Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1971/01/25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 25, 1971 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Adams, Chandler, Macevicz, James and Hillson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams, Associate Planner Lee and City Attorney Lindberg. Chairman Rice led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-James) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1971, as mailed. Request for deferral of public improvements - California Auto Wreckers, 248 West Bay Blvd. Director of Planning Warren reported that it has again been requested that this matter be deferred, this time to the meeting of February 1; the staff has no objection to this. MSUC (Stewart-James) Request for deferral of public improvements at 248 West Bay Blvd. be postponed to the meeting of February l, 1971. Request for approval of sign - Home Fair, Fifth and H Street, Pacific Sign Co. Director of Planning Warren discussed the request for approval of a 50' high freestanding pole sign at the shopping center site at Fifth and H. This request is occasioned by a change in the business from the former Big Apple discount store to the Home Fair which will feature home furnishings. Mr. Warren reviewed the former requests for signs at this site, which include a freestanding sign of 112 sq. ft. for Kentucky Beef, which was granted on an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Warren acknowledged the problems of this store due to the site layout but advised that the staff could not find justification for a second freestanding sign at the location but suggested this sign might be permitted as a replacement for the Kentucky Beef freestanding sign. Mr. Warren also referred to renderings submitted by Pacific Sign Company for an extension of the store parapet with a wall sign to be attached thereon. He indicated the applicant apparently wishes to discuss the proposed signing. Julius Kahn, president of the developing firm, spoke of their urgent need for this identification sign and commented that he could not visualize getting Kentucky Beef to take down their sign. Mr. Kahn spoke of problems they have had with the discount store, first due to the closing of the Mexican border, and then to competition from K-Mart and the new White Front store. In changing the store to Home Fair they are changing the decor on the outside and remodeling the inside for the sale of furniture and carpeting. They will continue to handle ladies and men's ready to wear but will discontinue discount items. He stressed the need for an identification sign prior to the opening of this new store in March and asked for the Commission's help. -2- 1/25/71 Chairman Rice commented that while he respects Mr. Kahn's honesty, he did not feel the Commission could justify an additional freestanding sign on this site. He indicated he could possibly lean toward one of the renderings of a store front sign. It was felt the Commission should determine their feelings concerning the freestanding sign and if this request was not approved they could discuss alternatives. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Request for a freestanding pole sign for the Home Fair be denied. Fran Burger discussed three renderings displayed for wall signs. Two of these consisted of a false front to the building extending above the present roof line with channel letters, individually lighted, spelling out the name Home Fair. The third sign merely contained the letters set between two posts. He contended the signs attached to the false front were more attractive and more in keeping with the area, and that this addition should not be considered background of the sign and only the lettering should be measured in deter- mining the total area of the sign. Chairman Rice suggested that this matter be referred back to the staff to see if they could work out something with the applicant to make the signage in conformance with the ordinance and more compatible with the area. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) The question of a sign for the Home Fair store be referred to the staff to be resolved or brought back to the Commission if necessary. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.) - Various amendments to Zoning Ordinance Director of Planning Warren reminded the Commission this hearing was opened at the last meeting (Jan. 18) and the sections up to the R-3 zone were discussed before it was decided to continue the hearing to this meeting. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the determination of the Commission and its recommendation to the Council should be as to substance and the staff should be permitted to refine or change the language so long as it did not change the substance, before the presentation to the Council. At 7:40 p.m. the City Attorney left the meeting. He returned momentarily at 8:05, left again, and did not return for the remainder of the meeting. Chairman Rice declared the public hearing reopened. Associate Planner Lee reported that a representative from the South Bay Improvement Association had indicated a desire to discuss the requirement for level yard area in the R-2-T zone as discussed at the previous meeting. -3- 1/25/71 Gene York, 280 K Street, representing the South Bay Improvement Association, asserted that comments which he will make at this meeting are made after serious deliberation by a lot of people who are interested in the Zoning Ordinance. In direct answer to the question about level open space in the R-2 zone, he reported it is the feeling of the Association that there is little reason to require a different amount of usable level space on an R-2 lot than on any other lot. The Association feels the R-2 zone should be a density control zone rather than a zone that promotes only duplex type of housing; it should allow one unit per 3500 