Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/05/27 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 27, 1968 A regular adjourned meeting was held on the above date at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the following members present: Stewart, York, Gregson, Hyde, Rice and Guyer. Absent: Member Adams (with previous notification). Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Planning Draftsman Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Rezonin~ - Property at the northwest corner of Second Avenue and Palomar Street - R-1 to R-3-B-3 - Aardema and Covin The Secretary read a letter from the applicant asking for a continuance of this matter to the meeting of July 1. Since there was no one present in the audience to speak for or against the matter, the Chairman asked for a motion on the postponement. MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Matter be continued to the meeting of July 1, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - Back of 838, 848, 872 Third Avenue - R-1 to R-3 - G. M. Warwick The application was read in which a request was made for a change in zone from R-1 to R-3 for the five acres of land located west of Third Avenue between K and L Streets (back of 838, 848, and 872 Third Avenue). Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the property is vacant and was recently the subject of a request for rezoning to C-l, which was denied. He discussed the recent Commis- sion action rezoning the area to the north from C-2 to R-3 (south side of K Street); the General Plan designates this area as medium density residential. The area to the west was developed with single-family homes approximately lO - 12 years ago, and this area was left R-1 with the assumption that the streets (San Miguel and Sierra Way) would be extended through for single-family use. The staff can see no reason why R-1 development cannot take place here, but must also recognize the fact that conditions do change over the years. The area is located on two major thoroughfares and is close to the business areas of the city; therefore, multiple-family development on this property can be justified and can be accommodated and developed in a manner that would be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The staff recommends that this property be rezoned R-3-B-2-D which would give the area the property density and design control. The staff also suggests that the Commission adopt a resolution enumerating some guidelines under the "D" zone, which would exclude access from San Miguel Drive and Sierra Way; a condition for a decorative wall; the architecture and materials of the proposed buildings; the recreation area; and the two-story structures being placed no closer than 15 feet from the adjacent single-family use. Director Warren referred to a letter from Mr. Roy Johnson and Armond Stamer in which they recommended adoption of several guidelines before Commission approval. One condition was that the two-story structures should not be placed closer than 125 feet from the adjoining residential properties. Mr. Warren stated the staff's feeling on this is that even in a single-family residential zone, 2-1/2 stories are permitted. The residents in this area have had meetings with the proposed developers in order to iron out some of their problems. He then declared that the Commission should confine their discussion to the proper basic land use of the area, and the staff believes that this basic zoning as modified is good for the area and plans for the development should be submitted to the Commission for approval at a later date. Member Rice Questioned whether access from San Miguel and Sierra Way could be forced at a later date if the applicants sell this property. Director Warren indicated they could not; they would probably be creating a parcel which would be illegal. City Attorney Lindberg stated there were a number of ways they could solve this: The Commission could require the grant deed of a one-foot strip as a condition of zoning since they are attempting to impose a zoning of higher intensity, and the ordinance provides the requirement of dedication improvement in those cases, all of which is intended to alleviate the increase in traffic problems. Chairman Stewart declared that there is a one-foot strip there now and all the City needs to do is to retain it. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. He stated the Commission will hear any comments regarding land use; there are no precise plans before them, and when these plans come in, the people in the area will be notified and they can come in then and comment on the plans. Mr. Phil Creaser, one of the applicants, agreed that the discussion should be confined to the zoning matter. He discussed the conferences he has had with the property owners and stated they are prepared to go along with some of their recom~ mendations, those which parallel the recommendations of the Planning Director. He noted that they own a 37 foot strip on "L" Street as well as an additional 10" strip on "L" Street; they will use this for access as well as the access they have off Third Avenue. Since architect's fees are high, they have not gone into their precise plans and they are requesting that the Commission not be too res¥ictive with them. Mr. Creaser added that there is a good chance, in the future, they will be back to ask for a down-grading of the C-1 zoning to the east to R-3. Mr. Roy Johnson, 351Palomar Street, stated he was spokesman for the group and referred to the petition signed by 56 property owners, submitted to the staff listing eight recommendations for guidelines in the development of this project. The Commission discussed the condition that no two-story or higher structures should be closer than 125 from the residential areas. Chairman Stewart noted that the minimum area between any structure and the property line is 15 feet, and the side yards are 5 feet in this zone. He referred to the