Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/04/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 15, 1968 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, met on the above date at 7 p.m. on Monday, April 15, 1968, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the following members present: Guyer, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, and Adams. Absent: Chairman Stewart. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. In the absence of Chairman Stewart, Vice-Chairman Guyer presided over the meeting. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post, within 24 hours as required by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of April l, 1968. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 1, 1968, as mailed. Request for Approval of Shopping Center Plans - Southeast corner Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street - H. Greene Director of Planning Warren explained that this item involves a 2-1/2 acre piece of property zoned C-N at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and Rienstra Street. The area is presently vacant. This matter was discussed previously at the meeting of March 18, 1968 to determine the best location for a Speedee 7-Eleven store on this site. The applicant is proposing one basic lot split. Mr. Warren then submitted a large sketch of the proposed layout noting the location of the store and other pro- posed buildings. He submitted four requirements proposed by the staff, stating the staff recommends approval subject to these conditions. In discussing this with the applicants, he added, they have reached basic agreement. The landscaping and archi- tectural site plan is subject to staff approval as delineated in the C-N zone. Mr. Hedric Greene, the applicant, stated he was present but had nothing to add. Member Adams commented that he felt this would be a miserable development which will steadily become worse as time goes on. He added that he is losing faith in neighbor- hood shopping centers--that they have not had a good neighborhood shopping center yet. The reason for this is that they are not economically successful since the average shopper will just go to this center to get his immediate wants: a box of crackers, a quart of milk, etc. Member Adams added that he now agrees in concept with Member York's recommendation for larger shopping centers. Director Warren declared that site was not clearly justified as a shopping center site; circumstances at that time brought it about. He felt, however, that many of the problems of these centers could be overcome if they establish a plan early in the game, and if the City assures that the plan will follow through each phase as proposed. MSUC (York-Hyde) Approval of the plan, as submitted at this meeting, subject to the following conditions: 1. The area marked for "future development" shall remain as one parcel until final development plans are accepted by the Planning Commission. 2. The northerly most driveway shall utilize a minimum 30' wide curb-cut. Remaining curb cuts are not necessarily approved at this time. 3. The proposed free-standing "Speedee" sign is approved subject to final development of the entire shopping center, at which time the Planning Commission shall have the right to require removal or replacement at the owner's expense. 4. Planter areas shall be protected by concrete bumper guards or typical type "G" curbs. PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING - Area east of Hilltop Drive between F Street and East Whitney Street from County zoned R-l, E-l, E-l-A, and A-3-1 to R-1 or R-1 with a density control - Commission ititiated Director of Planning Warren stated this was Commission-initiated at the request of the staff. The need for this prezoning was brought about as a result of two pending annexations of single-family lots; these proponents wished to hook up to the City sewer system. Mr. Warren then explained the procedure for prezoning whereby the applicant must file an application, pay a $50 filing fee, and whereby public hearings must be held by both the Commission and the Council. By prezoning the entire area at this time , it will serve to apprise the proponents of any future annexation of the zoning which will be placed on his property. Mr. Warren then noted on the plot plan the existing zoning, and the zoning recommended by the staff. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams declared the Commission should initiate steps to prezone all of the City borders as soon as possible. MSUC (Gregson-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 506 City Council the Prezoning of that Area East of Hilltop Drive between F Street and East Whitney Street The prezoning recommended is as follows: From County zoned R-l, E-l, E-l-A, and A-3-1, to R-l, R-l-B-12, R-I-B-15, and R-l-B-20 (single-family residential with density controls of 12,000, 15,000, and 20,000 square foot lots), as delineated on the attached map. Findings be as follows: a. Prezoning this area will avoid the necessity for public hearings for prezoning each time a property owner wishes to annex to the City. b. Prezoning the area R-1 with density controls as listed above will insure that the area will remain single-family residential retaining the density already estab- lished in the area. MARIPOSA ST STREET PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance establishin~ provision for regulation of double frontage commercially zoned parcels (continued) Director of Planning Warren explained the need for this proposed ordinance submitting a plot plan of the area around East Manor Drive (600 block) noting the double frontage