Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1967/02/06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 6, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Planning Co~mission of Chula Vista, Cali- fornia, was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m~ in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Hyde, Rice, and A~ams~ Absent: (with prior notice) Members Guyer and Gregson~ Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Assistant Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Approval of minutes of January 16, 1967, as mailed. Architectural Approval of Two Proposed Homes - Bonita Verde Subdivision Director of Planning Warren submitted the plans and eievations for the two proposed dwellings to be constructed in the Bonita Verde Subdivision~ One dwelling will be constructed on Lot 30, 3555 Desert Inn Way, and will con- tain 1748 square feet and will be split level. The other home will be built on Lot 36, 3555 Yerba Lane, and will contain approximately 1,700 square feet~ The first home will have a shake shingle roof, partial brick construction and masonry, and the dwelling for Lot 36 will have a Spanish tile roof. Mr~ Warren stated the staff would recommend approval of the plans in accordance with the requirements of the supplemental "D" zone, as both dwellings would be compatible with the homes presently built in this area~ MSUC (Adams-Hyde~ Approval of plans for two dwellings Lot 30 and Lot 36, in 5he Bonita Verde Subdivision PUBLIC HEARING - Establishing Specific Plan Lines for Portions of Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street Director of Planning Warren reviewed the matter sta~n9 %ha~ although thls has been belore 5h~ Commission and the Council prev~ously, ~5 was determined by the City At%~ney ~ha~ improper notlflcation was g~ven and another hear- ing was nece~a£~ by both the Commission and Council. Mr Warren then noted ~he precise kocation of the proposed alignment as marked c~~ the map t~tled "Exhibit A". Th3~s proposed alignment is the work o~ the cc~,b~ned Clty staffs and ~ ~ ~5 D~str~c~ Chairman Stewart asked if this action would reserve the right of way for these streets. Mr~ Warren stated there were no such plans at this time, but it would pro- v~de an alignment ~or which a street would be planned; it would be in con- formance substantially to that of the General Plan. Clty Attorney Lindberg declared that the adoption of Specific Plans does not constitute the reservation or taking for future use of this area - it determines where the street would be located if there were a dedication of Clty property. It would give all parties concerned the location of where the street would go so that they could plan accordingly; the C~ty could make acquisition for the purchase of this property. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr~ Robert Caplan, attorney representing Sam Vener, stated his client owns a good deal of property in this area, most of which he farms~ Some of this acreage lies r~ght on the proposed alignment and west of ~t; his packing shed lies almost directly at the intersection of Tidelands Avenue and E Street. He declared that his client wishes to oppose this alignment, flrst of all, because he feels that until the flood control channel is in- stalled, this matter is premature; that the Specific Plan Line should be dependent upon the alignment of the flood control channel. Mr. Caplan added that his client is also concerned that the Tidelands Avenue, as shown on the map, may affect future development of the property for industrial use - such as the Rohr industry. He added that the alignment, as proposed, divides the property west of the freeway, and that there is no need shown for the installation of this road - there is no subdivision planned for the property~ Mr~ Caplan added that alignments are set at the time subdivision maps are filed. He further stated that his client, Mr. Vener, requests that the matter be held in abeyance until such time as the owner of the property comes forth with a subdivision map. Until that time, it is re- quested that no alignment be set. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed~ Member York explained that the mere adoption of the alignment does not mean that someone coming in with a Plan that is feasible, and i~ makes this alignment infeasible, that it could not be changed. He added that the alignment has been designed in such a way that it would tie in with the proposed flood channel, and that adopting the Specific Plan a~ this time would be right since it would notify anyone starting construction there of this alig~ment~ Member Adams stated he agrees and added that it would not be detrimental to the p~qpert~whatsoever, and to let the matter rest until someone de- cides to develop the area would be a mistake~ Mr. Adams felt ~t would be much better to have this on the map, and that if it proves not to be feas- ible, then the developers could request a different allgnment~ Chairman Stewart discussed the development of this area as ~t relates to the General Plan and stated that the City would be derelict in their re- sponsibilit~ if they~ did not adequately provide long-range planning for this area. RESOLUTION NO. 446 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommend- MSUC (Rice-Adams) ing to Cit~ Council the Specific Plan Lines for Por- tions of T~delands Avenue and E Street -2- Findings are as follows: it Good Planning practice requires the adoption of Specific Plan Lines for the alignment of Tidelands Avenue between G Street and the north City limit line of Chula Vista and E Street between Tidelands Avenue and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad, west of Interstate #5 as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2~ That said Specific Plan Line be forwarded to the City Council and recommended to the City Counoil that they adopt said Specific Plan Line by resolution pursuant to the provision of the State Planning Act. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Prezoning of Propert~ North of Bonita Road, West of Bonita Mesa Road - from County A-3 (1) to C-1-D The application was read in which a request was made to prezone from County A-3(1) zoning to C-1-D of that small area of land north of the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Mesa Road~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the area to be prezoned and the adjacent land use and zonings~ He stated that a request for annex- ation of this parcel has been received in conjunction with that property to the south already annexed~ He commented that the ownership of this lot would ultimately be the same as that adjacent to the south and it would have frontage on Bonita Road. They have requested C-1-D zoning, and al- though the General Plan calls out C-V zoning for this area because of the freeway interchange, the staff would recommend approval of the request slnoe the C-1-D zoning is the only zone on the books at this time that would presently approximate the C-V zone~ Mr. Warren noted that in this case, they are referring to the alignment of the freeway which for all practical purposes has been established but not aocepted by the State~ This request ~s predicated on the assumption that the alignment will be on that particular line~ Director Warren added that the annexation of that area to the south is final and zoned C-1-D. Member Rice questioned whether this parcel of land will be under the same ownership as tha~ to the south~ Dlrector Warren felt this should be dis- cussed with the applicant since it was not at the time the ~equest was made~ This being the tlme and piace as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr. Dennis Wi~an~ ~present~ng Mahy Const~ction Com~,r~?, ~<ated ~hat this small s%~±p oi property is presentiy o~ned b~ Ne ....... 3~oan and that they are purohasing it under the option that it would be annexed to the City and zoned C-1-D. He stated that the east property line of this par- cel is flexible enough so that any change in the proposed freeway alignment would automatically alter this easterly boundary line so that it would be continuously adjacent to the freeway and with no possibility of leaving a small sliver of vacant land. He added that the legal description was a metes and bounds description and would state "to the boundary of the Interstate 805 Freeway"~ -3- City Attorney Lindberg questioned how the assessor would go about assessing such a piece of property until such time as the freeway is constructed~ - Member Rice asked if this prezoning could be contingent upon the acquisi- tion of this land by the same owner~ Mr. Lindberg suggested the Commission might state this as being contingent but not conditioned upon such° Chairman Stewart asked if title could be secured before the matter goes to Coun¢il~ Mr. Wittman felt this would be no problem. He stated that the main thing that Mr. Mahy was concerned about was to get the same zoning for this parcel as that to the south. Member Adams asked if the applicant had a firm contract to purchase this property. Mr. Wittman declared that they do, and that it was in escrow~ Director Warren explained that the staff does not protest the granting of this prezoning, but there is some concern about prezoning an area based upon an imaginery line that does not exist. It is feasible that the east- erly boundary line will move one way or another depending upon the freeway alignment. Mrs Wittman declared that the State Division of Highways wants to remain flexible and the purpose of this request is to prevent a sliver of land here~ He added that this annexation was approved by the Local AGency Formation Commission, the State Division of Highways, the City staffs, etc~ Member York asked what would happen if there were appreciable change in the freeway alignment. Mr. Wittman remarked that regardless of the dis- tance, their property line would move accordingly. In this case, the sell~ owns approximately 30 acres here, and the applicant has the option to pur- chase any of the remaining property between this small parcel and that to the freeway, should the alignment change~ There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed~ Member York commented that the applicant has done an outstanding job here to prevent the formation of a sliver of land, but he is still concerned about it coming under one ownership° Mr. York then discussed the property to the south for which the Commission turned down C-2 zoning based on the fact that the freeway alignment was not established and that rights-of- way had not been purchased. Chairman Stewart remarked that this matter did not concern the request before them tonight and was not a d~rect par- allel~ RESOLUTION NO. 447 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommend- MSUC (Adams-York) ing to the City Council the Prezoning from A-3(1) C-1-D for the Northwest Corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Mesa Road Findings be as follows: 1. This will assure that an unusable parcel of residentially zoned land - does not result between a commercial site and a freeway~ -4- 2o C-1-D zoning will permit development in conformance with the General Plan until more appropriate zoning can be applied. The property is placed in a C-1-D zone to become effective if and in the event that said property be annexed to the City of Chula Vista, and that said property comes under the same ownership as the property located ad3acent thereto to the west and south of the subject prop- erty which has previously been placed in the C-1-D zoning. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Rezoning at Northeast Corner of Fourth Avenue and D Street from R, 1 to R-3 - Drs. Cooper The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to R-3 a lot located on the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and D Street. D~rector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, ad- jacent land use and zoning. He commented that the parcel is improved with a single-family dwelling which has for some time been used as a church; there is also a garage on the premises. Mr. Warren noted tha% the General Plan delineates this area to Third Avenue as a high-density residential area~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr~ Rudy Brewster, attorney representing the applicants, explained that this matter is relative to the conditional use permit which follows on the agenda, and asked if the Commission would like to consider them both at the same time. The Commission discussed this and concurred that the two actions should be taken separately. Mr. Brewster explained that the pro- posed use for the dwelling would be for a medical office for Dr~ Cooper~ The building would lend itself well to this type of business; in the past, it has been used fox church purposes. Mr~ Brewster noted that th~s area has been designated as high-density residential b~ %he Genera~ Plan and that a medical office is an allowed use with a conditional use permit for this zone° He explained that %here will be no change ~f ~ke flow of traffic already established there~ There being no ~urther comment, either for o~ agains5~ %he hearing was de- clared closed~ D~rector Warren ~ndlcated that the staff has recommended approval of re- zoning this parcel to R-3 and would point out fu£ther thau l~ the Commis- sion does recommend approval of this request tha% they may w~sh to consider initiation oi the same rezoning to R-3 fo~ al! the parce~ ~n t~e ~ou%h side of D Stle~_ ~est of Garrett A~enue and Lne ~h~=e ~o ~.. ~he east side of Fourth Avenue south of D Street~ Member Adams declared that the request was appropriate since this parcel is surrounded by R-3 property. The Commission agreed that the areas noted by the Director on the plot plan should also be the subject of a public hearing for rezoning. RESOLUTION NO. 448 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommend- MSUC (Hyde-York) lng City Council the Change of Zone for Property at 395 D Street Findings are as follows: a. The General Plan designates this area as High Density Residential which basically corresponds to the R-3 classification~ be This site is located on a major street in the heart of the City and is well suited for ultimate development with multiple-family use. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Doctor's Office at 395 D Street - Drs. Cooper The application was read in which a.request was made for permission to operate a medical office in an existing structure on the property. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and commented that the uses along Fourth AVenue are all residential with the exception of the church on the corner and that church to the east of this property. Mr~ Warren then showed a detailed plot plan of the lot noting thelr proposed parking layout. He noted that the dwelling would be used for medical office for one doctor; the landscaping would be improved upon, and the offstreet parking requirements would be met. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr- Rudy Brewster, attorney for the applicants, noted that the existing garage and large tree would be removed from the lot, if the Commission had objections to these; also, that one of the driveways would be removed and the curb replaced~ He stated that Dr. Cooper presently practices her pro- fession at 386 Third Avenue, and this location would be closer to her resldence whereby she could serve her patients better by living closer to her offices Mr. Brewster noted that this was a permitted use in the R-3 zone, and that the question was does the building lend itself to this use. He maintained that the building has more than enough space for his client's medical office and that she plans to do some extensive remodeling of the interior. There would be no increase in traffic and the residences on Glover and D Streets would not be affected at all by the traffic on this corner lot. Mr. Brewster also maintained that this applIcation would not precipitate and flow -of. doctors' offices in this location. He re- marked that the trend in Chula Vista is away from s~ngle office practice - they are all going into the multiple story buildings so there should not be fear of a precedent. He further stated that since the General Plan calls for high density for this area, if the Commission feels that a doc- tor's office would retard the use of an apartment complex here, they are willing to have a stipulation put into the approval that they would have a 10-year limitation on such° At the end of such time, if the Commission feels the use is in the best interest of the City, they could extend the t~me or ask the applicant to discontinue the practice at this location~ Mr. Brewster commented that Dr. Cooper talked to the neighbors, and no one had objections to her proposed use~ There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed~ -6- Member Adams declared that the Commission once opposed a doctor's office to be located across the street from this one. He added that multiple- family development is proceeding very nicely along Fourth Avenue, and he would be one to oppose this request. Member York felt the granting of this use would set a precedent in the area. He further maintained that the proposed building is not compatible with the trend developing in this area, and to grant a 10-year lease for it would be detrimental to the orderly development of this entire area. Member Hyde commented that the prolonged period would only establish this use for this time and that they should face this problem now. Member Rice declared that a business in this location would only lead to more of the same; they would lust be encouraging the same type of commer- cial development in this area~ MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Denial of the request based on the following. It would set a precedent which would stimulate other ~equests for business and professional offices on Fourth AVenue. 