Planning Director's condition that all buildings should be placed no closer than 15 feet to the residential areas (west and westerly 120' of the south property lines) whether or not they are side or rear yards. Mr. E. H. Offret, 327 "L" Street, stated the proposed access to this development will be adjacent to his home and he "didn't care to see a highway near his door." There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stewart asked the Planning Director about the recommendation that utility services should be underground. Mr. Warren stated this was a logical recommendation which should be included in the guidelines--this refers to on-site services. The Commission discussed the requirement of the property owners concerning the distance that two-story should be allowed next to the residential area. Chairman Stewart felt it was a good point; however, it would cause an undue hardship on the applicant, and in view of the fact that all zones permit two-story structures, he would not be in favor of this proposal. Member Guyer felt the applicant's request was reasonable. He was in favor of it, since the plans can be reviewed by the property owners. The Commission concurred. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 515 City Council the Change of Zone for Property at the Rear of 838, 848, 872 Third Avenue from R-1 to R-3-B-2-D Findings be as follows: a. While the General Plan designates the area between K and L Streets as medium density residential (4-7 units per acre), the Commission and Council recently rezoned to R-3-D, 2.9 acres of land on the south side of K Street, part of which abuts the north side of the subject property. b. Subject property is close to the business areas of our city and is well-suited to accommodate multiple-family development. c. A density restriction, accompanied by a supplemental "D" zone, is justified, especially in light of the fact that the abutting single-family dwellings side on the subject property while the abutting single-family dwellings on the K Street rezoning backed up to the property. d. If development can be property guided under the provisions of the supplemental "D" zone, multiple-family units can be developed in a manner which would insure compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential use. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to City RESOLUTION NO. 516 Council the Adoption of Certain Guidelines for Multiple-family Development at the Rear of 838, 848, 872 Third Avenue, under the Provisions of the Supplemental "D" Zone Recommend the following guidelines be adopted: 1. No access to the property from San Miguel Drive and Sierra Way shall be permitted, and a one-foot lot shall be retained at the ends of these streets. -4- 2. A decorative masonry wall shall be erected across the easterly ends of San Miguel Drive and Sierra Way, the height, design and materials subject to staff approval. 3. No two-story structure shall be placed closer than 15 feet to the west and westerly 120 feet of the south property lines. 4. Special attention should be given to the west elevations of any two-story buildings along the west property line, in reference to architecture and materials used. 5. Recreation areas shall be oriented away from adjacent residential areas. 6. All utility services shall be underground. Director of Planning Warren stated he would notify Mr. Roy Johnson, the spokesman, when the plans come in for approval. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezonin~ - Property on the east side of Ota~ Lakes Road, ~roximately 1-1/4 miles south of Bonita Road - Request for R-3 (from County unzonedI - Willard Layton The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from County unzoned to R-3, land on the east side of Otay Lakes Road, south of Bonita Road. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the request. He stated the property comprises 55.64 acres of unzoned land on which the applicant proposed to locate a mobile home park. A conditional use permit request for this use is the next item on the agenda. The General Plan places this area in three different categories: 30% to very low density residential, 50% to low density, and 20% to medium density. The topography of this area is quite severe--it is higher than Otay Lakes Road and slopes steeply to Acacia Avenue; both of these roads go down into the Sweetwater Valley area. The staff, however, does not consider th~s property as part of the Sweetwater Valley. The applicant's plan is to accommodate one unit per 9200 square feet of gross land area. Mr. Warren mu~tioned that the Commission would have no control over this once the underlying zone is established. It is difficult to justify R-3 zoning on this property on its own merits. He then reviewed four alternatives for Commission consideration: prezone the property R-l-B-20; initiate adoption of the supplemental "M" zone; list mobile home parks as an unclassified use; or prezone the property R-3-B-4-D. Chairman Stewart commented that the Commission had considered the R-1 zone as a general density range for Southwestern College Estates. Director Warren discussed this with the Commission indicating that they wanted to establish another community oriented around the college. He added that even though the General Plan does not define property lines, when they are considering a high density use, they must consider the area for which it is planned. Mr. Alan Perry, Attorney representing the applicants, Jenkins and Perry, U. S. National Bank Building, San Diego, discussed the request and submitted a chart delineating the zoning in the adjacent areas, as proposed by the General Plan. The applicants state there is a need for a mobile home park in this area of low density; the population demand is such that a facility of this kind is demanded by the needs of the college. He discussed the applicant's other developments in other cities and explained that this one will have 263 units or 4.8 families