HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/01/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
January 12, 1977
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, Starr, Pressutti, R. Johnson and G. Johnson. Absent (with previous
notification): Commissioner Renneisen. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson,
Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Work Lippitt, Assistant
Fire Chief Longerbone, City Attorney Lindberg and Secretary Mapes.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a
moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (R. Johnson-Starr) The minutes of the meeting of December 27, 1976 be approved
as mailed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman called for oral communications and none were offered.
~-- CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Chandler advised that the three items on the consent calendar would be
approved by one motion unless a request for discussion was made prior to the motion.
1. Consideration of request for vacation of easement at 625, 627, 629 and 631
Gretchen Road
2. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements on D Street at
the rear of 124 Minot Avenue - Mabel Lovell
3. Consideration of request for extension of time on variance PCV-75-22 for use
of a commercial coach as temporary office for boat sales in
I-L-P zone at 910 Industrial Boulevard - Peter Aardema
MSUC (R. Johnson-Pressutti) The three requests on the consent calendar be approved
in accordance with the recommendation in the report to the Commission.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-76-T - Prezoning and rezonin9 1.63 acres located at 1049
Third Avenue to C-T and R-3 - Robert Eerebout
Director of Planning Peterson advised that the westerly 23' of the property at 1052
Del Mar is the area being considered for rezoning from C-T to R-3 in order that it
may be incorporated into a multiple family development proposed for that site.
The area considered for prezoning is just north of that lot and includes frontage
on Third Avenue. It is recommended that the Third Avenue frontage be prezoned C-T
to a depth of 187 feet to correspond to the depth of commercial zoning on property
-2- January 12, 1977
directly to the south within the city limits. The easterly 433 feet of property
would be prezoned R-3 and would take access from Del Mar Avenue. An application
for annexation of the property to the City of Chula Vista has been submitted and
an Initial Study conducted by the Environmental Review Committee resulted in a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact. At this time development plans
for the property proposed for annexation have not been submitted.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jim Patten, 580 Third Avenue, representing the applicant, expressed agreement
with the proposed rezoning and acknowledged that development of the property would
require construction of a drainage system at the developer's expense.
As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Starr-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative
Declaration on IS-76-109 and the findings stated therein, the proposed prezoning
and rezoning of property will have no significant adverse impact on the environment,
and certifies the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (Starr-G. Johnson) The Commission recommends to the City Council the rezoning
of the westerly 23 feet of 1052 Del Mar Avenue from C-T to R-3 and the prezoning
of property at 1049 Third Avenue to C-T and R-3 based on findings as stated in the
report to the Commission.
5. Consideration of boundaries of Eerebout Annexation
Director of Planning Peterson noted it is the Commission's responsibility to
determine if the proposed annexation is a logical extension of the city boundaries.
He reported that the various city departments have indicated there would be no
problem in providing service to the site. He asked that the Commission approve
the annexation boundaries and authorize the staff to file the application with the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
MSUC (Pressutti-R. Johnson) The Commission approves the boundaries of the proposed
Eerebout Annexation and authorizes the staff to file the application with LAFCO.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of request for conversion of 9arage to real
estate office at 635 Telegraph Canyon Road in the C-C-P zone-
Bickel and Dodson
Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of a ½ acre lot fronting on
Telegraph Canyon Road, zoned C-C-P, and presently developed with a single family
residence and a detached garage. The applicant proposes to convert the garage
into a real estate office, with access from Telegraph Canyon Road and provision
for four offstreet parking spaces. Mr. Lee reviewed the proposed conditions relating
to trimming of trees and shrubs to provide adequate traffic sight lines, signs and
fences. It is recommended that the Negative Declaration of environmental impact
be certified and a recommendation for approval of the site plan subject to the five
conditions, be forwarded to the City Council.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Peterson noted this is a minimal
conversion to a commercial use and at some time in the future the entire property
may be redeveloped to a more intense commercial use. The site will be affected by
the reali§nment of Telegraph Canyon Road.
-3- January 12, 1977
Commissioner Smith pointed out that this area is designated on the General Plan map
as a residential category.
Mr. Peterson acknowledged that fact and pointed out that the text of the General Plan
indicates that some commercial uses may be located in areas not so designated on the
General Plan map. This property was zoned for commercial use in the County prior to
being annexed to the City.