2o The General Plan reserves professional, office locations In or near the Third Avenue-Civic Center in order to attract new activity to replace retail volume appropriated by other shopping centers and in an attempt to minimize strip retail commercial zoning on that street. More desirable and properly zoned commercial land could be left vacant since in most cases, residentially zoned land is less expensive than appropriately located commercial property. Further house conversions, which represent with few exceptions, mar- ginal deve2opment at best, would also be encouraged. 5~ The request, when considered separately, appears ±nnocuo~s; however, when ccnslde£ed in terms of its potential effect on this street as a whole, could have far-reaching implications which coded have an adverse effect on Fou£~h Avenue and the City~ Generally~ c~ce uses approved for R-3 property sho~d be coni~ned to seconda~ ~r mlnor streets in order to minimize therl effect on the City and concentrate them in less critical areas. The£e Is constant pressure to rezone to commercial or permit commercial uses on ma~or arterials I~ the mistaken belief that property ai~c h~gh traffic vol- ume ss~= Jan best be utilized commercially. Chairman Stewart explained to the applicants that they had 10 days in which to appeal this decision to the City Council, if they desire. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Professional Offices in an R-3 Zone at 351 H Street - Doctors Lawton & Lienhard -7- The application was read in which a request was made to allow the construc- tion of professional offices on property at 351 H Street, more particularly described in the application, which is zoned R-3~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land use. He explained this new parcel measured 48~ x 290' deep and was ~mmediately adjacent to their other L-shaped parcel for which medi- cal offices were approved by the Council, after the applicants appealed the Commission's denial of the request; this was ~n June 1964~ The appl~- cants propose to combine the two lots and construct slx buildings ali single story with 58 parking spaces which complies w~th the parking ~egula- t~ons- The staff has suggested a revision for the s~te which would better relate the parking to the buildings This proposal has been discussed with the applicants and they have agreed ~o change their plans accordingly, if approved~ Mr Warren then explained the conditions that the staff would ask be lmposed~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr, Wendell Lienhard, representing the owners of the property, stated the~ are obtaining the additlonal 40 feet of property to more ef~ectlvely utilize the area for trafflc and offstreet parking. He added that they accept all the condltions recommended by the staff~ Mr. Harry Schnepf, owner of property at the southwest corner of the alley and H Street, stated he is opposed to this type of request and any other spo~ zoning along H Street. He discussed the numerous shallow lots and asked the Commission to consider a proper zone for them; as R-3 zoning, he felt they would not be getting the proper use out of them. If zoned commercial, it would no longer be a "holding" zone and reasonable develop- ment could be accomplished without individual Planning Commission approvai~ There being no further comment, e~ther for or against, the heaflng was de- clared closed~ Member Adams said he felt, with this newly acquired addition of land ad- 3acent to that already approved, that the total development would be im- proved and that he favors the request. Member York agreed, but added that he would like to see some assurance of the fact that the applIcants would be developing these two parcels together as one 3o~nt development, and not having them change their plans leaving them with this one particular parcel to develop by itself. Chairman Stewart acknowledged that the conditions imposed by the staff would take care of this~ C~ty Attorney Lindberg explained that the Commission, by approvlng this request, will be amending the previous condltlonal use permit granted in 1964~ Frankly, this previous conditional use permit could stand on its own; however, it would not now be possible to develop ~t as previously planned~ -8- Director Warren indicated that, schematically, they are approving a plan for joint development of the two parcels. The Commission discussed the proposed fence and concurred that it should be a 6' high masonry wall. Director Warren commented that it was not the intent of the staff to tell the applicants what type of wall they must construct, but that some form of screen is necessary~ Chairman Stewart felt the condition was not unreasonable, and agreed that it should be so stipula~ed~ MSUC (Adams-Rice~ Approval of request subject to the following conditlons: 1. Detailed plans showing the proposed architecture, site plan, signs and landscaping shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval prio~ to the issuance of any building permit; the plan as revised by the staff and approved by the applicants shall be used as a guide. A six foot (6') masonry wall shall be erected on the property line separating the applicants' premises from the property to the north. 3o If the project is to be built in various phases, each phase must be approved by the staff to insure adequate parking and site layout. 