Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/04/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 20, 1970 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Rice, Stewart, Macevicz, Chandler, Adams, James, Hillson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (James-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1970, be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - REZONtNG - East of Nolan Avenue between East Oneida and East Palomar Streets - R-1 to C-N - Poutous Development Corp. and Bible Baptist Church of Chula Vista Director of Planning Warren explained that this item was continued from the meeting of February 16 to give the applicant time to prepare a market analysis of the need for commercial zoning in the area and to submit a precise plan. He noted the location of the 5 acres and gave a brief history of its ownership. The applicant has met with the staff and submitted a site plan showing the proposed buildings and parking layout for a portion of the property requested for the rezonin9. The remainder of the property they now show as being developed residentially. This plan contains insufficient information to qualify as a Precise Plan and the staff is again recommending denial since no new information has been presented to justify the rezoning. In answer to Member Adams' inquiry, Mr. Warren affirmed the fact that the church property is included in the rezoning request. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Warren noted the service areas of four areas zoned for neighborhood shopping centers which overlap this site. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Cliff Burford, Planning Consultant representing Mr. Poutous, the applicant, stated that the church property is part of a fee ownership, but should not be part of this application. He remarked that the southern portion of the property is leased to the applicant and the north portion is in fee ownership; for this reason, they are encountering problems with its development. Mr. Burford added that they pointed out to Mr. Poutous that the area does not warrant a full scale shopping center; however, it would support a convenience center, which serves a vital public need. The area they propose for this convenience shopping center is approximately 3/4 of an acre. Mr. Burford noted the site plans submitted showing the remainder of the property proposed for multiple-family development within l~ miles of this site. An apartment complex here would fit the needs of this particular piece of property. Mr. Burford asked for the Commission's opinion on both or either of the plans submitted: one showing a large shopping center and the other showing a convenience center and an apartment development. -2- 4/20/70 Member Chandler questioned the number of units proposed. Mr. Burford stated it would be a very low density development, which they would work out with the staff. Mr. Warren declared they have an R-3-G zoning-- 2500 sq. ft. of land area per unit. Mr. Burford stated he would accept this. Member Stewart commented that these plans have not gone to the staff for any discussion and he would prefer a continuance of this item in order to get the staff's recommendation. Director Warren remarked that the staff met with the applicant on Friday and they discussed the various alternatives. The staff feels the property is suitable for R-1 zoning; however, there is some justification for the convenience shopping center. Member Adams declared he would have no objection to the small shopping center, and feels there is no reason why a multiple-family development could not 9o in this residential area. He felt it would be a good spot for one. Discussion was held as to whether or not the hearing should be readvertised since the applicant has now changed his request. City Attorney Lindberg stated that in this instance, they can proceed as they have in the past and not readvertise it since the Commission would be considering a zone which is more restrictive than that originally advertised. Chairman Rice declared the hearing continued to the meeting of May 4, 1970. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Southwestern College Estates, No. 7 - Mobile home park - Allied Contractor's Inc. Director of Planning Warren stated that a written request has been received by the department asking for another continuance of this item to the meeting of May 18. This is necessary because of further work with the County Engineering Division, they now find it necessary to run a collector street through this area. The staff recommends the continuance to work out these problems. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 18. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 582-584 F Street - Commercial parking on R-3 zoned lot - Naiman, Sarfan, Penter Director of Planning Warren stated that this hearing was advertised, but previous to the meeting, the applicant asked that it be withdrawn. MSUC (Macevicz-James) The application be filed. -3- 4/2O/7O PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 523 H Street - Increase in sign area - Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, presented a plat noting the area in question, the adjacent land uses, and zoning. The property is zoned C-C-D; the building would have a frontage of 27 feet. In this instance, the applicant is requesting a variance for the following signs: 1. A 72 sq. ft. wall sign on the front mansard roof. 2. A 65 sq. ft. wall sign on the mansard roof on each side of the building. 3. A rotating box-type pole sign with four sides, totalling 140 sq. ft. A total sign area of 342 square feet; in this zone, the applicant would be limited to 27 sq. ft. of sign area (his building frontage). The staff is in agreement that there is a need for identification more than provided for by the zoning ordinance; however, the Commission has previously turned down pole signs in this area. Some attempt should be made to insure conformance with the future sign regulations. In this case, the front wall sign would conform; however, the sign on the western elevation would not be visible due to the proposed construction of a beauty salon on this adjoining property. As to the pole sign, the ordinance limits the size to 75 sq. ft. for a sign 20 feet high to be located 10 feet from the side property line. Mr. Lee added that the staff cannot justify the need for this pole sign or the wall signs on the east and west sides of the building, and are, therefore, recommending approval of the front wall sign only. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eugene Braemeister, 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, stated he was here on behalf of Arthur Treacher's. He explained that the pole sign was their national image and would like to keep this; it will be placed in the planter area (south- east corner of the site). The sign on the west side of the building could be eliminated because of the proposed construction of the adjoining building. Mr. Braemeister passed around some colored slides to the Commission showing one of their other restaurants. He then listed all the existing freestanding signs on H Street as justification for their request. The Commission questioned the size of the freestanding sign. Mr. Braemeister stated it would be 22 feet in height and approximately 45 sq. ft. per face. Mr. Marsden Smith, 9075 Campina, La Mesa, also representing Arthur Treacher's, gave a detailed background of the firm and its reputation throughout the United States. He declared it would be primarily a take-out restaurant but there will be seats inside and out for customers to eat on the premises, if they so desire. -4- 4/20/70 Mr. Andy Henry, realtor and one of the owners of the property, stated he was in whole accord with the sign ordinance which is currently being considered. However, until it is adopted, it is most restrictive to state that some businesses