HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/10/27 MINUTES OF A REGULAR AUJOURNED MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 27, 1969
The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the
above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council C~amber, Civic Center, 276 Guava
Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the following members present: Hyde,
Macevicz, Stewart, Rice, Adams and Putnam. Absent: Member Chandler (with
previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate
Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Rice) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1969, with
the insertion of the corrections, as mailed to each member.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Rezoning - 288 F Street - C-T to R-3-H - First
Congregational Church of Chula Vista
Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was deferred from the last
meeting at the request of the applicant. He submitted a location map noting the
property in question, the surrounding uses, and zoning. The applicants are pro-
posing to construct a high-rise structure on the premises, which is the subject
of a variance immediately following this hearing. They are requesting a change
of zone from C-T (Thoroughfare-Commercial) to R-3-H (Multiple-family, High-rise).
The present General Plan designates this area as retail commercial; however, the
proposed revised plan designates it as very high density residential, equivalent
to the R-3-H zoning. The staff, therefore, is recommending approval of the
rezoning because of conformance to the General Plan; because the higher density
adjacent to Third Avenue shopping district will strengthen the market in this
area; and since the property does not front on Third Avenue, its commercial value
is diminished.
Mr. Warren asked that the Commission also initiate action to rezone to R-3 the
church property immediately adjacent on the east.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Everett Sorensen, Minister of the Community Congregational Church, spoke of the
need for this project in the City. He felt it would be an asset to the community.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission members each expressed their support of this project.
MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to
RESOLUTION NO. 599 the City Council the Change of Zone from C-T to R-3-H for
property at 288 F Street
Findings be as follows:
a. The very high density zone is in conformance with the proposed revised
General Plan.
-2- 10/27/69
b. The higher density adjacent to the Third Avenue shopping district will
strengthen the market in this area.
c. Since the property does not front on Third Avenue, the commercial value
of the property is diminished.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - Variance - 288 F Street - Miscellaneous requests
for construction of 16 stor~ Senior Citizen Housing Project -
First Congregational Church in Chula Vista
Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting the property in
question. The applicants are proposing-~o construct a 166 unit, 16 story Senior
Citizen Housing Project and are asking for the following variances:
1. An increase in building height, now restricted by the ordinance to 10
stories, to 16 stories.
2. An increase in density of development from one unit per 800 sq. ft. of land
to one unit per 196 sq. ft.
3. Reduction in side yard setback from 58' to O.
4. Reduction in usable open space from 33,200 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft.
5. Minimum floor area for efficienty units reduced from 400 sq. ft. to 360 sq. ft.
In addition, they are asking for a modification of the parking requirements for
such a project. The staff has researched this matter and given the Commission
a detailed report of the parking for the numerous other similar develments in the
San Diego area. Director Warren further explained that Section 202 of the
Federal Housing Act of 19~9 provides for 100% financing of this project with
the following limitations:
(1) Maximum income limits per unit:
$4,500 - single 5,400 - married
6,600 - 2 persons living together not related
(2) iqinimum age, 62 years, or handicapped
(3) Two-thirds of the units must be efficiency units
The applicants' proposed project will meet these specifications.
Mr. Ken Lee, Associate Planner, submitted an elevation of the building noting
the parking layout, the open space, proposed landscaping and setbacks. He
detailed the parking needs of such a project, comparing it to other projects in
the San Diego area and stated that the staff is recommending approval of the one
· space for each 4 units. As to the open space, the ordinance requires 200 square
feet of usable open space for each unit; however, because of the age restriction
of the residents, and the park east of the church, the reduction as proposed is
acceptable to the staff.
-3- 10/27/69
Mr. Lee then submitted a sketch of the proposed efficiency units, of which 2/3
of the 166 units would be required for this financing program. The units will
be 360 square feet with a usable patio area of 75 square feet (5' X 15') attached
to each unit. This can be added to the unit in computing the minimum floor area.
The applicants are requesting a density of development of one unit per 196 square
feet of land area; the ordinance permits one unit per 800 square feet of land
area. This regulation was put into the Ordinance by the planning consultants;
however, it is not workable when a structure exceeds l0 stories and the parking
requirements are modified to the extent they were in this request.
Associate Planner Lee then discussed the requested increase in the number of
stories. He commented that there is no height restriction in the C-B Zone
which will abut this property except for a 20' alley separation; the staff feels
that a modification to increase the height is acceptable when adjacent to the
C-B zone, and recommends approval of the request to 16 stories.
Member Hyde questioned the procedure for site plan and architectural approval of
the project.
Mr. Lee remarked that this is automatic in the R-3 zone.
Member Stewart questioned the need for additional parking should the project
ever go to straight commercial use.
Mr. Lee declared that the spaces provided would be adequate to serve the project,
but if, in the future, a need for additional parking is demonstrated, the appli-
cants would have to provide for it by either purchasing additional property
or by a multi-storied parking facility on the site.
Mr. Warren indicated that what is proposed here is more than that typically
needed for this type and if the use is changed, they are merely putting them on
notice that additional parking would be required.
Nr. Robert Cu~nings, Consultant in Housing Development & Management, ?asa~ena,
stated that the determining factor should be the increase of automobiles by the
residents. He felt that if the condition, as proposed by the staff: "an agree-
ment to be signed whereby additional parking shall be provided if the City Council
determines a need for such in the future," gets back to Washington, they may
think the City Council can, by a whim, increase the parking if they so desire.
Director ~arren commented that what is proposed here is going to meet the
parking requirements, but any given factors that would change this need would
apply here.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert Cumnings stated they are asking for the requests to meet the federal
government, Section 202 regulations. He added that this Section 202 has now
been updated by Section 236 of the 1969 Housing Act, which section permits non-
profit corporations to borrow money to provide housing for the elderly. Mr.
Cummings then detailed the cost of the project.
-4- 10/27/69
Mr. Sadler, architect from the firm of Tucker, Sadler and Bennett, remarked that
they had no argument with any of the staff's comments.
Mr. Cummings discussed the condition of signing an agreement pertaining to the
increase of parking spaces, and asked that the wording be changed to add:
"...or if the applicant or subsequent owners agree to rent the apartments only
to those persons who do not own automobiles."
Member Stewart suggested the wording: "...if it is shown by experience that the
present parking is proven to be inadequate for the needs of the project..."
Director Warren stated he would clarify this wording.
Mr. Sadler discussed the project stating it would be of reinforced concrete.
It would have sufficient landscaping in front, and be an asset to the community.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Director Warren qualified the staff recommendation on this by stating that lest
they De confronted by precedent in this matter, he is reiterating the fact that
this is a substantial departure from the regulations of the R-3-H zone, and as
the architect has pointed out, this is a unique site to begin with and has unique
characteristics that many in the city would not have. As to not being "econom-
ically feasible" - this statement has been heard by the Commission many times,
and based upon the fact that it has been presented to the Commission in this
matter, that seems to be the case - based on the requirements of the federal
government. With that in mind, this is what caused the staff to recommend
approval of the various variances and conditions which would not ordinarily be
considered by the staff.
Member Adams declared that the staff has made a good case in approving each one
of the requests, and he is satisfied that the matter should be recommended for
approval.
Member Rice suggested a condition be imposed relating to the parking indicating
that, should future parking spaces be needed, they will not be able to use the
front landscaped area for that purpose.
Chairman Hyde asked that each of the requests be voted on separately.
Increase in height of the building:
Member Adams suggested this restriction be taken out of the R-3-H zone where
it joins a commercial or non-residential zone; in that case, there should be
no restriction. He added that the Commission is justified in granting this
request.
Member Stewart asked the staff to place this question on the agenda for the
next workshop meeting.
MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of the increase in the height limitation of
the proposed building from 10 stories to 16 stories.
-5- 10/27/69
Increase in density:
Member Stewart stated this is related to the increase in the height, and because
it is closely related to t~e commercial area, it is compatible.
MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of the increase in density of development from one
unit per 800 square feet of land area to one unit per 196 square feet.
Member Putnam cautioned that what they have just passed was good for this
particular use, but questioned the possibility of this use changing hands and
being converted to another type use--what are the restrictions here?
Director Warren indicated that t~ey cannot possibly cover every eventuality that
might occur, and he didn't know the limitations imposed by the federal government
as to financing. He felt that what Member Putnam was suggesting was quite remote.
Mr. Paul Miller, 350 E Street, co-chairman of this project, stated that they will
have a 40-year loan from the government, and could assure the Commission that
nothing could change during that time.