per gross acre. The General Plan's proposal for low and very low density in this area is generated by the topography and nothing else. Mr. Perry noted that a portion of Bonita Hills No. 1 Subdivision (on Acacia Avenue) will be 400 feet away and the elevation of this development to that will be between 225 feet and 250 feet. This development will not be seen at all by the residents of this subdivision or that of Bonita Bel-Aire. At the present time, the applicant can put in a mobile home here since it is unzoned; however, he believes that the type of project he is proposing needs the Fire and Police protection this city affords. Of the four alternatives offered by the Planning Director, they would ask that the second one be approved-- initiate proceedings to adopt the supplemental "M" zone which should be attached to some form of R-1 zone in order to accommodate this proposal. Mr. Perry commented that it was important that careful planning with city control be involved in this project, and secondly, they would submit a grading plan to the Director of Planning for his consideration. Chairman Stewart asked if the applicants could go ahead with their development under this supplemental "M" zone if the Commission rezoned the property to B-9 density. Mr. Sardagna, designer for Mr. Caster, the developer, stated they now stand at 4.8 units per acre which is based on the gross acreage. Some degree of flexibility could occur and the density could go up as high as 5-1/2. The Commission discussed the applicant's proposal for 4.8 families per acre. Mr. Perry indicated that this was based on gross acreage--which is what the General Plan does. Member York commented that if this was developed as R-l, the Commission would want to zone it with a B-9 or B-12 density because of the topography; however, since a mobile home park is proposed, the minimum lot size would be much smaller. Director Warren indicated that they are proposing a lot size of 3200 square feet to 4500 square feet; however, extensive grading would have to be done to get this. If they went straight R-1 zoning, much of the property would have to remain undeveloped. City Attorney Lindberg questioned the applicant as to the third alternative: listing this use as an unclassified use in the residential zones, and establishing an under- lying zone with a low density, but with a conditional use permit which would permit a degree of flexibility in the establishment of the number of mobile home units per acre. This would be the quickest way with the least amount of public hearings. Mr. Perry agreed that this would be the quickest route; in the interest of his client, he would certainly have to recommend it. Director Warren cautioned the Commission that they should give the people present a chance to speak on the proposal of a mobile home park before they go too far with their recommendations. Chairman Stewart indicated he would favor the City Attorney's proposal because of the fact that this procedure affords the public protection during the period of transition, whereas, if they zoned it to B-9, for instance, it could be developed in any manner they chose. There would be nothing proposed that would concern a mobile home park at all, but there would be under this alternative. Director Warren stated they must still first determine the underlying zoning--under either of the alternatives, the applicant would still be bound by the underlying zoning. City Attorney Lindberg stated he is assuming that the unclassified use section provides for the uses listed to be allowed under any zone so that the underlying zoning in question cannot have an effect upon it regardless of what the underlying density is. Director Warren felt this would be an interesting point to pursue. City Attorney Lindberg felt there was a point for a continuance of the aspect of this matter and they could get together, perhaps at a staff meeting, to see what will afford a best approach on this. They could then bring one or the other alternative back to the Commission, assuming the Commission is going to approve the concept, for a public hearing. Director Warren felt they could not assume that the Commission, based on this hearing, is endorsing the mobile home park on this property. He felt they had to hear the request on the condStional use permit also. City Attorney Lindberg stated he is assuming that the Commission is approving the concept and determine the best land use. He added that it would be possible for the Commission to discuss the two items simultaneously. Mrs. Alvin May, 4295 Acacia Avenue, Bonita Hills No. 1 Subdivision, stated that the character or,the area is developed in luxury class homes of one-half to one acre lots. Anything less than that would be unsuitable for the area, since the people in the area have gone to a great deal of expense to make this area desirable. Now these people want to come in and change all of that. She added that the people in her area were not notified of this hearing--if they were, there would be a substantial number of them present tonight to protest this request. Dr. Alvin May, 4295 Acacia Avenue, Bonita, stated a similar request for a greater density in this area was turned down by the Board of Supervisors about l0 to 12 years ago. The sewerage situation is such that it could not accommodate a development such as this one; he also doubts that the applicant would get approval of this mobile home park from the County at the present time. Dr. May discussed his membership on the Residential Subcommittee of the Master Plan, which Committee did not look with favor on mobile home parks. These developments do not pay their proportionate share of taxes as compared with a home owner. Mr. Wilbert Austin, 3749 Sarasona Way, stated he owns property in the Bonita Hills area and that he is abolutely opposed to this development. The potential of this land is too great to be turned into a trailer park--it is out of character with the Bonita Valley. It will also