HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/10/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
October 4, 1976
A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was
held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present:
Chandler, Smith, Pressutti, Starr, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Also present:
Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Planning Supervisor Lee, Associate Planner
Crowley, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam,
and Secretary Friedrich.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No oral communications were offered.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Chandler advised that the consent calendar items would be approved by
one motion without discussion unless a request for such discussion was made prior
to action by the Commission.
1. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements on rear of
165 Second Avenue - Michael LoCicero
2. Consideration of request for modification of conditioQ of conditional use
permit PCC-76-12 for expansion of church facility at 301
E. Palomar - Palomar Church of Christ
MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) Items 1 and 2 on the agenda be approved in accordance
with the recommendations in the staff report with a correction in item 1, B2, to
change $14,000 to $4,000 'to coincide with the itemized list at the bottom of the
page.
REGULAR CALENDAR
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-76-18 - Request to install freestanding sign
on 50' frontage lot with reduction of sideyard setback for
placement of si~n from 10' to 3' in C-C zone at 575 "H" St.,-
Dol~as & Cook
Planning Supervisor Lee reported that in the C-C zone the property owner is
required to have a minimum lot frontage of 100' before they are allowed a free-
standing sign, and therefore the applicants' are applying for a variance. In
addition, the ordinance requires a setback of 10' from the side property line, the
applicants are seeking a reduction to 3'. He pointed out that this property has
a 50' lot frontage and a common driveway with Taco Bell adjacent to the west.
He went on to explain that this business was on "H" Street, where the lot sizes
and commercial depth is more in keeping with the C-T zoning which allows free-
-2- October 4, 1976
standing sign on 50' frontage, at a ratio of 1 sq. ft. for each foot of frontage.
Under C-T zoning they would be allowed a maximum size sign of 50 sq. ft. for this
lot. Mr. Lee went on to mention the size of the building involved and the existing
signs presently located on the building. He reported that the narrow building
configuration created an identity problem for the tenant and that the staff supports
the sign variance if a pole sign can be erected near the southwest corner of the
property. Mr. Lee stated that based on standards relating to the speed of cars,
the sight distance involved and the width of "H" St., that 8" to lO" high letters
would be a minimum that could be placed on the sign and still be an effective
sign. Therefore no more than two businesses should be identified on the sign,
with a third identified on the building. Mr. Lee stated that the department had
recommended approval subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff report.
Mr. Lee reported that he had received a letter from Morris Plan, one of the tenants
indicating that they are requesting a continuance due to the fact that they were
not notified by the landlord and that they wish to seek legal council, he went
on to say that the staff had no objection to the continuance. Morris Plan is the
present tenant of the building and the variance is contingent upon the removal of
the present Morris Plan sign, if this cannot be accomplished staff would not
recommend installation of a freestanding sign. This proposal requires cooperation
between the two parties, or at least the owner in his renegotiations with Morris
Plan, must require them to remove the present sign and relocate-on the proposed
freestanding sign.
Commissioner Pressutti asked Mr. Lee what the difference would be visually if
the Morris Plan sign were placed on the freestanding sign also, with maybe less
footage in the present Morris Plan sign.
Mr. Lee explained that staff felt that only 2 tenants could properly be identified
on a 50 sq. ft. sign, and that the other tenant could properly be identified with
a wall sign on the east and west sides of the building.
Mr. Pressutti asked for clarification of the sign standards.
Mr. Lee explained that the maximum sign area set forth in the thoroughfare area
for a commercial zone, is one sq. ft. of sign area per foot of frontage, therefore
with 50 ft. of frontage they would be allowed 50 sq. ft. He went on to discuss
the problems with identifying 3 tenants on one sign with 10" letters and with
the length of names involved. It would be very difficult to identify 3 businesses
on that size sign.
Discussion ensued regarding changing of tenants and the sign on the building, the
height of the sign and the changing of the sign itself.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Doctor ,Dolgas, P.O. Box 699, Chula Vista, passed some photographs' of the building
to the Commissioners'. He spoke of the difficulty of identifying the business
already in the building and that he had a letter from the owners of the property
guaranteeing that they would have the present tenant remove their non conforming
sign and attach it to the approved sign if the variance were granted.
Dr. Dolgas went on to point out the differences between the sign proposed by the
applicant and the one that staff proposed, and stated that he would like to
request an increase in area size, from 50 sq. ft. to 60-65 sq. ft.
Discussion ensued regarding the frontage of the buildings on either side of Morris
Plan building and the signs involved.