Reduction in side yard
Member Stewart commented that this was a reasonable request because the setbacks,
whic~ mean the most, are the front and rear: the front is a landscaped area
and the rear is the required parking. The area to the west are the backs of
stores which, as Member Macevicz indicated, are less than desirably kept, and
the east side of the proposed project is the church property.
MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Approval of the reduction in side yard from 58' to O.
Reduction in usable open space
T he Commission concurred that the comments made by Member Stewart in regard to
the reduction in side yard would be appropriate for this request also.
Member Rice suggested that they add to the motion the fact that this open space may
not be decreased below the 20,000 square feet.
MSUC (Macevicz=Adams) Approval of the reduction in usable open space from 33,200
square feet to 20,000 square feet, and that this amount not go below the minimum
set.
Reduction in floor area for efficiency apartments
Member Adams questioned whether this request was necessary in view of the fact
that they can add the balcony space to the apartment area.
Director Warren remarked that this was not a defined policy of the Commission
and technically, it would require a variance.
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of a reduction in minimum floor area for an efficiency
apartment from the 400 square feet required to 360 square feet not including the
patio area.
-6- 10/27/69
Parkin~ requirements
MSUC (Hyde-Macevicz) Approval of the 43 proposed parking spaces as provided on
the plot plan plus the condition that the applicant sign an agreement relative
to creation of additional parking if it is shown that the present parking proves
to be inadequate for the needs of this project. Such increase in parking shall
not be at the expense of the front landscaped area (F Street), but shall provide
for the addition of parking by either:
(1) A multi-storied parking facility on the site.
(2) Acquisition and development of property adjoining the site or in
close proximity as determined by the staff.
Findings for the variance requests are as follows:
a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would
result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the regulations.
The proposed use is limited to men and women over 62, whose income does
not exceed $4,500 if single or $5,400 if married. The program of financing
and attendant regulations is administered by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development of the federal government and is only available to
qualified non-profit properties.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that
do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.
No zoning classification exists which would accommodate all phases of this
project although certain combinations of several zones would provide for
a majority of the requests. This particular site is uncommonly suited
for such use by reason of its proximity to the Chula Vista Senior Citizens
Park, the downtown shopping area, and professional services. The lot is
separated from other residential properties.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or
neighborhood in which the property is located.
The site is sufficiently removed from any other residential properties so
as to preserve their serenity.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan reflects a need for high-rise development adjacent to the
Oowntown area without any specific reference to height. This plan will
coincide with those objectives.
Member Stewart commended the staff for the excellent report submitted to the
Commission on this matter.
-7- 10/27/69
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - 446 Flower Street - Home for mentally
retarded children - Milton A. Link
Director of Planning Warren submitted a location map noting tile property in
question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the applicant is
presently operating a similar business at 450 Flower Street, immediately adjacent
to this parcel. This was a permitted use in the R-3 zone; however, an emergency
ordinance has since been passed by the City Council placing these nursery homes
in the Unclassified Use Section subject to a conditional use permit. At an
earlier hearing, the Commission hearing, the Commission heard testimony from
the surrounding neighbors concerning the existing nursery. The Commission has,
subsequently, recommended to the Council the adoption of a permanent ordinance
wit~ the addition of certain standards: size of the parcel, location of windows
and play areas, and spacing between these facilities. The goal here is to place
the children in a residential environment, with the need for these facilities
increasing. The staff feels that one such home in a residential area would not
be a detriment; however, two of them tends to become a commercial venture that
may have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Warren then reviewed
Section 33.1305 noting the findings that must exist in order for the Commission
to grant a conditional use permit.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Milton A. Link, Alpine, California, stated he owns two pieces of property
in Chula Vista, 446 and 450 Flower Street. The property at 450 Flower is a
nursery home and he has now applied for the same use for the property at 446
Flower. He questioned whether two of these homes grouped together would change
the character of a neighborhood. The neighborhood is primarily duplexes and
multiple-family complexes. Most of the residents buying into this neighborhood
realize that although single-family homes exist, the area is zoned for multiple-
family use. He commented that he and his wife could take up residence at this
address and become foster parents to six children. Mr. Link then discussed the
daily habits of the children--their nap time, play time, and meal times, assuring
the Commission that they cause no noise or nuisance in the neighborhood.