In response to a question raised by Commissioner G. Johnson with regard to the swimming
pool located on the property, City Attorney Lindberg advised that is not a matter
for consideration by the Planning Commission; the Building and Housing Department will
require the appropriate fencing of the pool.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Bickel, applicant, questioned the amount of paving to be constructed along the
north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, since the condition states lO0 feet in leng%h but
does not specify the width. He asked if this would require removal of some of the trees.
Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt indicated it would probably require an
8 to l0 foot width, and that the applicant would be required to furnish the design.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative
Declaration on IS-76-115 and the findings stated therein, the proposed precise plan
with have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and certifies the Negative
Declaration.
MS (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of
the precise plan for conversion of a residential garage to a real estate office at
635 Telegraph Canyon Road, subject to the conditions and based on the findings as
stated in the staff report.
The motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Starr, Pressutti and Chandler
NOES: Commissioners Smith, R. Johnson and G. Johnson
ABSENT: Commissioner Renneisen
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that the determination to be made by the Commission
in this instance was not one of appropriateness of zoning, but of approval or denial
of the precise plan. While there is a responsibility to keep the zoning and General
Plan in conformity, the General Plan is to serve as a substantial guide to development
in the community, but as explained in the Planning Department report the demand for
absolute conformity is not present either under State law or local ordinance.
Mr. Peterson suggested that the Commission may wish to reconsider and continue the
request until there is a full Commission present, or it may be forwarded to the Council
without a recommendation.
Mr. Bickel was asked for his preference as to continuing to the next Commission or going
on to the Council. He indicated there was some urgency in timing and he would prefer
that it be presented to the Council as soon as possible.
Chairman Chandler advised that an appeal may be filed within a 10 day time limit.
-4- January 12, 1977
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-76-26 - Fun-4-All family amusement
center, 950 Industrial Boulevard in I-L-P zone - Sadler & Welch
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-77-2 for development of
property at 950 Industrial Boulevard in I-L-P zone - Sadler & Welch
Chariman Chandler advised that the public hearings on these two related items would be
conducted simultaneously.
Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that the approximately 80,000 square feet
parcel in question, located at the corner of Industrial Boulevard and I-5 freeway,is
presently vacant. The site is surrounded by industrial uses. The plans include a
35' x 50' building for indoor games and office facility, a baseball batting cage
enclosed with mesh, measuring 140' in diameter and 36' high at the center pole, a
miniature golf course, a designated area for future installation of trampolines, and
parking area for 30 automobiles. The applicant has also negotiated an agreement for
50 additional parking spaces on the adjacent lot for evening, week end and holiday
overflow parking. Mr. Lee noted the importance of emphasizing the landscaping in order
to buffer the site on all sides.
Mr. Lee called attention to the conditions recommended under the conditional use permit
for operation of the amusement center, and the requirements for improved site design
under the precise plan.
The Chairman opened the public hearing in consideration of the conditional use permit
and the precise plan.
Clint Sadler, partner in the project, questioned the requirement for installing curb
and sidewalks along the entire frontage. He felt that a sidewalk to the driveway
entrance would satisfy the needs of their patrons. He indicated he would prefer no
parking on the west side of Industrial Boulevard from their driveway to the freeway
onramp.
Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised they would check on the need to
install red curb to eliminate parking adjacent to this site. He felt the sidewalk
should be installed, as in all cases, in conjunction with the development of the property.
Alan Welch, partner, questioned condition 4 which requires installation of a 20,000
lumen street light. He reported that their project itself will be well lighted with
flood lights and ground lights, and felt they should not be required to install a street
light south of the project.
Mr. Lippitt advised that the requirement was the recommendation of the Traffic and
Lighting Engineer based upon the lighting in the area and the anticipated use. He
indicated he had no basis for recommending deletion of the requirement.
Mr. Welch asked if, in the event the conditional use permit and precise plan are
approved subject to the recommended conditions,there would be a possibility of
obtaining some deviation from those conditions at a later date.
City Attorney Lindberg advised that if the request is discussed with the staff and
just cause is shown for modification of the conditions, such request can be submitted
to the Planning Commission for consideration.
-5- January 12, 1977
Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that lighting in the amusement center should
- be sufficient for the area, and that the staff should be in a position to discuss
possible modification of some of the conditions.
Mr. Lippitt pointed out that any new development is normally required to put in public
improvements to standard city specifications.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that in accordance with the
Negative Declaration on IS-76-110 and the findings stated therein, the proposed
amusement center Will have no significant adverse environmental impacts, and certifies
the Negative Declaration.
MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the
Planning Commission approves conditional use permit PCC-76-26, subject to the six
conditions enumerated in the report.
MSUC (G. Johnson-Starr) Based on the findings stated in the staff report, the Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the precise plan PCM-77-2
for development of property at 950 Industrial Boulevard in the I-L-P zone, subject to
the conditions enumerated in the staff report.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of zonin9 text amendment PCA-76-11 relating to
freestandin9 siQns in the C-N District
Director of Planning Peterson noted that the sign regulations for C-N Districts allow
a freestanding sign for each lot, commercial complex, or building designed for occupancy
by more than one business. Since some neighborhood shopping centers are composed
of more than one lot, they would be permitted more than one freestanding sign.
The City Council expressed concern over the proliferation of signs in these small
centers and referred the problem to the Planning Commission for suggestions and
possible amendment of the Code.
An amendment as recommended by the staff would allow one freestanding pole sign for
each neighborhood shopping center consisting of one parcel or contiguous parcels.
He advised that such a sign could be used to identify the name of the center and up
to 4 tenants, or for 5 tenants within the center.
Commissioner Pressutti asked what effect this would have on the sites which presently
have more than one sign.
City Attorney Lindberg pointed out that since no abatement clause is included in
the amendment, such signs would simply become nonconfo~ning, thus becoming subject to
removal if the business identified ceased operation or there was a change in land use.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jack Blakely, owner and operator of Blake's Restaurant at the College Estates Shopping
Center, pointed out that the existing sign at that center advertises only the 7-Eleven
store, and he feels there is a need for an additional sign to identify the other six
shops in the center. He contended that the building is set too far back from the
street for the signs on the front of the shops to be easily read from the street. He
asserted that those shops are on separate, individual lots from the 7-Eleven store and
adoption of the proposed amendment would preclude having an additional sign.
-6- January 12, 1977
City Attorney Lindberg discussed recent legal rulings concerning the merger of lots
held under one ownership and developed as a complex. If the proposed amendment is
adopted, it would be the responsibility of the owner or lessor to determine equitable
signage for the center and its tenants under the restrictions of the ordinance.
Mr. Peterson corrected the statement by Mr. Blakely, noting that the shopping center
is in fact one lot under a single ownership with separate leases.
Norton Randall, representing Bollenbacher and Kelton, owner of the property developed
with the College Estates Shopping Center, advised that under their lease agreement
with the 7-Eleven store that sign can be removed when a sign for the entire center
is approved. He pointed out, however, that the Standard service station also has a
freestanding sign at this same site and if the 7-Eleven sign were removed the Standard
sign would be the only one that could remain.
Commissioner Starr pointed out that a service station sign needs to be at the exact
location of the service station, whereas a shopping center sign might be more suitably
located on another part of the site. He felt that in a neighborhood shopping center
the service station sign should be an exception , so as to allow for a separate sign
for the service station and one additional sign for the center.
Mr. Peterson advised it would be possible to draft an amendment which would allow a
separate sign for service stations in the C-N zone. He felt consideration should be
given as to whether such a sign should be 25 feet high and lO0 sq. ft. in area, or
if it should be a smaller, ground monument sign.
Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that the traffic is slower in the area of a
neighborhood shopping center and he felt the sign for a service station in a residential
area should be very controlled.
Commissioner G. Johnson noted that the purpose of the neighborhood shopping center is
for the convenience of the neighborhood and the residents know what businesses are
there.
Doris Sykes, office manager for Century 21 realtors, one of the tenants at the
College Estates shopping center, expressed the need for additional signing since some
of their patrons indicated they had not been aware of that location.
Noble Gay, owner of the shopping center complex at the northeast corner of Melrose and
Orange, reported he has the potential of 7 businesses at that center, in addition to
the service station site which is under separate ownership. He felt that each
business in a center should be able to display its name on a freestanding sign and
that tenant identification should not be limited to 5.
