Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/02/17- MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 17, 1969 The regular adjourned 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, York, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. Subdivision - Tentative map of Bonita Village Green Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location as south of Allen School Lane and west of Otay Lakes Road. The area will be sub- divided into 100 residential lots yielding a gross density of 20,000 square feet or more. The net density averages just under 18,000 square feet per lot. T here is a provision in this zone (R-I-B-20) which, upon approval of a sub- division map, permits the Planning Commission to approve a map with lots calculated on a gross-density basis. The area encompasses 46~ acres excluding certain areas apparently owned by the applicant. One is the 1~ acres of land to the east of this proposed subdivision _ extending to Otay Lakes Road. The engineer of this subdivision felt that perhaps some type of planned unit development will be used on this strip of land because of its drainage problem. The staff agrees that this possibly could occur but cautions the Commission that a solution to the development of this strip should be considered with the approval of this map so that in the future they will not be faced with a problem parcel of land. The staff asks that consideration of the map be continued until plans are presented for this strip. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval as presented by the Planning staff and the Division of Engineering. Mr. P. Shenas, attorney for the developers, Suite 1104, 707 Broadway, San Diego, questioned the requirement that a plan be presented for the 1~ acre strip of land between the boundary of the subdivision and Otay Lakes Road. He stated the developers in this case were different from the owners of that property. The people filing this particular map are a group of investors, and Mr. and Mrs. Cromer are the owners of the remaining land. It is neither a practical nor a legal appropriation to ask them to file a map for that strip--either the subdividers or the owners. He questioned why it was more feasible to require a subdivision map for that property than wait until later, and also, why isn't there a similar requirement for imposing this same condition on the 25 acres on the westerly side of the subdivision that was left out. Mr. Maurice Nixon, President of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, noted that on January 13, 1969, the Planning Commission gave this Association 60 days in which to present the Sweetwater Valley Prezoning Plan to the residents of the Valley. In this respect, he is requesting that items 2 and 3 on this agenda - (the consideration of this map and the prezoning request for the area north of Sweetwater Road and west of Bonita Woods Subdivision) be continued until after their meeting, which is scheduled for February 20, 1969. -2- 2/17/69 Mr. Eugene Cook, Civil Engineer representing the subdividers, made the following comments on the proposed conditions: Sidewalks: They do not want sidewalks in this subdivision. Many of the lots are over 100 feet of frontage, and the whole neighborhood would look much better without sidewalks. 6 foot high fence adjacent to Allen School Lane: This is out-of-place at this location; instead, they would prefer to put landscaping there. Landscaping plan for slope at the southern end of the subdivision: It would be more logical to include this in the development plans for Unit #2. Walkway to the school: This will be built only to the school grounds, not to the front of the school, and therefore, not feasible to be used by the residents to get to the shopping center. They also want the words "6 foot masonry" stricken from this condition. They oppose building a retaining wall adjacent to such a walkway. Residential street section conforming to standard drawing lO1C: They propose to make this a 32' curb-to-curb crown section street and there is no trouble with parking on both sides of such a street in an area of low density. Cul-de-sac at the end of Road F: They wish to have the word "temporary" inserted before cul-de-sac. Lot lines of lots 31-48 made compatible with grading plan: They drew the lot lines to conform to the minimum areas set up in the zoning ordinance. It would be most difficult to develop the lots if the lot lines were placed at the top of the slope. They wish the prerogative of using their own judgment as to where to put these lot lines. Extending C Street to the easterly boundary line: This strip to the east will be served by Otay Lakes Road and not from this subdivision. Streets A and C extended to provide adequate frontage: They will be willing to move the lot lines here. Improving southerly half of Allen School Lane: They object to improving this section which is outside their subdivision boundary limits. Mr. Cook declared that all or any of these conditions will not cause the need to change the map and bring it back to the Commission; they can make the necessary changes by just adding a few words. Director Warren noted that they attorney made some "statements of fact" which should be established by the Commission. If the owner of the land is selling this property as this map dictates, then they are left wi th land difficult to develop. The staff believes that this strip next to Otay Lakes Road should be considered one way or another. There is a major drainage way through this and it will be difficult to serve it from Otay Lakes Road. The Commission should be aware of what is going to take place on this area of land as well as that area to the west of the subdivision property. As to the property lines at the top of the slopes--this becomes a question of maintenance--the subdivider will have to change the size of some of his lots and possibly redesign them to meet this requirement. -3- 2/17/69 _ As to the double frontage lots, the staff attempts to work toward some uniformity of fencing at the time the lot is developed. They are suggesting a wall and landscaping, not "either - or". Many of the conditions can be handled by state- ments as Mr. Cook suggested; however, the staff does not feel the map is ready for consideration at t~is time and should be redrawn. It is not desirable to approve a tentative map subject to so many significant conditions. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated the Engineering Division prefers the lot line to be on top of a slope, as the land-owner at the bottom of the slope would be more apt to maintain the slope. As to requiring the provision for the extension of C Street to the easterly property, they feel this particular strip is large enough so that they should know what type of development will take place there, and in lieu of not having this picture, their requirement stands. As to the road requirement, they feel it should be limited to parking on one side only--this section is too small for parking on both sides. Mr. Gesley discussed his department's requirement for street improvement on Allen School Lane next to the property fronting on Otay Lakes Road, and declared that with 100 homes proposed for constrctuion in this subdivision, it would be a hazard not to construct this small portion of street at this time; it is not an undue requirement. Chairman Hyde asked if this would be a legal requirement since that portion is not a part of this subdivision. City Attorney Lindberg stated it was an appropriate off-site improvement. -- The Commission discussed the requirement of having a plan for that area outside the subdivision. City Attorney stated the legality of this condition flows from logic. You can't have planned use nor design for subdivision without relating it to the surrounding area. You cannot require the presentation of a subdivision map, but if you have a problem area, you wouldn't go blindly ahead with the approval of a subdivision map which creates an insurmountable problem necessitating perhaps a change in land use or complete loss of economic land use. The purpose of a subdivision of land or zoning is to avoid the squandering of land and making all land usable. The other area, southwest of the proposed subdivision, can be treated more independently of this subdivision. Mr. Shenas asked what kind of commitment they can make on this strip of land. Mr. Lindberg remarked that the area is zoned R-I-B-20; in the planning of the subdivision which is under the control of the developers, the Commission should be assured there will be sufficient access to this strip; that the subdivision design does not preclude the best use of the land. Member Rice recounted various problems that could arise with the development of this strip, and felt the Commission should see some plan as to how this area will eventually be developed. Mr. Warren commented that the Commission should first establish the ownerships of these parcels. If it is under common ownership, then the Commission would want to require a tentative map for the entire ownership. The Commission should _ avoid being forced to consider another land use on this property. -4- 2/17/69 Member Rice stated for the record that the Commission must establish that that area (next to Otay Lakes Road) can be developed in an R-l-B-20 development. The Commission agreed that action on the map should be continued. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Continue action on the map until such time as the developer can get together with the staff to work out the problems noted at the meeting tonight. Under discussion, Mr. Cook read from Section 33.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, areas designated B-20, etc., which "may be calculated on a gross area basis where land is in acreage and a subdivision map is submitted for Planning Commission and Council approval." He noted this was a permissive requirement and they don't need Commission approval for this. Mr. Lindberg asked for time to give the Commission a written report on this interpretation. He commented that the way it reads, if the conditions are present, then the developers would be allowed to calculate it on a gross area basis. Mr. Cook spoke again of the requirement to extend C Street through that area outside the subdivision boundary, east of Otay Lakes Road and for a plan for the area. He felt it would destroy the concept of the subdivision, if he had to include that area on the map at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - North side of Sweetwater Road, west of Bonita Woods Subdivision from Count~ E-1 to R-l-B-12 - Vitek Constructors Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area requested for prezoning. The area is presently zoned E-1 in the County (one unit for each acre) and the applicant is requesting R-l-B-12 which would net about three lots for each acre. This area is part of a prezoning plan studied by a committee in the Valley. A general membership meeting of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Associa- tion will be held on Thursday, February 20, 1969 at which time this plan will be presented to them. The staff is recommending that this matter be continued until such time as this meeting can be held and another public hearing held by the Commission, or that the request be denied without prejudice. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. A1 Vitek, the applicant, stated he would agree to the continuance. Mr. Warren suggested the hearing be continued to the meeting of March 24. MSUC (York-Stewart) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of March 24, 1969. -5- 2/17/69 PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - 556, 560 and 564 G Street - R-2 to R-3 - Caldwell, Skibbe and Martinez Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning of the lots in question. The applicants are requesting a change of zone from R-2 to R-3 and a reduction of front setback on G Street from 20 feet to 15 feet and on Smith Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet. To the rear of these parcels is a 15 foot unimproved alley. The staff recommends approval of the request with the attachment of the supplemental "D" zone. The staff would also recommend that an agreement be drawn up and signed by the applicants expressing their willingness to participate in the improvement of the alley at such time as the City requests it. City Attorney Lindberg indicated it could also be done when 60% of the property owners in the area agree to the improvement. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Albert Caldwell, the applicant, questioned how the other residents in this area would be forced to participate in the improvement of the alley. Mr. Lindberg explained this would be done by a 1911 Act, and the agreement Mr. Caldwell would be requested to sign is a statement that he will not protest the improvement. Mr. Caldwell indicated his willingness to participate. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred that the request was reasonable and non-controversial. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City ~lanning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 555 to the City Council the Change of Zone from R-2 to R-3-D and the Establishment of Front Setbacks as 15 feet on G Street and 10 Feet on Smith Avenue for Properties at 556, 560 and 564 G Street Findings be as follows: Rezoning: a. The General Plan designates this area as very high density residential. b. R-3 zoning and uses exist on property to the west and north in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Setbacks: a. The property 50 feet to the west has a required setback of 10 feet, while the properties across G Street from the subject property have setbacks of 15 feet. b. The requested setbacks are now recognized as a standard for R-3 zoned areas not fronting on major streets. -6- 2/17/69 PUBLIC HEARING: Chan~e of front setback - 30' to 25' - North side of the 400 block of Street - Commission initiated Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question. He explained that the hearing was Commission initiated and came aoout as a result of a recent request to reduce the setback at 495 F Street to 25 feet. The staff recommends the setback in the area be reduced to 25 feet in accordance with the findings delineated in the report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission agreed that the setback along this street should be changed. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 556 to the City Council the Change in Setback from 30 feet to 25 feet for the north side of the 400 Block of F Street Findings be as follows: a. The new zoning ordinance, the appropriate section of which has already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, establishes 25 foot setbacks on arterial streets designeted on the General Plan. While F Street does not at present appear on the General Plan, the street functions as a collector road by virtue of its average daily traffic count (8500 cars per day in the subject block). Consideration, therefore, will be given to upgrade its status upon review of the General Plan. b. The reduction will allow for setbacks which are more consistent with those established in the area (25 foot setbacks exist on the south side of the block). PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 1312 and 1316 First Avenue - Split lot into two parcels: one lot having a 30 foot frontage and second lot having access bS waS of an easement - HenrS Pritchard Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in questions, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant has a parcel of R-1 zoned land 100' X 150' which he plans to divide into two 7500 square foot lots, both using the 30 foot strip for access. The staff recommends the easement be 20 feet wide which would be adequate to serve the two houses, and would suggest further that it be paved. Mr. Warren then reviewed three other conditions for approval. Member Stewart discussed the easement commenting that it should be continued onto the southerly lot. Director Warren stated he would clarify this condition to require legal access to the southerly lot and that it should be paved. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -7- 2/17/69 Mr. Henry Pritchard, the applicant, discussed the second condition whereby he would deed the south lO feet of the access to the adjoining parcel. He commented that the front of this lot belongs to his brother and that he owns the rear portion, so there is no problem here. Mr. Ralph Vaughn, 120 Paisley, spoke against the request and referred to the petition he presented signed by 8 people representing 4 property owners. They feel the division of the land would allow substandard lots because of the easement. He lives below the applicant's parcel and has had to build a retaining wall to keep the mud from coming into his home caused by the applicant's putting fill dirt on this land. Mr. Vaughn indicated the lot split makes no allowance for drainage; this drainage hits his house. City Attorney Lindberg explained the ordinance in regard to the development of properties whereby the lots must be graded in such a way that they will not drain onto adjacent properties, but rather out into the street. Chairman Hyde declared that this particular matter should be referred to the City Engineering Division. Mr. Pritchard stated he would eliminate the drainage problem and drain the water out into the street. Mr. Vaughn questioned whether Mr. Pritchard could do this. Chairman Hyde explained, however, that the Commission's only action tonight would be to see whether or not the applicant can build on the lots back there and to stipulate the conditions for building. All other matters pertaining to drainage, etc., must be taken care of by the Building and Engineering Departments. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Ri ce felt it would be right to permit the lot to be developed since they will exceed the minimum lot size. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. A 20' wide paved access with 2" of A.C. over 4'' D.G. as approved by the City Engineer will be provided for the proposed division of lots extending from First Avenue west a distance of 130 feet. The 20' wide easement shall then be extended from the northerly property line south a distance of 75 feet to provide access from the south parcel. Said paving may be reduced in width to 15' in the area subject to staff review of site plans. 2. The south 10 feet of the proposed 30' wide access shall be deeded to the adjoining parcel and a parcel map recorded on the entire 210' X 150' area recording this change. 3. A grading plan shall be submitted to the staff for approval prior to the recordation of the parcel map and such map shall provide for all lots to drain surface waters to First Avenue. 4. Site plans including elevations of the proposed construction shall be submitted for staff approval;said plans shall provide for two off-street parking spaces in addition to the required 2-car garages. -8- 2/17/69 Findings be 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. If this variance is not granted a large portion of the lot could not be developed. 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 parcel is not of sufficient size to provide a dedicated street to serve the lot. 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 houses and lots would be comparable to those in the area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The lots will conform in size to the objectives of the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 681 Del Mar Avenue - Permission to construct two dwellings on a 27,400 square foot lot in an R-l-B-15 zone - Albert Belmontez, Sr. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the lot in question. He explained that the applicant owns a lot, 25,520 square feet (the lot size stated on the application was in error), located on Del Mar Avenue, three lots north of J Street. There is an existing single-family dwelling located approximately 70 feet from the front property line wi th a swimming pool and garage located in the rear. The applicant is requesting permission to construct another dwelling unit on the rear portion of the lot for rental purposes. Mr. Warren related the history of past requests in this area for variances, and the reasons for Commission denial. In 1965, at the request of the land owners, the Commission rezoned the area from R-1 (7000 square foot lots) to R-l-B-15 (15,000 square foot lots). The reason they took this action was to preserve the area for a later date when either development of the rear portions of all lots would be accomplished, or multiple-family zoning would take place. Director Warren referred to a petition of protest with 13 signatures representing 12 properties. He then reviewed the reasons the staff is recommending _ denial of the request, and asked the Commission to refer the matter back to the staff if they approve the request so that conditions m~ be attached. -9- 2/17/69 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Albert Belmontez, Sr., the applicant, noted the dimensions of his lot and questioned why he wouldn't be permitted to put two dwellings on it. He discussed the fact that the area was originally zoned for 7000 square foot lots. The Commission discussed the history of this area and the rezoning in 1965 from the 7000 square foot lots to 15,000. Director Warren stated this was done at the request of the majority of the property owners in order to preserve their area. Mr. Frank J. Bliss, 661 Del Mar Avenue, Mr. Peter DeGraaf, 665 Del Mar Avenue, and Mary Anderson, 319 F Street, owner of the home at 693 Del Mar Avenue, spoke against the request. They felt it would start a precedent and would prefer to wait for a redevelopment of the lots with possible high quality homes or a multiple-family development. They specifically bought in this area because they wanted the long deep lots, and the majority of the homes are in good condition so that it may be as long as 10 years before they would want to see any redevelopment take place on this street. Member York referred to the time element for redevelopment of this block and felt this was not a Commission problem~ however, he would prefer not to see a street run down the center of these lots and those adjoining to the east as it would create a great deal of problems. MSUC (York-Adams) Denial of the request based on the following reasons: 1. The majority of lot sizes in the neighborhood are unusually large and a lot split would have allowed a development incompatible with the neighborhood. 2. The majority of property owners in this neighborhood desired to maintain the present character and requested rezoning to accomplish that goal. 3. When the ultimate development of the rear portions of these lots takes place, it should be a combined effort of all property owners concerned. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Conditional Use Permit - Service Station Variance - Reduction of setback and signs totallin~ 386 square feet for propert~ at the southeast corner of Telegraph Can~on Road and Interstate 805 Architectural consideration of site plan - propert~ zoned C-1-D --Humble Oil & Refinin~ Co., and Mah~ Construction Compan~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted the request was for the construction of a service station with a variance application for permission to erect the following signs: -10- 2/17/69 (1) One 70' high freeway modular sign - 208 sq. ft. (2) One revolving oval shaped freestanding sign located on the front property line, 20' high - 92 sq. ft. (3) Letters on the face of the building: "HUMBLE" and "HAPPY MOTORING" - 38 sq. ft. (4) Two 3' X 5' price signs - 30 sq. ft. (5) Two 3' X 3' trading stamp signs - 18 sq. ft. The Commission will also be considering architectural approval of this concept, also. Mr. Warren then showed a large scale drawing of the proposed service station noting the imitation shake shingle roof and brick construction. He noted the amount of commercial zoning in the area and felt it would be impractical to duplicate the architecture on all of this zoning, but that it may be possible to coordinate the architecture on this one site. If the station is built first, it seems unlikely that the rest of the shopping center will conform to this particular architecture. The staff feels there is no need for the construction of a service station at this location until such time as the freeway is completed. There are presently three stations in the area which can satisfy the convenience of the public here for some time. Director Warren then reviewed the conditions the staff would place on the approval of this station. As to the variance request, they are recommending approval of the variance subject to the condition that the freeway modular sign not be approved. Consideration should not be given to this sign until such time as the freeway is there. The staff is making no recommendation on the architectural approval at this time, and if the conditional use permit is approved now, another week would be needed to study this concept. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Wittman, the applicant, President of Saratoga Development Company, discussed the proposed architecture of the station noting that service stations have a certain identity all its own. This particular station will be their ranch-type model and they will have sufficient landscaping. Mr. Wittman declared it will be difficult to develop an overall plan to fit this architecture to the shopping center. They are presently negotiating with a large department store, and there is no way to make this store conform to the architecture of this service station. Also, there is no precedent established in this area except for this one ranch type service station. Mr. Wittman stated that the market is there now for this service station as well as the shopping center. The Shell Oil Company station across the street pumps 47,000 gallons a month; the national average is about 17,000 gallons per month. The sign problems are of no major concern to the people from Humble Oil. They would have no need for the modular sign until the freeway is built. Chairman Hyde asked when construction on the shopping center will begin. -ll- 2/17/69 Mr. Wittman stated that they will have to coordinate this construction with the freeway since they have negotiated with the State to take some of the dirt for the freeway. Originally, they had negotiated with the Port of San Diego to remove this material; however, the Port has to remove a lot of mud first and consequently, could not take the dirt. The tentative plans are to start construction in April or May of this year. Mr. Elmer Weaver, representing Humble Oil, stated that this particular service station should fit in beautifully with any shopping center proposed for that area. He is willing to withdraw the request for the modular sign until such time as the freeway is built. At that time, they will resubmit the request since it is important for them to have this sign seen by the users of the freeway in time to get off the freeway safely. He has no objection to change the other sign from a revolving sign to a stationary one. Mr. Weaver stated it was his opinion that this area is ready at this time for a service station. Member Rice discussed the 47,000 gallons a month which Mr. Wittman claimed Shell Oil was pumping. He asked Mr. Weaver what they anticipate doing. Mr. Weaver maintained that this was confidential and no oil company would give out this information. If they are talking about one-half of this 47,000 figure, it would not be a breaking point. They expect to do about 40,000 a month. Mr. Warren commented that the oil station dealers in this area told the staff at the time of the last survey they made there that they were pumping 20,000 gallons a month. The Commission discussed the average gallons pumped by the different stations. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Consultant, stated that in leasing a site to an oil company a great deal of money exchanges hands and this company would not enter into any transaction if they did not feel they could make money here. Mr. Burford discussed the different ways to determine the number of gallons of gas a station pumps--this depends on actual cash sales, the use of credit cards, etc. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. Member Rice indicated that no need was demonstrated here tonight for this station. Member Putnam felt they were overlooking the fact that this station is a part of the shopping center and it is inevitable that a service station must go in there. He added that there wouldn't be much of a gap here by the time the service station goes in and the shopping center. Member York commented that even with his retail experience, he wouldn't know when the proper time was for a service station to go in. Also, if one station pumps 47,000 gallons a month, it is not right to assume that a new station coming into the area will take one-half of this trade. The poorest way to conduct a survey of this kind is to ask the service station owner how much he pumps a month. -12- 2/17/69 Member Rice reminded the Commission that this is a conditional use permit and they must demonstrate public need. City Attorney Lindberg indicated it could also be "desirability." Director Warren discussed the requests stating that they all know this station is locating here primarily to serve the freeway. If this particular station goes in now, it will be the station shown tonight and no attempt to coordinate the materials of this station with the rest of the shopping center will be made. This fact should be acknowledged. He also stated that so far all we have in our shopping center sites is a service station and small market and typically these are no assets to a neighborhood and cause more problems than providing service. Chairman Hyde questioned whether this matter can be held up pending the approval of the architecture. City Attorney Lindberg indicated they could do this if they had plans for the shopping center to coordinate it with. Because the zoning is there is no assurance that the shopping center will go in this year or in the next l0 years. He questioned what they would coordinate the station with. Mr. Warren stated this was just the point--they wouldn't know until the shopping center goes in. In answer to a question Mr. Wittman commented that they have removed 200,000 tons of material from this site and it is now ready for the station to go in. Mr. Weaver declared they would start construction in 120 days, if they get approval tonight. Director Warren remarked that the applicant had indicated his agreement with the condition that the station not be built until such time as the freeway is constructed. Member Adams commented that he could see no demonstrated need for the station in this area until such time as the freeway is constructed, and added that the conditional use permit should not be approved. City Attorney Lindberg explained to the Commission the basis for denying a conditional use permit--they must consider whether the use is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility to contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood. Member Adams commented that he had no objection to the architecture of the proposed station and that it was not important to have the station agree with the materials in the shopping center. Chairman Hyde stated he concurs with the staff's comments. MS (York-Putnam) Approval of the conditional use permit and that conditions for approval be changed to read that the conditional use permit is issued for the immediate construction of the service station. Director Warren asked that if this is approved, the staff be given time to bring back some conditions and findings at the next meeting. Member York asked that this be included in the motion. -13- 2/17/69 Chairman Hyde spoke against the motion stating he was not against the approval of the conditional use permit but against this motion because Mr. York indicated he wanted the conditions outlined by the staff to be deleted. Mr. Hyde felt the station should be approved subject to the conditions. Member Adams stated he was against granting this conditional use permit because he felt it was premature. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members York, Putnam NOES: Members Stewart, Chandler, Hyde, Rice, and Adams ABSENT: None MS (York-Putnam) Conditional use permit be granted subject to the conditions delineated by the staff with the exception of #1. Mr. Wittman stated they are willing to begin construction of the station in conjunction with the freeway. Mr. York declared this was a reasonable request and will amend his motion to include this condition. The Commission discussed the element of time here--whether the condition means the completion of the freeway, the start of construction of the freeway, or the actual work at this intersection. Member Stewart felt the motion should state "upon construction of the freeway at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road." Member York stated that he wished his motion to include the elimination of condition #1--that no architectural approval be granted until approval of the architecture of the shopping center. It has been pointed out that this is an improper condition to impose. Member Adams indicated he had no objection to eliminating this condition, he felt that buildings compatible with this station could be designed. He is opposed to granting the conditional use permit that could automatically be exercised four or five years from now. Chairman Hyde declared he was against the motion; he goes along with the condi- tions outlined by the staff. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: York, Putnam and Chandler NOES: Stewart, Hyde, Rice and Adams ABSENT: None -14- 2/17/69 MSC (Hyde-Rice) Conditional use permit be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued until an architectural design or concept has been suDmitted and approved for the entire shopping area on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road (approximately 7~ acres). 2. Construction of the station shall be coincident with the construction of Interstate 805 interchange at Telegraph Canyon and L and approval of specific plans at that time. 3. The conditional use permit shall be valid for six months after completion of said interstate freeway interchange. 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 service station will serve the freeway traffic when completed. 