comercially zoned lots. He stated that they have been attempting to offer a better means to accommodate commercial use in this area. The staff presented to the Commission an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance that set forth provision for commercially zoned double frontage parcels, subject to six regulations. At the last meeting, the legality of item 5 was questioned and this requirement was discussed with the City Attorney. This could not be resolved, and therefore, the staff is offering two alternatives for your consideration. Mr. Warren then read the new paragraph, as reworded. He indicated that the purpose here was to accomplish proper commercial development in this area, and not to give the developer 10' or 15' additional depth of commercial zoning on Broadway. The two alternatives would be: (1) to recommend this text amendment to the City Council for adoption; and (2) develop a Specific Plan for development of such lots by utilizing the conditions delineated in the previously recommended text amendment, and then grant rezonings of individual lots as requested in accordance with this Specific Plan. This is provided by the State Planning Law. City Attorney Lindberg referred to the original application which instigated this matter (William George - variance). He stated he has no clear cut legal objection to the proposal presented by the Director of Planning, but that it didn't seem right to him. He felt the Commission had an obligation here; that there was nothing wrong with the applicant trying to better utilize his property. The amendment, as offered, would be a difficult one to administer, so his suggestion to the Commission would be that the alternative be adopted--the Specific Plan. Also, to set forth in this plan all the terms and conditions for this particular area and all other such areas in the City and then adopt the zone changes on a piece-meal basis as the requests come in. He added that the Commission will be doing a disservice to prolong the applicant's request; that action should be taken at the next meeting on this. In answer to Member Hyde's inquiry, Director Warren stated that the Specific Plan would require a public hearing. The boundary for the Specific Plan would have to be drawn, and the Plan would be presented to the property owner. This would spell out the landscaping, setback requirements, the location of the wall, etc. There may be other things, but these are the major points. Member Adams felt that the applicant's building plans should be subject to review. Mr. Warren indicated that this could be written in. Member York questioned whether this Plan would specifically require that the single- family residences be taken out. City Attorney Lindberg stated that what they are doing is notifying people that if rezoning is accomplished, it would have to be according to this plan--this would be solely on the wish of the property owner. The single-family dwelling would have to be removed if there would be extensive commercial development on the lot. Director Warran agreed, adding that the rezoning would be done only upon application. The Plan would be written up so that it would have some degree of flexibility. -4- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing (as continued) was opened. Mr. Paul Besser, 624 E. Manor Drive, declared that the Commission is doing the last things first--that they are worsening a situation that is already there. He claimed that the drainage problem should be taken care of first. He added it would be unfair to the residential property owners to have the area broken up with the constrction of a wall on different lots throughout the entire area. It may take as long as 20 years for some of these lots to develop. Mr. Besser added there would be no objection to one entire wall running the length of the area. Mr. Everett Lamp, 695-J Esplanade Drive, asked what happens to the side lot lines if the wall goes up. Mr. Warren commented that perhaps a temporary wall could be put in. The actual requirement under the Plan would be for a 6' high wall set back 10' with landscaping in front of it. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams felt there was no solution to this problem--that it was probably better to up-grade Mr. George's variance and continue on this way. The problem of removing the houses should be done at one time and agreed to by all the residents. Member Rice agreed, adding that if they cannot come up with something effective, they should not do anything. Member Gre§son asked if this area was under consideration by the City for the drainage problem. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated it would be included in the bond issue. Mr. Warren commented that this problem was between the Public Works Department and the City Council. Mr. Besser maintained that if the City got in touch with the property owners along Broadway, they could come up with a package deal, because the residents are willing to cooperate in the redevelopment of these lots. MSUC (York-Gregson) The matter be filed and the staff be directed to prepare a Specific Plan; such Plan to be ready for discussion at a workshop meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 600 block of East Manor Drive from R-1 to C-2 - Commission initiated (Continued) Director of Planning Warren stated that he would recommend this matter be filed without action, because of the Commission's action on the preceding item (provision for the regulation of double frontage commercially zoned parcels). He will ask Mr. William George to file a variance for his entire lot; such variance can be considered by the Commission at their May 6 meeting. MSUC (York-Rice) The matter be filed without action. -5- Mr. Warren commented that the staff is aware of the problems brought up tonight, and hopes there is come way in which they can work toward the proper development of the entire area. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance concernin9 sale of secondhand merchandise in a C-1 zone Director of Planning Warren explained this is a proposed amendment to the C-1 zone establishing a new procedure for selling used merchandise in this zone. The present zone, as written, lists among permitted uses: "Appliance or furniture store (new merchandise only) and bona fide antique store (not used furniture store). In the past the Commission has classified the sale of used merchandise not involving appli- ances or furniture, as a C-1 use. When the Salvation Army came in with their request, the Commission again determined that no used merchandise or appliances could be sold. Since that time, the legality of the ordinance, as written, has been questioned. This proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance regulates the sale of used merchandise in the C-1 zone. Where the sale of secondhand merchandise is the primary business, it would be subject to a conditional use permit. Director Warren commented that he met with the Downtown Association and discussed this amendment with them; they are not generally in agreement with this proposed solution. He then noted the three letters received in opposition to this, and explained that if the amendment is adopted, it would mean that the Salvation Army would then have to make an application for a conditional use permit for the particular site they have in mind. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams stated he was in favor of the amendment, commenting that it would give the Commission a chance to consider the site, the objections of the property owners, etc. Member Hyde questioned whether the Commission could impose conditions on a conditional use permit. City Attorney Lindberg explained that the whole purpose of this amendment was that when secondhand merchandise is sold in a C-1 zone, it will be done in such a manner that the area and the community will be protected, appropriate conditions can be imposed. Member York commented that the sale of used merchandise may not be proper in a C-1 zone--the Commission should take another look at used merchandise and decide where it should be placed. However, it should be subject to a conditional use permit if allowed in this zone. Encouraging this use in this zone is the beginning of downgrading of any area. He commented that he was not specifically downgrading the Salvation Army store because they conduct a high grade business; however, other stores selling used merchan- dise would certainly downgrade the C-1 zoned areas. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 507 City Council the Adoption of a Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Revising the Provisions for the Sale of Used Merchandise in C-1 zone. -6- Findings be as follows: a. The detrimental effect of the sale of secondhand goods in the C-1 zone cannot be applicable only to applicances and furniture operations, since all second- hand merchandise would create the same type of character of retail operation, but there is basis for the assumption that the primary sale of used merchandise is incompatible in some retail areas. b. It is obvious that violations of this provision exist at the present time in the C-1 zone, primarily in regard to the sale of used television sets, and repossessed furniture is sold in retail stores in this zone; by adopting this ordinance control over this situation would be afforded. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 340 Fourth Avenue - Request for pharmacy sign - L. H. Faucher The application was read in which a request was made to install a sign measuring 6" X ll' to identify a building in the Doctors' Park as the pharmacy. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He also showed a sketch of the proposed sign. The staff recommends approval in accordance with their report to the Commission. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and concurred it would be compatible in the area and that the variance was necessary. MSUC (Gregson-Adams) Variance be approved. Findings be as follows: a. While the 20 sq. ft. limitation is adequate for residential uses in the R-3 zone, an office use of this magnitude and frontage must have sufficient directional signing for the convenience of the facility's patrons, to identify the pharmacy. b. The pharmacy is located in the center of the complex, close to Fourth Avenue. Patrons coming to the site are not able to identify which building is actually the pharmacy. c. Signing will be in keeping with the area and will not be detrimental to other used in the vicinity. d. The General Plan is not affected. -7- PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 221 D Street - Request to build on an easement - H. Schroeder The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct a 3-bedroom house on a parcel of R-1 zoned property served by a 15' wide easement from "D" Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent zoning. He stated the parcel measures 55' X 145' and is in an area surrounded with single-family residences. The easement is paved and presently serves three single- family homes with two of the lots fronting on the easement and the third lot fronting on "D" Street. He noted that because of the configuration of the lot, this parcel could not have access from Second Avenue, and therefore, would have to be served by an easement, if developed. The staff recommends approval subject to the staff's approval of the detailed plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. H. Schroeder, the applicant, stated he agrees with the recommendation of the staff, and said he had the agreement to use the easement signed by the people who owned the property. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Hyde-Gregson) Approval of variance request subject to the following conditions: A plan shall be submitted for staff approval, with evidence of a sufficient easement granted for access into the subject property (15' width minimum). Findings be as follows: a. The lot does not have proper street frontage but existing dwellings in the area are presently served by a 15' wide easement which could serve this parcel. b. The parcel cannot logically be served with street access because of the surrounding development. c. The development proposed will be similar to the existing area. d. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 370 K Street - Request for reduction of a portion of rear yard setback from 15' to 5' - L. Kuebler The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of a portion of rear yard setback from 15' to 5' for the construction of apartment dwellings. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land uses, and the zonings. He also showed a more detailed plan of the proposed buildings, and explained that the request is for the distance of a 22' jog in the property line. The staff recommends approval and has not suggested any conditions since the "D" zone is attached and construction will be regulated by this zone. Mr. Warren commented that the staff has received some concern by the residents in the area~out the drainage. He declared that the City does have a drainage ordinance in effect that would assure these residentS that proper drainage would be provided. -8- This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Madalon Bagnell, 819 Fourth Avenue, owner of the adjacent apartments, objected to the request stating there is a flooding problem here washing down into her apartment area, and granting the approval to build these apartments would only tend to compound this situation. She also objected to the request on the grounds that she was promised the purchase of this piece of property (the 25' strip adjacent to her driveway road through K Street). Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, declared he could get by with a 10' rear yard but would rather go the 5' setback. This would leave the buildings sufficient distance apart, which condition is also required by the lending institutions. J. Bagnell, 819 Fourth Avenue, stated he was against the request as a 5' setback would be "practically on the property line." He felt it should be 15'. He also discussed the drainage problem in this area declaring that if the applicant builds up the area to the level of the sewer, his adjacent property would be catching more of this drainage problem. Mrs. Robert Byerly, 357 San Miguel, and Mrs. Delia Kidd, 351 San Miguel, objected to the fact that a great amount of fill is being brought in and building the area up plus granting a closer setback to their property lines would add to the flooding problem and deprive them of their privacy. Mr. Kuebler explained the present elevation of the area stating he had no intention of building it up. As to the drainage, he is now negotiating to resolve this problem; as a matter of fact, he plans to put in a retaining wall next to Mrs. Bagnell's property. J. Bagne~l declared that this solution of a retaining wall has been tried once before, as well as other methods. The land area is such that water catches in there and forms a little lake. City Attorney Lindberg added that the drainage ordinance prohibits any discharge of water onto an adjacent property in the development of subject property. Mrs. Delia Kidd, 351 San Miguel, spoke of her concern over the amount of dirt being brought into this property for the development. She declared the project will set much higher than her home and thus cause man9 problems. Mr. Warren noted the number of questions raised by the protestants, and suggested they come into the office to discuss this; the staff will be able to find out the answers for them. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the request and the development as a whole. Member York remarked that the only basic objections the adjacent residents had was the drainage situation, and this problem is not pertinent to the hearing. MSUC (York-Rice) Approval of request; findings be as follows: -9- a. The observance of a 15' rear yard at the location requested would serve no useful purpose since the parcel is abutting the side yard of the adjoining lot requiring a 5' setback. b. The area requested for reduction is located 160' from any other rear lot lines and represents .5% of the total rear yard area of the parcel involved. c. The granting of this variance will have no detrimental effect on adjoining property since the setback will be the same on both parcels. d. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - Northwest corner E Street and Guava Avenue - Request for reduction of front setback from 25' to 10' on Guava Avenue and to utilize street frontage on Guava Avenue for five parkin~ spaces in place of offstreet parking requirement - Haynes The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction of front yard setback from 25' to 10' along Guava Avenue and a reduction in the offstreet parking spaces from 21 to 16, with the additional request that 5 of the required spaces be provided off-site on Guava Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent land use and zoning. The lot measures 86' X 170' (14,620 sq. ft.) on which the applicant is proposing to construct 14 units. As pointed out in the staff's report to the Commission, there is clear justification for the reduction of the setback on Guava; the subject parcel is a corner lot with a required 25' setback on both streets. The staff, however, expressed some concern about the on-street parking. In considering the new ~oning ordinance, discussion was held about accommodating some guest parking off-site; it is a controversy, however, and may not be adopted as proposed. The City Engineer objects to the accommodation of any required parking om major or collector streets. With all of these considera- tions in mind, the staff cannot support the parking variance at this time. Mr. Warren then delineated the requirements the staff would suggest be imposed in granting the approval for the reduction in setback. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John C. Kelogein, Delta Development Company, representing the developer, stated he was present to answer any questions. He asked for approval of the request. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice questioned whether the developer would have to reduce the number of his proposed units if the request for off-site parking was denied. Mr. Warren declared the applicant has a few alternatives--this would be one of them, another would be to come up with a revised plan. -10- Mr. Kelogein stated they have researched this particular project for 30 days in an effort to accommodate the required parking. They could put in subterranean parking but this would not be economically feasible. This plan represents a compromise in order to accommodate 14 units and maintain an open area between the units. Chairman pro tem Guyer asked if a similar request has ever been before the Commission. Director Warren discussed one which the Commission approved, on Telegraph Canyon Road, south of L Street, but this involved a frontage road. Mr. William Lang, 440 Fern Street, indicated that he felt the requirements should be the same for everyone. Member Hyde felt the Commission would be setting a precedent if they allowed this off-site parking. Director Warren commented that in discussing this situation with the City Engineer, he stated that the right-of-way is meant for public use, and there is no Way possible to make a private use out of it. However, even this point may become debatable if it is determined that this project needs the 5 guest spaces, since essentially this would represent public use. Member York said he felt for a long time that the City's parking requirements were out of line; however, he agrees with Member Hyde in that they would be starting something here that they would find hard to justify for some future case. Member Adams declared that the Commission is presently working under the ordinance requiring 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit. There have been numerous cases in the past where the developer was required to accommodate these spaces. Mr. Adams added that he felt it would be unfair to grant this request for this one developer. The Commis- sion concurred. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Approval of variance for the reduction of setback from 25' to 10' on Guava Avenue subject to the following conditions: a. A landscaping plan together with elevations of the east side of the building shall be submitted for staff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (A minimum of five (5) street trees shall be provided). b. The area between the sidewalk and curb shall be filed with concrete. c. All utility service to the building shall be underground from the existing poles in the street right of way. d. An approved plot plan with acceptable parking shall be approved by the staff. e. The parking area shall be screened by a 4-1/2 ft. high solid wall (design approved by the staff). -ll- PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 454 Broadwas - Request to use properts zoned R-3 for parkin§ for commercial use - Pep E1Cajon Corporation The application was read in which a request was made to use property zoned R-3 for parking purposes in connection with the commercial building. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the original plan showed the parking on the C-2 zoned parcel; however, when these plans were submitted for a plan check, it was discovered that a drainage channel bisecting this site was shown as a covered area to be used for parking. The applicants are now tryint to come to an agreement wi th the City Council regarding cost participation in this project. In the meantime, they are requesting the use of this R-3 zoned property for their parking needs. The staff recommends approval of this request provided it be done on a temporary basis. Mr. Warren added it was for this reason that the developer does not want to provide landscaping for this particular area, but the staff would recommend a few conditions which he listed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Charles Gorder, attorney representing the applicant, stated he is satisfied with the recommendations of staff. City Attorney Lindberg stated that there are problems relative to the drainage being considered by the City and the applicant at this time. This variance request is the most expedient means of solving their parking at this time. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Gregson asked if the staff encountered any problems with allowed parking in the R-3 zoned areas. Director Warren indicated the staff did not have many like this one--the one problem he can foresee would be with requests for extensions. The most satisfactory solution would be to bring the parking closer to Broadway. The Commission discussed this request and agreed it was a reasonable one. MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of request subject to the following conditions: (1) A temporary use of R-3 land for parking purposes shall be allowed for one (1) year. If no agreement between the developer and the City is reached concerning the drainage structure within one year, a revised plan eliminating the R-3 zoned land for parking and accommodating it on the C-2 site shall be submitted and completed within six months by the applicant. (2) A plot plan for the entire development shall be submitted for staff approval which will incorporate the following: (a) Adequate areas of landscaping shall be shown, to the extent possible in con- formance with the originally approved plan. (b) The temporary parking layout will be designed in such a manner as to allow easy conversion to the permanent parking design in terms of landscaping, circulation and paving. -12- Findings be as follows: a. A commercial structure is under construction without adequate parking on site because of existing drainage problems. The additional parking is necessary on an interim basis pendin9 a drainage agreement by the applicant and the City of Chula Vista. b. The surrounding uses will not be affected by the limited amount of parking proposed for this site and the time limit imposed by the Planning Commission will assure the area of no permanent damage. c. The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission will provide adequate control for the development. d. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - (Continued/ Proposed amendment to Zonin9 Ordinance estab~ishinq Planned Unit Development Procedure Director of Planning Warren explained this item was discussed at the April 1 meeting. In the past, there have been three developers whose projects could have been facilitated if this amendment was adopted. It is most important that it be brought forward at this time to accommodate these developments. This section can operate independently from the new zoning ordinance; and it may be some time before this new zoning ordin- ance is adopted. Director Warren discussed the paragraph concerning the 25% density bonus to which the Commission expressed concern. He read the new proposed paragraph reworded as requested by the Commission. Mr. Warren discussed the San Diego ordinance noting that they have had it on their books for some time, but are planning to do some over-hauling on it, as they feel it needs some changes. They do not make a provision for the density bonus. The staff would recommend the adoption of this ordinance, as proposed. Perhaps some time in the future, it will be necessary for the Commission to make some necessary changes, in view of San Diego's experience with theirs, and also from suggestions from some of the builders. It will be necessary to follow up immediately with a resolution for some guidelines, as most of the cities have done. City Attorney Lindberg stated he has worked with this ordinance in San Diego. They received many suggestions from the Building Contractors Association and people in the community, and this ordinance was conceived out of the need for this type of development. The San Diego ordinance did not provide for this bonus and did not provide for a sufficient flexibility to make it attractive for the developers. The Chula Vista ordinance is patterned after the Fremont ordinance, but they too, do not provide the density bonus. This being the time and place as advertised, the continued public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Miles, 392 E Street, Chairman of the committee of the Building Contractors Association to study this rezoning commented that Eugene Cook is their advisor. On September 9, 1967, page 105 of the new zoning ordinance concerning this Planned Unit section, Mr. Cook made the following notation: "Very well written and should be workable." -13- They wish to state that the concept of the ordinance, as written, be accepted for the purpose of getting this thing started, but that the following points should be considered: give more consideration to further studying this section with their group especially in regard to increasing this density to offset the cost of develop- ment (such as water, roads, etc.). As to the statement of financial responsibility: their group feels it is not the business of the Commission to ascertain whether or not the developer is financially responsible. If the Commission insists on this, then they question how far the Commission is going to go on it. Director Warren indicated that this is one of the big problems connected with a Planned Unit Development. We must be sure that every increment of the Planned Unit Development will be completed; it is a provision in every Planned Unit Develop- ment ordinance the staff has reviewed. City Attorney Lindberg discussed this further stating that some form of evidence of the financial stability of the developer should be shown--this could be in writing, perhaps from the financial institution stating they are behind the developers on this project. In this way, the Commissioners will be assured that someone coming in with an extravagant project will be able to carry the entire thing off. They are only asking for some form of evidence that the program is approved by some financial company. Mr. Miles commented that the people lending money today are quite specialized in this field, with many different kinds of investors. He discussed a program such as that proposed by Frank