Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/08/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHU[A VISTA, CALIF. August 19, 1968 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: Guyer, York, Stewart, Rice, and Adams. Absent: (with previous notification) Hyde and Gregson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. In the absence of Chairman Hyde, Vice-Chairman Guyer presided over the meeting. Resolution - Approval of Cases's First Avenue Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed annexation which contains approximately 8 acres and is located east of First Avenue, 290' south of Quintard Street. By itself, this annexation would leave a County island to the north of this property. Because of this, the staff included that area which contains approximately 33 acres since, it is nearly surrounded by the City and would make a logical part of the City. Mr. Warren stated that the staff contacted the property owners in this area asking them if they would annex--of the 20 involved, 7 expressed their willingness to annex, 3 opposed, and the remainder have not responded. He added that the basic function of the Commission in this case would be to determine whether or not the boundaries, as proposed would be a logical annexation. Chairman pro tem Guyer explained that this was not a public hearing, but the Commission would be glad to hear any comments from the audience. No one wished to be heard. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the City Council the Approval of Annexation to the City of RESOLUTION NO. 530 Chula Vista of Property Known as Casey's First Avenue Annex- ation. Findings are as follows: 1. This area represents a logical extension of the City's boundaries. 2. The boundaries as proposed will eliminate the confusion of responsibility of public services. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning - Property bounded by Quintard Street, S.D. Gas & Electric Company right-of-way, Tobias Drive and Hilltop Drive - Robinhood Homes, Inc., - R-1-B to R-3-B-3-D - And establishment of setbacks The application was read in which the applicant requested an 8 acre parcel located on the east side of First Avenue, 290' south of Quintard Street be prezoned R-3-B-3-D. -2- 8/19/68 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the proposed prezoning. He stated that the Commission included that area of all of the unincorporated parcels between Hilltop Drive and First Avenue north of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company rig~t-of-way to the City boundary, plus the .58 acre lot located on the west side of First Avenue north of this right-of-way. Because this subject property is part of a 33.15 acre County island, the Commis- sion added the remainder of the property to make a logical prezoning considera- tion. Mr. Warren discussed the adjacent zoning and land use in the area noting that there were a few single-family homes in the area, but the majority of the land is vacant. The General Plan places this area in a medium density residential classification. Because of the land use in the area and the R-8 existing in the area, there seems to be little alternative but to follow that pattern. For this reason, the staff is recommending that the property be rezoned R-3-B-3-D and the setbacks be established at 15 feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Start Merritt, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., stated he was present to answer any questions. Mr. Robert Busch, 1372 Tobias Street, stated that the majority of the homes surrounding this property are single-family homes. By approving high-density zoning here, you will get greater congestion--the children will be playing out in the streets. There are no parks in the area for recreational purposes. Mr. Ray Morgan, 1443 Hilltop Drive, objected to going from low density to high density zoning. He stated that Orange Avenue is the connecting link between the freeways, and putting high density here will add to the traffic congestion. Granting this prezoning would set a trend that would be difficult to control, as evidenced by the requests to the south. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated he could not get enthused about approving R-3 in this area; it is suitable for R-1 development. He added that it was regrettable that the R-3 zoning was approved for this area; however, this was done by overriding the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Member Adams felt a precedent would be established if the Commission prezoned to R-3 that entire area to the south. Member Stewart agreed, adding that in certain cases it is necessary for R-3 and R-1 zoning to abut each other, but additional R-3 is not justified here. MSC (Stewart-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 532 City Council Prezoning to R-1 of that Property bounded by Quintard Street, San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of- way, Tobias Drive and Hilltop Drive -3- 8/19/68 Findings be as follows: a. The original application concerned an 8 acre parcel located on the east side of First Avenue, 290' south of Quintard Street. Since the subject parcel is part of a 33.15 acre County island, the Commission added the remainder of this enclave for prezoning consideration. The entire property in question includes all of the unincorporated parcels between Hilltop Drive and First Avenue north of the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. right-of-way to the City boundary, also included is a .58 acre lot located on the west side of First Avenue north of the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. right-of-way. b. R-3 zoning is contrary to the General Plan as it relates to this area. R-1 zoning will promote land use at a density proposed in the Plan. c. Tile need for additional R~3 zoning in the area has not been demonstrated and more appropriate sites exist in this general area. The motion passed by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Rice, Guyer NOES: Member York ABSENT: Members Hyde and Gregson Chairman pro tem Guyer reminded the applicant of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Portion of Case.v's First Avenue Annexation - Request to construct single-family' attached dwellin9 units on 2800 square foot lots and other related variances Director of Planning Warren questioned whether this item should now be considered by the Commission since it is directly related to the prezoning request just considered. The request was for R-3-B-3 zoning and the Commission has recommended R-1. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission should hear from the applicant on this; that he would probably prefer to have this held in abeyance until such time as the matter of the rezoning request is heard by the City Council. Mr. Stan Herritt, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., asked that the matter be continued. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) This item be tabled in view of the fact that the Commission is recommending to the City Council prezoning of the area in question to R-1 instead of the R-3-B-3-D as requested. The staff is directed to notify the applicant of the action taken by the City Council in this matter, after which time, the variance can then be readvertised. -4- 8/19/68 Resolution - Approval of Milli~an-McMillin Fourth Avenue Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the loca- tion of the proposed annexation. The property encompasses a total of 3.3 acres located on the west side of Fourth Avenue, 290 feet south of L Street. The applicant proposes to subdivide this area into 14 single-family homes, with tile proposed street pattern being a continuation of McMillin Unit No. 2, just completed in the County. The staff has included one parcel just north of McMillin's property. Mr. J. D. Peters, representing the proponents of the annexation request, stated he was present to answer any questions. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. 531 to the City Council the Approval of Annexation to the City of Chula Vista of Property known as Milligan-McMillin Fourth Avenue Annexation To be set for hearing - Prezonin~ of Milli~an-McMillin Fourth Avenue Annexation to R-1 MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Public hearing be set for September 4, 1968 to consider prezoning this annexation. Subdivision - Tentative map of McMillin's Unit No. 3 Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location of the subdivision as on the west side of Fourth Avenue, approximately 290 feet south of L Street. The property contains 3.3 acres which will be subdivided into 14 single-family lots. Mr. Warren noted the street patterns in the area and the average lot width (60' to 65'). The staff also recommends that the setbacks be established at 15 feet on Westby Street and 10 feet on Fourth Avenue, and recommends approval of the map subject to the Engineering Division's condi- tions. Mr. Corky McMillan, the subdivider, stated he had nothing to add to the Director's comments. MSUC (York-Rice) Recommend approval of the tentative map subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks be established at 10 feet on Fourth Avenue and 15 feet on Westby Street. 2. The drainage provisions as shown on the tentative map are considered as schematic only. At the time of submission of the final map, a complete drainage analysis shall be submitted. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed appproval by the City Engineer. Necessary drainage easements shall be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista. 3. Note #10 on the tentative map should ~e revised to read that street trees should be provided in accordance with Ordinance No. 872, and the note regard- ing the City's participation in the retaining wall adjacent to Fourth Avenue should be deleted. -5- 8/19/68 Subdivision (Cont'd) - Tentative map of Princess Manor Unit No. 6 Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location as east of the proposed Interstate 805 Freeway and north of the proposed extension of Orange Avenue. The property comprises 12~ acres and will be subdivided into 52 single-family lots. On June 24, 1968, the Commission denied the tentative map stating as one of the reasons that "the area remaining between Orange Avenue and the portion of Princess Manor No. 6 proposed to be subdivided would not be sufficient to provide logical R-1 development in the future." The subdivider is now extending the existing lot lines to the boundary of Orange Avenue, but with no provision for street improvements. This unit was originally included in the overall tentative map of Princess Manor and the total length of Orange Avenue was included. For whatever reason, this unit, No. 6, was not developed. The staff has discussed with