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 site is located in a commercial zone and does not represent any danger to health, safety or general welfare of persons living in the area. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The station will comply with all regulations of the code. 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. The General Plan is not affected by this use. Member York asked to clarify the motion and questioned whether Mr. Hyde wished to include in the motion the condition that no building permit will be issued until after the opening of the freeway at this intersection. Chairman Hyde stated he was in agreement with the modification of condition #2, that it would be coincident with the construction of the freeway at this interchange. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Hyde, Rice, Putnam, York, Stewart and Chandler NOES: Adams ABSENT: None -15- 2/17/69 MSC (York-Chandler) Variance be granted as recommended by the staff and accepted by the applicant. The variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance shall become effective concurrent with the conditional use permit (Resolution No. C-69-3). 2. The modular freeway sign is not approved. 3. The oval shaped freestanding sign shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be non-moving and non-flashing and shall not overhan the north property line. 4. One price sign 3' X 5' and one stamp sign 3' X 3' - location subject to staff approval. 5. 38 sq. ft. of building signs indicating "HUMBLE" and "HAPPY MOTORING." 6, All signs shall be non-flashing and non-moving. 7. Total sign area approved is 154 sq. ft. Findings be 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. Strict application of a 50 sq, ft. sign limitation and setback would prevent the applicant from having signs comparable to those granted to other stations in the area. 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 increase in sign area is necessary to delineate this type of service as compared to normal retail use, The setback as proposed is primarily to keep the building back from the front property line to assure proper vision and traffic safety. 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. Historical)y, setbacks in commercial areas have been reduced for such signs and increases in area have been granted. d, That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. Setbacks and sign areas have been increased for this area without any detrimental effect. Member Adams stated there was no logic in approving this request since the service station would not be constructed for several years. In line of the new zoning ordinance they are working on, this may be at variance with what is being - approved now. The Commission discussed the conditions regarding the signs, -16- 2/17/69 Proposed Koenig Annexation to National City Director of Planning Warren explained that part of the Bonita Golf Course owned by Ray Koenig is being proposed for annexation to National City. This will include the club house and part of the green fronting on Sweetwater Road. This property is contiguous to National City and not to Chula Vista. It was probably drawn with the theory in mind that once this is annexed, they will then propose the remainder of the Golf Course for annexation. The Chief Administrative Officer has asked that the Planning Commission consider some action on this proposal. Director Warren commented that he had mixed emotions on this and discussed the common boundary line agreed to by both National City and Chula Vista some- time ago, which was immediately ignored by National City. This proposed annexation would not have any effect on the growth of Chula Vista in the Valley. The staff feels the Valley should be retained in one jurisdiction, and has always advocated that the freeway would make the best boundary. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the agreement entered into on the Metropolitan Sewer System in which they set forth a logical area to be served. The City is paying for this sewer system and it includes the whole Valley. At the very least, he maintained, they should enter into an agreement with National City to ta~e this property off of the City's hands. MSUC (York-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council that they oppose this proposed annexation for the following reasons: 1. The Sweetwater Valley, from its northerly to southerly ridge, has an identity centered around the community of Bonita. This community, if to be annexed to a city, should be retained in one such jurisdiction rather than dividing it up among two or three cities. This is necessary to provide continuity of planning and consistency in the provision of required services. 2. Subject property falls within the sewer service area for which capacity is reserved by the City of Chula Vista in the Metropolitan Sewer System. 3. This annexation includes only a portion of the property involved which is principally the Bonita Golf Course Clubhouse, but if the entire ownership were included, it would be continguous with the present Chula Vista city limit. Neighborhood Shopping Centers Mr. Rice inquired what action had been taken by the City in reference to the Hilltop and Naples Shopping Center. Director Warren indicated that he has requested that the City Attorney take action on these complaints. City Attorney Lindberg discussed the maximum penalty which could be imposed, $500 or 6 months in jail, and added that they could even go to the minimum which is about $50 in fines. He told the Commission he would file complaints. -17- 2/17/69 ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Stewart) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of February 24, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennie Iq. Fulasz Secretary