Speaking in opposition to the request were: Mr. R. Branshaw, 440 Flower Street~
Mr. Walter Karl, 164 Guava Avenue; Mr. Ronald Chaney, 163 Guava Avenue; and
Mrs. Raymond Smith, 454 Flower Street. They presented a petition and listed
their reasons as: (1) the applicant lives in Alpine--he is not a resident of
this neighborhood; (2) the character of the neighborhood would definitely change
if another nursery home is allowed here; (3) the residents are not against these
children; however, they feel an established residential neighborhood is no place
for a nursery home; (4) the children need more space and play area than that
provided for in this single-family lot; (5) it is an invasion of their privacy
since the children can be heard crying and sometimes screaming: (6) it is a
detriment to their health and comfort and would hurt the residents financially
since their property values would drop considerably; (7) if this second nursery
home is permitted to go in, it will start a precedent and where will it stop;
(8) hesitant to have their children play or associate with these retarded children;
(9) there are a number of places outside the city or on the outskirts of the
city where these children can be placed; (10) the bedtimes of these children, as
noted by Mr. Link is not true--the children are not in bed at 8 p.m., and there
are screams heard from the home; (ll) the operators of the home have been closing
the windows and not putting the children out in the play area so that the residents
would not hear them crying.
-8- 10/27/69
Speaking in favor of the request were: Donald Cogburn, Area Administrator for
Community Services Division, Department of Social Welfare; John Hoffman, 45 Second
Avenue; William Link, 88 Mankato Street; Mrs. Helen Baxter, manager of the
nursery home at 450 Flower Street; Dave Mills, 169 Brightwood Avenue; Mrs. P. Jenkins,
San Uie§o, Cilildren of Mental Retardation Committee, Community Welfare Council of
San Diego County; and Miss Lee Carroll, Social Work Counselor, San Diego Regional
Center for Mentally Retarded Children. They cited the following facts:
(1) In the past, these children were placed in State hospitals far away from
their parents--the trend now is to place them as close to their home as possible;
(2) it is true that because these children are retarded, they are different than
the normal children, put they need to be cared for in a normal residential
neighborhood; (3) the need for these facilities is twice what is presently
available in the San Diego County; (4) their experience with the present owners
and operator is excellent--it is one of the best operated nursery homes in the
County; (5) the children range in age from 1~-2 years to 4 years of age, and are
cri~ infants when placed in this home; at this level, they are neither TMR nor
EMR; (6) the children will leave this facility when they become too large, as the
facility is for crib children; (7) the number of children is determined by the
usable square footage of the house; in this house, they could care for up to
6 children; (8) the same problems and complaints were received by the residents
when the Starlite Center went in--now the homes in this immediate vicinity are
worth far more than they were worth before the Center went in; (1) anyone can
visit this home at an~ time during the day or night and find tile place well-
kept and orderly; (lO) the children need to be raised in a populated residential
area so that they will learn to live as other people do; (ll) the pediatrician
visits the home at regular intervals and stated he has never found the children
unduly noisy; (12) the home and yard are spotlessly clean; (13) the corner on which
this house is situated has a total of ~5 kids--it is a normal neighborhood with
normal children noises; (14) there is a great need for more of these facilities--
based on the need, if the facilities were tripled, it would not serve today's
needs; (15) according to the recent figures published by the National Association
of Retarded Children, between 3% and 4% of the total population are retarded,
1~% of t~is figure being severely retarded; (16) because of the difference of
the retarded child and his inability to communicate normally, the noises he makes
might appear strange to some people; (17) if the Commission so desires, the
applicant would be willing to put acoustic tile on the walls to soundproof the
structure.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Rice commented that, based on the figures related by Mrs. Jenkins, there
would be approximately 1500 children in Chula Vista that were severely retarded
with approximately 2700 people retarded.
Member Adams, after listening to both sides of the question, remarked that the
applicant presented a good case for approving.his request. This qualifies under
the conditional use permit: the need, not being detrimental to the area in which
· it is located, complying with ordinance regulations, etc. It is a reasonable
request and will not be harmful to anyone.
-9- 10/27/69
Member Rice commented that the home will be approximately 25 feet from the
next residence because of the driveway in between.
Member Macevicz noted that the new structure is about 300 square feet less than
the existing nursery and questioned the number of children they can care for
here.
Mrs. Baxter commented that the State requires 50 square feet of area per child
and they could care for up to 6 children. There is a bedroom in the home for
the caretaker so that someone will be on the premises 24 hours a day.
