HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/08/03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
August 3, 1970
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date
beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue,
with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz, Stewart, James, Adams,
and Hillson. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Chandler. Also
present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney
Lindberg, and City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Minutes of the meetings of July 20 and July 27, 1970,
are approved, as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - 4103 Otay Valley Road - From A-l-8 (County) to
R-3-G (24 acres) and C-C (31 acres) - Louis C. Burgener
Director of Planning Warren explained that this request was filed along with
a tentative map, and the applicant wishes to have them heard together. The
staff recommends that that area between the applicant's property and the
freeway be included in this prezoning request.
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Postpone the public hearing until the meeting of
September 14, 1970, and the staff be authorized to include in the prezoning
request that area between the applicant's property and the freeway.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - North of Elmhurst Street, east of
Ota~ Lakes Road - Church buildings - San Diego South Stake
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a location map noting the area in
question, the adjacent land uses, and the zoning. This request is for the
construction of a church and other related church buildings on an R-1 zoned
lot east of Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Columbia Street. The
Commission denied the original application for this use in 1968, declaring
that the site would create a parcel at the intersection of H Street and Otay
Lakes Road for which no use has been designated and which would be quite
difficult to develop. The request was appealed to City Council and approved.
This permit has since expired and this is a renewal of that request. Since
conditions have not changed in the area, the staff is recommending approval,
subject to conditions which Mr. Lee delineated, noting the number of access
points into this development and the traffic pattern that would follow.
Director of Planning Warren, noting the site plan submitted by the applicant,
stated that the Commission's action should not constitute approval of this
precise plan--it is just a concept of their building plans.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
8/3/70
page 2
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
The Commission expressed concern that the applicant was not present. Member
Macevicz felt it was imperative to talk to the applicant concerning the
conditions being imposed, and especially the problem of the access points.
MSUC (Macevicz-James) Public hearing be reopened and continued to the meeting
Of August 17, 1970. The staff is directed to request that the applicant or
his representative be present at this meeting to answer the Commissions' questions.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - East of Gre9 Rogers School, south of
Telegraph Canyon Road - Hospital site - Community HoSpital ol
Chula Vista
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the property in question
which is an area zoned R-1 included in Horton's Telegraph Canyon Road Annexation
located south of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of Greg Rogers Park. No develop-
ment plans were submitted with the application and all that is requested is the
approval of the location for the proposed hospital. The Engineering Division
has asked that this permit be delayed until access is available; however, the
staff believes that direct access could be provided to Telegraph Canyon Road,
1000 feet to the north. Mr. Warren noted Palomar Street which will pass to
the south from which there is no access to Interstate 805; therefore, the
primary access to this development should be from Telegraph Canyon Road.
The staff recommends approval of the site subject to submission of detailed
plans showing a satisfactory access to the development and approval of develop-
ment plans.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed.
Member Macevicz expressed concern over the confusion that will arise having this
hospital site next to a school. He indicated that the sirens of the ambulances
will distract the children in the classes.
Chairman Rice commented that this same situation prevails whereby Bay General
Hospital is situated next to Chula Vista Junior High School on Fifth Avenue
and H Street and has not been a problem. The Commission then discussed compar-
isons and potential problems.
Director Warren commented that it is difficult to find sites for certain uses,
and there is no perfect zone for hospitals. The staff sees Telegraph Canyon
Road as being the primary access to this development, but both streets will
be used. He noted that the School District did receive a notice of this
hearing.
Member Macevicz felt the hearing should be continued to another date since
neither the applicant nor the school officials were present to answer questions.
8/3/70
page 3
The Commission discussed this fact and Member Hillson commented on the siren
used by the ambulances--he remarked that they used it only to deter traffic
and usually cease when they approach the hospital.
MSC (Adams-Hillson) Approval of the conditional use permit for the hospital
site subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the submission of detailed plans the applicant shall meet with
the City Engineer and show how satisfactory vehicular access can be obtained
and the necessary utilities constructed. The vehicular access shall be
primarily from Telegraph Canyon Road.
2. Development plans shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for
approval.
Findings be as follows:
a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable
to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-
being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed site is well situated to serve future growth if proper
access can be provided.
b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
With proper site planning and access the site will not be detrimental.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the Code for such use.
All conditions will be complied with.
d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of
any governmental agency.
