Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/03/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 13, 1974 The 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: Macevicz, Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Wilson, Floto and Starr. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Deputy City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1974 be approved as mailed. Chairman Macevicz welcomed new Co~issioners Starr and Floto, and announced that item 9 on the agenda, report on proposed revisions to sign ordinance, is not a public hearing and no testimony will be taken from the floor. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Annual report on office use of residential structure in C-O zone, Russ-Mar Development Corp., 703 Third Avenune 2. Consideration of request for 6 month extension on Conditional Use Permit C-68-12, First Assembly of God Church, 395 D Street. MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Items 1 and 2 be approved in accordance with recom- mendations in the staff report to the Planning Commission. 3. Consideration of adoption of EIR-74-1, Hilltop Terrace Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that the letter from the consulting geologist, referred to in the staff report, was just received on this date and placed before the Commission this evening. This report only indicates the location of the Sweetwater Fault and the inactivity of the small fault located on the site. It is recommended that the Environmental Impact Report be adopted with the requirement for additional acoustical protection in the development of the Visitor Commercial site, if deemed necessary upon review of the Precise Plan. MSUC (Rudolph-Wilson) Environmental Impact Report EIR-74-1 for Hilltop Terrace be adopted in accordance with the staff recon~endation. -2- 3/13/74 4, PUBLIC HEARING: ~, uest ¢o~ reduction of re uired L~~~chen Current Planning Supervisor Lee indicated on a plat the location of the lot which extends from Gretchen Road to J Street. Similar variance requests to place a 6' fence at the property line adjacent to J Street were approved for the properties adjacent to this lot in order to provide privacy in the rear yard. Mr. Lee reviewed the condition recommended for approval of the variance. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was opened; as no one wished to speak the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Rudolph expressed the opinion that the fence is warranted but she felt some landscaping is possible and is desirable at this location since J Street is included in the Scenic Highway Element. She suggested some type of vine which could be trained to the fence. Commissioner Rice also felt there should be at least minimum landscaping to soften the effect of the fence; he suggested low maintenance ground cover. Chairman Macevicz felt that almost 225 feet of straight, on-the-line, 6' high fence does not lend aesthetic appeal to the area. He suggested that the fence be set back a foot or so to break the solid line. MSUC (Wilson-Floto) Variance request PCV-74-3 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed fence shall be constructed with the same or similar materials as the two adjacent fences. 2. Approval of this variance shall constitute an agreement between the applic- cant and the City allowing the City to relocate the fence when the widening of East "J" Street is accomplished. 3. The design of the proposed wall or fence to be constructed before and after the widening of East "J" Street shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator to insure compatibility with adjoining walls or fences. 4. Plans for appropriate landscaping and irrigation between the fence and the street shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. Findings are as follows: a. A 3-1/2 ft. high wall or fence will not permit privacy of the rear yard area due to the difference in elevation between the property and "J" Street. b. Present subdivisions are required to erect a 5' to 6' high wall at the rear of double frontage lots. c. No detrimental effects will result from the granting of the request. -3- 3/13/74 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-74-3~ request to construct 7 handball/racquetball courts~ locker and shOwer facility, offiCe and ~ro shop at 35 Third Avenue~ cabrillO Invest- me'nt Associa"tes for South Bay COU~t Club Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported this is an unclassified use which may be permitted in the C-O zone with a conditional use permit. He indicated on a plat the location of the irregular shaped lot containing approximately 1/2 acre. He pointed out the 30' slope which separates this property from the adjacent residential lots. A portion of this slope is not on the applicant's property and although it is very steep it appears to be stable. No conditions could be imposed on the applicant for the offsite portion of the slope. Mr. Lee called attention to the proposed conditions and to the recommendation to waive the requirement for a zoning wall along the R-3 zone boundary line since it would serve no purpose adjacent to the high slope. Commissioner Starr noted that the operation is to be open until 10:00 p.m. and asked if the building will have operable windows or will be air conditioned. He expressed concern over the noise which might come from the activity during the evening hours. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Gary Hofman of Cabrillo Associates, 10867 Hijos Way, San Diego, in answer to Commissioner Starr's question, reported that the building will have no windows except for some glass at the entrance way. With thick concrete walls no noise should come from within the building. He described the fully modern, air conditioned recreational facility which they would install. Commissioner Chandler asked what treatment is proposed for the long westerly wall, or if landscaping would be installed to screen it. Mr. Hofmann indicated they have not determined what construction techniques will be used; it may be concrete block construction with plastered walls, or it may be tilt-up concrete. He indicated their willingness to conform in any reasonable way to architectural design in the area. They will use some wall finish other than a plain gray concrete wall. He also expressed concurrence with all conditions recommended in the staff report. Frank Sipan, 335 Kimball Terrace, reported that he is speaking for his parents and for neighbors who, as long time residents of the area, object to the intrusion of this type of activity, which he felt does not conform to the purpose of the C-O zone. He complained of traffic noise by people leaving the bar located further to the west on Third Avenue Extension, and to the noise from game activity at General Roca Park. Director of Planning Peterson advised that this type of facility is listed in the Unclassified Uses section of the Zoning Ordinance and the Co~ission has the discretion to allow it at this location. Gary Hofmann reported that with 7 courts there would be a maximum of 15 or 16 players at one time; if each came separately there would be 15 or 16 cars. He felt this amount of traffic would not be heard above the normal traffic of Third Avenue and that the people who come to play handball would not create any disturbance or undue noise. -4- 3/13/74 Mrs. Herb Davies, 309 Sea Vale, reported that her property is the closest to the proposed building and she could see no objection to this type of facility. She felt it would improve the appearance of Third Avenue Extension to have the vacant lot developed. She recommended that the requested use be approved. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Rice-Wilson) Conditional Use Permit PCC-74-3 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the staff and the added requirement that the applicant submit for staff approval plans for architectural treatment of the westerly wall of the building. Approval is based on the following findings: a. The proposed use will provide a needed and desirable recreational facility for the northern Chula Vista area; it will contribute to the general well- being of the community by expanding the choice of recreational activities available to the general public. b. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The facility is on a major street; the building is entirely enclosed; and the nearest residential unit is 30 feet above and 200± feet away from the building. Provided adequate slope erosion controls are applied, the use will not result in a hazard to property or improvements. c. Under the conditions outlined in this report, the project will comply with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. d. This use is "unclassified" and as such, is allowed in the C-O zone by a conditional use permit. It will not, therefore, adversely effect the General Plan. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ PCZ-74-D~ property at 614-682 Second Avenue from R-1 to R-1-P Director of Planning Peterson reviewed past considerations for the rezoning of this area on the west side of Second Avenue, between I and J Streets, including the recommendation by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1973 that the property be rezoned from R-1 to R-l-15 based on the desire to fore- stall individual requests for variances to develop portions of these rather deep lots without the required street frontage. The Council did not adopt the rezoning as recommended and referred the question back to the Planning Co~ission to consider rezoning to R-l-P, which would require the approving of all development plans. Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that an R-1-P zone could produce the desired results, but felt it would be a long term, piecemeal kind of development. He displayed a plat and discussed the only two logical access points from Second Avenue in order to reach a cul-de-sac street to be located between Second Avenue and Del Mar. This would be dif- ficult to !mplement if not all of the property owners wished to participate at the same time. -5- 3/13/74 In response to questions from the Commission, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens advised that if the proposed street is put in under a 1911 Act procedure, the property owners who dedicate larger areas of land for the street would be compensated accordingly in the distribution of the cost of improvements. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bertha Alicia Diez de Bonilla, 629 Del Mar, submitted a petition signed by the owners of nine properties on Del Mar in protest of construction of a road at the rear of their lots; they wish to retain the privacy and security which they now enjoy by having the deep lots between Second and Del Mar. Hector Gonzales, 629 Del Mar, also spoke against permitting a new road to be constructed which would allow 13 new dwellings in the area. He felt the people on Del Mar would suffer from a rezoning which might benefit the people on Second Avenue. Henry J. Diaz, 639 Del Mar, expressed opposition to putting in only half of a street at the rear of the lots. Tom Money, 316 "I" Street, representing the Money family who own the property at 674 Second Avenue, pointed out that their property is included in the proposed access road, which added to the required street right-of-way at the rear, would require about 10,000 sq. ft. of land. He felt this would work a hardship on them, particularly if they were the first to develop an additional lot and were required to put in the public street improvements. Elsa O'Neill, 682 Second Avenue, reported that she was very pleased at the Com- mission's recommendation to rezone the property R-l-15, and that she and three other property owners who would have supported that zone change were not notified of the public hearing at the City Council level, and consequently, were not present at that hearing to express their views. She felt the area should not be redeveloped unless it was done as one project. Robert Gillig, 660 Second Avenue, advised that a little over a year ago he requested a variance and at that time tried to interest the residents of Second Avenue and Del Mar Avenue in developing the back of the properties. At that time there were not enough people interested in doing so and he no longer feels it worthwhile. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission expressed the opinion that piecemeal development of individual lots would not be desirable and that redevelopment should occur when the property owners will participate in putting in a public street to serve the rear portion of all lots fronting on Second Avenue and Del Mar between I and J Streets. It was determined the Commission has the discretion to recommend that the City Council change the zone to R-l-15 which is a more restrictive zone than the R,1-P zone for which the hearing was advertised. MSUC (Chandler-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council that the property at -- 614-682 Second Avenue be rezoned under application PCZ-74-D from R-1 to R-l-15 in accordance with the previous recommendation from the Commission. -6- 3/13/74 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-74-4~ request for reduction of required ~arking at 645 H Street~ Victor Halmaghi Director of Planning Peterson displayed a site plan of the existing C & R Shopping Center complex and pointed out the location of the proposed cocktail lounge for which the request for reduction in parking stalls from 53 to 23 is submitted. He advised that after careful analysis of the conditions, the staff is recommending approval of the request based on the determination that the available parking exceeds the demonstrated need, the peak hours of parking use for the cocktail lounge would not coincide with the peak hours of the retail establishments in the center, and the existence of a reciprocal parking agreement between the owner of this center and the adjacent Stag and Hound Restaurant. He explained that one of the reasons for the lower demand for parking is the fact that C & R Clothiers utilize large floor area for display and therefore the ratio of parking stalls to floor area as required by ordin- ance is higher than the need at this center. He called attention to the tables set forth in the staff report which indicate a total of 99 parking spaces would meet the needs of this center with the addition of the cocktail lounge. Mr. Peterson reviewed the recommended conditions for approving this request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Lapin, attorney, llO West A Street, San Diego, speaking for the owner of the shopping center and for the applicant, asserted that his own checking of the site affirms the present low demand for parking. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Rice, Mr. Lapin indicated that the only sign required by the applicant would be a name sign mounted on the mansard roof. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rice felt it should be pointed out to the applicant that no identification on the freestanding sign would be permitted under the regula- tions of the Zoning Ordinance. MSC (Rudolph-Rice) Variance request PCV-74-4 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Employee parking shall be restricted to the parking area at the rear and behind the westerly building. At least 12 spaces shall be marked "employees only" in this location. 2. An acceptable method of turnaround shall be provided at the northwest corner of the property prior to the issuance of a building permit for the cocktail lounge. 3. Parking shall be adjusted along the north portion of the building to provide for adequate pedestrian access between vehicles. 4. Any change in use or hours of operation within this shopping complex is subject to staff review and approval to determine whether or not the pro- posed changes create a need for additional parking. An agreement to this condition shall be prepared by the City Attorney's office and signed by the owner of this property prior to the issuance of any building permits. -7- 3/13/74 Findings are as follows: a. The existing land uses in this center do not generate the need for the amount of parking required by ordinance. b. Peak hours for the cocktail lounge probably will not coincide with peak hours for other uses in the center. c. The adjacent land uses meet the parking requirements of the ordinance. In addition, the shopping complex has a reciprocal parking agreement with an adjacent property which should accommodate any potenetial overflow during peak hours. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Rudolph, Rice, Wilson, Chandler, Starr and Floto NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None The meeting recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan Director of Planning Peterson reported this is one of the recently enacted State requirements for City General Plans. There are two possible types of scenic highways: Official state scenic highways, which involve considerable effort not only by the City but by the State as well; or unofficial local scenic highway plans that designate certain streets within the City as scenic highways. This element requires that property adjacent to the scenic highway be subject to detailed site plan review and the developer of property along the scenic highway would be required to submit a plan for the beautification of the right-of-way along his development. There should be continuity of the landscaping along a scenic highway so that it would not vary with each development. Mr. Peterson advised that San Diego Gas & Electric Company has requested a clarification of the policy relating to utilities and it should be indicated that the reference to "utilities' on page 5 of the Element does not require the undergrounding of major transmission lines. Chairman Macevicz pointed out that in the first paragraph on page 4, reference is made to the remaining portions of "H" Street and this should be corrected to read "J" Street, which is discussed in that paragraph. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Hutchison, Wilsey and Ham, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, representing E1 Rancho del Rey property, commented that nearly half of the designated scenic highways shown on the plans are within the lands owned by E1 Rancho del Rey. He discussed the guidelines for designating scenic routes which would apply to official State Scenic Highways. He felt that under this criteria such routes as I-5 and 1-125 should be designated, rather than the local streets, such as "H" and "J". Carmen Pasquale, representing E1 Rancho del Rey, asked that this public hearing -8- 3/13/74 be continued to afford them additional time to study the report and make a formal presentation to the city on their opinions and suggestions. Director of Planning Peterson advised there is no immediate urgency in the adoption of this element as it is not required to be adopted until September. He pointed out, however, that the City does not intend to pursue the kind of program that Mr. Hutchison discussed, since neither I-5 nor 1-805 are designated as scenic highways in this portion of the San Diego area. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) The public hearing for consideration of the Scenic High- way Element be continued to the meeting of April 24. 9. Report on proposed revisions to sign ordinance Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the existing sign ordinance provisions were adopted by the City Council about 3-1/2 years ago. The pro- visions require the abatement and removal of nonconforming signs based on an established amortization schedule, which ranges from a few months up to 10 years, depending on the value of the sign. When notification of the abatement schedule and its application to each sign in the City was sent to all businesses, protest was raised by the Broadway Association, who then submitted their own proposal for a draft of a sign ordinance, which was presented to the Council. The staff does not support that draft, but did prepare a new draft of sign provisions in an attempt to make them more acceptable to the businessmen. Subsequent meetings with the Downtown Association and Broadway Association revealed further objections from the Broadway Association. The staff feels that by present day standards the latest draft is very liberal. Mr. Peterson reviewed briefly the major provisions of the existing sign ordinance and the proposed revisions, and called on Current Planning Supervisor Lee to present slides of existing signs. Mr. Lee discussed the slides presented pointing out the signs which are in conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance and those which are nonconforming. Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion that the signs as shown on the slides bear evidence that the proposed sign ordinance will provide adequate identification to all types and sizes of business facilities, and further that signs which are disruptive are not an asset to the business or the business community as a whole. Commissioner Rudolph commented on the proposed increase in permitted window signs from 10% to 20% of the window area. She pointed out that in buildings where most of the front facade is a glass window, 20% of the area will result in an undesirable amount of signing. Commissioner Floto felt 20% is not excessive and expressed the opinion that the ability to use window advertising can be a big asset to many businesses. The Commission discussed the difficulty of determining What is identification and what is advertising if a sign includes the product handled by the business. -9- 3/13/74 Commissioner Starr asked if the staff would determine how a city like Camel, with a very sophisticated sign ordinance, handles window signs or special sale signs. Mr. Peterson indicated that will be done. Commissioner Wilson asked about the City of LaMesa's sign ordinance, which was either thrown out by the court or abandoned by the City Council. Mr. Lee indicated the staff will check on that. Commissioner Rudolph asked about the provision in the current ordinance that service station signs shall be posted with the correct price at all times. Mr. Lee reported that all service stations have recently been advised of this requirement, and if the price is not posted the sign should be removed. Deputy City Attorney Beam discussed at considerable length the approach of grandfathering existing signs, whereby they are allowed to remain as long as the existing tenant or user of the sign is in business, as opposed to amorti- zation which establishes an abatement schedule for the removal of nonconforming signs. It was pointed out the grandfather clause eliminates an economic impact on existing businesses but also leads to inequities when the standards for new signs are more stringent than previous standards. Director of Planning Peterson advised that Council action taken on the preceding night directed the Planning Commission to consider two things: First, the question of amortization versus grandfathering; and further, that in recom- mending a sign ordinance an attempt be made to minimize the amount of staff discretion involved in review of signs. He felt the proposed sign revisions have done that and the only area in which staff discretion remains has to do with design, which is difficult to define or standardize. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) A public hearing to consider revised sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be set for April 10, 1974. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission of a special Council meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 14th, for a presentation on redevelopment procedures. The Planning Commission is invited to attend the meeting. Mr. Peterson also called attention to the forms distributed for filing the information required by the Moscone Bill. These are to be filed with the County Clerk, but may be turned in to the City Clerk who will deliver them to the County. Mr. Peterson asked the Commission's desire concerning a dinner meeting for next week. Although Chairman Macevicz cannot be present for the meeting, it was the consensus that the workshop be scheduled for 5:00 p.m. followed by dinner at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Rudolph asked if agenda items for the workshop have been set. Mr. Peterson indicated this would include a review of alternative site plan concepts for townhouse developments, and a second item would be a comparison of Chula Vista's General Plan with another city's general plan. -lO- 3/13/74 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rudolph reported that she and Commissioner Wilson have been attending meetings of the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force Committee and things seem to be moving along. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Macevicz adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary