HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1970/01/26 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
January 26, 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, Stewart, Adams, Chandler,
Macevicz and Putnam. Also present: Associate Planner Manganelli, Associate
Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Approval of the minutes of special meeting of
January 12, 1970, as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - 178 Third Avenue and 176-190 Landis Avenue -
R-3 to C-T - Castle Plymouth, Inc.
Associate Planner Manganelli outlined the request for rezoning as shown on the
application and advised that prior to the meeting the applicant had requested
the withdrawal of the portion designated as parcel 2, which outlined three lots
at 176-190 Landis Avenue. Discussion and consideration will, therefore, be
limited to parcel l, which is 100' X 265', extending from Third Avenue to Landis
Avenue. Mr. Manganelli pointed out the land use and existing zoning of
surrounding properties, and advised that the General Plan designates property
in this area with frontage on E Street as Thoroughfare Commercial for an inde-
terminate depth and the rear of this frontage as high density residential.
Mr. Manganelli outlined conditions which the staff recommends be applied if
rezoning is granted, including the requirement of a precise plan for the
development of this parcel.
Mr. Manganelli then read a letter of protest submitted by Milton O. Vest, Jr.
and Mary M. Vest which pointed out the undesirable effect on the residential
neighborhood of the expansion of commercial use to this property and contending
this would be detrimental to the welfare of residents in the area.
Mr. Manganelli also noted receipt of a letter of protest from T. J. Sessions
and Lorna F. Sessions, opposing rezonin9 of the lots fronting on Landis Avenue.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gus Pappas, attorney representing Castle Plymouth, Inc., stated that the
applicant is receptive to the guidelines set forth by the staff which would
include a 6' decorative wall along the north property line and adjacent to
Landis Avenue on the west, and limiting ingress and egress to Third Avenue and
E Street. They would ask that the condition of a block wall along Third
Avenue not be imposed as this would deprive the lot of its value for the
display of automobiles. They were also in agreement with the requirement for
landscaping, including a sprinkler system, within the setback areas.
-2- 1/26/70
Mr. Charles B. White, ll8 Landis Avenue, stated he had purchased and lived
at that residence since January, 1947, and it is his observation over the
past 20 years that a good automobile agency secures an adequate plant for
the sale of their product; he felt the location at Third and E was not
adequate and its expansion into the residential area would be a hardship
on the residents. He pointed out they have in the past been subjected to
disruption of traffic by the unloading of cars from vans on Landis Avenue.
Mr. Gathe, 216 Landis, owner of a duplex at that location, protested the
expansion of this type of commercial use in this area. He enumerated other
uses on Landis Avenue, which include a pharmacy, doctor and dental offices,
and a mortuary; these he considers good professional uses and in keeping
with the General Plan for the area. He felt the trend in most progressive
cities is to move the automotive business to the outskirts, and he felt
Chula Vista should not sacrifice good residential property for heavy
commercial use. He also referred to the noise and inconvenience of unload-
ing trucks on Landis Avenue.
Mr. Clifford Huber, administrator for Fredericka Manor, reported that their
board members at a recent meeting instructed him to attend this meeting and
remind the Commission that through the years they have been very careful in
the disposition of their property as to how it would be used. He referred
to the bank at the corner of Third and E and to the Prudential Insurance
offices as a desirable type of use for the area. FrederickaManor is clearing
additional area with the same forward looking attitude, and would not wish to
see the automobile agency expand its use in this area. He spoke of Fredericka
Manor's own plans for expansion, which hopefully would include multi-story
buildings which would overlook the area in question.
Mr. Milton Vest, 174 Landis Avenue, appeared, expressing the same comments
contained in his letter read earlier. He commented that the lot in question
has been the biggest eye sore in Chula Vista in the past with junk cars
sitting there for months.
Mr. John Keeley, 4461W. Talmadge Drive, San Diego, owner of the property
just north of the subject property, stated he had purchased the property with
the plan of putting ten units thereon, but it is difficult to interest
lending institutions in developing such property next to a garage. He then
supplied photos to the Commissioners which depict the undesirable appearance
of the property under consideration with cars lined up across the back of the
property. Some of the cars are also parked on Mr. Keeley's property, which
is vacant. He feels it will not be possible to develop his property if the
tenants would be looking down on a car lot or repair garage. He felt this
facility should be encouraged to move to another location where they could
expand without encroaching into residential property.
No others wishing to speak, either for or against, the public nearing was
declared closed.
Member Putnam raised a question concerning the ownership of the property under
consideration and it was determined this is owned by the same landlord from
whom Castle Plymouth leases their facility at the corner of Third and E.
