Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/07/29 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 29, 1968 The sixth public hearing on the proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance was held at 7 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Gregson, Rice, Adams and Guyer. Also present: Director of Planning Warren and Assistant Planner Lee. Chairman Hyde opened the meeting stating the Commission will consider those sections beginning with the Industrial zones. Director of Planning Warren stated that they will not be discussing any of the commercial zones or any sign provisions. Actions on signs will be delayed until the committees assigned to study this make a report back to the staff. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Section 33.5.12 I-R Research Industrial District Director of Planning Warren discussed the changes made as delineated in the synopsis to the fourth draft dated April 10, 1968. He commented that the industrial sections would replace the present M-1 and M-2 zones. He reiterated that they are by- passing the sign provisions which will be taken up at a later date. As to the landscaping provision: (page 77 #5) this paragraph will be reworded to be simil~ to that approved for the commercial zones so that preliminary plans shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; final plans shall be submitted before final inspection of the development. No comments concerning this section were offered from the floor. MSUC (York-Rice) Section 33.5.12 - I-R Research Industrial District be recommended to the City Council for adoption subject to the changes as proposed on the synopsis dated April 10, 1968. Section 33.5.13 I - General Industrial District Beginning on page 79 of the fourth draft, Director Warren discussed the proposed changes to this section as delineated in the synopsis. He stated that the car washes have been taken out of the conditional use permit section and placed in the permitted use section as directed by the Commission. He commented that if this is done, then the service stations should also be taken out and made a permitted use. The Commission concurred. On page 80, the uses listed as subject to conditional use permit, Mr. Warren commented that nearly all of them have now been taken out and placed under other sections. Again, in this section, as well as in the other sections, the landscaping provision clause will be re-worded. -2- No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Section 33.5.13 - I - General Industrial District be recommended to the City Council for adoption subject to the changes as delineated in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated April 10, 1968. Section 33.5.14 P-C Planned Community District Director of Planning Warren delineated the two minor changes made in this section. No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Section 33.5.14 P-C Planned Community District be recommended to the City Council for adoption subject to the changes as delineated in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated April 10, 1968. Section 33.5.15 Floodway Zonin9 - Intent, Purpose and Definitions Director of Planning Warren stated there are no proposed changes to this section. This ordinance was prepared by the staff and is identical to that adopted by the City Council. No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Stewart-Gregson) Section 33.5.15 Floodway Zoning - Intent, Purpose and Definitions be recommended to the City Council for adoption. Section 33.5.16 "T" Tidelands Zone Director ]Warren noted two word changes to this section: page 98, fifth line from bottom, the word "therefore" be changed to "thereafter". On page 99, B-2, the word "holds" be changed to the word "held". No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Section 33.5.16 "T" Tidelands Zone be recommended to the City Council for adoption. Unclassified Use Section Director of Planning Warren stated that this section will be added to this zoning ordinance after the Tidelands Zone Section (between pages 100 and 101 as presently drafted). This is the same section as presently exists in our zoning ordinance. It is a zone that subject to a conditional use permit will place many uses that do not have an appropriate place in other zones in this zone, subject to a conditional use permit, such as: campgrounds, cemeteries, colleges and schools, churches, etc. No. 12 - Public and quasi-public uses: in parenthesis should be added "except in the C-C, C-T, I and I-R zones". -3- Mobile home parks have been added to this section, as follows: "Mobile home parks shall be excluded from all commercial and industrial zones." No comments on this section were offered from the floor. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Unclassified Use Section be recommended to the City Council for adoption. Director Warren commented that he will meet with the City Attorney and have a section number assigned to this zone. Article VI Modif~in~ Districts Director Warren noted the changes as proposed for this section. Member York asked if the Planned Unit Development Section would be considered in this modifying district section. Mr. Warren stated it would be considered separately since it is a procedure and not a modifying district. He will consult with the City Attorney and have a section number assigned to this. No comments concerning the Modifying District were offered from the floor. MSUC (Guyer-York) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article VI, Modifying Districts. Planned Unit Development Section Director of Planning Warren explained that this section has been adopted in our present zoning ordinance. He listed several minor changes that have been made. The ordinance is the same; portions of it were changes as it relates to this new comprehensive zoning ordinance. No comments concerning this section were offered from the floor. MSUC (Stewart-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Planned Unit Development section. Article VII Performance Standards Director of Planning Warren stated that this Article has been a difficult one to discuss and continues to be. The Commission may want additional consultation on this and prior to the City Council adoption of this section, a representative from the County or the State will be out to discuss this chapter with them. This section puts the industrial uses to a test. As Planners, they are not knowledge- able as to the details of this section; however, this section was prepared by experts in the field. The staff and the Commission have changed some of them, however, and are still receiving comments on this section. Unless the Commission has some specific comments to make on this, the performance standards article, as written in the synopsis, is the one that the staff recommends be sent to the City Council for adoption. -4- Chairman Hyde briefly explained this section to the people attending the meeting. Mr. Warren remarked that the County helped rewrite that submitted by the consul- tants. Since that time, he has met with members from Rohr and other industries and the section has been rewritten so that it is less restrictive. The staff would welcome any further comments on this section. The only comment received from Rohr was that the noise factor might be too restrictive; however, they would be able to comply with it. They compared the noise factor to that of the freeway and felt that industry noise should not have to be any~wer than that generated by the freeway. Chairman Hyde asked if the meat processing plant in Otay is aware of this section. Mr. Warren indicated no personal contact has been made with them. They are in the County at the present time, and if they ever care to annex, he would hope that they would conform to these standards. The County is working on a similar ordinance. No comments regarding this section were offered from the floor. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Article VII - Performance Standards (as delineated in the synopsis dated April 10, 1968) be recommended to the City Council for adoption. Article VIII Off-Street Parkin§ and Loadin~ Director of Planning Warren delineated the changes as proposed in the synopsis of changes to the fourth draft. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, stated the i~only significant change here is cutting down the width of the driveway from 15' to 12' if the furthest unit is 80' or less from the front property line. Member York questioned whether this could be amended by the Planning Commission if someone has an unusual width between the property line and the unit. Mr. Warren indicated the Commission could consider this. Member York then discussed the provision for tandem parking, suggesting this be allowed and add the words "unless a parking attendant is provided." He said he was thinking primarily of a high-rise. Mr. Warren commented that when they get into this kind of situation--sub-terranean parking and tandem parking--it is an unusual situation for the City. This proposed ordinance is designed for the City in the foreseeable future; the intent is to make it a general statement. He added he would discuss this matter with the City Attorney. Member York asked if this could be amended by a variance. Mr. Warren remarked that it could be. Member York then commented that he felt tandem parking should not be a "normal'~ use, but that a provision should be made whereby it could be modified by variance. -5- Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, urged the Commission to insert the clause suggested by Member York. Designing high rises is much different than designing residences. It costs many thousands of dollars and he, personally, would be reluctant to initiate any program for another high-rise unless this clause would be written into the ordinance. Mr. Warren declared he would need the City Attorney's help to insert this clause; it should be made subject to Planning Commission approval. Member York agreed that it should be made subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and that a flat statement indicating that "it shall not qualify as required parking", would discourage anyone from submitting plans. Plans are expensive, and the applicant should have some assurance that tandem parking could be allowed. Member Guyer suggested they leave this like it is and have the Planning Director discuss it with the City Attorney. Chairman Hyde agreed, adding that they should discuss this for possible revision of the paragraph and also whether it would be enforceable. Director Warren then continued with the proposed changes. On page 120, (k) Hospitals: this should be changed to 1~ spaces for each bed. Mr. Frank Ferreira suggested another category be added--that of a "home for the aged"; a place that would take care of elderly citizens. Most of these classifica- tions are too restrictive for this category; primarily, what he is thinking of is a retirement home such as Frederica Manor. Director Warren remarked that this category has been added--the spaces are one for each three beds. Member Stewart asked if this meant one for each three units. Mr. Warren indicated it did. Mr. Ferreira requested that the restrictions be eased up on this a bit, as 90% of the people residing in these homes will not have automobiles. Mr. Warren indicated that the parking problem here relates also to the employees. Mr. Ferreira remarked these would be apartment units with no nursing care. It would be similar to the Lutheran Towers project. Mr. Warren asked that the staff be directed to study this further. Mr. Lee commented he would check this out in the hospital report bulletin which is sent to the office. The Commission then discussed trailer parks. Member Adams asked that this be changed to "mobile home parks." Chairman Hyde asked if any provision was made for the transient trailer parks. -6- Director Warren indicate~tthis provision was included in the mobile home park. He commented that he can see how they could require more than one parking space for each since there will be only one camper or car in a space. However, he will study this. Director Warren then discussed the offstreet parking requirements for the residential zone, and more specifically, the front setback restrictions. Mr. Ferreira asked if some relief could be given where there is an excessive street right of way, such as Brightwood Avenue. Mr. Warren remarked that this was amended specifically for streets such as that. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article VIII, Off-Street Parking and Loading, with the proposed changes as delineated in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated April 10, 1968. Article IX Special Provisions Applying to Particular Uses Director of Planning Warren explained that this was a "catch-all" section. He delineated all the proposed changes for this section. He explained that on page 139, a provision for two-car tandem parking will be added to the consideration for mobile home parks. The reason for this is that each unit backs onto a roadway, and it is different than standard parking. He added that the standards for the mobile home parks will be subject to review by the City Attorney, as in some cases, provisions are not controllable by the City but by the State. However, these provisions are set up in this ordinance as guidelines. On page 140, 23 (c) (under Nursing Homes) the word "unenclosed" should be added which will read: "If an unenclosed incinerator is provided ..... " Discussion followed on item 23 (b) for the provision of an off-street loading area for an ambulance. Member York thought this was excessive, if it meant that additional offstreet parking has to be provided. He claimed these nursing homes have to provide loading spaces for other trucks coming in, that spaces shouldn't have to be provided exclusively for ambulances. He added that depending on the size of the nursing home, truck loading spaces are provided, offstreet parking spaces for cars, etc., and these are never full at