cannot have pole signs when all the others around this proposed business have these signs. Director Warren discussed the inconsistency of the signs in Chula Vista as brought out by Mr. Henry and Mr. Braemeister. He explained that this particular block has the design control on it, and asked the Commission to take a conservative approach to the signs. Additional signs can be placed on this property in the future, as determined appropriate when the sign ordinances are adopted. Mr. Warren added that as far as franchise buildings go, this particular one is one of the more attractive ones. He asked that the Commission approve the front sign only, and pending the outcome of the sign ordinance as it applies to this property, other signs can then be approved for some time in the future. The Commission discussed the requirements of the "D" zone as it pertains to this property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the public hearing was closed. Member Stewart discussed the request indicating that a national image sign, such as proposed, is designed primarily for installation on a freeway or thoroughfare where they want to attract new customers. In this case, it is set up for repeat- type business -- 97% of these customers will be repeat customers. He would go along with the recommendations of the staff and approve the front wall sign only. Member Hillson declared that in all fairness to the applicant, a front sign is difficult to see unless passing directly in front of the store. He would approve a sign on one side of the building since he believes a businessman should have a sign which faces the traffic. Chairman Rice felt that if they approved another sign it would be difficult to deny such signs for the next business that comes along. Each business should get equal treatment. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Variance be approved for the front wall sign only. RESOLUTION PCV-70-8 Findings be as follows: a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The allowable sign area is inadequate for this type of use, a permitted use in the C-C zone, at this location. 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. Other similar uses in the "D" Modifying District have been granted similar variances. -5- 4/20/70 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. There will be no detrimental effect from a limited increase in sign area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan is not affected. The Chairman reminded the applicant that he has l0 days to appeal this decision to the City Council, should it be his desire. Request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit - 648 Third Avenue - Salvation Arm~ Director of Planning Warren stated that a request has been received from the Salvation Army asking for a 6-month extension on the conditional use permit granted them on May 5, 1969 for a community center and chapel at 648 Third Avenue. Conditions in this area have not changed, and the staff recommends approval of a one-year extension subject to the conditions originally imposed. MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of a one-year extension of time; conditional use permit will now expire on May 5, 1971. To be set for hearing - Setback Chan~e - 500 block of Glover Avenue Associate Planner Lee informed the Commission that a letter was received from Mr. John A. Robinson requesting that the front yard setback requirements for the 500 block of Glover Avenue (zoned R-3), south of Mankato Street, be changed from 25' to 15'. This would be in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance which establishes a 15' setback on residential streets in the R-3 zones. The Commission initiated a change in setback for that area in the 500 block of Glover Avenue north of Mankato Street to 15'. The staff plans to review the entire city for the estab- lishment of zones and setback changes in order to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The staff recommends that this matter be set for hearing. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Setback change for the 500 block of Glover Avenue be set for hearing for the meeting of May 4, 1970. Approval of Horton's Telegraph CanNon Road Annexation and Setting Hearing for Prezonin~ Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the location of this proposed annexation as 120 acres located east of Gre9 Rogers Park and south and west of Telegraph Canyon Road. He noted the two parcels owned by United Enterprises, and commented that they have not signed the petition for annexa- tion. The Local Agency Formation Commission has approved this annexation, and -6- 4/20/70 the staff recommends that the Commission forward their recommendation to the City Council and set the prezoning for hearing for May 4. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Recommend to the City Council approval of this annexa- tion, and set for hearing for May 4, 1970, the consideration of prezonin9 to R-1. ~irector's Report Director of Planning Warren gave a brief report of his attendance at the ASPO National Conference in New York City April 5-9. One of the main topics of discussion was exclusionary zoning. At this conference, he also did some recruitment for an Associate Planner, the position recently vacated by Mr. Manganelli. Budget Mr. Warren reported on the new process incorporated this year for the budget. Because of the timing, it was not forwarded to the Commission; however, copies of the final report will be mailed to them prior to Council consideration. Chairman's Report Chairman Rice informed the Commission that the matter of changing the meeting date for the Council has again been placed on their agenda for tomorrow night, April 21. This would, of course, mean that the Commission would have to forfeit their Monday nights to the Council and possibly meet on Tuesday. The Commission reiterated their opposition to this proposal. Disclosure of Assets Chairman Rice asked the City Attorney for a report on this matter. City Attorney Lindberg stated that nothing further has come out of the State Legislature at this time. At this time, however, only elected officials and certain employees have to make this disclosure--members of Boards and Commissions do not have to file. Written Communications Letter from H. H. Hiber, re: Sweetwater Valley Industrial Park Director of Planning Warren stated a letter, addressed to the City Attorney, was forwarded to the Department. It concerns a request of Mr. Hiber for approval of a manufacturing plant of sailboats and docks through the use of a fiberglass fabricating method. The Commission has the authority to grant approval of other uses if, in their determination, it would "be of the same general character as the other uses" in this zone. -7- 4/2O/7O Mr. John Guth, representing Home Federal Savings & Loan, owners of the property, stated they have been approached by the Trade Winds Corporation to purchase 3 acres of land in this area. This corporation presently has a $400,000 contract for fiberglas piers for the Kona Kai. Mr. Guth explained that this was strictly fiberglas and not steel, thereby eliminating the heavy manufacturing operation. Director Warren commented that since the staff has not had the benefit of this information, they would request a continuance of this item to the next meeting so they could submit a report to the Commission. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) This matter be referred to the staff and brought back at the next regular meeting, April 27. Leave of Absence Member Stewart requested a leave of absence for two weeks beginning the 28th of this month. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the leave of absence. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Chandler-James Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of April 27, at 7 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'L~ Secretary ~