-3- October 4, 1976
Fran Berger, Pacific Sign Construction, commented on the area of the sign, the lettering
involved, and the signs in the area, and the fact that the length of the sign would have
to be either 8 or l0 feet because of a lighting problem.
Wallace Southhall, manager of Morris Plan, stated that they are in the process of
negotiating a new lease with the owner of the building, and that they are requesting
a continuance because they have only just learned of the plans of the new tenants of
the building and would like time to study them.
Assistant City Attorney Beam advised Mr. South~allthat the City is not forcing Morris
Plan to remove their non-conforming sign without their consent, and that the new
tenant could not do anything to their sign withoQt their voluntary cooperation.
Mr. Lee confirmed what Mr. Beam stated, but added that the owner may, in negotiation of
their new lease, tell the tenants that he is going to erect a new sign, and that
they may either be identified on the sign or on the building.
Discussion ensued in regard to Morris Plan's relationship to the variance request,
the removal of the Morris Plan sign, ownership of the Morris Plan sign and the
problem that has arisen because of no communication between the tenants and the owner.
They also discussed the clutter of signs on "H" St., and the frontage of the businesses
on either side of this piece of property, and the possibility of one business being
identified on the sign and one on the building.
Mr. Lee stated that the staff concluded that it would be better to have both of the
signs tied together rather than in separate containers, if there were to be two signs.
The Commissioners discussed the needs of the tenants and the square footage of the sign,
what was visually pleasing and the justification of a 60-65 foot sign.
Dr. Cook asked the Commission for guidance in regard to the area of the sign and what
would be acceptable to the Commission.
Dr. Dolgas explained what they wanted in sign size.
MSC (R. Johnson-Starr) The public hearing for consideration for a variance to install
a freestanding sign on a lot with 50' of frontage and a reduction of sideyard setback
for placement of sign from 10 feet to 3 feet in the C-C zone be continued to the
meeting of October 25, 1976.
The applicants were advised to get together with the other tenant to work out an
agreeable solution within the next 10 days so that the Planning Department may
advertise for the public hearing, also, if there are any changes to get in touch with
the City staff.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ PCZ-76-N - three parcels at 327 "L" Street from R-1
to R-3-P-15 - Peter F. Desser
Associate Planner Crowley pointed out the surrounding zoning and land use, and the
difficulty involved in rezoning this property to R-3. Due to the narrowness of the
lot and the existing undersized dirveway which cannot accommodate the additional in-
crease in density.
Commissioner R. Johnson abstained from discussion and voting on this item as he lives
in the area.
-4- October 4, 1976
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Peter Desser, 327 "L" Street, described the adjacent area and that his neighbors
had no objection to his plan, and that the plan conformed to the Chula Vista
General Plan. He stated that the driveway on the property couldn't be widened
because of the location of his house. He also stated that he owned property at
274 Madrona with a 50 ft. wide lot frontage and had constructed 8 units 6 years
ago.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Desser if the cars coming out of this property came
out frontwards or backed out.
Mr. Desser stated that the cars coming out of his driveway came out frontwards
by virtue of a circular drive.
Mr. Ed Lawson, J. H. Hedricks Co., spoke in favor of the applicants proposal.
Mr. Don Learned, owner of the property near the corner of "L" Street, near the
service station, stated that he was also in favor of the applicant'splans.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed the constraints regarding the single family dwellings
to the west, zoning walls, and the requirements of the fire department in regard
to the width of the driveway. The Commission was informed that a zone change had
been applied for in this area by other property owners, the Planning Commission
recommended approval but they were subsequently denied by the Council.
Mr. Desser, spoke to the problem of fire protection, and the location of fire
,~" hydrants in the area close to his property.
Mr. Crowley pointed out that the requirement for the Fi re Department is for access
for their equipment not just the proximity of available water supplies.
In answer to Commissioner Starr's question, Mr. Desser stated that he had just
remodeled the house on the property and would not consider demolishing the house.
Mr. Starr asked staff if the applicant could apply for a variance to the 15 ft.
width driveway and the Fire Departments requirements.
Mr. Williams advised that he could not speak for the Fire Department, but this
kind of a variance might eventually affect the City's fire rating.
MSC (Starr-G. Johnson) Based on the findings as stated in the staff report, the
Commission denies the rezoning PCZ-76-N - three parcels at 327 "L" St., from R-1
to R-3-P-15.
