Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/06/22 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 22, 1970 An adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Macevicz, Chandler, James, Adams and Hillson. Absent: (with previous notification) Member Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Sign Regulations in Commercial Zones - Commission initiated Director of Planning Bruce Warren explained that this matter was continued from the meeting of May 22 to provide the Commission with the opportunity to review the proposed changes at a workshop meeting - which was held on June 8. For the most part, the changes that have been made present a compromise by the staff and the Broadway Association from the many meetings held to review these regulations. Associate Planner Lee explained the changes in detail. Member James questioned the amortization time for billboards. City Attorney Lindberg explained that an amortization period has been established; however, it has not been resolved by the Attornes~s for the outdoor advertising companies. He believes that the non-conforming billboards in commercial zones will be resolved in an equitable manner and the time limits have been established for the landscaped freeways. The attorneys for the advertising companies do not accept the three year maximum period -- they insist that the assessed valuation or replacement value of the billboards is not realistic in the terms in which the City is discussing. These people have been notified, a little over a year ago, of the three year time period, and essentially, they have almost two more years on abatement. Mr. Lindberg added that in view of the long period of time that they have been non-conforming in the commercial zones, there should be very little objection to the amortization period as set. In discussing this last year, it was determined that these billboards have been non-conforming in commercial zones for the last twelve years. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Dick Kau, Chairman of the Broadway Association Sign Committee, stated they have worked with the staff for the last six months and felt the restrictions imposed by the staff in their final recommendations were "too much to bear." He added that if the Commission accepts the changes, as proposed by the staff, then all of the committee's work was useless. Mr. Kau indicated the changes were not a compromise - it was 75% staff and 25% committee recommendations. -2- June 22, 1970 Director Warren remarked that about two years ago the Commission and Council were ready to adopt a far more restrictive ordinance. Upon staff recommendation~ a committee was formed which ultimately recommended a reasonable ordinance. This final staff recommendation supports the committee recommendation with exception of two or three minor points. Mr. Kau declared there were three glaring restrictions which the committee opposes: (1) the prohibition of moving and flashing signs--they feel it is important to keep this; (2) landscaping at the foot of pole sites that are already in existence; (3) signs on the sides of buildings and the roof top signs. The restriction to allow roof top signs only for those businesses with 100' frontage is not fair as those smaller businesses having 60' to 65' frontage should have the same privilege. Mr. Fran Burger, Pacific Sign Company agreed and added that the committee recommended 25' of frontage for the buildings, the staff proposed lO0', and he assumed that they compromised on 50'. The same applied to the pole signs. Mr. Lee commented that the pole signs were left at 50'. Mr. Burger objected to the controls of the signs in the C-C zone, especially as they applied to colors. He felt the business merchants should have the right to choose their own colors without review. As to the flashing and animated signs: these have been in effect for years - there are very few of them in town, and he feels there is a need for them. Mr. John Angel, 444 Broadway, owner of this property, discussed the amount of money he has invested in this business (Arby's) and stated that his sign was built for animation. He added that the animation could make or break him and urged the Commission's reconsideration of this restriction. Mr. Clay Bennett, 415 Broadway, "Main Gate" business, said he could not see why they couldn't have moving signs -- he declared he had a beautiful sign before he was forced to turn the lights off. Mr. Eugene York, 280 "K" Street, remarked that he was concerned with the abatement schedule for the signs, and felt it was unreasonable to expect businessmen to have to adhere to this schedule. He added that during one of the committee meetings, the question came up as to how the signs were to be evaluated. He understood there would be some reference in the ordinance whereby the signs would have the same valuation as established by the Building Department for permit purposes. City Attorney Lindberg indicated there were some discussions along this line but it should be recognized that the problem of amortization is the heart of the removal of any non-conforming use and it is difficult to declare that one procedure is better or worse than another. He added he can foresee no real problem in the amortization set up in the ordinance; however, to get hung up on the protection of the right of the individual property owner in terms of the value in relation to size is very dangerous because they are not looking at just that particular person's rights but to the general welfare and the entire Broadway sign area. -3- June 22, 1970 Mr. York answered that if this is so