square feet of area. They felt this zone should then permit various types of housing. He pointed out the P.U.D. is not applicable to small lots. If a developer has 10 acres, or 20 or 50 acres, then the P.U.D. ordinance is feasible, but the engineering and subdivision requirements that are necessary preclude the use of this for small parcels of land. Something is needed which allows this flexibility without the red tape of filing for a P.U.D. In the event the Commission does not desire to make the R-2 zone a density control zone only, then in the R-3 zone there should be a Zone similar to the R-2 density which would allow a different type of multi-family development. Mr. York also raised objection to the requirement for a lot width of 30 feet for all lots developed with single car garages and 40 feet for lots developed with 2-car garages; and also to the requirement that a minimum of 50% of the garages shall be 2-car. He contended both of these provisions completely nullify any flexibility. Further concerning the requirement that the 10' side yard and 15' rear yard in the R-2-T zone shall be level, Mr. York reiterated that the Association feels this is unnecessary and discriminatory to this particular zone, not even required in an R-1 zone. In response to these statements, Associate Planner Lee pointed out with reference to the R-2-T zone, the requirement for this minimum level area is due to the fact that the lot is considerably less than the standard lot for a single family dwelling, being only 3500 square feet, the orientation of the living area is to the side yard, and this should be primarily a level area to be usable since it is so limited in size. He felt the only other alternative would be to eliminate provision for the split duplex. He further commented that the question of the 30' and 40' lots, as well as the 50% minimum for 2-car garages, could be eliminated by going back to all 40' wide lots and to 2-car garages for all units. This provision was written in to the proposed changes of the ordinance because the Commission had recognized the need for a certain percentage of the garages to be less than 2-car with a recognition of tandem parking. The staff was attempting to take care of ~roblems that had arisen in the past and to give the developers some flexibility tn their lot size. If this is not the desire of the Commission, he would recommend the adoption of the standard 40' wide lot and require 2-car garages for all units. Member Stewart commented that the requirement for a minimum of 50% 2-car garages was put in as a compromise in an attempt to accommodate families who had two cars and allow the developer some flexibility to develop some units with smaller garages. He felt it was impossible to determine whether 50% was the right figure but that revisions to the Zoning Ordinance should not be held up for a longer time to determine the most desirable percentage. -4- 1/25/71 Associate Planner Lee continued presentation of the proposed changes, pointing out that in Section 33.505, R-3 zone, the essential change is the addition of the R-3-M classification for density control, allowing one unit per 2,000 sq. ft. of area. Also proposed is a change in side and rear yard requirements which shall be increased for structures over one story in height, and this increase shall be to a minimum of 15' when adjacent to an R-l, R-E or R-2 zone. Also added is a section covering open space requirements and a definition of areas which contribute to usable open SpaCe. Gene York spoke with reference to the increase in side yard in the R-3 zone where it abuts an R-1 zone. tie stated the Association suggests eliminating the sentence, which reads, "Exception - when adjacent to an R-l, R-E and R-2 zone the side yard setback shall be increased to 15' for any structure over one story or 15' in height, with an additional 2' setback required for each story above 25' in height," and substitute there for the sentence, "No second story balcony may be within 15' of any R-1 zone." He contended that the increased side yard would make 50' wide lots undevelopable except for single family dwellings. Concerning the requirement of open space per dwelling unit, Mr. York felt the square footage should be reduced or change the manner of computing open space. He was not, however, prepared to give a firm proposal as to what the square footage of open space per dwelling unit should be. He further objected to the minimum dimension of 6 feet for an area to be considered usable open space. Mr. York also raised objection to the administrative directive to require submission of landscaping and sprinkler plans with the application for a building permit rather than requiring these plans upon rough electrical inspection. Member Adams raised the question about permitting duplexes in the R-3 zone. Mr. Lee pointed out this refers to a type of housing, which is a two-family structure. This zone does not permit developments as covered by the R-2-T zone wherein attached dwellings are sold separately and result in a 3500 square foot lot. The Commission discussed the advisability of having the staff review the recommendations of the South Bay Improvement Association and make such adjustments in the proposed changes which seem in the best interest of the ordinance and then report to the Commission. Mr. Lee advised that the staff comments did include the changes suggested by the Association which the staff felt were in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, and any additional changes must be up to the Commission. In Section 33.506, C-O Zone, the addition of prescription pharmacies as a principal permitted use is recommended. The change in this section deals with signs and includes the revision of wall sign provisions and the addition of a freestanding pole sign being allowed if a business or property is located on a major or collector street. Mr. Lee