4. The area between the curb and sidewalk shall be filled with concrete° 5. A minimum of three (3) street trees shall be planted along H Street on the site (25 gai~ minimum size). Findings are as follows: That the proposed use at the particular location is desirable to pro- vide a service which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community~ The proposed use will offer a desir- able service to the neighborhood and the community since th~s is an expansion of a previously approved plan. The additional property will allow an overall better site design. b. That such use will not, under the c~rcumstances o~ ~he par~cuia~ case, be detrlmen~.al to the health~ safety or general welfare cf persons re- siding c~ wDrking in the vicinity~ or in3urious to p~c~e~ty o~ ~mprove- mcnts in th~ 9~clnity. This is an expansion of an exlss~ng si~e allow- ing construction ~o be put in as one-story, rather than 5wo-stoly. That the ~rcposed use will comply with the re~ulat~on~ an~ conditions speci~e~i ~ Code ~o~ such use. The use ~li n~. adversely a~fect the General Plan of the City as the Plan reflects the need for office use on Third Avenue, approximately 400' from this site with commercial retail use designated across H Street. This type of professional of- fice use would be compatible with high density residential use pro- jected for this area. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Service Station ~n a C-N Zone at Northwest Corner of Orange and Melrose Avenues - Humble Oil and Refining Company The application was read in which a request was made to allow the construc- tion and operation of a Petroleum Products service station on property lo- cated at the northwest corner of Orange and Melrose Avenues~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning There is a site for another service station on the opposite corner, This parcel measures 200' x 200~ and following this hearing is a request for approval of signs for this stataon~ Mr~ Warren then noted the alignment of the proposed freeway to thas slte~ He poanted out the location of the pump islands and noted the two accesses to Melrose Avenue and Orange Avenue. Mr~ Warren then discussed the location of their proposed fence stating the staff had no objection to the fence but would like to know of what material they plan to construc~ it He then commented on the construction of the building andacatlng that ~t would be a one-story, ranch-type building. Director Warren then discussed their proposed concept of landscaping and explaaned the recommendations oi ap- proval the staff would lake to see imposed, Th~s being the time and place as advertIsed, the public hea~ng was opened, Mr. Sherwood Morf, representing Humble Oil Company, declared that Orange Avenue will be extended and will become a ma3or street, in accordance w~th the General Plan. A service stataon site has been approved for the nor~h- east corner and thls will be the only other service station in the area that will have to serve 1,000 people, and perhaps more when the shopping center is eventually opened. Mr. Morf discussed the existing pole on the north property line and stated that he called the utality companles and discussed with them the fact that they will be putting in underground utilities at this stie. He added that they are experimenting with a slmu- lated shake roof even though they are presently proposang a rock roof~ The sales will be limited to petroleum products only, As to their land- scaping plans, Mr. Morf contanued, they do have a plan for this, but un- fortunately they haven't been able to get it here tonight. The north and west sides of the site wall have trees planted - approximately 8 trees~ The fence is a 3' high redwood fence painted white which they term the "Humble fence." Member Rice questioned the elevation of this lot to the ad3acent lot, Director Warren indicated it would be approximately 5 feet h~gher at the highest point~ There being no further comments, either for or agaanst, the hearing was de- clared closed. The Commassion discussed the proposal and concurred that it was acceptable, MSUC (Hyde-York) Approval of request sub3ect to the following conditions~ 1, Approval of this request excludes approval of any sagns proposed (slgns to be considered in the varaance request). 2. Design of fence to be submitted to staff for approval. 3~ Landscaping plan shall be approved by the staff prior to the issuance of any building permits (Note: Street trees shall be required as ap- proved by the staff - 25 gallon minimum size.) 4. Ail sales shall be limited to those normally considered incidental to service station needs. The roofing material shall be of a medium or dark color, preferably imitation shake shingles, to reduce the glare toward surrounding hill- top houses~ 6~ There is an existing utility pole on the northeast corner of the lot with lines extending south on Melrose Avenue across Orange Avenue; the facilities shall be underg~ounded, if feasible, if not now, with de- velopment of the total Center. 7. Upon development of the adjacent shopping center, vehicular access to the Center parking lot shall be provided across the westerly and northerly property lines. Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary to pro- vide a service which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use will offer a desirable service to the neighborhood and the community since no other service station exists for approximately 1% miles. (Note: One site has been approved across the street, and Orange Avenue ties in directly with the new freeway interchange°) b That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety ox general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the vicinity, or ~n~urious to p~ope~ty o~ improve- ments in the vicinityo This site was comercially zoned prior ~c any homes being constructed in the area and adequate precautions are being used ~o assure the service station operation will be compat2ble with adjacent residential use and the N-C facilities~ That ~he proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specifi~ ~n the Code for such use~ The use will not ad~ersely affect the Gene£al Plan of the C~ty as this general area appears on the Plan as retali commercial~ PUBLIC HEARING - Request for Variance from Sign A~ea~ Ne~gDt and Setback ~ulati~ns ~o~ Service Sta~:.on au ~z~kwes~ Corne~ of Orange and Melrose Avenues - Humble 0il and Refining Company. The application was read in which a request was made for the following s~gns and height: i. Two freestanding signs with the edge of the signs overhanging to the property lineo 2. Height of the two signs is 28' from ground level to the top of %he sign~ -11- Total sign area to be 270 square feet - signs on the station approxi- mately 34 square feet - two price signs of 15 square feet each - two freestanding signs of 104 square feet each. D~rector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the precise loca- tion of each of the proposed signs. He indicated that in the past, the Commission has approved one freestanding sign at the corner of service station sites which would be identifiable on both corners - in this case, the applicants are requesting two such signs. Mr. Warren then reviewed the conditions of approval. He said there was a question in the minds of the staff for the need of the price signs - more often, they are used for pro- motlons, etc., such as"gas wars"~ The station on the opposite corner con- forms to a 77 square foot sign area and the height of thelr freestanding sign ~s 22 feet. ~,¢ Commission discussed this proposal, comparing their request to other service statlon sites. Thls being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened~ Mr.. Sherwood Morf, representing Humble Oil Company, sta~d their oval signs are 61 square feet each in actual surface, thus making a total of 122 square feet for the two freestanding signs. Mr~ Morf declared that this site is different from that on the opposite corner because it would be serving two traffic types. As to the comment of putting one sign on the corner, Mr~ Morf stated it was a company pollcy not to erect their sign at a 45° angle because it cannot be properly seen from both streets. He said that they do have a smaller sign, similar to the one they put up at Third and Palomar which measures 6' x 8', also oval shaped, and remarked that they could put this sign up - one on each street~ He spoke of the steep terrain of Melrose and the effect this has on the slte. Mr. Morf then discussed the landscaping and the proposal tc plant Lrees on the site - he felt the height of the street trees in t~me would block the signs. The Commission discussed the price s~gns and the feasibillty of them. Mr~ Morf claimed that prices change so often that the customer ~s entitled to know these price changes; however, they would accept these s~gns to be used in "gas wars" only, The Clty Attorney stated that this would not be a proper condition There being no further comment, either for or against, the hea~ing was de- clared closed. Member Rice commented, that on looking over this plan, he could see no rea- son for such freestanding signs that could be viewed three miles away; it is a neighborhood shopping center. Member Adams declared that all service stations want the total number of signs they could get, but the Commission should limit it to that allowed by ordinance 50 square feet; however, they are considering some liberali- zation of this. Member York discussed the site and the question of whether this could be called a neighborhood shopping center since it will be fronting on a major freeway. He discussed the allowable sign areas and suggested they live with the ordinance:and it should be so written in such a way that realistic conditions can exist for commercial ventures. Member Rice stated the site was surrounded by residential use and that it was well to recognize it as a neighborhood shopping center. He added that it does not behoove the Commission to disrupt the planning, as it now exists. Mr~ Rice also commented that the people across the street would want the same consideration given to promoting development compatible with their area. Member York remarked that they should write the ordinance so ~hat they do not arbitrarily lgnore a 50' sign provision and give the applicant 400' merely because it is requested. Director Warren mentioned the upcoming meeting of the Southern Callfornia Planning Congress to be held on the 9th of this month whlch w~ll have ser- vice stations as their main topic; he indicated that if they do not learn anything from this talk, they could set up a workshop meeting to discuss it~ Chairman Stewart suggested the hearing be postponed until the next meeting to allow the Commission and staff to attend that meeting. He added he can see no useful purpose for all these proposed signs except for advertising purposes. The Commission discussed the double-faced signs and three-dimens~onal signs. Director Warren noted that the ordinance recognizes the double- faced signs as one that can be viewed from both sides; that only the one side is measured for the sign area. Member Adams agreed to the postponement commenting tha5 the s~af~ should get together w~th the applicant and try to resolve some ~ these problems before the next meeting. MSUC (Hyde-R~ce) Public Hearing on this matter be continued to ~he meeting o~ February 20. PUBLIC HEARING - Request to Change Name of Palomar Dr~va Director of Planning Warren expla£ned that a petition ~as been received bearing 41 signatures representing 22 property owners asking tha% %he name of their street be changed~ Since th~s name change wo~Id involve another small stzee~ wes~ of Fourth Avenue~ and since %here was ~.t ~00 pe~ cen~ pzope~y ow~.~z =_gnatures on the peLznlon, this public hearing. This is not a staff-initiated request; however, it was discussed with the Post Office, Fire and Police Departments and they agreed to the need of a name change because of the conflict that now exists between Palomar Drive and Palomar Street. The '~ames in this area are all named after mountains, and the staff has suggested a few names to per- petuate this theme. Member Adams asked if this same name change would apply to the small seg- ment of street west of Fourth Avenue also. Director Warren stated would. Member York indicated that it was logical to call it by the same -13- name ~f it lines up with it. According to the records on file, those peo- ple i~ving on this small street have been notified of this meetlng~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bu~ton Henderson, 68 East Palomar Drive, stated he was the one who circulated the