spanish Mission architecture or just to have an architectural review so that what will develop will not be incompatible with what is presently here. Minor changes have been made in the area map which Director Warren noted. He added that the Council's attitude on the matter was that adequate protection could be given the Civic Center area by placing the "D" zone and~etting up more flexible guidelines - not the Spanish Mission type architecture, but something more compatible. The feeling of the staff is that any well-designed contemporary style building would be appropriate; however, buildings of extreme architectural style of another period or geographical influence would be unsatisfactory. Mr. Warren further added that the people in the area have been notified that this will be under discussion by the Commission tonight. He noted a letter received from Mr. Vic Wulff relating his opinion on this subject. Member Stewart stated that the guidelines, as just discussed by the Planning Director, should be made a part of the ordinance and recommended as such to the City Council. 5 Mr. Eugene York, 280 K Street, stated he has no objection to the application of the D Zone - the main objection was to the Spanish Mission type architecture. He added that he was speaking also for the owner of the shopping center on F Street (Mr. Berenson). Mrs. Marjorie Mills, 44 E1Capitan, declared she is happy to go along with this and appreciates not having to adhere to the Spanish Mission architecture. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Recommend to the City Council that the ordinance, as previously presented, be modified to state that the "D" zone be applied to the area in question and guidelines be established to conform to the comments made by the Planning D~rector. This ordinance to be brought back to the next meeting for Commission approval before forwarding on to the City Council. Consideration of sign for the Apache Barber Shop - 5419 Otay Lakes Road Director of Planning Warren discussed the question of the signs in this shopping center. At the time the approval of the buildings came in, the signs were discussed. The applicant's sign conforms to the size, but the staff feels that the face of the Indian should be removed -(Mr. Warren passed around a picture of th~sign). The staff further recommends that the following conditions be approved for all signs in this Center: (1) Trim on the edge of the signs be coordinated with the exterior trim of the stores; (2) white background be utilized with copy approved by the Planning Director; (3) copy shall not include any pictorial representation. Mr. Harold Chalwin, Pacific Sign Company, stated they would have to cut and splice the sign, in removing the picture of the Indian, and center the lettering on the sign, but this should be no problem. Mr. Hernandez, owner of the business establishment, explained that he got the idea for the Indian picture because of the "Apaches'" connected with the sports events of the nearby school. The Commission discussed the sign and concurred that it would be compatible when complying with the conditions as outlined by the Director of Planning. To be set for hearing - Amendment to Section 33.509 F and 33.511 F of the Zoning Ordinance, rela~ing to setbacks for signs Director of Planning Warren stated this item was explained in detail in the staff report. The sign regulations are under review at this time in both the C-C and C-T zones - this relates to the sign area only and does not invalidate the zero setback stipulated in each zone for the location of the sign. For those buildings constructed on the front property line, the Uniform Building Code allows a 5' projection over the public right-of-way. The staff, therefore, is recommending that an amendment be made to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow any buildings constructed 5' or closer to the front property line to project a sign 5' beyond the building face. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Set for public hearing for the meeting of November 24, 1969, the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 33.509 F and 33.511 F relating to setbacks for signs. 6 Sound System in Council Chamber Member Putnam discussed the problems encountered with the sound system. Director Warren indicated that the microphones are to be replaced soon, which might help the system somewhat, and that the Council has directed that the system be improved. Fotomats in Shopping Centers Member Rice questioned the legality of these photo booths being erected in the neighborhood shopping centers. Director Warren stated they could - there is presently one going in at Hilltop and Naples on which the staff worked to get extra landscaping, etc. These Fotomats can go in if it can be shown that it will not interrupt the flow of traffic, and it has enough parking spaces. There is no way in which to deny it. The Commission discussed the Fotomat at the "F" Street Shopping Center and the inadequate parking of this bus~ness area. Service Station at Third Avenue and L Street Member Rice discussed the direction of the lights at this service station indicating that they shine more on the streets than on the walkway of the station. He asked if there was any control over this. Director Warren explained there was not, unless it could be proven to be a traffic hazard. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of November 17 and 24. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,