Ferreira (south of Allen School Road and west of Otay Lakes Road) stating a project such as this could run as long as five years before total develop- ment is completed. Mr. Lindberg commented that this ~s also another point they will be carrying out to define more precisely the broad terms as set out in the ordinance. It will have to be accomplished by the guidelines for the developer and the administration. Director Warren suggested that if this procedure is adopted, he would like to meet with at least six builders and representatives of the Building Contractors Association to define these guidelines and details. Mr. Miles asked if he could have a meeting with the staff concerning the revisions of the fourth draft of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Warren stated he would be happy to meet with him. Mr. Miles then added that they would like to go on record as approving this Planned Unit Development Procedure. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice declared that he can appreciate the problems outlined by Mr. Miles, but that this is one of the reasons of offering them the 25% density bonus--it would be worth their while to use it. He added he is in favor of having this ordinance on the books. Chairman pro tem Guyer agreed, adding that the Commission is taking an important step here tonight. -14- Member York agreed, adding that it was important as opposed to the standard subdivision procedure which the developer now has to abide by. He added it was high time they gave the developer some incentive to make better use of his land. MSUC (York-Gregson) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 508 City Council the Adoption of a Proposed Amendment Establishing a Planned Unit Development Procedure. Findings be as follows: a. This ordinance would give the developers flexibility in their developments while insuring substantial compliance to the intent of the zoning regulations and other provisions of the zoning ordinance. b. It will provide a more desirable living environment than would be possible through the strict application of ordinance requirements. c. This ordinance should encourage developers to use a more creative approach in the development of the land and will encourage a more efficient, aesthetic, desirable use of open area. d. It will encourage variety in the physical development pattern of the City. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance concernin§ temporary signs in the Supplemental "D" zone Director of Planning Warren explained the need for this ordinance. At present, the Planning Commission can only approve up to 50 square feet of sign area in the "D" zone. If a developer comes in and wants to put up a temporary larger sign, he must file for a variance. Mr. Warren then read the proposed amendment allowing temporary signs up to 150 square feet in area in this zone. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission discussed the proposed amendment and all agreed they were in favor of it. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 509 City Council the Adoption of a Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Establishing Provision for Temporary Construc- tion Signs or Promotional Signs in the Supplemental "D" Zone Findings be as follows: The restrictions of the "D" zone are meant for permanent development, and there is no logic involved in not permitting construction of temporary signs larger than 50 square feet. -15- Discussion of Conditional Use Permit for San Diego Country Club Director of Planning Warren explained that Mr. Morgan, a representative of the Country Club, is here to discuss plans for their proposed building recently authorized by Conditional Use Permit. One of the conditions imposed by the Commission was that the building be no higher than 9'. The applicant states they cannot do this. Mr. Warren passed around a picture of the proposed building, commenting that they contend that the supports for the interior structure in the middle of the building will be higher--up to 13'. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, indicated that the Water Company has stated there is no way to lower the water line presently existing under this proposed structure; therefore, the building cannot be lowered. Mr. Lee submitted a sketch noting that a 9' retaining wall should probably be built on the east end of this proposed building; however, the applicant states they plan to build a 5' retaining wall here. Another alternative in meeting the condition would be to move the building to the west. Mr. Lee added that the building, when viewed from an angle, the adjacent resident's view will be affected; however, whether the building was 9' high or 13' high, the view is still going to be cut off. Mr. Lee Morgan, 15 G Street, representing the Country Club, stated that the eave height of the building will be ll' and it will be 13'6" at the ridge. If they are made to bring the structure down any lower, it would take special engineering to do it. These buildings are put out in mass production. Mr. Warren commented that the 9' height limitation was an arbitrary one, but the Commission must determine whether or not this figure is a reasonable one and whether the 13'6" figure is feasible. The County Planning Commission granted their special use permit subject to the conditions imposed by this Planning Commission, and we are assuming they will honor any changes this Commission makes. Member Adams commented that considering the wide span, this is the most economical building by far, and it would be a hardship for them to have to build a cement walled building. He added that he, too, doesn't like the