Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/06/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 16, 1969 T he regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, 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: Rice, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, and Adams. Absent: Members Hyde and Putnam. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Engineer Gesley and Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Minutes of the meetings of May 26 and June 2, 1969 be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Regulation of the display of Outdoor Advertising Director of Planning Warren explained the text of the draft of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which would regulate the billboards adjacent to the existing and proposed freeways--this would be for the landscaped freeways. Since this is a public hearing, the Commission may want to hear all testimony and then change this proposed amendment accordingly. Basically, the ordinance stipulates that "no advertising displays shall be placed or maintained or relocated on property within 660' of a freeway, regardless of the district or zone in which it is located..." Mr. Warren remarked that there is no provision for billboards in the new Zoning Ordinance as ready for adoption by the City Council. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the draft of the new Zoning Ordinance, as forwarded to the City Council, contains no provision for the billboards, but it is his conviction that billboards must be allowed in some zones, such as industrial zones. The present proposed ordinance is essentially a regulatory ordinance in force in San Diego and National City. The staff should have the Commission's guide- lines after hearing all testimony tonight; then the ordinance should be redrafted based on the comments they make relative to this matter. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing is opened. Mr. Lou England, representing Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company and Foster & Kleiser, referred to Section 2, page 2. He questioned whether the construction of these advertising billboards within 660' of the freeway referred to landscaped freeways or all freeways. City Attorney Lindberg declared it meant landscaped freeways. -2- 6/16/69 Mr. England discussed paragraph (b) on page 2, which prohibits billboards if they "constitute or tend to constitute a hazard to the safe and efficient operation of vehicles upon a freeway..." He questioned who would judge this condition. Attorney Lindberg felt this would be a matter for the Traffic Engineer to review when permits are requested for a particular billboard. Mr. England asked who is going to decide this and what criteria will he use. He referred to the studies made in 1957 by Michigan State which he claimed set out no proof whatsoever that billboards did, in fact, create a traffic hazard. On the contrary, Mr. England declared, in the straight freeways with nothing to attract the driver's eye on both sides of the road, it tended to be a form of self- hypnosis which added to the traffic hazard of the road. In the cases where there were billboards, this attracted the driver's attention and consequently kept his eyes on the road. Member Macevicz pointed out that the study referred to by Mr. England was made in 1957, and these statistics are out-moded as far as today's traffic counts are concerned. Mr. England suggested some guideline be set up as to how much space to have between these structures (such as 500' as the State proposes), what the maximum height should be, etc. With this form of regulation, outdoor advertising could operate adequately on freeways, rather than to have an outright prohibition of them. Mr. Edward Dato, representing Foster & Kleiser Outdoor Advertising Company, discussed further the study made by the State of Michigan in 1957, and the State of Iowa. Three studies were made: one showed a N% reduction in the number of accidents on freeways where billboards were displayed; a second study showed a 10% decrease, and the third study showed a 5% decrease in accidents. It is important to note here, Mr. Dato declared, that there were no studies that showed that accidents were increased on the freeways where there were outdoor advertising structures. Mr. Clint Mathews, co-owner of Cavalier Motel, E Street, asked the Commission's consideration to allow the billboards to remain on the freeway until the State completes construction of Interstate 5. They plan to start this from the border and continue north to National City--this will take a period of two or three years. Twenty-three million cars a year 9o to the border on this freeway, and their motel gets a good amount of this business from their outdoor advertising display on this road. For this reason, they are requesting that thir ordinance be held in abeyance until after the completion of the Interstate 5. Attorney Lindberg explained that under the terms of the ordinance, there is a prohibition upon the replacement of billboards on landscaped freeways, and when such freeways are landscaped, there is a three year period for amortization or removal of the structures. In essence, this means they have a period of six years before amortization begins. Member Stewart asked the staff to look into Mr. Mathews' request--that his billboard be allowed to be relocated and remain on the freeway for at least six months. This should be resolved before another hearing is conducted on this ordinance. -3- 6/16/69 Mr. Lindberg commented that the Commission may want to designate certain other highways where billboards would be considered, even though they are not considered landscaped freeways. These highways would be ones that would be considered a matter of civic pride, such as Bonita Road. The Commission discussed regulating the placement of billboards along the free- ways so that there will be no cluttering, such as in the industrial zones. Mr. England stated they would go along with these regulations, and it probably should apply to Interstate 805 as well as 5. The regulations should be written into the draft before it is adopted. Chairman pro tem Rice questioned the regulation along Tidelands Avenue. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the City has little control over the tidelands area, but it could be a matter which they can forward to the Port Authority. Director Warren explained that no billboards would be allowed along Interstate 805 since no industrial zone exists here. He feels that if billboards are needed and are necessary, they have no relation to the industrial zone. Mr. Lindberg asked the Commission for their feelings on the matter of spacing the billboards in the industrial zone, such as the 500 feet allowed by the State provisions, to be put into the new ordinance before adoption by the City Council. The Commission may want to further consider allowing the billboards in the commer- cial zones, subject to conditional use permit. This could be discussed at a later time, since the Commission is limited to the scope of this particular regulatory ordinance at this time, and limited to replacing the billboards in the industrial zones by virtue of the hearings held on the new zoning ordinance which will soon be adopted. The Commission can consider allowing billboards in modifying zones, subject to conditional use permit, or whatever, at a later date. Simply keeping the billboards in the industrial zones is not the answer. Member Macevicz noted that the Commission also wishes to write into this ordinance, the size, direction, features, etc., of the billboards. The Commission discussed possible dates of giving this ordinance back to the staff and the City Attorney for a revision. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Continue the public hearing until the meeting of July 21 and the staff be directed to meet with the City Attorney and make all revisions to the proposed ordinance based on the consensus of the Commission, staff and City Attorney's remarks. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Establishin9 Procedure to Change Setback Lines Director of Planning Warren discussed the proposed amendment indicating that it establishes a procedure for amending the setback map. When adopted, the setback changes would be done by the same process as that used in the rezoning process. -4- 6/16/69 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 576 to City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Establishing a Procedure for Changing Setback Lines PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE (Cont'd) - 445 "E" Street - Request for increase in permitted lot coverage in' an R-3 zone - Joe Bishop Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was continued to this meeting in order to give the staff time to determine the feasibility of a text amendment to permit carports and garages to cover the entire rear yard on apart- ment projects. He submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, stating that the staff had recommended denial because there were no exceptional circum- stances which would justify granting the variance. They felt this type of use should be handled by an amendment to the zoning ordinance. The staff has drafted a simple amendment to the zoning ordinance which states: "covered or enclosed parking for residential developments may be located in required side or rear yards, with the exception of the exterior side yard." If the Commission so desires, this amendment could be set for hearing for the meeting of July 21. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams agreed with the recommendations of the staff, but commented that it would delay the applicant in his construction for a period of two to three months before the amendment is adopted. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission, in considering a variance, looks at individual cases. In this particular case, by their action of requesting a public hearing for a modification of the ordinance, they are recognizing that a hardship does exist. The restrictive terms of the ordinance prevent proper utilization of this property and all other properties within this zone. The Commission will examine this overall question by having a public hearing on this ordinance. The Commission discussed the feasibility of the proposed ordinance agreeing that it would take the cars off the street, by providing them with this covered parking area. They concurred that the variance should be filed and they would proceed with the text amendment. City Attorney Lindberg cautioned that if they did this, the applicant would have no chance to appeal, if the amendment is not adopted. He suggested the Commission deny the variance. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Variance be denied since no exceptional circumstances were found that would justify granting it. The staff is directed to set the amendment for public hearing for the meeting of July 21 which would allow this type of use. -5- 6/]6/69 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - ]343 /bird Avenue - Reduction of front yard setback from 25~ to 0 for a freestandin~ si~n - Southern California First National Bank Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He indicated on the plot plan the location of the two proposed signs explaining that both would be in the front setback: one would be an identification sign, 10' x 15', double face plex, interior illuminated, with an overall height of 45', projecting 5' over the street right-of-way. The second sign measures 4' x 2'6"; it is a directional sign, 10' in height, and will be located on the property line opposite a driveway directing people to an existing drive-thru window. All of the buildings in this center observe the 25' setback; the bank building is the closest to the curb and does have an identifica- tion sign on it. Mr. Warren discussed the various signs in this center, and cautioned that if this sign is approved, it will encourage other freestanding signs within the setback area from the other businesses within this center. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of the directional sign, but denial of the identification sign. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Les Taylor, California Neon Products, representing the applicant, discussed the need for the two signs and commented that if they were required to observe the 25' setback requirement, the signs would have to be erected in the driveway and parking area. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the need for the signs and stated they concurred with the recommendations made by the Director of Planning. Director of Planning Warren noted the other freestanding signs in this area and the variances granted for them, but indicated some variance requests had been denied. MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Approval of the directional sign (4' x 2'6'~) and denial of the identification sign (10' x 15'). Findings for the approval of the directional sign 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. Normal use of a drive-in facility requires adequate signing to direct people to the proper entrance. 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. The directional sign is needed to direct people safely from the public streets. -6- 6/16/69 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 neigh- borhood in which the property is located. The directional sign will be an asset rather than a detriment to the area. 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 this request. Reasons for the denial of the identification sign are as follows: 1. All of the freestanding signs within the shopping center complex are observing the 25' setback. 2. The bank structure is located closer to the street than any other building and, therefore, has better exposure than the other stores in the center. 3. The approval of this sign would set a precedent for future requests in this area. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within l0 days. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Spruce and Pearlwood Streets - Construction 'of a model homes complex and a trailer sales-office - Na'~'ion Associates Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question and the location of the model homes complex and sales office. The request also includes 10 signs, totaling 144 square feet, placed within this complex. Mr. Warren explained that the staff sent out notices of this request and after receiving more than 50% written protests from the property owners (Flair Annex #5), set this for hearing before the Commission. The petition received by the staff related to the construction problems which are pertinent to any subdivision development: the heavy vehicles using the road, danger to children at play, and possible damage to the road. City Attorney Lindberg stated these reasons concerned the use of a public street which is not an aspect of the conditional use permit. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Wittman, Saratoga Development Company, in a joint venture with American Housing Guild in developing this subdivision, stated they have already built 345 homes in the area, and because they are now going into a different design for the homes, they are requesting permission to put up this model complex. He asked approval of his request. -7- 6/]6/69 Mr. Dale Silvia, 328 Spruce Street, stated the only objection voiced by the people in this area was the possible danger to their children by the heavy equipment using the road. He discussed having another access road to this proposed development whereby they wouldn't have to use their main road. Chairman pro tem Rice explained to Mr. Silvia that his remarks were not 9ermain to this conditional use permit. City Attorney Lindberg agreed adding that this City street is a public right-of- way, and it will be required that these developers will use the street carefully and safely, and hopefully, the children will be kept out of the streets and on the sidewalks. In answer to Mr. Silvia's inquiry, Mr. Lindberg explained that any damage to the street as a result of the heavy equipment using it would be the liability of the contractors involved. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Stewart remarked that everyone regrets the necessity of having trucks passing their front door, and if the children are playing in the streets, it would create a hazard for them. However, the law permits the use of the street as an access route to any newly developed areas. The Commission concurred that the request was a logical one. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The models shall be landscaped and continually maintained. 2. The parking areas shall be paved. 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 well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The sales area and signs are necessary for the sale of homes in the subdivision. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The model homes will be harmonious with the residential character of the area. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. Strict application would deprive the developers of adequate advertising of the subdivision. 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. Models will be fully landscaped and parking area provided for the customers. -8- 6/16/69 Chairman pro tem Rice advised any interested parties of their right to appeal this decision. Request for approval of plans - Humble Oil Service Station at the southeast corner of Telegrap~ Can~on Road and Interstate 805 Director of Planning Warren submitted a rendering and building elevations of the proposed service station, explaining that the Commission recently approved a schematic site plan for the shopping center. At that meeting plans for the service station were submitted but the Planning Commission did not approve them and asked the developer of the station to coordinate his construction to the shopping center. The Enco people are now proposing slump stone on the front elevation with a tan color metal siding around the remaining sides. The roof would be an aluminum shake shingle which would match those of the proposed buildings in the shopping center; however, there is little similarity between the architecture of the build- ings and the service station. Other than that, the staff believes that the materials proposed for this station will be compatible with the remaining buildings as proposed. The Commissioners remarked that the sketches submitted were quite small and not adequate enough to view objectively. They felt any plans submitted for architec- tural approval should be on a larger scale. Mr. L. Weaver, representing Humble Oil Company, stated the roof line of this proposed service station will be the same as that of their service station at Woodlawn and "E" Street. He felt the station would be entirely compatible with the shopping center. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Architectural approval of the plans for the Humble Oil service station as follows: Construction of the station to be of slump stone on the front and easterly elevations, with a tan color metal siding around the remaining sides. The slump stone shall also cover the canopy pilasters. The roof to be an aluminum shake shingle, so that all materials will match those of the main shopping center buildings as currently proposed. SUBDIVISION - Final map of Southwestern College Estates, Unit #4 Director of Planning Warren referred to the final map of Unit #4 of Southwestern College Estates. This unit contains 76 lots and is located on the east side of Otay Lakes Road, north of Harvard Street. The map conforms to the tentative map and the staff recommends approval subject to the condition imposed by the Division of Engineering. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Recommend approval of the map subject to the following condition: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. -9- 6/16/69 Request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit - 61-85 Third Avenue - R. H. Woodward Director of Planning submitted a plot plan noting the location of this property which he explained is vacant. The applicant had previously been granted a one- year extension on his conditional use permit for a convalescent hospital. He is now requesting another year's extension since he has not, as yet, been able to obtain financing. The staff is recommending approval of the request, since conditions in the area have remained unchanged. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of a one-year extension of time; subject permit will now expire on July 6, 1970. Request by Director of Parks & Recreation for approval of new rest room buildin~ in General Roca Park Director of Planning Warren passed around a sketch of General Roca Park noting the location proposed for the rest room. This will be at the end of the access drive, near the existing building which will be remodeled and used for another purpose. The Commission's function here is to determine whether the construc- tion of this building is in conformance with the General Plan. After discussion, Chairman pro tem Rice indicated that the matter of park building architecture was important and should be given consideration. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Submit to the City Council the findings that the new rest room building in General Roca Park is in conformance with the General Plan, and that care be utilized to assure that the building materials will be harmonious with the character of the park and the buildings in the area south of the park. League Dinner Director Warren asked for any reservations to the League of California Cities dinner meeting on June 20, 1969. None of the Commissioners were able to attend this meeting. Summer Meetings Director Warren commented that during the months of July and August, both the staff and the members of the Commission will be intermittently on vacation. He suggested they 9o back to having the two meetings a month: 1st and 3rd Monday. If they find that the rate of applications increase during this period, the staff will then add the extra meeting night. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) During the months of July and August, the Commission hold two meetings a month: the first and third Mondays. -10- 6/16/69 Zoning Board of Appeals The Commission inquired about the formation of this Board. Director of Planning Warren stated that the Associate Planner, Paul Manganelli, is doing some research on how it is handled in other cities, and the City Attorney is preparing an ordinance. The Commission discussed the function of the Board with Member Stewart commenting that the workload over the last several years were such that the Planning Commission has not had time to review the general plan or go into any detailed advance planning. He said he advocated the formation of this Board almost ten years ago. Member Adams stated that the Commission should forward to the City Council their opinions on this before adoption. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission will be getting a report on this. Charter Review Committee Member Stewart stated that the Charter Review Committee will be meeting soon to hear revisions and additions to the Charter. He suggested the Commission send a representative or a letter expressing their desire to have at least their out-of- pocket expenses reimbursed. The Commission agreed declaring that this situation should certainly be alleviated. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) The Planning Commission take formal action to make a recom- mendation to the Charter Review Committee for a modification of the charter which would reimburse the Commissioners for their out-of-pocket expenses. New Reporte~ The new reporter, Mike Schaeffer, was introduced to the Commission. He will be covering the meetings for the "Chula Vista Star News." ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of June 23, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ennie M. Fulasz, Secretary