The General Plan states that the Hospital and Health Facility Planning
Commission in San Diego County is to prepare a Hospital Master Plan and
that plan should be incorporated into the Chula Vista General Plan. This
site has been approved by the Hospital and Health Facility Planning
Commission.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Adams, Hillson, Stewart, Rice, James
NOES: Member Macevicz
ABSENT: Member Chandler
8/3/70
page 4
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 328 First Avenue - Request for reduction of
rear Nard from 20' to 12' for a 400 square foot room addition -
Dean M. French
Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted a plat noting the location of the
applicant's property and the adjacent areas. The applicant is requesting a
reduction of rear yard from 20' to 12' to construct a room addition. This
is the only direction in which he can build since the existing front yard
setback is established at 25' and tile side yards are 5'. Tile addition will
occupy 11% of the required rear yard. Mr. Lee noted the topography of the
site which sets 6' higher in elevation than the homes to the west. The
staff recommends approval of the request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
There being no comment~, either for or against, the hearing was closed.
MSUC (Hillson-James) Approval of the variance for the reduction of rear yard
from 20' to 12' for a 400 square foot room addition.
Findings be as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property not created by any act of the
owner exists.
Because of the 25' front yard setback, the most logical expansion would
be to the rear property line.
b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone
and in the vicinity of the subject property.
In the past, the Commission has approved variances when it was demon-
strated that a rear yard area could be maintained in basic conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detri-
ment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose of this
ordinance or the public interest.
The adjacent properties will not be affected since the new addition
will be 12' from the rear property line and 11' from the side property line.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected by this variance.
8/3/70
page 5
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 241 feet north of E Street~ from Third Avenue
west to Landis AvenUe - ReqUest to split parcel into two
lots measuring 7250 Square feet and 6~000 square feet -
John Keele~
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the property in question,
the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicant has a double-frontage lot
zoned R-3 which he is requesting permission to split: one tot would have
frontage on Third Avenue having 7,000 square feet, while the other lot would
have frontage on Landis Avenue and would have only 6,000 square feet. The
reason for this request is the difficulty the applicant states he has in
acquiring financing for double frontage lots. The staff feels that with the
density proposed by the applicant for these two lots, it will permit a
reasonable development, and therefore, recommends approval of the request.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Keeley, 4661W. Talmadge Drive, San Diego, the applicant, explained
the reasons for ~he request. He proposes to construct 5 units on the lot
facing Third Avenue, and 4 units on the lot facing Landis Avenue. If he
split the lot exactly in the middle, then he would be faced with two lots
under the minimum size required. Mr. Keeley then noted the dimensions of the
buildings and the size of the units.
Mr. Regler, representing Mrs. Whitney, owner of the property at 178 Third
Avenue, stated Mrs. Whitney would like to see the lot developed as one single
parcel as it was originally intended to be.
Hr. Keeley responded by stating that the entire area was once owned by the
Whitneys and it has been split. He added it would be a substantial financial
loss to him if the Commission denied him proper development of this lot.
Chairman Rice commented that the condition requiring the parcel map and precise
plan is a good one and silould be imposed.
MSUC (Hillson-Macevicz) Approval of the variance request subject to the
following condition: That this variance shall not become effective until a
parcel map is filed and a plot plan is approved by the staff showing that
acceptable development will result.
Findings be as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of
the owner exists.
It is difficult to acquire financing for double frontage lots of this
dimension.
b. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjo~ent of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zone
and in the vicinity of the subject property.
There are many lots in the area that have less than 7,000 square feet.
8/3/70
page 6
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this
ordinance or the public interest.
Adjacent properties are substandard in area and have been developed with
no detrimental effects.
d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of
the General Plan.
The General Plan is not affected.
Resolution - Approving prezoning to "P-C" - North of Telegraph Canyon Road -
Otas Land Company
Director of Planning Warren explained that the Commission, after conducting
hearings on this item on July 6 and July 20, 1970, asked the staff to bring
back a resolution for their approval which would incorporate guidelines for
the development. One major problem still remains unsolved--that of adequate
traffic circulation. There is concern on the part of the State and the County
Engineer over the lack of good connecting routes--the north-south traffic
pattern. Exhibits were received today from representatives of Wilsey & Ham,
consultants on this project, in relation to the street patterns.
Schools: Director Warren stated that the staff has met with the school
dist~t representatives and have reached an agreement as to their needs:
two junior high schools and presently one senior high school with a possibility
of another senior high should the population make it necessary.
Neighborhood Parks: Although the resolution states the need for 21 neighbor-
hood parks, the staff now feels that this figure is too high and would
recommend, instead, 10 or 12 parks.