petition, and said the source of the problem was the con- fllct w~th this street and that to the south named Palomar Street. Few pecple realize there are two such named streets, and problems arise peri- odically with their mailing - they get mail addressed to Palomar Street and vice versa~ There is also the problem of an emergency coming up and ~rylng to notify the Fire and Police Departments explaining the difference in the two locatlons~ The street is only two to three blocks long and it would be an easy task to change the name of thls street; they suggested Pepperldge Drive, but they are willing to accept any name recommended by the Commissions Mr~ Henderson added that he did not contact those people living on the westerly segment~ Those speaklng ~n opposition to the name change were: Mrs~ Cec~l Cotton, 40 Palomar Drive, Roy Johnson, 351 Palomar Drive, Richard Higgs, 47 Palomar Drlve, George Brines, 385 Palomar Drive, Water Benney, 16 Palomar D~ve, Mrs Jack Cooper, 75 East Palomar Drive, and Dr. B. Casey, owner of prop- erty on Palomar Drive for 25 years. Their reasons for ob3ectlng were: (1) area was subdivided 40 years ago and streets were named then; i2) twenty- two property owners s~gned the petition and there are more than 22 proper%y owners living on this street; (3) Palomar Street is in %he County and th~s street ~s ~n the City; (4) have lived here for 12 years and never had trou- ble with the mall, Fire or Police Departments no need for a change; (5) s~gned a petition in 1956-58 to change the name of the small segment of street and at that time, it would have been feaslble~ but not at this t~me; (6) there would be quite a monetary loss to the residents in changing the street name; (7) changing this street name would not clear up the problem --the problem lies with East Palomar Drive and Palomar Drive; i8) ~n the past, they have had one fire, one lost child, and one attempted burglary, and the Fire and Police have had no trouble locating th~s street. Chairman Stewart asked for a show of hands of those ~n the audience: it was noted that 6 people were ~or it and 23 against the name change. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was de- clared closed. Member Rice declared it was evident there were more people against the name change than were for it. He said he could see certain benefits de- rived ~rom the name change, but on the other hand, there were problems ~nvolved in changlng the name~ He felt the Commission should go along w~th the people who do not want it changed. He added that he hoped tu~e street naming would avoid this type of conflict. D~rector Warren ~ndicatlng that street naming policy could be the sub3ect of one of a ~uture workshop meetings. The Commission d~scussed the name change and concurred that it should re- ma~n as it -14- MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Request to change the name of Palomar Drive be denied. Director Warren questioned whether this recommendation should go to Coun- ¢~1. City Attorney Lindberg stated he would have to check the Code and, in any event, the people in the area would be notified or should appeal · f they desire. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Estab- iishin~ a C-V Zone and Addition of S~ecial Provisions to Existing Commercial Zones Director of Planning Warren explained that this was continued from a pre- vious meeting and another revised draft has been mailed to all concerned; there is no substantial change to this draft as compared with the previous one except some provisions as to conditional use permits and site plans and these are separate ordinances. He explained the need for the C-V zone- the need for tourist business in the vicinity of freeway ~nterchanges. Mr- Warren discussed certain retail uses in connection with this C-V zone and indicated that they would be oriented to the motel-hotel nucleous. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Clint Mathews, Vista Coronado Drive, said he would like to suggest that this be continued so that the newly formed committee of the Chamber of Commerce could study this proposed ordinance. He would suggest a 30 day continuance. Member Rice commented that he would welcome the assistance of these people and would agree to a continuance. Director Warren remarked that his staff did send out the drafts of this ordinance late last week and apologized for not getting them out sooner. Member Adams felt 30 days was out of the question and said he would agree to continuing it to the next meeting. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive~ stated this ordinance review com- mittee is a good cross section of people qualified to study this ordinance and would certainly recommend the 30 day continuance. He added that there is presently too much policing involved and further, that this ordinance is premature. Director Warren commented that in view of the fact that this committee has just been formed, he would have no objection to the 30 day continuance. He said he understood the concern of the Commission in that this has been continued now for several weeks, and they would like to see something re- solved. Member Hyde suggested a compromise whereby it would be continued until the next meeting and then they could come in and ask for another continuance, if necessary. Mr. Ferreira referred to the recent joint Commission-Council meeting in which the suggestion was made that the entire ordinance be brought back at one time. He would request that this proposed ordinance be dropped. -15- Member Adams declared that this suggestion was made at this joint meeting, and the Commission felt it would be a good idea, if they could do it, but they also stated that they needed these presently proposed ordinances. Mr. Adams further stated that two weeks was a sufficient time to postpone the hearing on this ordinance since it was a short ordinance. Director Warren questioned whether this newly-formed committee would be working individually or whether they had to present