Member Stewart referred to the testimony concerning the noise factor, and
remarked that if there is this much noise with 6 children, there will be twice
as much witil 12 children. He added that he must consider the testimony valid,
and on that basis, he objects to doubling the amount of children.
Member Adams indicated that he does not take the testimony as being valid. Any
neighborhood with children in it will have noise, and the Commission should
consider whether or not the noise factor emitting from this residence is over
and beyond that normally found in a neighborhood where there are children.
Member Putnam declared that this was a difficult decision--no one is against
these children--the question before the Commission tonight is whether or not
the property in question would be a proper place in which to place another one
of these facilities. He personally agrees with the comments made by Member
_ Stewart.
Member Rice agreed, adding that he realizes the great need for this type of
facility, but cannot ignore the fact that putting in another establishment in
this particular area would be highly improper.
Chairman Hyde stated that the record was quite clear that the Planning Commission
has shown sympathetic recognition for the need for these homes since they are
permitted in tile ordinance in any zone; however, they also recognize the need
for changes in the ordinance. Some of the uses that were not objectionable at
one time have proven to be so now. He added that, reluctantly, he has to agree
with the comments made by Member Rice.
MSC (Macevicz-Stewart) Denial of the conditional use permit to permit a nursery
home at 446 Flower Street, for the following reasons:
1. Appropriate findings for approval, as required by ordinance, cannot be made
in this particular case.
2. While the Commission recognizes the need for such facilities in the Chula
Vista area, they are aware of the fact that one such facility presently exists
in subject neighborhood. The establishment of another such facility in this
neighborhood would serve as a detriment to the residents of this area.
3. Valid testimony was received from residents of this area that the current
operation is disruptive to the residential environment, and that the addition of
another nursing home would be further disruptive.
-10- 10/27/69
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Members Macevicz, Stewart, Hyde, Rice, and Putnam
NOES: Member Adams
A~SENT: Member Chandler
The applicant was reminded of his right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within 10 days.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 1399 Melrose Avenue - Divide parcel into 2 lots, one havin~ 53 foot frontage - An~eleo P. Manese
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, submitted a location map noting the property
in question, the adjacent zoning and land use. The applicant is requesting
permission to split his parcel in order to create another building site--this
one will have 53 feet of frontage instead of the 60 feet required by ordinance.
Mr. Lee showed a sketch of the shape of the parcel noting it was the result of
the consolidation of the odd parcels from the subdivision in the area. He added
that there were several lots in this area with a 50 foot street frontage, since
that was the requirement at the time the land was subdivided. The staff
recommends approval.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Angeleo Manese, the applicant, 1366 Monterey Court, stated he recently acquired
this property from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Princess Estates was
unsuccessful in obtaining this property at the time they built Princess Manor #2.
The Gas & Electric Company declared it as a surplus right-of-way on their 350 foot
easement of their transmission line. This is the only amount of land he can
obtain, and since the ordinance now requires 60 feet of frontage instead of
50 feet, he is seeking approval of this variance request.
There being no further co~nents, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission concurred that the request was quite reasonable.
MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Approval of the variance request. Findings be as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The hardship that exists is the result of land subdivision and not any
act of the property owner.
D. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone an~ in
the vicinity of the subject property.
Tile adjacent properties were developed with a minimum of 50' frontage. This
request is in excess of ti~at figure.
-ll- 10/27/69
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose of this ordinance
or the public interest.
The property is in excess of 14,000 sq. ft. and, therefore, is allowed to
have two dwellings under the "dwelling group" provision of the zoning
ordinance.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
Ti~is r~quest is not contrary to the General Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 531 H Street - Reduction of frontyard 10' to 5'
and increase of sign area from 16 square feet'to 29 square
feet - A. A. Henr~ for C.I.T. Loan Corporation
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, submitted a map noting the property in
question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated that the ordinance
allows one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building front.
They have submitted a 16 square foot sign, which was approved--their building
frontage measures 16 feet. The applicants are now requesting permission to
erect a freestanding sign of 29 square feet with a setback of 5 feet. Mr. Lee
discussed the recently approved freestanding sign for the attorney's office in
this same building, which is 6 feet in height, made of 2" black steel posts and
a lantern-type electric light on top, with the signs containing about 50 square
incnes, i~e also noted the approval of the freestanding sign for Home Federal
Savings ac tile corner which measures 35 feet high and contains 150 square feet.
The sign proposed will De double-faced, 16 feet high, measuring 5' X 5'8".