Community Parks: The City presently has three parks under development near
this area: Southwestern College Community Cultural Center, Rohr Park, and
Greg Rogers Park. Together with the planned Wilderness Park and the Community
Center in this development, it should meet the requirements of the City for
service distribution on community parks. Because of the topographic barriers
separating this development from Rohr Park, it would be desirable to retain
certain portions of Rice Canyon as a supplement for community park development.
Open Space: Director Warren noted the areas available for active recreational
purposes and the possible need for grading some of these areas that are within
the canyons. He noted that this grading should not intrude into the open
space areas delineated on the Plan unless approved by the Commission.
Commercial Development: Neighborhood Centers - With site plan and architec-
tural control, these centers can be an asset to the area. The specific loca-
tions as shown on the plan are not approved and will be considered as detailed
neighborhood plans are developed.
8/3/70
page 7
Community Shopping Centers - The two centers as proposed along Telegraph Canyon
Road and Otay Lakes Road are well-located and will provide adequate facilities.
Regional Shopping Centers - The ~imate population in this area, along with
that in the eastern part of Chula Vista, will support a regional shopping
center; however, although the site should be acknowledged on the plan, the
zoning beyond 50 acres should not be made available until the growth trend is
established in this area. Existing and proposed zoning along Interstate 805
is sufficient to serve the population of the planning area through 1990. If
this Center and that proposed for the interchange of 54 and 805 are approved,
then a reevaluation of existing commercial zoning elsewhere should be made.
Traffic Circulation: The applicant has agreed to the connection with Otay Lakes
Road adjacent to the proposed apartment area next to Bonita Vista Junior High
School. Also agreed upon is the realignment of the road in the vicinity of
Lynwood Hills and a Freeway frontage road between H Street and Bonita Road.
Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the traffic circulation,
and asked that the wording of the paragraph #4 be changed to read: "Alternate
routes must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before submittal
of a plan to the City Council..." Right now, they are pretty much in agree-
ment, but they do want to work out the necessary alignments. Mr. Gesley then
discussed the proposal to put a street through connecting to Willow Street
(Bonita Bridge) in Bonita discussing why it is necessary. He remarked that
an alternate route could be worked out.
Mr. Carmen Pasquale, representing Otay Land Company, discussed the different
aspects of the resolution:
Neighborhood Parks - He agrees that only 10 or 12 parks are needed instead
of the 21 as stated in the resolution.
Community Parks - Instead of the 20-40 acres on the floor of Rice Canyon
being retained for community park development, he believes the agreement was
to change this wording to: "...desirable to select small portions of the
floor..."
Library - In discussing this with the Librarian, she indicated a branch
library would be needed within or adjacent to a shopping center, not specif-
ically to a community shopping center; therefore, he would like the word
"Community" stricken from this sentence.
Traffic Circulation - They did agree on the access road running north and
south onto Otay Lakes Road, but could not agree on running a road north to
connect with Willow and Bonita Road. They did discuss running one parallel to
805, which they believe is the best route. As he explained at the last
hearing, they can put a road in anywhere where it is both economically and
feasibly possible; however, the adjacent ownerships must be considered,
because you cannot run a road up just to their boundary lines and stop there.
When they get into the precise planning, it can then be determined which roads
are needed, and perhaps then they could plan the road paralleling 805 which is
what the staff wants and which they agree on also.
8/3/70
page 8
Mr. Pasquale asked that these small changes be made, and that the Commission
take action on the resolution, so that they can start proceedings on their
annexation and their plans.
Director Warren stated that he believes further consultation is needed with the
County Engineer and State Highway Division concerning these north-south routes.
In discussing the proposed route to Willow Street in Bonita, he reiterated that
the planning staff feels it is undesirable and unnecessary.
Member Stewart remarked that it should be definitely stated that some access
to the northeast - Otay Lakes Road - and that there should be some outlet at
the northwest corner, either the R-3 area or the regional shopping center to
Otay Lakes Road. The exact location can be determined at some future date.
Mr. Ron Calhoun, Wilsey & Ham, summarized his report submitted to the Commission.
A meeting was held with Jim Hutchenson of their staff, the Planning staff, and
representative of the County Engineer's office and the State Highway Division.
