Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/11/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 23, 1970 The regular adjounred 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, Hillson and James. Also present: Associate Planner Lee, Assistant Planner Reid, City Engineer Gesley and Associate Engineer Bill Magill. Chairman Rice led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. Council Referral - Rezoning 572-586 I Street - R-1 to C-T-P - Far West Services, Inc. Associate Planner Lee reviewed the application for rezoning for commercial use, property fronting on I Street just east of Broadway. The Commission recommended rezoning from R-1 to C-C-P, but the Council subsequently denied the request for rezoning and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for report. Mr. Lee suggested that if the Commission desired further study on this section of I Street it would be appropriate to direct the staff to prepare a detailed study and report back to the Commission in January. Member Stewart commented that there were some things he would like to have included in instructions to the staff. Two items, which influenced his vote for rezoning the area, not included in the staff's report and discussed only briefly, were: The Commission has previously zoned one or two lots back from some other streets in a commercial area, and in this case they are considering some landlocked, unused land that would be placed on the tax rolls and would be used; and second, there are two houses in this area that are ready for redevelopment. This is not true of any other houses up the block. So they are considering two pieces of vacant land and two houses that are ready for re- development, and he did not believe commercial use would be incompatible with the surrounding community, especially with the shopping center across the street. Mr. Stewart commented that he did not agree that rezoning this property would commit the whole block up to the next street for commercial use at this time. Member Adams added that rezoning of this land is a logical increase in the depth of commercial zoning at this important corner and he did not think it would have the effect of running strip zoning up I Street. Chairman Rice pointed out there are only two residents bordering this piece of property on the south and there appears to be two on the east as well. With the development proposed, there was adequate screening for the residences and they would probably be better shielded and protected than at the present time. He felt there is really very minimal effect on the remaining residential area. Member Hillson contended that the city is going to grow and the Commission should look farther to the future and provide for the needed expansion of commercial uses in a commercially developed area. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) The matter of rezoning property on I Street east of Broadway be referred to the staff for further study and report, taking into consideration the points raised by the Commission. -2- 11/23/70 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - SEC Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canson Road - R-1 to R-l-5 - L. O. Neels PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - SEC Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road - 14 attached single-famils units in R-l-5 zone - L. O. Neels Associate Planner Lee pointed out the necessity of discussing these two applications simultaneously as they refer to development of the same property; the rezoning is a density control for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Lee displayed a plat showing the location of the property and discussed the surrounding uses and topography, including the drainage channel at the southerly edge of the property. He also discussed the plans and architecture of the proposed Planned Unit Development and reviewed the staff's recommended conditions. The plans are for a total of 13 units, or one unit for each 5500 square feet of land area, and provide a common recreation area and also private patio area for each unit. He pointed out these will be two story structures but with the difference in elevation the roof will be below ground level of the adjacent property to the south. City Engineer Gesley commented it was unfortunate the development plan had been sub- mitted since it indicates a 30' wide drainage ditch and records in his office reveal that a representative of the applicant was told it would have to be 60 feet wide. The way to correct it would be to put in a box culvert or pipe to contain the water in that distance. He felt the applicant should check into the cost of this before going fur- ther with plans which show the location of structures near the edge of the 30' wide ditch. Member Macevicz questioned the need for a 60' wide channel and pointed out that the present culverts under Hilltop Drive would not carry as much water as a 60' wide channel. City Engineer Gesley agreed, noting however that the City would have to provide for larger capacities in the future. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened. Marion Hunt of Creaser and Warwick, representing the applicant, commented on the ques- tion of the drainage channel that the requested function of that channel is to carry 3,000 cfs of water. He did not believe sufficient engineering had been completed to determine whether the 60' width is adequate, over-adequate, or inadequate. He requested that development plans be approved with some phraseology or agreement that the treat- ment of the drainage channel shall be made subject to approval of the City Engineer. Mr. Hunt then discussed the area of Telegraph Canyon pointing out it is unkept and sometimes used as a public dump, and not a desirable place for kids to play. He also avowed the road is used as a racetrack for motorcycles and automobiles since it is an open road from Hilltop Drive to L Street. He pointed out the property is in a prime location for development but the topography makes it infeasible to develop with detached single family homes. He contended the condominiums will provide a pleasing development and something people will buy. As compared to an apartment complex, the condominium development will have thirteen property owners, paying taxes in the City, and interested in maintaining the property. -3- 11/23/70 Frank Meyer, 23 E1 Capitan Drive, questioned whether the development meets the requirements of the R-l-5 zone and challenged the legality of a Planned Unit Develop- ment for an area less than two acres. Associate Planner Lee advised that the R-l-5 zone allows one unit per 5,000 square feet with the filing of a subdivision map; further that the City Attorney has indicated the 2 acres is a guideline and not a definite requirement. Mr. Williams reported that he lives at the top of the canyon and expressed concern about the structures cutting off the view, pointing out that from his yard he can presently see the Point Loma lighthouse. He also expressed concern about the drain- age problem. Jack Burns, 63 E1 Capitan Drive, remarked that school children use Telegraph Canyon Road in walking to school and increased traffic would create a hazard for them. O. J. Shaw, 71 E1 Capitan, asked the following questions: (1) Is there plans to widen Telegraph Canyon Road? (2) What about sidewalks and curbs, also utility lines or antennas which might go on top of the buildings that would come up over the level of the bank? (3) What are these apartments going to sell for? Chairman Rice remarked that the price is not germain to this issue; it has been reported the apartments will cost over $20,000 each to build, but the selling price is of no concern here, nor are antennas on the roof a consideration for the Commission at t~is - time. Associate Planner Lee reported that sidewalks are part of the required improvement of the property when development takes place. Telegraph Canyon Road is designated a collector street which means 40 feet of paving from curb to curb. As no one else wished to be heard, the public hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the proposed development and concurred that it is the best that has been proposed for that property. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Recommend to City Council the change of zone for 1.62 acres RESOLUTION PCZ-70-Z at the southeast corner oF Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road from R-1 to R-1-5-P, contingent upon approval of Planned Unit Development plans or Precise Plan and the filing of a final subdivision map. MSUC (Adams-Madevicz) Approval of application for Planned Unit Development on RESOLUTION PUD-70-2 property at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road, subject to the conditions enumerated by the staff. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE - 237, 239 Third Avenue - Roof sign in C-B zone - Roman Health Spa Associate Planner Lee displayed the elevation of the structure at 237-239 Third Avenue on which a roof sign would be mounted on the existing pylon extending approximately 15 feet above the roof with a sign face on both sides. The sign would be an interior - 4 - 11/23/70 illuminated plastic sign measuring 16'6" x 13'2". Mr. Lee pointed out that under the provisions of the new ordinance the staff is attempting to abate all roof signs in the C-B zone. He also mentioned that one letter of protest against this variance was received and is on file. Mr. Rodney Cardwell, owner of Roman Health Spa, contended that the remodeling which they plan for the front of the building to oonform to the Spanish decor will be a definite improvement to the appearance of the area and the sign attached to the pylon would not detract form the appearance as do some other roof top signs with bracing visible. He felt they need the sign in order to get their operation established and recoup some of the money spent in remodeling and stated they would be willing to remove the sign at the end of the 5 year abatement period. To deny them the sign would deprive them of a form of advertising. Mr. Cardwell asked to hear the letter of protest and the letter from Charles B Provence was read. Pete Banfield reported he has the store next to this location and he would not like to see a sign up there because he was not permitted to have a sign on the roof; since it is a new law it would not be fair for one man to have it and another man not to. Rod Cardwell pointed out that a sign which would bring increased foot traffic would also benefit other stores in the area; he felt sure Mr. Banfield wouldn't mind having 200 women a day pass by his store and see his goods. There being no further comment, for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. Member Chandler pointed out that a good deal of effort went into the adoption of sign regulations acceptable to the Downtown Association and he felt it would not be fair to approve a type of sign that would be in conflict with the ordinance and subject to abatement. MSUC (Macevicz-James) Application for a variance for a roof sign in the C-B zone at 237-239 Third Avenue be denied. Chairman Rice advised the applicant he has 10 days in which to appeal to the City Council. Request for approval of freestanding sign at 895 Third Avenue - Pacific Signs for Frazee's Paints Associate Planner Lee