their recommendation to the Board of Directors~ Mr. Ferreira stated he believed it would have to go to the Board. Mr. Warren indicated that if this were the case, then 2 weeks would not be long enough. He added that any continuance should be strictly for study purposes and not merely to delay adoption. Member York, checking on the dates of the committee and the Board of D~- rectors meeting, stated that this public hearing would have to be continued until the meeting of March 20. Chairman Stewart discussed the comments at the joint Commission-Councll meeting whereby they suggested the Commission get all the help they could from experienced people; however, if it meant a 4 to 6 week delay to get ~hese ordinances to the Chamber committee and they in turn to their Board of Directors, he would suggest a workshop meeting w~th them to expedite the matter. Mr. Robert Miles, Miles Construction Company, advocated the 30 day contin- uance. He indicated that in the future this commission would be working more closely with this newly formed committee and there would be no fu- ture continuances such as this one. He mentioned that there were just 8 people present tonight for this hearing and in all fairness, ~t was not a good representation. Mr. Miles added that the Commission had 6 months to work on this ordinance, and they had 1 month in which to study it. Chairman Stewart declared he was against forming any precedents here in which they would be faced with a 6 week delay every time they proposed a new ordinance just so the Chamber committee would have t~me to study it and present their recommendations to the Board of Directors. City ATtorney Lindberg stated that he didn't believe that what ~s proposed by the Chamber was that prior to any action on any proposed ordinance by the Commission and the Council, that these matters had to be referred to them for recommendation before any legislative action could take place. Their purpose is to get these ordinances and alert the interested parties. It is not the intent of the Commission or Council to interpose another body to adopt ordinances. Member York remarked that it was his understanding that this newly formed committee was formed to distribute information to the various people who would be affected by it. If this is true, then 30 days was ample time in which they could get this information to the interested parties. Mr~ Ferreira commented that at the previous Chamber committee meeting, it was understood that at the inception of every new proposed ordinance, the Planning Director would notify this committee. MSUC (Hyde-Adams) Public Hearing on this matter be continued to the meet- lng of March 6, 1967. RESOLUTION - Extending Time on Variance for Reduction of Lot Size - Flair Subdivision Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received from D. Wittman, Poutous Development and Saratoga Development Company for an extension of time on their variance granted August 9, 1966. He explaaned this was for a reduction in lot sizes from the minimum 7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet for lots within the proposed Les Chateaux Subdivision granted them so that the natural canyon in this subdivision would remain undeveloped. They are asking for a one-year extension. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Granting an RESOLUTION NO.449 Extension of Time on Variance Application #66-19 The extension to be for a period of one year and will expare on February 9, 1968. RESOLUTION - Setting for Hearing Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Establish- ing Provision for Temporary Storage of Wrecked Vehicles with Conditional Use Permit in C-2 and M-1 Zones Director of Planning Warren stated that the proposed ordinance on this has not been distributed publicly, but that the staff will do so. It provides for the temporary storage of wrecked vehicles in the C-2 and M-1 zones. The staff has suggested certain conditions delineated in the ordinance and will make copies of this ordinance available immediately. Mr. Warren in- dicated that the Commission could set this for hearing for the February 20 meeting. RESOLUTION N0.450 Resolution of the City Planning Comm±ssaon Statang Their MSUC (York-Race) Intent to Call a Public Hearing for February 20, 1967, to Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Estab- lishing provision for Temporary Storage of Wrecked Ve- hicles With Conditional Use Permits in C-2 and M-1 Zones BILLBOARDS ON THIRD AVENUE Member Rice remarked that he noticed a number of large billboard s on Third Avenue across the City limit line. He stated this was not compatible with the overall plan for the area and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding residential development. Mr. Rice added that he would lake the Planning CommissIon to direct the staff to write a letter to the County Planning Commission to discuss with them the possibility of excluding bill- boards from this area. MSUC (Rice-Hyde) The staff be directed to write a letter to the San Diego County Planning Commission requesting that billboards be excluded from the County portion of southern part of Third Avenue. -17- JOINT COUNCIL-COMMISSION DISCUSSION Member Hyde asked if anything further transpired since the joint meeting held recently. Director Warren stated that he received a memo from Mr. Fred Ross inquiring about the schedule for the new zoning ordinance. Chairman Stewart suggested the Commission hold a workshop meeting. Mr. Warren ~ndicated that it would take some special meetings -- if the Com- mission tries to meet the 6 week schedule proposed by Council, they would have to meet every Monday night. The Commission discussed the earliest time they could meet after dinner, and it was agreed that they would meet at 6 p.m. Mr. Warren stated he would call them as to the date. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-York) Meeting be adjourned until February 20, 1967. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fulasz Secretary -18-