The staff feels there is no need for a freestanding sign and the signs should
be coordinanted as part of a master sign plan. At the present time, there are
but two uses in this building, and if more businesses come in, they may all want
a freestanding sign out front. The staff, therefore, recommends denial of the
request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Andrew Henry, owner of the property, stated he was leasing it to the CIT
Corporation. He showed the Commission a picture of the proposed sign and
pictures of all loan signs presently existing in the City. If the freestanding
sign is approved, they will remove the 16 square foot sign presently attached
to the building. If the freestanding sign is turned down, they would like to
have the 29 square foot sign on the building. This will be interior lighted.
Director of Planning Warren noted the pictures of t~e signs passed around by
Mr. Henry were those not in the "D" Zone but rather in the commercial zones,
having no sign restrictions.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the public hearing
was declared closed.
-12- 10/27/69
Member Rice commented that the Commission imposed the "D" zone in this area in
order to property control the architecture and signs. The sign on the Home
Federal property is different and is in proportion to the size of the building
erected; also, that is a corner lot. He felt that any size sign larger than that
shown on the plot plan would be entirely out of proportion.
The Commission discussed the request and felt this freestanding sign would be
entirely out of scale, and should be denied.
MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Denial of the reduction of front yard 10' to 5' and the
increase of sign area for a freestanding sign from 16 square feet to 29 square
feet.
The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within l0 days.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - Telegraph Canyon Road & Halecrest - Sign Areas for
Service Station - Atlantic Richfield Company
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, submitted a location map noting the property
in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted the following requests
being made by the applicants:
1. An increase in height limit to 65' from the 45' limit in the C-C "D" zone.
2. An increase of sign area to 369 sq. ft. from the present 100 sq. ft. limit
in the C-C "D" zone as follows:
a. Freeway sign of 266 sq. ft.
b. Freestanding street sign of 88 sq. ft.
c. "A-Frame" sign of 15 sq. ft.
369 sq. ft.
Mr. Lee discussed the other service station signs in the area which were approved
and noted the freestanding signs applied for which were denied. From information
received, it is impossible, at this time, to determine what the grades of the
future freeway will be in this area, and consequently, the need for the 65' high
sign. Once this freeway is constructed, they will be able to decide the size and
height of the signs that would be needed, if any. The staff, therefore, is
recommending denial of the freeway sign and approval of the 88 square foot free-
standing sign and the 15 foot A-Frame sign.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. William Ferguson, representing Richfield Oil Company, San Diego, stated he
agrees with the comments made by the staff. He admitted that they did not know
what size or height of the sign they will need here until such time as the free-
way is constructed. They would need a truck to hoist the sign to determine the
visibility from the freeway.
-13- 10/27/69
Chairman Hyde discussed the freeway-oriented signs and explained that perhaps
there could be a collection of signs representing various companies on one
sign rather than a number of signs competing with each other.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
The Commission indicated their agreement with the staff's recommendation.
MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Approval of the freestanding sign of 88 square feet and
the 15 square foot "A"-Frame sign. Denial of the 266 square foot freeway sign.
Findings be as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
An increase in sign area is necessary to delineate this type of service as
compared to normal retail use.
b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other property in the same zone and
in the vicinity of the subject property.
This type of variance has been granted to service stations in the area.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the prupose of this ordinance
or the public interest.
The Commercial property in the area has a similar variance, and the residential
property has a great grade separation. Approval of this variance will not
be detrimental.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected by the granting of this variance.
Discussion - K.O.A. Campground site - Requirements
Director of Planning Warren stated he received a communication from the Chula
Vista City School District stating that 50 or more children attending Rosebank
School were living at this campground. Upon investigation of the area, the
housing inspector stated that there are about 22 self-contained mobilehomes
here, which indicates that there are permanent residents in this campground.
The Commission granted the applicants a conditional use permit to use the area
for a campground to accommodate travelers requiring camping facilities for
travel trailers and campers, and not for a mobilehome park. A member of the
staff reviewed the tape of that hearing and at no time did the applicant state
that permanent residents would be permitted, nor did the Commission approve
anything but a campground for transient visitors.
-14- 10/27/69
In bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission, the staff does
not wish to imply that they would oppose a mobile home park on this site.
IV the Co~nission acknowledges the need for this, and such were approved with
a conditional use permit, then the spaces should be improved according to the
ordinance for a mobilehome park.