much in the public interest, why set up the abatement procedures at all? There is an attempt here, on the part of the City, to do something fair and equitable for the people who have invested in these signs relying on an ordinance that allowed them to create these signs, so it is unjust and unfair now to set an arbitrary figure on these signs and tell them that they have to do away with the signs in 50 days or 50 years. Mr. York further stated that tying the abatement value to the permit value gives everyone an even break in this situation. City Attorney Lindberg and Mr. York discussed the valuation of a sign based on its size. Director Warren indicated that the amortization period, no matter how written, will be unsatisfactory, if effective. He questioned what would happen for two businesses, side by side, one there for 5 years and the other just going in; the existing one had a sign far out of proportion from the one permitted the new businessman. Mr. York indicated an amortization would have to be set up for a certain period of time which would be allowed to lapse in order to effect the inequities here. James Thomas, distributor for Sun Ray materials, passed around to the Commission samples of his product used in making up a sign noting that businesses such as the Butcher Shop in Chula Vista have this material (small plastic rounds which glitter -- similar to sequinns). He advocated that this material makes a beautiful sign and is a good business adjunct. Member James asked if there would be a chance of appeal to Council if, for example, the staff placed a $500 valuation on his sign and he disagreed with them completely. City Attorney Lindberg indicated a provision could be put into the ordinance for appeal; however, then they would have to arrive at some sort of arbitration, as suggested by Mr. York which he believes is unreasonable. This is one area which probably should be more fully explored by the staff. Director Warren commented that 750 notices of this hearing were sent out, and as a result, not more than 10 inquiries were received. Mr. Craig Bramwell, 444 Broadway, Arby~s Roast Beef, asked if any further discussions would be held on this subject, as he was new in the area and hasn't been in on all these discussions. Chairman Rice explained that if the Commission were to take action tonight, Mr. Bramwell would have time to familiarize himself with the ordinance before Council hearing. Mr. Bramwell stated he was in favor of moving and rotating lights on signs. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was closed. -4- June 22, 1970 Member Adams commented that the Commission has been on this for five years now. He is in favor of the changes as proposed by the staff, and in favor of recommending it to the City Council for adoption. Member Hillson remarked that the changes were a form of compromise between the committee and the staff, and he has always disliked compromises because they make both sides unhappy. He added that they owe the merchants with existing signs some form of obligation. He agrees with Mr. York's testimony that the abatement period is a stiff one and would present some hardship to the merchants. He suggested they double the period of time established, which would benefit the merchants. As to the roof-top signs, he felt it would be discriminatory to limit it to the large buildings only -- he is in favor of doing away with all roof top signs completely, and make some sort of provision to those people that have moving signs now to let them use them up to the time of the abatement period. Member Adams commented that the way this sign ordinance is written, it would take 5 to l0 years to notice any difference on Broadway. Member Chandler favored the changes as proposed indicating they were as close as they will ever get to a compromise on these regulations. MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending PCA-70-3 to City Council an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relative to Sign Regulations in Commercial Zones Findings be as follows: a. The proposed sign regulations will be in the best interest of the community. b. To protect the general welfare, merchants, and property owners, by avoiding wasteful and costly compet~don among sign users resulting from the uncontrolled use of signs. c. Although architectural standards cannot be regulated in precise terms, certain guidelines based upon the sound experience must be established to provide a framework for suitable legislation. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 582/584 F STREET - REQUEST TO USE LOT ZONED R-3 FOR A PARKING LOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE - M. NAIMAN, ET AL Director of Planning Warren stated that the staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance of this matter to the meeting of July 6. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Public hearing on this item be continued to the meeting of July 6, 1970. -5- June 22, 1970 Approval of Palm Gardens Lots 7 and 8 Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the area noting the two lots in question. The two parcels are located on Vista Del Rancho and are contiguous to the City limits; annexation is requested in order to obtain sewer. The annexation has been approved by the Local Agnecy Formation Commission, and prezoned by the Commission on May 14, 1968. The staff recommends approval. MSUC (Macevicz-James) Recommended to the City Council approval of the PCM-70-17 proposed annexation known as Palm Gardens Lots 7 and 8. Approval of Horton's H Street Annexation Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat of the area noting the property in question which is vacant. The area is adjacent to the northerly line of the Windsor Park Subdivision and contains 13.98 acres. It was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission on June 1, 1970 and prezoned by the Commission on May 25, 1970. The staff recommends approval. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Recommend to the City Council approval of the PCM-70-18 proposed annexation known as Horton's H Street Annexation. Council Referral - C-N zonin~ at Nolan Avenue and Palomar Street Director of Planning Warren submitted a location plat noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the Council considered the Commission's recommendation for C-N zoning for the northeast corner of Palomar Street and Nolan Avenue at their meeting of June 9, 1970, and subsequently voted to deny the C-N zoning. Therefore, the matter was referred back to the Commission for a full report as required by ordinance. Director Warren reported that at this meeting, the Council heard considerable opposition from the residents in the area to this zone. Member Adams stated he opposed this zone change when it was first presented and hasn't changed his mind. He added that the Council's reasons for denying it were valid. Chairman Rice explained that the Planning Commission felt there was justifi- cation for some type of convenient shopping center. He indicated there was no market analysis, however. MSUC(Chandler-Hillson) Recommend to the City Council that t~e property remain in the R-1 zone. Council Referral - Balistreiri appeal re~ardin~ offsite si~n for Palomar Inn Director of Planning Warren stated he received a request from Mr. Balistreiri and his attorney, Mr. William Cameron, to place this matter on the meeting of July 6. MSUC (Macevicz-James) Postponement of this item to the meeting of July 6, 1970. -6- June 22, 1970 Request for deferral of public improvements - 563 Glover Avenu~ Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter from the applicant and a letter from the Director of Public Works in regard to a deferral of sidewalk improvements at 563 Glover Avenue. It was noted that only two properties on the east side of the street have constructed sidewalks, and four on the opposite side of the street. The Division of Engineering recommends approval subject to the posting of a bond, and the staff agrees with this recommendation. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Approval of the deferral of public improvements (sidewalk) subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of~$250 to guarantee installation of the sidewalk on 30 days notice by the City. Discussion - Request of South Bay Citizens' Committee for Moratorium on all developments along Telegraph Canyon Road/ Otay Lakes Road Director of Planning Warren referred to the letter from the South Bay Citizens' Committee which was sent to the Commission. They are requesting a moratorium on all developments along Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. This letter was referred to the Parks & Recreation Commission for study. The staff is not prepared to make any recommendation at this time. They feel that what is requested should be pursued. Included in the Commission's mailing is a letter from the County Planning Department to the Board of Supervisors recommending the letter should be filed, in view of the fact that they will be studying this area as part of their Scenic Route Study for 1972. Mrs. Kathyrn S. Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, Chula Vista, member of this Citizens' Committee, spoke of the telephone call she had with Mr. Bill Thompson, Henry Boney's Assistant, and he stated that the County Planning Department felt it was up to the City of Chula Vista to place this moratorium because the development along Telegraph Canyon Road will someday belong to the City of Chula Vista. She stated she is appearing on behalf of the Committee at a meeting tomorrow before the Board of Supervisors and read a report of her speech. Director Warren indicated he is not in disagreement with Mrs. Moore on this matter, but that it was not a simple matter to declare a moratorium. He asked the Commission for guidance on this subject. Member Macevicz declared the request was an admirable one and the Commission and staff should give it serious consideration. The Commission concurred. Director Warren remarked that he will want to pursue this with the Parks & Recreation Staff, the County Planning Department and the owners of the property. He asked the Commission for a 30-day continuance so that he may prepare a full report. He added that they could not declare this a scenic highway without the cooperation of the County Planning Department because most of the area will be in the County. Member Hillson questioned whether it would be designated a County or State Highway, since a State Scenic Highway would take years to accomplish. -7- June 22, 1970 Mrs. Moore declared it should be designated a County scenic highway. She then gave the Commission a history of the origin of her committee and noted the members serving on it. They have been holding meetings every other week, and reading and studying all material relating to this issue. Chairman Rice directed that the staff be given 30 days to make a study of this request and report this issue back to the Commission at their meeting of July 20, 1970. Director's R~port Director Warren stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) Meeting be adjourned sine die. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~//Jenn~e M. Fulasz Secretary