attract a transient population that does not add to the Bonita Valley in any shape or form. If the Commission grants this request, what will come next? The Chairman asked for a show of hands of the people opposing the request. It was noted that eight people raised their hands. The director noted a letter of opposition from Dr. Kemler, owner of adjacent property, and Norman Starr, owner of adjacent property. Director Warren then suggested the hearing be continued and that the staff initiate the proper procedure for adoption. The staff would advertise a new hearing for the procedure for the meeting of June 17. MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) This hearing be continued to the meeting of June 17, 1968. The City Attorney stated that the hearing on the conditional use permit should be continued also, since it is impossible to disassociate the two. The Commission has discussed the underlying zoning, and the device they wish to use in the event some supplemental or accepted use ma.v be approved. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit - Property on the east side of Otay Lakes Road~ approximately 1-1/4 miles south of Bonita Road - Request for mobile home park in R-3 zone - Willard La, ton MSUC (Guyer-Gregson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of June 17, 1968. The Commission once again discussed the alternative. Director of Planning Warren stated either the "M" zone or the unclassified use would accomplish it--that because they did discuss the "M" zone, they perhaps should go ahead and advertise this along with the guidelines, but perhaps the Commission would prefer to leave it up to the staff to advertise one or the other. City Attorney felt they could get together sometime this week and determine which device for accomplishing this and set that for hearing at the same time. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval to set the appropriate method for hearing for the meeting of June 17, 1968. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - 435 "H" Street - Request for temporary si~n in R-3 zone - Bay General Hospital The application was read in which a request was made for permission to place a temporary sign measuring 8' x lO' on property at 435 H Street for the purpose of displaying an architectural rendering of the future expansion of this hospital. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent land uses. He stated the sign would be erected on the southwest corner of the property and removed upon completion of the new facility which they expect to be in October 1969. The staff recommends that this request be approved for a period of 18 months or upon completion of the hospital addition, whichever comes first. Member Hyde questioned the period of time requested. Uirector Warren explained that usually these signs go up before construction begins. This is a common procedure. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -8- - Mr. W. Wagstaff, Administrator of the Hospital, stated the sign will be lighted by two small flood lights on the ground. They expect construction to take about 14 months; it does take a great deal of time for a development of this ki~d. They must first submit their plans to the Board of Hospitals for approval before submitting them to the Building Department. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Hyde stated he still questioned the need of having a sign erected prior to the construction; he would be in favor of limiting this time. Member York commented that they need the sign prior to construction to stimulate interest in their project. This is a common practice. Chairman Stewart agreed, stating it was an established practice--as soon as a commitment is made, a sign goes up on the site. The Commission agreed the request was a reasonable one. MSUC (Gregson-York) Approval of variance request for approval of the sign for a period of 18 months or until completion of construction, whichever occurs first. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The Zoning Ordinance fails to provide for temporary signs which advise the public of future property development. b~ That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The sign is for temporary use only and would be removed upon completion of construction. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. No detriment is evident since the proposed sign would be temporary and will observe the required setbacks and is adjacent to a commercial zone. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by the approval of this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed renamin9 of segment of Theresa Way - 1300 block Director of Planning Warren explained this hearing was initiated by the Commission at the request of the staff. He submitted a plot plan of the area which contained the three segments of Theresa Way: (1) east-west segment containing 25 units with addresses in the 300 East block; (2) east-west segment which also loops in a southerly direction containing 20 units bearing 100 East addresses; and (3) the 1300 block addresses which is a north-south segment running between Prospect and East Quintard Streets, containing 22 dwellings. This was first brought to the attention of the staff by the Police Department; both the Fire and the Police Departments have recommended that confusion does exist here and that the problem should be rectified one way or another. The Commission initiated the hearing tonight to rename the north-south segment since there are fewer dwellings on this portion. The staff has received a petition from the property owners on this street protesting this change. They point out the expense involved in changing an address and also that they were the first to have this name. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Commission is aware of the fact that there is no legal requirement to hold a public hearing for street name changes; however, both the Commission and Council have always felt that in making such a change, an attempt should be taken to make the least inconvenience for these people as possible. However, from the standpoint of offering emergency services to these areas, something has to be done. Mr. Robert Ward, 1435 Theresa Way, stated he was the one that submitted the petition and that they were the first to acquire this street name. He discussed the trouble they would have to go through to change their records, since many of the residents of this street are military men. Mr. L. Gray, 1398 Theresa Way, also objected becuase of the expense involved. He drives a service truck for Sears and stated there is no confusion in finding these streets. They often stop at either the Fire or Police Station for addresses. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked if the property owners in the other two segments were notified of this hearing. Director Warren stated they were not. This matter is debatable, he added, since the staff could see no major confusion existing with the different 100 blocks that each segment has; however, both the Fire and Police Department have requested this change. Chairman Stewart felt they should weigh whether or not the inconvenience to these property owners would justify the change of name. The Commission discussed the request. Mr. Warren noted the original confusion resulted in the fact that one segment was not on the base map. The Commission felt that the matter would be clarified when the street is put on the maps, and with the different lO0 blocks of each segment, they could see no reason to change the name. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) The matter of renaming a portion of Theresa Way be filed. Request by Mrs. Helen Baxter for permission to change operation at 450 Flower Street from nursing home for the aged to a home for retarded infants A letter from Mrs. Baxter was read in which she requested their present operation be changed from nursing home for aged to a home for retarded infants, indicating that they will be licensed for six babies who will be non-ambulatory. -lO- Director of Planning Warren explained that the nursing home is permitted in the R-3 zone, and this request is presented to the Commission for their recommendation. Either the Commission can approve it as a permitted use in the R-3 zone if they feel it is a comparable use, or they should require the applicant to file for a conditional use permit. Member Guyer asked if the State would have control over this operation. Mr. Warren stated they would, as they do over nursing homes, convalescent homes, etc., permitted in this zone. Member York felt this use was no more objectionable than their former use--perhaps less objectionable from their neighbors' standpoint. With the number of babies limited to six, and a rigid control over the operation by the State, he can see nothing wrong with granting this request. Mrs. Baxter, the applicant, stated they are limited to six children in their present facilities here at 450 Flower Street. Any time they get more than six, it becomes an institution and they have to 9o into another category. There will be a doctor on call, and no age limit as far as the children go. She added that they will be encouraged to teach them to walk, and when they do walk, they will probably be taken from them. She discussed this use with a similar use operated by a Mrs. Davis in the City. Director Warren recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution finding this a similar use and limiting the number of children to six. The Commission concurred. MSUC {Hyde-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Approving the Operation RESOLUTION NO. 517 of a Nursing Home for Retarded Children in an R-3 Zone The number of children to be cared for shall!not exceed six (6). Request for extension of time for variance and conditional use permit for Bay General Hospital - 435 H Street A letter was read from Mr. William Wagstaff, Administrator of BaJ~ General Hospital, requesting an extension of time on both their variance and conditional use permit granted by the Commission for the construction of their new proposed facility. Director of Planning Warren indicated that this was a routine request for the extension of time and that the staff recommends approval to June, 1969, at which time the Commission could review the proposal once again. He discussed the recommendation to the Council of the new ordinance requiring undergrounding of utilities for all new structures in the City and the establishment of new procedures for which this can be done. Although this matter should not have a direct bearing on the extension requests, it should be discussed by the Commission and perhaps made another condition, unless proven to be infeasible. Mr. Warren remarked that two weeks ago, the Commission approved the site plan for the shopping center to the west of this property and imposed this same condition on the center. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission should first act on the extensions, and then impose the added condition. Mr. W. Wagstaff, the applicant, stated this was an interesting request since he has discussed this same proposal with Mr. Casey, the developer of the apartments to the east, trying to get him to underground his utilities. He told him that the hospital will be going underground with the utilities for the new addition, and after holding discussions with him for about l-l/2 months, they finally made a compromise. Mr. Wagstaff then drew a diagram on the blackboard noting the existing poles on the property. Because of these poles, the architect of the hospital suggested they remove the pole at the north of the property, and go underground from the pole south of this one. He felt Mr. Casey should bear part of the expense in this project. City Attorney Lindberg stated they have no control over the existing buildings--the proposed ordinance is for all new structures. Director Warren discussed the condition imposed on the shopping center indicating that the Commission stipulated that the applicants could request a waiver from the Commission if undergrounding is found to be infeasible. The Commission voted to take action of the extension requests. MSUC (Guyer-York) Approval of extensions of time on Variance Resolution No. 67-28 and Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. C-67-16 for property at 435 H Street to June 19, 1969. Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Wagstaff if he would be willing to put in underground utilities on H Street, if it should prove feasible. Mr. Wagstaff claimed he wouldn't know what he would be getting into--there are a great many wires in front of this property and he would have to have more time to consult someone on it. Chairman Stewart suggested he check into it and let the staff know. Mr. Wagstaff stated he will consult with representatives of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company and have them determine what is involved here. He added that they will cooperate with the City, where it is feasible. Request for extension of time for variance at 667 Third Avenue - T. Pieknik A letter from Tadeusz Pieknik was read in which he requested an extension of time on his variance granted in 1966 to construct a two story building at 667 Third Avenue which would have a residence on the second floor and a ballet studio on the first floor. Director of Planning Warren commented that the staff recommends approval of the request. The applicant has requested three year extension; however, the staff would recommend two years. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of a two year extension on Variance Resolution No. 66-23; subject variance to expire on June 20, 1970. Council Referral - Proposed amendment to the supplemental "D" zone - Temporary sign provisions Director of Planning Warren explained that the Council, in considering the adoption of this proposed amendment, expressed concern over the time limit allowed these temporary signs in this zone. They referred it back to the Commission for this clarification. Mr. Warren then offered the staff's recommendation for the supplement to this amendment indicating that the signs may be erected for a period of 18 months with conditions for removal. The Commission discussed this with Member Rice remarking that the signs could be permitted for a period of 2-1/2 years under this amendment. Chairman Stewart declared that most subdivisions are completed and sold out before that time. Director Warren indicated that the amendment was designed more for the R-3 and commercial areas as well. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Approval of the revisions to the amendment of Section 33.54.3 relating to temporary construction signs in the supplemental "D" zone areas as follows: A temporary construction sign noting such pertinent information as need to identify the proposed use, developer, and builder, may be erected in any "D" zone for a period of 18 months prior to commencement of construction. The Planning staff may grant an extension not to exceed one year, after which such sign shall be removed. The sign ,shall not exceed 150 sq. ft. and the location shall not violate any front setback requirements. The sign shall be removed wi thin ten (10) days following final inspection of subject new construction. Any sign which has been posted, erected or maintained in violation of this ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance which is injurious or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property and interferes with the comfort and enjoyment of life or property. Such violations shall be treated as public nuisances pursuant to the provisions of state law, and may be removed by the City five (5) days after giving written notice to the owner or lessees on any parcel, lot, building or structure. The fee for removing said signs by the City shall be twenty-five ($25.00) dollars per sign, and said owner or lessee shall be billed for said costs. Discussion - Dance Hall assembly area parking requirements Director of Planning Warren explained that this is an amendment to the City Code provisions relating to the Dance Hall Ordinance. At the Council hearing of May 7, they inquired about the specific offstreet parking requirement and referred this matter back to the Commission. At the meeting of April 15, 1968, the Commission recommended that the parking requirements be related to the assembly capacity of the room, and the Council wanted more information as to what this would be, The City Attorney has suggested this ordinance be further amended leaving the question of the parking requirements to be resolved by future amendments to the Zoning Ordinance-- that the parking requirements of the present ordinance would apply to any such opera- tions that might be undertaken after the effective date of the ordinance. Director Warren added that the procedure tonight would be for the Commission to recommend the Council proceed with the adoption of the Dance Hall Ordinance as it is presently written and to set for public hearing the recommended parking require- ments. The Commission discussed the proposed parking requirements and agreed that they were feasible and should be set for hearing. MSUC (York-Hyde) The following amendment to be set for public hearing for the meeting of June 17, 1968: USE PARKING Restaurants, Bars & Nightclubs 1 space for each 2.5 permanent seats, excluding any dance floor or assembly area without fixed seats which shall be calculated separately as 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of floor area used for such purpose. Dance Halls and Assembly Halls without 1 for each 50 sq. ft. of floor area used fixed seats, Exhibition Halls except for assembly or dancing. Church assembly rooms in conjunction with Auditorium; Non-Profit Clubs and Lodges Proposed Airport near Southwestern College Chairman Stewart referred to an article