It was determined that these agencies agreed with the traffic count numbers
as presented in their report. It is their conviction that H Street will carry
this traffic to the interchange and on to the freeway. They admit to one
potential weakness in H Street along the shopping center area, and if the
design of this street is not properly handled, it will not take the amount of
traffic projected for this road. One method is to eliminate any parking along
this section of the street (both sides). This can be done because the proposed
apartments to the north is at a higher elevation than the shopping center
(exhibits were shown depicting this area), and parking for the shopping center
will be within the Center itself. The other method would be the number of
intersections that will take place on H Street along this point: there will
be two or three for the shopping center and two or three controlled accesses
for the apartments. If these are minimized, then H Street will be able to
carry the traffic load predicted.
The other point is the north-south connecting routes. He noted the one pro-
posed going to Bonita and adjacent to Lynwood Hills which he indicated would
provide a safety valve, and indicated with grading and a better alignment a
high capacity road could be provided.
Going to the northeast quadrant of the plan, Mr. Calhoun felt there would be
little desire on the part of the residents to go from that location to Otay
Lakes Road; however, they would agree to put it in as an alternate access
route.
The one route which they strongly oppose is the proposed route through the
center of the development. Mr. Calhoun declared there was no basis on which
they could justify this for a central route; it would be disruptive, there are
no generators to the north, and it would not serve their development.
The Commission discussed the volume of traffic that will be generated onto
H Street. Member Macevicz noted that the developer's plans show it as a
6-lane thoroughfare, and together with the college traffic, the count will
reach a tremendous magnitude.
8/3/70
pa9e 9
Mr. Calhoun noted that Telegraph Canyon Road will be a 6-lane road and Otay
Lakes Road will become a 4-lane road. He felt the traffic plan has been
kept in balance with what will be generated on to it.
Mr. Gesley stated he cannot agree that there is no logic in running a road
to Willow Street, as it is the most logical place to cross the Valley at
the bridge. With the strong objections of the residents of the Valley, and
that of the developer, they would like to see if they can come up with roads--
one on the east side and one on the west--that will take care of the traffic.
Mr. Gesley added that they will try to work out something that will be com-
patible with the residents of the Valley.
The Commission members, in turn, voiced their objections to having a road
down to Willow Street. Director W~rren commented on this stating the staff
has objected to this proposed route--it would be both detrimental and undesir-
able.
Chairman Rice expressed the feeling of the Commission in that all kinds of
traffic from this development and other points could be saturated into this
area; however, evergthing possible should be done to preserve the rural
character of the Bonita Valley.
Director Warren stated he would incorporate the changes as noted in the testi-
monies given tonight into this resolution. Before submitting the resolution
to the City Council, he will first send a copy to each Commissioner for their
approval of the changes.
MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-O to City Council Prezoning to P-C for that area north
of Telegraph Canyon Road-Otay Lakes Road
A copy of the resolution is on file in the Planning Department.
Request for approval of a billboard - Moss Street and Interstate 5 - Chamber of Commerce
Associate Planner Lee explained that the applicant is requesting permission
to erect a billboard in the Moss Street right-of-way, 19' from the east right-
of-way line of Interstate 5. They are requesting this under Section 3 .106,
paragraph 4 of the Zoning Ordinance which gives the Planning Commission the
right of approval of the location, design, message and height for these exempt
advertising displays.
Mr. Lee commented that the staff is working with possible designs of signs for
freeway displays, which hopefully, will be ready for Commission consideration
within a short time. Mr. Lee noted the rendering of the proposed sign with
the message "Hang Your Hat In Chula Vista" with a sombrero hanging on the "V"
in Vista. The sign measures 10' x 28' and will be 22' high. The staff is
recommending approval subject to a 5 year limitation and the applicant obtain-
ing an encroachment permit from the Division of Engineering.
8/3/70
page 10
The Commission discussed the pictorial aspect of the sign. Chairman Rice
commented that he would prefer to see a more Spanish-oriented sign, such
as a picture of a Mission, tile roof, or something in this line.
Member James indicated they had one picked out in this theme; however, they
lacked $10,000 to purchase it.
Member Stewart remarked that the Chamber has an identical sign on the northern
end of the freeway.
Mr. Lee stated that when the State declares the freeway a landscaped freeway,
these displays will have to be abated within 3 years after that, and the
Commission can review them.
Mrs. Kathryn Moore, South Bay Citizens' Committee, stated she was under the
impression that freeway signs were supposed to be phased out. This Committee
is not in favor of any more freeway signs.