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Starr, G. Johnson, Pressutti, Chandler
NOES: Commissioner Smith
ABSTAIN: Commissioner R. Johnson
The applicant was advised that if he wished to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission, he should do so within 10 days of this date.
-5- October 4, 1976
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): PCZ-76-B - Rezonin9 property at 720, 740, 751 Dora
Lane from R-I-H to C-O-P, Community Hospital of Chula Vista
Assistant Director of Planning Williams infon~ed the Commission that there had
been some discussion with the applicant and that they may ask for a continuance.
Assistant City Attorney Beam stated that he and Mr. Lippitt talked to the
applicant and that the applicant needed time to comply with the conditions of the
staff report.
As this was the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
As no one wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The public hearing for consideration of rezoning
the property at 720, 740, 751 Dora Lane and a precise plan (Item #6) for
convalescent hospital medical offices and related facilities on the property
be continued to the meeting of October 25, 1976.
7. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of tentative map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit No. 5
Supervisor Lee mentioned that this item had been continued several times, and he
briefly described the project. He also described the various changes on the map
and explained the conditions set forth in the staff report, and the development
standards.
Mr. Lippitt addressed the problem of stop signs at every corner, the reason
for extending J Street to the fault line, and the assessment district.
He also spoke of the problem of lots fronting on Paseo del Rey.
Mr. Lee commented that he had spoken to the applicant about the landscaping program
of the knoll as you enter the project, the staff has recommended that the knoll
not be left native but be scarified and planted with an ornamental material,
about 5~ acres. He stated that the staff would work with the developer in coming
up with more drought resistent materials for the area.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Lee about the staff's feeling regarding the
lot widths in the cul-de-dac areas of the development.
Mr. Lee advised that there was adequate room for parking in the cul-de-sacs now
that only one lot in each cul-de-sac was below 35' in width.
Mr. Smith queried the staff regarding the assessment district and monies involved.
As this was the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
James Ashbaugh, CEP Associates, 5555 Magnatron Dr., representing the applicant
reported that he was limiting his comments to the conditions in the staff report.
He stated that they were generally in agreement with the conditions but would
like to go through and explain a few at this time and request certain deletions.
Item B la - Requires the deletion of four lots. However, the reason these lots
were there was because Douglas St., was now extended through. He noted the
accesses to the park and off-street parking can be accommodated with the lots as
submitted.
-6- October 4, 1976
Item Blg - Requires that lots not front on Paseo Del Rey. However, with
the introduction of Douglas St. the number of lots fronting on Paseo Del Rey
has been reduced and the developer still prefers lots fronting Paseo del Rey.
Item B 5 - Required that "J" Street improvements be extended easterly, to the east
side of the fault zone. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that this small piece of "J" Street
could easily be installed when the developments going in further east extend into
this section.
Item B 6 - ~equired installation of a traffic signal at Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo
del Rey. i;Ir. Ashbaugh felt that some percentage of the allocation of that cost
could go to adjacent property owners for the installation of the signal.
Item Bll - Stated that the applicant will provide the improvements on Telegraph
Canyon Road extending to the boundaries of the existing development to the east.
It was indicated that the applicant agrees to this per condition 18.
Item B 12 .- Requires the improvement of private access for the church, it doesn't
seem appropriate to provide improvements on someone else's property.
B 15 - Sets forth the requirements for walls. However, an alternative for land-
scaping for those lots as part of the open space district would seem appropriate.
Item B 16 c - Mr. Ashbaugh noted that type II plantings should be required for
Lot B and on the slope to reduce maintenance costs.
ile went on to say that the other conditions had been discus:sed with the staff,
that they have submitted a sketch for "T" Type driveways which can be incorporated
as part of the development standards.
Mr. smith queried Mr. Ashbaugh about the assessment district to be formed for this
subdivision.
Mr. Carman Pasquale advised that he had discussed this with the staff and Council
on setting up an assessment district and they had come up with a time schedule
which calls for a report to go to Council in February 1977. At that time they
should have a good idea regarding the assessment district. If the assessment
district does not go then they will go ahead, probably on a reimbursable basis,
then if other developers come in and receive the benefits of what they have put
in they will be assessed at that time.
Mr. Lippitt concumedwith Mr. Pasquale in the fact that it was thought by the
Engineering staff that there would be an assessment district formed.
Discussion ensued regarding the signal at the corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and
Paseo del Rey, the cost and the priority system of the City, and the addition
of signalization to be included in 18 a and b of the conditions required by the
City.