-3- 1/26/70
Member Adams expressed his misgivings about the expansion of this automobile
agency in this location. He believes this is the wrong place for an automo-
bile agency and that this location is entitled to a better grade of develop-
ment, and felt the objections raised by the residents and by the people of
Frederic~ Manor were valid.
Member Stewart expressed opposition to the rezoning because it is an intrusion
into the residential area and adjacent property owners would suffer if this
construction was imposed on the community. He further expressed the feeling
that the area occupied by Castle Plymouth is not adequate and they should
seek another location.
Chairman Rice commented that while he normally favors increased commercial
depth, he thought the trend has been set for E Street, and it is pretty well
limited as to where commercial development may take place; expansion at this
location is not appropriate with the surrounding area. He also commented on
the undesirable appearance of this lot in the past and that the practice of
unloading cars on a residential street is objectionable.
Member Adams commented that the illegal use of this lot for car storage should
be stopped.
MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Application for rezoning of 178 Third Avenue be denied.
Reasons for denial are as follows:
1. A commercial use would intrude into a residential neighborhood.
2. Additional requests for commercial zoning in this residential area
would be encouraged.
Chairman Rice advised the applicant of his right to appeal to the City Council
within l0 days.
MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Rezoning of 176-190 Landis Avenue to C-T be denied
without prejudice.
Chairman Rice suggested that the staff make a study of the area along E Street
in this vicinity and make recommendations as to the zoning.
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 368 Fourth Avenue - Request for reduction of
front Nard from 20' to 12' - MEDPAR, a limited partnership
Associate Planner Lee explained that this reduction of front yard is requested
to permit construction of a cedar wood screen fence across the property to be
used as a parking lot. A variance was previously granted on the adjacent property
occupied by Doctor's Park for construction of a fence near the driveway.
This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened.
-4- 1/26/70
Mr. Fred Michaud, property manager for Southern California First National
Bank, 530 B Street, San Diego, advised that the proposed fence would be a
continuity of the existing fence at the front of Doctors' Park. The
purpose of the fence would be for screening and for security. He further
stated it is their intention to place a 4' chain link fence between the
existing residence to the south and the parking lot. The rear of the parking
lot would be left open.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was
declared closed.
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Approval of reduction of front yard from 20' to 12'
at 368 Fourth Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The area between the curb and sidewalk shall be filled with concrete.
2. The proposed fence shall be harmonious with the existing fence to the
north.
Findings for approval are as follows:
a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
It would be a hardship to require a 20' setback when the existing portion
of Doctors' Park has been built at a reduced setback.
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.
Some existing setbacks in the area are close to the requested setback,
and some areas have reduced their setbacks with a variance.
c. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the
Ordinance or the public interest.
This variance would provide for development at the same aesthetic standards
as the existing facilities at their reduced setback, therefore, there will
be no detrimental effect.
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.
-5- 1/26/70
PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zonin9 Ordinance - Regulation of signs in the
C-B Zone
Associate Planner Lee outlined briefly the work of a sign committee composed
of downtown merchants working with the planning staff to develop a sign ordin-
ance which would serve their needs and provide the city with reasonable controls
and regulations. They were concerned with drafting an ordinance which would
encourage good design and have included in the proposed ordinance requirements
for maintenance, removal of obsolete signs, amortization of non-conforming
signs, and architectural compatibility of sign supports.
Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that there are six separate commercial zones
and this proposed sign ordinance is for the Central Business district only.
Sign ordinances for the other commercial zones are being drafted and will be
presented at a later date. Although the Central Business zone has not been
attached to a particular area as yet, it will apply principally to the
businesses along Third Avenue.
Associate Planner Lee then covered the provisions of the propose~ ordinance,
and enumerated changes suggested as a result of the most recent meeting with
the sign committee. These changes include a simplification of the amortiza-
tion schedule to require removal within 90 days after adoption of the ordinance
of any sign valued at $200.00 or less; also abatement within 90 days of any
flashing, animated or moving portions of any sign; all other signs would have
a 5 year abatement period.
Another provision to be resolved by the Commission would be the maximum
projection for double-faced signs, and whether or not roof signs would be
permitted.
The public hearing was opened and the chairman called for comments or questions
from the audience.
Pauline Flynn, owner of Singin'Sinners, commented that she had been told the
Committee and staff are aiming toward eliminating the beer signs in windows.
Associate Planner Lee advised that the ordinance provides that 20% of the
window may be occupied by signs and there is nothing written into the
ordinance to prohibit what is advertised as long as the sign does not exceed
20% of the window space.