MSC (Macevicz-Hillson) Approval of the billboard, as submitted at this meeting,
subject to the following:
I. The applicant obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division.
2. A time limit of five years shall be imposed, with further extensions
subject to Planning Commission approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members Macevicz, Hillson, Stewart, James and Adams
NOES: Member Rice
ABSENT: Member Chandler
Council referral - Reconsideration of certain sign ordinance regulations
Director of Planning Warren reported that the City Council held a public
hearing on this matter and agreed to adopt the measure almost completely. There
were a couple of points that they asked the Commission to reconsider: the
amortization period for the signs, the condition of landscaping the pole signs,
and the criteria used for permitting roof top signs.
In regard to the pole signs, the staff's report still provides for landscaping
of some of the pole signs under certain conditions. As to the roof top signs,
the recommended provision now is that the 100' space be related to the property
frontage instead of the building, and then it relates to scale.
Associate Planner Lee explained in detail the schedule of amortization as now
recommended by the staff. He also commented on a change of the word "to" to
"by" referring to the payment of the cost of removal of these signs by the
City of Chula Vista.
8/3/70
page 11
City Attorney Lindberg explained that this provision was inserted after
reviewing a similar one for the cities of Palm Springs and Tucson. There
should be no objection to this provision because the option remains with
the City of Chula Vista if they wish to have a sign removed. Mr. Lindberg
added that he knows of no particular instance that they may wish to do this,
but letting this provision remain emphasizes the desire to bring all signs
within the limits of the ordinance as soon as possible.
Director Warren felt it of prime importance to establish which department
would have charge of handling this.
Mr. Lee then reviewed the amortization schedule indicating that these figures
were given to him by the Chief of Building and Housing adopted at the Inter-
national Conference of Building Officials--it is hoped that it will become uni-
form throughout the County.
Attorney Lindberg discussed the difficulty in establishing an amortization
schedule. He explained that the permit value of a sign did not always reflect
the present value of a well-maintained sign. They have to come up with some-
thing that is reasonable but not arbitrary.
Mr. Lee noted some changes he would suggest in the amortization period
starting with a one-year period for removal for signs valued at $50 to $100,
and then revising the balance of the schedule accordingly.
Director Warren commented that if this schedule was to be revised, then perhaps
the matter should be moved to another agenda.
Mr. Lindberg remarked that there is a desire on the part of the Council to get
this ordinance adopted without too much delay. They did comment that perhaps
there was not enough abatement time on one end of the schedule, and too much
on the long end.
Mr. Lee explained the provisions for roof top signs and for landscaping of
some of the pole signs. He added that this amendment should also make reference
to the following Sections: 33.507 E-7, 33.512 F-7, 33.513 F-7, and 33.514 E-7.
Mr. Neil Haas, 186 Broadway, discussed the Butcher Shop sign (painted sign on
the side of the building) which the staff inferred would have to be removed
within 6 months after adoption of this ordinance.
Associate Planner Lee explained that the provision was for those signs which
did not conform to the ordinance; it would be those signs not requiring a
building permit.
Mr. Haas maintained that he could not change his signs this quickly, he had
asked the Council for a 3-year abatement period.
Director Warren felt the Commission may want to give painted signs more considera-
tion, since it did not seem logical to require signs, such as the Butcher Shop,
to come down at the same time an A-frame sign must be removed.
8/3/70
page 12
Chairman Rice suggested the staff apply a percentage to the signs. Member
Hillson suggested that any sign having a value of less than $200 be removed
in two years.
Attorney Lindberg suggested the figure of $1.00 per square foot for the non-
conforming signs.
The Commission felt this would be a reasonable figure to impose.
MSUC (Adams-Hillson) Recommend to the City Council certain changes to the
sign regulations as proposed by the staff with the addition that non-conforming
signs (not requiring a permit) be valued at the rate of $1.00 per square foot.
Director's Report
Director of Planning Warren referred to the correspondence of different items
sent to the Commission. He stated he will try to arrange a workshop meeting
to discuss these matters.
Oral Communications
Mr. Neil Haas, 186 Broadway, referred back to the proposed sign ordinance
stating that he advertises in 12 pages of the yellow pages of the phone book
simply because he does 12 different types of activities. He added that the
Commission was not fair, because regardless of what type of sign is installed,
a dollar value is still a dollar value and he cannot see why his sign must
depreciate to next to nothing when the businessman having a plastic sign can
take the full value.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Macevicz-James) Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of August 17 and
24, 1970. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
?/Jennie M. Fulasz ~
~ Secretary