Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/02/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 16, 1970 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission 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, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Adams and Putnam. Absent: None. Also present: Associate Planner Manganelli, Associate Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Putnam-Adams) Approval of the minutes of the meetings of January 26 and February 2, 1970, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Regulation of signs in the C-B Zone - Commission initiated Associate Planner Lee explained that this matter was continued from the meeting of January 2~ so that the Planning Commission could have the opportunity to view the signs on Third Avenue as well as hold a public hearing for additional testimony. A second draft of the proposed ordinance has been distributed to the Commission in which the changes, as requested at the last meeting, were made. Mr. Lee remarked that there are still a few problems left unsolved: projecting signs, roof signs, and window signs. He then showed a number of colored slides depicting the Third Avenue business district signs, noting the different type of signs which would and would not be in violation of the proposed ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert McMains, 237 Elm Avenue, representing the Downtown Association Sign Committee, stated the only complaint they have pertains to the double-faced projecting signs. They are recommending a 3' height maximum, 2' projection from the building, and 6' from the building face inward. In answer to Member Putnam's inquiry, Mr. McMains discussed the roof top signs indicating the limitation of 10' in height for a 50' building was appropriate inasmuch as there were, at present, only 12 buildings involved. It is hoped that something further could be worked out for these signs, some time in the future. Member Macevicz felt the allowable projection would tend to have the businesses block each other out with signs. Mr. McMains contended this would be true with any projection limitation imposed. Mr. Ken Wessell, Manager of Leader Department Store, defended the roof top signs showing the Commission a rendering of one proposed for the Leader store. He claimed the sign on the front of the building is visible only to those people who pass directly in front of it. -2- 2/16/70 Mrs. Kitty Raso, owner of La Bella Pizza restaurant, asked if colors of signs would be considered in this proposed ordinance. Mr. Paul Manganelli, Associate Planner, stated there would be no regulation against colors--this is an individual matter of taste. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Purnam stated that signs become a matter of aesthetics, whether they like it or not. They are broken down into categories: identification and advertising--where one ends and the other begins is difficult to determine. Mr. Putnam added that this business district could be enhanced tremendously by these merchants if they removed the roof top signs and the interior wall signs. Member Adams agreed commenting that a great improvement in the area would be made if all the businesses adhered to the regulations in the ordinance relative to the signs. The Commission then discussed a percentage for window signs. Member Putnam felt the 20% limitation was a reasonable one. Member Chandler agreed and declared there should be some uniformity in the projecting signs. Mr. McMains remarked that his committee discussed exterior signs, but only those on corner buildings. He personally felt the exterior signs on all buildings should be done away with. In discussing a time limit for amortization of the non-conforming signs, City Attorney Lindberg noted a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding billboards whereby the decision was that a one-year amortization period was not unreasonable in that case. Our ordinance, as presently drafted, allows a 5-year amortization period. In considering these non-conforming signs, repairs cannot be relied upon to defeat legislation which looks to the future and the eventual liquidation of these non-conforming uses. Chairman Rice commented on amortization periods for painted signs and billboards. Mr. McMains reported that the committee came up with the following amortization scale: for a sign valued under $200, there would be a 90 day limitation; for signs valued from $200 to $500, a one-year limitation; and for each additional $1,000, one year, up to a 5-year maximum. This would be based on the present appraisal of the sign. Mr. Lee explained that this scale was in the original proposal; however, it was removed after much discussion with the Broadway Association. The problem lies in trying to evaluate the cost of the signs, and it was decided to establish a minimum value. In this way, all the signs within the value established would be coming down at the same time, and it would save the City the expense of trying to establish the value of each individual sign. -3- 2/16/70 Member Putnam felt the different commercial zones present different problems; if the merchants along Third Avenue want to do it this way, then the Commission should go along with them. It doesn't mean that this same regulation must be enforced along Broadway; the signs there are different and some of them are quite expensive and the same amortization period should not be established for this area. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. PCA-70-1 to City Council the Adoption of the Ordinance Regulating Signs in the C-B Zone Findings of fact are as follows: a. The section of the Zoning Ordinance relating to sign control was eliminated in the C-B Zone when originally adopted because committee work was not completed. Committee action has been completed, therefore the Planning Commission is recommending the adoption of sign standards. b. Sign regulations are needed to avoid unnecessary competition among sign users resulting from the uncontrolled use of signs. c. The regulations as proposed will add to the aesthetic quality and architec- tural compatibility of the area. Member Putnam commended the sign committee, stating that this is one of the most progressive steps Chula Vista has even taken. The Commission felt this commen- dation should include all the merchants along Third Avenue. City Attorney Lindberg stated this matter will now be sent to the City Council and they will set it for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Attachment of "F" Modifyin~ District to portion of Sweetwater Valley in the Bonita Area - Commission initiated Mr. Paul Manganelli, Associate Planner, submitted a map of the area noting the properties in question. He explained that this came about as a result of an application for a building permit for a parcel west of Central Avenue, north of the golf course. An emergency ordinance was passed by the City Council applying the "F" Modifying District to this property since the owner proposed to construct a house at the existing level without fill. The owner would be required to apply for a conditional use permit before any building permit is granted to determine whether or not flooding could occur on the property, and if improvements would alter the water course. In setting this particular matter for hearing, the Commission included that entire flood plain area in the Sweetwater Valley which is within the corporate City limits that falls within the 100 year flood area. Mr. Manganelli noted the exceptions proposed by the staff: the commercial area on the south side of Bonita Road; Bonita Verde Subdivision; and the area between the easterly edge of the La Bonita Apartments and Bonita Bridge--these areas are largely developed, the latter two on fill. -4- 2/16/70 Member Adams questioned whether the "F" Zone would be placed in the area covered by the flood channel. Mr. Manganelli indicated it would not, since there is no improved channel planned for this particular area, the "F" Modifying District would suffice. City Attorney Lindberg explained that it is the application of the more restrictive flood plain zoning which would retain open space until proper flood control devices were devised. The situation could be a changing one and some time in the future particular areas could be placed in the more restrictive zones in order to provide a floodway if one were deemed necessary. The Engineers seem to feel that the adequate security for public health, safety and general welfare can be achieved with the Modifying District here. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. C. McMillan, 3535 Siembre Street, Bonita, stated he does not own any property in this area at this particular time, but has some questions he would like cleared up. He maintained that the flood problems are handled through a grading ordinance--when you submit a building plan to build any structure within a zone, this plan goes to the Engineering Department and they either approve it or recommend certain improvements that must be done to the property to bring it out of the danger of flood. This is an Engineering problem; they are capable of handling it. The intent of this safety zone sounds reasonable, but he would like to know what the procedure would be, once the zone is placed on the property, to have it removed so that a building could be constructed. Mr. McMillan declared that this was not a Planning Department or Planning Commission responsibility for enforcement; it is more the Engineer's. Chairman Rice explained the "F" Modifying District. Mr. Manganelli remarked that this was discussed with the City Engineer and he (Mr. Cole) stated that this restriction was not in the grading ordinance and he prefers not to have it in the grading ordinance. Mr. Cole indicated the zoning ordinance was a more proper place for it, and under the conditional use permit he would still be able to comment upon this application. Mr. McMillan explained his inquiry: he is interested in a piece of property pres- ently zoned commercial. If he brings this out of the flood level must he still get a conditional use permit. Associate Planner Manganelli claimed that he must. Mr. McMillan then declared that this was not right; it was a source of inverse condemnation on the property which he intends to buy. The Commission is taking away a right; it is zoned commercial and he is ready to move ahead with it, and he does not believe that he should be compelled to get a conditional use permit to build anything on that property within the zone as it stands. -5- 2/16/70 Mr. Manganelli explained to Mr. McMillan that the use would not be discussed-- the use is governed by the underlying zone. All the City would be doing is determining whether or not the fill that was put onto the property was adequate. Mr. McMillan remarked that he felt it should be in the grading ordinance, regardless of whether Mr. Lane Cole wanted it there or not; it was a grading and engineering problem. He cannot see going to the Planning Commission and asking for their approval of what would be out of the flood area (after fill). Mr. McMillan reiterated that the intent was good but that the extent of research that has been done at this time is very basic and elementary; it warrants a lot more investigation before any further zone restrictions are put on the properties. Member Chandler discussed the Bonita Verde Subdivision which was required to meet this flood level. Mr. Manganelli explained that this was a condition imposed on the subdivision map. Mr. McMillan declared that the State Real Estate Commissioner stamps on the plans the fact that the property is subject to flooding. It is recorded at the County and everyone is aware of this. He added that as he understands a conditional use permit, it means a specific building, specific materials, specific architecture. City Attorney