the subdivider that they should include a partial improvement of Orange Avenue in this tentative map, but the subdivider would not agree. If it is left out of the map at this time, then the City would have to put in these improvements. Both Engineering and Planning are recommending that the map be redrawn to include that portion of Orange Avenue and a north-south stub street be provided at the easterly end of Rivera Street for access to the canyon area to the north and access to Orange Avenue. Because of these reasons, the staff is recommending denial of the map. Mr. Robert Bergan, attorney representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated that this unit is the last of a 1000 home development constructed in the Princess Manor subdivision. He discussed the reason for turning down the map in June, and added that now they have revised the map, extending the lot lines as directed by the Commission. It has been their policy all along that the development of Orange Avenue is not necessary at this time, and contended that now that they have extended these lot lines down to Orange Avenue, the staff is going a step further and requesting the improvement of Orange Avenue. This they object to--there are gas tax funds available for this improvement--it would not have to be done at the City's expense. Mr. Bergan spoke of some alternate methods of developing the lots, such as leaving that area between the lots and Orange Avenue as open space. He asked that the Commission approve the map, and the other details can be worked out with the staff. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that his department is requesting that the north one-half of Orange Avenue be fully improved with 28 feet of pavement. They are not asking for the entire street to be improved. He added that the slopes of these lots are what exists due to the fact that the subdividers did some extensive grading before submitting their tentative map for approval. The Commission questioned the difference between this map and the original overall tentative. Mr. Warren indicated that Orange Avenue passed through at approximately that point as shown on this map. The alignment was adopted to the extent that the tentative map was approved. -6- 8/19/68 Member York asked what the cost would be to improve this street. Mr. Gesley estimated it would be approximately $75,000 a mile. City Attorney Lindberg cautioned the Commission that in their findings, they must ascertain that the particular improvements being required are those improvements that the necessity for which have been created by the subdivision of this land and the extent for these required improvements must be weighed in that light. Member Adams declared that if the Commission permits this in this case, the next subdivider that has a major street passing through his land will request the same thing. It is very unusual, he added, for a subdivider to leave land such as this one, and then state he will not participate in the improvements. Mr. Gesley remarked that he agrees with the City Attorney in that they do not want to impose this condition on the subdivider as a means of getting a street and not having the city put it in. Mr. Gesley noted several alternatives that could have been made in the subdivision pattern and reiterated that they are asking only for the improvements needed to serve this complete subdivision. Member Stewart commented that if the public is faced with a situation whereby a subdivider can come in and he can subdivide an area and have the public pay for the improvements--it was never intended that such a plan would be imposed on the general public. City Attorney Lindberg stated he was not attempting to tell the Commission what conditions should be imposed--he only hopes that their findings will be in line with the legal basis for requiring street improvements. The goal to follow here is that the improvement of Orange Avenue is necessitated by the subdivision itself. Member Adams maintained that this street is caused by the 1000 home development plus what will be added to the north. Member York added that the subdivider owns land on both sides of the street and he had a certain amount of flexibility as to how he designs this area. At some point, this improvement will have to be carried out. In this case, if the burden of putting in this street is not valid (such as the cost), this would serve more to the point since the area to the south will yield less lots and the cost would then become prohibitive. Director Warren indicated the Commission should either continue this matter or deny the map. Mr. Bergan requested that the Commission take their action tonight. MSUC (Adams-York) Tentative map of Princess Manor Unit No. 6 be denied based on the following reasons: 1. This unit makes no provision for the dedication or improvement of any segment of Orange Avenue, and it is the opinion of the Commission that subject section of Orange Avenue would be needed to serve the Princess Manor Subdivision -7- 8/19/68 in general. The original tentative map of Princess Manor submitted several years ago incorporated this segment of Orange Avenue within it, and it was contemplated that Orange Avenue would be constructed the length of the property ownership to ultimately serve the residents of the area. 2. Additional vehicular access is needed at the easterly end of subject subdivision and should be provided from Orange Avenue extending northerly to the boundary of this unit to ultimately serve the canyon area to the north. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision within 15 days to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARI[~G: Variance - Property at the rear of 128-152 K Street - Request to create 8 lots for sin~le-familS residential purposes on 17' wide access waS - Arrasmith et al Director of Planning Warren explained that the initial request was to split this rear parcel into four lots. He submitted a plot plan noting this location, and explained that at the meeting of July 22, 1968, the Commission directed the staff to meet with the adjacent property owners in the area to consider combining their properties for a total development and finding some other means of access. The staff did hold a meeting on July 31, 1968. Although no specific conclusions were reached, several of those attending indicated an interest in developing the rear portions of their lots and also the drainage improvement extending from K Street to Second Avenue. They agreed that they were approaching something that was very difficult to accomplish. The expense involved would be so great that the benefits to those involved would be small. Mr. Warren remarked that the two property owners to the east that had indicated their willingness to cooperate in this project have now withdrawn their properties. The public hearing tonight was advertised to consider the 8 lots, but since this withdrawal by these two property owners, the Commission will consider the original four lots proposed. Director Warren discussed the width of the proposed easement and the number of lots that would be using it. He listed several conditions, should the Commission approve this variance. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, commented that the easement should be 20 feet instead of 17 feet, and improvements for this street should be 6" of Portland concrete. The City has a policy of not accepting less than 20 feet for an alley. The Commission discussed the cost of improvements and the widths of driveways. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Delbert Arrasmith, 3723 Cienega Drive, Bonita, the applicant, spoke of the cost of concrete and the amount it would take to improve ti~is easement. He also quoted the cost of improving the proposed lots (approximately $6500 to $8000). He stated there was no possibility of his obtaining an additional 3 feet to widen this driveway. -8- 8/19/68 Those speaking in opposition were: Mrs. Harold Foster, 179 K Street, Harold Foster, 179 K Street, Harold Mack, 146 K Street, and Mrs. Jesse Wyatt, 152 K Street. They stated as their reasons: (1) lived in the area a number of years and it has always been an R-1 area; (2) the lots the applicant is proposing to develop is actually a gull ey and carry a lot of water--it is not suitable for development; (3) it would take a great amount of fill to get it up out of the flood range; (4) the development will increase traffic on K Street; (5) there is the question of trash and emergency vehicles being able to use this narrow driveway; (6) a 17 foot driveway is not adequate for anything except one dwelling; (7) object to having the driveway just 5 feet from his bedroom window (Mack); (8) there will be too much traffic on this driveway for four houses. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Warren and Lt. Garvin, property owners to the east of this proposed development, stated they withdrew their original intent to combine their properties with this development because the cost involved would be too prohibitive. Lt. Garvin remarked that they mid not wish their properties to become landlocked by this development. Mr. Arrasmith noted the size of his proposed lots (7,000, 7900, 6900, and 11000 square feet) and stated these are net figures. These figures can be adjusted so that they meet the City's standard 7000 square feet minimum requirements. Member Stewart noted that to permit this development would landlock the property to the east. He commented on the alternative plan sbumitted by the Director of Planning shQwing the access road to Second Avenue; he felt this made more sense. Member Guyer declared that the Commission should give serious consideration to the houses on both sides of the easement. Member Stewart felt the development should be postponed until such time as access can be brought up from Second Avenue. MSC (Stewart-Adams) Variance request be denied for the following reasons: 1. The driveway is too narrow to serve four separate lots and development of this and adjacent properties should be by access from Second Avenue. 2. It would impose an undue hardship on the people living adjacent to the narrow strip of lot fronting on K Street. 3. This proposed development would further landlock the property to the east. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. The motion carried by the follow~Dg vote: AYES: Members Stewart, Adams, Guyer, and Rice NOES: Member York A~SENT: Members Gregson and Hyde The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within lO days. -9- 8/19/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 218 Hilltop Drive - Request for reduction of front yard setback from 30' to 20' - Dale & Ermida Newell The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front setback from 30' to 20' for the purpose of constructing a single-family dwelling. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property as the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Hilltop Drive which has an existing front yard setback of 30'. He noted that this was the only lot on the west side of Hilltop Drive between E Street Extension and Bonita Road, due to the street pattern and the various lot configurations. The staff recommends approval of this request since the adjoining lots fronting along Bonita Road enjoy a 20' setback. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. The applicant was present to answer any questions. The Commission discussed the request and concurred that it qualified for a variance. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of variance request. 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. Due to the triangular shape of the lot a 30' front setback would reduce the possible building site by over 40%. 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. A 30' setback has not been required on any subdivision map approved by the City in the past ten years. The adjacent lots on Bonita Road enjoy a 20' setback in front. 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. There are no other homes or lots on the west side of Hilltop Drive between E Street and Bonita Road. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this request. -10- 8/19/68 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - North side of D Street at 98 Fourth Avenue - Request for reduction of side yard from 20' to 10' - Squire Construction Compan~ The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in front yard setback from 20' to 10' on the north side of D Street to permit the widening of parking spaces designed for a proposed apartment complex. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the building would maintain the required setback on the two streets. The purpose of this request is to widen the proposed parking spaces in back of the 20' setback along D Street from 8-1/2' wide to 9' to permit easy access of ingress and egress. The staff recommends approval of this request and submits four conditions of approval. Member Rice asked if there would be a safety problem here. Mr. Warren indicated there should be no traffic hazard since there will be an area of 10' to 12' between the parking area and the sidewalk. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lee Raitt, owner of the apartments directly to the east, stated he would rather see them plant some greenery instead of a block wall to screen the parking area. Mr. Vince Provenzano, Vice-President of the Company, stated they agree to all of the conditions. There bein§ no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Stewart mentioned that the walt should be a decorative block wall. MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The parkway area (2-1/2' wide) along Fourti~ Avenue shall be filled with concrete. 2. A preliminary landscape plan for the front yard area (including street trees on both Fourth Avenue and D Street) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit. A final plan shall be submitted and approved prior to electrical inspection. Note: Special attention to provision of screening for the parking area shall be incorporated in the plan. 3. Parking area shall be screened by a block wall at least 3-1/2' high. 4. Final plans shall be submitted to the Planning staff indicating an acceptable enclosed trash area. -ll- 8/19/68 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. The reduced setback will allow for an increase in parking stall widths making access easier for the tenants. 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 property in question has two large setbacks existing on Fourth Avenue and D Street which exceed the normal setbacks established for multiple- family zoning. 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 public welfare will not be affected since the setback reduction will be used only for parking and adequate landscaping will be required. 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 5 East Sierra Way - Request for reduction of side yard setback from 10' to 7' - F. Spadafore The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard setback on Hilltop Drive from 10' to 7' for the construction of a 6' high fence. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property as the corner lot which faces East Sierra Way. The lot maintains a 20' setback along East Sierra Way with a patio and a swimming pool constructed adjacent to the northerly line. During construction of the pool, the applicant decided to put in a 4' walkway around the perimeter of the pool for safety purposes and extend the fence around the edge of this walkway. Mr. Warren discussed the proposed widening of Hilltop Drive some time in the future to a 64' travelway. He commented that it was difficult to measure any detrimental effect this request would have; however, the variance is difficult to justify. The staff has submitted findings if the Commission desires to approve the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -12- 8/19/68 Dr. Spadafore, 5 East Sierra Way, the applicant, spoke briefly on his request and noted the area where the electrical unit will be installed at the pool. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York felt it was a logical variance to grant assuming that this extra land would not be taken for the widening of Hilltop Drive. Member Stewart stated there is ahardship involved here due to the shape of the lot. MSUC (Stewart-York) Approval of variance request. 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 would not allow for the construction of a 6 foot fence around the pool in conjunction with the deck 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 fence will be encroaching into less than 10% of the frontage along Hilltop Drive and said encroachment abuts the rear yard of the adjoining lot. c. That the granting of a variance wilt 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 requested fence will be hidden from other properties in the area by shrubs and will still be 28 feet from the curb. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. This variance would have no affect on the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - North side of H Street approximately 388 feet east of Fifth Avenue - Request for reduction of front yard setback from 25' to 10' for a freestanding si~n~ request to increase permitte~ si~n area from 50 square feet to 215 square feet Kentucky Beef The application was read in which the following signs were requested: a. One sign attached flush to the mansard roof, with lamp type letters of approximately 65 square feet. -13- 8/19/68 b. A freestanding sign composed of three separate units suspended between two posts totaling 160 square feet. The top of the sign measures 32 feet from the ground level. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the Co~ission received a similar request on Iqay 20, 1968, and granted the applicant permission for one 40 square foot roof sign and one 50 square foot freestanding pole sign, 32 feet high. The freestanding sign to be set back lO feet. A rendering of the proposed building and sign was submitted. Mr. Warren explained that the applicants did not appeal this decision and have now submitted a new application. Nothing in this area has changed since the considera- tion of the original variance, and no new justification has been submitted by the applicant. Pictures of the business in E1 Cajon were shown to the Commission. He briefly discussed the signs in the area and that of the Big Boy restaurant stating that this sign should have no direct relationship to the project, and that this is the only request for a freestanding sign that is being submitted. As proposed in the new zoning ordinance, if this were the only freestanding sign along H Street in this center, the applicant would be permitted a freestanding sign up to a total of 100 square feet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, representing the applicants, discussed the original variance and what was finally granted by the Commission. He referred to the rendering stating he had this drawn specifically to show the Commission that the sign would not be over-powering to the building. They felt it would be better for the appli- cant to submit a new application rather than to appeal. The new application is a compromise of what the applicant feels he needs to conduct his business. He is the only applicant in this center that relies on a franchise type operation, and he will have the only freestanding sign within 1200 feet of street frontage. Mr. burford declared that the applicants of this center have increased their budget three times what they originally proposed for landscaping purposes. They reduced the signs on the Big Apple by 50 per cent and all of those on the service station. He maintained that the purpose of the Code was to keep signs from blocking one another--this one will be 1200 feet from any other sign fronting on this street and will give the center one piece of identification here. Mr. Julius Kahn, developer of the center, stated he was present to answer any questions the Commission may have pertaining to the entire site. William Bauer, attorney for the Bay General Hospital and Chula Vista Properties, Inc., stated that the hospital objects to having large commercial signs in the area. The signs here should be applied uniformly. The hospital is expanding and they will need to have emergency signs for which they will comply with the ordinance. Mr. Bauer maintained that the location of this proposed restaurant on tilis large street would get enough identification without the need for large signs. He added that the other proposed buildings in the area (Home Federal, etc.) will be coming in and requesting to put in a large sign, also. Granting this request would start a precedent for allowing large signs in the area. He asked that the request be denied. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -14- 8/19/68 Member York discussed this request stating that he visited the site in El Cajon. He maintained it would be too difficult to reduce this sign in any appreciable amount. This sign is in much better taste and done better than the Big Boy sign; it is fairly compatible with the area. He questioned the staff statement that the Big 8oy sign contained only 70 square feet. He would favor approving this request. Member Stewart claimed there was nothing presented tonight to change his feelings in regard to the amount of signs previously requested and now being requested. He discussed the size of the sign and its location on this heavily trafficked street. He felt this sign would be 50% to attract the local people and 50% for the passing through. He finds it difficult to justify the placing of this sign in a shopping center that primarily caters to local populus. Member Rice commented that they will have a good deal of exposure on both sides and certainly no need for this size sign. Member Adams contended that the fact that this will be the only freestanding sign within 1200 feet is an argument for less sign area. This sign would only be an example for the next fellow to put in a bigger one. Member York declared that H Street is the second or third busiest street in town, extending clear out past the college. He maintained there is a need for that size sign here and anyone with any retail background whatsoever will know that you cannot cut down this sign. He felt, in essence, what the Commission is saying is that the business is not reasonable and they don't want it in Chula Vista. Member Stewart felt this was not a valid point as he was stressing the tourist- orientated traffic. He said it had nothing to do with the amount of traffic--that this sign can be cut down; it has been done in other communities, such as Palm Springs. Member York declared it was unrealistic for Chula Vista to try to create another Palm Springs or Carmel here; that if we try it should be on a comprehensive basis. He maintained that somewhere along the line, the Commission has to take another look and be more realistic about the signs. Member Adams commented that a comprehensive approach to sign control had to start somewhere. MSC (Adams-Stewart) Approval of the following signs and conditions: 1. One building sign on the south mansard roof not to exceed letters 2-1/2 feet high, and a maximum of 16 feet in length--totaling 40 square feet. 2. One free-standing sign totaling 50 square feet, not exceeding 32 feet in height. 3. In no case shall any signs be moving, flashing, or scintillating. 4. Reduction of front setback from 25 feet to l0 feet for the freestanding sign. -15- 8/19/68 Findings De 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 50 square foot limitation for signs in the "D" Zone areas is not adequate for proper identification of a commercial facility located in a shopping commercial facility located in a shopping center of this type. The front setback for signs has been reduced by variance on other parcels along H Street. 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. Other adjoining commercial uses enjoy signs larger than that which would be permitted in the "D" Zone. The adjoining commercial areas have a 5 foot setback for signs, with this parcel at 10 feet. 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 signs as approved will be similar in nature to other existing signs in the area and would be in scale with the building. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this variance. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Adams, Stewart, Guyer and Rice NOES: Member York ABSENT: Members Gregson and Hyde The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision within 10 days to the City Council. -16- 8/19/68 Council Referral - Reconsideration of amendment to zonin~ ordinance re~ard~ng establishment of mobile home parks Director of Planning Warren indicated that he had no real clear-cut direction from t~e Council on this. What they want is some type of change in this ordinance to permit them to make a decision with a 3/5 vote rather than the 4/5 called for under the conditional use permit procedures. The Commission's recommendation to the Council was that mobile home parks be added to the Unclassified Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to a conditional use permit in any residential zone. The City Attorney asked that this matter be placed on the Commission agenda for September 4. MSUC (Rice-Stewart) Reconsideration of this amendment be placed on the Commission meeting of September 4, 1968. Council Referral - Reconsideration of prezoning of Layton Annexation to R-l-B-12 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property which involves 55 acres along the northeast side of Otay Lakes Road, north of Bonita Vista High School. The Commission recommended to the Council that the area be prezoned R-1-B.12, and following their public hearing, the Council referred the matter back to the Commission. The staff still believes that the prezoning as originally recommended is appropri- ate, and asks the Commission to again make this recommendation to the City Council. They would also recommend that the Commission ask the Council to consider this item separate from the request for a conditional use permit to construct a mobile home park on this site. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Commission reiterates their original recommendation that this property be prezoned R-I-B-12, and that the conditional use permit request for permission to construct a mobile home park on this site be considered as a separate item. Request for extension of time - Variance for reduction of rear yard setback from 15' to 5' - Haynes Uirector of Planning Warren stated that the applicant has asked for an extension of time on the two variances granted him for property at 238 Davidson. Both variances were for a reduction of setback for the construction of an apartment building. The staff recommends that both extensions be granted. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of extension of time on both variances; subject variances to expire on March 8, 1969. -t7- 8/19/68 Consideration of proposed sale of City property alon§ north side of "G" Street, west of West BaS Boulevard Director Warren stated this item was belatedly placed on this agenda at the request of the City Administrative Office, due to a time element. It involves a 2-1/2 acre area at the foot of "G" Street on which presently exists a dog kennel and pumping station. The City has an offer to sell this property for industrial use and it will be the Commission's determination as to whether or not the sale of this land for industrial purposes would be in conformance with the General Plan. The staff would recommend that the Commission forward this finding to the City Council. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Commission finds that the sale of this property for industrial purposes would be in conformance to the General Plan. Member Rice abstained from voting. Consideration of proposed vacation of "G" Street, west of BaS Boulevard Director of Planning Warren explained that the property is being considered for purchase by the Rohr Corporation and if this sale goes through, they request that the street be vacated. This item has just been presented to the staff today; they would have preferred to have additional time to study it thoroughly; however, based on his discussions with the City Engineer, representatives of the Port District, etc., and knowing that the Council will have to hold a public hearing, the staff would recommend at this time that "G" Street not be vacated--that vacation at this time is premature; the area west of the Tidelands would be isolated. Mr. Warren spoke of the access routes to the tidelands and commented that if Rohr does utilize all of this land and access is provided the tidelands, it may be that it would not be inconceivable to vacate "G" Street. MSUC (York-Stewart) Recommend to the City Council that "G" Street not be vacated at this time for the following reasons: 1. "G" Street is presently the only direct access serving the uses on the tidelands fill area. 2. There are a number of existing utilities within the "G" Street right-of-way for which easements will necessarily have to be maintained. 3. Until more definite plans are available for the development of that area west of Tidelands Avenue, it is difficult to determine whether or not "G" Street will be needed for east-west traffic circulation. Member Rice abstained from voting. Change of meeting date - September 2, 1968 to September 4~ 1968 Director Warren stated it were necessary to change the meeting date because September 2 falls on a holiday. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) The date of the next meeting be changed from September 2, 1968 to September 4, 1968 due to the fact that September 2 is a holiday. -18- 8/19/68 Si~n Provisions A letter was read from Mr. Frank Humphrey, President, Broadway Association, dated August 15, 1968 in which he submitted the recommendations of the Broadway Association for the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Warren indicated he had no opportunity to discuss these provisions with Mr. Humphrey; however, 50% of their suggestions have met with the approval of the staff. The staff would like to review these provisions with this Committee and submit this to the Comission along with their report. Member Guyer asked if they could possibly get a report at the September 4 meeting. The Commission briefly discussed the sign provisions as proposed for the new zoning ordinance. Director of Planning Warren explained that the staff is awaiting committee action from the Broadway Association and the Downtown Association. A report was received from the Broadway Association; however, it is a bit vague in some regards and will require some explanation by their chairman. The staff will report to the Planning Commission on September 4 or September 16. Member York suggested the Commission drive around the more desirable areas and see these signs. San Diego Plannin~ Congress A letter from the San Diego County Planning Congress was read in which it reviewed La Mesa's proposal that the Planning Congress should be dissolved. The Commission briefly discussed this letter. No action was taken. Compliance to the General Plan Member York discussed the fact that the Commission is consistently being asked to make a finding as to whether or not something conforms to the General Plan. The General Plan needs to be revised and these things should be presented to the Commission in plenty of time for them to study it and report back to the Council along with their recommendation; along with this should also be the Commission's recommendation as to how the General Plan should be revised. Member Stewart maintained that the first order of business after the adoption of the new zoning ordinance will be up-dating the General Plan. Director Warren discussed the referrals to the Commission by the Council as frequently being after the fact. The City Attorney explained the referral process and explained why the City Council sometimes has nearly made a decision before Planning Commission action. The Commission discussed the fact that the plan is four years old and needs up-dating. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Stewart-York) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of August 26, 1968. ! Respectfully submitted, /~ Jennie M. Fulasz, Secretary