Jack Harper, Harper's Music Store, 266~ Third Avenue, expressed appreciation
to the Planning Department for permitting the merchants to work with them in
developing this ordinance. He stated it was their desire to keep Third
Avenue from being a forest of signs, but still allow the merchants to identify
themselves. He declared he did not think a 5' projecting sign would be to
the benefit of most business along Third Avenue as they have too many 10, 15
and 20 foot store fronts and if everyone had a 5' projecting sign they would
obscure each other. He felt a 2' projection might be too small and probably
something between 2' and 5' would be desirable. He expressed the hope that
in the future more parking could be provided at the back of the stores with
the alleys paved and the utilities underground. They could then do more
business from the parking lots in the back and leave Third Avenue available
for through traffic.
-6- 1/26/70
Mr. Harper suggested there are a few places where roof signs would be in good
taste and could be used, but rather than spell it out in the ordinance, he
felt they could be controlled by conditional use permits.
City Attorney Lindberg commented that using the conditional use permit to
evaluate signs is somewhat difficult to uphold because the conditional use
permit is intended to determine whether or not a service or particular use
is necessary and desirable in the area where it is not always easy to pin-
point the particular zone for that use.
Mr. Lindberg also commented on the use of addresses. He felt that people in
this part of the country do not rely on addresses as they do in other places;
it may be advisable to make better use of a street address system than to
rely entirely on signs for identification.
Member Stewart commented on the safety hazard of driving a car and looking for
a business sign. Mr. Stewart also commended the sign committee for their work
with the Planning staff in their attempt to correct the situation on Third
Avenue.
Mr. Phil Creaser, realtor and insurance agent, 406 Third Avenue, reported that
he had come to this meeting as a citizen who did not serve on the committee,
to let them know there is support outside the committee for this ordinance
which is long overdue. He expressed the feeling that the ordinance is fair
and liberal and while it could possibly place a burden on one particular
individual it is not too restrictive. He thought this would be a better
looking city if roof top signs are eliminated; and also that the 5' projection
is somewhat more than is necessary. He commented that people in city govern-
ment have no right to sell the air space, as it has in the past. He has
learned from purchasing signs in the past that no matter what he puts up
somebody else can put up a larger one; in his opinion, this should be
controlled.
Mr. Ken Wessell, Manager of the Leader Department Store, 223 Third Avenue,
stated that he is in favor of roof top signs and feels that on a building the
size of theirs they do need it. Although they have a beautiful sign on the
front of the store people do not seem to see it. Other merchants have advised
him that he needs a sign on top of the building. He displayed to the Commis-
sion a drawing of the roof top sign he proposes. He stated he wished to go on
record as being in favor or roof top signs as long as they are controlled and
in conformance with the building.
Mr. Robert McMains, Standlee's Cake Shop, 279 Third Avenue, spoke of working
on the sign committee and pointed out that the 2' limitation for projecting
double face signs was because of the small space between the buildings. Signs
that stick out 5' block each other; 2' would be ample. He would favor having
roof top signs limited to buildings with 50 foot frontage, and that the sign
be limited to a 10 foot height. If signs are limited to projecting double
face, it creates the situation of each sign blocking another and it appears
as a jungle looking down the street.
The Commission discussed the advisability of taking a field inspection trip
down Third Avenue. It was determined that the most convenient time would be
at 4:30 on Thursday, January 29th, following the regular field trip.
-7- 1/26/70
Member Putnam commented that there were a few ambiguities in the proposed
ordinance where he would suggest clarification. Under section 2 it states,
" .... wall signs should be painted over..."; this should be more explicit
and state "blanked out and obliterated completely." He also requested
clarification on the use of cardboard signs within the building, as to
whether they can be used in the window. He also asked the intention of the
ordinance with respect to signs painted on the window.
Associate Planner Lee advised that a sign painted on the window must comply
with the 20% limitation or be classified as a temporary sign for special
events, such as grand openings, change of ownership or management. Such
temporary signs have a time limit of 30 days.
Member Putnam also asked for clarification of section 10 (a), if the 20% of
the window area applies only to permanent signs or to temporary signs as well.
Mr. Lee stated it was the intention that this apply to permanent signs.
Member Putnam felt the word "permanent" should be included in the wording of
this section. He also commented that under (f) Marquee Si~n, no provision is
made for painting the sign directly on the marquee--would that be outlawed by
this wording, or would it be permitted.
Associate Planner Lee pointed out this is covered by the definition of a sign.