pointed out the location of the store under construction in an area which was recently recommended for rezoning from C-T to C-C. He also indicated the location of 10 freestanding signs on Third Avenue between K and L Streets. Mr. Lee displayed an illustration of the proposed sign which would be an orange-red and white, and reported that the staff recommends approval because the nearness of the building to the street does not permit adequate identification to northbound vehicular traffic. -5- 11/23/70 Chairman Rice commented that it was unfortunate the building was built so close to the street when most of the existing development in the area have the buildings further back. Con~nenting on the design of the sign, Mr. Rice remarked he found nothing wrong with the lower portion of the sign utilizing red letters on white background, but he did not like the upper part of the sign wherein the top half of the red background was left blank with white lettering only in the lower half. Member Adams asked if they also have signs on the front of the building. Mr. Lee advised that none have been indicated by the applicant for the front of the building, but this would not preclude their adding them. They are allowed by ordinance to have signs on the building as well as the freestanding sign. Member Stewart asked if there are restrictions on signs on the side of the building next to the parking lot. Mr. Lee advised it is limited to two square feet per lineal foot of building with a maximum of 200 square feet. Chairman Rice suggested that the applicant be called to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Bob Frazee presented an actual photograph of the sign as it relates to the entire project and is currently in use at their Escondido store. Concerning the location of the building so near the front property line, Mr. Frazee reported that the structure was designed by Frank L. Logan Associates and they felt with the set- back of l0 feet on the south side, which would be devoted strictly to landscaping, they could not locate further back from the street and retain enough area for parking due to the drainage ditch on the back portion of the property. Mr. Frazee also pointed out that in the design of the building there are windows completely around it and they have the combination of wood, stucco and glass on the back side as well as at the front exposure. Because of the design of the building they do not use any sign on the building itself as it would detract from the architecture. Member James commented that this applicant should not be denied a freestanding sign since there are so many others in the area. Member Adams expressed his opposition to a sign 39 feet high and of the size proposed; he felt it was not needed or in keeping with the area. MSC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of the request for a freestanding sign of 170 square feet, not more than 39' high, at 895 ~ird Avenue as presented, with the condition that no other signing be placed on the building. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Stewart, Chandler, James and Macevicz NOES: Members Rice, Adams and Hillson ABSENT: None -6- 11/23/70 SUBDIVISION - Final Map of Appollo Unit No. 1 Associate Planner Lee reported this subdivision consists of 44 single family lots located on 10 acres, east of the San Diego Gas and Electric easement, bisected by East Rienstra Street. The final map conforms to the tentative map and the condi- tions outlined for approval. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Recommend to City Council the approval of the final map PCS-70-7 for Appollo Subdivision Unit No. 1. Council Referral - Sweetwater Valle~ Annexation Proposal Associate Planner Lee advised this matter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council with a request for a report at the Council meeting of December 1. He further clarified that the map of the area had been broken down into four phases only for the purpose of presentation to the Council to show where annexation is favored and where there is dissent; however, it is the intent of the staff committee working on this project that the entire Valley be taken as one unit. It is important at this time to determine whether the boundaries as proposed by the committee are logical and that is the question to be considered by the Commission in their report to the Council. Bill Magill, Associate Engineer and a member of the staff committee working on this annexation, reviewed the background of this request for annexation and the work the staff committee has been doing with the proponents up to this time. He discussed the tentative calendar and advised the Commission they do not have to make a decision on a report to the Council at this meeting, by law they have 40 days in which to report back to the Council. The balance of the tentative calendar was submitted to show that an annexation of this kind does not happen in a short period of time. Under the best conditions, proponents would not begin circulation of petitions before June 8, 1971, and in that event an election could be held in October, 1971. Mr. Magill then discussed the map, as it is divided into four areas, and indicated the support and dissent in terms of assessed valuation and of registered voters in each of the areas. He pointed out that the entire area is within the sphere of influence of Chula Vista as agreed to by the County of San Diego and is within the drainage area of Chula Vista; it is also within the Metropolitan Sewer capacity rights for which the City of Chula Vista has been paying for several years. He indicated the boundaries as proposed by the committee wherein the southern