Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/03/15 MEETING OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 15, 1971 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, James, and Hillson. Absent (with previous notification): Member Stewart. Also present, Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, City Engineer Gesley, Director of Parks and Recreation Jasinek, and Assistant City Attorney Blick. Chairman Rice led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Adams pointed out that on page 7 of the minutes of March l, 1971, concerning the public hearing on the variance request of the New Testament Church, the Commission's motion was not shown. The minutes of the meeting of March 1, will therefore be corrected by the addition of the following: MSC (Adams-Macevicz) Application for a variance for temporary use of a mobile trailer as a meeting hall for the New Testament Church be denied on the basis that there are no exceptional circumstances - or hardship peculiar to the property. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Admas, Macevicz, Stewart, Ri ce, Chandler and James NOES: Member Hillson MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of March 1 be approved as corrected and minutes of the meeting of March 8, 1971 be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 421-489 E Street and 196 Guava - Rezone from R-3 to C-O - Charles D. Rice Director of Planning Warren pointed out on a plat the location of the property to be considered for rezoning on the north side of E Street. This property, presently zoned R-3, has a mixture of uses including multiple family, single family and a church. The south side of E Street is zoned R-1 and developed primarily with single family homes. Mr. Warren referred to an analysis and report prepared in 1957 by Gordon Whitnall & Associates on a proposed rezoning of this area to C-1 and pointed out their reasons for concluding this would not be good zoning practice. He felt many of these reasons are still valid, although he pointed out the differences in uses permitted under the C-O zone and the commercial use under the former C-1 zone. -2- 3/15/71 Mr. Warren pointed out that the General Plan designates this area as high density residential use and at the same time recommends a continuation of office use near the Third Avenue-Civic Center area. In recent months considerable property in the central business area has been rezoned from commercial to professional office use and it is felt the current C-O zoning is sufficient to support current and projected needs for this use. Mr. Warren also referred to the circulation element which designates E Street as a major road which is one of the reasons there have been repeated denials of commercial requests in this area. Mr. Warren expressed concern that granting the change of zone as requested would essentially commit all of the property on E Street from Fourth Ave. to Fifth to C-O zoning. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Charles Rice, 377 First Avenue, contended that the analysis formed in 1957 is outdated since it is 14 years old and Chula Vista has grown to about double in size during that time. He expressed agreement that C-1 zoning would not be suitable for the area but felt that many of the items mentioned in the report were in harmony with professional office use. He further contended that office use would not increase the volume of traffic on E Street, particularly at peak hours, such as 4 to 6 p.m., as much as high density residential development would. He also felt the proximity of this area to the Civic Center makes it desirable for office use and that such use would further enhance the central business district along Third Avenue. Mr. Rice pointed out that professional office use and multiple family use are compatible in the same zone with the requirements for offstreet parking and landscaping, and he felt that office use should be permitted to expand in an east-west direction in Chula Vista rather than going to the south. Fred Ross, 475 E Street, stated he was in favor of this request for change of zone. Ted Colvin, 470 E Street, commented that he lives on the south side of E Street across from the property being considered and he would favor the change of zone as he would rather face professional office use than multiple family use. Frances Duvall, 203 Guava, spoke in favor of the proposed change as she felt multiple family development would result in an excessive number of cars on E Street. Mr. Warren, owner of property at 457 E Street, reported that he had been forced to move from that address because the heavy traffic in the early morning made it impossible to sleep. He felt this has become an undesirable area for residential use and that it is better suited to the C-O zone since the noise would not bother that use. -3- 3/15/71 Anne Hedenkamp, 515 Second Avenue, expressed her support of the Planning Department's recommendation for denying this zone change since there is C-O zoning available fordevelopmentin other parts of the city. Red Buhorn, Chairman of the Congregation of the Pilgrim Lutheran Church, stated that their church owns approximately one-third of the property for which the change is being requested and they are opposed to the