Gil Bettencourt, owner of "Interiors and Things" at College Estates Shopping Center,
reported that despite their advertising, people call and ask where they are located.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that a number of problems have not been
solved by the proposed ordinance. These relate to more than one owner of a site and
to the need of separate identification for service stations.
The Commission generally concurred that not every tenant could be included on the
freestanding sign of a neighborhood center. It was pointed out that signing becomes
particularly difficult when a center is developed in phases. It was suggested that
the hearing be continued for further study of the problems.
-7- January 12, 1977
MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The public hearing in consideration of an amendment relating
· to freestanding signs in the C-N District be continued to the meeting of February 23,
1977.
10. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Zoning text amendment PCA-76-10 - Relating to provisions
of P-C zone
Director of Planning Peterson reported that the public hearing in consideration of
an ordinance relating to periodic review of General Development Plans under the P-C
zone was continued from the meeting of December 13, 1976 with a request that staff
prepare a resolution to be adopted by the City Council to govern the consideration
of development proposals during the review period. The proposed resolution sets
forth the findings which would be required to be made in order to approve develop-
ment proposals when a revision of the General Development Plan is under consideration.
Those findings include conformance with the adopted General Plan and with the
revised General Development Plan being considered.
Mr. Peterson suggested that the proposed one year limit of review period be changed
to a limit of 120 days.
Commissioner Smith felt the review period should be kept as short as possible since,
in effect, it acts as a moratorium on development during that period. He suggested
that the actual review to determine the need for a revised plan could be completed
in as little as two weeks, although the hearings for adoption of the revised plan
by the Commission and Council would require additional time.
'Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing.
Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, noted that a General Development
Plan is under almost constant review with consideration of development plans for
various area within the plan. He acknowledged that the total density approved for
the original plan of E1 Rancho del Rey is unrealistic and pointed out that study
and discussions are presently being conducted to determine what open space areas
should be preserved. He contended that once the developer is locked into a commitment
for public improvements, such as major streets, sewer system and drainage facilities,
it would not be feasible to substantially change the development to be allowed.
He also pointed out that the time schedule for development must be based on market
demand, and that the development schedule of a large P-C area will vary more than for
small areas. He also acknowledged that a change in market demand could also require
a change in the type of housing to be constructed in order to comply with the demand.
Commissioner Pressutti suggested that what is needed is a periodic report on the
progress of any P-C project and at that time any particular concerns or recommendations
could be presented.
Mr. Peterson concurred that would be a good idea and the decision left to the Planning
Commission and Council as to what action should be taken.
MSUC (Starr-Smith) The Commission recommends to the City Council that no change to
the ordinance be adopted to require a scheduled review of a General Development Plan
under the P-C zone, since review is an integral part of processing developments within
-- a P-C area, and revisions or modifications to the General Development Plan may be
considered at any time.
Commissioner Pressutti suggested that an annual report on the status of such projects
would be beneficial.
-8- January 12, 1977
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Peterson reported that the Council has scheduled a conference for
January 20 at 4:00 p.m. to consider multiple family development and discuss the
Growth Management Program proposed by San Diego. The Council asked that the Planning
Commission and Environmental Control Commission be invited to attend that conference.
Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission of the League of California Cities 1977
Planning Commissioners' Institute to be held in Los Angeles, February 2-4, noting
that January 21st is the last date for preregistration. The Commission budget
provides for five Commissioners to attend this conference.
Commissioner Starr advised that he found last year's institute to be helpful and
would be interested in attending again if less than five other Commissioners desire
to go.
Commissioners Chandler and Pressutti indicated they would not be able to attend.
Mr. Peterson also commented on the study session to be held on January 19th and
indicated it could be a dinner meeting if the Commissioners desired. The Commission
expressed concurrence with meeting for the study session at 5:00 p.m. and adjourning
for dinner at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Smith pointed out that the problem was again encountered on tonight's
agenda of nonconformance between the General Plan and the zoning of a particular
property. He recalled his previous suggestion that the entire city be examined a
portion at a time for the purpose of bringing the zoning and General Plan into
conformance.
Director of Planning Peterson advised that General Plan amendments would again be
considered in April. The issue of conformity will be examined at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
R~spectfully submitted,
Helen Mapes, Secretary