the same time. He felt the requirement was superfluous. Director Warren commented that perhaps the owner of these nursing homes might just want to mark off an area for ambulance parking only; it really is up to the operator. The statement could be changed to read: (Offstreet loading should be provided which will include ambulances .... " Also, that the requirement for screening this area can be dropped. -7- On page 142, in regard to service stations, public garages, etc., Mr. Stansky, representing Western 051 and Gas Company, had asked that certain of these provisions be eliminated. The staff has not done this, but will be studying this matter at the same time they will be setting up the criteria for the service stations. He reminded the Commission that some service stations willbe a permitted use subject to certain standards. He asked that this section not be considered at this time until the staff has had an opportunity to complete the assignment. In particular, the provisions that Mr. Stansky asked to be deleted were 1, 3, 4, and 6. He felt they were unnecessary and covered by the conditional use permit, and by setting up guidelines and standards, it could be eliminated. In discussing this, the Commission left service stations subject to the conditional use permit until such time as the staff comes up with the changes. Prior to the time the Council acts on the commercial zones, these changes will be submitted to them. On page 150, regarding directional signs, a provision is added whereby the applicant must get a letter of approval from the property owner before placing a sign on that property. Member York suggested the word "occupant" be used instead. Chairman Hyde remarked that it could be changed to "owner or occupant" thus covering both possibilities. Page 154, No. 34 - Commercially Zoned Double Frontage Lots: Mr. Warren discussed this briefly stating it was written some time ago when the matter on Broadway came up. The provision was not used; however, the Commission may want to keep this in even though it might not be used. The Commission concurred that this provision should be left in. Member York discussed the provision for requiring a 5' high masonry wall around the trash containers (page 154 #33). He suggested the words "or other enclosure subject to staff approval" be inserted. He felt that in some cases, a masonry wall might be the least aesthetically pleasing enclosure one would want. Director Warren indicated that they have a better chance of getting a masonry wall if they so state; otherwise, the applicant will be putting in the cheapest thing he can. If this is going to be left to staff approval, they would want to have some indication from the Commission as to what standard should be set up. Member Stewart commented that there are often fires in these containers and a block wall is the safest type wall to have. Mr. Frank E. Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, commented that a block or masonry wall, unless it is reinforced with steel or cement, may not be as strong as a wooden fence. A wooden fence, unitized, is as strong as a block wall. He suggested that if the Commission wishes to maintain the provision for a masonry wall, they should add that some sort of reinforcement be used. Member Stewart suggested they add that the wall should be "reinforced or fully grouted." Mr. Warren stated he will check this out with Gene Grady, Chief Building Inspector, and will change it accordingly. -8- Mr. Ted Richmond, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, referred the Commission back to page 132, #12 (b) requiring a 6' high solid masonry wall around an electric substation. He stated that by State law, they are required to put in an 8' high wall with a 1' baj~onet. To do this with a masonry wall would be costly; therefore, he suggested the word "shall" should be changed to the word "may". Their policy has been to put in a chain link fence. The Commission discussed this provision. They agreed that it should be left up to the staff for final approval and the clause changed to read: "... solid masonry wall or chain link fence subject to staff approval." Mr. Ferreira challenged this, questioning the Commission as to how they can permit them to put up an 8' high fence when the ordinance permits only a 6' high o~e. Chairman Hyde declared the Commission has no choice in this matter--it is a State law. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Article IX - Special Provisions Applying to Particular Uses, be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the changes delineated in the synopsis dated April 10, 1968. Article X Exception~ and Modifications Director of Planning Warren reviewed the changes proposed for this section. No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council adoption of Article X, Exceptions and Modifications. Article XI Non-Conforming Uses Only one change was proposed for this section in the synopsis. Director Warren commented that they expect to make further changes to the sign provisions after the staff's study has been made on this subject. No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Stewart-York) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article XI, Non-Conforming Uses with the proposed change as delineated in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated April 10, 1968. Article XII Legislative Procedures Director Warren noted one change to this section: page 173 A. Approval of zone changes: the days should be changed from 40 to 28 days. No one from the floor offered any comments on this section. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article XII, Section 33.12.1 - Legislative Procedures - Zoning and Prezoning, Changes and Amend- ments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Classification or Reclassification of Property. -9- Article XIII Administrative Procedures - Conditional Use Permits and Variances Director of Planning Warren reviewed the proposed changes for this section. A brief discussion was held on the merits of having a Zoning Administrator. No one from the floor offered any comments on this section. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article XIII, Administrative Procedures - Conditional Use Permits and Variances. Article XIV Definitions The changes to this section, as delineated in the synopsis were reviewed by Director Warren. He stated there were no significant changes. No comments were offered from the floor. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of Article XIV, Definitions. Article XV Enforcement and Penalties Director Warren briefly discussed the changes as delineated on page 34 of the synopsis - "General Notes", which will be made in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Frank Ferreira questioned the change of title on the R-G zone proposed to be changed to R-3. Mr. Warren explained the logic of this change. The public hearing was then declared closed. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t ,~ennle M. Fulasz ~' Secretary