Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/07/27-- MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 27, 1970 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenues Chula Vista, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Macevicz, Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - Portions of the area bounded by Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue and "C" Street and the north side of "H" Street - Phase I of City Rezoning Plan Director of Planning Warren explained that this is a staff study of areas within the City proposed for rezoning which would be in conformance with the General Plan. This is the first phase of these rezoning studies with several more to follow. Some of the changes recommended are necessary and obvious if the General Plan is to be implemented; others are alternatives. Associate Planner Kenneth Lee submitted the proposed rezoning map, the General Plan map and land use map. He noted the charge in the zoning classifications which were changed in August 1969:C-1 to C-C, and C-2 to C-T. He explained he would take the area in sections. Section I (Area between C Street ard D Street) Indicating the specific areas on the map, Mr. Lee noted the changes as proposed by the staff. Mr. William D. Jacobsen, 63 Third Avenue, questioned the change that would take place on his property. Mr. Lee indicated his property on the map and stated no change is recommended; his property will remain R-1. Mr. Jacobsen then asked why his property couldn't enjoy the commercial zoning recommended for that area across the street from his home, ard if his property wasn't affected, then why was the notice sent to him. Chairman Rice explained that he was indirectly affected and within the area proposed for the zone changes, and therefore, the public notice was sent to him. Mr. ard Mrs. Jacobsen then related to the Commission the problems they have incurred as a result of the dwelling adjacent to them and discussed alleged zoning violations. Chairman Rice explained that the Commission must adhere to the matter advertised for public hearing on tonight's agenda, and suggested that they take this problem to the Director of Planning or the ZoniNg Enforcement Officer. Page 2 Section II (Area between D and E Street) Associate Planner Lee related the proposed changes recommended by the staff. No comments were received by the audience relative to this section. The Commission discussed various alternatives for property north of E Street, east of Third Avenue. Section III (Area between E and F Streets) Associate Planner Lee explained that there are several strips of land near Second Avenue presently split with zoning and R-1 zoning is proposed here to straighten out these lot lines. The other proposed changes were presented. Director Warren stated that in these commercial zones~ the non-conforming uses will not require abatement. Mr. Charles Carlyle, 2675 Fletcher Parkway, E1 Cajon, asked what the status of his property was and whether it was included in the design control zone related to the Civic Center. Mr. Lee noted his property (the building between Thrid and Landis on Madrona, presently occupied by MR. JAT) and stated it is not within the design control area. Mr. Charles Hamilton, 3730 Mesa Vista Way, Bonita, asked about the area on Landis Street~ north of the existing adult school for auto repairs. Mr. Lee noted the area would remain in the R-3 classification. Section IV (Area between F and G Streets) Mr. Lee noted on the map the adjustments being proposed for this section. Director Warren noted the letter received from San Diego Arizona & Eastern Railway protesting rezoning from C-C to R-3, but giving no specific reason. Mr. Lloyd Lee, owner of property at Center and Landis Streets objected to the R-3 zoning proposed for his property as it would limit the number of uses he could use the property for. He stated that if rezoned R-3, there would be 121 uses he could not use the property for, and if zoned C-0, 48 uses; he asked that the property remain in the C-T zone. Mrs. Marjorie Miles owner of the triangular-shaped vacant parcel on the corner of Fourth Avenue and F Street, declared it would be a tremendous disadvantage to her to have this property rezoned from C-C to C-0. Mr. Jim Prichard, 277 G Street~ stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have concerning the area on the north side of G Street. Page 3 Mr. Lee indicated there would be no problem here, since he has a copy of the lot split recorded for this property and will adjust the rezoning line accordingly. Section V (Area between G and H Streets) Associate Planner Lee noted two lots near Second Avenue and Alvarado Street which were split by zoning and stated it will be adjusted by R-3 zoning. He then explained the remaining proposed changes. Mr. J~aes Pattens 580 Third Avenue, asked about what uses could be built in a C-0 zone besides offices. Director Warren stated that it is geared primarily for office use, but with a conditional use permit approvals apartments could be built. Mr. Patten discussed the proposed sign ordinance governing this zone and declared that the people should be made aware of the regulations governing these sign restrictions. Director Warren explained the concept and history of the sign ordinance in the different zones, and noted that the sign regulations for the C-B zone have been adopted~ and those for the other zones tmder discussion tonight will be considered by the City Council at their meeting tomorrow (July 28, 1970). He agreed with Mr. Patten that most of the people do not understand the sign provisions and the staff or Commission rarely hears from anyone until it affects them personally. Associate Planner Lee remarked that he has asked his staff to restudy the sign provisions of the C-0 zone. Marjorie Watrous, Holly Way, owning the property at 287-289 Church Avenue, stated she doesn't have any extreme objection to having her property zoned for office use, but that it does seem to be quite limited, for an area that has for so many years been so close to the central section of Chula Vista, and to these people have kept these properties up. She cannot see the logic of permitting offices in all commercial areas while trying to create an office environment in the central area. It seems as though the Commission is