reported that in the paragraph which refers to the 1967 edition of the Uniform Building Code, the South Bay Improvement Association suggested that this be changed to "the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code." The staff agrees with this change. The requirement for a zoning wall was also added to this section. -5- 1/25/71 There were no comments from the floor concerning this section. In Section 33.507, C-B Zone, an addition ~vas made to include knitting and weaving shops as a conditional use. Other changes were merely for clarification and the inclusion of the zoning wall. Mr. York pointed out that under height regulations in which it states 3-1/2 stories or 35 feet, this should be changed to 45 feet to be consistent with other sections of the ordinance. In Section 33.508, C-N Zone, the only substantial change was the addition of the requirement for a zoning wall. There were no comments from the floor on this section. In Section 33.509, C~C Zone, veterinarian clinics were added as a conditional use subject to the provisions of a specific section which defines the requirements. Zoning wall requirements were also added. There were no comments from the floor on this section. In Section 33.510, C-V Zone, revisions include deletion of dance studio and plant nursery, the addition of buildings above 3-1/2 stories subject to a conditional use permit and the addition of the zoning wall. There were no comments concerning this section. In Section 33.511, C-T Zone, revisions included the addition of knitting and weaving shops, building heights in excess of 3-1/2 stories by conditional use permit and the requirement of a zoning wall. In Section 33.512, I-R Zone, and Section 33.513, I-L Zone, the only addition was the requirement of a zoning wall. There were no comments concerning this addition. In Section 33.514, I Zone, included the additon of a zoning wall requirement and change in side setback from 10' to 0 and rear setback from 50' to O. In the industrial zone it is found that requiring this setback is a waste of land use. There were no comments concerning this change. In Section 33.535, Unclassified Uses, included the addition of shooting clubs. Gene York commented on the existing ordinance which under this section states that mobile home parks are excluded from all commercial and industrial zones, that the Association feel that mobile home parks are a good interim use on land zoned for future industrial or commercial development. In many cases land is zoned for commercial and industrial many years in advance of use in order to reserve these areas. The only interim use there is for this land at the presen~ time is agricultural use. Mr. York contended that as the land is developed industrially or commercially, land values rise which makes it economically feasible to use it for a mobile home park since the comparatively low development cost can be written off after l0 or 15 years. -6- 1/25/71 He stated the City of San Diego is encouraging mobile home parks as an interim use and he would like to recommend this for our zoning ordinance. Associate Planner Lee reminded that the City is presently trying to phase out a mobile home park on the west side of Interstate 5 which is in the middle of an industrial area. One of the pmoblems is the type of environment in this zone; recognizing that i~ is a community somewhat contained within the mobile home park, the surrounding area is not conducive to residential atmosphere due to truck traffic and noise. For this reason the staff feels a mobile home park is a residential use and it creates problems to put this type of use into an industrial area even for an interim period, and if it is to be 15 years that is quite a long time to live in that particular atmosphere. In Section 33.601, Modifying Districts, there were no major changes to the ordinance. In Section 33.602, Planned Unit Development, the R-l-5 was added under density provisions. Changes in Sections 33.701 and 33.702 were only for clarification. Concerning Section 33.703, dangerous and objectionable elements, Mr. York commented that the provisions concerning glare should be coordinated with the new lighting ordinance when it is adopted. The Improvement Association has gone on record that the lighting ordinance should be a part of the zoning ordinance. In Section 33.803, off-street parking, changes include the addition of a minimum dimension of 20 feet for a two-car garage enclosed, clarification of garage setbacks and the additional requirement of 40 sq. ft. of storage space for a one-car garage conversion. Mr. York commented that the Associaton believes the new requirement of a minimum dimension of 20 feet for a garage is excessive of need and should be reduced to 18 feet. In Section 33.901, special provisions, Mr. Lee pointed out the provisions for a zoning wall had been removed from this section since it is now included in all zones, sign provisions were removed from automobile car wash requirements since they are covered under the section covering sign ordinance. A provision for fences, walls and hedges has been added which would permit the Zoning Administrator to approve such wall, fence or hedge in the required front and exterior side yard setbacks on a corner lot. The provisions give the requirements which such a wall would have to meet. This is done to eliminate having numerous variance requests come to the Planning Commission. -7- 1/25/71 Specifications for a precise plan have been added, and a further definition of where service stations may belocated without the requirement of a conditional use permit. Member Adams commented that he felt service stations should be made subject to a conditional use permit. All Commissioners expressed their agreement with this suggestion. Mr. Lee affirmed this can be included in the recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lee continued