change. He pointed out the improvements they have made and the large investment they have in their property and they feel the C-O zone would not be an enhancement to the area. Elizabeth Galligan, representing the estate of Carmen S. Galligan located at 466 E Street, spoke against the requested change and reminded the Commission of a request some years ago which it was though'would be for the establishment of an art gallery, but when development was completed it was a real estate office. She also pointed out that deed restrictions on the property in the Smaley Park edition do not permit the property to be extensively developed for other than residential use and any other development on the north side of E Street would not particularly enhance the value of the property on the south side. Charles D. Rice, speaking to the points raised by the Pilgrim Lutheran Church, argued that profesi§onal office use would be an asset to the church due to their parking situation on Sunday morning, pointing out that office development tends to keep a smaller amount of cars parked at the curb than apartment com- plexes. Director of Planning Warren commented that a zone change of this scale would necessitate a re-evaluation of the General Plan, and also that if the Commission would wish to approve the zone change it should be done only after the provisions of the C-O zone have been studied and rewritten. Member Chandler supported the Planning Department's recommendation for denial pointing out that rezoning a small portion of E Street would open the way for the entire area down to Broadway to request the same change. Chairman Rice concurred, adding that if the objections to multiple family development on E Street were valid, the same thing would be true on H Street, L Street and Palomar, and there has been no evidence of that. Member Hillson remarked that some of the lots on the north side of E Street are so deep that a professional office would not require all of the lot and the rear portion might ~till be developed with apartments which would double the traffic problems. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) The request for rezoning for 421-489 E Street and 196 Guava from R-3 to C-O be denied based on the findings presented in the staff report. Chairman Rice advised the applicant he has ten days in which to appeal this decision to the City Council. -4- 3/15/71 -' SUBDIVISION - Tentative map for F.B.M. - Chanje of Town House Apartment on Fourth Avenue to condominium units Director of Planning Warren advised that this proposal is to change the existing Town House Apartments from a rental project to a condominium to permit the sale of the units. The property would be divided into two lots. The staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions dealing mainly with deed restrictions and continued maintenance of the open space and improvements, also with requirements for public improvements on Glover Avenue and Fourth Avenue. Mr. Warren reported that accompanying this request was a letter from Rick Engineering Company requesting that undergrounding of public utilities be waived at this time. He advised that granting such a waiver is a function of the City Council but the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council. The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring that the utilities be placed underground at this time or of making the stipulation that it would be done at a future date when the entire area is changed to underground utilities. William Rick, representing the applicant, advised that he had discussed this with the owner and they would concur with the procedure that the City would initiate a district to underground all utilities and the property owner would sign an agreement not to oppose such action. _ Mr. Rick also requested that the filing of the covenants on the property not be required prior to the recording of the final subdivison map but that it be done concurrently with the filing of the condomunium plan. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map for F.B.M. to change the Town House Apartments to condominum units subject to the conditions enumerated by the staff. SUBDIVISION - Southwestern College Estates Unit #7 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren pointed out the location of this unit fronting on Otay Lakes Road just east of Acacia Avenue. A mobile home park has been approved for development on this unit. The staff recommends approval since the map is in conformance with the tentative map. MSUC (Adams-James) Recommend to City Council approval of the final map for Southwestern College Estates Unit No. 7 subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff comments. Request for interpretation of sign at 556 Broadwa~ - The Butcher Shop Director of Planning Warren read a letter received from Mr. Henry Harper in which he requested an interpretation of the provisions of the sign ordinance with reference to the abatement of nonconforming signs. It is the staff's interpretation that this sign would be classed as a flashing or scintillating sign, since it reflects natural light, and would fall within the six month mandatory removal period. -5- 3/15/71 Henry Harper, 229 Inkopah Street, remarked that he was active in the Committee