Lindberg stated this was not true; in the conditional use permit application they would check out grading it above a certain level, whether the building was safe so that it would not float down a channel, etc. Mr. McMillan claimed this same purpose could be done by stating "that all buildings in the City of Chula Vista have to be out of the area of flood." He reiterated that it was not a Planning Department problem and it should not be handled here. Chairman Rice explained to Mr. McMillan that this particular modifying district was not being applied to all of Chula Vista, but only to those certain areas lying in the flood plain. It is similar to the "D" attachment which is applied to certain zones; it simply means that there are certain standards which must be adhered to. The City is not going to change the basic underlying zoning; they are simply going to make sure that the area is at a safe level for development. It would have to be graded or filled according to the requirements; the City wants to be sure there will be nothing that will affect the water course. Mr. Rice added that no attempt has been made to be over-restrictive; they just want to be sure the development is protected. Mr. McMillan declared that if this ordinance is written as the Chairman explained it, he would be the first one to favor it--it is a good idea. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission briefly discussed the proposed attachment and concurred that it was the proper recommendation to make. -6- 2/16/70 MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Resolution of the City Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-D Recommending to City Council the Attachment of the "F" Modifying District to a Portion of the Sweetwater Valley in the Bonita Area (According to plat submitted at this meeting) Findings of fact are as follows: a. The attachment of the "F" Modifying District will insure review of any plans for this area via the conditional use permit process to insure against endangering the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the area as well as the public at large. b. The review of proposed plans for this area will insure against the diversion of the natural waterway, the Sweetwater River. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin9 - Property east of Nolan Avenue between East Oneida and East Palomar Street (5~ acres/ - From R~I to C-N - Poutous Development Corp. and Bible Baptist Church of Chula Vista Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plot noting the location of the area concerned as approximately 5~ acres of vacant land located at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and Nolan Avenue. A conditional use permit appli- cation follows this item for a church site on the property. The General Plan places this area in a retail commercial category; however, the revised Plan shows a medium density residential classification for the property because of the proliferation of commercial zoned areas in this vicinity which would serve this property and those around it. Mr. Manganelli noted the commer- cial areas on the plan. The applicants are requesting neighborhood-commercial zoning for this area; however, no market analysis has been provided, as required by this ordinance. The staff is recommending denial of the request based on (1) the revised General Plan placing this property in a medium density residential classification; (2) this property will be adequately served by the existing commercially zoned properties; (3) no market analysis, as required by this ordinance, has been presented. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Associate Planner, stated he received a telephone call from the applicant requesting a continuance of this item. Mr. Don Westphal, Civil Engineer representing the applicants, asked for a continu- ance explaining that the southern portion of the property was obtained by a lease agreement, and they are having difficulty with the terms of the lease for dedication of Palomar Street; they wish to prepare a precise plan and obtain some agreements from tenants; and they will prove that the shopping center is necessary and needed. Mr. Charles Johnson, San Diego County Association for the Mentally Retarded Children, legal owner of the property, spoke in favor of the change of zone to commercial. -7- 2/16/70 George Pool, Pastor of Bible Baptist Church, spoke in favor of the proposed shopping center commenting that the nearest shopping center was a considerable distance away. He felt a commercial center would be best suited next to the Starlite Center instead of residential, because of the type of children attending this school--people are apt to be suspicious of them. Mr. Westphal asked for a one-month continuance. MSUC (Putnam-Macevicz) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of March 16, 1970, in order that the applicant may prepare a market analysis. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - Southeast corner Oneida Street and Nolan Avenue - Request permission to construct a church (1.17 acres) proposed C-N zoning - Bible Baptist Church of Chula Vista Mr. Lee submitted a map noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He discussed two discrepancies in the plan submitted by the applicant: the 15' setback shown for the building (on Oneida) should be 20' and there is a provision in the ordinance that a church must be located on a collector street which in this case means that it must be located on Palomar Street rather than on Oneida and Nolan as shown. Mr. Lee suggested that the applicant be advised to file a variance request for the setback reduction and permission to construct the church on a local street, and that this application be continued also to the meeting of March 16, along with the rezoning request. In this way, this entire matter can be considered at one meeting. Mr. George Pool, Pastor of the Bible Baptist Church, commented that he was under the impression that this was all taken care of since they are now adhering to the 20' setback--the plot plan is in error. The Commission discussed the provision whereby a variance must be granted for a church in a residential zone to be located on a collector street. Mr. Paul Manganelli stated this condition would be void if this property was zoned C-N. Member Stewart commented that if time is not a critical factor with the church, that they continue further action on this item until such time as the zoning is established. Mr. Pool indicated there is some degree of urgency here inasmuch as there is a deadline date set up for the church to be built. ~ Mr. Westphal, Civil Engineer representing the applicant, asked for a continuance of this matter and he will get together with the staff and work out this problem. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Public hearing on this matter be continued to the meeting of March 16, 1970. -8- 2/16/70 City Attorney Lindberg commented that unfortunately, in this case, they find themselves in a position where a variance is also required. He feels they should not have to go through the dual procedure of separate conditional use permit and variance applications. He would hope the Commission would entertain an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order to accomplish this in one applica- tion. SUBDIVISION - Zenith Subdivision - Consideration of final map Mr. Lee submitted the final map of the subdivision noting the location as south of Oxford Street, abutting the easterly side of Interstate 805 and the northerly boundary of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company easement. The original map showed 93 lots on 21 acres; this final map contains 95 lots. This was accomplished by a realignment of a cul-de-sac. The major question is whether or not there should be a southerly extension of one of the streets; the Fire Department has expressed concern that there should be a second opening to this subdivision to facilitate efficient fire protection for the area. The San Diego Gas & Electric Company stated their opposition to a street extending over their right-of-way. They now indicate that they would not object to having the second cul-de-sac (Raven Place) extended, but do object to extending Finch Street since that area is immediately adjacent to the easterly edge of 805 Freeway and this will cause congestion with their own service facilities--a street in this vicinity would serve as a detriment to their operation. If Raven Place is extended and tied in with Palomar to the south, a small triangle-shaped parcel would be left which would be difficult to develop. The City Engineer has stated that this one access is adequate to handle the amount of traffic for this subdivision. Mr. Ed Pool ey, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, stated that they are definitely opposed to extending Finch Street across their right-of-way for the reasons noted above. Mr. Don Westphal, Civil Engineer representing the subdividers, discussed the proposed extension for a second opening to the subdivision and indicated there is a pedestrian right-of-way over the easement at the end of the cul-de-sacs. This is wide enough for an emergency vehicle to get through--16' wide. Mr. Westphal added that the developers have nothing in writing from the utility company indicating they will agree to the extension of Raven Place. The developers object to having to redesign another access for the subdivision. They feel the problem is solved since the City Engineer stated the one access was sufficient, and if the need arises, the fire trucks could cross over the pedestrian right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Pool ey stated it was his understanding that the San Diego Gas & Electric Company would look favorably upon Raven Place being extended over their right- of~way line. An extension of Finch Street would be neither feasible nor acceptable. -9- 2/16/70 Mr. Lee said he talked to Mr. Art Bishop of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Mr. Bishop reaffirmed that they would have no objection to the extension of Raven Place. Mr. Lee added that at the present time it is difficult for the staff to say whether or not this second access is needed at this particular location. The Commission discussed the triangular-shaped parcel that would be left with the extension of Raven Place, and also that area to the south. Mr. Westphal stated he represents the developers of the area to the south as well. This will be developed as Zenith Subdivision, Unit #2. He added that if Raven Place is extended, it would cause the developers a design problem. Member Stewart commented that this was not the first subdivision containing about 100 lots that was approved with the one access. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, informed the Commission that this particular problem was caused by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the State Division of Highways. As they (Engineering Division) previously stated, the one access can handle the traffic. Mr. Gesley felt it was not a practical answer to have the emergency vehicles coming through the pedestrian right-of- way--another access would be preferable. Member Macevicz declared that the San Diego Gas & Electric Company is serving the public and that they should concede to the extension of Finch Street since it is the best access from the south. Chairman Rice indicated his feeling that the best second access would be the extension of Finch Street and that there should be some way of working this out. MSUC (Macevicz-Putnam) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following conditions: 1. A southerly point of access be made by extending Finch Avenue across the San Diego Gas & Electric Company easement. 2. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 700 block of Third Avenue - 455' south of J Street on the west side of Third Avenue - Construction of a U. S. Post Office building - R. A. Kin~/U. S. Post Office Dept. Associate Planner Lee submitted a plat noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He also submitted a large scale plan of the proposed building noting the access points, parking layout, and loading docks. He stated he discussed the proposed traffic pattern with the City Traffic Engineer, and as a result the staff is proposing a revision. They show 38 parking spaces which is based on 2 spaces for each service window and one space for each 5 feet -10- 2/16/70 of post office boxes; this is in addition to the 218 spaces to be used for employees and vehicles. The staff's plan shows 40 spaces and a holding lane on Third Avenue which they feel will be adequate during most hours. As for the architecture, the staff feels this is very institutional and adds little to the architectural development of the area. Some landscaping is shown on the plan, and this will be worked out with the staff. Mr. Lee added that the staff is recommending approval based on several conditions which he reviewed with the Commission. Chairman Rice suggested that reasonably mature and large trees and shrubs be used in this landscaping, in view of the large building and site. Member Macevicz inquired as to the adequacy of the driveway area for the large semi-trucks that will be coming in with the mail. Mr. Lee stated that the plan proposes 12'; however, it probably should be 15' and the staff will discuss this further with the Traffic Engineer. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard King, Real Estate Officer for the Post Office Department, stated they would be pleased to have some ideas as to the architecture--he personally feels they could do better. His engineers have proposed lO' wide parking stalls, which they prefer rather than the 9' stalls proposed by the staff. He asked for the staff's proposed traffic pattern plan to present to his staff. As to the undergrounding service condition, Mr. King stated they have no objec- tion and they will also go along with the solid material for the crash gates. They will submit a landscaping plan to the staff; they want to make it as attractive as possible. Member Stewart questioned the adequacy of the parking area for the patrons. Mr. King declared there is never adequate parking around a post office at Christmas time. There are peak times, but the parking proposed should be enough for daily patron use. The Commission then discussed with Mr. King the number of mail trucks using the accesses and the hours they will be coming into the lot. Mr. King remarked that the present post office building in the Civic Center area will be closed. Associate Planner Lee discussed the traffic congestion in the area. He stated that Fourth Avenue is presently widened to L Street and will be widened in the County later on. Further to the south, it will merge with Third Avenue; therefore, the anticipated through traffic will be decreased a great deal on Third Avenue. Mrs. Jacqueline Thomas, 367 Kearney Street, asked if Kearney Street will be petitioned for opening at such time in the future that the facilities will be expanded. Member Adams indicated that in his opinion no such approval would be granted. -ll- 2/16/70 Member Stewart remarked that they should realize that the City at this time cannot adhere to binding themselves to anything so definite. Mrs. Frances Wladecki, 745 Garrett Street, stated she has waited for 20 years for Kearney Street to open up, as she is forced to walk four blocks to the bus stop. She then questioned the hours of the arrival and departures of the semi- trucks. Mr. King answered that the majority of the trucks will be coming in at approxi- mately 6 a.m. or later. There being no further comment, either for G.r against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission determined that the testimony and staff comments were sufficient to make a determination of approval of this request. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Approval of the conditional use permit for a post office building, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking landscaping and architecture of the building shall be subject to Planning staff approval. 2. The existing and proposed utilities shall be undergrounded. 3. A 5-foot concrete block wall shall be constructed on all property lines adjoining an R zone, including the westerly property line, this wall to be extended along the side property lines to the front planters on the north and south property lines. (Note: The Chula Vista Fire Department has noted that crash gates as shown on the plan are not necessary.) 4. Any fence visible from Third Avenue shall be solid and of a decorative material. 5. All planters shall be enclosed with a compatible masonry material. 6. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent residential zones or use. 7. Speciman size trees shall be utilized wherever feasible, as determined by the City Planning staff. 8. Third Avenue shall be widened to City Engineering specifications using a 32 foot wide section from center line to curb along the Third Avenue frontage. 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 location is close to the geographical center of Chula Vista, a desirable location to provide good service for the entire community. -12- 2/16/70 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. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. All regulations and codes will be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agendy. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - Both sides of H Street in the 300 block - from R-3 and C-C to C-O and also a chan~e of setback as required by the C-O zone - Commission initiated Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a location map noting the area concerned, the adjacent land use and zoning. The hearing has been called to consider rezoning from R-3 and C-C to C-O for certain properties located between Third and Fourth Avenues on H Street, and a consideration of a change in setbacks of these lots, which presently range from 5' to 30', to the setbacks required by the C-O provisions of the zoning ordinance. The General Plan designates this area as High Density Residential while the proposed revision places it in a Professional and Administrative category. Based on the existing uses and trends in the area and the H Street Study conducted in 1968, the staff is recommending approval of the C-O zone, and that the setbacks be established as required by this zone. Mr. Manganelli noted one parcel zoned C-C which has been included in this proposal for Commission consideration of the change of zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. - Mr. Ernest Schnepf, Bonita, owner of some parcels in this area, stated that in the past he attempted to get commercial zoning for those properties from Glover west to Shasta Street. At that time the staff stated they were in pursuit of some other type of zoning for this area. As to the present consideration of C-O zoning, Mr. Schnepf declared he would prefer to have his property remain in the R-3 category. If the need arises, he can always apply for a variance to have a building put in there. Mr. Manganelli remarked that use variances are now prohibited by ordinance; however, the applicant can apply for a conditional use permit if he desires to put apartments in the C-O zone. Mr. Schnepf, 1135 Eucalyptus Avenue, brother of the former speaker, asked that the property not be rezoned; he feels it would be worth more as R-3. Mr. Andy Henry, Casselman Court, owner of a lot in this area, spoke in favor of the rezoning. He added a change of zone to C-O would increase the value of the properties along this street. -13- 2/16/70 Mrs. Josephine Correnti, owner of property in the area, asked that it be placed in the commercial zone, as H Street is a very busy street and the entire block should be zoned commercial. Mr. O'Connell, 368 H Street, stated he is happy with the zoning as it presently exists. Mr. Woodall, 389 H Street, stated he was in accord with the rezoning. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Putnam stated he was in favor of the C-O zoning; he felt this was the best zone for this block. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Macevicz-Adams) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-70-C to City Council the Change of Zone from R-3 and C-C to C-O for both sides of H Street in the 300 block, and a Change of Setback as required by the C-O Zone Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the area as very high density residential, the proposed revision to the Plan classifies the area as Professional and Adminis- trative, the equivalent to the C-O zone. b. More than half of the acreage of the area is already improved with uses permitted in the C-O zone. c. The H Street Study, approved in 1968 by the Planning Commission, recommended C-O zoning for this property. d. The deletion of this area from the Building Line Map will permit a more equitable method of establishing uniform minimum front yard requirements. This will be accomplished by permitting the C-O provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to establish the setbacks. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - 409 Telegraph Can~on Road - Request permission to construct and operate a restaurant business with ihcidental beer and wine in a C-N Zone - Anthons & Kitts Raso Associate Planner Manganelli submitted a plat noting the area concerned, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property is zoned C-N and a conditional use permit is required for the sale of beer and wine as an accessory use to the sale of food. There is one reservation pertaining to this request and that is the parking. Originally, this center was developed under the old parking requirements; under the new ordinance, the spaces required would be more-- there is already a parking problem in this center. The City Attorney has advised that the staff cannot require the new standards so the staff has no choice but to ignore the problem. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -14- 2/16/70 Mrs. Kitty Raso, 373 Third Avenue, the applicant, stated the reason for this re- quest is to open another restaurant at this shopping center since the majority of the deliveries are made out in this area. Although she charges 50¢ for a delivery, it does not cover the cost of paying a delivery boy to make this trip several times a day from her Third Avenue location. Mrs. Georgia Barnicle, 394 Fourth Avenue, spoke in favor of the request. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams discussed the parking which he agreed was inadequate for the type of business going in; however, the parking was approved some time ago under the old zoning requirements. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Approval of conditional use permit. 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. This is a desirable location due to its relative isolation from residential areas, and yet its good access on both collector and major street. 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. Because of the separation, there will be no detrimental effects. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. All regulations and codes will be complied with. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan is not affected. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Kingswood Subdivision~ Units 1 and 2 - Request for reduction in exterior side yards from 10' to 0 for a fence and from lO' to 9' for a buildin9 - Robinho~d Homes~ Inc. Associate Planner Lee submitted a map noting the location of the area concerned, the adjacent land use, and zoning. This is a development of attached single- family dwellings. These units are oriented toward the side yards and have patios in the side yards. When a corner lot is developed, the amount of open space for use in the exterior side yard becomes limited. Mr. Lee noted the eight lots requested for the setback reduction and explained that the fences would observe -15- 2/16/70 the front yard requirements, therefore avoiding creating a traffic hazard in this area. On Lot #28 (southeast corner of Bishop Street and Friar Place) the applicant is requesting an exterior side yard setback reduction to 9'. Mr. Lee noted that the width of the rear one-fourth of this lot is reduced because of the configuration of Friar Place. The staff is recommending approval of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Boeker, representing Robinhood Homes, Inc., stated that they are in agreementwith the staff recommendations. With the granting of this request, they feel it would provide better patio areas. He added that he wishes to compliment the staff, Engineering Division and City Attorney for working dili- gently with them in this matter. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Adams-Putnam) VAriance request be approved subject to the condition that the area between the sidewalk and the fence, where it would be at the property line, be filled with concrete to City standards. a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. For construction of fence: A hardship exists in attempting to apply exterior side yard requirements to this housing concept. For construction of building: Because of street configuration, the rear portion of Lot #28 in Unit #2 is limited to a width of 34' or less. 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. For construction of fence: This variance will apply to all corner lots in the subdivision, and a similar variance was granted to another subdivision in the area. For construction of building: No other lot in the vicinity has a similar prob- lem, this is the only lot that the rear portion of has been reduced. 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. For construction of fence: No traffic hazard will be created and there will be no other detriment to adjacent owners. For construction of building: No traffic hazard is created by the slight encroachment and open space in the setback area will not be materially affected; there will be no detrimental effect. -16- 2/16/70 d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. Request for waiver of underground utilit~ service - 135 Jefferson Street Associate Planner Manganelli referred to the staff report which stated that the applicant is requesting this waiver for a proposed duplex construction in an R-3 zone. The existing utilities are at the rear of the lots in this sub- division. In the future if all the utilities here are undergrounded, they will be relocated in the street. It would not be reasonable to require undergrounding to existing overhead facilities only to have the new lines relocated when all facilities are undergrounded. The San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the Pacific Telephone Company agree with this request. The staff is recommending approval. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Approval of the request for waiver of the underground utility service at 135 Jefferson Street. Approval - Granfield's Hilltop Drive Annexation Associate Planner Manganelli submitted an area map noting the properties concerned. Two single family lots are involved. They requested annexation so that they may utilize the City sewer. The Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the annexation; the staff recommends approval. MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the Granfield Hilltop Drive Annexation. Imperial Truck Lines, 621L Street Mr. Herbert Young, 873 Riverlawn Avenue, stated a variance was granted to John Wanders several years ago for permission to operate a trucking business at 621L Street. Since that time this business has increased considerably. Mr. Young asked the Commission for a review and modification of this variance. Associate Planner Manganelli stated the use variance was granted to Mr. Wanders in 1962 subject to a few conditions. The City Attorney advised the staff that this matter could be set for hearing, if the Commission wished, so that the Planning Commission could review this business operation because of complaints received from neighborin§ residential areas. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) This matter be set for hearing for the meeting of March 16, 1970. -17- 2/16/70 Resignation of Member Putnam Member Putnam informed the Commission that he has submitted his resignation to the City Council effective February 17, 1970. He expressed his appreciation to the Commission and the staff in working with them and stated he is leaving this position with regret. He is moving to Sonoma, California. The Commission agreed that it was a privilege working with him. Hilltop & Naples Shopping Center Chairman Rice stated that some landscaping in this center on both the east and west sides has been removed. He felt some type of control should be instigated whereby the City would be assured that this type of thing would be replaced, once it is artibrarily removed, or that some firm action be taken against them. Associate Planner Lee stated he would check this out. Workshop Meeting The Commission agreed that the next workshop meeting should be held on Wednesday, February 25. Mr. Manganelli stated he would inform the Commission as to the place and time of the meeting. Petition bs Service Station Owners Associate Planner Manganelli referred to a petition by service station owners asking for the removal of all miscellaneous signs on service station sites. The Commission directed the staff to set this for hearing to consider inserting these recommendations into the Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Rice adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. ?~spectful ly submitted, ~dennie M. Fulasz, Secretar~/