with an explanation of proposed changes pointing out that item 30 contains the specific requirements of a site plan; trash storage requirements have been revised to take into consideration certain types of wooden enclosures which may be used, and item 36 lists specifications for a zoning wall. Gene York commented that basically the Association is in agreement with the need for a zoning wall under certain circumstances; the only revision the Association ~ould like to see is to put the burden of requiring the wall on the Zoning Administrator or the Commission in the event it is felt necessary, as opposed to what the ordinance does in putting the burden on the developer by stating it shall be erected, and then including an escape clause whereby it "may be waived." Their specific request is that the wording "shall be erected" be changed to "may be required," and in the last sentence change the wording "may be waived" to "may be required if the Zoning Administrator finds it is necessary for screening and protection of adjacent property." Director of Planning Warren commented that in the past a wall has been required where it was felt necessary under site plan review. In one instance it was not required and the Council felt it should have been. Mr. Warren expressed agreement with Mr. York that it should be permissive and it should be analyzed like other features. As a general rule he felt there should be a wall between commercial and residential development but it should not be an inflexible rule. He added that this requirement was put in because the staff felt it was directed by the City Council. Mr. York expressed his regret that the City Attorney was not present as he felt this was getting into a legal interpretation. He felt that if it was directed by the City Council that a zoning wall be a mandatory requirement there is no place for the last sentence which indicates the wa~l may be waived. If it is not mandatory he felt the ordinance should state "may be required." Chairman Rice questioned whether this particular requirement should be taken to the Council to see if they would allow more flexibility. Mr. Warren pointed out that this body should make recommendations as they believe are proper-first the staff and then the Commission, and if the Council wants to change it that is fine. The Commission expressed concurrence with this point of view. -8- 1/25/71 Section 33.950, special provisions applying to signs, it was pointed out by Mr. Lee, is simply a consolidation of sign requirements into one section rather than enumerating them in each section. There were no comments concerning this section. Section 33.1001 contains a revision to the provisions for lots of record - the biggest addition being the note that bay windows, balconies and stairs extending above the first floor may not project into any required yard. This section also sets up a procedure for building on lots altered by condemnation. Section 33.1102, includes the addition of a requirement of fencing for non- conforming uses; it also includes provisions allowing the Zoning Administrator to approve non-conforming structures. Section 33.1313, site plan and architectural approval, adds landscaping requirements. Section 33.1401 includes additions to definitions of terms used in the Zoning Ordinance. Gene York commented with reference to Section 33.1001, concerning projection into required yards, with specific reference to "Bay windows, balconies, and stairs extending above the first floor may not project into any required yard." He agreed that under certain circumstances these should not be allow to extend into required side yards but only if these side yards "are what we consider to be reasonable." He added that if present side yards are maintained and the provision discussed previously prohibitin9 balconies from being within 15' of R-1 zoned property this would be acceptable. However, he felt it is not good zoning practice to not allow a balcony in any required yard in any zone. He felt the requirement should state "if abutting an R-1 zone," and that it should not apply to adjoining R-3 properties, or when overlooking a shopping center. Nor did he feel it made sense to prohibit a balcony from projecting 2' into a 20' front yard or a 15' or 20' rear yard. Mr. Warren commented that this possibly deserves some further study and if the Commission thinks it appropriate he would suggest reevaluating that particular statement. In discussion tile Commission concurred that the staff should study the comments made during the hearing and make the changes they feel are proper, and on those points where there is a difference of opinion the question should be put to the Commission. Mr. Warren stated this could be presented to the Commission at the second meeting in February. -9- 1/25/71 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Warren asked for confirmation of March 8 for a meeting with the League of Women Voters. Member Macevicz objected to such a meeting stating it is setting a dangerous precedent where the Commission will be requested to meet with each little group at a special meeting. Chairman Rice pointed out that in 4-1/2 years that he has been on the Commission this is the first or second time such a request hasbeen made and he felt it should be granted. Member Stewart expressed agreement. On a show of hands requested by Chairman Rice, five members indicated they favored meeting with the League of Women Voters as requested. Members Macevicz and Adams dissented. Director of Planning Warren confirmed a workshop dinner meeting to be held at 6 p.m. on February 8 at Christies. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Rice reported on the time the City Attorney left the meeting and asked this to be recorded in tile minutes. ADJOURNMENT Tile meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes, Secret~fy Chula Vista Planning Commission