boundary would be at the Chula Vista city limits; the western boundary would be Chula Vista city limits up to the golf course annexation of National City and joining the South Bay Freeway; the northern boundary would be the South Bay Freeway out to the Sweetwater Reservoir; the eastern boundary would follow around the perimeter of the reservoir, then south at the Rancho de la Nacion line to the Chula Vista City limits in Southwestern College Estates. He reported that the only area where there was more dissent than approval was the Sunnyside area in the northeastern section of the Valley; he indicated two alternative boundaries that could be adopted in order to eliminate the area of dissent. He advised that LAFCO has stated they will not go along with any "gerrymandering" of boundaries just because some area isn't in favor; therefore, the committee recommends the straight line of the Rancho as the eastern boundary of the annexation. -7- 11/23/70 Member Stewart expressed the opinion that the boundaries are realistic and they are the boundaries considered by the Commission when they prezoned the area. Associate Planner Lee advised it is the staff's recommendation that the tentative calendar be revised to schedule as the next course of action neighborhood meetings by Valley residents to gain further interest in annexation by as many residents as possible. MSUC (STEWART-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of boundary lines of the proposed Sweetwater Valley annexation in accordance with the map pre- sented by Mr. Magill at this meeting and that the tentative calendar be revised to include neighborhood meetings by Valley residents as the next course of action. Director's Report Associate Planner Lee reported there have been inquiries concerning outdoor sales, particularly flower stands, and the staff would like to know the attitude of the Commission concerning this type of activity together with parking lot sales. The ordinance presently prohibits any outdoor sales, but this activity continues to occur. He then briefly reviewed the regulations of National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado, San Diego and La Mesa. Chairman Rice expressed the opinion that the flower stand situation has not gotten too far out of hand, and he questioned the advisability of prohibiting all outdoor sales when there are nearby commercial areas in the County, such as K Mart, where they not only sell merchandise in the open, but store merchandise on the parking lot. He felt it might present a hardship on city merchants to make them observe the ordinance while across the street outside the city limits merchants can store and sell merchandise outside. He suggested the City should exercise some degree of restraint or reasonable control but should not wield an iron fist unless it gets out of hand. Member Adams suggested there should be a distinction between parking lot sales and sales on the sidewalk. Member Stewart expressed his preference for La Mesa's regulations wherein parking lot sales may be permitted with the approval of the Planning Director, and business sales may be conducted a maximum of 30 days throughout the year. He felt it is not consis- tent to require a service station operator to conduct all sales under a roof, and then permit a flower truck or stand to operate in the parking area or driveway area of the service station. Members Macevicz and Chandler concurred with Mr. Stewart that parking lot sales should be allowed by permit. Carl White discussed his operation of several flower shops in adjacent areas which are not operated from a truck but from a small portable building in a permanent location. He spoke of his application to locate at 99 Fourth Avenue; this would be at a service station location. He contended this is an advantage to the gas station operator since it brings additional cars to the location; further, the building they put up is reasonable in appearance. -8- 11/23/70 Member Hillson commented he could not see anything wrong with this if there is no obstruction to vision. Member Stewart suggested this type of activity might be placed within the scope of the Zoning Administrator, to be handled by permit without coming to the Commission. Mr. Lee indicated that the Commission had supplied enough direction for the staff to proceed with the matter and report back. Associate Planner Lee displayed a photograph and reported on the installation of a sign of House of Fabrics attached to the freestanding FedMart sign after they were told by the staff that such a sign would be illegal. The sign was installed with- out any building permit and is a flagrant violation of the ordinance. He asked for the Commission's direction as to whether this should be pursued immediately with the City Attorney for legal action. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) The sign installed by House of Fabrics at FedMart be referred to the City Attorney for legal action. Oral Communications Member Adams reported on the need for remarking the parking lot in front of Thrifty Drug store on Third Avenue. Action on this will be pursued by the staff. Chairman Rice questioned the legality of businesses outside of the city limits identifying themselves in their advertising as Chula Vista stores. He felt if these areas do not wish to become a part of Chula Vista by annexing, they should not identify themselves with Chula Vista. Mr. Lee advised this is probably because they have a Chula Vista post office address; he did not know if there is any legal recourse, but it can be taken up with the City Attorney. Chairman Rice adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen S. Mapes Secretary