printed in the "Star-News" concerning a letter written by the California Aeronautics Division addressed to Henry A. Boney, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, in which they supported Mr. Byron Jacquot's proposal for an airport in the general vicinity of Southwestern College. Mr. Stewart claimed that nothing was said in the letter that even referred to Chula Vista's interest in this area and that it is included in our Planning Area. He feels a letter should be written to the Board of Supervisors concerning this. He stated he discussed this with Mayor McCorquodale and agreed that a letter should be written that would state (1) that this area is in the area inside the development of our General Plan which was drawn for us 4-1/2 years ago by a planning consultant and in which Chula Vista has a vital interest; (2) the effect that flight operations have on vacant land as to its future development. Director of Planning Warren stated that at no time has the Planning Department or Commission been brought into this d~scussion on this proposed airport. We have heard references made to the General Plan; the airport does fall into the area of growth of the City, which area has been placed in an Agriculture reserve and does not project development prior to the target date of 1990. Mr. Warren added that the staff has not studied the ramifications of this proposal. Member Rice asked that this study also include the area to the south of the City, a section of which the County has just rezoned, again without reference to the General Plan. Chairman Stewart felt the Commission should move along the airport situation first, and remarked that the Ma~vor would be willing to sign a letter. Mayor McCorquodale stated this proposal is going to be considered right away and the letter should go out to them soon. Chairman Stewart remarked that he called Brown Air Field and asked them if their facilities were loaded to capacity. They assure him that they were not--that they have 25% of their field available for flight operations. Chairman Stewart, in answer to Member York's inquiry, stated the letter will be one of opposition stating that the area is in the City's General Plan; that we have an interest in this area and feel the airport would have an adverse effect on all the land adjacent to it. Member York commented that he is reluctant to take any stand on this issue since it has never been discussed at Commission level and he doesn't have any of the facts before him. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the Aeronautics Division made this statement primarily because of the schools. Their function is essentially to get clearance for the schools that will be in the line of flight. Mayor McCorquodale stated the letter should be written by either the Commission or the staff pointing out: (a) when we developed our General Plan we put a lot of this area to the southeast in the Agriculture classification which is a "holding" zone; (b) at that time, we indicated that we were not sure how this area was going to be developed; (c) if it is going to be developed, it is encumbent upon the City to restudy that area and decide how it should be developed and in what manner; (d) putting in an airport there doesn't give the City that opportunity. The Mayor added that these were his feelings and objections to the airport and it should be important from a planning standpoint. Member Hyde was excused from the meeting at this time. Member York interpreted the Mayor's remarks to mean that the City would be objecting to the establishment of anything in that area at this time until plans are developed for the area; this is good planning. In view of this, Member York stated he is withdrawing his objections. MSUC (Rice-York) The staff be directed to draw up a letter to the Board of Super- visors expressing the Commission's objections to the proposed airport as delineated by the Mayor; this letter to be written for the Mayor's signature. Member Rice then expressed his concern over the County zoning in the southern parts of the City. He felt there was a degree of urgency here and that the Commission should take some action on this as well. Member York suggested the Commission take a look at the General Plan with the thought of updating it in these particular areas. He felt the problem here doesn't lie strictly with the County. The Commission then discussed their scheduled meetings and workshops and discussed getting the Zoning Ordinance out of the way first. Mayor McCorquodale stated the Council discussed this at the Budget hearing this day and it was a feeling of urgency among the Council that this be completed. They made a motion that when this zoning ordinance is adopted, they will consider the request for additional staff personnel. The Council expressed the hope that the zoning ordinance would be coming to them as soon as possible. The Commission and the Chairman discussed the obstacles encoumtered in the zoning ordinance hearings. The Mayor indicated that he and the Council would like to get together with the Planning Commission at some future date. They can discuss this ordinance and hear each other's views. He stated this meeting would have to be set for some time after the middle of June. He then introduced Frank Scott, Councilman, to the Commission. Councilman Scott discussed the Council's concern over the zoning ordinance and reiterated that they will be considering additional staff personnel at a later date. Member York remarked that they should also take into consideration that because of the lag in updating the zoning ordinance, the City is losing good potential annexa- tions and unless something is done about it, they could be penalized. He maintained that additional staff personnel is needed for this advance planning. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting adjourn sine die. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. espectfully submitted, ,?~nnie M. Fulasz ~ {/Secretary