that worked on the sign ordinance but he had not been aware of any provisions concerning the type of sign he has although he recalled discussions about moving or rotating signs. He mentioned the advertising contract which he has with Foster & Kleiser for billboards all over the city of San Diego using this logo, using the shiny metal pieces which they term embellishment. He felt this did not constitute a moving or flashing sign. He felt additional time should be allowed for the use of this sign to amortize the cost. Member James asked what length of time he would like to have. Mr. Harper commented that he would appreciate keeping it for the rest of the summer and take it down in September. In discussion the Commission expressed the feeling that since they adopted the sign provisions in the ordinance they would have to enforce them and could not make exceptions based on personal feelings. Director of Planning Warren commented that in the matter of moving or flashing signs it is relatively easy to stop the motion or flashing but in the matter of a scintillating sign it becomes more difficult. He pointed out that a salesman who was selling this product attended a public hearing, brought with him an example of this type of material and asked that it be exempted, but the Commission and Council did not grant that request. -- MSC (Hillson-Macevicz) Based on the interpretation of the staff and discussion of the Planning Commission, the moving or reflective portion of the sign at 556 Broadway be considered as the type of sign falling wi thin the six month mandatory abatement period. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Members Hillson, Macevicz, Chandler, Rice and Adams NOES: Member James ABSENT: Member Stewart Request for approval of modified architectural plans for ~nglish Village Shopping Center at BOnita Road and SandalwOod Drive Director of Planning Warren displayed renderings of the architecture approved by the Planning Commission in March of last year and of the revised plan submitted by Mr. York which would eliminate the gabled roof and substitute instead a flat roof with a parapet using shake shingles. Eugene York, 280 K Street, reported that the request for a change of roof design was occasioned by the fact that the air conditioning firms had advised it would be impossible to install air conditioning units to service these stores in the attic of the gabled roof. He felt the revised plan would be compatible with the architecture of the apartments in the area and Mr. Ferreira has concurred. Mr. York also pointed out this change would lessen the height of the building and not make it so prominent Member Adams questioned where the signs would be placed on the buildings. -6- 3/15/71 Mr. York assured the Commission there is no intent to place signs on the parapet and that they will be installed under the overhang. MSUC (Chandler-Hillson) Approval of the modified architecture for the English Village Shopping center as presented tonight. Request for interim ordinance establishin9 day. nurserigs' and nurserS schools as Unclassified Uses Director of Planning Warren pointed out that at the present time day nurseries and nursery schools are permitted in the multiple family zone (excluding R-3-T) subject to a conditional use permit, while in the Unclassified Use Section, subject to a conditional use permit, colleges, universities, private schools, elementary and secondary public schools are permitted. The staff can find no justification in differentiating between nursery schools and other elementary schools. The staff recommmends that the Commission request the Council to adopt an interim ordinance which would place day nurseries and nursery schools under Unclassified Uses subject to a conditional use permit. Member Adams pointed out that if these are placed under Unclassified Uses, it wouldn't necessarily be in the R-1 zone, and if it was determined a nursery school would not be compatible in a certain area it need not be permitted. MSUC (Adams-Hillson) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of an interim ordinance establishing day nurseries and nursery schools in the Unclassified Use Section. Request for vacation of sewer easement in Apollo I subdivision Director of Planning Warren indicated the location of a 10' wide sewer easement existing across lots 36-44 in Apollo Unit No. 1. This easement has no function now since the sewer has been relocated in East Rienstra Street and it is recommended that this finding be transmitted to the City Council. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Transmit to the City Council the finding that the 10 foot sewer easement across lots 36 through 44 in Apollo Unit No. 1 is no longer needed for public purposes. PUBLIC HEARING - Parks and Recreation Master Plan Director of Planning Warren pointed out that the draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is actually an amendment to the General Plan. A study was made to identify the city's current park space needs and anticipate the future park and recreation requirements, and a schedule of development was established to guide in park site acquisitions during the next 10 years. It is proposed that much of the land for new neighborhood parks be obtained by employing a subdivision land dedication ordinance. This plan emphasizes neighborhood parks. Mr. Warren commented that the City is fortunate in having nearby County Regional Parks including the Sweetwater Reservoir area being proposed and the plan for the floor of the Sweetwater Valley if it comes about. These regional facilities reduce the amount of land the city would -7- 3/15/71 otherwise be required to obtain and develop for community use. Hr. Warren displayed a large map indicating existing parks, proposed parks and open space. This map divides the entire planning area into five areas. This plan is based on the standards of the National Park and Recreation Association and the California Committee on Planning for Recreation, Park Areas and Facilities. Mr. Warren pointed out that the adoption of a Parks and Recreation Plan which defines neighborhood facilities service areas is necessary in order to implement the Quimby Act which has been enacted by the State Legislature to permit cities to require dedication of park land by developers. Bill Jasinek, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported on the work of a Citizens Advisory Committee whose purpose was to establish broad goals and objectives for a master park plan. This committee submitted 13 recommendations which will appear as part of the appendix to the Master Plan report. With reference to the funding of the plan, it was felt this should be separated from the total plan for several reasons, one being that people look at the funding with relatively little attention given to the plan itself. Hr. Jasinek felt this is unfortunate and a plan should be adopted to meet the needs and the funding is a secondary process. The funding program in the plan is predicated on the adoption of an ordinance in accord with the Quimby Act and on the use of general funds, federal funds other agency contributions and private subscription. It delin- eates a l0 year funding program, but this is a flexible period and may be extended to 12 years. The l0 year program is a possible, model funding program. The actual funding will be a year by year process. In answer to a question by Member Adams, Mr. Jasinek explained that the Quimby Act is the provision for the dedication of land or the payment of fees in lieu thereof by a subdivider as a condition of getting final approval of a subdivision map. One of the requirements for implementing this act is that the City has a duly adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. Mr. Jaskinek pointed out that this proposed plan has gone to the Citizens Advisory Committe for review and they recommended its adoption, and to the Parks and Recreation Commission who unanimously approved the plan and recommended forwarding it to the Planning Commission for approval. Member Hillson asked if the funding of this plan is based on anticipated revenue or if there is a chance there will be a general tax increase to complete this plan. Mr, Jasinek adivsed that in preparing this funding program they studied the history of capital improvement allocations for Parks and Recreation purposes over the past several years. He pointed out that in the proposed funding program only two one-year periods show a substantial increase in General Fund allocation. The first year, for example, indicated slightly over $600,000 funding by the General Fund. This has been modified by three different things that have happened since the funding program was established: One site acquisition has been accomp- lished during this current fiscal year; one is tentatively budgeted for the 1971-72 fiscal year; and a third site may be financed by other means than the General Fund. Mr. Jasinek indicated that the suggested funding is very consistent with that which has been allocated to Parks and Recreation in previous years. -8- 3/15/71 Specifically as to a tax increase, he advised that would depend upon whether or not a bond issue is eminent, at what year it occurs and what the assessed valuation of the city might be at that time. He assured the Commission there would be no intent of any type of bond issue to fund the Master Plan prior to the retirement of the total Parks and Recreation bond issues outstanding at this time. Member Chandler asked about the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee on this program. Mr. Jasinek stated that committee has submitted a report containing 13 items and nearly all of those suggestions were included in the plan. He also spoke of a survey conducted last summer by the Parks and Recreation staff which attempted to establish the desires of the residents of the city in different age brackets concerning recreational facilities. This survey indicated the public felt park development was of utmost importance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Anne Hedenkamp, 515 Second Avenue, reported that she had the privilege of being a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Referring to the map she pointed out that in the western portion of the city the only large green belt areas indicated were in the Tidelands and the San Diego Country Club which is not available to citizens unless they are members of that club. She felt that since this is a high density area of the city there is still a need for a green belt or additional parks and recreational facilities in that area. Mr. Gene York 280 K Street, representing the South B.a~v Improvement Association, reported they have no quarrel with the map or the plan, but felt they had not been furnished with sufficient copies of the report or given sufficient time to study the entire program. He requested a continuation of the hearing to allow more time for study if the Planning Commission intends to recommend approval of any of the funding methods. Mr. Jasinek advised that the actual funding would require approval by the City Council on a year by year basis, and the funding program included in the Master Plan report is but a model. Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, speaking for the South Bay Citizens Planning Committe, reported they had received no copy of the report and they are very much interested, particularly since they made an extensive study and presentation to the Commission on a scenic route and equestrian trail along Telegraph Canyon Road. She asked if consideration had been given in this plan for hiking, bicycling and equestrian trails. Mr. Warren advised that the establishment of such trails in the Telegraph Canyon area is being pursued with the developers of the property and that trails are discussed in the report. Charles Haynes, 1545 Melrose Avenue, requested that an amendment be made to the plan to include a mini-park at the intersection of Talus Street and Melrose Avenue. He pointed out on the map the need for a park for small children in -9- 3/15/71 this area. He also pointed out the location of some unused property which belong to the two adjacent land owners and he felt it could be acquired for a reasonable cost if they were informed that it was to be used for a park. Charles then advised that his Boy Scout Troop would assist in the completion of this park if the city would acquire the land and supply the necessary play- ground equipment. Charles Haynes was commended by the Commission on the presentation he made and Mr. Jasinek advised that this site will be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission Thursday night and he hoped Charles could attend that meeting. There were no further comments, for or against, and the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Hillson-James) Approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as contained in Sections ! - II! of the report and that the funding program be the function of the City Council. Discussion - Proposed interchanges with Interstate 805 and H Street and Bonita Road Director of Planning Warren recalled for the Commission their discussion at a workshop meeting of the problems associated with the proposed interchanges and the freeway. He felt the City Council should be requested to pursue these problems with the State Division of Highways and San Diego County prior to the bidding process for construction of the freeway. He pointed out the need for a grade separation between the H Street ramp and Bonita Road ramp and for two moving lanes for the on ramp north from H Street, also the need for pedestrian and equestrian passage across the barrier formed by the freeway. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) The following points be brought to the attention of the City Council and they be requested to contact the State Division of Highways and the county of San Diego in an attempt to alleviate the following problems prior to the bidding process for completion of the freeway: 1. A possible grade separation in between the on ramp-north at H Street and the off ramp from the south to Bonita Road. 2. Two moving lanes for the on ramp north from H Street. 3. Consideration that somewhere between J Street and Bonita Road underpasses be designed for pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian paths or that the inter- changes at these streets be adequately designed to accommodate this need. DIRECTOR'S REPORT City Attorney opinion relating to painting of buildings The City Attorney's office submitted an opinion as requested by the Commission as to whether the painting of a building with stripes represents a sign. It -10- 3/15/71 was his opinion that the courts would not rule that such painting constituted a sign. It was pointed out that the Commission's only control on the painting of buildings comes under the Design Control provisions of the ordinance and should relate to compatibility with an established theme. ~9aBue of California Cities dinner meeting) Thursdavv~ March 18 Members Rice, Adams, and Hillson indicated their desire to attend this meeting and requested that reserveations be made. San Diego Gas and Electric Co. tour of facilities) Saturday~ March 20 Member Macevicz advised that another commitJ~ent will make it impossible to attend this tour. All other members indicated intention to attend. Written Communications Chairman Rice read a letter received from the League of Women Voters thanking the Commission for the time and consideration given in meeting with the women and in affording them a better understanding of the Commission's job in the city. Adjournment At 10:15 p.m. Chairman Rice adjourned the meeting to the meeting of March 22, 1971. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes, Secretar~ Chula Vista Planning Commission