building, but it will be in such a location where he feels the Commission shouldn't be too drastic in their recommenda- tions. A few feet more in height doesn't make that much difference. Mr. Morgan stated he couldn't comment on the retaining wall as he hadn't seen the plans. Chairman pro tem Guyer felt there was no problem with the additional height because of the trees surrounding it. He asked about landscaping. Director Warren indicated that landscaping willbe subject to staff approval and he hopes we will get cooperation in getting this appropriately landscaped. He then reviewed the four conditions imposed on the conditional use permit, commenting that the Commission can modify these changes, approve the plans as submitted, and acknowledge the change in height. MSUC (York-Hyde) Modify the condition of the 9' height limitation by permitting the applicant to construct a building measuring 13'6" high. -16- Discussion - Proposed City Code amendments relating to dance hall regulations Director of Planning Warren stated this matter was referred to the Commission by the City Council. A copy of the City Administrator's report was sent to the Commission; this report concerned the proposed modifications to the Code relating to dances and dance halls. The staff would concur that these modifications do conform to the requirements of the new zoning ordinance. Director Warren discussed one matter of concern to the staff in this regard: the number of parking spaces is related to the floor area or number of seats. The staff feels this would be difficult to enforce for a hight club since they use small tables and crowd in chairs as they need them. He felt it would be better to relate parking require- merits to the assembly capacity of the room as required by the Fire Marshal. City Attorney Lindberg discussed this clarifying the fact that the Director's point here was to revise the parking in the new zoning ordinance as it relates to this ordinance; however, the parking requirements are not set forth in this ordinance. Mr. Warren asked what they could relate them to. Member Rice felt this made sense, and that it behooved the Commission to attach it to something reasonable. Member York agreed that it should be tied down to something definite; however, he suggested some research be made as to the reasonable expectation of what it could be. The staff proposal has no relationship as to the actual n~mber of people using the room. MSUC (Hyde-Rice) Commission concurs that the proposed amendments conform to the proposed new zoning ordinance, however, they would like to recommend that the parking requirements be related to the assembly capacity of the room, as required by the Fire Marshal. Approval of the proposed: Horton's E1 Rancho Vista Annexation Massa's Hilltop Annexation Director of Planning Warren stated these two annexations were single-family lot annexations, both approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Normally, as Planners, they do not encourage this type of annexation, but the adjacent property owners did not want to annex. These two property owners wanted to hook up to the City sewer system and thus requested annexation. One lot is at the corner of E1 Rancho Vista and E1 Rancho Vista North, which is north of H Street and east of Hilltop Drive. The lot contains .4 of an acre. The other parcel is on the east side of Hilltop Drive, just south of F Street, and contains .34 of an acre. MSUC (Adams-York) Commission recommends approval of these two annexations. -17- Telegraph Canyon Road Rezoning Director of Planning Warren noted the letter received by the County concerning the proposed rezoning of Telegraph Canyon Road as recommended to them .by this Planning Commission. They will call a public hearing on this. He will keep the Commission informed. A.I.P. Meeting Director of Planning Warren informed the Commission of the April 25th meeting of the A.I.P. The meeting will include a tour of the Escondido Mobilehome Park. Typically, only staff members attend these meetings, but Commission members are welcome to attend. Mr. Warren asked that the Commission make their reservations through the staff. C-N Zoned Shopping Centers Member Rice reminded the Director that the time limit was nearly up for the C-N zoned shopping center at Hilltop and Naples to meet the requirements set up by the ordinance. Director Warren indicated the due date on this was April 21. The owners have been given their final notice and the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney. Workshop and Additional Monthly Meetings Chairman pro tem Guyer discussed adding another monthly meeting, possibly the fourth Monday of every month, because of the lengthy agendas they have been having lately. Director Warren suggested this be discussed at the next workshop meeting. He commented that there are five Mondays in this particular month, and if the Commission so desires, a workshop could be held on the 22nd. Member York asked if the Director felt these long agendas were going to continue. Mr. Warren indicated he would be surprised if they do continue, but then again, maybe it was a fact of a growing city. He suggested one meeting a month could possibly start at 3:30 in the afternoon. Member Adams commented that he did not feel they were overburdened. Member Hyde suggested tiley schedule a workshop for next Monday, and if the Chairman and the Planning Director should feel a need to cancel it, they could do so. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Hyde-Adams) Meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the workshop meeting of April 22, 1968. Respectfully submitted, ~,' Jennie M. Fulasz '- Secretary