Eugene Coleman, 1670 Gotham St., asked about density of the project if the "H"
Modifying District were applied.
Mr. Ashbaugh stated it was 343.
Mr. Coleman then asked the commission to require the developer not to open "J"
street until construction was done.
-7- October 4, 1976
Mr. Pasquale stated he had no objection to that request, but that it should have
been required of the developer to the west of this project.
Sandra Johnson, 586 E. "J" Street declared that she also was opposed to the
opening of "J'~ Street at this time.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed the masonry, wall at the top of the slope on the lots
adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Pressutti and seconded by Commissioner R. Johnson that
they recommend to the City Council that the Statement of Overriding Considerations
and Tentative Map for E1 Rancho del Rey Unit No. 5, PCS-76-6 be approved. The
tentative map shall be considered as a precise plan for development, according
to the conditions as listed in the staff report. The vote was taken after the
amendments to the main motion.
MS (Smith-Starr) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to delete
condition B la. The motion was defeated by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Starr, Chandler
NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Pressutti, R. Johnson
ABTAIN: None
Discussion ensued regarding the deletion of the lots.
Mr. Pressutti made a motion to delete one of the lots along Douglas Street. The
motion died for a lack of a second.
MSC (Smith-Starr) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to modify
condition Blg to not eliminate the lots fronting on Paseo del Rey, but to conform to
~hesecond portion of the paragraph regarding "T" type driveways.
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Start, Chandler, R. Johnson, Pressutti
NOES: Commissioner G. Johnson
ABSTAIN: None
MSC (G. Johnson-Smith) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to
delete condition 5, the extension of J Street easterly to the east boundary of
the fault zone.
The vote was as follows, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Smith, Chandler, R. Johnson & Starr
NOES: Commissioners Pressutti
ABSTAIN: None
MSC (Pressutti-Smith) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to delete
part of condition 6, which states "Developer shall be responsible for the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Paseo del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road,
or shall place with the City an appropriate surety for its eventual construction,"
and incorporate this into condition 18 a and 18 b.
-8- October 4, 1976
The motion carried by the following vote~ to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, Smith, Chandler, G. Johnson, Starr
NOES: Commissioner R. Johnson
ABSTAIN: None
MSUC (Smith-Starr) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to delete
condition 11, the developer shall submit a plan with a potential use and develop-
ment of that parcel of land bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road, and the westerly
boundary of the fault zone and the westerly boundary of the SDG&E easement and
westerly boundary of Windsor Views Subdivision.
MSUC (Smith-G. Johnson) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to
delete condition 12, the developer shall improve the private access road from
Paseo del Rey south of Lots 12,13, and 14 to the subdivision boundary.
MSUC (Pressutti-Starr) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion to
modify condition 6 c, to include the provision for an option to use drought
resistent plantings, on Lot B only.
Commissioner Pressutti made a motion to include in condition 18 a the extension
of "J" Street. After discussion, Mr. Pressutti withdrew his motion.
MSC (Smith-Pressutti) It was moved and seconded to reconsider the motion on
condition B 1 a, regarding the deletion of lots 8 through 11. The motion was
made to retain the lots.
The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES. Commissioners Smith, Pressutti, Starr, Chandler
NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson
ABSTAIN: None
MSC (Smith-Starr) It was moved and seconded to amend the main motion by removing
item B 1 a, from the conditions proposed by staff.
The motion carried by the following vote; to-wit:
AYES: Commissionem Smith, Starr, Pressutti, Chandler
NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson
ABSTAIN: None
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) It was moved and seconded to adopt the main motion
as amended, incorporating all the amendments as proposed.
The motion carried by the following vote; to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Pressutti, R. Johnson, Chandler, Starr,
G. Johnson , and Smith
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Nome were presented
-9- October 4, 1976
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Director of Planning Norman Williams reminded the Commissioners that
there would be a Planning Commission meeting on October 18th, concerning the
General Plan Amendments at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Smith asked the other Commissioners to think about changing the day
of the Planning Commission meeting from Monday back to Wednesday. Chairman
Chandler expressed his feelings that the staff might also be affected. Commissioner
G. Johnson stated that she could not make it on Wednesday night.
Planning Supervisor Lee introduced Associate Planner Patrick Crowley to the
Commissioners.
Commissioner G. Johnson commented that she would like for the Council to look
into the parking requirements for medical facilities.
Planning Supervisor Lee stated that the staff could look into parking standards
for medical facilities and bring back a report at some later date.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
Kim Friedrich, Secretary