Director Warren then discussed the landscaping and said it was the opinion of
the staff that a great many improvements could be made to make this a more
desirable environment for the residents.
Member Rice agreed, adding that the Commission hoped to see some evidence of
this park-like atmosphere the applicants promised at the hearing. If they had
indicated they would run a permanent mobile home park, the Commission would
have imposed far greater restrictions than that for a public canpground. Member
Rice declared he was quite disappointed with the development as exists there
today.
Mr. Ted Bell, representing K.O.A. stated they cater to the traveler and semi-
permanent resident. They must have this in order to stay open 12 months out of
the year. He checked the residents there today and found: 1 trailer has been
there 1 year; one, 8 months; two, 6 months; two, 5 months; one, 4 months;
two, 3 months; eight, 2 months; 2 spaces at a weekly rate; and 5 at a daily rate.
He stated these people are being sent to them from Navy Housing for temporary
quarters until such time as the Navy can find them housing. Mr. Bell stated
that they encourage monthly rentals during the winter months, and they do not
want permanent residents. From September 30, 1968 through September 30, 1969,
they handled 18,000 units. As to the landscaping, they did submit a planting
plan and it is being followed. There has been some set back during the summer
months--children running over the ice plant, women throwing dishwater on the
shrubs and trees, etc.
In answer to Member Rice's inquiry, Mr. Bell stated they have had tents on the
premises from time to time, but they limit these to 30 days in one calendar
year.
Mr, Schofield Bonnet, partner in the enterprise, stated it was actually a
franchise. The winter people really help them out financially in staying as
long as they do. Every one of the trailers there are travel trailers and can
be pulled behind a car. Mr. Bonnet declared that they took advantage of the
Navy housing shortage--75% of the residents at the campground are Navy, the
rest are construction workers and transients.
Director Warren remarked that the school was concerned over the fact that this
was not a proper environment for the school children. The question here is
whether it is all right for people living there on a semi-permanent basis.
Member Macevicz commented that the school is primarily concerned that the
children are not having a high standard living condition--these youngsters
are not housed in a satisfactory manner.
-15- 10/27/69
Chairman Hyde remarked that the Commission must look to the ordinance, and the
ordinance does require certain regulations for a mobile home park. If, in fact,
they are operating a mobile home park on a portion of the premises, then that
portion of the park should meet the requirements of a mobile home park. He
suggested that the Planning Director investigate this further and bring this
matter back to the Commission. Also, that the Landscape Planner look over the
plantings to make sure they comply with that approved.
Member Stewart suggested the staff contact other communities and see if they
have had this problem and how it was solved.
The Commission indicated their feelings that they were displeased over the
outcome of this development.
Member Adams stated it should not be a mobile home park; he would not be in
favor of approving such at this site.
Request for extension of time - Conditional Use Permit - 346 L Street - Church of the Nazarene
Director of Planning Warren explained that the applicants are asking for
another extension for the construction of a new sanctuary in front of their existing
education building. The staff recommends approval with the condition that the
parking be revised to coincide with the new Zoning Ordinance.
MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Approval of a one year extension of time subject to a
parking layout revision which will increase the parking from 130 spaces shown to
138 to coincide with the new Zoning Ordinance; this is based on a seating
capacity of 480.
Planning Commission Workshop in San Francisco
Director of Planning Warren stated he has received a notice of a course for
Planning Commissioners which will be held in San Francisco on December 5 and 6,
1969. There is some money in the budget to send two or three Commissioners. He
stated he will make copies of the notice and send them to the members.
Home Occupation - 247 Elder Street
Mr. J. D. McCann, San Diego, asked for Commission approval of a home occupation
at 247 Elder Street for a reducing salon. This will be by appointment only and
will have 8 pieces of equipment which will be in the living room and part of the
dining room. This is a corner lot and parking for the clients can be provided.
Director of Planning Warren explained that this gentleman came into the office
for this approval, and the staff indicated their intention to disapprove it.
His only alternative, therefore, was to come before the Commission and present
his case.
-16- 10/27/69
Mr. McCann stated this is the same type business as that being operated by
Mr. Loria, 109 E Street, which the Commission approved.
Member Adams remarked that in view of the trouble they have had with this
type home occupation, he would deny this request.
The other members of the Commission concurred and indicated they would not
look favorably upon it.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ennie M. Fulasz Secretary