Member Putnam commented that (g) Canopy Sign should be clarified to indicate
6" high rather than 6" wide. He also requested clarification of the area of
copy and area of background when related to a double-face, or multi-sided sign.
Associate Planner Lee pointed out that this applies only to wall signs, which
have only one visible side.
The Commission felt it would be advisable to hold the hearing open until after
their inspection field trip, in the event any merchants or members of the sign
committee might have further comment.
MSUC (Stewart-Chandler) Public hearing pertaining to an ordinance relating
to signs in the Central Business zone be continued to the meeting of
February 16, 1970.
Request for approval of parkin~ plan for proposed Princess Park Shoppin~
Center at northwest corner of Melrose and Orange Avenues
Associate Planner Manganelli explained that this request came in too late to
be included on the agenda or in the staff comments.
Associate Planner Lee reminded the Commission of the discussion at a previous
meeting for the expansion of the proposed shopping center at Melrose and Orange
in a C-N zone. In this zone the Commission is empowered with approving the
circulation within a shopping center development. Mr. Lee displayed the
proposed plan for the development of phase 1 of this center. This plan
included two entrances off Melrose and two from Orange Avenue. It has not
been determined if a left-turn lane would be permitted on Orange Avenue to
allow cars to turn in to this center.
-8- 1/26/70
The plan provides for 345 parking spaces at 90° angle; the area would require
approximately 250 spaces. The Planning staff proposes a plan which would
provide for 320 parking spaces at a diagonal and would also provide for a
main entry way where traffic would not be backed up by cars maneuvering into
parking spaces. He reported that the Traffic Engineer has indicated he would
want the major entry located as far from the intersection as possible, as he
could not allow left turn movement into the center near the intersection. The
Traffic Engineer has indicated that the traffic flow on Orange Avenue will
reach about 31,000 cars a day 20 years from now; this is approximately twice
the number of cars that are travelling on Fourth Avenue at L Street at the
present time.
Mr. Lee commented that the staff is basically opposed to 90° parking at a
shopping center complex. There are no provisions in the ordinance to prohibit
90° parking but Mr. Lee could think of no major shopping center in Chula Vista
that is developed with 90° parking. The staff would like a comment from the
Commission as to whether they favor 90° parking and their feeling concerning
a main entry way for this center.
Chairman Rice commented that he agrees that 90° parking will accommodate
more cars than any other plan and as you increase the angle in diagonal
parking you will get less spaces, but the diagonal parking is the most
efficient as far as moving traffic in and out. He felt that 90° parking is apt
to cause a back up of cars.
Mr. William Nemour of Princess Park Estates, remarked that in the development
of any shopping center the first cry is for parking. The reason they have
proposed perpendicular parking is that their major tenant for this shopping
center, Alpha Beta, has insisted on perpendicular parking; they will not
lease unless they have perpendicular parking. He expressed the belief that
the major entry way should be moved to the westerly edge of this phase of
the development in order to serve future development and to be further from
the intersection. Mr. Nemour pointed out that they are using 10' wide parking
spaces and reasonably wide aisles.
Member Putnam commented that the perpendicular parking used at the Alpha Beta
market at Eighth and Harbison in National City works out very well, with wide
aisles to drive down and the spaces themselves wide enough so there is no
problem at all.
Chairman Rice commented that he would have no objection to 90° parking if
it is a wide aisle and wide space which allows the cars to move in and park
fast; it accomplishes the same thing as diagonal parking.
MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) Approval of the parking plan utilizing 90° parking
spaces subject to the following conditions:
1. The easterly entrance from Orange Avenue shall be moved toward the west
further away from the service station site at the corner.
2. The westerly row of parking shown on the plan shall be eliminated and a
two-way drive provided at that point (minimum 30' width), with a landscaped
strip 7 feet wide extending along the driveway.
3. The interior aisles between rows of parking shall be widened where feasible.
4. All parking spaces shall be 10 feet wide and double striped.
-9- 1/26/70
To be set for hearing - Attachment of "F" Modifsin~ Zone to portion of
Sweetwater Valley in the Bonita Area.
Associate Planner Manganelli indicated on a plat the location of a parcel of
approximately two acres adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course on
the south side of Sweetwater Road on which the City Council had adopted an
emergency ordinance to attach the "F" Modifying District to this R-E zoning.
He advised that the Planning staff recommends attaching the "F" Modifying
District to the entire City portion of the Valley floor within the 50 year
flood area.
MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Hearing on the attachment of "F" Modifying Zone to a
portion of Sweetwater Valley in the Bonita area be set for February 16, 1970.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Macevicz-Chandler) The meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen S. M.apes, Secretary