limiting these property owners right out of any use they may have for it in the future. Mr. Ted Walker, representing Douglas Oil Company, and owners of the service station on Alvarado smd Third Avenue, stated they prefer to have their property remain in the C-C zone rather than the recommended C-B, as the sign regulations for this new zone would have them reducing the size of their sign and moving it back 25'. If this were the case, it would not be visible to the traveling public as the trees arom~d this area would screen it. Associate Lee stated this was true, and for this reason, the Commission may wish to stop the C-B zoning at G Street. Mrs. Mary Anderson, owner of the property at the corner of F and Landis Street, commented that if this property was put into the C-0 zone, it would not allow any retail use, and if no business was permitted to be put on her property, it would cut the value down one-half. Page 4 Director Warren explained that this frontage is proposed for the C-0 zone and it is designed primarily for business and professional office use. Mr. Jim Lay, 576 Third Avenue~ asked for clarification on the theory that if his office was moved to that now occupied by Miller & Henry (Third and Vance) what would be the abatement procedure for his sign which is 15' and is valued at $1500. Mr. Lee indicated it would be approximately 3 years. Mr. Patten indicated that the zoning as proposed and the sign regulations as proposed are not too bad, but during the sign ordinance hearing~ nothing was said that the areas along Third Avenue were to be changed to C-0. Chairman Rice commented this subject was discussed generally at the meeting with the Commission indicating that logical changes would be made~ even though no specific properties were delineated. A public hearing to consider that rezoning has not yet been scheduled. Member Stewart declared this has been on the General Plan for the last 6 years. Director Warren indicated that the General Plan shows a variety of commercial uses along this street. As to the sign regulations~ these will affect everyone, and there will be sign regulations for every commercial zone~ as there is in many Cities. The staff has received comments from a number of people who favor these regulations and believe it will make the City a better one. Mr. Eugene York~ 280 K Street~ stated he was in complete agreement with the staff's presentation. C-0 zoning, as indicated by Mr. Patten, does appear to be in abundance; however, the advisability and workability of this C-0 zone will be entirely up to the Planning Commission as to its use. Apartments can be built in this zone with a conditional use permit and there is no reason why these two uses cannot be interspersed because they are compatible. Mr. York commented further that there are two areas he would disagree with the staff on: (1) the vacant property between the Bank of America and the insurance office on E Street and (2) the vacant parcel on the corner of Fourth Avenue and F Street. He stated that where the owners have had this property for a number of years and have paid the taxes on it~ they should be entitled to the zone which would be the best and highest for that land in view of what would be good zoning practice. Mr. York added that it was much more difficult to get zoning upgraded than it was to get it downgraded. There would be no harm done to the General Plan if the properties were left in their present zoning. Member Stewart suggested the public hearing be closed and action postponed u~til the Commission has had further study on these proposals. Director Warren adked the Commission to leave the hearing open, but because of pending vacations in the department, there may not be time for a workshop meeting; however~ the staff will try to work one in. MSUC (Stewart-Macevicz) Hearing be kept open and the matter continued to the meeting of September 14, 1970. Page 5 Member Chandler complimented the staff on the excellent presentation and preparation of this proposal. Director's Report Tidelands ~uestionnaire Director Of Planning Warren referred to the Tidelands Questionnaire, a copy of which was sent to each member of the Commission. It is one of the pre- liminary approaches that is being considered for this study and the opinions do not reflect those of anyone other than those asked. Mr. Warren added that the Council will be meeting with the Port District the last week of August. Director Warren briefly commented on the letter sent to the Commission in response to the article entitled, "Is the Single-family House on the Way Out?" This is for Commission information, only. Written Communications Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter received from the American Housing Guild in which they state their objections to the regulations governing directional signs. Mr. Warren suggested the Commission invite them to appear as an item on the agenda for one of the next meetings. Member Stewart agreed this should be done and the Chairman directed the staff to write them a letter, and put this on the appropriate agenda. Oral CommUnications Member Adams commented on an article appearing in the local newspaper regarding the prezoning and rezoning for Third and Quintard. The paper has R-3 and C-T zoning spelled out and he understood the Commission recommended C-0. Director Warren stated this was true; however, the paper quoted the recommendation of the staff, which was for the R-3 and C-T. The Commission did, nevertheless, recommend to the Council that the area be zoned C-0 and the Council ultimately adopted their recommendation. New Zoning Ordinance Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff is not completely pleased with the new zoning ordinance, and already a complete set of revisions have been proposed. The ordinance is a vast improvement over the old one, but changes must be made and these will be coming to the Commission soon. The Commission discussed the C-0 zoning as discussed during the hearing. Member Stewart felt this zone would upgrade property that is badly in need of it. If the Commission finds that there is, in fact, too much C-0 Zoning in the City, they can change this. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-James) Meeting adjourn sine die. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~/Jennie M. Fulasz ~y ,/ Secretary